Originally posted by Lady
So God created deviant sexual behavior,right?Er, no. There is no God.

Peace.

Uhmm, lawmakers are elected by the people. The majority of the people find, as you said, such behavior disgusting. So it's sort of a "might makes right" deal. When you think about it democracy is based on might makes right, because the majority has the might.

Lady, I tried to explain this to you a number of times but you just don't seem to read.

Laws are not made based on; your idea of God, the mass' idea of God (well, they are quite frequently, but they are not suppose to be), ethics or morals.

Laws are made based on what is going to benefit society the most while keeping in mind the rights of the minorities.

Pedophelia is amazingly detrimental if legal to a society. Therefore - it is illegal. This isn't so complicated!

Lady

Point-by-point:

• So God created deviant sexual behavior,right? Assuming for the sake of argument that God exists as described in the Bible, yes.

• Despite Scientific Proof, this is what many people are led to believe. Despite which scientific proof? A lack of evidence in an incomplete process? By the same measure, I might remind you that some people are led to believe that God exists, despite scientific proof.

• If the above statment holds true ... It doesn't. But I'll pretend it does.

• Why is it that our laws are hypocritical and society discrimatory against those who practice Pedophilia,bestialism,and incestous lifestyles. Because pedophilia and bestialism involve issues of consent in the fact that consent is not necessarily present. Bearing Lysander Spooner (http://www.mind-trek.com/treatise/ls-vanc.htm) in mind, we might examine the notion that the right of sexual consent was given to a ten year-old girl in 1875, and that her favor could be bought. As a consent issue, is a ten year-old fully conscious of the damage sexual contact can do to her body? If the answer is yes, then we ought not prosecute pedophiles but work toward normalization of the phenomenon. I find this solution distasteful to say the least. Animals? Show me proper consent in the animal kingdom. That a dog can be compelled to f--k a woman does not show consent. Why not, one might ask. The dog seems to enjoy it. Well ... fine. If a woman has an orgasm, it can't be rape. The necessity of conscious consent is possible between adults. A human and a dog or a goat? I don't see consent. A child? It's going to take some hard convincing to get me to believe that one of my best friends could consent to performing fellatio at age eight. Or six. Or two, for that matter. Incest? My objection is that incest seems quite pathetic. What, you can't go find someone who's not family who is willing to have sex with you? Buy a hooker, at least.

• Why show prejudice and pass judgements against sexual behavior's that aren't acceptable by society. Because those behaviors do not respect consent. God and the "sinner" are not the only important ones here. There are the others involved. Two adults of the same gender can consent to gratify each other sexually. Our laws strive to protect individuals from exploitative harm, so it seems quite reasonable to prohibit those sexual conducts which do not respect the necessity of consent.

• I remind you, bestialism, incest, and pedophilia is the will or creation of God(right?) not a choice. Nonetheless, bestialism and pedophilia, at least, suspend the choices of the other to an unacceptable degree. These acts harm people who are not willing to be harmed. Incest has the same danger in reproduction, and for that reason alone it ought to be curtailed. However, in this day of casual sex, birth control, and sexual fetish, reproduction is not as sure a result of sexual activity as it once was. In this context, we must decide as a society whether incest really is that pathetic. I tend to think it is, but I could be wrong.

• These people could no more choose their sexual desire's than their skin color. In twelve years of actively involving myself in the political arguments surrounding homosexuality, I have found that even the gays find this comparison distasteful. A homosexual can choose to partake in sexual activities that do not appeal to him or her, much like a wife can choose to partake in bad sex with her husband. A black person cannot choose to not be black without massive violations of the body, and at that point, they would be on par with Michael Jackson.

• So why I ask you, discriminate against these innocent human beings? Well, near as I can tell, most people are just a little freaked out at the idea of having sex with a child, though the "hot oral high school teens" movement on the internet seems to be a little more successful than it should be. Furthermore, as we see with NAMBLA, some pedophiles proclaim their needs. In that case, I, as a parent, wishing to protect my child against such dangers, would have an obligation to object. If my child isn't that important to me, I suppose I can choose to say nothing.

• After all, it's not their fault. Just as homosexuals find it repulsive to engage in heterosexual relations so to do these people find it repulsive to engage in the"accepted sexual behaviors" condoned by society. Spend more time with pedophiles and bestialists. The child molester I know certainly enjoys sex with adult women. So it's not quite fair to say he would be repulsed by accepted sexual behaviors condoned by society. Nonetheless, the essence of your question is, in the abstract, fair. Again, I point to issues of consent. As such, there still exists questions about the propriety of attaining sexual gratification without consent or through deception.

• Therefore, should these people be rejected by society& penalized by our hypocritical law's? If they commit a crime, such as having sex with a child or a dog, then they ought to be penalized. In the case of incest, if they reproduce, they ought to be penalized for any damage the incestuous union might cause to the child. (As an example, one of the most horrific executions in the history of mankind was of a retarded man who killed his parents because, while they raised him to a strict and even ridiculous Christian standard, they were, in fact, incestuous. When the man found out his mom and dad were brother and sister, he acted on the lessons he'd learned in religion, and killed the offenders. As a side note, the state botched his execution, and after 37 minutes of shocking the shit out of him, he still wasn't dead. While I cannot condone murder, we see that the effects of the incestuous union have harmed another person, and I think incestuous sex should be held accountable before the law if it results in birth defects.

• I ask you, What gives society the right to look down upon certain deviant sexual behaviors and condone others? The issue of consent is a big one, especially in light of the issues you continue to raise.

• Who gives law maker's the right to punish people for not desiring what society has deemed acceptable? Depends on who you ask. George Bush thinks it's God. The electoral system says that the society so chooses. Among adults, their continued existence inside the political borders and their continued participation in society inherently signifies their consent to the law.

• If the introductory statment holds true......law maker's and society have no choice but to accept and respect the natural sexual impulses created in every human being. If we restrict the issue only to the individual and God, you might have a point. But we cannot make such a restriction, for it fails to consider the other entity involved. Thus: Joe the homosexual comes before his consenting lover, and they have union. To the other, Jim the molester comes before a child, and must steal the child, restrain the child, and violate the child. Jack the bestial beast comes before a dog or a horse or a goat or whatever, and cannot ask consent; he must merely stimulate the animal and hope for a favorable response, which is a strategy a man can employ with a woman forcibly strapped to a table or bound in the basement.

The big issue is consent. The political fight between certain Christians and their homosexual targets has spent at least ten years on this idea in the Pacific Northwest. The same comparisons of homosexuality and bestialism and pedophilia were floated by the Oregon Citizens' Alliance, a Christian-derived PAC. For at least ten years, people have been pointing out issues of consent, and wondering why they're not important to the persecutors.

