Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: E-man on February 27, 2006, 09:22:31 AM
-
Thread dealing with LGBTQIA issues
Footballer offers to "cure" lesbian MSP
by Marc Soffman (pinknews.co.uk)
(http://www.pinknews.org/images/marvin.jpg)The Ibrox defender, who is a devout Christian, labelled gays "an abomination"
27-Feb-2006
Marc Shoffman
A footballer in Scotland has been criticised over comments about gays and lesbians.
Gay groups voiced concern over Rangers and Trinidad and Tobago star player, Marvin Andrews, after he said his church could “cure” lesbian Liberal Democrat MSP Margaret Smith, who announced her civil partnership plans last week.
The Ibrox defender, who is a devout Christian, labelled gays "an abomination" and said, "There is a demon in their spirits, their spirits are ill. But God can help them through his church and anyone who doubts this can check the bible."
Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell told the Mirror: "The Scottish Football Association (SFA) must discipline him for stirring up hate and prejudice. If a footballer made similar remarks about blacks or Asians they would face serious disciplinary action.”
"The same should apply to those who encourage prejudice and discrimination against gays and lesbians."
Rangers football club declined to comment.
-
Not sure if he shoulda go there :-X
In any case they can't discipline him for stating his beliefs....he just repeating what the bible say (his church's interpretation at least)
When I see the headline I thought he was offering a different kinda cure :rotfl:
-
hmmm look trouble now...those gay groups go jump on these comments...
-
Not sure if he shoulda go there :-X
In any case they can't discipline him for stating his beliefs....he just repeating what the bible say (his church's interpretation at least)
When I see the headline I thought he was offering a different kinda cure :rotfl:
Well this might be pressure here for "Dog" yuh know. Let we see if he will still be in Scotland after the world cup. The Gay mafia takin over yuh know and the have people in high places.
-
eman i wouldn't lie. Where you does find these articles. Anyway Marvin shouldn't make a bold comment like that in public. I know for sure what he saying is the truth but let the lord deal with the people for now. You go have enough time after football days done to become a minister of the lord.
-
Him church cya cure dem.. Bring dem Lesbians cum ..a peer backshot fi dem I gurantee I curing dem lesbians astivities. warmonga does mek lesbian tun Dick freak.. tru mi!!!!!!!!!!!! De man preaching Bible talk ..No man fi f**k a batty and no gal fi suk Possy. Yu a battybwoy why yu sey de man shouldnt mek dem remarks?.. De pope does mek dem remarks...
warmonga..
battybowy Tatchel fi bun in hell . him and his outrage group could go f**k OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!
battyman fi dead !!!!!!!
-
Not sure if he shoulda go there :-X
In any case they can't discipline him for stating his beliefs....he just repeating what the bible say (his church's interpretation at least)
When I see the headline I thought he was offering a different kinda cure :rotfl:
Me too. LOL
-
bad move Dog........bad move......stick to football.
-
keep ah cool head dread.de man up above doh sleep.everybody will answer for their actions one day.
-
support dog 200%...MORE FYAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I Agree wit Dog 100% , Fyah for d bullaman....DAT COMMENT MADE BY THE GAY RIGHTS REPESETATIVE IS BULLSHIT, People are born without the choice of being White , Black ,Asian ,Indian you are not born gay asshole......thats your choice ...ne ways GUD LUCK T&T Against Iceland I predict
T&T 3 -0 Iceland
-
It is very right and just to speak out against any abomination against GOD. All demons will take their flight at the Name of JESUS. My prayers are with this man because I believe that GOD is with him, and "IF GOD is for you , then that is more than the whole world against you".
:devil: YOU WILL GET A BEAT DOWN IF YOU MESS WITH THIS MAN!!!
Remember! this Christian brother put his entire career on the line with his knee injury...trusting that the Almighty would take care of him...and he did. In fact he was Blessed at the end of the season by being voted the team's player of the year.
MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALWAYS! :)
-
I Agree wit Dog 100% , Fyah for d bullaman....DAT COMMENT MADE BY THE GAY RIGHTS REPESETATIVE IS BULLSHIT, People are born without the choice of being White , Black ,Asian ,Indian you are not born gay asshole......thats your choice ...ne ways GUD LUCK T&T Against Iceland I predict
T&T 3 -0 Iceland
There are areas of "people activity" that are not governed by "faith". Imperical evidence to suggest that homosexuality is universally an individual choice does not exist. To state that assertion as fact, is to not fully understand or appreciate the anomalies in human biology.
-
[quote
There are areas of "people activity" that are not governed by "faith". Imperical evidence to suggest that homosexuality is universally an individual choice does not exist. To state that assertion as fact, is to not fully understand or appreciate the anomalies in human biology.
what!!!??1!??? ???
-
That is a no-no . Dog might have his opionion, but Rangers are a professional organization that has to practice tolerance and not discriminate against certain subsets. Thers is no way they can back him up, or even condone what he said, because it is not "politically corect." He could get ah fine for this, but tht is Dog, and he probably willing to take a fine for whar he said, cause that is what he believes. He is a man of conviction.
-
I Agree wit Dog 100% , Fyah for d bullaman....DAT COMMENT MADE BY THE GAY RIGHTS REPESETATIVE IS BULLSHIT, People are born without the choice of being White , Black ,Asian ,Indian you are not born gay asshole......thats your choice ...ne ways GUD LUCK T&T Against Iceland I predict
T&T 3 -0 Iceland
how do you know that gay people aren't born gay ?
This thread causin' men to stray from the topic of football.......
It's one thing to have an opinion on whether or not Dog shoulda said what he said, but discussing the morality of homosexuality and religion is for another forum...........
-
Nah kicker u cyah be serious , "People are born Gay" daz wah u feel culd happen , steups , bess yuh humble yuhself an 4 get dis thread an back 2 d football
-
Yuh know when yuh in the public eye, if yuh say ice cream doh taste good, it causing all kinda backlash, so it might be better to bite your tongue and just play ball
-
this thread Turing into shit talk, but Kicker is right.
WE did an amino for our first child and before we had to go to a genetic counselling class.
Fact is if a child is born with an extra X or Y chromosome in one of the strings (23rd I think),,,,the child will be gay no matter what you teach it
If allyuh eh want to believe i eh care, stay with allyuh ways
-
Nah kicker u cyah be serious , "People are born Gay" daz wah u feel culd happen , steups , bess yuh humble yuhself an 4 get dis thread an back 2 d football
Is not about what I feel could happen........I don't know about that kinda thing, so I can't comment.........and neither do you so you humble yuhself.......and yes I agree back to football...
easy
-
Nah kicker u cyah be serious , "People are born Gay" daz wah u feel culd happen , steups , bess yuh humble yuhself an 4 get dis thread an back 2 d football
Is not about what I feel could happen........I don't know about that kinda thing, so I can't comment.........and neither do you so you humble yuhself.......and yes I agree back to football...
easy
well said kicker...showing true intelligence
-
Allyuh see that Fella Dog....He is a special fella. People should be careful what they say or try to do to him. To add football back in the mix. If you kick a ball it does roll. If you throw it up it comin down. The Bible clear about homosexuality it is an abomination in God's sight. And everybody who choose this life or support it going to hell (a real place). Man could talk bout x& y all they want but here is the cause of this behavior Romans 1:18-32........Read it and remember it. When the truth stays silent people hear the lie.....Big up Dog...Ah hope ah meet you one day....Your Father proud sah....
P.S. i not advocating hating Homosexuals....But they must know that that life style is unacceptable....
Blessing
-
dog is ah madman to go public with dis.....me eh saying he wrong to have he(my)own beliefs, but in dis day an age(political correctness nah)he needs to be a lil more circumspect in talking out against dem kinda ting, ah doh no if it different in Britain, but here in the US, bredda man, he woulda done be organizing to link up with jabloteh or w-connection ahready....oh by de way, dis is my insight, as ah man livin in the US for 10-plus years...tink ah lie, yuh could go an ask the ole Shabba Ranks bout dem ting dey so....
-
ah feel deeply offended by the fact that they r trying to compare statements against blacks and asians to the statements dog make.
is demons in there spirits yes. how can a man watch a woman and turn to another man steupsssssss Dog speak d truth and shame d devil.
P.S hating gay activities is not hating gays
-
The world just is full hypocrites and parasites. All of a sudden political correctness is the name of the game. Dog just said what he believed. He didn't promote violence against gays he just said that what they do is wrong. So all of these little political groups have suddenly become sacrosanct and you can never say or do anything to offend anybody. That is very the antithesis of freedom. If I believe in something I have a right to express that belief without fear of prejudice. Membership to any organisation, business team etc. does not preclude individual rights.
In any case everybody should know Dog is devoutly religious and would know that these are his feelings anyway. Rangers might buss he throat for it but so what. You can't have anymore. Steups
-
lol its a joke ting, first they jail a fella for sayin the holocaust didnt happen, but people can insalt the muslim faith, race hate groups can insite hatred but get off, but dog cant offer to cure a lesbian ??? the world has become a joke. fuk dem all, say wat u want wen u want and who dont like it can piss off. if man diss gays, blacks asians, jews, muslims, people wid 3 legs i couldnt give a shit. these days its freedom of speach until u say the wrong ting, makes rel sense ::)
-
Bad timing.
How did that question even come up? Was it a reporter chooking fire?
-
I feel that in a couple more pages this thread will be mindblowing.
I am really surprised to see how prevalent the anti-gay sentiment is here.
Suffice it to say that Dog is entitled to his religion and his opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that what he said is a verbal attack on a group of people.
And the analogies to race discrimination are reasonable. Gays are discriminated against by non-gays just as blacks are by non-blacks.
When the DC united coach made a statement about africans it was a problem for us here...he was stating his beliefs. When the KKK state their beliefs we say they are wrong and call them ignorant. How is it different when Dog calls people abominations and possessed by the devil.
He has the right to say what he wants but people will be more than right to jam him (and he will get jammed).
Dog is a devout religious man, which is great, but I am sure that there are lessons in the Bible that instruct you to let people do their own thing and leave judgement of them up to God.
-
this thread Turing into shit talk, but Kicker is right.
WE did an amino for our first child and before we had to go to a genetic counselling class.
Fact is if a child is born with an extra X or Y chromosome in one of the strings (23rd I think),,,,the child will be gay no matter what you teach it
If allyuh eh want to believe i eh care, stay with allyuh ways
Horse, get back yuh money for that class boss. They teach yuh tata. That shit hasnt been proven yet.
Dog real real wrong for sayin them things as a professional. They does ban sizzla and capleton concerts right thru in them parts. Dog go get some backlash for sure..
-
I aint mad at Dog however All actions have reactions. A man can speak his mind but he must be at the same time taking account so that he dont get ahead of himself. No feelings of remorse then I celebrate with yuh but if yuh bawlin after the fact, ah go wonder if yuh was thinking in stereo when yuh say wha yuh say.
-
this thread Turing into shit talk, but Kicker is right.
WE did an amino for our first child and before we had to go to a genetic counselling class.
Fact is if a child is born with an extra X or Y chromosome in one of the strings (23rd I think),,,,the child will be gay no matter what you teach it
If allyuh eh want to believe i eh care, stay with allyuh ways
Horse, get back yuh money for that class boss. They teach yuh tata. That shit hasnt been proven yet.
was free anyway :beermug:
-
Dog shud be smarter than that. He isnt in Trinidad anymore. He has to learn to respect everyone, particularly as he iz a black fella living in Scotland.
-
this thread Turing into shit talk, but Kicker is right.
WE did an amino for our first child and before we had to go to a genetic counselling class.
Fact is if a child is born with an extra X or Y chromosome in one of the strings (23rd I think),,,,the child will be gay no matter what you teach it
If allyuh eh want to believe i eh care, stay with allyuh ways
Horse, get back yuh money for that class boss. They teach yuh tata. That shit hasnt been proven yet.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
:beermug: :beermug: :beermug: :beermug: :beermug: :beermug: :beermug:
was free anyway :beermug:
-
allyuh gettin' on like the man get lock up.....nothing eh happen to him yet. Nobody eh persecute the dog yet. He said something controversial, and it made a press release...... One gay rights group came out and expressed feelings against what he said, that's all.........let's wait and see what happens next.
I am sure the he is willing to accept the consequences of his words because as many have said, he is a man of conviction.
The press is always quick to jump on public figures who make controversial statements.... especially about race, sex, religion and politics..........and this is just another classic example.....
let's relax and see how it unfolds
-
There will also be other organisations who will be backing him up and his right to express his beliefs.....it ain't one-sided.
I just hope it don't have an effect on his place with the team. :(
-
And the analogies to race discrimination are reasonable. Gays are discriminated against by non-gays just as blacks are by non-blacks.
When the DC united coach made a statement about africans it was a problem for us here...he was stating his beliefs. When the KKK state their beliefs we say they are wrong and call them ignorant. How is it different when Dog calls people abominations and possessed by the devil.
He has the right to say what he wants but people will be more than right to jam him (and he will get jammed).
Dog is a devout religious man, which is great, but I am sure that there are lessons in the Bible that instruct you to let people do their own thing and leave judgement of them up to God.
JDB 2 things.......If we rationalize like this child molestors would call discrimination also. We have to choose a standard where by we live. If we don't chart the course you'll end up anywhere. The standard for mankind is Biblical....Dat means Adam for Eve and so on.....I trust that you read the scripture in my previous post.
you are right the bible does speak on it. Secondly, "Leave judgement for God?" Dog on this planet for that same reason which is bigger than football. He probably saving some youthman from making a serious error by saying what he said. If i wait for God to judge gays that's hate because what I have is good news. So men like me and Dog must talk given to opportunity. People use media for all kinds a nastiness we could use it for good things man.
Blessing
-
In this day and age of Political Correctness, it isn't advisable to make statements like Dog did.
But because of his beliefs, Dog answers to a higher order than Political Correctness... and that is his right. So he has all rights to make those statements.
The times we live in almost certainly dictates that he will feel ah presha for saying dat. But his faith should asure him dat if it comes, then he just has to persevere.
There is a quote: All it takes for evil to persist is for good men to do nothing.
Dog spoke up. Dat, while not Politically Correct, is his right.
-
JDB 2 things.......If we rationalize like this child molestors would call discrimination also. We have to choose a standard where by we live. If we don't chart the course you'll end up anywhere. The standard for mankind is Biblical....Dat means Adam for Eve and so on.....I trust that you read the scripture in my previous post.
you are right the bible does speak on it. Secondly, "Leave judgement for God?" Dog on this planet for that same reason which is bigger than football. He probably saving some youthman from making a serious error by saying what he said. If i wait for God to judge gays that's hate because what I have is good news. So men like me and Dog must talk given to opportunity. People use media for all kinds a nastiness we could use it for good things man.
Blessing
Preach we have to disagree. I cannot compare actions of consenting adults to the actions of adults to prey upon and take advantage of children.
-
this thread Turing into shit talk, but Kicker is right.
WE did an amino for our first child and before we had to go to a genetic counselling class.
Fact is if a child is born with an extra X or Y chromosome in one of the strings (23rd I think),,,,the child will be gay no matter what you teach it
If allyuh eh want to believe i eh care, stay with allyuh ways
Breds have you ever considered that the person who came up with that 'fact' might have been gay himself?
-
this thread Turing into shit talk, but Kicker is right.
WE did an amino for our first child and before we had to go to a genetic counselling class.
Fact is if a child is born with an extra X or Y chromosome in one of the strings (23rd I think),,,,the child will be gay no matter what you teach it
If allyuh eh want to believe i eh care, stay with allyuh ways
Breds have you ever considered that the person who came up with that 'fact' might have been gay himself?
Allyuh could believe what allyuh want i eh really care, Weather these studies right or wrong perhaps we should not be so close minded.
And for the record i taking science over some man interpretation of what God saying anyday...if i going to hell... SEE YOU THERE
Chromosomal conditions involving the sex chromosomes often affect sex determination (whether a person has the sexual characteristics of a male or a female), sexual development, and the ability to have children (fertility). The signs and symptoms of these conditions vary widely and range from mild to severe. They can be caused by missing or extra copies of the sex chromosomes or by structural changes in these chromosomes.
Rarely, males may have more than one extra copy of the Y chromosome in every cell (polysomy Y). The extra genetic material in these cases can lead to skeletal abnormalities, decreased IQ, and delayed development, but the features of these conditions are variable.
-
Breds, I do not give a toss myself. I have more important things to concern myself with. However, men who had another agenda once 'proved' through 'science' that black people are educationally inferior to whites because of the supposed smaller brains (craniology). That has since been disproved. All I am saying is do not believe all what you read.
-
All I am saying is do not believe all what you read.
OK i accept that, but at the same time, leh we not be so close minded about the issue....fair trade??
:beermug:
-
fellas, i staying clear of this topic, cuz me and truetrini had a proper cuss up about this after the Portvale game in Brentford where he said that science proved that a child is born gay, and i said i believed it was a preference, TT went so far as to say my first son would be a chichi :rotfl:, socapro had to temper the argument, but the ITV men were in bewilderment... :rotfl:
behind-de-bridge you shudda been there to say that ....
Breds, I do not give a toss myself. I have more important things to concern myself with. However, men who had another agenda once 'proved' through 'science' that black people are educationally inferior to whites because of the supposed smaller brains (craniology). That has since been disproved. All I am saying is do not believe all what you read.
I wanna see TT post when he read this thread.. :rotfl:
-
so wham...i could fix lesbians too
-
so wham...i could fix lesbians too
dat is all the man was saying ;D
-
If i was ah woman I'd be a lesbian too ;D
-
Allyuh see that Fella Dog....He is a special fella. People should be careful what they say or try to do to him. To add football back in the mix. If you kick a ball it does roll. If you throw it up it comin down. The Bible clear about homosexuality it is an abomination in God's sight. And everybody who choose this life or support it going to hell (a real place). Man could talk bout x& y all they want but here is the cause of this behavior Romans 1:18-32........Read it and remember it. When the truth stays silent people hear the lie.....Big up Dog...Ah hope ah meet you one day....Your Father proud sah....
P.S. i not advocating hating Homosexuals....But they must know that that life style is unacceptable....
Blessing
BTW, not everyone believes in the Bible and it's tenets, so to make an argument based solely on a religous basis won't wash with a lot of people (that is, they ar enot bound to listen/accept); not my personal opinion, just the facts. Dog should be smater than that. Having your firm beliefs is wonderful, but automatically expecting everone else to fall in line is a bit myopic. Oddly enough, I have the same "problem" with the pro-gay lobby; they seem to scream with the same fervour about their beliefs and try to foist them on society. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.
-
If i was ah woman I'd be a lesbian too ;D
You and BigM is two real ass yes!! :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
Lawd..look at what dog gone and start on the flickin football site :angel: Dread, if you are straight, just consider yourself fortunate and show some compassion. I doubt anyone chooses to be gay. That is like purposefully deciding to shame and alienate yourself from the people you care about and that eh making no sense no matter how you look at it. I personally don't agree with hiding behind the bible either. The bible is open to too much interpretation. There are racists who form their hate against 'inferior' races from what is written in the bible and they will go to their graves believing the Lord taught them that non-whites are abominable. I too am christian, but as a black man I taking any book that discounts the beliefs of my African ancestors with a grain of salt. No disrespect to the hard-core christians...I could disagree with someone's beliefs and still have respect and even love for that person...so peace...whether you white, black, short, tall, indian, straight, gay....but if you eh supporting' de Socawarriors.....HYMC :devil: :devil:
-
Fellas I here what allyuh saying and JDB we cool to disagree :beermug: Views about God always hard to prove to man even Jesus wasn't convincing enough so He get kill. He rose from the dead was seen by over 500 people and still man didn't believe. I nor Dog can prove anything to anyone who don't want to believe. Belief in God comes by faith. This means it can't be scientifically measured. Yet faith proves that it's able to cause change in people, nations and teams ;). Only a God encounter would change a man's views. Religion is something else though, because men involved (including me) it have problems. My sincere apoligies for the good intents gone bad with regards to christian religions fellas. But sooner or later man go have to decide if the prayer we say before a game is to someone real or fake. If He's real everone must consider their state, because we'll all meet him at the end of days. Look at that.....Dog stand up for his faith and talk start....the Lord moves in mysterious way eh?
Ah tell yuh this thoug ah real jealous Truetrini this week...Ah cyah wait to meet allyuh fellas JDB, Palos, Tallman, david,ricky and others to buss some rainbow and drag on allyuh boy.. ;D :beermug:
Blessing
-
ok ah have to add meh 2 cents here ;D
yes fellas..some people are born gay..but those are the ones that feel so strongly bout it..that they need a sex change..especially lesbians..no wonder some ah them is think dey is ah man.
like allyuh never hear bout a man in a woman's body and vice versa?
now when yuh look at some of them gay guys who dont have any feminine tendencies..ah think that plain wrong..them just looking to get dey rectum tickled ;)
anyway back to Dog..yeha he right to state his views and belief..but in this day and age..that was a wrong move..if Rangers looking to get rid of him this season..they have a good reason to now..and by the modern laws of 'rights'..he was wrong.
he go end up like Nahkid..putting he mouth where he shouldn't.
-
he go end up like Nahkid..putting he mouth where he shouldn't.
Isn't this whole thread about people putting they mouth where they shouldn't :o
-
I feel that in a couple more pages this thread will be mindblowing.
I am really surprised to see how prevalent the anti-gay sentiment is here.
Suffice it to say that Dog is entitled to his religion and his opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that what he said is a verbal attack on a group of people.
And the analogies to race discrimination are reasonable. Gays are discriminated against by non-gays just as blacks are by non-blacks.
When the DC united coach made a statement about africans it was a problem for us here...he was stating his beliefs. When the KKK state their beliefs we say they are wrong and call them ignorant. How is it different when Dog calls people abominations and possessed by the devil.
He has the right to say what he wants but people will be more than right to jam him (and he will get jammed).
Dog is a devout religious man, which is great, but I am sure that there are lessons in the Bible that instruct you to let people do their own thing and leave judgement of them up to God.
My question is....who give you all the right to discrimate and judge against anybody. Since when the man above say he on vacation...allyuh take over ? You know i'm actually surprised by the comments of some of you fellas who I actually thought had some sense of moral upbringing.
The sad thing about this is...some of you all are parents. Pray that one day one of you kids won't say "Daddy I have something to tell you". Then again, he/she might as well not say nothing at all.
Allyuh disappoint meh man. steups.....here, look 5 stones.
-
Well, ah never tink dat dis Forum would generate sucha long debate on gays. My take: Dog mus be careful what he say. But he and all ah only half right. There is increasing evidence that being gay mey be linke dto genes just like how some schizos caused by genes. But being gay (i.e. having gay tendencies) and prctising gay behavior is two differnt things. The fact that you straight don't mean you have to marry or have sex. Dog right about practising gay behavior but he wrong if he tink that being born with gay feelings is aa sin. BTW who said earlier dat Chr 23 causes gayness don't know naything about biology. Forget he. Tell him come do my Genetics course.
Go Warriors and beat Iceland and Gog , give the moralising a rest!
-
There is increasing evidence that being gay mey be linked to genes just like how some schizos caused by genes. But being gay (i.e. having gay tendencies) and practising gay behavior is two different things. The fact that you straight don't mean you have to marry or have sex.
thats exactly what i was trying to get at :beermug:
-
BTW who said earlier dat Chr 23 causes gayness don't know naything about biology. Forget he. Tell him come do my Genetics course.
yeah horse tell me what school you teaching at so i know where not to send my kids
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/genetics/chromosome.htm
ONE OF MANY
if you cant understand what i trying to say is not my problem
-
he go end up like Nahkid..putting he mouth where he shouldn't.
Isn't this whole thread about people putting they mouth where they shouldn't :o
Another classic...
-
I respect Dog for his strong Christian beliefs but he should shut his damn a$$. His main focus should be football and ensuring his knee is okay, not talking about gay people. Although I am against that whole gay thing, at the end of the day you have to respect people choices although you may disagree strongly.
I could understand him making that comment in church or some church related event, but to just jump out and open his a$$, he looking for trouble.
-
How did this topic even come up to Dog?
A reporter ask him bout it? I eh go be surprised if some hotshot reporter know what he woulda say and ask it to stir up trouble.
All that article below does is report what he said and not where he said it or if someone asked something.
Cah be no post match press conference.
-
Is ok to have views but let de master do he wuk and be de judge.
-
This treaad should be moved to the general discussion since it is very distracting to the task at hand !!
-
It was an irresponsible comment, the end.
-
Fellas we shouldn't be to quik to believe everything that science says. Science is limited and always changing. Science can only tell you how things work it can't tell you why things work. It can tell you how babies are born but it still can't explain why life exist. The reason for this is that science is done by men, who are limited by time and knowledge. God lives outside of time with limit less knowledge. He holds the answer to all our why questions...The how, we could figure out for ourselves. Now conecerning people being born gay. The XY explaination is really, in my opinion a how.
It's amazing that people go to shrinks to find out that it's because their father had issues that they have problems in their life. But the bible tell you that already..It says the sins of the father is passed on to the 3rd and 4th generation. But we prefer waste $200 and hr.
The why is because of demonic influences in our world in an attemtp to cause people to waste and pervert their existence. Can spiritual influence cause changes in our body chemistry? I believe yes. E.g. Jesus meet a boy with a dumb and deaf spirit, the bible says. Science would be able to tell you how is it that he can't hear or speak. But the why is spiritually motivated. Jesus spoke to the cause which was demonic, the bible says that instantly the demons left him and he spoke.
I know for my life if the why wasn't answered I would of been just like my fore fathers, womanizers and alcoholics trying to make it but never making it.
I know man doh like talk like this because man like to feel like to in control of their life, while deep on the inside you just guessin and tryin to hold on. Satan come to kill still and destroy homosexuality is just one way he doin that. I not judging nobody. I just saying what is true.
One ah my mentors had gay tendencies as he called it. The news buss in a real scandelous way eh fellas, the man was in ministry and thing. People try to help him he run from the help because he was to shame. He said a priest used to rape him when he was small and homeless. He end up in jail yes years later for the same thing. However, if i see he again i will honor that man because even in his weakness he try to push me towards to light. And it have no sin that he could ever do that would cause me to spit on that. People that practise homoseuality should be respected but I not endorsing that life style at all
Blessing
-
boy i now bounce up this thread
fire fuh de homo and dem
-
Preacher-: I with you on this. Right now in bible study we dealing with Generational Curse, and how demonic influnce create sinful habits of the flesh which are passed down unto the 4th generation. Only JESUS in your life can break these curses. "born gay...even dogs does take ah sniff to make sure is female they trying to jump on"
How come nobody complain and say that" dog" was wrong to put his knee problems in GOD'S hand? (JESUS WAS NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT AND HE HAD NO PROBLEM SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE SCRIBES AND PHARISES) Even "dog" coach say that he was putting his entire career in jeprody. Yet, he trusted GOD to heal his physical problem, and he is now highly recommending spiritual healing for those who need it desperately...before it's too late.
GOD BLESS
-
This issue has been raised before,and I'm shocked that it still exist today the discrimination.
My brother In-law invited a friend of his to come play with us one day in hallandale,and the guy never hid his sexuallity,not that he was broadcasting it in anyway,but it was a dead giveaway when he showed up with his boyfriend as he was introduced. but brother-man if yuh hear them trini boy an dem wee foote ah buller in de house,me eh playing with no fudge packer,all sorts of vile,degrading gestures and words.
My point is when ah we going to realise these are human beings just like us,maybe if some people took the time to appreciate the talent and not there sexual orientation,we might get somewhere.
remember justin fashanu of the Epl great player that was openly gay.
-
me eh bizness if he gay..once he playing good and eh comin and playing he screening the ball rite thru! ;D
-
Football is for everyone black, white, gay or straight once you are good in midfield and defense then everything is cool 8)
-
with ah name like justine fashanu,what yuh expect,he go be radiating bullist mentalities........when ah was about 8 or 9 playin small goal in de road,ah score ah goal and this fella from de next team come skippin my f**kin way and buss ah kiss on meh cheek,ah never get kiss from ah gyul ah go take kiss from man.ah run home one like forrest f**kin gump.
-
This issue has been raised before,and I'm shocked that it still exist today the discrimination.
My brother In-law invited a friend of his to come play with us one day in hallandale,and the guy never hid his sexuallity,not that he was broadcasting it in anyway,but it was a dead giveaway when he showed up with his boyfriend as he was introduced. but brother-man if yuh hear them trini boy an dem wee foote ah buller in de house,me eh playing with no fudge packer,all sorts of vile,degrading gestures and words.
My point is when ah we going to realise these are human beings just like us,maybe if some people took the time to appreciate the talent and not there sexual orientation,we might get somewhere.
remember justin fashanu of the Epl great player that was openly gay.
was he wearing tight pants?
Saga what is yuh obsession breds?
-
All yuh men posting ah set of dotishness now. De man going and bull yuh on de field? Steups. If he try ah thing, lick him down but ent is football yuh went to play...not doctor and nurse.
-
In trute. Saga...why you seem so obsessed wit gaydom sah?
-
Saga Saga Saga :rotfl:
Yuh not easy with this stuff. If yuh want to ease out the closet go ahead man. Go brave. LOL
I eh know but yuh does bring up these issues kinda often and out ah de blue.
Yuh like R Kelly this topic must be yuh 5th on this kinda issue....so ah guess yuh on Chapter 5 :devil: :devil:
-
Is not saga alone dat paranoid...ah next poster here does do de same and always bringing up sodom and gamorrah and dis topic...dry so and out of de blue. He know heself.
-
allyuh killing me yes... :rotfl: :rotfl:
anyways ah putting in meh 1 cent
Saga dey jealous ya...at least ya have someone ahh teddy bear to hold on too at nights
doh mind dem.
I in Canada and ah seeing it every day from watching people on dey way to work, kissing each other before dey cross dey street tur holding hands in public. Men dropping off their kids to school. Bu bye Daddys or Mammys. It's normal ting over here.
First day of work, I introduce myself to this guy only to find out he is a she. If they ground coulda open I'd jump right in. Anyway she wanted to take me out tur lunch dey next day, but datz another story. :devil:
Hopefully the third world countries would eventually meet up with the first and second world countries in accepting things they just can't changed or deny.
I'm sure this topic will go serious soon.
I'll check back soon :beermug:
-
allyuh killing me yes... :rotfl: :rotfl:
anyways ah putting in meh 1 cent
Saga dey jealous ya...at least ya have someone ahh teddy bear to hold on too at nights
doh mind dem.
I in Canada and ah seeing it every day from watching people on dey way to work, kissing each other before dey cross dey street tur holding hands in public. Men dropping off their kids to school. Bu bye Daddys or Mammys. It's normal ting over here.
First day of work, I introduce myself to this guy only to find out he is a she. If they ground coulda open I'd jump right in. Anyway she wanted to take me out tur lunch dey next day, but datz another story. :devil:
Hopefully the third world countries would eventually meet up with the first and second world countries in accepting things they just can't changed or deny.
I'm sure this topic will go serious soon.
I'll check back soon :beermug:
That soundin like it belong on ah Jerry Springer episode :devil: :devil:
Yuh say "datz another story".....well yes oui
-
with ah name like justine fashanu,what yuh expect,he go be radiating bullist mentalities........when ah was about 8 or 9 playin small goal in de road,ah score ah goal and this fella from de next team come skippin my f**kin way and buss ah kiss on meh cheek,ah never get kiss from ah gyul ah go take kiss from man.ah run home one like forrest f**kin gump.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
boy i in england here playing & dem fellas across here too kissy kissy for real jed. dey watching beckham jumping on man back too much
-
sweat is sweat...
and if yuh get close contact then just issue de materazzi elbow!!
-
Gay men play football, unthinkable. They'll be giving black fellas the vote next ::)
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article348966.ece this story caused a lot of fuss over here and has backfired on the newspaper. They wanted to shame some premiership stars so they could sell a few papers, but most people I know have stopped buying the News of the world and the sun because they are fed up with pathetic bigotry like this.
this is the 21st century right?
-
fuh real saga y u only posting dis if he gay talk if he gay he gay
doe worry saga yuh cud play with us in d sweat u geh enuff feedback lol :devil:
joking ... doe cry
-
no you cannot sweat in the next warrior nation sweat
-
no you cannot sweat in the next warrior nation sweat
At least I have the guts to post something that even today seems so taboo for whatever reason,I could take the pounding,I don't have to defend who I'm or even justify most of the joking suggestion that one might be a closest case if he keeps posting anything gay.
The one thing ah could tell yuh is I glad I ent gay yes because brother the kinda shit them people does go through ent easy yes,It already tough as it is being black and that's a full time job defending yuh character,color,and race.
But with that said big up to all the forumites and there opinions.
-
allyuh killing me yes... :rotfl: :rotfl:
anyways ah putting in meh 1 cent
Saga dey jealous ya...at least ya have someone ahh teddy bear to hold on too at nights
doh mind dem.
I in Canada and ah seeing it every day from watching people on dey way to work, kissing each other before dey cross dey street tur holding hands in public. Men dropping off their kids to school. Bu bye Daddys or Mammys. It's normal ting over here.
First day of work, I introduce myself to this guy only to find out he is a she. If they ground coulda open I'd jump right in. Anyway she wanted to take me out tur lunch dey next day, but datz another story. :devil:
Hopefully the third world countries would eventually meet up with the first and second world countries in accepting things they just can't changed or deny.
I'm sure this topic will go serious soon.
I'll check back soon :beermug:
First de swedish man want to pelt some tack...and before dat ellen de generes was tryin to hol yuh hand?
You real popular in dat office gyirl...yuh does go to work in yuh pumpum shorts or wha? ;)
-
there is never anything wrong with a gay person doing anything with you... once he eh trying to play up wit you...
-
there is never anything wrong with a gay person doing anything with you... once he eh trying to play up wit you...
Buh whey the jail is dis.. mini-me like you coming out to...
-
This issue has been raised before,and I'm shocked that it still exist today the discrimination.
My brother In-law invited a friend of his to come play with us one day in hallandale,and the guy never hid his sexuallity,not that he was broadcasting it in anyway,but it was a dead giveaway when he showed up with his boyfriend as he was introduced. but brother-man if yuh hear them trini boy an dem wee foote ah buller in de house,me eh playing with no fudge packer,all sorts of vile,degrading gestures and words.
My point is when ah we going to realise these are human beings just like us,maybe if some people took the time to appreciate the talent and not there sexual orientation,we might get somewhere.
remember justin fashanu of the Epl great player that was openly gay.
Is your handle Saga Pinto or Sagay Pinto?! :devil:
-
doh matter to me. i sure some of those european superstars is bull. i read once on myfootballforum.com that robert pires is bi. who knows?
anynow, i went to piedmont park in downtown atl once looking for a sweat. had a good run with some fellas training. some of them had real skills...more than me. i couldn't tell but it turn out that they is a bullerman side with some straight players. they was cool though. i just made it known that i doh get down like that.
this is the team - have some ex-NCAA D1 players and even an ex-US army recon man.
http://www.hotlantasoccer.com/
-
allyuh fellas could go play wid battybwoy.. Mi nuh talk wid dem..mi nuh walk wid dem ..Mi nuh play ball wid dem.. I rather not play at all!!!!!!! emagine if battybwoy was playing? Nuff man go sex him..he go open him leg jes fi get sexs!!!! wah wrong wid sum of allyuh dread?? bout a nuh nothin dat ? battybwoy better go play hop scotch or sumthin doh cum round Warmonga!!!!!!!!!!
-
it is not exactly the same thing..but I see many parrallels between homophobia and racism. As a black man it is hard to see anyone who has been the victim of oppression hate on gay people..since they suffer very similar indignities to the ones we go through...yet we show no sympathy.
We know what it is liked to be disliked for no other reason other than being different from the majority. Our transgressors point to the holy bible to 'prove' that we are inferior anomolies of the human race...or not even human at all. We know what it is liked to be stereotyped and have people believe the most ignorant, malicious things about us for no reason. Same for gay people.
I'm not perfect or trying to be holier than thou...you do have to be buddies with anybody. But when is time to kick ball..it doh matter who you are. In any case, we have no right to make other people's short stay on this earth a miserable experience just because we don't understand something about them or disagree with their lifestyle
-
allyuh fellas could go play wid battybwoy.. Mi nuh talk wid dem..mi nuh walk wid dem ..Mi nuh play ball wid dem.. I rather not play at all!!!!!!! emagine if battybwoy was playing? Nuff man go sex him..he go open him leg jes fi get sexs!!!! wah wrong wid sum of allyuh dread?? bout a nuh nothin dat ? battybwoy better go play hop scotch or sumthin doh cum round Warmonga!!!!!!!!!!
:rotfl: :rotfl:........at least now we know that internet access has reached the darkest depths of "uncivilization".....finally the cavemen have a voice.
-
I don't like to associate with them not just because i find what they do is despicaple but I just don't like the way they act. As we say in Trinidad my blood doh take dem and I make no apologies for saying so. Call it homophobia if you want.
When it comes to sweat, unless you regularly play together the only thing you know about someone is what they look like and who look like they have skills etc. You wouldn't know who are the homosexuals on field. Just play the game and go home after.
-
so much a tings to talk about.....what is the obsession wit de gay talk? steups!!
it have other forums for dat, not dis one!!
whats next?
1. whould u play on a team if the coach is gay?
2. would u play on a team if the coach's son likes u?
3. would u play on a team if u have to bathe naked in the shower all the time together?
4. Would u play on a team if the coach insists that u must hold each other's dicks while u pee to foster team unity?
5. would u play on a team if u see yourself secretly attracted to one or more of your teamates?
Feel free to add more fellas!! lets make sagay pinto happy!!
not sure if to say ah love it!!
-
so much a tings to talk about.....what is the obsession wit de gay talk? steups!!
it have other forums for dat, not dis one!!
whats next?
1. whould u play on a team if the coach is gay?
2. would u play on a team if the coach's son likes u?
3. would u play on a team if u have to bathe naked in the shower all the time together?
4. Would u play on a team if the coach insists that u must hold each other's dicks while u pee to foster team unity?
5. would u play on a team if u see yourself secretly attracted to one or more of your teamates?
Feel free to add more fellas!! lets make sagay pinto happy!!
not sure if to say ah love it!!
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
this place si the best .. :beermug:
-
ironic that this post come up considering what "Footballer$ Wives" going to be about this weekend on BBC America....noah going to ger exposed and tanya going to find out conrad gates bulling him.
SPOILER
http://www.footballerswives.tv/episodes/fw3_eps/fw3_ep8.html
It is meant to be Kyle Pascoe’s first day back at training with Earls Park, but the session looks doubtful when he arrives home battered and bruised after a night of bare-knuckle boxing. How will he explain his injuries to concerned girlfriend Elaine and his mum Jackie?
Meanwhile, the ever-changing Shannon is delighted with yet another new look! She has just had her lips done. Now this footballer’s wife has the perfect plump pout - just right for the ‘at home’ she has planned. Poor Harley is starting to despair about his wife Shannon, who seems set on the road to non stop self-improvement to be the perfect trophy wife.
Manipulative Amber appears to be winning her way back into her husband Conrad’s life and temptress Tanya is furious. But later, when Tanya also discovers team mate Noah is a player for Conrad’s affections, she decides to take merciless action. Soon poor Noah is unwittingly playing a big part at her outrageous 70s party. Is there no limit to what Tanya will do to win this battle of the wives?
With Noah dealt with and Amber in the background, at last things begin to start looking up for Tanya when Conrad declares his love for her. But their moment is shockingly disturbed when Amber swings by - and it’s a race against time to save her.
-
What does it matter a persons' sexual orientation, once he/she can play there should be no problem.
-
I don't like to associate with them not just because i find what they do is despicaple but I just don't like the way they act. As we say in Trinidad my blood doh take dem and I make no apologies for saying so. Call it homophobia if you want.
When it comes to sweat, unless you regularly play together the only thing you know about someone is what they look like and who look like they have skills etc. You wouldn't know who are the homosexuals on field. Just play the game and go home after.
scene...we all have our beliefs. but out of curiosity...you truly believe all gays act a certain way? I think the vast majority of gay people around us 'act' no different from you or me. We probably have no clue just how many people we greet in or everyday lives are actually gay.....
-
allyuh killing me yes... :rotfl: :rotfl:
anyways ah putting in meh 1 cent
Saga dey jealous ya...at least ya have someone ahh teddy bear to hold on too at nights
doh mind dem.
I in Canada and ah seeing it every day from watching people on dey way to work, kissing each other before dey cross dey street tur holding hands in public. Men dropping off their kids to school. Bu bye Daddys or Mammys. It's normal ting over here.
First day of work, I introduce myself to this guy only to find out he is a she. If they ground coulda open I'd jump right in. Anyway she wanted to take me out tur lunch dey next day, but datz another story. :devil:
Hopefully the third world countries would eventually meet up with the first and second world countries in accepting things they just can't changed or deny.
I'm sure this topic will go serious soon.
I'll check back soon :beermug:
First de swedish man want to pelt some tack...and before dat ellen de generes was tryin to hol yuh hand?
You real popular in dat office gyirl...yuh does go to work in yuh pumpum shorts or wha? ;)
Dutty ah cyah help it nah. Not my fault. :devil:
-
Me eh promotin dah kind ah livin nah..buh de reality ah de matter is yuh jus ha tuh live wit it...me eh talkin bout no sweat..look at it from ah professional/semi professional attitude,if ah teammate gay yuh still ha tuh play cuz dyez yuh job yuh playin wit..buh personally tuh each his own..so if dyez ah man scene..well dyez he scene..So I go still play ball and once he eh come round me in noe outta timin way I jus cool.
-
This issue has been raised before,and I'm shocked that it still exist today the discrimination.
My brother In-law invited a friend of his to come play with us one day in hallandale,and the guy never hid his sexuallity,not that he was broadcasting it in anyway,but it was a dead giveaway when he showed up with his boyfriend as he was introduced. but brother-man if yuh hear them trini boy an dem wee foote ah buller in de house,me eh playing with no fudge packer,all sorts of vile,degrading gestures and words.
My point is when ah we going to realise these are human beings just like us,maybe if some people took the time to appreciate the talent and not there sexual orientation,we might get somewhere.
remember justin fashanu of the Epl great player that was openly gay.
like you is ah buller man yuhself or wah. you promoting buller man thing, talking about when we go realize that them is human being just like weself. i shoulda be dey. burn out battyness oui. wah kinda shit you bring on dis forum. yuh is ah joker or wah. yuh ever hear about hiv/aids? it was brought up for biological warfare and den mainly spreed by man shredding man batty. now dis facking ting plague d world. and you trying to preach to we dat it is ok and dat dey is only human. boy, gone from here with datshit on dis forum eh. moderators, tek dis to general discussion please.
ps- yuh only talking about remember this and remember this.ah want yuh to do meh ah favour, remember this nah>>>
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html
read these chapters: -
Leviticus 18 verse 22
Leviticus 20 verse 13
Romans 1 verse 26 & 27
2 Peter verse 5-6
den ask yuhself if we should allow battyness!! yuh mad, bun dem figging men oui :cursing:
-
footbull ??
-
ironic that this post come up considering what "Footballer$ Wives" going to be about this weekend on BBC America....noah going to ger exposed and tanya going to find out conrad gates bulling him.
Just the fact that you know all that makes this the gayest post in this whole thread.
-
This issue has been raised before,and I'm shocked that it still exist today the discrimination.
My brother In-law invited a friend of his to come play with us one day in hallandale,and the guy never hid his sexuallity,not that he was broadcasting it in anyway,but it was a dead giveaway when he showed up with his boyfriend as he was introduced. but brother-man if yuh hear them trini boy an dem wee foote ah buller in de house,me eh playing with no fudge packer,all sorts of vile,degrading gestures and words.
My point is when ah we going to realise these are human beings just like us,maybe if some people took the time to appreciate the talent and not there sexual orientation,we might get somewhere.
remember justin fashanu of the Epl great player that was openly gay.
like you is ah buller man yuhself or wah. you promoting buller man thing, talking about when we go realize that them is human being just like weself. i shoulda be dey. burn out battyness oui. wah kinda shit you bring on dis forum. yuh is ah joker or wah. yuh ever hear about hiv/aids? it was brought up for biological warfare and den mainly spreed by man shredding man batty. now dis facking ting plague d world. and you trying to preach to we dat it is ok and dat dey is only human. boy, gone from here with datshit on dis forum eh. moderators, tek dis to general discussion please.
ps- yuh only talking about remember this and remember this.ah want yuh to do meh ah favour, remember this nah>>>
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html
read these chapters: -
Leviticus 18 verse 22
Leviticus 20 verse 13
Romans 1 verse 26 & 27
2 Peter verse 5-6
den ask yuhself if we should allow battyness!! yuh mad, bun dem figging men oui :cursing:
flavio ah read this 3 times, just to make sure I understand what ya saying
I still don't...
You saying homosexuality brought HIV/AIDS to the world ?
flavio in that same bible ya pulling verses from didn't have ah verse that says "doh judge others" You know what, just put down the bible for 3 mins, or still have it under your arm, go do a google on some information about AIDS/HIV virus and you'll see where it originated from, and what was/is the real cause of it, and what steps you should take as a pre caution.
I wish to be the fly on the wall, to see the reaction of some of you all in here...when one of your best buddies or a immediate family member comes out to you.... Relationshp and friendship of many years DONE ? Makes no f*cking sense nah.
anyway
-
flavio ah read this 3 times, just to make sure I understand what ya saying
I still don't...
You saying homosexuality brought HIV/AIDS to the world ?
flavio in that same bible ya pulling verses from didn't have ah verse that says "doh judge others" You know what, just put down the bible for 3 mins, or still have it under your arm, go do a google on some information about AIDS/HIV virus and you'll see where it originated from, and what was/is the real cause of it, and what steps you should take as a pre caution.
I wish to be the fly on the wall, to see the reaction of some of you all in here...when one of your best buddies or a immediate family member comes out to you.... Relationshp and friendship of many years DONE ? Makes no f*cking sense nah.
anyway
Flavio needs to be ignored. there is no way you are going to reason with him.
-
flavio ah read this 3 times, just to make sure I understand what ya saying
I still don't...
You saying homosexuality brought HIV/AIDS to the world ?
flavio in that same bible ya pulling verses from didn't have ah verse that says "doh judge others" You know what, just put down the bible for 3 mins, or still have it under your arm, go do a google on some information about AIDS/HIV virus and you'll see where it originated from, and what was/is the real cause of it, and what steps you should take as a pre caution.
I wish to be the fly on the wall, to see the reaction of some of you all in here...when one of your best buddies or a immediate family member comes out to you.... Relationshp and friendship of many years DONE ? Makes no f*cking sense nah.
anyway
Flavio needs to be ignored. there is no way you are going to reason with him.
Thanks for the warning.
-
no you cannot sweat in the next warrior nation sweat
At least I have the guts to post something that even today seems so taboo for whatever reason,I could take the pounding,I don't have to defend who I'm...........
:o :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
This issue has been raised before,and I'm shocked that it still exist today the discrimination.
My brother In-law invited a friend of his to come play with us one day in hallandale,and the guy never hid his sexuallity,not that he was broadcasting it in anyway,but it was a dead giveaway when he showed up with his boyfriend as he was introduced. but brother-man if yuh hear them trini boy an dem wee foote ah buller in de house,me eh playing with no fudge packer,all sorts of vile,degrading gestures and words.
My point is when ah we going to realise these are human beings just like us,maybe if some people took the time to appreciate the talent and not there sexual orientation,we might get somewhere.
remember justin fashanu of the Epl great player that was openly gay.
like you is ah buller man yuhself or wah. you promoting buller man thing, talking about when we go realize that them is human being just like weself. i shoulda be dey. burn out battyness oui. wah kinda shit you bring on dis forum. yuh is ah joker or wah. yuh ever hear about hiv/aids? it was brought up for biological warfare and den mainly spreed by man shredding man batty. now dis facking ting plague d world. and you trying to preach to we dat it is ok and dat dey is only human. boy, gone from here with datshit on dis forum eh. moderators, tek dis to general discussion please.
ps- yuh only talking about remember this and remember this.ah want yuh to do meh ah favour, remember this nah>>>
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html
read these chapters: -
Leviticus 18 verse 22
Leviticus 20 verse 13
Romans 1 verse 26 & 27
2 Peter verse 5-6
den ask yuhself if we should allow battyness!! yuh mad, bun dem figging men oui :cursing:
flavio ah read this 3 times, just to make sure I understand what ya saying
I still don't...
You saying homosexuality brought HIV/AIDS to the world ?
flavio in that same bible ya pulling verses from didn't have ah verse that says "doh judge others" You know what, just put down the bible for 3 mins, or still have it under your arm, go do a google on some information about AIDS/HIV virus and you'll see where it originated from, and what was/is the real cause of it, and what steps you should take as a pre caution.
I wish to be the fly on the wall, to see the reaction of some of you all in here...when one of your best buddies or a immediate family member comes out to you.... Relationshp and friendship of many years DONE ? Makes no f*cking sense nah.
anyway
yuh say yuh read it 3 times. read it ah 4th time. i never talked about where it was originated. in fact, ah say it was used for biological warfare. den ah say that is mainly spreed through homosexuality. u f**king kidding me? ???
-
without reading the rest of this thread i would have to say nope
sadly im a homophobe and if u openly gay i cant have u and ur gayness gaying up my air while u sissyfying my football
-
I am not going to lead a crusade against homosexuals, but I do not care who I play football with or against. Also, I do not feel that the homosexual struggle should mimic the struggle of African people in the west. Homosexuality in the black community is an example of western cultural imperialism. And it is sad that some caribbean peoples have chosen the homosexuality behavior as an ideal lifestyle.
I prefer not to know someones sexual preferences when I go to play football. But if I find out I dont know what I will do.
If more black people were aware of their RICH history, there might not be any homosexuality within the black community.
-
This issue has been raised before,and I'm shocked that it still exist today the discrimination.
My brother In-law invited a friend of his to come play with us one day in hallandale,and the guy never hid his sexuallity,not that he was broadcasting it in anyway,but it was a dead giveaway when he showed up with his boyfriend as he was introduced. but brother-man if yuh hear them trini boy an dem wee foote ah buller in de house,me eh playing with no fudge packer,all sorts of vile,degrading gestures and words.
My point is when ah we going to realise these are human beings just like us,maybe if some people took the time to appreciate the talent and not there sexual orientation,we might get somewhere.
remember justin fashanu of the Epl great player that was openly gay.
like you is ah buller man yuhself or wah. you promoting buller man thing, talking about when we go realize that them is human being just like weself. i shoulda be dey. burn out battyness oui. wah kinda shit you bring on dis forum. yuh is ah joker or wah. yuh ever hear about hiv/aids? it was brought up for biological warfare and den mainly spreed by man shredding man batty. now dis facking ting plague d world. and you trying to preach to we dat it is ok and dat dey is only human. boy, gone from here with datshit on dis forum eh. moderators, tek dis to general discussion please.
ps- yuh only talking about remember this and remember this.ah want yuh to do meh ah favour, remember this nah>>>
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html
read these chapters: -
Leviticus 18 verse 22
Leviticus 20 verse 13
Romans 1 verse 26 & 27
2 Peter verse 5-6
den ask yuhself if we should allow battyness!! yuh mad, bun dem figging men oui :cursing:
flavio ah read this 3 times, just to make sure I understand what ya saying
I still don't...
You saying homosexuality brought HIV/AIDS to the world ?
flavio in that same bible ya pulling verses from didn't have ah verse that says "doh judge others" You know what, just put down the bible for 3 mins, or still have it under your arm, go do a google on some information about AIDS/HIV virus and you'll see where it originated from, and what was/is the real cause of it, and what steps you should take as a pre caution.
I wish to be the fly on the wall, to see the reaction of some of you all in here...when one of your best buddies or a immediate family member comes out to you.... Relationshp and friendship of many years DONE ? Makes no f*cking sense nah.
anyway
yuh say yuh read it 3 times. read it ah 4th time. i never talked about where it was originated. in fact, ah say it was used for biological warfare. den ah say that is mainly spreed through homosexuality. u f**king kidding me? ???
LORD....alrighty den flavio....
god bless
-
so much a tings to talk about.....what is the obsession wit de gay talk? steups!!
it have other forums for dat, not dis one!!
whats next?
1. whould u play on a team if the coach is gay?
2. would u play on a team if the coach's son likes u?
3. would u play on a team if u have to bathe naked in the shower all the time together?
4. Would u play on a team if the coach insists that u must hold each other's dicks while u pee to foster team unity?
5. would u play on a team if u see yourself secretly attracted to one or more of your teamates?
Feel free to add more fellas!! lets make sagay pinto happy!!
not sure if to say ah love it!!
Yuh make meh laugh dey boy! but unfortunately you're missing the point,no topic on this board is off limits once it's attributed to soccer on and off the field of play.
Look read carefully my friend it's a situation that actually happened and it was an eye opener for me and lot of other people who were there,listen I see on another post ah man say "stern and dwight suspended for getting into ah brawl"now upon further reading, it happened to be ah joke and real man responded in jest.
But who says the forum is limited to only post that appeal to the masses.the mere fact that you replied is that you were intrigued by what you read.But if you think it's not for you ignore it and move on.
-
ironic that this post come up considering what "Footballer$ Wives" going to be about this weekend on BBC America....noah going to ger exposed and tanya going to find out conrad gates bulling him.
Just the fact that you know all that makes this the gayest post in this whole thread.
scheups. nuff man here is watch footballers wives and dream team...but that is a past discussion.
-
I don't like to associate with them not just because i find what they do is despicaple but I just don't like the way they act. As we say in Trinidad my blood doh take dem and I make no apologies for saying so. Call it homophobia if you want.
When it comes to sweat, unless you regularly play together the only thing you know about someone is what they look like and who look like they have skills etc. You wouldn't know who are the homosexuals on field. Just play the game and go home after.
scene...we all have our beliefs. but out of curiosity...you truly believe all gays act a certain way? I think the vast majority of gay people around us 'act' no different from you or me. We probably have no clue just how many people we greet in or everyday lives are actually gay.....
Well said filho,very intelligent response!
-
so much a tings to talk about.....what is the obsession wit de gay talk? steups!!
it have other forums for dat, not dis one!!
whats next?
1. whould u play on a team if the coach is gay?
2. would u play on a team if the coach's son likes u?
3. would u play on a team if u have to bathe naked in the shower all the time together?
4. Would u play on a team if the coach insists that u must hold each other's dicks while u pee to foster team unity?
5. would u play on a team if u see yourself secretly attracted to one or more of your teamates?
Feel free to add more fellas!! lets make sagay pinto happy!!
not sure if to say ah love it!!
Yuh make meh laugh dey boy! but unfortunately you're missing the point,no topic on this board is off limits once it's attributed to soccer on and off the field of play.
Look read carefully my friend it's a situation that actually happened and it was an eye opener for me and lot of other people who were there,listen I see on another post ah man say "stern and dwight suspended for getting into ah brawl"now upon further reading, it happened to be ah joke and real man responded in jest.
But who says the forum is limited to only post that appeal to the masses.the mere fact that you replied is that you were intrigued by what you read.But if you think it's not for you ignore it and move on.
would u support the warriors if u found out the four most senior players on the team had a sex romp with each other after the bahrain game liked it and decided to bring it out in the open just befor d peru game
-
no you cannot sweat in the next warrior nation sweat
At least I have the guts to post something that even today seems so taboo for whatever reason,I could take the pounding,I don't have to defend who I'm...........
:o :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
+
Marcus allyuh good wee ogard oh yuh make meh laugh {I could take the pounding}
-
no you cannot sweat in the next warrior nation sweat
At least I have the guts to post something that even today seems so taboo for whatever reason,I could take the pounding,I don't have to defend who I'm...........
:o :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
+
Marcus allyuh good wee ogard oh yuh make meh laugh {I could take the pounding}
oh lord... saga dred yuh really dont help yuhself out sometimes...
all de respect to yuh though bredrin... keep doing yuh thing...
-
I dont think that this is a bad thread by saga pinto. We need to use this forum to talk not only football but football related issues. Homosexuality, and other social issues that plague our community needs to be discussed.
Dont get me wrong, I am not an advocate of homosexual rights or the homosexual agenda. If black children/community were taught the origins of homosexuality, trust me it will not exist within the black community.
Sorry for being to scholarly
-
ah have one question for you saga pinto? no offense eh, but how come u always bringin up topics wit gay footballers and gays in football and ting, u love dese topics breds, ur very anal when it comes 2 ur opinion about dese topics :devil:
Trininfinite ah wish ah give yuh the answer yuh looking for but I don't really know myself why I pursue these avenues my friend,it could be compassion for mankind or maybe I see things like this and wonder what if the roles were reversed how would I respond to hate or discrimination.
But ah Know ah ent bringing up ah another topic like this again breds,let me remind people to stay on topic and don't shoot or persecute the messenger.
-
I dont think that this is a bad thread by saga pinto. We need to use this forum to talk not only football but football related issues. Homosexuality, and other social issues that plague our community needs to be discussed.
Dont get me wrong, I am not an advocate of homosexual rights or the homosexual agenda. If black children/community were taught the origins of homosexuality, trust me it will not exist within the black community.
Sorry for being to scholarly
oh no... i agree with you... and we need more people like yourself who actually pose intellegent question and suggestions istead of some of these other new people that just wanna make moronic jokes and cause disunity amoungst the forumites...
big up yourself fp.
good post...
Saga Pinto is another fellah that men on this site might knock up a bit... but he provides some needed variety to the posts on this site...
-
I dont think that this is a bad thread by saga pinto. We need to use this forum to talk not only football but football related issues. Homosexuality, and other social issues that plague our community needs to be discussed.
Dont get me wrong, I am not an advocate of homosexual rights or the homosexual agenda. If black children/community were taught the origins of homosexuality, trust me it will not exist within the black community.
Sorry for being to scholarly
The problem with that is that their will never be a rational discussion with regard to 'taboo' topics because as you have noticed a lot of posters on here are bible thumpers
So once ah man start off with "de bible say dat how......." yuh lorse de debate arready, cause dem fellahs does take dey bible as real life
Ah know some ah allyuh religious fellahs bristlin an ting eh?...I really doh mean no offence, if yuh beleive in yuh good book, respect....it simply is that mean that allyuh and me commin from two radically different perspectives
Pure logic vs printed page.
-
I dont think that this is a bad thread by saga pinto. We need to use this forum to talk not only football but football related issues. Homosexuality, and other social issues that plague our community needs to be discussed.
Dont get me wrong, I am not an advocate of homosexual rights or the homosexual agenda. If black children/community were taught the origins of homosexuality, trust me it will not exist within the black community.
Sorry for being to scholarly
The problem with that is that their will never be a rational discussion with regard to 'taboo' topics because as you have noticed a lot of posters on here are bible thumpers
So once ah man start off with "de bible say dat how......." yuh lorse de debate arready, cause dem fellahs does take dey bible as real life
Ah know some ah allyuh religious fellahs bristlin an ting eh?...I really doh mean no offence, if yuh beleive in yuh good book, respect....it simply is that mean that allyuh and me commin from two radically different perspectives
Pure logic vs printed page.
Another good response!Well said dutty.......
-
I am always down for the intelligent posts.
These guys who quoting the western bible dont know that their "good book" was actually used as a tool of oppression during the enslavement period in the west.
I think they should make a room for the intelligent "trinis" who want to talk real life issues. Football talk is good, but football is purely entertainment.
Our community in Trinidad, Canada, Uk and the America is becoming a permanent "underclass". And it is sad that only some of us are willing to talk about these issues that affect us in real life.
Saga dont worry about the post. Dont let some of these guys try and suggest that you are of that persuasion.
-
would u support the warriors if u found out the four most senior players on the team had a sex romp with each other after the bahrain game liked it and decided to bring it out in the open just befor d peru game
Remember dis one?
Dwight Yorke
(with guest appearance from Mark Bosnich, 1998)
Vital ingredients Four girls, a hidden video, dressing up in women's clothing
Dwight Yorke's nocturnal activities in Manchester have attracted the displeasure of his manager Alex Ferguson on a number of occasions. His most notorious moment came when he secretly videoed a drink-fuelled sex romp involving himself, the then Villa keeper Mark Bosnich and four girls at his luxury house in Sutton Coldfield. The video showed Yorke and Bosnich giving thumbs-ups to the secret camera and wearing women's clothing. Yorke later threw the video out with his rubbish, but unfortunately for him a 'Sun reader' found it and the pictures were then shared with a disbelieving nation.
-
allyuh fellas could go play wid battybwoy.. Mi nuh talk wid dem..mi nuh walk wid dem ..Mi nuh play ball wid dem.. I rather not play at all!!!!!!! emagine if battybwoy was playing? Nuff man go sex him..he go open him leg jes fi get sexs!!!! wah wrong wid sum of allyuh dread?? bout a nuh nothin dat ? battybwoy better go play hop scotch or sumthin doh cum round Warmonga!!!!!!!!!!
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: War, yuh good boy...
-
These guys who quoting the western bible dont know that their "good book" was actually used as a tool of oppression during the enslavement period in the west.
You really think people haven't heard that before?
You come across too elitist to help the same "underclass" you refer to.
If you just trying to provoke interest in the topic then fine but funny enough you sounding like an aristocrat. :beermug:
-
If black children/community were taught the origins of homosexuality, trust me it will not exist within the black community.
Sorry for being to scholarly
Scholarly my ass. Yuh just sounding bigoted. You know for sure dat man wasn't running around back in Africa jumping man in d bush. Yuh was dey.
-
How do you know they were? Do you know anyone from the continent (Africa?). Prior to europeans coming to Africa, there was no word for homosexuality in any indigenous African languages. Check out "civilization or barbarism" by Cheik Anta Diop.
Maybe your right homosexuality might have been practiced in Africa, but the value and symbolic domination associated with that behavior is european based.
It doesnt matter what colour you are, go learn your history.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
-
Ques. when did europeans start coming to Africa again
-
I dont think that this is a bad thread by saga pinto. We need to use this forum to talk not only football but football related issues. Homosexuality, and other social issues that plague our community needs to be discussed.
Dont get me wrong, I am not an advocate of homosexual rights or the homosexual agenda. If black children/community were taught the origins of homosexuality, trust me it will not exist within the black community.
Sorry for being to scholarly
The problem with that is that their will never be a rational discussion with regard to 'taboo' topics because as you have noticed a lot of posters on here are bible thumpers
So once ah man start off with "de bible say dat how......." yuh lorse de debate arready, cause dem fellahs does take dey bible as real life
Ah know some ah allyuh religious fellahs bristlin an ting eh?...I really doh mean no offence, if yuh beleive in yuh good book, respect....it simply is that mean that allyuh and me commin from two radically different perspectives
Pure logic vs printed page.
:applause: :applause:
Dutty ah proud....ah feel like meh weekend go start off good.
-
without reading the rest of this thread i would have to say nope
sadly im a homophobe and if u openly gay i cant have u and ur gayness gaying up my air while u sissyfying my football
<looks around for verb>
<waits> :devil:
-
fire bun de mackomehman
send him to play up in africa savannah
ah go beat it out ah him
if ah mackomehman marking me on ah corner and rub on meh he DEAD
yeah ah know allyuh doh like meh
hard luck :beermug:
-
They go kill him in Afica too,no sweat for he nah :devil:
-
I supposed it shouldn't matter the person's sexual orientation if you're engaged in a game of football. If yuh going out and lime wid he and he man after de game...well das ah different story.
-
Football Prof
I am neither for or against homosexuality. If he does not interfere with me. No sweat.If he could pass, tackle and shoot better than you, I picking him before you. Is football. And besides he could probabaly design a real nice kit for d team.
Yes, there has been Western Cultural imperialism. And i guess you are saying that the acceptance of homosexuality is just another example of the man forcing us to accept something that is alien to our african culture. I can see the point. What I don't see is homosexuality as being among the major problems of the african diaspora.
-
Football Prof
I am neither for or against homosexuality. If he does not interfere with me. No sweat.If he could pass, tackle and shoot better than you, I picking him before you. Is football. And besides he could probabaly design a real nice kit for d team.Yes, there has been Western Cultural imperialism. And i guess you are saying that the acceptance of homosexuality is just another example of the man forcing us to accept something that is alien to our african culture. I can see the point. What I don't see is homosexuality as being among the major problems of the african diaspora.
:rotfl: :rotfl: ah swear this is de best site on the web.
-
Cops save three alleged homosexuals from angry crowd
KARYL WALKER, Observer staff reporter
Thursday, February 15, 2007
These three men, who were branded as homosexuals, are rescued by the police after being locked inside the Monarch Pharmacy in St Andrew for about an hour yesterday. The man at front ducks after being hit on the head by a stone thrown by a member of the angry mob which had gathered outside the pharmacy and demanded that the three be handed over to them. (Photo: Garfield Robinson)
THREE men branded as homosexuals were yesterday rescued by the police from an angry mob outside a pharmacy in Tropical Plaza, where they had been holed up for almost an hour.
But even after the police managed to take the young men from the Monarch Pharmacy, one of the three was hit with a stone, forcing officers to fire tear gas on the crowd which included men, women, teenagers and small children.
The approximately 2,000 people gathered outside the Kingston pharmacy hurled insults at the three men, with some calling for them to be killed.
The crowd grew larger as the minutes ticked by and the three men and staff inside the pharmacy were visibly terrified as the mob demanded that they be sent out so they could administer their brand of justice. "Send them out!" shouted one man.
The men, who all had bleached-out faces, and dressed in tight jeans pants and skimpy shirts, were saved due to quick action by police from the St Andrew Central Division.
When the officers arrived and attempted to push the crowd back from the front door of the businessplace they were greeted with some resistance and when they attempted to escort the men to a police service vehicle, which was parked near to the entrance of the pharmacy, one of the alleged homosexuals was hit on the back of the head with a stone as he flashed a wry smile before attempting to hustle inside the police car.
The cops were forced to disperse the large mob by dispensing tear gas canisters and whisking the men away as the crowd scampered in all directions in an effort to escape the irritating fumes.
One man in the crowd was determined to get a chance to beat them and hurled insults at the police when they drove out of the premises.
"Unu can come save them nasty boy yah? Them boy yah fi go down," the man bellowed.
One woman expressed surprise at the brazenness of the men who were clearly displaying effeminate behaviour.
"Jamaica has lost its way if men think they can openly flaunt being gay without any consequences. We don't want that kind of open gay life in this country," the woman said.
Homosexuality is frowned upon in Jamaica and gay rights groups have constantly branded the island as anti-gay.
Under Jamaican law a male can be slapped with a sentence of up to nine years if caught in a compromising position with another man.
-
Cops save three alleged homosexuals from angry crowd
KARYL WALKER, Observer staff reporter
Thursday, February 15, 2007
These three men, who were branded as homosexuals, are rescued by the police after being locked inside the Monarch Pharmacy in St Andrew for about an hour yesterday. The man at front ducks after being hit on the head by a stone thrown by a member of the angry mob which had gathered outside the pharmacy and demanded that the three be handed over to them. (Photo: Garfield Robinson)
THREE men branded as homosexuals were yesterday rescued by the police from an angry mob outside a pharmacy in Tropical Plaza, where they had been holed up for almost an hour.
But even after the police managed to take the young men from the Monarch Pharmacy, one of the three was hit with a stone, forcing officers to fire tear gas on the crowd which included men, women, teenagers and small children.
The approximately 2,000 people gathered outside the Kingston pharmacy hurled insults at the three men, with some calling for them to be killed.
The crowd grew larger as the minutes ticked by and the three men and staff inside the pharmacy were visibly terrified as the mob demanded that they be sent out so they could administer their brand of justice. "Send them out!" shouted one man.
The men, who all had bleached-out faces, and dressed in tight jeans pants and skimpy shirts, were saved due to quick action by police from the St Andrew Central Division.
When the officers arrived and attempted to push the crowd back from the front door of the businessplace they were greeted with some resistance and when they attempted to escort the men to a police service vehicle, which was parked near to the entrance of the pharmacy, one of the alleged homosexuals was hit on the back of the head with a stone as he flashed a wry smile before attempting to hustle inside the police car.
The cops were forced to disperse the large mob by dispensing tear gas canisters and whisking the men away as the crowd scampered in all directions in an effort to escape the irritating fumes.
One man in the crowd was determined to get a chance to beat them and hurled insults at the police when they drove out of the premises.
"Unu can come save them nasty boy yah? Them boy yah fi go down," the man bellowed.
One woman expressed surprise at the brazenness of the men who were clearly displaying effeminate behaviour.
"Jamaica has lost its way if men think they can openly flaunt being gay without any consequences. We don't want that kind of open gay life in this country," the woman said.
Homosexuality is frowned upon in Jamaica and gay rights groups have constantly branded the island as anti-gay.
Under Jamaican law a male can be slapped with a sentence of up to nine years if caught in a compromising position with another man.
well dat right dey sounds like 3/4 ah de male population in jamaica...well not so much wid de bleachin dat is more wid de oman n dem lol :devil:
-
The men, who all had bleached-out faces, and dressed in tight jeans pants and skimpy shirts,
Under Jamaican law a male can be slapped with a sentence of up to nine years if caught in a compromising position with another man.
well dat right dey sounds like 3/4 ah de male population in jamaica...well not so much wid de bleachin dat is more wid de oman n dem lol :devil:
Ent...I was going and say de same ting.
I wonder if they lock up anybody on that law....before the mob get them.
-
and these are supposedly "real" men in de mob? they dont have anything better to do with their time than to attack people...People real like to waste their own energy yes!
-
Cops save three alleged homosexuals from angry crowd
KARYL WALKER, Observer staff reporter
Thursday, February 15, 2007
These three men, who were branded as homosexuals, are rescued by the police after being locked inside the Monarch Pharmacy in St Andrew for about an hour yesterday. The man at front ducks after being hit on the head by a stone thrown by a member of the angry mob which had gathered outside the pharmacy and demanded that the three be handed over to them. (Photo: Garfield Robinson)
THREE men branded as homosexuals were yesterday rescued by the police from an angry mob outside a pharmacy in Tropical Plaza, where they had been holed up for almost an hour.
But even after the police managed to take the young men from the Monarch Pharmacy, one of the three was hit with a stone, forcing officers to fire tear gas on the crowd which included men, women, teenagers and small children.
The approximately 2,000 people gathered outside the Kingston pharmacy hurled insults at the three men, with some calling for them to be killed.
The crowd grew larger as the minutes ticked by and the three men and staff inside the pharmacy were visibly terrified as the mob demanded that they be sent out so they could administer their brand of justice. "Send them out!" shouted one man.
The men, who all had bleached-out faces, and dressed in tight jeans pants and skimpy shirts, were saved due to quick action by police from the St Andrew Central Division.
When the officers arrived and attempted to push the crowd back from the front door of the businessplace they were greeted with some resistance and when they attempted to escort the men to a police service vehicle, which was parked near to the entrance of the pharmacy, one of the alleged homosexuals was hit on the back of the head with a stone as he flashed a wry smile before attempting to hustle inside the police car.
The cops were forced to disperse the large mob by dispensing tear gas canisters and whisking the men away as the crowd scampered in all directions in an effort to escape the irritating fumes.
One man in the crowd was determined to get a chance to beat them and hurled insults at the police when they drove out of the premises.
"Unu can come save them nasty boy yah? Them boy yah fi go down," the man bellowed.
One woman expressed surprise at the brazenness of the men who were clearly displaying effeminate behaviour.
"Jamaica has lost its way if men think they can openly flaunt being gay without any consequences. We don't want that kind of open gay life in this country," the woman said.
Homosexuality is frowned upon in Jamaica and gay rights groups have constantly branded the island as anti-gay.
Under Jamaican law a male can be slapped with a sentence of up to nine years if caught in a compromising position with another man.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
Apparently you can now get asylum in the US if you're gay and are afraid of persecution in your home country. A mexican just got through:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16895639/
-
Apparently you can now get asylum in the US if you're gay and are afraid of persecution in your home country. A mexican just got through:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16895639/
well yes....dem fellahs done booking their ticket all now.
-
Apparently you can now get asylum in the US if you're gay and are afraid of persecution in your home country. A mexican just got through:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16895639/
well yes....dem fellahs done booking their ticket all now.
Dat remind me of the fella in MASH who used to get dressed in drag all the time so that he could get sen home as ah mad man. ;D ;D
-
(http://helmi.home.pages.at/special/19961003/mash/media/kling5.jpg)
-
(http://helmi.home.pages.at/special/19961003/mash/media/kling5.jpg)
Klinger, dat man was funny as hell..... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
straight gunshot fi dem . from yu sex innah bottom dead yu fi dead
this f**kin dancing ting bringing out all de battyman dem innah ja right now.. jes de odda day mi watching a video of a bashment innah canada and mi see nuff man a wine pon man batty. fya bun all male dancers..
war..
-
sounds like those 3 fags couldn't harm a fly. So why so much hate and fear from a 2,000 strong mob? and were the mob intending to do to them? stone them to death? lynch them up by their necks?
very backward behaviour for this day and age...
-
sounds like those 3 fags couldn't harm a fly. So why so much hate and fear from a 2,000 strong mob? and were the mob intending to do to them? stone them to death? lynch them up by their necks?
very backward behaviour for this day and age...
fear?? mob nuh fear battyman
war..
-
sounds like those 3 fags couldn't harm a fly. So why so much hate and fear from a 2,000 strong mob? and were the mob intending to do to them? stone them to death? lynch them up by their necks?
very backward behaviour for this day and age...
fear?? mob nuh fear battyman
war..
fear, hate, whatever...... the fact remains in this day and age you can't go around mob handed wanting to kill fags
it's as bad as a bunch of white Southern hicks from Alabama who think it's acceptable to hang a man because his skin is darker
-
thank u jay for speaking sense...watever a person personal decision is daz dey own bizness..me eh see why i wud even want to waste my own time to gather a mob to attack someone jus becuz they happen to be gay
-
thank u jay for speaking sense...watever a person personal decision is daz dey own bizness..me eh see why i wud even want to waste my own time to gather a mob to attack someone jus becuz they happen to be gay
more women for us right :beermug:
-
Apparently you can now get asylum in the US if you're gay and are afraid of persecution in your home country. A mexican just got through:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16895639/
Canada seems to have a similar reputation as well.
However, there is a case right now involving a Mexinan man who is claiming that if he is sent home, he will be killed because he is homosexual.
It was initially denied because the immigration officer reviewing the case did not find evidence that he was homosexual. She said he left mexico when he was 14 years old and is unlikely that he was sexually active.
So the claim was denied on the lack of sexual activity that would proved he was gay!!!
-
allyuh yardies have NO CLUE how many of yuh fellow country men are hard core batty boys.
Face the facts, the media & society begining to show alot of acceptance & support for gays and it doh matter if we like it or not, cause times are changing and we have to accept it.
It have gays in EVERY COUNTRY in the world so get over it, allyuh need to worry bout improving yuh poerty stricken island instead of "fire bunnin de batty man"
ps
TRINI have alot of batty man too, but atleast ours have WORLD CLASS TALENT (real trini's know who i talkin bout)
-
straight gunshot fi dem . from yu sex innah bottom dead yu fi dead
this f**kin dancing ting bringing out all de battyman dem innah ja right now.. jes de odda day mi watching a video of a bashment innah canada and mi see nuff man a wine pon man batty. fya bun all male dancers..
war..
hahaha,you wouldnt last 5 minutes in my town! ;)
-
sounds like those 3 fags couldn't harm a fly. So why so much hate and fear from a 2,000 strong mob? and were the mob intending to do to them? stone them to death? lynch them up by their necks?
very backward behaviour for this day and age...
fear?? mob nuh fear battyman
war..
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Is you a batty bwai yaself?I tink so
-
allyuh yardies have NO CLUE how many of yuh fellow country men are hard core batty boys.
Face the facts, the media & society begining to show alot of acceptance & support for gays and it doh matter if we like it or not, cause times are changing and we have to accept it.
It have gays in EVERY COUNTRY in the world so get over it, allyuh need to worry bout improving yuh poerty stricken island instead of "fire bunnin de batty man"
ps
TRINI have alot of batty man too, but atleast ours have WORLD CLASS TALENT (real trini's know who i talkin bout)
I don't agree with this. That kind of thinking is partly responsible for the systematic dumbing down and down right deterioration of culture globally. This why some people think Britney Spears is an artist and Anna Nicole Smith's chile fadda could stay on the news for more than a week.
Seriously though what I trying to say is that you don't have to accept anything simply because that is the new mainstream position. Its just a flawed rationale.
With respect to that incident in Jamaica that was barbaric and stupid. You can't decide to stone people juss so. At least the police was there to save them men because its very like that they would have been killed. Society must have order and to tolerate that kind of barbarism is grusome way to live.
-
Third world behaviour,unfortunately. :o
-
allyuh yardies have NO CLUE how many of yuh fellow country men are hard core batty boys.
Face the facts, the media & society begining to show alot of acceptance & support for gays and it doh matter if we like it or not, cause times are changing and we have to accept it.
It have gays in EVERY COUNTRY in the world so get over it, allyuh need to worry bout improving yuh poerty stricken island instead of "fire bunnin de batty man"
ps
TRINI have alot of batty man too, but atleast ours have WORLD CLASS TALENT (real trini's know who i talkin bout)
I don't agree with this. That kind of thinking is partly responsible for the systematic dumbing down and down right deterioration of culture globally. This why some people think Britney Spears is an artist and Anna Nicole Smith's chile fadda could stay on the news for more than a week.
Seriously though what I trying to say is that you don't have to accept anything simply because that is the new mainstream position. Its just a flawed rationale.
With respect to that incident in Jamaica that was barbaric and stupid. You can't decide to stone people juss so. At least the police was there to save them men because its very like that they would have been killed. Society must have order and to tolerate that kind of barbarism is grusome way to live.
i livin in gay rights central (NYC) and i see how much power the gays have so is not that we just accepting it and we dumbing down we thinking...Yuh have to choose yuh battles and thanks to the great world power of america the gays having their say now.
God will deal with everyone in due time but fuh we livin here we hadda suck salt (NO PUN INTENDED)
People can have their views BUT AMERICAN MEDIA makes it very hard to express your self if you have an unpopular opinion.
The nba just ban tim hardway for saying he hate gays or something along those lines.
POP CULTURE IS ALL BOUT MAKING $$$
AMERICA IS ALL BOUT $$$
GAYS IN POP CULTURE= $$$ (broke back, queer eye, the L word, elton etc)
i am in no way defending them but allyuh have to understand whats going on in the world today..its their time. Even the Quran & the Bible say so
if yuh cant deal with it go live in de bush in debe
-
Third world behaviour,unfortunately. :o
...just that one sentence said it all.
:applause:
-
Third world behaviour,unfortunately. :o
U Trinis really make me laugh. Most of u too dumb to know that Trinidad is also classified as 3rd world.
Well anyway, them chich get beat because they was arguin with a woman and acting all feminine, the argument got heated and one throw water on the girl thats why they get them arse kick. I prefer JA to react like this towards them than allow them to walk free and JA get gay-infested like Trinidad.
-
Third world behaviour,unfortunately. :o
U Trinis really make me laugh. Most of u too dumb to know that Trinidad is also classified as 3rd world.
Well anyway, them chich get beat because they was arguin with a woman and acting all feminine, the argument got heated and one throw water on the girl thats why they get them arse kick. I prefer JA to react like this towards them than allow them to walk free and JA get gay-infested like Trinidad.
me think thou doth protest too much.
-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=10nyrk6ukK4
look at wha happen to shabba back in 1992
-
It's funny how supposedly straight men tend to be the biggest gay bashers. I wonder why? Is it that if you call a man a fag and batty boy and those other gutter names that it would somehow make you more male? Do you think that because a guy is gay that he is naturally interested in every man? That would be equal to every heterosexual man or woman being interested in every single woman or man they encounter.
Such stone-age behaviour and thinking.
Tim Hardaway unfortunately is not the only person with such feelings as is certainly expressed by some on this thread. He is a prime example of how you can take the pig out of the gutter but you cannot take the gutter out of the pig. Money obviously has done nothing good for him and he has no class.
Maybe we should go back to lynching blacks too.
-
http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=24386.msg266016#msg266016
-
Third world behaviour,unfortunately. :o
U Trinis really make me laugh. Most of u too dumb to know that Trinidad is also classified as 3rd world.
Well anyway, them chich get beat because they was arguin with a woman and acting all feminine, the argument got heated and one throw water on the girl thats why they get them arse kick. I prefer JA to react like this towards them than allow them to walk free and JA get gay-infested like Trinidad.
Hahaaaaaaa :rotfl: :rotfl:Im English man,asshole!
-
Third world behaviour,unfortunately. :o
U Trinis really make me laugh. Most of u too dumb to know that Trinidad is also classified as 3rd world.
Well anyway, them chich get beat because they was arguin with a woman and acting all feminine, the argument got heated and one throw water on the girl thats why they get them arse kick. I prefer JA to react like this towards them than allow them to walk free and JA get gay-infested like Trinidad.
Hahaaaaaaa :rotfl: :rotfl:Im English man,asshole!
Well behave urself then battybwoy. Don't come round here disrespecting the caribbean by using that term. We take offense to the term itself, and u shouldn't use it in that context, bout 3rd world behaviour. Know ur place son.
-
As a Caribbean person, I take greater offence at beling lumped in with people who use use terms like battyboy and fire bun dem. He wasn't wrong tuh call the mentality third world. He was very kind if you ask me.
-
Fer real Lion ,jus case man like tah bull man ,dosen't give other the rite to kill them jed .It take all kinds to make the world go round ,even them rump humpers gold diggers ,from break yah back mountain . So stop the hate .
-
i say Jakans do harm to people wid names of "parts of animals"
I bet ya opinion would change one time if ya fellow country men would be stupid enuff to do harm to people so. right bro?
-
Third world behaviour,unfortunately. :o
U Trinis really make me laugh. Most of u too dumb to know that Trinidad is also classified as 3rd world.
Well anyway, them chich get beat because they was arguin with a woman and acting all feminine, the argument got heated and one throw water on the girl thats why they get them arse kick. I prefer JA to react like this towards them than allow them to walk free and JA get gay-infested like Trinidad.
Hahaaaaaaa :rotfl: :rotfl:Im English man,asshole!
Well behave urself then battybwoy. Don't come round here disrespecting the caribbean by using that term. We take offense to the term itself, and u shouldn't use it in that context, bout 3rd world behaviour. Know ur place son.
read the whole thing properly.I repeated what HE called ME.Cant you understand that.And I know my place,and i dont think its on here.Ill be even kinder,take the third world bit back,and call it badly educated and medieval behaviour.
-
yo daddy o ,don trip ,he's jamaican and he can't run you off the site .Trinidadians dont kill the more feminine versions of the male spicies ,we ...might make a little fun of them ;D ,.But them jakan 's have a very seriuos problem concerning this issue :o ,but even Lionpaw is a product off his environment in Jamiaca ,....really he can't even change his mentality,to become more understanding towards there genetic makeup... cause if he does he will be labelled a gay lover :rotfl: ,so take it easyon him am sure he won't personally kill any guy ppl :rotfl: ,he cool man .
-
yeh,ok Compre.wouldnt it be funny if there was a monthly board members meet up? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
yo daddy o ,don trip ,he's jamaican and he can't run you off the site .Trinidadians dont kill the more feminine versions of the male spicies ,we ...might make a little fun of them ;D ,.But them jakan 's have a very seriuos problem concerning this issue :o ,but even Lionpaw is a product off his environment in Jamiaca ,....really he can't even change his mentality,to become more understanding towards there genetic makeup... cause if he does he will be labelled a gay lover :rotfl: ,so take it easyon him am sure he won't personally kill any guy ppl :rotfl: ,he cool man .
I wouldn't be so sure. Anyone who can continuously condone and propose that kind of venom has great potential to carry it out. We should never go "easy" on any person who rants about killing another human being for whatever reason and then have the gall to suggest that all Caribbean people feel the same as he does.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
If fire has to bun anything it should be that kind of mentality.
-
Third world behaviour,unfortunately. :o
U Trinis really make me laugh. Most of u too dumb to know that Trinidad is also classified as 3rd world.
Well anyway, them chich get beat because they was arguin with a woman and acting all feminine, the argument got heated and one throw water on the girl thats why they get them arse kick. I prefer JA to react like this towards them than allow them to walk free and JA get gay-infested like Trinidad.
Hahaaaaaaa :rotfl: :rotfl:Im English man,asshole!
Well behave urself then battybwoy. Don't come round here disrespecting the caribbean by using that term. We take offense to the term itself, and u shouldn't use it in that context, bout 3rd world behaviour. Know ur place son.
all of a sudden "we" are offended? I thought that you were saying (methinks, crowing) that Trinidad is third world?
-
Third world behaviour,unfortunately. :o
U Trinis really make me laugh. Most of u too dumb to know that Trinidad is also classified as 3rd world.
Well anyway, them chich get beat because they was arguin with a woman and acting all feminine, the argument got heated and one throw water on the girl thats why they get them arse kick. I prefer JA to react like this towards them than allow them to walk free and JA get gay-infested like Trinidad.
Hahaaaaaaa :rotfl: :rotfl:Im English man,asshole!
Well behave urself then battybwoy. Don't come round here disrespecting the caribbean by using that term. We take offense to the term itself, and u shouldn't use it in that context, bout 3rd world behaviour. Know ur place son.
read the whole thing properly.I repeated what HE called ME.Cant you understand that.And I know my place,and i dont think its on here.Ill be even kinder,take the third world bit back,and call it badly educated and medieval behaviour.
Ok Mr. First World. Let me ask u though. Is it first world behaviour when the english, hooligan fans go around starting riots in the streets whenever England loses a match? Is that highly educated behaviour?
-
yo daddy o ,don trip ,he's jamaican and he can't run you off the site .Trinidadians dont kill the more feminine versions of the male spicies ,we ...might make a little fun of them ;D ,.But them jakan 's have a very seriuos problem concerning this issue :o ,but even Lionpaw is a product off his environment in Jamiaca ,....really he can't even change his mentality,to become more understanding towards there genetic makeup... cause if he does he will be labelled a gay lover :rotfl: ,so take it easyon him am sure he won't personally kill any guy ppl :rotfl: ,he cool man .
That isn't genetic don. Plus, before u comment, u must read. These men weren't beaten because they act or dress feminine. They are known homos. Feminine men are found all over the world. Yardie dont attack feminine men(cause they can be straight), we attack homos. Homosexuality is against the Law in JA so the citizens were merely upholding the LAW. Gayness may be legal in Trini but it isn't in JA so don't come condemning us because our culture, and our laws aren't the same as yours. Child Molesters, thieves and even gunmen get beat in public too but they don't highlight those stories. Why must gays get special treatment? They are criminals just the same out here.
-
Yo gangster ,read me post in "who's this fool " . And you know what ,yes ah have to condemning that stupid arcaic law ras ,daiz like Alabama in the 1910 killing a black man for watching a white oman .Think about it nah Lion Paw ,gosh lol . it not rite to kill ppl .Some they have tings to offer society e.g if allyah don't kill them ,you guys will have great clothes designers down there .....and won't dress so ridiculous :rotfl:
Ps and yes sometimes it is genetic due to chromosomes ,and the genes get likkle f**k up ,so they really female in a male body :o ...is true ,yes is true lol .
-
Lionpaw...anybody ever get convicted or arrested on that law? Cuz some old laws just there and never change but nobody use it.
For all I know it might be a law in T&T too.
-
Lionpaw...anybody ever get convicted or arrested on that law? Cuz some old laws just there and never change but nobody use it.
For all I know it might be a law in T&T too.
Yeah man. Police catch two businessmen in the act in mobay bout a yr ago and they were arrested and charged. No one out here actually hunt them down or nuttin. It's just when they come out in public with their slackness they get put in their place. A gay has never been reported murdered by a mob they just get beaten.
-
Third world behaviour,unfortunately. :o
U Trinis really make me laugh. Most of u too dumb to know that Trinidad is also classified as 3rd world.
Well anyway, them chich get beat because they was arguin with a woman and acting all feminine, the argument got heated and one throw water on the girl thats why they get them arse kick. I prefer JA to react like this towards them than allow them to walk free and JA get gay-infested like Trinidad.
Hahaaaaaaa :rotfl: :rotfl:Im English man,asshole!
Well behave urself then battybwoy. Don't come round here disrespecting the caribbean by using that term. We take offense to the term itself, and u shouldn't use it in that context, bout 3rd world behaviour. Know ur place son.
read the whole thing properly.I repeated what HE called ME.Cant you understand that.And I know my place,and i dont think its on here.Ill be even kinder,take the third world bit back,and call it badly educated and medieval behaviour.
Ok Mr. First World. Let me ask u though. Is it first world behaviour when the english, hooligan fans go around starting riots in the streets whenever England loses a match? Is that highly educated behaviour?
Now listen.I dont claim to be any better a person than you,but even fellow board members are shooting ya down.Go and live in Iran or Iraq,stone the queers to death if you must.But think about your actions and thoughts.Its not that many years ago since black man was beaten in the streets of the USA.What was his crime?Being different?Think about it.
Oh,and as regards the violence thing,ask someone who takes part,cos i dont.
-
No one out here actually hunt them down or nuttin. It's just when they come out in public with their slackness they get put in their place. A gay has never been reported murdered by a mob they just get beaten.
So then,
all the songs about violence against gays don't make you feel a bit uneasy
and how about the open talk by some poster on this forum about "straight gunshot fi dem"
does that kind of talks not make you feel un-easy ???
as I said earlier maybe if it directly affected you, your opinions may change.
we can only wish
and about the English hooligans, i can tell you that it is not tolerated by the fans of Sunderland on their forum.
I have not yet heard any SONGS about glorifying hooliganism, unlike some reggae singers talking about violence against gays.
if you want to see REAL garbage go to the South Melbourne FC forum where violence is OPENLY condoned by forum members and EVEN bagging of their OWN black players.
a direct quote
""I was astounded to be surrounded by a bunch of immature, bigoted, fickle macho knobs with the kind of attitude that no doubt only serves to justify South's exclusion from the A-League. I was witness to countless 'n*gg*r' comments as well as an impromptu rendition of a KKK song from the worthless scum in the back row of the grandstand.
Further, wtf is with the open bagging of South players""
http://www.smfcboard.com/
lets hope that they are able to change their attitudes before they are accepted into the A league.
-
No one out here actually hunt them down or nuttin. It's just when they come out in public with their slackness they get put in their place. A gay has never been reported murdered by a mob they just get beaten.
So then,
all the songs about violence against gays don't make you feel a bit uneasy
and how about the open talk by some poster on this forum about "straight gunshot fi dem"
does that kind of talks not make you feel un-easy ???
as I said earlier maybe if it directly affected you, your opinions may change.
we can only wish
and about the English hooligans, i can tell you that it is not tolerated by the fans of Sunderland on their forum.
I have not yet heard any SONGS about glorifying hooliganism, unlike some reggae singers talking about violence against gays.
if you want to see REAL garbage go to the South Melbourne FC forum where violence is OPENLY condoned by forum members and EVEN bagging of their OWN black players.
a direct quote
""I was astounded to be surrounded by a bunch of immature, bigoted, fickle macho knobs with the kind of attitude that no doubt only serves to justify South's exclusion from the A-League. I was witness to countless 'n*gg*r' comments as well as an impromptu rendition of a KKK song from the worthless scum in the back row of the grandstand.
Further, wtf is with the open bagging of South players""
http://www.smfcboard.com/
lets hope that they are able to change their attitudes before they are accepted into the A league.
Point taken, but what u not understanding is that when we in JA say gunshot fi them, or fire burn dem, we are metaphorically expressing ourselves. As I said b4, no one actually hunts them down and kill them, contrary to what the foreign media reports. All they get is a good beating if they pass their place. They are not "under attack" out here. Thieves are far more likely to get murdered by mobs. One even got killed at UWI after he tried to steal a car. The mob chase him down into a gutter filled with shitty water and light fire around it so he couldn't come out and stoned him to death. Things like that dont happen to gays.
The other day I was reading bout two gays that lived together out here in Portmore. People in the neighbourhood were suspicious of them but never harmed them. Upon seeing this, they took it to the next level by staging some kinda mock, fun wedding crap, with limousines and all. When the people realized what went on, they torched their house and destroy their cars and run them out of our city. So u see, it's when they try to publicize their behaviour they get dealt with.
Also, the reason why we fight against them is that they are mostly child-molesters out here. Problem is, due to the lack of fags out here, the gays turn to the poor kids in the streets and buy clothes, shoes and some even take them into their homes and take care of them while buggerin them. These are kids 10-15 I'm talking about. Is that right in your opinion? Fire burn gays.
-
When the people realized what went on, they torched their house and destroy their cars and run them out of our city. So u see, it's when they try to publicize their behaviour they get dealt with.
Also, the reason why we fight against them is that they are mostly child-molesters out here. Problem is, due to the lack of fags out here, the gays turn to the poor kids in the streets and buy clothes, shoes and some even take them into their homes and take care of them while buggerin them. These are kids 10-15 I'm talking about. Is that right in your opinion? Fire burn gays.
First paragraph: so the police just hang back and watch? or do the police try to STOP that shit from happeneing
the point I am trying to make is that it seems to be the job of the police to charge people if they break a law and NOT for the average person on the street to take the law into their own hands...
Does that not make sense to straight PEOPLE in Jamaica. I would think not
Second paragraph: yes it is NOT acceptable for adults to prey on young people for their sexual pleasure, but again it is the job of the police to do their job and procsecute those who break the law.
-
No one out here actually hunt them down or nuttin. It's just when they come out in public with their slackness they get put in their place. A gay has never been reported murdered by a mob they just get beaten.
So then,
all the songs about violence against gays don't make you feel a bit uneasy
and how about the open talk by some poster on this forum about "straight gunshot fi dem"
does that kind of talks not make you feel un-easy ???
as I said earlier maybe if it directly affected you, your opinions may change.
we can only wish
and about the English hooligans, i can tell you that it is not tolerated by the fans of Sunderland on their forum.
I have not yet heard any SONGS about glorifying hooliganism, unlike some reggae singers talking about violence against gays.
if you want to see REAL garbage go to the South Melbourne FC forum where violence is OPENLY condoned by forum members and EVEN bagging of their OWN black players.
a direct quote
""I was astounded to be surrounded by a bunch of immature, bigoted, fickle macho knobs with the kind of attitude that no doubt only serves to justify South's exclusion from the A-League. I was witness to countless 'n*gg*r' comments as well as an impromptu rendition of a KKK song from the worthless scum in the back row of the grandstand.
Further, wtf is with the open bagging of South players""
http://www.smfcboard.com/
lets hope that they are able to change their attitudes before they are accepted into the A league.
Point taken, but what u not understanding is that when we in JA say gunshot fi them, or fire burn dem, we are metaphorically expressing ourselves. As I said b4, no one actually hunts them down and kill them, contrary to what the foreign media reports. All they get is a good beating if they pass their place. They are not "under attack" out here. Thieves are far more likely to get murdered by mobs. One even got killed at UWI after he tried to steal a car. The mob chase him down into a gutter filled with shitty water and light fire around it so he couldn't come out and stoned him to death. Things like that dont happen to gays.
The other day I was reading bout two gays that lived together out here in Portmore. People in the neighbourhood were suspicious of them but never harmed them. Upon seeing this, they took it to the next level by staging some kinda mock, fun wedding crap, with limousines and all. When the people realized what went on, they torched their house and destroy their cars and run them out of our city. So u see, it's when they try to publicize their behaviour they get dealt with.
Also, the reason why we fight against them is that they are mostly child-molesters out here. Problem is, due to the lack of fags out here, the gays turn to the poor kids in the streets and buy clothes, shoes and some even take them into their homes and take care of them while buggerin them. These are kids 10-15 I'm talking about. Is that right in your opinion? Fire burn gays.
gay paedophiles now eh?whatever next?haitian gay paedophiles?
-
Police in many Caribbean countries are not relied upon by people. Runaway crime and corruption within the ranks has eroded public confidence in the authorities.
