It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Slain because he refused to call his mother's lesbian lover `Daddy'

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Since the Bible says that homosexual activity is a sin, the implication is that homosexuality is a choice.


No, the implication is that homosexual activity is a choice. And it is: a homosexual is just as capable of being celibate as a heterosexual. But the fact of being attracted sexually to members of one's own gender (which is what "being gay" means) is NOT a choice.



Just look at the fruits of this particular sin. We have rampant pedophilia in the catholic church, which has been overrun by homosexuals since it's unscriptural marriage laws are a convenient way to hide their homosexual activities.


As you note yourself, that is the fruit, not of homosexuality, but of those "unscriptural marriage laws," i.e., the expectation of clerical celibacy. But suppose all the priests guilty of abusing little boys were entirely heterosexual -- which they would be if homosexuality did not exist. Do you think it would be an improvement if they molested little girls instead?



A recent study, with a very large sample I might add shows that homo's experience domestic violence at a rate that is a factor of 10 larger than heteros
www.familyresearchinst.org...


A) I do not trust that source. Sorry, but this is a very biased organization.

B) Even if the figures are accurate, we do not have any reason for believing that the partners' sexual orientation is directly responsible. I can see how it might be indirectly responsible, though, with our culture's attitudes towards gay couples being the direct culprit.

Similar arguments and similar data have been used against interracial unions, which are in fact often troubled for the same reason. As long as society looks ascance on coupling of a particular sort, relationships of that sort will be under extra pressure.

As for diseases, if you can find a study of monogamous homosexual couples that shows increased sexually transmitted disease over monogamous heterosexual couples, then you might have a leg to stand on. But a certain segment of the male homosexual community (far from all of it, but part of it) has in the past been, and may still be, wildly promiscuous, and it is no secret that promiscuity increases the risk of STD, nor is there any evidence that homosexual promiscuity is any worse than heterosexual promiscuity in this regard.

Now, I imagine that you'll respond with something irrelevant, like the fact that you don't condone straight promiscuity either. I'm sure you don't. But the point here is that a promiscuous gay person is at risk for STD because he is promiscuous, not because he is gay. Condemn that promiscuity if you like -- many gay people would agree with you. But don't confuse the two.

I cannot address your religious beliefs about spiritual death arising from homosexual activity. But you should recognize two things. First, you should recognize that it is the behavior and not the orientation that is addressed, sexual orientation being an innate characteristic (whether genetically or environmentally caused, it is certainly NOT a choice), and that your religious beliefs, if properly interpreted, should be that gay people should be celibate, not that they should miraculously transform themselves into straight people.

And second, you should recognize that there is no temporal, visible-world consequence of being homosexual that is not caused by society's hostile attitude towards it. If God will punish homosexual sex in the afterlife -- something I do not believe, frankly -- we still have no evidence that He is prone to anticipate the court date. This is purely a matter for those who believe religiously as you do, and has no immediate practical consequences, except those imposed, not by God, but by society.




posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
That only happens when bigotry, hatred in general, hatred of gay people specifically, and fear seem to be key components of the person's belief system. This thread is about all four of those, and those who express those opinions are bigots, haters, gay haters, and fearmongers. That these may be part of a person's belief system is no defense of them; on the contrary, that fact is a searing indictment of the person who holds them.
- Emphasis mine

No, this thread is about a woman who happened to be gay and living with another woman, killed a little boy because she could not get her way to have him call her "mommie". Your little tirade is innacurate and gives credence to my earlier post that those of your opinion can not tolerate those of mine who disagree with such things.

Again, you resort to NAME CALLING and accusations that are not true. I am a black man who is probably older than you, who has served in the armed forces with people who are homosexual, partied with them in public and not, lol, and understood as they did, that we agree to disagree yet, still remain friends. Surprised?


Yes, you have. You have just avoided using that word.


Okay, you're right....NOT.


No, you hate the people who behave that way. Otherwise, you would see no need to concoct ridiculous and absurd characterizations of that behavior to make it seem evil, or juxtapose two characteristics which are totally unrelated to each other (such as a woman's violent behavioral disorder, which resulted in the death of a child, and her sexual orientation) so as to imply, with no logic but that of irrational terror, that the two go hand in hand.