I can only hope that our present discussion might help you distinguish between consent and a lack thereof. In addition to how God views the individual, there is a more functionally important issue of how the other party involved in the sexual act involves that individual.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Come to think of it, Lady.....

didn't I give you a number of links to show that incest was NOT the result of genetics and what it actually was a result of??

Yes, you've won the annual Sciforums "Beat me, I am a masochist" award. Your personalized hair shirts will be arriving in the mail any day. :)

What does consent have to do with creation?

* If your daughter wants to get it on with the rockweller down the street- SO BE IT.

* If grandpa wants to fonddle the kiddies- SO BE IT.

*IF the family reunion turns to an orgy- SO BE IT.

Lady

So God created deviant sexual behavior,right?

Lets forget for a moment the argument presented by our learned friend, goofyfish. So far, gods have not been proven to exist or not exist. Therefore, if we presume gods did exist, your statement would be correct since gods created all things, right ?

Despite Scientific Proof, this is what many people are led to believe.

Most, if not all, rational people would only be led to believe your statement if gods were proven to exist however, the fact that gods have not been proven to exist is reason enough to discount belief in your statement. btw, who are these people you refer ?

What does consent have to do with creation?
* If your daughter wants to get it on with the rockweller down the street- SO BE IT.

* If grandpa wants to fonddle the kiddies- SO BE IT.

*IF the family reunion turns to an orgy- SO BE IT.

You've answered your own question. If gods existed, they would have created these urges. Our societies would therefore not create laws to defer those urges into actions. So, if gods exist, SO BE IT.

However, by your logic, you've presented evidence which shows gods do not exist, making goofyfish's argument ironclad. ;)

"What does consent have to do with creation?"

Right about now I suggest you leave for a while and learn about "logic".

Law has nothing to do with god and creation. Law has to do with what will benefit or be detrimental to societies.

Let's not confuse "sin" with "wrongdoing". Wrongdoing hurts others, and laws are created to protect those who would be injured by wrongdoing. Deeming something a "sin" is an hysterical reaction to religious puffery, something deemed as evil with no better explanation than "god forbids it!"

"Deviant sexual behavior" is something that hurts people. Imposing oneself on another sexually is wrong. Molesting children is an example of this. Sex with animals is potentially physically harmful to both parties, and really gross. All of these things, physically or emotionally or psychologically (usually all three), hurt people, directly or indirectly.

As far as I'm concerned, if two consenting adults want to have sex, regardless of their gender, let them. I think you're failing to make the clear distinction between "deviant sexual behavior" and adults having sex.

By the way, I hardly think that bribing an individual or using some other form of persuasion can be considered gaining their consent. you are gaining compromise. If the term "consent" is so troublesome, then let's dispose of it. I assert that sex between two parties is legitimate if both parties desire it. Clearly, children, who can neither understand nor benefit from sex, will never "desire" sexual contact like an adult does. Persuasion is still a form of imposing oneself on others sexually.

As for future laws against homosexuality, I'm just thankful that we live in a country where not every lunatic that wants to pass legislation against people they don't like or understand gets their petty little way.

And Lady: there's no apostrophe in "lawmakers", unless it's posessive.

Q,

* Why is it that no one brings up the existence or non- existence of God when Homosexuals claim God created them GAY?

Originally posted by Tyler
"What does consent have to do with creation?"

Right about now I suggest you leave for a while and learn about "logic".

Law has nothing to do with god and creation. Law has to do with what will benefit or be detrimental to societies.






What the law consider's a benefit or hinderence to society has nothing to do with the creation claim.

Originally posted by Walker
Let's not confuse "sin" with "wrongdoing". Wrongdoing hurts others, and laws are created to protect those who would be injured by wrongdoing. Deeming something a "sin" is an hysterical reaction to religious puffery, something deemed as evil with no better explanation than "god forbids it!"

"Deviant sexual behavior" is something that hurts people. Imposing oneself on another sexually is wrong. Molesting children is an example of this. Sex with animals is potentially physically harmful to both parties, and really gross. All of these things, physically or emotionally or psychologically (usually all three), hurt people, directly or indirectly.

As far as I'm concerned, if two consenting adults want to have sex, regardless of their gender, let them. I think you're failing to make the clear distinction between "deviant sexual behavior" and adults having sex.

By the way, I hardly think that bribing an individual or using some other form of persuasion can be considered gaining their consent. you are gaining compromise. If the term "consent" is so troublesome, then let's dispose of it. I assert that sex between two parties is legitimate if both parties desire

it. Clearly, children, who can neither understand nor benefit from sex, will never "desire" sexual contact like an adult does. Persuasion is still a form of imposing oneself on others sexually.

As for future laws against homosexuality, I'm just thankful that we live in a country where not every lunatic that wants to pass legislation against people they don't like or understand gets their petty little way.

And Lady: there's no apostrophe in "lawmakers", unless it's posessive.




I agree with you that these behavior's aren't good for society however homosexuals claim to be created gay why can't pedafilian's, those who practice bestalism, and incest? This is a creation issue not what the law consider's harmful to a society.

Originally posted by Tyler
Come to think of it, Lady.....

didn't I give you a number of links to show that incest was NOT the result of genetics and what it actually was a result of??







You sent something on Pedafilian I believe.

Given that I have in fact, attempted to civilly address each of the points you presented in the topic post, I'm wondering why your subsequent posts seem to ignore those points? Such as the following:
* If your daughter wants to get it on with the rockweller down the street- SO BE IT.

* If grandpa wants to fonddle the kiddies- SO BE IT.

*IF the family reunion turns to an orgy- SO BE IT.Issues of consent? Anyone? Anyone?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Lady
Q,

* Why is it that no one brings up the existence or non- existence of God when Homosexuals claim God created them GAY?

* Perhaps law's are made against such behavior's due to non- belief in the creation theory rather than the existence or non- existence of God.

Originally posted by tiassa
Given that I have in fact, attempted to civilly address each of the points you presented in the topic post, I'm wondering why your subsequent posts seem to ignore those points? Such as the following: Issues of consent? Anyone? Anyone?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:





This has nothing to do with consent but rather the claims of creation.

Lady

Why is it that no one brings up the existence or non- existence of God when Homosexuals claim God created them GAY?

Claims which purport gods are unfounded. Anyone can claim gods created them this way or that, or gods told them to do this or do that. Should we therefore question a serial killers claim that gods told him to kill or should we instead question his motives for making the claim?

I suspect you are beginning to question your faith. There appears an inherent desire in your comments to find a truth. You seem torn between that which your faith has prescribed, and your common sense; your rationale. If so, ask yourself whether your faith is based on your belief that gods exist, even though they have not been proven to exist, or whether your faith is based on the motives to believe that gods exist. You may find contradiction in your beliefs as well as your motives.

