|
Post by kashmir on Apr 8, 2014 6:57:28 GMT -5
You mean like men having sex with men, women having sex with women? I kind of think that has been going on for quite sometime, dare I say it, FOR CENTURIES, despite it all, here we still stand. You guys living under rocks or something? LOL Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean you're living under a rock. I have good friends that are gay. They know I find everything about it repulsive, but they are still friends and I still care about them like any other friend. No one will ever convince me that homosexuality is "normal". You can look at a man and a woman and know what we were made for. And before anyone jumps all over it, that's not the same thing as saying people are or aren't "born that way". That said, I don't run around screaming that from the mountain tops and I treat all my friends with dignity and respect. I have friends who think I'm crazy for being Catholic. I know how they feel. We still manage. Not agreeing does not equal hate! Most people get that! That was in response to someone who just assumed I was gay because I support SSM. I think your statement that you have good friends that are gay and you find everything about it repulsive FOS. Personally I find your statement of not agreeing does not equal hate also FOS, when you use a term such as repulsive, that is a hateful term. Got to love those who claim religion, no one will ever convince me that religion is "normal", I find everything about it repulsive. I guess your kids will be the stupid ones learning creationism instead of evolution, and live under a rock like you do. Using terms like repulsive is a hateful term. Most people get that!!
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Apr 8, 2014 6:59:41 GMT -5
No we don't live under rocks, but it was never shoved down our throats or glamorized like it is today.. How is it shoved down your throat? You mean by gay protests for marriage equality, that kind of shove your throat? Close your eyes the next time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 7:10:06 GMT -5
Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean you're living under a rock. I have good friends that are gay. They know I find everything about it repulsive, but they are still friends and I still care about them like any other friend. No one will ever convince me that homosexuality is "normal". You can look at a man and a woman and know what we were made for. And before anyone jumps all over it, that's not the same thing as saying people are or aren't "born that way". That said, I don't run around screaming that from the mountain tops and I treat all my friends with dignity and respect. I have friends who think I'm crazy for being Catholic. I know how they feel. We still manage. Not agreeing does not equal hate! Most people get that! That was in response to someone who just assumed I was gay because I support SSM. I think your statement that you have good friends that are gay and you find everything about it repulsive FOS. Personally I find your statement of not agreeing does not equal hate also FOS, when you use a term such as repulsive, that is a hateful term. Got to love those who claim religion, no one will ever convince me that religion is "normal", I find everything about it repulsive. I guess your kids will be the stupid ones learning creationism instead of evolution, and live under a rock like you do. Using terms like repulsive is a hateful term. Most people get that!! That was me who assumed, and I apologize. I get that on here you find me FOS, but I don't go around throwing that term out to my gay friends on a daily basis (or ever), just like they don't remind daily how silly they find religion. See how that works? I think you find me FOS because you yourself aren't as tolerant of others beliefs as you claim to be, and couldn't be friends with someone who doesn't agree with your way of thinking. You're too wrapped up in a single term and chose to ignore the fact that I care deeply for all my fiends, regardless of their beliefs/lifestyle. And in the end, regardless of how we feel inside, isn't it really about how we treat one another?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 7:14:56 GMT -5
The hard part of this-- is homesexuality innate, or a choice? If innate, then treating it as one treats ethnicity has great merit-- people can't help their genes, they are who they are, and should not suffer discrimination. But if it's a choice-- well, I still wouldn't care, but given what the Bible says I can certainly see religious people having a serious objection to condoning homosexual behavior.
From a religious perspective, it's very valid for them to say they are having their beliefs forcibly violated-- if they speak out, they lose jobs; if they won't bake a gay wedding cake, they get sued. All for a choice someone has made that, per the Bible, is sinful. We're going to to get 2 camps here-- those that eat at Chik-Fil-A, those that don't. Gay and non-gay friendly businesses. I eat Nabisco! I only eat Enteman's!
Jeez......