Uh, methinks ye protest much, too much. You want to believe I hate. Sorry bud. I do not hate people I don't know, and try not to do the same to those who come against me now. The woman in question was enraged by not receiving the fealty from the young man that she thought she deserved. If her sexual identity was not a question for her own mind, then what was the point of a woman wanting a boy to call her [B]DADDY!!![/B]?



A Christian who reluctantly condemns homosexuality because of an honest interpretation of Bible passages, recognizing that he is causing harm to people but in troubled mind, holding to his beliefs, is one who genuinely hates sin while loving the sinner. I think they're mistaken nonetheless, but that's a separate question. I've encountered some people like that. But you are not one of them.

You, in contrast, drip venom and bile with every word. You loathe homosexuality from your very bowels, and anything you might find in the Bible to justify your loathing is an after-the-fact intellectual buttressing of a position you hold because you WANT to.



Uhmm, okay. Wow.....the dripping continues I guess....?
I sleep like a babe. How do you sleep nowadays? I also do not have any reluctance to defend what is said in the Bible about homosexuality. I, unlike you, can befriend, engage in conversation with disagreement and still care for someone I do not agree with- personally or otherwise.

I wonder also who I have harmed. If the sensibilities of those poor, beaten, people are that tenuous, they should not be so POLITICAL IN OUR SCHOOLS, FAMILIES AND GOVERNMENT!!!



The laws of mathematics render that necessary. It is self-defeating to be tolerant of intolerance, just as multiplying a negative number by a positive only makes the negative go deeper negative.


The laws of Mathematics.....I did not know math was a factor in personal behaivor?? This goes back to the point that what you tolerate expunges all that I do not.

Sorry, this is the real world dear......I can tolerate what I want. I can not beat, murder or take away the rights of those whose ideas or behaivors I wish to not tolerate....this is America for me....I can express my opinion and defend said opinion from the likes of you at any time and if you intolerate me, so be it. This is your right.


Anyway, the advocacy has never been of "tolerance" in general, with no qualifiers. It's been of tolerance toward those who have been the victims of injustice, who have been persecuted for harmless or, in some cases, even beneficial traits. And that implies intolerance and condemnation of their persecutors.


Okay, this is a good topic. Good to talk about...I am short now, but I think you touched on something by saying "no qualifiers". You advocate only the tolerance for those who fit your idea and possibly, prediliction?? So, people who read and believe in the Bible are not included in your Non-General idea of Tolerance....??? I suppose not.



On the contrary. I very much want to see restraints on the kind of behavior that would follow from bigoted, vicious views such as yours.


Your hate and intolerance offend me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Try Iran for a new home. There you can find all of the tolerance you want.


[edit on 11-4-2006 by Tyriffic]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

No, the implication is that homosexual activity is a choice. And it is: a homosexual is just as capable of being celibate as a heterosexual. But the fact of being attracted sexually to members of one's own gender (which is what "being gay" means) is NOT a choice.


I'm sorry two steps but what your doing here is simply making the bible fit your own ideas. You can do this with anything in the bible, someone can interpret something as a messgae of Peace, others, a call to war. Try and be a bit more open minded. =] helps quite a lot.

to teyriffic, you've defended yourself very well, and the ranting and abuse that some other people habe been dishing out *stares coldly around the room* is noticably absent from your points. keep it up =]

whyfish?



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tyriffic
No, this thread is about a woman who happened to be gay and living with another woman, killed a little boy because she could not get her way to have him call her "mommie".


Sure, and Moby Dick is about whaling.

This thread's whole purpose is to suggest that gay people are inherently violent and inclined to abuse children. That the author would suggest such a thing, says exactly what I stated about that author's bigotry.



The laws of Mathematics.....I did not know math was a factor in personal behaivor??


It's a factor in logic, and shows that calling on people who advocate tolerance, to be tolerant of intolerance, makes no sense. In order to uphold tolerance, one MUST be intolerant of intolerance itself.



Sorry, this is the real world dear......I can tolerate what I want.


And when you DON'T want to tolerate those who do no harm, you invite people to label you for what you are -- a bigot.



So, people who read and believe in the Bible are not included in your Non-General idea of Tolerance....??? I suppose not.