This has nothing to do with consent but rather the claims of creationWell, what you seem to be overlooking is that after it is established that God creates people as such, we still have laws which regard individuals. God may well have made someone who likes dogs or children, but the reason homosexual conduct is considered acceptable is that all parties are consenting.

You did, after all, write:

• Why show prejudice and pass judgements against sexual behavior's that aren't acceptable by society.

and

• Therefore, should these people be rejected by society& penalized by our hypocritical law's?

and

• I ask you, What gives society the right to look down upon certain deviant sexual behaviors and condone others?

and

• Who gives law maker's the right to punish people for not desiring what society has deemed acceptable?

These are all taken from your topic post.

Issues of consent are the answer to the questions you've posed.

We do not punish people for being offensive to God. That is between God and the person.

We do, however, punish people for hurting others and contributing to the harm of others. For this reason, having sex with children, or even viewing pictures of people having sex with children, is considered unacceptable. The crime is in harming someone.

It's a simple division. If God exists as described by the Bible, then God will deal with those sins against his will. Nonetheless, we humans must find ways of strengthening our species, and the elimination of needless harm is one of those ways. Hence, we choose to protect people from unnecessary harm.

And that's why it's illegal to have sex with a child.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I agree with you that these behavior's aren't good for society however homosexuals claim to be created gay why can't pedafilian's, those who practice bestalism, and incest? This is a creation issue not what the law consider's harmful to a society.

First off, I don't know any homosexuals who claim that they were without choice, that "god created them gay"...and I know my fair share of homosexuals. As far as whether or not they are gay in nature/origin, it doesn't matter. Two homosexual adults engaging in consensual, desired intercourse is not an injury to a person, or to society. Child molesters are. That is the distinction, even though you seem bent on ignoring it.

People who are comfortable with the statement that god "created homosexuals gay", the idea that they are gay by nature, but who also believe that sexual misconduct (i.e. child molestation) are justified. This is because something that hurts no one is easy to accept as natural/god's plan, whereas something that hurts others and is destructive by nature is not. Molesting children is destructive and evil. Having gay sex is not.

Also, I don't know who these "pedafilian's" are, but if they're anything like pedophiles, then it's clear that they are distinct from homosexuals in terms of their morality for the above reasons.

Like "pedafilian's", bestalism is not a word.

In order to establish that God created sexual deviant behaviors we must prove it before accepting it as fact. And we do have the resource's to investigate creation claims. As mentioned before anyone can use God as an excuse for a behavior, therefore, we can't in good conscious punish people for their DNA make-up, despite if it is an " acceptable behavior" or not. For this reason it is important for science to prove or dissprove claims before society accepts rumors as truths. At this moment scientist have not proven homosexuality,pedophilia,incest or bestiality to be linked to gene's. It is safe to say that perhaps it is wiser to wait on science before spreading rumors.

Out of hundred's of documents, I download one that makes no defiant claims of creation. The scientist or rather confused.




By Claudine Chamberlain
ABCNEWS.com
April 22 — It’s a seemingly endless debate: Why are some people attracted to the opposite sex, while others are drawn to their own gender? Thanks to new research published today, that question just got even harder to answer.
____A team of researchers at the University of Western Ontario in Canada has found no evidence of the so-called “gay gene,” directly contradicting studies from 1993 and ’95 that pinpointed a specific genetic marker on the X chromosome linked to homosexuality in men.
____ Whether genes play a part in sexual orientation has long been a hot button topic for people who support or oppose gay rights. If gays and lesbians are biologically predisposed to homosexuality — through their genes or some other way — that makes for a stronger case against discrimination.
____ That’s why the gay community welcomed the 1993 study by biologist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute. Hamer found that in 40 pairs of gay brothers, 33 had the same set of DNA sequences in a region of the chromosome called Xq28.
Dueling Studies
Attempting to replicate those findings, Ontario neurologist George Rice examined the DNA of 52 pairs of gay brothers, and found that their Xq28 sequences were no more similar than what might be expected from sheer chance.
____ Rice’s results appear in today’s edition of the journal Science.
____ “What we have here is a scientific controversy,” says Michael Bailey, a Northwestern University psychologist who has studied homosexuality in twins. The latest research effort “is a good study and it certainly raises questions about whether Hamer was right, but I don’t think it proves him wrong either.”
____ That’s because both studies were relatively small, and because specific genes are difficult to find. “A definitive study,” says Bailey, “would entail substantially larger numbers of people.”
Maybe the Gene Is Elsewhere
Rice himself doesn’t discount the idea of a genetic link to homosexuality. He just doesn’t think Xq28 is the spot. “The search for genetic factors in homosexuality should continue,” he says, adding that he’s currently searching for other genes that could be linked to sexuality.
____ But Hamer stands by his earlier findings, especially since two subsequent studies (one of which has not yet been published), found the same thing. “All this proves is that not every case of homosexuality is because of Xq28,” he asserts. “I expect we’ll find that many genes are involved. One of them will be on Xq28.”

Biological Links to Homosexuality
1991: Northwestern University's Michael Bailey and others find greater homosexual correlation among identical twins than fraternal.
1991: Salk Institute’s Simon LeVay discovers that a tiny section of the hypothalamus in the brain is smaller in gay men than in straight men.
1992: Laura Allen and Richard Gorski of the University of California at Los Angeles discover that a section of the fibers connecting the right and left hemispheres of the brain is one-third larger in gay men than straight men.
1993: National Cancer Institute’s Dean Hamer study finds possible location of “gay gene” on the X chromosome, inherited from mothers.
1995: Geneticists Shang-Ding Zhang and Ward Odenwald of the National Institutes of Health discover that a single transplanted gene can cause fruit flies to display homosexual behavior.
1995: Hamer repeats his 1993 findings with a follow-up study.

____ Twin studies, like those done by Bailey, have fueled the search for such genes. In 1991, he studied the twin brothers of gay men and found that 52 percent of identical twins were also gay, while only 22 percent of fraternal twins were. Among women, 48 percent of identical twins were also lesbian, while the rate dropped to 16 percent for fraternal twins.
____ As with all twin studies, a greater similarity among identical twins usually indicates a genetic link. But because the connection wasn’t 100 percent, researchers know that genes aren’t the whole picture. Environment — family, friends, society — could also be an important influence.
Does It Really Matter?
Gene or no gene, gay rights groups maintain that what “causes” homosexuality isn’t really important. “The vast majority of gay people will tell you that same-sex orientation is an innate part of who you are and is not changeable,” says David Smith, a spokesperson for Human Rights Campaign. “But in the final analysis, is really shouldn’t matter. Public policy should treat all people equally and fairly.”
____ Conservative groups, on the other hand, say Rice’s study proves that homosexuality is a learned, chosen behavior that doesn’t deserve legal protection.
____ “Dean Hamer’s study has been used by gay activists for years,” says Yvette Cantu, policy analyst for the Family Research Council. “We’re saying you can’t grant someone special minority status for something that’s just a sexual behavior, a choice.”
____ For now, though, the scientific debate is far from over. Sex, says Hamer, “is one of the most interesting things we do. And biologically, it’s the most important thing we do.” That’s why we’ll always wonder why some people do it differently than others.