T&T not far behind though people are showing restraint with the vigilante vibes.
-
Police in many Caribbean countries are not relied upon by people. Runaway crime and corruption within the ranks has eroded public confidence in the authorities.
T&T not far behind though people are showing restraint with the vigilante vibes.
very sad but i figure that your observation is correct
-
No one out here actually hunt them down or nuttin. It's just when they come out in public with their slackness they get put in their place. A gay has never been reported murdered by a mob they just get beaten.
So then,
all the songs about violence against gays don't make you feel a bit uneasy
and how about the open talk by some poster on this forum about "straight gunshot fi dem"
does that kind of talks not make you feel un-easy ???
as I said earlier maybe if it directly affected you, your opinions may change.
we can only wish
and about the English hooligans, i can tell you that it is not tolerated by the fans of Sunderland on their forum.
I have not yet heard any SONGS about glorifying hooliganism, unlike some reggae singers talking about violence against gays.
if you want to see REAL garbage go to the South Melbourne FC forum where violence is OPENLY condoned by forum members and EVEN bagging of their OWN black players.
a direct quote
""I was astounded to be surrounded by a bunch of immature, bigoted, fickle macho knobs with the kind of attitude that no doubt only serves to justify South's exclusion from the A-League. I was witness to countless 'n*gg*r' comments as well as an impromptu rendition of a KKK song from the worthless scum in the back row of the grandstand.
Further, wtf is with the open bagging of South players""
http://www.smfcboard.com/
lets hope that they are able to change their attitudes before they are accepted into the A league.
Point taken, but what u not understanding is that when we in JA say gunshot fi them, or fire burn dem, we are metaphorically expressing ourselves. As I said b4, no one actually hunts them down and kill them, contrary to what the foreign media reports. All they get is a good beating if they pass their place. They are not "under attack" out here. Thieves are far more likely to get murdered by mobs. One even got killed at UWI after he tried to steal a car. The mob chase him down into a gutter filled with shitty water and light fire around it so he couldn't come out and stoned him to death. Things like that dont happen to gays.
The other day I was reading bout two gays that lived together out here in Portmore. People in the neighbourhood were suspicious of them but never harmed them. Upon seeing this, they took it to the next level by staging some kinda mock, fun wedding crap, with limousines and all. When the people realized what went on, they torched their house and destroy their cars and run them out of our city. So u see, it's when they try to publicize their behaviour they get dealt with.
Also, the reason why we fight against them is that they are mostly child-molesters out here. Problem is, due to the lack of fags out here, the gays turn to the poor kids in the streets and buy clothes, shoes and some even take them into their homes and take care of them while buggerin them. These are kids 10-15 I'm talking about. Is that right in your opinion? Fire burn gays.
dis view on acceptable and unacceptable behavior towards homosexuals funny too bad .. :rotfl:
"lack of fags" causes the "gays to turn to poor kids"..... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
For trooth, dis should be in de Joke section :rotfl: :rotfl:
btw, pedophilia is not a result of "gayness".
Just as some gays are pedophiles, there are straights who are pedophiles ..
There is nothing right with pedophilia ... that has nothing to do with homosexuals. If yuh believe dat, den fire burn all straights to.
ah still laughing :rotfl:
-
the reasoning starts to fall apart when the testing of the theory makes the perpetrators of the ideology finally realise their short comings
-
Large number of gay cops
Homosexuals in the JCF get high marks for performance
By T K Whyte Sunday Observer correspondent
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Like their counterparts in many other parts of the world, Jamaican cops are learning to live with a large and growing number of gay and lesbian colleagues, in a profession known to be typically hard on homosexuals.
But the increase in the number of homosexuals has apparently caught the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) off guard. There is no official policy on gays in the constabulary, and while it has been acknowledged that they are many - one cop used the term "rampant" - actual figures have not been compiled.
"We have quite a large number of them (gays and lesbians) in the force but they are not openly acknowledged. They are still in the closet," said head of the police legal affairs division, Inspector Gladys Brown-Campbell.
Brown-Campbell, a lawyer, also admitted that the force did not have a policy on how they must be treated, and in the absence of official policy on gays, the police force treated homosexual cops as any other members of the force.
"If an offence is reported against them, it is investigated and if proven, they are usually dealt with to the full extent of the law, and that is to place them before the courts," Brown-Campbell told the Sunday Observer in an interview.
"They are not treated differently from other offenders of the law at all. There is no policy on how to treat them," she emphasised.
Supporting Brown-Campbell, Police Officers Association (POA) chairman, Superintendent Norman Heywood, insisted that although the force had no policy to deal with homosexuals, the rule of law would be enforced if the offence of buggery was committed by any police officer.
"We still have buggery as an offence on the law books, and if a police officer commits this offence, the rule of law will be enforced," said Heywood.
But other cops say differently, some alleging that homosexual officers who broke the law were usually transferred to a division of the JCF which they did not want to name but which they said was well-known to the men and women in uniform.
A recent incident in which a senior cop allegedly forced a teenager to have oral sex with him and was sent to that dubious division, is now threatening to drive the issue of homosexuality in the force out into the open.
Sunday Observer sources said disgruntled police personnel assigned to that division have warned they would take "drastic action" soon if the offending policeman, a corporal, was not removed from the division.
The corporal's colleagues have refused to work with him and are calling on Police Commissioner Lucius Thomas to immediately transfer him "so that we can get on with normal police work".
Police officers who asked for anonymity told the Sunday Observer that the alleged incident took place in November last year when the 19-year-old youth arrived at the Kingston Divisional Headquarters from deep rural St Elizabeth to spend time with his cousin, a district constable living at the headquarters.
The story is that the corporal invited the youth to accompany him on an assignment in Portmore, St Catherine. On their way back, the cop took the young man to his St Andrew home for lunch and cooked him a "sumptuous meal".
After lunch, the corporal allegedly slipped an X-rated homosexual movie into his DVD player and attempted to fondle the young man, who resisted. The corporal is then said to have taken out his 9mm service pistol, placed it on a dresser in his bedroom to intimidate the young man and asked to have oral sex with him.
Fearing for his life, the youth complied, but later reported the ordeal to his outraged parents in St Elizabeth who reportedly stormed into the police divisional office and demanded that action be taken against the gay cop.
Police there promised to get to the bottom of the matter, but nothing has so far been done, the parents and enraged cops complained.
A high-ranking divisional commanding officer, who also didn't want his name called, confirmed the incident in an interview with the Sunday Observer.
"There was a homosexual contact between the sub-officer (corporal) and the young man," the commanding officer said.
He suggested that the corporal was likely to be transferred from the division, adding that the matter had been dealt with "internally and professionally".
But the protesting cops at the division declared that they were incensed by their colleague's conduct, alleging that he was one of five homosexuals now assigned to the division.
They accused the police high command of "dumping" policemen with homosexual tendencies in the division once they get into trouble.
"We are very concerned that our work with thousands of young Jamaicans could be compromised and badly set back if the public, especially parents and guardians, lose faith in us and our effectiveness," said an inspector who also requested anonymity.
But, if Brown-Campbell is to be believed, the offending cop was not typical of homosexuals in the force, who, she said, were tolerated and respected by their heterosexual colleagues.
"Those who we know are treated with a great level of respect as they themselves are respectful, refined and intelligent, their level of intelligence far outshines persons considered to be normal. The force has quite a number of them, men and women," she said.
Brown-Campbell gave gay cops high marks for performance, describing them as "the best set of police to work with".
She said straight cops did not mind working with them, adding that since 2003, the force had developed "a tolerance level as they do not bring their sexual advances to straight cops".
"They are very professional workers and their colleagues treat them professionally and work with them," the JCF legal advisor asserted.
Another senior cop suggested that the police force "is just mirroring the ills of the society".
-
ah hate d idea of battyism (gay men & women (sorry fellas but dats jus as sick) )
but wat upsets me the most this part
But even after the police managed to take the young men from the Monarch Pharmacy, one of the three was hit with a stone, forcing officers to fire tear gas on the crowd which included men, women, teenagers and small children.
y involve children ???
THREE men branded as homosexuals were yesterday rescued by the police from an angry mob outside a pharmacy in Tropical Plaza, where they had been holed up for almost an hour.
n d police sayin dey were speedy ... :devil:
oh n nex ting ... ah fine some peps respondin like batty boys ... no names called ::)
-
I remember that show wid shabba boi i was rel young at the time. I dont agree wid the gay ting but i would never go and harm a gay person. I dont have time to study fighting down gays. like they say fisherman does study fish. But its wrong how they promotin all this gay shit on tv just for the sake of it. if they do big brother they must put 3-4 gays/lesbians in it while they fail to put even 2 black or indian people. soon people go beat u up for being straight :D but what is really wrong is all this banning artist. You tell me how in january beenie man can come to the UK and do plenty tv show and promotion when releasing a tune for virgin records. but when its time to do a concert in brixton in june hes somehow promoting anti gay behaviour. And eminem can do sell out concert all over di friggin place and it never get ban. If u want gay rights thats 1 ting but they takin the shit too far. these anti gay protesters actually compare their situation wid being ethnic. they can hide wat they r if they needed to wid ya colour u cant not that we would want to.
-
ehh gyal yuh have a mouse in yuh pocket , talking bout we? yuh think you're exempt, don't you know you would pass in the linching too. let me just remind you cocopanyol is nigger too!!!
-
Also, the reason why we fight against them is that they are mostly child-molesters out here. Problem is, due to the lack of fags out here, the gays turn to the poor kids in the streets and buy clothes, shoes and some even take them into their homes and take care of them while buggerin them. These are kids 10-15 I'm talking about. Is that right in your opinion? Fire burn gays.
LP, they have conflicting studies on the relation between pedophilia and homosexuality. some say there's a link, others say there isn't. if is as you say, then i can see why people would react so.
-
ehh gyal yuh have a mouse in yuh pocket , talking bout we? yuh think you're exempt, don't you know you would pass in the linching too. let me just remind you cocopanyol is nigger too!!!
ah hope u understands dat nigger is a way of life
:angel:
-
(http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/5508/478rbtiev5.jpg)
(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4209/48yf15gfo8.jpg)
(http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/4159/2mhejxwwi9.jpg)
(http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/34/2i78si1vy7.jpg)
(http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1605/40m8pehpj2.jpg)
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8440/2zpv91vek3.jpg)
-
straight gunshot fi dem . from yu sex innah bottom dead yu fi dead
this f**kin dancing ting bringing out all de battyman dem innah ja right now.. jes de odda day mi watching a video of a bashment innah canada and mi see nuff man a wine pon man batty. fya bun all male dancers..
war..
eh? Are you trini?
-
Outward showing of violent intent by Jamacians and VH1 on we case, STEEUUPPPPSS >:(
-
As much as I abhor the idea of homosexuality I could never bring myself to hate the actual homosexuals. After see those pictures I empathize with the victims.
Anyway I would like to pose a question to fellow posters on this thread: How would you feel if you own son(s) was behaving in such a manner ie dressing in tight clothing, processing his hair in a feminine manner etc?
-
As much as I abhor the idea of homosexuality I could never bring myself to hate the actual homosexuals. After see those pictures I empathize with the victims.
Anyway I would like to pose a question to fellow posters on this thread: How would you feel if you own son(s) was behaving in such a manner ie dressing in tight clothing, processing his hair in a feminine manner etc?
I would not want to live in a country that has a free forall crowd thinking that they have a right to hurt anyone
-
As much as I abhor the idea of homosexuality I could never bring myself to hate the actual homosexuals. After see those pictures I empathize with the victims.
Anyway I would like to pose a question to fellow posters on this thread: How would you feel if you own son(s) was behaving in such a manner ie dressing in tight clothing, processing his hair in a feminine manner etc?
I would not want to live in a country that has a free forall crowd thinking that they have a right to hurt anyone
I agree West, but my question was how would you feel if your own flesh and blood was like that.
-
Third world behaviour,unfortunately. :o
U Trinis really make me laugh. Most of u too dumb to know that Trinidad is also classified as 3rd world.Well anyway, them chich get beat because they was arguin with a woman and acting all feminine, the argument got heated and one throw water on the girl thats why they get them arse kick. I prefer JA to react like this towards them than allow them to walk free and JA get gay-infested like Trinidad.
We don't recognize these bullsh*t classifcations.
-
Also, the reason why we fight against them is that they are mostly child-molesters out here. Problem is, due to the lack of fags out here, the gays turn to the poor kids in the streets and buy clothes, shoes and some even take them into their homes and take care of them while buggerin them. These are kids 10-15 I'm talking about. Is that right in your opinion? Fire burn gays.
LP, they have conflicting studies on the relation between pedophilia and homosexuality. some say there's a link, others say there isn't. if is as you say, then i can see why people would react so.
I know yes. Lotta ppl misunderstanding mi post. I wasn't saying thay homosexuality causes pedophilia or that the two go hand in hand, I was merely stating the facts of what going on out here. They takin advantage of the poor window-washer little boys. That's a regular occurence out here, that's why I say fire bun.
-
Do You support Homo's?
I jes wondering do you support Battyman and dem lesbian dem. I do not support dem or watch television stations who big up gays. I do not support anything gay. I dispise battyman and lesbians. For example I do not watch any movie wid lesbian or battyman actors. it could be a bad man movie once I know de actors dem gay I aint watching it. I doh watch mtv because dey big up homos , I doh listen no radio stations who big up gays . weys allyuh fealings towards gays? Voice it nuh. Mi wife keep tellin mi to get over it . she have couple a gay friends mi ban from comming to my functions. I also have a homo cousin dat I doh talk to and I banned him from comming by me. I put out a warning to him next time I see him I go beat him Till him turn straight. weys allyuh fealing towards dem ? are they human ? I does feal sorry for dem, but for sum reason homos doh like straight people and dais wey does get mi mad. dem does look at we like we have a problem.
war..
-
Hilarious ... ah going tuh blame Cantona007 :rotfl: :rotfl: weeeey sah, DAT was rich!
Ah sure it eh have nutten he eh geh off he chest dey ;D
Reminds me of a thread Touches drop a while back ... de one with Yardman and certain words yuh cyah say.
-
not big on the idea, but being black and handicapped I have faced my fair share of intolerance, so in general adopt a "to each his own" "live and let live" policy on such things. there is enough evidence to fight the case that a particular person body chemistry might make homosexuality a biological imperative and not just a perverse urge for some
-
i do not condone homosexuality but every where yuh turn it in yuh face,on de news,on de streets,tv,music,so war we cyar get away.just make sure nutten go up your ass.i have nutten against lesbians.love girl on girl action.pure jockin material.
-
i do not condone homosexuality but every where yuh turn it in yuh face,on de news,on de streets,tv,music,so war we cyar get away.just make sure nutten go up your ass.i have nutten against lesbians.love girl on girl action.pure jockin material.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
This thread set de record fuh being a classic de fastest ...
-
Hilarious ... ah going tuh blame Cantona007 :rotfl: :rotfl: weeeey sah, DAT was rich!
Ah sure it eh have nutten he eh geh off he chest dey ;D
Reminds me of a thread Touches drop a while back ... de one with Yardman and certain words yuh cyah say.
Breds, doh put me in your confusion :devil:
...and yes War; tell us what you really think... doh hold back :rotfl:
-
i do not condone homosexuality but every where yuh turn it in yuh face,on de news,on de streets,tv,music,so war we cyar get away.just make sure nutten go up your ass.i have nutten against lesbians.love girl on girl action.pure jockin material.
Let me spoil yuh JM; girl-on-girl featuring: Rosie O'Donnell and Janet Reno
-
I jes wondering do you support Battyman and dem lesbian dem. I do not support dem or watch television stations who big up gays. I do not support anything gay. I dispise battyman and lesbians. For example I do not watch any movie wid lesbian or battyman actors. it could be a bad man movie once I know de actors dem gay I aint watching it. I doh watch mtv because dey big up homos , I doh listen no radio stations who big up gays . weys allyuh fealings towards gays? Voice it nuh. Mi wife keep tellin mi to get over it . she have couple a gay friends mi ban from comming to my functions. I also have a homo cousin dat I doh talk to and I banned him from comming by me. I put out a warning to him next time I see him I go beat him Till him turn straight. weys allyuh fealing towards dem ? are they human ? I does feal sorry for dem, but for sum reason homos doh like straight people and dais wey does get mi mad. dem does look at we like we have a problem.
war..
On a serious note, War; you cannot be that dogmatic. Family is family. Would you have the same rule for a sibling? Your wife has the right idea; if they don't bother you, then don't bother them.
-
i do not condone homosexuality but every where yuh turn it in yuh face,on de news,on de streets,tv,music,so war we cyar get away.just make sure nutten go up your ass.i have nutten against lesbians.love girl on girl action.pure jockin material.
Let me spoil yuh JM; girl-on-girl featuring: Rosie O'Donnell and Janet Reno
nutten wrong with them if they want to suck toelee now and then.once yuh wood slippin from mouth to mouth just close yuh eyes and tink bout carmen electra and pamela anderson.
-
I does feal sorry for dem, but for sum reason homos doh like straight people and dais wey does get mi mad. dem does look at we like we have a problem.
war..
buh wuh de ass?
war you mad oui...how yuh mean homo doh like straight people.
Is must because yuh does watch dem with ah screw face..dey watch yuh back hard
de people eh studyin to tackle you...dey know yuh not gay, so dem eh studyin to track you
if you eh like de people..fine...jus doh try and buss dey head for no reason
oh and I is a BIG supporter of lesbians...well,,as long as they hot..
-
I have a lot of female friends who gay (well think they gay anyway ;) ) and is a cool scene. I interacted before with gay men, but that's their thing it have nothing to do with me. So let thing big up they self.
-
I does feal sorry for dem, but for sum reason homos doh like straight people and dais wey does get mi mad. dem does look at we like we have a problem.
war..
buh wuh de ass?
war you mad oui...how yuh mean homo doh like straight people.
Is must because yuh does watch dem with ah screw face..dey watch yuh back hard
de people eh studyin to tackle you...dey know yuh not gay, so dem eh studyin to track you
if you eh like de people..fine...jus doh try and buss dey head for no reason
oh and I is a BIG supporter of lesbians...well,,as long as they hot..
Doh mean to mash up de thread, but Dutty... "off Broadway pornographic FILMS???" Where to begin ??? :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
This is a good church for you to join warmonga.
fits right in with your views.
I am always amazed! really and truly.
-
I really like allyuh feedback man. alyuh being real and dais wey I like. I for sum reason jes cya support dem. and for dat fella who say close yu eyes and feal sey carmen electra blowing yu , yu have problem mi bredda . I rather do without a blow job.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
war..
-
I really like allyuh feedback man. alyuh being real and dais wey I like. I for sum reason jes cya support dem.
Well I here because Dutty in ah next thread aks mih to come and support him...
-
i do not condone homosexuality but every where yuh turn it in yuh face,on de news,on de streets,tv,music,so war we cyar get away.just make sure nutten go up your ass.i have nutten against lesbians.love girl on girl action.pure jockin material.
Let me spoil yuh JM; girl-on-girl featuring: Rosie O'Donnell and Janet Reno
Rosie O'Donnell & Janet REEEE 4king NOOOOO..................oh gaddddooooo :devil: :devil:
War, I buyin what KickerMan ;D selling in dis post
On a serious note, War; you cannot be that dogmatic. Family is family. Would you have the same rule for a sibling? Your wife has the right idea; if they don't bother you, then don't bother them.
-
I really like allyuh feedback man. alyuh being real and dais wey I like. I for sum reason jes cya support dem. and for dat fella who say close yu eyes and feal sey carmen electra blowing yu , yu have problem mi bredda . I rather do without a blow job.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
war..
MTV over does that shit the have a shot of luv with that bi girl ... now the have a double shot of love with twins bisexual sisters.. I have a supervisor at work who is openly gay well let me say he is a fagget.. imagine if you was like me who had to work with a person like that
Bruce Golding NO GAYS go to 3:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeVy5Sp6xyw&feature=PlayList&p=039497E38CF60201&playnext=1&index=3
-
twins bisexual sisters ??? come again?
-
I have gay friends, co workers, neighbours and who knows maybe family....so the hell what ?
War, for once listen to your wife. One day, you'll eat all these words of hate boy....one day!
And we wonder why our childen behave like how they do today....
-
twins bisexual sisters ??? come again?
and again and again .
-
twins bisexual sisters ??? come again?
and again and again .
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
Ah Guyanese baller ah know say he used to deal twin sisters (also Guyanese) somewhere in Jersey ... during 'intermission' he reports dey would deal wid each other ... dem giving double helix all kinda new dimension ... ah had plenty questions ... dahis a fella doh brakes from nutten
-
I really like allyuh feedback man. alyuh being real and dais wey I like. I for sum reason jes cya support dem. and for dat fella who say close yu eyes and feal sey carmen electra blowing yu , yu have problem mi bredda . I rather do without a blow job.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
war..
War, the mere fact that you ask for feedback and that you actually thinking about this means that you thinking about your stance so there is hope for you yet (not being condescending). Oh; as for that "fella" with the Carmen Electra pretend BJ... dais Capo, and he on a next level... :devil: :notworthy:
-
War
Hate the sin and not the sinner.
Some people just born so...can't do nuttin bout it.
Others is pure vice
The rest I feel is learnt behaviour...they first experience is with a man and dey like it. Or they were abused etc.
Not all gay fellas does act "fairyish" in fact some of the most straight looking, girls men who slinging totee regular and who have wife, chile etc taking nuff totee under low.
It surprised me years after I left school who in my class turn out to be bullermen or who we thought were bullermen were not so inclined.
But yuh must just leave each to his own...once they ent come round you and yuh bamsee intact yuh safe.
Now I agree with you that certain channels and ting promoting the lifestyle and yrs ago it was not as in the open. But this group is now a major player in the world and very powerful. They hold high positions in every facet of society and they are powerful.
Dont let them bother you.
P.S...What not to like bout lesbian...4 bress and 2 box...double the pleasure.
-
twins bisexual sisters ??? come again?
look the link
http://www.mtv.com/ontv/dyn/a_double_shot_at_love/series.jhtml?extcmp=SEO_SSP_Y
-
I support everybody , black, white, indian, asian, gay, straight, bi. After all I probably have all of the above in my family and extended family. teach my children not to look down on anybody because of their looks and beliefs unless they called Osama. See no reason why gay people should not have the same rights as everyone else, after all it wasnt so long ago that blacks in the US and in the world didnt have equal rights and in some areas there still is inequality. The way I figure it is somewhere along the line a gay man or woman voted to pass a law that directly positively affect me and my kidlets, so I see no reason why I shouldn't return the favor. And if a gay couple move in across the street from me, as long as they are not criminals or kiddie touchers, I'll welcome them with open arms.
Used to live in the city when I was single. Had a gay neighbour. I was a party girl, used to go out clubbing, never spoke to my neighbour until one night when I got home too drunk to open my door. Kept dropping my keys. My neighbour came outside, took my keys, helped me in put me to bed and let himself out. Let himself back in next morning with a bloody mary, a bottle of aspirin and a ice pack for my headache. After that, when ever I went clubbing, he went with me or he was a phone call away if I got smashed. And no I am not an alcoholic, but I was as I said, a party girl back then. One man I would trust with my life other than my husband, is that former neighbour of mine.
I have a brother in law, always walking around saying out loud he don't like faggots. In front his little 6 year old. Six year old walking around saying the same thing, don't know what it means but soon will.
And this is how hate is created.
-
i AM lesbian! war so haul yuh ass...Cana darling ...oh reds....... ;)
-
i AM lesbian! war so haul yuh ass...Cana darling ...oh reds....... ;)
I know dat ya is ah lesbian. Nothing wrong with that. Ah go still heng wid ya douxs.
But uhmm I cyah frien' up wid ya, because if ah only unhook meh bra in front ya ya go get jealous. And if is one ting dis red oman cyah stand is ah 5 foot 8 inches, envious, jealous long plait bitch... >:(
So close up dem eye when ah changing eh?
Ah have guesess dat surprise meh on dis day ah borneth and dey making ruction in meh kitchen, lemme go before dey bun down meh cave.
-
I laugh when i see this post, because i had type up a thread about this a week ago but somehow it got deleted.
my position has always been, i man doh promote but at the same time i try not to make it an issue.
I think its wrong, and for the life of me I cannot understand what a man could see in a next hardback man when it have all these sweet, beautiful, soft skin, flowing hair, natural wonders of the world women out here to look at.. In fact, I struggle enough to understand how women are attracted to the male species when i look at how some of my partners does keep deyselves far less to even reach to understand ah next man climbing man back.
But this whole homosexuality issue has been somewhat of a hurdle for me since moving to the US. I cyah really adapt to how up front and in your face the whole thing is. I go never be comfortable liming in a bar and 2 men roll in holding hands and intimate..
just recently, a brethren of mine from antigua, real cool fellah but outta timing and rough round de edges like dem normal antiguans.. and when de mark buss, de man is a bisexual (whatever that term means, because if yuh on de fence yuh over de fence).
That one real mash meh up because he doh look de part at all, de man real cool and also is the only other black man in meh class so is like ah on meh own now. But all the same I just operate as normal, but that said i eh going and lime with yuh and doh bring up no talk about yuh lifestyle cause we go have a problem.
Since that I realize i now prefer to have to deal with the fruity ones to the undercover ones because at least I know what yuh bowling and u know where i stand. Imagine I telling this story to meh aunt and getting a lecture about, "you need to deal with your problems with homosexuality and your homophobia". Steups... yuh eh see de world gone mad? Women like to encourage this business too, but that is just because they could get to lime with a man who is not a threat to tackle dem.
My point is if it so right then it should not be a problem if more people were gay than straight in this world, and no one procreated so any more. Not so?
War.. doh hate. is man like you so go have a son who more interested in ballet and barbie than football.. how yuh go deal with that one if it come to pass?
PS: I admit my double standard, because i doh have the same issues when it comes to two women. But at the same time, two women rubbing up is a whole different kettle of fish from ah man taking blade. Even most women find that disgusting.
-
I doh understand why allyuh fighting up over what two next man doing in de confines of dey bedroom.
Unless is you or yours dey bullin' turn yuh head, avert yuh eyes and mind yuh business... not that hard.
-
I support people who care about being decent human beings; because in my life experience those are the ones who have been there for me not to mention enhanced my life. It have some people on this forum who like to act like they are sophisticated and worldly when in fact they are, not only small minded but very closed minded. A person's sexual orientation is a small part of a person's make up. If people choose to like or dislike someone bases on their sexual orientation and not on the quality of human being a person is then you are missing out big time. Is the same way people have choosen to like or dislike another based on skin colour, gender, race and hair texture. People are people, if you have an issue with someone who is gay,from my knowledge and experience it usually means one has some insecurities about ones own sexuality. Imagine the type of world we would be living in if people were open to accepting each other for who they are, instead of using other people's differences as a means to make 'themselves' feel 'better' and 'secure' about what and who they are.
-
Mi wife keep tellin mi to get over it
Listen to yuh wife
-
when Jah create man, he tell adam, " boy, go forth an multiply". if God wanted man to be wid man, an woman to be wid woman den same sex couples wuda be able to reproduce. d point is homosexuality eh natural an it wrong in d sight of d Lord.
at d end of d day, i doh support dem, but i eh discriminatin neither. once gays cud deal wid watever judgement Jah give dem, i really doh business.
bless!!
-
when Jah create man, he tell adam, " boy, go forth an multiply". if God wanted man to be wid man, an woman to be wid woman den same sex couples wuda be able to reproduce. d point is homosexuality eh natural an it wrong in d sight of d Lord.
at d end of d day, i doh support dem, but i eh discriminatin neither. once gays cud deal wid watever judgement Jah give dem, i really doh business.
bless!!
Assuming that there is a God and he has spoken to man, and it eh man who make up story to control other man....;)
-
when Jah create man, he tell adam, " boy, go forth an multiply". if God wanted man to be wid man, an woman to be wid woman den same sex couples wuda be able to reproduce. d point is homosexuality eh natural an it wrong in d sight of d Lord.
at d end of d day, i doh support dem, but i eh discriminatin neither. once gays cud deal wid watever judgement Jah give dem, i really doh business.
bless!!
Assuming that there is a God and he has spoken to man, and it eh man who make up story to control other man....;)
to each his own boo
-
when Jah create man, he tell adam, " boy, go forth an multiply". if God wanted man to be wid man, an woman to be wid woman den same sex couples wuda be able to reproduce. d point is homosexuality eh natural an it wrong in d sight of d Lord.
at d end of d day, i doh support dem, but i eh discriminatin neither. once gays cud deal wid watever judgement Jah give dem, i really doh business.
bless!!
Assuming that there is a God and he has spoken to man, and it eh man who make up story to control other man....;)
that is why man create religion.
-
Boy!! yuh know JC like to stay clear of ppl and they bogus argument BC the first thing allyuh does say is i'm ah racist.
anyway, this ultra conservative mantality we english speaking caribbeans have is indicative of our colonial masters in more ways than one, even more than we're willing to admit.
every other of our colonial counterparts , forinstance , puerto rico , cuba, martinique, haiti, are all less threaten by certain life styles that most english speaking caribbeans may find offensive.
the fact that sex education is freely taught in most westernminded European countries with the exception of england and america, red light districts and marijuana cafes throughout europe with the exception of britain should be a testimony to our closed mindedness and conservatism.
english speaking countries are less progressive in terms of human relations, issues like the legalisation of marijuana and prostitution should no longer be an issue,and should be considered on the level of alcohol consumption, but is frowned opon by former britsh colonies.
which bring us to homosexuality. i happen to know a few homosexuals , as a matter of fact my cousin whom i grew up with from childhood is openly gay, and we sometimes have in-dept discussions about his sexual orientation.
@ first i hated him BC of the way i was raised to view homosexuality, as a matter of fact sexuality on the whole, just like most members on the board. but after living in the U.S. for so long and interacted with so many differant life styles i kinda came to terms with it.
and what i discovered through having these conversations with my cousin and other folks was that these ppl had no choice in their sexual orientation, did any of us had any thing to do with us being straight? or our skin colour, or the colour of our hair, our height, hair texture?? no!!
homosexuality IMO is a birth defect!! no one chooses to be gay, it's that simple! my cousin has no straight friends, no family support, no sympathy from his parents. the whole family does laugh behind his back and call him names, who the fack would choose that life style for themselves!
i think jesus said it best when the scribes and Pharisees despised him for liming with prostitutes , drunks and tax collectors who were deemed sinful in those days.
he said " those that are well don't need a physician but those that are sick do".
the woman that was caught in adultery was exonerated by the christ as well when he said to the angry mob who wanted to stone her to death, " those of you without sin cast the first stone".
all former british colonies have this backward medieval bible thumping ultra Conservative view of the world, while other europeans has become progressive in their thinking as knowledge increased, britain & their former colonies choose to remain in ignorance.
it's time to upgrade ppl, remember life is filled with circumstances,and the best way to deal with it is with an open level mind and from a knowledgable scientific prospective. after all yuh can't judge ah man unless yuh walk ah mile in his shoes.
war i will leave yuh with this clip from ninja man about his stance on gays. it's almost @ the end of the clip so yuh could forward to the end. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XLfOEP9G-k&feature=related
-
JC i eh tink man does born with ah need fuh cock.that is an acquired mental disorder created by de nasty destructive nature of man.
-
I support people who care about being decent human beings; because in my life experience those are the ones who have been there for me not to mention enhanced my life. It have some people on this forum who like to act like they are sophisticated and worldly when in fact they are, not only small minded but very closed minded. A person's sexual orientation is a small part of a person's make up. If people choose to like or dislike someone bases on their sexual orientation and not on the quality of human being a person is then you are missing out big time. Is the same way people have choosen to like or dislike another based on skin colour, gender, race and hair texture. People are people, if you have an issue with someone who is gay,from my knowledge and experience it usually means one has some insecurities about ones own sexuality. Imagine the type of world we would be living in if people were open to accepting each other for who they are, instead of using other people's differences as a means to make 'themselves' feel 'better' and 'secure' about what and who they are.
Tell dem...tell dem...
-
JC i eh tink man does born with ah need fuh cock.that is an acquired mental disorder created by de nasty destructive nature of man.
Capo that's the easy way out, God gave us ah beautiful computer on top our shoulders to challenge us by creating complexed situations on the planet so we could trouble shoot and problem solve through reasoning and careful thought, not for us to sweep things under the rug with simplistic analogies and and boring cliches.
come on man challenge yuh self with that million dollar piece of equipment on yuh shoulders.
-
JC i eh tink man does born with ah need fuh cock.that is an acquired mental disorder created by de nasty destructive nature of man.
Capo that's the easy way out, God gave us ah beautiful computer on top our shoulders to challenge us by creating complexed situations on the planet so we could trouble shoot and problem solve through reasoning and careful thought, not for us to sweep things under the rug with simplistic analogies and and boring cliches.
come on man challenge yuh self with that million dollar piece of equipment on yuh shoulders.
so men like hitler,jones,koresh and de list could go on,wuh was wrong with them computer.it have ah sayin...yuh make children,yuh doh make they mind.is de same ting god gave man freewill.what we do with it.
-
so men like hitler,jones,koresh and de list could go on,wuh was wrong with them computer.it have ah sayin...yuh make children,yuh doh make they mind.is de same ting god gave man freewill.what we do with it.
You seriously trying to compare sexual orientation to criminal psychopathy dred?
-
all is destructive behaviour.just different levels.
-
JC i eh tink man does born with ah need fuh cock.that is an acquired mental disorder created by de nasty destructive nature of man.
Capo that's the easy way out, God gave us ah beautiful computer on top our shoulders to challenge us by creating complexed situations on the planet so we could trouble shoot and problem solve through reasoning and careful thought, not for us to sweep things under the rug with simplistic analogies and and boring cliches.
come on man challenge yuh self with that million dollar piece of equipment on yuh shoulders.
so men like hitler,jones,koresh and de list could go on,wuh was wrong with them computer.it have ah sayin...yuh make children,yuh doh make they mind.is de same ting god gave man freewill.what we do with it.
come on capo! more cliches.
-
JC i eh tink man does born with ah need fuh cock.that is an acquired mental disorder created by de nasty destructive nature of man.
Capo that's the easy way out, God gave us ah beautiful computer on top our shoulders to challenge us by creating complexed situations on the planet so we could trouble shoot and problem solve through reasoning and careful thought, not for us to sweep things under the rug with simplistic analogies and and boring cliches.
come on man challenge yuh self with that million dollar piece of equipment on yuh shoulders.
so men like hitler,jones,koresh and de list could go on,wuh was wrong with them computer.it have ah sayin...yuh make children,yuh doh make they mind.is de same ting god gave man freewill.what we do with it.
come on capo! more cliches.
lol.oh lord,this could go on whole nite.goodnite sir.
-
all is destructive behaviour.just different levels.
Yep one is assholes who destroy .
and one is destroy assholes .
-
all is destructive behaviour.just different levels.
Yep one is assholes who destroy .
and one is destroy assholes .
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :beermug:
-
talking bout gay ahhhh just cool wha yah doing :rotfl:
Paste
capodetutticapi 11:30:53 PM Viewing the board Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Online
Compre 11:30:51 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Online
southeastPOS 11:30:50 PM Viewing the topic Latapy the little magician who worked hard, but played harder.
Online
100% Barataria 11:30:43 PM Posting a new topic in Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:30:40 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:29:58 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:29:57 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Online
1-868 11:28:45 PM Viewing the board Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:28:30 PM Viewing the topic West Indies vs. Australia - Final.
Guest 11:27:45 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:26:23 PM Viewing the topic T&T U-20s for warm up in SVG, Sao Paolo.
Guest 11:25:51 PM Viewing the topic Trinis in Action (Jan 03, 2009).
Guest 11:25:24 PM Viewing the topic FA Cup .
Online
Ngozi 11:24:49 PM Viewing the topic Trinis in Action (Jan 03, 2009).
Online
just cool 11:24:23 PM Viewing the topic **THE OFFICIAL HUNKS THREAD**.
Guest 11:23:02 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:22:43 PM Unknown Action
Online
JDB 11:22:36 PM Viewing the topic Do You support Homo's? .
Online
Babalawo 11:22:16 PM Viewing the topic TRINICANA!!! .
Online
Socafan 11:21:55 PM Viewing the board Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Online
rotatopoti3 11:21:53 PM Viewing the topic TRINICANA!!! .
Guest 11:20:27 PM Viewing the topic Coaches impress with players.
Online
Cantona007 11:20:12 PM Viewing the board Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:19:39 PM Viewing the topic Trinis in Action (Jan 03, 2009).
Guest 11:19:24 PM Viewing the board Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:18:52 PM Viewing the topic Haiti reaches Carib Cup semis..
Guest 11:18:34 PM Viewing the topic Latapy the little magician who worked hard, but played harder.
Guest 11:18:17 PM Viewing the topic paraguay Vs Mexico.
Online
Mose 11:17:48 PM Viewing the board Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:17:47 PM Viewing the topic Trinis in Action (Jan 03, 2009).
Pages: [1] 2
Powered by SMF 1.1.6 | SMF 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC | XHTML | Red Essence by: 2008, Crip
-
talking bout gay ahhhh just cool wha yah doing :rotfl:
Paste
capodetutticapi 11:30:53 PM Viewing the board Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Online
Compre 11:30:51 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Online
southeastPOS 11:30:50 PM Viewing the topic Latapy the little magician who worked hard, but played harder.
Online
100% Barataria 11:30:43 PM Posting a new topic in Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:30:40 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:29:58 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:29:57 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Online
1-868 11:28:45 PM Viewing the board Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:28:30 PM Viewing the topic West Indies vs. Australia - Final.
Guest 11:27:45 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:26:23 PM Viewing the topic T&T U-20s for warm up in SVG, Sao Paolo.
Guest 11:25:51 PM Viewing the topic Trinis in Action (Jan 03, 2009).
Guest 11:25:24 PM Viewing the topic FA Cup .
Online
Ngozi 11:24:49 PM Viewing the topic Trinis in Action (Jan 03, 2009).
Online
just cool 11:24:23 PM Viewing the topic **THE OFFICIAL HUNKS THREAD**.
Guest 11:23:02 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:22:43 PM Unknown Action
Online
JDB 11:22:36 PM Viewing the topic Do You support Homo's? .
Online
Babalawo 11:22:16 PM Viewing the topic TRINICANA!!! .
Online
Socafan 11:21:55 PM Viewing the board Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Online
rotatopoti3 11:21:53 PM Viewing the topic TRINICANA!!! .
Guest 11:20:27 PM Viewing the topic Coaches impress with players.
Online
Cantona007 11:20:12 PM Viewing the board Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:19:39 PM Viewing the topic Trinis in Action (Jan 03, 2009).
Guest 11:19:24 PM Viewing the board Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:18:52 PM Viewing the topic Haiti reaches Carib Cup semis..
Guest 11:18:34 PM Viewing the topic Latapy the little magician who worked hard, but played harder.
Guest 11:18:17 PM Viewing the topic paraguay Vs Mexico.
Online
Mose 11:17:48 PM Viewing the board Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:17:47 PM Viewing the topic Trinis in Action (Jan 03, 2009).
Pages: [1] 2
Powered by SMF 1.1.6 | SMF 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC | XHTML | Red Essence by: 2008, Crip
What are you implying exactly my friend?
-
Am not implying nothing is the computer .
but am explinging to my wife ,and u doing it again !!
Compre 11:43:43 PM Viewing Who's Online.
Online
just cool 11:43:32 PM Viewing the topic **THE OFFICIAL HUNKS THREAD**.
Guest 11:43:31 PM Viewing the topic Funny Footballer Nicknames.
Guest 11:43:31 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:43:22 PM Viewing the topic Jorsling seeks Dubai challenge.
Online
capodetutticapi 11:43:13 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Online
100% Barataria 11:43:00 PM Viewing the topic Will Robbie Joseph play for the Windies?.
Guest 11:42:50 PM Viewing the board Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:42:44 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Online
Grande 11:42:23 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:41:58 PM Unknown Action
Guest 11:41:40 PM Viewing the topic Ah man pelt Bush wid a shoe!!.
Guest 11:41:35 PM Viewing the topic Ronaldo to leave on Monday instead .
Guest 11:41:13 PM Viewing the topic Ah man pelt Bush wid a shoe!!.
Guest 11:40:26 PM Viewing the topic Trinis in Action (Jan 03, 2009).
ok sorry I see queen bring back up the tread lol ,is like 4th ,I was thinging u serched it out ,but it like 4th on the page ;D hard luck ,.....not that theres anything wrong with that.
-
compre u is de forum maco.
-
with out that feature ,i go be up till 4 in morning lol
-
Am not implying nothing is the computer .
but am explinging to my wife ,and u doing it again !!
Compre 11:43:43 PM Viewing Who's Online.
Online
just cool 11:43:32 PM Viewing the topic **THE OFFICIAL HUNKS THREAD**.
Guest 11:43:31 PM Viewing the topic Funny Footballer Nicknames.
Guest 11:43:31 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:43:22 PM Viewing the topic Jorsling seeks Dubai challenge.
Online
capodetutticapi 11:43:13 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Online
100% Barataria 11:43:00 PM Viewing the topic Will Robbie Joseph play for the Windies?.
Guest 11:42:50 PM Viewing the board Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:42:44 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Online
Grande 11:42:23 PM Viewing the board index of Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum.
Guest 11:41:58 PM Unknown Action
Guest 11:41:40 PM Viewing the topic Ah man pelt Bush wid a shoe!!.
Guest 11:41:35 PM Viewing the topic Ronaldo to leave on Monday instead .
Guest 11:41:13 PM Viewing the topic Ah man pelt Bush wid a shoe!!.
Guest 11:40:26 PM Viewing the topic Trinis in Action (Jan 03, 2009).
ok sorry I see queen bring back up the tread lol ,is like 4th ,I was thinging u serched it out ,but it like 4th on the page ;D hard luck ,.....not that theres anything wrong with that.
So what about WC, pecan, dutty and all the other man who does be on it, wey yuh saying half the board is undercover closseted queens?
bro yuh need tuh take yuh mind out the gutter!
-
hahahaha
-
good post JC, but i categorically disagree with this part here.
and what i discovered through having these conversations with my cousin and other folks was that these ppl had no choice in their sexual orientation, did any of us had any thing to do with us being straight? or our skin colour, or the colour of our hair, our height, hair texture?? no!!
homosexuality IMO is a birth defect!! no one chooses to be gay, it's that simple! my cousin has no straight friends, no family support, no sympathy from his parents. the whole family does laugh behind his back and call him names, who the fack would choose that life style for themselves!
i believe that some homosexuals born so but in most cases, is straight vice and yuh could normally tell the difference. Especially the ones who call themselves bisexuals.. now what is that about? If yuh genetically predisposed to homosexuality then how it is yuh could be playing both sides of the field? I could reason with a man who dont have a choice in the matter, but i cyah justify the vice thing.
Furthermore, for all our scientific advances, how come they have not yet been able to isolate the gene that causes something as expressed as homosexuality, yet they could isolate the genes responsible for so many other aspects of human traits and behavior?
-
all is destructive behaviour.just different levels.
Yep one is assholes who destroy .
and one is destroy assholes .
:rotfl: :rotfl:
-
Furthermore, for all our scientific advances, how come they have not yet been able to isolate the gene that causes something as expressed as homosexuality, yet they could isolate the genes responsible for so many other aspects of human traits and behavior?
the traditional gene idea has been proven to be naive. you can't just go to a certain location on a DNA strand and predict characteristics for people. Studies have shown relatively high levels of correlation between the occurrence of certain patterns at certain locations and various physiological conditions. You'd be hard-pressed to come up with more than a few (if any) examples in which anyone claims to have found a 'gene' that is responsible for a particular condition.
I'm hesitant to enter this conversation on this forum but I have to go on record as saying that giggsy's comments do a very good job of encapsulating my own thoughts on the matter.
-
I have made an observation over the years and I admit, my conclusions are not scientific
There are examples (which I will have to Google if somebody ask me for citations) that those who decry homosexuality the most turn out to be closet homosexuals themselves.
-
I have made an observation over the years and I admit, my conclusions are not scientific
There are examples (which I will have to Google if somebody ask me for citations) that those who decry homosexuality the most turn out to be closet homosexuals themselves.
seems to be an accurate observation about them Republicans who spat venom about gays
-
when Jah create man, he tell adam, " boy, go forth an multiply". if God wanted man to be wid man, an woman to be wid woman den same sex couples wuda be able to reproduce. d point is homosexuality eh natural an it wrong in d sight of d Lord.
at d end of d day, i doh support dem, but i eh discriminatin neither. once gays cud deal wid watever judgement Jah give dem, i really doh business.
bless!!
WQ .. how can you presume to know what God wants?
So many people attempt to use the Word of God to support their own views when convenient. If we are to take the phrase "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it" (Genesis 1"28), then we should also conform to the following quotes:
1 Corinthians 11:8-9
For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Leviticus 12:2, 4, 5:
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
Leviticus 15:19-24
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
So should we be insisting that women and not men's equal, rather they should be submissive to man and be confined during menstruation and after childbirth because they are unclean? After all, that is how God made woman.
I can go one but I hope you get the gist of what I am saying.
-
I'm hesitant to enter this conversation on this forum but I have to go on record as saying that giggsy's comments do a very good job of encapsulating my own thoughts on the matter.
I suspect that I have similar reservations. Several times I was tempted to start a thread to discuss the failure of Prop 8 in California. But I considered the most likely conclusion and couldn't imagine anything useful coming from it.
Suffice it to say that I "support homo's" (whatever that means).
What I find interesting is the need that even reasonable, accepting people have to qualify their stance. I often hear men say they cool with it....."as long as they don't come round me" or "as long as they don't bother me".
I wonder if it would be a personal affront/insult if they were actually hit upon by a gay person or if this is just a caveat required as a reminder of the speakers' toughness? Would be any different to a woman who is not your "type" hitting on you? Or is a gay person really crossing a line by testing the waters with a person that they do not know is straight?
I also don't get how gay people getting married affects straight people getting married, as if gays will eat up some of the existing marriage quota.
-
I'm hesitant to enter this conversation on this forum but I have to go on record as saying that giggsy's comments do a very good job of encapsulating my own thoughts on the matter.
I suspect that I have similar reservations. Several times I was tempted to start a thread to discuss the failuer of Prop 8 in California. But I considered the most likely conclusion and couldn't imagine anything useful coming from it.
Suffice it to say that I "support homo's" (whatever that means).
What I find interesting is the need that even reasonable, accepting people have to qualify their stance. I often hear men say they cool with it....."as long as they don't come round me" or "as long as they don't bother me".
I wonder if it would be a personal affront/insult if they were actually hit upon by a gay person or if this is just a caveat required as a reminder of the speakers' toughness? Would be any different to a woman who is not your "type" hitting on you? Or is a gay person really crossing a line by testing the waters with a person that they do not know is straight?
I also don't get how gay people getting married affects straight people getting married, as if gays will eat up some of the existing marriage quota.
Say no to Prop 8
-
All who post after my post is a Battyman ;D
THREAD DONE :rotfl:
-
I'm hesitant to enter this conversation on this forum but I have to go on record as saying that giggsy's comments do a very good job of encapsulating my own thoughts on the matter.
I suspect that I have similar reservations. Several times I was tempted to start a thread to discuss the failure of Prop 8 in California. But I considered the most likely conclusion and couldn't imagine anything useful coming from it.
Suffice it to say that I "support homo's" (whatever that means).
What I find interesting is the need that even reasonable, accepting people have to qualify their stance. I often hear men say they cool with it....."as long as they don't come round me" or "as long as they don't bother me".
I wonder if it would be a personal affront/insult if they were actually hit upon by a gay person or if this is just a caveat required as a reminder of the speakers' toughness? Would be any different to a woman who is not your "type" hitting on you? Or is a gay person really crossing a line by testing the waters with a person that they do not know is straight?
I also don't get how gay people getting married affects straight people getting married, as if gays will eat up some of the existing marriage quota. ;D
Very good post JDB, especially the last part
I concur whole heartedly with Giggsy also
-
I'm hesitant to enter this conversation on this forum but I have to go on record as saying that giggsy's comments do a very good job of encapsulating my own thoughts on the matter.
I suspect that I have similar reservations. Several times I was tempted to start a thread to discuss the failuer of Prop 8 in California. But I considered the most likely conclusion and couldn't imagine anything useful coming from it.
Suffice it to say that I "support homo's" (whatever that means).
What I find interesting is the need that even reasonable, accepting people have to qualify their stance. I often hear men say they cool with it....."as long as they don't come round me" or "as long as they don't bother me".
I wonder if it would be a personal affront/insult if they were actually hit upon by a gay person or if this is just a caveat required as a reminder of the speakers' toughness? Would be any different to a woman who is not your "type" hitting on you? Or is a gay person really crossing a line by testing the waters with a person that they do not know is straight?
I also don't get how gay people getting married affects straight people getting married, as if gays will eat up some of the existing marriage quota.
depends on what your opinion on the institution of marriage is, which could be influenced by your own personal beliefs including religion.. in which case a civil union carrying all the requisite liberties will do just fine.
as for the being hit on thing, my take on it is that as a man you should be secure enough in your own sexuality not to be insulted by an approach.. however, whats surprising if a man is inclined to react aggressively if that approach crosses the line, just like how a woman might be inclined to slap a man who approaches in an offensive manner?
-
... and by extension, how reasonable would it be for a heterosexual man to find the interest of a homosexual man flattering? If we posit that homosexuality is a natural state, then would it not be unnatural for a heterosexual man not to be affronted? Stated otherwise, is not a heterosexual man's affront a natural reaction to homosexual interest.
Every contributor on this thread who has attested to tolerance or moderation with respect to homosexuality has indicated that his or her moderation or tolerance was acquired (learned) pursuant to social education via conversation, exposure etc. ... does this not tend to underscore the 'naturalness' of affront or insult as a reaction?
-
I'm hesitant to enter this conversation on this forum but I have to go on record as saying that giggsy's comments do a very good job of encapsulating my own thoughts on the matter.
I suspect that I have similar reservations. Several times I was tempted to start a thread to discuss the failuer of Prop 8 in California. But I considered the most likely conclusion and couldn't imagine anything useful coming from it.
Suffice it to say that I "support homo's" (whatever that means).
What I find interesting is the need that even reasonable, accepting people have to qualify their stance. I often hear men say they cool with it....."as long as they don't come round me" or "as long as they don't bother me".
I wonder if it would be a personal affront/insult if they were actually hit upon by a gay person or if this is just a caveat required as a reminder of the speakers' toughness? Would be any different to a woman who is not your "type" hitting on you? Or is a gay person really crossing a line by testing the waters with a person that they do not know is straight?
I also don't get how gay people getting married affects straight people getting married, as if gays will eat up some of the existing marriage quota.
depends on what your opinion on the institution of marriage is, which could be influenced by your own personal beliefs including religion.. in which case a civil union carrying all the requisite liberties will do just fine.
as for the being hit on thing, my take on it is that as a man you should be secure enough in your own sexuality not to be insulted by an approach.. however, whats surprising if a man is inclined to react aggressively if that approach crosses the line, just like how a woman might be inclined to slap a man who approaches in an offensive manner?
Which begs the questions; Is the reaction due to being approached agressively or is it about the sex/possible sexual orientation of the person? Would you slap a woman if she approached you in an agressive way?
-
as for the being hit on thing, my take on it is that as a man you should be secure enough in your own sexuality not to be insulted by an approach.. however, whats surprising if a man is inclined to react aggressively if that approach crosses the line, just like how a woman might be inclined to slap a man who approaches in an offensive manner?
You spend too much of your time watching TV... there simply is no justification for a man reacting violent to being approached by a gay man. I hardly think that there are many women who will put God out their thoughts and strike some strange man simply because he "approaches" her wrong. All of this presupposes the fact that the "approach" is in no way physical in nature.
-----------------------
As for JDB's comments... good for you if you "support homos", which by definition includes their lifestyle. I cannot support homosexuality for religious, moral and practical reasons. There's a difference between tolerance and support, and I opt for the former. I also have no qualms about stating my personal reservations when it comes to gay marriage and to a lesser extent gay adoption.
For the same moral, religious and practical reasons alluded to I don't see it appropriate to elevate gay unions to the same level of recognition and acceptance as heterosexual unions. The purpose of marriage as I see it isn't just to crystallize the monogamous union between spouses, but to establish such towards the specific goal of procreation between these two discrete individuals... gene purity being a particularly desirous goal of the marital union. Clearly this does not apply to homosexual unions. This should suffice to establish my opposition for now, no need to explore the religious and moral reasons.
------------
One final aside... I wish people would stop trying to equate race with sexual orientation, they are not the same and the respective struggles of those oppressed on account of such cannot possibly be equated. Sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic, nor is it as inherent a trait as is race.
-
... and by extension, how reasonable would it be for a heterosexual man to find the interest of a homosexual man flattering? If we posit that homosexuality is a natural state, then would it not be unnatural for a heterosexual man not to be affronted? Stated otherwise, is not a heterosexual man's affront a natural reaction to homosexual interest.
Every contributor on this thread who has attested to tolerance or moderation with respect to homosexuality has indicated that his or her moderation or tolerance was acquired (learned) pursuant to social education via conversation, exposure etc. ... does this not tend to underscore the 'naturalness' of affront or insult as a reaction?
on 2 separate occasions i was hit on as we say,one was by ah prominent businessman and de next by ah chubby red fella in school,on both occassions i was not angry but instead was very disgusted.
-
there will be no resolution to this debate on is forum.
For every religious argument that condemns homosexuality, I can find religious arguments that condemns (or supports) behaviours that we now consider to be acceptable (or non-acceptable) in today's Western society.
For every procreation reason that argues against homosexuality, I can point out several hetero unions that do not produce off-spring from which we can draw the inference that these marriages are 'less important' that other marriages that produce off-spring.
For every moral reason that condemns homosexuality, I can find some one who disagrees with that standard of morality.
Question: how many straight people on this forum chose to be heterosexual or if gay, chose to be homosexual? Whether homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice is still up for debate. If indeed it is genetic, then homosexuality traits are no different that any physical human characteristics.
I happen to believe that homosexuality is not a choice and I support homosexual marriages that reflect a committed relationship. I support any straight marriage that reflects a committed relationship. What I do not support is any marriage that does not reflect a committed relationship.
What I do not support is wanton and public sexual promiscuity from straight or gay people, male or female. Unfortunately, many people equate homosexuality with sexual promiscuity.
It all comes down to what you believe to be right. And as long as your belief does not infringe on the livelihood and well being of any person, I have no argument with you.
-
bottom line...we are our own worst enemy.
-
there will be no resolution to this debate on is forum.
...and I hardly doubt anyone is seeking 'resolution', on some online message board no less.
For every religious argument that condemns homosexuality, I can find religious arguments that condemns (or supports) behaviours that we now consider to be acceptable (or non-acceptable) in today's Western society.
I fail to see what a discussion about other behaviors would yield... seein that the discussion is about homosexuality. But I'd be curious still to hear your arguments regarding these practices supposedly accepted by society yet condemned by religion.
For every procreation reason that argues against homosexuality, I can point out several hetero unions that do not produce off-spring from which we can draw the inference that these marriages are 'less important' that other marriages that produce off-spring.
Huge difference between unions that don't produce offspring, and unions which inherently can't produce offspring. Even so, heterosexual unions that don't produce offspring aren't "less important" than those that do... nor are they any different since they still adhere to the traditional purpose for which marriage/the monogamous relationship is intended.
For every moral reason that condemns homosexuality, I can find some one who disagrees with that standard of morality.
we are never all going to agree on moral grounds, however minority views on morality aren't very compelling within societal dynamics
Question: how many straight people on this forum chose to be heterosexual or if gay, chose to be homosexual? Whether homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice is still up for debate. If indeed it is genetic, then homosexuality traits are no different that any physical human characteristics.
Well until the wonder 'gay' gene is discovered then homosexuality is no more inherent to the individual than is race... and until then you may still want to look up the meaning of 'immutable characteristic'.
Even still, discrimination based on sexual orientation cannot be equated with discrimination based on race, which is the gist of your argument. Homosexuals simply do not share the same history of persecution and repression that people (particularly black people) have, based on the color of their skin.
I happen to believe that homosexuality is not a choice and I support homosexual marriages that reflect a committed relationship. I support any straight marriage that reflects a committed relationship. What I do not support is any marriage that does not reflect a committed relationship.
What I do not support is wanton and public sexual promiscuity from straight or gay people, male or female. Unfortunately, many people equate homosexuality with sexual promiscuity.
It all comes down to what you believe to be right. And as long as your belief does not infringe on the livelihood and well being of any person, I have no argument with you.
The rest I can't really address.
-
What I find interesting is the need that even reasonable, accepting people have to qualify their stance. I often hear men say they cool with it....."as long as they don't come round me" or "as long as they don't bother me".
this is exactly what was running through my mind when I was reading through the posts earlier today.
Anyhow, I "support homo's" too. Also, yes they are human. just to answer the questions posed by the thread originator.
-
depends on what your opinion on the institution of marriage is, which could be influenced by your own personal beliefs including religion.. in which case a civil union carrying all the requisite liberties will do just fine.
as for the being hit on thing, my take on it is that as a man you should be secure enough in your own sexuality not to be insulted by an approach.. however, whats surprising if a man is inclined to react aggressively if that approach crosses the line, just like how a woman might be inclined to slap a man who approaches in an offensive manner?
Except the rights granted by civil unions are not the same and the thinly veiled deceit of those offering civil unions as a proxy for marriage is that once there are two different standards there will always be the opportunity for them to kept unequal. We already know that the desire to keep them separate among its opponents will not abate anytime soon.
Now if people were saying that different religious institutions have to recognize and marry gays I could see a problem. Each church has its rules and the right to marry devotees that it deems faithful but that has nothing to do with the component of marriage that is governed by the law.
In other words if I get married in a church, and you in a mosque it is very different to 2 people getting a marriage certificate and having a non-religious ceremony or even a ceremony under the banner of a religion that recognizes homosexuality. The specific religious institution of marriage is under no threat unless you consider the heterosexual devotees who only follow through with it 50% of the time. The fact that it all has the same name under the law really is not that important to me because it is already very different.
With that outlook I find it hard to come with reasons to fight for gays not to be married when it will have no negative impact other than the fact it goes against religious customs/rules.
-
As for JDB's comments... good for you if you "support homos", which by definition includes their lifestyle. I cannot support homosexuality for religious, moral and practical reasons. There's a difference between tolerance and support, and I opt for the former. I also have no qualms about stating my personal reservations when it comes to gay marriage and to a lesser extent gay adoption.
For the same moral, religious and practical reasons alluded to I don't see it appropriate to elevate gay unions to the same level of recognition and acceptance as heterosexual unions. The purpose of marriage as I see it isn't just to crystallize the monogamous union between spouses, but to establish such towards the specific goal of procreation between these two discrete individuals... gene purity being a particularly desirous goal of the marital union. Clearly this does not apply to homosexual unions. This should suffice to establish my opposition for now, no need to explore the religious and moral reasons.
At best that is One rationalization for the role of marriage. By no means does it capture its total influence.
Another, no less significant role of marriage, IMO, is as a building block of societal order, a subunit of society. In that respect marriage and by extension family served a great purpose in the growth of large societies. In the simplest sense being responsible to and for a spouse, progeny (and/or parent/sibling) makes the larger society stronger.
The individual is less prone operate to the detriment of the general society. Even though his relationship to the wider society might be a nebulous concept and unlikely to influence his/her personal actions, the responsibility to his family do right by people is very tangible, especially during development.
We still see the benefits today. On average married people and stable family units have a positive effect on productivity, economy, crime, use of healthcare resources etc. None of this is diminished by the married people being of the same sex or the familial unit being non-traditional. In fact, closing it off to a section of society by offering a second-class, unappealing substitute, and limiting adoption of children lacking families, could be hurting us as a society. As an argument for the role of marriage it is no less useful or applicable than fostering gene purity.
I think you will find it hard to come up with opposition to gay marriage without referencing religion. The fact that the most vociferous and dedicated opponents are religious institutions and devotees while most secular people couldnt care less is a good indication that the opposition is founded in religious beliefs. Practical arguments may be used to help but it does not outweigh the underlying fact that homosexuality is considered to be a sin that imperils ones immortal soul etc.
If someone believes strongly that it is a sinful lifestyle I find it hard to believe that they are more driven by the preservation of marriage as a safe haven for gene purity and other secular rationalizations.
But once you start talking religion as a justification I cant bite because my religion cant be a standard for someone who does not believe the same thing.
-
... and by extension, how reasonable would it be for a heterosexual man to find the interest of a homosexual man flattering? If we posit that homosexuality is a natural state, then would it not be unnatural for a heterosexual man not to be affronted? Stated otherwise, is not a heterosexual man's affront a natural reaction to homosexual interest.
Every contributor on this thread who has attested to tolerance or moderation with respect to homosexuality has indicated that his or her moderation or tolerance was acquired (learned) pursuant to social education via conversation, exposure etc. ... does this not tend to underscore the 'naturalness' of affront or insult as a reaction?
Too many double negatives in your post. i am aghast!
-
Every contributor on this thread who has attested to tolerance or moderation with respect to homosexuality has indicated that his or her moderation or tolerance was acquired (learned) pursuant to social education via conversation, exposure etc. ... does this not tend to underscore the 'naturalness' of affront or insult as a reaction?
the population of this forum is hardly a random sample. Members of this board would have spent many years being indoctrinated in the ways/ideas, both good and bad, of the trini way of life prior to the mentioned social education/exposure.
as far as I can tell, legal arguments against homosexuality/gay marriage invariably boil down to the 'ick factor' which is self-sustaining.
if there really is separation of church and state, I don't see what grounds there would be to deny people their civil rights. Especially when opponents can't even formulate a lucid argument to show who/what would be hurt by the granting of these rights.
-
wen prop 8 was being debated i came across this on funnyordie.com
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones
and well by the question posed at the start of the thread, yes i do support Gay rights.
-
wen prop 8 was being debated i came across this on funnyordie.com
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones
and well by the question posed at the start of the thread, yes i do support Gay rights.
lol
-
I took your advice and looked up 'immutable characteristic' to ensure that I understood the definition and this helped crystallize the crux of the matter for me. I feel that sexual orientation (and not behaviour) is an immutable characteristic. I have no proof just as opposing views have no proof. So if you buy into the argument of homosexuality being an immutable characteristic, then homosexuals should be afforded the same rights and privileges are other couples. And the converse may be true too (not sure here...for example, religion is not an immutable characteristic but seems to enjoy fights and freedoms). Everything else becomes a moot point as these other arguments are used to replace the lack of scientific proof and reflect only religious, moral and value standards.
So I suspect that until the 'gay' gene is identified, the moral majority will continue to prevail.
btw, given a choice between tolerance and acceptance, I suspect that most gays would rather be accepted and not merely tolerated.
-
I feel that sexual orientation (and not behaviour) is an immutable characteristic. I have no proof just as opposing views have no proof.
funny how some people who know that their own sexual orientation isn't subject to change could find it hard to believe that it's an immutable characteristic.
-
lawd fadda I eh know I guh cause all this malice , anyway mi pc was down sum funny man didnt like mi thread so dey send a virus and mash up mi pc. Thanks to the geek squad I back . and for those who like climb man back I still bunning fya on allyuh!!!!!!
war
-
I feel that sexual orientation (and not behaviour) is an immutable characteristic. I have no proof just as opposing views have no proof.
funny how some people who know that their own sexual orientation isn't subject to change could find it hard to believe that it's an immutable characteristic.
daryn yuh hitting hard dey boss. I already shared my thoughts with bakes on this. Dem men BORN so. it is too hard to be gay and live in this world. Imagine being born black 300 years ago and liking dat when yuh getting whipped in de field after picking cotton all day!
Why would anyone want to be gay jes for so? People hating you, family disowning yuh, people beating you up, yuh suffering day in and day out. And from what i read, they have a lot of issues with their own feelings as they are so widely excoriated by society.
leave the people alone! Now Bakes eh one to pick on dem as far as I could see.
-
... and by extension, how reasonable would it be for a heterosexual man to find the interest of a homosexual man flattering? If we posit that homosexuality is a natural state, then would it not be unnatural for a heterosexual man not to be affronted? Stated otherwise, is not a heterosexual man's affront a natural reaction to homosexual interest.
Every contributor on this thread who has attested to tolerance or moderation with respect to homosexuality has indicated that his or her moderation or tolerance was acquired (learned) pursuant to social education via conversation, exposure etc. ... does this not tend to underscore the 'naturalness' of affront or insult as a reaction?
Too many double negatives in your post. i am aghast!
Imagine the angst as I typed it ... :) heheheh ... btw, Bakes sub-contracting oversight to you? :devil: :rotfl:
-
so we know now who support gays,who doh mind havin ah bullerman fuh ah friend.now answer this.who here is ah macomehman.
-
The purpose of marriage as I see it isn't just to crystallize the monogamous union between spouses, but to establish such towards the specific goal of procreation between these two discrete individuals...
At best that is One rationalization for the role of marriage. By no means does it capture its total influence.
I'm confused as to how you came by that conclusion...
Another, no less significant role of marriage, IMO, is as a building block of societal order, a subunit of society. In that respect marriage and by extension family served a great purpose in the growth of large societies. In the simplest sense being responsible to and for a spouse, progeny (and/or parent/sibling) makes the larger society stronger.
The individual is less prone operate to the detriment of the general society. Even though his relationship to the wider society might be a nebulous concept and unlikely to influence his/her personal actions, the responsibility to his family do right by people is very tangible, especially during development.
FAMILY provides the stability you cite... not necessarily marriage. Everything you cite is provided for by family, including nuclear and other forms of extended family. Indeed stable societies developed and existed before the institution of marriage did. So while I'm not saying that your assertion is wrong, it certainly isn't convincing, nor integral to the goal you state. Marriage may not be absolute integral to the purity of the gene pool/genealogical line but it certainly plays a much stronger role towards the stated end. Besides this is no mere conjecture, gene purity is the reason why mammals in particular and most higher organisms pair off... and this (as well as property reasons, cementing ties between clans/tribes) is why the institution of marriage came about.
We still see the benefits today. On average married people and stable family units have a positive effect on productivity, economy, crime, use of healthcare resources etc. None of this is diminished by the married people being of the same sex or the familial unit being non-traditional. In fact, closing it off to a section of society by offering a second-class, unappealing substitute, and limiting adoption of children lacking families, could be hurting us as a society. As an argument for the role of marriage it is no less useful or applicable than fostering gene purity.
It's a fair argument.
I think you will find it hard to come up with opposition to gay marriage without referencing religion. The fact that the most vociferous and dedicated opponents are religious institutions and devotees while most secular people couldnt care less is a good indication that the opposition is founded in religious beliefs. Practical arguments may be used to help but it does not outweigh the underlying fact that homosexuality is considered to be a sin that imperils ones immortal soul etc.
If someone believes strongly that it is a sinful lifestyle I find it hard to believe that they are more driven by the preservation of marriage as a safe haven for gene purity and other secular rationalizations.
But once you start talking religion as a justification I cant bite because my religion cant be a standard for someone who does not believe the same thing.
While I agree with you that much of the opposition is rooted in religious belief... I think you're getting too bogged down in thinking of the arguments of particular religions, rather than looking at the bigger role that religious thought in general has played in the development of societal mores and morality. In other words, rather than thinking of the discussion in terms of "my religion can't be a standard for someone who does not believe the same thing", look at the bigger picture...religion on the whole was integral to the foundation of American society. That religion of course was Christianity, so Christian principles are at the core. Christianity was left out of the Constitution of course, so as to not slight other religions... but even when taken into account other religions, most (if not expressing opposition to homosexuality) definitely consider the marital union as being one between man and woman.
So in sum, its not that "my religion" teaches me that marriage is between man and woman, but 'religion' in general has given rise to moral notions which guide the discussion, chiefly that marriage is between man and woman.
-
as far as I can tell, legal arguments against homosexuality/gay marriage invariably boil down to the 'ick factor' which is self-sustaining.
if there really is separation of church and state, I don't see what grounds there would be to deny people their civil rights. Especially when opponents can't even formulate a lucid argument to show who/what would be hurt by the granting of these rights.
These are two separate legal issues that really should not be confused. Ever since the US Supreme Court ruled on a Texas case (in essence legalizing homosexuality) in 2003 there has been no "legal arguments" against homosexuality. As for the legal arguments against gay marriage, much of it is influenced by moral factors... not "ick" factors as you propose. The Court first looked to the Constitution to see if there is a 'right' to marriage... which of course there isn't. However the Court did recognize (in the famous Loving v. Virginia case) that society has traditionally recognized marriage as being one of those areas of personal liberty for individuals.
The Court didn't specifically say in Loving that marriage was between man and woman, but in subsequent cases the Court ruled that historically, that recognition of marriage has been specific to heterosexual marriage. Simply put there has been no history of support for homosexual unions, not in the Constitution, not in the common law, not in societal attitudes norms. Short of a constitutional amendment the only way for gay marriages to secure legal recognition will be for changing societal values to influence the Court. Many legal observers in fact think that this is just a matter of time, but as for now, there simply isn't enough support, or rational arguments in favor of gay unions.
-
I took your advice and looked up 'immutable characteristic' to ensure that I understood the definition and this helped crystallize the crux of the matter for me. I feel that sexual orientation (and not behaviour) is an immutable characteristic. I have no proof just as opposing views have no proof.
Pecan actually there are indications that sexual orientation is not in fact immutable... I'm sure you've heard of certain Christians who claim to reformed homosexuals, claiming to have suppressed their desires and abandoned living as gays. Conversely, we know of many heterosexuals who later 'realize' (some would say decide) that they are really gay. So while it may be argued that it's easy to change orientation from hetero to homosexuality than say the opposite direction, the fact of the matter is that there are sufficient examples of the mutability of sexual orientation. It CAN change.
So if you buy into the argument of homosexuality being an immutable characteristic, then homosexuals should be afforded the same rights and privileges are other couples. And the converse may be true too (not sure here...for example, religion is not an immutable characteristic but seems to enjoy fights and freedoms). Everything else becomes a moot point as these other arguments are used to replace the lack of scientific proof and reflect only religious, moral and value standards.
Religion is in fact mutable... but religious freedom is also a fundamental interest codified in the US Constitution, unlike homosexuality. Essentially there are varying rationales used in addressing individual rights in the US (as I outline above in my response to JDB), the Constitution is the threshold barometer, followed by convention (either legal convention thru the common law, or societal acceptance/support). So immutability is a secondary consideration, not the only consideration.
So I suspect that until the 'gay' gene is identified, the moral majority will continue to prevail.
btw, given a choice between tolerance and acceptance, I suspect that most gays would rather be accepted and not merely tolerated.
Given a choice between tolerance and acceptance I'm sure many Mormon bigamists would opt for acceptance as well... doesn't help make their case any more persuasive though.
funny how some people who know that their own sexual orientation isn't subject to change could find it hard to believe that it's an immutable characteristic.
Subjective arguments seldom carry much weight. My belief in Christianity isn't likely to change but does that make religion an immutable characteristic? Just because I know MY sexual orientation isn't likely to change, that doesn't mean that some other person's won't.
-
so we know now who support gays,who doh mind havin ah bullerman fuh ah friend.now answer this.who here is ah macomehman.
call names...I go :whistling:
:devil:
-
Bakes, you make a persuasive argument, but I remain unconvinced.
I think the 'reformed' homosexuals are only modifying their outward behavior rather that changing the core of their inherent sexual orientation. i.e. changing your hair colour does not change the genetics of the true colour. I would argue that the traditional views regarding the morality of homosexuality heavily influence whether or not a gay 'comes' out of the closet or is suddenly 'reformed'.
Conversely, in some segments of society, being gay seems to be trendy as embracing homosexuality becomes the 'cause du jour' (as with Hollywood). This likely promote false positive readings. The popularity of Gay Pride parades continue to baffle me. I see no need to celebrate one's sexual orientation to the extent that is is displayed in these parades.
Nevertheless, I speculate that many gays feel that they have been repressed and treated as the scum of society and some acceptance seems to be a licence to go overboard.
Mrs. P. cousin is gay and he took us to Greenwich Village to show us around the area and specifically, the Stonewall bar. And for me, I am convinced sexual orientation (specifically mines) is immutable because the noise that I heard after I entered the bar as the patrons 'checked me out' was not the door slamming shut, rather it was generated by my sphincter instinctively slamming shut.
-
so we know now who support gays,who doh mind havin ah bullerman fuh ah friend.now answer this.who here is ah macomehman.
call names...I go :whistling:
:devil:
wha dat mean? Call names and yuh go blow?
Bakes, that talk about christians curing homos is BS and dat doh mean bake and Shark!
Dat like de BTK murderer, he is big deacon in Church, even elected as Church president.
Dem does put de people on guilt trip, take dey money and make dem feel shame for what they were born as!
It eh have no cure for bullers, dey is what dey is!
Dey have evidence of gay sheep for heaven's sake, who curing dem? Gay Penguins, gay man, gay cow,gay dolphins, gay elephants, gay cats, gay women, gay bears, gay rats, gay buffalo, gay caribou....whappen?
-
Bakes, you make a persuasive argument, but I remain unconvinced.
I think the 'reformed' homosexuals are only modifying their outward behavior rather that changing the core of their inherent sexual orientation. i.e. changing your hair colour does not change the genetics of the true colour. I would argue that the traditional views regarding the morality of homosexuality heavily influence whether or not a gay 'comes' out of the closet or is suddenly 'reformed'.
Conversely, in some segments of society, being gay seems to be trendy as embracing homosexuality becomes the 'cause du jour' (as with Hollywood). This likely promote false positive readings. The popularity of Gay Pride parades continue to baffle me. I see no need to celebrate one's sexual orientation to the extent that is is displayed in these parades.
Nevertheless, I speculate that many gays feel that they have been repressed and treated as the scum of society and some acceptance seems to be a licence to go overboard.
Mrs. P. cousin is gay and he took us to Greenwich Village to show us around the area and specifically, the Stonewall bar. And for me, I am convinced sexual orientation (specifically mines) is immutable because the noise that I heard after I entered the bar as the patrons 'checked me out' was not the door slamming shut, rather it was generated by my sphincter instinctively slamming shut.
Well Pecan, ultimately my job isn't to convince you... I can only present the information and arguments that are out there. Even if you are correct that when people change their sexual orientation they are changing to their true state... the bottom line is that they still CHANGE their sexuality, at least as they manifest it to the public, no? Hence it's mutable.
But don't take my word for it...let the gays tell you for themselves:
Civil Rights for Gays: Does "Immutable" Really Describe Us?
December 4, 008
Patricia Nell Warren
The recent fallout over Prop 8 -- questions about whether African-Americans voted heavily to ban same-sex marriage -- points up a need to re-examine the basis of LGBT people's demand for civil rights. In recent decades, we have trended towards comparing our battle to that of African-Americans. Some African-Americans, especially the churchgoing conservatives who don't approve of homosexuality, voice anger over what they see as our attempt to co-opt their struggle and their history of slavery and pain. Yet we can point to our own history of oppression and pain.
What constitutes a "civil right," anyway?
In its time, the 1791 Bill of Rights was urgent and specific about the list of rights it wanted -- free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom to demand redress, etc. Throughout the 1800s and into the 1900s, further amendments to the Constitution detailed further urgent rights -- freedom from slavery, freedom to vote for non-whites and women, etc.
But the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't give us a nice neat Websterish definition of "rights." For that we can go to the legal warriors who duke it out in today's courtrooms. According to AmericanLawyer.com, "A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury... Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class."
I agree that African-Americans have been unfairly accused of swinging the Prop 8 vote by themselves. However, it's clear that some of their anger against us comes from their feeling that we're "using" their cause. They, and many of our own activists as well, are defining civil rights differently than the lawyers do. They consider that a "right" has to be based on some "immutable [meaning unchangeable] characteristic."
Anti-gay African-Americans point out that they can't change their skin color, therefore they can't hide from prejudice and cruelty. Whereas (they say) we gay people can and do change our behavior, especially when we hide in the closet, or when we succeed in "going straight." Therefore, in their opinion, we don't qualify for civil rights. Yet many LGBT people counter with the assertion that we are born with our sexual orientation, that we can't change it even if we try. Hence the "ex-ex-gays" who leave their ministries and return to living an openly gay life.
How did "immutable" get to be some people's gold standard for defining civil rights?
Compelling Change
It started with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mainly took aim at injustices done to people of color and women. But as Congress moved to prohibit discrimination, it wrote several protected classes into the legislation -- race, ethnicity, national origin, religion or sect, and gender. Analysts began defining these protected classes by three criteria: (1) a long history of discrimination, (2) economic disadvantages, and (3) immutable characteristics.
Next, conservatives hatched the belief that all the 1964 classes depend on immutability -- even religion. In 2002, prominent religious-right lawyer Mathew Staver wrote, "Although religion is the sole category within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that does not share the exact pattern of the immutable physical characteristics, the characteristic of immutability or inalienability is deeply rooted in the founding of the country and became part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."
Yet it's ridiculous to call religion "immutable," as we'll see.
When the gay-rights movement came along in 1969, we felt compelled to jump on that "immutability" bandwagon. We can prove #1 and #2 pretty easily. But #3 has prodded both supporters and enemies of LGBT rights into convoluted arguments about whether we do or don't fit the "immutable" criterium. Thus Mathew Staver felt able to proclaim loftily, ""Sexual orientation should not be elevated to the category of a protected civil right."
Our Founders' Intentions
But the ultraconservative legal eagles like Staver are wrong about our founders' list of rights being an expression of "immutability."
In the Bill of Rights, those earliest Constitutional amendments, none of the rights are based on any "immutable characteristic." In fact, those early rights start with the actions of colonists daring to make political and economic decisions that defied the British monarchy -- that chartered their own independent course -- in a word, that made some independent choices. And the rights mostly dealt with circumstances surrounding those brave new choices.
Free speech? It's hardly immutable. My speech is protected if I write this commentary today, and another one tomorrow, and I can change the subject I'm speechifying about. Ditto my right to have no troops quartered in my house, my right to a grand jury indictment, to a speedy trial, to freedom from excessive bail, from cruel and unusual punishment. These are all circumstances in which most people might find themselves just once in their lifetime -- but for that one time, their life might hang in the balance if they have no civil rights.
Freedom of religion goes way beyond circumstance... it grants us that choice that our founders cherished so much. Nothing is more potentially changeable than a person's religion! People often convert overnight, and turn their worlds upside down to go in a new direction. Personally I was illuminated to the fact of choice when I looked back at my own life. I was raised a Presbyterian, converted to Roman Catholicism at age 17, de-converted to an existentialist agnostic by age 20, and gradually wended away from religion to a robust paganism in my 30s. Am I required to have an unchanging and immutable belief in order to be protected? No way. At every stage, my change of thinking was protected by the First Amendment. The law even protects my right to have no religion at all, if that's what I choose to do.
Indeed, at the time the Bill of Rights was written, establishing a person's right to go from one religion to another without the threat of being killed or tortured -- for instance, to leave the Church of England and become a Quaker or Baptist or Freemason -- was one of the big goals of enlightened people in the American colonies.
Morphing Into "Mutable"
Since the 1960s, as Congress enacted other pieces of landmark legislation, their definition of civil rights has clearly moved onward from the "immutable" landmark.
The newer protected classes include: age, familial status, marital status, disability, veterans, and groups defined by DNA. All but one (DNA) are not based on "immutable characteristics." They are classes that Americans may join for only part of a lifetime. Examples: discrimination against both minors and old people. The same for disabled people who suddenly find themselves in that class as a result of illness or injury.
In spite of these recent trends, many LBGT ideologists insist on continuing to identify with the black civil-rights cause, because of the power and impact that it had. They assert that we too are born into the "immutable" class. With many in our leadership, this alleged "immutability" of ours is now a dogma. Unfortunately, the science jury has yet to return a verdict on the DNA of sexual orientation. Yes, there are studies that suggest genetic factors in sexual orientation. However, nothing is proven beyond all doubt.
Meanwhile our opponents can point out that we do sometimes change our behavior. I agree that it's unfair to cite our ability to conform when coerced by religion -- most people will conform to any dictatorship if they're terrorized enough. To me, the most telling evidence of our "mutability" comes from those LGBT people who change even when there is little or no external duress. In these cases, the pressure comes from within, from an inner realization that our nature, our sense of ourselves, is more fluid than we thought.
Most of us have known someone who first came out as staunchly gay or lesbian, then suddenly veered to being "bi" -- or who veered from bi to exclusively gay or lesbian. Cases like these don't involve coercion by ex-gay religion, yet they are far from rare. Someday, when all the scientific facts are in, they may reveal that both nature and nurture shape our orientation.
Then there is gender in our LGBT world. It, too, is anything but "immutable." Some of us challenge the gender identity inked on their birth certificate -- either because of physical or chromosomal variations that they were born with, or simply because they have a passionate will to be the opposite gender and are prepared to do whatever it takes to get there, including surgery. They want to be what they feel they really are, rather than what society says they are. In other words, they choose to change.
Choice vs. Chance
So my question is this: since the U.S. Constitution's amendments are so grounded on "civil rights" based on choice, why are we so determined to lock ourselves into the "immutable" class?
Why would it be so terrible to "choose" to be gay or lesbian or bisexual? The religious right insist on "choice" because it's their position that people "choose" sin. Yet they reserve for themselves the right to "choose" their religion, the political party they belong to, even the candidate they vote for. Shouldn't there be equal power and dignity for us in "choosing" our orientation, rather than being assigned an orientation by chance?
So, with all due respect to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I think it's time for us to stop hanging onto "immutable characteristics" so hard. For some Americans, the benchmark 1964 definitions continue to serve those protected classes today. But our own interests may better be served by invoking the signature right of the Bill of Rights -- the right to choose.
After all, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" wouldn't mean much without the freedom to choose that life, that liberty -- that happiness.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-nell-warren/civil-rights-for-gays-doe_b_148587.html
The rest of the article is severely flawed reasoning she confuses many of the legal principles guiding the discussion of individual rights (here in the US), including the role of the immutability characteristic in determining which rights are protected. She even misrepresents another criteria as requiring proof of "economic disadvantages" and compounds her error by conclusively stating that such can be proved with respect to gays. I can explain why her reasoning is flawed if anyone's interested... but I really included the article because it presents a perspective which I don't believe is represented here (who knows?)... that of a gay person. Perspective aside her arguments show persuasively how notions of gender and sexual orientation can in fact change.
Pecan if you remain unconvinced, then such is your prerogative.
-
Bakes, that talk about christians curing homos is BS and dat doh mean bake and Shark!
Dat like de BTK murderer, he is big deacon in Church, even elected as Church president.
Dem does put de people on guilt trip, take dey money and make dem feel shame for what they were born as!
It eh have no cure for bullers, dey is what dey is!
Dey have evidence of gay sheep for heaven's sake, who curing dem? Gay Penguins, gay man, gay cow,gay dolphins, gay elephants, gay cats, gay women, gay bears, gay rats, gay buffalo, gay caribou....whappen?
Any mention of Christians or Christianity and your Pavlovian reflexes kick into action eh? Well wipe de drool off yuh chin and try and focus here fella... regardless what your thoughts on gays being 'cured' or whether theire are gay animals (not sure what that's suppose to prove) the larger issue is whether their sexual orientation is static or dynamic. The very fact that there are a class of people who sometimes they prefer the opposite sex, sometimes they prefer the same sex should preemptively end any serious argument over the mutability of sexual orientation.
As the article itself demonstrates, gays themselves admit that gender identity and sexual orientation can sometimes be fluid... you say it's BS. Maybe you know better... who am I to say, I've never been gay or otherwise changed my sexual orientation. Maybe you can shed some light for us.
-
so we know now who support gays,who doh mind havin ah bullerman fuh ah friend.now answer this.who here is ah macomehman.
call names...I go :whistling:
:devil:
wha dat mean? Call names and yuh go blow?
Bakes, that talk about christians curing homos is BS and dat doh mean bake and Shark!
Dat like de BTK murderer, he is big deacon in Church, even elected as Church president.
Dem does put de people on guilt trip, take dey money and make dem feel shame for what they were born as!
It eh have no cure for bullers, dey is what dey is!
Dey have evidence of gay sheep for heaven's sake, who curing dem? Gay Penguins, gay man, gay cow,gay dolphins, gay elephants, gay cats, gay women, gay bears, gay rats, gay buffalo, gay caribou....whappen?
I used to have a gay Rottweiler. I swear to God. He was the dominant dog in the yard and used to try to bull d other male Rottweiler (who was having none of it). I never understood that, cuz I thought male dogs were only interested in sex when a female dog was on heat. De neighbours' kids used to look over the wall and catch rel kix, lol. We still loved him though :beermug:
-
bottom line...we are our own worst enemy.
I suppose no pun was intended ...
-
I have made an observation over the years and I admit, my conclusions are not scientific
There are examples (which I will have to Google if somebody ask me for citations) that those who decry homosexuality the most turn out to be closet homosexuals themselves.
seems to be an accurate observation about them Republicans who spat venom about gays
Well, I would hope that vociferous heterosexual condemnation not cease merely b/c of the prospect of a reverse battyman charge
-
I have made an observation over the years and I admit, my conclusions are not scientific
There are examples (which I will have to Google if somebody ask me for citations) that those who decry homosexuality the most turn out to be closet homosexuals themselves.
seems to be an accurate observation about them Republicans who spat venom about gays
Well, I would hope that vociferous heterosexual condemnation not cease merely b/c of the prospect of a reverse battyman charge
an doh take my comment to mean that Closets in Jamaica Full no armen with such candidates eeedda :devil:
-
FAMILY provides the stability you cite... not necessarily marriage. Everything you cite is provided for by family, including nuclear and other forms of extended family. Indeed stable societies developed and existed before the institution of marriage did. So while I'm not saying that your assertion is wrong, it certainly isn't convincing, nor integral to the goal you state. Marriage may not be absolute integral to the purity of the gene pool/genealogical line but it certainly plays a much stronger role towards the stated end. Besides this is no mere conjecture, gene purity is the reason why mammals in particular and most higher organisms pair off... and this (as well as property reasons, cementing ties between clans/tribes) is why the institution of marriage came about.
At the risk of us going off on a tangent I should say that my rationalization was just an example of one of the foundations for marriage. But to follow up. The existence of stable societies without matrriage as key element to me lacks relevance since ther are currently in the minority. The marriage model that we take for granted now clearly founded more successful dominant societies. I also don't agree in the level of importance that you place in "gene purity" (which you should probably explain-because it is an ambiquous term) as a foundation for marriage. Even if it was that critical as an early reason for marriage it is not a practical consideration now. I can't see how it could be used as a reason to preclude gays from getting married legally. On the other hands the modern benefits of marriage to society benefit us whether gays or straights get married.
While I agree with you that much of the opposition is rooted in religious belief... I think you're getting too bogged down in thinking of the arguments of particular religions, rather than looking at the bigger role that religious thought in general has played in the development of societal mores and morality. In other words, rather than thinking of the discussion in terms of "my religion can't be a standard for someone who does not believe the same thing", look at the bigger picture...religion on the whole was integral to the foundation of American society. That religion of course was Christianity, so Christian principles are at the core. Christianity was left out of the Constitution of course, so as to not slight other religions... but even when taken into account other religions, most (if not expressing opposition to homosexuality) definitely consider the marital union as being one between man and woman.
So in sum, its not that "my religion" teaches me that marriage is between man and woman, but 'religion' in general has given rise to moral notions which guide the discussion, chiefly that marriage is between man and woman.
Even knowing that all religions have the same opinion of gay marriage does not change the fact that the legal process of granting a marriage licence needs to have no religious influence. Religions and religious organizations have their sphere of influence wher ethey can determine who gets "married" or not. That sphere should not include people who reject the religion. Despite the fact that the word marriage is used to describe both the legal and the ritualistic processes I can't see how religions have a claim to who should be legally married or more specifically how any religious argument could be applied. If that was reasonable then abortion would be illegal as a rule because the religious majority would have the authority to determine the rights of the individual.
Many legal observers in fact think that this is just a matter of time, but as for now, there simply isn't enough support, or rational arguments in favor of gay unions.
This I agree with. But I believe that it is only a matter of time before people realize that there is no really rational argument for preventing two people getting married to each other. You may not agree with comparisons or race to sexual orientation but the themes are similar. At the end of the day you are talking about people that different from the majority being discriminated against. Just as with the civil rights movement, where people had to let go misqguided notions that one race was less than another, there has been a steady progress for gays being accepted, respected and valued as equals in society. Still far to go but it must happen in time.
-
Bakes, that talk about christians curing homos is BS and dat doh mean bake and Shark!
Dat like de BTK murderer, he is big deacon in Church, even elected as Church president.
Dem does put de people on guilt trip, take dey money and make dem feel shame for what they were born as!
It eh have no cure for bullers, dey is what dey is!
Dey have evidence of gay sheep for heaven's sake, who curing dem? Gay Penguins, gay man, gay cow,gay dolphins, gay elephants, gay cats, gay women, gay bears, gay rats, gay buffalo, gay caribou....whappen?
Any mention of Christians or Christianity and your Pavlovian reflexes kick into action eh? Well wipe de drool off yuh chin and try and focus here fella... regardless what your thoughts on gays being 'cured' or whether theire are gay animals (not sure what that's suppose to prove) the larger issue is whether their sexual orientation is static or dynamic. The very fact that there are a class of people who sometimes they prefer the opposite sex, sometimes they prefer the same sex should preemptively end any serious argument over the mutability of sexual orientation.
As the article itself demonstrates, gays themselves admit that gender identity and sexual orientation can sometimes be fluid... you say it's BS. Maybe you know better... who am I to say, I've never been gay or otherwise changed my sexual orientation. Maybe you can shed some light for us.
I think the whole "immutability of homosexuality" is a non-issue as far as comparing the gay rights movement to civil rights movement for blacks.
What is the insinuation? That the plight of gays is somehow less than blacks because gays choose to be that way whereas blacks don't have a choice?
The fact is a gay person, living the gay lifestyle is gay. Is the idea that they have the opportunity to get the same civil rights as straight people if they change orientation so the two can't be compared? Because if it is it could only be applied to whatever minority that has shown a tendency to flip orientations. It would be impossible to apply that standard to a person who has only known themsleves as a gay person. To them they are born gay just as sure as a black man is born black.
-
1) ... but I really included the article because it presents a perspective which I don't believe is represented here (who knows?)... that of a gay person.
2) Perspective aside her arguments show persuasively how notions of gender and sexual orientation can in fact change.
3) Pecan if you remain unconvinced, then such is your prerogative.
1) Interesting perspective by a gay person. No one on this forum had come out of the closet so we have to rely on this article as the closest thing to a gay opnion.
2) I still think that modifying one behaviour to conform to societal expectations is not a definitive example of immutability. People often change their physical appearances for many reasons without changing the genetic code. I believe that those people who vacillate between gay-bi-straight are merely experimenting as they try to come to grips with the whole notion of homosexuality and acceptance. But this is pure speculation.
3) "prerogative" That reminds me of a title of a Bobby Brown song (video starts at 0:43 but has nothing to do with homosexuality - I just like the song). Perhaps even if it is not immutable, gays are saying that it is their prerogative to be gay. And what is wrong with that?
http://www.youtube.com/v/f5YWqtOQq8s
Good Discussion, but that's it for me ...
-
what about dr Kinsey's assertion that sexuality is a continuum. From 1-6 or something so and pple rank on all different levels.
-
At the risk of us going off on a tangent I should say that my rationalization was just an example of one of the foundations for marriage. But to follow up. The existence of stable societies without matrriage as key element to me lacks relevance since ther are currently in the minority. The marriage model that we take for granted now clearly founded more successful dominant societies.
I don't disagree with the bolded.. but maybe we're on different pages, I was discussing the rise of marriage as an institution, not the contemporary status/role of marriage. Marriage isn't integral to stable societies because stable societies pre-dated the marriage convention. Stated another way one can't argue that in order to have stable societies we need marriages.
I also don't agree in the level of importance that you place in "gene purity" (which you should probably explain-because it is an ambiquous term) as a foundation for marriage. Even if it was that critical as an early reason for marriage it is not a practical consideration now. I can't see how it could be used as a reason to preclude gays from getting married legally. On the other hands the modern benefits of marriage to society benefit us whether gays or straights get married.
As I tried to later clarify... gene purity meaning purity of the genalogical line. Put another way, there is never a doubt about who the mother of the child is, paternity however can come into dispute... marriage was intended as one way of mitigating (note I didn't say ensuring) against disputes. In the Animal kingdom many mammals mate for life b/c once they identify characteristics (largely phenotypical) in their mates, they pretty much want to do their best to ensure that those traits get passed on to their progeny and not any other. Females are circumspect with whom they mate and males are fiercely protective of the female with whom they mate... promoting their genetic line takes primacy over all others... hence why lions often kill the cubs of other male lions. At least that's what I recall... it's been at least 10 yrs since I took Genetics. Kinda tangential, but that's what I mean by gene purity, ensuring that all the progeny down the line descend from one male.
At any rate it was never my contention that such was a practical consideration now... I was simply outlining why the term marriage has traditionally been reserved for the union between man and woman. That tradition influences both the moral and legal framework within which the discussion is made.
Even knowing that all religions have the same opinion of gay marriage does not change the fact that the legal process of granting a marriage licence needs to have no religious influence. Religions and religious organizations have their sphere of influence wher ethey can determine who gets "married" or not. That sphere should not include people who reject the religion. Despite the fact that the word marriage is used to describe both the legal and the ritualistic processes I can't see how religions have a claim to who should be legally married or more specifically how any religious argument could be applied. If that was reasonable then abortion would be illegal as a rule because the religious majority would have the authority to determine the rights of the individual.
I don't disagree... but once again, I was discussing the history and tradition of marriages here in the US and why that history and traditions continues to be an obstacle to gay marriage today.
Incidentally, you mention the abortion issue... but ironically enough the history and traditions concerning abortion was one of the reason why Roe v. Wade was decided as it was... history and tradition was that women could freely make the determination themselves without external interference. So we shouldn't be too dismissive of 'history and tradition' as a factor as some would have us be.
This I agree with. But I believe that it is only a matter of time before people realize that there is no really rational argument for preventing two people getting married to each other. You may not agree with comparisons or race to sexual orientation but the themes are similar. At the end of the day you are talking about people that different from the majority being discriminated against. Just as with the civil rights movement, where people had to let go misqguided notions that one race was less than another, there has been a steady progress for gays being accepted, respected and valued as equals in society. Still far to go but it must happen in time.
Certainly parrallels can be drawn between the two struggles... but that's a far cry from positing them as analogues as many try to do. I can go into a number of factors why this is erroneous... but the thread's being pulled into many different directions as is, which is why I didn't go into too much detail when I first broached it above.
-
I think the whole "immutability of homosexuality" is a non-issue as far as comparing the gay rights movement to civil rights movement for blacks.
What is the insinuation? That the plight of gays is somehow less than blacks because gays choose to be that way whereas blacks don't have a choice?
The fact is a gay person, living the gay lifestyle is gay. Is the idea that they have the opportunity to get the same civil rights as straight people if they change orientation so the two can't be compared? Because if it is it could only be applied to whatever minority that has shown a tendency to flip orientations. It would be impossible to apply that standard to a person who has only known themsleves as a gay person. To them they are born gay just as sure as a black man is born black.
We're all entitled to our opinion on the 'immutability' issue but the fact remains that it is a criteria... and obstacle, in the discussion of gay marriage. Not all rights are equal... for instance 'age' doesn't receive the same protections as 'race', gender, ethnic origins etc. Not even gender receives the same protections as race. There are essentially three levels of 'scrutiny' used by the Supreme Court, meaning that they will treat cases with a certain amount of firmness or alternatively, deference to the governmental interest when someone challenges a law on the basis of it violating their rights.
Strict Scrutiny- meaning that the challenged legislation/policy must be ESSENTIALLY-related to a COMPELLING government interest. Only if the law passes this test will it be deemed Constitutionally sound.
