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.

 

God's Judgment on homosexuality.

page: 23
10
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Ok, make your case for Hell. Don't tell me your pastor told you so.


I wish their was a "love" button! I already covered this earlier in this if anyone wants to cheat... hahahaha ok, i'll give u another hint...there is no "hell" in any text of the bible, only "Gahenna" which certainly is NOT hell.




posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by scully222

Originally posted by PurpleSun

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by PurpleSun
 

"i pray to a God but I don't know his name"

God's name is Jesus.
Do you really think that for millions of years, people never said anything that sounds like what we call today, a J ?
edit on 3-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Wrong!!! God's name is NOT Jesus and if you think that you REALLY don't know your bible at all and show your ignorance. God's name is the most precious tetragrammaton:" יהוה " which closely translates to (YHWH) which Christians pronounce as Yaweh.

The son of the Messiah's name is Yeshua. Never once did he hear the name "Jesus". Not only that, "Jesus" is not a Hebrew name which according to Old Testament Law the Savior must have had as a Jew. Geeze people, you really are brainwashed and do not know facts, do you?


Do you enjoy attempting to make people look stupid? I have read a few of your posts and you are very disrespectful, even as you are claiming not to be. You appear to have a very high opinion of yourself, just don't beat people over the head with it. You are obviously very young, as humility and respect usually come with age. There is a huge difference between knowledge and wisdom. You yourself said "I haven't always been this smart". Maybe someday you will add some wisdom to that massive intellect of yours.


Since you asked, no...I do not enjoy making people look stupid. People show their own ignorance enough and I have a hard time with that since I feel it's a disservice to allow lies through ignorance to be accepted as truth. i don't intend to be disrespectful of others. If one chooses to take my words that way, so be it. I don't intend to be disrespectful and don't intended to make anyone think that I think so highly of myself. I think anyone who knows me would tell you that I am one of the most humble people that they know, however, I'm sure i don't show that through my postings since I get so charged up.

I have not always been so smart, but I have always been this intelligent. The things I share on here, especially about this subject, are the result of my own questions and research that has taken years and years and so I just don't like it when people believe a "fact" about something and don't bother to research it to find out the truth, and then spread the lie as a truth. The fact that my I.Q. is so high also adds another problem....sometimes people with higher thinking functions don't always have the best "people" skills. Add that with my asperger's syndrome and my PTSD/dissociative disorder and it's not always the best recipe for social skills. while i LOVE to debate, i am at fault for being wrapped up in it too much. i just don't want people to misunderstand that when I say "ignorance" it is not a bad word..it simply means not educated about something. i'm ignorant about tons of things while i try not to be. If anyone takes offense to being called ignorant, that's probably because they don't know what the word really means or because they are listening while defending themselves for some reason.

there is a great saying i was told when I was 12 about how I am: "speak without offending, listen without defending". I hope I can do that as I grow older (as you said).

I don't think of myself in high regards except when it comes to my intellect and my bloodline and being someone that the ones i love can count on (not that my bloodline means anything, I'm just pretty proud of it). i do try to be humble and have humility, it's just that the way i communicate doesn't seem to reflect it as my communication skills need work on all fronts.

so with that, thank you. and again, if i have made anyone feel bad, it sincerely is not my intention. maybe i'll even add it to my profile as a disclaimer. my only intention is to provide facts or my opinion and sometimes i have a very hard time not seeing how other people can't see things as common sense (i.e. "common sense is not so common" as with the discussion fo the letter "J" as it relates to the name of the messiah). i do hope that i gain wisdom with my intellect. it would help out a ton in soooooo many ways. so thanks for that.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
BTW, has ANYONE been able to find in the bible where it says that lesbians are a sin? "Man shall not lay with a man as he does with a woman". The argument that " 'man' stands for both men and women" is moot since in Leviticus the laws are specific for men and specific for women and when both are being addressed the word "man" is not used to represent both.

men with men is spoken of in scripture (not that I agree with it's validity since it is not God's word - Leviticus was written by priests as rules for agriculture), and two weeks after first addressing it in this thread i'm still waiting for someone to show me the scripture saying that a woman being with another woman is a sin. if i am wrong, please show me the chapter and verse because i've never read it in the original text. as long as there is no sodomy and a woman is not in a relationship with a married woman, i've been waiting for 10 years to show me the scripture that it is a sin.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleSun
 

this is exactly why it's important for people to KNOW what their own bible reads in it's original text and not the "perpetuation of ignorance by the leading authorities throughout time" as you say
Right and the original text says Jesus, and not some Hebrew or Aramaic name. Jesus was an actual name used by Jews for a long time before Christ so it is not a "translation" it is a name that exists in its own right which is derived from the name we think of today as Joshua.
So, for all your "original text" talk you ignore it.
Also if your "God in the flesh" claim has any validity in your own mind, you would know that Jesus is the I Am, and so is the one who caries the title, YHWH, and Jesus' Father is, God. Someone not YHWH, who has always been someone acting as God's agent, and never God, Himself, as explained by Jesus when he said no one has ever seen the Father.
edit on 11-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleSun
 

. . . Jesus was not a known name.

Apparently then you know nothing about history and have never studied it yourself and just listen to puffed up self proclaimed prophets who teach how you can become puffed up too.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleSun
BTW, has ANYONE been able to find in the bible where it says that lesbians are a sin? "Man shall not lay with a man as he does with a woman". The argument that " 'man' stands for both men and women" is moot since in Leviticus the laws are specific for men and specific for women and when both are being addressed the word "man" is not used to represent both.

men with men is spoken of in scripture (not that I agree with it's validity since it is not God's word - Leviticus was written by priests as rules for agriculture), and two weeks after first addressing it in this thread i'm still waiting for someone to show me the scripture saying that a woman being with another woman is a sin. if i am wrong, please show me the chapter and verse because i've never read it in the original text. as long as there is no sodomy and a woman is not in a relationship with a married woman, i've been waiting for 10 years to show me the scripture that it is a sin.


So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies.They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. -Romans 1:24-27

The definition for homosexuality is this: erotic activity with another of the same sex www.merriam-webster.com... so that includes both men and women having sex with someone of their same gender.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by biggmoneyme
 


I haven't been at ATS long, but I hope this kind of unchecked bigotry isn't commonplace. I'm referring to both the OP and your reply

Generalizing or judging people for their social/sexual desires comes from a place of ignorance, insecurity, and immaturity.

Generalizing or judging people for their religious beliefs also comes from a place of ignorance, insecurity, and immaturity.

OP is obviously a bit ignorant, but to lump all Christians in with him is disingenuous and vitriolic. It's a cheap shot.

What better way is there to encourage maturity and acceptance, than to display it?



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DataNugget
 


First of all, Welcome to ATS!
Second of all,
yeah, in this forum in particular, it gets dicey on a daily basis.
Hang in there, though....you'll get to know the players and their viewpoints. I for one look forward to your contributions!



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I will try to be brief in my last reply. It appears you hold yourself in very high regard and I don't want to jeopardize that. This discourse is far from constructive.

You keep bringing up Ellen. I am sorry I offended you. She is obviously one of your icons, as she has done very well for herself. She was just the best example I could find of someone who parlayed her sexuality into a very nice living. Do you honestly think she would be the "A" list celebrity she is today if she weren't gay? We both know the answer to that don't we?

I would say that believing homosexuality in nature proves that animals can be sexually deviant is no more delusional than believing homosexuality in nature proves that it is "natural". The truth is we really have no idea what the animals are thinking or responding to. They're animals. I understand that this is the pillar of your "homosexuality is natural" argument, your "sacred calf" so to speak. I would expect you to attack me for questioning it.

You said that NAMBLA was "booted out of gay pride parades and the gay movements when their true objectives became known." So you are admitting they were part of the gay movement? NAMBLA is pretty straight forward about what they stand for. MAN/BOY love is there deal, and that has NEVER been a secret. So I take this to mean that the gay movement was OK with gay pedophilia, since they were part of it at one time. This is abundantly clear. What the gay movement was not OK with, at least openly, was the sexual liberation of ALL children, including heterosexual men with little girls. That would be a public relations nightmare for the movement, so you needed to distance yourselves for protection. Are those the "true objectives" you are talking about?

The link I posted was to the website of Paul Drockton, not to Rense.com. I am sure you noticed that Mr. Drockton has a broadcast on RenseRadio and made the logical leap. It would be hard to convince people I was a "tinfoil hat wearing nutter" if you mentioned an obscure website no one has heard of. Most people have heard of Rense so it would be easier to make your point and paint me as a fruitcake to be ignored. Do you work for the government? One of their favorite strategies is to try and link people to discredited organizations in an effort to discredit them. Tried and True, but it only works when people can recognize the evil organization, right?

Your continued attacks on all religions are kind of funny. I believe my last post dealt with hypocrisy and lack of accountability on all sides, including religious leaders and followers. You claim to live honestly, but your only honest to yourself. Love of yourself is the first step to coming out isn't it? It's real easy to justify everything you choose to do when you are living in the cozy confines of your thick skull. And still you wail away on religion. You mention religious leaders molesting children as if it is a religious problem only. And you provide links. What you fail to mention is that nearly every instance of this is Man/Boy love. This sounds like a much bigger gay problem than you would like to admit.

This is the first and only time I am going to call you a name: Your quote "So straight pedophiles don't need sexual liberation - they justify it by religion". You are a complete idiot.

You say that you find many people "feel" accountable, they just don't act accountable, which is the whole point. Then you attack religion again through the rest of your post. I think the most important part of a religious system that everyone overlooks is the fact that it makes people accountable for their actions. If you thought their was an all knowing all seeing entity in the sky that would hold you accountable for the choices you make, would it affect your decisions? I am not talking about man's law here, because most people think they will get away with it if they break the law. If you KNEW you would have to answer for your actions to a power greater than you, would it change your behavior? Please think of this in general terms and not in reference to homosexuality. I know that will be hard because it is your reflex to go on the offensive but try. Religion has been perverted to a form that I believe is unrecognizable to the original intent. All leaders in religion and politics today feel they have to answer to nobody. And their actions mirror that belief. Most people also feel this way. I would go as far as to say that all the bad in this world is perpetrated by people who feel they are above accountability. Don't you think the world would be a better place with more accountability?

Lastly, try not to be so damn sensitive about everything. If you are as comfortable with yourself as you claim criticism should not bother you so much. People can have opinions!!



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleSun

Originally posted by scully222

Originally posted by PurpleSun

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by PurpleSun
 

"i pray to a God but I don't know his name"

God's name is Jesus.
Do you really think that for millions of years, people never said anything that sounds like what we call today, a J ?
edit on 3-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Wrong!!! God's name is NOT Jesus and if you think that you REALLY don't know your bible at all and show your ignorance. God's name is the most precious tetragrammaton:" יהוה " which closely translates to (YHWH) which Christians pronounce as Yaweh.

The son of the Messiah's name is Yeshua. Never once did he hear the name "Jesus". Not only that, "Jesus" is not a Hebrew name which according to Old Testament Law the Savior must have had as a Jew. Geeze people, you really are brainwashed and do not know facts, do you?


Do you enjoy attempting to make people look stupid? I have read a few of your posts and you are very disrespectful, even as you are claiming not to be. You appear to have a very high opinion of yourself, just don't beat people over the head with it. You are obviously very young, as humility and respect usually come with age. There is a huge difference between knowledge and wisdom. You yourself said "I haven't always been this smart". Maybe someday you will add some wisdom to that massive intellect of yours.


Since you asked, no...I do not enjoy making people look stupid. People show their own ignorance enough and I have a hard time with that since I feel it's a disservice to allow lies through ignorance to be accepted as truth. i don't intend to be disrespectful of others. If one chooses to take my words that way, so be it. I don't intend to be disrespectful and don't intended to make anyone think that I think so highly of myself. I think anyone who knows me would tell you that I am one of the most humble people that they know, however, I'm sure i don't show that through my postings since I get so charged up.

I have not always been so smart, but I have always been this intelligent. The things I share on here, especially about this subject, are the result of my own questions and research that has taken years and years and so I just don't like it when people believe a "fact" about something and don't bother to research it to find out the truth, and then spread the lie as a truth. The fact that my I.Q. is so high also adds another problem....sometimes people with higher thinking functions don't always have the best "people" skills. Add that with my asperger's syndrome and my PTSD/dissociative disorder and it's not always the best recipe for social skills. while i LOVE to debate, i am at fault for being wrapped up in it too much. i just don't want people to misunderstand that when I say "ignorance" it is not a bad word..it simply means not educated about something. i'm ignorant about tons of things while i try not to be. If anyone takes offense to being called ignorant, that's probably because they don't know what the word really means or because they are listening while defending themselves for some reason.

there is a great saying i was told when I was 12 about how I am: "speak without offending, listen without defending". I hope I can do that as I grow older (as you said).

I don't think of myself in high regards except when it comes to my intellect and my bloodline and being someone that the ones i love can count on (not that my bloodline means anything, I'm just pretty proud of it). i do try to be humble and have humility, it's just that the way i communicate doesn't seem to reflect it as my communication skills need work on all fronts.

so with that, thank you. and again, if i have made anyone feel bad, it sincerely is not my intention. maybe i'll even add it to my profile as a disclaimer. my only intention is to provide facts or my opinion and sometimes i have a very hard time not seeing how other people can't see things as common sense (i.e. "common sense is not so common" as with the discussion fo the letter "J" as it relates to the name of the messiah). i do hope that i gain wisdom with my intellect. it would help out a ton in soooooo many ways. so thanks for that.


Thank you for that reply. I was fully expecting to get attacked for that so your reply was kind of refreshing. You are very knowledgeable on the subject matter without a doubt. The delivery is definitely off though. Only advice I can give, try not to talk about your intellect so much. And avoid using words like "ignorant". It will turn people off and you won't get your valid points across. I am new here so I hope to see you on other threads soon.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by scully222

Define "acceptance". Does acceptance for you mean you can throw your sexuality in someones face and they don't even recoil a little? Do they need to cheer for your acceptance? I got news for you. If I threw my sexuality in someones face I would expect them to recoil. It's a natural response for "too much information!". I would also expect the gay community to call me names and maybe even force me to publicly apologize. You've proven this to a tee. Being gay today is not a private experience between two lovers like you proclaim(Just leave us alone!). The gay experience today is a very public display that begins with the "coming out" and continues with protests, Pride Parades, lobbying groups, an "exclusive" community, special laws for special protections, etc. These are all displayed for everyone to see. Someone that wants to be left alone does not create a 3X4 sign that is sometimes vulgar and parade around the street half naked. There is A LOT more going on here than wanting to be left alone. When was the last time you heard of a straight man telling all of his friends, posting on Facebook, posting on Twitter, that he was STRAIGHT and liked to sleep with WOMEN. You and all your friends would tease him and call him names. Heck, I would join you. I would ask him if he wanted a medal or a chest to pin it on. Why? Because the whole idea is just silly. Why would anyone of any sexual leaning feel the need to publicly proclaim their orientation? I'll tell you why. It is required to get into the CLUB. Sexuality is meant to be a private experience, like dozens of posters have stated on this thread(pro and con). Why should homosexuality be any different? This may shock you, but I have no problem with anything anyone does in the PRIVACY of their own bedroom. The problem today is that it is not private, it is VERY VERY PUBLIC. Someone that wants to be left alone goes about their business and keeps a low profile. They are comfortable in their own skin and feel no need to call attention to themselves. Most gays today are so full of themselves it borders on the obnoxious. They will stop at almost nothing to call attention to themselves and totally bash anyone that disagrees(again, thanks for proving my point). Someone that is screaming from the rooftops is not looking for acceptance, they are looking to RULE!


Forgot about this thread and missed this little gem of a reply.

To summarise your rant: gay people should just shut up because, in your eyes, when gay people shout from the rooftops about wanting acceptance, it means they actually want to take over the world. Yes?

NO. Gay people shout it from the rooftops because of the loony religious types who want to persecute us and wipe us from the face of the earth. As long as they are doing that, we will be fighting right back. As I've previously said, don't give out what you can't take back.

You can spin and twist my words as much as you like but don't worry, I'll be around to correct until you finally get it through your skull.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Amadeo
 


Gays need to accept themselves before crying for acceptance from somebody else.
Why do most homosexuals insistently rely on this non-existent genetic cruch? You want equal rights and acceptance yet you still refuse to accept yourself.? All the otiose bickering can be eliminated if gays stand by their choice to live a homosexual lifestyle. I also think that the venerated adult homosexuals have a lot influence over the unstable or confused adolescent who struggle with their attraction, they should step up and and send a more positive and self-embracing message to these kids: Respect your choice and others will respect you. I personally commend and respect all gays who are REALLY proud to be gay. To all the pretenders, nah...



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 


What are you even talking about? If you're going to make a point, at least to try to have it make sense.