Originally posted by Walker
First off, I don't know any homosexuals who claim that they were without choice, that "god created them gay"...and I know my fair share of homosexuals. As far as whether or not they are gay in nature/origin, it doesn't matter. Two homosexual adults engaging in consensual, desired intercourse is not an injury to a person, or to society. Child molesters are. That is the distinction, even though you seem bent on ignoring it.

People who are comfortable with the statement that god "created homosexuals gay", the idea that they are gay by nature, but who also believe that sexual misconduct (i.e. child molestation) are justified. This is because something that hurts no one is easy to accept as natural/god's plan, whereas something that hurts others and is destructive by nature is not. Molesting children is destructive and evil. Having gay sex is not.

Also, I don't know who these "pedafilian's" are, but if they're anything like pedophiles, then it's clear that they are distinct from homosexuals in terms of their morality for the above reasons.

Like "pedafilian's", bestalism is not a word.






Next time I'll use spell check.........Despite if society finds homosexuality harmless.........doesn't answer whether homosexuals should claim creation rather than choice. So I ask you?

You're ignoring the point of everything i'm saying. By lumping homosexuality into the category of sexually deviant behavior without looking at the evidence that indicates that it is NOT sexual deviance, you are discrediting yourself.

You further discredit yourself by not knowing the terms that identify the behaviors to which you refer. Your posts are founded in ignorance, which you continually back up by not even using correct terminology. So far you've said nothing to support the idea that homosexuals are, in fact, sexual deviants.


.........Is gay sex with children harmful? There's been alot of that going around.

This argument is stupid. It isn't even a valid argument, since men molesting boys is still molestation. Just as you wouldn't refer to consensual heterosexual or homosexual sex as rape, nor can molestation be identified as consensual sex with children. To try to equate homosexuality with child-fondling is ridiculous.

I just want to say that predjudice and discrimination has NOTHING to do with weather or not a person can "help it". It is about believing steriotypes - thinking one group of people are alike just because they fall into the same group.

Most steriotypes are partially true, and some are even mostly true.

For some reason, Religious people seem to think that God is all good and no bad. What!? Not only are good and bad opinions (what is good for one is not good for another), but he disobeyed many of his own polocies: thou shalt not kill. Of course, since god said it, god is the only one not incorperated in "thou", kinda hypocritical. And if he is all powerful, why did he create people that would turn "evil"?

These are question that are answered in ways that noone exept the answerer can understand, or is ignored. Like other people on this forum have said, why believe in god when there is no evidence? Of course, YOU may think there is evidence, but it is not evidence that is logical or can be expressed in words.....

Religion has been used to kill and stunt more people than molestation and abuse ever will.

Like "pedafilian's", bestalism is not a word.What's funny about that is that I read your sentence wrong the first time, and so I thought, "Then why do we keep using the word?" So I went and looked up bestialism (as opposed to bestalism), and it turns out that according to American Heritage Dictionary, there is no such word as bestialism. So I looked up bestial, and sure enough, there is no reference whatever to sexual gratification between humans and animals.

Curious. Anyway, here's the American Heritage definition of bestial, provided via Sherlock 3:
SYLLABICATION:
bes·tial
PRONUNCIATION:
b
s
ch
l, b
s
-
ADJECTIVE:
1. Beastly. 2. Marked by brutality or depravity. 3. Lacking in intelligence or reason; subhuman.
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin b
sti
lis, from Latin b
stia, beast.
OTHER FORMS:
bes
tial·ly —ADVERBand the Roget's Thesaurus entry:
ADJECTIVE:
Showing or suggesting a disposition to be violently destructive without scruple or restraint: barbarous, cruel, fell2, feral, ferocious, fierce, inhuman, savage, truculent, vicious, wolfish. See KIND.So while I read you wrong the first time, it turns out you have a point even in the erroneous context I perceived. A very flexible point, indeed, good Walker.

Nonetheless, I'm now left with a head-scratcher: What is the word to describe sexual gratification involving humans and animals?

At any rate, I'm obviously rambling.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

bestiality n : sexual activity between a person and
an animal [syn: zooerastia, zooerasty]

pedophilia n : The act or fantasy on the part of an
adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or
children.

pedofile n : an adult who is sexually attracted
to children

Source:
Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/)

Originally posted by goofyfish
Er, no. There is no God.
http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/otn/animals/bfish.gif

"The Babel fish," said The Hichhicker's Guide to the Galaxy
quietly, "is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest
thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy recieved not
from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all
unconscious mental frquencies from this brainwave energy to
nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a
telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought
frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers
of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all
of this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly
understand anything said to you in any form of language. The
speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix
which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything
so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance
that some thinkers have choosen to see it as a final and clinching
proof of the nonexistance of God.
"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I
exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
nothing.'
" 'But', says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so
therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promply
vanishes in a puff of logic.
" 'Oh that was easy,' says Man, and goes on to prove that black
is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of
dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a
small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-
selling book, Well That about Wraps It Up for God.
"Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all
barriers to communication between different races and cultures,
has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the
history of creation."

-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Trust a guy like EvilPoet,
when asked about a term,
to already know it.

I'll be holding a reading/signing after the conference. Thanks, everybody.

Is the use of the word guy meant to indicate EvilPoet's
gender? Do you think EvilPoet is male?

Trust a guy like EvilPoet
If so, this is not a true statement. Please note for the record
that EvilPoet's gender is female. :D

Note to self: please substitute "gal" for "guy" when refering to EvilPoet during tonight's reading (particularly during the Sonnets and the Ode to EvilPoet).

Note to self 2: fire editor.

Originally posted by Walker
You're ignoring the point of everything i'm saying. By lumping homosexuality into the category of sexually deviant behavior without looking at the evidence that indicates that it is NOT sexual deviance, you are discrediting yourself.








* Are homosexuals created Gay ? This is the question?



This argument is stupid. It isn't even a valid argument, since men molesting boys is still molestation. Just as you wouldn't refer to consensual heterosexual or homosexual sex as rape, nor can molestation be identified as consensual sex with children. To try to equate homosexuality with child-fondling is ridiculous.