Intermediate Scrutiny- the challenged legislation must SUBSTANTIALLY-related to an IMPORTANT government interest.
Rational Basis- the challenged legislation must be RATIONALLY-related to a LEGITIMATE government interest.
The degree of deference to the government increases as one descends the levels. Race receives Strict Scrutiny and the government must show that any legislation which discriminates on the basis of race is essential to a compelling interest. The language is important because it lets the gov't know just how high the bar is. Gender receives intermediate scrutiny, while sexual orientation receives rational basis... so as long as the government can meet the lower threshold of showing that laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are rationally related to a legitimate interest, the law will pass muster.
I went into all of that to confirm for you that not all rights are equal as I stated... and yes, if you want to term it as such, the plight of gays is less than that of blacks. No credible argument can be presented to show that gays have historically been as oppressed, ostracized, demonized and victimized as blacks have... and systematically so. There simply is no argument. That history of oppression is precisely why such hightened scrutiny is placed on race-based laws.
-
what about dr Kinsey's assertion that sexuality is a continuum. From 1-6 or something so and pple rank on all different levels.
I'm not sure that we should be citing Kinsey... but I wouldn't know anything about this continuum theory.
-
bakes it jus has to do with how pple say that yuh either gay or hetero..He proposed a scale with exclusively gay or hetero on either end and pple ranked themselves all over the scale. Many people who had never had any gay relationship or anything as such would rank themselves as a 5 if 6 was exclusively straight.
It also can be used as an argument for "reformed" gays who now live a hetero lifestyle. They may be more to the middle of the scale etc.
I must say i think this is one of the best threads we ever had dealing with a touchy issue that surprisingly didnt get down to insults on each other's viewpoints. Was pleasantly surprised.
-
I must say i think this is one of the best threads we ever had dealing with a touchy issue that surprisingly didnt get down to insults on each other's viewpoints. Was pleasantly surprised.
Yes is true eh
I tink ya ketch dem on a GOOD day :devil:
2009 goin an be gooder dan 08 ;D
-
bakes it jus has to do with how pple say that yuh either gay or hetero..He proposed a scale with exclusively gay or hetero on either end and pple ranked themselves all over the scale. Many people who had never had any gay relationship or anything as such would rank themselves as a 5 if 6 was exclusively straight.
It also can be used as an argument for "reformed" gays who now live a hetero lifestyle. They may be more to the middle of the scale etc.
I must say i think this is one of the best threads we ever had dealing with a touchy issue that surprisingly didnt get down to insults on each other's viewpoints. Was pleasantly surprised.
I was going to agree without reservation ... buh now ah attribute that to two things ...
1. it might be a lil inappropriate to call a man a bullah in dis thread ...
2. is an exponential inference I'll leave for mathematical minds.
-
bakes it jus has to do with how pple say that yuh either gay or hetero..He proposed a scale with exclusively gay or hetero on either end and pple ranked themselves all over the scale. Many people who had never had any gay relationship or anything as such would rank themselves as a 5 if 6 was exclusively straight.
It also can be used as an argument for "reformed" gays who now live a hetero lifestyle. They may be more to the middle of the scale etc.
I must say i think this is one of the best threads we ever had dealing with a touchy issue that surprisingly didnt get down to insults on each other's viewpoints. Was pleasantly surprised.
Nah, I'm famililar with the Kinsey scale... was just saying that I'm not sure we should be citing him since much of his work has come into criticism based on his test subjects and methodologies. Supposedly he relied heavily on pedophiles, convicts and prostitutes as his test subjects... when he and his assistants weren't screwing each other and the test subjects that is. So there have been questions raised as to his findings and conclusions. When I said I didn't know about the theory... meaning I'm not sure if anyone else has ever explored the continuum theory to see if there has been any independent verification of it.
-
Kinsey ... towards a twisted definition of intellectual orgy
-
1) Interesting perspective by a gay person. No one on this forum had come out of the closet so we have to rely on this article as the closest thing to a gay opnion.
Well, we DO have d#1Trinba saying Kenwyne is ah "good-looking fella" :rotfl: :rotfl:
2) I still think that modifying one behaviour to conform to societal expectations is not a definitive example of immutability. People often change their physical appearances for many reasons without changing the genetic code. I believe that those people who vacillate between gay-bi-straight are merely experimenting as they try to come to grips with the whole notion of homosexuality and acceptance. But this is pure speculation.
Especially since we have no proof that sexuality is ingrained in that genetic code, right ;)
3) "prerogative" That reminds me of a title of a Bobby Brown song (video starts at 0:43 but has nothing to do with homosexuality - I just like the song). Perhaps even if it is not immutable, gays are saying that it is their prerogative to be gay. And what is wrong with that?
Agree... nutten wrong with them choosing who they want as mates/life partners.
-
What gay animals prove is that in some cases homosexuality is NOT a choice! It is an orientation jes as heterosexuality.
but if you cyar see dat.....;)
-
What gay animals prove is that in some cases homosexuality is NOT a choice! It is an orientation jes as heterosexuality.
but if you cyar see dat.....;)
Okay... but what does any of that have to do with the immutability discussion? ???
-
What gay animals prove is that in some cases homosexuality is NOT a choice! It is an orientation jes as heterosexuality.
but if you cyar see dat.....;)
Okay... but what does any of that have to do with the immutability discussion? ???
fella you is ah master of spin. Yuh talk about gays being cured I say that is Bull shit, yuh counter with Pavlov talk, and that some people like man and den dey like woman, dey Bi-sexual, dat is ah whole nodder story.
Anyway ah gorn, you have your narrow views and there are influenced by the ick factor as well as your superstitious beliefs in some pie in de sky god dat is a mythical figure....as for shedding light on gays etc, I feel you better equipped as science done say it genetic and you have better insight albeit garnered from some jokey evanglical christian jokers, by de way ent jes de odder day dem leader say he is ah billah and a drug user? Ted Haggart or Haggard ah tink was he...is he name.
-
fella you is ah master of spin. Yuh talk about gays being cured I say that is Bull shit, yuh counter with Pavlov talk, and that some people like man and den dey like woman, dey Bi-sexual, dat is ah whole nodder story.
Master of spin? Is that your excuse for not being able to properly read and follow the discussion? I gave an example of gays being cured to show that the notion of sexual orientation can be fluid...from gay to straight... I also gave the example of straight to gay. Changing sexuality... it really isn't that hard.
I never said that 'ex-gays' were definitively cured or not because I don't care about that debate, I have no reason (unlike you) to doubt the word or 'ex-gays' themselves. Take up your argument with them since you apparently know better.
Anyway ah gorn, you have your narrow views and there are influenced by the ick factor as well as your superstitious beliefs in some pie in de sky god dat is a mythical figure....as for shedding light on gays etc, I feel you better equipped as science done say it genetic and you have better insight albeit garnered from some jokey evanglical christian jokers, by de way ent jes de odder day dem leader say he is ah billah and a drug user? Ted Haggart or Haggard ah tink was he...is he name.
Your unintelligible rant dismisses you from inclusion in any serious debate and I won't bother waste any more time on you. My views are as narrow as your brain apparently since you seem content on making ASSumptions about my beliefs rather than making rational arguments in support of your own.
-
so we know now who support gays,who doh mind havin ah bullerman fuh ah friend.now answer this.who here is ah macomehman.
call names...I go :whistling:
:devil:
wha dat mean? Call names and yuh go blow?
Bakes, that talk about christians curing homos is BS and dat doh mean bake and Shark!
Dat like de BTK murderer, he is big deacon in Church, even elected as Church president.
Dem does put de people on guilt trip, take dey money and make dem feel shame for what they were born as!
It eh have no cure for bullers, dey is what dey is!
Dey have evidence of gay sheep for heaven's sake, who curing dem? Gay Penguins, gay man, gay cow,gay dolphins, gay elephants, gay cats, gay women, gay bears, gay rats, gay buffalo, gay caribou....whappen?
TT i heard that before but never pay it no mind.yuh have any literature on that? if yuh do please post if yuh don't mind.
BTW all the men who like to talk like allyuh so holy and righteous, how allyuh doh ramp with battyman and doh have no batty man friend! then i have ah few experiences of my own to know most fellas who come over like that is closet queens!!!!
i had ah good Friend in trini back in the early 80ies, we used to stay in the working men's hostel in POS, he was meh real horse, but boy this dude hated faggots with an insane passion.
now as yuh know in an invironment like that there would be ah substantial amount of hen man in the place, but every body kept their lust to them selves for fear of ah beat down.
anyway JC and every body was cool, the hen and dem, the thieves, the foreigners,the haters, every one and JC was cool.
but my boy had ah problem with me being friendly with the bullers and would ask me , "wham horse yuh does jam dem bullers or what, how come you and dem so friendly" i used to ignore him BC i know my heart clean and that's not my thing.
every body in the place started calling me ah fag BC i never scorn the man and dem BC of their disposition, dem fellas used to bring food for me when they visit their family in the country side, lend meh money when i was broke and show me real friendship so i didn't study the a$$ talk coming from the SO CALLED MACHO KAKAHOLES!
BREDS THIS IS HOW LIFE FUNNY!! ONE AH THE BULLERS CONTRACT THE HIV VIRUS AND DIED SUDDENLY! when the mark buss is real fellas went to get teasted under low.
i found out that my boy was on the list together with ah bunch ah other tough guys who would sleight me, i found out BC one ah the gays was a male nurse that worked @ CMC and i used to work in the general hospital, i would take blood samples to CMC every day, he then informed me of all the fellas from the hostel that came for testing BC they was F@ckin the boy good and proper.
since then i lose faith in ppl, i never though human nature could be so hypocritical and deceitful, imagine my boy would harass me and made me uncomfortable in his presents as often as the subject arose, threatening me with violence saying if he ever found out that i was a mocamare man he would knock me out, could you imagine how i felt when he was found out, the same thing he hated so much turned out to be the thing he loved.
i never told him what i knew, and little by little i slacked off from the friendship, the same for men who used to talk bout dating white chicks, real men used to dog me for dating out my race, but when the mark buss they themselves were sneaking around with white and japanese girls.
my final analysis on this subject, ppl who make the most stink about a moral issue most likely have something to hide, like the saying goes, " i think thou does protest too much".
-
lol, de only ting narrow is yuh pencil dick.
Listen fella HOMOSEXUALITY is genetic, man who does go with both man and woman is bi-sexuals.
Christianity is fake and dey always putting people down.
De religious right is neither!
Animals are gay and dey doh have choices, dem is not sentient beings like man.
Ergo it is widespread in nature and not isolated to humans.
If yuh cyar understand dat...go ask Weary to help yuh.
-
lol, de only ting narrow is yuh pencil dick.
Listen fella HOMOSEXUALITY is genetic, man who does go with both man and woman is bi-sexuals.
Christianity is fake and dey always putting people down.
De religious right is neither!
Animals are gay and dey doh have choices, dem is not sentient beings like man.
Ergo it is widespread in nature and not isolated to humans.
If yuh cyar understand dat...go ask Weary to help yuh.
You is ah kinda clown or what? Science can't conclude that homosexuality is genetic but you, some nobody says it is and that makes it so? steups
Thank you for defining bisexuality for us... apparently you were confused. Bisexuality by definition is one manifestation of sexual orientation... since bi-sexuality is fluid, it proves that sexual orientation itself isn't static. THIS is the point that seems to be lost on you. If sexual orientation (whatever the form) isn't static, then necessarily it can't be immutable. If the concepts are too difficult for you to grasp then just excuse yourself from the discussion and go play with your navel lint or something.
As for everything else you cite with regards to homosexuality among animals... again nothing has been conclusively shown. At best it can only be described as aberrant behavior and not at all "widespread in nature" as you claim. If you have something to add to the discussion then by all means contribute it, rather than making conclusory pronouncements as though they're fact.
-
Come on fellars kiss and make up ;D
ok ah running for my life now !!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Bakes is ah real expert on bi-sexuals and homos/\/\/\/\/\
he know dat it against god's will and he eh like dem...again
-
Bakes is ah real expert on bi-sexuals and homos/\/\/\/\/\
he know dat it against god's will and he eh like dem...again
TT ah thought u is an aethiest
-
I think the whole "immutability of homosexuality" is a non-issue as far as comparing the gay rights movement to civil rights movement for blacks.
What is the insinuation? That the plight of gays is somehow less than blacks because gays choose to be that way whereas blacks don't have a choice?
The fact is a gay person, living the gay lifestyle is gay. Is the idea that they have the opportunity to get the same civil rights as straight people if they change orientation so the two can't be compared? Because if it is it could only be applied to whatever minority that has shown a tendency to flip orientations. It would be impossible to apply that standard to a person who has only known themsleves as a gay person. To them they are born gay just as sure as a black man is born black.
We're all entitled to our opinion on the 'immutability' issue but the fact remains that it is a criteria... and obstacle, in the discussion of gay marriage. Not all rights are equal... for instance 'age' doesn't receive the same protections as 'race', gender, ethnic origins etc. Not even gender receives the same protections as race. There are essentially three levels of 'scrutiny' used by the Supreme Court, meaning that they will treat cases with a certain amount of firmness or alternatively, deference to the governmental interest when someone challenges a law on the basis of it violating their rights.
Strict Scrutiny- meaning that the challenged legislation/policy must be ESSENTIALLY-related to a COMPELLING government interest. Only if the law passes this test will it be deemed Constitutionally sound.
Intermediate Scrutiny- the challenged legislation must SUBSTANTIALLY-related to an IMPORTANT government interest.
Rational Basis- the challenged legislation must be RATIONALLY-related to a LEGITIMATE government interest.
The degree of deference to the government increases as one descends the levels. Race receives Strict Scrutiny and the government must show that any legislation which discriminates on the basis of race is essential to a compelling interest. The language is important because it lets the gov't know just how high the bar is. Gender receives intermediate scrutiny, while sexual orientation receives rational basis... so as long as the government can meet the lower threshold of showing that laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are rationally related to a legitimate interest, the law will pass muster.
I went into all of that to confirm for you that not all rights are equal as I stated... and yes, if you want to term it as such, the plight of gays is less than that of blacks. No credible argument can be presented to show that gays have historically been as oppressed, ostracized, demonized and victimized as blacks have... and systematically so. There simply is no argument. That history of oppression is precisely why such hightened scrutiny is placed on race-based laws.
I'm guessing that Matthew Shepard's death wasnt really a "hate" crime then. Just a person who happened to be gay, and happened to be beaten and whose funeral just happened to be picketed by members of a baptist church with signs such as "god hates fags" and "matt shepard rots in hell". Or the recent lesbian rape case - 4 of them I believe took turns raping her. Or the man in Brooklyn Jose Sucuzhanay who was beaten and his attackers repeatedly hurled anti-gay slurs at him. He later died of his injuries and - this is the best part - he had two kids in his native Ecuador. What about Brandon Teena (the movie Boys Don't Cry was based on his story). The fact is that yep gays have been oppressed, ostracized, demonized and victimized. The reason whe don't hear about them as much as the beating of a black person, is very simply perhaps that most gays are pressured not to report the crimes for fear of retaliation. Or they are ashamed, not of who they are but of how they feel after the incidents occur. The other reason we don't hear about these types of hate crimes is probably because they don't occur in as high a frequency as a racial attack. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, doesnt mean these crimes don't exist. And just because someone who is gay goes to a church, and comes out saying he;s cured, does it really mean he is cured or does it mean he is conforming to what society wants him to do. There's nothing cured about that if in his heart he still feels or is gay. And to draw a comparison between sexual orientation and race - Back in the days of slavery there were those blacks that were lighter in color, who tried their damnest to "pass" as white so that they could live a life free of the oppression and the victimisation. Can it really be so hard to visualise a gay man or woman trying to do the same thing? "pass" as normal as defined by certain elements of society?
-
I'm guessing that Matthew Shepard's death wasnt really a "hate" crime then. Just a person who happened to be gay, and happened to be beaten and whose funeral just happened to be picketed by members of a baptist church with signs such as "god hates fags" and "matt shepard rots in hell". Or the recent lesbian rape case - 4 of them I believe took turns raping her. Or the man in Brooklyn Jose Sucuzhanay who was beaten and his attackers repeatedly hurled anti-gay slurs at him. He later died of his injuries and - this is the best part - he had two kids in his native Ecuador. What about Brandon Teena (the movie Boys Don't Cry was based on his story). The fact is that yep gays have been oppressed, ostracized, demonized and victimized.
WHERE did I ever state that gays have never been oppressed, ostracized, demonized and victimized??
The reason whe don't hear about them as much as the beating of a black person, is very simply perhaps that most gays are pressured not to report the crimes for fear of retaliation. Or they are ashamed, not of who they are but of how they feel after the incidents occur.
In short yuh just guessing and trying to rationalize yuh answer as to why gays don't share the same history of persecution as blacks.
The other reason we don't hear about these types of hate crimes is probably because they don't occur in as high a frequency as a racial attack.
Lol, then doesn't that indicate that the oppression hasn't been as widespread as "systematic"?? Did you even read what I wrote before you responded to it?
Doesn't mean it didn't happen, doesnt mean these crimes don't exist.
Enough of the red herrings... no one has said gays haven't been persecuted... simply put the persecution of gays have nowhere been as widespread or pervasive as has been that of blacks. Throughout history and throughout the world, no one group of people has experienced the level of oppression that black people have. NONE.
And just because someone who is gay goes to a church, and comes out saying he;s cured, does it really mean he is cured or does it mean he is conforming to what society wants him to do. There's nothing cured about that if in his heart he still feels or is gay.
And what if in his heart he believes he IS in fact cured as some 'ex-gays' have claimed? Anyways, enough of this silly sidebar argument some of you seem stuck on this whole 'ex-gay' thing without paying attention to the bigger issue... sexual orientation changes. If you can agree that some people living as heterosexuals have later come out the closet to reveal that they're homosexuals, or if you can agree that some people straddle the line between both worlds then that shows that sexual orientation isn't rigid and unchanging.
And to draw a comparison between sexual orientation and race - Back in the days of slavery there were those blacks that were lighter in color, who tried their damnest to "pass" as white so that they could live a life free of the oppression and the victimisation. Can it really be so hard to visualise a gay man or woman trying to do the same thing? "pass" as normal as defined by certain elements of society?
"Trying to pass" doesn't mean that blacks changed their race does it? These blacks knew all along that they were black, they just pretended to be white. It's true that some gays know they're gay but pretend to be straight, but it's also true that some gays genuinely think they're straight until coming upon a realization that they're in fact gay. Again, not my place to argue with them and tell them they were lying when they say that they genuinely considered themselves straight and that their sexual orientation changed.
-
We're all entitled to our opinion on the 'immutability' issue but the fact remains that it is a criteria criterion... and obstacle, in the discussion of gay marriage.
whey Bakes, you slipping ... ;D
-
homo talk have he fingers slippery
-
war start this bullerman shit,TT and bns on ah rampage.for puttin me tru this ordeal warmonga name is now harvey milk.
-
We're all entitled to our opinion on the 'immutability' issue but the fact remains that it is a criteria criterion... and obstacle, in the discussion of gay marriage.
whey Bakes, you slipping ... ;D
She even misrepresents another criteria as requiring proof of "economic disadvantages" and compounds her error by conclusively stating that such can be proved with respect to gays.
...And dat wasn't de only time ah use it nuh, lol. Ah real slipping :D
-
The reason whe don't hear about them as much as the beating of a black person, is very simply perhaps that most gays are pressured not to report the crimes for fear of retaliation. Or they are ashamed, not of who they are but of how they feel after the incidents occur.
In short yuh just guessing and trying to rationalize yuh answer as to why gays don't share the same history of persecution as blacks.
No I'm saying we dont know, I don't know and neither do you. Thats why I used the word "Perhaps". While we (and from personal experience I) may know what it's like to be the victim of racial discrimination and or attacks, we don't know what goes on inside a gay person's head when he encounters such a situation. I have read articles in the past on recounting gay hate crimes where the victims claim that the law enforcement officials they reported their attacks to, ignored them or worse belittled them.
The other reason we don't hear about these types of hate crimes is probably because they don't occur in as high a frequency as a racial attack.
Lol, then doesn't that indicate that the oppression hasn't been as widespread as "systematic"?? Did you even read what I wrote before you responded to it?
No I think it means that there might more blacks than gays out there so the numbers are smaller. But I could be wrong and am woman enough to admit that I might be wrong.
Doesn't mean it didn't happen, doesnt mean these crimes don't exist.
Enough of the red herrings... no one has said gays haven't been persecuted... simply put the persecution of gays have nowhere been as widespread or pervasive as has been that of blacks. Throughout history and throughout the world, no one group of people has experienced the level of oppression that black people have. NONE.
Well..... there was this little thing called the Holocaust. But there are those out there that are very firmly convinced that it never happened. I personally believe that it did happen. My ex's grandmother had these little numbers tattoed on her wrist that she said happened in something called a concentration camp. I read in quite a few history books that they were really horrible places to be in. Unless..... the history books lied? Maybe it's just all one big conspiracy theory and Hitler was in fact a really nice guy
-
if allyuh seriously believe that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, but ingrained from birth in all cases, then why not extend the same logic to all other vices like beastiality and incest too?
-
if allyuh seriously believe that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, but ingrained from birth in all cases, then why not extend the same logic to all other vices like beastiality and incest too?
ent.
-
if allyuh seriously believe that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, but ingrained from birth in all cases, then why not extend the same logic to all other vices like beastiality and incest too?
huh?
chalk and cheese.
No comparison, come on man, yuh have to be brighter than that!
have TO BE!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
No I'm saying we dont know, I don't know and neither do you. Thats why I used the word "Perhaps". While we (and from personal experience I) may know what it's like to be the victim of racial discrimination and or attacks, we don't know what goes on inside a gay person's head when he encounters such a situation. I have read articles in the past on recounting gay hate crimes where the victims claim that the law enforcement officials they reported their attacks to, ignored them or worse belittled them.
Black people don't have the franchise on suffering and oppression... I think we can all agree on that. Throughout history there has never been systematic oppression of gays except in limited cases in the 20th century in some Communist countries. Systematic meaning there were laws in place discriminating against them. There have been many powerful and/or influential people who've reputedly been gay, and I'm not talking about gays living in the closet. From William Shakespeare, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Leonardo Da Vinci, to Alexander the Great, Nero... there have been rulers of empires, Popes even who have been gay. So clearly despite them being openly gay they were able to live just as comfortably as any heterosexual. Can we say that blacks have even been allowed to attain such levels of power and/or influence?
No I think it means that there might more blacks than gays out there so the numbers are smaller. But I could be wrong and am woman enough to admit that I might be wrong.
Numbers aside, we're talking scope here... the scope of oppression against blacks has largely been global and race-based laws have been codified into law allowing for the oppression of blacks. Obviously this hasn't only been limited to just this century, not when we have 400 yrs of slavery to look back upon.
Well..... there was this little thing called the Holocaust. But there are those out there that are very firmly convinced that it never happened. I personally believe that it did happen. My ex's grandmother had these little numbers tattoed on her wrist that she said happened in something called a concentration camp. I read in quite a few history books that they were really horrible places to be in. Unless..... the history books lied? Maybe it's just all one big conspiracy theory and Hitler was in fact a really nice guy
No offense, but this entire discussion of Jews and the Holocaust is tangential. I for one don't deny that the Holocaust happened, so there's no need for us to even go down that particular rabbit hole. Estimates have put the number of Jewish lives lost due to the Holocaust at about 6 million. This number pales in comparison to the number of African lives lost in slavery... and I'm just talking about those who died before they even got on the ship http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p277.html, and that link is just for starters.
Once aboard the ship, another 20-40% of the slaves never made it to America, falling victim to murder, suicide, disease and rebellion. Slavers deliberately packed the vessels with as many bodies as possible because they knew a large percentage of their cargo would be culled by a combination of one or several of the above factors. We can really end the discussion here, because there's no need to even get into the numbers of lives lost during slavery... again to murder, disease, suicide, infanticide, rebellion etc.
Simply put... the scope of oppression suffered by Jews cannot even begin to compare. As I said, no one group of people have been made to suffer as much as black people have over the years.
-
if allyuh seriously believe that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, but ingrained from birth in all cases, then why not extend the same logic to all other vices like beastiality and incest too?
Because intelligent beings no better than to reduce homosexuality to mere 'vice'.
-
I'm actually beginning to enjoy this discussion and I really mean that,
Can we say that blacks have even been allowed to attain such levels of power and/or influence?
Then how the heck did a black man named Barack Obama just get elected to be the president of the united states? Once he's sworn in he will not only be the most powerful black man in the history, but also his presence in the White House will mean that for the first time in that same history, a black man will be the most powerful person on earth. Unless you don't count him as black because he's got that white blood in him. What about Nelson mandela after he was released from jail? And yes I know his history, no need to lecture me on that and post links, but he got elected didn't he? Or was that only because his white opressors felt guilty and decided to make him President. What about Desmond Tutu? There have been some influential and powerful blacks. Coli Powell? Condeleeza rice? - well maybe not her so much ???
-
Then how the heck did a black man named Barack Obama just get elected to be the president of the united states? Once he's sworn in he will not only be the most powerful black man in the history, but also his presence in the White House will mean that for the first time in that same history, a black man will be the most powerful person on earth. Unless you don't count him as black because he's got that white blood in him. What about Nelson mandela after he was released from jail? And yes I know his history, no need to lecture me on that and post links, but he got elected didn't he? Or was that only because his white opressors felt guilty and decided to make him President. What about Desmond Tutu? There have been some influential and powerful blacks. Coli Powell? Condeleeza rice? - well maybe not her so much ???
Sweet Mary mother of God...
You DO realize that every example you cite are contemporary examples, right? You do realize that I'm talking about a history and tradition of oppression, right? You might want to revisit the examples I cited and you'll see that they are largely if not exclusively historical... so going back centuries homosexuals enjoyed a certain level of acceptance in conventional society. Blacks are only NOW in this century being allowed the same acceptance.
Further underscoring my point that the two groups haven't experienced the same history of persecution/oppression.
-
Calm dong nah, why yuh so short tempered these days...well more than de average?
Answer this how God who create everything and was here before any human was, or anything else was made manifest could have ah modder?
ah jes asking! :)
-
war start this bullerman shit,TT and bns on ah rampage.for puttin me tru this ordeal warmonga name is now harvey milk.
or Ennis Del Mar or Jack Twist
:rotfl:
-
This has to be the most distasteful thread I have ever seen and some of the people that I have seen reply, I expect better from. Mainly Omar, B&S and Truetrini.
All yuh actually replying to a Jamaican and encouraging he homophobic behaviour.
Nothing wrong with discussing homosexuality and all its nuances but not at the cost of class.
-
if allyuh seriously believe that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, but ingrained from birth in all cases, then why not extend the same logic to all other vices like beastiality and incest too?
Staying outta d talk eh, but this was quite comical.
-
Swima, dahis a very content-neutral response :) ... quite comical how? :devil:
-
if allyuh seriously believe that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, but ingrained from birth in all cases, then why not extend the same logic to all other vices like beastiality and incest too?
huh?
chalk and cheese.
No comparison, come on man, yuh have to be brighter than that!
have TO BE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Endorsed!
-
We're all entitled to our opinion on the 'immutability' issue but the fact remains that it is a criteria criterion... and obstacle, in the discussion of gay marriage.
whey Bakes, you slipping ... ;D
She even misrepresents another criteria as requiring proof of "economic disadvantages" and compounds her error by conclusively stating that such can be proved with respect to gays.
...And dat wasn't de only time ah use it nuh, lol. Ah real slipping :D
And here:
if allyuh seriously believe that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, but ingrained from birth in all cases, then why not extend the same logic to all other vices like beastiality and incest too?
Because intelligent beings no better than to reduce homosexuality to mere 'vice'.
:-\
-
Then how the heck did a black man named Barack Obama just get elected to be the president of the united states? Once he's sworn in he will not only be the most powerful black man in the history, but also his presence in the White House will mean that for the first time in that same history, a black man will be the most powerful person on earth. Unless you don't count him as black because he's got that white blood in him. What about Nelson mandela after he was released from jail? And yes I know his history, no need to lecture me on that and post links, but he got elected didn't he? Or was that only because his white opressors felt guilty and decided to make him President. What about Desmond Tutu? There have been some influential and powerful blacks. Coli Powell? Condeleeza rice? - well maybe not her so much ???
Sweet Mary mother of God...
You DO realize that every example you cite are contemporary examples, right? You do realize that I'm talking about a history and tradition of oppression, right? You might want to revisit the examples I cited and you'll see that they are largely if not exclusively historical... so going back centuries homosexuals enjoyed a certain level of acceptance in conventional society. Blacks are only NOW in this century being allowed the same acceptance.
Further underscoring my point that the two groups haven't experienced the same history of persecution/oppression.
Wha' was de scene with Blacks before slavery began?
-
This has to be the most distasteful thread I have ever seen and some of the people that I have seen reply, I expect better from. Mainly Omar, B&S and Truetrini.
All yuh actually replying to a Jamaican and encouraging he homophobic behaviour.
Nothing wrong with discussing homosexuality and all its nuances but not at the cost of class.
doh study me king, i just chooking fire.
some of the major contributors in this thread who quick to talk is the ones who regularly level the most graphic and vile insults targeting homosexuals right here on this very forum.
its the reason why i hesitate to contribute to a thread like this because it easy to mash toes, but i say we talking ah talk, well lewwe talk a talk.. was just about to bring up the thread about the fellah who love he motorbikes and say why we shouldn't ostracize him either.. lol
look lemme come outta this thread yes. suffice it to say, certain of my views are not subject to the influence of the outside pressures of this world, so that limits my abilities to engage in rational debate on the matter.
proceed gentlemen.
-
This has to be the most distasteful thread I have ever seen and some of the people that I have seen reply, I expect better from. Mainly Omar, B&S and Truetrini.
All yuh actually replying to a Jamaican and encouraging he homophobic behaviour.
Nothing wrong with discussing homosexuality and all its nuances but not at the cost of class.
You sure you reading de right thread?
And here:
Because intelligent beings no better than to reduce homosexuality to mere 'vice'.
:-\
It was late?
:(
Wha' was de scene with Blacks before slavery began?
Within or outside of Africa?
-
Address both.
-
Address both.
Hard to say... not much documentation to go on.
In short the image of and respect accorded to Africans was much different... to be sure we were stereotyped, just read any of Shakespeare's descriptions of Othello, or Merchant of Venice for that matter (poor Jews, lol). But at the same time, you had men like Hannibal, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine of Hippo...
Inside of Africa... well we saw ourselves much as any other race sees itself... a diversed lot.
Then you had the North African/Sub-saharan divide that persists to this day. So the view of Africans prior to slavery was hardly uniform, but I suspect it was still better than how we emerged post-slavery.
-
Nothing wrong with homosexuality- it's a natural and age-old lifestyle. Men have been having sex with men and women with women for as long as history can recall. For whatever reason, the traditional powers that be have chastised homosexual practice from the earliest age in the (mainstream) documented history of the world, and have managed to paint a tainted image of the practice, with the help of the bible (for who so ever chooses to subscribe to it's teachings), and the fact that children aren't born out of same sex activity (as if child birth is the only reason to have sex right?...hmmmmmm). The liberal forces in mainstream media have been trying to give gay-oriented entertainment its place amongst other programming in recent times, and that's a good thing because I'm sure there is a willing audience on the receiving end (no pun intended)..... We live in the free market- so the forces of demand and supply will determine the survival of such.
I wonder how many of the people on this board that cite moral reasons as the basis for their issue with homosexuality actually abstain from premarital sex...
In the end people are just people... and sexual orientation is but just one characteristic that makes up the whole. (ah sound like a real idealist eh ;D) ....
Good thread
-
yuh tink homo and pre marital sex belong in de same ballpark or even on de same page.that is like nite and day in my book.
-
This has to be the most distasteful thread I have ever seen and some of the people that I have seen reply, I expect better from. Mainly Omar, B&S and Truetrini.
All yuh actually replying to a Jamaican and encouraging he homophobic behaviour.
Nothing wrong with discussing homosexuality and all its nuances but not at the cost of class.
Breds warmonger is ah TRINI !!! who does go on like ah yardie, so there goes your disapointment. and the fella actually brought up ah good convo, something that nuff trini's need to address, BC we trini's was never ah homophobic society until them consevative a$$ jamaicans started making songs about kill faggots and batty man should die.
like allyuh eh see shabba and buju banton apologize to the gay community in England and the USA BC they see their big money contracts going down the drain!!
all who talking bout this and that about fags, does be the biggest fag lovers under the cover of darkness.
-
yuh tink homo and pre marital sex belong in de same ballpark or even on de same page.that is like nite and day in my book.
both are morally questionable to those who follow the book.... that was my point.
-
I have made an observation over the years and I admit, my conclusions are not scientific
There are examples (which I will have to Google if somebody ask me for citations) that those who decry homosexuality the most turn out to be closet homosexuals themselves.
seems to be an accurate observation about them Republicans who spat venom about gays
Ex-Senator Craig accepts sex sting guilty plea
1 hour, 15 minutes ago
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Former Sen. Larry Craig has ended his effort to void the guilty plea he made following his 2007 arrest in a men's toilet sex-sting operation, his lawyer said on Thursday.
The Minnesota courts have denied the Idaho Republican's appeals asking that he be allowed to withdraw his disorderly conduct guilty plea, which was processed by mail much like a traffic ticket.
Another appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court would have been fruitless, because the case did not raise significant or novel issues, Craig's attorney Thomas Kelly said.
The three-term Republican's term ended this week, and he has returned to Idaho, Kelly said.
Craig was arrested at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on June 11, 2007, by an undercover police officer who said the lawmaker peeked at him repeatedly through a crack in a stall door, sat down in the stall next to him and used hand and foot signals to indicate he was soliciting sex.
Craig, 63 and married, denied he was trolling for sex or was gay. Part of his explanation, which became frequent fodder for comedians, was that he was a big man who needed to spread his legs while sitting on the toilet.
(Reporting by Andrew Stern; editing by Michael Conlon)
-
I would like for Barbados to allow homos to be married . It cannot work in Ja nor TnT (to an extent).
Bajans seems to be more tolerant ,. what do you think guys ?? , it work in europe , N america . Could
Barbados be the Battyman offshore of the caribbean ?. not comfy in cayman , but barbados ???
u is ah interior decorator or ah florist.
-
I would like for Barbados to allow homos to be married . It cannot work in Ja nor TnT (to an extent).
Bajans seems to be more tolerant ,. what do you think guys ?? , it work in europe , N america . Could
Barbados be the Battyman offshore of the caribbean ?. not comfy in cayman , but barbados ???
u is ah interior decorator or ah florist.
why such a question ? it is a open topic .
this topic was dead and buried,i just knew some fruit cake would have rejuvanated it.
-
I doh understand why allyuh fighting up over what two next man doing in de confines of dey bedroom.
Unless is you or yours dey bullin' turn yuh head, avert yuh eyes and mind yuh business... not that hard.
shark , If a man take a next man girl am sure he may wanna do something about it .
but if a man take Earl One may say oh it is brotherly lO_E ,yet jealous. Alot of men just cannot fight , and sisters these days are very dominant , and some people do not like to be push around .
Fornications , Fights , and Dominancy are what some men run from .
You have me proper loss dred.
-
I doh understand why allyuh fighting up over what two next man doing in de confines of dey bedroom.
Unless is you or yours dey bullin' turn yuh head, avert yuh eyes and mind yuh business... not that hard.
shark , If a man take a next man girl am sure he may wanna do something about it .
but if a man take Earl One may say oh it is brotherly lO_E ,yet jealous. Alot of men just cannot fight , and sisters these days are very dominant , and some people do not like to be push around .
Fornications , Fights , and Dominancy are what some men run from .
You have me proper loss dred.
CaribMan,
I feel what you write there is CODE for something else oui
post the decrypter for we nuh man :devil:
-
Only d#1Trinba could decode that.
-
Only d#1Trinba could decode that.
you mean Michael Durham???
-
An old pastor used to say. "If you not sure what you r, check yourself. " It may sound crued but Pastor was referring to the beginning before the fall of man when things were the way God wanted it. Back then it was Man and Woman and God called it good. Good has not since changed His standards. It doesn't matter how much the society changes, God's standards and expectations are the same. The union of one man and one woman. Marriage is the first institute of humanity. Gods created it. So we don't get to vote on it or change it.
Because of this fallen world and a very real dark side. Eph.6:12 says " We wrestle against spiritual wickedness in high place against, dominions and mights etc." Their job is to deprave man so that God can be mocked. Why? Because God's affection is with human kind and not angels. (Dark or Light) The darkness have issues with the light so to hurt to light you attack the object of it's love.
I guess you could make an argument that their is homosexuality at a cellular level. The bible doesn't dispute that at all. Actually, you can make the case for anything alcoholics, disease, serial killers. We underestimate the seeds of the darkness and their ability to sow all kinds of trash into a life. Next thing you're thinking this is how you were meant to be when the truth is you have received into yourself corruption, willingly or unwillingly. Proverbs 4 reads
20 My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings.
21Let them not depart from thine eyes, keep them in the midst of thine heart;
22for they are life unto those that find them and health to all their flesh.
See the Word affects your heart/spirit but it's also able to change u on a cellular level. I'm sure you've heard the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
If if God understands how man can be trapped by the darkness He doesn't receive any excuse because He has shown us what it should be like from the beginning.
Romans 1
18For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness,
19because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it unto them.
20For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
21For when they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God, nor were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and to birds and fourfooted beasts and creeping things.
24Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves.
25They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting,
29being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity. They are whisperers,
30backbiters, haters of God, spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affections, implacable, unmerciful.
32And knowing the judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but have pleasure in those who do them.
I don't have any ill will to homosexuals but I do have a problem with thing forcing me to accept their lifestyle. What next? Child rapest, and murders organizing saying they just do this for fun. You might think there's a difference but not to God there isn't. Read the list above.
-
Preacher, since you quoting the Bible, you may as well include these and let's put women in their place. It have way too many unclean and non-submissive women running around the place.
Here is a re-post of an earlier post
1 Corinthians 11:8-9
For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Leviticus 12:2, 4, 5:
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
Leviticus 15:19-24
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
Based on these quotes we should be insisting that women are not men's equal, and they should be submissive to man and be confined during menstruation and after childbirth because they are unclean. After all, that is how God made woman.
-
An old pastor used to say. "If you not sure what you r, check yourself. " It may sound crued but Pastor was referring to the beginning before the fall of man when things were the way God wanted it. Back then it was Man and Woman and God called it good. Good has not since changed His standards. It doesn't matter how much the society changes, God's standards and expectations are the same. The union of one man and one woman. Marriage is the first institute of humanity. Gods created it. So we don't get to vote on it or change it.
Because of this fallen world and a very real dark side. Eph.6:12 says " We wrestle against spiritual wickedness in high place against, dominions and mights etc." Their job is to deprave man so that God can be mocked. Why? Because God's affection is with human kind and not angels. (Dark or Light) The darkness have issues with the light so to hurt to light you attack the object of it's love.
I guess you could make an argument that their is homosexuality at a cellular level. The bible doesn't dispute that at all. Actually, you can make the case for anything alcoholics, disease, serial killers. We underestimate the seeds of the darkness and their ability to sow all kinds of trash into a life. Next thing you're thinking this is how you were meant to be when the truth is you have received into yourself corruption, willingly or unwillingly. Proverbs 4 reads
20 My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings.
21Let them not depart from thine eyes, keep them in the midst of thine heart;
22for they are life unto those that find them and health to all their flesh.
See the Word affects your heart/spirit but it's also able to change u on a cellular level. I'm sure you've heard the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
If if God understands how man can be trapped by the darkness He doesn't receive any excuse because He has shown us what it should be like from the beginning.
Romans 1
18For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness,
19because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it unto them.
20For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
21For when they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God, nor were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and to birds and fourfooted beasts and creeping things.
24Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves.
25They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting,
29being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity. They are whisperers,
30backbiters, haters of God, spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affections, implacable, unmerciful.
32And knowing the judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but have pleasure in those who do them.
I don't have any ill will to homosexuals but I do have a problem with thing forcing me to accept their lifestyle. What next? Child rapest, and murders organizing saying they just do this for fun. You might think there's a difference but not to God there isn't. Read the list above.
:-\ :-X
-
Preacher, since you quoting the Bible, you may as well include these and let's put women in their place. It have way too many unclean and non-submissive women running around the place.
Here is a re-post of an earlier post
1 Corinthians 11:8-9
For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Leviticus 12:2, 4, 5:
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
Leviticus 15:19-24
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
Based on these quotes we should be insisting that women are not men's equal, and they should be submissive to man and be confined during menstruation and after childbirth because they are unclean. After all, that is how God made woman.
Scripture is really given for 2 reason: 1. By Description. Which means it's a descriptive of how things should always be. 2. By Prescription. Which is a prescribed answer for a present outcome that will bring a Godly outcome at the moment. The scriptures you quoting are prescription to a lifestyle of a people that raised animals. What follows animal? Flies. What do flies carry? Consider what would happen if you have a woman having a period in your tent(1 room)? The leaders felt the best way to deal with the situation and avoid the possibility of people getting sick was to isolate the female for a period of time. It was not out of hate or dislike for the woman but they were using the best common sense they felt at the time. The Lord led the leaders to safe hygiene for a people not medically advanced and we do that still today. When a woman has her period she still goes away and cleans herself.
But since we in Lev. we should read 18:22> As you can see this is referred to as an abomination not just an uncleanness. Hence, this is by description. The book of Lev. is really what would be acceptable for a healthy family, socially, sexually, economically etc. It's written against the back drop of a nation without a set social structure, economy etc. The Lord is trying to get them on the right track for a healthy society.
-
Pecan concerning women.
God created Man and put him in two houses. The male house and the female house.
These houses have different strengths and weakness needed for creating healthy people.
The Man in the female house is not lesser in away way than the Man in the male house.
In the context of a physical home the Male man is the head of the Fe-male. That's the order God set up and he should be willing to die for her, provide for her, love, care and protect the family etc. Outside of that any other slighting of women in society have come for the sinfulness of a fallen world. In the beginning they were equal and God sees them as equal. God trusts women so much that he left the world to a woman. She's called the "Church."
-
Preacher, since you quoting the Bible, you may as well include these and let's put women in their place. It have way too many unclean and non-submissive women running around the place.
Here is a re-post of an earlier post
1 Corinthians 11:8-9
For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Leviticus 12:2, 4, 5:
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
Leviticus 15:19-24
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
Based on these quotes we should be insisting that women are not men's equal, and they should be submissive to man and be confined during menstruation and after childbirth because they are unclean. After all, that is how God made woman.
Scripture is really given for 2 reason: 1. By Description. Which means it's a descriptive of how things should always be. 2. By Prescription. Which is a prescribed answer for a present outcome that will bring a Godly outcome at the moment. The scriptures you quoting are prescription to a lifestyle of a people that raised animals. What follows animal? Flies. What do flies carry? Consider what would happen if you have a woman having a period in your tent(1 room)? The leaders felt the best way to deal with the situation and avoid the possibility of people getting sick was to isolate the female for a period of time. It was not out of hate or dislike for the woman but they were using the best common sense they felt at the time. The Lord led the leaders to safe hygiene for a people not medically advanced and we do that still today. When a woman has her period she still goes away and cleans herself.
But since we in Lev. we should read 18:22> As you can see this is referred to as an abomination not just an uncleanness. Hence, this is by description. The book of Lev. is really what would be acceptable for a healthy family, socially, sexually, economically etc. It's written against the back drop of a nation without a set social structure, economy etc. The Lord is trying to get them on the right track for a healthy society.
So you conveniently distinguish between Description and Prescription.[/b]
As you said, the Book of Leviticus was describing a lifestyle when hygiene was not ideal. I do not disagree with your reasoning here.
So lets explore Leviticus some more.
Leviticus was composed during the Babylonian exile in the latter years of the sixth century BC - by a group of priests who became know as the 'priestly writers'.
It was a survival document during a time of exile; to maintain a sense of Jewish identity and to separate themselves (both as holy and different) from the people who they were now forced to live with.
So how did they do this?
1) they established the 7th day of each week as the Sabbath (and created the 6-day creation story)
2) they adopted the Kosher diet (eating is a primary way to maintain relationships)
3) they elevates circumcision
4) this book of the Torah became the document to live by
At this time the Bible began to be called the Word of God began and began to legitimize the prejudices and policies of the day (including homosexuality).
Since they could not do without women, then I argue that it is why it is DESCRIPTIVE. However, homosexuality became an abomination, reflecting the beliefs of the holy priests. So it became prescriptive.
And here is the crux of the matter that even you allude: thhese writers were limited in knowledge but as advances in scientific learning increases, some customs die out (i.e. the extent to which menstruation was treated). However, the prejudice relating to homosexuality continues to persist.
But those people who see the Bible as the Word of God must by their inherent beliefs, must condemn homosexuality and create the notion of Descriptive and Prescriptive arguments.
Otherwise, if homosexuals win, then the Bible will have no MORAL authority in any area of life. Thus if the Bible calls something an abomination and this abomination becomes to be viewed as acceptable, then the Bible will collapse.
So you have no choice in the matter but to believe that homosexuality is an abomination because if you dont, your entire belief structure will collapse around you. And no person wants that to happen to them. You rationalize your beliefs by saying you have no ill will against homosexuals, yet you go on to suggest that a next logical step after accepting homosexuality is to accept child rapists and murders as you stated:
I don't have any ill will to homosexuals but I do have a problem with thing forcing me to accept their lifestyle. What next? Child rapest, and murders organizing saying they just do this for fun. You might think there's a difference but not to God there isn't.
This leap of logic is mind boggling. And finally, how can you presume to know what God thinks. God is omnipotent - how can we presume to know his mind?
-
Pecan concerning women.
God created Man and put him in two houses. The male house and the female house.
These houses have different strengths and weakness needed for creating healthy people.
The Man in the female house is not lesser in away way than the Man in the male house.
In the context of a physical home the Male man is the head of the Fe-male. That's the order God set up and he should be willing to die for her, provide for her, love, care and protect the family etc. Outside of that any other slighting of women in society have come for the sinfulness of a fallen world. In the beginning they were equal and God sees them as equal. God trusts women so much that he left the world to a woman. She's called the "Church."
According to Genesis 2:18
"Then the Lord God said: "it is not good that man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him".
I.e, Woman was designed as a second rate person.
I do not believe that to be the case.
My whole reason for debating you Preacher is that you cant pick and chose quotes from the Bible to match your own likes and dislikes.
Either you accept the Bible verbatim and live by those words, or you accept the Bible as an instrument to better understand where we came from and how we might improve our life on earth.
But do not quote the Bible to defend a moral point of view. The Bible is not the Word of God. Rather, it is man's interpretation of what they believed to be the word of God through the ages. And if we study it, we can learn from it and eventually conclude that homosexuality is not a sin in God's eye. After all, he made them.
-
Pecan I not debating you. We just talking. You free to believe what you want I'm sure this post has been recorded too. One day we'll all stand before God. I guess you'll be free to take up your issues with Him then. Assuming you could be as sure of yourself then as you are now. I know for me, my wife isn't lesser than me. I praise the Lord for my mother and all women. As for homosexuals, if for some reason Moses make a mistake and hear Adam and Eve when God really say Adam and Steve then the end of all things will reveal you to be right. Until then I'll try and keep my heart pure to all men regardless of whatever lifestyle they may choose, even if it's blatantly contrary to the bible.
I believe the God who tell the Moon and Sun, stay there is able to get a message to men and preserve it in spite of men. God loves the homosexuals but I do not believe he endorses homosexuality. I hold that same stance.
One day everybody will have to answer for their life. You could lie to yourself, plug your ears, shake your head, close your eye tight tight. But one day when you open them, you're going to see Him. And this time you wouldn't be looking at no Lamb. You be looking into the eyes of The Lion of the Tribe of Judah(Fierce with Judgment). After those eyes pierce through your soul from fetus to now, He wouldn't even have to talk. You'll know whether you're a friend or an enemy.
Ecc.12:13-14 says, "The purpose of man is to Fear God and keep His commands." I talking to myself first when i say live recklessly at your own risk.
Blessings
-
Pecan concerning women.
God created Man and put him in two houses. The male house and the female house.
These houses have different strengths and weakness needed for creating healthy people.
The Man in the female house is not lesser in away way than the Man in the male house.
In the context of a physical home the Male man is the head of the Fe-male. That's the order God set up and he should be willing to die for her, provide for her, love, care and protect the family etc. Outside of that any other slighting of women in society have come for the sinfulness of a fallen world. In the beginning they were equal and God sees them as equal. God trusts women so much that he left the world to a woman. She's called the "Church."
How can they be 'equal' is man is the head of the woman... as you say?
-
Because that reference is only related to the home in a marriage. Every lowering of women came after the fall. It was also part of the curse that the woman's desire will be to her husband and He will have rule over her. Check it out.
-
and to think that CHRIST was said to hang out with all down and out peoples
yet the modern day church will have nothing of that
the LEADERS are the ones who are the MOST UN-LIKE CHRIST
-
(http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/smiley-popcorn.gif)
(http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/smiley-eatin-popcorn.gif)
-
I goin an just read from here on in
(http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/party/party0051.gif)
ah bag ah fresh and ah cream soda wid evaporated milk ;D
-
Pecan concerning women.
God created Man and put him in two houses. The male house and the female house.
These houses have different strengths and weakness needed for creating healthy people.
The Man in the female house is not lesser in away way than the Man in the male house.
In the context of a physical home the Male man is the head of the Fe-male. That's the order God set up and he should be willing to die for her, provide for her, love, care and protect the family etc. Outside of that any other slighting of women in society have come for the sinfulness of a fallen world. In the beginning they were equal and God sees them as equal. God trusts women so much that he left the world to a woman. She's called the "Church."
How can they be 'equal' is man is the head of the woman... as you say?
if you re-arrange those words, you might get the true meaning of life
-
Pecan I not debating you. We just talking. You free to believe what you want I'm sure this post has been recorded too. One day we'll all stand before God. I guess you'll be free to take up your issues with Him then. Assuming you could be as sure of yourself then as you are now. I know for me, my wife isn't lesser than me. I praise the Lord for my mother and all women. As for homosexuals, if for some reason Moses make a mistake and hear Adam and Eve when God really say Adam and Steve then the end of all things will reveal you to be right. Until then I'll try and keep my heart pure to all men regardless of whatever lifestyle they may choose, even if it's blatantly contrary to the bible.
I believe the God who tell the Moon and Sun, stay there is able to get a message to men and preserve it in spite of men. God loves the homosexuals but I do not believe he endorses homosexuality. I hold that same stance.
One day everybody will have to answer for their life. You could lie to yourself, plug your ears, shake your head, close your eye tight tight. But one day when you open them, you're going to see Him. And this time you wouldn't be looking at no Lamb. You be looking into the eyes of The Lion of the Tribe of Judah(Fierce with Judgment). After those eyes pierce through your soul from fetus to now, He wouldn't even have to talk. You'll know whether you're a friend or an enemy.
Ecc.12:13-14 says, "The purpose of man is to Fear God and keep His commands." I talking to myself first when i say live recklessly at your own risk.
Blessings
I doh have any issues with God. God created this Universe in which we live.
I tend to have issues with people who manipulate the word of God and then act 'in the name of God' to further what they believe to be God's wishes.
I have to admit, I have a natural knee jerk reaction when others quote the Bible to decry homosexuality.
God Bless
-
(http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/smiley-popcorn.gif)
(http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/smiley-eatin-popcorn.gif)
what yuh drinking with that? Solo?
-
Because that reference is only related to the home in a marriage. Every lowering of women came after the fall. It was also part of the curse that the woman's desire will be to her husband and He will have rule over her. Check it out.
If she isn't 'equal' in her own home then how can she be truly equal outside of it?
-
I goin an just read from here on in
(http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/party/party0051.gif)
ah bag ah fresh and ah cream soda wid evaporated milk ;D
Nah man coca cola and some milk.... Or a red solo with milk...
But.... I am actually liking the debate... just need an easy chair and some wine...
-
Pecan I not debating you. We just talking. You free to believe what you want I'm sure this post has been recorded too. One day we'll all stand before God. I guess you'll be free to take up your issues with Him then. Assuming you could be as sure of yourself then as you are now. I know for me, my wife isn't lesser than me. I praise the Lord for my mother and all women. As for homosexuals, if for some reason Moses make a mistake and hear Adam and Eve when God really say Adam and Steve then the end of all things will reveal you to be right. Until then I'll try and keep my heart pure to all men regardless of whatever lifestyle they may choose, even if it's blatantly contrary to the bible.
I believe the God who tell the Moon and Sun, stay there is able to get a message to men and preserve it in spite of men. God loves the homosexuals but I do not believe he endorses homosexuality. I hold that same stance.
One day everybody will have to answer for their life. You could lie to yourself, plug your ears, shake your head, close your eye tight tight. But one day when you open them, you're going to see Him. And this time you wouldn't be looking at no Lamb. You be looking into the eyes of The Lion of the Tribe of Judah(Fierce with Judgment). After those eyes pierce through your soul from fetus to now, He wouldn't even have to talk. You'll know whether you're a friend or an enemy.
Ecc.12:13-14 says, "The purpose of man is to Fear God and keep His commands." I talking to myself first when i say live recklessly at your own risk.
Blessings
I doh have any issues with God. God created this Universe in which we live.
I tend to have issues with people who manipulate the word of God and then act 'in the name of God' to further what they believe to be God's wishes.
I have to admit, I have a natural knee jerk reaction when others quote the Bible to decry homosexuality.
God Bless
I to have a problem with people who justify their narrow point of views based on the fact they can find a few scriptures that support that point of view. A perfect example is when you have people standing on corners preaching hate while quoting scriptures from the bible that they interpreted as supporting their hateful point of views. What some people fail to realize is that the bible has been about translation and interpretation. Anybody can interpret a verse in the bible to support their personal point of views and you have various translations of the bible from the first time it was written.
-
All ah allyuh talking interpretation talk. Implying narrow mindedness. I could refer to original the Hebrew and Greek translations but I feel that would be pointless. Read Romans. 1:18 on also read Lev. 18:22
Let me know what other interpretations you may have.
Allyuh know what I think. :beermug:
-
and to think that CHRIST was said to hang out with all down and out peoples
yet the modern day church will have nothing of that
the LEADERS are the ones who are the MOST UN-LIKE CHRIST
I agree with u there most people that try to be a Christ like example fail. I fail all the time. But salvation is not about what I can do. It's about what He did. His sacrifice puts us on the path for what He intended us to be, which is in good relationship with him. No bodies perfect and there's only one Christ.
-
and to think that CHRIST was said to hang out with all down and out peoples
yet the modern day church will have nothing of that
the LEADERS are the ones who are the MOST UN-LIKE CHRIST
I agree with u there most people that try to be a Christ like example fail. I fail all the time. But salvation is not about what I can do. It's about what He did. His sacrifice puts us on the path for what He intended us to be, which is in good relationship with him. No bodies perfect and there's only one Christ.
Quite right... perfection is an elusive mark which we aren't expected to attain. The goal however is to keep striving towards it, assured that even though we come up short, we still end up in pretty good company.
-
so to whose or which standard of perfection are we to be aspiring? moral, cultural and spiritual 'perfection' is relative. to me that's the crux of any tolerance debate.
-
fuh allyuh homo lovers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJlPEHL85Ig
-
You know for the life of me I still can't understand why you all dislike/hate homosexuals, but less have problems with lesbianism. I could understand if someone or a few of you were interfered with by a man and hence this typical behavior. But the majority of you all are actually climbing backs on this thread and riding coat tail of your fellowmen. Homosexuals are all over. They don't care about you, or what you feel about them. And they damn right actually. Who are you to judge when you can't even find love with yourself far less others. Half of allyuh typing that you don't like or hate 'bullermen' but yet under the same breathe, you living next door to one, or your co worker buying you coffee every day.
Set of hypocrites in here. You all quick to put down others because of their sexual preferences, their religion, their culture - when the real problem is you all are the close minded hateful people with the problem. Remember dey God ya praying too, doh like ugly.
Throwing bible passage in your face - the ultimate defense. The bible is a book made by man and nothing else. On one hand, it says "love thy neighbour as yourself"... What dey fack allyuh doing now ???
The 12 Commandments - how much of allyuh follow each one on a daily basis ???
Look at allyuh fleckin self first before ya start judging others, because seriously the next homosexual you encounter really won't give a shit about what you think. And who knows you might have to check your prostate one day...
Seta nonsense allyuh does be typing.
steupse!!
-
You know for the life of me I still can't understand why you all dislike/hate homosexuals, but less have problems with lesbianism. I could understand if someone or a few of you were interfered with by a man and hence this typical behavior. But the majority of you all are actually climbing backs on this thread and riding coat tail of your fellowmen. Homosexuals are all over. They don't care about you, or what you feel about them. And they damn right actually. Who are you to judge when you can't even find love with yourself far less others. Half of allyuh typing that you don't like or hate 'bullermen' but yet under the same breathe, you living next door to one, or your co worker buying you coffee every day.
Set of hypocrites in here. You all quick to put down others because of their sexual preferences, their religion, their culture - when the real problem is you all are the close minded hateful people with the problem. Remember dey God ya praying too, doh like ugly.
Throwing bible passage in your face - the ultimate defense. The bible is a book made by man and nothing else. On one hand, it says "love thy neighbour as yourself"... What dey fack allyuh doing now ???
The 12 Commandments - how much of allyuh follow each one on a daily basis ???
Look at allyuh fleckin self first before ya start judging others, because seriously the next homosexual you encounter really won't give a shit about what you think. And who knows you might have to check your prostate one day...
Seta nonsense allyuh does be typing.
steupse!!
why?fuh de life ah me ah cyar understand why one man go want to suck ah next man tongue or worse yet want ah man to cum in he mouth or worse yet blister he asshole.
-
You know for the life of me I still can't understand why you all dislike/hate homosexuals, but less have problems with lesbianism. I could understand if someone or a few of you were interfered with by a man and hence this typical behavior. But the majority of you all are actually climbing backs on this thread and riding coat tail of your fellowmen. Homosexuals are all over. They don't care about you, or what you feel about them. And they damn right actually. Who are you to judge when you can't even find love with yourself far less others. Half of allyuh typing that you don't like or hate 'bullermen' but yet under the same breathe, you living next door to one, or your co worker buying you coffee every day.
Set of hypocrites in here. You all quick to put down others because of their sexual preferences, their religion, their culture - when the real problem is you all are the close minded hateful people with the problem. Remember dey God ya praying too, doh like ugly.
Throwing bible passage in your face - the ultimate defense. The bible is a book made by man and nothing else. On one hand, it says "love thy neighbour as yourself"... What dey fack allyuh doing now ???
The 12 Commandments - how much of allyuh follow each one on a daily basis ???
Look at allyuh fleckin self first before ya start judging others, because seriously the next homosexual you encounter really won't give a shit about what you think. And who knows you might have to check your prostate one day...
Seta nonsense allyuh does be typing.
steupse!!
why?fuh de life ah me ah cyar understand why one man go want to suck ah next man tongue or worse yet want ah man to cum in he mouth or worse yet blister he asshole.
But it's fine when women do it yes ??? But going further you pay money to see it too.
Who's worst ???
What people do in their bedroom or behind closed doors is not ya damn business.
Why do you care ???
-
You know for the life of me I still can't understand why you all dislike/hate homosexuals, but less have problems with lesbianism. I could understand if someone or a few of you were interfered with by a man and hence this typical behavior. But the majority of you all are actually climbing backs on this thread and riding coat tail of your fellowmen. Homosexuals are all over. They don't care about you, or what you feel about them. And they damn right actually. Who are you to judge when you can't even find love with yourself far less others. Half of allyuh typing that you don't like or hate 'bullermen' but yet under the same breathe, you living next door to one, or your co worker buying you coffee every day.
Set of hypocrites in here. You all quick to put down others because of their sexual preferences, their religion, their culture - when the real problem is you all are the close minded hateful people with the problem. Remember dey God ya praying too, doh like ugly.
Throwing bible passage in your face - the ultimate defense. The bible is a book made by man and nothing else. On one hand, it says "love thy neighbour as yourself"... What dey fack allyuh doing now ???
The 12 Commandments - how much of allyuh follow each one on a daily basis ???
Look at allyuh fleckin self first before ya start judging others, because seriously the next homosexual you encounter really won't give a shit about what you think. And who knows you might have to check your prostate one day...
Seta nonsense allyuh does be typing.
steupse!!
why?fuh de life ah me ah cyar understand why one man go want to suck ah next man tongue or worse yet want ah man to cum in he mouth or worse yet blister he asshole.
But it's fine when women do it yes ??? But going further you pay money to see it too.
Who's worst ???
What people do in their bedroom or behind closed doors is not ya damn business.
Why do you care ???
if i did care i would have arranged ah lynchin of gay bars.that was my personal opinion.
-
so as we talking hypocrite talk....
lewwe say yuh best gay friend and his partner say send yuh son to spend the weekend. would you send him without batting an eyelid?
without a second thought, would you have absolutely no problem whatsoever if your son told you he was gay and want to bring Chris home to meet de moms?
because i find if you endorse homosexuality then there should be no caveats on your interaction with it as opposed to your interaction with heterosexuals.
i strive to love each person equally, i hate no one. But that dont mean I have to agree with their lifestyle.
Also, like you say what somebody doing behind close doors is dem business, which i agree with.
But by extension, does that mean that any kinda deviant behavior imaginable is fine in your opinion as long as it not affecting anyone else? Is there a line in your eyes for deviant behavior?
-
it difficult to separate the act from the person. if you find what they doing objectionable, but they doing it anyway why they should expect your support? ???
-
You know for the life of me I still can't understand why you all dislike/hate homosexuals, but less have problems with lesbianism. I could understand if someone or a few of you were interfered with by a man and hence this typical behavior. But the majority of you all are actually climbing backs on this thread and riding coat tail of your fellowmen. Homosexuals are all over. They don't care about you, or what you feel about them. And they damn right actually. Who are you to judge when you can't even find love with yourself far less others. Half of allyuh typing that you don't like or hate 'bullermen' but yet under the same breathe, you living next door to one, or your co worker buying you coffee every day.
Set of hypocrites in here. You all quick to put down others because of their sexual preferences, their religion, their culture - when the real problem is you all are the close minded hateful people with the problem. Remember dey God ya praying too, doh like ugly.
Throwing bible passage in your face - the ultimate defense. The bible is a book made by man and nothing else. On one hand, it says "love thy neighbour as yourself"... What dey fack allyuh doing now ???
The 12 Commandments - how much of allyuh follow each one on a daily basis ???
Look at allyuh fleckin self first before ya start judging others, because seriously the next homosexual you encounter really won't give a shit about what you think. And who knows you might have to check your prostate one day...
Seta nonsense allyuh does be typing.
steupse!!
why?fuh de life ah me ah cyar understand why one man go want to suck ah next man tongue or worse yet want ah man to cum in he mouth or worse yet blister he asshole.
But it's fine when women do it yes ??? But going further you pay money to see it too.
Who's worst ???
What people do in their bedroom or behind closed doors is not ya damn business.
Why do you care ???
is none of we business, yes, but sometimes some of dese gays take d liberties too far.
a couple years ago while at a lil party, i had d unfortunate experience where a 'lesbian' made a pass at me. bein young, ah didn't really know how to respond an i almost blow her to fack out. now dat i a lil older and more mature, if dat were to happen again, i will kno how to better handle d situation. but allyuh cyah blame ppl like myself 4 bein uncomfortable wid homosexuality. if ish like dat was to happen to allyuh, allyuh mite ah be singin a different tune. :-\
again, let me say again, i doh discriminate against gays. as a matter of fact, i have a gay pardner who is muh real boy. even tho he is my fren, i doh accept the homosexual aspect of his lifestyle, jus as he mite not accept some aspects of my lifestyle. daiz jus how d world does work.
bless
-
so to whose or which standard of perfection are we to be aspiring? moral, cultural and spiritual 'perfection' is relative. to me that's the crux of any tolerance debate.
I don't think anyone was relating the tolerance and perfection discussions... the latter was more a sidebar.
Speaking for myself at least.
-
is none of we business, yes, but sometimes some of dese gays take d liberties too far.
a couple years ago while at a lil party, i had d unfortunate experience where a 'lesbian' made a pass at me. bein young, ah didn't really know how to respond an i almost blow her to fack out. now dat i a lil older and more mature, if dat were to happen again, i will kno how to better handle d situation. but allyuh cyah blame ppl like myself 4 bein uncomfortable wid homosexuality. if ish like dat was to happen to allyuh, allyuh mite ah be singin a different tune. :-\
again, let me say again, i doh discriminate against gays. as a matter of fact, i have a gay pardner who is muh real boy. even tho he is my fren, i doh accept the homosexual aspect of his lifestyle, jus as he mite not accept some aspects of my lifestyle. daiz jus how d world does work.
bless
As a male lesbian myself I take offense to all dis violent talk...
Have you hugged your inner lesbian today?
-
As an athiest, it have ten commandments and not twelve,
Anyhooo, if a guy is gay and he wants my son to come over, that cool as long as he is ot a pedophile, BIG DIFFERENCE!
So what yuh go say if a white man eh want he son hang out with yuh black son?
Do you react angrily whrn a man makes an unwantd pass at you?
I can bet you dollars to donuts that you get more unwanted passses from men in one mont than you will get from lesbians in twelve years!
homosexuality is a genetic ting, not no f**king lifestyle.
why would amn wake up and decide to f**k anodder man kiss him and love him dry so? It too hard becasue people like some ah allyuh discriminate, hate, beat dem up, family does disown dem, society does shun dem.
Is like 300 years ago if allyuha ss was in de cotton field picking cottona nd getting ah whip evryday on allyuh abck ALL AH ALLYUH woulda want to be white!
Ssame way half ah dem bullers eh want to be gay, dey want to live like de rest ah we.....too sad in trute that they genes/choromosomes f**ked up.
Stop de hate..and close this f**king shit thread.
People is people, black is not niggers, whites is not crackers, spanish is not spicks, chinese is not kooks, lesbians is not dykes and de bullers is not faggots, dey are human!
We categorise so we could hate.
Dat said f**k religion. dat is de root cause ah allyuh bullshit bigotry...allyuh go go for ashes from ah pedophile doh!
Capo dat fat Canadian fella dancing dey, is ah buller no doubt, but he remains a fat human foremost!
Hey all allyuh fat people here do like em and diet bitches
-
is none of we business, yes, but sometimes some of dese gays take d liberties too far.
a couple years ago while at a lil party, i had d unfortunate experience where a 'lesbian' made a pass at me. bein young, ah didn't really know how to respond an i almost blow her to fack out. now dat i a lil older and more mature, if dat were to happen again, i will kno how to better handle d situation. but allyuh cyah blame ppl like myself 4 bein uncomfortable wid homosexuality. if ish like dat was to happen to allyuh, allyuh mite ah be singin a different tune. :-\
again, let me say again, i doh discriminate against gays. as a matter of fact, i have a gay pardner who is muh real boy. even tho he is my fren, i doh accept the homosexual aspect of his lifestyle, jus as he mite not accept some aspects of my lifestyle. daiz jus how d world does work.
bless
[/quote]
This is why I mentioned in my previous post, if some of you all were interfered with, then I could understand the typical behavior. Like yourself I had an incident with a lesbian at my job. Fortunate for you, you don't see her everyday. I have to work with this person. I have no choice. But why because of one person I have to discriminate against all gay people ? It could have been a man I had the issue with at work. Would that justify me not having any association with men ? Lawd what a scary thought :-\
************
Capo I have nothing else to say. But listen to Trinity Cross eh. The fat buller fella is still a fat fella.
Oh and Trinity Cross thanks for correcting me on my commandments. That's how much I care.
*****************
Trinity Cross, the only reason I brought in 'religion' is for all of them in here who like to push the bible in people face. God doh agree with this and that, but some of them should look within their lifestyle and see how much things God doh agree with.
*****************
Omar lemme see how much Qs i could answer
Apparently there's a reason why this person would be my BEST gay friend ent???
If my future child whether it be male or female comes home and say moms "I'm gay" - I won't lie to you and say I won't feel upset or sad or hurt or whatever. The fact is that is my child, and what ever he/she decides they want to do with their life that I know isn't illegal - I will support. I planning not to raise no dummy, uneducated person eh. My child/children will learn and read about all this life has to offer. If they still decide to go out into this world with someone like Capo or War continuously running behind their backs saying what they doing is wrong, and they will kill you - then I would guess accepting their lifestyle will be the most challenging decision they will ever make.
I personally have no problem with their lifestyle. Which means they shouldn't have a problem with my lifestyle. Last time I check my interaction with heterosexuals have been the same with every human. Before ah cuss out ya arse I not going to ask if ya homo and hetero ???
i strive to love each person equally, i hate no one. But that dont mean I have to agree with their lifestyle. Okay it's the same with me I strive to love each person equally, but agreeing or accepting their lifestyle is a choice. I choose to accept things I cannot change. My life goes on.
But by extension, does that mean that any kinda deviant behavior imaginable is fine in your opinion as long as it not affecting anyone else? Is there a line in your eyes for deviant behavior?
I'm sure while you were typing that, 2 adults were climbing a wall. Did it affect you at your home ?
But why label deviant behavior to homosexuality though ? Omar you live a dull life ? ;)
Anyway again I have no problem with how people live their lives. Blame that on me being open minded I guess.
-
As an athiest, it have ten commandments and not twelve,
Anyhooo, if a guy is gay and he wants my son to come over, that cool as long as he is ot a pedophile, BIG DIFFERENCE!
So what yuh go say if a white man eh want he son hang out with yuh black son?
Do you react angrily whrn a man makes an unwantd pass at you?
I can bet you dollars to donuts that you get more unwanted passses from men in one mont than you will get from lesbians in twelve years!
homosexuality is a genetic ting, not no f**king lifestyle.
why would amn wake up and decide to f**k anodder man kiss him and love him dry so? It too hard becasue people like some ah allyuh discriminate, hate, beat dem up, family does disown dem, society does shun dem.
Is like 300 years ago if allyuha ss was in de cotton field picking cottona nd getting ah whip evryday on allyuh abck ALL AH ALLYUH woulda want to be white!
Ssame way half ah dem bullers eh want to be gay, dey want to live like de rest ah we.....too sad in trute that they genes/choromosomes f**ked up.
Stop de hate..and close this f**king shit thread.
People is people, black is not niggers, whites is not crackers, spanish is not spicks, chinese is not kooks, lesbians is not dykes and de bullers is not faggots, dey are human!
We categorise so we could hate.
Dat said f**k religion. dat is de root cause ah allyuh bullshit bigotry...allyuh go go for ashes from ah pedophile doh!
Capo dat fat Canadian fella dancing dey, is ah buller no doubt, but he remains a fat human foremost!
Hey all allyuh fat people here do like em and diet bitches
being a homo eh have nothing to do wid slavery dread . Yu need help ,bout yu guh let yu homo son bring home he homo lover. Like yu living in di cold to long or what? allyu mixing up mi thread. I talking bout do yu support homo . I aint talking bout black & white, dog and cat, I talking bout homo's. And this aint no hate thread , I simply ask a a question. I feal sey yu is a homo in disguise from yu reply dey dread. Answer mi this nuh since yu love homo's so much , will yu feal comfortable changing(butt naked) in front of a homo?
-
so as we talking hypocrite talk....
lewwe say yuh best gay friend and his partner say send yuh son to spend the weekend. would you send him without batting an eyelid?
Yes I would, if he's my best friend gay or not I dont have a problem with that. If I trust him enough to be my best gay friend then I trust him with my kids. On a separate note, if my husbands best straight friend who is single wanted my daughter to come spend the weekend, that would send red flags up form me. And As an aside I do know a wonderful gay couple and they have adopted two kids and those kids are some of the happiest well adjusted I have eever met.
without a second thought, would you have absolutely no problem whatsoever if your son told you he was gay and want to bring Chris home to meet de moms?
No Problem whatsoever. It is what it is, I can't change how he feels and I dont want to. If he is happy then i I can accept it and be supportive of him.
because i find if you endorse homosexuality then there should be no caveats on your interaction with it as opposed to your interaction with heterosexuals.
None whatsoever. I have been hit on by a few ladies in my time but I politely informed them that I was in love with my mista and all was good.
i strive to love each person equally, i hate no one. But that dont mean I have to agree with their lifestyle.
Also, like you say what somebody doing behind close doors is dem business, which i agree with.
But by extension, does that mean that any kinda deviant behavior imaginable is fine in your opinion as long as it not affecting anyone else? Is there a line in your eyes for deviant behavior?
Yes there is a line. If I ever see again the deviant who attacked me and did what he did, I will cheerfully cut his balls off and fed them to my dog. If anyone gay or straight ever tries to go after my kids, I will flay them alive. Religion has not made me who I am, life has. I judge people by the way they are to me and to the people in my life. I left the catholic church many years ago because it couldnt provide me comfort in my time of need. And the priest was just like some of the posters, quoting ppassages to support his stance all the while ignoring what I was asking.
Some of the most dangerous people I have ever met were straight men. Because 9 out of 10 times a lesbian or a gay guy hit on somebody and get turned down, they take it ok. The 10th time they might get a little attitude before they walk off. But some men and some trini men that I am sure each of us know personally, they get turned down and they want to catch a horrors and insult the woman and cuss her out and in some cases take what they want any way. SO yes I support homos. I do not support rapists and pedophiles wether they gay or straight.
-
is none of we business, yes, but sometimes some of dese gays take d liberties too far.
a couple years ago while at a lil party, i had d unfortunate experience where a 'lesbian' made a pass at me. bein young, ah didn't really know how to respond an i almost blow her to fack out. now dat i a lil older and more mature, if dat were to happen again, i will kno how to better handle d situation. but allyuh cyah blame ppl like myself 4 bein uncomfortable wid homosexuality. if ish like dat was to happen to allyuh, allyuh mite ah be singin a different tune. :-\
again, let me say again, i doh discriminate against gays. as a matter of fact, i have a gay pardner who is muh real boy. even tho he is my fren, i doh accept the homosexual aspect of his lifestyle, jus as he mite not accept some aspects of my lifestyle. daiz jus how d world does work.
bless
As a male lesbian myself I take offense to all dis violent talk...
Have you hugged your inner lesbian today?
B & S, my screen name is warrior QUEEN, which wud suggest im a female rite?
check dese tings before yuh talk yuh shit nah. steups!
-
B & S, my screen name is warrior QUEEN, which wud suggest im a female rite?
check dese tings before yuh talk yuh shit nah. steups!
Some of us have apparently lost the ability to laught at ourselves...
-
warmonga I feel yuh lioke man and yuh repressed...let it out, de closet eh have ah door? walk out man this is 2009 and bullers eh getting dat kinda passa passa treatment anymore,,free yuh self be good tuh yuh self...hug that man and feel free. :)
By the way where did I say homosexuality had anything to do with slavery?
ree yuh mind and let yuh bamsee loose...dey waiting!
-
is none of we business, yes, but sometimes some of dese gays take d liberties too far.
a couple years ago while at a lil party, i had d unfortunate experience where a 'lesbian' made a pass at me. bein young, ah didn't really know how to respond an i almost blow her to fack out. now dat i a lil older and more mature, if dat were to happen again, i will kno how to better handle d situation. but allyuh cyah blame ppl like myself 4 bein uncomfortable wid homosexuality. if ish like dat was to happen to allyuh, allyuh mite ah be singin a different tune. :-\
again, let me say again, i doh discriminate against gays. as a matter of fact, i have a gay pardner who is muh real boy. even tho he is my fren, i doh accept the homosexual aspect of his lifestyle, jus as he mite not accept some aspects of my lifestyle. daiz jus how d world does work.
bless
As a male lesbian myself I take offense to all dis violent talk...
Have you hugged your inner lesbian today?
I like when my inner lesbian decides to give my Alpha male handjobs.
-
is none of we business, yes, but sometimes some of dese gays take d liberties too far.
a couple years ago while at a lil party, i had d unfortunate experience where a 'lesbian' made a pass at me. bein young, ah didn't really know how to respond an i almost blow her to fack out. now dat i a lil older and more mature, if dat were to happen again, i will kno how to better handle d situation. but allyuh cyah blame ppl like myself 4 bein uncomfortable wid homosexuality. if ish like dat was to happen to allyuh, allyuh mite ah be singin a different tune. :-\
again, let me say again, i doh discriminate against gays. as a matter of fact, i have a gay pardner who is muh real boy. even tho he is my fren, i doh accept the homosexual aspect of his lifestyle, jus as he mite not accept some aspects of my lifestyle. daiz jus how d world does work.
bless
As a male lesbian myself I take offense to all dis violent talk...
Have you hugged your inner lesbian today?
everyday :rotfl:
-
oui foot!!
look at the exchanges in only a day.
Cana, good for you. Many dont get it.
They automatically assume that gay = someone who will hit on anybody.
Do some of the hetoros on this site assume that any member of the opposite sex who hit out to rape them?
Bakes, I was in touch with my female nature and I realize I was a lesbian.
God made everyone and Jesus said to love thy neighbour.
-
Capo this question is especially for you.
Do you personally have a problem with two women showing affection to each other in public ???
Now let me go into details so you won't misunderstand my question.
Kissing, holding hands, occasional touching, feeding each other, hugging/holding each other closely. I can go on, but I'll stay there. Note none of those actions are anything I consider sexual.
Reason why I'm asking you in particular I saw that you failed to justify lesbianism in one of my previous post.
And also War, I support people who have a different sexual preference than myself.
**************************************
I dunno must be all the porn site, movies, magazines etc making people think that gay people are only around to have sex all day. I'm sure some of them have to pay bills also and run a country.
Beep Beep latest news Iceland's newest Prime Minister is a gay woman, so are a couple of women and men in Obama's government.
-
Capo this question is especially for you.
Do you personally have a problem with two women showing affection to each other in public ???
Now let me go into details so you won't misunderstand my question.
Kissing, holding hands, occasional touching, feeding each other, hugging/holding each other closely. I can go on, but I'll stay there. Note none of those actions are anything I consider sexual.
Reason why I'm asking you in particular I saw that you failed to justify lesbianism in one of my previous post.
And also War, I support people who have a different sexual preference than myself.
**************************************
I dunno must be all the porn site, movies, magazines etc making people think that gay people are only around to have sex all day. I'm sure some of them have to pay bills also and run a country.
Beep Beep latest news Iceland's newest Prime Minister is a gay woman, so are a couple of women and men in Obama's government.
I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH 2 WOMEN EXPRESSIN LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER IN PUBLIC OR IN THE PRIVACY OF THIER BEDROOM.I LIVE FOR THIS.men on de other hand does just piss me off.but again once it eh go in my ass i happy.nutten rong with 2 naked man in de same room yuh know,once 1 infront de woman and de next one behind.balls must not clash.
-
balls must not clash.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
WHAT a determining factor :devil:
-
Capo this question is especially for you.
Do you personally have a problem with two women showing affection to each other in public ???
Now let me go into details so you won't misunderstand my question.
Kissing, holding hands, occasional touching, feeding each other, hugging/holding each other closely. I can go on, but I'll stay there. Note none of those actions are anything I consider sexual.
Reason why I'm asking you in particular I saw that you failed to justify lesbianism in one of my previous post.
And also War, I support people who have a different sexual preference than myself.
**************************************
I dunno must be all the porn site, movies, magazines etc making people think that gay people are only around to have sex all day. I'm sure some of them have to pay bills also and run a country.
Beep Beep latest news Iceland's newest Prime Minister is a gay woman, so are a couple of women and men in Obama's government.
I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH 2 WOMEN EXPRESSIN LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER IN PUBLIC OR IN THE PRIVACY OF THIER BEDROOM.I LIVE FOR THIS.men on de other hand does just piss me off.but again once it eh go in my ass i happy.nutten rong with 2 naked man in de same room yuh know,once 1 infront de woman and de next one behind.balls must not clash.
aright pappa :beermug:
-
I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH 2 WOMEN EXPRESSIN LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER IN PUBLIC OR IN THE PRIVACY OF THIER BEDROOM.I LIVE FOR THIS.men on de other hand does just piss me off.but again once it eh go in my ass i happy.nutten rong with 2 naked man in de same room yuh know,once 1 infront de woman and de next one behind.balls must not clash.
[/quote]
..so you not really opposed to any gay activity as long as it have ah vagina in de bed playin referee...nice
now lemmih open ah can ah worms....what is yuh stance on hermaphrodites? :devil:
-
I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH 2 WOMEN EXPRESSIN LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER IN PUBLIC OR IN THE PRIVACY OF THIER BEDROOM.I LIVE FOR THIS.men on de other hand does just piss me off.but again once it eh go in my ass i happy.nutten rong with 2 naked man in de same room yuh know,once 1 infront de woman and de next one behind.balls must not clash.
..so you not really opposed to any gay activity as long as it have ah vagina in de bed playin referee...nice
now lemmih open ah can ah worms....what is yuh stance on hermaphrodites? :devil:
[/quote]this is like de fabled unicorn,i eh bound to see one.
-
warlord bun dem out
http://www.youtube.com/v/3cN5tP6WDFc
-
Govt moves on gay rights
Cedriann J Martin
Monday, May 18th 2009
Trinidad and Tobago is taking steps to address the human rights of homosexuals, said Andy Fearon, acting technical director of the National AIDS Coordinating Committee (NACC). He made the disclosure against the background yesterday of the UNAIDS commemoration of the International Day Against Homophobia.
Asked to comment, he sent the following e-mail response: "The National HIV/AIDS Workplace Policy is being addressed through the Ministry of Labour, Small and Micro Enterprises in partnership with the NACC and International Labour Organisation (ILO) and - the HIV/AIDS Legislative Assessment is a project being run through the Ministry of the Attorney General. In both the policy and the legislative assessment, human rights and the prevention of stigma and discrimination are central pillars."
Trinidad and Tobago is among 86 countries with laws that prohibit sex between men. It is also one of the ten nations with the highest rates of HIV among men who have sex with men or MSM. (MSM is a clinical term referring to all men who have sexual encounters with other men, not just those who identify as gay or bisexual.)
In a statement to commemorate the International Day Against Homophobia yesterday, executive director of UNAIDS, Michel Sidib, called on all governments wipe out the stigma and discrimination faced by MSM, lesbians and transgenders. Sidib linked "respect for human rights" with access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support.
"The failure to respond effectively has allowed HIV to reach crisis levels in many communities of men who have sex with men and transgender people," he said.
"Efforts to reverse this crisis must be evidence informed, grounded in human rights and underpinned by the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Today, more than ever, we must work together to end homophobia and ensure the barriers that stop access to HIV services are removed."
According to Trinidad and Tobago's 2008 United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) Report, there is a 20 per cent HIV prevalence rate among local MSM. This means that as many as one in five men who has gay sex in T&T may be HIV-positive.
In an e-mail response Dennis James, project director of MSM No Political Agenda (MSMNPA), a local non-governmental organisation (NGO) that serves MSM, said that anti-gay laws increase secrecy and sexual risk-taking.
"As long as legislature criminalises homosexuals, persons will be forced to lead double lives to safeguard their existence. This causes numerous problems such as accurate HIV surveillance and research to support best HIV practices for gay and other MSM. Homophobia fuels discrimination in a real and tangible ways that many face on a daily basis. There are a number of challenges gay and other MSM are subject to that has a significant negative impact on their lives and in turn can result in negative and many times self-destructive behaviours," he explained.
Luke Sinnette, president of Friends For Life (FFL), another local MSM NGO, agreed, stating that the HIV epidemic is partly fuelled by gay men "getting married and pretending to be heterosexual."
-
OH NO ...........................
-
So much NGO's 4 dem fellas. LOUDDDDDD STEUPSSSSSSSSSS
-
So by legalising sodomy HIV rates would suddenly drop? Homosexuality is not stigmatised because of the law, it's stigmatised because of the culture and norms of society. They have almost no hope of chaging the cultural/religious beliefs but that does not necessarily mean that this would impede the so-called fight against AIDS.
Firstly, is not as though people don't know how the virus is contracted - if they don't well then educate the population. Also educate the group most likely to contract the virus - men who have sex with men. If people are still afraid of being tested for whatever reasons, make the level of professionality and anonymity within the testing centres up to par and instill severe penalties for those who breach patient confidentiality.
Personally, if I know a particular act/lifestyle would expose me at a higher rate to an incurable disease...well common sense would make me cease and desist.
This reminds me of the article I read about the fight to legalise ALL drugs to combat the spread of the virus. Like cocaine and heroin in and thing where people stick needles in their ars and inject themselves. They're saying if narcotics are legalised, then safer drug use would prevail and thus curb the spread of HIV.
???
What if people just stopped the drugs altogether?
But I guess the pervading school of thought is to treat the symptoms and not the cause.
-
So by legalising sodomy HIV rates would suddenly drop?
I don't think they are saying that. I think they are drawing an indirect link between maintaining that status quo of homosexuality being taboo, and the proliferation of HIV rates amongst the MSM community. I think the link does exist (as indirect as it is). I think there is a correlation between legalization and social acceptance, even if movement in social trend exhibits a significant time lag....and I definitely think there is a correlation between social accpetance/deviance, and the exercising of social responsibility.....And even if its impact on the spread of HIV may be marginal (espcially in the short term), in attempting to find ways to address the crisis in the long run, you have to be willing to consider all the options/alternatives and I think the point is a valid one.
I doubt that anyone is that naive to think that legalizing male homosexuality will lead to a sudden drop in HIV rates as you characterize it. And I don't see where the article says, or even implies that.
-
So by legalising sodomy HIV rates would suddenly drop?
I don't think they are saying that. I think they are drawing an indirect link between maintaining that status quo of homosexuality being taboo, and the proliferation of HIV rates amongst the MSM community. I think the link does exist (as indirect as it is). I think there is a correlation between legalization and social acceptance, even if movement in social trend exhibits a significant time lag....and I definitely think there is a correlation between social accpetance/deviance, and the exercising of social responsibility.....And even if its impact on the spread of HIV may be marginal (espcially in the short term), in attempting to find ways to address the crisis in the long run, you have to be willing to consider all the options/alternatives and I think the point is a valid one.
I doubt that anyone is that naive to think that legalizing male homosexuality will lead to a sudden drop in HIV rates as you characterize it. And I don't see where the article says, or even implies that.
But they don't seem to be looking at the more feasible options which would have a greater and immediate impact on decreasing the spread of HIV.
Across the C'bean these organisations have been pushing for a repeal of the laws against sodomy. They say it's to help the fight against AIDS but that's a crock in my opinion because as I said before, there are more effective ways of doing that. I interpret it as nothing more than an indirect way of pushing the so-called 'gay agenda'. I'm referring to all the pressure being exerted by North American and European organisations and governments.
-
"Efforts to reverse this crisis must be evidence informed, grounded in human rights and underpinned by the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Today, more than ever, we must work together to end homophobia and ensure the barriers that stop access to HIV services are removed."
They're using HIV as a front to make society more accepting of that lifestyle and behaviour.
-
so Toppa, are you saying that the world should be moving instead to make persons with homosexual inclinations change their behaviour into the only acceptable sexual behaviour of heterosexuality?
do you have any suggestions how this can be done? besides merely making it illegal? we all know that laws can be broken. how can you change an adult person's behaviour without infringing their right to privacy and free choice?
-
so Toppa, are you saying that the world should be moving instead to make persons with homosexual inclinations change their behaviour into the only acceptable sexual behaviour of heterosexuality?
do you have any suggestions how this can be done? besides merely making it illegal? we all know that laws can be broken. how can you change an adult person's behaviour without infringing their right to privacy and free choice?
I never said that the world should be moving towards anything. I said that if it were me, my common sense would tell me not be involved in any activity where there was a high risk of contacting an incurable disease.
-
Hmmm I think what they saying is that homos doh have to hide their nonsense by having sex with woman.
In other words because it is by law unacceptable for man to like man, man does hide by having sex in the open with woman (like having a wife) and on the side take a man who could be HIV positive.
So if the thing is made legal then man could have a man who is a fulltime pardner and not positive and they would not have to hide and do they nastiness anywhere they could get it.
(just drink some beers hence lack of articulation)
-
Hmmm I think what they saying is that homos doh have to hide their nonsense by having sex with woman.
In other words because it is by law unacceptable for man to like man, man does hide by having sex in the open with woman (like having a wife) and on the side take a man who could be HIV positive.
So if the thing is made legal then man could have a man who is a fulltime pardner and not positive and they would not have to hide and do they nastiness anywhere they could get it.
(just drink some beers hence lack of articulation)
And then their entire argument would be negated by the fact that the law is not enforced. The law is against sodomy. So according to the letter of the law anyone committing sodomy, whether man or woman has broken the law. In any case, how is this law to be enforced? Only if the act is taking place in public...but then people should not be having any kind of sex in public in the first place. They'll be charged for several things.
And...and...homosexuality is legal and much more accepted in Europe and N. America but yet still MSM is still number one in rates of contracting HIV. So what exactly is their point again?
-
Hmmm I think what they saying is that homos doh have to hide their nonsense by having sex with woman.
In other words because it is by law unacceptable for man to like man, man does hide by having sex in the open with woman (like having a wife) and on the side take a man who could be HIV positive.
So if the thing is made legal then man could have a man who is a fulltime pardner and not positive and they would not have to hide and do they nastiness anywhere they could get it.
(just drink some beers hence lack of articulation)
And then their entire argument would be negated by the fact that the law is not enforced. The law is against sodomy. So according to the letter of the law anyone committing sodomy, whether man or woman has broken the law. In any case, how is this law to be enforced? Only if the act is taking place in public...but then people should not be having any kind of sex in public in the first place. They'll be charged for several things.
And...and...homosexuality is legal and much more accepted in Europe and N. America but yet still MSM is still number one in rates of contracting HIV. So what exactly is their point again?
Well they ent going to have to go with oman an spread the desease to satisfy society or something like dat, i like you doh ah doh feel it will make any difference. Is Obama visit causing this.
-
Oh...and the title of this thread misleading.
-
So by legalising sodomy HIV rates would suddenly drop?
I don't think they are saying that. I think they are drawing an indirect link between maintaining that status quo of homosexuality being taboo, and the proliferation of HIV rates amongst the MSM community. I think the link does exist (as indirect as it is). I think there is a correlation between legalization and social acceptance, even if movement in social trend exhibits a significant time lag....and I definitely think there is a correlation between social accpetance/deviance, and the exercising of social responsibility.....And even if its impact on the spread of HIV may be marginal (espcially in the short term), in attempting to find ways to address the crisis in the long run, you have to be willing to consider all the options/alternatives and I think the point is a valid one.
I doubt that anyone is that naive to think that legalizing male homosexuality will lead to a sudden drop in HIV rates as you characterize it. And I don't see where the article says, or even implies that.
But they don't seem to be looking at the more feasible options which would have a greater and immediate impact on decreasing the spread of HIV.
Across the C'bean these organisations have been pushing for a repeal of the laws against sodomy. They say it's to help the fight against AIDS but that's a crock in my opinion because as I said before, there are more effective ways of doing that. I interpret it as nothing more than an indirect way of pushing the so-called 'gay agenda'. I'm referring to all the pressure being exerted by North American and European organisations and governments.
I hear what you're saying and I wouldn't denounce the propaganda aspect at play, but I think the article is pointed in a way so as to comment on only one iniative. I would imagine that the NACC's AIDS initiatives go above and beyond what is being addressed in the article...
-
take all them faget and send them carera.treat them like fukkin lepers.
-
you know my philosophy is 'live and let live' as long as you don't put other's people in danger. Sometimes when people have violent type reactions to homosexuals, it may be that they have been targeted or were unsure of their own sexuality as teenagers (as a lot of us are) and had some early exposure to that type of lifestyle. I have known men who are not threatened by gay men, as well as those who are so against the lifestyle that they want the world to seclude them.
Unfortunately, there are gay people among us. Yes, and they lead secret lives and do not 'come out' because they are afraid of the reactions of their peers and family.
The focus of the AIDS/HIV council is to help these people to have 'safe sex' so they do not endanger their partners. It matters not whether sodomy is legal or not. If there is anal sex you are at risk- men and women. How many married women can state with assurance that their husbands actually are 'working late' or that their extramarital affairs are with women and not men? That's the point of the education exercise. Not to give judgement. If you are having unprotected sex - then you put yourself and your partner at risk. Sending gay people to a secluded island will not 'cure' them- nor will it stop married and committed men from engaging in risky behaviour, because they will never admit to being 'gay'.
-
obviously the issue is part of the larger "gay agenda" as someone else put it...but why not? I come to realize that the majority of people against gays are driven by their own religious beliefs - and thus want to use law etc to push their own religious ideas against homos. I am slowly coming to realize that gays are humans, and therefore deserve human rights - meaning they are no less human than me in anyway. growing up in t'dad that is a hard pill to swallow, and I still learning, but hopefully we will all get there.
-
I am slowly coming to realize that gays are humans
something about this sounded kinda funny.
-
obviously the issue is part of the larger "gay agenda" as someone else put it...but why not? I come to realize that the majority of people against gays are driven by their own religious beliefs - and thus want to use law etc to push their own religious ideas against homos. I am slowly coming to realize that gays are humans, and therefore deserve human rights - meaning they are no less human than me in anyway. growing up in t'dad that is a hard pill to swallow, and I still learning, but hopefully we will all get there.
And how are gays being denied human rights in Trinidad? Anybody said they can't go to school? Can't get health care? What are you defining as human rights?
-
obviously the issue is part of the larger "gay agenda" as someone else put it...but why not? I come to realize that the majority of people against gays are driven by their own religious beliefs - and thus want to use law etc to push their own religious ideas against homos. I am slowly coming to realize that gays are humans, and therefore deserve human rights - meaning they are no less human than me in anyway. growing up in t'dad that is a hard pill to swallow, and I still learning, but hopefully we will all get there.
And how are gays being denied human rights in Trinidad? Anybody said they can't go to school? Can't get health care? What are you defining as human rights?
Dey must b want 2 marry?
-
most set ah ignorant replies I ever see in one thread...well almost! it stil have warmonga posts/threads
-
most set ah ignorant replies I ever see in one thread...well almost! it stil have warmonga posts/threads
Ah think yuh being very, extra kind! Is it because yuh realize that dey may be human with feelings?
-
most set ah ignorant replies I ever see in one thread...well almost! it stil have warmonga posts/threads
Ah think yuh being very, extra kind! Is it because yuh realize that dey may be human with feelings?
Fella I doh meddle with de bullers and dem. dat is dere ting, I find too many people hate dem, want to lock dem away. kill dem, beat dem up etc.
De people choose to live dey life let dem be.
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
Dat appears 2 b d plan.
-
most set ah ignorant replies I ever see in one thread...well almost! it stil have warmonga posts/threads
Ah think yuh being very, extra kind! Is it because yuh realize that dey may be human with feelings?
Fella I doh meddle with de bullers and dem. dat is dere ting, I find too many people hate dem, want to lock dem away. kill dem, beat dem up etc.
De people choose to live dey life let dem be.
I was referring to your repsonse to the responses.
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
we better not be on a slippery slope i hope the government don't foce dat on we .. they betta let we vote on it ....
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
we better not be on a slippery slope i hope the government don't foce dat on we .. they betta let we vote on it ....
You not living in Canada?
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
we better not be on a slippery slope i hope the government don't foce dat on we .. they betta let we vote on it ....
You not living in Canada?
doh worry i can vote
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
Damn- we hitting all time lows.
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
we better not be on a slippery slope i hope the government don't foce dat on we .. they betta let we vote on it ....
You not living in Canada?
doh worry i can vote
Look what YOUR COUNTRY Canada has done:
In December 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada replied to the federal government's draft legislation that would legalize gay marriage nationwide. The Court ruled that the federal government has the exclusive authority to define marriage, that same-sex marriage was constitutional and was far from violating it, in fact "it flowed from" it, and that religious officials can't be forced to perform gay weddings. The Court refused to answer whether or not the traditional definition of marriage was consistent with the Charter.