It's not gays who need to send a more positive message to struggling adolescents, it's those who preach hate, division and intolerance that need to sort themselves and their message out.

edit on 12-2-2012 by Amadeo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Amadeo
 


You weren't talking to me, but I saw the word acceptance in your reply above mine, so I interjected.

Read my reply again, read it S L O W L Y.

It's actually really simple and understandable.

BTW by genetic cruch, I mean the the lie that Homosexuals are born gay
edit on 12-2-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amadeo

Originally posted by scully222

Define "acceptance". Does acceptance for you mean you can throw your sexuality in someones face and they don't even recoil a little? Do they need to cheer for your acceptance? I got news for you. If I threw my sexuality in someones face I would expect them to recoil. It's a natural response for "too much information!". I would also expect the gay community to call me names and maybe even force me to publicly apologize. You've proven this to a tee. Being gay today is not a private experience between two lovers like you proclaim(Just leave us alone!). The gay experience today is a very public display that begins with the "coming out" and continues with protests, Pride Parades, lobbying groups, an "exclusive" community, special laws for special protections, etc. These are all displayed for everyone to see. Someone that wants to be left alone does not create a 3X4 sign that is sometimes vulgar and parade around the street half naked. There is A LOT more going on here than wanting to be left alone. When was the last time you heard of a straight man telling all of his friends, posting on Facebook, posting on Twitter, that he was STRAIGHT and liked to sleep with WOMEN. You and all your friends would tease him and call him names. Heck, I would join you. I would ask him if he wanted a medal or a chest to pin it on. Why? Because the whole idea is just silly. Why would anyone of any sexual leaning feel the need to publicly proclaim their orientation? I'll tell you why. It is required to get into the CLUB. Sexuality is meant to be a private experience, like dozens of posters have stated on this thread(pro and con). Why should homosexuality be any different? This may shock you, but I have no problem with anything anyone does in the PRIVACY of their own bedroom. The problem today is that it is not private, it is VERY VERY PUBLIC. Someone that wants to be left alone goes about their business and keeps a low profile. They are comfortable in their own skin and feel no need to call attention to themselves. Most gays today are so full of themselves it borders on the obnoxious. They will stop at almost nothing to call attention to themselves and totally bash anyone that disagrees(again, thanks for proving my point). Someone that is screaming from the rooftops is not looking for acceptance, they are looking to RULE!


Forgot about this thread and missed this little gem of a reply.

To summarise your rant: gay people should just shut up because, in your eyes, when gay people shout from the rooftops about wanting acceptance, it means they actually want to take over the world. Yes?

NO. Gay people shout it from the rooftops because of the loony religious types who want to persecute us and wipe us from the face of the earth. As long as they are doing that, we will be fighting right back. As I've previously said, don't give out what you can't take back.

You can spin and twist my words as much as you like but don't worry, I'll be around to correct until you finally get it through your skull.


I can take as much as you are willing to give. You are obviously a giver. You know that you are borrowing from the playbook of another perpetually persecuted people that claim evil doers want to wipe them off the map. They may not like the fact that you are stealing their thunder. They may even have trademarks on those phrases. Better check it out! Feel free to correct me now, I am going to bed.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by scully222
 

No, I don't find your opinions personally offensive at all, and there's no need to apologize.
1. On Ellen: I don't know where she'd be today if she wasn't virtually outed from what I recall. She hasn't made many movies and runs a talk show to my knowledge, and we actually haven't heard about her for a while untill the "million moms" came along. Perhaps she appreciates the publicity. I'm not sure. I suspect her career as an actress probably suffered a lot by her coming out, and I also suspect that other gay Hollywood celebrities do not come out for fears about their careers, especially those type-cast in male action flicks. Ellen has a career because she's a great, adaptable and highly talented person. Possibly some other stars would not survive it. Actually Ricky Martin and Ellen are about the only major US stars to eventually come out, so I suspect it is not a great career move in the US.
2. On NAMBLA: From what I gather NAMBLA has tried to worm its way into the gay movements on the wider basis of fighting the disparity in the law between gay and straight ages of sexual consent. This indeed seemed unfair in some US states, for example in Massachusetts, where the age of consent for a straight girl was 13 (with parental permission), and 18 for gay men. However, since 1977 it became clear that instead of wanting equality at an acceptable level (such as in SA where the old laws of 18 and 16 for heterosexual men and women vs. 19 for gay men were standardized to 18 for all), they wanted to legalize "consensual child-sex" (one assumes for heterosexuals and homosexuals, and despite their title of "boy/man" their current wider parlance is gender non-specific, referring to "adult/minor love"). I'm not going to do a search for other pedophile organizations (it's also taboo on ATS), but I'm pretty sure there are "man/girl" organizations out there. Since heterosexual child-brides were already legal in some places perhaps it wasn't an issue, and in one sense NAMBLA drew attention to that hypocrisy in the 1970's. However when several of their members were rightfully busted and jailed it became clear what they really wanted and they faced gay opposition during the march on Washington in 1979. Since then several organizations have distanced themselves from NAMBLA.
www.freerepublic.com...

Pedophiles have tried to attach themselves to both gay liberation and religion.
As I've shown in my previous posts (from two credible news sources) some religious pedophiles have based their behavior on their interpretation of the Bible.
I think only the law prevents some of them from preaching things like child-brides openly.
Officially they nowadays tend to deny and cover-up such crimes, thereby protecting the abusers, and have thus certainly shown a tacit approval of pedophilia.
And it's not just the Catholics or even the Christians.
Some atheists would say that child abuse and sexual exploitation goes hand in hand with religion.
The more patriarchal and homophobic they are on the surface, the more scandal seems to carry on behind the scenes.
I agree, it would be great if religion took accountability for child rape, instead of trying to cover it up.

I said before on this thread that if I ever encounter pedophilia in the gay scene I will report it, and I hope the churches will do the same.
Although pedophiles have tried to infiltrate both religion and gay liberation, neither of those broad movements sanction pedophilia, at least not in the Western, more secular world.

3. On the rense.com and your previous link: as I said, we are not familiar with the station in SA, or how it is ideologically linked to your article. I have not found the source material of the 1970's studies, and thus cannot say whether the information taken from the sources has been twisted or is simply a lie (as one can expect from a lot of religious homophobia), or whether the authors were proponents of NAMBLA at the time. I shall revisit this shortly. What it does indicate is that many gay youths were used sexually at a time when homosexuality was still widely illegal. However, it's not exactly news that stigmatizing and criminalizing homosexuality leaves people open to abuse. However, one is not given the context of heterosexual comparisons at the time.
To use such a dated study to advance the notion that the gay movement currently wants legalized child-sex is also idiotic.
And yes I do find a lot of links to rense.com rather batty, and that reference was to his material on Google, and not calling anyone a "fruitcake".
There are allegations on rense.con that link any leader they don't to homosexuality, including some of the leaders of anti-gay conservative organizations (which has actually aroused my interest, but I'll take it with a pinch of salt for now).

edit on 13-2-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by scully222
 

Continuing from my previous post to Scully:

5. On coming out - yes I do think it is an act of love, especially in a context where you truly consider that you might live a life of hurting a partner that you cannot find attractive, and setting yourself and a partner up for failure.
Never even mind the emotional and social problems that go with living in the closet.
In SA society was very homophobic before 1994, and homosexuality was criminalized.
So, when constitutional rights and gay marriage were assured (1994-2006), suddenly we heard of older men and women coming out, and divorcing their straight partners.
That to me seemed somewhat selfish, or rather it seemed selfish that they didn't come out sooner.
I was just a teenager then, so who was I to judge what social sanctions that generation faced to lead such a double-life?
Leading a double-life also often entailed cheating and irresponsible sex, and putting the partner at risk of HIV.
Fortunately I loved others enough to love myself, and I came out before the downsides of the closet became an issue.
I have seen people virtually flying out of the closet and becoming totally radical for a while, and compromising their dignity in the process.
That can certainly seem self-centered (in some ways it is similar to people who have just converted to religion and Bible-bash everyone in sight). It's probably part of a process that can be annoying and bring out years of oppression.
I'd say we didn't have councilors or role-models to guide us in the process, but because of people like Ellen or Ricky Martin we now have more role-models, instead of just a "radical faerie" on a float. Not that there's anything wrong with radical faeries, but there's a time and place for everything.
It's one area that needs more work, although it's difficult when responsible counseling is seen as making kids gay, thus leaving them open only to sexualized and confrontational media.
My writing has always encouraged people who reach the age of consent to remember that being gay is an orientation with many cultural facets, and that sex is never an emergency, and that young people should remember that sex comes with emotions, and they should think carefully about sex with older people, or guys who just want to fool around, and that all sex comes with physical and emotional risks.
Coming out is as vexed, risky, radical or selfish as the society in which it occurs.

6. On religion as becoming more perverted and less accountable.
I can't agree on this one.
I think religions are becoming better since secular humanism has assured the rights of women, children and minorities.
I cannot think of a time when religion was ever any better than now.
Yeah, sure in a climate of censorship they hid things from the rank and file much better.
They terrified their victims into silence.
There's probably just more agency and visible resistance to the abuses in religion, and a lot more splitting into smaller cults.
In fact, some of the things coming out now about religion before sexual liberation are just horrendous.
Firstly they were only responsible to their God and Biblical interpretations (depends which verses are considered "perverted"). They were the law, and in some countries or cult-compounds that's still the case.
Now they face secular justice, which shamefully has to disproportionately intervene in those organizations that claim moral guidance from their deity, and should be the examples of moral accountability.

7. Lastly, again on the poor animals. I still think it is delusional to say animals are capable of "deviant" sexual behavior.
Animals have no provable holy book or other common source that demonstrates a standard of moral behavior from which they can choose to deviate. So homosexuality amongst animals does indeed prove it is natural, unless animals somehow function outside "nature".
And I do think it's sad when people apparently see the world through a moral paradigm from a religiously constructed source, and they think that people and even animals only engage in certain behavior to upset them, or their current interpretation of a 4000-year-old deity. Taken to certain extremes it can be dangerous, as history has proven.
That's not necessarily my "holy calf", because one could say not everything "natural" is good for human society.
My "calf" is equal rights for adult sexuality between heterosexuals and sexual minorities.

Lastly, I usually don't enjoy such polemical discourse that borders on personal insults.
Emotive as it may be at times, it's ultimately a straw-man dispute between people who both want the best for society from their paradigms.

Baiting ordinary gay people against ordinary religious folk is not going to upset the apple-cart for those in power.
But thanks for the debate, and I think I've learnt some things.

I'd like to look at it from a perspective of hope.
The gay movements will mature away from being the wayward orphans of dated sexual liberation (and it's a young movement in most countries), just as religions will have to account for their scandals (here I'm more pessimistic, since their abuse has been ingrained through the ages, and the devotees will still not challenge the structures or give a clear scriptural interpretation that safeguards anyone but other grown men from sexual abuse).
At least we all agree on certain things, such as the right of children to be free from adult sexuality.
edit on 13-2-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
reply to post by Amadeo
 


You weren't talking to me, but I saw the word acceptance in your reply above mine, so I interjected.

Read my reply again, read it S L O W L Y.

It's actually really simple and understandable.

BTW by genetic cruch, I mean the the lie that Homosexuals are born gay
edit on 12-2-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)


I don't need to read your BS again, once was enough for me to know you're talking crap. Same with 'gays not being born gay' thing. How the hell do YOU know? I can say with absolute certainty that I was born gay and you're in no position to say otherwise. Consider yourself and your ridiculous arguments thoroughly dismissed.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by scully222
 


Yeah that post isn't even a rebuttal of my previous one, it's just the equivalent of you opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble. Going by yours and CaptainNemo's last posts, you're both failing extremely hard at this and what you're both now saying can just be dismissed as a poor attempt at trolling since your arguments have been ripped apart.

Better luck next time.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amadeo

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
reply to post by Amadeo
 


You weren't talking to me, but I saw the word acceptance in your reply above mine, so I interjected.

Read my reply again, read it S L O W L Y.

It's actually really simple and understandable.

BTW by genetic cruch, I mean the the lie that Homosexuals are born gay
edit on 12-2-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)


I don't need to read your BS again, once was enough for me to know you're talking crap. Same with 'gays not being born gay' thing. How the hell do YOU know? I can say with absolute certainty that I was born gay and you're in no position to say otherwise. Consider yourself and your ridiculous arguments thoroughly dismissed.


I wholeheartedly agree that unless people are gay then they have absolutely NO room to say if people are born gay or not. I am gay and I can also say 100% that it is NOT a choice. Any heterosexual who disagrees is ignorant and small minded.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join