* This was meant as sarcasm and to point out that homosexual behavior is not neccesarily good for society(punking the nation)

* I'm assuming because you believe it is accepted by society it is not sexual deviance(right?)


ou further discredit yourself by not knowing the terms that identify the behaviors to which you refer. Your posts are founded in ignorance, which you continually back up by not even using correct terminology. So far you've said nothing to support the idea that homosexuals are, in fact, sexual deviants.



* Who needs spell check with you around?

Fencheneesz--

Interesting post ... good post. (Thank you.)

Walker

Is it me or does something strange seem to be afoot.

Oh, do you happen to have blue eyes? If so, you're a deviant. (Okay, see the next section that's not to you.)

Lady

It has occurred to me to ask when and why statistical deviation becomes moral deviation. So ....

•_For what reasons, under what conditions, or to what purpose is a statistical deviation converted to a moral deviation?

But I am wondering what questions are left to answer for you and why. You seem to be disturbed by the notion that yes, God, as such, created homosexuals as they are, and you further seem disturbed by the notion that issues of consent are the basis of accepting homosexuality and rejecting child rape.

I mean, I'm hardly out to stop anyone else from answering, but in the meantime, what do you find so unsatisfactory about issues of consent?

Should we, then, just presume that you wish to say what you want to say, get it out of your system, and then deal with life? We'll be happy to sit back and let you rant for a while, and we'll even be happy to pretend it isn't there if you'd like. And when you're ready to discuss the issues you raise, you can let us know.

Point being, I'm puzzled by your present behavior; you seem to be upset that there are answers to offer to your questions. Furthermore, your focus on genes in your ABC News post is not entirely correct. Given that a person with female anatomy can still bear the XY chromosome (which results in a male), it is obvious that other factors are at play.

However, I think the best answer to the question so far is, literally, that God did not create homosexuals because people believe in God despite scientific proof. Now, that proof is the same as the proof you've implied, that a lack of evidence in an unfinished exploration is somehow conclusive. So I'm wondering why, without a God, Christians still foolishly advocate God's will? The notion of people being created as they are comes from the fact that Christians (especially in the US) have abused other identifiable groupings within the US. Once Christians stop seeking to separate what they don't like from God's kingdom, the issue of whether one is created by God as they are goes away.

But since people believe in God despite the scientific evidence, I'm left wondering where the religious folk get off claiming God made anything, much less failed to make anything. And since there is no God, I find it curious that people believe in a Devil or Satan despite scientific proof. So it would seem that homosexuals, for instance, simply are, since there is no God to create them that way and no Devil to tempt them to sin, and, in fact, no sin to declare (as there is no God to sin against).

That's the problem with basing moral or ethical schemes on a God despite scientific evidence indicating that there is no God.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Lady
homosexual behavior is not neccesarily
good for society(punking the nation)
In what way is it not good? How is homosexuality punking the nation?

Originally posted by EvilPoet
In what way is it not good? How is homosexuality punking the nation?






what way is it good? Take a look around

Originally posted by tiassa
Fencheneesz--

Interesting post ... good post. (Thank you.)

Walker

Is it me or does something strange seem to be afoot.

Oh, do you happen to have blue eyes? If so, you're a deviant. (Okay, see the next section that's not to you.)

Lady

It has occurred to me to ask when and why statistical deviation becomes moral deviation. So ....

•_For what reasons, under what conditions, or to what purpose is a statistical deviation converted to a moral deviation?

But I am wondering what questions are left to answer for you and why. You seem to be disturbed by the notion that yes, God, as such, created homosexuals as they are, and you further seem disturbed by the notion that issues of consent are the basis of accepting homosexuality and rejecting child rape.

I mean, I'm hardly out to stop anyone else from answering, but in the meantime, what do you find so unsatisfactory about issues of consent?

Should we, then, just presume that you wish to say what you want to say, get it out of your system, and then deal with life? We'll be happy to sit back and let you rant for a while, and we'll even be happy to pretend it isn't there if you'd like. And when you're ready to discuss the issues you raise, you can let us know.

Point being, I'm puzzled by your present behavior; you seem to be upset that there are answers to offer to your questions. Furthermore, your focus on genes in your ABC News post is not entirely correct. Given that a person with female anatomy can still bear the XY chromosome (which results in a male), it is obvious that other factors are at play.

However, I think the best answer to the question so far is, literally, that God did not create homosexuals because people believe in God despite scientific proof. Now, that proof is the same as the proof you've implied, that a lack of evidence in an unfinished exploration is somehow conclusive. So I'm wondering why, without a God, Christians still foolishly advocate God's will? The notion of people being created as they are comes from the fact that Christians (especially in the US) have abused other identifiable groupings within the US. Once Christians stop seeking to separate what they don't like from God's kingdom, the issue of whether one is created by God as they are goes away.

But since people believe in God despite the scientific evidence, I'm left wondering where the religious folk get off claiming God made anything, much less failed to make anything. And since there is no God, I find it curious that people believe in a Devil or Satan despite scientific proof. So it would seem that homosexuals, for instance, simply are, since there is no God to create them that way and no Devil to tempt them to sin, and, in fact, no sin to declare (as there is no God to sin against).

That's the problem with basing moral or ethical schemes on a God despite scientific evidence indicating that there is no God.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:





Yet the homosexual community wants us to belive God created them Gay.

Originally posted by Lady
what way is it good? Take a look around

I have a dear friend who is gay. He makes me feel better when
I feel bad. He makes me laugh when I feel like crying. He also
makes my youngest daughter feel better when she is sad. I could
go on and on but I think you get the point. He makes the world a
better place in my opinion, that's how. Or is that not a good
enough reason for you?


When I do take a look around, it scares me and pisses me off, I
often feel alone. My gay friend is the one I turn to for comfort and
vice versa. I believe they call that---> friendship? To me that is
the most precious thing of all and without it the world is a very
empty place. I know this because I have been without friends
(real friends) many times in my life.

Yet the homosexual community wants us to belive God created them Gay.You still don't understand it, do you? When the Christian persecutors cease their aggressive attempts to divide out various portions of humanity from God's will, the targets of that wrath will cease worrying about their place in Christian theology. In the meantime, the fight is on because Christians choose that it should be so. Those Christians who disagree with the Christian persecutors ought to lend more voice and effort to protecting what is right. But since people (A) choose to have a problem with homosexuality, and (B) choose to believe that events in the Universe can defy God's will, such points need to be answered. Those points are the basis of Christian-derived persecution of gays. It seems very petty and narrow to me, when viewing the alleged logic of the Christian persecutors, that the all-powerful God should have so little say in those things which He blesses and creates.

God has forcibly "corrected" His mistakes in the Bible before. The episode of the Tower of Babel shows God causing people to speak in foreign tongues, thus fracturing human harmony and setting nations as such against one another.