I wouldn't go that far. People who advocate bigotry against gay people, however, I have no patience with or tolerance for. I don't care where they get their bigotry from. If they justify it with the Bible, I'm against them. If they justify it with the Koran, I'm against them. If they justify it with some warped interpretation of nature religion, I'm against them.

I'm against bigotry.



Try Iran for a new home.


Ha! My goal here is to prevent America from becoming more like Iran, i.e., the stronghold of bigoted religious fanatics.

[edit on 12-4-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by whyfish
I'm sorry two steps but what your doing here is simply making the bible fit your own ideas.


If you look at all of the passages in the Bible which condemn homosexuality, you will find that they refer to homosexual acts, not homosexual desires. It is the desires that make a person homosexual, not the acts. One can be a homosexual celibate or even a homosexual virgin.

Thus, the Bible does not condemn being gay. It can be interpreted to condemn homosexual activity.

I don't believe I'm twisting anything with this.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
No, the implication is that homosexual activity is a choice. And it is: a homosexual is just as capable of being celibate as a heterosexual. But the fact of being attracted sexually to members of one's own gender (which is what "being gay" means) is NOT a choice.

It's not a choice? So one can not control ones thoughts and actions? Of course this sin begins in the mind, with perverse fantasies, reinforced by the devils willing accomplices in our schools. Of course, for those who have fully bought into the current PC paradigm, it is inconceivable that any perverse pleasure one might enjoy is actually displeasing to the creator, or even worse that there is a creator who judges right and wrong.



Just look at the fruits of this particular sin. We have rampant pedophilia in the catholic church, which has been overrun by homosexuals since it's unscriptural marriage laws are a convenient way to hide their homosexual activities.




Do you think it would be an improvement if they molested little girls instead?

This is what they call an ad-hominem attack. I won't comment further.




A recent study, with a very large sample I might add shows that homo's experience domestic violence at a rate that is a factor of 10 larger than heteros
www.familyresearchinst.org...




A) I do not trust that source. Sorry, but this is a very biased organization.

B) Even if the figures are accurate, we do not have any reason for believing that the partners' sexual orientation is directly responsible. I can see how it might be indirectly responsible, though, with our culture's attitudes towards gay couples being the direct culprit.


I see, any data that might contradict ones preconceived notions must be labeled as 'untrustworthy'. You have to really squirm to wriggle out of the cold hard facts concerning the detriments of the homosexual lifestyle, the reduction in life expectancy, the increased rate of suicide, depression and domestic violence.

No doubt you hope that reality will simply conform to the libertine sexual and moral freedoms that just feel right to you, or more precisely that help to mask a conscience seared by sin's deceitfulness. I was in your camp once, so I understand. Turning one's life over to Jesus Christ helps to repair the damage.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenThunders

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
No, the implication is that homosexual activity is a choice. And it is: a homosexual is just as capable of being celibate as a heterosexual. But the fact of being attracted sexually to members of one's own gender (which is what "being gay" means) is NOT a choice.

It's not a choice?


That's right, it's not a choice. A gay person can no more not be attracted to his/her own gender, than a straight person can not be attracted to the opposite gender. The only choice, is whether or not we act upon those desires.

Being gay, not being a choice, cannot be a sin. Gay sex, being a choice, can be. I personally think calling it one is insane, but at least it's not logically absurd.





Do you think it would be an improvement if they molested little girls instead?

This is what they call an ad-hominem attack. I won't comment further.


It is not an ad hominem attack. I said nothing whatever about the person who made the statement I was arguing with. I was simply pointing out that the evil here is not homosexuality, but rather molestation of children. And that this evil is a fruit, not of the priests' homosexuality (though that might have determined the gender of the victims), but rather of the Catholic Church's requirement of clerical celibacy.



I see, any data that might contradict ones preconceived notions must be labeled as 'untrustworthy'.


No, any data from a source that is committed to an agenda of keeping homosexuals deprived of their rights is biased and untrustworthy. It would be untrustworthy even if I agreed with the findings.

As I also pointed out, even if the data are factually accurate, they still don't necessarily mean what the poster was saying they mean.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Sure, and Moby Dick is about whaling.

This thread's whole purpose is to suggest that gay people are inherently violent and inclined to abuse children. That the author would suggest such a thing, says exactly what I stated about that author's bigotry.