On June 28th, 2005, by a vote of 158-133, the House of Commons passed Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act and on July 19th, 2005, by a vote of 47-21, the Senate gave its approval to the bill.
On July 20th, 2005, C-38 received royal assent from Chief Justice of The Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, acting in her role as deputy governor general. Canada became the fourth country to officially sanction gay marriage nationwide, behind Belgium, The Netherlands, and Spain. Same-sex marriages began in Ontario and British Columbia in 2003, with other provinces following via court challenges. The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a religious same-sex marriage that was performed in January 2001 legally valid, thus retroactively making it the first legal same-sex marriage in modern times (as The Netherlands did not legalize same-sex marriage until April 2001).
As of 2009, all provinces and territories had included "sexual orientation" in their human rights laws, and the Northwest Territories include "gender identity" in theirs.
In 2006, the International Conference on LGBT Human Rights was held in Montreal, culminating with the issuance of the Declaration of Montreal. The Borough of Ville-Marie in Montreal soon became the first government in the world to adopt the declaration, and the New Democratic Party became the first political formation in the world to do so at its convention in September.
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
Exactly, so people should stop talking all this 'gay rights' bullshit in the C'bean.
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
Exactly, so people should stop talking all this 'gay rights' bullshit in the C'bean.
WHY? Ignorance is Bliss....live long and be blissful
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
Exactly, so people should stop talking all this 'gay rights' bullshit in the C'bean.
WHY? Ignorance is Bliss....live long and be blissful
Because as you said, we have much more important problem to deal with. At least in Trinidad.
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
Exactly, so people should stop talking all this 'gay rights' bullshit in the C'bean.
WHY? Ignorance is Bliss....live long and be blissful
Because as you said, we have much more important problem to deal with. At least in Trinidad.
more important things to focus on than abuse, marginilization etc. Gay rights needs to be addressed as they too, wheter you like it or not re entitled to the same rights as other non gay citizens. It is indeed absurd that homosexuality is illegal, but a man can have chirren helter skelter and leave dem to run wild...kill maim, kidnap etc.
wha yuh tink?
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
Exactly, so people should stop talking all this 'gay rights' bullshit in the C'bean.
WHY? Ignorance is Bliss....live long and be blissful
Because as you said, we have much more important problem to deal with. At least in Trinidad.
more important things to focus on than abuse, marginilization etc. Gay rights needs to be addressed as they too, wheter you like it or not re entitled to the same rights as other non gay citizens. It is indeed absurd that homosexuality is illegal, but a man can have chirren helter skelter and leave dem to run wild...kill maim, kidnap etc.
wha yuh tink?
Homosexuality is not illegal. Sodomy is. And tell me exactly what rights 'gay people' are being denied in Trinidad.
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
Exactly, so people should stop talking all this 'gay rights' bullshit in the C'bean.
WHY? Ignorance is Bliss....live long and be blissful
Because as you said, we have much more important problem to deal with. At least in Trinidad.
more important things to focus on than abuse, marginilization etc. Gay rights needs to be addressed as they too, wheter you like it or not re entitled to the same rights as other non gay citizens. It is indeed absurd that homosexuality is illegal, but a man can have chirren helter skelter and leave dem to run wild...kill maim, kidnap etc.
wha yuh tink?
Homosexuality is not illegal. Sodomy is. And tell me exactly what rights 'gay people' are being denied in Trinidad.
so why is illegal for a homosexual to enter Trinidad? And while yuh at it what exactly is sodomy?
Trinidad law specifically mentions gay males and lesbians for your edification!
Trinidad and Tobago
Statute: Buggery
Penalty: 10 years
Restrictions:
Section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1986 criminalises "buggery" (anal intercourse). This Section provides a penalty of up to life imprisonment, if committed on a minor; up to 10 years' imprisonment if committed on an adult (18 years or older) by another adult; up to 5 years' imprisonment if committed by a minor on an adult. Section 16, relating to "serious indecency", provides a penalty of up to 20 years' imprisonment for homosexual acts between men and between women. (PB)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from dat even if a man and a woman do it...is jail
what we need is a law concerning the hypocrisy of religion!
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
Exactly, so people should stop talking all this 'gay rights' bullshit in the C'bean.
WHY? Ignorance is Bliss....live long and be blissful
Because as you said, we have much more important problem to deal with. At least in Trinidad.
more important things to focus on than abuse, marginilization etc. Gay rights needs to be addressed as they too, wheter you like it or not re entitled to the same rights as other non gay citizens. It is indeed absurd that homosexuality is illegal, but a man can have chirren helter skelter and leave dem to run wild...kill maim, kidnap etc.
wha yuh tink?
Homosexuality is not illegal. Sodomy is. And tell me exactly what rights 'gay people' are being denied in Trinidad.
so why is illegal for a homosexual to enter Trinidad? And while yuh at it what exactly is sodomy? A man coulld get charged with sodomy for eating he gyal cyat in T&T under de sosomy laws, it may even mean dat apart from de missionary position all odder sex is sodomy.
Are any other those laws enforced? No, they are not. And they don't exclusively apply to homosexuals except the legislature that says homosexuals can be refused entry. But there's probably a law that would ban prostitutes from entering the country as well.
Come again please.
-
Gays in Trinidad & Tobago Get Legal Protection
Trinidad & Tobagos Newsday, January 11, 2004
# 19-21 Chacon Street, Port of Spain, Trinidad, West Indies
Fax: 1-868-657-5008
Email: info@newsday.co.tt
http://www.newsday.co.tt/stories.php?article_id=12593
By Sean Douglas
While the laws of Trinidad and Tobago prohibit male homosexual activity, the House of Representatives recently passed a Bill granting certain protection to gays and lesbians from the actions of foreign powers.
On Friday the House unanimously passed the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) (Amendment Number 2) Bill 2003. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill say it modernises and simplifies the laws relating to extradition for serious offences, defined as crimes for which punishment in both the extraditing country and in TT is over 12 months imprisonment or the death penalty.
Saying the Bill safeguards the rights of suspects, the Notes say it amends the original Extradition Act to protect the rights of gay people. The Notes state: Clause Seven would amend Section Eight of the Act to prevent an accused persons return to a declared Commonwealth territory or a declared foreign territory if it is determined that the request for his return is based on his sex, gender or sexual preference.
In the original Act, protection from unjust extradition had only been granted to persons on basis of religion. The Bill also states that anyone accused of an offence against a Government Minister would not be able to claim in his defence that his actions were merely political. The Explanatory Notes state: Persons accused or convicted of an offence against the life or person of a Head of Government or of a Minister of Government or of certain offences such as murder, manslaughter and kidnapping, would not be able to object to their extradition on the ground that the offence is of political character.
During debate on the Bill there was no contention over either of these provisions, and after contributions from Minister of Foreign Affairs, Knowlson Gift, and Pointe-a-Pierre MP, Gillian Lucky, the Bill was passed unanimously.
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
Exactly, so people should stop talking all this 'gay rights' bullshit in the C'bean.
WHY? Ignorance is Bliss....live long and be blissful
Because as you said, we have much more important problem to deal with. At least in Trinidad.
more important things to focus on than abuse, marginilization etc. Gay rights needs to be addressed as they too, wheter you like it or not re entitled to the same rights as other non gay citizens. It is indeed absurd that homosexuality is illegal, but a man can have chirren helter skelter and leave dem to run wild...kill maim, kidnap etc.
wha yuh tink?
Homosexuality is not illegal. Sodomy is. And tell me exactly what rights 'gay people' are being denied in Trinidad.
so why is illegal for a homosexual to enter Trinidad? And while yuh at it what exactly is sodomy? A man coulld get charged with sodomy for eating he gyal cyat in T&T under de sosomy laws, it may even mean dat apart from de missionary position all odder sex is sodomy.
Are any other those laws enforced? No, they are not. And they don't exclusively apply to homosexuals except the legislature that says homosexuals can be refused entry. But there's probably a law that would ban prostitutes from entering the country as well.
Come again please.
excuse me, what is to prevent it from being enforced? What if yuh get some Bible thumping joker..in power?
And why dey does jail dem prostitutes and dem? So if dey enforcing dat why not de anti buller laws?
steups
the laws need to be changed, it is archaic and was put there by people from a time when we did not have scientific evidence...the law is shitty and de people should not be criminalized.
yuh forget de sht when Elton was coming here or what?
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
Exactly, so people should stop talking all this 'gay rights' bullshit in the C'bean.
WHY? Ignorance is Bliss....live long and be blissful
Because as you said, we have much more important problem to deal with. At least in Trinidad.
more important things to focus on than abuse, marginilization etc. Gay rights needs to be addressed as they too, wheter you like it or not re entitled to the same rights as other non gay citizens. It is indeed absurd that homosexuality is illegal, but a man can have chirren helter skelter and leave dem to run wild...kill maim, kidnap etc.
wha yuh tink?
Homosexuality is not illegal. Sodomy is. And tell me exactly what rights 'gay people' are being denied in Trinidad.
so why is illegal for a homosexual to enter Trinidad? And while yuh at it what exactly is sodomy? A man coulld get charged with sodomy for eating he gyal cyat in T&T under de sosomy laws, it may even mean dat apart from de missionary position all odder sex is sodomy.
Are any other those laws enforced? No, they are not. And they don't exclusively apply to homosexuals except the legislature that says homosexuals can be refused entry. But there's probably a law that would ban prostitutes from entering the country as well.
Come again please.
excuse me, what is to prevent it from being enforced? What if yuh get some Bible thumping joker..in power?
And why dey does jail dem prostitutes and dem? So if dey enforcing dat why not de anti buller laws?
steups
the laws need to be changed, it is archaic and was put there by people from a time when we did not have scientific evidence...the law is shitty and de people should not be criminalized.
yuh forget de sht when Elton was coming here or what?
The 'shit'? People have everything right to protest Elton John performing if they wanted to.
And the laws against homosexuality are not enforced so your point about discriminaton and abuse is moot.
-
If there were ever no such thing as religion, nobody woulda think twice about the presence of homosexuals today.
-
And the laws against homosexuality are not enforced so your point about discriminaton and abuse is moot.
seeing that they are not enforced it shouldn't be a big deal to take them off the books right?
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
Exactly, so people should stop talking all this 'gay rights' bullshit in the C'bean.
WHY? Ignorance is Bliss....live long and be blissful
Because as you said, we have much more important problem to deal with. At least in Trinidad.
more important things to focus on than abuse, marginilization etc. Gay rights needs to be addressed as they too, wheter you like it or not re entitled to the same rights as other non gay citizens. It is indeed absurd that homosexuality is illegal, but a man can have chirren helter skelter and leave dem to run wild...kill maim, kidnap etc.
wha yuh tink?
Homosexuality is not illegal. Sodomy is. And tell me exactly what rights 'gay people' are being denied in Trinidad.
so why is illegal for a homosexual to enter Trinidad? And while yuh at it what exactly is sodomy? A man coulld get charged with sodomy for eating he gyal cyat in T&T under de sosomy laws, it may even mean dat apart from de missionary position all odder sex is sodomy.
Are any other those laws enforced? No, they are not. And they don't exclusively apply to homosexuals except the legislature that says homosexuals can be refused entry. But there's probably a law that would ban prostitutes from entering the country as well.
Come again please.
excuse me, what is to prevent it from being enforced? What if yuh get some Bible thumping joker..in power?
And why dey does jail dem prostitutes and dem? So if dey enforcing dat why not de anti buller laws?
steups
the laws need to be changed, it is archaic and was put there by people from a time when we did not have scientific evidence...the law is shitty and de people should not be criminalized.
yuh forget de sht when Elton was coming here or what?
The 'shit'? People have everything right to protest Elton John performing if they wanted to.
And the laws against homosexuality are not enforced so your point about discriminaton and abuse is moot.
There was no protest against Elton performing, they did not want a buller to come to Tobago to spread his evil ways among their youth! They also invoked the Law that bans homos from entering T&T!
If they ahd the right, then the state also had the right to stop him from entering T&T...if no such law exists then all would have been well.
The real question is why are YOU so against the legislation ensuring them equal rights!?!???!!!!!?????>
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
Exactly, so people should stop talking all this 'gay rights' bullshit in the C'bean.
WHY? Ignorance is Bliss....live long and be blissful
Because as you said, we have much more important problem to deal with. At least in Trinidad.
more important things to focus on than abuse, marginilization etc. Gay rights needs to be addressed as they too, wheter you like it or not re entitled to the same rights as other non gay citizens. It is indeed absurd that homosexuality is illegal, but a man can have chirren helter skelter and leave dem to run wild...kill maim, kidnap etc.
wha yuh tink?
Homosexuality is not illegal. Sodomy is. And tell me exactly what rights 'gay people' are being denied in Trinidad.
so why is illegal for a homosexual to enter Trinidad? And while yuh at it what exactly is sodomy? A man coulld get charged with sodomy for eating he gyal cyat in T&T under de sosomy laws, it may even mean dat apart from de missionary position all odder sex is sodomy.
Are any other those laws enforced? No, they are not. And they don't exclusively apply to homosexuals except the legislature that says homosexuals can be refused entry. But there's probably a law that would ban prostitutes from entering the country as well.
Come again please.
excuse me, what is to prevent it from being enforced? What if yuh get some Bible thumping joker..in power?
And why dey does jail dem prostitutes and dem? So if dey enforcing dat why not de anti buller laws?
steups
the laws need to be changed, it is archaic and was put there by people from a time when we did not have scientific evidence...the law is shitty and de people should not be criminalized.
yuh forget de sht when Elton was coming here or what?
The 'shit'? People have everything right to protest Elton John performing if they wanted to.
And the laws against homosexuality are not enforced so your point about discriminaton and abuse is moot.
There was no protest against Elton performing, they did not want a buller to come to Tobago to spread his evil ways among their youth! They also invoked the Law that bans homos from entering T&T!
If they ahd the right, then the state also had the right to stop him from entering T&T...if no such law exists then all would have been well.
The real question is why are YOU so against the legislation ensuring them equal rights!?!???!!!!!?????>
steups
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
Exactly, so people should stop talking all this 'gay rights' bullshit in the C'bean.
WHY? Ignorance is Bliss....live long and be blissful
Because as you said, we have much more important problem to deal with. At least in Trinidad.
more important things to focus on than abuse, marginilization etc. Gay rights needs to be addressed as they too, wheter you like it or not re entitled to the same rights as other non gay citizens. It is indeed absurd that homosexuality is illegal, but a man can have chirren helter skelter and leave dem to run wild...kill maim, kidnap etc.
wha yuh tink?
Homosexuality is not illegal. Sodomy is. And tell me exactly what rights 'gay people' are being denied in Trinidad.
so why is illegal for a homosexual to enter Trinidad? And while yuh at it what exactly is sodomy? A man coulld get charged with sodomy for eating he gyal cyat in T&T under de sosomy laws, it may even mean dat apart from de missionary position all odder sex is sodomy.
Are any other those laws enforced? No, they are not. And they don't exclusively apply to homosexuals except the legislature that says homosexuals can be refused entry. But there's probably a law that would ban prostitutes from entering the country as well.
Come again please.
excuse me, what is to prevent it from being enforced? What if yuh get some Bible thumping joker..in power?
And why dey does jail dem prostitutes and dem? So if dey enforcing dat why not de anti buller laws?
steups
the laws need to be changed, it is archaic and was put there by people from a time when we did not have scientific evidence...the law is shitty and de people should not be criminalized.
yuh forget de sht when Elton was coming here or what?
The 'shit'? People have everything right to protest Elton John performing if they wanted to.
And the laws against homosexuality are not enforced so your point about discriminaton and abuse is moot.
There was no protest against Elton performing, they did not want a buller to come to Tobago to spread his evil ways among their youth! They also invoked the Law that bans homos from entering T&T!
If they ahd the right, then the state also had the right to stop him from entering T&T...if no such law exists then all would have been well.
The real question is why are YOU so against the legislation ensuring them equal rights!?!???!!!!!?????>
steups
go and hug yuh inner lesbian nah
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
Exactly, so people should stop talking all this 'gay rights' bullshit in the C'bean.
WHY? Ignorance is Bliss....live long and be blissful
Because as you said, we have much more important problem to deal with. At least in Trinidad.
more important things to focus on than abuse, marginilization etc. Gay rights needs to be addressed as they too, wheter you like it or not re entitled to the same rights as other non gay citizens. It is indeed absurd that homosexuality is illegal, but a man can have chirren helter skelter and leave dem to run wild...kill maim, kidnap etc.
wha yuh tink?
Homosexuality is not illegal. Sodomy is. And tell me exactly what rights 'gay people' are being denied in Trinidad.
so why is illegal for a homosexual to enter Trinidad? And while yuh at it what exactly is sodomy? A man coulld get charged with sodomy for eating he gyal cyat in T&T under de sosomy laws, it may even mean dat apart from de missionary position all odder sex is sodomy.
Are any other those laws enforced? No, they are not. And they don't exclusively apply to homosexuals except the legislature that says homosexuals can be refused entry. But there's probably a law that would ban prostitutes from entering the country as well.
Come again please.
excuse me, what is to prevent it from being enforced? What if yuh get some Bible thumping joker..in power?
And why dey does jail dem prostitutes and dem? So if dey enforcing dat why not de anti buller laws?
steups
the laws need to be changed, it is archaic and was put there by people from a time when we did not have scientific evidence...the law is shitty and de people should not be criminalized.
yuh forget de sht when Elton was coming here or what?
The 'shit'? People have everything right to protest Elton John performing if they wanted to.
And the laws against homosexuality are not enforced so your point about discriminaton and abuse is moot.
There was no protest against Elton performing, they did not want a buller to come to Tobago to spread his evil ways among their youth! They also invoked the Law that bans homos from entering T&T!
If they ahd the right, then the state also had the right to stop him from entering T&T...if no such law exists then all would have been well.
The real question is why are YOU so against the legislation ensuring them equal rights!?!???!!!!!?????>
steups
go and hug yuh inner lesbian nah
And wha you goan do....? Dise why yuh want "gay rights"?
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
Exactly, so people should stop talking all this 'gay rights' bullshit in the C'bean.
WHY? Ignorance is Bliss....live long and be blissful
Because as you said, we have much more important problem to deal with. At least in Trinidad.
more important things to focus on than abuse, marginilization etc. Gay rights needs to be addressed as they too, wheter you like it or not re entitled to the same rights as other non gay citizens. It is indeed absurd that homosexuality is illegal, but a man can have chirren helter skelter and leave dem to run wild...kill maim, kidnap etc.
wha yuh tink?
Homosexuality is not illegal. Sodomy is. And tell me exactly what rights 'gay people' are being denied in Trinidad.
so why is illegal for a homosexual to enter Trinidad? And while yuh at it what exactly is sodomy? A man coulld get charged with sodomy for eating he gyal cyat in T&T under de sosomy laws, it may even mean dat apart from de missionary position all odder sex is sodomy.
Are any other those laws enforced? No, they are not. And they don't exclusively apply to homosexuals except the legislature that says homosexuals can be refused entry. But there's probably a law that would ban prostitutes from entering the country as well.
Come again please.
excuse me, what is to prevent it from being enforced? What if yuh get some Bible thumping joker..in power?
And why dey does jail dem prostitutes and dem? So if dey enforcing dat why not de anti buller laws?
steups
the laws need to be changed, it is archaic and was put there by people from a time when we did not have scientific evidence...the law is shitty and de people should not be criminalized.
yuh forget de sht when Elton was coming here or what?
The 'shit'? People have everything right to protest Elton John performing if they wanted to.
And the laws against homosexuality are not enforced so your point about discriminaton and abuse is moot.
There was no protest against Elton performing, they did not want a buller to come to Tobago to spread his evil ways among their youth! They also invoked the Law that bans homos from entering T&T!
If they ahd the right, then the state also had the right to stop him from entering T&T...if no such law exists then all would have been well.
The real question is why are YOU so against the legislation ensuring them equal rights!?!???!!!!!?????>
steups
go and hug yuh inner lesbian nah
And wha you goan do....? Dise why yuh want "gay rights"?
I have always been in touch with my inner lesbian! As in ALWAYS!
Yes I support gay rights...what do you support their prosecution and persecution?
-
And the laws against homosexuality are not enforced so your point about discriminaton and abuse is moot.
seeing that they are not enforced it shouldn't be a big deal to take them off the books right?
There's no need to.
-
If there were ever no such thing as religion, nobody woulda think twice about the presence of homosexuals today.
Not all people object to homosexuality based on relgious grounds. Plenty just think it's nasty.
-
If there were ever no such thing as religion, nobody woulda think twice about the presence of homosexuals today.
Not all people object to homosexuality based on relgious grounds. Plenty just think it's nasty.
Maybe. I can't help but think that the initial, basic source of dat conception is some kind of faith-based seed even if one is not religious....I eh know, apologies for the initial sweeping statement.
-
And the laws against homosexuality are not enforced so your point about discriminaton and abuse is moot.
seeing that they are not enforced it shouldn't be a big deal to take them off the books right?
There's no need to.
2 things
1) why the vehement objection? you argue that there's no need to but is there really a need to object?
2) in what other circumstances would this approach be considered appropriate? what if the demographic being marginalized was a race or a sex or an ethnic group? would it be sufficient that the law wasn't being enforced?
-
2) in what other circumstances would this approach be considered appropriate? what if the demographic being marginalized was a race or a sex or an ethnic group? would it be sufficient that the law wasn't being enforced?
aaaappps
ya hit we wid a hard slap ah reality there Daryn ;)
-
And the laws against homosexuality are not enforced so your point about discriminaton and abuse is moot.
seeing that they are not enforced it shouldn't be a big deal to take them off the books right?
There's no need to.
2 things
1) why the vehement objection? you argue that there's no need to but is there really a need to object?
2) in what other circumstances would this approach be considered appropriate? what if the demographic being marginalized was a race or a sex or an ethnic group? would it be sufficient that the law wasn't being enforced?
Because according to the norms/culture of the society homosexuality is considered deviant at best. Are you also going to call for a repeal of the laws against prostitution? Paedophilia? Incest? Bestiality? Where do you draw the line?
-
2) in what other circumstances would this approach be considered appropriate? what if the demographic being marginalized was a race or a sex or an ethnic group? would it be sufficient that the law wasn't being enforced?
aaaappps
ya hit we wid a hard slap ah reality there Daryn ;)
I have already made that argument, and the critics respond : "doh mix race and particularly the black struggle with homo fight for equality.
And who says that homosexuality is deviant? Not any medical journal or even the DSMIV!!!!
Dey jes bad mind.
We society seems hell bent on destroying it self with murders yet yoiu find time to object to homos getting equality under the law?
STEUPS.....
-
And the laws against homosexuality are not enforced so your point about discriminaton and abuse is moot.
seeing that they are not enforced it shouldn't be a big deal to take them off the books right?
There's no need to.
2 things
1) why the vehement objection? you argue that there's no need to but is there really a need to object?
2) in what other circumstances would this approach be considered appropriate? what if the demographic being marginalized was a race or a sex or an ethnic group? would it be sufficient that the law wasn't being enforced?
Because according to the norms/culture of the society homosexuality is considered deviant at best. Are you also going to call for a repeal of the laws against prostitution? Paedophilia? Incest? Bestiality? Where do you draw the line?
wow
-
Because according to the norms/culture of the society homosexuality is considered deviant at best. Are you also going to call for a repeal of the laws against prostitution? Paedophilia? Incest? Bestiality? Where do you draw the line?
prostitution - yes - adults frolicking with adults
Paedophilia - HELL NO - adults takin advantage of kids
Incest - No - known to result in mentally challenged offspring
Bestiality - Hell NO - you can guess why
-
Because according to the norms/culture of the society homosexuality is considered deviant at best. Are you also going to call for a repeal of the laws against prostitution? Paedophilia? Incest? Bestiality? Where do you draw the line?
prostitution - yes - adults frolicking with adults
Paedophilia - HELL NO - adults takin advantage of kids
Incest - No - known to result in mentally challenged offspring
Bestiality - Hell NO - you can guess why
Actually, incest does not always result in metally challenged offspring. And then, what's it to you? *being Devil's Advocate*
-
Mans genitals cut off
Published: 22 May 2009
A homosexual relationship gone awry is how police investigators are describing the killing of a 49-year-old man after his mutilated body was found in Morvant yesterday. Dave Holder, of Never Dirty, was found with multiple stab wounds, windpipe severed and his penis and testicles sliced off. Placed on the area of the missing private parts was a bloody knife, police said.
The genitalia, they said, were yet to be recovered. A relative who yesterday viewed the autopsy at the Forensic Science Centre in St James said there was also a large drawing on Holders chest. Across the chest was a big white piece of paper...It had a moon and star on the paper and it look like it was in blood, the relative said. Saying Holder did odd jobs like washing maxi taxis, she also admitted that he smoked drugs.
Holder, who was neither married nor had any children, lived in a house a stones throw from his sisters. Saying she had no idea why someone would want to kill him and mutilate his body, his sister said, He had friends staying with him. Sometimes different ones come, they stay and then they go, she said. According to the sister, before Holders body was found, just after 5 am, there was an argument at her brothers house. I hear some kind of struggling around 1 am, but I did not come outside, she said.
When I do look outside, I observe the back door open and he never sleep with it open so I went to check. The sister said she found the body lying on the floor in the bedroom. I did not have any problem with him...He come home, he go he way, he come back in the night and sleep, she said. Police said before the killing, Holder and a man whom he knew for the past month had a heated argument.
They said they believed Holder ordered the man to leave his home.
Investigators said they also believed that Holder might have been attacked while asleep. Up to late yesterday, a team of officers from the Morvant CID, headed by ASP John Daniel, acting ASP David Abraham, Sgt Jacob, Cpls Davidson and Samuel, and PC Mitchel were searching for a suspect.
-
That happens quite often...
-
That happens quite often...
bullshit, you are a hypocrite! Jes say yuh hate de people, find their lifestyle reprehensible, but tuh put such shit as that happens quite often...how many murders in T&T over the last 12 years are homos responsible for?
And while yuh at it, how many genitalia were cut off by homos...post dem
-
How many times ppl had this discussion on this board and it came to a stayle mate. yuh know what i can't figure out for the life of me, why ppl so worried about gay ppl??
i have firends, every time we hang out they have something to say about gays or lesbians, somtimes i does really get sick of hearing it!!
i'm one man who doh care what ah fella or lady do in their private life, if that's what yuh want tuh do fine, i don't give!! just don't hurt no one in the process, that's all i care about! as for gay rights.
the ppl who say gays don't deserve no rights , you are just as disgusting as the KKK or the arian brother hood! they said black ppl derserve to serve them till the end of time , and all jews suppose tuh be annialated from the universe, and in the same breath they call themselves christians, and worship jesus, who was a practicing jew, go figure!
equal rights and justice stands for all! whether is sexual orientation, religon, race, creed, caste!
like ninja said in an interview.
"it's god earth and i don't see god killing them or destroying them, so who am i tuh pass judgement when god nah do nutten, and it's his earth. if god didn't want them here , they would not be here, so who am i ninja man tuh say".
ah hope all who talking this sh!t could be assertive and forceful the day when their grand son or grand daughter come and say grandama or grandpa ah bringing me boyfirend or girfriend for dinner eh!
i have a good feeling yuh would hear a differant tune then. yuh go see how fast they go want all kinda rights put into law.
-
And the laws against homosexuality are not enforced so your point about discriminaton and abuse is moot.
seeing that they are not enforced it shouldn't be a big deal to take them off the books right?
There's no need to.
2 things
1) why the vehement objection? you argue that there's no need to but is there really a need to object?
2) in what other circumstances would this approach be considered appropriate? what if the demographic being marginalized was a race or a sex or an ethnic group? would it be sufficient that the law wasn't being enforced?
Because according to the norms/culture of the society homosexuality is considered deviant at best. Are you also going to call for a repeal of the laws against prostitution? Paedophilia? Incest? Bestiality? Where do you draw the line?
so now we getting to the root of the matter: you think that something is wrong with homosexuals. I know better than to try to convince you otherwise. As a recovered homophobe myself, I know only life experience could teach you that.
No need to dress up your arguments as anything other than what they are.
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
we better not be on a slippery slope i hope the government don't foce dat on we .. they betta let we vote on it ....
You not living in Canada?
doh worry i can vote
Look what YOUR COUNTRY Canada has done:
In December 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada replied to the federal government's draft legislation that would legalize gay marriage nationwide. The Court ruled that the federal government has the exclusive authority to define marriage, that same-sex marriage was constitutional and was far from violating it, in fact "it flowed from" it, and that religious officials can't be forced to perform gay weddings. The Court refused to answer whether or not the traditional definition of marriage was consistent with the Charter.
On June 28th, 2005, by a vote of 158-133, the House of Commons passed Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act and on July 19th, 2005, by a vote of 47-21, the Senate gave its approval to the bill.
On July 20th, 2005, C-38 received royal assent from Chief Justice of The Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, acting in her role as deputy governor general. Canada became the fourth country to officially sanction gay marriage nationwide, behind Belgium, The Netherlands, and Spain. Same-sex marriages began in Ontario and British Columbia in 2003, with other provinces following via court challenges. The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a religious same-sex marriage that was performed in January 2001 legally valid, thus retroactively making it the first legal same-sex marriage in modern times (as The Netherlands did not legalize same-sex marriage until April 2001).
As of 2009, all provinces and territories had included "sexual orientation" in their human rights laws, and the Northwest Territories include "gender identity" in theirs.
In 2006, the International Conference on LGBT Human Rights was held in Montreal, culminating with the issuance of the Declaration of Montreal. The Borough of Ville-Marie in Montreal soon became the first government in the world to adopt the declaration, and the New Democratic Party became the first political formation in the world to do so at its convention in September.
that was under the liberal .. if the conservative just get a majaority that will change ..... ...
-
leave truetrini ... there is a gay parade up here come and attend ... meet yuh peers truetrini yuh giving away yuh self you on the downlow
-
Because according to the norms/culture of the society homosexuality is considered deviant at best. Are you also going to call for a repeal of the laws against prostitution? Paedophilia? Incest? Bestiality? Where do you draw the line?
Always love when homosexuality gets equated with bestiality and paedophilia. Everytime these discussions start you know it is just a matter of time.
Toppa FYI the stagnation of norms/culture is not something to embrace. Holding on to something, only becauase "that is what we know" and without a contemporary justification is the definition of backwardness.
By that logic slavery would never done and blacks would still be 2nd class citizens because as you say "according to the norms/cultures of society" blacks were inhuman/less intelligent/ungodly/ (fill in your backward belief here).
-
we better not be on a slippery slope i hope the government don't foce dat on we .. they betta let we vote on it ....
You not living in Canada?
doh worry i can vote
When last you vote in TnT?
And what yuh voting for? You voting on Legislation to give gays rights? It have a referendum where anybody asking for your vote?
Or yuh plan to fly home to TnT in 3 years to vote out the PNM because they giving gays rights.
All the while yuh happy to live in Canada with gays as yuh equal.
-
That happens quite often...
bullshit, you are a hypocrite! Jes say yuh hate de people, find their lifestyle reprehensible, but tuh put such shit as that happens quite often...how many murders in T&T over the last 12 years are homos responsible for?
And while yuh at it, how many genitalia were cut off by homos...post dem
Actually I wasn't talking about just in TnT and I don't hate anybody.
-
Because according to the norms/culture of the society homosexuality is considered deviant at best. Are you also going to call for a repeal of the laws against prostitution? Paedophilia? Incest? Bestiality? Where do you draw the line?
Always love when homosexuality gets equated with bestiality and paedophilia. Everytime these discussions start you know it is just a matter of time.
Toppa FYI the stagnation of norms/culture is not something to embrace. Holding on to something, only becauase "that is what we know" and without a contemporary justification is the definition of backwardness.
By that logic slavery would never done and blacks would still be 2nd class citizens because as you say "according to the norms/cultures of society" blacks were inhuman/less intelligent/ungodly/ (fill in your backward belief here).
Yeah and I love how people always compare a man sticking his penis up another man's bottom or a woman doing....whatever...to another woman to the treatment of person's of African descent.
That's so brilliant. ::)
Stagnation of norms/culture is not ok, but you're perfectly fine with the continuos descent into the morally depraved.
And comparing the homosexual lifestyle to other sexual acts or proclivities are apt because you can't make a case in favour of homosexuality but object to the rest. That is hypocricy.
-
How many times ppl had this discussion on this board and it came to a stayle mate. yuh know what i can't figure out for the life of me, why ppl so worried about gay ppl for??
i have firends, every time we habg out they have something to say about gays or lesbians, somtimes i does reallt get sick of hearing it!!
i'm one man who doh care what ah fella or lady do in their private life, if that's what yuh want tuh do fine, i don't give!! just don't hurt no one in the process, that's all i care about! as for gay rights.
the ppl who say gays don't deserve no rights , you are just as disgusting as the KKK or the arian brother hood! they said black ppl derserve to serve them till the end of time , and all jews suppose tuh be annialated from the universe, and in the same breath they call themselves christians, and worship jesus, who was a practicing jew, go figure!
equal rights and justice stands for all! whether a sexual orientation, religon, race, creed, caste!
like ninja siad in an interview.
"it's god earth and i don't see god killing them or destroying them, so who am i tuh pass judgement when god nah do nutten, and it's his earth. if god didn't want them here , they would not be here, so who am i ninja man tuh say".
ah hope all who talking this sh!t, the day when their grand son or grand daughter come and say grandama or grandpa ah bringing me boyfirend or girfriend for dinner eh! yuh go see how fast they go want all kinda rights put into law.
You rel shameless to bring God into the argument when the Bibe CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY states God's view on homosexuality and then there was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah to boot.
-
bible also have plenty other tings in it that we know is nonsense...slavery was justified using the bible as was racism amongst many other ills so come again...
look up some articles by corvino..he has an excellent pragmatic article that deals with all the arguments most people put forth. The name of the article slips me now. But if yuh cud read it with an open mind it really is a great article.
-
bible also have plenty other tings in it that we know is nonsense...slavery was justified using the bible as was racism amongst many other ills so come again...
look up some articles by corvino..he has an excellent pragmatic article that deals with all the arguments most people put forth. The name of the article slips me now. But if yuh cud read it with an open mind it really is a great article.
The Bible was manipulated and distorted by the Europenas to enslave Africans. That was an act of man and man alone and cannot be blamed on the teachings of the Bible cos the Bible suppors no such thing. And what else in the Bible is 'nonsense'? Pray, tell.
-
spin it how u want it toppa...pple interpret it in nonsensical ways...i eh choose my words right wen i said nonsense before..but i still encourage u to take a read of the articles i suggested...if not thats cool. But if yuh want to argue points u shud look at both sides.
thats all i have to say on this topic cuz this ting bound to degenerate more than it has already..
-
spin it how u want it toppa...pple interpret it in nonsensical ways...i eh choose my words right wen i said nonsense before..but i still encourage u to take a read of the articles i suggested...if not thats cool. But if yuh want to argue points u shud look at both sides.
thats all i have to say on this topic cuz this ting bound to degenerate more than it has already..
You didn't give the names of the articles. And I wasn't spinning anything. I was telling you the facts - the Bible does not support those kinds of things.
-
How many times ppl had this discussion on this board and it came to a stayle mate. yuh know what i can't figure out for the life of me, why ppl so worried about gay ppl for??
i have firends, every time we habg out they have something to say about gays or lesbians, somtimes i does reallt get sick of hearing it!!
i'm one man who doh care what ah fella or lady do in their private life, if that's what yuh want tuh do fine, i don't give!! just don't hurt no one in the process, that's all i care about! as for gay rights.
the ppl who say gays don't deserve no rights , you are just as disgusting as the KKK or the arian brother hood! they said black ppl derserve to serve them till the end of time , and all jews suppose tuh be annialated from the universe, and in the same breath they call themselves christians, and worship jesus, who was a practicing jew, go figure!
equal rights and justice stands for all! whether a sexual orientation, religon, race, creed, caste!
like ninja siad in an interview.
"it's god earth and i don't see god killing them or destroying them, so who am i tuh pass judgement when god nah do nutten, and it's his earth. if god didn't want them here , they would not be here, so who am i ninja man tuh say".
ah hope all who talking this sh!t, the day when their grand son or grand daughter come and say grandama or grandpa ah bringing me boyfirend or girfriend for dinner eh! yuh go see how fast they go want all kinda rights put into law.
You rel shameless to bring God into the argument when the Bibe CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY states God's view on homosexuality and then there was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah to boot.
FYI somdom and gommorah was destroyed BC in that city there were all kinda wickedness going on. rape , robbery, teft, murders , those men used to distress the traders and the trade route.
they were praticing human sacrices and all kinda fackry. plus the bible is a book that passed through a lot of hands and many translations.
have you ever heard lost in translation? a lot of that book should be approached with caution.
we english speaking ceribbeans think and act just like our old colonial britsh conservative masters , the only thing, they moved on and we're still stuck in that mind set.
i interact with a lot of gay ppl, and for the most part they could never be straight , it's biologically impossible.
i don't condone the anal sex BC the anus was not made for sexual activity, it a waste dump for the body. the virgina was the only inlet desiegn for penetration, so i think that improvision(anal pentration) is disgusting, but if they want tuh love and care for the same sex , then what's the problem?
-
You don't mind if they love and care for the same sex, but not in a sexual way because you think anal penetration is nasty? Is that what you're saying? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
And how is it biologically impossible? That genetics excuse for homosexuality is yet to be proven.
-
Yeah and I love how people always compare a man sticking his penis up another man's bottom or a woman doing....whatever...to another woman to the treatment of person's of African descent.
That's so brilliant. ::)
Stagnation of norms/culture is not ok, but you're perfectly fine with the continuous descent into the morally depraved.
And comparing the homosexual lifestyle to other sexual acts or proclivities are apt because you can't make a case in favour of homosexuality but object to the rest. That is hypocricy.
Toppa you clearly more passionate than this about me.
My take is simple. People is people. Who they choose to love up is their business, I not carrying no malice or even the slightest ill-feeling towards them for that. I just can't do that because if it was my friend, family, son or daughter I would want the best for them.
The comparison to the plight of blacks is not a stretch. The common thread is that a group is being treated poorly because they are different. Worse yet they are in a minority position from a power standpoint so the majority empowered group have "culture/norms" as an excuse to resist change.
We have enough examples of people holding prejudices against others that they don't identify with to know prejudice for what it is. White oppression of blacks is just one example but you have prejudices between separate "black" groups, separate "white" groups, separate sexes, separate religions etc. My point is people being different, even so different that they do something you consider nasty, as long as their differences don't hurt or affect people negatively, is not a reason to disregard their rights. More than that we have enough examples of people being driven by backward prejudices to want to stay far away from such attitudes.
Despite what you might think comparing somebody's sexual orientation to criminal acts like bestiality and paedophilia is ridiculous. There is no "slippery slope" argument to justify lumping these together because paedophilia, for example, is not just a "sexual proclivity". Now if you think homosexuality should be criminalized yuh should come out and say so.
-
Yeah and I love how people always compare a man sticking his penis up another man's bottom or a woman doing....whatever...to another woman to the treatment of person's of African descent.
That's so brilliant. ::)
Stagnation of norms/culture is not ok, but you're perfectly fine with the continuous descent into the morally depraved.
And comparing the homosexual lifestyle to other sexual acts or proclivities are apt because you can't make a case in favour of homosexuality but object to the rest. That is hypocricy.
Toppa you clearly more passionate than this about me.
My take is simple. People is people. Who they choose to love up is their business, I not carrying no malice or even the slightest ill-feeling towards them for that. I just can't do that because if it was my friend, family, son or daughter I would want the best for them.
The comparison to the plight of blacks is not a stretch. The common thread is that a group is being treated poorly because they are different. Worse yet they are in a minority position from a power standpoint so the majority empowered group have "culture/norms" as an excuse to resist change.
We have enough examples of people holding prejudices against others that they don't identify with to know prejudice for what it is. White oppression of blacks is just one example but you have prejudices between separate "black" groups, separate "white" groups, separate sexes, separate religions etc. My point is people being different, even so different that they do something you consider nasty, as long as their differences don't hurt or affect people negatively, is not a reason to disregard their rights. More than that we have enough examples of people being driven by backward prejudices to want to stay far away from such attitudes.
Despite what you might think comparing somebody's sexual orientation to criminal acts like bestiality and paedophilia is ridiculous. There is no "slippery slope" argument to justify lumping these together because paedophilia, for example, is not just a "sexual proclivity". Now if you think homosexuality should be criminalized yuh should come out and say so.
So could it not also be argued that bestiality and paedophilia are also sexual orientations? Maybe some people just can't help having a sexual attraction for animals? Or some people can't help a sexual attraction to children. According to the laws of TnT they're all illegal (and all condemned in the Bible btw). If you want to make a case for one, you have to make a case for all. You can't be like the California Supreme court and say that while homosexual marriage is ok, incest and polygamy are not because they are 'inimical to the norms and culture of society'. Well the same argument can and has been used against gay marriage.
-
Not all people object to homosexuality based on relgious grounds. Plenty just think it's nasty.
Plenty people think eating red meat is nasty too....Is that grounds for making it illegal?
-
i don't condone the anal sex BC the anus was not made for sexual activity, it a waste dump for the body. the virgina was the only inlet desiegn for penetration, so i think that improvision(anal pentration) is disgusting, but if they want tuh love and care for the same sex , then what's the problem?
What if a man has anal sex with a woman? Is the anus ok for sexual activity then?
What about oral sex? Was the mouth made for sexual activity?
What about masturbation? Was the hand made for sexual activity?
I know you're for gay rights so I not picking on yuh in that regard...just using your post as an example of how we can manage to justify and denounce certain behavior by our own individually set standards..and present our individual preferences as authoritative or at least feel snug in them so long as they are backed by the "masses" or deemed acceptible by conventional wisdom.
-
So could it not also be argued that bestiality and paedophilia are also sexual orientations? Maybe some people just can't help having a sexual attraction for animals? Or some people can't help a sexual attraction to children. According to the laws of TnT they're all illegal (and all condemned in the Bible btw). If you want to make a case for one, you have to make a case for all. You can't be like the California Supreme court and say that while homosexual marriage is ok, incest and polygamy are not because they are 'inimical to the norms and culture of society'. Well the same argument can and has been used against gay marriage.
No you can't. The homosexuality we referring to is sex between two consenting adults. Paedophilia and bestiality are predatory because one of the parties is not in a position to consent. I would think this distinction is obvious.
Paedophilia is a sickness because acting on the desire, whether by actually committing molestation, rape or watching and trafficking in material victimizes someone.
I wouldn't classify bestiality with paedophilia because an animal is nowhere as precious as a child, but likewise the animal can't consent. Under the current culture that is cruelty to animals.
Homosexual sex between two adults could never compare because it is not hurting anyone (other than your eyes apparently). In fact by making the comparison so easily you are either comparing one or both of the homosexual partners to an animal or someone that does not know better.
The funniest thing is that we live in a culture where school girls with maxi drivers, (y'know...paedophilia) is either laughed or at worst frowned upon, but homosexuality is what does really make people vex.
-
Not all people object to homosexuality based on relgious grounds. Plenty just think it's nasty.
Plenty people think eating red meat is nasty too....Is that grounds for making it illegal?
What a compelling argument Kicker. Really. And I was not providing a reasoning of its illegality... was telling him that not everyone objects to it based on religious grounds.
-
So could it not also be argued that bestiality and paedophilia are also sexual orientations? Maybe some people just can't help having a sexual attraction for animals? Or some people can't help a sexual attraction to children. According to the laws of TnT they're all illegal (and all condemned in the Bible btw). If you want to make a case for one, you have to make a case for all. You can't be like the California Supreme court and say that while homosexual marriage is ok, incest and polygamy are not because they are 'inimical to the norms and culture of society'. Well the same argument can and has been used against gay marriage.
No you can't. The homosexuality we referring to is sex between two consenting adults. Paedophilia and bestiality are predatory because one of the parties is not in a position to consent. I would think this distinction is obvious.
Paedophilia is a sickness because acting on the desire, whether by actually committing molestation, rape or watching and trafficking in material victimizes someone.
I wouldn't classify bestiality with paedophilia because an animal is nowhere as precious as a child, but likewise the animal can't consent. Under the current culture that is cruelty to animals.
Homosexual sex between two adults could never compare because it is not hurting anyone (other than your eyes apparently). In fact by making the comparison so easily you are either comparing one or both of the homosexual partners to an animal or someone that does not know better.
The funniest thing is that we live in a culture where school girls with maxi drivers, (y'know...paedophilia) is either laughed or at worst frowned upon, but homosexuality is what does really make people vex.
So your objection to paedophilia and bestiality lies in the issue of 'consent'? lol
You brought up school girls and maxi drivers, I know 13 yr old girls who've given consent so does the ability to give consent make the act less depraved? Or is it just wrong because it's wrong.
-
What a compelling argument Kicker. Really. And I was not providing a reasoning of its illegality... was telling him that not everyone objects to it based on religious grounds.
Kicker was making the point that "nasty" is an arbitrary and frivoulous basis for objecting to what other people are doing. He was being equally frivolous.
-
So could it not also be argued that bestiality and paedophilia are also sexual orientations? Maybe some people just can't help having a sexual attraction for animals? Or some people can't help a sexual attraction to children. According to the laws of TnT they're all illegal (and all condemned in the Bible btw). If you want to make a case for one, you have to make a case for all. You can't be like the California Supreme court and say that while homosexual marriage is ok, incest and polygamy are not because they are 'inimical to the norms and culture of society'. Well the same argument can and has been used against gay marriage.
No you can't. The homosexuality we referring to is sex between two consenting adults. Paedophilia and bestiality are predatory because one of the parties is not in a position to consent. I would think this distinction is obvious.
Paedophilia is a sickness because acting on the desire, whether by actually committing molestation, rape or watching and trafficking in material victimizes someone.
I wouldn't classify bestiality with paedophilia because an animal is nowhere as precious as a child, but likewise the animal can't consent. Under the current culture that is cruelty to animals.
Homosexual sex between two adults could never compare because it is not hurting anyone (other than your eyes apparently).
The funny thing is we live in a culture where school girls with maxi drivers, (y'know...paedophilia) is either laughed or at worst frowned upon, but homosexuality is what does really make people vex.
I don't think you can draw that line..
Lets step back from the word paedophaelia. What about if the act is between two consenting individuals, a grown man and a girl who is under the legal age. In some cultures, it is normal for very young girls to get married to much older men. The point is that you cannot class that as predatory, and within the parameters you set then the behaviour should be viewed as just as acceptable as homosexuality.
As for the argument for beastiality not being a fair comparison.. what confuses me is the people who say you aren't in a position to condemn behaviour on some pre-conceived notion of 'acceptability' as long as it isn't hurting anyone. But then are full in condemnation of beastiality because of it being unacceptable.
But if someone has an attraction to animals, that doesn't hurt anyone either does it? If your only argument against the comparison is that animals can't consent, i would have to ask you what makes you so sure about that.
the last time i bring that up is all kinda cuss i get.. all i want is someone to properly explain to me what makes such a comparison unjustified.
-
Soon it would be normal to be gay and abnormal to be straight..
steups.
How so? Next is people with green eyes go want to be normAL DAN THOSE WITH BROWN EYES?
Or maybe we go measure how many women ah man sleeping wit to determine who more masculine?
Or maybe how many chirren he fadder and leave to run de streets...now dat is normal ent?
Or which race responsible for more killings...will determine which race is more normal?
eh hhe ah beginning to understand.
Grow up and stop trying to marginialize de bullers and dem...stop hating dem dey is people too, even if yuh doh agree with how dey does live, dey ate more important fish to fry....like tackilng homelessness, crime, poverty, injustice (social injustice too like denying ALL citizens equal protection etc....e.g lesbians and bullkers)
we better not be on a slippery slope i hope the government don't foce dat on we .. they betta let we vote on it ....
You not living in Canada?
doh worry i can vote
Look what YOUR COUNTRY Canada has done:
In December 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada replied to the federal government's draft legislation that would legalize gay marriage nationwide. The Court ruled that the federal government has the exclusive authority to define marriage, that same-sex marriage was constitutional and was far from violating it, in fact "it flowed from" it, and that religious officials can't be forced to perform gay weddings. The Court refused to answer whether or not the traditional definition of marriage was consistent with the Charter.
On June 28th, 2005, by a vote of 158-133, the House of Commons passed Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act and on July 19th, 2005, by a vote of 47-21, the Senate gave its approval to the bill.
On July 20th, 2005, C-38 received royal assent from Chief Justice of The Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, acting in her role as deputy governor general. Canada became the fourth country to officially sanction gay marriage nationwide, behind Belgium, The Netherlands, and Spain. Same-sex marriages began in Ontario and British Columbia in 2003, with other provinces following via court challenges. The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a religious same-sex marriage that was performed in January 2001 legally valid, thus retroactively making it the first legal same-sex marriage in modern times (as The Netherlands did not legalize same-sex marriage until April 2001).
As of 2009, all provinces and territories had included "sexual orientation" in their human rights laws, and the Northwest Territories include "gender identity" in theirs.
In 2006, the International Conference on LGBT Human Rights was held in Montreal, culminating with the issuance of the Declaration of Montreal. The Borough of Ville-Marie in Montreal soon became the first government in the world to adopt the declaration, and the New Democratic Party became the first political formation in the world to do so at its convention in September.
that was under the liberal .. if the conservative just get a majaority that will change ..... ...
ah feel that is so layton can keep his riding. i wouldn't be surprised if the ndp have their own float in the pride parade.
-
So could it not also be argued that bestiality and paedophilia are also sexual orientations? Maybe some people just can't help having a sexual attraction for animals? Or some people can't help a sexual attraction to children. According to the laws of TnT they're all illegal (and all condemned in the Bible btw). If you want to make a case for one, you have to make a case for all. You can't be like the California Supreme court and say that while homosexual marriage is ok, incest and polygamy are not because they are 'inimical to the norms and culture of society'. Well the same argument can and has been used against gay marriage.
No you can't. The homosexuality we referring to is sex between two consenting adults. Paedophilia and bestiality are predatory because one of the parties is not in a position to consent. I would think this distinction is obvious.
Paedophilia is a sickness because acting on the desire, whether by actually committing molestation, rape or watching and trafficking in material victimizes someone.
I wouldn't classify bestiality with paedophilia because an animal is nowhere as precious as a child, but likewise the animal can't consent. Under the current culture that is cruelty to animals.
Homosexual sex between two adults could never compare because it is not hurting anyone (other than your eyes apparently). In fact by making the comparison so easily you are either comparing one or both of the homosexual partners to an animal or someone that does not know better.
The funniest thing is that we live in a culture where school girls with maxi drivers, (y'know...paedophilia) is either laughed or at worst frowned upon, but homosexuality is what does really make people vex.
So your objection to paedophilia and bestiality lies in the issue of 'consent'? lol
You brought up school girls and maxi drivers, I know 13 yr old girls who've given consent so does the ability to give consent make the act less depraved? Or is it just wrong because it's wrong.
Feel free to gloss over the fact that I described them as predatory and hurtful to its victims. Or continue to ignore the fact that I describe the phenomenon of underage girls with older men to be a bigger problem than homosexuality.
Consent is a catch all because it accounts for those cases where the victims do actually "consent" ( as in the case of 13 - 17 year olds) but it is understood they are considered to be in a position to consent. Because of their age they are unwitting victims.
Please don't try to put words in my mouth.
-
So could it not also be argued that bestiality and paedophilia are also sexual orientations? Maybe some people just can't help having a sexual attraction for animals? Or some people can't help a sexual attraction to children. According to the laws of TnT they're all illegal (and all condemned in the Bible btw). If you want to make a case for one, you have to make a case for all. You can't be like the California Supreme court and say that while homosexual marriage is ok, incest and polygamy are not because they are 'inimical to the norms and culture of society'. Well the same argument can and has been used against gay marriage.
No you can't. The homosexuality we referring to is sex between two consenting adults. Paedophilia and bestiality are predatory because one of the parties is not in a position to consent. I would think this distinction is obvious.
Paedophilia is a sickness because acting on the desire, whether by actually committing molestation, rape or watching and trafficking in material victimizes someone.
I wouldn't classify bestiality with paedophilia because an animal is nowhere as precious as a child, but likewise the animal can't consent. Under the current culture that is cruelty to animals.
Homosexual sex between two adults could never compare because it is not hurting anyone (other than your eyes apparently). In fact by making the comparison so easily you are either comparing one or both of the homosexual partners to an animal or someone that does not know better.
The funniest thing is that we live in a culture where school girls with maxi drivers, (y'know...paedophilia) is either laughed or at worst frowned upon, but homosexuality is what does really make people vex.
So your objection to paedophilia and bestiality lies in the issue of 'consent'? lol
You brought up school girls and maxi drivers, I know 13 yr old girls who've given consent so does the ability to give consent make the act less depraved? Or is it just wrong because it's wrong.
Feel free to gloss over the fact that I described them as predatory and hurtful to its victims. Or continue to ignore the fact that I describe the phenomenon of underage girls with older men to be a bigger problem than homosexuality.
Consent is a catch all because it accounts for those cases where the victims do actually "consent" ( as in the case of 13 - 17 year olds) but it is understood they are considered to be in a position to consent. Because of their age they are unwitting victims.
Please don't try to put words in my mouth.
So if the leal age of consent were to be removed, would you still have a problem?
-
Not all people object to homosexuality based on relgious grounds. Plenty just think it's nasty.
Plenty people think eating red meat is nasty too....Is that grounds for making it illegal?
What a compelling argument Kicker. Really. And I was not providing a reasoning of its illegality... was telling him that not everyone objects to it based on religious grounds.
Wasn't attempting a compelling argument lol...You really thought ...hmmm?
Anyways I won't even bother. The more I see how people respond to posts on here the more I realize that people have their thoughts/opinions and "sharing" them on this message board is unilateral exercise disguised as discussion....
-
Not all people object to homosexuality based on relgious grounds. Plenty just think it's nasty.
Plenty people think eating red meat is nasty too....Is that grounds for making it illegal?
What a compelling argument Kicker. Really. And I was not providing a reasoning of its illegality... was telling him that not everyone objects to it based on religious grounds.
Wasn't attempting a compelling argument lol...You really thought ...hmmm?
Anyways I won't even bother. The more I see how people respond to posts on here the more I realize that people have their thoughts/opinions and "sharing" them on this message board is unilateral exercise disguised as discussion....
So you think a discussion is only good when everyone sees things your way or one way in particular?
-
Consent is a catch all because it accounts for those cases where the victims do actually "consent" ( as in the case of 13 - 17 year olds) but it is understood they are considered to be in a position to consent. Because of their age they are unwitting victims.
Please don't try to put words in my mouth.
What makes you think 13-17 year olds are not in a position to consent?
Some people mature faster than others.. Girls of that age are much more mature nowadays than they were in generations past. On the flip side, what of young boys with older women.. at what age are in that position.. Also, do young people become mature on their 16th birthdays?
i think we all know that the law is there to protect those who are not in a position to consent, but its by no means a catch all.
This isn't a legal argument.. its a moral issue.
-
Not all people object to homosexuality based on relgious grounds. Plenty just think it's nasty.
Plenty people think eating red meat is nasty too....Is that grounds for making it illegal?
What a compelling argument Kicker. Really. And I was not providing a reasoning of its illegality... was telling him that not everyone objects to it based on religious grounds.
Wasn't attempting a compelling argument lol...You really thought ...hmmm?
Anyways I won't even bother. The more I see how people respond to posts on here the more I realize that people have their thoughts/opinions and "sharing" them on this message board is unilateral exercise disguised as discussion....
So you think a discussion is only good when everyone sees things your way or one way in particular?
lol Case in point - Come on...Where did I ask you to see my way or any one way in particular?
Anyways good thread.
Good points being made in all directions- funny how there is no concession, acknowledgement, or agreement on anything between sets of people making valid points on either end...that's what I mean.
-
Not all people object to homosexuality based on relgious grounds. Plenty just think it's nasty.
Plenty people think eating red meat is nasty too....Is that grounds for making it illegal?
What a compelling argument Kicker. Really. And I was not providing a reasoning of its illegality... was telling him that not everyone objects to it based on religious grounds.
Wasn't attempting a compelling argument lol...You really thought ...hmmm?
Anyways I won't even bother. The more I see how people respond to posts on here the more I realize that people have their thoughts/opinions and "sharing" them on this message board is unilateral exercise disguised as discussion....
So you think a discussion is only good when everyone sees things your way or one way in particular?
lol Case in point - Come on...Where did I ask you to see my way or any one way in particular?
Anyways good thread.
Good points being made in all directions- funny how there is no concession, acknowledgement, or agreement on anything between sets of people making valid points on either end...that's what I mean.
Scene
-
Not all people object to homosexuality based on relgious grounds. Plenty just think it's nasty.
Plenty people think eating red meat is nasty too....Is that grounds for making it illegal?
What a compelling argument Kicker. Really. And I was not providing a reasoning of its illegality... was telling him that not everyone objects to it based on religious grounds.
Wasn't attempting a compelling argument lol...You really thought ...hmmm?
Anyways I won't even bother. The more I see how people respond to posts on here the more I realize that people have their thoughts/opinions and "sharing" them on this message board is unilateral exercise disguised as discussion....
So you think a discussion is only good when everyone sees things your way or one way in particular?
lol Case in point - Come on...Where did I ask you to see my way or any one way in particular?
Anyways good thread.
Good points being made in all directions- funny how there is no concession, acknowledgement, or agreement on anything between sets of people making valid points on either end...that's what I mean.
That's the thing...time will be the only teller, only future generations may experience it, whatever that way is.
-
I don't think you can draw that line..
Lets step back from the word paedophaelia. What about if the act is between two consenting individuals, a grown man and a girl who is under the legal age. In some cultures, it is normal for very young girls to get married to much older men. The point is that you cannot class that as predatory, and within the parameters you set then the behaviour should be viewed as just as acceptable as homosexuality.
Honestly Omar I don't see what is gained from comparing to other cultures. In some cultures the age is at the age of sexual maturity in others it might be even lower. Whatever the specific standard I believe it is generally accepted that there is an age that is too young. In my book having sex (or having the desire to have sex) with someone below that age is a grevious ill, adults benig in same sex relationships is not.
As for the argument for beastiality not being a fair comparison.. what confuses me is the people who say you aren't in a position to condemn behaviour on some pre-conceived notion of 'acceptability' as long as it isn't hurting anyone. But then are full in condemnation of beastiality because of it being unacceptable.
But if someone has an attraction to animals, that doesn't hurt anyone either does it? If your only argument against the comparison is that animals can't consent, i would have to ask you what makes you so sure about that.
the last time i bring that up is all kinda cuss i get.. all i want is someone to properly explain to me what makes such a comparison unjustified.
I ent go cuss yuh. Again I can't make the comparison between having sex witha different species and being in a same sex-relationship unless yuh going by the "both is a sin/condemned by the Bible" definition.
So if the leal age of consent were to be removed, would you still have a problem?
I absolutely would but what is your point? You seem to be saying that the age is some arbitrary restriction when we know that there are justifications for the statutory rape limits. I agree with the justifications so dropping the age or removing them altogether does not fly with me. Most importantly I could justify my opinion on the basis of something other than religion/the Bible or the fact that it is "nastiness"
As I said I am not as interested in this topic as either gays, or those who have a problem with gays. To me people is people and what they do does not bother me. A gay person going about their business just as everybody else, working, living, eating, sleeping with the one difference being the sex of their mate. I just find that comparing them to paedophiles or people who have sex with animals based on that one difference to be way off base.
-
i don't condone the anal sex BC the anus was not made for sexual activity, it a waste dump for the body. the virgina was the only inlet desiegn for penetration, so i think that improvision(anal pentration) is disgusting, but if they want tuh love and care for the same sex , then what's the problem?
What if a man has anal sex with a woman? Is the anus ok for sexual activity then?
What about oral sex? Was the mouth made for sexual activity?
What about masturbation? Was the hand made for sexual activity?
I know you're for gay rights so I not picking on yuh in that regard...just using your post as an example of how we can manage to justify and denounce certain behavior by our own individually set standards..and present our individual preferences as authoritative or at least feel snug in them so long as they are backed by the "masses" or deemed acceptible by conventional wisdom.
Breds, my home boy from way back when is a doctor, so now and then we does hang out and reason about all kinda medical issues when he have some time tuh spare.
it's funny you ask BC we had a discussion about a mutual friend not too long ago, who like to polk his girl friends in the back door. he then explained to me how unsanitary anal sex is and the kind of bacteria that is found in the anus including ecoli.
as for your questions. Bro i was only dealing with this from a medical and scientific prospective, not from a moral stand point!
if ppl want tuh suck each other off , male on female, male on male , or female on female. i really don't give!
my focus on the issue was from a prospective of knowledge and medical science.
as for masturbation, common bro, how dumb do you really think i am? that's a no brainer!
all in all , i doh care if ah fella f@ck in his nose, no skin off of my back, as long as he not hurting no one, and the other party mentally stable, legal and willing.
BTW, i think anal sex is disgusting whether male on female or male on male, but that's just my rules for me only!
-
who make dem penguin so? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8081829.stm)
-
toppa forget truetrini and jdb dem feel the way foward for tnt is legalize this abnormal lifestyle
-
toppa forget truetrini and jdb dem feel the way foward for tnt is legalize this abnormal lifestyle
yuh fraid yuh get bull? Like yuh have feminine traits or yuh does walk and wine? Yuh cyar drink soup without plenty dumplin?
Like a priest touch yuh?
like yuh have ah little ego dystonic twinge or wha?
Like yuh bamsee distended from a prior encounter? Ah know it legal in canada already..like yuh get visited from de Organization of Fudge packers and dey make yuh ah honorary member?
-
Go Gay Go. Geh them some good wood. :wavetowel: :wavetowel:
-
Death penalty for gays? Uganda debates proposal
AP
By KATHARINE HOURELD and GODFREY OLUKYA, Associated Press Writers Katharine Houreld And Godfrey Olukya, Associated Press Writers 2 hrs 34 mins ago
KAMPALA, Uganda Proposed legislation would impose the death penalty for some gay Ugandans, and their family and friends could face up to seven years in jail if they fail to report them to authorities. Even landlords could be imprisoned for renting to homosexuals.
Gay rights activists say the bill, which has prompted growing international opposition, promotes hatred and could set back efforts to combat HIV/AIDS. They believe the bill is part of a continentwide backlash because Africa's gay community is becoming more vocal.
"It's a question of visibility," said David Cato, who became an activist after he was beaten up four times, arrested twice, fired from his teaching job and outed in the press because he is gay. "When we come out and ask for our rights, they pass laws against us."
The legislation has drawn global attention from activists across the spectrum of views on gay issues. The measure was proposed in Uganda following a visit by leaders of U.S. conservative Christian ministries that promote therapy for gays to become heterosexual. However, at least one of those leaders has denounced the bill, as have some other conservative and liberal Christians in the United States.
The Ugandan legislation in its current form would mandate a death sentence for active homosexuals living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. "Serial offenders" also could face capital punishment, but the legislation does not define the term. Anyone convicted of a homosexual act faces life imprisonment.
Anyone who "aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage of acts of homosexuality" faces seven years in prison if convicted. Landlords who rent rooms or homes to homosexuals also could get seven years and anyone with "religious, political, economic or social authority" who fails to report anyone violating the act faces three years.
The bill is still being debated and could undergo changes before a vote, which hasn't yet been set. But gay-rights activists abroad are focusing on the legislation. A protest against the bill is planned for Thursday in London; protests were held last month in New York and Washington.
David Bahati, the legislator sponsoring the bill, said he was encouraging "constructive criticism" to improve the law but insisted strict measures were necessary to stop homosexuals from "recruiting" schoolchildren.
"The youths in secondary schools copy everything from the Western world and America," said high school teacher David Kisambira. "A good number of students have been converted into gays. We hear there are groups of people given money by some gay organizations in developed countries to recruit youth into gay activities."
Uganda's ethics minister, James Nsaba Buturo, said the death sentence clause would probably be reviewed but maintained the law was necessary to counter foreign influence. He said homosexuality "is not natural in Uganda," a view echoed by some Ugandans.
"I feel that the bill is good and necessary, but I don't think gays should be killed. They should be imprisoned for about a year and warned never to do it again. The family is in danger in Uganda because the rate at which vice is spreading is appalling," said shopkeeper John Muwanguzi.
Uganda is not the only country considering anti-gay laws. Nigeria, where homosexuality is already punishable by imprisonment or death, is considering strengthening penalties for activities deemed to promote it. Burundi just banned same-sex relationships and Rwanda is considering it.
Homophobia is rife even in more tolerant African countries.
In Kenya, homosexuality is illegal but the government has acknowledged its existence by launching sexual orientation survey to improve health care. Nevertheless, the recent marriage of two Kenyan men in London caused outrage. The men's families in Kenya were harassed by reporters and villagers.
In South Africa, the only African nation to recognize gay marriage, gangs carry out so-called "corrective" rapes on lesbians. A 19-year-old lesbian athlete was gang-raped, tortured and murdered in 2008.
Debate over the Ugandan bill follows a conference in Kampala earlier this year attended by American activists who consider same-gender relationships sinful, and believe gays and lesbians can become heterosexual through prayer and counseling. Author Don Schmierer and "sexual reorientation coach" Caleb Lee Brundidge took part; they did not respond to interview requests.
A third American who took part in the conference in Uganda, Scott Lively, said the bill has gone too far.
"I agree with the general goal but this law is far too harsh," said Lively, a California-based preacher and author of "The Pink Swastika" and other books that advise parents how to "recruit-proof" their children from gays.
"Society should actively discourage all sex outside of marriage and that includes homosexuality ... The family is under threat," he said. Gay people "should not be parading around the streets," he added.
Frank Mugisha, a gay Ugandan human rights activist, said the bill was so poorly worded that someone could be imprisoned for giving a hug.
"This bill is promoting hatred," he said. "We're turning Uganda into a police state. It will drive people to suicide."
Buturo played down the influence of foreign evangelicals, saying the proposed legislation was an expression of popular outrage against "repugnant" practices. But activists like Cato argue anti-gay attitudes are a foreign import.
"In the beginning, when the missionaries brought religion, they said they were bringing love," he said. "Instead they brought hate, through homophobia."
Susan Timberlake, a senior adviser on human rights and law from UNAIDS, said such laws could hinder the fight against HIV/AIDS by driving people further underground. And activists also worry that the legislation could be used to blackmail or silence government critics.
Cato said he thinks the Ugandan bill will pass, perhaps in an altered form.
"It's such a setback. But I hope we can overcome it," he said. "I cannot believe this is happening in the 21st century."
___
Associated Press Writer Katharine Houreld reported from Nairobi, Kenya
-
wonder if they could implement that in america. :P
-
ah Ugandan fella I was talkin to today, say it is the ROMAN CATHOLIC church behind this :P
-
wonder if they could implement that in america. :P
Capo they will make you apologise in the public :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
wonder if they could implement that in america. :P
dem love homos in the U.S more than straight ppl. dem does do like we straight ppl have a problem.. I luv uganda now eh.. bun dem homos to de freeking fullest!!!!!!!!!!
war
-
wonder if they could implement that in america. :P
dem love homos in the U.S more than straight ppl. dem does do like we straight ppl have a problem.. I luv uganda now eh.. bun dem homos to de freeking fullest!!!!!!!!!!
war
What if yuh son turn out gay? would you still feel the same way? it's easier to say when it doh strike home, and iz somebody else child.
-
wonder if they could implement that in america. :P
dem love homos in the U.S more than straight ppl. dem does do like we straight ppl have a problem.. I luv uganda now eh.. bun dem homos to de freeking fullest!!!!!!!!!!
war
What if yuh son turn out gay? would you still feel the same way? it's easier to say when it doh strike home, and iz somebody else child.
Just cool none of my 5 sons will turn out a fagot. dem daddy love pum pum to much for dem not to luv pum pum. evenmi 3 year old have galfriend already . being a homo is f**kin sin . In di Bhagwatgeeta, koran , bible and all other holy books . Gays will burn in hell . Dont mad wid me cya mi nuh like homo's Its written in the holy books . Vexs wid god not me . Doh ask me to apologise ask god too.
Happy Holidays.. :beermug:
war..
war
-
wonder if they could implement that in america. :P
dem love homos in the U.S more than straight ppl. dem does do like we straight ppl have a problem.. I luv uganda now eh.. bun dem homos to de freeking fullest!!!!!!!!!!
war
What if yuh son turn out gay? would you still feel the same way? it's easier to say when it doh strike home, and iz somebody else child.
Just cool none of my 5 sons will turn out a fagot. dem daddy love pum pum to much for dem not to luv pum pum. evenmi 3 year old have galfriend already . being a homo is f**kin sin . In di Bhagwatgeeta, koran , bible and all other holy books . Gays will burn in hell . Dont mad wid me cya mi nuh like homo's Its written in the holy books . Vexs wid god not me . Doh ask me to apologise ask god too.
Happy Holidays.. :beermug:
war..
war
More love from the Christians? Kill the homos? They are sinners? Sin has different degrees now..all de pum pum yuh love up and yuh was not married to the women....dat is not sinning too? Death to the pum pum lovers.
And people does get vex with my abhorrence to religion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4-DyWeK28k&feature=related
Look at that video war and tell me what you think of it!
-
wonder if they could implement that in america. :P
dem love homos in the U.S more than straight ppl. dem does do like we straight ppl have a problem.. I luv uganda now eh.. bun dem homos to de freeking fullest!!!!!!!!!!
war
What if yuh son turn out gay? would you still feel the same way? it's easier to say when it doh strike home, and iz somebody else child.
Just cool none of my 5 sons will turn out a fagot. dem daddy love pum pum to much for dem not to luv pum pum. evenmi 3 year old have galfriend already . being a homo is f**kin sin . In di Bhagwatgeeta, koran , bible and all other holy books . Gays will burn in hell . Dont mad wid me cya mi nuh like homo's Its written in the holy books . Vexs wid god not me . Doh ask me to apologise ask god too.
Happy Holidays.. :beermug:
war..
war
I was trying hard to ignore this post ... but to hell with that >:(
And you making me agree again with JC to boot .. steups
So much pure utter s**t spewing from your mouth that I swear is two girls and one cup I watching .. steups.
-
wonder if they could implement that in america. :P
dem love homos in the U.S more than straight ppl. dem does do like we straight ppl have a problem.. I luv uganda now eh.. bun dem homos to de freeking fullest!!!!!!!!!!
war
What if yuh son turn out gay? would you still feel the same way? it's easier to say when it doh strike home, and iz somebody else child.
Just cool none of my 5 sons will turn out a fagot. dem daddy love pum pum to much for dem not to luv pum pum. evenmi 3 year old have galfriend already . being a homo is f**kin sin . In di Bhagwatgeeta, koran , bible and all other holy books . Gays will burn in hell . Dont mad wid me cya mi nuh like homo's Its written in the holy books . Vexs wid god not me . Doh ask me to apologise ask god too.
Happy Holidays.. :beermug:
war..
war
More love from the Christians? Kill the homos? They are sinners? Sin has different degrees now..all de pum pum yuh love up and yuh was not married to the women....dat is not sinning too? Death to the pum pum lovers.
And people does get vex with my abhorrence to religion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4-DyWeK28k&feature=related
Look at that video war and tell me what you think of it!
TC, I have to apologize to you. War take the cake.
-
Talking about Gays, HIV and intravenous drug use ;)
Has any one here seen the Documentary
"Rampant: How a City Stopped a Plague" (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/grim-reaper-stemmed-aids-tide/story-e6frg8y6-1111114997299)
is about the needle exchange in Australia that has been proven to reduce the spread of Hep and Hiv
Many other jurisdictions should implement this policy
The far right here in Victoria are totally against the needle exchange........even if it saves lives
-
wonder if they could implement that in america. :P
dem love homos in the U.S more than straight ppl. dem does do like we straight ppl have a problem.. I luv uganda now eh.. bun dem homos to de freeking fullest!!!!!!!!!!
war
What if yuh son turn out gay? would you still feel the same way? it's easier to say when it doh strike home, and iz somebody else child.
Just cool none of my 5 sons will turn out a fagot. dem daddy love pum pum to much for dem not to luv pum pum. evenmi 3 year old have galfriend already . being a homo is f**kin sin . In di Bhagwatgeeta, koran , bible and all other holy books . Gays will burn in hell . Dont mad wid me cya mi nuh like homo's Its written in the holy books . Vexs wid god not me . Doh ask me to apologise ask god too.
Happy Holidays.. :beermug:
war..
war
Breds, let meh let yuh in on ah little secret, in the bible, jesus was caught up in ah lynching situation, in today's world we would call it ah lynch mob, any way, the ppl wanted tuh stone this bad gyul for cheating on she husband.
now according to israelite law stoning was the punishment for adultery, so all the big dread and dem wid they natty long down tuh their waste and corncurl nuts in their beard holding their holy staff/ big stick, and the high priest with they big holy beards and all the self righteous a$$holes was calling for her head, yuh know what christ said to them, "those of you without sin cast the first stone"!
every body had tuh drop they stone and ride out, then he ask the woman tuh cool it and go back home tuh she husband and sin no more. now , if that was ah faggot, ah thief, ah robber, i believe christ woulda do the same thing.
as for the quran, i've read the book upside down and accross, and i never see nothing in that book that talked about killing gays, the only mention of it was of the ppl of lot, and how the ppl tried to molest some angelic guest of lot, and they were blinded and the city was destroyed, that's BC they were evil livers.
now the discrepancy implicates homosexuality as the main cause, that's BC a verse stated that"you men leave the women that god gave you and have sex wid males"! i truly believe these fellas was doing all kinda madness including raping men, and that's what they wanted tuh do tuh lots guest, and that's why they were destroyed.
now i believe that anal sex is ah wrong, and male nor female should indulge in anal sex, but if ah man love man, no fault of his own, then who's you tuh say ah man cyar do that, i believe if they do that and not have sex, then i would go out on ah limb and say, i dont think it's an offence if they abstain from anal sex.
as for them being nasty and disgusting, now i doubt them bredders consciously choose that life for themselves, someone would have to be crazy too!
doh mind dem jamaican and dem wid they nonsense nah bro, sometimes we as fortunate heterosexuals have tuh have compassion on dem ppl bro, most of them men does committ suicide, and the rest does be miserable till death do dem part, no fault of theirs.
can you imagine, ah thief is ah more acceptable thing in society than ah faggot, even ah dog have more rank than ah foggot! what ah miserable existence. i have two cousins who iz faggots, and my sister and three other ppl in the family including myself iz the only ones who does even look @ them, that's how homophobic we west indians can be.
-
Thanks Just Cool
some serious "food for thought" there
-
Look West Coast..more food for thought...wonder what the implications are for this?
SURA LII:24
"And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls."
SURA LXXVI:19
"They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders."
-
Look West Coast..more food for thought...wonder what the implications are for this?
SURA LII:24
"And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls."
SURA LXXVI:19
"They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders."
check this online debate (http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Prophet-Mohammed-peace-be-upon-him-was-gay/1/)
some people MAD no armen oui
-
Look West Coast..more food for thought...wonder what the implications are for this?
SURA LII:24
"And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls."
SURA LXXVI:19
"They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders."
check this online debate (http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Prophet-Mohammed-peace-be-upon-him-was-gay/1/)
some people MAD no armen oui
LOL of course some will say that the Hadiths are fake, yet when they use them for jihad etc. subjugaing women etc..they are ok.
There is also evidence that he married his sons wife after he saw her and thought her beautiful, his sone divorced her and the Prophet married her. things to make you go hmmmmmm!
-
Look West Coast..more food for thought...wonder what the implications are for this?
SURA LII:24
"And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls."
SURA LXXVI:19
"They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders."
check this online debate (http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Prophet-Mohammed-peace-be-upon-him-was-gay/1/)
some people MAD no armen oui
LOL of course some will say that the Hadiths are fake, yet when they use them for jihad etc. subjugaing women etc..they are ok.
There is also evidence that he married his sons wife after he saw her and thought her beautiful, his sone divorced her and the Prophet married her. things to make you go hmmmmmm!
wasnt there a religion created because the Pope would not give a divorce to some King or the other :devil: :devil:
another thing to make you go hhhmmmmmmm
-
Look West Coast..more food for thought...wonder what the implications are for this?
SURA LII:24
"And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls."
SURA LXXVI:19
"They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders."
check this online debate (http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Prophet-Mohammed-peace-be-upon-him-was-gay/1/)
some people MAD no armen oui
LOL of course some will say that the Hadiths are fake, yet when they use them for jihad etc. subjugaing women etc..they are ok.
There is also evidence that he married his sons wife after he saw her and thought her beautiful, his sone divorced her and the Prophet married her. things to make you go hmmmmmm!
wasnt there a religion created because the Pope would not give a divorce to some King or the other :devil: :devil:
another thing to make you go hhhmmmmmmm
well that same religion have Bishops in Uganda who supporting the governments Bill on anti-homosexual. Have me vex as the Archbishop of Canterbury has yet to speak out and denounce said Bishops because he dont want to upset them. But he has spoken out against that first openly female gay Bishop elect in the USA. All about PR instead of protecting the vulnerable. No wonder TC is get vex with the Church.
-
Look West Coast..more food for thought...wonder what the implications are for this?
SURA LII:24
"And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls."
SURA LXXVI:19
"They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders."
check this online debate (http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Prophet-Mohammed-peace-be-upon-him-was-gay/1/)
some people MAD no armen oui
LOL of course some will say that the Hadiths are fake, yet when they use them for jihad etc. subjugaing women etc..they are ok.
There is also evidence that he married his sons wife after he saw her and thought her beautiful, his sone divorced her and the Prophet married her. things to make you go hmmmmmm!
wasnt there a religion created because the Pope would not give a divorce to some King or the other :devil: :devil:
another thing to make you go hhhmmmmmmm
well that same religion have Bishops in Uganda who supporting the governments Bill on anti-homosexual. Have me vex as the Archbishop of Canterbury has yet to speak out and denounce said Bishops because he dont want to upset them. But he has spoken out against that first openly female gay Bishop elect in the USA. All about PR instead of protecting the vulnerable. No wonder TC is get vex with the Church.
wait
he has openly condemned that appointment ???
orrite man, do ya ting AoC
take a moment and let her comment perculate.......
""Any group of people who have been oppressed because of any one, isolated aspect of their persons yearns for justice and equal rights," Glasspool said in a statement, thanking the diocese for choosing her."
like ya ent goin an joinup wid the "Anglican Church in North America" :devil:
-
Look West Coast..more food for thought...wonder what the implications are for this?
SURA LII:24
"And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls."
SURA LXXVI:19
"They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders."
check this online debate (http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Prophet-Mohammed-peace-be-upon-him-was-gay/1/)
some people MAD no armen oui
LOL of course some will say that the Hadiths are fake, yet when they use them for jihad etc. subjugaing women etc..they are ok.
There is also evidence that he married his sons wife after he saw her and thought her beautiful, his sone divorced her and the Prophet married her. things to make you go hmmmmmm!
It have ppl who say i is ah foggot, just BC i doh dog gay ppl , and i have ah few relatives and childhood friends who turn out gay and i does still deal wid dem like iz nothing.
and right now it have ppl who coming out the wood work saying how obama iz ah faggot! even ah man came forward saying he was micheal jackson's lover, after the man dead and can't defend himself. man does slander man all the time, especially wid gay slander!
my point iz , muhammad eh here tuh defend he self, so ppl could say what they want! do you know how many hadiths were written? HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS!!!!! THAT WOULD MEAN EVERY SECOND OF THE DAY MUHAMMAD WOULD BE TALKING , EVEN WHEN HE WAS ASLEEP!!! that just goes to show how many hadiths were fabricated , some even for ah specific purpose, and that's to slander the messenger!
a lot of jews also wrote hadiths in order to discredit muhammad! that's why it have ah verse in the quran that states, who ever tells a lie about god and his messenger( muhammad) hell will be there portion.
as for the sura yuh quote about the eternal yutes, why that have tuh have sexual connotations, instead of just plain ole beauty of life? even angels are always depicted as beautiful young men with long flowing hair. i doh see nothing gay about that! take yuh mind out the gutter and the bias lane!
i does admire my son's and nephews, and dem fellas real pretty. it does make me proud tuh see such beautiful children in my family, and nothing sexual ever occured to me in my admiration of them, nor any sick thought that may have sexual connotations! like i said before, we west indians and even english speaking ppl on the whole, does push ah real sick head and does deal wid every thing on ah gender and sexual tip!
-
Look West Coast..more food for thought...wonder what the implications are for this?
SURA LII:24
"And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls."
SURA LXXVI:19
"They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders."
check this online debate (http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Prophet-Mohammed-peace-be-upon-him-was-gay/1/)
some people MAD no armen oui
LOL of course some will say that the Hadiths are fake, yet when they use them for jihad etc. subjugaing women etc..they are ok.
There is also evidence that he married his sons wife after he saw her and thought her beautiful, his sone divorced her and the Prophet married her. things to make you go hmmmmmm!
wasnt there a religion created because the Pope would not give a divorce to some King or the other :devil: :devil:
another thing to make you go hhhmmmmmmm
well that same religion have Bishops in Uganda who supporting the governments Bill on anti-homosexual. Have me vex as the Archbishop of Canterbury has yet to speak out and denounce said Bishops because he dont want to upset them. But he has spoken out against that first openly female gay Bishop elect in the USA. All about PR instead of protecting the vulnerable. No wonder TC is get vex with the Church.
wait
he has openly condemned that appointment ???
orrite man, do ya ting AoC
take a moment and let her comment perculate.......
""Any group of people who have been oppressed because of any one, isolated aspect of their persons yearns for justice and equal rights," Glasspool said in a statement, thanking the diocese for choosing her."
like ya ent goin an joinup wid the "Anglican Church in North America" :devil:
an indirect condemnation - i.e that the appointment can further the rift within the Anglican Communion. So no direct support = an indirect condemnation.
By Tom Leonard in New York
Published: 8:12PM GMT 06 Dec 2009
Archbishop of Canterbury concern over lesbian bishop
"The Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed concern at the election of a lesbian bishop to a Los Angeles diocese. Dr Rowan Williams warned Episcopal Church leaders that they risk breaking "our bonds of mutual affection" if they ordain the openly gay reverend as an assistant bishop."
-
Look West Coast..more food for thought...wonder what the implications are for this?
SURA LII:24
"And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls."
SURA LXXVI:19
"They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders."
check this online debate (http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Prophet-Mohammed-peace-be-upon-him-was-gay/1/)
some people MAD no armen oui
LOL of course some will say that the Hadiths are fake, yet when they use them for jihad etc. subjugaing women etc..they are ok.
There is also evidence that he married his sons wife after he saw her and thought her beautiful, his sone divorced her and the Prophet married her. things to make you go hmmmmmm!
Why yuh doh do yuh research before yuh slander ppl?? FYI that was not his son!!! but ah yute whom he raised from small dat was an orphan! his name was zaid and he lived wid Muhammad and his wife since he was like 11 or 12 yrs old.
muhammad had two son that died in infancy, ibrahim and qasim, and like i told yuh before, yuh does grasp @ straws tuh prove ah point, but IMO you have no desire tuh establish the truth! that's how much you're blinded by your hatred for divinity, and anyone who champions it.
but doh worry, your type iz nothing new! it had countless fellas who lived before your time who was real vehement opponents of divinity and when confronted wid the reality of life and death , they recanted, merneptah (supposedly the pharaoh who had it out wid moses) for instance, when he was @ deaths door he exclaimed the divinity of god and wanted tuh submit, but it was too late for him.
my advice to you would be tuh take heed, Bc yuh headed in the same direction. the power of god iz ah real real real great phenomenon, and when yuh decide tuh play wid god, yuh choose ah bad game tuh play, yuh better off playing wid fire bro. positive.
-
so he adopted him, and that is not his son? Anyway he make his little fren divorce his wife so he could marry her.
Dat eh right..I not arguing with you. Fact is Zayd was a son to him, was under his care, and he coveted and married the mans wife!
-
so he adopted him, and that is not his son? Anyway he make his little fren divorce his wife so he could marry her.
Dat eh right..I not arguing with you. Fact is Zayd was a son to him, was under his care, and he coveted and married the mans wife!
That's not true either, zaid divorced her first, and then muhammad married her. like you forgetting one thing? 5th century eastern culture is totally differant from contemporary western culture! it seem to me like yuh trying tuh familiarize the two when that's not even remotely possible.
back then, when ah man died, his brother or his best friend had preference in marrying his wife, back then marrying a woman was no bed of roses either, ppl used tuh do it out of obligation, another wife was ah huge burden for ah man, after all, the man already had ah few wives, do you really think muhammad needed that extra burden?
my answer would be no! in the quran there's mention of that said scenario, where it is written for him tuh marry the woman and forget about zaid's hang ups. as yuh dun know, muhammad was totally against marrying the woman, but he was ordered by gabriel tuh do so.(oh ah forget, you doh believe in angels either).
yuh see that's the problem with allyuh orientalist, allyuh does want tuh quote ppl's books , but not proficient enough in the study to render ah fair correct account of the events. all you care about iz slandering, so the littlest discrepancy come along and yuh jump on it like ah grass hopper.
bottom line iz, yuhs ah disbeliever in divinity, regardless of what, but your problem iz you only cater for the most popular religions, but it have ppl who hold spiritual beliefs that's rarely been spoken of, it have WIKEN, SCIENTOLOGY, SECRET SOCIETIES, FREE MASONS, LOTS OF COBENS ALL OVER THE WORLD, what about them?
iz time yuh tackle dem as well, they believe in god, demons , good and evil, see if yuh could prove them all wrong!
-
fella, my goal is not to disprove anything. You trying to prove something to me!
Mohammed had a habit of writing scripture to suit his actions..like the time he sent his men to rob travellers. Justifyinmg his actions after the fact. run by yuh frens dem to correct me, Mohammed was told by an angel to have his son (adopted) to divorce his wife so he could marry her!
Suras in the Quran does convientently pop up so Mohammed can justify his actions. e.g, when he wanted his adopted son's wife, he suddenly get a revelation from Allah declaring it right to take another man's wife. When he wanted to stop his wives from quarreling or to accept more wives, he got a quick revelation for that too. If yuh know de history most ah dem revelations come AFTER he do he do!
Also, throughout the Koran, the history is all wrong...that is the chain of events not chronological at all.
Yuh like to sayu how scientific the Koran is, Like when He say Allah created mountains to stop the earthquakes?
Or when he wrote the moon was a light like the sun? Or maybe when he talk about the stars and say they were darts to throw at demons?
Or when Mohammed say de sun does set in a muddy pool? Or what about de ants and dem that did talk to Solomon?
Or when he talk about the Pyramids and dem?
Haman - A minister of the Pharoah?
(Koran 28:8)
...For Pharaoh and Haman and all their hosts were Men of sin.
(Koran 28:38)
...therefore, O haman! light me a klin to bake bricks
out of clay, and build me a loftly palace...
Here the man and de Koran clearly imply dat Haman and de Pharaoh exist at de same time and place. But History tells we odderwise. The Pharaoh lived during the time of Moses and Haman served as a minister of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I). The Koranic verse in this case contains not only an error in location, but also an error of time as well (1,000 years).
Once again the Koran proves to us that Mohammed had no real knowledge of History, is either dat or de angels misguided him?
-
fella, my goal is not to disprove anything. You trying to prove something to me!
Mohammed had a habit of writing scripture to suit his actions..like the time he sent his men to rob travellers. Justifyinmg his actions after the fact. run by yuh frens dem to correct me, Mohammed was told by an angel to have his son (adopted) to divorce his wife so he could marry her!
Suras in the Quran does convientently pop up so Mohammed can justify his actions. e.g, when he wanted his adopted son's wife, he suddenly get a revelation from Allah declaring it right to take another man's wife. When he wanted to stop his wives from quarreling or to accept more wives, he got a quick revelation for that too. If yuh know de history most ah dem revelations come AFTER he do he do!
Also, throughout the Koran, the history is all wrong...that is the chain of events not chronological at all.
Yuh like to sayu how scientific the Koran is, Like when He say Allah created mountains to stop the earthquakes?
Or when he wrote the moon was a light like the sun? Or maybe when he talk about the stars and say they were darts to throw at demons?
Or when Mohammed say de sun does set in a muddy pool? Or what about de ants and dem that did talk to Solomon?
Or when he talk about the Pyramids and dem?
Haman - A minister of the Pharoah?
(Koran 28:8)
...For Pharaoh and Haman and all their hosts were Men of sin.
(Koran 28:38)
...therefore, O haman! light me a klin to bake bricks
out of clay, and build me a loftly palace...
Here the man and de Koran clearly imply dat Haman and de Pharaoh exist at de same time and place. But History tells we odderwise. The Pharaoh lived during the time of Moses and Haman served as a minister of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I). The Koranic verse in this case contains not only an error in location, but also an error of time as well (1,000 years).
Once again the Koran proves to us that Mohammed had no real knowledge of History, is either dat or de angels misguided him?
hey, if u have questions/ concerns, why not consider joining an islamic site and debate/chat with some muslims who may be more knowledgable on the topics that you've raised?
However, if u dont want to believe u will never really accept any response posted by JC or any other user. So if u on that scene its just fruitless arguing with you. You will be just be firing ridiculous statements taken out of context or not even a part of islam, and we will have to spend all of our time trying to answer you like a contest or a game.
Here's an example, you quoted things from the Quran that you dont agree with scientifically, how about quoting some things that have been proven? - like the big bang theory, or how about the different stages in fetus development, or maybe the invisible barrier stopping salt and fresh water from mixing?
You talk about the ants that spoke to solomon, if everything was clear cut, then there would be no purpose for faith. A part of islam is to believe in the unseen or miracles.
Concerning adoption in islam, a person may adopt or raise a child who is not theirs, however, this child is a brother/sister in islam to them and not a son/daughter.
more on this here: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Islamonline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544668
I dont read too much on this section, but do u believe in God at all, and if u dont can u prove to me that there isnt one? - thanks.
for info: This extract was taken from a PBS documentry on Muhammad after 911.
Muhammad and women
Following the Battle of Uhud (625), in which scores of male combatants died leaving unprotected widows and children, Muhammad and the Qur'an decreed that, in order to protect the orphans of such families, men might take up to four wives. The permission itself is surrounded with language that discourages the very thing it permits, saying that unless a man can treat several wives equally, he should never enter into multiple marriages. The usual supposition in the modern monogamous West-that Islam institutionally encourages lustful arrangements-is rejected by Muslims themselves as an ill-informed stereotype. At the same time, Muslim feminists point out that in various cultures at different economic strata the laws of polygamy have frequently operated to the clear detriment of women. Polygamy is an uncommon occurrence in the modern Muslim world.
Today, Islamic legal and social systems around the world approach and fall short of women's rights by varying degrees. Muslims themselves generally view Islam as progressive in these matters. Many Muslim feminists hold the view that the problems presently hindering Muslim women are those that hinder women of all backgrounds worldwide- oppressive cultural practices, poverty, illiteracy, political repression and patriarchy. There is a strong, healthy critique of gender oppression among Muslim feminist authors and activists worldwide.
It would be anachronistic to claim that Muhammad was a feminist in our modern sense. Yet the same present-day barriers to women's equality prevailed in 7th century Arabia, and he opposed them. Because in his own lifetime Muhammad improved women's position in society, many modern Muslims continue to value his example, which they cite when pressing for women's rights
http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_women.shtml
-
Sammy, I never took issue with saving widows or orphans, and if you ever read my posts you ill see where I have addressed that so-called Big Bag theory of the Koran, the fetus etc. Becasue i posted inaccuracies etc. You take offense, yet you will use the same nonsense to prove the Koran's scientific accuracy? Steups. SHow me anywhere that science has acknowledged the scientific accuracy of the Koran, and especially about fetal development, Big Bang etc. I will show you where that is not the case, and Mohammed's descriptions of the heavens is surprisingly childish!
But since you have not read my responses to JC's claims. let me humor you here as I have some time:
1. The embryology discussed in de Koran does follow Greek knowledge of embryology prevalent at de time. The Koran refers to nutfah, which translates as "semen" and does not refer to both sperm and eggs!! In fact mohammed and science at the time did not know about female eggs so they only mentioned sperm which was visible!
Sura 86:6 says dat the fluid issues from between de loins an ribs, not, as we know today, from the testicles. This reflects a mistaken view of Hippocrates, common in the 5th century, that semen comes from all the fluid of the body and passes through the kidneys on the way to the penis.
Sura 23:12-14 says God created man from "wet earth, den placed him as ah drop ah sperm (nutfah) in ah safe lodging; then We made de sperm into ah clot ah congealed blood (alaqa); then out of dat clot We made a (fetus) lump (mudghah), then We made out of dat lump bones and clothed de bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature." This account directly follows the four stages described by the Greek physician Galen, writing around 150 AD. The accuracies and inaccuracies both reflect Greek ideas of the time.
2. Jes for yuh edification, one of Mohammed's companions was de doctor Harith Ibn Kalada, who studied at the school of Jundishapur in Persia. He would have been well acquainted with the teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates, and Galen.
3. De Koran also describe humans as coming from de earth (11:61), clay (15:26), mud (23:12), dust (30:20), water (25:54), and nothing (19:67). Anyone looking for a passage to rationalize to a particular view has no shortage of options. Choose which is correct or maybe is all of the above or a combination of some!
As for his adoption, whether is his son or brother he made the man divorce he wife because he wanted her! That is in the Hadiths and Mohammed did marry her..whats your issue with THAT fact?
And what invisible barrier stopping fresh water from mixing with salt water? yuh ever heard of brackish water? Or estuaries?
I dont believe in ANY God, if you do can you prove to me that he/she/it exists thanks!
To address the so called accuracy of the Big bang theory check this:
De universe did not begin as a gas, if current Big Bang science is correck, de universe started began before any matter of any kind existedit ewas pure energy. It took several moments for any matter to form, and then it was a plasma, not ah gas. Gases only came later, after de plasma cool down and yet gasses were still not the only constituent....much ah de mass-energy at even that point, as before, was composed ah electromagnetic radiation oir LIGHT! The fact that de Koran fail tuh mention any of dis or any other crucial scientific information is precisely why its claim to "scientific accuracy" is to be dismissed. It is making vague metaphysical statements, and that is not science.
Now in all fairness the Koranic passage does not say Gas eh, it SAY SMOKE! is de muslims who want to claim scientific accuracy and others like you and JC etc. dat say is gas or refers to gas...lol
De Arabic word used is dukhan, "smoke." TDey does claim that dis is a "perfect analogy" for gas and particles in suspension, and the gasses being hot.
Is it?
Not really. Smoke make up ah ash, predominantly carbon, and is produced from burning (oxidation), not plasma condensation.
Smoke doh look nutten like heated hydrogen or helium, it doh share de same elemental mass or other properties, and doh even possess many of the general properties of ah gas.
Thus, is DE wrong word. Mohammed could not lack the vocabulary to simply say "hot air" or "hot gases expanding in an empty space" or anything dat even remotely relevant to de truth. Instead, he say SMOKE!
If yuh can change de meaning of ah word at will, and convert ah word for "carbon-based ash" into "two basic gases," then you can change the meaning of any word in any book to prove any theory you want. see dat?
DAT MY FREN IS FAR FROM BEIN SCIENTIFIC IN FACT IT IS DE VERY ANTITHESIS AH SCIENCE!!!
Then there is this:
[41:9] Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Do you verily disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two Days and you set up rivals (in worship) with Him? That is the Lord of the Alam" (mankind, jinns and all that exists).
[41:10] He placed therein (i.e. the earth) firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it, and measured therein its sustenance (for its dwellers) in four Days equal (i.e. all these four 'days' were equal in the length of time), for all those who ask (about its creation).
[41:11] Then He istaw (rose over) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come, willingly."
[41:12] Then He completed seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment as well as to guard (from the devils by using them as missiles against the devils). Such is the Decree of Him the All-Mighty, the All-Knower.
6 days Allah took to create the world, jes like Genesis...but check de sequence!
he break it up into 3 seriesd ah 2 days each..right/ ok check dis...44:11 says the heavens was still smoke..STILL smoke..how can dat be when de earth already exists??? How dat is scientific proof of de Big bang?
De earth had to exist while the heaven was smoke, or else dis claim of de koran would make no sense ah tall!! So now we see the original claim fall flat!: De Koran does not say "that the universe originated" from smoke, certainly not in any way that matches the scientific theory dat de the universe was once in a gaseous state, since here the "gaseous state" coexists with a fully-formed Earth. DAt is scientifically impossible: the elements of which planets are composed did not exist until all de gasses condensed into stars, an de stars exploded and recondensed over several cycles, generating de heavy elements dat eventually condensed into planets around new stars.
Verse 41:11 fail miserably tuh fit any scientific theory about de origins of the cosmos: the earth long post-dated the "gaseous" state of the universe that Muslim Fundamentalists want the word "smoke" to refer to.
Yuh want more?
It dpes get worse and worse, but if yuh want it take it:
Verse 41:12 say in no uncertain terms dar de lasrt 2 days of the six days ah creation, since it says in dese 2 days creation was "completed," yet it is only then that stars, the "lamps," adorn the sky?
What? aND YOU AND OTHERSD CLAIM DAT IS SCIENCE? AND ACCURATE SCIENCE TOO? sTEUPS! dIS completely reverses scientific reality: earth could not possibly have existed before stars adorned the sky!!! LOL no planet could exist before the stars! NONE!!!
We know that as a matter of firmly-established fact: for only stars can produce the heavy elements of which planets like the earth are made!
Yet de Koram says with conviction and no uncertainty, without a doubt. dat stars appear in de heavens AFTER the earth!
ASny book dat says dat nonsense is simply wrong! And cannot be inspired by a God who knows EVERYTHING and ANYTHING!
It appears to ME dat the Kora is a great piece of literature, like Shakesperae etc. and anyone who feels dat it comes from a God is kidding demselves, becasue dat Gosd would know what scientists know at the VERY LEAST!
One more thing, all thru Persia and greece they used to talk about 7 heaves related to the KNOWN seven planets at the time,... Uranus, Pluto, asteroid belt, neptune were unknown at the time!
-
you're trying to use science to disprove the quran, the same science that changes when new theories come out? TC, science itself cant really prove the validity of science.
The Quran is constant and so is my faith.
Can u honestly save u believe in the scientific facts as it is now, or when it changes you will go with what ever they say? DOnt you think that is taking the easy way out, blowing whichever way the winds goes?
Whenever you believe the validity of science then that is your faith or religion or God. To believe in something
is to have faith in it, so when a new theory comes out, do u lose faith in your "religion
" ?
Let me categorically state that I dont have a problem with Muhammad (saw) legally marrying the ex-wife of his brother in islam ie the boy he raised. This marriage was clearly done to validate the legality of the practice in islam.
Just because you or the west may not align itself with this doesn't mean it is wrong.
Since you dont believe in God, how come u are judging the morality of this practice? What are u basing your moral basis on? BTW, Is this practice illegal in T&T or the USA?
You say u dont believe in God, how come? Something must have push you to that line of thought, or u woke up one day and just decided to go that way?
-
you're trying to use science to disprove the quran, the same science that changes when new theories come out? TC, science itself cant really prove the validity of science.
The Quran is constant and so is my faith.
Can u honestly save u believe in the scientific facts as it is now, or when it changes you will go with what ever they say? DOnt you think that is taking the easy way out, blowing whichever way the winds goes?
Whenever you believe the validity of science then that is your faith or religion or God. To believe in something
is to have faith in it, so when a new theory comes out, do u lose faith in your "religion
" ?
Let me categorically state that I dont have a problem with Muhammad (saw) legally marrying the ex-wife of his brother in islam ie the boy he raised. This marriage was clearly done to validate the legality of the practice in islam.
Just because you or the west may not align itself with this doesn't mean it is wrong.
Since you dont believe in God, how come u are judging the morality of this practice? What are u basing your moral basis on? BTW, Is this practice illegal in T&T or the USA?
You say u dont believe in God, how come? Something must have push you to that line of thought, or u woke up one day and just decided to go that way?
Fella, take win. It was AFTER he had amrried the woman that he made the new rules. There is something inherently wrong with making a man divorce his wife becuae YOU want her and then YOU marry her to avoid the implications and old talk. A man who takes a child and raises him is a father to that child. In Islam he is a brother so it justifies the fact that Islam use to and still allows a man to marry his brother wife or x-wife. That give legitimacy,since is not his adopted son jes he brother.
As for science, yuh ask for my reasons, I gave it yuh come with cock and bull about how science changes. Steups.
good for you and your beliefs. it is NOT my place to mess with your beliefs, dey is yours, why allyuh messing with mine?
Morality have nutten to do with God, it is societal. The Koran is constant, becuase the man who wrote it dead.
Science evolves and is subject to strict peer review. Review the Koran and dey want to kill you, call you all kinda names etc.
There is nutten that I posted above to show Mohammed was wrong about embrology AND was never addressing The Big Bang, that can be construed as false science..NUTTEN! in fact, it you who say the Koran address the big bang...now yuh telling me that the Big bang wrong? or may be wrong? See the implications of your statement?
Keep your faith but don't push rubbish down my throat to PROVE scientific accuracy from a Book dat had nutten to do with science, and dat has absolutely no scientific validity!
I have a serious problem with some of the adherents of yuh religion though.
God is Great they proclaim as they strap bombs on their bodies and kill themselves and innocents.
If God is so GREAT, why not let him fight his own battles?
-
TC, i admire your attempts to enlighten a bunch of dummies. thing is they all living in a society that is the product of science and is idiot-proof enough to tolerate the inherently anti-scientific ignorance of religion. they could read their religious text and pretend that they devotely believe in it and when they sick, go to the hospital and get the best care that science provides. they will never experience a true test of their so-called faith knowing that they always have the safety net of science.
-
TC, i admire your attempts to enlighten a bunch of dummies. thing is they all living in a society that is the product of science and is idiot-proof enough to tolerate the inherently anti-scientific ignorance of religion. they could read their religious text and pretend that they devotely believe in it and when they sick, go to the hospital and get the best care that science provides. they will never experience a true test of their so-called faith knowing that they always have the safety net of science.
Man telling me that I using science to disprove the Koran, yet he using science to prove the Koran??? Steups. he come with big bang and embryology and say that Mohammad and Koran right about it, den tell me dat science changing and dat teh koran constant...man contradicting he self without even knowing it.
If the Big Bang dat SCIENCE gave us is wrong...den why say the Koran was right about it?
The FACT of the matter is that The Koran NEVER addressed the Bing Bang Theory, ius a bunch of zealots who claiming that, yet when I show dem how different it is from what the Koran speaks of they vex, and saying science changing?
And for their edification Sura 33:37 calls adopted children SONS not brothers!
Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled.
-- Sura 33:37
ThAT IS WHAT HE COME UP WITH AFTER he see he son wife wanted she so he come with something else!
bEFORE DAT THIS IS WHAT IT SAY:
Allah has not made for any man two hearts in his (one) body: nor has He made your wives whom ye divorce by Zihar your mothers: nor has He made your adopted sons your sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way. Call them by (the names of) their fathers: that is juster in the sight of Allah. But if ye know not their father's (names, call them) your Brothers in faith, or your maulas. But there is no blame on you if ye make a mistake therein: (what counts is) the intention of your hearts: and Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
-- Sura 33:4-5
LOL HE COVER HE BASES GOOD
-
Man telling me that I using science to disprove the Koran, yet he using science to prove the Koran??? Steups. he come with big bang and embryology and say that Mohammad and Koran right about it, den tell me dat science changing and dat teh koran constant...man contradicting he self without even knowing it.
If the Big Bang dat SCIENCE gave us is wrong...den why say the Koran was right about it?
The FACT of the matter is that The Koran NEVER addressed the Bing Bang Theory, ius a bunch of zealots who claiming that, yet when I show dem how different it is from what the Koran speaks of they vex, and saying science changing?
I was making a general statement about science on the whole breds. It changes as more info comes about, not only that but there are differing views on varying topics. -Am i wrong?
And for their edification Sura 33:37 calls adopted children SONS not brothers!
Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled.
-- Sura 33:37
ThAT IS WHAT HE COME UP WITH AFTER he see he son wife wanted she so he come with something else!
bEFORE DAT THIS IS WHAT IT SAY:
Allah has not made for any man two hearts in his (one) body: nor has He made your wives whom ye divorce by Zihar your mothers: nor has He made your adopted sons your sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way. Call them by (the names of) their fathers: that is juster in the sight of Allah. But if ye know not their father's (names, call them) your Brothers in faith, or your maulas. But there is no blame on you if ye make a mistake therein: (what counts is) the intention of your hearts: and Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
-- Sura 33:4-5
LOL HE COVER HE BASES GOOD
I already addressed that. I am not about to go around in circles. Thats y in my first post i said this to you :
hey, if u have questions/ concerns, why not consider joining an islamic site and debate/chat with some muslims who may be more knowledgable on the topics that you've raised?
However, if u dont want to believe u will never really accept any response posted by JC or any other user. So if u on that scene its just fruitless arguing with you. You will be just be firing ridiculous statements taken out of context or not even a part of islam, and we will have to spend all of our time trying to answer you like a contest or a game.
[/color]
I cant begin to answer all your concerns breds, hence the reason y my invitation to debate with men who might be in a better position to do so. I dont have the time or resources such as daniel pipes or jihad watch etc. to go around doing research to reply to their every claim in order to deter people from islam. Can u put some links to the sites that u got your info from, or did u come up with it on your own? - thanks.
No-one is against science ribbit....and no need to be disrespectful is big men talking here, is only u come in like a dummy with your comment.
-
Morality have nutten to do with God, it is societal.
If it is societal as u say, then y u finding issues with something that is accepted in the islamic society? Again, is there a law in the T&T or "the west" about marrying the wife of your brother after he divorces her? If not, then what moral standing u are basing your argument on or what cause u championing?
God is Great they proclaim as they strap bombs on their bodies and kill themselves and innocents.
I have problems with that also, however i cant begin to imagine what goes through a man's mind to make him do that. Seeing your family killed and u cant retaliate can do things to a mans metal state, but that isnt an excuse for Killing innocents which is forbidden in islam.
-
Each society has it own set of rules, but in most there is a common thread. And one thing that is sick, and condemned like when Woody Allen married his adopted daughter, Mohammad making his adopted son divorce his wife so HE, Mohammad could have her is jes wrong!
I was championing no cause you came at me with questions and I answered them. I happened to have studied a bit of religion and know what I know from research. I wasn't always an atheist, far from it, if you knew the truth you'd be surprised.
I however feel very strongly that religion is man made and used for greater harm than good.
Matters not if atheists commit crimes, they have no platform of doing good, blessing people, praising god and claiming that they are here to serve humanity and spirituality. AND again, it was his son..NOT his brother, and that is according to the Koran too. he changed the rules after the marriage. And I provided you with Suras showing the changes...and evolution. If you choose not to see the truth of it all, then that is a matter for you and your faith. You asked and I provided my side, your response frankly was very lame and puerile.
I also have a hard time rationalizing the level of brainwashing these Mullahs and Imams have over their charges that they can strap bombs on their bodies and shout God is Great while detonating themselves. The despair, the frustration, the hatred, the bitterness that they have in their hearts.
but remember these guys believe that they are fighting Jihad, and ONE SURE WAY TO GET INTO PARADISE ACCORDING TO THE KORAN....IS THRU JIHAD! Otherwise all other people enter hell first! SO these young men, with no future as they can see, decide to die and enter into God's presence where they will be rewarded with 29(/) virgins and eternal bliss.
The guys sending them never seem to contemplate strapping the bombs on their bodies though!
-
Each society has it own set of rules, but in most there is a common thread. And one thing that is sick, and condemned like when Woody Allen married his adopted daughter, Mohammad making his adopted son divorce his wife so HE, Mohammad could have her is jes wrong!
I was championing no cause you came at me with questions and I answered them. I happened to have studied a bit of religion and know what I know from research. I wasn't always an atheist, far from it, if you knew the truth you'd be surprised.
I however feel very strongly that religion is man made and used for greater harm than good.
Matters not if atheists commit crimes, they have no platform of doing good, blessing people, praising god and claiming that they are here to serve humanity and spirituality. AND again, it was his son..NOT his brother, and that is according to the Koran too. he changed the rules after the marriage. And I provided you with Suras showing the changes...and evolution. If you choose not to see the truth of it all, then that is a matter for you and your faith. You asked and I provided my side, your response frankly was very lame and puerile.
I also have a hard time rationalizing the level of brainwashing these Mullahs and Imams have over their charges that they can strap bombs on their bodies and shout God is Great while detonating themselves. The despair, the frustration, the hatred, the bitterness that they have in their hearts.
but remember these guys believe that they are fighting Jihad, and ONE SURE WAY TO GET INTO PARADISE ACCORDING TO THE KORAN....IS THRU JIHAD! Otherwise all other people enter hell first! SO these young men, with no future as they can see, decide to die and enter into God's presence where they will be rewarded with 29(/) virgins and eternal bliss.
The guys sending them never seem to contemplate strapping the bombs on their bodies though!
Yuhs ah stinkin lying kaffa!!! ah tell yuh already if yuh go bring argument then come with correct info or refrain from posting missleading information!
the man was not his son, but ah yute whom he raised from the age of 12, and he didn't make him devorce the woman!! but rather zaid devorced her on his own and muhammad married her afterwards!!
there's even an ayat in the quran where that was addressed. and that's BC in arab culture , ah man could not marry his son's ex wife so when muhammad was contemplating marrying zaynab( zaid's ex wife) but the ppl was having ah hard time accepting it, that's when the ayat was revealed telling muhammad tuh go ahead and marry her after zaid, and the ayat also mentioned that muhammad is not the father of non of you , but he's the messenger of allah, and it also stated that adopted son's should not be considered your sons but your breddren!
you also lied about ah few things, but ah workin on something right now, and when ah get ah free time i will address all of the missleading crappy info yuh get on them orentailist web sites, and acting like yuh actually know bout islam, when yuh depending of the crappy missleading info of others.
all you doing is making ah big a$$ of yuh self since yuh missrepresent a lot of quranic verses. any arabic scholar who reads this slop will laugh his arse off, and will laugh even more when they find out that this didn't come from ah child, but ah hard granite stones fool!
don't you know mr bone head that arabic is not ah simple dimple language as english? one single word could have so many different meanings depending on the context? that's why there's tafsear that explains the arabic and in what context the word was used , fellas does go tuh school yrs just tuh understand how tuh interpret quranic verses, but you just come along and know it just so? yuhs ah mega genius?
-
Each society has it own set of rules, but in most there is a common thread. And one thing that is sick, and condemned like when Woody Allen married his adopted daughter, Mohammad making his adopted son divorce his wife so HE, Mohammad could have her is jes wrong!
I was championing no cause you came at me with questions and I answered them. I happened to have studied a bit of religion and know what I know from research. I wasn't always an atheist, far from it, if you knew the truth you'd be surprised.
I however feel very strongly that religion is man made and used for greater harm than good.
Matters not if atheists commit crimes, they have no platform of doing good, blessing people, praising god and claiming that they are here to serve humanity and spirituality. AND again, it was his son..NOT his brother, and that is according to the Koran too. he changed the rules after the marriage. And I provided you with Suras showing the changes...and evolution. If you choose not to see the truth of it all, then that is a matter for you and your faith. You asked and I provided my side, your response frankly was very lame and puerile.
I also have a hard time rationalizing the level of brainwashing these Mullahs and Imams have over their charges that they can strap bombs on their bodies and shout God is Great while detonating themselves. The despair, the frustration, the hatred, the bitterness that they have in their hearts.
but remember these guys believe that they are fighting Jihad, and ONE SURE WAY TO GET INTO PARADISE ACCORDING TO THE KORAN....IS THRU JIHAD! Otherwise all other people enter hell first! SO these young men, with no future as they can see, decide to die and enter into God's presence where they will be rewarded with 29(/) virgins and eternal bliss.
The guys sending them never seem to contemplate strapping the bombs on their bodies though!
Yuhs ah stinkin lying kaffa!!! ah tell yuh already if yuh go bring argument then come with correct info or refrain from posting missleading information!
the man was not his son, but ah yute whom he raised from the age of 12, and he didn't make him devorce the woman!! but rather zaid devorced her on his own and muhammad married her afterwards!!
there's even an ayat in the quran where that was addressed. and that's BC in arab culture , ah man could not marry his son's ex wife so when muhammad was contemplating marrying zaynab( zaid's ex wife) but the ppl was having ah hard time accepting it, that's when the ayat was revealed telling muhammad tuh go ahead and marry her after zaid, and the ayat also mentioned that muhammad is not the father of non of you , but he's the messenger of allah, and it also stated that adopted son's should not be considered your sons but your breddren!
you also lied about ah few things, but ah workin on something right now, and when ah get ah free time i will address all of the missleading crappy info yuh get on them orentailist web sites, and acting like yuh actually know bout islam, when yuh depending of the crappy missleading info of others.
all you doing is making ah big a$$ of yuh self since yuh missrepresent a lot of quranic verses. any arabic scholar who reads this slop will laugh his arse off, and will laugh even more when they find out that this didn't come from ah child, but ah hard granite stones fool!
don't you know mr bone head that arabic is not ah simple dimple language as english? one single word could have so many different meanings depending on the context? that's why there's tafsear that explains the arabic and in what context the word was used , fellas does go tuh school yrs just tuh understand how tuh interpret quranic verses, but you just come along and know it just so? yuhs ah mega genius?
hahahahahaha ahhhhhahahahahahahaha yuh is ah cow c**t Yuh dead wrong..The Koran also is not written entirely in Arabic also. lol
yuh is ah clown. Yuh working on nutten yuh have to run and ask people for rebuttals and for info yuh have to surf the web..I doh have to do dat fool. I know more than you can about these religions for reasons I eh want to go into with YOU asshole, I refrain..but I know enough to dispute yuh superstitious shit!
The people was having a hard time accepting thats is why Mohammed get ah revelation saying it ok...lol
RIGHTTTTTT! Up until Mohammed marry de woman it was against custom in that area to marry yuh son, adopted or otherwise. AFTER he marry her he get the"revelation," dat it was ok..lol BULLSHIT. he wanted that ass and got it and den justified it.
God say it ok thru Michael the arch angel.
lol
The religion for everyone needs scholars to interpret it..okkkk then...the man was his adopted son, jump high or jump low. Mohammad wanted her and Zaid divorced her, Mohammad married her!
Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear questioner, we would like to thank you for the great confidence you place in us, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His sake.
Generally speaking, divorce is not viewed favorably in Islam; rather it has been either condemned or discouraged unless warranted by valid reasons. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) cautioned against senseless exercise of divorce when he said "Divorce is the most abominable of all permissible acts in the sight of Allah" (Abu Dawud). So no one with sound Islamic spirit and attitude should resort to divorce except in extreme and unavoidable cases, where it has been considered as legitimate in Islam. The reason for this is clear, for divorce entails serious consequences for families and individuals. It results in deep psychological and emotional scars, especially when children are involved.
In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states the following:
This is certainly wholly untrue and false; such a misconception is mainly due to utter ignorance of the laws of the Shari`ah as well as, unfortunately, to the distorted ways we have been practicing these laws in our societies. When all the evidence is considered and evaluated, it is crystal clear that in Islam women, just like men, can have legitimate rights to divorce their husbands.
Divorce, however, it must be noted, is the most abominable of all permissible things in Islam. It is considered as the pet project of the devil, who is never satisfied with anything other than breaking up the relations between a husband and his wife. So all conscientious Muslims, male as well as female, must guard against the snares of Satan. They are obligated to try their utmost to maintain the sanctity of family. Therefore, divorce is a rare exception only to be undertaken for specific reasons, after having exhausted all means of reconciliation.
Having said this, I must state that Islam envisages perfect equity between the spouses in rights and responsibilities: [They shall have rights just as they have responsibilities in fair measure] (Al-Baqarah 2:228).
Such rights of women definitely include the right to divorce their husbands when and where cohabitation becomes difficult.
Such genuine reasons include physical or emotional abuse, for at no time does Islam tolerate such behavior from anyone; the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) instituted the firm principle that "there shall be no inflicting or reciprocating of harm" (Ahmad and Ibn Majah).
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) inferred the above principle from numerous Qur'anic verses that clearly forbid abuse, injury, or harm in every respect in all cases, and even more particularly in spousal relations. Thus we read a constant theme in the Qur'an:
[But do not retain them in order to harm or wrong them.] (Al-Baqarah 2:231)
[Do not harass them so as to make life intolerable for them.] (At-Talaq 65:6)
[A mother should not be made to suffer because of her child, nor should a father because of his child. The same duties devolve upon the father's heir.] (Al-Baqarah 2:233)
Based on these and similar evidence, there is a consensus among scholars that where there is clear evidence of harm inflicted on a wife, she has every right to seek divorce from her husband.
The Qur'an has also established the principle that where spouses feel that they are so utterly incompatible with each other that they find themselves in a situation where they will not be able to protect themselves against sins, then they have a right to divorce. Thus we read in the sources that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) granted divorces to women who had complained to him that they were no longer happy with their husbands because of their incompatibility, while their husbands had no moral faults as such. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never harassed these women by further questioning; he only told them to return the dower and gifts they had received from their husbands.
Excerpted, with slight modifications, from www.islam.ca.
-
TC, i admire your attempts to enlighten a bunch of dummies. thing is they all living in a society that is the product of science and is idiot-proof enough to tolerate the inherently anti-scientific ignorance of religion. they could read their religious text and pretend that they devotely believe in it and when they sick, go to the hospital and get the best care that science provides. they will never experience a true test of their so-called faith knowing that they always have the safety net of science.
Imagine ah dummy trying tuh enlighten other dummies about science when that dummy in question believe system had evaded all scientific logic and reasoning. imagine he wants tuh redicule ppl when what he believes is full of holes!!
up till now there's still no intermediate species tuh conclude on evolution through natural selection THEORY!! HE could jump on muhammad and moses, but fellas like professor miller frabricating experiments tuh fool even the scientific community, what about the pilt down man's scandal! what about when they said that australiopithecenes was a predicesor and ancestor tuh homohabilis when there has been recent finding tuh show that homohabilis fosils out dated australiopithecenes.
BC he ramble out some verses , doh mean he even knew what he was talking bout, them fellas only rambling, but they does pick they spots on topic tuh talk bout , and when they can't trump yuh , they act like you eh worth talking wid and begin with the insults and name callin, but ignore the facts that was put forth.
-
TC, i admire your attempts to enlighten a bunch of dummies. thing is they all living in a society that is the product of science and is idiot-proof enough to tolerate the inherently anti-scientific ignorance of religion. they could read their religious text and pretend that they devotely believe in it and when they sick, go to the hospital and get the best care that science provides. they will never experience a true test of their so-called faith knowing that they always have the safety net of science.
Imagine ah dummy trying tuh enlighten other dummies about science when that dummy in question believe system had evaded all scientific logic and reasoning. imagine he wants tuh redicule ppl when what he believes is full of holes!!
up till now there's still no intermediate species tuh conclude on evolution through natural selection THEORY!! HE could jump on muhammad and moses, but fellas like professor miller frabricating experiments tuh fool even the scientific community, what about the pilt down man's scandal! what about when they said that australiopithecenes was a predicesor and ancestor tuh homohabilis when there has been recent finding tuh show that homohabilis fosils out dated australiopithecenes.
BC he ramble out some verses , doh mean he even knew what he was talking bout, them fellas only rambling, but they does pick they spots on topic tuh talk bout , and when they can't trump yuh , they act like you eh worth talking wid and begin with the insults and name callin, but ignore the fact that was put forth.
ka-ka hole yuh done with yuh wuk? Yuh come back talking shit? You are the one who first resorted toi name calling. I have answered every position yuh proposed, yuh is ah Muslim? lol Everytime something happened to Mohammad he come up with a verse in the Koran to address it...why Allah eh tell he what to do from the jump?
steups
de man make up something and allyuh swallow dat without question..good fuh allyuh.
I choose NOT to believe...and me eh care what allyuh believe as each man have dey own life to live.
all yuh degree in Biology eh prepare yuh for proper syntax and grammar and spelling? oh yes, it was not ah english course or degree...wey yuh went to school? Ah stilla waiting yuh diploma and yuh school...yuh fowl f**king asswipe.
-
Zaynab bint Jahsh wife of Zayd ibn Harithah's (adopted son of Muhammad) wife, whom Muhammad saw dressed in a chemise with a veil over her face when he went to Zaid one day on certain business. She was fair, and her physical appearance was perfect among the women of the Quraish. He saw her, get the hots for his adopted son's wife and had her. he made his son divorce her so he could have her!
وَإِذْ تَقُولُ لِلَّذِي أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْسِكْ عَلَيْكَ زَوْجَكَ وَاتَّقِ اللَّهَ وَتُخْفِي فِي نَفْسِكَ مَا اللَّهُ مُبْدِيهِ وَتَخْشَى النَّاسَ وَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَن تَخْشَاهُ فَلَمَّا قَضَى زَيْدٌ مِّنْهَا وَطَرًا زَوَّجْنَاكَهَا لِكَيْ لَا يَكُونَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَرَجٌ فِي أَزْوَاجِ أَدْعِيَائِهِمْ إِذَا قَضَوْا مِنْهُنَّ وَطَرًا وَكَانَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ مَفْعُولًا
"When thou saidst to him whom God has blessed and thou hadst favoured, 'Keep thy wife to thyself; and fear God', and thou wast concealing within thyself what God should reveal, fearing other men; and God has better right for thee to fear Him. So when Zaid had accomplished what he would of her, then We gave her in marriage to thee, so that there should not be any fault in the believers, touching the wives of their adopted son, when they had accomplished what they would of them; and God's commandment must be performed." (Sura al-Ahzab 33:37)[156]
-
Each society has it own set of rules, but in most there is a common thread. And one thing that is sick, and condemned like when Woody Allen married his adopted daughter, Mohammad making his adopted son divorce his wife so HE, Mohammad could have her is jes wrong!
I was championing no cause you came at me with questions and I answered them. I happened to have studied a bit of religion and know what I know from research. I wasn't always an atheist, far from it, if you knew the truth you'd be surprised.
I however feel very strongly that religion is man made and used for greater harm than good.
Matters not if atheists commit crimes, they have no platform of doing good, blessing people, praising god and claiming that they are here to serve humanity and spirituality. AND again, it was his son..NOT his brother, and that is according to the Koran too. he changed the rules after the marriage. And I provided you with Suras showing the changes...and evolution. If you choose not to see the truth of it all, then that is a matter for you and your faith. You asked and I provided my side, your response frankly was very lame and puerile.
I also have a hard time rationalizing the level of brainwashing these Mullahs and Imams have over their charges that they can strap bombs on their bodies and shout God is Great while detonating themselves. The despair, the frustration, the hatred, the bitterness that they have in their hearts.
but remember these guys believe that they are fighting Jihad, and ONE SURE WAY TO GET INTO PARADISE ACCORDING TO THE KORAN....IS THRU JIHAD! Otherwise all other people enter hell first! SO these young men, with no future as they can see, decide to die and enter into God's presence where they will be rewarded with 29(/) virgins and eternal bliss.
The guys sending them never seem to contemplate strapping the bombs on their bodies though!
Yuhs ah stinkin lying kaffa!!! ah tell yuh already if yuh go bring argument then come with correct info or refrain from posting missleading information!
the man was not his son, but ah yute whom he raised from the age of 12, and he didn't make him devorce the woman!! but rather zaid devorced her on his own and muhammad married her afterwards!!
there's even an ayat in the quran where that was addressed. and that's BC in arab culture , ah man could not marry his son's ex wife so when muhammad was contemplating marrying zaynab( zaid's ex wife) but the ppl was having ah hard time accepting it, that's when the ayat was revealed telling muhammad tuh go ahead and marry her after zaid, and the ayat also mentioned that muhammad is not the father of non of you , but he's the messenger of allah, and it also stated that adopted son's should not be considered your sons but your breddren!
you also lied about ah few things, but ah workin on something right now, and when ah get ah free time i will address all of the missleading crappy info yuh get on them orentailist web sites, and acting like yuh actually know bout islam, when yuh depending of the crappy missleading info of others.
all you doing is making ah big a$$ of yuh self since yuh missrepresent a lot of quranic verses. any arabic scholar who reads this slop will laugh his arse off, and will laugh even more when they find out that this didn't come from ah child, but ah hard granite stones fool!
don't you know mr bone head that arabic is not ah simple dimple language as english? one single word could have so many different meanings depending on the context? that's why there's tafsear that explains the arabic and in what context the word was used , fellas does go tuh school yrs just tuh understand how tuh interpret quranic verses, but you just come along and know it just so? yuhs ah mega genius?
hahahahahaha ahhhhhahahahahahahaha yuh is ah cow c**t Yuh dead wrong..The Koran also is not written entirely in Arabic also. lol
yuh is ah clown. Yuh working on nutten yuh have to run and ask people for rebuttals and for info yuh have to surf the web..I doh have to do dat fool. I know more than you can about these religions for reasons I eh want to go into with YOU asshole, I refrain..but I know enough to dispute yuh superstitious shit!
The people was having a hard time accepting thats is why Mohammed get ah revelation saying it ok...lol
RIGHTTTTTT! Up until Mohammed marry de woman it was against custom in that area to marry yuh son, adopted or otherwise. AFTER he marry her he get the"revelation," dat it was ok..lol BULLSHIT. he wanted that ass and got it and den justified it.
God say it ok thru Michael the arch angel.
lol
The religion for everyone needs scholars to interpret it..okkkk then...the man was his adopted son, jump high or jump low. Mohammad wanted her and Zaid divorced her, Mohammad married her!
Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear questioner, we would like to thank you for the great confidence you place in us, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His sake.
Generally speaking, divorce is not viewed favorably in Islam; rather it has been either condemned or discouraged unless warranted by valid reasons. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) cautioned against senseless exercise of divorce when he said "Divorce is the most abominable of all permissible acts in the sight of Allah" (Abu Dawud). So no one with sound Islamic spirit and attitude should resort to divorce except in extreme and unavoidable cases, where it has been considered as legitimate in Islam. The reason for this is clear, for divorce entails serious consequences for families and individuals. It results in deep psychological and emotional scars, especially when children are involved.
In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states the following:
This is certainly wholly untrue and false; such a misconception is mainly due to utter ignorance of the laws of the Shari`ah as well as, unfortunately, to the distorted ways we have been practicing these laws in our societies. When all the evidence is considered and evaluated, it is crystal clear that in Islam women, just like men, can have legitimate rights to divorce their husbands.
Divorce, however, it must be noted, is the most abominable of all permissible things in Islam. It is considered as the pet project of the devil, who is never satisfied with anything other than breaking up the relations between a husband and his wife. So all conscientious Muslims, male as well as female, must guard against the snares of Satan. They are obligated to try their utmost to maintain the sanctity of family. Therefore, divorce is a rare exception only to be undertaken for specific reasons, after having exhausted all means of reconciliation.
Having said this, I must state that Islam envisages perfect equity between the spouses in rights and responsibilities: [They shall have rights just as they have responsibilities in fair measure] (Al-Baqarah 2:228).
Such rights of women definitely include the right to divorce their husbands when and where cohabitation becomes difficult.
Such genuine reasons include physical or emotional abuse, for at no time does Islam tolerate such behavior from anyone; the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) instituted the firm principle that "there shall be no inflicting or reciprocating of harm" (Ahmad and Ibn Majah).
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) inferred the above principle from numerous Qur'anic verses that clearly forbid abuse, injury, or harm in every respect in all cases, and even more particularly in spousal relations. Thus we read a constant theme in the Qur'an:
[But do not retain them in order to harm or wrong them.] (Al-Baqarah 2:231)
[Do not harass them so as to make life intolerable for them.] (At-Talaq 65:6)
[A mother should not be made to suffer because of her child, nor should a father because of his child. The same duties devolve upon the father's heir.] (Al-Baqarah 2:233)
Based on these and similar evidence, there is a consensus among scholars that where there is clear evidence of harm inflicted on a wife, she has every right to seek divorce from her husband.
The Qur'an has also established the principle that where spouses feel that they are so utterly incompatible with each other that they find themselves in a situation where they will not be able to protect themselves against sins, then they have a right to divorce. Thus we read in the sources that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) granted divorces to women who had complained to him that they were no longer happy with their husbands because of their incompatibility, while their husbands had no moral faults as such. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never harassed these women by further questioning; he only told them to return the dower and gifts they had received from their husbands.
Excerpted, with slight modifications, from www.islam.ca.
Breds ah think yuh should stop before yuh make ah bigger fool of yuh self! the quran is ah pure arabic text! go ask yuh scholars that yuh learned from. and for the record, i'm not you, i don't have tuh run tuh no one tuh deal wid you.
unlike you , i have ah life that i have tuh tend too, and can't run on the internet every day tuh talk bout relgion like you. i have tuh put food on the table, hence the reason i eh worrying wid you right now. as for zaid and his wife, what more yuh want meh tuh say?
the man devorce the woman and muhammad married her, he didn't rape her and he didn't steal her, and he didn't ordered zaid to devorce her either, as you previously stated! it was consentual. i answered all yuh missrepresentations and all i could get iz that i'm ah C#$t, i'm ah A$$ i'm ah Fool! but no addmitance of bringing false info, first yuh said zaid was his son, then when i rebut that, yuh said muhammad ordered zaid tuh devorce her, then when i rebut that , yuh jump on devorce iz ah bad thing and muhammad condemn devorce and now he run and marry ah devocee. and bring up ah whole bunch of hadth tuh prove yuh point when hadith is ah very doubtful book, since most off them were put together 300 yrs after muhammad passed.
but lets go back to the quran! fella there's ah whole sura( chapter) in the quran dedicated to the rule and conditions of devorce, it's the 65th sura, AL TALAQ/ DEVORCE! if it was such an abomination then why is there ah whole chapter dedicated to devorce. keep coming wid yuh warp arguments! i doh need tuh go tuh no one for you, you real sorf, and the only reason i does oblige yuh sorf arguments is BC of the bredders on the board, and the fact that i want them tuh know the truth about islam and not the lie you gave to it!
but you coming with some real sorf arguments guy!
-
Breds is Arab scholars who say that divorce is not pleasing to Allah, not me..I wasn't dey when de man was marrying 6 years chirren and writing suras to cover he deeds.
As I said, this is a forum, if I put my ideas and thoughts, and yuh doh like dem...doh respond...BUT if yuh choose to respond, do so logically.
De man was he adopted son...he then changed the sura to say that thye should keep their blood lines and names and dat yuh could marry in dat case..it was not so before he marry de man wife.
Regardless if there are 20 suras dedicated to divorce, the fact is there is one saying it is evil and not pleasing to Allah...so which should I believe?
Allah, in His infinite, wisdom, recognized that some people would be ill-suited for one another. Rather than force them to live together in a farce of a marriage, divorce is allowed. However, divorce is not something to be taken lightly; it is to be used as a last resort. In fact, getting a divorce without a valid reason is considered a sin. In a hadith reported by Abu Dawud, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) said, "Among lawful things, divorce is most hated by Allah."
[/b]
-
Zaynab bint Jahsh wife of Zayd ibn Harithah's (adopted son of Muhammad) wife, whom Muhammad saw dressed in a chemise with a veil over her face when he went to Zaid one day on certain business. She was fair, and her physical appearance was perfect among the women of the Quraish. He saw her, get the hots for his adopted son's wife and had her. he made his son divorce her so he could have her!
وَإِذْ تَقُولُ لِلَّذِي أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْسِكْ عَلَيْكَ زَوْجَكَ وَاتَّقِ اللَّهَ وَتُخْفِي فِي نَفْسِكَ مَا اللَّهُ مُبْدِيهِ وَتَخْشَى النَّاسَ وَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَن تَخْشَاهُ فَلَمَّا قَضَى زَيْدٌ مِّنْهَا وَطَرًا زَوَّجْنَاكَهَا لِكَيْ لَا يَكُونَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَرَجٌ فِي أَزْوَاجِ أَدْعِيَائِهِمْ إِذَا قَضَوْا مِنْهُنَّ وَطَرًا وَكَانَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ مَفْعُولًا
"When thou saidst to him whom God has blessed and thou hadst favoured, 'Keep thy wife to thyself; and fear God', and thou wast concealing within thyself what God should reveal, fearing other men; and God has better right for thee to fear Him. So when Zaid had accomplished what he would of her, then We gave her in marriage to thee, so that there should not be any fault in the believers, touching the wives of their adopted son, when they had accomplished what they would of them; and God's commandment must be performed." (Sura al-Ahzab 33:37)[156]
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Yuhs ah lying fack!! who ever wrote this is ah bigger a$$ than you! first of all bone head, zaynab was muhammad's relative, he known her all her life, he didn't need tuh go tuh zaids house tuh see zaynab when probably he was the one who performed their marriage in the first place!
go back on line and get some more missleading half truths yuh disgruntled troll! :devil:
BTW didn't i just mentioned that sura to you, and BTW , i doh see nothing where zaid was ordered tuh devorce her! yuh really tying up yuh own self now buddy boy! yuh going round in circles. :loser:
-
Breds is Arab scholars who say that divorce is not pleasing to Allah, not me..I wasn't dey when de man was marrying 6 years chirren and writing suras to cover he deeds.
As I said, this is a forum, if I put my ideas and thoughts, and yuh doh like dem...doh respond...BUT if yuh choose to respond, do so logically.
De man was he adopted son...he then changed the sura to say that thye should keep their blood lines and names and dat yuh could marry in dat case..it was not so before he marry de man wife.
Regardless if there are 20 suras dedicated to divorce, the fact is there is one saying it is evil and not pleasing to Allah...so which should I believe?
Allah, in His infinite, wisdom, recognized that some people would be ill-suited for one another. Rather than force them to live together in a farce of a marriage, divorce is allowed. However, divorce is not something to be taken lightly; it is to be used as a last resort. In fact, getting a divorce without a valid reason is considered a sin. In a hadith reported by Abu Dawud, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) said, "Among lawful things, divorce is most hated by Allah."
[/b]
So now yuh jumpin on something else now! what would you think of next! FYI aisha was 11 yrs old when she was promised too muhammad , and he consumated the marriage when she was 15, as you know, in those days that was acceptable, it was costomary for grown men to marry young women, if that was ah big deal then abu bakar would never gave his daughter aisha tuh muhammad!
mary was fifteen when she had jesus and joseph was well into his forties when he marired her. if you want tuh bring western modern day values to an ancient time, then keep wasting yuh time, as a matter of fact, that practice still goes on up till today in the east amongst muslims, jews and nonbelievers alike! and here i thought i was talking to ah man wid sense. :notlistening:
-
she was 6 when promised and had sex with the prophet when she was 9! Anyone who knows anything knows she was 9 years old when he had sex with her. You can read her own words guy..She was still playing with dolls when he had her...and if yuh really know Islam yuh doh play with images etc. after yuh puberty! Steups.
Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234)
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64; see also Numbers 65 and 88)
A Muslim may say that, contrary to the opinion of Ibn Kathir and al-Shafi, the age of puberty cannot be fixed at fifteen since some girls attain puberty at a younger age. They may further argue that Aisha happened to attain puberty at nine, which means that she was lawful for Muhammad. The problem with this assertion is that it contradicts the express statements of specific Islamic sources that say that Aisha hadnt attained puberty when Muhammad consummated his marriage with her:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house AS A BRIDE WHEN SHE WAS NINE, AND HER DOLLS WERE WITH HER; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3311)
The reason why Muhammad permitted Aisha to take her dolls to his house and play with them after their marriage was because she hadnt reached puberty:
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, NOT YET REACHED THE AGE OF PUBERTY.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151)
Now address my position on embryology and The Big Bang...if you can!
-
she was 6 when promised and had sex with the prophet when she was 9! Anyone who knows anything knows she was 9 years old when he had sex with her. You can read her own words guy..She was still playing with dolls when he had her...and if yuh really know Islam yuh doh play with images etc. after yuh puberty! Steups.
Now address my position on embryology and The Big Bang...if you can!
Bigger lie! she was 10 or eleven when promised, and some say 14 some say 15 when they consumated the marriage! ah tell yuh fella, the the hadith was writen 300 yrs after muhammad, and it's ah fact that there was over 200,000 hadith gathered, and most of them were daif(doubtful) fellas was making up shit, some was plain ole malicious Bc muhammad was hated, since he change the whole pagan culture that was loved by the proud arabs of those days. and a lot of the jews of that day had tuh pay the jizziah tax and they hated muhammad and islam for it, so i does take hadith with ah grain of salt and ah tank of water.
-
she was 6 when promised and had sex with the prophet when she was 9! Anyone who knows anything knows she was 9 years old when he had sex with her. You can read her own words guy..She was still playing with dolls when he had her...and if yuh really know Islam yuh doh play with images etc. after yuh puberty! Steups.
Now address my position on embryology and The Big Bang...if you can!
Bigger lie! she was 10 or eleven when promised, and some say 14 some say 15 when they consumated the marriage! ah tell yuh fella, the the hadith was writen 300 yrs after muhammad, and it's ah fact that there was over 200,000 hadith gathered, and most of them were daif(doubtful) fellas was making up shit, some was plain ole malicious Bc muhammad was hated, since he change the whole pagan culture that was loved by the proud arabs of those days. and a lot of the jews of that day had tuh pay the jizziah tax and they hated muhammad and islam for it, so i does take hadith with ah grain of salt and ah tank of water.
Not true, all the evidence shows she was a mere child, why else would her friends hide? Why would her mother have to wash her face? Why was she surprised when he took his pants off? Why would she be playing with dolls?
You lie and the apologists lie.
he married a little child! And worse he screwed her! Whjy did he wait 3 years to sex her? Becasue she was 6 years old!
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is of course not true and here is the proof.
Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."
Arabs were a primitive lot with little rules to abide. Yet they had some code of ethics that they honored scrupulously. For example, although they fought all the year round, they abstained from hostilities during certain holy months of the year. They also considered Mecca to be a holy city and did not make war against it. A adopted sons wife was deemed to be a daughter in law and they would not marry her. Also it was customary that close friends made a pact of brotherhood and considered each other as true brothers. The Prophet disregarded all of these rules anytime they stood between him and his interests or whims.
Abu Bakr and Muhammad had pledged to each other to be brothers. So according to their costoms Ayesha was supposed to be like a niece to the Holy Prophet. Yet that did not stop him to ask her hand even when she was only six years old.
[/b]
-
In fact most Muslims agree she was 9! hey have excuses though, saying girls in hot climates mature faster etc.
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Hadith/Topics/Marriage.htm
-
In fact most Muslims agree she was 9! hey have excuses though, saying girls in hot climates mature faster etc.
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Hadith/Topics/Marriage.htm
Let me ask u something, lets say maybe 100 years ago how many people in trini married in their early teens and it was the norm. Dont you think that 1400 years ago that someone to marry at "9" was acceptable due to the development of the human being? What is the purpose of menstruating and what does it represent?
YOu're the one who says morals are societal, but on the same hand u want to say that the islamic society is wrong? If i go along with your thinking about the base of morals, what makes your society right whilst another is wrong or is it only religious societal morals count for nothing? If societies in the states were racists and lynched african people, if i go along with your line of thinking, how can u say they are wrong since morals are relative to their society? Sorry, in this instance I think you want to have your cake and eat it to.
-
I also have a hard time rationalizing the level of brainwashing these Mullahs and Imams have over their charges that they can strap bombs on their bodies and shout God is Great while detonating themselves. The despair, the frustration, the hatred, the bitterness that they have in their hearts.
but remember these guys believe that they are fighting Jihad, and ONE SURE WAY TO GET INTO PARADISE ACCORDING TO THE KORAN....IS THRU JIHAD! Otherwise all other people enter hell first! SO these young men, with no future as they can see, decide to die and enter into God's presence where they will be rewarded with 29(/) virgins and eternal bliss.
The guys sending them never seem to contemplate strapping the bombs on their bodies though!
Somehow i get the impression that u dont recognize the nature of the environment that these live in and come from as the motivating factor in the bombings and u are only linking their actions to the Quran. What would make a person from the IRA blow up a building, surely is not Jihad? or a hindu in india blow up a mosque surely it is not quran?
-
In fact most Muslims agree she was 9! hey have excuses though, saying girls in hot climates mature faster etc.
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Hadith/Topics/Marriage.htm
Let me ask u something, lets say maybe 100 years ago how many people in trini married in their early teens and it was the norm. Dont you think that 1400 years ago that someone to marry at "9" was acceptable due to the development of the human being? What is the purpose of menstruating and what does it represent?
YOu're the one who says morals are societal, but on the same hand u want to say that the islamic society is wrong? If i go along with your thinking about the base of morals, what makes your society right whilst another is wrong or is it only religious societal morals count for nothing? If societies in the states were racists and lynched african people, if i go along with your line of thinking, how can u say they are wrong since morals are relative to their society? Sorry, in this instance I think you want to have your cake and eat it to.
Yes I hear you loud and clear. it was very wrong at that time too. That was NOT their norm 1500 years ago. A woman had to reach puberty and usually that was a fact. Also if you know anything about societal norms at the time, you did not marry a child. She was playing with her dolls, and swings and her child friends.
You are looking for excuses, at least you are not trying to hide the fact that he married a 9 year old. In fact a prepubescent 9 year old!
According to culture,at the time she must have been a CHILD still as she played with dolls! Dolls were reserved for CHILDREN alone. At 15 you were considered an adult! It had nothing to do with menstruation as you put it.
As for having my cake and eating it too, thats your doing...or maybe you are agreeing with me that morality has nothing to do with a God or gods, but is societal.
And be careful if you agree.
"Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)"
I think if you research instead of having BLIND faith you will learn a lot more than merely listening to the parroting of "teachings."
He had sex with a mere child!
Society at the time did not condone marrying 9 year olds, nor did Islam which considered playing with dolls as an adult is considered shirk!
Try this, I have many more Hadiths and writings from the girl child herself indicating she did not reach her period until she was 14!
*************************
I clearly understand the situation under which these young men live. I know how deep and how desperate their situations are! Indeed, my qualms are not because these men are hurting, often living under despotic rulers, backed by western governments, I have a beef with the RELIGION that condones these actions. I also take issue with the IRA, The Basque separatists and the Hindu fanatics who not only blow up mosques, but christian churches as well!
You miss my point, maybe because you are blind to the truth?
I am not merely linking their actions to the Koran, but also to the men who extrapolate info from the Koran and convince these men to kill themselves and others.
Do you really believe that these men will enter Paradise according to what they are made to believe? Do you really think that IF there is such a kind and compassionate god that he holds these beliefs as good and beneficial that he rewards these so called "martyrs" with immediate passage into Paradise as well as bestowing upon them virgins?
Can a spirit have sex? lol
You surely jest! It is not only Islam that I take issue with, it is ALL religious leaders that use God to blind men, causing them to lose sight of their humanity and wantonly kill.
I understand that these men don't have an army, an airforce, or a navy to fight their wars, but religion is used as a form of governance, and intolerance is a prime component of many religions.
If you are a Hindu, you think thats the real religion and you burn mosques and other places of worship that is non-Hindu in India, in fact they are VERY intolerant there..as in VERY!
If you are Muslim, you alone are Allah's chosen there is much contradiction in the Koran about who will enter heaven!) And many other religions are expelled, in fact it is against the law to proselytize if you are a christian or any other religion in MOST Muslim states...jail, death etc is your lot if you dare!
Catholics in their dogma teach that all others are accursed, and doomed to hell. it is there for all who want to learn the truth. Many see the fake love and think all is well, research the dogma and learn the truth about that "religion."
Fundamentalist Christians believe that Jesus is Lord and no one else, that somehow you can have 3 Gods in one. Does that mean when Jesus was crucified that god died? How can god die? And when was Jesus made God be the christian church? was he always God according to early christian teachings? Surprisingly no!
The teachings of Islam make men kill in the name of Allah, and it is not justified. Fight off oppression, kill the tyrants, but not innocents. Strapping a bomb on your person and detonating it is haram! The men who convince others to do so are cowardly, as they NEVER seem to become suicide bomber themselves.
Another thing, do you see or hear about Hindu militants attacking and killing others outside of their own countries? Same with the IRA when they were bombing?
-
In fact most Muslims agree she was 9! hey have excuses though, saying girls in hot climates mature faster etc.
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Hadith/Topics/Marriage.htm
Let me ask u something, lets say maybe 100 years ago how many people in trini married in their early teens and it was the norm. Dont you think that 1400 years ago that someone to marry at "9" was acceptable due to the development of the human being? What is the purpose of menstruating and what does it represent?
YOu're the one who says morals are societal, but on the same hand u want to say that the islamic society is wrong? If i go along with your thinking about the base of morals, what makes your society right whilst another is wrong or is it only religious societal morals count for nothing? If societies in the states were racists and lynched african people, if i go along with your line of thinking, how can u say they are wrong since morals are relative to their society? Sorry, in this instance I think you want to have your cake and eat it to.
Don't for ah minuite believe that sammy!!!! this man is ah forkin liar!!! the truth iz, muhammad did not marry aisha @ 6, or 9, she was promissed to him @ 9, then when she was 12 he went to live with him , he never touched aisha till she was 15 going on 16, two yrs before his death, just read up on the tabakat kubra, it's ah more earlier version than bukhari or sahi muslims! like i said to this demon before, the hadith especially bukhari and sahi muslims has ah lot of lies on the prophet.
if yuh want ah better account of hadiths then read al kaffi or tabakat kubra, or even the sera of ibn isac. this fella just looking for any way tuh discredit any form of divine belief. first he started wid cristianity then he moved on tuh islam, but what he didn't cater for was that ppl would not just swallow what he posted without rebutle.
first he came wid the argument that muhammad marry his son's wife, not knowing that it have ppl who know the story, and when i mentioned to him that zaid was not muhammad's son, but ah yute he raised from the age of 12. which was the FIRST LIE! :rotfl: :devil:
then he when he saw he couldn't win that argument, he then came wid the arguement that muhammad stole zaid's wife from him, he then said how muhammad went to zaid's house on business and saw zaynab and fell in love wid her beauty and ordered zaid tuh devorce her so he could marry her, not knowing that zaynab was muhammad's cousin, and he knew zaynab all her life and he didn't have tuh go tuh zaid's house tuh see zaynab , insinuating that it was the first time he saw zaynab. so the forker get catch in the SECOND LIE! :rotfl: :devil:
then he said how muhammad ORDERED zaid to devorce zaynab, and then he (muhammad) married her soon afterwards claiming that muhammad invented a verse in the quran tuh achieve his agender, but little did the forker know that muhammad married zaynab yrs after zaid devorced her, and way after zaid was killed in one of the battles, i think it was the battle of uhud. THIRD LIE!! :shameonyou:
the next slander was how muhammad said devorce is hated by allah and how he said it was one of the permissable things that allah really hate, fine, then he went on tuh say muhammad enticed zaid tuh devorce knowing devorce is ah big no no, and it's offensive to the one muhammad claimed tuh serve, but he never cater for the sura 65 AL TALAK! IT'S AH WHOLE SURA DEDICATED TO DEVORCE and ironically the word TALAK MEANS DEVORCE! this sura regulates and stpiulate how devorce should be carried out, and all the legalities of devorce. FOURTH SLANDER! :bs:
ALL THIS TIME HE SLANDERED MUHAMMAD HE NEVER RENDERED AN APOLOGY FOR HIS MISSREPRESENTATION ON THE ZAID AND ZAYNAD SAGA.
then after he got duss out wid the zaid argument, as if i didn't know, he would then come wid the aisha saga, that is every muslim bashers trump card, how muhammad married aisha @ six and rape the little girl @ nine! and then run on line tuh get hadith tuh back up his case, that's the same man who would not believe a single hadith if it backed up the islamic argument , but he believes the ones that slanders the prophet who the hadith is written of.
but what this joker don't know iz it have hundreds of thousands of hadith, and most of them are bogus, especially the ones in sahi muslims and sahi bukhari. bukhari was ah turkish iranian russian who never met muhammad, nor anyone from the next generation(tabaien) or even 5 generation there after! as ah matter of fact, bukhari came 300 yrs after muhammad lived!
when bukhari started collecting hadith, it was 300 yrs later. do you know how many inaccurate accounts could be narrated after 300 yrs. not only that , but after the death of muhammad the ummah(muslim community) was split amongst themselves, some followed the power hungry sahabi's(companions of muhammad) and some followed the ahlilbait( family of muhammad).
it's ah known fact that when the umayad dynasty ruled arabia, they not only killed and hunted the family and close friends of muhammad, but they also made up lies and slandered muhammad and his family's name. even he muhammad said that after he died ppl would make up loads of lies on him and would slander his name.
yazid and muhawiya ordered a lot of hadiths written, and also slandered ali, hassan and hussein, that's why it is said that abu bakar, omar, uthman, and ali was the four rightly guided caliphs, implying that after them , it was unsure of the character of the fellas that followed, and right after ali was muhawiya who was ah member of the omayad klann , and it's no secret that muhammad was from the hashim klan, and the omayad klann was bitter rivals to the bani hashim.
if yuh go to the tabakat kubra yuh would see that muhammad was promised aisha when she was 9, and she married him @ 12 and went tuh live wid him and his other wives, and muhammad never consumate the marriage until aisha completed two yrs after pubity, that was when she was 15/16 two yrs before his death.
it would also state that abu baker was the one who gave his daughter aisha to muhammad and not the other way around. the wives of muhammad was advised not to devluge any information about muhammad or even private stuff like his sex life, do you really believe that aisha would talk about how muhammad's private looked like and describe the interlude to the public, when ppl who are performing a janaza bath( washing the dead) can't even look @ the dead person's private parts, it's covered and not exposed while they are washed under a covering, and the ppl involve cannot devulge no information of the deceased while they were being washed, but aisha would talk about the prophet like that??!
do you really think abu bakar would give his baby daughter to muhammad? when muhammad himself was told not to annoy or be harsh on his followers, or else they would abandon him. do you believe those stiff neck arab ppl would love and follow him after he supposedly slept with ah nine yr old girl ? i know i wont!
yuh can't see all the info he coming wid came from the book satanic verses! just by the things he addressed lead me to think he eh know shyte about islam, and evey thing he came with was debated over time and time again. Tijani assamarwi has a book called" ask those who know", all this nonsense he coming with was debated over and debunked yrs ago, since before salman rashdie, as ah matter of fact the egyptian orientalist has been staunch opponents of islam for centuries.
TT might be one of them, but he late like turtle going tuh church, that argument is ah day late and ah dollar short. you eh see he eh have no life! his life is tuh come here and malign ppl's faith with each waking day, he's ah :loser:!
-
hahahahahahaha yuh is ah real joker JC....de man marry and sex a little child.
Below is the passage from the Quran on the event of his marriage to HIS SON!!! Incidentally until AFTER Mohammad had married his son Zaid's wife the son was called : Zayd bin Muhammad After Mohammad married his son's wife the man was then called Zayd bin Harithah cehck it he was called Zaid son of Mohammad before the marrigae and after ...lol
You said to the man whom God and yourself have favored: Keep your wife and have fear of God. You sought to hide in your heart what God was to reveal. You were afraid of man, although it would have been more proper to fear God. And when Zayd divorced his wife, We gave her to you in marriage, so that it should become legitimate for true believers to wed the wives of their adopted sons if they divorced them. Gods will must needs be done. No blame shall be attached to the Prophet for doing what is sanctioned for him by God. Such was the way of God with the prophets who passed away before him (Gods decrees are pre-ordained); who fulfilled the mission with which God had charged them, fearing God and fearing none beside Him. Sufficient is Gods reckoning. The Confederate Tribes, 33:37, 38 Dawood.
Sam Shamoun summarizes Muhammads justification and trite excuse, found above, and presents two significant problems with the Qurans pretext:
According to the Quran itself Allah caused Muhammad to have desires for another mans wife, namely his adopted son Zaid ibn Harithas spouse Zaynab bint Jash. This led to his adopted son divorcing her so that Muhammad could marry her. The alleged reason why Allah commanded this to happen was so that Muhammad could set the example for others to emulate, making it permissible for adoptive fathers to marry their adopted childrens divorcees:
The other problem with this marriage is that shortly after it took place Allah abolished the practice of adoption completely:
God has not assigned to any man two hearts within his breast; nor has He made your wives, when you divorce, saying, Be as my mothers back, truly your mothers, neither has He made your adopted sons your sons in fact. That is your own saying, the words of your mouths; but God speaks the truth, and guides on the way. Call them after their true fathers; that is more equitable in the sight of God. If you know not who their fathers were, then they are your brothers in religion, and your clients. There is no fault in you if you make mistakes, but only in what your hearts premeditate. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. S. 33:4-5
By the way, Salman Rushdie has more credibility in his little toe than you have in your entire body! He wrote a piece of fiction and allyuh act like he call allyuh fakes.
I CALLING ALLYUH MODDER c**tS FAKES!
The Satanic Verses is nutten to do about Islam..nutten. I bet you have never read it or else yuh weon't be talking shit that you can get facts from it..steups..dunce ass follower and bullshitter.
-
hahahahahahaha yuh is ah real joker JC....de man marry and sex a little child.
Below is the passage from the Quran on the event of his marriage to HIS SON!!! Incidentally until AFTER Mohammad had married his son Zaid's wife the son was called : Zayd bin Muhammad After Mohammad married his son's wife the man was then called Zayd bin Harithah cehck it he was called Zaid son of Mohammad before the marrigae and after ...lol
You said to the man whom God and yourself have favored: Keep your wife and have fear of God. You sought to hide in your heart what God was to reveal. You were afraid of man, although it would have been more proper to fear God. And when Zayd divorced his wife, We gave her to you in marriage, so that it should become legitimate for true believers to wed the wives of their adopted sons if they divorced them. Gods will must needs be done. No blame shall be attached to the Prophet for doing what is sanctioned for him by God. Such was the way of God with the prophets who passed away before him (Gods decrees are pre-ordained); who fulfilled the mission with which God had charged them, fearing God and fearing none beside Him. Sufficient is Gods reckoning. The Confederate Tribes, 33:37, 38 Dawood.
Sam Shamoun summarizes Muhammads justification and trite excuse, found above, and presents two significant problems with the Qurans pretext:
According to the Quran itself Allah caused Muhammad to have desires for another mans wife, namely his adopted son Zaid ibn Harithas spouse Zaynab bint Jash. This led to his adopted son divorcing her so that Muhammad could marry her. The alleged reason why Allah commanded this to happen was so that Muhammad could set the example for others to emulate, making it permissible for adoptive fathers to marry their adopted childrens divorcees:
The other problem with this marriage is that shortly after it took place Allah abolished the practice of adoption completely:
God has not assigned to any man two hearts within his breast; nor has He made your wives, when you divorce, saying, Be as my mothers back, truly your mothers, neither has He made your adopted sons your sons in fact. That is your own saying, the words of your mouths; but God speaks the truth, and guides on the way. Call them after their true fathers; that is more equitable in the sight of God. If you know not who their fathers were, then they are your brothers in religion, and your clients. There is no fault in you if you make mistakes, but only in what your hearts premeditate. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. S. 33:4-5
By the way, Salman Rushdie has more credibility in his little toe than you have in your entire body! He wrote a piece of fiction and allyuh act like he call allyuh fakes.
I CALLING ALLYUH MODDER c**tS FAKES!
The Satanic Verses is nutten to do about Islam..nutten. I bet you have never read it or else yuh weon't be talking shit that you can get facts from it..steups..dunce ass follower and bullshitter.
I really feel you retarded or yuh dislexic or something! where did you see the quran mention that allah caused muhammad tuh have desires for zaid's wife? this is the reason i don't like tuh discourse wid you, BC when yuh get duss out yuh does still continue wid yuh lying!
listen fella , doh waste my time! i dun show yuh where zaid divorced the woman and had time move on wid his life, then died in one of the battles, and after that muhammad married tuh her! even the verse in the quran says "and when zaid divorced his wife we gave her to you".
that verse came down BC according arab costom back then ah man should not marry his son's wife. it was also an arab costom tuh bury their girl children alive if they felt like it, or wirship idols and eat pork, and women used tuh dress with their breast un covered, but muhammad changed all that, so what's the big deal when he changed the law that fathers could marry their adopted son's wives?
zaid was not his son, but ah slave of his deceased wife khadijah. her brother bought zaid in the market place and gave him to her, then when muhammad married khadijah he freed him and the boy became attached to muhammad so ppl started calling him zaid ibn muhammad, when in fact the boy was ah slave tuh his wife khadijah and not some kid he raised from small as his own.
as a matter of fact,muhammad was the one who insisted that zaynab married zaid, but zaynab and her brother was against marrying ah slave boy, and as yuh know the marriage was arranged, but zaynab did not like zaid very much, and zaid used to complain tuh muhammad about zaynab's treatment of him and how he wanted tuh devorce her, but muhammad encouraged him tuh stick it out, finally zaid decided he wanted out of the marriage.
it was zaynab who wanted tuh marry muhammad and not the other way around. tha hadith that you quote about muhammad seeing zaynab through the open door was ah lie, he knew zaynab all his life,after all she was the daughter of his aunt umaimah.
but of course you wouldn't know this BC yuh never read the tafsir, all yuh wanted tuh accomplish was slander, but in fact yuh never really try tuh know the real, but rather embrace the slander so yuh could malaign muhammad.
imagine you callin me ah joker, when you can't even present an argument based on SOLID unadulterated facts! :loser:
-
Sammy, check this out. an article on aisha's supposed age of engagement and consumation. and an overview of his dealing wid zaynab bint jahsh
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
http://www.fountainmagazine.com/article.php?ARTICLEID=1026
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives
-
Sammy, check this out. an article on aisha's supposed age of engagement and consumation. and an overview of his dealing wid zaynab bint jahsh
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
http://www.fountainmagazine.com/article.php?ARTICLEID=1026
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives
Yeah Sammy check his references..especially this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives
Married to Aisha
Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad. She stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated in Medina.[12][14][15][16] Both Aisha and Sawda, his two wives, were given apartments adjoined to the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi mosque.[13] Muhammad wished to divorce Sawda, who offered to give her turn of Muhammad's conjugal visit to Aisha to prevent this.[17]
See also this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha
When doing your research you will see that the Koran was written piece meal and not in its entirety (all at once)
Revelations came to suit occurrences. It is a fact, for example when Aisha was accused of adultery, Mohammad got a revelation that rebuked her accusers and gave them 40 lashes each! Fella don't beleive any and everything they trow at you, research and come to your own conclusion.
If some book comes along and tells you fire is cool, yuh go jes believe it? When your own experiences and your own common sense shows it to be hot?
Jes doh believe ANYTHING, science, religious books nutten..test them first!
Take this for what it is worth:
Aisha played with dolls, it is shirk for adults to play with dolls, Mohammad played along with her and her friends. She wrote many, many Hadiths that are held in high esteem by Muslim scholars to this day.
In her own Hadiths she said she was 6 when married and 9 when she had sexual relations with Mohammad!
Historians see Aisha as a learned woman, who tirelessly recounted stories from the life of Muhammad and explained Muslim history and traditions. She is considered to be one of the foremost scholars of Islam's early age with some historians accrediting up to one-quarter of the Islamic Sharia (Islamic religious law), based on the collection of hadiths, to have stemmed from her narrations. Aisha became the most prominent of Muhammads wives and is revered as a role model by millions of women.[9] Feminist writers such as Haleh Afshar have argued that Aisha provided a role model for women's political participation in Islamic communities, and that women became marginalized in Islamic polity following Aisha's defeat.[20]
Sammy, your assertion that child marriages were part of the culture then and there is valid, very valid. Bedouin societyHistorians see Aisha as a learned woman, who tirelessly recounted stories from the life of Muhammad and explained Muslim history and traditions. She is considered to be one of the foremost scholars of Islam's early age with some historians accrediting up to one-quarter of the Islamic Sharia (Islamic religious law), based on the collection of hadiths, to have stemmed from her narrations. Aisha became the most prominent of Muhammads wives and is revered as a role model by millions of women.[9] Feminist writers such as Haleh Afshar have argued that Aisha provided a role model for women's political participation in Islamic communities, and that women became marginalized in Islamic polity following Aisha's defeat.[20] had allowed such for a long time. I also beleive that back then, like even in the WILD wEST IN THE us, CHILDREN TENDED TO MATURE FASTER. tHAT still DOES NOT LINE UP WITH kORANIC GUIDELINES....THEREIN LIES MY PROBLEM!
rEAD HER OWN hADITH,S DON'T LET ANYONE SAY THAT THEY ARE FAKE, SHE IS A FOREMOST LEADER FOR ISLAMIC WOMEN, and well respected as noted above!
Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, Best wishes and Allahs Blessing and a good luck. Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allahs Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:
Narrated Hishams father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina.. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 118:
Narrated Ursa:
Aisha said, While the Ethiopians were playing with their small spears, Allahs Apostle screened me behind him and I watched (that display) and kept on watching till I left on my own. So you may estimate of what age a little girl may listen to amusement.
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 163:
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet was screening me with his Rida (garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty) who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect..
Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151:
Narrated Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allahs Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
-
Mr true lair...oh sorry true trini, you could believe what yuh want tuh believe , that's your right, but i know better. all those daif hadith you quoting is fabricated tuh slander muhammad , but telling you dat is like talking tuh all stone wall in ah deaf city! since i've already told you so many times. bottom line, ppl see what they want tuh see and believe what they want tuh believe without nesessarily seeking out the truth.
yuh think this is the first time i've seen or heard this argument? this is nothing new, it's been ah subject for debate for centuries.that and so much more incriminating sh!t! and the scolars who know negated and showed the facts of how these hadiths were forged, but it serves your purpose and the purpose of many others, so believe on.
muawiahya and yazid hated muhammad and his family, and wrote tons of evil shyte about them and passed it off as hadith. plus there was the jews of yathrib who hated him equally, and also slandered and malign him just as bad in the form of hadith and street slander.
it even have hadith that said muhammad liked french kissing young boys, and the list goes on! as for the quran being revealed piece meal, yuh preaching tuh the chior.
doesn't mean muhammad used it for his own purpose. if muhammad wanted tuh be the king of arabia he could've easily been! he was that powerful and that influential, plus he was offered on many occasion the honor of being the head honcho of the arabian peninsula, and all he had tuh do was stop preaching this islam thing and he would've been in, but he bluntly refused!
so why if he wanted tuh live ah wonton life go the religious route ? when he could've easily taken the simple route,and have his boys , little girls, his slaves, his status, wid big money involved BC of the trade routes that passed through there, plus the pilgrimage used tuh bring in buccaud income in the city he was born (mecca),?
why did he throw it all away tuh pray 7 times ah day, BC him being the prophet, his prayers was 7 instead of five, fasting in ramazan, live in poverty, that's BC when he fled mecca all his possesions were ceased as spoils, abandon drinking, not having the freedom tuh sex whom he wanted without appeasing no one, waking up early tuh pray, and all the hardships that goes with being ah devout worshiper?
that just don't make sense to me! if ah fella wanted tuh play all those games then the religious route would not be the way tuh do it, especially in that day and time, and not in that city and country.
-
No one, especially me, will argue that Mohammad was not a brilliant fella. He was damn bright, astute and cunning. Religion was a way to unite epople and bring order....I have no doubt that he MAY have felt he was really doing God's work. He may have heard voices for all I know.
There would have been good reasons for the Jews to hate him especially as he slaughtered them frequently without provocation.
The Kora has many more contradictions than the Bible. it does NOT address any meaningful science nor does it accurately describe anything remotely close to the Big Bang and Embryology!
The historical references are also frequently wrong.
The FACT that Mohammad preached one thing and did another on MANY occasions is evident.
Does he hold a place in History as a most influential figure? Most assuredly. Was he a determined and extremely intelligent character? Hell yes!
Did he really speak to God? That is a matter of personal faith. Based on the evidence...I personally doubt it!
-
No one, especially me, will argue that Mohammad was not a brilliant fella. He was damn bright, astute and cunning. Religion was a way to unite epople and bring order....I have no doubt that he MAY have felt he was really doing God's work. He may have heard voices for all I know.
There would have been good reasons for the Jews to hate him especially as he slaughtered them frequently without provocation.
The Kora has many more contradictions than the Bible. it does NOT address any meaningful science nor does it accurately describe anything remotely close to the Big Bang and Embryology!
The historical references are also frequently wrong.
The FACT that Mohammad preached one thing and did another on MANY occasions is evident.
Does he hold a place in History as a most influential figure? Most assuredly. Was he a determined and extremely intelligent character? Hell yes!
Did he really speak to God? That is a matter of personal faith. Based on the evidence...I personally doubt it!
He slaughtered jews unprovked?? like you never read anything about the life of muhammad or what??, i'm surprised sometimes how utterly naive you could be! bredder, the jews were the #1 agitators in yathrib!
they sided with the meccans tuh kill muhammad on countless occasions! FYI, muhammad was fleeing mecca from religious persecution and the threat of being killed, he then seeked refuge in yathrib(medina) where he had ah big following. and the rest of his followers fled to abyssinia where they were protected by the negus.
despite fleeing, the meccans still pursued them! all the way too abyssinia and medina, that's how wicked and cruel they was! @ that time medina was over populated with jews fleeing roman persecution and found ah favorable city in medina.
when muhammad started spreading islam in yathrib, the jews didn't want no part of it , and became secret enemies to the muslim, all this time the meccans was still hunting and killing muslims, and had a price out on muhammad's head, that's when the revelation came down to him urging him too fight until persecution iz no more.
the jews then joined up wid the meccans and was fighting against the muslims, but they were in the back ground playing two sides, like they always do. that's when the sura munafiqun/ hypocrites was revealed.
many jews died yes, and so did many muslim and pagan meccans alike. but it wasn't un provoked as you said! it was war, and if yuh can't take the repercussions of war, then stay clear!
as for muhammad not practicing what he preached being EVIDENT!!! ACCORDING TUH WHO??!! the orientalist, the west?? ah man who had so many enemies, especially in his ranks, who showed their hatred of him after his death when they tried to wipe out his whole family, i'm not surprised i don't hear more disgusting sh!t about him TBH.
i know one things for sure, if this man was as disgusting as ppl made him out to be, then why is his faith the largest in the world? and why did the arabs made so much strides after his death, going from some of the most unlearned disgusting ppl to leaders in science, medicine and astronomy?
-
fella, my goal is not to disprove anything. You trying to prove something to me!
Mohammed had a habit of writing scripture to suit his actions..like the time he sent his men to rob travellers. Justifyinmg his actions after the fact. run by yuh frens dem to correct me, Mohammed was told by an angel to have his son (adopted) to divorce his wife so he could marry her!
Suras in the Quran does convientently pop up so Mohammed can justify his actions. e.g, when he wanted his adopted son's wife, he suddenly get a revelation from Allah declaring it right to take another man's wife. When he wanted to stop his wives from quarreling or to accept more wives, he got a quick revelation for that too. If yuh know de history most ah dem revelations come AFTER he do he do!
Also, throughout the Koran, the history is all wrong...that is the chain of events not chronological at all.
Yuh like to sayu how scientific the Koran is, Like when He say Allah created mountains to stop the earthquakes?
Or when he wrote the moon was a light like the sun? Or maybe when he talk about the stars and say they were darts to throw at demons?
Or when Mohammed say de sun does set in a muddy pool? Or what about de ants and dem that did talk to Solomon?
Or when he talk about the Pyramids and dem?
Haman - A minister of the Pharoah?
(Koran 28:8)
...For Pharaoh and Haman and all their hosts were Men of sin.
(Koran 28:38)
...therefore, O haman! light me a klin to bake bricks
out of clay, and build me a loftly palace...
Here the man and de Koran clearly imply dat Haman and de Pharaoh exist at de same time and place. But History tells we odderwise. The Pharaoh lived during the time of Moses and Haman served as a minister of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I). The Koranic verse in this case contains not only an error in location, but also an error of time as well (1,000 years).
Once again the Koran proves to us that Mohammed had no real knowledge of History, is either dat or de angels misguided him?
Breds it's ah known fact amongst geologist that the mountains do stablize the earth, the crust of the earth is the thinest sector, and it flaots on liqid molten lava.here's dr naik on this subject. @ minuite 6:25 of the lecture= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brpwcl51bnU&feature=related
Breds , no way did the quran says the moon has it's own light, here's dr naik again. the subject starts @ min, 5:30 = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eGrTOzzOyI
about the ants and solomon,here's another lecture about that subject.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtSuMXGwOHY&feature=related
As for haman, bredder please! since when you reading the story of ruth in the bible tuh legitimize your claim? so BC it had ah harman in persia in 300 BC , that means he ws the said haman in the quran? first off , i'm sure they did not have one solitary haman in the world, and i'm pretty sure that the haman in moses time was ah builder and not ah minisiter, and even if he was, i don't see the connection , except for a name. come on you could do better than that!
-
all de apologist who making things up to justify the errors in the Koran cannot hide the truth!
The Historical record is clear, as there are many more inconsistencies in teh Koran as there are in the Bible!
If you acknoledge that the Koran was written piecemeal..whats the reason for Ramadan and Eid again?
-
all de apologist who making things up to justify the errors in the Koran cannot hide the truth!
The Historical record is clear, as there are many more inconsistencies in teh Koran as there are in the Bible!
If you acknoledge that the Koran was written piecemeal..whats the reason for Ramadan and Eid again?
What you talking bout apologist? like muslims need tuh apologize for anything! man just stating the facts, if ppl doh like it then they know what they could do.
to me is the west who need tuh apologize for all their underhandedness. they make all kinda mischief wid ppl's lives and then want tuh act like they beyond reproach.
as for the quran having more inconsistencies than the bible? i think you need glasses. first the bible is ah lost book, most if damn near all have no remnants of the ORIGINAL TEXT. You would say so BC yuh don't know arabic grammar. but if that's what yuh feel, then fine.
i not here tuh convince you or no one else for that matter. i believe in god and that's my stand. i also believe that god send special men tuh teach mankind how tuh live, and i believe that man slandered and malign all those goodly soldiers , and also misinterpret and missrepresent them and the things divulge over the yrs.
i believe that muhammad was one of them, so was jesus, moses and abraham. and that's where i'm @. in ah nut shell, i rather believe muhammad than darwin! but if ah fella want tuh believe in he darwin, then be my guest, enjoy, but doh try tuh bring darwin tuh me , BC i ain't having it!
i believe his own ppl and other unscrupulous men who slandered him and hated the fact that he killed their family members, reformed their whole society, and abolish their beloved culture, and they hated him for it.
i don't believe non of the slander wid aisha, zaynab, the little boys slander, and whatever!!! and that's my prerogative, if you want tuh believe it, fine, enjoy!
one more thing that i had tuh deal wid and i think i dun wid this discourse. on the issue of the the raids on the caravans where you said muhammad was encouraging his followers tuh steal from the caravan routes.
he did that BC the meccans was taking their stuff and trading it, remember muhammad was ah rich man @ one point, BC he was married to khadijah who was ah wealthy trader, when she died she left him her wealth, and when he got chased out of mecca, he left wid what he had on his back and nothing more.
so the raids on those caravans was for the most part the muslims stuff that was confiscated by the meccans, and they were just taking their stuff back , or it's equivalence from the ppl who despoil them in the first place.
another would be the non mixing of the ocean and the fresh water rivers or lakes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCUZLao3w2E&feature=related.
so this is the hi and low of it. i know one thing, @ the end of the journey we will see who was in error and who was on point, time will tell real soon! if i'm wrong , then the wrong will be on my head, and the same goes for you.
i won't believe in your thing, and it's evident that you wont believe in mine either, so tuh you your way and to me mine! and like bob marley said, time alone would tell.
:peace:
-
all de apologist who making things up to justify the errors in the Koran cannot hide the truth!
The Historical record is clear, as there are many more inconsistencies in teh Koran as there are in the Bible!
If you acknoledge that the Koran was written piecemeal..whats the reason for Ramadan and Eid again?
What you talking bout apologist? like muslims need tuh apologize for anything! man just stating the facts, if ppl doh like it then they know what they could do.
to me is the west who need tuh apologize for all their underhandedness. they make all kinda mischief wid ppl's lives and then want tuh act like they beyond reproach.
as for the quran having more inconsistencies than the bible? i think you need glasses. first the bible is ah lost book, most if damn near all have no remnants of the ORIGINAL TEXT. You would say so BC yuh don't know arabic grammar. but if that's what yuh feel, then fine.
i not here tuh convince you or no one else for that matter. i believe in god and that's my stand. i also believe that god send special men tuh teach mankind how tuh live, and i believe that man slandered and malign all those goodly soldiers , and also misinterpret and missrepresent them and the things divulge over the yrs.
i believe that muhammad was one of them, so was jesus, moses and abraham. and that's where i'm @. in ah nut shell, i rather believe muhammad than darwin! but if ah fella want tuh believe in he darwin, then be my guest, enjoy, but doh try tuh bring darwin tuh me , BC i ain't having it!
i believe his own ppl and other unscrupulous men who slandered him and hated the fact that he killed their family members, reformed their whole society, and abolish their beloved culture, and they hated him for it.
i don't believe non of the slander wid aisha, zaynab, the little boys slander, and whatever!!! and that's my prerogative, if you want tuh believe it, fine enjoy as well!
one more thing that i had tuh deal wid and i think i dun wid this discourse. on the issue of the the raids on the caravans where you said muhammad was encouraging his followers tuh steal from the caravan routes.
he did that BC the meccans was taking their stuff and trading it, remember muhammad was ah rich man @ one point, BC he was married to khadijah who was ah wealthy trader, when she died she left him her wealth, and when he got chased out of mecca, he left wid what he had on his back and nothing more.
so the raids on those caravans was for the most part the muslims stuff that was confiscated by the meccans, and they were just taking their stuff back , or it's equivalence from the ppl who despoil them in the first place.
another would be the non mixing of the ocean and the fresh water rivers or lakes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCUZLao3w2E&feature=related.
so this is the hi and low of it. i know one thing, @ the end of the journey we will see who was in error and who was on point, time will tell real soon! if i'm wrong , then the wrong will be on my head, and the same goes for you.
i won't believe in your thing, and it's evident that you wont either, so tuh you your way and to me mine! and like bob marley said, time alone would tell.
:peace:
Let me correct you quickly..I happen to know Arabic..have a working knowledge actually.
Thanks.
As for the raids, that is Not true what you stated, he even had people murdered at times when they were UNARMED! Theyw ere selling raisens, honey and skins, nutten they "stole from anyone!
It was the holy month of Rejeb which was considered sacred for trade in Arabia. It was a point of honor that any form of warfare or violence was strictly forbidden in this month. They stabbed the traders and gave 1/5 of the loot plundered to Mohammad. He then got a revelation after this atrocity and came up with:
Koran 2:216
"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not."
And:
Koran 2:217
"They question you (O Mohammed) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great transgression but to turn men from the way of Allah and to disbelive in Him and the inviolable place of worship and to expel its people thence is a greater transgression, for persecution is worse than killing"
If yopu are talking about the raid on the Meccans by the people of Medina...check the historical facts and see that those people were attacked and they sent for their army to defend themselves.
What is interesting to note is that Mohammad eh lift ah sword and put heself in any danger during that battle, he stay in he hut all day telling his men: "By him who holds my soul in his hands, anyone who fights for me today will go to paradise!"
Mohammad gangs killed over two hundred and took seventy prisoners. All seventy of the prisoners were ransomed, and any prisoner who did not fetch a ransom had his head chopped off.
After de the battle Mohammad sent fuh de corpse of Abu Jahal, one agof the Meccans who had openyl criticised him. When de man corpse was found, mohammad/s men cut off the head and throw it down at Mohammed's feet. The great "Apostle of peace" cried out , "Rejoice! Here lies the head of the enemy of Allah! Praise Allah, for there is no other but he!"
Then he make his men dig ah big hole and had dem throw de bodies in it.
Then Muslims hack the corpses limbs into pieces. When dey started to throw the parts into the big hole, Mohammad shout out: " O People of the Pit, have you found that what Allah threatened is true now? For I have found that what my Lord promised was true! Rejoice All Muslims!"
One ah de prisoners taken was Al Nadr Ibn al Harith, Muhammad ordered Ali to chop off Nadr's head in hfront of him, so he could watch at the man who did insult him.
Annoder prisoner name Uqba ibn Abi Muait was decapitated in front of de Prophet. Before being killed the prisoner cried out pitifully "O Prophet, who will look after my children if I should die?"
Mohammad watch him and say: "Hellfire", as soon as he say dat dey cut off he head and de man blood cover Mohammad clothes.
After that Battle with the Meccasn Mohammad get anothee revelation: Koran 8:65
"O Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast,they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence"
And then this:
Koran 8:67-68
"It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise.. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful."
The adddress the way he ahd the poets who criticized his killing of the INNOCENT Merchants during the moth of Rejeb. Asma Bint Marwan was breast feeding she child when Mohammad men grab it and chop it up righ in front ah she. They then kill her other 4 children she was reportedly raped and stabbed and then what Mohammad said then? "You have done a service to Allah and his Messenger, her life was not worth even two goats!"
-
all de apologist who making things up to justify the errors in the Koran cannot hide the truth!
The Historical record is clear, as there are many more inconsistencies in teh Koran as there are in the Bible!
If you acknoledge that the Koran was written piecemeal..whats the reason for Ramadan and Eid again?
What you talking bout apologist? like muslims need tuh apologize for anything! man just stating the facts, if ppl doh like it then they know what they could do.
to me is the west who need tuh apologize for all their underhandedness. they make all kinda mischief wid ppl's lives and then want tuh act like they beyond reproach.
as for the quran having more inconsistencies than the bible? i think you need glasses. first the bible is ah lost book, most if damn near all have no remnants of the ORIGINAL TEXT. You would say so BC yuh don't know arabic grammar. but if that's what yuh feel, then fine.
i not here tuh convince you or no one else for that matter. i believe in god and that's my stand. i also believe that god send special men tuh teach mankind how tuh live, and i believe that man slandered and malign all those goodly soldiers , and also misinterpret and missrepresent them and the things divulge over the yrs.
i believe that muhammad was one of them, so was jesus, moses and abraham. and that's where i'm @. in ah nut shell, i rather believe muhammad than darwin! but if ah fella want tuh believe in he darwin, then be my guest, enjoy, but doh try tuh bring darwin tuh me , BC i ain't having it!
i believe his own ppl and other unscrupulous men who slandered him and hated the fact that he killed their family members, reformed their whole society, and abolish their beloved culture, and they hated him for it.
i don't believe non of the slander wid aisha, zaynab, the little boys slander, and whatever!!! and that's my prerogative, if you want tuh believe it, fine enjoy as well!
one more thing that i had tuh deal wid and i think i dun wid this discourse. on the issue of the the raids on the caravans where you said muhammad was encouraging his followers tuh steal from the caravan routes.
he did that BC the meccans was taking their stuff and trading it, remember muhammad was ah rich man @ one point, BC he was married to khadijah who was ah wealthy trader, when she died she left him her wealth, and when he got chased out of mecca, he left wid what he had on his back and nothing more.
so the raids on those caravans was for the most part the muslims stuff that was confiscated by the meccans, and they were just taking their stuff back , or it's equivalence from the ppl who despoil them in the first place.
another would be the non mixing of the ocean and the fresh water rivers or lakes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCUZLao3w2E&feature=related.
so this is the hi and low of it. i know one thing, @ the end of the journey we will see who was in error and who was on point, time will tell real soon! if i'm wrong , then the wrong will be on my head, and the same goes for you.
i won't believe in your thing, and it's evident that you wont either, so tuh you your way and to me mine! and like bob marley said, time alone would tell.
:peace:
Let me correct you quickly..I happen to know Arabic..have a working knowledge actually.
Thanks.
As for the raids, that is Not true what you stated, he even had people murdered at times when they were UNARMED! They ere selling raisens, honey and skins, nutten they "stole from anyone!
It was the holy month of Rejeb which was considered sacred for trade in Arabia. It was a point of honor that any form of warfare or violence was strictly forbidden in this month. They stabbed the traders and gave 1/5 of the loot plundered to Mohammad. He then got a revelation after this atrocity and came up with:
Koran 2:216
"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not."
And:
Koran 2:217
"They question you (O Mohammed) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great transgression but to turn men from the way of Allah and to disbelive in Him and the inviolable place of worship and to expel its people thence is a greater transgression, for persecution is worse than killing"
If yopu are talking about the raid on the Meccans by the people of Medina...check the historical facts and see that those people were attacked and they sent for their army to defend themselves.
What is interesting to note is that Mohammad eh lift ah sword and put heself in any danger during that battle, he stay in he hut all day telling his men: "By him who holds my soul in his hands, anyone who fights for me today will go to paradise!"
Mohammad gangs killed over two hundred and took seventy prisoners. All seventy of the prisoners were ransomed, and any prisoner who did not fetch a ransom had his head chopped off.
After de the battle Mohammad sent fuh de corpse of Abu Jahal, one agof the Meccans who had openyl criticised him. When de man corpse was found, mohammad/s men cut off the head and throw it down at Mohammed's feet. The great "Apostle of peace" cried out , "Rejoice! Here lies the head of the enemy of Allah! Praise Allah, for there is no other but he!"
Then he make his men dig ah big hole and had dem throw de bodies in it.
Then Muslims hack the corpses limbs into pieces. When dey started to throw the parts into the big hole, Mohammad shout out: " O People of the Pit, have you found that what Allah threatened is true now? For I have found that what my Lord promised was true! Rejoice All Muslims!"
One ah de prisoners taken was Al Nadr Ibn al Harith, Muhammad ordered Ali to chop off Nadr's head in hfront of him, so he could watch at the man who did insult him.
Annoder prisoner name Uqba ibn Abi Muait was decapitated in front of de Prophet. Before being killed the prisoner cried out pitifully "O Prophet, who will look after my children if I should die?"
Mohammad watch him and say: "Hellfire", as soon as he say dat dey cut off he head and de man blood cover Mohammad clothes.
After that Battle with the Meccasn Mohammad get anothee revelation: Koran 8:65
"O Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast,they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence"
And then this:
Koran 8:67-68
"It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise.. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful."
The adddress the way he ahd the poets who criticized his killing of the INNOCENT Merchants during the moth of Rejeb. Asma Bint Marwan was breast feeding she child when Mohammad men grab it and chop it up righ in front ah she. They then kill her other 4 children she was reportedly raped and stabbed and then what Mohammad said then? "You have done a service to Allah and his Messenger, her life was not worth even two goats!"
Man i dun wid you, every time i refute yuh , yuh come wid something else, seem like this muhammad yuh talking bout woss dan de devil himself!!!!!!
fuss he like lil boys, he molestin 6 yr old girls, he murdering women and children, he's ah bandit dis-stressing INCONENT MECCAN traders on their route! he choping off ded ppl heads and celebrating, he inventing suras tuh serve his purpose, he ordering women to be raped, and tuh top it off, he was ah merciless murderer!!
yuh know what i want tuh know? where are you getting your dalil from? and i'm pretty sure it's from doubful hadith.
i really don't know how tuh say it again, but hadith iz things yuh take wid ah grain of salt. here's another view of those events.http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2006/10/03/the-false-account-of-asma-bint-marwan/
as for the meccans being attacked, they ran muhammad and his followers out of mecca hightailing it with nothing but their shirts on their backs, your hatred of muhammad is causing you to be unreasonable. you also talked about the caravans was carrying honey and skins and not their stuff, and i stated that when i wrote in reply to the accusation, and i quote" so the raids on those caravans was for the most part muslims stuff that was confiscated by the meccans, and they were just taking their stuff back, or it's equivalence from the ppl who despoil them in the first place". but i see that evaded yuh as well.
the point was, getting back what was taken from them whether in extact goods or the value thereoff! you seem tuh grow ah moral beard when it comes to religious figurs, and have ah tendency tuh hold them to the highest of standards, when in reality , if they were squeaky clean you still wouldn't follow them, forinstance fellas like jesus, job, and daniel. so what's it to you? other than yuhs just another orientalist who's bend on pushing your beliefs on the unwilling.
PS: there also many hadith that put muhammad in the heat of batlle fighting along side his companions. it was ah known fact that he fought as any other muslim. so keep lying, i will keep on refuting. anymore accusations? ah wonder what nasty accusation will you dig up next.
-
:flamethrower:
-
In my opinion Mohammad was NOT a nice fella. I could care less if you like him, love or and find him yuh sweet toolum!
I posted facts that anyone can find the truth about, even on the internet.
-
In my opinion Mohammad was NOT a nice fella. I could care less if you like him, love or and find him yuh sweet toolum!
I posted facts that anyone can find the truth about, even on the internet.
What facts?? :o you're not interested in facts, so don't kid yuh self! your only aim is tuh prove that religious figures is phonies, and in turn that will ligitimize your claim on the materialist view. but facts is not your interest!
if it was, then you would know that muhammad and his progeny was hated and maligned by the omayards, and that's why there's so much false accusations about him!
every scholar on islam knows, the bias and the neutral that there are false accounts and truthful accounts. fellas like john esposito professor of religious studies out of george town uni, also proffessor john o voll, who mind you are neutral on the issue, even micheal hart, all knew the whole argument from A -Z, and even what you've been posting as facts.
the zaynab issue, aisha, assma bint marwan, but yet still they wrote favorably about muhammad, and some even held him in high esteem. you know why? BC unlike you, they know the whole argument and they knew what was true and what was false and they were able tuh put it in prospective. you on the other hand , only seeks to slander without any form of objectivity whatsoever.
as for you thinking muhammad was not ah nice fella, you put it correctly when you said, it was your opinion, and i'm happy you put it in it's proper prospective, BC opinions is not indicative of the facts.
BTW, here's something closer to the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkK-JtrIZcU&feature=related
-
Facts!!! Yuh doh like dem, dey doh mesh with your views.... Jesus was hated too he never went about slaughtering people, steups.
Are you Muslim by the way?
-
Facts!!! Yuh doh like dem, dey doh mesh with your views.... Jesus was hated too he never went about slaughtering people, steups.
Are you Muslim by the way?
I'm ah man of the world , and i love correct and proper knowledge, i also like history, and the quran and the life of muhammad is of interest to me. and just like you , i'm well read and don't depend on word of mouth info.
BTW, in case yuh didn't know, josephus and other jewish historians wrote a lot of unsavory things about jesus. one account even stated that his father was a roman solider who mary was sneaking around wid. some historians even said he was an esseine(don't know the proper spelling) and as we all know the esseines and the zealots were radical groups like the taliban and al quada.
it even have ah verse in the bible where he ask his disciples if they had swords and when they replied yes, he then told them to get two, that's when he found out the sanhedrins was taking council against him, and that was evident when peter chopped off the soldier's ears.
there's also accounts in some of the non-cononical gospels that was found @ nag hamadi in egypt, like thomas, nicodemus, gospel of the ebionites and gospel of mary, where he's said tuh have been with women , and had ah much harder radical view than what is portrayed of him in the bible.
but who knows, the man who write the story wins, especially if eh have no one tuh co-orborate yuh story. like i said before pardner, i doh care if yuh worship ah pile ah dung or nothing @ all! in short , do you! trust meh, i iz one fella who doh care what ppl do, that's how detached i am, but if i know the truth about ah matter, and ah fella come along propergating inaccuracies, then expect me tuh interject and set the record straight.
trust meh, i does go tuh war wid muslims all the time , BC nuff ah dem does come wid they hadiths preaching this wahabi nonsense! and i does set dem straight, sometimes i does wonder how they feel bout me busting their bubble all the time.
but i know one things for sure, nuff ah dem fellas don't even know half the things they reading iz bogus. i does defend truths and right bro, not religion , not race, not ideology nor culture, but i defend above all, truth, justice and right!
-
Facts!!! Yuh doh like dem, dey doh mesh with your views.... Jesus was hated too he never went about slaughtering people, steups.
Are you Muslim by the way?
I'm ah man of the world , and i love correct and proper knowledge, i also like history, and the quran and the life of muhammad is of interest to me. and just like you , i'm well read and don't depend on word of mouth info.
BTW, in case yuh didn't know, josephus and other jewish historians wrote a lot of unsavory things about jesus. one account even stated that his father was a roman solider who mary was sneaking around wid. some historians even said he was an esseine(don't know the proper spelling) and as we all know the esseines and the zealots were radical groups like the taliban and al quada.
it even have ah verse in the bible where he ask his disciples if they had swords and when they replied yes, he then told them to get two, that's when he found out the sanhedrins was taking council against him, and that was evident when peter chopped off the soldier's ears.
there's also accounts in some of the non-cononical gospels that was found @ nag hamadi in egypt, like thomas, nicodemus, gospel of the ebionites and gospel of mary, where he's said tuh have been with women , and had ah much harder radical view than what is portrayed of him in the bible.
but who knows, the man who write the story wins, especially if eh have no one tuh co-orborate yuh story. like i said before pardner, i doh care if yuh worship ah pile ah dung or nothing @ all! in short , do you! trust meh, i iz one fella who doh care what ppl do, that's how detached i am, but if i know the truth about ah matter, and ah fella come along propergating inaccuracies, then expect me tuh interject and set the record straight.
trust meh, i does go tuh war wid muslims all the time , BC nuff ah dem does come wid they hadiths preaching this wahabi nonsense! and i does set dem straight, sometimes i does wonder how they feel bout me busting their bubble all the time.
but i know one things for sure, nuff ah dem fellas don't even know half the things they reading iz bogus. i does defend truths and right bro, not religion , not race, not ideology nor culture, but i defend above all, truth, justice and right!
Ever been a Muslim? The Koran was written piece meal, yet it was supposed to be given all at once during Ramadan.
I don't believe it came from God.
I don't believe that the Bible came from God.
Most importantly I don't believe that there ARE ANY gODS AT ALL.
As for Josephus, I have read his writings called Antiquities.
He makes only 2 references to jesus in ALL his writings..So I don't know where you get your info from. Infact Historically, he was born AFTER Jesus was already dead!
ANd Josephus had nothing BUT good things to say about Jesus too!
Josephus' wrote a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discuss John de Baptist, James, Jesus brother, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in the order in which they appear.
First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3
Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.
But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
He wreote nothing "unsavory nor did he even attempt at maligning Jesus' name. BUT, many scholars believe that the writing ascribed to Josephus about Jesus were later inserted to make Jesus look better and that Josephus NEVER truly wrote anything about him at all!
The Toldot Yeshu (Biography of Jesus) does describe Jesus as a bastard, and was written as a Jewish response to Christianity. It says Jesus was disrespectful, and a possible result of incest or prostitution.
It describes Jesus as a heretic a seducer and a magician!
Bredda, the Essenes were not anything like the Taliban or Al Qaeda..NUTTEN! They were pacifists, vegetarians, and did not fight anyone, they were peaceful monks!
Josephus write "that the Essenes faced death calmly and joyfully at the hands of the Romans, knowing their bodies shall decay and become dustthe souls are immortal, and shall live eternally. The Essenes, said Josephus, taught that in worldly existence, the soul is chained to the body like a prisoner to his cell, but when set free from the flesh, then already tasting heavenly bliss, it soars up to the bright kingdom of joy and peace.
Historical similarities abound that suggests that Jesus was indeed an Essene. The Essenes were not a new group, they existsed long before Jesus first appeared, however, the Bible only makes reference to Pharisees and Sadducees, not a single mention of the Essenes.
The way Jesus slammed both those groups clearly indicate that he was not either. De same man Josephus who you mentioned, and who lived right after Jesus was killed, wrote that there were but three Jewish sects in his day: the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes. Josephus actually spend time wiht teh Essenes in a monastery and compiled a detailed account of their doctrines and way of life... of which were quite similar to primitive Christianity.
New Testament scholars such as Bahrdt (1784-1792), Venturini (1800), Gfoerer (1831-38), Hennel (1840) and von der Alm (1863), have all suggested that Jesus may have been an Essene as well as modern Jewish theologian Martin Buber who also suggested dat Jesus may have been an Essene.
In fact the essenes called their settlements "Edah," the same name the first christians did call dem church! Dey had 12 men of Holiness, similar to the 12 disciples!
Then de Essenes and the early Christians referred to demselves as the poor in the world, the sons of light and the chosen of God who shall judge the nations at the end of time.
De first Christians called demselves the saints, the brethren, the elect, the believers, those in Messiah, those of the Lord, the sons of peace, the disciples and the poor.
De word most used to refer to Christians in the New Testament is brethren. The Manual of Discipline and other Essene texts, found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicate that they spoke of each other as brethren.
So maybe he was ah Essene? Besides Jesus was a radical.
-
so it is claimed that Mohammed slaughtered people, and we know that during the "Crusades" the christians slaughtered muslims, so may I ask a question
what do you think people will say about the USA's action in Iraq and Afghanistan in many years from now
-
No-one is against science ribbit....and no need to be disrespectful is big men talking here, is only u come in like a dummy with your comment.
this has nothing to do with someone or "no-one." science has raised the standard for evidence and inquiry, particularly with respect to language and what passes for meaningful communication. for religious texts, most of the "meaning" is in the mind of the reader due to the crude imprecise language and the extensive use of metaphor not to mention passages which contradict each other. religion's methods for extracting meaning out of transcribed hallucinations are decidedly against science.
-
No-one is against science ribbit....and no need to be disrespectful is big men talking here, is only u come in like a dummy with your comment.
this has nothing to do with someone or "no-one." science has raised the standard for evidence and inquiry, particularly with respect to language and what passes for meaningful communication. for religious texts, most of the "meaning" is in the mind of the reader due to the crude imprecise language and the extensive use of metaphor not to mention passages which contradict each other. religion's methods for extracting meaning out of transcribed hallucinations are decidedly against science.
transcribed hallucinations....lol classic!
-
The battle over homophobia in Africa
The National Post, Jan 12, 2010, RW Johnson
The arrest of a young Malawian male couple who had celebrated a gay marriage under the countrys draconian anti-gay laws they face a 14-year sentence with hard labour together with the introduction of an Anti-Homosexuality Bill in the Ugandan parliament that increases the penalty for homosexuality from the present seven years in jail to death by hanging, have triggered a major row over differing Western and African attitudes to gay groups. Both sides in this debate accuse the other of being driven or encouraged by external sources: Gay rights campaigners angrily accuse conservative American evangelists of encouraging homophobia, while the anti-gay side insists that homosexuality is only surfacing openly in Africa because of Western encouragement. Indeed, some argue that the current African rows over homosexuality are actually just a skirmish by proxies in the American cultural wars, with both evangelicals and gay rights groups in the U.S. pouring in money and support to each side.
Particular attention has fastened on to the visit to Uganda by three U.S. evangelicals, Scott Lively, Caleb Brundidge and Don Schmierer, who held a series of seminars and lectures attended by MPs and government officials where homosexuality was described as a disease which could be healed. As John Moore writes elsewhere on this page, shortly after the mens visit, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was introduced and, although the three men disclaim paternity for it, they are being widely blamed for encouraging it. Scott Lively, a Holocaust Revisionist and president of Defend the Family International, told Ugandans that legalizing homosexuality would mean legalizing the molestation of children and having sex with animals. Schmierer works with homosexual recovery groups, while Brundidge, who claims once to have been gay himself, works with the International Healing Foundation as a sexual reorientation coach. He also leads Christian groups to mortuaries where they attempt to raise the dead, though without notable success to date. Such conservative Christian groups exercised great influence under the George W. Bush administration and led Bush to pour millions of dollars into Africa, sponsoring sexual abstinence as a principal strategy against AIDS.
What is clear, however, is that they are preaching to the converted. President Yoweri Museveni has warned Ugandan youth that homosexuality is against Gods will and that European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa, while his Minister for Ethics and Integrity, Nsaba Buturo, says that homosexuality is a moral perversion that must not be allowed to spread. At the recent Commonwealth conference Museveni came under strong pressure from Britains Gordon Brown and Canadas Stephen Harper to modify the draconian Bill. As a result, Buturo is now talking of possibly reducing the penalty for homosexuality to life imprisonment, conceding that killing them might not be helpful. The Ugandan churches are themselves strongly homophobic indeed Archbishop Henry Orombi and Pastor Martin Sempe have been leading a campaign in support of the governments bill. Both men are associates of the American evangelist Rick Warren, another prominent anti-gay visitor to Uganda. Warren, pastor of the powerful Saddleback church Americas eighth biggest was invited by U.S. President Barack Obama to give the invocation at his inauguration and has been named by both Time and Newsweek as among their top 15 world leaders. His book, The Purpose Driven Life, has sold over 30 million copies and is much read in Uganda. Naturally, the Church of Uganda is vehemently against gay clergymen and when retired Bishop Christopher Senyonjo preached tolerance toward gays in 2005, Archbishop Orombi not only forbade him to preach but stripped him of his pension.
A somewhat similar pattern is found in Malawi. George Thindwa, director of the Association of Secular Humanism, who is attempting to assist the young gay couple now at the centre of a homophobic storm there, told me that the churches are definitely spearheading the anti-gay campaign here. He said that Malawi too was often visited by foreign evangelists, though he thought the local clergy needed little encouragement in their homophobia. Pastor Mario Manyozo of the Word of Life Tabernacle Church says that homosexuality is against Gods creation and is an evil act since gays are possessed with demons. Similar sentiments are echoed by most other churchmen, basing themselves on the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Indeed, Pastor Joseph Mbeme of the Ambassadors for Christ Church says that the Church must pray for homosexuality to be stamped out, otherwise the world cannot manage. Thindwa points out that 83% of Malawians are Christians and another 13% are Muslims and that Islamic law is even more furiously hostile to gays. Indeed, in Muslim northern Nigeria the penalty for homosexuality is being stoned to death. Throughout Africa one finds African men are often particularly incensed against lesbians and often dole out their remedy of socalled correctional rape.
However, Africans often claim that Western influence is encouraging homosexuality and many point to wealthy Westerners who visit Africa as sex tourists, practising pedophilia and recruiting gays. Beyond that, many insist that gay activists and Westerners in international organizations encourage gays to come out the incredulity of ordinary Malawians that, given the fierce anti-gay laws, a gay couple should openly celebrate a gay marriage has led many to suggest they must be mentally ill. Even African academics take this line. Dr. Peter Atekyereza, associate professor of sociology at Makerere University, Uganda, told me that external influence is definitely behind the spread of homosexuality, instancing international organizations dealing with AIDS, orphans and children who, he said, had been giving scholarships and hand-outs in an attempt to recruit young people to homosexuality. And, of course, it is true that gay activist groups in the West have rallied to the cause of Africas embattled gays. In Britain, Peter Tatchell of OutRage! is campaigning for their financial and moral support, while American gay groups have sent money to support gay rights activism in Africa. They also lobby the U.S. State Department to take a tough stance in favour of gay rights. Beyond that, many Africans echo Zimbabwes President Robert Mugabe who calls gays sexual perverts lower than dogs or pigs. Mugabe also claims homosexuality is unAfrican, advising, Leave whites to do that. Often this even leads to assertions that homosexuality never existed in Africa until it was imported by the white man. In fact, what all the sanctions against gays really seek to achieve is that gays should remain as secretive and furtive as they always were in the past. It is the Western push for open toleration of gays, and for gays to come out, that is really considered unacceptable.
In 2009, nine Senegalese gay activists were jailed for eight years because they had come out. This followed an International AIDS conference held in Senegal attended by 50 foreign gay activists who stressed the need for gays to be dealt with openly. The cause of the nine was energetically taken up not only by gay groups around the world but also by the UN Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. For, of course, such organizations are often staffed by Western liberals who are in favour of gay rights. And AIDS activists despair of dealing with the disease if gays cannot come out openly to be treated. The activists naturally seek help from foreign groups: When the Sunday Times spoke to Gift Trapence, the head of the Malawian Centre for the Development of People, which has taken a strong pro-gay position, he and his supporters were headed for a meeting with the local UN representative. Already last year Uganda expelled the local director of UN-AIDS for organizing a meeting with Ugandan gay activists.
The current imbroglio has only heightened this perception. The U.S. and Sweden, both major donors in Uganda, have threatened to cut off aid if the Anti-Homosexuality Bill there is not moderated. This produced an anguished editorial in the Uganda Record which accused the West of trying to bully Africans into homosexuality. To Africans this is an almost existential matter. Their very future as societies is at stake. Africa has, it argued, managed to accept tough IMF conditions but for the acceptance of homosexuality to be made part of the conditions for continued aid from the West seems a step beyond, which they cannot go ... they cannot bring themselves to accept that homosexuality is a modern, fully acceptable way of life.
-
Some members of this forum might even rejoice in the picture of the two boys about to be murdered. Sad
Christians used to go abroad to spread the good news of the saviour. Now a trio of American Evangelicals has been caught sowing the seeds of hatred in Africa. In the spring of last year Scott Lively, Caleb Brundidge and Don Schmierer travelled to Uganda a country already rife with legislative and social intolerance toward sexual difference in order to brief thinkers and law makers on the homosexual agenda. They spent three days explaining how the gay movement is an evil institution whose goal is to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity. Their meetings inspired a hard-line piece of legislation calling for gays to be jailed and executed.
(http://cache-thumb1.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/docserver/getimage.aspx?regionguid=44289ae7-6c43-43b9-9c5d-48bd9b545cc3&scale=129&file=10062010011200000000001001®ionKey=1JYzGb6Wbc%2fT628mZklEbQ%3d%3d)
Mahmud Asgari, 16, and Ayaz Marhoni, 18, were hanged in Iran on July 18, 2005, for homosexual activity.
Uganda wouldnt be the first country to execute homosexuals. The photograph accompanying this column shows two teenage boys hanged in Iran four years ago for homosexual activity. Ask yourself if these teens should be playing Wii in their parents basement or clerking at a video store rather than lying in their graves. It was only after putting them to death that the theocracy hastily juiced up their offence to rape.
To the disgrace of Western Christians the mainstream faith community has been slow in showing even a tepid interest in the Ugandan situation. Evangelical leaders ignored the issue until growing awareness made their silence an embarrassment. Even when their hands were forced, some engaged in the kind of equivocation that suggests that death may be a bit much, but those homos sure have something coming.
Now lets be clear about something: There are those who disapprove of homosexuality and seek to withhold societys sanction of it, while there are others who hate gays the way some hate Jews or ethnics. The problem is an overlapping cohort willing to play Pontius Pilate, allowing the haters a greater margin in the service of the common cause of containing homosexuality.
The scientific flim-flammery and intellectual claptrap that Lively, Brundidge and Schmierer preach is derided in the enlightened world, but like a rogue pharmaceutical company theyve succeeded in peddling it elsewhere.
Lively is noted for his pseudo-scholarship on homosexual history including the book The Pink Swastika in which he maintains that the leadership of the Nazi Party was gay. This, he contends, informed its militarism and inflamed its extremism. Apparently the foundations of Hitlers Germany were largely sound its just that the homosexuals had to go gay it up with added killing and mayhem.
Brundidge and Schmierer are part of the ex-gay movement which, in spite of ample research establishing that sexual orientation is innate and immutable, works to cure homosexuals. The movements success rate is a dismal affair producing awkward looking straight couples who dissemble like bad smugglers when asked if they still hanker for gay sex. Prominent ex-homosexuals are often spotted in gay bars but insist that much in the way Mahatma Gandhi used to bed down with virgins to establish his ascetic bona fides, they are simply testing their cure.
The problem for those who dont like homosexuality is that it used to be possible to keep gays and lesbians sidelined through the same collective endeavour that ensured post-emancipation blacks knew their place. Up until the 1970s most gays and lesbians kept their sexuality under wraps. They lived secretive, compartmentalized lives, obscuring their personal activities, likes and dislikes, vacation destinations and partners if they dared have one. Now gays and lesbians are so thoroughly ordinary that few kids think twice about the two women who live across the street and no amount of tut-tutting at the supermarket will get those two men to quit holding hands.
The last trench for those who yearn for the old days of the closet and marginalization is to prop up the crumbling opprobrium against homosexuality by breathing new life into old myths. Lively, Brundidge and Schmierer trade in the homosexual equivalent of the Jewish Blood Libel: the notion that gays recruit, spread disease, molest children and actively conspire against family and society.
Because the case cannot be established in the real world, the haters rely on the pseudo-science of disgraced psychologist Paul Cameron. Camerons insidious self-published studies claim the gay male life expectancy is 52 years, based on his culling of newspaper obituaries for the ages of deceased AIDS patients. He maintains that gays and lesbians live miserable solitary lives based on numbers collected in the 1960s when gays and lesbians lived miserable and solitary lives. Cameron has also cooked statistics to prove that gays form the majority of child molesters.
That people of faith traffic in Camerons junk science is enough of a violation of the commandment against false witness to warrant shame, but surely the failure of Western Christians to denounce the overt persecution of gays amounts to a mortal sin of omission.
Its time for good Christians to stand up and condemn those amongst them who actively or tacitly contribute to the promotion of hatred. Even if that means providing comfort to homosexuals. By their deeds you will know them.
National Post John.moore@newstalk1010.com John Moore is host of Moore in the Morning on NewsTalk 1010 Toronto. Outside of Southern Ontario he can be heard at newstalk1010.com.
-
yeah Pecan, ah pardna at work who is from Uganda says that it is Christians, specifically the Roman Catholic Church, who promoting all this
and the way they hanged those two boys goes against the geneva convention. There did not allow the bodies to drop far enough, therefore the boys suffered for many minutes before they died.
http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/07/19/2005-mahmoud-asgari-ayaz-marhoni-gay-teens-iran/
-
These posts should be in the More Christian love thread!
Man f**k religion!
-
These posts should be in the More Christian love thread!
Man f**k religion!
Politics and religion is a deadly combination.
I am almost convinced that anytime yuh see a politician informed or guided by his religious convictions nothing good could ever come from it in the long run.
-
Yuh know what's funny? there's nothing in the quran that support capital punishment for homosexuality!! there's also capital punishment for apostates, and adulterers, when it clearly states in the quran there's no compultion in religion, the wrong way is distinct from error, scold the adulterers and the adulterest with 100 lashes, not death!
these old hard liners really achieve their goals by mashing up the islamic religion
-
Some members of this forum might even rejoice in the picture of the two boys about to be murdered. Sad
Christians used to go abroad to spread the good news of the saviour. Now a trio of American Evangelicals has been caught sowing the seeds of hatred in Africa. In the spring of last year Scott Lively, Caleb Brundidge and Don Schmierer travelled to Uganda a country already rife with legislative and social intolerance toward sexual difference in order to brief thinkers and law makers on the homosexual agenda. They spent three days explaining how the gay movement is an evil institution whose goal is to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity. Their meetings inspired a hard-line piece of legislation calling for gays to be jailed and executed.
(http://cache-thumb1.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/docserver/getimage.aspx?regionguid=44289ae7-6c43-43b9-9c5d-48bd9b545cc3&scale=129&file=10062010011200000000001001®ionKey=1JYzGb6Wbc%2fT628mZklEbQ%3d%3d)
Mahmud Asgari, 16, and Ayaz Marhoni, 18, were hanged in Iran on July 18, 2005, for homosexual activity.
Uganda wouldnt be the first country to execute homosexuals. The photograph accompanying this column shows two teenage boys hanged in Iran four years ago for homosexual activity. Ask yourself if these teens should be playing Wii in their parents basement or clerking at a video store rather than lying in their graves. It was only after putting them to death that the theocracy hastily juiced up their offence to rape.
To the disgrace of Western Christians the mainstream faith community has been slow in showing even a tepid interest in the Ugandan situation. Evangelical leaders ignored the issue until growing awareness made their silence an embarrassment. Even when their hands were forced, some engaged in the kind of equivocation that suggests that death may be a bit much, but those homos sure have something coming.
Now lets be clear about something: There are those who disapprove of homosexuality and seek to withhold societys sanction of it, while there are others who hate gays the way some hate Jews or ethnics. The problem is an overlapping cohort willing to play Pontius Pilate, allowing the haters a greater margin in the service of the common cause of containing homosexuality.
The scientific flim-flammery and intellectual claptrap that Lively, Brundidge and Schmierer preach is derided in the enlightened world, but like a rogue pharmaceutical company theyve succeeded in peddling it elsewhere.
Lively is noted for his pseudo-scholarship on homosexual history including the book The Pink Swastika in which he maintains that the leadership of the Nazi Party was gay. This, he contends, informed its militarism and inflamed its extremism. Apparently the foundations of Hitlers Germany were largely sound its just that the homosexuals had to go gay it up with added killing and mayhem.
Brundidge and Schmierer are part of the ex-gay movement which, in spite of ample research establishing that sexual orientation is innate and immutable, works to cure homosexuals. The movements success rate is a dismal affair producing awkward looking straight couples who dissemble like bad smugglers when asked if they still hanker for gay sex. Prominent ex-homosexuals are often spotted in gay bars but insist that much in the way Mahatma Gandhi used to bed down with virgins to establish his ascetic bona fides, they are simply testing their cure.
The problem for those who dont like homosexuality is that it used to be possible to keep gays and lesbians sidelined through the same collective endeavour that ensured post-emancipation blacks knew their place. Up until the 1970s most gays and lesbians kept their sexuality under wraps. They lived secretive, compartmentalized lives, obscuring their personal activities, likes and dislikes, vacation destinations and partners if they dared have one. Now gays and lesbians are so thoroughly ordinary that few kids think twice about the two women who live across the street and no amount of tut-tutting at the supermarket will get those two men to quit holding hands.
The last trench for those who yearn for the old days of the closet and marginalization is to prop up the crumbling opprobrium against homosexuality by breathing new life into old myths. Lively, Brundidge and Schmierer trade in the homosexual equivalent of the Jewish Blood Libel: the notion that gays recruit, spread disease, molest children and actively conspire against family and society.
Because the case cannot be established in the real world, the haters rely on the pseudo-science of disgraced psychologist Paul Cameron. Camerons insidious self-published studies claim the gay male life expectancy is 52 years, based on his culling of newspaper obituaries for the ages of deceased AIDS patients. He maintains that gays and lesbians live miserable solitary lives based on numbers collected in the 1960s when gays and lesbians lived miserable and solitary lives. Cameron has also cooked statistics to prove that gays form the majority of child molesters.
That people of faith traffic in Camerons junk science is enough of a violation of the commandment against false witness to warrant shame, but surely the failure of Western Christians to denounce the overt persecution of gays amounts to a mortal sin of omission.
Its time for good Christians to stand up and condemn those amongst them who actively or tacitly contribute to the promotion of hatred. Even if that means providing comfort to homosexuals. By their deeds you will know them.
National Post John.moore@newstalk1010.com John Moore is host of Moore in the Morning on NewsTalk 1010 Toronto. Outside of Southern Ontario he can be heard at newstalk1010.com.
Biased, bullshit article. The same three American evangelicals have said they had no idea that their statements would be used to persecute Ugandan gays and they have spoken out against the draconian laws being drafted in the wake of their visit. But why mention that when anti-American, anti-Christian jingoism sells more press?
Btw... research has established that homosexuality is immutable? Research hasn't "established" anything by way of gender orientation... their are only correlational suggestions.
-
Making statements that are reckless and bigoted, true they did not say to anyone kill the homos, butreckless, feckless and non-christian anyway.
-
Making statements that are reckless and bigoted, true they did not say to anyone kill the homos, butreckless, feckless and non-christian anyway.
Do you have anything to substantiate the "reckless" and "non-christian" charges... I mean, other than the fact that you disagree with them?
-
Is it christian to call gays Nazis? To write a book about it disparaging gays with vitriol?
discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how the gay movement is an evil institution whose goal is to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.
[/b]
There is also some evidence that they are behind the recent turmoil as far as it relates to gays in Uganda.
See this NY Times report
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes
Americans Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
Published: January 3, 2010
KAMPALA, Uganda Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about curing homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Ugandas capital to give a series of talks.
"I don't think any of them were duped by those in Uganda. When you preach a gospel of hatred do you expect love to blossom?"
Daniel, Washington
The theme of the event, according to Stephen Langa, its Ugandan organizer, was the gay agenda that whole hidden and dark agenda and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family.
For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how the gay movement is an evil institution whose goal is to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.
Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive, saying they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger that could lead to what came next: a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior.
One month after the conference, a previously unknown Ugandan politician, who boasts of having evangelical friends in the American government, introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, which threatens to hang homosexuals, and, as a result, has put Uganda on a collision course with Western nations.
Donor countries, including the United States, are demanding that Ugandas government drop the proposed law, saying it violates human rights, though Ugandas minister of ethics and integrity (who previously tried to ban miniskirts) recently said, Homosexuals can forget about human rights.
The Ugandan government, facing the prospect of losing millions in foreign aid, is now indicating that it will back down, slightly, and change the death penalty provision to life in prison for some homosexuals. But the battle is far from over.
Instead, Uganda seems to have become a far-flung front line in the American culture wars, with American groups on both sides, the Christian right and gay activists, pouring in support and money as they get involved in the broader debate over homosexuality in Africa.
Its a fight for their lives, said Mai Kiang, a director at the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, a New York-based group that has channeled nearly $75,000 to Ugandan gay rights activists and expects that amount to grow.
The three Americans who spoke at the conference Scott Lively, a missionary who has written several books against homosexuality, including 7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-described former gay man who leads healing seminars; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, whose mission is mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality are now trying to distance themselves from the bill.
I feel duped, Mr. Schmierer said, arguing that he had been invited to speak on parenting skills for families with gay children. He acknowledged telling audiences how homosexuals could be converted into heterosexuals, but he said he had no idea some Ugandans were contemplating the death penalty for homosexuality.
Thats horrible, absolutely horrible, he said. Some of the nicest people I have ever met are gay people.
Mr. Lively and Mr. Brundidge have made similar remarks in interviews or statements issued by their organizations. But the Ugandan organizers of the conference admit helping draft the bill, and Mr. Lively has acknowledged meeting with Ugandan lawmakers to discuss it. He even wrote on his blog in March that someone had likened their campaign to a nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda. Later, when confronted with criticism, Mr. Lively said he was very disappointed that the legislation was so harsh.
Human rights advocates in Uganda say the visit by the three Americans helped set in motion what could be a very dangerous cycle. Gay Ugandans already describe a world of beatings, blackmail, death threats like Die Sodomite! scrawled on their homes, constant harassment and even so-called correctional rape.
Now we really have to go undercover, said Stosh Mugisha, a gay rights activist who said she was pinned down in a guava orchard and raped by a farmhand who wanted to cure her of her attraction to girls. She said that she was impregnated and infected with H.I.V., but that her grandmothers reaction was simply, You are too stubborn.
Despite such attacks, many gay men and lesbians here said things had been getting better for them before the bill, at least enough to hold news conferences and publicly advocate for their rights. Now they worry that the bill could encourage lynchings. Already, mobs beat people to death for infractions as minor as stealing shoes.
What these people have done is set the fire they cant quench, said the Rev. Kapya Kaoma, a Zambian who went undercover for six months to chronicle the relationship between the African anti-homosexual movement and American evangelicals.
Mr. Kaoma was at the conference and said that the three Americans underestimated the homophobia in Uganda and what it means to Africans when you speak about a certain group trying to destroy their children and their families.
When you speak like that, he said, Africans will fight to the death.
Uganda is an exceptionally lush, mostly rural country where conservative Christian groups wield enormous influence. This is, after all, the land of proposed virginity scholarships, songs about Jesus playing in the airport, Uganda is Blessed bumper stickers on Parliament office doors and a suggestion by the presidents wife that a virginity census could be a way to fight AIDS.
During the Bush administration, American officials praised Ugandas family-values policies and steered millions of dollars into abstinence programs.
Uganda has also become a magnet for American evangelical groups. Some of the best known Christian personalities have recently passed through here, often bringing with them anti-homosexuality messages, including the Rev. Rick Warren, who visited in 2008 and has compared homosexuality to pedophilia. (Mr. Warren recently condemned the anti-homosexuality bill, seeking to correct what he called lies and errors and false reports that he played a role in it.)
Many Africans view homosexuality as an immoral Western import, and the continent is full of harsh homophobic laws. In northern Nigeria, gay men can face death by stoning. Beyond Africa, a handful of Muslim countries, like Iran and Yemen, also have the death penalty for homosexuals. But many Ugandans said they thought that was going too far. A few even spoke out in support of gay people.
I can defend them, said Haj Medih, a Muslim taxi driver with many homosexual customers. But I fear the what? The police, the government. They can arrest you and put you in the safe house, and for me, I dont have any lawyer who can help me.
-
KoraN AND HOMOSEXUALITY:
SURA IV: 19-21
19. But whoso rebels against God and His Apostle, and transgresses His bounds, He will make him enter into fire, and dwell therein for aye; and for him is shameful woe.
20. Against those of your women who commit adultery, call witnesses four in number from among yourselves; and if these bear witness, then keep the women in houses until death release them, or God shall make for them a way.
21. And if two (men) of you commit it, then hurt them both; but if they turn again and amend, leave them alone, verily, God is easily turned, compassionate.
SURA VII: 78-84 [On Lot at Sodom]
78. Then the earthquake took them, and in the morning they lay prone in their dwellings;
79. and he turned away from them and said, 'O my people! I did preach to you the message of my Lord, and I gave you good advice; but ye love not sincere advisers.'
80. And Lot, when he said to his people, 'Do ye approach an abomination which no one in all the world ever anticipated you in?
81. verily, ye approach men with lust rather than women- nay, ye are a people who exceed.'
82.But his people's answer only was to say, 'Turn them out of your village, verily, they are a people who pretend to purity.'
83. But we saved him and his people, except his wife, who was of those who lingered;
84. and we rained down upon them a rain;- see then how was the end of the sinners!
SURA XI: 77-84 [On Lot at Sodom]
77. And when our messengers came to Lot, he was grieved for them; but his arm was straitened for them, and he said, 'This is a troublesome day!'
78. And his people came to him, rushing at him, for before that they used to work evil. He 'Said, 'O my people! here are my daughters, they are purer for you; then, fear God, and do not disgrace me through my guests;- is there not among you one right-thinking man?'
79. They said, 'Thou knowest that we have no claim on thy daughters; verily, thou knowest what we want!'
80. He said, 'Had I but power over you; or could I but resort to some strong column....!'
81. (The angels) said, 'O Lot! verily, we are the messengers of thy Lord, they shall certainly not reach thee; then travel with thy people in the darkness of the night, and let none of you look round except thy wife: verily, there shall befall her what befalls them. Verily, their appointment is for the morning! and is not the morning nigh?'
82. And when our bidding came, we made their high parts their low parts. And we rained down upon them stones and baked clay one after another,
83. marked, from thy Lord, and these are not so far from the unjust!
84. And unto Midian (we sent) their brother Sho'haib. He said, 'O my people! serve God; ye have no god but Him, and give not short measure and weight. Verily, 'I see you well off; but, verily, I fear for you the torments of an encompassing day.
SURA XXVI: 160-174 [On Lot and Sodom]
160. The people of Lot called the apostles liars;
161 when their brother Lot said to them, 'Do ye not fear?
162. verily, I am to you a faithful apostle;
163. then fear God and obey me.
164 I do not ask you for it any hire; my hire is only with the Lord of the worlds.
165 Do ye approach males of all the world
166 and leave what God your Lord has created for you of your wives? nay, but ye are people who transgress!'
167 They said, 'Surely, if thou dost not desist, O Lot! thou shalt be of those who are expelled!'
168 Said he, 'Verily, I am of those who hate your deed;
169 my Lord! save me and my people from what they do.'
170 And we saved him and his people all together,
171 except an old woman amongst those who lingered.
172 Then we destroyed the others;
173 and we rained down upon them a rain; and evil was the rain of those who were warned.
174 Verily, in that is a sign; but most of them will never be believers.
175 And, verily, thy Lord He is mighty, merciful, compassionate.
SURA XXIX: 28-35 [On Lot and Sodom]
28. And (remmber) Lot when he said to his people, 'Verily, ye approach an abomination which no one in all the world ever anticipated you in!
29. What! do ye approach men? (or Do you commit sexual acts with men?) and stop folks on the highway? And approach in your assembly sin?' but the answer of his people was only to say, 'Bring us God's torment, if thou art of those who speak the truth!'
30. Said he, 'My Lord! help me against a people who do evil!'
31. And when our messengers came to Abraham with the glad tidings, they said, 'We are about to destroy the people of this city. Verily, the people thereof are wrong-doers.'
32. Said he, 'Verily, in it is Lot; they said, 'We know best who is therein; we shall of a surety save him and his people, except his wife, who is of those who linger.'
33. And when our messengers came to Lot, he was vexed for them, and his arm was straitened for them; and they said, 'Fear not, neither grieve; we are about to save thee and thy people, except thy wife, who is of those who linger.
34. Verily, we are about to send down upon the people of this city a horror from heaven, for that they have sinned;
35. and we have left therefrom a manifest sign unto a people who have sense.'
ON THE OTHER HAND
Although the Qu'ran does not have verse explicitly in favor of homosexuality, it does have verses which show awareness of male beauty. These are promises made to Muslim men who make it to Heaven.
SURA LII:24
"And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls."
SURA LXXVI:19
"They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders."
-
http://users.drew.edu/rrowley/IslamPerspective.htm
koran SAYS HOMOS MUST BE PUNISHED but NOT WITH DEATH, mOHAMMAD SAYS THEY CAN REPENT AS gOD FORGIVES AND IS COMPASSIONATE
-
Biased, bullshit article. The same three American evangelicals have said they had no idea that their statements would be used to persecute Ugandan gays and they have spoken out against the draconian laws being drafted in the wake of their visit. But why mention that when anti-American, anti-Christian jingoism sells more press?
Btw... research has established that homosexuality is immutable? Research hasn't "established" anything by way of gender orientation... their are only correlational suggestions.
Wouldn't it be in their best interests to claim ignorance? Also I don't see an anti-american agenda since this has been covered a lot in the American press, as the article quoted by Truetrini shows. I wouldn't even call it anti-Christian since there is very little that is Christian about their anti-gay agenda.
These guys present themselves as "experts" on homosexuality and then promote a gay-hate agenda in a country where homophobia is rampant.
The legislation was going strong until news of hit the Rachel Maddow show and liberal blogs back in November. Lively and company only distanced themselves from the Ugandan Minister of Ethics and Integrity after repeatedly being blown up in the news and after repeated calls to comment on the legislation. Subsequently the Ugandan President pulled himself back from the legislation as well.
-
Is it christian to call gays Nazis? To write a book about it disparaging gays with vitriol? discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how the gay movement is an evil institution whose goal is to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.
Is it "un-christian" based on anything other than your opinion? I'm still waiting to hear how it's "reckless" also. And btw, you're not showing me anything new, I read that NYT article last week which is why I said they had condemned the proposed legislation in Uganda.
-
Wouldn't it be in their best interests to claim ignorance?
Whether it is or isn't against their interest to "claim ignorance" is besides the point, let's try to stay focused here. The article clearly states that there is silence from American Evangelicals condemning the purported support of the three Evangelicals named, for the anti-gay legislation in Uganda. The very fact that the three men in question, themselves have denounced the legislation and any support imputed to them, refutes that unsubstantiated charge.
Also I don't see an anti-american agenda since this has been covered a lot in the American press, as the article quoted by Truetrini shows.
As i said to Trinity Cross... I'm well aware of the NYT article. It's a bit silly to suggest that my "anti-American" charge is based solely on the fact that the source is Canadian, don't you think? I'm well aware of the fact that it was covered in the American press... but the American press didn't make it a point to harp as much on the fact that the men were American (completely incidental to issue), nor did they make the erroneous claim that American Evangelicals were not speaking up against it. The author didn't see it fit to denounce the evangelicals in question, but he extended that criticism to "American Evangelicals"... or did you miss that? At any rate it's an opinion, you don't have to agree with it.
I wouldn't even call it anti-Christian since there is very little that is Christian about their anti-gay agenda.
As I asked Trinity Cross... do you have anything other than your opinion to support the charge that it's anti-Christian? Where in the bible does it say that you cannot hate the gay lifestyle or try and convert gays to heterosexuality? Of course if all you're offerin is "opinion" then as above, we can agree to disagree and move on
These guys present themselves as "experts" on homosexuality and then promote a gay-hate agenda in a country where homophobia is rampant.
"gay hate" you say? They preach that homosexuality is wrong and sinful and you equate that with "gay-hate"... a bit over-the-top, no? At least when I charge the author with "anti-American" animus I can point to some tangible evidence over which reasonable minds could differ.
The legislation was going strong until news of hit the Rachel Maddow show and liberal blogs back in November. Lively and company only distanced themselves from the Ugandan Minister of Ethics and Integrity after repeatedly being blown up in the news and after repeated calls to comment on the legislation. Subsequently the Ugandan President pulled himself back from the legislation as well.
Unless you're offering this as an aside to my comment, none of this really means anything... again, you can question their motive or the sincerity of their statements made denouncing the legislation, but the fact remains that quite contrary to the biased charges made in the article, they have spoken out against the proposed Ugandan action.
-
They also stated theat gays went around raping young boys.
It is also easy to distance themselves after the torrent of criticism they have faced since Mr. Lively and Mr. Brundidge have made similar remarks in interviews or statements issued by their organizations. But the Ugandan organizers of the conference admit helping draft the bill, and Mr. Lively has acknowledged meeting with Ugandan lawmakers to discuss it. He even wrote on his blog in March that someone had likened their campaign to a nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda. Later, when confronted with criticism, Mr. Lively said he was very disappointed that the legislation was so harsh.
The old Testament is replete with verses condoning death to homosexuals. The New Testament does not endorse or recommend death to homos.
The fact that Christianity is based on teachings of both the old and new Tests. but more on the New Testament shows that it is anti christian.
Jesus himself asked us not to judge lest we be judged. He exhorted his followers to turn the other cheek and was known to consort with tax collectors (most hated) prostitutes and others on the fringes of society.
The New Testament does say that gays will not enter heaven and that homosexuality is sinful...but these men went there to speak specifically about "family values and the bulk of their talk centered around the ills of homosexuality, how homos were raping little boys and essentially equating homosexuality to pedophilia.
-
Whether it is or isn't against their interest to "claim ignorance" is besides the point, let's try to stay focused here. The article clearly states that there is silence from American Evangelicals condemning the purported support of the three Evangelicals named, for the anti-gay legislation in Uganda. The very fact that the three men in question, themselves have denounced the legislation and any support imputed to them, refutes that unsubstantiated charge.
Well it was never my intention to defend the article, but that isn't what the article says. It clearly says that they have been silent UNTIL growing awareness made their silence an embarrassment. The article did not detail their denouncement of the legislation but it did describe it as hardly being unequivocal, which is accurate.
As i said to Trinity Cross... I'm well aware of the NYT article. It's a bit silly to suggest that my "anti-American" charge is based solely on the fact that the source is Canadian, don't you think? I'm well aware of the fact that it was covered in the American press... but the American press didn't make it a point to harp as much on the fact that the men were American (completely incidental to issue), nor did they make the erroneous claim that American Evangelicals were not speaking up against it. The author didn't see it fit to denounce the evangelicals in question, but he extended that criticism to "American Evangelicals"... or did you miss that? At any rate it's an opinion, you don't have to agree with it.
I beg to differ and i have to wonder if we reading the same article. The Canadian article refers to "American Evangelicals" once. The NYT article does it 3 times in additon to the title. Which was harping on the Nationality issue? Also every time it was presented on American televison the fact that the evangelicals were American was stressed because the point was to make it known that these evangelicals were having influence in legislation of a foreign country that is abhorrent to the American public.
As I asked Trinity Cross... do you have anything other than your opinion to support the charge that it's anti-Christian? Where in the bible does it say that you cannot hate the gay lifestyle or try and convert gays to heterosexuality? Of course if all you're offerin is "opinion" then as above, we can agree to disagree and move on
I am not a Bible scholar but I do believe that once we start looking there for support of anything it can only be opinion since the book contradicts itself over and over. I would simply refer to the passages where Jesus showed acceptance to all, saints and sinners alike. But as I said debating this is would be an especially futile excercise.
"gay hate" you say? They preach that homosexuality is wrong and sinful and you equate that with "gay-hate"... a bit over-the-top, no? At least when I charge the author with "anti-American" animus I can point to some tangible evidence over which reasonable minds could differ.
That is not the sum of what they teach. They teach, as fact, that the common denominator among the NAZI hierarchy that fueled their murderous excesses was that they were super macho gays. The inference is clearly to demonize gays. He also characterizes male homosexuality as being primarily between "adult to children". Equating gays with butchers and paedophiles with intellectually false arguments is gay-hate.
Unless you're offering this as an aside to my comment, none of this really means anything... again, you can question their motive or the sincerity of their statements made denouncing the legislation, but the fact remains that quite contrary to the biased charges made in the article, they have spoken out against the proposed Ugandan action.
It isn't though. I hadn't read the article originally but on reading it it describes the situation accurately. They had no objection to the legislation until repeated public calls were made. Once that happened they broke their silence. The article describes that sequence accurately. That the article has a bias is clear. The author is highlighting what he believes is a human injustice inspired by these evangelicals and he has clearly taken a side. But the author having an opinion does not automatically make it BS. More importantly the author asks a good question. Do good christians have a responsibility to condemn those mong them who promote hate?
-
http://users.drew.edu/rrowley/IslamPerspective.htm
koran SAYS HOMOS MUST BE PUNISHED but NOT WITH DEATH, mOHAMMAD SAYS THEY CAN REPENT AS gOD FORGIVES AND IS COMPASSIONATE
Breds, yuh see why we does get into it? that's BC of the little interjections that have nothing to do with the script. no where in the quran that says these little boys are for the muslim men, there was no gender specification relating to that verse.
it says= in sura Al Tur( the mountain) 24 verse, and round them go boys of theirs as if they were hidden pearls. if yuh read the previous verse yuh would see these boys are servants serving up a liqur drink.
there was no specifics on who they were for, male or female, the critical word that was used was THEIRS and not muslim men!
as for the ppl of lut, they were not homosexuals, but rather straight men who engaged in anal sex=(sura 26: 165- 166. do you come onto males from among the creatures, and leave your wives whom your lord has created for you? nay you are a ppl exceeding limits.
they also robbed caravans on the trade routes, they made humans sacrifices, and killed ppl for fun ( . it was ah very wicked city. sura 29: v 28- 29, and we sent lut when he said to his ppl: surely you are guilty of an abomination which none of the nations have done before you. do you come to males and commit robbery on the highway and commit evil deeds in your assemblies?) when the angels came to abraham, he ask them what was their business, they said , we were sent to guilty folk( mujrimeen- meaning a evil bad wicked ppl).
-
Scott Lively on CBC - The Current
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/current_20100113_25752.mp3
-
straight men do NOT engage in anal sex with other men...except if dey name is Just Cool I guess...steups.
-
straight men do NOT engage in anal sex with other men...except if dey name is Just Cool I guess...steups.
Just ask yuh fardder, after all he went wid yuh mammy! and yuh dun know the apple don't fall far from the tree. :devil:
-
Morality have nutten to do with God, it is societal.
That's a big statement- I'd like to hear how you disentangle societal from God. I'm not saying that God & Religion are the way to go, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to meaningfully engage in the science vs religion argument, but I can offer this- If you can separate "society" as a collective from God & religion, then yuh know something that no one else does. The two are so intertwined through the course of history that even so-called non believers embrace a standard of morality that is grounded in religious teachings. To say that something has nothing to do with God, and at the same that it's societal is a very very big statement. I'd like to hear how you explain that one.
-
Morality have nutten to do with God, it is societal.
That's a big statement- I'd like to hear how you disentangle societal from God. I'm not saying that God & Religion are the way to go, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to meaningfully engage in the science vs religion argument, but I can offer this- If you can separate "society" as a collective from God & religion, then yuh know something that no one else does. The two are so intertwined through the course of history that even so-called non believers embrace a standard of morality that is grounded in religious teachings. To say that something has nothing to do with God, and at the same that it's societal is a very very big statement. I'd like to hear how you explain that one.
Actually if you truly don't believe in God then it might be easy to do. You combined God and religion as one and the same when TT only referred to God.
If you don't believe in God then the construct that is intertwined with morality is only religion. But if you don't believe in God then you accept religion is just a man-made, not divinely-inspired, construct. A societal construct that helps a community grow by "keeping everybody in line" with common-sense rules like "not taking your neighbours' wife", "respecting your elders" and "not stealing and killing" (from those within your own community, everyone else be damned). No society could thrive with that anarchic lack of morality. I think that if that is your Godless concept of religion then Morality is entirely societal.
-
Morality have nutten to do with God, it is societal.
That's a big statement- I'd like to hear how you disentangle societal from God. I'm not saying that God & Religion are the way to go, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to meaningfully engage in the science vs religion argument, but I can offer this- If you can separate "society" as a collective from God & religion, then yuh know something that no one else does. The two are so intertwined through the course of history that even so-called non believers embrace a standard of morality that is grounded in religious teachings. To say that something has nothing to do with God, and at the same that it's societal is a very very big statement. I'd like to hear how you explain that one.
Actually if you truly don't believe in God then it might be easy to do. You combined God and religion as one and the same when TT only referred to God.
If you don't believe in God then the construct that is intertwined with morality is only religion. But if you don't believe in God then you accept religion is just a man-made, not divinely-inspired, construct. A societal construct that helps a community grow by "keeping everybody in line" with common-sense rules like "not taking your neighbours' wife", "respecting your elders" and "not stealing and killing" (from those within your own community, everyone else be damned). No society could thrive with that anarchic lack of morality. I think that if that is your Godless concept of religion then Morality is entirely societal.
I didn't combine God & Religion as one in the same. Religion as we know it ("as we know it" being the key qualifier) would not exist without the belief in some sort of God (even if you don't believe in God yourself, you'd have to concede that that is a reasonable assertion).
A true non believer could believe or not believe whatever he/she wants... The fact is that same non believer not only exists in a world that consists of believers but is very likely a product of a society heavily influenced by believers, and as such is him/herself also influenced....
The idea of morality you mention which is necessary for any society to exist is rooted in the fundamentals of religious teaching. Religious teachings are based upon a belief in some kind of God.
Try as you may, I truly doubt that anyone can separate society (as we term it today) from God.
I imagine that if a 100% "non believer" were to question the root of his/her moral conscience, he/she would have to credit at least some part of it to something that was taught to him/her....the further back you trace the roots of what was taught by way of morals, at some point I believe you will run into some form of religious teaching...the root of which was/is a belief in God.
Religion (and by extension God) are intertwined in pretty much everything we combine under the broad umbrella of modern day society....Systems of government, education, business ethics, music and culture...even the roots of the study of science....the list goes on. Religious teachings (rooted in a belief in some kind of God) are so old, powerful and widespread that it's tough to imagine what the world would be like without it.
In my opinion, to say that morality has nothing (note that nothing means 0%) to do with God...then follow it up with "it's societal" is a self-contradiction in the world we live in today.
-
Actually, there were standards of behavior long before religion!
Time is short now, but will re-visit. And I can show where much of the Judeao/Christian views on morality were borrowed and co-opted.
-
And I can show where much of the Judeao/Christian views on morality were borrowed and co-opted.
42 Principles of Ma'at (http://www.perankhgroup.com/42%20commandments.htm)
-
Actually, there were standards of behavior long before religion!
Time is short now, but will re-visit. And I can show where much of the Judeao/Christian views on morality were borrowed and co-opted.
Fair enough
I will not be able to refute that... but it doesn't deny the influence that religious teachings have had on moral standards in today's society....whether or it originated them.
remember you said that morality has nothing (0%) to do with God....it's societal. If you could convincingly and completely separate the two, (God being a belief "marketed" through various religious teachings), and society being the construct in which we exist today.....then more power to you. I'm all ears.
-
dem biologists that watch chimpanzees and monkeys observe behaviour similar to the golden rule. i guess de monkeys believe in God as well.
-
Actually, there were standards of behavior long before religion!
Time is short now, but will re-visit. And I can show where much of the Judeao/Christian views on morality were borrowed and co-opted.
Fair enough
I will not be able to refute that... but it doesn't deny the influence that religious teachings have had on moral standards in today's society....whether or it originated them.
remember you said that morality has nothing (0%) to do with God....it's societal. If you could convincingly and completely separate the two, (God being a belief "marketed" through various religious teachings), and society being the construct in which we exist today.....then more power to you. I'm all ears.
He can't! BC it's undeniable! regardless of what. don't just focus on judeo, cristianity, or the other abrahamic faiths, they are late late comers to the religious fraternity.
there were tons of religions that date way back to the inception of mankind, way before abraham's time! the sumerians which is on record the oldest civilization had ah strong concept of god or gods, and they had the hammurabi codes which is embroided in religious morality.
-
dem biologists that watch chimpanzees and monkeys observe behaviour similar to the golden rule. i guess de monkeys believe in God as well.
Like you competing for the title of the most dotish nonsensical statements made or what?? we all know that animals function by instinct and not reason.
they don't have the capability to construct social laws and precepts, it's all innate, and that's also a strong case for intelligent design, BC there's no way they could contruct and legislate through reasoning of their own.
and BTW, it do have religions that support the concept that the whole creation worships their creator in their own unique way.
-
dem biologists that watch chimpanzees and monkeys observe behaviour similar to the golden rule. i guess de monkeys believe in God as well.
Could it be that humans and animals derive behavioral motivations from different places...possible? Or are you saying that observations in monkeys fully explain human motivations?
Like I say, I know not nearly enough to take one side over the other and put my head on an eternal block. But I find it interesting that in debates like this either side displays an equal level of close mindedness. Neither will admit the possibility of being wrong- it's a level of arrogance that's pretty laughable....
-
dem biologists that watch chimpanzees and monkeys observe behaviour similar to the golden rule. i guess de monkeys believe in God as well.
Could it be that humans and animals derive behavioral motivations from different places...possible? Or are you saying that observations in monkeys fully explain human motivations?
Like I say, I know not nearly enough to take one side over the other and put my head on an eternal block. But I find it interesting that in debates like this either side displays an equal level of close mindedness. Neither will admit the possibility of being wrong- it's a level of arrogance that's pretty laughable....
:beermug: :beermug: :beermug: :beermug:
-
Morality has an obvious evolutionary basis. Natural selection would favor those that act together over those who act selfishly. Its called reciprocal altruism. There are many example of this in the natural world. Wolf packs and insect colonies show this to be true. From this, our ancestors developed complex societies whereby these basic tendencies evolve (socially) into what we know now as morals.
-
dem biologists that watch chimpanzees and monkeys observe behaviour similar to the golden rule. i guess de monkeys believe in God as well.
Could it be that humans and animals derive behavioral motivations from different places...possible?
sound like what cruise and travolta believe. dey say human origins are extraterrestrial.
Or are you saying that observations in monkeys fully explain human motivations?
this is better developed by richard dawkins. i eh no expert. besides, this been discussed to death in other threads.
Like I say, I know not nearly enough to take one side over the other and put my head on an eternal block. But I find it interesting that in debates like this either side displays an equal level of close mindedness. Neither will admit the possibility of being wrong- it's a level of arrogance that's pretty laughable....
:yawning: :sleepy:
-
dem biologists that watch chimpanzees and monkeys observe behaviour similar to the golden rule. i guess de monkeys believe in God as well.
Could it be that humans and animals derive behavioral motivations from different places...possible?
sound like what cruise and travolta believe. dey say human origins are extraterrestrial.
Or are you saying that observations in monkeys fully explain human motivations?
this is better developed by richard dawkins. i eh no expert. besides, this been discussed to death in other threads.
Like I say, I know not nearly enough to take one side over the other and put my head on an eternal block. But I find it interesting that in debates like this either side displays an equal level of close mindedness. Neither will admit the possibility of being wrong- it's a level of arrogance that's pretty laughable....
:yawning: :sleepy:
Talk about the ultimate sh!tsnake bias a$$ neo darwinist evolutionist! that man went on the o reily factor and admitt that "we don't have all the answers" but yuh want to quote him as some authoritative figure??
bottom line, all the non believers doing is guessing, at least the believers have some sort of warrant" as in the text, whether it's bible, quran , sanskrit, torah, book of the dead, gita,satanic bible whatever", but all these evolutionist doing is hypothesizing and theorizing and want ppl tuh drop they belief for ah bunch ah ifs and maybes!
if they have the truth as they say and want ppl tuh follow then bring something CONCRETE! AND MAYBE THEN PPL WOULD HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO SURENDER AND GIVE IN! but all they doing is guessing and guessing, wake meh up when allyuh find the truth! ssttuueeepppssssssss!!!!!!!!!
-
Just Cool, it is not the non-believers who want people to drop their faith and beliefs.
Rather it is the believers who try to make believers out of us!
We have no churches, no religion, no evangelists, no crusades. Just science that makes lives better and longer.
-
Just Cool, it is not the non-believers who want people to drop their faith and beliefs.
Rather it is the believers who try to make believers out of us!
We have no churches, no religion, no evangelists, no crusades. Just science that makes lives better and longer.
That's simply not true! most of what you believe is not scientifically proven. as a matter of fact, most of the earlier scientists who got the ball rolling came from the religious community.
the moors, Phoenicians, ancient egyptians, sumerians were all great civilizations that spear headed scientific advancements that still benefit us today and they were well immersed in spiritual belief.
it is a well known fact that in the dark ages bagdad was the epi center of great scientific minds and learning, as a matter of fact, everyone flocked to bagdad in search of scientific knowledge. had it not been for the muslim scientist back then who undoubtedly were the spear headers of modern day science we would not be where we are today.
the church picked up where they left off and produced some of the world's best scientist. the catholic church until the 1800s lead the way in scientific research, paving the way for those to come of later generations.
i agree that christians tried to proselytize the world and went on ah conversion rampage with their churches, and crusades, but that's just them, other religions like judism , islam, and budism don't do that today in the least.
as for the evolutionist, they may not have churches and crusades, but you are a religion onto yourselves whether you believe it or not.
you may not have temples, congregations, holy days or a deity that you adore, but what they do have is ah forum in the media, in schools and in institutions of higher learning teaching young minds ah theory like it's a scientific fact! to me that is far more dangerous than proselytizing and all the crusades combined!
that's BC an unproven theory is being shoved down ppl's throats disguised as scientific fact in ways they can't even refuse or resist! at least with the church the masses know what they're getting and have the option to acept or reject, but wid the evolutionist it's disguised in such a way they don't have the option.
just like in the eastern block where religion was ousted FOR THE MOST PART, and communism and evolution was forced on the ppl and eventually became the way.
the truth is ah bitter pill to swallow, but in reality and all fairness, every single ideology and religion is guilty of such behavior.
-
Islam don't proselytize? You on Crack? Hinduism does not? Man you crazy. In the dark ages where was Islam? So saying that in the Middle east in teh Dark ages religion was behind learning..is crazy.
The main reason why religion was behind learning back in teh day was because ONLY the Monks were allowed to read, held the books and dessiminated what they wanted as teachings.
get the facts straight.
-
Islam don't proselytize? You on Crack? Hinduism does not? Man you crazy. In the dark ages where was Islam? So saying that in the Middle east in teh Dark ages religion was behind learning..is crazy.
The main reason why religion was behind learning back in teh day was because ONLY the Monks were allowed to read, held the books and dessiminated what they wanted as teachings.
get the facts straight.
I really doh like tuh talk wid you fella! seriously! BC yuh does say anything tuh win ah discourse, even if it means denying the facts. but i will ask yuh one simple question. who was ibin arabi, and what did he gave to the world?
who was the moors, and what did they do for europe? like you forgetting timbuktu? you said that evolutionist are the reason why we live in a scientifically advanced world, and i'm showing you where you are sadly mistaken and deluded!
before islam bagdad was nothing but the capital of a super power, but they were not known for being the epi center of science until the muslims took it over. so to exclude islam from bagdad's acclaimed status for the great minds that originate there is just evil of you.
-
]idiot, is you who brought up dark ages...like yuh addle minded or wha?
t is a well known fact that in the dark ages bagdad was the epi center of great scientific minds and learning, as a matter of fact, everyone flocked to bagdad in search of scientific knowledge.[quote/] Islam was in de dark ages? Yuh on crack or what?
-
You really need to revisit those words ( idiot, addle minded) and maybe ascribe it to your self! you asked me a silly question and i obliged you by answering, and you had the unmitigated gall tuh call me an idiot and crazy?? anyone wid ah lick of sense could see iz you and not me who's utterly forkin bunkers in this equation!!!!!!!
i simply used the dark ages as a reference to the contribution that religious minded ppl made to science and set the wheel in motion that sparked the european renaissance. if my memory served me right, you was the one who tried to exclude their contribution by saying "we(the atheist community) have no churches,or crusades, just science that make life better".
all i did was pointed out the contributions that muslims and catholics jesuits made in the name of science and you started wid the insults which is so indicative of your character...... or lack thereof.
if yuh want tuh trow out blanket statements and incorrect information and get away wid it, you should avoid talking tuh me and maybe pick on someone like sam, BC i will bust yuh every time like myth busters!
i'm of the opinion that you don't know sh!t outside of what some stuff shirt taught you in some stuffy class room, or what yuh pull up on line. imo you never read one solitary book on history dating back before the 1500s, and even then i'm giving you a lot of credit! BC ah fella have to be real ignorant of history and out of it tuh ask such a ridiculous absurd question like, " in the dark ages where was islam?" :joker:
this is the period of the dark ages. http://www.allabouthistory.org/the-dark-ages.htm
http://www.ais.org/~bsb/Herald/Previous/95/science.html.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Middle_Ages
now you tell me where was islam.
-
Uganda rows back on draconian anti-gay law after western outrage
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/14/uganda-backpedals-on-gay-law (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/14/uganda-backpedals-on-gay-law)
The Guardian, Thursday 14 January 2010
Uganda has indicated it will bow to international pressure and amend draconian anti-homosexual legislation that includes the death penalty for HIV-positive people convicted of having gay sex.
Breaking his silence on the controversial bill which was put forward by a member of the ruling party Uganda's president, Yoweri Museveni, said it had become a "foreign policy issue" and needed further consultation before being voted on in parliament.
The proposed law, which has been pushed by local evangelical preachers and vocally supported by senior government officials, also threatens life imprisonment for anyone convicted of gay sex.
While broadly supported domestically, the legislation has caused a storm of protest abroad and consternation from western donors who fund a large chunk of Uganda's budget.
Addressing a party conference, Museveni said numerous western leaders had spoken to him about the bill.
"When I was at the Commonwealth conference, what was [the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper] talking about? The gays. UK prime minister Gordon Brown ... what was he talking about? The gays," said Museveni.
The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, had also called him to express strong concerns about the proposed law, he said. "It's a foreign policy issue, and we must handle it in a way that does not compromise our principles but also takes into account our foreign policy interests."
Museveni said the proposed law did not necessarily reflect party or government policy and his cabinet would discuss the bill with David Bahati, the MP who introduced it, before it was put to a vote.
Homosexuality is already outlawed in Uganda under colonial-era legislation. Such is the stigma attached to gay people that no public figure has ever come out. But in recent years some religious leaders have been warning that tougher measures are needed to prevent an increase in same-sex relationships.
Accusations that gay Europeans are offering money to "recruit" Ugandan schoolchildren a claim repeated by Museveni during his party speech on Tuesday also seem to have raised the level of homophobia in the country.
The final impetus for the proposed legislation came after a conference hosted last year by three controversial US evangelists who claimed that homosexuality was a curable habit and warned of the danger of the international gay "agenda". The evangelists have since, however, criticised the severity of the punishments in the proposed law.
Under Bahati's bill, "serial offenders" would join HIV-positive people and those who have sex with under-18s in facing the death penalty if convicted of gay sex. Life imprisonment would apply to those found guilty even of touching someone from the same sex "with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality".
Members of the public would have to report any homosexual activity to police within 24 hours or face up to three years in jail, a provision the bill's opponents say would lead to a witchhunt.
Ugandans living abroad who broke the law could be extradited and punished, under the draft bill.
Before the legislation was introduced to parliament in September, local gay support organisations, whose members already face harassment, threats and workplace intimidation, have been lobbying the government to amend the country's HIV awareness and prevention programmes, which currently exclude homosexuals. But instead of achieving their aims these gay groups would be banned under the new law.
James Nsaba Buturo, minister of state for ethics and integrity, who is a strong supporter of the bill, said before Museveni's speech that it was likely that the death penalty provisions would be dropped because of the international outcry.
But Frank Mugisha, chair of Sexual Minorities Uganda, a Kampala-based coalition of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex groups, said that even if this happened the bill would have "a lot of discrimination in it.
"He [Museveni] seems to be saying that the law should be watered down due to foreign interests. But he should rather be talking about the interests of minorities in Uganda. He should come out and say that the entire bill is just wasting time."
-
You really need to revisit those words ( idiot, addle minded) and maybe ascribe it to your self! you asked me a silly question and i obliged you by answering, and you had the unmitigated gall tuh call me an idiot and crazy?? anyone wid ah lick of sense could see iz you and not me who's utterly forkin bunkers in this equation!!!!!!!
i simply used the dark ages as a reference to the contribution that religious minded ppl made to science and set the wheel in motion that sparked the european renaissance. if my memory served me right, you was the one who tried to exclude their contribution by saying "we(the atheist community) have no churches,or crusades, just science that make life better".
all i did was pointed out the contributions that muslims and catholics jesuits made in the name of science and you started wid the insults which is so indicative of your character...... or lack thereof.
if yuh want tuh trow out blanket statements and incorrect information and get away wid it, you should avoid talking tuh me and maybe pick on someone like sam, BC i will bust yuh every time like myth busters!
i'm of the opinion that you don't know sh!t outside of what some stuff shirt taught you in some stuffy class room, or what yuh pull up on line. imo you never read one solitary book on history dating back before the 1500s, and even then i'm giving you a lot of credit! BC ah fella have to be real ignorant of history and out of it tuh ask such a ridiculous absurd question like, " in the dark ages where was islam?" :joker:
this is the period of the dark ages. http://www.allabouthistory.org/the-dark-ages.htm
http://www.ais.org/~bsb/Herald/Previous/95/science.html.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Middle_Ages
now you tell me where was islam.
ka-ka hole, yuh real dunce oui. All ISlam was doing was destroying places and spreading their religion, Yuh dummy hole...Is that not proselyting? Even if not by the sword? Yuh two bit cunnie.
By the way, there is no argument from me that Arab and more specifically Persian scholars gave the world many scientific and mathematical advances. Ka-ka pledge.
FaCT IS iSLAM IT SELF CAUSED A GREAT DECLINE IN THE AMOUNT OF SCIENTIFIC ACHOLARS AND DISCOVERIES AS OF COURSE THEY WERE AT ODDS WITH SCIENCE! dUMMY. Not only dat but great conflcit and differences between Sunni and Shia also casued a great fall off of scholarly works. More influence of religion on science eh?
Add the invadsers (mongols)from the east and the christians from the west and the great era of Arab/Islamic contributions came to an end.
That my frind shows what happens when yuh mix god with truth...(science)
-
Notice too that the dark Ages brought us ISlam, and now we seem to be entering A second dark ages....and guess whcih religion is again making waves and noise?
-
Islam don't proselytize? You on Crack? Hinduism does not? Man you crazy. In the dark ages where was Islam? So saying that in the Middle east in teh Dark ages religion was behind learning..is crazy.
The main reason why religion was behind learning back in teh day was because ONLY the Monks were allowed to read, held the books and dessiminated what they wanted as teachings.
get the facts straight.
This is your quote in red and not mine! now yuh saying that " there's no arguement from me that arab and persian scholars gave the world many scientific and mathematical advancement"..
You then said i was an idiot and addle minded BC i said that bagdad was the epi center of great scientific minds and learning. now yuh change yuh tone by saying and i quote " add the invaders from the east (mongols) and the christians from the west AND THE GREAT ERA OF ARAB/ ISLAMIC CONTRIBUTION CAME TO AN END." what ah contradiction.
Your next contradiction was when yuh asked " islam was in the dark ages? yuh on crack or what?" so i then went to great lenghts to get you the proof , and all you could come up wid was more unwarranted insults like the ole nigger that you are, instead of admitting that yuh clueless on the subject! you are such a lair and a loser, and to add to that, you have no class whatsoever! :loser: :loser:
]idiot, is you who brought up dark ages...like yuh addle minded or wha? t is a well known fact that in the dark ages bagdad was the epi center of great scientific minds and learning, as a matter of fact, everyone flocked to bagdad in search of scientific knowledge.[quote/] Islam was in de dark ages? Yuh on crack or what?
-
Notice too that the dark Ages brought us ISlam, and now we seem to be entering A second dark ages....and guess whcih religion is again making waves and noise?
So now this is about the credability of islam and not what islam and muslims brought to the scientific community? since according to you, all believers do is proselytize and crusade, but "we( atheist) bring science to the world".
why yuh doh stick to the subject?? i showed you proof that practicing muslims and christians had ah HUGE role to play in the field of science and technology, THEN YUH JUMP ON THE PROSELYTIZING!! then ah show yuh how every one does it even atheist, but in ah subtle way, now yuh gone on the shia sunni bandwagon as to why science in the muslim golden ages ended,
when the main issue was, believers contributed immensely to science and medicine as well, but yuh keep coming up with non issues tuh complicate the discourse! just admit yuh goofed! no body eh go kill yuh for admitting yuh was wrong!
BTW i never said that muslims never proselytizes, all i said was they don't do it TODAY, but ah guess yuh miss that part. ah notice every time yuh get opposition yuh does resort tuh insults, cussing and name callin like yuhs some authority around here! keep thinking that! talk about ah fat mouth dictator loser!
-
You really need to revisit those words ( idiot, addle minded) and maybe ascribe it to your self! you asked me a silly question and i obliged you by answering, and you had the unmitigated gall tuh call me an idiot and crazy?? anyone wid ah lick of sense could see iz you and not me who's utterly forkin bunkers in this equation!!!!!!!
i simply used the dark ages as a reference to the contribution that religious minded ppl made to science and set the wheel in motion that sparked the european renaissance. if my memory served me right, you was the one who tried to exclude their contribution by saying "we(the atheist community) have no churches,or crusades, just science that make life better".
all i did was pointed out the contributions that muslims and catholics jesuits made in the name of science and you started wid the insults which is so indicative of your character...... or lack thereof.
if yuh want tuh trow out blanket statements and incorrect information and get away wid it, you should avoid talking tuh me and maybe pick on someone like sam, BC i will bust yuh every time like myth busters!
i'm of the opinion that you don't know sh!t outside of what some stuff shirt taught you in some stuffy class room, or what yuh pull up on line. imo you never read one solitary book on history dating back before the 1500s, and even then i'm giving you a lot of credit! BC ah fella have to be real ignorant of history and out of it tuh ask such a ridiculous absurd question like, " in the dark ages where was islam?" :joker:
this is the period of the dark ages. http://www.allabouthistory.org/the-dark-ages.htm
http://www.ais.org/~bsb/Herald/Previous/95/science.html.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Middle_Ages
now you tell me where was islam.
ka-ka hole, yuh real dunce oui. All ISlam was doing was destroying places and spreading their religion, Yuh dummy hole...Is that not proselyting? Even if not by the sword? Yuh two bit cunnie.
By the way, there is no argument from me that Arab and more specifically Persian scholars gave the world many scientific and mathematical advances. Ka-ka pledge.
FaCT IS iSLAM IT SELF CAUSED A GREAT DECLINE IN THE AMOUNT OF SCIENTIFIC ACHOLARS AND DISCOVERIES AS OF COURSE THEY WERE AT ODDS WITH SCIENCE! dUMMY. Not only dat but great conflcit and differences between Sunni and Shia also casued a great fall off of scholarly works. More influence of religion on science eh?
Add the invadsers (mongols)from the east and the christians from the west and the great era of Arab/Islamic contributions came to an end.
That my frind shows what happens when yuh mix god with truth...(science)
Ah guess they destroyed spain and turkey real good right, Oh smart one?? :joker:
http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/history/islam.htm
http://www.jannah.org/articles/contrib.html
http://www.twf.org/Library/Renaissance.html
-
He rocket scientist, none of what you searched on tHe internet is new to me. THE FACT IS RELIGION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPREAD OF SCIENCE.
tHE FACT THAT THE SCIENTISTS HAPPENED TO BE MUSLIM IS SECONDARY TO THE POINT.
Anymore than the FACT that a Jew named Karl Marx gave the world communism.
Does that make Jews communists?
-
He rocket scientist, none of what you searched on tHe internet is new to me. THE FACT IS RELIGION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPREAD OF SCIENCE.
tHE FACT THAT THE SCIENTISTS HAPPENED TO BE MUSLIM IS SECONDARY TO THE POINT.
Anymore than the FACT that a Jew named Karl Marx gave the world communism.
Does that make Jews communists?
Ah guess that's why they call it the ISLAMIC Renaissance? You was the one who brought it up when yuh said that believers only crusade and proselytize while non believer brought science to the world.
so why is it when it comes to atheist then they get credited with scientific achievements, but when it's religious folks their religion has nothing to do with their scientific achievements? and this coming from ah fella who want tuh call ppl names!
ah notice that you are never graceful under fire, and would do anything to prove ah point.
i'm really tired of interacting wid you! i would have better luck talking to ah brick wall. just imagine , after all the evidence that i posted did nothing to sway your bias is proof enough that i should never hold court wid you ever again.
imagine the nerve to say BC they were muslims their scientific achievements had nothing to do with islam. as a matter of fact , their religion only comes into play when it's about unsavory behavior.
the quran plainly encourage muslim to study and ponder the creation, and it's only BC muhammad instructed and encourage his followers to study and seek knowledge even if it take you to china, was when arabs particularly muslims started translating the greek text, but no, that had nothing to do with islam!
as guess that's why bagdad ah predominantly muslim society and the seat of the RELIGIOUS caliphate wid all RELIGIOUS muslim scholars and thinkers was the epi center of learning with men writing hundreds of books on science AND RELIGION ?? TIMBUKTU AS WELL. :joker: :loser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
Just Cool, it is not the non-believers who want people to drop their faith and beliefs.
Rather it is the believers who try to make believers out of us!
We have no churches, no religion, no evangelists, no crusades. Just science that makes lives better and longer.
-
what evidence joker? Yuh more full ah more shit dan a out door shit house that was just visited by a fat man convention after dey eat bad curry.
Yuh clueless and joking.
Yuh too damn lie, Arabic scholars were around long before the Europeans even crawled out of caves. The fact the they were converted to Islam is what you carrying on about.
The Koran had nutten to do with the translation of greek texts....What came with the Kora was the Dark Ages! And these days the same Muslims trying to bring back de dark ages. Destroying art, banning people from living life as they want, bombing people, killing in the name of God..fack dat...
-
what evidence joker? Yuh more full ah more shit dan a out door shit house that was just visited by a fat man convention after dey eat bad curry.
Yuh clueless and joking.
Yuh too damn lie, Arabic scholars were around long before the Europeans even crawled out of caves. The fact the they were converted to Islam is what you carrying on about.
The Koran had nutten to do with the translation of greek texts....What came with the Kora was the Dark Ages! And these days the same Muslims trying to bring back de dark ages. Destroying art, banning people from living life as they want, bombing people, killing in the name of God..fack dat...
What scholars?? the arabs was ah nomadic barbaric ppl!! it was islam that put the arabs on the map, they may have had one or two scholars, every nation did , but what happened to the arabs after the advent of islam was no fluke!! imagine thousands of ppl flocking to bagdad right after the advent of islam seeking scientific knowledge and you think islam had nothing tuh do wid that!! so why in the fack they called it the islamic renaissance/ golden ages? yuh dope!!!
yuhs one of the most disgruntled asswipes i've ever met in ah long while! first off yuh said, religious ppl had nothing tuh contribute to the world scientifically, then when further evidence came yuh jump on the tip of, not BC they were religious means their religion had anything tuh do wid their accomplishments, then when evidence of that came, yuh gone on the tip of, there were scholars before the religion arrived!! yuh eh see yuhs ah real forkin stinkin devil!!!!!!!!!
now iz , the quran had nothing to do wid the translation of the greek text! but if the same quran didn't urge them to seek knowledge and study the creation, they would have no desire tuh gravitate to the text in order tuh translate it yuh wicked battyhole!!!
is the same muhammad who brought the backward arabs the quran who told them tuh seek knowledge even if it takes you to china! yuh know what ? fack it i dun wid you! stay in yuh forkin ignorance for all i care! it's senseless talking to you! i would have better luck wid ah mudda c@nt donkey, so lem me save meh electricity!
you just like the ass that was carrying books, no matter how much knowledge on yuh back, it avail yuh naught!! that's BC yuh lack understanding, and yuh have no desire to aqquire it! you feel yuhs an authority on every subject, when in reality you're as dunce as ah forkin mule!!!!! :frustrated: :banginghead:
-
Ok Just Cool take win! I surrender. You are absolutely right. Islam the religion gave us great scientific discoveries, they have greatly enriched this world.
Now why isn't the same religion bringing us great scholars? The advent of the internet, worldwide collaboration in medical science, space travel, crop manipulation to help ease hunger, mechanical engineering, etc. and all they can export is suicide bombers?
Allyuh go soon increase the GDP of Yemen through the exportation of terrorists and murderers.
Nice going, as you rightly asserted, we are once again living in an Islamic Golden age.
-
Ok Just Cool take win! I surrender. You are absolutely right. Islam the religion gave us great scientific discoveries, they have greatly enriched this world.
Now why isn't the same religion bringing us great scholars? The advent of the internet, worldwide collaboration in medical science, space travel, crop manipulation to help ease hunger, mechanical engineering, etc. and all they can export is suicide bombers?
Allyuh go soon increase the GDP of Yemen through the exportation of terrorists and murderers.
Nice going, as you rightly asserted, we are once again living in an Islamic Golden age.
Yuhs ah kinda nut or what!! this is the kinda subjective bullsh!t i'll expect from someone like one of dem fresh water canadian boys! :justkidding: but from you??!! ah man who comes accross as an avid reader and thinker with ah birds eye world view?
pardener we all know that the middle east holds 2/3 of the world's oil and it's one of the poorest regions in the world! their rulers are corrupt and they are well protected by the west!
the ppl have no way to rebel or over throw their diabolical leaders BC the western power offers them protection. most countries in the mid east were victims of western manipulation and disstablization, and these ppl know that all too well.
all the madness and what we see today is ah media world view, i guess if you was ah man that was truly open minded and was interested in the truth, then you would know the real story! if you used tuh listen to ah different point of view rather than popular ones then you may have understood the plot.
there's no reason for a man your age to be so out of it! if yuh listen to stations like npr and pacifica radio WBAI then yuh might have ah better understanding of what is taking place on our planet.
BTW buddy, i don't need tuh win nutten, after all, this eh no damn competition. i was under the impression that ppl came on here to exchange ideas and lime ah little, if i need tuh win something it certainly won't be here! i fully well know where to go if i wanted tuh win something worth while.
-
There is no doubt some merit to what you are saying, however that religion makes it easy for those situations to exist. The despotic rulers are definitely backed by the West. The religious leaders, are financed by the same despotic rulers who allow them some autonomy. So therein lies the real problems.
Instead of the people having the religious leaders to help them throw off the mantle of subjugation, they are force fed shit under the guise of Allah!
Those religious leaders open schools who teach nothing but the Koran and radicalism, sponsored by thew Saudi government to spread Wahabism.
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and many other places are breeding holes for terrorists.
The West is indeed culpable but so are the mullahs and Imams. They send young men to certain death calling them martyrs when they are nothing but murderers.
Islam does NOTHING to promote science, they in fact are anathema to science. They destroy art calling it graven images, centuries old landmarks are destroyed in the name of God. They have very little tolerance for other religions and say so openly. They hate the western lifestyle while theirs is archaic, barbaric and downright sinister.
They invoke the name of God, while subjugating women and children for sexual exploitation.
Fack dem!
-
There is no doubt some merit to what you are saying, however that religion makes it easy for those situations to exist. The despotic rulers are definitely backed by the West. The religious leaders, are financed by the same despotic rulers who allow them some autonomy. So therein lies the real problems.
Instead of the people having the religious leaders to help them throw off the mantle of subjugation, they are force fed shit under the guise of Allah!
Those religious leaders open schools who teach nothing but the Koran and radicalism, sponsored by thew Saudi government to spread Wahabism.
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and many other places are breeding holes for terrorists.
The West is indeed culpable but so are the mullahs and Imams. They send young men to certain death calling them martyrs when they are nothing but murderers.
Islam does NOTHING to promote science, they in fact are anathema to science. They destroy art calling it graven images, centuries old landmarks are destroyed in the name of God. They have very little tolerance for other religions and say so openly. They hate the western lifestyle while theirs is archaic, barbaric and downright sinister.
They invoke the name of God, while subjugating women and children for sexual exploitation.
Fack dem!
It's quite clear that you have ah big beef wid religion, particularly ISLAM ! , but if yuh willing to be totally unbias then you would see the real. every thing that i bolded in red iz ah real superficial point of view, and comes over as real meat and potatoish!!
the truth is, these fellas eh doing shyte in the name of Allah, BC what they're doing is anti islamic for the most part! most of what they do is their own nasty backward culture that Islam tried to take them away from.
as for sending young men to their deaths in the name of martyrdom? that still has nothing tuh do wid islam. if you read the life of muhammad then you would see that he was ah strategist and not a hot head, he never risk lives unnecessarily, he also picked his battles and often opted for treatise and not war!
these hot head emotional middle easterners do not! and i repeat, do not represent islam in it's purest sense.
BTW, the west also send young vibrant men to their deaths as well, but in the name of wealth under the guise of freedom and the eradication of terror! but i don't ever remember hearing you mention anything about that!
the oil in the caspian sea, the pipe line that would some day run straight through afganistan! the oil and gold in iraq, and soon to be the congo where there's a rare mineral that would make uranium seem as priceless like sea sand, would soon be on the menu!
as for islam doing nothing to promote science, my boy, doh make yuh self look silly again nah! ah beg yuh. islam and islamic leaders @ the inception of al islam always encouraged learning.
in the quran there are tons verses of references that beckon the believers to study the creation, muhammad encouraged learning and call for ppl tuh travel and seek knowledge! the omayards and abbasid's were fully in support of sciences and they set up bagdad as the center of learning, especially in the field of science and medicine!
it's was only until the ottoman empire took over and the mongols conquered the muslims, that aspect of islam has suffered. but some of the world's greatest scientist of that time came out of islamic spain and bagdad.
even in mali(timbuktu to be exact) there were scientist and religious scholars who were immersed in science and learning! and @ one time they had the biggest library in the world.
so for you to say islam does nothing to promote science iz just wrong! what you should say is today's wahibism and radicalism sect of islam, who happens to be the majority is giving islam ah bad name@
FYI for every 2 muslim who supports this backward view of islam have one who don't! but like i said, the majority are the wahabi's, and together wid muhammad ibin wahab and gengiskhan, is lam was well destroyed together with it's glorious image that it once had as world leaders and trend setters.
-
Just cool, I hear you loud and clear. But that SILENT majority you talking about that really f**king pisses me off. The two dat aginst the one should open dey facking mout and say something.
Instead they stay silent and do nutten, why? Becasue I feel dey beleive is the right ting dem terror monrels doing.
I have a prblem with Islam, Buddhist, Catholics, ANglicans Christiand, all ah facking dem
-
Just cool, I hear you loud and clear. But that SILENT majority you talking about that really f**king pisses me off. The two dat aginst the one should open dey facking mout and say something.
Instead they stay silent and do nutten, why? Becasue I feel dey beleive is the right ting dem terror monrels doing.
I have a prblem with Islam, Buddhist, Catholics, ANglicans Christiand, all ah facking dem
That's not true! these fellas like usama and the taliban killed enough moderates tuh fill ah whole country. that's why sadam and the saudi's wanted them iradicated ( taliban and all the other radical wahabi sects)!
even though the saudi's are wahabi's them selves, they still want tuh travel tuh vagas and monte carlo tuh gamble while enjoying the same things they forbid @ home and these wahabi's hardliners are fully aware of their habbits and want them gone.
when i went to suadi arabia, most of the fellas i met there wanted tuh leave and come to the west tuh play they self. i was shocked tuh see how a lot of these ppl were so unislamic in their views.
it have nuff muslims who hate and abhor what the radicals are doing, thus giving the faith a bad name! but they are afraid tuh speak up for fear of death or imprisonment! and not BC they are in favor.
the moderates in the west have ah better chance of making their feelings felt, that's BC they are protected by western democracy and rightfully so!
-
I can understand not talking up in places run by mullahs, but in the West? And those who sponsor the Wahabi shit...dem Saudis...dem is de wuss.
Moderates in all dem Islamic countries does get jailed for being not Islamic enough lol
Keep dat religion...and dem fowl f**kers in the west doh say enough...littel shit here and there. sorry I doh buy what yuh saying.
But ah eh giving de christians a free pass either...look how is ah Holy war like de crusades all over again.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/secret-jesus-bible-codes-on-u-s-military-weapons-17700769
what yuh think about this shit?
-
I can understand not talking up in places run by mullahs, but in the West? And those who sponsor the Wahabi shit...dem Saudis...dem is de wuss.
Moderates in all dem Islamic countries does get jailed for being not Islamic enough lol
Keep dat religion...and dem fowl f**kers in the west doh say enough...littel shit here and there. sorry I doh buy what yuh saying.
But ah eh giving de christians a free pass either...look how is ah Holy war like de crusades all over again.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/secret-jesus-bible-codes-on-u-s-military-weapons-17700769
what yuh think about this shit?
Dah eh no big deal!! these muslims need tuh stop acting so soft. after all, muslims does give out qurans in the west. it's just ah case of do so eh like so. in the quran it have ah verse in sura 2 bakarah ( the cow) VS 256 there is NO compulsion in religion, the right way is indeed distinct from error.
for the life of me i don't know what wrong wid some ppl, in palestine, turkey, bagdad, syria, and spain centuries ago muslims christians and jews lived side by side in peace worshiping god in their own temples without strife.
i believe this is the crusades all over again, and we have regan , papa bush, nixon and baby bush tuh thank for that.
-
giving out Korans is not an issue. Writing Biblical inscriptions on weapons used by the US Military is! That makes the war religious. (waiting on someone to say nah it does not etc.) But anyone with common sense can see what the intent is.
Christians versus Muslims...when both sides dealing in mythology. It real funny to tell the truth.
-
TC, i admire your attempts to enlighten a bunch of dummies. thing is they all living in a society that is the product of science and is idiot-proof enough to tolerate the inherently anti-scientific ignorance of religion. they could read their religious text and pretend that they devotely believe in it and when they sick, go to the hospital and get the best care that science provides. they will never experience a true test of their so-called faith knowing that they always have the safety net of science.
So ribbit what do you do when you are sick and in need of dire medical care? Put your hand up or on the qoran and ask to be healed and how does that work for you? Truth is that faith does take a back seat to science as soon as it becomes crunch time. JC I disagree with the "yuh was born gay syndrome" I think that social and environmental factors could have aided yuh gayness but to say that a guy was born that way. I have yet to see or meet a gay person who under scrutiny didnt have compelling factors as to why they are gay. Im not talking about the flamers here. They choose that lifestyle. Because they choose it doesnt mean i have to accept it. Its a proven fact tru comparison that humans teeth unlike other animals was designed to chew roots and stalks vs bones and flesh but that doesnt stop anyone from eating meat. Do I have to deal with a meat eater like a regular human yeh I do. But dont try to change or rationalize the fact of what is. But then again science proved that shit about the teeth so we could just wait to see it in a holy book somewhere. Wait coming to think of it they did say something about herbs bearing seed and fruits. coming back on topic. I would not say death to gays unless we also say death to colonialism in all forms because to me that is worse than being gay. Since that not happening then let de gay man males handle their business.
-
TC, i admire your attempts to enlighten a bunch of dummies. thing is they all living in a society that is the product of science and is idiot-proof enough to tolerate the inherently anti-scientific ignorance of religion. they could read their religious text and pretend that they devotely believe in it and when they sick, go to the hospital and get the best care that science provides. they will never experience a true test of their so-called faith knowing that they always have the safety net of science.
So ribbit what do you do when you are sick and in need of dire medical care? Put your hand up or on the qoran and ask to be healed and how does that work for you? Truth is that faith does take a back seat to science as soon as it becomes crunch time. JC I disagree with the "yuh was born gay syndrome" I think that social and environmental factors could have aided yuh gayness but to say that a guy was born that way. I have yet to see or meet a gay person who under scrutiny didnt have compelling factors as to why they are gay. Im not talking about the flamers here. They choose that lifestyle. Because they choose it doesnt mean i have to accept it. Its a proven fact tru comparison that humans teeth unlike other animals was designed to chew roots and stalks vs bones and flesh but that doesnt stop anyone from eating meat. Do I have to deal with a meat eater like a regular human yeh I do. But dont try to change or rationalize the fact of what is. But then again science proved that shit about the teeth so we could just wait to see it in a holy book somewhere. Wait coming to think of it they did say something about herbs bearing seed and fruits. coming back on topic. I would not say death to gays unless we also say death to colonialism in all forms because to me that is worse than being gay. Since that not happening then let de gay man males handle their business.
Where yuh really coming from pardner?? BC i kinda confused. but while we on the subject allow me tuh ask one question. how many gays yuh know? and of the ones yuh know , how many of them yuh closely associate with?
FYI , i have a couple of gay relatives, and me and ah few ppl in the family does vibes them up BC they all alone in the world, yuh dun know how homophobic we english speaking self righteous west indians can be, so me and ah few women in my family does stay connected to them.
i had the opportunity tuh reason wid them fellas, and after listening to them and putting meh self in their position, i came to the realization that them boys eh have shyte tuh do with their sexuality! they born so they born so they born so!!!!!! take bible and religion out yuh mind for ah minute, them fellas iz victims of the harsh realities of life!
after all, who would chose such ah miserable life for themselves?? most of these ppl don't live too long, that's BC most of them commit suicide or turn too drugs, those folks are some of the most undesirable ppl in the whole wide world !
and yes i take pity on them!! and i thank god he didn't give me that tough road to walk and you and other should be thankful as well!!
so instead of looking down on them, yuh should thank god for not giving you that burden to bare and take pity on the ppl that do have tuh bare that burden, and pray for the less fortunate rather than exalt yuh self and big up yuh chest BC the master chose ah easier road for you.
-
TC, i admire your attempts to enlighten a bunch of dummies. thing is they all living in a society that is the product of science and is idiot-proof enough to tolerate the inherently anti-scientific ignorance of religion. they could read their religious text and pretend that they devotely believe in it and when they sick, go to the hospital and get the best care that science provides. they will never experience a true test of their so-called faith knowing that they always have the safety net of science.
So ribbit what do you do when you are sick and in need of dire medical care? Put your hand up or on the qoran and ask to be healed and how does that work for you? Truth is that faith does take a back seat to science as soon as it becomes crunch time. JC I disagree with the "yuh was born gay syndrome" I think that social and environmental factors could have aided yuh gayness but to say that a guy was born that way. I have yet to see or meet a gay person who under scrutiny didnt have compelling factors as to why they are gay. Im not talking about the flamers here. They choose that lifestyle. Because they choose it doesnt mean i have to accept it. Its a proven fact tru comparison that humans teeth unlike other animals was designed to chew roots and stalks vs bones and flesh but that doesnt stop anyone from eating meat. Do I have to deal with a meat eater like a regular human yeh I do. But dont try to change or rationalize the fact of what is. But then again science proved that shit about the teeth so we could just wait to see it in a holy book somewhere. Wait coming to think of it they did say something about herbs bearing seed and fruits. coming back on topic. I would not say death to gays unless we also say death to colonialism in all forms because to me that is worse than being gay. Since that not happening then let de gay man males handle their business.
Where yuh really coming from pardner?? BC i kinda confused. but while we on the subject allow me tuh ask one question. how many gays yuh know? and of the ones yuh know , how many of them yuh closely associate with?
FYI , i have a couple of gay relatives, and me and ah few ppl in the family does vibes them up BC they all alone in the world, yuh dun know how homophobic we english speaking self righteous west indians can be, so me and ah few women in my family does stay connected to them.
i had the opportunity tuh reason wid them fellas, and after listening to them and putting meh self in their position, i came to the realization that them boys eh have shyte tuh do with their sexuality! they born so they born so they born so!!!!!! take bible and religion out yuh mind, them fellas iz victims of the harsh realities of life!
after all, who would chose such ah miserable life for themselves?? most of these ppl don't live too long, that's BC most of them commit suicide or turn too drugs, that's Bc are some of the most undesirable ppl in the whole wide world !
and yes i take pity on them!! and i thank god he didn't give me that tough road to walk and you and other should be thankful as well!!
so instead of looking down on them, yuh should thank god for not giving you that burden to bare and take pity on the ppl that do have tuh bare that burden, and pray for the less fortunate rather than exalt yuh self and big up yuh chest BC the master chose ah easier road for you.
let me help to clarify the confusion.
In this last post your sending mixed signals. You first say "born so". then you say "dem fellas iz victims of harsh realities of life" which sounds like social and environmental factors. I agree with this. In terms of burden given by God... Im not a subscriber in the God that hands out punishments because he cares about you Network.
I am by no means saying that people choose this however in a way they do choose when they give in. Its kinda like a suicide. Dont we all feel the pressure at times and think how good it would be to just go to sleep and not have to worry about anything but if we give in then we choose. So we fight on. Shit aint easy but we fight on. They too must deny what after time seems natural and not give in. Now as science has shown us there are some people born with 2 reproductive organs. Dem is de people I feel sorry for. Dem is de people who might be able to say that GOD or Mother nature dealt them an unfair hand. My verdict is still out on them. But if yuh aint born with a pumpum next to your piggy then Fight.
-
I just realized that I rambled on but never answered the question. I have met and known many people who turned gay, is gay and not gay but very feminine in my time. I do not have any gay cousins whom I speak to all the time and the fact that you do / might forces me to hush and listen as you tell about your insight in dealing with them. I was just voicing my opinion and impressions. Intrigued to hear what you have learnt that might disqualify what I think to be true which is "not born so" but "became so because of factors".
-
I just realized that I rambled on but never answered the question. I have met and known many people who turned gay, is gay and not gay but very feminine in my time. I do not have any gay cousins whom I speak to all the time and the fact that you do / might forces me to hush and listen as you tell about your insight in dealing with them. I was just voicing my opinion and impressions. Intrigued to hear what you have learnt that might disqualify what I think to be true which is "not born so" but "became so because of factors".
when someone born with a hole in dey heart...environment?
Or with diabetes?
How about mental illness?
or lupus?
or blindness?
or a mongol?
-
Just cool, I hear you loud and clear. But that SILENT majority you talking about that really f**king pisses me off. The two dat aginst the one should open dey facking mout and say something.
Instead they stay silent and do nutten, why? Becasue I feel dey beleive is the right ting dem terror monrels doing.
I have a prblem with Islam, Buddhist, Catholics, ANglicans Christiand, all ah facking dem
Not quite Trinity .. look at this
********************
National Post - January 20, 2010 - Editorial
We should express gratitude and encouragement to 20 imams in Canada and the United States who recently came together and issued a fatwa or religious ruling against Muslims conducting attacks against North America. The fatwa, organized by Calgary imam Syed Soharwardy, was in response to the failed Christmas Day bomb attack against an American airliner, in Canadian airspace, by Nigerian Muslim Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
For too long, Muslim communities in the West have issued only pro forma condemnations when acts of barbarous terror were committed in their name. Even to those inclined to give every Muslim citizen the full benefit of the doubt, it was sometimes hard to ignore the unfortunate habit of Muslim faith leaders to spend far more time reacting to relatively minor incidents of Islamophobia than criticizing the individuals, groups and indeed states that carried out or supported violent acts in the name of Islam. For that reason, the decision of these 20 spiritual and community leaders to speak publicly against those whod do violence to their home and fellow citizens is long overdue, but no less welcome for it.
Early report here:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/01/09/imams-issue-fatwa-against-terrorists.aspx (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/01/09/imams-issue-fatwa-against-terrorists.aspx)
************************
On the other hand, many feel that Syed Soharwardy, the imam who organized the fatwa is a bigot and it will take more than this fatwa to convince them that he truly stands behind this latest statement. Here is one such opinion:
http://jesseferreras.blogspot.com/2009/05/syed-soharwardy-issues-fatwa-on-taliban.html (http://jesseferreras.blogspot.com/2009/05/syed-soharwardy-issues-fatwa-on-taliban.html)
-
pecan, that is small thing. Later on you willsee that at least 3 of them Imams contributing or communicating with some terror suspect soemwhere!
Even if 20 speak out in Canada or the USA or England that is NOT enough. Chatting once a while when interviewd is not enough. They need to be much more vocal as they see their beloved religion being destroyed...not so?
Dey too facking quiet..fack dem and dat religion
-
pecan, that is small thing. Later on you willsee that at least 3 of them Imams contributing or communicating with some terror suspect soemwhere!
Even if 20 speak out in Canada or the USA or England that is NOT enough. Chatting once a while when interviewd is not enough. They need to be much more vocal as they see their beloved religion being destroyed...not so?
Dey too facking quiet..fack dem and dat religion
I tend to agree with you, but at least it may represent a start. Too few speak out against what is wrong with Islam. They have a few in Canada who have spoken publicly such as:
Irshad Manji - The Trouble with Islam Today (http://www.irshadmanji.com/) She is an outspoken Muslim who challenges mainstream Islam.
Tarek Fatah - Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of
an Islamic State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Fatah)
-
I just realized that I rambled on but never answered the question. I have met and known many people who turned gay, is gay and not gay but very feminine in my time. I do not have any gay cousins whom I speak to all the time and the fact that you do / might forces me to hush and listen as you tell about your insight in dealing with them. I was just voicing my opinion and impressions. Intrigued to hear what you have learnt that might disqualify what I think to be true which is "not born so" but "became so because of factors".
when someone born with a hole in dey heart...environment?
Or with diabetes?
How about mental illness?
or lupus?
or blindness?
or a mongol?
While there always remains the "X" factor the unexplainable... more and more discoveries are made that shows relativity to the habits of the human. Too much sugar over time causes diabetes. Generation or 4 and thats a small household name. Couple more generations and people talking bout it genetic. I agree. It was my peoples and their genes who was doing whatever they were doing that made me susceptible to the birth defects. In the current world not even the ancestors anymore My dad might have been a crack head and as a result of those foreign chemicals coming in, it triggered a reaction that resulted in a number of proven diseases. Also My dad may have liked too many canned products, played in too much oil, worked the coal-mines, worked the trains, inhale too many pesticides, Flit. The human lives a toxic filled life and everybody make-up and tolerances are generally the same but locally different. Summed up for a lot of diseases mentioned it could be the results of "The sins of the father". Mongols (inbreeding)... still sins of the father. This includes the father who touching his daughter. That can make her trip, chemicals get imbalanced and before yuh know it she gone crazy or worse she tun killer.
-
I just realized that I rambled on but never answered the question. I have met and known many people who turned gay, is gay and not gay but very feminine in my time. I do not have any gay cousins whom I speak to all the time and the fact that you do / might forces me to hush and listen as you tell about your insight in dealing with them. I was just voicing my opinion and impressions. Intrigued to hear what you have learnt that might disqualify what I think to be true which is "not born so" but "became so because of factors".
when someone born with a hole in dey heart...environment?
Or with diabetes?
How about mental illness?
or lupus?
or blindness?
or a mongol?
While there always remains the "X" factor the unexplainable... more and more discoveries are made that shows relativity to the habits of the human. Too much sugar over time causes diabetes. Generation or 4 and thats a small household name. Couple more generations and people talking bout it genetic. I agree. It was my peoples and their genes who was doing whatever they were doing that made me susceptible to the birth defects. In the current world not even the ancestors anymore My dad might have been a crack head and as a result of those foreign chemicals coming in, it triggered a reaction that resulted in a number of proven diseases. Also My dad may have liked too many canned products, played in too much oil, worked the coal-mines, worked the trains, inhale too many pesticides, Flit. The human lives a toxic filled life and everybody make-up and tolerances are generally the same but locally different. Summed up for a lot of diseases mentioned it could be the results of "The sins of the father". Mongols (inbreeding)... still sins of the father. This includes the father who touching his daughter. That can make her trip, chemicals get imbalanced and before yuh know it she gone crazy or worse she tun killer.
I read your responses to my questions and I realize that you are blinded by hate(?) disgust(?) or you just don't want to admit it can be genetic.
Maybe you can explain why there are gay animals? Inbreeding? too much pollution? maybe it is the sins of the father, like a father lion ate too many zebras so his first born son doh mess with de lionesses and dem?
Or the gay duck, he might have blown too many bubbles in the pond?
-
TC, i admire your attempts to enlighten a bunch of dummies. thing is they all living in a society that is the product of science and is idiot-proof enough to tolerate the inherently anti-scientific ignorance of religion. they could read their religious text and pretend that they devotely believe in it and when they sick, go to the hospital and get the best care that science provides. they will never experience a true test of their so-called faith knowing that they always have the safety net of science.
So ribbit what do you do when you are sick and in need of dire medical care? Put your hand up or on the qoran and ask to be healed and how does that work for you? Truth is that faith does take a back seat to science as soon as it becomes crunch time.
davidephraim, de point ah making is de notion of religious faith in de west cyah be taken seriously. in particular, dis notion have many fairweather fren. when push come to shove, "christians" in de west head for science. if de test of a christian is one of faith, then de so-called "christians" in de western world eh able.
-
I just realized that I rambled on but never answered the question. I have met and known many people who turned gay, is gay and not gay but very feminine in my time. I do not have any gay cousins whom I speak to all the time and the fact that you do / might forces me to hush and listen as you tell about your insight in dealing with them. I was just voicing my opinion and impressions. Intrigued to hear what you have learnt that might disqualify what I think to be true which is "not born so" but "became so because of factors".
when someone born with a hole in dey heart...environment?
Or with diabetes?
How about mental illness?
or lupus?
or blindness?
or a mongol?
While there always remains the "X" factor the unexplainable... more and more discoveries are made that shows relativity to the habits of the human. Too much sugar over time causes diabetes. Generation or 4 and thats a small household name. Couple more generations and people talking bout it genetic. I agree. It was my peoples and their genes who was doing whatever they were doing that made me susceptible to the birth defects. In the current world not even the ancestors anymore My dad might have been a crack head and as a result of those foreign chemicals coming in, it triggered a reaction that resulted in a number of proven diseases. Also My dad may have liked too many canned products, played in too much oil, worked the coal-mines, worked the trains, inhale too many pesticides, Flit. The human lives a toxic filled life and everybody make-up and tolerances are generally the same but locally different. Summed up for a lot of diseases mentioned it could be the results of "The sins of the father". Mongols (inbreeding)... still sins of the father. This includes the father who touching his daughter. That can make her trip, chemicals get imbalanced and before yuh know it she gone crazy or worse she tun killer.
I read your responses to my questions and I realize that you are blinded by hate(?) disgust(?) or you just don't want to admit it can be genetic.
Maybe you can explain why there are gay animals? Inbreeding? too much pollution? maybe it is the sins of the father, like a father lion ate too many zebras so his first born son doh mess with de lionesses and dem?
Or the gay duck, he might have blown too many bubbles in the pond?
I've often heard of gay animals, but i always thought it was rubbish, not saying i don't buy it , but no one ever came wid facts. can you post some conclusive evidence.
-
I just realized that I rambled on but never answered the question. I have met and known many people who turned gay, is gay and not gay but very feminine in my time. I do not have any gay cousins whom I speak to all the time and the fact that you do / might forces me to hush and listen as you tell about your insight in dealing with them. I was just voicing my opinion and impressions. Intrigued to hear what you have learnt that might disqualify what I think to be true which is "not born so" but "became so because of factors".
when someone born with a hole in dey heart...environment?
Or with diabetes?
How about mental illness?
or lupus?
or blindness?
or a mongol?
While there always remains the "X" factor the unexplainable... more and more discoveries are made that shows relativity to the habits of the human. Too much sugar over time causes diabetes. Generation or 4 and thats a small household name. Couple more generations and people talking bout it genetic. I agree. It was my peoples and their genes who was doing whatever they were doing that made me susceptible to the birth defects. In the current world not even the ancestors anymore My dad might have been a crack head and as a result of those foreign chemicals coming in, it triggered a reaction that resulted in a number of proven diseases. Also My dad may have liked too many canned products, played in too much oil, worked the coal-mines, worked the trains, inhale too many pesticides, Flit. The human lives a toxic filled life and everybody make-up and tolerances are generally the same but locally different. Summed up for a lot of diseases mentioned it could be the results of "The sins of the father". Mongols (inbreeding)... still sins of the father. This includes the father who touching his daughter. That can make her trip, chemicals get imbalanced and before yuh know it she gone crazy or worse she tun killer.
I read your responses to my questions and I realize that you are blinded by hate(?) disgust(?) or you just don't want to admit it can be genetic.
Maybe you can explain why there are gay animals? Inbreeding? too much pollution? maybe it is the sins of the father, like a father lion ate too many zebras so his first born son doh mess with de lionesses and dem?
Or the gay duck, he might have blown too many bubbles in the pond?
I've often heard of gay animals, but i always thought it was rubbish, not saying i don't buy it , but no one ever came wid facts. can you post some conclusive evidence.
check this out
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-72574.html
-
TC, i admire your attempts to enlighten a bunch of dummies. thing is they all living in a society that is the product of science and is idiot-proof enough to tolerate the inherently anti-scientific ignorance of religion. they could read their religious text and pretend that they devotely believe in it and when they sick, go to the hospital and get the best care that science provides. they will never experience a true test of their so-called faith knowing that they always have the safety net of science.
So ribbit what do you do when you are sick and in need of dire medical care? Put your hand up or on the qoran and ask to be healed and how does that work for you? Truth is that faith does take a back seat to science as soon as it becomes crunch time.
davidephraim, de point ah making is de notion of religious faith in de west cyah be taken seriously. in particular, dis notion have many fairweather fren. when push come to shove, "christians" in de west head for science. if de test of a christian is one of faith, then de so-called "christians" in de western world eh able.
Well I feel you and my reference was mostly about the west. But I've been to the East and though I have seen many a faith rich person it seems we all tend to seek the help of the medical system as soon as it looks like "GOD" can't handle the problem or handles it fast enough.
-
I just realized that I rambled on but never answered the question. I have met and known many people who turned gay, is gay and not gay but very feminine in my time. I do not have any gay cousins whom I speak to all the time and the fact that you do / might forces me to hush and listen as you tell about your insight in dealing with them. I was just voicing my opinion and impressions. Intrigued to hear what you have learnt that might disqualify what I think to be true which is "not born so" but "became so because of factors".
when someone born with a hole in dey heart...environment?
Or with diabetes?
How about mental illness?
or lupus?
or blindness?
or a mongol?
While there always remains the "X" factor the unexplainable... more and more discoveries are made that shows relativity to the habits of the human. Too much sugar over time causes diabetes. Generation or 4 and thats a small household name. Couple more generations and people talking bout it genetic. I agree. It was my peoples and their genes who was doing whatever they were doing that made me susceptible to the birth defects. In the current world not even the ancestors anymore My dad might have been a crack head and as a result of those foreign chemicals coming in, it triggered a reaction that resulted in a number of proven diseases. Also My dad may have liked too many canned products, played in too much oil, worked the coal-mines, worked the trains, inhale too many pesticides, Flit. The human lives a toxic filled life and everybody make-up and tolerances are generally the same but locally different. Summed up for a lot of diseases mentioned it could be the results of "The sins of the father". Mongols (inbreeding)... still sins of the father. This includes the father who touching his daughter. That can make her trip, chemicals get imbalanced and before yuh know it she gone crazy or worse she tun killer.
I read your responses to my questions and I realize that you are blinded by hate(?) disgust(?) or you just don't want to admit it can be genetic.
Maybe you can explain why there are gay animals? Inbreeding? too much pollution? maybe it is the sins of the father, like a father lion ate too many zebras so his first born son doh mess with de lionesses and dem?
Or the gay duck, he might have blown too many bubbles in the pond?
Not blinded but yes disgusted. Disgusted with the fact that mankind blames all his problems on either God or de Devil. If is a good problem then it was God and if by chance unfavorable then well... it was the devil. Several things that we do affect us and we hate to claim. We are great at diverting the blame to unseen forces. I was walking and fell today... it must have been that dirty old gravity playing tricks on me... might it have been me starring at the lovely ladies whilst going over the big stone that tripped me in the first place. surely. Had I navigated better might I have been more successful. probably. Now addressing the Gay Duck or the inbreeding or a serial killer... We were born with WILL. Could our will not have prevented us from giving into picking up the chainsaw to massacre the girls cheer-leading team or from having sex with my sister or wonder what it would feel like if Bruno and I went down to the pond together. Whilst I maintain that there will always be an X factor which is probably hidden in the inhibitory gland and the inhibitory process for the most part we are in control and need to apply more of our God given abilities and keep ourselves whole.
-
Scott Lively on CBC - The Current
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/current_20100113_25752.mp3
Written response by Scott Lively in the Post today
Pastor defends himself against homosexualist smear
Re: The Seeds Of Hatred, John Moore, Jan. 12. In all of my years of being maligned by homosexualists, John Moores column takes the prize for the most poisonous. In a column dripping with vitriol, accompanied by a shocking photo of two boys being executed in Iran, I was painted as a truly evil figure: the instigator of the death penalty provision in Ugandas pending anti-homosexuality bill, a peddler of blood-libel against helpless gays and a supporter of the Nazi Party (based on my co-authorship of the history text The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party).
Mr. Moore pretended a familiarity with my work that lent an air of credibility to his analysis, but in truth he never called me to check his facts, and obviously hasnt read my books.
How does one respond to this kind of smear? Its like the old tar-baby Have you stopped beating your wife yet?, a rhetorical trick designed to box an opponent into a defensive posture. No, I did not advocate for the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda. No, I dont engage in blood libel against homosexuals. No, I dont support the Nazi Party. Can such denials, however truthful, ever unpoison the well? My best hope in these Orwellian days of force-fed, pro-gay propaganda by media, government and academia is that readers will have already dismissed the column as just more of the same.
For those readers wanting to investigate the matter further, my books may be read online without charge. These include Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the Gay Agenda that was the basis for my talks in Uganda and The Pink Swastika, co-authored by Orthodox Jewish researcher Kevin Abrams. The honest investigator will discover what I already know by painful experience: John Moore is a malicious deceiver.
Scott Lively
-
considering the dont ask, dont tell debate
a couple poignant cartoons and this is THE BEST
(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-100105-TWIToons/15.ss_full.jpg)(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-100105-TWIToons/13.ss_full.jpg)
-
Gays take to PoS streets today
Published: Tue, 2011-05-17 22:08
Gail Alexander
Gays and transgender people will take to the streets of Port-of-Spain today walking to 16 ministries to mark the countrys first observance of the International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia. The Coalition Advocating for Inclusion of Sexual Orientation (CAISO) stated that todays event would be the first observance of its kind. On May 17, over 50 countries around the world celebrate the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO), marking the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness by the World Health Organisation (WHO) 21 years ago. The international celebration of a day against homophobia was spearheaded by a Caribbean man, Martiniquan Georges-Louis Tin, CAISO noted. CAISO is a local non-governmental organisation that advocates for dignity, equality and full citizenship for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people. The group has also lobbied for advocating for inclusion of sexual orientation in nation-building policies.
CAISOs Colin Robinson said gay, lesbian and transgender people would walk through the streets of downtown Port-of-Spain delivering packages to the offices of 15 Government ministers. Robinson said: The packages contain: a gift that playfully humanises their message; information on IDAHO; and a list of six politically feasible steps the Government can take to strengthen the promise of equality for all citizens and address the violence, discrimination and social vulnerability caused by homophobia. Starting at 10 am, the group will kick off venues with the Foreign Affairs Ministry at Queens Park.
Also on the routein the following orderis the Labour, Justice, Science, Energy, Planning, Finance, People and Social Development, Trade, Legal Affairs, Public Administration, National Security, Tourism, Attorney General and Works Ministries. Robinson said the annual event was recognised in a number of countries, including Brazil and Cuba, and includes a month of government-sponsored activities, and was observed in Jamaica and in Guyana, this year for the sixth year. Yesterday, new Planning and Genders Affairs Minister Dr Bhoe Tewarie said:
I feel its a positive sign they would act on their own behalf to call attentiom to the issue and certainly if you believe that discrimination of any form is not a good thing, its a reasonable position for them to take, that by sensitising society they help to address the issue of potential discrimination.
I am aware the Gender Affairs Minister has been addressing the issue and Im aware there are there issues that have emerged as being contentious in the sense there are strong views about it taking different points of view. Tewarie said, Given that I just entered the Ministry I havent been able to look at the policy itself, nor have I been have to examine the contentions. But I think that in a situation where policy is being made, and there is controversy or differences of opinion, the only way forward is discussions and dialogue. Id be willing to meet with anybody who has any kind of issue they would like to present. In any resolution of the issue they will have to be part of the process.
-
doh worry, next 20 years it go have pedophiles taking the streets for acceptance and equal rights/ freedom of expression.
-
doh worry, next 20 years it go have pedophiles taking the streets for acceptance and equal rights/ freedom of expression.
So sad! :(
-
Then it'll have the FTRYG act. (Freedom to Rape your Goat) People will start living marrying animals soon. Watch and see.
-
ahmmm ... somebody help me nah?
what does homosexuality have to do with pedophilia and bestiality?
as far as I know, heterosexuals also engage in pedophilia and bestiality and homosexuals doh have a monopoly on that behavior.
-
ahmmm ... somebody help me nah?
what does homosexuality have to do with pedophilia and bestiality?
as far as I know, heterosexuals also engage in pedophilia and bestiality and homosexuals doh have a monopoly on that behavior.
I honestly though TnT was a less ignorant country nowadays, but maybe its just the younger generations...
-
>:( ...if left unchecked this "WALK" could turn into a pride parade ....
-
>:( ...if left unchecked this "WALK" could turn into a pride parade ....
and how you suggest they check it ???
-
ahmmm ... somebody help me nah?
what does homosexuality have to do with pedophilia and bestiality?
as far as I know, heterosexuals also engage in pedophilia and bestiality and homosexuals doh have a monopoly on that behavior.
Exactly- which is why it is sad that such an analogy/association would be made.
-
ahmmm ... somebody help me nah?
what does homosexuality have to do with pedophilia and bestiality?
as far as I know, heterosexuals also engage in pedophilia and bestiality and homosexuals doh have a monopoly on that behavior.
I honestly though TnT was a less ignorant country nowadays, but maybe its just the younger generations...
When it comes to homosexuality absolutely not. Folks continue to hold on to the beliefs that keeps them in their nice little 'comfort zone'.
-
By the way, why is being gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, or questioning a threaten to the peace of mind or comfort level of a person who identifies as hetrosexual?
-
now comments like this show how many pple have a "problem" with the LGBT community being open in our society.
Many claim it is a lifestyle choice. But the question i always ask is, why would someone want to subject themselves to being openly hated by most members of society, to have to hide in fear, not being able to show how they feel for a consenting partner...whenever i ask myself this i can not see it as a lifestyle choice.
Kudos to those who are brave enough to come in POS to march for their rights..
especially when they have to be compared to paedophiles and beastiality...what two grown adults decide to do with their feelings to each other is noones business but their own.
-
jes doh ask for adoption rights...tf thaz allyuh choice doh force it on d likkle ones
-
jes doh ask for adoption rights...tf thaz allyuh choice doh force it on d likkle ones
I have no problem with adoption rights for gay parents as long as they are able to provide the nurturing environment that all children deserve and too many never experience....The notion that adoption rights for gays will result in homosexuality being forced on "d likkle ones" is as absurd as it is unfounded IMHO.
-
Let me clarify the association. I apologizes, I see it wasn't clear. What you are seeing in T&T now is a very short precursor to the threat of marriage being between a man and a woman. Once you open the flood gate people WILL start do all kinda things such as group marriages and yes they will marry animals next. The marriage is the first ever created institution and it is between a man and woman, in an exclusive traditional sense. You all know what I think and I'll say it in public and private. A man should not lay with another man. The basis for my belief is the bible.
Romans 1
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know Gods righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
I'll exit here.
-
jes doh ask for adoption rights...tf thaz allyuh choice doh force it on d likkle ones
But its OK for the little ones to be left in the hands of neglectful, wutless parents instead? Like the ones who children roaming around kidnapping, robbing, killing people in this country en mass.
There is a massive problem with parenthood, family and social cohesion in T&T. Giving gay people 'rights' may make us appear to have a veneer of progressiveness. But it does not address the most pressing problems of T&T. At the same it would not hurt to have caring people raising abandoned children, children of underage mothers, children of gangsters and criminals killed or incarcerated, that are left to rot in the slums growing up even more monstrous than their fathers, no matter what the sexuality.
We sit back and do nothing while youths growing up almost deviod of positive values but the minute somebody say 'bullerman' all of a sudden we so concerned.
I would guess most of the problems come from homes where sex was the motive and children were an unwanted accident. Lets try to find solutions for the problems of broken homes before we decry people who actually want to have children
-
Let me clarify the association. I apologizes, I see it wasn't clear. What you are seeing in T&T now is a very short precursor to the threat of marriage being between a man and a woman. Once you open the flood gate people WILL start do all kinda things such as group marriages and yes they will marry animals next. The marriage is the first ever created institution and it is between a man and woman, in an exclusive traditional sense. You all know what I think and I'll say it in public and private. A man should not lay with another man. The basis for my belief is the bible.
Romans 1
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know Gods righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
I'll exit here.
Question-how many times has the bible been translated by man?
-
Let me clarify the association. I apologizes, I see it wasn't clear. What you are seeing in T&T now is a very short precursor to the threat of marriage being between a man and a woman. Once you open the flood gate people WILL start do all kinda things such as group marriages and yes they will marry animals next. The marriage is the first ever created institution and it is between a man and woman, in an exclusive traditional sense. You all know what I think and I'll say it in public and private. A man should not lay with another man. The basis for my belief is the bible.
Romans 1
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know Gods righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
I'll exit here.
Preacher, if yuh didn't notice, the flood gates get flood out and mash up a long time ago.
People funny yes. They always get caught with their pants down when the symptoms of social decline hits and they start to cuss and put up a stink and pull out bible, torah and koran. But they happily ignored the conditions that set the stage for the symptoms. Preacher, with all due respect....how can you be up in arms against the homosexuality of consenting adults when all kinds of other vices like gambling, prostitution, sex with young girls, drug use, greed and selfishness in everyday life etc. are widely accepted?
-
:rotfl: Zando you right brother. Flood gates open long time. :beermug:
Giggsy I didn't need the bible to tell me that is wrong. All over the world it is never been social norm.... There is no Wonder Woman tribe either. 8) To bad eh?
-
jes doh ask for adoption rights...tf thaz allyuh choice doh force it on d likkle ones
I have no problem with adoption rights for gay parents as long as they are able to provide the nurturing environment that all children deserve and too many never experience....The notion that adoption rights for gays will result in homosexuality being forced on "d likkle ones" is as absurd as it is unfounded IMHO.
meant force to accept the situation...not force to be gay...
-
We've been down this road before... no need to revisit, people have their views and remain steadfast by them.
-
:rotfl: Zando you right brother. Flood gates open long time. :beermug:
Giggsy I didn't need the bible to tell me that is wrong. All over the world it is never been social norm.... There is no Wonder Woman tribe either. 8) To bad eh?
So Preacher, I believe you are very entitled to your beliefs as it pertains to people, who do not identify as hetrosexual but have those beliefs not been shaped by what you have read in the bible? If not so, why quote scriptures? But also people get so caught up in a person's sexual orientation and use that as a determination about a person's character, values and lifestyle. A person's sexual orientation is just a small make up who they are so gay, straight, bisexual, transgender does not mean a person is 'good', 'bad' and or 'worthy'. Just my 2cents.
-
The gay ppl just want some respect that's all. They want to be able to walk down the street without ppl bawlin out "BULLAH!!!" I could give them that respect, no problem.
The bible preaches that no sin is worse than another. With that in mind I think we should tackle the problem of infidelity first, since it's a much larger problem in Trini.
Wha yuh say to that Preacher?
-
The gay ppl just want some respect that's all. They want to be able to walk down the street without ppl bawlin out "BULLAH!!!" I could give them that respect, no problem.
The bible preaches that no sin is worse than another. With that in mind I think we should tackle the problem of infidelity first, since it's a much larger problem in Trini.
Wha yuh say to that Preacher?
Sure if it was a parade in support of infidelity. I'm sure i could find a scripture or 2. ;)
There are some sins that are not unto death (separation from God) and there are other sins that will separate you from God. The bible classifies homosexuality as an abomination and Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. The scripture I put out does not just talk about homosexuality. As Zando hinted at, it's more an accusation to a society that has removed or try to remove God from their daily existence and knowledge. So God say, ok you don't want me to be a part of your thing? Then do your thing.
Some how not agreeing with the homosexual lifestyle makes someone a hater. But they don't have any problem showing off in parade and forcing it on our children in school. They are the aggressors.
-
What if?! :thinking:
Lets say sometime in the future to save all the aggro on both sides, that the straight majority give the gays their own land/country (lets call the countries Gayland for the Gay men and Lesboland for the Gay women. As gay men dont like women & vice versa, well assume that they would both want their own countries.
Now in both Gayland and Lesboland they are free to create their own laws, rewrite or get rid of the Bible all together and practise their chosen lifestyle as openly as they wish without the need to inflict they lifestyle on a morally opposing straight population.
The only rule that is enforced as part of the deal is that when the population of the both Gayland & Lesboland is ageing and dying out because of the low birth rate, they don't come running back to the straight world to hopefully adopt straight children and take them back to Gayland or Lesboland to convert them to their chosen lifestyle.
And btw if someone in the staright world decides that he/she is gay, they simply buy a plane ticket and flyer over to Gayland or Lesboland. And the same goes vice versa so everyone has a choice and no one is forced to live a gay or straight lifestyle! :)
Thats the deal and we can all live in peace and respect each other laws if we choose to visit each others countries.
And btw the straight world by international law of humanity will help if a natural disaster strikes in Gayland or Lesboland but they are not allowed to beg us to come back to the straight world unless they are willing to conform to our laws, our morals and our lifestyle.
Hopefully in the future someone with enough power can grant the gay community their own country where they can go off and do as they wish and we will see the result of this experiment! ;)
And please I dont want anyone after reading my What If?! idea for discussion just here trying to brand me as hating gays as I dont! I just dont agree with their lifestyle as I think its against natures law from a reproductive stand point and dont want to have it pushed constantly in my face!
The solution above should mean that both sides are happy!!
What do you folks think? Would gay men & women go for this idea of their own countries where they are free to do as they wish or would they prefer to continue living in moral conflict with the rest of the straight population?
:mackdaddy:
-
What if?! :thinking:
Lets say sometime in the future to save all the argro on both sides, that the straight majority give the gays their own land/country (lets call the countries Gayland for the Gay men and Lesboland for the Gay women.
This saves aggro how Pro?
Gays wouldn't have to "adopt straight kids" because gays will continue to appear in straight society naturally, after all, the original Gaylandians come from straightland. Separating them at one point in time does not stop the emergence of new gays.
But even if we run with this ideal of segregation.
What is forcing gays to go to Gayland? Their must be some penalty or effort to force gays out otherwise they would just stay in straightland, the place where they born, grow up, have family, friends, you know their home.
Also at what age would parents ostracize their gay kids to this foreign country? And who is policing the removal of gays?
Seems like this scenario would have just as much aggro as any other where you try to segregate people and institutionalize discrimination.
But of course it would be worth it because it would have fewer of them around to constantly push it in our face (the horror).
-
But they don't have any problem showing off in parade and forcing it on our children in school. They are the aggressors.
Genuinely trying to understand this Preach. I think parades can be easily avoided so kids not really at risk if parents want to protect them but how is homosexuality forced on children in school?
-
Let me clarify the association. I apologizes, I see it wasn't clear. What you are seeing in T&T now is a very short precursor to the threat of marriage being between a man and a woman. Once you open the flood gate people WILL start do all kinda things such as group marriages and yes they will marry animals next. The marriage is the first ever created institution and it is between a man and woman, in an exclusive traditional sense. You all know what I think and I'll say it in public and private. A man should not lay with another man. The basis for my belief is the bible.
Romans 1
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know Gods righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
I'll exit here.
See this is the problem I have with the Bible. Now I was raised going to church every Sunday and all that, and as a teenager join a born again church "jess so". Problem is, at that point I started to read the Bible and with the brain that God gave mih, it is this exact same thing I really can't understand or get past....
If God "give the people over to a depraved mind"...and is he children eh, but dais another confusing story..is not God causing the poeple to act all kinda how? And then God self saying they deserve death?
So in other words, God make children (all of us) and because God is all knowing, God know beforehand who going and do what and who going and behave how, so God willfully cause that behavior, and then God say, hellfire fuh yuh because yuh do that. God mad?
Then too, God make the devil, God knew what the devil was about(so why bother?) because... well..he is God, then God let the Devil loose to interfere with his poor children (us), knowing full well what go happen and then after all that God blaming and punishing us!? with all kinda depraved mind? when the shit hit the fan? God is a sadist? Something not adding up. I cyar treat my children so, maybe God need parenting classes.
Anyway when I see God the first thing I go ask him is WTF man!!??
As fuh the gay/lesbian thing...it only takes growing up in a household with a sibling who ends up being gay as an adult, then looking back and seeing all the signs from childhood to realize that its ABSOLUTELY NOT a lifestyle choice. People are BORN WITH HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES. Maybe not all but its definitely not just a lifestyle choice, and NOBODY, pounding no bible could tell me any different.
Absolutely makes me wonder why God hates it so much.
-
What if?! :thinking:
Lets say sometime in the future to save all the argro on both sides, that the straight majority give the gays their own land/country (lets call the countries Gayland for the Gay men and Lesboland for the Gay women.
This saves aggro how Pro?
Gays wouldn't have to "adopt straight kids" because gays will continue to appear in straight society naturally, after all, the original Gaylandians come from straightland. Separating them at one point in time does not stop the emergence of new gays.
But even if we run with this ideal of segregation.
What is forcing gays to go to Gayland? Their must be some penalty or effort to force gays out otherwise they would just stay in straightland, the place where they born, grow up, have family, friends, you know their home.
Also at what age would parents ostracize their gay kids to this foreign country? And who is policing the removal of gays?
Seems like this scenario would have just as much aggro as any other where you try to segregate people and institutionalize discrimination.
But of course it would be worth it because it would have fewer of them around to constantly push it in our face (the horror).
This is a matter of choice!! Btw did you read the whole article or just the bit you quoted? I tried to cover all possible scenarios!!
This scenario is not forcing gays to leave! They can stay in straight society if they are happy to conform with the laws and moral sexual behaviour of the wider straight society.
If they are not happy with conforming with the laws of wider straight society they can go to Gayland where they are free to practice what comes natural to them without offending anyone!
This scenario is not a matter of forcing, its a matter of providing choice where both sides can be free and happy to live the lifestyle they choose! :beermug:
-
Sure if it was a parade in support of infidelity. I'm sure i could find a scripture or 2. ;)
So you wouldn't oppose homosexuality as long as they don't have any more "parades" in support of it? Some would argue that carnival is one big parade in support of fornication. Yuh should be railing against de bulling outside marriage on the regular man.
What if?! :thinking:
Lets say sometime in the future to save all the aggro on both sides, that the straight majority give the gays their own land/country (lets call the countries Gayland for the Gay men and Lesboland for the Gay women. As gay men dont like women & vice versa, well assume that they would both want their own countries.
They don't? They're not attracted to the opposited sex... doesn't mean that they don't like them or can't live among them. Among other flaws in your proposal.
-
Sure if it was a parade in support of infidelity. I'm sure i could find a scripture or 2. ;)
So you wouldn't oppose homosexuality as long as they don't have any more "parades" in support of it? Some would argue that carnival is one big parade in support of fornication. Yuh should be railing against de bulling outside marriage on the regular man.
What if?! :thinking:
Lets say sometime in the future to save all the aggro on both sides, that the straight majority give the gays their own land/country (lets call the countries Gayland for the Gay men and Lesboland for the Gay women. As gay men dont like women & vice versa, well assume that they would both want their own countries.
They don't? They're not attracted to the opposited sex... doesn't mean that they don't like them or can't live among them. Among other flaws in your proposal.
It's an option, they can all live together in the same country both the gay men & women if they choose! ;)
-
See this is the problem I have with the Bible. Now I was raised going to church every Sunday and all that, and as a teenager join a born again church "jess so". Problem is, at that point I started to read the Bible and with the brain that God gave mih, it is this exact same thing I really can't understand or get past....
If God "give the people over to a depraved mind"...and is he children eh, but dais another confusing story..is not God causing the poeple to act all kinda how? And then God self saying they deserve death?
So in other words, God make children (all of us) and because God is all knowing, God know beforehand who going and do what and who going and behave how, so God willfully cause that behavior, and then God say, hellfire fuh yuh because yuh do that. God mad?
Then too, God make the devil, God knew what the devil was about(so why bother?) because... well..he is God, then God let the Devil loose to interfere with his poor children (us), knowing full well what go happen and then after all that God blaming and punishing us!? with all kinda depraved mind? when the shit hit the fan? God is a sadist? Something not adding up. I cyar treat my children so, maybe God need parenting classes.
Anyway when I see God the first thing I go ask him is WTF man!!??
As fuh the gay/lesbian thing...it only takes growing up in a household with a sibling who ends up being gay as an adult, then looking back and seeing all the signs from childhood to realize that its ABSOLUTELY NOT a lifestyle choice. People are BORN WITH HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES. Maybe not all but its definitely not just a lifestyle choice, and NOBODY, pounding no bible could tell me any different.
Absolutely makes me wonder why God hates it so much.
God make us but he didn't make our minds... nor do I believe our futures are charted and we can't divert from it. I look at it as life being a maze, we have infinite paths to choose from but ultimately leading to only one true path. He had to let Satan have a play so that we could have true choice. Remember, he made us in his own image... meaning at least, that we are intelligent, free and inquisitive. He could have forced us to love him... or "force" us by not giving us a true choice... nothing but straight and narrow choices fuh we... sorta like telling we we have choice fuh dinner: Salad, greens or ruffage. Instead he allow Satan to serve we some fried chicken and ice cream on the menu too. It ent good fuh we and might ultimately hurt we in the end, but he want us to have a true choice.
-
See this is the problem I have with the Bible. Now I was raised going to church every Sunday and all that, and as a teenager join a born again church "jess so". Problem is, at that point I started to read the Bible and with the brain that God gave mih, it is this exact same thing I really can't understand or get past....
If God "give the people over to a depraved mind"...and is he children eh, but dais another confusing story..is not God causing the poeple to act all kinda how? And then God self saying they deserve death?
So in other words, God make children (all of us) and because God is all knowing, God know beforehand who going and do what and who going and behave how, so God willfully cause that behavior, and then God say, hellfire fuh yuh because yuh do that. God mad?
Then too, God make the devil, God knew what the devil was about(so why bother?) because... well..he is God, then God let the Devil loose to interfere with his poor children (us), knowing full well what go happen and then after all that God blaming and punishing us!? with all kinda depraved mind? when the shit hit the fan? God is a sadist? Something not adding up. I cyar treat my children so, maybe God need parenting classes.
Anyway when I see God the first thing I go ask him is WTF man!!??
As fuh the gay/lesbian thing...it only takes growing up in a household with a sibling who ends up being gay as an adult, then looking back and seeing all the signs from childhood to realize that its ABSOLUTELY NOT a lifestyle choice. People are BORN WITH HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES. Maybe not all but its definitely not just a lifestyle choice, and NOBODY, pounding no bible could tell me any different.
Absolutely makes me wonder why God hates it so much.
God make us but he didn't make our minds... nor do I believe our futures are charted and we can't divert from it. I look at it as life being a maze, we have infinite paths to choose from but ultimately leading to only one true path. He had to let Satan have a play so that we could have true choice. Remember, he made us in his own image... meaning at least, that we are intelligent, free and inquisitive. He could have forced us to love him... or "force" us by not giving us a true choice... nothing but straight and narrow choices fuh we... sorta like telling we we have choice fuh dinner: Salad, greens or ruffage. Instead he allow Satan to serve we some fried chicken and ice cream on the menu too. It ent good fuh we and might ultimately hurt we in the end, but he want us to have a true choice.
:beermug:
That's the very reason I proposed my What If?! argument!
I wanted to provide choice and a solution where both sides, straights & gays can happily live the lifestyle they choose without offending each other!
I certainly don't want my children being taught in school that gay behaviour is natural because mother nature clearly tells me it is not!
The reason that the planet is in the state its in is because man is constantly trying to go against nature and its laws!
-
:rotfl: Zando you right brother. Flood gates open long time. :beermug:
Giggsy I didn't need the bible to tell me that is wrong. All over the world it is never been social norm.... There is no Wonder Woman tribe either. 8) To bad eh?
So Preacher, I believe you are very entitled to your beliefs as it pertains to people, who do not identify as hetrosexual but have those beliefs not been shaped by what you have read in the bible? If not so, why quote scriptures? But also people get so caught up in a person's sexual orientation and use that as a determination about a person's character, values and lifestyle. A person's sexual orientation is just a small make up who they are so gay, straight, bisexual, transgender does not mean a person is 'good', 'bad' and or 'worthy'. Just my 2cents.
I guess your argument is a fair one bro. What people believe is based on something. This goes for everyone. The question however, is what qualifies your belief? What is it based on? It can't just be what you think. For me my document is the bible. It is a solid document. The validity of the bible can be quantified in one question. Was Jesus real? Historically YES...Was he crucified? Historically Yes. Did he raise from the dead. Historically unsure. Biblicaly YES. There are 66 books in the bible with difference authors from different times and places, some 500 + years apart. ALL writings reference Jesus. There are 24,600 manuscripts of the New Testament and over 24,000 ORIGINALS of parts of the New Testament. That's a lot of cross referencing that supports the resurrection of Jesus from over 500+ eye witness accounts. The bible is more provable in a court of law than anything written by Homer. That's saying a lot. John 1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was with God and the Word became flesh and dwelt among men.
It depends on what you looking for i guess. It has been logically proven over and over again. But if you looking for loopholes you'll find 2 or 3 and miss the wealth of other material. Man always want to mock God, breath up His air, soak up His sun and piss in His sea. :) So yeah brother I stand on the bible and that's what it says about the issue.
-
But they don't have any problem showing off in parade and forcing it on our children in school. They are the aggressors.
Genuinely trying to understand this Preach. I think parades can be easily avoided so kids not really at risk if parents want to protect them but how is homosexuality forced on children in school?
Yeah yeah J...There is legislation afoot to teach children to explore homosexuality from very early in sex ed and other such classes, in schools with tax payers money.
-
See this is the problem I have with the Bible. Now I was raised going to church every Sunday and all that, and as a teenager join a born again church "jess so". Problem is, at that point I started to read the Bible and with the brain that God gave mih, it is this exact same thing I really can't understand or get past....
If God "give the people over to a depraved mind"...and is he children eh, but dais another confusing story..is not God causing the poeple to act all kinda how? And then God self saying they deserve death?
So in other words, God make children (all of us) and because God is all knowing, God know beforehand who going and do what and who going and behave how, so God willfully cause that behavior, and then God say, hellfire fuh yuh because yuh do that. God mad?
Then too, God make the devil, God knew what the devil was about(so why bother?) because... well..he is God, then God let the Devil loose to interfere with his poor children (us), knowing full well what go happen and then after all that God blaming and punishing us!? with all kinda depraved mind? when the shit hit the fan? God is a sadist? Something not adding up. I cyar treat my children so, maybe God need parenting classes.
Anyway when I see God the first thing I go ask him is WTF man!!??
As fuh the gay/lesbian thing...it only takes growing up in a household with a sibling who ends up being gay as an adult, then looking back and seeing all the signs from childhood to realize that its ABSOLUTELY NOT a lifestyle choice. People are BORN WITH HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES. Maybe not all but its definitely not just a lifestyle choice, and NOBODY, pounding no bible could tell me any different.
Absolutely makes me wonder why God hates it so much.
God make us but he didn't make our minds... nor do I believe our futures are charted and we can't divert from it. I look at it as life being a maze, we have infinite paths to choose from but ultimately leading to only one true path. He had to let Satan have a play so that we could have true choice. Remember, he made us in his own image... meaning at least, that we are intelligent, free and inquisitive. He could have forced us to love him... or "force" us by not giving us a true choice... nothing but straight and narrow choices fuh we... sorta like telling we we have choice fuh dinner: Salad, greens or ruffage. Instead he allow Satan to serve we some fried chicken and ice cream on the menu too. It ent good fuh we and might ultimately hurt we in the end, but he want us to have a true choice.
My interpretation of God is that God absolutely made us and our minds, or else he would not be all the God he could be. The bible says so. Therefore he could give us a zillion choices, but he KNOWS beforehand which choice we will ultimately make, so why the choices? Is a game? And when we make the wrong choice that he knew before he made us that we would make, isn't he making us..well some of us not the saved ;), just to inflict eternal pain and suffering in hell? Again, God is a sadist?
Is 1 of 3 things...God eh really all that the Bible says he is (or else by my estimation he is a madman) or 2. By rational analysis of the Bible, there cannot reasonably be a God, or 3. The deal-breaker...have faith, yuh peabrain cyar really understand.
Despite all ah that, I does still say my prayers and thing, (I believe its a kind of brainwashing so the bible and religions are really quite effective), but I still reserve the right to ask questions of God because he made it so I could.
Besides, who wants to spend eternity in hell if there is a chace of that? ;)
-
The gay ppl just want some respect that's all. They want to be able to walk down the street without ppl bawlin out "BULLAH!!!" I could give them that respect, no problem.
The bible preaches that no sin is worse than another. With that in mind I think we should tackle the problem of infidelity first, since it's a much larger problem in Trini.
Wha yuh say to that Preacher?
Sure if it was a parade in support of infidelity. I'm sure i could find a scripture or 2. ;)
There are some sins that are not unto death (separation from God) and there are other sins that will separate you from God. The bible classifies homosexuality as an abomination and Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. The scripture I put out does not just talk about homosexuality. As Zando hinted at, it's more an accusation to a society that has removed or try to remove God from their daily existence and knowledge. So God say, ok you don't want me to be a part of your thing? Then do your thing.
Undoubtedly, homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. So are lying, pride and some others.
My point is that a homophobic attitude toward gay people is also sin, and I can't justify it. Homophobia as in condemnation of the sin itself is what the bible condones.
Just for my info, are you a real preacher?
-
This is a matter of choice!! Btw did you read the whole article or just the bit you quoted? I tried to cover all possible scenarios!!
I read the whole thing and it doesn't cover all possible scenarios.
This scenario is not forcing gays to leave! They can stay in straight society if they are happy to conform with the laws and moral sexual behaviour of the wider straight society.
This still doesn't address how to deal with gays who, by their nature, refuse to conform. At some point you have to criminalize or attach some penalty to being gay or acknowledge that they can stay and be gay too. This is the problem with segregation, you have to justify abrogating the rights of a part of society.
If they are not happy with conforming with the laws of wider straight society they can go to Gayland where they are free to practice what comes natural to them without offending anyone!
This scenario is not a matter of forcing, its a matter of providing choice where both sides can be free and happy to live the lifestyle they choose! :beermug:
This is a false choice and a disturbing dichotomy. There are no "sides" and if you have to leave your home to live your life you not really free and happy.
Also in this scenario do you think that gays would demand that everybody in Gayland conform to a gay lifestyle or they wouldn't care what the straight people in their midst are doing? You set this up as a mutually satisfactory arrangement when gays are generally not offended by straight people and express no desire to be rid of us.
:beermug:
-
See this is the problem I have with the Bible. Now I was raised going to church every Sunday and all that, and as a teenager join a born again church "jess so". Problem is, at that point I started to read the Bible and with the brain that God gave mih, it is this exact same thing I really can't understand or get past....
If God "give the people over to a depraved mind"...and is he children eh, but dais another confusing story..is not God causing the poeple to act all kinda how? And then God self saying they deserve death?
So in other words, God make children (all of us) and because God is all knowing, God know beforehand who going and do what and who going and behave how, so God willfully cause that behavior, and then God say, hellfire fuh yuh because yuh do that. God mad?
Then too, God make the devil, God knew what the devil was about(so why bother?) because... well..he is God, then God let the Devil loose to interfere with his poor children (us), knowing full well what go happen and then after all that God blaming and punishing us!? with all kinda depraved mind? when the shit hit the fan? God is a sadist? Something not adding up. I cyar treat my children so, maybe God need parenting classes.
Anyway when I see God the first thing I go ask him is WTF man!!??
As fuh the gay/lesbian thing...it only takes growing up in a household with a sibling who ends up being gay as an adult, then looking back and seeing all the signs from childhood to realize that its ABSOLUTELY NOT a lifestyle choice. People are BORN WITH HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES. Maybe not all but its definitely not just a lifestyle choice, and NOBODY, pounding no bible could tell me any different.
Absolutely makes me wonder why God hates it so much.
God make us but he didn't make our minds... nor do I believe our futures are charted and we can't divert from it. I look at it as life being a maze, we have infinite paths to choose from but ultimately leading to only one true path. He had to let Satan have a play so that we could have true choice. Remember, he made us in his own image... meaning at least, that we are intelligent, free and inquisitive. He could have forced us to love him... or "force" us by not giving us a true choice... nothing but straight and narrow choices fuh we... sorta like telling we we have choice fuh dinner: Salad, greens or ruffage. Instead he allow Satan to serve we some fried chicken and ice cream on the menu too. It ent good fuh we and might ultimately hurt we in the end, but he want us to have a true choice.
My interpretation of God is that God absolutely made us and our minds, or else he would not be all the God he could be. The bible says so. Therefore he could give us a zillion choices, but he KNOWS beforehand which choice we will ultimately make, so why the choices? Is a game? And when we make the wrong choice that he knew before he made us that we would make, isn't he making us..well some of us not the saved ;), just to inflict eternal pain and suffering in hell? Again, God is a sadist?
Is 1 of 3 things...God eh really all that the Bible says he is (or else by my estimation he is a madman) or 2. By rational analysis of the Bible, there cannot reasonably be a God, or 3. The deal-breaker...have faith, yuh peabrain cyar really understand.
Despite all ah that, I does still say my prayers and thing, (I believe its a kind of brainwashing so the bible and religions are really quite effective), but I still reserve the right to ask questions of God because he made it so I could.
Besides, who wants to spend eternity in hell if there is a chace of that? ;)
Socafan, I think yuh miss Preachers point.
God give us free will so therefore we all have a choice! Because we have free will what we do is up to us! God does not decide what we do but the punishment for us doing wrong has already been determined by God and nature. Conversely when we make the right choice we reap certain rewards which have also been predetermined by God.
God is not a mad man unless you class him giving us the same power of choice as he has himself as a totally mad thing for him to do! 8)
-
Anyway when I see God the first thing I go ask him is WTF man!!??
As fuh the gay/lesbian thing...it only takes growing up in a household with a sibling who ends up being gay as an adult, then looking back and seeing all the signs from childhood to realize that its ABSOLUTELY NOT a lifestyle choice. People are BORN WITH HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES. Maybe not all but its definitely not just a lifestyle choice, and NOBODY, pounding no bible could tell me any different.
Absolutely makes me wonder why God hates it so much.
:rotfl: You go kill meh!!!!! The death referred to is not murder, it is separation from God. That is what sin does. it separates us from Him. The fact that He does not just stop your breath is proof of His love. While we are in the act of sin He is there. The bibles says, God's desires that all men be saved, that all men come to repentance. But He can't make people love Him. What more must He give mankind? Sometimes we can loose faith in God but he will never looses faith in us and that goes for the gays and lesbians too. That's why you see wicked people living to a ripe old age most times because even though He hates our sin He doesn't hate us. His hand is always stretching to us hoping that we turn. :'(
-
Sure if it was a parade in support of infidelity. I'm sure i could find a scripture or 2. ;)
So you wouldn't oppose homosexuality as long as they don't have any more "parades" in support of it? Some would argue that carnival is one big parade in support of fornication. Yuh should be railing against de bulling outside marriage on the regular man.
:rotfl: I was just lightening the mood. I made my stance clear I think.
-
My interpretation of God is that God absolutely made us and our minds, or else he would not be all the God he could be. The bible says so. Therefore he could give us a zillion choices, but he KNOWS beforehand which choice we will ultimately make, so why the choices? Is a game? And when we make the wrong choice that he knew before he made us that we would make, isn't he making us..well some of us not the saved ;), just to inflict eternal pain and suffering in hell? Again, God is a sadist?
Even if he KNOWS what we are going to choose it's still a true choice because he doesn't force us to choose our option. If I know you like blue sneakers and I know with certainty that presented a choice of blue sneaker you will choose blue sneakers does that mean I am forcing you to choose blue? If I present a red pair and a yellow pair... am I forcing you to choose blue?
Is 1 of 3 things...God eh really all that the Bible says he is (or else by my estimation he is a madman) or 2. By rational analysis of the Bible, there cannot reasonably be a God, or 3. The deal-breaker...have faith, yuh peabrain cyar really understand.
Not sure I follow... but I would say probably 3... as deflating to our ego as it might be.
Despite all ah that, I does still say my prayers and thing, (I believe its a kind of brainwashing so the bible and religions are really quite effective), but I still reserve the right to ask questions of God because he made it so I could.
Besides, who wants to spend eternity in hell if there is a chace of that? ;)
Exactly... better to hedge yuh bets now and complain later.
-
Like I always say...ah doh really have a problem with God is jes he followers.....
-
This is a matter of choice!! Btw did you read the whole article or just the bit you quoted? I tried to cover all possible scenarios!!
I read the whole thing and it doesn't cover all possible scenarios.
This scenario is not forcing gays to leave! They can stay in straight society if they are happy to conform with the laws and moral sexual behaviour of the wider straight society.
This still doesn't address how to deal with gays who, by their nature, refuse to conform. At some point you have to criminalize or attach some penalty to being gay or acknowledge that they can stay and be gay too. This is the problem with segregation, you have to justify abrogating the rights of a part of society.
If they are not happy with conforming with the laws of wider straight society they can go to Gayland where they are free to practice what comes natural to them without offending anyone!
This scenario is not a matter of forcing, its a matter of providing choice where both sides can be free and happy to live the lifestyle they choose! :beermug:
This is a false choice and a disturbing dichotomy. There are no "sides" and if you have to leave your home to live your life you not really free and happy.
Also in this scenario do you think that gays would demand that everybody in Gayland conform to a gay lifestyle or they wouldn't care what the straight people in their midst are doing? You set this up as a mutually satisfactory arrangement when gays are generally not offended by straight people and express no desire to be rid of us.
:beermug:
What gays do in Gayland and the laws they come up with is totally up to them and is not really my concern!!
As I already said if any of them decide that they no longer want to live the gay lifestyle they are free to leave if the laws in Gayland don't allow them to live there happily and without pressure as a straight person. Can't see why a straight person would want to live in a Gay country or environment in the first place!
Ultimately I believe for the sake of happiness for both straight and gay people that my proposal will be the best solution provided folks are free to come & go as they please once they are willing to conform and respect the laws and morals of both societies!
-
Ey I just found something I was looking for it show a time table for very respected historical books, the number of copies and over how many years they were written.
Check this:
Author No. of Copies Time Span
Caesar 10 1.000 years
Plato (Tetralogies) 7 1,200 years
Tacitus (Annals) 20 1,000 years
Pliny the Younger (History) 7 750 years
Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum) 8 800 years
Homer (Iliad) 643 500 years
New Testament Over 24,000 25 years
The chart just says that there was an original and over a certain number of years X amount of copies where made. Which would you think would have the highest chance of maintaining it's accuracy of events?
These 24,000 manuscripts were in 15 different languages and the ALL translated accurately.
-
Ultimately I believe for the sake of happiness for both straight and gay people that my proposal will be the best solution provided folks are free to come & go as they please once they are willing to conform and respect the laws and morals of both societies!
Pro ultimately we have to agree to disagree. What you consider as a proposal for the happiness of both straight and gays would only satisfy straights who can't stand gays. Gays have no problems with straights and happiness for them is just being accepted in society as equals.
Your proposal goes completely in the opposite direction casting them out completely. It is, by definition, segregation. I have yet to see an example where the segregated group, especially a minority, considers this a good solution.
If anything it would only make straights more bigoted towards gays because they would literally become this "other", "foreign" type of people that some straights think they are now.
-
The gay ppl just want some respect that's all. They want to be able to walk down the street without ppl bawlin out "BULLAH!!!" I could give them that respect, no problem.
The bible preaches that no sin is worse than another. With that in mind I think we should tackle the problem of infidelity first, since it's a much larger problem in Trini.
Wha yuh say to that Preacher?
Sure if it was a parade in support of infidelity. I'm sure i could find a scripture or 2. ;)
There are some sins that are not unto death (separation from God) and there are other sins that will separate you from God. The bible classifies homosexuality as an abomination and Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. The scripture I put out does not just talk about homosexuality. As Zando hinted at, it's more an accusation to a society that has removed or try to remove God from their daily existence and knowledge. So God say, ok you don't want me to be a part of your thing? Then do your thing.
Undoubtedly, homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. So are lying, pride and some others.
My point is that a homophobic attitude toward gay people is also sin, and I can't justify it. Homophobia as in condemnation of the sin itself is what the bible condones.
Just for my info, are you a real preacher?
??? undoubtedly? how so? You should have use the phrase "In my opinion" instead of "undoubtedly".
-
Sure if it was a parade in support of infidelity. I'm sure i could find a scripture or 2. ;)
So you wouldn't oppose homosexuality as long as they don't have any more "parades" in support of it? Some would argue that carnival is one big parade in support of fornication. Yuh should be railing against de bulling outside marriage on the regular man.
What if?! :thinking:
Lets say sometime in the future to save all the aggro on both sides, that the straight majority give the gays their own land/country (lets call the countries Gayland for the Gay men and Lesboland for the Gay women. As gay men dont like women & vice versa, well assume that they would both want their own countries.
They don't? They're not attracted to the opposited sex... doesn't mean that they don't like them or can't live among them. Among other flaws in your proposal.
It's an option, they can all live together in the same country both the gay men & women if they choose! ;)
You mean, so the likes of you and people with similar thought processes, will not have to learn how to deal with or interact with people who may only be different because of their sexual orientation? And so that you can stay in your physcial and mental "comfort zone"?
-
Sure if it was a parade in support of infidelity. I'm sure i could find a scripture or 2. ;)
So you wouldn't oppose homosexuality as long as they don't have any more "parades" in support of it? Some would argue that carnival is one big parade in support of fornication. Yuh should be railing against de bulling outside marriage on the regular man.
What if?! :thinking:
Lets say sometime in the future to save all the aggro on both sides, that the straight majority give the gays their own land/country (lets call the countries Gayland for the Gay men and Lesboland for the Gay women. As gay men dont like women & vice versa, well assume that they would both want their own countries.
They don't? They're not attracted to the opposited sex... doesn't mean that they don't like them or can't live among them. Among other flaws in your proposal.
It's an option, they can all live together in the same country both the gay men & women if they choose! ;)
You mean, so the likes of you and people with similar thought processes, will not have to learn how to deal with or interact with people who may only be different because of their sexual orientation? And so that you can stay in your physcial and mental "comfort zone"?
similar arguments can be applied to race
-
See this is the problem I have with the Bible. Now I was raised going to church every Sunday and all that, and as a teenager join a born again church "jess so". Problem is, at that point I started to read the Bible and with the brain that God gave mih, it is this exact same thing I really can't understand or get past....
If God "give the people over to a depraved mind"...and is he children eh, but dais another confusing story..is not God causing the poeple to act all kinda how? And then God self saying they deserve death?
So in other words, God make children (all of us) and because God is all knowing, God know beforehand who going and do what and who going and behave how, so God willfully cause that behavior, and then God say, hellfire fuh yuh because yuh do that. God mad?
Then too, God make the devil, God knew what the devil was about(so why bother?) because... well..he is God, then God let the Devil loose to interfere with his poor children (us), knowing full well what go happen and then after all that God blaming and punishing us!? with all kinda depraved mind? when the shit hit the fan? God is a sadist? Something not adding up. I cyar treat my children so, maybe God need parenting classes.
Anyway when I see God the first thing I go ask him is WTF man!!??
As fuh the gay/lesbian thing...it only takes growing up in a household with a sibling who ends up being gay as an adult, then looking back and seeing all the signs from childhood to realize that its ABSOLUTELY NOT a lifestyle choice. People are BORN WITH HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES. Maybe not all but its definitely not just a lifestyle choice, and NOBODY, pounding no bible could tell me any different.
Absolutely makes me wonder why God hates it so much.
give d breddar ah beer....my own advanced learnin 'puter does wonder about dese same tings and came to dese same conclusions :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
-
Then it'll have the FTRYG act. (Freedom to Rape your Goat) People will start living marrying animals soon. Watch and see.
If epopel could march for Christ, they should be able to march for homosexual rights!
-
Ultimately I believe for the sake of happiness for both straight and gay people that my proposal will be the best solution provided folks are free to come & go as they please once they are willing to conform and respect the laws and morals of both societies!
Pro ultimately we have to agree to disagree. What you consider as a proposal for the happiness of both straight and gays would only satisfy straights who can't stand gays. Gays have no problems with straights and happiness for them is just being accepted in society as equals.
Your proposal goes completely in the opposite direction casting them out completely. It is, by definition, segregation. I have yet to see an example where the segregated group, especially a minority, considers this a good solution.
If anything it would only make straights more bigoted towards gays because they would literally become this "other", "foreign" type of people that some straights think they are now.
No JDB, I am not casting them out, I am giving them a choice of creating their own society where their sexual behaviour is considered normal and acceptable rather than living in current society where their sexual behaviour is not considered normal and morally acceptable.
I don't want gays constantly trying to change the laws and morals of our society to what they want it to be and trying to teach my children in school that being gay is natural because nature tells me that it isn't! And no I am not a bigot, I can interact with gay folks in a professional capacity but dont accept their lifestyle as normal to me even though I will accept that it is normal to them hence my proposal!
If the gay lifestyle is so great then why would they be afraid of my proposal?! Just accept that most folks will not accept that gay sexual behaviour as natural to them! Why not allow them to form their own society with their own rules where they can be totally happy with the rules of moral sexual behaviour rather than trying to change rule and morals of the straights?!
I don't want something that I am morally against being forced onto me and my children, I want to have the choice to reject that lifestyle and my proposal will be the best solution for both sides in the future! No bigotry is involved here. I personally have never attacked or abused a gay person for their lifestyle in my life, thats their choice but please dont try to force your chosen lifestyle onto me and my children!
As I said before my proposal is based on folks being given the choice and is not forcing anyone to live in either society and being unhappy living in that society!
Choice is the name of the game here, not bigotry!!
Lets put this another way!
You like to smoke and believe that it is natural for many folks like yourself to become smokers because they are born with that tendency and I believe smoking is not good for my health and is not natural!
Why should I have to put up with your cigarette smoke and the health risk involve and in addition allow you to teach my children while they are impressionable that smoking is good or natural for them if they feel that way inclined while you smoke a cigarettes in their presence as encouragement.
Best solution I live in the non-smoking area and you live in the smoking area.
If I lose my marbles and feel I need to smoke I visit the smoking area.
If you get tired of the smokers lifestyle you are free to leave the smoking area and come across to my area the non-smoking area!
Both sides are happy!
What is there in this argument to object to? This is an exact parallel with my gay society argument!
As a smoker why do you object to having your own smoking area and not forcing your smoke into the lungs of non-smokers?!
-
All who so worried about homos and lesbians taking to the streets asking to be treated like the humans that they are...have nmore in DEY MOTAR THAN A PESTLE...might be a BULL PESTLE in dey.
Leave the people alone. We have all kinda people raping children, killing, destroying society and the nation and is homos occupying allyuh minds?
Repression perhaps?
-
Sure if it was a parade in support of infidelity. I'm sure i could find a scripture or 2. ;)
So you wouldn't oppose homosexuality as long as they don't have any more "parades" in support of it? Some would argue that carnival is one big parade in support of fornication. Yuh should be railing against de bulling outside marriage on the regular man.
What if?! :thinking:
Lets say sometime in the future to save all the aggro on both sides, that the straight majority give the gays their own land/country (lets call the countries Gayland for the Gay men and Lesboland for the Gay women. As gay men dont like women & vice versa, well assume that they would both want their own countries.
They don't? They're not attracted to the opposited sex... doesn't mean that they don't like them or can't live among them. Among other flaws in your proposal.
It's an option, they can all live together in the same country both the gay men & women if they choose! ;)
You mean, so the likes of you and people with similar thought processes, will not have to learn how to deal with or interact with people who may only be different because of their sexual orientation? And so that you can stay in your physcial and mental "comfort zone"?
similar arguments can be applied to race
Exactly. Forget that we are actually dealing with human beings just like themselves. People sometimes get so caught up looking at what is different that they cannot see the many similarities we have as people.
-
Then it'll have the FTRYG act. (Freedom to Rape your Goat) People will start living marrying animals soon. Watch and see.
If epopel could march for Christ, they should be able to march for homosexual rights!
and Jesus would be there with them too.
-
Then it'll have the FTRYG act. (Freedom to Rape your Goat) People will start living marrying animals soon. Watch and see.
If epopel could march for Christ, they should be able to march for homosexual rights!
and Jesus would be there with them too.
lol...true...true....and again true!
-
the problem with quoting scripture to support one's value system is that Scripture also contains pronouncements that we reject today i.e slavery, women's role in society, child abuse etc.
One need to interpret the underlying meaning and examine them within the context of when it was written.
-
Sure if it was a parade in support of infidelity. I'm sure i could find a scripture or 2. ;)
So you wouldn't oppose homosexuality as long as they don't have any more "parades" in support of it? Some would argue that carnival is one big parade in support of fornication. Yuh should be railing against de bulling outside marriage on the regular man.
What if?! :thinking:
Lets say sometime in the future to save all the aggro on both sides, that the straight majority give the gays their own land/country (lets call the countries Gayland for the Gay men and Lesboland for the Gay women. As gay men dont like women & vice versa, well assume that they would both want their own countries.
They don't? They're not attracted to the opposited sex... doesn't mean that they don't like them or can't live among them. Among other flaws in your proposal.
It's an option, they can all live together in the same country both the gay men & women if they choose! ;)
You mean, so the likes of you and people with similar thought processes, will not have to learn how to deal with or interact with people who may only be different because of their sexual orientation? And so that you can stay in your physcial and mental "comfort zone"?
I am happy to co-exist with gays folks in our society provided they don't try to teach my children in school that gay sex is natural and force their sexual lifestyle upon me or my children with the argument that it is natural. Its natural to them but not to me!
My problem starts when you try to force the gay lifestyle upon me and to teach my children that the gay sexual lifestyle is natural and good for them if they feel that way inclined or want to experiment! When you cross that line then rather than you being happy and I not, I will argue for you to be allowed to go off and form you own society where you can teach your children that gay sexual behaviour is natural!
This is not bigotry but offering genuine choice. If you don't cross the line of trying to force your lifestyle onto me and my off spring then we are cool and could co-exist in the same society.
I can't see that happening in the long-term as the gays seems bent on changing the laws/morals of wider society to accept their sexual lifestyle as normal and natural.
My proposal allows gays to create their own society where they make the rules. There are already mini gay-societies in most modern cities where they set the rules and they seem to be quite happy in that environment so I'm just taking the scenario one step further and proposing a solution that will make both societies happy in the long-term!
Remember this proposal is about choice and freedom to move between both societies as one pleases but respecting the laws and sexual codes of each society once you are in that society.
Its a proposal that allows genuine choice rather than one that is forcing segregation! You choice to live in the society you prefer and are comfortable living in and obey its rules.
Dont like the moral rules of the society you are in? No problem!
You have a genuine choice and can move to the society that allows what you are comfortable with. No one is forcing anyone to live in either society! Its about choice!!
And please I am not a bigot, I have gay friends even though I dont hang with them and live their lifestyle as it does not fit with my morals of natural sexual behaviour and what mother nature intended.
-
All who so worried about homos and lesbians taking to the streets asking to be treated like the humans that they are...have nmore in DEY MOTAR THAN A PESTLE...might be a BULL PESTLE in dey.
Leave the people alone. We have all kinda people raping children, killing, destroying society and the nation and is homos occupying allyuh minds?
Repression perhaps?
Btw TC, I am not against gays marching for equal rights or anything like that and doing whatever they choose to do sexually in the privacy of their own home.
What I am against is their sexual lifestyle being taught to my children as natural when both my morals and mother nature tells me it is not natural!
Once they don't cross that line of trying to teach my children that sex between two folks of the same gender is natural then I am cool! Other than that and indecent behaviour in public by both gays and straights they can do as they wish!
Society need to live by certain moral codes or we are all doomed both straights and gays!
I do not condone bigotry or abusing anyone for what they are be it, race, religion, belief, sex or sexual orientation.
-
I am happy to co-exist with black folks in our society provided they don't try to teach my children in school that black skin is natural and force their black culture upon me with the argument that it is natural. Its natural to them but not to me!
My problem starts when you are try to force your lifestyle upon me and to teach my children that your life style is natural and good for them if they feel that way inclined or want to experiment! When you cross that line then rather you being happy and I not, I will argue for you to be allowed to go off and form you own society where you can teach your children that black skin and culture is natural!
This is not racism but offering genuine choice. If you don't cross the line of trying to force your life style onto me and my off spring then we are cool and could co-exist in the same society.
I can't see that happening in the long-term as the blacks seems bent on changing the laws/morals of wider society to accept their skin and culture as normal and natural.
My proposal allows blacks to create their own society where they make the rules. There are already mini black-societies in most modern cities where they set the rules and they seem to be quite happy in that environment so I'm just taking the scenario one step further and proposing a solution that will make both societies happy in the long-term!
Remember this proposal is about choice and freedom to move between both societies as one pleases but respecting the laws and cultural codes of each society once you are in that society.
Its a proposal that allows genuine choice rather than one that is forcing segregation! You choice to live in the society you prefer and are comfortable living in and obey its rules. Dont like the rules?
You have a genuine choice and can move to the society that allows what you are comfortable with. No one is forcing anyone to live in either society! Its about choice!!
And please I am not a racist, I have black friends even though I dont hang with them and live their lifestyle as it not fit with my morals of racial superiority.
I wonder if you does sit down and read back all what you write... before you press the post button.
I fix yuh post above... a little radical but try and understand the perspective
-
I am happy to co-exist with black folks in our society provided they don't try to teach my children in school that black skin is natural and force their black culture upon me with the argument that it is natural. Its natural to them but not to me!
My problem starts when you are try to force your lifestyle upon me and to teach my children that your life style is natural and good for them if they feel that way inclined or want to experiment! When you cross that line then rather you being happy and I not, I will argue for you to be allowed to go off and form you own society where you can teach your children that black skin and culture is natural!
This is not racism but offering genuine choice. If you don't cross the line of trying to force your life style onto me and my off spring then we are cool and could co-exist in the same society.
I can't see that happening in the long-term as the blacks seems bent on changing the laws/morals of wider society to accept their skin and culture as normal and natural.
My proposal allows blacks to create their own society where they make the rules. There are already mini black-societies in most modern cities where they set the rules and they seem to be quite happy in that environment so I'm just taking the scenario one step further and proposing a solution that will make both societies happy in the long-term!
Remember this proposal is about choice and freedom to move between both societies as one pleases but respecting the laws and cultural codes of each society once you are in that society.
Its a proposal that allows genuine choice rather than one that is forcing segregation! You choice to live in the society you prefer and are comfortable living in and obey its rules. Dont like the rules?
You have a genuine choice and can move to the society that allows what you are comfortable with. No one is forcing anyone to live in either society! Its about choice!!
And please I am not a racist, I have black friends even though I dont hang with them and live their lifestyle as it not fit with my morals of racial superiority.
I wonder if you does sit down and read back all what you write... before you press the post button.
I fix yuh post above... a little radical but try and understand the perspective
Thanks!
I posted then saw a few errors and was making some corrections while you were doing the same on my behalf!
Sometimes I don't have much time to review my post for errors before posting as I have other work to get on with so can only come back soon after to double-check. Its called multi-tasking! ;)
I just read your so-called corrections and have to say this:
Why do folks always try to parallel being black with being gay?
Statistically and traditionally the percentage of gays in black populations is many times lower than it is in white populations so it will be much more accurate to draw a parallel between the white population and gays than the black population and gays.
I know you are trying to argue about minority discrimination but I am not arguing for discrimination against gays in any way but more for giving them the choice of setting up their own community if they wish to cross my line and try to teach children in schools that the gay sexual behaviour is natural.
So looking at that you have missed my point all together as I don't hate gays, just don't accept their sexual life style or want to live in a society that teaches my children that the gay sexual lifestyle is natural as mother nature tells me that it is not!
We must stop fighting against nature and living in balance with our planet or we are doomed! :beermug:
-
No JDB, I am not casting them out, I am giving them a choice of creating their own society where their sexual behaviour is considered normal and acceptable rather than living in current society where their sexual behaviour is not considered normal and morally acceptable.
I don't want gays constantly trying to change the laws and morals of our society to what they want it to be and trying to teach my children in school that being gay is natural because nature tells me that it isn't! And no I am not a bigot, I can interact with gay folks in a professional capacity but dont accept their lifestyle as normal to me even though I will accept that it is normal to them hence my proposal!
If the gay lifestyle is so great then why would they be afraid of my proposal?! Just accept that most folks will not accept that gay sexual behaviour as natural to them! Why not allow them to form their own society with their own rules where they can be totally happy with the rules of moral sexual behaviour rather than trying to change rule and morals of the straights?!
I don't want something that I am morally against being forced onto me and my children, I want to have the choice to reject that lifestyle and my proposal will be the best solution for both sides in the future! No bigotry is involved here. I personally have never attacked or abused a gay person for their lifestyle in my life, thats their choice but please dont try to force your chosen lifestyle onto me and my children!
As I said before my proposal is based on folks being given the choice and is not forcing anyone to live in either society and being unhappy living in that society!
Choice is the name of the game here, not bigotry!!
Lets put this another way!
You like to smoke and believe that it is natural for many folks like yourself to become smokers because they are born with that tendency and I believe smoking is not good for my health and is not natural!
Why should I have to put up with your cigarette smoke and the health risk involve and in addition allow you to teach my children while they are impressionable that smoking is good or natural for them if they feel that way inclined while you smoke a cigarettes in their presence.
Best solution I live in the non-smoking area and you live in the smoking area.
If I lose my marbles and feel I need to smoke I visit the smoking area.
If you get tired of the smokers lifestyle you leave are free tom leave the smoking area and come across to my area the non-smoking area!
Both sides are happy!
What is there in this argument to object to? This is an exact parallel!
As a smoker why do you object to having your own smoking area and not forcing your smoke into the lungs of non-smokers?!
Like I said, agree to disagree.
It is not a choice that gays are likely to accept because their goal is not to be apart from society. And I don't see how this solution works if gays don't willfully accept it. Homosexuality is not illegal and the majority of straight people really are not bothered with gays in society.
I think a more acceptable proposition would be for the minority of straights who feel that the presence of gays is "having homosexuality forced upon them" to find their own spot. Based on your description that is a group that would happily remove themselves to form a society without gays and straight people who can still find happiness in a society with gays.
Also there is no analogy to smoking. You can't escape the effects of someone smoking in your presence. People bulling in private or even flouncing about in public does not make you gay. It might be offensive but the most that could do is get yuh vex but nothing stopping yuh from ignoring shit that you don't like. Smoking actually has a lasting effect on non-smokers
-
I am happy to co-exist with black folks in our society provided they don't try to teach my children in school that black skin is natural and force their black culture upon me with the argument that it is natural. Its natural to them but not to me!
My problem starts when you are try to force your lifestyle upon me and to teach my children that your life style is natural and good for them if they feel that way inclined or want to experiment! When you cross that line then rather you being happy and I not, I will argue for you to be allowed to go off and form you own society where you can teach your children that black skin and culture is natural!
This is not racism but offering genuine choice. If you don't cross the line of trying to force your life style onto me and my off spring then we are cool and could co-exist in the same society.
I can't see that happening in the long-term as the blacks seems bent on changing the laws/morals of wider society to accept their skin and culture as normal and natural.
My proposal allows blacks to create their own society where they make the rules. There are already mini black-societies in most modern cities where they set the rules and they seem to be quite happy in that environment so I'm just taking the scenario one step further and proposing a solution that will make both societies happy in the long-term!
Remember this proposal is about choice and freedom to move between both societies as one pleases but respecting the laws and cultural codes of each society once you are in that society.
Its a proposal that allows genuine choice rather than one that is forcing segregation! You choice to live in the society you prefer and are comfortable living in and obey its rules. Dont like the rules?
You have a genuine choice and can move to the society that allows what you are comfortable with. No one is forcing anyone to live in either society! Its about choice!!
And please I am not a racist, I have black friends even though I dont hang with them and live their lifestyle as it not fit with my morals of racial superiority.
I wonder if you does sit down and read back all what you write... before you press the post button.
I fix yuh post above... a little radical but try and understand the perspective
Good fix. LOL
-
I am happy to co-exist with black folks in our society provided they don't try to teach my children in school that black skin is natural and force their black culture upon me with the argument that it is natural. Its natural to them but not to me!
And please I am not a racist, I have black friends even though I dont hang with them and live their lifestyle as it not fit with my morals of racial superiority.
I wonder if you does sit down and read back all what you write... before you press the post button.
I fix yuh post above... a little radical but try and understand the perspective
Oh fack... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
If its one people on this earth that should know better than to be callous in the face of oppression its black people
-
I am happy to co-exist with gays folks in our society provided they don't try to teach my children in school that gay sex is natural and force their sexual lifestyle upon me or my children with the argument that it is natural. Its natural to them but not to me!
And please I am not a bigot, I have gay friends even though I dont hang with them and live their lifestyle as it does not fit with my morals of natural sexual behaviour and what mother nature intended.
Exactly ... it is not natural to you because you a straight (I assume this of course). But it is natural to one who is homosexual.
And what did Mother Nature intend by the way? Are you implying that mother nature only intended male/female relationships for reproduction? If so, you better cast out the infertile couples, or those who chose to not have children on the premise that Mother Nature did not intend for them to be childless.
-
but wey this one dread.. O lawd god please doh let this happen.. cause dem battyman dem guh get wings now.. bun a faggot and rest sum good wood on a lesbian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
war
-
No JDB, I am not casting them out, I am giving them a choice of creating their own society where their sexual behaviour is considered normal and acceptable rather than living in current society where their sexual behaviour is not considered normal and morally acceptable.
I don't want gays constantly trying to change the laws and morals of our society to what they want it to be and trying to teach my children in school that being gay is natural because nature tells me that it isn't! And no I am not a bigot, I can interact with gay folks in a professional capacity but dont accept their lifestyle as normal to me even though I will accept that it is normal to them hence my proposal!
If the gay lifestyle is so great then why would they be afraid of my proposal?! Just accept that most folks will not accept that gay sexual behaviour as natural to them! Why not allow them to form their own society with their own rules where they can be totally happy with the rules of moral sexual behaviour rather than trying to change rule and morals of the straights?!
I don't want something that I am morally against being forced onto me and my children, I want to have the choice to reject that lifestyle and my proposal will be the best solution for both sides in the future! No bigotry is involved here. I personally have never attacked or abused a gay person for their lifestyle in my life, thats their choice but please dont try to force your chosen lifestyle onto me and my children!
As I said before my proposal is based on folks being given the choice and is not forcing anyone to live in either society and being unhappy living in that society!
Choice is the name of the game here, not bigotry!!
Lets put this another way!
You like to smoke and believe that it is natural for many folks like yourself to become smokers because they are born with that tendency and I believe smoking is not good for my health and is not natural!
Why should I have to put up with your cigarette smoke and the health risk involve and in addition allow you to teach my children while they are impressionable that smoking is good or natural for them if they feel that way inclined while you smoke a cigarettes in their presence.
Best solution I live in the non-smoking area and you live in the smoking area.
If I lose my marbles and feel I need to smoke I visit the smoking area.
If you get tired of the smokers lifestyle you leave are free tom leave the smoking area and come across to my area the non-smoking area!
Both sides are happy!
What is there in this argument to object to? This is an exact parallel!
As a smoker why do you object to having your own smoking area and not forcing your smoke into the lungs of non-smokers?!
Like I said, agree to disagree.
It is not a choice that gays are likely to accept because their goal is not to be apart from society. And I don't see how this solution works if gays don't willfully accept it. Homosexuality is not illegal and the majority of straight people really are not bothered with gays in society.
I think a more acceptable proposition would be for the minority of straights who feel that the presence of gays is "having homosexuality forced upon them" to find their own spot. Based on your description that is a group that would happily remove themselves to form a society without gays and straight people who can still find happiness in a society with gays.
Also there is no analogy to smoking. You can't escape the effects of someone smoking in your presence. People bulling in private or even flouncing about in public does not make you gay. It might be offensive but the most that could do is get yuh vex but nothing stopping yuh from ignoring shit that you don't like. Smoking actually has a lasting effect on non-smokers
Same as teaching impressionable and sometimes confused children in school that sex between two people of the same gender is somehow natural! For me that is crossing the line if one of my children happens to be a student!
And no I don't teach my off spring to hate gays but I teach them that that according to the laws of mother nature that lifestyle is not natural and can lead to human extinction even though those who engage in such sexual behaviour will argue that it is natural to them.
-
I am happy to co-exist with black folks in our society provided they don't try to teach my children in school that black skin is natural and force their black culture upon me with the argument that it is natural. Its natural to them but not to me!
My problem starts when you are try to force your lifestyle upon me and to teach my children that your life style is natural and good for them if they feel that way inclined or want to experiment! When you cross that line then rather you being happy and I not, I will argue for you to be allowed to go off and form you own society where you can teach your children that black skin and culture is natural!
This is not racism but offering genuine choice. If you don't cross the line of trying to force your life style onto me and my off spring then we are cool and could co-exist in the same society.
I can't see that happening in the long-term as the blacks seems bent on changing the laws/morals of wider society to accept their skin and culture as normal and natural.
My proposal allows blacks to create their own society where they make the rules. There are already mini black-societies in most modern cities where they set the rules and they seem to be quite happy in that environment so I'm just taking the scenario one step further and proposing a solution that will make both societies happy in the long-term!
Remember this proposal is about choice and freedom to move between both societies as one pleases but respecting the laws and cultural codes of each society once you are in that society.
Its a proposal that allows genuine choice rather than one that is forcing segregation! You choice to live in the society you prefer and are comfortable living in and obey its rules. Dont like the rules?
You have a genuine choice and can move to the society that allows what you are comfortable with. No one is forcing anyone to live in either society! Its about choice!!
And please I am not a racist, I have black friends even though I dont hang with them and live their lifestyle as it not fit with my morals of racial superiority.
I wonder if you does sit down and read back all what you write... before you press the post button.
I fix yuh post above... a little radical but try and understand the perspective
Good one FF, you put things in perpective there for real
-
Same as teaching impressionable and sometimes confused children in school that sex between two people of the same gender is somehow natural! For me that is crossing the line if one of my children happens to be a student!
And no I don't teach my off spring to hate gays but I teach them that that according to the laws of mother nature that lifestyle is not natural and can lead to human extinction even though those who engage in such sexual behaviour will argue that it is natural to them.
that is a far stretch of the imagination. Many same-sex couples adopt or have children though surrogate mothers. Extinction will not happen - only 10% of the population (according to some published stats) is gay. It still have 90% trying to make babies.
BTW: On Oct 31, 2011, the population of the earth is projected to hit the 7 billion mark. Extinction indeed.
-
I am happy to co-exist with gays folks in our society provided they don't try to teach my children in school that gay sex is natural and force their sexual lifestyle upon me or my children with the argument that it is natural. Its natural to them but not to me!
And please I am not a bigot, I have gay friends even though I dont hang with them and live their lifestyle as it does not fit with my morals of natural sexual behaviour and what mother nature intended.
Exactly ... it is not natural to you because you a straight (I assume this of course). But it is natural to one who is homosexual.
And what did Mother Nature intend by the way? Are you implying that mother nature only intended male/female relationships for reproduction? If so, you better cast out the infertile couples, or those who chose to not have children on the premise that Mother Nature did not intend for them to be childless.
Your last paragraph is a load of hog wash!
Mother nature dictates that sex between man & woman is natural as its the way we reproduce and keep the human race going! Without sex between a fertile man and woman the human race will ultimately become extinct! If that is not nature teaching us what is natural for our survival then lets try the natural homosexual route and see how long the human race will last!
My argument is not about God or the Bible, its about what nature intended for the survival of human beings! This argument goes beyond religious belief.
If someone is or becomes infertile, how is God to blame for that?! People become infertile for many reasons, it could be age, diet or any number of reasons that have nothing to do with God!
I tabled my proposal earlier in this thread and the wiser ones amongst us will see that it is a solution that will make both sides happy in the long-term.
Gays should be happy because they will have total control over their society without the need to attempt to change the sexual moral rules of straight society!
If they are worried about extinction in this society then they can even have test tube babies or allow temporary sex between lesbians & gays for the sake of reproduction and then switch back to their natural lifestyle gay lifestyle if they so choose!
If many of them end up dying early of sexual diseases because of their chosen lifestyle then thats their choice and they can only argue that nature rather God is at fault!
-
Same as teaching impressionable and sometimes confused children in school that sex between two people of the same gender is somehow natural! For me that is crossing the line if one of my children happens to be a student!
And no I don't teach my off spring to hate gays but I teach them that that according to the laws of mother nature that lifestyle is not natural and can lead to human extinction even though those who engage in such sexual behaviour will argue that it is natural to them.
that is a far stretch of the imagination. Many same-sex couples adopt or have children though surrogate mothers. Extinction will not happen - only 10% of the population (according to some published stats) is gay. It still have 90% trying to make babies.
BTW: On Oct 31, 2011, the population of the earth is projected to hit the 7 billion mark. Extinction indeed.
My extinction argument is based upon homosexual behaviour becoming the majority behaviour!
Maybe this is why the gays will not go for my proposal of a gay society where they are the majority as they will be looking at possible extinction in the log-term unless they can temporarily switch sexual behaviour for the sake of having children before switching back to what is natural to them!
I believe my gay society idea already exist in small areas in most major cities around the world put I would like to see it go a step further and gays being allowed their own country where they are the 100% majority population running things and creating their own laws etc!
Why not give them the option of having their own society with their own favourable rules and wish them all the best with their "natural" sexual lifestyle! ;)
Btw I can fully understand why most gays may not go for this!
Could it be a sign that the gays themselves don't have much faith in the longevity of creating their own society where the homosexual life is 100% normal and followed by the majority?!
Just wondering? :thinking:
-
Same as teaching impressionable and sometimes confused children in school that sex between two people of the same gender is somehow natural! For me that is crossing the line if one of my children happens to be a student!
And no I don't teach my off spring to hate gays but I teach them that that according to the laws of mother nature that lifestyle is not natural and can lead to human extinction even though those who engage in such sexual behaviour will argue that it is natural to them.
that is a far stretch of the imagination. Many same-sex couples adopt or have children though surrogate mothers. Extinction will not happen - only 10% of the population (according to some published stats) is gay. It still have 90% trying to make babies.
BTW: On Oct 31, 2011, the population of the earth is projected to hit the 7 billion mark. Extinction indeed.
My extinction argument is based upon homosexual behaviour becoming the majority behaviour!
Maybe this is why the gays will not go for my proposal of a gay society where they are the majority as they will be looking at possible extinction in the log-term unless they can temporarily switch sexual behaviour for the sake of having children before switching back to what is natural to them!
I believe my gay society idea already exist in small areas in most major cities around the world put I would like to see it go a step further and gays being allowed their own country where they are the 100% majority population running things and creating their own laws etc!
Why not give them the option of having their own society with their own favourable rules and wish them all the best with their "natural" sexual lifestyle! ;)
Btw I can fully understand why most gays may not go for this!
Could it be a sign that the gays themselves don't have much faith in the longevity of creating their own society where the homosexual life is 100% normal and followed by the majority?!
Just wondering? :thinking:
Socapro, that is where your argument falls apart.
Given that only 10% of the populations identifies as gay, the majority of the population will continue to reproduce. They do not identify as gay and will not "become" gay just because somebody told them to try it. The same way you will not become gay because you are straight.
Homosexuality is part of the natural variation found in human sexuality; the same as infertility is part of the natural variation. Mother Nature is not perfect. Just look around you.
Any why would gay people want to have their own society? Segregation never works.
I suggest you have some heart to heart conversation with your gay friends to better understand their life before you judge them and promote your solution. I think that many wise people will not subscribe to your arguments.
-
I am happy to co-exist with gays folks in our society provided they don't try to teach my children in school that gay sex is natural and force their sexual lifestyle upon me or my children with the argument that it is natural. Its natural to them but not to me!
And please I am not a bigot, I have gay friends even though I dont hang with them and live their lifestyle as it does not fit with my morals of natural sexual behaviour and what mother nature intended.
Exactly ... it is not natural to you because you a straight (I assume this of course). But it is natural to one who is homosexual.
And what did Mother Nature intend by the way? Are you implying that mother nature only intended male/female relationships for reproduction? If so, you better cast out the infertile couples, or those who chose to not have children on the premise that Mother Nature did not intend for them to be childless.
Your last paragraph is a load of hog wash!
Mother nature dictates that sex between man & woman is natural as its the way we reproduce and keep the human race going! Without sex between a fertile man and woman the human race will ultimately become extinct! If that is not nature teaching us what is natural for our survival then lets try the natural homosexual route and see how long the human race will last!
My argument is not about God or the Bible, its about what nature intended for the survival of human beings! This argument goes beyond religious belief.
If someone is or becomes infertile, how is God to blame for that?! People become infertile for many reasons, it could be age, diet or any number of reasons that have nothing to do with God!
I tabled my proposal earlier in this thread and the wiser ones amongst us will see that it is a solution that will make both sides happy in the long-term.
Gays should be happy because they will have total control over their society without the need to attempt to change the sexual moral rules of straight society!
If they are worried about extinction in this society then they can even have test tube babies or allow temporary sex between lesbians & gays for the sake of reproduction and then switch back to their natural lifestyle gay lifestyle if they so choose!
If many of them end up dying early of sexual diseases because of their chosen lifestyle then thats their choice and they can only argue that nature rather God is at fault!
I truly don't follow you argument. Where did I say that God or the Bible had anything to to with it?
All i implied was that you mother nature argument was weak as it also applies to infertile couple and couples who chose not to have children. Using your argument, those couples are going against mother nature.
And straight people don't get STD as well? The majority of HIV infected people in Africa are straight. What did they do to deserve that?
-
I am happy to co-exist with gays folks in our society provided they don't try to teach my children in school that gay sex is natural and force their sexual lifestyle upon me or my children with the argument that it is natural. Its natural to them but not to me!
And please I am not a bigot, I have gay friends even though I dont hang with them and live their lifestyle as it does not fit with my morals of natural sexual behaviour and what mother nature intended.
Exactly ... it is not natural to you because you a straight (I assume this of course). But it is natural to one who is homosexual.
And what did Mother Nature intend by the way? Are you implying that mother nature only intended male/female relationships for reproduction? If so, you better cast out the infertile couples, or those who chose to not have children on the premise that Mother Nature did not intend for them to be childless.
Your last paragraph is a load of hog wash!
Mother nature dictates that sex between man & woman is natural as its the way we reproduce and keep the human race going! Without sex between a fertile man and woman the human race will ultimately become extinct! If that is not nature teaching us what is natural for our survival then lets try the natural homosexual route and see how long the human race will last!
My argument is not about God or the Bible, its about what nature intended for the survival of human beings! This argument goes beyond religious belief.
If someone is or becomes infertile, how is God to blame for that?! People become infertile for many reasons, it could be age, diet or any number of reasons that have nothing to do with God!
I tabled my proposal earlier in this thread and the wiser ones amongst us will see that it is a solution that will make both sides happy in the long-term.
Gays should be happy because they will have total control over their society without the need to attempt to change the sexual moral rules of straight society!
If they are worried about extinction in this society then they can even have test tube babies or allow temporary sex between lesbians & gays for the sake of reproduction and then switch back to their natural lifestyle gay lifestyle if they so choose!
If many of them end up dying early of sexual diseases because of their chosen lifestyle then thats their choice and they can only argue that nature rather God is at fault!
I truly don't follow you argument. Where did I say that God or the Bible had anything to to with it?
All i implied was that you mother nature argument was weak as it also applies to infertile couple and couples who chose not to have children. Using your argument, those couples are going against mother nature.
And straight people don't get STD as well? The majority of HIV infected people in Africa are straight. What did they do to deserve that?
I think you are missing my point and what I proposed!
I have nothing against gays provided they don't try to impose their sexual lifestyle upon me or my children! I am arguing for them to have their own society where they can do as they like and be 100% happy without negatively affecting my life!
I will post my original proposal again below in case you missed it!
:beermug:
-
What if?! :thinking:
Lets say sometime in the future to save all the aggro on both sides, that the straight majority give the gays their own land/country (lets call the countries Gayland for the Gay men and Lesboland for the Gay women. As gay men dont like women & vice versa, well assume that they would both want their own countries. The choice of seperate countries/states for the gays & lesbians is totally up to them, its just another option! They can live together in the same state/country if they prefer!
Now in both Gayland and Lesboland they are free to create their own laws, rewrite or get rid of the Bible all together and practise their chosen lifestyle as openly as they wish without the need to inflict they lifestyle on a morally opposing straight population.
The only rule that is enforced as part of the deal is that when the population of the both Gayland & Lesboland is ageing and dying out because of the low birth rate, they don't come running back to the straight world to hopefully adopt straight children and take them back to Gayland or Lesboland to convert them to their chosen lifestyle.
And btw if someone in the straight world decides that he/she is gay, they simply buy a plane ticket and flyer over to Gayland or Lesboland. And the same goes vice versa so everyone has a choice and no one is forced to live a gay or straight lifestyle! :)
Thats the deal and we can all live in peace and respect each other laws if we choose to visit each others countries.
And btw the straight world by international law of humanity will help if a natural disaster strikes in Gayland or Lesboland but they are not allowed to beg us to come back to the straight world unless they are willing to conform to our laws, our morals and our lifestyle.
Hopefully in the future someone with enough power can grant the gay community their own country where they can go off and do as they wish and we will see the result of this experiment! ;)
And please I dont want anyone after reading my What If?! idea for discussion just here trying to brand me as hating gays as I dont! I just dont agree with their lifestyle as I think its against natures law from a reproductive stand point and dont want to have it pushed constantly in my face!
This proposal here should mean that both sides are happy!!
What do you folks think? Would gay men & women go for this idea of their own countries where they are free to do as they wish or would they prefer to continue living in moral conflict with the rest of the straight population?
:mackdaddy:
-
Socapro what garbage u talking about being exposed to STIs due to their sexual lifestyle. If anyone, straight or gay does not practice safe sex then they are going to be exposed to STIs...has nothing to do with a person's sexual preference!! you actually made me laugh with that one
give them their own society? come nah man...kinda sounds like "separate but equal"..except that in itself is a form of discrimination and you know it won't be equal..Maybe we should get separate water coolers for gay people?
Plus if we separate gay people to gayland then trini carnival gone thru! You seem to be totally neglecting how many gay people contribute so much to making our society richer in many different ways!
-
I cyah believe socapro come out and accuse somebody in THIS thread of talking hogwash
-
Socapro what garbage u talking about being exposed to STIs due to their sexual lifestyle. If anyone, straight or gay does not practice safe sex then they are going to be exposed to STIs...has nothing to do with a person's sexual preference!! you actually made me laugh with that one
give them their own society? come nah man...kinda sounds like "separate but equal"..except that in itself is a form of discrimination and you know it won't be equal..Maybe we should get separate water coolers for gay people?
Plus if we separate gay people to gayland then trini carnival gone thru! You seem to be totally neglecting how many gay people contribute so much to making our society richer in many different ways!
You folks are reading my proposal with too much emotion!
I have nothing against gays unless they cross the line of trying to teach my children that gay sex is natural!
My proposal offers genuine freedom of choice so one can chose which society they prefer to live in!
What so wrong with that?!
I don't want my children being taught in school that gay sex is natural and a moral choice to make but it seems to me that things are heading in that direction and my proposal could be a happy solution for both sides of the argument!
Lets give folks a genuine choice and everyone can choose which society is better for them and their children! :beermug:
And how you reach to that conclusion that Trini Carnival will go thru?!
Our Carnival became what is from African slaves celebrating their freedom and deciding to mimic the old slave masters as devils, etc!! It has nothing to do with being gay even though I can acknowledge that gay designers have contributed to carnival in recent times just as much as they have contributed to fashion design around the world.
Again folks are miss-interpreting my proposal as me being against gays! My proposal is for choice for both sides and not having a sexual lifestyle that you don't agree with being constantly promoted to yourself and your children as something natural!
-
I cyah believe socapro come out and accuse somebody in THIS thread of talking hogwash
We all talk a bit of hog wash from time to time!
I found his argument flakey as he had totally misssed the point I was making!
-
You folks are reading my proposal with too much emotion!
I have nothing against interracial relationships unless they cross the line of trying to teach my children that interracial sex is natural!
My proposal offers genuine freedom of choice so one can chose which society they prefer to live in!
What so wrong with that?!
I don't want my children being taught in school that interracial sex is natural and a moral choice to make but it seems to me that things are heading in that direction and my proposal could be a happy solution for both sides of the argument!
Lets give folks a genuine choice and everyone can choose which society is better for them and their children! :beermug:
I fix that one for you too above
At least with warmonga he don't try to hide how he really feel... do some introspection dey socapro
-
Socapro what garbage u talking about being exposed to STIs due to their sexual lifestyle. If anyone, straight or gay does not practice safe sex then they are going to be exposed to STIs...has nothing to do with a person's sexual preference!! you actually made me laugh with that one
give them their own society? come nah man...kinda sounds like "separate but equal"..except that in itself is a form of discrimination and you know it won't be equal..Maybe we should get separate water coolers for gay people?
Plus if we separate gay people to gayland then trini carnival gone thru! You seem to be totally neglecting how many gay people contribute so much to making our society richer in many different ways!
You guys are trying to refute my argument by trying to create bogus arguments that I was never arguing about in the first place!
I never argued that straight folks don't engage in unsafe sex and catch STD's?
But if we want to go down that road, I honestly believe that unprotected straight sex between two healthy people without STD's is far safer and healthier than unprotected gay sex for obvious reasons.
Anyway I done with this argument for now as men deliberately missing the point of what I propose and trying to argue that I have something against gays which I don't!
Why would someone who is against gays offer them their own country to do as they wish if they had the power to do so?!
Some of you guys does get too emotional and dont take time to think things thru logically for the long-term!
We are heading in a direction where we will soon have to give serious thought to my proposal as a viable solution!
-
Why would someone who is against gays offer them their own country to do as they wish if they had the power to do so?!
Some of you guys does get too emotional and dont take time to think thing thru logically in the long-term!
Dis is de best one yet! I didn't even have to fix it...
ok pro i done too
-
You folks are reading my proposal with too much emotion!
I have nothing against interracial relationships unless they cross the line of trying to teach my children that interracial sex is natural!
My proposal offers genuine freedom of choice so one can chose which society they prefer to live in!
What so wrong with that?!
I don't want my children being taught in school that interracial sex is natural and a moral choice to make but it seems to me that things are heading in that direction and my proposal could be a happy solution for both sides of the argument!
Lets give folks a genuine choice and everyone can choose which society is better for them and their children! :beermug:
I fix that one for you too above
At least with warmonga he don't try to hide how he really feel... do some introspection dey socapro
I have clearly stated how I feel and have nothing to hide! If you take offense to me not condoning the gay sexual lifestyle or folks teaching it to my children as something natural then thats your problem!
I don't hate gays and have never abused anyone for being gay, its their choice and lifestyle!
If you want to imagine otherwise then go ahead and please yourself, I dont really care but wish you would examine my proposal as it might actually be a good thing for both sides in the longterm!!
-
All who so worried about homos and lesbians taking to the streets asking to be treated like the humans that they are...have nmore in DEY MOTAR THAN A PESTLE...might be a BULL PESTLE in dey.
Leave the people alone. We have all kinda people raping children, killing, destroying society and the nation and is homos occupying allyuh minds?
Repression perhaps?
Btw TC, I am not against gays marching for equal rights or anything like that and doing whatever they choose to do sexually in the privacy of their own home.
What I am against is their sexual lifestyle being taught to my children as natural when both my morals and mother nature tells me it is not natural!
Once they don't cross that line of trying to teach my children that sex between two folks of the same gender is natural then I am cool! Other than that and indecent behaviour in public by both gays and straights they can do as they wish!
Society need to live by certain moral codes or we are all doomed both straights and gays!
I do not condone bigotry or abusing anyone for what they are be it, race, religion, belief, sex or sexual orientation.
pro yuh is my man for a long time now, but ah must tell yuh....yuh talking shit here. What moral codes have to do with homosexuality? There are gay sheep, geese and other primates that are homosexual..I wonder why?
If it exists elsewhere in nature, across different species, what makes it unnatural? Additionally, who is trying to teach it to your children? I doubt homosexuality is learned...Bakes once told me that it is a choice and I reluctantly agreed as people make the choices to engage in the sex act, straight or gay...
-
Socapro what garbage u talking about being exposed to STIs due to their sexual lifestyle. If anyone, straight or gay does not practice safe sex then they are going to be exposed to STIs...has nothing to do with a person's sexual preference!! you actually made me laugh with that one
give them their own society? come nah man...kinda sounds like "separate but equal"..except that in itself is a form of discrimination and you know it won't be equal..Maybe we should get separate water coolers for gay people?
Plus if we separate gay people to gayland then trini carnival gone thru! You seem to be totally neglecting how many gay people contribute so much to making our society richer in many different ways!
You guys are trying to refute my argument by trying to create bogus arguments that I was never arguing about in the first place!
I never argued that straight folks don't engage in unsafe sex and catch STD's?
But if we want to go down that road, I honestly believe that unprotected straight sex between two healthy people without STD's is far safer and healthier than unprotected gay sex for obvious reasons.
Anyway I done with this argument for now as men deliberately missing the point of what I propose and trying to argue that I have something against gays which I don't!
Why would someone who is against gays offer them their own country to do as they wish if they had the power to do so?!
Some of you guys does get too emotional and dont take time to think thing thru logically in the long-term!
Your opinions appear to be based on stereotypes associated with people who identify as gay. Please share with me how sombody else's sexual orientation is effecting your life in an adverse way? And if it is, what does that tell you about you as a person?
-
Why would someone who is against gays offer them their own country to do as they wish if they had the power to do so?!
Some of you guys does get too emotional and dont take time to think thing thru logically in the long-term!
Dis is de best one yet! I didn't even have to fix it...
ok pro i done too
What's wrong with that! They already have their own small communities in most major cities where they are totally happy to come and go from as they please. Whats wrong with extending it to being a whole city, state or country?!
How can I be seen as anti-gay by tabling such a proposal! If anything I am pro-gay rights!
In their own country/state gay marriage can be allowed, the works, whatever they want! The Bible can even be written or banned all together, its up to them!
No one will be forced to live in our society or their society if they prefer not too but you will have to respect the laws and rules of whichever society you live in.
My argument is about choice not about forcing anyone to live anywhere!
If the gay lifestyle was not being promoted to our children then there will be no need for this proposal and we could happily co-exist in the same society but unfortunately this is not the case so offering this choice may be evitable and a good thing in the future!!
Maybe some of you are too emotional or have too much of a prosecution complex to see the positive merits of my proposal but the day will come when what I have proposed will have to be taken seriously for the sake of happiness on both sides!
-
Socapro what garbage u talking about being exposed to STIs due to their sexual lifestyle. If anyone, straight or gay does not practice safe sex then they are going to be exposed to STIs...has nothing to do with a person's sexual preference!! you actually made me laugh with that one
give them their own society? come nah man...kinda sounds like "separate but equal"..except that in itself is a form of discrimination and you know it won't be equal..Maybe we should get separate water coolers for gay people?
Plus if we separate gay people to gayland then trini carnival gone thru! You seem to be totally neglecting how many gay people contribute so much to making our society richer in many different ways!
You guys are trying to refute my argument by trying to create bogus arguments that I was never arguing about in the first place!
I never argued that straight folks don't engage in unsafe sex and catch STD's?
But if we want to go down that road, I honestly believe that unprotected straight sex between two healthy people without STD's is far safer and healthier than unprotected gay sex for obvious reasons.
Anyway I done with this argument for now as men deliberately missing the point of what I propose and trying to argue that I have something against gays which I don't!
Why would someone who is against gays offer them their own country to do as they wish if they had the power to do so?!
Some of you guys does get too emotional and dont take time to think thing thru logically in the long-term!
Your opinions appear to be based on stereotypes associated with people who identify as gay. Please share with me how sombody else's sexual orientation is effecting your life in an adverse way? And if it is, what does that tell you about you as a person?
I already mentioned that I am not against gays once they don't try to teach their sexual lifestyle as something natural or normal to my children at school!
That's it's, I have no other issues with gays!
Folks can do as they wish in the privacy of their homes as consenting adults!
Just don't ask me to agree with everything that they do that's all!
:beermug:
-
Why would someone who is against gays offer them their own country to do as they wish if they had the power to do so?!
Some of you guys does get too emotional and dont take time to think thing thru logically in the long-term!
Dis is de best one yet! I didn't even have to fix it...
ok pro i done too
What's wrong with that!
If you have to ask/state that question ... argument done.
-
Socapro, yuh promoting separate but equal? Like what they tried to do with de nigras???
-
Socapro what garbage u talking about being exposed to STIs due to their sexual lifestyle. If anyone, straight or gay does not practice safe sex then they are going to be exposed to STIs...has nothing to do with a person's sexual preference!! you actually made me laugh with that one
give them their own society? come nah man...kinda sounds like "separate but equal"..except that in itself is a form of discrimination and you know it won't be equal..Maybe we should get separate water coolers for gay people?
Plus if we separate gay people to gayland then trini carnival gone thru! You seem to be totally neglecting how many gay people contribute so much to making our society richer in many different ways!
You guys are trying to refute my argument by trying to create bogus arguments that I was never arguing about in the first place!
I never argued that straight folks don't engage in unsafe sex and catch STD's?
But if we want to go down that road, I honestly believe that unprotected straight sex between two healthy people without STD's is far safer and healthier than unprotected gay sex for obvious reasons.
Anyway I done with this argument for now as men deliberately missing the point of what I propose and trying to argue that I have something against gays which I don't!
Why would someone who is against gays offer them their own country to do as they wish if they had the power to do so?!
Some of you guys does get too emotional and dont take time to think thing thru logically in the long-term!
Your opinions appear to be based on stereotypes associated with people who identify as gay. Please share with me how sombody else's sexual orientation is effecting your life in an adverse way? And if it is, what does that tell you about you as a person?
I already mentioned that I am not against gays once they don't try to teach their sexual lifestyle as something natural or normal to my children at school!
That's it's, I have no other issues with gays!
Folks can do as they wish in private as consenting adults!
:beermug:
So let me get this straight your 'only' 'issues' with LGBT people is that 'they trying to teach their sexual lifestyle as something natural or normal to your children at school'? And if that is your 'only issue', is that reason enough to suggest/believe that LGBT people should have their own island?