God can choose to eliminate whatever aspect of humanity makes homosexuality desirable. Yet God does not. God thus, for whatever reasons, wills that homosexuals should exist, and, having such knowledge, continues to commission the creation of human beings who are unsatisfactory to His own expressed standards. (Note: every human born is created by God to be unsatisfactory to His own standards. After all, Christians do believe that people need to be redeemed through Christ, insofar as they are even born; while many Christians I know try to deflect that little point, none can provide any real answer as to when sin enters the human soul.)

I don't understand why you're so irritated at people who are responding to aggression with communication. Would it be better, then, if all homosexuals just came together and tried to murder all Christians? The historical precedent of Christians murdering people for all sorts of silly differences of opinion is quite thick. What does it matter if a gay person says he or she was created homosexual by God? I'm willing to bet you any currency you would like that the assertion must first exist that homosexuals are outside God's creation, defiant of God's will, and choosing arbitrarily to sin against God. Gays would be best left to dwell those issues in quiet conscience; the Bible itself might speak to them, but the people who believe it and set the conventional meaning of what those words say utterly fails by proxy of its utter lack of human compassion. There is no compassion in persecution. And faced with a choice of either talking it out or taking to the streets in defense of their rights, gays generally choose talk. And when you cut right into the rhetoric, to assert that God does not create people to be homosexual is borderline blasphemy. It has the natural effect of implying that something happens in the Universe that is not according to His Will, or that something is created without His Blessing.

Be as spontaneous as you want. Be as good as you want. Be as wicked as you want, it doesn't matter. Such is what God planned for you, and such is the manner in which God has implemented you.

The easiest way around it is to admit that God isn't all-powerful, but that sort of kills any authority to establish that the Bible deserves any consideration in the legislative and electoral arenas.

The reasons people continue to debate whether or not homosexuality is created by God is simply that it was more important to certain Christian persecutors to win their earthly crusade against homosexuality than it was to respect the words in the Bible.

• For what reasons, under what conditions, or to what purpose is a statistical deviation converted to a moral deviation?

(I thought I'd ask again, since you chose to not consider it the first time.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Upon the revelation of sexual idenity many homosexuals proclaim the notion of creation for their behavior. While intentially or not such claims opens the gate way for other alternative sexual behaviors. True enough, homosexual behavior is considered a consentual lifestyle by society. However, the creation theory, scientist hasn't back it up. As I mentioned before those who practice pedofilian,bestalism, and incest could easily make the same unfounded claims. Simiply put, just because society accepts homosexualiy as creation(unfounded) doesn't mean their isn't a gene for the other's as well. Despite the consentual issue, laws would have to be changed or modified to ensure equality and fair treatment of all people, and we can't in good conscious hold people accountable for their DNA make-up. For this reason it would be wise to wait on science.


* I have listed a couple of arguments that pedofilians, bestalist,and those who enjoy incest could make without the potent argument of creation. Feel free to play the prosecutor.

This is poorly put together so bear with me,


Incest:


* Incest is forbidden due to the chances of producing a retarded child.(right? wrong?)



Defense: If law makers genuinely cared for the well being of a child ciggaretts & alcohol which is know to cause:

* Low birth weight * Premature birth

* Undeveloped lungs *slow learners

* stunt growth * Death

* Nicotine & Carbon Monoxide(gas that comes out of car's exhaust pipe) are posions that prevent child from getting food & oxgen.

* Fetal Alcohol effects: * Central nervous
system damage

(1) learning disabilities * Death
(2) hyperactivity
(3) Memory or Attention deficient
(4) inablity to manage anger
(5) poor judgement
(6) difficulties with problem solving


*** Does not the incestous consenting couple take the same risk as the smoking or drinking parent(while pregnant) However, while incest is forbidden alcohol and ciggaretts merely warn. Should not the law hold both parties responsible for actions which endanger the welfare of a child?




Defense: If law maker's genuinely cared for the well being of a child abortion would be against the law. Except for the cases of rape and high risk pregnacies, which puts the mother's life in danger,many fetus are normal developing babies,which are aborted, due to unwanted pregnacies, that can be prevented.


*** Babies are expendable so what does it matter if the incestous consentual couple aborts their retarded child.




Pedofilian:




Pedofilian is forbidden in order to protect underage children from sexual relations with adults(right? wrong?)



Defense: If law maker's genuinely care for children celebrity's such as Woody Allen, R. Kelly, and Michael Jackson(to name a few) shouldn't be able to use wealth to avoid prision. In situations where parent's give consent to adults to have illegal sex with their children should they be locked up as well?(R.Kelly case)

Defense: If law maker's genuinely cared for our children, so called holy men accused of pedofilia, would be under the prision.




*** Is the poor pedofilian being discriminated against due to his lack of funds? Or perhaps because he doesn't wear a coller and go by the title of Father, Rabbi, or reverend?

p.s. The creation theory could help the religious pedofilian greatly




Bestalism:



* Bestalism is forbidden because animals can't consent to sex (right? wrong?)





Defense: If law maker's genuinely cared for animals:

* We wouldn't slaughter them to fill our bellies
* Obtain hunting licenses to shoot & kill them
* Capture them from natural enviroment and put them in cages


*** Did you ever ask an animal if it wanted to be eaten? Did it answer?
Did you ever ask an animal if it wanted to be hunted and killed? Did
it answer?
Did you ever ask an animal if it wanted to be taken from its home
and put in a cage for our pleasure? Did it answer?


So why do lawmaker's suddenly start caring and expect animals to
miraculously answer when asked for sex?

Originally posted by tiassa
You still don't understand it, do you? When the Christian persecutors cease their aggressive attempts to divide out various portions of humanity from God's will, the targets of that wrath will cease worrying about their place in Christian theology. In the meantime, the fight is on because Christians choose that it should be so. Those Christians who disagree with the Christian persecutors ought to lend more voice and effort to protecting what is right. But since people (A) choose to have a problem with homosexuality, and (B) choose to believe that events in the Universe can defy God's will, such points need to be answered. Those points are the basis of Christian-derived persecution of gays. It seems very petty and narrow to me, when viewing the alleged logic of the Christian persecutors, that the all-powerful God should have so little say in those things which He blesses and creates.

God has forcibly "corrected" His mistakes in the Bible before. The episode of the Tower of Babel shows God causing people to speak in foreign tongues, thus fracturing human harmony and setting nations as such against one another.

God can choose to eliminate whatever aspect of humanity makes homosexuality desirable. Yet God does not. God thus, for whatever reasons, wills that homosexuals should exist, and, having such knowledge, continues to commission the creation of human beings who are unsatisfactory to His own expressed standards. (Note: every human born is created by God to be unsatisfactory to His own standards. After all, Christians do believe that people need to be redeemed through Christ, insofar as they are even born; while many Christians I know try to deflect that little point, none can provide any real answer as to when sin enters the human soul.)

