It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by skyshow
reply to post by doctormcauley
Hey, doc, the only gay agenda is Starbucks in the morning, a trip to the gym for a workout, and maybe a dry martini later on while watching reruns of AbFab. That's pretty much the extend of the gay conspiracy!
But the stereotypes you present are entertainin. The actual research appears to paint a different story and it's a lot more boreing. It's the ones who fall outside the norms that make the reading interesting.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ChronMan
ChronMan...It is difficult to answer your post, since I don't know how to selectively 'quote' certain segments. I refuse to do that, anyway, since it appears disingenuous.
Sorry, had a phone call interruption. What I remember was a term 'Neuronal'....I'm going to look that up, because it seems a new term that I am unfamilar with.
BUT, if 'Neuronal' refers to the neurons, which, of course, are in the brain, then I thnk you're helping me make the POINT that homosexuality is not a choice, it is Nature.
Originally posted by undo
what people do with their body parts is not the issue.
what people do with their hearts, is.
and it does say that being celebate and unmarried is the ideal state of a christian, because you can dedicate your entire life to the pursuit of it and it won't be as compromisable because you don't have the responsibilities of marriage.
i've seen preachers in excess of 300 lbs condemning gays.
i've seen people who love money more than anything else, condemning gays.
i've seen people who've been married and divorced several times, often for no other reason than they are tired of trying to get along with the other person, condemning gays.
i've seen people who have no problem with porn, condemning gays.
etc, and you know what i mean, etc.
the issue at hand is not your sin or your flesh, it's your ability to be forgiven for that sin and your hopeful and eventual ability to rise above the circumstances of that sin. it isn't the action that condemns but the intent and therefore the desire.
meat sacrificed to an idol, ya know, is not sinful to eat. where the sin comes in is the stumbling block it provides for others who have weaker faith.
so what you're doing is expecting the gay to have stronger faith than you do, demanding they not cast a stumbling block at your feet, so you won't have to judge them, which is the real crux of the issue.
what did jesus say? did he say we inherit the kingdom due to our personal perfection?
these scriptures have an overal interpretation. they should be read as a cohesive unit and not cherry picked to assuage an aversion to a particular topic.
According to this logic, Pedophiles would feel justified in their Filth.
Originally posted by undo
Well the battle is between the natural man and his spiritual side.
So what they are arguing is in essence, true. Nature does make
some odd decisions.
Galatians 5:19-25 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
THAT WAS THE LAW without it their is no need for a savior. The law is what convicts the sinner and Christ is what redeems him.
in the below passage
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law
to leap over by the teachings of Jesus. But not because any particular aspect of the natural man is any more sinful than any other in God's sight,
We got that part, already. The part we need help with is the ongoing, daily struggle, which we are all engaging in at various levels. You might be a shining example of spirituality in one area and a complete washout in another. Same for all of us.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ChronMan
Quite frankly, ChronMan....you have it backwards. A lot of Gay men 'chose' to get married and have children, in order to adapt and comply ieth the 'views' of society. AND to comply with the views of their familial pressures as well.
Gays who 'come out' are actually very brave. AND, staights who stand up to promote tolerance, and acceptance, are also very brave.
I will defend, to my death, the right for any straight couple to engage in whatever kinky sex they wish. It's NONE of my business!!! And it's NONE of your business, either!!!!
EDIT....well, I made a typo. Must mean I'm Gay!!! Didn't correct it, you can see it plain as day!!
[edit on 6/27/0808 by weedwhacker]
RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi police have detained a woman for violating rules banning women from driving in the conservative Muslim country, a newspaper said on Sunday.
The woman from Buraida north of Riyadh was stopped by a police patrol after driving 10 km to collect her husband, al-Hayat newspaper said.
The woman's "legal guardian" -- her husband -- was required to sign a declaration that he would not allow her to drive again, it said. It was not immediately clear if she was released or would face legal action.
Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that forbids women from driving on the basis of fatwas, or religious opinions, from clerics who say it is un-Islamic.
Reuters Sun Jun 15, 2008
Moral relativism has the unusual distinction — both within philosophy and outside it — of being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism, far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone. Nonetheless, moral relativism is a standard topic in metaethics, and there are contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it: The most prominent are Gilbert Harman and David B. Wong. The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.
Argument from Incredulity
The argument from incredulity is a type of argument from ignorance, as it argues that the absence of evidence (or a convincing explanation) of some premise is evidence that the premise is false (or unexplainable). There are two forms of this fallacy, depending on whether it's the arguer's own incredulity or the incredulity of science (or the populace as a whole):
"This is unexplainable" (meaning, of course, "I can't explain this"). This is the argument from personal incredulity, and it contains the (usually unwritten) assumption that the speaker is a superhuman genius who should be able to understand everything -unless he or she is missing an assumption. So the superhuman genius concludes that some assumption ('God did it', 'aliens did it', 'psi was involved' or whatever) is true, because it makes things easier to understand. For example:
"There is no way I can explain how the human mind really works using conventional physics. (Unwritten assumption: If the brain really was governed by simple physics, I should be able to understand it). Therefore, it must be tapping into the computational power of the quantum universe."
"Scientists cannot explain this" (meaning, of course, "as far as I know, science can't explain this"). This variation contains the unwritten assumption that scientists are superhuman geniuses and should be able to understand everything unless they are missing an assumption. This undue veneration of scientists is a form of scientism, or using science as an ersatz religion. On top of that, it is simply not true in many cases - scientists do have an explanation, and the speaker just doesn't know it. For example:
"Scientists are at a loss to explain the evolution of the platypus by Darwinian evolution. (Unwritten assumption: If it was of a Darwinian origin, scientists should know how it happened). Therefore, it didn't evolve."