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Apr 8, 2014 7:21:54 GMT -5
That was in response to someone who just assumed I was gay because I support SSM. I think your statement that you have good friends that are gay and you find everything about it repulsive FOS. Personally I find your statement of not agreeing does not equal hate also FOS, when you use a term such as repulsive, that is a hateful term. Got to love those who claim religion, no one will ever convince me that religion is "normal", I find everything about it repulsive. I guess your kids will be the stupid ones learning creationism instead of evolution, and live under a rock like you do. Using terms like repulsive is a hateful term. Most people get that!! That was me who assumed, and I apologize. I get that on here you find me FOS, but I don't go around throwing that term out to my gay friends on a daily basis (or ever), just like they don't remind daily how silly they find religion. See how that works? I think you find me FOS because you yourself aren't as tolerant of others beliefs as you claim to be, and couldn't be friends with someone who doesn't agree with your way of thinking. You're too wrapped up in the a single term and chose to ignore the fact that I care deeply for all my fiends, regardless of their beliefs/lifestyle. And in the end, regardless of how we feel inside, isn't it really about how we treat one another? Lets see what that word means: re·pul·sive riˈpəlsiv/Submit adjective 1. arousing intense distaste or disgust. "a repulsive smell" synonyms: revolting, disgusting, abhorrent, repellent, repugnant, offensive, objectionable, vile, foul, nasty, loathsome, sickening, nauseating, hateful, detestable, execrable, abominable, monstrous, noxious, horrendous, awful, terrible, dreadful, frightful, obnoxious, unsavory, unpleasant, disagreeable, distasteful; More antonyms: attractive archaic lacking friendliness or sympathy. 2. of or relating to repulsion between physical objects. www.google.com/#q=repulsive+defintionI can see where your "friends" understand how you really feel about them, but hey you do not say it, but they know it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 7:35:49 GMT -5
That was me who assumed, and I apologize. I get that on here you find me FOS, but I don't go around throwing that term out to my gay friends on a daily basis (or ever), just like they don't remind daily how silly they find religion. See how that works? I think you find me FOS because you yourself aren't as tolerant of others beliefs as you claim to be, and couldn't be friends with someone who doesn't agree with your way of thinking. You're too wrapped up in the a single term and chose to ignore the fact that I care deeply for all my fiends, regardless of their beliefs/lifestyle. And in the end, regardless of how we feel inside, isn't it really about how we treat one another? Lets see what that word means: re·pul·sive riˈpəlsiv/Submit adjective 1. arousing intense distaste or disgust. "a repulsive smell" synonyms: revolting, disgusting, abhorrent, repellent, repugnant, offensive, objectionable, vile, foul, nasty, loathsome, sickening, nauseating, hateful, detestable, execrable, abominable, monstrous, noxious, horrendous, awful, terrible, dreadful, frightful, obnoxious, unsavory, unpleasant, disagreeable, distasteful; More antonyms: attractive archaic lacking friendliness or sympathy. 2. of or relating to repulsion between physical objects. www.google.com/#q=repulsive+defintionI can see where your "friends" understand how you really feel about them, but hey you do not say it, but they know it. You're free to think whatever you want man. Some know it and some don't. Again, not everyone is as intolerant of others they don't agree with as you seem to be and don't get wrapped around the axle on a single word. I know how some here feel about religion, but I believe we could still be friends. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but most folks aren't defined by one thing and one thing only.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 8, 2014 7:53:06 GMT -5
And you don't think gays harm children? When they are telling kids as young as 4 that "it's okay for you to be different, if you don't like who you are, just be gay"? That opinion is no more valid than someone telling you that letting kids use guns is harming them. You don't think that indoctrinating kids into thinking that it's not only acceptable, but in some cases preferable is harmful? Kids have enough problems growing up without having a cult trying to confuse them even more.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 8, 2014 7:57:45 GMT -5
That was me who assumed, and I apologize. I get that on here you find me FOS, but I don't go around throwing that term out to my gay friends on a daily basis (or ever), just like they don't remind daily how silly they find religion. See how that works? I think you find me FOS because you yourself aren't as tolerant of others beliefs as you claim to be, and couldn't be friends with someone who doesn't agree with your way of thinking. You're too wrapped up in the a single term and chose to ignore the fact that I care deeply for all my fiends, regardless of their beliefs/lifestyle. And in the end, regardless of how we feel inside, isn't it really about how we treat one another? Lets see what that word means: re·pul·sive riˈpəlsiv/Submit adjective 1. arousing intense distaste or disgust. "a repulsive smell" synonyms: revolting, disgusting, abhorrent, repellent, repugnant, offensive, objectionable, vile, foul, nasty, loathsome, sickening, nauseating, hateful, detestable, execrable, abominable, monstrous, noxious, horrendous, awful, terrible, dreadful, frightful, obnoxious, unsavory, unpleasant, disagreeable, distasteful; More antonyms: attractive archaic lacking friendliness or sympathy. 2. of or relating to repulsion between physical objects. www.google.com/#q=repulsive+defintionI can see where your "friends" understand how you really feel about them, but hey you do not say it, but they know it. Ah, yes. Another case of a Leftist trying to "win" an argument by deciding words he doesn't like are forbidden. Would you prefer "perverted"?
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Apr 8, 2014 8:02:56 GMT -5
Lets see what that word means: re·pul·sive riˈpəlsiv/Submit adjective 1. arousing intense distaste or disgust. "a repulsive smell" synonyms: revolting, disgusting, abhorrent, repellent, repugnant, offensive, objectionable, vile, foul, nasty, loathsome, sickening, nauseating, hateful, detestable, execrable, abominable, monstrous, noxious, horrendous, awful, terrible, dreadful, frightful, obnoxious, unsavory, unpleasant, disagreeable, distasteful; More antonyms: attractive archaic lacking friendliness or sympathy. 2. of or relating to repulsion between physical objects. www.google.com/#q=repulsive+defintionI can see where your "friends" understand how you really feel about them, but hey you do not say it, but they know it. Ah, yes. Another case of a Leftist trying to "win" an argument by deciding words he doesn't like are forbidden. Would you prefer "perverted"? Perverted? Nah that is reserved for the Catholic Church who enabled the molestation of thousands, perhaps millions of children around the world.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Apr 8, 2014 8:06:03 GMT -5
That opinion is no more valid than someone telling you that letting kids use guns is harming them. You don't think that indoctrinating kids into thinking that it's not only acceptable, but in some cases preferable is harmful? Kids have enough problems growing up without having a cult trying to confuse them even more. LOL the only kids on the block that are going to be confused is yours.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 8, 2014 8:46:27 GMT -5
Ah, yes. Another case of a Leftist trying to "win" an argument by deciding words he doesn't like are forbidden. Would you prefer "perverted"? Perverted? Nah that is reserved for the Catholic Church who enabled the molestation of thousands, perhaps millions of children around the world. And most of that molestation was homosexual. So, you condemn the Catholic church, but not the culture of perversion that accepts it, as long as it's not priests doing it?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 8, 2014 8:47:23 GMT -5
You don't think that indoctrinating kids into thinking that it's not only acceptable, but in some cases preferable is harmful? Kids have enough problems growing up without having a cult trying to confuse them even more. LOL the only kids on the block that are going to be confused is yours. Nope. Mine weren't told "be whatever sex you want to be, regardless of what God made you". Nor were they subjected to endless indoctrination that deviancy is "normal".
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 8, 2014 10:59:49 GMT -5
And you don't think gays harm children? When they are telling kids as young as 4 that "it's okay for you to be different, if you don't like who you are, just be gay"? No, I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 8, 2014 11:03:43 GMT -5
And most of that molestation was homosexual. So, you condemn the Catholic church, but not the culture of perversion that accepts it, as long as it's not priests doing it? You've completely missed the point of most objections to what the Church did. There's going to be some bad actors in any organization of that size. It's impossible to avoid. What you do when you find one is *immediately* hand that person over to secular authorities for proper punishment. You don't "pray for them and hope they'll change", meanwhile moving them from place to place - as we've seen, that *enabled* the criminal and immoral behavior. That is when the Church proved it had lost its moral authority and had no business telling anyone how to behave. And that, even more than the mysticism they embrace, is why I have such difficulty understanding why that organization has any members left at all.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Apr 8, 2014 11:07:30 GMT -5
Perverted? Nah that is reserved for the Catholic Church who enabled the molestation of thousands, perhaps millions of children around the world. And most of that molestation was homosexual. So, you condemn the Catholic church, but not the culture of perversion that accepts it, as long as it's not priests doing it? Didn't your momma ever tell you not to use words you don't know the meaning for?
|
|
|
Post by r686st on Apr 8, 2014 18:16:04 GMT -5
I don't think you help your case with those intergalactic freak show "pride parades".
You seem like a very angry, bitter person Kashmir. Have you considered therapy?
You seem completely clueless and without an ability to comprehend what you have read. Ever consider finishing up that middle school education? I already said I was straight, married for 34 years, 2 kids. Have you ever been to Mardi Gras? Carnival? Baltimore Honfest? Have you ever considered crawling from underneath that rock? I have been to pride, to show my support, it was a blast. You don't know what my education is, pal. Is it possible for you to make a comment that is not an insult?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 8, 2014 19:22:28 GMT -5
And you don't think gays harm children? When they are telling kids as young as 4 that "it's okay for you to be different, if you don't like who you are, just be gay"? No, I don't. So, kids are only harmed by being told "you can do whatever you want to do, but YOU have to do it"? But they aren't harmed by being told "you are really gay, you really don't like the opposite sex"?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 8, 2014 19:24:06 GMT -5
And most of that molestation was homosexual. So, you condemn the Catholic church, but not the culture of perversion that accepts it, as long as it's not priests doing it? You've completely missed the point of most objections to what the Church did. There's going to be some bad actors in any organization of that size. It's impossible to avoid. What you do when you find one is *immediately* hand that person over to secular authorities for proper punishment. You don't "pray for them and hope they'll change", meanwhile moving them from place to place - as we've seen, that *enabled* the criminal and immoral behavior. That is when the Church proved it had lost its moral authority and had no business telling anyone how to behave. And that, even more than the mysticism they embrace, is why I have such difficulty understanding why that organization has any members left at all. I agree that the church was criminal in it's covering for the priests. What I find abhorrent is the fact that everyone focuses on the fact that it was priests, and ignores that it was homosexual priests. Gays refuse to even acknowledge that fact.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 8, 2014 19:25:25 GMT -5
And most of that molestation was homosexual. So, you condemn the Catholic church, but not the culture of perversion that accepts it, as long as it's not priests doing it? Didn't your momma ever tell you not to use words you don't know the meaning for? So, you don't think homosexuality is a perversion? How do babies get here, then? Why did it carry a death sentence for thousands of years, in hundreds of diverse cultures?
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Apr 8, 2014 19:45:15 GMT -5
Didn't your momma ever tell you not to use words you don't know the meaning for? So, you don't think homosexuality is a perversion? How do babies get here, then? Why did it carry a death sentence for thousands of years, in hundreds of diverse cultures? Nope. There are plenty of ways to get babies, adoption, surrogate. I also know that some straight people cannot reproduce. It carried a death sentence because people also believe/believed in creationism, witches, demons.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 8, 2014 19:51:52 GMT -5
So, you don't think homosexuality is a perversion? How do babies get here, then? Why did it carry a death sentence for thousands of years, in hundreds of diverse cultures? Nope. There are plenty of ways to get babies, adoption, surrogate. I also know that some straight people cannot reproduce. It carried a death sentence because people also believe/believed in creationism, witches, demons. You don't get a baby to adopt unless a female is impregnated by a male. Sorry your "education" missed that little fact. No, it carried a death sentence because, unlike today's Progressives, they realized the cultural rot it brought with it.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Apr 8, 2014 20:00:47 GMT -5
Nope. There are plenty of ways to get babies, adoption, surrogate. I also know that some straight people cannot reproduce. It carried a death sentence because people also believe/believed in creationism, witches, demons. You don't get a baby to adopt unless a female is impregnated by a male. Sorry your "education" missed that little fact. No, it carried a death sentence because, unlike today's Progressives, they realized the cultural rot it brought with it. Straight people who adopt also need others to do the heavy lifting, sorry your "edjamacation" missed that little fact too. Well half the country supports gay marriage and you will soon be on that losing side, like so many other sides that are you are also losing.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 8, 2014 20:14:50 GMT -5
You don't get a baby to adopt unless a female is impregnated by a male. Sorry your "education" missed that little fact. No, it carried a death sentence because, unlike today's Progressives, they realized the cultural rot it brought with it. Straight people who adopt also need others to do the heavy lifting, sorry your "edjamacation" missed that little fact too. Well half the country supports gay marriage and you will soon be on that losing side, like so many other sides that are you are also losing. Let me give you a quick block of instruction in biology. Gays, by definition, can't breed. That means that a female had to be impregnated by a male. Regardless of who "adopts" the child, that's how the child got here. And half the country has been brainwashed to believe in global warming, so I don't put much stock in your numbers on gay marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 8, 2014 20:45:22 GMT -5
So, kids are only harmed by being told "you can do whatever you want to do, but YOU have to do it"? But they aren't harmed by being told "you are really gay, you really don't like the opposite sex"? I don't believe anyone tells people to be gay or straight. I think that's a realization people arrive at on their own. Sure, there are some religious organizations that try to brainwash gay people into being straight, but I haven't seen much evidence that this works.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 8, 2014 20:47:57 GMT -5
So, you don't think homosexuality is a perversion? How do babies get here, then? Why did it carry a death sentence for thousands of years, in hundreds of diverse cultures? Inasmuch as two homosexuals of either gender cannot conceive a child, one would expect evolution to select away this behavior rather quickly. Yet it has not done so. While I admit I have no idea what it might be, there must be some reason it persists. For a long, long time no one understood why sickle-cell trait was common in Africa but nowhere else, and then someone discovered the relationship between the trait and malaria.
|
|