I don't understand why you're so irritated at people who are responding to aggression with communication. Would it be better, then, if all homosexuals just came together and tried to murder all Christians? The historical precedent of Christians murdering people for all sorts of silly differences of opinion is quite thick. What does it matter if a gay person says he or she was created homosexual by God? I'm willing to bet you any currency you would like that the assertion must first exist that homosexuals are outside God's creation, defiant of God's will, and choosing arbitrarily to sin against God. Gays would be best left to dwell those issues in quiet conscience; the Bible itself might speak to them, but the people who believe it and set the conventional meaning of what those words say utterly fails by proxy of its utter lack of human compassion. There is no compassion in persecution. And faced with a choice of either talking it out or taking to the streets in defense of their rights, gays generally choose talk. And when you cut right into the rhetoric, to assert that God does not create people to be homosexual is borderline blasphemy. It has the natural effect of implying that something happens in the Universe that is not according to His Will, or that something is created without His Blessing.

Be as spontaneous as you want. Be as good as you want. Be as wicked as you want, it doesn't matter. Such is what God planned for you, and such is the manner in which God has implemented you.

The easiest way around it is to admit that God isn't all-powerful, but that sort of kills any authority to establish that the Bible deserves any consideration in the legislative and electoral arenas.

The reasons people continue to debate whether or not homosexuality is created by God is simply that it was more important to certain Christian persecutors to win their earthly crusade against homosexuality than it was to respect the words in the Bible.

• For what reasons, under what conditions, or to what purpose is a statistical deviation converted to a moral deviation?

(I thought I'd ask again, since you chose to not consider it the first time.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:



Tiassa,


** First off don't hold me responsible for what Christian's did to homosexuals. I think it becomes a moral deviant when homosexuals claim God created them Gay. But then again my answers suck.

82+

I think it becomes a moral deviant when homosexuals claim God created them Gay.

This is because you are a bigot.


But then again my answers suck.

Since you have still done nothing to substantiate your claims that homosexuality is morally deviant in the same way as pedophilia or beastiality, I would have to agree.

Tiassa: I can't figure out whether we agree on any of this or not.

First off don't hold me responsible for what Christian's did to homosexuals. I think it becomes a moral deviant when homosexuals claim God created them Gay. But then again my answers suck.If your answers suck, it's only because you're insisting on them while pretending to inquire about various issues. I get the feeling, interacting with you in these threads that your inquiries have nothing to do with resolving issues of your own intellect, but rather seek to start a discussion in which you might repeat again and again a principle that you hold to be true. It's almost as if you're standing with your hands over your ears shouting that you can't hear anyone.

And why hold you responsible? The simple fact is that the history you don't want to be held responsible for happens to be an essential part of the answer to the alleged questions you've posed.

I'm sad to hear, though, that you find detailed examinations of what God actually said in the Bible to be morally deviant. (Although I'm not surprised.) Perhaps the Christians who persecute shouldn't be encouraging so much moral deviance by raising issues that call for such examination of Scripture and the ethics derived therefrom.

In the meantime, each new post you put up seems to dodge the issues you yourself raised and seeks some new way to re-establish your opinion as fact.

Why do you refuse to discuss the information offered in response to the issues you chose to raise? I find it puzzling behavior, since it resembles that of some of our past hostile posters.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Walker
This is because you are a bigot.



Since you have still done nothing to substantiate your claims that homosexuality is morally deviant in the same way as pedophilia or beastiality, I would have to agree.

Tiassa: I can't figure out whether we agree on any of this or not.




But are homosexuals created gay? Or is it choice. No one told the homosexual community to blame God for their behavior so how am I a bigot


The simple laws of procreation should be enough to prove homosexuality is a deviant however I never said it was in the same manner that the rest are.

Originally posted by tiassa
If your answers suck, it's only because you're insisting on them while pretending to inquire about various issues. I get the feeling, interacting with you in these threads that your inquiries have nothing to do with resolving issues of your own intellect, but rather seek to start a discussion in which you might repeat again and again a principle that you hold to be true. It's almost as if you're standing with your hands over your ears shouting that you can't hear anyone.

And why hold you responsible? The simple fact is that the history you don't want to be held responsible for happens to be an essential part of the answer to the alleged questions you've posed.

I'm sad to hear, though, that you find detailed examinations of what God actually said in the Bible to be morally deviant. (Although I'm not surprised.) Perhaps the Christians who persecute shouldn't be encouraging so much moral deviance by raising issues that call for such examination of Scripture and the ethics derived therefrom.

In the meantime, each new post you put up seems to dodge the issues you yourself raised and seeks some new way to re-establish your opinion as fact.

Why do you refuse to discuss the information offered in response to the issues you chose to raise? I find it puzzling behavior, since it resembles that of some of our past hostile posters.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:




** Why do you continue to keep writing me? If I aggrevate you so much.
**The problem is you don't believe the scriptures, so whats the point?
** Perhaps my hands is over my ear's because you talk to much and blame me for all the sin's committed by Christians.

Originally posted by Lady
But are homosexuals created gay? Or is it choice.
No one told the homosexual community to blame God
for their behavior so how am I a bigot

The simple laws of procreation should be enough to
prove homosexuality is a deviant however I never said
it was in the same manner that the rest are.

How do you explain homosexual behavior in animals?

But are homosexuals created gay? Or is it choice. No one told the homosexual community to blame God for their behavior so how am I a bigot

That you, in your vast self-righteousness, decree their behavior as something they must be ashamed of, and therefore "blame" on someone, makes you a bigot. You still have no support for the idea that homosexuality is deviant or wrong.

Ignorance is a choice, and it's one that you're making with every post and every breath. That's not something that can contend with reason, except to ignore it, which is how you are able to make your preposterous deductions. I'm through trying to have an actual conversation with you, since you, in your blindness, are dedicated to nothing but hate and stupidity.

Short is the road that leads from fear to hatred.
-Italian proverb

Fear and stupidity has always been the basis
of most human actions. -Albert Einstein

Does anyone else get annoyed that Lady usually has more quote than actual input.....

Why don't you just draw the relevant parts out, they can look up if they want the rest.

[






QUOTE]Originally posted by Walker
That you, in your vast self-righteousness, decree their behavior as something they must be ashamed of, and therefore "blame" on someone, makes you a bigot. You still have no support for the idea that homosexuality is deviant or wrong.

* The bible states it as wrong along with many other things.....perhaps you should vent your anger at God.....Not me
* I didn't say they should be ashamed I only asked why blame it on God? Doesn't sound like judgement or bigotry.

* Once again procreation should be enough to prove homosexuality a sexual deviance, whether its wrong or right is up to the individual.




