On July 08 2012 05:46 NoDDiE wrote: Gay starcraft players thread is perfect example of what Grimmyman123. do we need "married people starcraft thread" "one leg people starcraft thread" "pedophile starcraft thread" ??!!
Haha? ..I don't even..
How is this thread starcraft related?
he's saying that there is a "gay starcraft players" thread, which is drawing attention to themselves, and there are not other "group" threads such as that. Your scoff was quite unnecessary.
Cause people hanging out in a thread draws attention..? Alot of "space" has been wasted to explain what that thread is about. I'm pretty sure no one in that thread actually wants the (negative) attention.
You drawing attention to that thread was quite unnecessary.
no, I did not say that at all. Would you like an example, so it is clearer? Here is your take on people marching for equal rights and the right to marry. I see it as a needless exercise to draw attention to a sexual preference.
On July 08 2012 05:41 Grimmyman123 wrote:
There is a difference between simply drawing attention to ones self needlessly for the sake of showing off, and enforcing ones rights to life and society.
Mon dieu.
And this is why I'm confused.
Are you against people standing up for their rights (to marry etc), or for it? Are you saying standing up for your rights (in this manner) is a needless exercise?
By "enforcing", are you suggesting it'd be better to beat people into submission? Or in what political way would you suggest a minority should make its cause for equal rights heard? It doesn't get much more peaceful than a parade? It even looks like they're having fun...
(remember that in democracy, a minority vote does not get you anywhere. You need to get more people on your side)
I'm saying (again) that I am for people NOT marching/protesting/action AT ALL regardless of what the purpose is for. There would be ABSOLUTELY no public conflict if this occured, and the world would be a much more peaceful place.
There is a place for discussion and democracy (and by that, I mean a physical building, where elected officials discuss policy, law etc).
The WBC has the right to protest things. They have equal right to speak. What is the problem here?
And yes, there would still be conflict, it would just be less public. Of course there would still be conflict. You aren't advocating peace. You are advocating pretend peace. Fake peace. But real, hidden conflict.
And to that I say "Screw you. This is America. I have a right to my speech, and you aren't going to take it away because you're so pathologically terrified of conflict and disagreement."
It makes me wonder. I don't condone forcing change on anyone, but what if (hypothetically) there actually was a homosexual who was unhappy with their orientation and actually wanted to change? Should we deny them that?
Though I've never seen, let alone heard of, a case where that ever actually happened...
On July 08 2012 07:02 Grimmyman123 wrote: I'm saying (again) that I am for people NOT marching/protesting/action AT ALL regardless of what the purpose is for. There would be ABSOLUTELY no public conflict if this occured, and the world would be a much more peaceful place.
There is a place for discussion and democracy (and by that, I mean a physical building, where elected officials discuss policy, law etc).
I strongly disagree. Any healthy democracy is built upon people being informed and caring about the "direction" of policy. Making yourself, or a cause, visible is one of many ways democracy works.
And I have to agree with 2 posts above: There will absolutely still be conflict, even if you don't draw attention to it. You just would never hear about it so you'd be blissfully uninformed, and democracy would meet its end.
Obviously there's more to a democracy than marching in the streets; I just don't see why we're making such a big fuss about this one particular side of democracy. Feel free to bring attention to Your political causes through other means and don't criticize those who are resourceful in different ways.....
On July 08 2012 07:04 DoubleReed wrote: The WBC has the right to protest things. They have equal right to speak. What is the problem here?
And yes, there would still be conflict, it would just be less public. Of course there would still be conflict. You aren't advocating peace. You are advocating pretend peace. Fake peace. But real, hidden conflict.
And to that I say "Screw you. This is America. I have a right to my speech, and you aren't going to take it away because you're so pathologically terrified of conflict and disagreement."
Good news, I am not in America (where's that Team America song link). Even on this forum, you do not have freedom of speech. It might be an american right, but it is not universal.
You are mistaking the word Understanding with the word Peace. Peace is the absense of conflict or violence.
In more cases than not, leaving words unspoken often is the best thing.
On July 08 2012 07:02 Grimmyman123 wrote: I'm saying (again) that I am for people NOT marching/protesting/action AT ALL regardless of what the purpose is for. There would be ABSOLUTELY no public conflict if this occured, and the world would be a much more peaceful place.
There is a place for discussion and democracy (and by that, I mean a physical building, where elected officials discuss policy, law etc).
The conflict is made public to draw awareness to those that may not know/understand the issue, because there IS a conflict within policy makers, and society. To idly stand by and allow it to resolve knowing full well your freedoms are at stake contradicts everything that is democracy.
Gay pride marches aren't 'showing' off their homosexuality. In many states within the USA you CAN'T get married, barring many rights from gay couples. It's not even just the legality of same sex marriage, but that within the government itself, same sex unions are looked down upon by many christian lawmakers. You're telling them that if they just stay quiet and hush-up, everything will magically resolve itself?
To look at marches and find conflict only means the conflict stems from disagreement. Potentially yours. I don't understand your position.
On July 08 2012 07:04 DoubleReed wrote: The WBC has the right to protest things. They have equal right to speak. What is the problem here?
And yes, there would still be conflict, it would just be less public. Of course there would still be conflict. You aren't advocating peace. You are advocating pretend peace. Fake peace. But real, hidden conflict.
And to that I say "Screw you. This is America. I have a right to my speech, and you aren't going to take it away because you're so pathologically terrified of conflict and disagreement."
Good news, I am not in America (where's that Team America song link). Even on this forum, you do not have freedom of speech. It might be an american right, but it is not universal.
You are mistaking the word Understanding with the word Peace. Peace is the absense of conflict or violence.
In more cases than not, leaving words unspoken often is the best thing.
I thought we had a democracy to best avoid conflict and violence. And what better way than to march peacefully in a joyful fashion? I still don't get what you got against bringing attention to political causes... The conflict is there wether people march or not; and this is where people think you're being naive, I believe.
I think the principle you are talking about is quite similar to that of a south park episode, where a "black" man was hanged on some flag; and all the kids of south park didn't see the man as black; while all the adults thought the flag racist. And all the kids thought the adults where crazy for making such a big public fuss about a flag.
But do you think the kids got there by hearing phrases like "fking worthless negros, can't even get married in this country"; no. They got this view because people, quite a while ago, abolished segregation (or whatever); and the adult generation do not view blacks differently than whites; so kids don't learn to distinguish.
If no one sets an example, to bring about that gays get equal rights, then you will never get to this "conflict free" society. So what you're proposing is actually the result of the political activity that you see about right now. Sorry, this is the way democracy works.
Say you would have had the same stance as now while under apartheid. Do you really think things would be conflict free if only no one was vocal about trying to get things to change (and effectively making the conflict visible in puiblic through whatever means, like, say marching)? Or Had there been no (public) conflict, and no sivil war; then (for instance) slavery would have lasted alot longer.
Some also criticize democracy for being unable to 'do' anything; that democracy, while being peaceful in nature, makes us unable to act when the need is great. Atleast compared to history, we're now more peaceful in europe than ever (I believe). The reason, for good and for bad, is democracy where *everyone* can be heard, and *everyone* works together, and so conflicts don't neccesarily lead to war that quickly. (as in the european union, being a very widespread 'democratic' union.)
On July 07 2012 23:37 Myles wrote: I love how everyone starts hating on something when apparently a large majority of the group(~70 ministries vs 11)is trying to change for the better. They're no longer going to try and cure 'gay', just help gay Christians who are trying to resolve being gay and being Christian.
Mr. Chambers said he was simply trying to restore Exodus to its original purpose when it was founded in 1976: providing spiritual support for Christians who are struggling with homosexual attraction.
Some of you guys might want to read shit and think for a second rather than jumping on hate bandwagon - it reminds me of certain extremist ideologies.
Yep, this is a step in the right direction.
I really think the bible needs amending. Would the US constitution work without amendments?
I am not sure if it needs amending, but maybe it needs to be interpreted less literally. Also you could argue that the US constitution still doesn't work effectively.
On July 08 2012 07:04 DoubleReed wrote: The WBC has the right to protest things. They have equal right to speak. What is the problem here?
And yes, there would still be conflict, it would just be less public. Of course there would still be conflict. You aren't advocating peace. You are advocating pretend peace. Fake peace. But real, hidden conflict.
And to that I say "Screw you. This is America. I have a right to my speech, and you aren't going to take it away because you're so pathologically terrified of conflict and disagreement."
Good news, I am not in America (where's that Team America song link). Even on this forum, you do not have freedom of speech. It might be an american right, but it is not universal.
You are mistaking the word Understanding with the word Peace. Peace is the absense of conflict or violence.
In more cases than not, leaving words unspoken often is the best thing.
I am confusing nothing. There would still be violence and conflict. People just wouldn't talk about it. You aren't paying attention. Guess what, domestic abuse and marital rape used to be acceptable thing. People knew it was happening, surprisingly common, but didn't talk about it. It didn't go away. It got worse.
No, leaving words unspoken is almost never the best thing. What issue in society has ever been solved by not speaking about it. Name one.
I think you're confusing this with like personal etiquette and politeness. Not the same thing.
On July 08 2012 07:04 DoubleReed wrote: The WBC has the right to protest things. They have equal right to speak. What is the problem here?
And yes, there would still be conflict, it would just be less public. Of course there would still be conflict. You aren't advocating peace. You are advocating pretend peace. Fake peace. But real, hidden conflict.
And to that I say "Screw you. This is America. I have a right to my speech, and you aren't going to take it away because you're so pathologically terrified of conflict and disagreement."
Good news, I am not in America (where's that Team America song link). Even on this forum, you do not have freedom of speech. It might be an american right, but it is not universal.
You are mistaking the word Understanding with the word Peace. Peace is the absense of conflict or violence.
In more cases than not, leaving words unspoken often is the best thing.
I am confusing nothing. There would still be violence and conflict. People just wouldn't talk about it. You aren't paying attention. Guess what, domestic abuse and marital rape used to be acceptable thing. People knew it was happening, surprisingly common, but didn't talk about it. It didn't go away. It got worse.
No, leaving words unspoken is almost never the best thing. What issue in society has ever been solved by not speaking about it. Name one.
I think you're confusing this with like personal etiquette and politeness. Not the same thing.
This is interesting. I think this kind of "therapy" is just fine for people who legitimately don't want to be homosexual. I don't think it'll work in the end, though. This kind of thing becomes bad when people are forced into it by pressure from friends/family/religion.
If someone is both a homosexual and a devout Christian, and decides their faith is more important than their homosexuality, these kinds of services should absolutely be available for that person.
On July 08 2012 09:04 PH wrote: This is interesting. I think this kind of "therapy" is just fine for people who legitimately don't want to be homosexual. I don't think it'll work in the end, though. This kind of thing becomes bad when people are forced into it by pressure from friends/family/religion.
If someone is both a homosexual and a devout Christian, and decides their faith is more important than their homosexuality, these kinds of services should absolutely be available for that person.
I fail to see a situation where a homosexual person is desperate enough to 'pray the gay away' without being pressured by his surroundings, family, friends, religion etc.
And not all brands of Christianity are homophobic, so you can definitely be both Christian and homosexual.
On July 08 2012 07:04 DoubleReed wrote: The WBC has the right to protest things. They have equal right to speak. What is the problem here?
And yes, there would still be conflict, it would just be less public. Of course there would still be conflict. You aren't advocating peace. You are advocating pretend peace. Fake peace. But real, hidden conflict.
And to that I say "Screw you. This is America. I have a right to my speech, and you aren't going to take it away because you're so pathologically terrified of conflict and disagreement."
Good news, I am not in America (where's that Team America song link). Even on this forum, you do not have freedom of speech. It might be an american right, but it is not universal.
You are mistaking the word Understanding with the word Peace. Peace is the absense of conflict or violence.
In more cases than not, leaving words unspoken often is the best thing.
I am confusing nothing. There would still be violence and conflict. People just wouldn't talk about it. You aren't paying attention. Guess what, domestic abuse and marital rape used to be acceptable thing. People knew it was happening, surprisingly common, but didn't talk about it. It didn't go away. It got worse.
No, leaving words unspoken is almost never the best thing. What issue in society has ever been solved by not speaking about it. Name one.
I think you're confusing this with like personal etiquette and politeness. Not the same thing.
reckon we being trolled? :o
Ooo, I didn't consider that. I find it unlikely, just because that's such a weird troll. If he's trolling, then I'm reasonably impressed.
(edit: this is no "bash religion" thread, please keep that in mind and respect the different views)
I'm not going to bash a particular religion, but I do want to note that there is absolutely no reason to automatically respect different views simply by virtue of a person having them. Opinions don't necessitate respect; only opinions that can be defended and have evidence for being reasonable warrant respect.
So when I read about religious camps (or even non-religious camps, although there are far fewer of those) that zealously work to remove a person's identity because it's considered blasphemous or morally wrong or evil or bad, I shudder and absolutely do not respect them or their opinions.
Fortunately, more religions- including Christianity- seem to be more progressive and less literal in their interpretations of their religious texts nowadays, and that's a relief.
You just can't pray the gay away, and it's embarrassing as a fellow human being that we live in a society that pressures people to want to do that.
How about we just agree not to read the Bible unless we're sure it's the true original? That's the word of God - probably written in some ancient form of Hebrew partially, and partially in Greek. Admittedly, the composition of the entire Christian Bible took a long span of time in and of itself. All translations into other languages we will count as bastardized beyond being truly the word of God any longer. We won't presume to judge to what degree or where exactly the King James' errs, or some other translation, because to do so would be to presume to know God's word through our own powers or instinct. Precisely how one's own mental powers and intuitive instincts are separate, joined, or somehow allied to God's will and influence over us (presuming, that is, God chooses to exert any and does exist), is a question which has always been beyond my ability to answer anyway.
As far as the gay / ex-gay thing, while sex can be inflicted violently, so can the act of touching, or even speaking to someone. I see no reason why speech or touch between individuals is necessarily bad, so I see no reason why sex needs to necessarily be bad. Indeed, in my limited experience, it is occasionally quite good. Good sex seems to me to be very much a good thing in itself. There are risks involved that can, with some simple forethought, be avoided, but I really seriously doubt that any sane man or any sane God would frown on the sexual union of two consenting adults, regardless of gender. I'll admit that this opinion does seem to fly in the face of spirit of the Bible - even the bastardized versions can't be that far off from the initial Biblical sentiment, which was, I believe, "find all the gays, then stone them"
Ho-hum. Religion has clearly come a long way, tolerance wise, since the good old days.
On July 08 2012 07:02 Grimmyman123 wrote: I'm saying (again) that I am for people NOT marching/protesting/action AT ALL regardless of what the purpose is for. There would be ABSOLUTELY no public conflict if this occured, and the world would be a much more peaceful place.
There is a place for discussion and democracy (and by that, I mean a physical building, where elected officials discuss policy, law etc).
I completely agree with you. If gays did not bring so much attention to themselves, there would not be so much opposition.
Most psychological disorders aren’t cured how a bacterial infection or broken leg is cured. But I would assert that, just as other psyche disorders can be treated but perhaps not always completely removed from a person’s behaviour, so too can homosexual tendencies. A person who is antisocial (the unreasonably mean arsehole brother or boss) or a sex addict (someone who cheats on his wife multiple times) might be able to change their ways and mind sets, but may still be more at risk of exhibiting that negative behaviours. Are they ‘cured’? I’m an alcoholic (probably; I’ve never been official diagnosed by a professional) and I have to discipline myself not to drink too much, which largely means not drinking at all. Why shouldn't gays have to take responsibility for their own sinful behaviour too?
On July 08 2012 06:54 Cutlery wrote:And this is why I'm confused.
Are you against people standing up for their rights (to marry etc), or for it? Are you saying standing up for your rights (in this manner) is a needless exercise?
By "enforcing", are you suggesting it'd be better to beat people into submission? Or in what political way would you suggest a minority should make its cause for equal rights heard? It doesn't get much more peaceful than a parade? It even looks like they're having fun...
(remember that in democracy, a minority vote does not get you anywhere. You need to get more people on your side)
Sodomite marriage is not marriage, cannot be marriage since marriage requires one man and one woman. It is a sick parody of marriage, and a concept of utter absurdity.
An obstacle in this agenda are strong families and for years now by stealth, gay rights proponents have been grinding away at the family undermining it – with their usual mixture of lies distortions and word games.
This is just the next step in rendering marriage meaningless.
Biblical Christianity and gay-rights cannot coexist. It will not be long before Christian churches and people are actively persecuted by the gay-rights lobby.
Homosexuality is wrong because God has made us male and female. God knows how he made us. He did not make us Adam and Steve.
Homosexuality is also wrong by reason as well as revelation. Every person writing on this forum is the product of heterosexual intercourse. Putting aside artificial reproduction techniques, every person that lives today and has ever lived is the product of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. The only exceptions are Adam and Eve and Jesus. So sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is 100% natural. It is 100% the way that we naturally conceive children. So heterosexuality is natural – it is how you all came about. Homosexuality is unnatural. None of you came about this way. Men and women are designed to have sexual intercourse with each other and beget the next generation. This is 100% the case.
Furthermore sexual intercourse between men and women is essential. If men and women stopped having intercourse the human race would die off in one generation. So heterosexuality is essential. Homosexuality is not essential. If men stopped having sex with men then the human race would go on. So homosexuality is neither natural nor essential. Heterosexuality is 100% natural and 100% essential. So heterosexuality is right and homosexuality is wrong.
With or without sodomy, it’s a FACT that two people of the same gender cannot have sexual intercourse (coitus). They just CAN’T – it’s not physically possible. They can commit sodomy, but the anus is not a sexual organ the last time I looked: it is the sewer line of the body. Anyone who is trying to say this is the same as sexual intercourse needs their head examined. If sodomy is not involved, it’s purely a matter of mutual stimulation; this also is not sexual intercourse.
It’s kind of sad really. They are trying to achieve something that is beyond their reach, in what ends up as being a parody of the real thing, and somewhat disgusting as well. Ultimately, a futile act that produces momentary pleasure, like a drug hit, and then is over.