I object to your use of the word "bigot". You and others throw this out like some blanket that should encapsulate all the thinking of those who dispute your way of thinking. Bravo Sierra. Since when in history should a behaivour come under protection from negative opinions? I don't accept the premise that Homosex is anymore hallowed ground than approval of kleptomaniacs....yet, we do approve, don't we??



It's a factor in logic, and shows that calling on people who advocate tolerance, to be tolerant of intolerance, makes no sense. In order to uphold tolerance, one MUST be intolerant of intolerance itself.



Sophistry is Bravo Sierra. Mularkey. Logic does not dictate human behaivour and you know darn well it doesn't. You can spin and twist all you care to. To be tolerant or intolerant is all a matter of degree. I can tolerate noisy children but, when I have a headache and am ill I have very little tolerance for noisesome children. When my girlfriend and I partied (twenty years ago now) with those friends of ours who were gay, they knew my level of tolerance- keep your hands to yourself and a merry good time for all! Take your bigot talk to the dump.




And when you DON'T want to tolerate those who do no harm, you invite people to label you for what you are -- a bigot.



Harm is a matter of opinion. Trying to change the nature of a young man to accept the obviously false idea of a woman being his daddy is extremely harmful----please ask the young man who is now DEAD.

[Reaganesque voice]Here we go again...........anyone who slams you is a bigot. I don't like wheat bread...bigot. Okay, you got me....





I wouldn't go that far. People who advocate bigotry against gay people, however, I have no patience with or tolerance for. I don't care where they get their bigotry from. If they justify it with the Bible, I'm against them. If they justify it with the Koran, I'm against them. If they justify it with some warped interpretation of nature religion, I'm against them.

I'm against bigotry.


Very interesting. You wouldn't go that far. You can't tolerate that at all.....interesting. I can tolerate gays but you can't tolerate those like me who don't agree with that way of life and remained friends with such like those even still?? I don't think anyone is advocating bigotry against anyone, at least I'm not. You demean the beliefs of billions of people to satisfy the advocacy of a behaivour? You think all of these believing people are your typical idea of a Archie Bunker bigot?


Ha! My goal here is to prevent America from becoming more like Iran, i.e., the stronghold of bigoted religious fanatics.


Well, I think our constitution takes care of that, and your phobia and your argument is silly. Your goal is folly. You just fear the resurgence of the moral Right in America, maybe??

I think you are the bigot underneath it all.....




posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tyriffic
Harm is a matter of opinion. Trying to change the nature of a young man to accept the obviously false idea of a woman being his daddy is extremely harmful----please ask the young man who is now DEAD.

Again, it was not the request that killed him; the kid already knew who his father was and the woman had a history of violence. Too often a kids are sent home from hospital with signs that they've had untreated broken bones etc yet they still remain in the custody of abusers.. the violence should be the issue people have a problem with and trying to prevent.. not homosexuality.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Again, it was not the request that killed him; the kid already knew who his father was and the woman had a history of violence. Too often a kids are sent home from hospital with signs that they've had untreated broken bones etc yet they still remain in the custody of abusers.. the violence should be the issue people have a problem with and trying to prevent.. not homosexuality.


Hey, riley.

Indeed it was not the mere request and any thinking person agrees. I see that some want to skirt the blatantly clear issue that is the thrust of this story- a woman tried to change the mental makeup of a child to conform to and confirm the identity that this woman wished to assume. Only a few have grasped this concept of wackiness........
and the rest have stormed the beach with spears waving intent on killing the EVIL BIGOTS. Well, if I think making a child call a man mommie or a woman daddy/i] is wacky---THANK GOD FOR COMMON SENSE.


The reason we can't exclude homsexuality from this equation of abuse to death is one that the twain are both relavant to the outcome. The boy was in the care of a lesbian couple with one thereof imbalanced.......it is news....it can not be ignored. This is not the norm. It grabs attention. The gist is that the death occured within these circumstances because the other woman wanted something that would, I assume, would help or confirm a role for her in her relationship with the boy- he obviously did not see it that way.....................................


[edit on 15-4-2006 by Tyriffic]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
If ever a thread could outright prove the theory of evolution, this would be it.

I have no idea if society will ever sit down and settle this matter... but I think that's impossible. We have two different kinds of thinking.... neither side will change the other side's opinion.

My question is, where does lead to? I mean, can we REALLY continue as a society while certain people are still considered sub-human? There's no way that this ignorant way of thinking is going to be changed.... unless Christ himself appeared. When does this issue get settled?

I think it'll be settled when gays are either all thrown in jails (or worse) or they're lifted up and embraced as the equals that they are with GOD-GIVEN rights. But I just cannot comprehend how this issue can remain in limbo, so to speak, forever. Things have to change, either negatively or positively.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by whyfish
I'm sorry two steps but what your doing here is simply making the bible fit your own ideas.


If you look at all of the passages in the Bible which condemn homosexuality, you will find that they refer to homosexual acts, not homosexual desires. It is the desires that make a person homosexual, not the acts. One can be a homosexual celibate or even a homosexual virgin.

Thus, the Bible does not condemn being gay. It can be interpreted to condemn homosexual activity.

I don't believe I'm twisting anything with this.


You see the thing is, it says in the bible that if you look at a woman lustfully in gods eyes you've comitted adultery with her so thats desiring a woman and its still a sin. Surely having these homosexual desires must also be a sin.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
If ever a thread could outright prove the theory of evolution, this would be it.

My question is, where does lead to? I mean, can we REALLY continue as a society while certain people are still considered sub-human? There's no way that this ignorant way of thinking is going to be changed.... unless Christ himself appeared. When does this issue get settled?

I think it'll be settled when gays are either all thrown in jails (or worse) or they're lifted up and embraced as the equals that they are with GOD-GIVEN rights. But I just cannot comprehend how this issue can remain in limbo, so to speak, forever. Things have to change, either negatively or positively.



Some are in the camp that propagates the Lie that men and men and women and women constitue a marriage. You, specifically hope for "a Christ". I am certain that when Jesus comes, he will not be happy with things today. There will be judgement for all. Not retribution for supposed sins many attribute to those who disagree with their way.

I don't believe anyone challenges the "God given rights" of anyone to have free will- yet, when politics comes in to play and those supposed victims are now trying to dictate what culture is to the rest uf us, those of strong constitution will stand firm.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tyriffic
I object to your use of the word "bigot".


I imagine you do, but frankly, I don't care.



Since when in history should a behaivour come under protection from negative opinions?


Depends on the behavior, of course.

Let me put it this way. You have a problem with a woman wanting to have sex with another woman. You advocate denial to such women, of many things that are considered basic rights by women who want to have sex with men (or don't want to have sex with anyone).

On a mundane, practical, down-to-earth level -- leaving ideas of the judgment of God and penalties after death out of the picture -- two women wanting to have sex with each other does no harm. Denial of basic rights, however, does harm. We ordinarily accept denying those rights only in the case of convicted criminals. So essentially, you are advocating treating lovers who don't love the people you think they should, as criminals.

I see your behavior as far more reprehensible than theirs. And, since I cannot tolerate both (they contradict each other), I choose to tolerate theirs, and not to tolerate yours.

Also, since there is no rational justification for your attitude, I must call it "bigotry."



Logic does not dictate human behaivour and you know darn well it doesn't.


It does not dictate what human behaviors, among those possible, will be CHOSEN. It does dictate what human behavior is possible in the first place. It is not possible to extend a policy of tolerance to include intolerance itself.



Harm is a matter of opinion. Trying to change the nature of a young man to accept the obviously false idea of a woman being his daddy is extremely harmful----please ask the young man who is now DEAD.


Oh, so now you're saying that the woman's trying to get the boy to accept her as his "daddy" is what killed him?

This is why I say this is a bigoted thread. You are trying to associate two things about this woman (her lesbianism and her messed-up violence) whose only association is that she has/had both. The overwhelming majority of lesbians, like the overwhelming majority of straight people, are not child-killers. This woman is one. But she is not a child-killer because she is a lesbian.

She should be condemned as a child-killer, of course. Nobody questions that. But the fact that she is also a lesbian is irrelevant. And your attempt to give it a relevance it does not possess, so as to tar all gay people with the violence brush, is the action of a bigot.



[Reaganesque voice]Here we go again...........anyone who slams you is a bigot.


Not at all. Plenty of people on these boards have "slammed" me (or tried to -- success is rather rarer) and have not been bigots. I am an effective debater, I often make people look and feel foolish, and so I earn being "slammed," no bigotry involved there at all.

Also, plenty of people disagree with me on various subjects without being bigots.

You, however, are not one of them.



I can tolerate gays


Glad to hear it. I'd be even gladder to see evidence of it. So far, though, I've seen none, and seen much evidence to the contrary.



Well, I think our constitution takes care of that


Quite right, so far. For the most part. Sort of. Of course, there was a time when our constitution allowed some people to be slaves. And didn't allow women to vote. And allowed state governments to deny freedom of the press. And so on and so on . . .

The Constitution isn't a perfect document. And one of its imperfections is that it does not protect homosexuals from discrimination. It should.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by whyfish
You see the thing is, it says in the bible that if you look at a woman lustfully in gods eyes you've comitted adultery with her so thats desiring a woman and its still a sin. Surely having these homosexual desires must also be a sin.


If you want to introduce the stricter, impossible-to-obey standard of sin proposed by Jesus, you must also introduce the concept of forgiveness and grace also introduced by him. Moreover, you must recognize that the law of Jesus (unlike that of Moses) has no relation to civil or criminal law and is not appropriate for even the most primitive of societies.

Homosexual feelings might then be considered "sin" in the same sense as lustful, greedy, angry, or slothful feelings, or anything that reduces us from a state of perfect charity. And thus, only God's grace, constantly and freely given, can redeem the homosexual from the stain of sin.

But isn't that equally true of everyone? Isn't everyone equally and infinitely sinful?

As a practical matter, of course, we cannot go by such a standard in the administration of law, whether it be civil, criminal, or even ecclesiastical law. When everyone is equally a criminal, for all practical purposes nobody is one. Only God can judge by the standards of Christ, and all such judgments are between the sinner and God and nobody else's business. We mortals must use blunter instruments. And for our purposes, the only homosexuality that could possibly be condemned (because the only sense in which homosexuality is a choice), is actual gay sex.

It then becomes necessary to ask why it should be condemned.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

I imagine you do, but frankly, I don't care.


Yes, I would understand your lack of tolerance for my opinion. Everything you write following should be understood in the same light.



Depends on the behavior, of course.


Indeed, it does.


Let me put it this way. You have a problem with a woman wanting to have sex with another woman. You advocate denial to such women, of many things that are considered basic rights by women who want to have sex with men (or don't want to have sex with anyone).

On a mundane, practical, down-to-earth level -- leaving ideas of the judgment of God and penalties after death out of the picture -- two women wanting to have sex with each other does no harm. Denial of basic rights, however, does harm. We ordinarily accept denying those rights only in the case of convicted criminals. So essentially, you are advocating treating lovers who don't love the people you think they should, as criminals.

I see your behavior as far more reprehensible than theirs. And, since I cannot tolerate both (they contradict each other), I choose to tolerate theirs, and not to tolerate yours.

Also, since there is no rational justification for your attitude, I must call it "bigotry."


Uh, quit before posting. I only objected to the abuse of the boy. My veiws of lesbians living together were not given here.....

You can not leave God and the Judgement out of "it"......sleep tite!!!

You seem to think I want to deny rights? I do not want to deny you athing. I only object to the inculcation of children via politics by those who advocate said behaivour as the norm. I can care less what you do behind the green door.



It does not dictate what human behaviors, among those possible, will be CHOSEN. It does dictate what human behavior is possible in the first place. It is not possible to extend a policy of tolerance to include intolerance itself.


You make no sense. Logic does not dictate human behaivor period.


Oh, so now you're saying that the woman's trying to get the boy to accept her as his "daddy" is what killed him?

This is why I say this is a bigoted thread. You are trying to associate two things about this woman (her lesbianism and her messed-up violence) whose only association is that she has/had both. The overwhelming majority of lesbians, like the overwhelming majority of straight people, are not child-killers. This woman is one. But she is not a child-killer because she is a lesbian.

She should be condemned as a child-killer, of course. Nobody questions that. But the fact that she is also a lesbian is irrelevant. And your attempt to give it a relevance it does not possess, so as to tar all gay people with the violence brush, is the action of a bigot.


Well, no. I said the lesbian woman was completely and absolutely at fault for the childs death because she could not accept the boys objection to her pitiful pleas to have him call her "mommie" and she beat him to death...I have not painted anyone with the tarred brush....you, my froind , have decided to do so....you have become that which you despise. I call it like I see it.


I did not state my views on bisex/homo sex coupling...yeehaaw



Not at all. Plenty of people on these boards have "slammed" me (or tried to -- success is rather rarer) and have not been bigots. I am an effective debater, I often make people look and feel foolish, and so I earn being "slammed," no bigotry involved there at all.

Also, plenty of people disagree with me on various subjects without being bigots.

You, however, are not one of them.


Uhm, okay. You win. The bigot card trumps...smegmabrth



Glad to hear it. I'd be even gladder to see evidence of it. So far, though, I've seen none, and seen much evidence to the contrary.



Look to the post rather than the many books you have read , lol and you will see...



Quite right, so far. For the most part. Sort of. Of course, there was a time when our constitution allowed some people to be slaves. And didn't allow women to vote. And allowed state governments to deny freedom of the press. And so on and so on . . .

The Constitution isn't a perfect document. And one of its imperfections is that it does not protect homosexuals from discrimination. It should.

Why?


Well, because homosexs are not a minority. They do not constitute a classification by RACE. We should not be in the RACE game at all. Yet, homosex is not a race, an ethnic grouping or culture from another land. We do not have a obligation to tolerate to the Nth degree your form. Sorry, I don't have that obligation....the Constitution is correct that all will be given free will and rights to fair treatment under the law....not preference you /////////// to teach my kids how to be bisexual or homo in our schools and on our streets.

Otay?



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tyriffic

Well, because homosexs are not a minority. They do not constitute a classification by RACE. We should not be in the RACE game at all. Yet, homosex is not a race, an ethnic grouping or culture from another land. We do not have a obligation to tolerate to the Nth degree your form. Sorry, I don't have that obligation....the Constitution is correct that all will be given free will and rights to fair treatment under the law....not preference you /////////// to teach my kids how to be bisexual or homo in our schools and on our streets.

Otay?


I have one question Tyriffic. Why do you keep insinuating that twostepsforward is gay? He/she has stated plenty of times that he/she is straight. If you want to pick on a gay person then here I am....and I'm one gay man who could probably kick your arse. That's not a threat but to tell you I'm not a nelly queen....I'm just as macho as you and any other man out there. Stop with the stereotypes. That's not aimed at you tyriffic...just everyone in general.

As for the little boy...my prayers go out to him that he can rest in peace. And my prayers also go out that the sicko that beat him gets what she deserves.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
One of the primary arguments of gay pressure groups is that homosexuality is harmless if practiced by two (or more) consenting adults, and therefore it is wrong to place a stigma on this activity, especially if it provides some kind of comfort or pleasure to it's practitioners. A similar argument is often made in favor of the legalization of drugs, the so called victimless crime argument.

The reality is that this behavior is incredibly destructive and has been destroying civilizations since the days of Sodom and Gommorrah. This business of the gay mom killing the non compliant child is just the tip of the iceberg. Homosexuals would have us believe that pedophilia and homosexuality have nothing to do with each other. They should check out Nambla more carefully. This lifestyle will shorten your life expentency, increase your likelihood of disease and mental illness, increase the likelihood of domestic violence, destroy the family, destroy reproduction (see the fall of Rome Greece etc.), but worst of all, the Bible claims that no homosexual can enter the kingdom of God. Thus homosexual recruitment in our schools actually eternally damns and destroys precious souls made in God's image. I therefore recommend you stay far away. Treat it the same way you would crack or heroin.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Care to source any of that information other than the bible? I mean medical and psychiatric sources and not some bible thumping site on the internet. Thank you.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Anyone hear of this yet? Mexican Priest Confesses to Killing Lover!!!

www.foxnews.com...

So, I guess by some peoples definitions here, either:

1. All priests are murderers

or

2. All heterosexual men are murderers

So, I guess some people are just dyranged alltogether and you can't take one story and umbrella people. Thermopolis....care to share your thoughts on this one?

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Griff]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join