Ignorance is a choice, and it's one that you're making with every post and every breath. That's not something that can contend with reason, except to ignore it, which is how you are able to make your preposterous deductions. I'm through trying to have an actual conversation with you, since you, in your blindness, are dedicated to nothing but hate and stupidity. [/QUOTE]

* Where have I displayed hate?
*Homosexuality is a choice too.

Originally posted by EvilPoet
How do you explain homosexual behavior in animals?



If there is homosexual behavior in animals(I DOUBT) what does it matter? Because no where in the Bible that I read is animals unlike humans held accountable for their actions. I still hold on to the belief that animals have sex only durning mating season. Image if animals had sex like humans they would totally rule the planet.:D

I could point out that the "holy bible" is just a book, and that only a quarter of the world even acknowledges its validity, and even those that do can't agree on it's meaning. I could also point out that nowhere in the bible does it expressly say that homosexuality is evil, a sin, or condemnable in any way, by Man or by god.

I could point out that the idea that homosexuals have to "blame" their lifestyle on anything indicated that it's something to be ashamed of.

I could also reiterate that, since homosexuality occurs in animals, and since heterosexuals have sex for pleasure, masturbate for pleasure, eat for pleasure in addition to sustainance, and do all kinds of things that lack utility, such as watch TV and post on message boards, homosexual sex can hardly be described as deviant just because it doesn't serve the purpose of procreation. Not every act must have utility to be valid, sex included. Unless you want to call eating chocolate, posting on SciForums and going to church functions deviant behavior as well.

I might be bothered to mention that you display hate by lumping the homosexual act/lifestyle into the same category as acts and lifesyles that are clearly harmful and clearly detestable. Anyone who doesn't hate the abuse of children or who isn't disgusted by sex with animals is clearly perverse, or a reprobate, as these acts are harmful, dangerous and probably malicious. Including homosexuals in this category would only serve to target them for hate.

If I were so inclined, I would point out that the fact that homosexual sex is a choice has already been established, and that it's really not any kind of defense against my comment about ignorance. You are choosing to think your narrow little thoughts, and beat your chest because your faith in some bigoted, wrathful "supreme being" apparently makes you better than other people. Didn't Jesus want his followers to befriend and help others, not label them, denounce them or condem them for being sinners? Weren't his closest followers prostitutes, thugs and violent killers? As I recall, they were.

Unfortunatly, I'm a busy guy, and can't be bothered to waste my time making all these points. I'm done with this thread. I'll reiterate my earlier comment: I'm glad that small people who hate others because they don't like or understand them don't make the rules, at least not all the time.

If there is homosexual behavior in
animals (I DOUBT)

Bonobo

Status: Bonobos are endangered due to destruction of
their forest habitat and bushmeat hunting. Estimates of their
population range from 5,000 to 20,000 animals.

Name: The name "bonobo" is derived from the town of
Bolobo which lies on the Zaire River in the western area of the
Democratic Republic of Congo.

Sex: Bonobos live a relatively peaceful life compared to
chimpanzees. This is due largely to the fact that female bonobos
are eight times more available to males for mating and there are
equal numbers of females to mature males so there is less
fighting for mating rights. Sex is an important way to ensure
group stability and ease tensions. Bonobos substitute sex for
aggression, and sexual interactions occur more often among
bonobos than among other primates. Reduced male aggression,
strong bonds between males and females, and frequent sex
(including male-to-male and female-to-female) characterize
bonobo society. However, the rate of reproduction in the wild is
about the same as that of chimpanzees (a single infant is born
every five to six years) beginning at age 12.

Frequently asked questions about bonobos:

What is that big thing on the bottom?
The female genitalia is on the outside. During her monthly cycle
(estrus), the bonobo genitalia will swell.

What are they doing?
Bonobos engage in sexual activities of all sorts— frequently for
purposes other than breeding. They use heterosexual and
homosexual activities to release excitement and tension. Any
erotic behavior employed by man is also used by bonobos.

Why is the bonobo considered man's closest living relative?
More than 98% of bonobo DNA is like that of human's and it is a
fraction of a percent closer to human DNA than that of the
common chimpanzee. Man is the closest living relative to both the
bonobo and the chimpanzee. In other words, the bonobo and the
chimp are closer to humans than they are to gorillas.

How are bonobos different from chimpanzees?
Chimps resolve sex issues with power; bonobos resolve power
issues with sex. Bonobos believe in "make love, not war." Chimps
are known for making war. Physically, bonobos are smaller,
darker, hairier around the face, and more erect than chimps.

How intelligent are bonobos?
Without going into a lot of detail defining intelligence in ape
terms, suffice it to say that bonobos are very intelligent. Observe
their tool use and their ability to organize intricate social
relationships. Scientific studies also reveal that bonobos have a
sense of self (they recognize themselves in a mirror). Only apes
have shown this ability.

What is the difference between apes and monkeys?
Monkeys have tails and apes do not.

Note: one monkey, the barbary macaque, does not have a tail.


Source:
http://www.colszoo.org/animalareas/aforest/bonobo.html

Originally posted by Lady
the Bible that I read
:confused:

Is the Bible the ONLY book you read?

It should also be noted that gays aren't "created" in the sense that god tailor-made them, but rather it's more or less a part of their genetics, which happened (mostly) by chance.

God didn't make them, genetics did. Sorry.

Since noone responded to me ill just post it again

----Does anyone else get annoyed that Lady usually has more quote than actual input.....

Why don't you just draw the relevant parts out, they can look up if they want the rest.----

Whats funney is that lady did it again right after this post! look!

Why do you continue to keep writing me? If I aggrevate you so much.Because it would break my heart to really believe that you are truly this stupid, arrogant, and cruel. Call it a weakness of mine.
The problem is you don't believe the scriptures, so whats the point?The point is that I wouldn't worry about the Scriptures if they weren't held up by some as justification for proposed injustice. Furthermore, it seems to me that someone recently asked about homosexuality in terms of churches and religions and what to tell children. In other words, it seems to me that someone made the Scriptures important to this debate.
Perhaps my hands is over my ear's because you talk to much and blame me for all the sin's committed by Christians.If that's what you think, you're welcome to it. But how is it that you can ask these questions, get answers, and take them so personally? The sins of other Christians are vital considerations to the answers to your questions. What you choose to make of that information is entirely up to you.

In the meantime, it seems quite important to continue to communicate the point. Once people stop seeing homosexuality as something so different that it needs moral explanation, we'll all be better off. In other words, my reasons for taking part in this discussion transcend this mere topic.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Well, technically, yes. But it was another of those things I was trying not to say anything about. Myself, I wouldn't care how much space she wastes quoting if she just had something to say. I wish I could say that it was rare that I encountered this behavior pattern, but I'm very familiar with it in terms of the Bible and its adherents.

Someday I will figure out how to deal with it.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool: