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.
Originally posted by SevenThunders
Since the Bible says that homosexual activity is a sin, the implication is that homosexuality is 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.
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...
- Emphasis mine
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.
Yes, you have. You have just avoided using that word.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
The laws of Mathematics.....I did not know math was a factor in personal behaivor??
Sorry, this is the real world dear......I can tolerate what I want.
So, people who read and believe in the Bible are not included in your Non-General idea of Tolerance....??? I suppose not.
Try Iran for a new home.
Originally posted by whyfish
I'm sorry two steps but what your doing here is simply making the bible fit your own ideas.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
I see, any data that might contradict ones preconceived notions must be labeled as 'untrustworthy'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ha! My goal here is to prevent America from becoming more like Iran, i.e., the stronghold of bigoted religious fanatics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Tyriffic
I object to your use of the word "bigot".
Since when in history should a behaivour come under protection from negative opinions?
Logic does not dictate human behaivour and you know darn well it doesn't.
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 can tolerate gays
Well, I think our constitution takes care of that
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.
I imagine you do, but frankly, I don't care.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?