-
All who so worried about homos and lesbians taking to the streets asking to be treated like the humans that they are...have nmore in DEY MOTAR THAN A PESTLE...might be a BULL PESTLE in dey.
Leave the people alone. We have all kinda people raping children, killing, destroying society and the nation and is homos occupying allyuh minds?
Repression perhaps?
Btw TC, I am not against gays marching for equal rights or anything like that and doing whatever they choose to do sexually in the privacy of their own home.
What I am against is their sexual lifestyle being taught to my children as natural when both my morals and mother nature tells me it is not natural!
Once they don't cross that line of trying to teach my children that sex between two folks of the same gender is natural then I am cool! Other than that and indecent behaviour in public by both gays and straights they can do as they wish!
Society need to live by certain moral codes or we are all doomed both straights and gays!
I do not condone bigotry or abusing anyone for what they are be it, race, religion, belief, sex or sexual orientation.
pro yuh is my man for a long time now, but ah must tell yuh....yuh talking shit here. What moral codes have to do with homosexuality? There are gay sheep, geese and other primates that are homosexual..I wonder why?
If it exists elsewhere in nature, across different species, what makes it unnatural? Additionally, who is trying to teach it to your children? I doubt homosexuality is learned...Bakes once told me that it is a choice and I reluctantly agreed as people make the choices to engage in the sex act, straight or gay...
I can acknowledge that it is probably natural for gays to be attracted to each other and to want to have sex.
But one cannot argue that it is natural from a reproductive point of view!
Nature made our asses for shitting and not for sex in my book!
I view straight unprotected sex between a healthy male and female without STD's as much safer and healthier than unprotected sex between two healthy gay men without STDs for obvious reasons!!
Thats my view based upon my logic and observing nature and nothing anyone can argue will change that!
-
Socapro, yuh promoting separate but equal? Like what they tried to do with de nigras???
I am promoting choice!
Here's another parallel!
It's like Jamaica runs things their way and T&T runs things our way!
Someone in T&T is free to go live in Jamaica if he/she prefers the Jamaican rules and lifestyle!
Someone in Jamaica is free to come live in T&T if he/she prefers the T&T rules and lifestyle!
What so wrong with that?! 8)
-
Socapro what garbage u talking about being exposed to STIs due to their sexual lifestyle. If anyone, straight or gay does not practice safe sex then they are going to be exposed to STIs...has nothing to do with a person's sexual preference!! you actually made me laugh with that one
give them their own society? come nah man...kinda sounds like "separate but equal"..except that in itself is a form of discrimination and you know it won't be equal..Maybe we should get separate water coolers for gay people?
Plus if we separate gay people to gayland then trini carnival gone thru! You seem to be totally neglecting how many gay people contribute so much to making our society richer in many different ways!
You guys are trying to refute my argument by trying to create bogus arguments that I was never arguing about in the first place!
I never argued that straight folks don't engage in unsafe sex and catch STD's?
But if we want to go down that road, I honestly believe that unprotected straight sex between two healthy people without STD's is far safer and healthier than unprotected gay sex for obvious reasons.
Anyway I done with this argument for now as men deliberately missing the point of what I propose and trying to argue that I have something against gays which I don't!
Why would someone who is against gays offer them their own country to do as they wish if they had the power to do so?!
Some of you guys does get too emotional and dont take time to think thing thru logically in the long-term!
Your opinions appear to be based on stereotypes associated with people who identify as gay. Please share with me how sombody else's sexual orientation is effecting your life in an adverse way? And if it is, what does that tell you about you as a person?
I already mentioned that I am not against gays once they don't try to teach their sexual lifestyle as something natural or normal to my children at school!
That's it's, I have no other issues with gays!
Folks can do as they wish in private as consenting adults!
:beermug:
So let me get this straight your 'only' 'issues' with LGBT people is that 'they trying to teach their sexual lifestyle as something natural or normal to your children at school'? And if that is your 'only issue', is that reason enough to suggest/believe that LGBT people should have their own island?
I never said I have an issue with LGBT people! I do have an issue with them trying to force their lifestyle as normal upon my off spring however via so called sexual education in schools!
Also I never suggested their own island! So far I said country/state but nothing wrong with them having their own island too where they run things! I am not limiting them to just one country/state or island! They can have as many as they desire and population demands cause I am cool like that! 8)
And I am not arguing for us to chase gays out of normal society either! Its their choice, they can continue to live in harmony with straight society but will have to obey the laws of sexual conduct in public, etc!
What they do in private is their own affair!
In their own country/state/island they can change the laws to their advantage and behave however they choose in public or private and teach whatever they want to children in their schools!
I may even consider visiting one of their islands/states/countries for a short holiday to see how they are getting on provided I don't have to conform to their sexual lifestyle in public or private!
:beermug:
-
What if?! :thinking:
Lets say sometime in the future to save all the argro on both sides, that the straight majority give the gays their own land/country (lets call the countries Gayland for the Gay men and Lesboland for the Gay women.
This saves aggro how Pro?
Gays wouldn't have to "adopt straight kids" because gays will continue to appear in straight society naturally, after all, the original Gaylandians come from straightland. Separating them at one point in time does not stop the emergence of new gays.
But even if we run with this ideal of segregation.
What is forcing gays to go to Gayland? Their must be some penalty or effort to force gays out otherwise they would just stay in straightland, the place where they born, grow up, have family, friends, you know their home.
Also at what age would parents ostracize their gay kids to this foreign country? And who is policing the removal of gays?
Seems like this scenario would have just as much aggro as any other where you try to segregate people and institutionalize discrimination.
But of course it would be worth it because it would have fewer of them around to constantly push it in our face (the horror).
This is a matter of choice!! Btw did you read the whole article or just the bit you quoted? I tried to cover all possible scenarios!!
This scenario is not forcing gays to leave! They can stay in straight society if they are happy to conform with the laws and moral sexual behaviour of the wider straight society.
If they are not happy with conforming with the laws of wider straight society they can go to Gayland where they are free to practice what comes natural to them without offending anyone!
This scenario is not a matter of forcing, its a matter of providing choice where both sides can be free and happy to live the lifestyle they choose! :beermug:
Dude, I cah believe u seriously arguing this ting...go away wid yuh homosexual Israel :rotfl:
-
What if?! :thinking:
Lets say sometime in the future to save all the argro on both sides, that the straight majority give the gays their own land/country (lets call the countries Gayland for the Gay men and Lesboland for the Gay women.
This saves aggro how Pro?
Gays wouldn't have to "adopt straight kids" because gays will continue to appear in straight society naturally, after all, the original Gaylandians come from straightland. Separating them at one point in time does not stop the emergence of new gays.
But even if we run with this ideal of segregation.
What is forcing gays to go to Gayland? Their must be some penalty or effort to force gays out otherwise they would just stay in straightland, the place where they born, grow up, have family, friends, you know their home.
Also at what age would parents ostracize their gay kids to this foreign country? And who is policing the removal of gays?
Seems like this scenario would have just as much aggro as any other where you try to segregate people and institutionalize discrimination.
But of course it would be worth it because it would have fewer of them around to constantly push it in our face (the horror).
This is a matter of choice!! Btw did you read the whole article or just the bit you quoted? I tried to cover all possible scenarios!!
This scenario is not forcing gays to leave! They can stay in straight society if they are happy to conform with the laws and moral sexual behaviour of the wider straight society.
If they are not happy with conforming with the laws of wider straight society they can go to Gayland where they are free to practice what comes natural to them without offending anyone!
This scenario is not a matter of forcing, its a matter of providing choice where both sides can be free and happy to live the lifestyle they choose! :beermug:
Dude, I cah believe u seriously arguing this ting...go away wid yuh homosexual Israel :rotfl:
Difference from the Israel argument is that I am not proposing taking land away from straight people to give to gay people!
I say we can officially give them California for starters as they already running that place anyway! ;)
-
Four pages :o
-
hahahaa...i hadda say i like what ryan call it...a homosexual israel :rotfl:
pro not be nitpicking but i not sure to what you referring to here :"Its their choice, they can continue to live in harmony with straight society but will have to obey the laws of sexual conduct in public, etc! "
what it is you trying to say? that gay people do not obey sexual conduct laws? and only straight people do? Cuz as far as sexual conduct laws i can think of are no public sex, no sexual assault, rape etc. And as far as i can tell gay people act within these laws..or do you mean it should be illegal for them to show affection to their loved ones such as they should not be allowed to hug, kiss, or hold hands in public?
I just seriously confused as to what you meant by your statement and trying to clarify. :beermug:
-
hahahaa...i hadda say i like what ryan call it...a homosexual israel :rotfl:
pro not be nitpicking but i not sure to what you referring to here :"Its their choice, they can continue to live in harmony with straight society but will have to obey the laws of sexual conduct in public, etc! "
what it is you trying to say? that gay people do not obey sexual conduct laws? and only straight people do? Cuz as far as sexual conduct laws i can think of are no public sex, no sexual assault, rape etc. And as far as i can tell gay people act within these laws..or do you mean it should be illegal for them to show affection to their loved ones such as they should not be allowed to hug, kiss, or hold hands in public?
I just seriously confused as to what you meant by your statement and trying to clarify. :beermug:
Regards laws, my main concern is gays trying to change the laws on marriage and trying to introduce teaching young impressionable children in schools that gay sexual behaviour is natural and normal.
To me that sort of moral sexual education should be left to parents at home and not done by the school. They should respect the moral position of the parents on gay sex.
By all means teach the children biology and the birds and the bees and that a minority of people are gay but do not try to oppose what the parents may have taught their children at home about the morals of gay sex!
If a child has gay parents and has been taught at home that gay sex is normal then thats down to their parents once again.
Got some other stuff to do right now so will only be able to answer any further questions on my proposal later tonight! 8)
-
aye Pro, I said I was done, but ......
I think yo are displaying the common misconception that gay people only interested in sex. Your focus seems to be on the 'sex' thing and reproduction. Gay people want sex to the same degree as straight and have the same extremes as observed in straight sexual desires. At least that is what I conclude as I observe the gay people in my community.
All gay people want are the same rights and privileges as any other member of society: to be accepted, to work, play, love, engage with society, to volunteer, to watch a sports match (or not), to read, to relax, to be free or persecutions, to abide by the laws of the land, to go to church (or not), etc.
Why should they be removed from their non-gay family members? why should they be segregated?
-
jail dem gays..I say..lock dem away ...better yet send dem AFrica.
-
aye Pro, I said I was done, but ......
I think yo are displaying the common misconception that gay people only interested in sex. Your focus seems to be on the 'sex' thing and reproduction. Gay people want sex to the same degree as straight and have the same extremes as observed in straight sexual desires. At least that is what I conclude as I observe the gay people in my community.
All gay people want are the same rights and privileges as any other member of society: to be accepted, to work, play, love, engage with society, to volunteer, to watch a sports match (or not), to read, to relax, to be free or persecutions, to abide by the laws of the land, to go to church (or not), etc.
Why should they be removed from their non-gay family members? why should they be segregated?
Again I will point out for the final time my proposal is about giving everyone more choice!
I am not proposing forcing anyone to live in any particular society but rather to give them a viable option if they wish to take it up. Some people will naturally segregate themselves according to their personal preferences and the company they prefer to keep!
I am not proposing denying gays any of their human rights but want to give them the opportunity to tailor certain laws to their advantage like allowing gay marriage, teaching that being gay is normal in schools, etc if they want to.
But as we know changing certain laws will conflict with what straight folks in regular society will be happy with like allowing gay marriage etc! Solution have a gay state where the gays are the majority and they dictate the law!
I have not argued anywhere in my proposal about denying gays any of their human rights but certain things will not be resolved for gays in regular society like them not being allowed to marry and other similar issues!
As I already pointed out there are already gay areas in most major cities in the west. I am just taking the scenario one step further and giving them a gay state or even country where they are allowed to dictate the laws, re-write the Bible to their advantage, get married and basically do as they see fit without any of the laws working against their basic human rights!
What so wrong with that?!
Im all for gay rights and equality otherwise I wouldnt table this proposal for them having their own state/country where they are the majority and make/control the laws!
-
jail dem gays..I say..lock dem away ...better yet send dem AFrica.
I know yuh joking but I hope you realise that is not my view or argument!
I suspect that Warmonga might agree with that doh! ;)
-
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
wyh you laffin? Jamaica full ah baytty man...in fact per capita allyuh have one ah de highest rates ah batty men seeking asyluum overseas....dey jes fraid to come out as allyuh does kill dem...but dey dey....in thousands in jamaica...even allyuh PM was one..so why yuh laffing?
-
aye Pro, I said I was done, but ......
I think yo are displaying the common misconception that gay people only interested in sex. Your focus seems to be on the 'sex' thing and reproduction. Gay people want sex to the same degree as straight and have the same extremes as observed in straight sexual desires. At least that is what I conclude as I observe the gay people in my community.
All gay people want are the same rights and privileges as any other member of society: to be accepted, to work, play, love, engage with society, to volunteer, to watch a sports match (or not), to read, to relax, to be free or persecutions, to abide by the laws of the land, to go to church (or not), etc.
Why should they be removed from their non-gay family members? why should they be segregated?
Again I will point out for the final time my proposal is about giving everyone more choice!
I am not proposing forcing anyone to live in any particular society but rather to give them a viable option if they wish to take it up. Some people will naturally segregate themselves according to their personal preferences and the company they prefer to keep!
I am not proposing denying gays any of their human rights but want to give them the opportunity to tailor certain laws to their advantage like allowing gay marriage, teaching that being gay is normal in schools, etc if they want to.
But as we know changing certain laws will conflict with what straight folks in regular society will be happy with like allowing gay marriage etc! Solution have a gay state where the gays are the majority and they dictate the law!
I have not argued anywhere in my proposal about denying gays any of their human rights but certain things will not be resolved for gays in regular society like them not being allowed to marry and other similar issues!
As I already pointed out there are already gay areas in most major cities in the west. I am just taking the scenario one step further and giving them a gay state or even country where they are allowed to dictate the laws, re-write the Bible to their advantage, get married and basically do as they see fit without any of the laws working against their basic human rights!
What so wrong with that?!
Im all for gay rights and equality otherwise I wouldnt table this proposal for them having their own state/country where they are the majority and make/control the laws!
Which island/country/state would you give them? With access to what resources? Who makes that decision? straight people on behalf of gay people?
-
Man trapped in woman's body, woman trapped in man's body... cruel fate.
-
Man trapped in woman's body, woman trapped in man's body... cruel fate.
or pnm trapped in unc body, or tall black guy trapped in short white boy's body, or dolphin trapped in man's body
-
Man trapped in woman's body, woman trapped in man's body... cruel fate.
or pnm trapped in unc body, or tall black guy trapped in short white boy's body, or dolphin trapped in man's body
Or Osama Bin laden watching porn and drinking pepsi and cock
-
Socapro doh mind them fellas. If they could, they would do the same thing to people who believe in God. Quick quick quick. You can't serve two masters, you would either love one or hate the other. Some people here claim they ain't got no master but themselves ::) Others want to be liked by both sides; lukewarm.
Nevertheless, the sins of the fathers will ALWAYS pass to the 3rd and 4th generation. Selah But whoever, believe in Christ is a new creature. Behold!! old things are passed away.
-
Socapro doh mind them fellas. If they could, they would do the same thing to people who believe in God. Quick quick quick. You can't serve two masters, you would either love one or hate the other. Some people here claim they ain't got no master but themselves ::) Others want to be liked by both sides; lukewarm.
Nevertheless, the sins of the fathers will ALWAYS pass to the 3rd and 4th generation. Selah But whoever, believe in Christ is a new creature. Behold!! old things are passed away.
STEUPS! IGNORANT, is de damn Christians who always judgmental...hypocrites
-
Socapro doh mind them fellas. If they could, they would do the same thing to people who believe in God. Quick quick quick. You can't serve two masters, you would either love one or hate the other. Some people here claim they ain't got no master but themselves ::) Others want to be liked by both sides; lukewarm.
Nevertheless, the sins of the fathers will ALWAYS pass to the 3rd and 4th generation. Selah But whoever, believe in Christ is a new creature. Behold!! old things are passed away.
STEUPS! IGNORANT, is de damn Christians who always judgmental...hypocrites
Condemnation Theology ... not all Christians subscribe to this theology as proposed by Preacher
-
A lot of people confuse condemnation of people with condemnation of people's wrongdoings.
-
A lot of people confuse condemnation of people with condemnation of people's wrongdoings.
hmmmm
-
Man trapped in woman's body, woman trapped in man's body... cruel fate.
or pnm trapped in unc body, or tall black guy trapped in short white boy's body, or dolphin trapped in man's body
Or Osama Bin laden watching porn and drinking pepsi and cock
i dunno what u and he does do in allyuh personal time
-
A lot of people confuse condemnation of people with condemnation of people's wrongdoings.
hmmmm
a lot of people confuse wrongdoings with personal biases.
-
I just giving allyuh the bible. I ain't referencing myself. So take it up with God nah or the men that make it up, as some trying to imply. All people are prone to being judgmental and hypocritical not just Christians. Nowhere in this thread have i attacked anyone's opinion on the issue. All I've done is state mine. I've had friends in college that were gay. It's not like i don't talk with them but my faith compels me to speak the truth in love to the person, given the opportunity. Just like I am doing here. So I'm not sweating any one here. It's good to have the conversation even if we disagree. May God bless all of you Gay or straight. :beermug:
I'm sorry for how my religion have failed miserably but least we know we need God.
-
I just giving allyuh the bible. I ain't referencing myself. So take it up with God nah or the men that make it up, as some trying to imply. All people are prone to being judgmental and hypocritical not just Christians. Nowhere in this thread have i attacked anyone's opinion on the issue. All I've done is state mine. I've had friends in college that were gay. It's not like i don't talk with them but my faith compels me to speak the truth in love to the person, given the opportunity. Just like I am doing here. So I'm not sweating any one here. It's good to have the conversation even if we disagree. May God bless all of you Gay or straight. :beermug:
I'm sorry for how my religion have failed miserably but least we know we need God.
you and I agree on the main underlying theme - there is a God and he sent Jesus. :beermug:
now as far as TC goes, he doh believe in God, but we still love him. Ent?
-
I just giving allyuh the bible. I ain't referencing myself. So take it up with God nah or the men that make it up, as some trying to imply. All people are prone to being judgmental and hypocritical not just Christians. Nowhere in this thread have i attacked anyone's opinion on the issue. All I've done is state mine. I've had friends in college that were gay. It's not like i don't talk with them but my faith compels me to speak the truth in love to the person, given the opportunity. Just like I am doing here. So I'm not sweating any one here. It's good to have the conversation even if we disagree. May God bless all of you Gay or straight. :beermug:
I'm sorry for how my religion have failed miserably but least we know we need God.
you and I agree on the main underlying theme - there is a God and he sent Jesus. :beermug:
now as far as TC goes, he doh believe in God, but we still love him. Ent?
TC just playing thing. He have the most faith on here. :devil: TC!!!! :beermug:
-
Man trapped in woman's body, woman trapped in man's body... cruel fate.
or pnm trapped in unc body, or tall black guy trapped in short white boy's body, or dolphin trapped in man's body
Or Osama Bin laden watching porn and drinking pepsi and cock
i dunno what u and he does do in allyuh personal time
وباما: التحول الديمقراطي في الشرق الاوسط سياسة
-
aye Pro, I said I was done, but ......
I think yo are displaying the common misconception that gay people only interested in sex. Your focus seems to be on the 'sex' thing and reproduction. Gay people want sex to the same degree as straight and have the same extremes as observed in straight sexual desires. At least that is what I conclude as I observe the gay people in my community.
All gay people want are the same rights and privileges as any other member of society: to be accepted, to work, play, love, engage with society, to volunteer, to watch a sports match (or not), to read, to relax, to be free or persecutions, to abide by the laws of the land, to go to church (or not), etc.
Why should they be removed from their non-gay family members? why should they be segregated?
Again I will point out for the final time my proposal is about giving everyone more choice!
I am not proposing forcing anyone to live in any particular society but rather to give them a viable option if they wish to take it up. Some people will naturally segregate themselves according to their personal preferences and the company they prefer to keep!
I am not proposing denying gays any of their human rights but want to give them the opportunity to tailor certain laws to their advantage like allowing gay marriage, teaching that being gay is normal in schools, etc if they want to.
But as we know changing certain laws will conflict with what straight folks in regular society will be happy with like allowing gay marriage etc! Solution have a gay state where the gays are the majority and they dictate the law!
I have not argued anywhere in my proposal about denying gays any of their human rights but certain things will not be resolved for gays in regular society like them not being allowed to marry and other similar issues!
As I already pointed out there are already gay areas in most major cities in the west. I am just taking the scenario one step further and giving them a gay state or even country where they are allowed to dictate the laws, re-write the Bible to their advantage, get married and basically do as they see fit without any of the laws working against their basic human rights!
What so wrong with that?!
Im all for gay rights and equality otherwise I wouldnt table this proposal for them having their own state/country where they are the majority and make/control the laws!
Which island/country/state would you give them? With access to what resources? Who makes that decision? straight people on behalf of gay people?
For an Island, its a close choice between Barbados & Jamaica!
Reasoning: Trinis basically own both those islands (even thou most of the inhabitants there dont realise that) so we can give it to them as a gift and send the ones who were marching the other day in PoS for equality across there for a nice long holiday on a one way ticket-flight via RedJet! That shouldn't cost us much!!
For a State, mostly likely California!
Reasoning: They are already in control in that state so no one would need to move out!
For a Country, Canada hands down!
Reasoning: No one lives there so they are free to claim as much land as they want and do as they please, there is no one around to object!
;D
Just thought Id lighten up the thread a bit, Im in a kix moods this evening!!
-
For an Island, its a close choice between Barbados & Jamaica!
Reasoning: Trinis basically own both those islands (even thou most of the inhabitants there dont realise that) so we can give it to them as a gift and send the ones who were marching the other day in PoS for equality across there for a nice long holiday on a one way ticket-flight via RedJet! That shouldn't cost us much!!
For a State, mostly likely California!
Reasoning: They are already in control in that state so no one would need to move out!
For a Country, Canada hands down!
Reasoning: No one lives there so they are free to claim as much land as they want and do as they please, there is no one around to object!
Grin
Just thought Id lighten up the thread a bit, Im in a kix moods this evening!!
keep dreaming you is another dunce trini.you can't even manage clico but you own island. i heard this news first on the Caribbean cricket forum that gays are running the streets of POS :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:.
-
To many ppl sons daughters and brothers and sisters are gay,to try ostracize them .trini needs to create a place in society for them .
-
To many ppl sons daughters and brothers and sisters are gay,to try ostracize them .trini needs to create a place in society for them .
dais true light a fire and bun all a dem..
war
-
International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO).
IDAHO? Nah - You da Ho!!
lol ;D
Just a little more comic relief for this comical thread.
My take in a nutshell - leave the judgment to the higher powers...while yuh here on earth support equal rights for all.
-
To many ppl sons daughters and brothers and sisters are gay,to try ostracize them .trini needs to create a place in society for them .
dais true light a fire and bun all a dem..
war
yeah..kill dem all, maybe in the name of Jesus or Allah??? Or maybe in the name of all self respecting heterosexual men worldwide..FYAH BUN faggits
-
This is from Queen Macoomeh. I get it in my email today.
Queen my apologies for not allowing you to post this or getting your permission in advance, but since I found this to be a poignant piece of writing that needed to be shared, I elected to post your work in this thread. Let me know if you want me to remove it .... or even post it in a thread of its own ...
From: Macoomeh [mailto:Macoomeh@commessuniversity.com]
Sent: May-20-11 2:51 PM
To: Macoomeh
Subject: ...and on that note...
I had just started a new job in east Toronto. Folks there werent the warmest and the job was a huge and serious responsibility. It was my first managerial position, junior yes, but still
He appeared in my doorway with a delightful grin. Though quite handsome, with clear blue eyes and blonde hair, there was none of the usual fluttering or exchange of interested glances. He just seemed like a nice guy, also junior management and was the first person to welcome me to the job. He invited me out to lunch and we had a grand old time talking and laughing. We got on like a house on fire and we never passed each other in the hallways without a high five or joke. We had lunch several times a month. I cant say we were close. We were work buddies.
Six years later, he came into my office as he had done hundreds of times before. But this time, he was not smiling. He closed the door behind him and leaned on my desk next to me.
I quit today. He said.
I was stunned. Only that week we had had lunch with a few others and while I did notice he was quieter than usual, I certainly did not expect this news.
Why? I held his eyes and for the first time since we met, I saw despair and a shimmering of unshed tears.
I am sick.
I stared at the healthy looking man in front of me. How could he be sick? Sick with what? He was always slim, his eyes were always clear, his breathing even, his skin the usual reddish pink of his Irish ethnicity. Sick?
I have AIDS.
I laughed but the laugh was choked off quickly as I saw that he was serious, dead serious. My friend of six years was ill with a disease which at that time, signaled sure death not just of the body but of ones lifestyle, job status, social acceptance, tout baghai.
I stood up. I had had no idea that he was gay. It hadnt mattered. It never came up. Wed never discussed our lovestyles. All I knew was that this man had welcomed me while others stood aloof. He had shown me the ropes and shared his lunchtimes and always had a joke and a smile to share witme me every day. Up until then, I had been a homo-ignoramus, not really thinking about gay people or their lifestyles or their social status. Being gay in a murderously heterosexual world wasnt my burden to bear. The gay folks I was aware of, were screen actors who made me laugh then I clicked OFF on the remote and went about my het business. Torontos Pride Parade wasnt the big parade it is today. It was a couple hundred people on Church Street that you might stand on the sidewalk and point and laugh at or turn away in disgust at the chaps with the backside exposed or the 6 foot 9, bearded man in full drag. They were amusing and they didnt concern me.
I hugged him and he hugged me back tightly then he packed his things and left. I began to visit with him. I'd meet him for lunch on Sundays at a little diner on Yonge Street. I watched those blue eyes begin to fade. I watched the clear reddish pink skin become mottled like the aging cloak of an old man who was but twenty-nine years old. I watched how a simple cold for me, would be a few sneezes but for him would be weeks of wracking pain as his immune system abandoned him. He seemed to shrink each week. Folks told me to stay away, that I would catch the nastiness from that man. I heard the gossip at work and the same people he had worked with for years would gather like those ghoulish Dementors in the Harry Potter books, to feed on his name and suddenly remember that he liked Judy Garland and walked like a girl and how they always knew there was something sissy about him. A few even avoided me no doubt thinking I would bring the gay disease back with me from one of my visits with my friend.
He died 2 years later unable to feed or clean himself and I was no longer a homo-ignoramus. I had learned that gay folks are folks too. They eat, sleep, bathe, put on their shoes one at a time like I do. They have hopes and dreams and ambitions like I do. They are not the sexually promiscuous, prone to pedophilia, mincing, cross dressing, lisping clowns some of we morally superior, proselytizing normal people say they are.
Today AIDS isnt the automatic death sentence it once was but the ignorance remains. Yes some gay folks promote and prove the stereotyping and some good and normal people who preach goodwill and justice for all would still sooner burn gay folks at the stake than live and let live. But with the coming of the end of the world tomorrow, I would have no problem standing before St. Peter and accepting my ticket for the next boat to Hades than be jostling for space on the holier than thou art escalator to Heaven. If the God they worship will burn my friend in hell, then so be it. I dont want to be up there. The tolerance is ugly and self serving and oh so hypocritical. My friend helped me and supported me and made me laugh and didnt care about my skin colour or my accent or my immigrant status. That is much more than I can say for some of those on the escalator.
See you on the other side of the Rapture
-
change that from a gay man to a heterosexual man..same thing, in fact it seems that in those days homos were the one dying of aids, these days?
-
Who will be raptured up tomorrow :devil:
-
Very moving story. I guess I could write a similar story of loss to HIV from the other side of the escalator. Maybe not as eloquent as Queen but in my story the cast is not friends but spiritual mentors and very close family. Hmmm. The thing allyuh fail to realize is that no one is going to Hell because of what they did. People are going to Hell because of what they reject. Hell is your choice. See Jesus already died for all the homos and whatevers, the cheaters and lairs, the hypocrites in the church, murders and crooked politicians. He died for everybody's sin. All you got to say is I'm sorry. So nobody going to hell for what they do. People are gonna go to hell for what they reject. If your Ethos is somehow superior how come there's no grace to the hypocrite christian? But here is a more excellent way, the Bible says in reference to professing Christians that the sheep and the goats will grow together and the wheat and the weeds will grow together but one day the Lord will come and separate them and they will burn. See!? God is not a respecter of persons. Isn't that encouraging for you? So don't let hypocrite Christians hinder you from a God that loves you. Everyone must answer for themselves. So don't reject God on account of man.
Brothers and sisters I beg you don't harden your hearts against God on account of men or you own personal experiences. Life is twisty and you never know when you will need a prayer.
-
Wheyyyy ah whole 5 pages! Anyway, how de march went? Dey walk in harmony or did it turn into ah riot in POS?
-
Preach Precher
-
Very moving story. I guess I could write a similar story of loss to HIV from the other side of the escalator. Maybe not as eloquent as Queen but in my story the cast is not friends but spiritual mentors and very close family. Hmmm. The thing allyuh fail to realize is that no one is going to Hell because of what they did. People are going to Hell because of what they reject. Hell is your choice. See Jesus already died for all the homos and whatevers, the cheaters and lairs, the hypocrites in the church, murders and crooked politicians. He died for everybody's sin. All you got to say is I'm sorry. So nobody going to hell for what they do. People are gonna go to hell for what they reject. If your Ethos is somehow superior how come there's no grace to the hypocrite christian? But here is a more excellent way, the Bible says in reference to professing Christians that the sheep and the goats will grow together and the wheat and the weeds will grow together but one day the Lord will come and separate them and they will burn. See!? God is not a respecter of persons. Isn't that encouraging for you? So don't let hypocrite Christians hinder you from a God that loves you. Everyone must answer for themselves. So don't reject God on account of man.
Brothers and sisters I beg you don't harden your hearts against God on account of men or you own personal experiences. Life is twisty and you never know when you will need a prayer.
God is so vain, he needs praise? he created ah whole bunch ah angels just to praise him becasue he as all alone in this universe and decided one day.hhmmmmmm this is boring, I am so great, so worthy of praise that i think I will create a race of winged creatures, give them a hierarchy and make them do my bidding, see I think I need help, although I am capable of knowing everything...but there is nothing to know really, so I will create a universe, and make some angels.
Yeah! Boss plan. I know some will revolt, and I will have to cast them out of this wonderful home I created for them called heaven, AND...One will be the leader, and he will eventually, go to earth, I will soon create that place and populate it with creatures that will be weak, childlike and have no clue.
One of the angels that I created, by the way Lucifer will be his name, and I will make him the best of the best...so good in fact, so good looking and sooo smart that he will soon tire of simply just praising me, the bastard will challeng me, and I will show them all my great power! I will cast him out for his vain glorious attempts and I will humble him.
I will cast him to earth where the new born and dunce creatures MAN, will be tempted by him. He is sooo much smarter than them, but I will give them "free will, (insert maniacial snorting chuckles here...muhahahahahahaha) that he will tempt them to break my commandment not to eat from ONE tree, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil ( see how stupid and dunce they were created, far lower in intelligence that Lucifer and his minions).
This man and his mate..woman will have all the trees, and plants and grasses and animals to name, and so their names shall be...yeah I am a good guy and I made it for their pleasure, to enjoy. They will be vegetarians though, I have made them with canine teeth..lol as they do not know aboput death and killing as that is not yet in their natures...(I know that it soon will be though as they will turn out to be blood thristy killers and like locusts upon the face of my not yet created world.
Back to the main plot...Lucifer will use guile on the childlike creatures who have NO real free will, as their only choice will be to obey me or they will die and they really have not yet eaten from the tree of knowledge so they do not yet know what is good and what is bad, they have no instincts as yet as they will be easily beguiled by the smartest and best creature I created so far.
but after they are fooled and they eat they will know better, but too late, they will know what nakedness is and soon they will learn about pain, suffering and death, but I am a good dude, so I will send myself, in a different form as a man just like them to redeem them, all they have to do is obey me again, and simply accept Jesus (ME in another form, but the same thing, doh study it, it too complicated for creatures I created who only get one bite from the fruit of the tree of good and evil, if allyuh foreparents Adam and Eve did eat the entire fruit, maybe even a whole one each, allyuh woulda be using much more of all brain now, not ah measly 10%)
ANyway Me in human form will die, although I cannot really die, is ah symbolic thing, to show my great lover for allyuh lowly humans. allyuh will be REDEEmed by BLOOD, I like blood, red is my favorite color..Zeen?
Then after allyuh dead and I decided to return on my white horse ( horses doh come in red color or else...) those who are dead in me Christ, will rise first followed by the remnant that are left behind. To live forever praising me and my goodness, sorry no virgins...as we go be in spirit form and spirit cyar sex...Mohammad fool some ah allyuh....for allyuh Hindus, who feel allyuh coming back...hahahahahahaha jokes on you...all allyuh getting is Hell FYAH>>>>>>(said in a Bunji Garlin voice)!
For allyuh atheist, allyuh job go be to look up and bawl out, Lord...send and few drops ah water to soothe my parched throat...we love you and we were were misled by science, we let it be our Lucifer and it beguiled us, we did not know better.
meanwhile Peeps like preacher will be sipping honeydew melon juice, profiling on de corner of Heavenly Bliss Drive and Rapture Blvd. wearing he gold thread sandals and he wool white coat made with ...wool and platinum threads...hate now, cuz yuh go hate later.
Yours truly,
God.
p.s. any Jamaicans reading this. do not feel any ah allyuh coming up here after allyuh dead, I did not make Jamaica it arose from hell and is a creation of Lucifer, he wanted to show me that he could make ah world too, so he make allyuh hellions.
-
TC, what yuh write only relevant if yuh take the bible literally. The bible was written for the communities that produced it. it was a human response to God. The Bible's interpretation is historical and metaphorical. Hence Your description posted above is indeed a fairy tale with its origin in an early christianity paradigm.
-
TC, what yuh write only relevant if yuh take the bible literally. The bible was written for the communities that produced it. it was a human response to God. The Bible's interpretation is historical and metaphorical. Hence Your description posted above is indeed a fairy tale with its origin in an early christianity paradigm.
yeah but pecan what about the millions dat read it front to back swallow every word, although it contradicts itself at every turn, rather than use it as it should be used NOW, as a guide, (if u choose so to do) to be wielded with objectivity and caution, lots an lots of caution..............me thinks thems the guys he's really taking a go at
-
TC, what yuh write only relevant if yuh take the bible literally. The bible was written for the communities that produced it. it was a human response to God. The Bible's interpretation is historical and metaphorical. Hence Your description posted above is indeed a fairy tale with its origin in an early christianity paradigm.
yeah but pecan what about the millions dat read it front to back swallow every word, although it contradicts itself at every turn, rather than use it as it should be used NOW, as a guide, (if u choose so to do) to be wielded with objectivity and caution, lots an lots of caution..............me thinks thems the guys he's really taking a go at
true ... yuh right
What they don't realize that being Christian does not necessarily mean believing in Christianity. rather it means living a relationship with God within the Christian metaphor and sacrament.
Unfortunately, too many take the Koran and Bible literally.
-
The problem with TC is that he paints all theists with the same brush.
-
The problem with TC is that he paints all theists with the same brush.
yeah I tend to do that myself, I try not to, but SOME people make it hard
-
The problem with TC is that he paints all theists with the same brush.
You ask any Catholic, any pentecostal or any charismatic church and ask dem about adam and eve and what I wrote..they does swallow it hook line and sinker.
Not to mention when dem catholic taking communion is de literal body ah christ dey tearing up...steups
-
Every time your eyes open in the morning, you in the fairy tale.
Every time you breathe in and out, you in the the fairy tale.
When you hold a new born baby or hear those 1st words, you in the fairy tale.
When you share a drink, take a lime,
Watch a man run and hold he belly because your joke so stale
You in the fairy tale.
When every tree bears fruit after it's own kind
When horses only give birth to horses
And birds still populate the sky
You in the fairy tale.
A million sunsets for a million days, you in the fairy tale
The cynical is allowed breath and the rain falls on the thief
When the seasons rotate in time and time is given to each season
You are in the fairy tale
Yet men deny the obvious and presume that order can come from chaos.
But very soon all men find that whatever is sown will be reaped. :beermug:
-
When you doubt good science yet believe you will spout wings and fly
after you die and live in a castle in the sky, and only eat cherry pie
You believe in fairy tales.
When you feel that evolution is fake, for heavens sake
when you feel we were created not evolved, give me break
You believe in fairy tales.
When you cannot explain it, you say some God created it that does not work for me
Because those who believe in science know there is no Scientific Law of incredulity
So while you find my jokes may be stale
YOU are the one who is enamored by fairy tales.
-
;D Ha ha TC!!!! :beermug: ah looking forward to when we bounce up. I ain't think nobody go hang around if the conversation land on religion. ;D BTW i prefer Apple pie.
-
;D Ha ha TC!!!! :beermug: ah looking forward to when we bounce up. I ain't think nobody go hang around if the conversation land on religion. ;D BTW i prefer Apple pie.
You still here, you miss getting raptured too? Things to make you go hmmmm!
-
:rotfl:
-
;D Ha ha TC!!!! :beermug: ah looking forward to when we bounce up. I ain't think nobody go hang around if the conversation land on religion. ;D BTW i prefer Apple pie.
You still here, you miss getting raptured too? Things to make you go hmmmm!
Nah doh try that today is just the Beginning of Judgment Day. ::) That's the most recent Billboard I've seen. Doh worry there'll be another day.
Nevertheless, it's appointed once for a man to die and after that the judgment. So let me see, 75 summers, 75 winters, 75 autumns and springs. Ey!! I'm half way there.
-
;D Ha ha TC!!!! :beermug: ah looking forward to when we bounce up. I ain't think nobody go hang around if the conversation land on religion. ;D BTW i prefer Apple pie.
You still here, you miss getting raptured too? Things to make you go hmmmm!
Nah doh try that today is just the Beginning of Judgment Day. ::) That's the most recent Billboard I've seen. Doh worry there'll be another day.
Nevertheless, it's appointed once for a man to die and after that the judgment. So let me see, 75 summers, 75 winters, 75 autumns and springs. Ey!! I'm half way there.
yuh plan to dead young? Enjoy yuhself, wine to de side after yuh dead...no more jooking and jiving...all wining done.
-
http://www.mnialive.com/caribbean/837-barbados-family-minister-says-too-much-sex-and-homosexuality-on-tv.html
Barbados' Family Minister Says Too Much Sex and Homosexuality On TV
Too much sex and promotion of homosexuality on television says Stephen Lashley, Barbados Minister of Family. Mr Lashley has called for more preventative measures to stop these negative images from reaching young people in their homes.
The Minister said, If we are serious about combating teenage pregnancy we have to initiate a national debate about what we are showing our teens on television and the movies we are taking home from the video shops for them to watch. More parental guidance and control are needed.
Speaking to an audience of around 100 at the Child Care Boards Youth Forum this week, he made clear his stance that this was a matter that needed all their attention. He called on the children in attendance to take a stand and refuse to watch unwholesome television programmes, commenting that there is absolutely nothing wrong in saying no to homosexuality and promiscuity.
Keeping his remarks realistic, Lashley acknowledged that the decision to engage in early sexual activity could be difficult, especially when they are so many differing opinions on the matter. However, he advised the youths to consider all the facts and be aware of the consequences of their actions.
The Minister has pledged his Ministrys support in the fight against teenage pregnancy and affirmed that government would continue to work with all the relevant partners to ensure resources were made available to assist in that area.
-
http://www.mnialive.com/caribbean/837-barbados-family-minister-says-too-much-sex-and-homosexuality-on-tv.html
Barbados' Family Minister Says Too Much Sex and Homosexuality On TV
Too much sex and promotion of homosexuality on television says Stephen Lashley, Barbados Minister of Family. Mr Lashley has called for more preventative measures to stop these negative images from reaching young people in their homes.
The Minister said, If we are serious about combating teenage pregnancy we have to initiate a national debate about what we are showing our teens on television and the movies we are taking home from the video shops for them to watch. More parental guidance and control are needed.
Speaking to an audience of around 100 at the Child Care Boards Youth Forum this week, he made clear his stance that this was a matter that needed all their attention. He called on the children in attendance to take a stand and refuse to watch unwholesome television programmes, commenting that there is absolutely nothing wrong in saying no to homosexuality and promiscuity.
Keeping his remarks realistic, Lashley acknowledged that the decision to engage in early sexual activity could be difficult, especially when they are so many differing opinions on the matter. However, he advised the youths to consider all the facts and be aware of the consequences of their actions.
The Minister has pledged his Ministrys support in the fight against teenage pregnancy and affirmed that government would continue to work with all the relevant partners to ensure resources were made available to assist in that area.
hmmm ... if all the teenagers engaged in homosexual acts, that would solve the teen pregnancy problem. I wonder why he not promoting this alternative?
-
http://www.mnialive.com/caribbean/837-barbados-family-minister-says-too-much-sex-and-homosexuality-on-tv.html
Barbados' Family Minister Says Too Much Sex and Homosexuality On TV
Too much sex and promotion of homosexuality on television says Stephen Lashley, Barbados Minister of Family. Mr Lashley has called for more preventative measures to stop these negative images from reaching young people in their homes.
The Minister said, If we are serious about combating teenage pregnancy we have to initiate a national debate about what we are showing our teens on television and the movies we are taking home from the video shops for them to watch. More parental guidance and control are needed.
Speaking to an audience of around 100 at the Child Care Boards Youth Forum this week, he made clear his stance that this was a matter that needed all their attention. He called on the children in attendance to take a stand and refuse to watch unwholesome television programmes, commenting that there is absolutely nothing wrong in saying no to homosexuality and promiscuity.
Keeping his remarks realistic, Lashley acknowledged that the decision to engage in early sexual activity could be difficult, especially when they are so many differing opinions on the matter. However, he advised the youths to consider all the facts and be aware of the consequences of their actions.
The Minister has pledged his Ministrys support in the fight against teenage pregnancy and affirmed that government would continue to work with all the relevant partners to ensure resources were made available to assist in that area.
hmmm ... if all the teenagers engaged in homosexual acts, that would solve the teen pregnancy problem. I wonder why he not promoting this alternative?
Yuh eh see he ahd a huge audience of around 100...and dey force dem to attend...lol
Buh Pecan yuh is ah real clown yes yuh have meh laffing hard here...lol
-
http://www.mnialive.com/caribbean/837-barbados-family-minister-says-too-much-sex-and-homosexuality-on-tv.html
Barbados' Family Minister Says Too Much Sex and Homosexuality On TV
Too much sex and promotion of homosexuality on television says Stephen Lashley, Barbados Minister of Family. Mr Lashley has called for more preventative measures to stop these negative images from reaching young people in their homes.
The Minister said, If we are serious about combating teenage pregnancy we have to initiate a national debate about what we are showing our teens on television and the movies we are taking home from the video shops for them to watch. More parental guidance and control are needed.
Speaking to an audience of around 100 at the Child Care Boards Youth Forum this week, he made clear his stance that this was a matter that needed all their attention. He called on the children in attendance to take a stand and refuse to watch unwholesome television programmes, commenting that there is absolutely nothing wrong in saying no to homosexuality and promiscuity.
Keeping his remarks realistic, Lashley acknowledged that the decision to engage in early sexual activity could be difficult, especially when they are so many differing opinions on the matter. However, he advised the youths to consider all the facts and be aware of the consequences of their actions.
The Minister has pledged his Ministrys support in the fight against teenage pregnancy and affirmed that government would continue to work with all the relevant partners to ensure resources were made available to assist in that area.
hmmm ... if all the teenagers engaged in homosexual acts, that would solve the teen pregnancy problem. I wonder why he not promoting this alternative?
Yuh eh see he ahd a huge audience of around 100...and dey force dem to attend...lol
Buh Pecan yuh is ah real clown yes yuh have meh laffing hard here...lol
whahappen? yuh dont like my suggestion? :devil:
-
Nah I eh like it, but it practical and I can see a Bajan preacher taking hold of it and running...lol
-
Nah I eh like it, but it practical and I can see a Bajan preacher taking hold of it and running...lol
yeah .. .practical but subject to abuse. Disregard my suggestion.
-
Nah I eh like it, but it practical and I can see a Bajan preacher taking hold of it and running...lol
yeah .. .practical but subject to abuse. Disregard my suggestion.
Yuh eh have to tell me to disregard...
-
Brazil sex education material suspended by President (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13554077)
President Dilma Rousseff has suspended the distribution and production of sex education films for schools in Brazil.
President Rousseff believes the footage is not suitable for youngsters.
The education packs contain gay and lesbian video scenes and are supposed to combat homophobia.
However, evangelical church groups and their allies in Congress threatened to block any upcoming legislation unless President Rousseff halted the films.
'Anti-homophobia kits'
A government spokesman said President Rousseff had viewed the material personally and decided to suspend its distribution.
"She didn't like what she saw," Gilberto Carvalho said.
He said President Rousseff was unhappy with the footage and believed it did not offer an objective picture of homosexuality.
The "anti-homophobia kits", as they are known in Brazil, were about to be rolled out by Brazil's ministry of health and the ministry of education.
Several members of Brazil's chamber of deputies with strong evangelic Christian beliefs said the sex education packs encouraged homosexual behaviour.
Gay and lesbian rights campaigners have expressed serious concerns.
A leading rights campaigner and congressman, Jean Wyllys, said the decision called into question President Rousseff's commitment to human rights.
"I voted for her in the last elections," he said, "because I thought she would defend the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens."
"If she doesn't do a U-turn and change her mind, I will urge all gay people not to vote for her again."
-
Yeah put gay right over the rights of the families and the rights of kids. Forget the president, I'm sure family members are equally outraged. But they wouldn't print that.
-
Yeah put gay right over the rights of the families and the rights of kids. Forget the president, I'm sure family members are equally outraged. But they wouldn't print that.
Same thing they used as an excuse with equal rights for blacks.
-
Yeah put gay right over the rights of the families and the rights of kids. Forget the president, I'm sure family members are equally outraged. But they wouldn't print that.
Same thing they used as an excuse with equal rights for blacks.
Can you give some more details so we can understand the parallel with this?
Thanks
-
Yeah put gay right over the rights of the families and the rights of kids. Forget the president, I'm sure family members are equally outraged. But they wouldn't print that.
Same thing they used as an excuse with equal rights for blacks.
Can you give some more details so we can understand the parallel with this?
Thanks
did you chose your race?
do you recall when you chose to be heterosexual?
the fact that you are asking this question suggest that you have not followed the debate on what it means to be homosexual; rather, you have applied your preconceive biases to sexual orientation and have already concluded that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. While the scientific evidence is still debated, many believe that, generally speaking, sexual orientation is primarily genetic and not environmental.
-
Yeah put gay right over the rights of the families and the rights of kids. Forget the president, I'm sure family members are equally outraged. But they wouldn't print that.
Same thing they used as an excuse with equal rights for blacks.
Can you give some more details so we can understand the parallel with this?
Thanks
did you chose your race?
do you recall when you chose to be heterosexual?
Question was addressed to TC btw.
I am looking for more details ref what the Brazilian President decided about the inappropriateness of the material for younger children and how that is equivalent to Blacks not being given equal rights in America or anywhere else!
In answer to your questions.
I did not choose my race nor did I chose to be heterosexual.
I was born Black & hetrosexual or as some may argue God decided the matter, so who am I to go against God's decision as he/she knows best! ;)
-
Yeah put gay right over the rights of the families and the rights of kids. Forget the president, I'm sure family members are equally outraged. But they wouldn't print that.
Same thing they used as an excuse with equal rights for blacks.
Can you give some more details so we can understand the parallel with this?
Thanks
did you chose your race?
do you recall when you chose to be heterosexual?
the fact that you are asking this question suggest that you have not followed the debate on what it means to be homosexual; rather, you have applied your preconceive biases to sexual orientation and have already concluded that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. While the scientific evidence is still debated, many believe that, generally speaking, sexual orientation is primarily genetic and not environmental.
Allyuh fellas just love chupidness eh? "genetic this and that" The problem is that you assume that people and animals are the same. Another lie from the pit of hell. Then you willfully minimize the influence of evil in the world and wickedness in High places. Then you mock those that try to walk uprightly attempting to heap on them condemnation. You don't understand the power of sin and how it's able to manifest even in the DNA. Even with manifestation in the DNA does not make it right. The spiritual is so powerful it can transform you physical body; Philips' transportation, Mt. of Transfiguration, all the documented cases of exorcisms; people running up walls and thing. These transformations are at a cellular level. God never created sickness but it sure does happen. That's why Jesus said with my stripes you are healed and my WORD is health to your very flesh. Even your flesh responds to righteousness. Satan has always attacked the genetics in an attempt to corrupt the seed. Gen.6. ........The sin is in the blood, the sins of the fathers go to the 3rd and 4th generation. Hence Jesus had to be born of a virgin. But if you don't believe the bible you are free to make up your stuff and call it science. Or you're also free to pick and choose which parts you want to believe. When I have the time I'm gonna find some info on a fella that was considered to be the poster boy of the gay movement. "THE POSTER BOY FOR GAY RIGHTS" And not very long ago. You should hear the stuff that he has to say.
We don't wrestle against flesh and blood....so don't be to quick to make flesh and blood the the basis for your argument.
-
Yeah put gay right over the rights of the families and the rights of kids. Forget the president, I'm sure family members are equally outraged. But they wouldn't print that.
Same thing they used as an excuse with equal rights for blacks.
Can you give some more details so we can understand the parallel with this?
Thanks
did you chose your race?
do you recall when you chose to be heterosexual?
the fact that you are asking this question suggest that you have not followed the debate on what it means to be homosexual; rather, you have applied your preconceive biases to sexual orientation and have already concluded that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. While the scientific evidence is still debated, many believe that, generally speaking, sexual orientation is primarily genetic and not environmental.
Allyuh fellas just love chupidness eh? "genetic this and that" The problem is that you assume that people and animals are the same. Another lie from the pit of hell. Then you willfully minimize the influence of evil in the world and wickedness in High places. Then you mock those that try to walk uprightly attempting to heap on them condemnation. You don't understand the power of sin and how it's able to manifest even in the DNA. Even with manifestation in the DNA does not make it right. The spiritual is so powerful it can transform you physical body; Philips' transportation, Mt. of Transfiguration, all the documented cases of exorcisms; people running up walls and thing. These transformations are at a cellular level. God never created sickness but it sure does happen. That's why Jesus said with my stripes you are healed and my WORD is health to your very flesh. Even your flesh responds to righteousness. Satan has always attacked the genetics in an attempt to corrupt the seed. Gen.6. ........The sin is in the blood, the sins of the fathers go to the 3rd and 4th generation. Hence Jesus had to be born of a virgin. But if you don't believe the bible you are free to make up your stuff and call it science. Or you're also free to pick and choose which parts you want to believe. When I have the time I'm gonna find some info on a fella that was considered to be the poster boy of the gay movement. "THE POSTER BOY FOR GAY RIGHTS" And not very long ago. You should hear the stuff that he has to say.
We don't wrestle against flesh and blood....so don't be to quick to make flesh and blood the the basis for your argument.
well Preacher, I cant really argue with your position if that is what you truly believe. Let's agree to disagree. Respect :beermug:
-
Yeah put gay right over the rights of the families and the rights of kids. Forget the president, I'm sure family members are equally outraged. But they wouldn't print that.
Same thing they used as an excuse with equal rights for blacks.
Can you give some more details so we can understand the parallel with this?
Thanks
did you chose your race?
do you recall when you chose to be heterosexual?
Question was addressed to TC btw.
I am looking for more details ref what the Brazilian President decided about the inappropriateness of the material for younger children and how that is equivalent to Blacks not being given equal rights in America or anywhere else!
In answer to your questions.
I did not choose my race nor did I chose to be heterosexual.
I was born Black & hetrosexual or as some may argue God decided the matter, so who am I to go against God's decision as he/she knows best! ;)
I know it was addressed to TC but as much as I try to resist, i cant help myself sometimes. But that was a choice I made. :devil:
So why go against someone who is born homosexual (not withstanding preachers theological position) - why build a separate place for them?
anyways . we just going round in circles.
-
My only issue I have with this born gay thing is this...what is the true meaning of being gay or lesbian? not being attracted to the same sex? If so, then why do some gay men try their best to look and act feminine to attract another gay mate? Why do lesbian women dress and act as men?
If you like the same sex, then so be it, I don't see the need to take on the role of the opposite sex that you are not attracted to in the first place. That's just my take.
Big Up!
-
My only issue I have with this born gay thing is this...what is the true meaning of being gay or lesbian? not being attracted to the same sex? If so, then why do some gay men try their best to look and act feminine to attract another gay mate? Why do lesbian women dress and act as men?
If you like the same sex, then so be it, I don't see the need to take on the role of the opposite sex that you are not attracted to in the first place. That's just my take.
Big Up!
CO-SIGNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN to the nth power. Exactly u attracted 2 d same sex but 1 of all yuh acting like d other sex. NONESENSE.
-
My only issue I have with this born gay thing is this...what is the true meaning of being gay or lesbian? not being attracted to the same sex? If so, then why do some gay men try their best to look and act feminine to attract another gay mate? Why do lesbian women dress and act as men?
If you like the same sex, then so be it, I don't see the need to take on the role of the opposite sex that you are not attracted to in the first place. That's just my take.
Big Up!
Well I watching it the opposite way... them butch ones who like pretty girl, dem is lesbian 100%
But dem real feminine woman who like dem butch butch ones who big and strong... is man dem like... is just prick dey fraid! :P ::) ;D
-
sigh ...
-
My only issue I have with this born gay thing is this...what is the true meaning of being gay or lesbian? not being attracted to the same sex? If so, then why do some gay men try their best to look and act feminine to attract another gay mate? Why do lesbian women dress and act as men?
If you like the same sex, then so be it, I don't see the need to take on the role of the opposite sex that you are not attracted to in the first place. That's just my take.
Big Up!
dread it have a fella in my village that fella been like a girl from d day he know he self till now........ dis fella grow from baby had father figure\s, he brother is\was ah wotless skirt chaser of d highest order, so d "grow only around woman argument people does throw out doh fit he...........u want to tell me he come out he mother womb and instantly pick up...um.......gayness :-\ from d air...............it so easy to jus take ah simplistic look at d situation an refuse to climb out dem lil box we like to build, so we doh have to tink to hard.........but it does seldom be dat simple
-
My only issue I have with this born gay thing is this...what is the true meaning of being gay or lesbian? not being attracted to the same sex? If so, then why do some gay men try their best to look and act feminine to attract another gay mate? Why do lesbian women dress and act as men?
If you like the same sex, then so be it, I don't see the need to take on the role of the opposite sex that you are not attracted to in the first place. That's just my take.
Big Up!
dread it have a fella in my village that fella been like a girl from d day he know he self till now........ dis fella grow from baby had father figure\s, he brother is\was ah wotless skirt chaser of d highest order, so d "grow only around woman argument people does throw out doh fit he...........u want to tell me he come out he mother womb and instantly pick up...um.......gayness :-\ from d air...............it so easy to jus take ah simplistic look at d situation an refuse to climb out dem lil box we like to build, so we doh have to tink to hard.........but it does seldom be dat simple
I am not disputing that..so what you saying gayness is not really who you attracted to, but they way you act? What yo uare discribing is a boy who have girly ways or tendercies...so basically he was a woman trapped in a man's body, so I can understand he is attracted to men, so is that really gay? I am just confuse because the term gay means you are attracted to the same sex, it have nothing to do with the way you dress and act...for instance I think you should still be able to be manly and like a man, if that is what you prefer...if you are not attracted to women or anything feminine, why act like one?
Big Up!
-
The truth be told, I look at gay folks as confused about the opposite sex and straight folks as not!
Gay folks are mostly okay in other areas but when it comes to sex they are totally confused in my book!
As DeSoWa say, why claim to be attracted to the same sex but then yuh trying to act like the opposite sex that youre not attracted to in an effort to attract someone of the same sex?! Talk about confused people!!!
I dont want confused folks in charge of or influencing our childrens sexual education so that our children may possibly end up just as confused about sex and their sexuality as well!!
I am with the Brazilian President all the way! Congrats to him for standing up for what is right!!
The :devil: is busy and trying to lay claim to Brazil but their President is not having it!! :thumbsup:
-
And the media painting this picture one way. A fella get charge for abusing a lil boy and posting thing on the internet. That's the most you hear from the media. But the real story is that this dude is gay and living with another man. They adopted this little black kid. Do all the paper work etc....wait..etc. Then one of the guys starts to rape the lil fella in chat rooms for other pervs to see. Sucking of the lil boy, putting he tongue in places for people to see. Then he turns around and offers the lil boy to other pervs on the internet to come and rape the fella. >:(
The poster boy for gay rights in Maine gets convicted of manslaughter. He held a party and bring out some guns and start putting it where guns should not go. Next thing somebody dead. 3-4 hard back man. Scheeeeups. Then they want to tell people children in school "eh watch this our else."
Now just change the cast around, put a Pastor and watch the uproar.
-
And the media painting this picture one way. A fella get charge for abusing a lil boy and posting thing on the internet. That's the most you hear from the media. But the real story is that this dude is gay and living with another man. They adopted this little black kid. Do all the paper work etc....wait..etc. Then one of the guys starts to rape the lil fella in chat rooms for other pervs to see. Sucking of the lil boy, putting he tongue in places for people to see. Then he turns around and offers the lil boy to other pervs on the internet to come and rape the fella. >:(
The poster boy for gay rights in Maine gets convicted of manslaughter. He held a party and bring out some guns and start putting it where guns should not go. Next thing somebody dead. 3-4 hard back man. Scheeeeups. Then they want to tell people children in school "eh watch this our else."
Now just change the cast around, put a Pastor and watch the uproar.
what shit yuh talking about now...? Any crime against a child causes and uproar...childrena nd women! A PAstor doing it SHOULD cause an even greater uproar...just think about it a while. Thirdly, two men living tgether abusing children are pedophiles not homosexual...steups
-
I am not disputing that..so what you saying gayness is not really who you attracted to, but they way you act? What yo uare discribing is a boy who have girly ways or tendercies...so basically he was a woman trapped in a man's body, so I can understand he is attracted to men, so is that really gay? I am just confuse because the term gay means you are attracted to the same sex, it have nothing to do with the way you dress and act...for instance I think you should still be able to be manly and like a man, if that is what you prefer...if you are not attracted to women or anything feminine, why act like one?
Big Up!
sorry for being so abstract, I saying that it does not really matter the way u act, the fact one gay fella might identify as "feminine" and another as "masculine" might be nothing more than Chromosomal codin' and when yuh consider that in many cases humans seek to define dey "gender" roles it comes as little surprised dat some masculine gays does go after girly gays and vice versa.....
-
This shit could have never happened in Jamaica.
Gun shot will buss.
These fargotts growing and getting big now, time to put them back in de closet..
-
This shit could have never happened in Jamaica.
Gun shot will buss.
These fargotts growing and getting big now, time to put them back in de closet..
I'm actually happy that's not the case...yet
That's the difference between T&T and Jamaica...
that's the last country we should be trying to mimic....
If a man want to be gay, as long as he not harming anyone and showing it in meh face I don't care
Yes I disagree with homosexual beliefs that it's against procreation hence unnatural, and against many religious beliefs but so are many other vices that humans partake in a daily basis.
See,If a man gonna be gay, he gonna be gay, no matter if you scare him, shoot them etc...is gay they wanna be gay.
Finally, I prefer people openly gay than hiding it. You will allow a male heterosexual swim coach in a female under-15 locker room? The same thing should apply if is a gay male coach in a male under 15 locker room, and how else we will know if they not open about it? Nothing ever will come good out of keeping it under the rug.
-
This shit could have never happened in Jamaica.
Gun shot will buss.
These fargotts growing and getting big now, time to put them back in de closet..
I'm actually happy that's not the case...yet
That's the difference between T&T and Jamaica...
that's the last country we should be trying to mimic....
If a man want to be gay, as long as he not harming anyone and showing it in meh face I don't care
Yes I disagree with homosexual beliefs that it's against procreation hence unnatural, and against many religious beliefs but so are many other vices that humans partake in a daily basis.
See,If a man gonna be gay, he gonna be gay, no matter if you scare him, shoot them etc...is gay they wanna be gay.
Finally, I prefer people openly gay than hiding it. You will allow a male heterosexual swim coach in a female under-15 locker room? The same thing should apply if is a gay male coach in a male under 15 locker room, and how else we will know if they not open about it? Nothing ever will come good out of keeping it under the rug.
What about allowing a gay ,female swim coach in a female u-15 locker? or a heterosexual , female swim coach in a male u-15 locker? Where do we draw the line?...why even limit this to a locker-room scenario? The issue you're raising here isn't so much about sexual orientation as it is about sexual deviancy and pedophillia- isues which people tend to equate with homosexuality. Homo = sexual criminal. As far as I know homosexual males don't have a monopoly on crimes against minors.
If protecting children from sexual predators is what we are concerned with then children should be educated on what constitutes inappropriate behaviour when interacting with adults (of any gender) and encouraged to speak up if such behaviour occurs.
-
This shit could have never happened in Jamaica.
Gun shot will buss.
These fargotts growing and getting big now, time to put them back in de closet..
I'm actually happy that's not the case...yet
That's the difference between T&T and Jamaica...
that's the last country we should be trying to mimic....
If a man want to be gay, as long as he not harming anyone and showing it in meh face I don't care
Yes I disagree with homosexual beliefs that it's against procreation hence unnatural, and against many religious beliefs but so are many other vices that humans partake in a daily basis.
See,If a man gonna be gay, he gonna be gay, no matter if you scare him, shoot them etc...is gay they wanna be gay.
Finally, I prefer people openly gay than hiding it. You will allow a male heterosexual swim coach in a female under-15 locker room? The same thing should apply if is a gay male coach in a male under 15 locker room, and how else we will know if they not open about it? Nothing ever will come good out of keeping it under the rug.
What about allowing a gay ,female swim coach in a female u-15 locker? or a heterosexual , female swim coach in a male u-15 locker? Where do we draw the line?...why even limit this to a locker-room scenario? The issue you're raising here isn't so much about sexual orientation as it is about sexual deviancy and pedophillia- isues which people tend to equate with homosexuality. Homo = sexual criminal. As far as I know homosexual males don't have a monopoly on crimes against minors.
If protecting children from sexual predators is what we are concerned with then children should be educated on what constitutes inappropriate behaviour when interacting with adults (of any gender) and encouraged to speak up if such behaviour occurs.
:beermug:
-
Two doctors were arguing about Homosexuality and Genetics.... one said that a man's ass is not constructed like a woman's vagina to receive penile penetration. So for him homosexuality was based on emotions rather than genetic make up...!
-
Two doctors were arguing about Homosexuality and Genetics.... one said that a man's ass is not constructed like a woman's vagina to receive penile penetration. So for him homosexuality was based on emotions rather than genetic make up...!
Does "genetic make up" hold more weight than "emotions"?
-
As DeSoWa say, why claim to be attracted to the same sex but then yuh trying to act like the opposite sex that youre not attracted to in an effort to attract someone of the same sex?! Talk about confused people!!!
gay people are not "trying to act like the opposite sex".... e.g. a gay male who appears to have feminine characteristics is not putting on an act...
Transvestites and Transsexuals/transgenders are different groups whose natual tendencies are to embody certain characteristics of the opposite sex.
-
This shit could have never happened in Jamaica.
Gun shot will buss.
These fargotts growing and getting big now, time to put them back in de closet..
I'm actually happy that's not the case...yet
That's the difference between T&T and Jamaica...
that's the last country we should be trying to mimic....
If a man want to be gay, as long as he not harming anyone and showing it in meh face I don't care
Yes I disagree with homosexual beliefs that it's against procreation hence unnatural, and against many religious beliefs but so are many other vices that humans partake in a daily basis.
See,If a man gonna be gay, he gonna be gay, no matter if you scare him, shoot them etc...is gay they wanna be gay.
Finally, I prefer people openly gay than hiding it. You will allow a male heterosexual swim coach in a female under-15 locker room? The same thing should apply if is a gay male coach in a male under 15 locker room, and how else we will know if they not open about it? Nothing ever will come good out of keeping it under the rug.
Just like when ah see gay men in the locker room at the gym, I does wonder if it's the same as a straight man in the women's locker room...
Big Up!
-
Two doctors were arguing about Homosexuality and Genetics.... one said that a man's ass is not constructed like a woman's vagina to receive penile penetration. So for him homosexuality was based on emotions rather than genetic make up...!
Does "genetic make up" hold more weight than "emotions"?
I've seen studies that suggest both.... my take is a real cruel twist of fate for them to be born with the wrong body.
-
And the media painting this picture one way. A fella get charge for abusing a lil boy and posting thing on the internet. That's the most you hear from the media. But the real story is that this dude is gay and living with another man. They adopted this little black kid. Do all the paper work etc....wait..etc. Then one of the guys starts to rape the lil fella in chat rooms for other pervs to see. Sucking of the lil boy, putting he tongue in places for people to see. Then he turns around and offers the lil boy to other pervs on the internet to come and rape the fella. >:(
The poster boy for gay rights in Maine gets convicted of manslaughter. He held a party and bring out some guns and start putting it where guns should not go. Next thing somebody dead. 3-4 hard back man. Scheeeeups. Then they want to tell people children in school "eh watch this our else."
Now just change the cast around, put a Pastor and watch the uproar.
what shit yuh talking about now...? Any crime against a child causes and uproar...childrena nd women! A PAstor doing it SHOULD cause an even greater uproar...just think about it a while. Thirdly, two men living tgether abusing children are pedophiles not homosexual...steups
I was referencing how the media carried the story. To me the fact that a gay couple adopted and a child and did this is central to the story. And yes I admit that religious leaders should always be held to a higher standard. Where I'm confused, is why do you share the same view? In your world there is no God, it all a fairytale...I mean, it's not like taxes are used to pay their salaries. So why do you think they should be held to a higher standard?
I mean, Mr. T in your worldview why are crimes against children and women wrong? I'm asking respectfully now. Isn't it survival of the fittest? If we are just animals on instinct, can't we excuse raping children and beating women as being in our DNA. So why is that wrong to you?
-
Preacher, he is held to a higher standard because he makes a statement by his career choice. Because I don't believe does not mean that others don't and they frequently hold such men and women in high esteem and trust. Any violation of that trust is more heinous. Nice try though!~ NOPE not working. And they do benefit from a tax shelter...so they are held responsible!
You have no concept of Natural selection, and yes it is survival of the fittest, and sometimes the fattest! We are not just animals on instinct we have laws and codes and we are expected to live by them. AGin a poor try..not even valid nor pertinent...wheel and come again.
As far as DNA goes, there is nothing to suggest a link between DNA and murderers. ANd your ignorance of science is showing easily by your responses and questions.
There is some genetic relationship to dotishness though...go check quick.
-
Preacher, he is held to a higher standard because he makes a statement by his career choice. Because I don't believe does not mean that others don't and they frequently hold such men and women in high esteem and trust. Any violation of that trust is more heinous. Nice try though!~ NOPE not working. And they do benefit from a tax shelter...so they are held responsible!
You have no concept of Natural selection, and yes it is survival of the fittest, and sometimes the fattest! We are not just animals on instinct we have laws and codes and we are expected to live by them. AGin a poor try..not even valid nor pertinent...wheel and come again.
As far as DNA goes, there is nothing to suggest a link between DNA and murderers. ANd your ignorance of science is showing easily by your responses and questions.
There is some genetic relationship to dotishness though...go check quick.
Yeah I dotish, ain't no scene.
But beyond that though.
So your issues with the preacher is that he is some how violating a moral or ethical code. Interesting, coming from you but I see your point. I guess the second paragraph hangs on the same issue of laws. How you put it?
"we have laws and codes we are expected to live by them" How did we get these laws and codes?
As for the DNA issue of murder many many scientists will argue for serial killers and other violent offenders including rapist and child molesters. And you know this is true. In many of those cases they imply that certain genes laid dormant until they were triggered. Some may take a completely psychological bent but all imply it was part of the mapping. The only reason these issues aren't accepted is that it lands outside the laws and codes that you mentioned and live by. I guess it is possible to have your cake and eat it.
-
yuh reaching into yuh bag of tricks, but let me inform you, that LONG before Christianity and the BIBLE, man had laws, codes and standards..LONG BEFORE.
When you have groups of people living together, norms occur and over time, rules emerge from those norms. doh try dat on me.
Where did the laws come from in non Christian nations?
There are several cases of science pointing to DNA links to mental illnesses, and persons with mental illness do bad things sometimes.
Science has been searching for a reason why some people tend to be murderous, and they have found certain people with a particular genotype do commit violent crime. I am yet to hear of a murder gene!
You have objection to such findings, yet gladly accept the work of the same scientists when they find a gene link to some diseases and develop medicines to cure them?
Bull;shit and hypocrisy!
Let science solve the mysteries of the human gene and just maybe we can find ways to treat diseases of the body and mind preemptively.
Yuh feel Moses came up with them 10 commandments in de mount fuh real eh? lol
-
Sorry for the late reply
Herein lies the issue bro, as you know very well, ancient societies did not just arbitrarily come up with specific codes and laws. Not in the least. Any archeologist, historian or philosopher worth their salt knows without a shadow of a doubt that the foundation of all ancient civilizations of repute was it's belief in the spirit world, other worlds or Gods. This belief is the quintessential piece that created their moral and ethical codes you live by.
All of repute...ALL OF THEM...including the oldest of all civilizations China, Indochina and the Sumerians. The Sumerians had a very advanced form of government and what we call science. They new the the earth revolved around the sun and was able to document the planets. How did they know these things. Heck!!! They told you. In their tablets it's written for all to see. "Those that came down from the sky"
Book of Enoch Chapter 8
"1. And Azzl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. 2. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjz taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, Armrs the resolving of enchantments, Barqjl, (taught) astrology, Kkabl the constellations, Ezql the knowledge of the clouds, , and Saril the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven . . ."
The time frame of Sumeria is the same time of Genesis 6. Whether one believes this or not is irrelevant. The point is that spirituality has carved our societies since the dawn and have given us our moral and ethical codes. The concept of Atheism is misguided because it has no precedence in the cradle of humanity. It is by and large an object of choice based in denial of the evidence spanning how many generations back. The failure of men at serving God does not prove that there is no God. Whether God exist is the wrong question. The real question is why do I exist? We have all asked it and then made a choice, even professing Atheists. The debate in itself is the proof.
As relating to the gay thing, feel free to run a tally on ancient civilizations and see their take on the issue. Feel free not to use the bible.
-
so their false god or gods gave them a code to live by? hahahahaha Fella MOST of the Israeli laws and codes were co-opted from other nations
-
so their false god or gods gave them a code to live by? hahahahaha Fella MOST of the Israeli laws and codes were co-opted from other nations
co-opted or developed independently ... if you read the theories of the science of good and evil, 'laws' that contributed to the common good of communities would arise as the community grew. The golden rule is one such example that appears in so many civilizations.
-
so their false god or gods gave them a code to live by? hahahahaha Fella MOST of the Israeli laws and codes were co-opted from other nations
co-opted or developed independently ... if you read the theories of the science of good and evil, 'laws' that contributed to the common good of communities would arise as the community grew. The golden rule is one such example that appears in so many civilizations.
ting is de same "golden rule" and social norms have been observed in monkey troops and other animal communities. Preacher, which bible de monkeys take dey instructions from?
-
so their false god or gods gave them a code to live by? hahahahaha Fella MOST of the Israeli laws and codes were co-opted from other nations
co-opted or developed independently ... if you read the theories of the science of good and evil, 'laws' that contributed to the common good of communities would arise as the community grew. The golden rule is one such example that appears in so many civilizations.
ting is de same "golden rule" and social norms have been observed in monkey troops and other animal communities. Preacher, which bible de monkeys take dey instructions from?
there is also some recent studies that are proving that pregnant mothers facing different circumstances and stressful events during pregnancy can affect a child's behavior throughout life, they also went on to show empirical evidence that a child's environment can alter his/her genetics.
more and more studies are pointing towards environmental factors that influence behavior, as well as studies that have been conducted on the levels on estrogen in the drinking water in today's generation and its affect on kids and mother's who are pregnant.
-
;D In many conversations here, the Sumerians have been used to debunk the validity bible; as being older and more valid. Big and bold too. Now that I've taken you to their text they are no longer valid. :rotfl:
-
;D In many conversations here, the Sumerians have been used to debunk the validity bible; as being older and more valid. Big and bold too. Now that I've taken you to their text they are no longer valid. :rotfl:
I never said anything oother than so their god or gods...which according to your beliefs are false, somehow came up with codes to live by? I think you are smarter than that!
The same gods, the false ones created by the hands of men somehow came wup with rules for living?
lol
too fricking funny.
-
Anyway when I see God the first thing I go ask him is WTF man!!??
As fuh the gay/lesbian thing...it only takes growing up in a household with a sibling who ends up being gay as an adult, then looking back and seeing all the signs from childhood to realize that its ABSOLUTELY NOT a lifestyle choice. People are BORN WITH HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES. Maybe not all but its definitely not just a lifestyle choice, and NOBODY, pounding no bible could tell me any different.
Absolutely makes me wonder why God hates it so much.
[/quote]
Interesting observations. I am not sure what I think about this to be honest. I once had a lesbian couple as neigbours in my apartment building. One of the women seemed "feminine" enough in terms of her style of dress and gait. Her partner, on the other hand, looked like a man with no facial hair and breasts. Her breasts and lack of an adam's apple was the only thing that was feminine about her. Her style of dress and gait were definitely masculine.
In terms of the the "masculine" partner in the lesbian couple, you might be right, she was most likely born with these tendencies. I am mystified by her girlfriend though, since for all intents and purposes, it would be diffcult to ascertain wheter or not she is lesbian, unless you asked. So the jury is still out for me on this point.
-
My only issue I have with this born gay thing is this...what is the true meaning of being gay or lesbian? not being attracted to the same sex? If so, then why do some gay men try their best to look and act feminine to attract another gay mate? Why do lesbian women dress and act as men?
If you like the same sex, then so be it, I don't see the need to take on the role of the opposite sex that you are not attracted to in the first place. That's just my take.
Big Up!
Exactly..........been trying to figure this out. If one is straight do they look for the opposite sex to start dressing like them?
In college you see a lot of lesbians, people swinging both ways. You know what strike me about many of these, is that they have a self esteem problem in interacting and feeling confident among the opposite sex. I have spoken to quite a few "lesbians" and what I gathered is that they believe that their bodies are not what guys will like and that they may be rejected. They expressed that they were much more comfortable around the same sex.
-
Anyway when I see God the first thing I go ask him is WTF man!!??
As fuh the gay/lesbian thing...it only takes growing up in a household with a sibling who ends up being gay as an adult, then looking back and seeing all the signs from childhood to realize that its ABSOLUTELY NOT a lifestyle choice. People are BORN WITH HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES. Maybe not all but its definitely not just a lifestyle choice, and NOBODY, pounding no bible could tell me any different.
Absolutely makes me wonder why God hates it so much.
Interesting observations. I am not sure what I think about this to be honest. I once had a lesbian couple as neigbours in my apartment building. One of the women seemed "feminine" enough in terms of her style of dress and gait. Her partner, on the other hand, looked like a man with no facial hair and breasts. Her breasts and lack of an adam's apple was the only thing that was feminine about her. Her style of dress and gait were definitely masculine.
In terms of the the "masculine" partner in the lesbian couple, you might be right, she was most likely born with these tendencies. I am mystified by her girlfriend though, since for all intents and purposes, it would be diffcult to ascertain wheter or not she is lesbian, unless you asked. So the jury is still out for me on this point.
No question many people are born homosexual. But not all are, or at least not all "identify" with it at an early age. Sexual politics and identity can be a very tricky thing to navigate, even by LGBT people themselves, especially among lesbians. And frankly sometimes shit can just get stupid in the name of political correctness.
What you talking here is relationships between butches and femmes. I sure you can separate who is who. Sometimes a butch is just born so, sometimes they use the mannish thing as a protection mechanism. Some so-called 'lipstick lesbians' can be womanish as hell, but they find men sexually unattractive. However some will form relationships with women who undergo sex change operations to 'become' men. Sometimes you even see lesbians with men who have surgery to change genders. Notice I said 'gender' not sex.
Here is where it gets confusing even for them. Gender is the social construction of male/female identity. If a man gets a sex change operation and gets in a relationship with a lesbian, then are they still a homosexual couple? What if a lesbian had a sex change operation to become a man and a gay fella had a similar operation to become a woman? What about a hermaphrodite, are they gay or lesbian, or both or none?
Doh laugh, this happens a lot more than you think, in some Western nations these surgeries are considered to fall within the range of basic health insurance, funded by ordinary taxpayers who would otherwise have a conniption if they knew what their taxes were supporting.
Arn couple years ago I was at a funtion put on by the LGBT umbrella group for toronto area. Me and a stocky italian fella in a suit, (I forget the name now) were the only straight males there....or so I thought. I was going to make a snide comment about how long it would take us to 'turn' all the lesbos in the room. But something tell me..Zando, just hush yuh arse eh.
I find out later the 'fella' was a frigging woman, that had a sex change. So now he/she/shim was now a man with a lesbian girlfriend. :mackdaddy:
Sometimes yuh best just to smile politely and keep an open mind
-
It seems that some people's are having difficulty accepting that being gay is not a choice or that a person is born that why because they do not understand how that can be the case. Yet some of these same people's their belief and acceptance in God is based on the unseen/unknown which they chose to believe exists due to their faith. How do people who consider themselves straight are sure that hetrosexuality is what straight people are and homosexuality is what gay people are?
And no, I am no an atheist, I believe in God/higher power. Being gay does not mean a person cannot have a positive relationship with God. That relationship is between that person and God and no man can say otherwise.
-
My only issue I have with this born gay thing is this...what is the true meaning of being gay or lesbian? not being attracted to the same sex? If so, then why do some gay men try their best to look and act feminine to attract another gay mate? Why do lesbian women dress and act as men?
If you like the same sex, then so be it, I don't see the need to take on the role of the opposite sex that you are not attracted to in the first place. That's just my take.
Big Up!
Exactly..........been trying to figure this out. If one is straight do they look for the opposite sex to start dressing like them?
In college you see a lot of lesbians, people swinging both ways. You know what strike me about many of these, is that they have a self esteem problem in interacting and feeling confident among the opposite sex. I have spoken to quite a few "lesbians" and what I gathered is that they believe that their bodies are not what guys will like and that they may be rejected. They expressed that they were much more comfortable around the same sex.
What you, DeSoWa and others expect is for gays to conform to how YOU think they should act and/or dress. Even among heterosexuals there's a whole spectrum of behavior... yet for gays allyuh want black or white, and confused by gray. It have a whole set of heterosexual men who into metrosexual behavior, in terms of grooming and dressing etc. Another group of heterosexual men very feminine in their ways. Not to mention women who "tomboyish". Of course some will say well dem womanish man and mannish woman juss gays in the closet... but I'm sure not all of them are. What people don't realize is that sexuality is about more than just the plumbing yuh born with, and is more than just how yuh dress. If ah fella have estrogen raging thru he body and outside looking like a man but inside he KNOW he's ah woman... who am I to question or be "confused" when he representing himself as such?
-
My only issue I have with this born gay thing is this...what is the true meaning of being gay or lesbian? not being attracted to the same sex? If so, then why do some gay men try their best to look and act feminine to attract another gay mate? Why do lesbian women dress and act as men?
If you like the same sex, then so be it, I don't see the need to take on the role of the opposite sex that you are not attracted to in the first place. That's just my take.
Big Up!
Exactly..........been trying to figure this out. If one is straight do they look for the opposite sex to start dressing like them?
In college you see a lot of lesbians, people swinging both ways. You know what strike me about many of these, is that they have a self esteem problem in interacting and feeling confident among the opposite sex. I have spoken to quite a few "lesbians" and what I gathered is that they believe that their bodies are not what guys will like and that they may be rejected. They expressed that they were much more comfortable around the same sex.
What you, DeSoWa and others expect is for gays to conform to how YOU think they should act and/or dress. Even among heterosexuals there's a whole spectrum of behavior... yet for gays allyuh want black or white, and confused by gray. It have a whole set of heterosexual men who into metrosexual behavior, in terms of grooming and dressing etc. Another group of heterosexual men very feminine in their ways. Not to mention women who "tomboyish". Of course some will say well dem womanish man and mannish woman juss gays in the closet... but I'm sure not all of them are. What people don't realize is that sexuality is about more than just the plumbing yuh born with, and is more than just how yuh dress. If ah fella have estrogen raging thru he body and outside looking like a man but inside he KNOW he's ah woman... who am I to question or be "confused" when he representing himself as such?
Nah, I don't really care one way or the other. Just that I like females, and I want them to look as female as possible. So if you like men, should you not want your men to look like men? or women to look like women? If not then what is Gay? Gay is different from being Homosexual?
-
;D In many conversations here, the Sumerians have been used to debunk the validity bible; as being older and more valid. Big and bold too. Now that I've taken you to their text they are no longer valid. :rotfl:
I never said anything oother than so their god or gods...which according to your beliefs are false, somehow came up with codes to live by? I think you are smarter than that!
The same gods, the false ones created by the hands of men somehow came wup with rules for living?
lol
too fricking funny.
ok I understand. In this case 'false' does not mean not real. The word false was added from my world view. I'm sure all religions have reasons they believe what they do. My point was simply here you had a credible ancient society that clearly states their influence by the "Gods" so to speak.
-
But Preacher, is gods dey created, so the laws, eh come from no god per se, is man self who saw the need for laws to keep order..yuh get it?
-
But Preacher, is gods dey created, so the laws, eh come from no god per se, is man self who saw the need for laws to keep order..yuh get it?
That's where we disagree. I will argue that the prevailing lens through which men view and develop societal codes and ethics were and are spiritual. I just used a very credible and fairly impressive society and drew back the curtain on what they believed gave the blue print for their unparalleled society at that time. Concerning your take: I believe that no group, ethnicity or class of human beings can do society any true justice if they believe that they are the absolute power and nothing is greater than their existence.
I guess it is what it is. To an extent then Marx was right when he wrote "religion is the opium of the people" Even though he was jesting, it was the very same societal code of "Thou shalt not kill" that keep him from being randomly murdered on his way home. Our sleep at night, to a large degree is predicate on these "codes" staying intact.
-
if they believe that they are the absolute power and nothing is greater than their existence.
this is not the same thing as saying you don't believe in God.
Now reading through the thread and I have a question for pecan (sorry if you've answered it elsewhere and I haven't read carefully enough):
why do you think you have the authority to decide how to interpret the Bible? The things in the Bible that you or I might not like are not any less biblical than the things we do like.
As I understand it the Bible was presented to society as the word of God and originally there was no option to interpret as you wished. Over time pockets of people start to decide that more and more of the book weren't meant to be taken literally. More or less because they couldn't abide by the literal interpretation. It seems to me that it's is indicative of a morality that is 1) independent of that based on dogma and 2) capable of growing organically i.e. no external entity imposed these insights.
-
Now reading through the thread and I have a question for pecan (sorry if you've answered it elsewhere and I haven't read carefully enough):
why do you think you have the authority to decide how to interpret the Bible?
Answer: because I live in a free society. Same as you when you exercised your authority to decide to state your interpretation of what the Bible was/is.
... It seems to me that it's is indicative of a morality that is 1) independent of that based on dogma and 2) capable of growing organically i.e. no external entity imposed these insights.
Comment: your opinion and free to make it without fear of reprisal. I disagree. My morality is influenced by dogma (i.e. the problems with dogma) and influenced by the Holy Spirit working within us.
-
My only issue I have with this born gay thing is this...what is the true meaning of being gay or lesbian? not being attracted to the same sex? If so, then why do some gay men try their best to look and act feminine to attract another gay mate? Why do lesbian women dress and act as men?
If you like the same sex, then so be it, I don't see the need to take on the role of the opposite sex that you are not attracted to in the first place. That's just my take.
Big Up!
Exactly..........been trying to figure this out. If one is straight do they look for the opposite sex to start dressing like them?
In college you see a lot of lesbians, people swinging both ways. You know what strike me about many of these, is that they have a self esteem problem in interacting and feeling confident among the opposite sex. I have spoken to quite a few "lesbians" and what I gathered is that they believe that their bodies are not what guys will like and that they may be rejected. They expressed that they were much more comfortable around the same sex.
What you, DeSoWa and others expect is for gays to conform to how YOU think they should act and/or dress. Even among heterosexuals there's a whole spectrum of behavior... yet for gays allyuh want black or white, and confused by gray. It have a whole set of heterosexual men who into metrosexual behavior, in terms of grooming and dressing etc. Another group of heterosexual men very feminine in their ways. Not to mention women who "tomboyish". Of course some will say well dem womanish man and mannish woman juss gays in the closet... but I'm sure not all of them are. What people don't realize is that sexuality is about more than just the plumbing yuh born with, and is more than just how yuh dress. If ah fella have estrogen raging thru he body and outside looking like a man but inside he KNOW he's ah woman... who am I to question or be "confused" when he representing himself as such?
Nah, I don't really care one way or the other. Just that I like females, and I want them to look as female as possible. So if you like men, should you not want your men to look like men? or women to look like women? If not then what is Gay? Gay is different from being Homosexual?
That is what I am trying to get at. I have no problem with LGBT ( I live in seattle for christ sake) lol. Is being gay a lifestyle? How you dress and look should have no bearing on your sexuality. From growing up I learn that if you gay, that means men like men, lesbian, that mean women like women, bi, you get my point. So if that's the case, if a man get a sex change to be a woman, would a gay man still like him? Most cases they are already with a man, so is that person now straight? Come on Bakes we know you smarter than that ;D I am sure even you confuse now lol
Big Up!
-
Answer: because I live in a free society. Same as you when you exercised your authority to decide to state your interpretation of what the Bible was/is.
I'm not sure you understood what I meant. Probably my fault if so. Not talking about authority in any legal sense. My question is: what makes you feel comfortable about using your own faculties to decide what to take and what to leave? I suspect that your reference to the Holy Spirit later on in your answer is indicative of your position.
One claim made about and in the Bible is that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of god. It seems to me that when you choose not to take something in the Bible literally, you are spurning other claims made about and in the Bible by the same sources.
Comment: your opinion and free to make it without fear of reprisal. I disagree. My morality is influenced by dogma (i.e. the problems with dogma) and influenced by the Holy Spirit working within us.
I'm not entirely sure that I understand what you are saying. If you're saying that the Holy Spirit working within you is what gives you the ability to recognize flaws in the dogma then I think we're at an impasse.
-
Answer: because I live in a free society. Same as you when you exercised your authority to decide to state your interpretation of what the Bible was/is.
I'm not sure you understood what I meant. Probably my fault if so. Not talking about authority in any legal sense. My question is: what makes you feel comfortable about using your own faculties to decide what to take and what to leave? I suspect that your reference to the Holy Spirit later on in your answer is indicative of your position.
One claim made about and in the Bible is that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of god. It seems to me that when you choose not to take something in the Bible literally, you are spurning other claims made about and in the Bible by the same sources.
Comment: your opinion and free to make it without fear of reprisal. I disagree. My morality is influenced by dogma (i.e. the problems with dogma) and influenced by the Holy Spirit working within us.
I'm not entirely sure that I understand what you are saying. If you're saying that the Holy Spirit working within you is what gives you the ability to recognize flaws in the dogma then I think we're at an impasse.
there is a lot of "gut" feeling coupled with recent teachings (post 1945) regarding what it means to be a Christian that led me to state my view of the Bible.
I don't recognize flaws in dogma per se. But I do listen a fair bit to the more progressive clergy in the Anglican Church. The lessons in the Bible are being looked at in different ways and yes, in the Anglican Church, I don't believe the Bible is taken literally for the most part. Rather, the Bible is seen as a guide to help us develop a relationship with God that is personal and meaningful to the times we live in. So yes, my spurning other interpretations of the Bible is an accurate observation on your part. But that is no different than the multitude of Biblical interpretations that currently exist.
Check this view of evolving Christianity
4BC to 313 AD: this is era can be viewed as the Age of Faith. Jesus' teachings seem geared towards the "little guys" and not the hierarchy in the church.
313 AD to 1945 AD: the Age of Belief. Creed making, dogma development. What you have to believe and say in order to be a good Christian. The hierarchy in the Church rules supreme.
Post 1945: The Age of Spirit. Focus on the little guy once more. This is more kin to a return to the Age of Faith. The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Gospel of Thomas - we have more knowledge about early Christianity. Of course, not everyone buys into these teachings. Is the Bible divinely inspired or is it man's interpretation of what they think God is?
I don't presume to know what it means to be a Christian and I think on this almost daily. But lately. I found that my gut feelings, the thoughts that I have had for most of my adult life now seem to supported by the recent interpretations of Christianity. Coincidence? Or is this me trying to find a convenient wrapper for my personal convictions?
And this is where TC will have a conniption. I do believe in the concept of the Holy Spirit. Whether divinely created or a manifestation of the chemical reactions in our brain and the way we are hardwired to pray, I cant say.
I find these musings essential to reconciling science and the Bible.
Anyway, this is getting way to long. I was trying to be succinct previously, but that is difficult to do and convey meaningful thoughts about God and my Faith.
Btw, if we were to interpret the Bible literally, especially Leviticus, then we better get all dem unclean women away from us before they contaminate us (12:2,5, 15:19-24, 18:19). Obviously, we have to interpret the words in Levitus to have meaning in times in which we live.
-
Pecan nuff respect on that response. :beermug: It is tough working through the bible, determining what is considered Description (Something to be upheld forever and ever and ever) or Prescription(something prescribed to solve a crisis).
It makes it harder yet if the document itself is in doubt. In such cases I turn to the historical Jesus and the record of his life. You cross reference Jewish history and the biblical text, which mind you, has over 24,000 original manuscripts of the New testament all written within a 25 year span. Only 42 lines of unreadable text in all of them. Very convincing evidence on this fella. It's then left to the individual to determine in their own heart if Jesus was who he claimed to be. The historical Jesus made some very huge claims. My relationship with or vision of Jesus is what determines my view of the text moving forward and looking back. :beermug:
-
That is what I am trying to get at. I have no problem with LGBT ( I live in seattle for christ sake) lol. Is being gay a lifestyle? How you dress and look should have no bearing on your sexuality. From growing up I learn that if you gay, that means men like men, lesbian, that mean women like women, bi, you get my point. So if that's the case, if a man get a sex change to be a woman, would a gay man still like him? Most cases they are already with a man, so is that person now straight? Come on Bakes we know you smarter than that ;D I am sure even you confuse now lol
Big Up!
Not at all.
Again, the transgendered person is a different story because that person is not gay. Again you fail to appreciate the difference among gay, transgendered etc. A gay person is someone who's attracted to the same sex. A transgendered person is not gay... a transgendered person (even talking pre-op here) my be the "same sex" (as that to which they're attracted) physiologically, but they see, think of and feel themselves to be the opposite sex. So it's not same sex attraction they feel, they feel a heterosexual attraction, they just happen to be stuck as a woman in a man's body and vice versa.
Going back to the dressing and what not... again, I'm sure it's a matter of degrees. The gay man who expresses himself in a feminine manner just likes women's clothing or feels more comfortable expressing himself as such. To you it sounds as though you see it as an act... "if you're gay, why ACT like a woman" etc. Again, maybe that's just how they are... brings to mind the "princess boy" story from a couple weeks ago, if that's what's inside them who am I to argue with it?
As to why some gay men would be attracted to feminine men... and not just women. For probably the same reason some of us are attracted to fat women, slim women, athletic women, compliant women etc. Sexually they might be gay, but from a romantic standpoint there may be certain mannerisms that just appeal to them. I don't presume to know what going on inside their heads, but I'm observant enough to hazard the guesses I'm putting forth. I understand it, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
-
All de religious stuff aside, they are people/brothers/sisters/cousins/uncles/aunts/mothers&fathers... let's lets include them in the circle of life, rather than exclude them.
-
All de religious stuff aside, they are people/brothers/sisters/cousins/uncles/aunts/mothers&fathers... let's lets include them in the circle of life, rather than exclude them.
We don't mind including them and haven't excluded them!
The problem is that many of them (and some may argue most of them) want to change our moral codes regarding sex to be the same as their's! That's the only reason I suggested a special place for them where they can be the majority and decide all their moral codes on sex and everything else!!
If you are not happy with the moral codes of living in my house where I am the majority & pay all the bills, then go build your own house where you are the majority paying all the bills and you are then free to decide your own moral codes on sex, marriage and other things if yours were generally conflicting with mines!! ;)
I will still say good morning or good evening to you when I see you on the streets or at a football match and we can still live in harmony without feeling that we are trodding on each other's moral standards!! It's a win-win scenario! 8)
-
All de religious stuff aside, they are people/brothers/sisters/cousins/uncles/aunts/mothers&fathers... let's lets include them in the circle of life, rather than exclude them.
We don't mind including them and haven't excluded them!
The problem is that many of them (and some may argue most of them) want to change our moral codes regarding sex to be the same as their's! That's the only reason I suggested a special place for them where they can be the majority and decide all their moral codes on sex and everything else!!
If you are not happy with the moral codes of living in my house where I am the majority & pay all the bills, then go build your own house where you are the majority paying all the bills and you are then free to decide your own moral codes on sex, marriage and other things if yours were generally conflicting with mines!! ;)
I will still say good morning or good evening to you when I see you on the streets or at a football match and we can still live in harmony without feeling that we are trodding on each other's moral standards!! It's a win-win scenario! 8)
keep digging dat hole an yuh goh reach china in no time ;) ::)
-
That is what I am trying to get at. I have no problem with LGBT ( I live in seattle for christ sake) lol. Is being gay a lifestyle? How you dress and look should have no bearing on your sexuality. From growing up I learn that if you gay, that means men like men, lesbian, that mean women like women, bi, you get my point. So if that's the case, if a man get a sex change to be a woman, would a gay man still like him? Most cases they are already with a man, so is that person now straight? Come on Bakes we know you smarter than that ;D I am sure even you confuse now lol
Big Up!
Not at all.
Again, the transgendered person is a different story because that person is not gay. Again you fail to appreciate the difference among gay, transgendered etc. A gay person is someone who's attracted to the same sex. A transgendered person is not gay... a transgendered person (even talking pre-op here) my be the "same sex" (as that to which they're attracted) physiologically, but they see, think of and feel themselves to be the opposite sex. So it's not same sex attraction they feel, they feel a heterosexual attraction, they just happen to be stuck as a woman in a man's body and vice versa.
Going back to the dressing and what not... again, I'm sure it's a matter of degrees. The gay man who expresses himself in a feminine manner just likes women's clothing or feels more comfortable expressing himself as such. To you it sounds as though you see it as an act... "if you're gay, why ACT like a woman" etc. Again, maybe that's just how they are... brings to mind the "princess boy" story from a couple weeks ago, if that's what's inside them who am I to argue with it?
As to why some gay men would be attracted to feminine men... and not just women. For probably the same reason some of us are attracted to fat women, slim women, athletic women, compliant women etc. Sexually they might be gay, but from a romantic standpoint there may be certain mannerisms that just appeal to them. I don't presume to know what going on inside their heads, but I'm observant enough to hazard the guesses I'm putting forth. I understand it, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
Maybe I am a little closed minded when it come to the difference of gays and trans, maybe I classed them as the same, but I think there is a very thin line between the 2. For instance we mainly see trans as men dressing as women and hardly ever see it as women dressing as men, are their any trans like that?
I don't too agree with your explaination or assumptions on why some gay men are attracted to feminine men, if that's the case why more straight men is not attracted to women who look and act masculine?
Anyways, all this is just me trying to understand and make sense out of all this, it have nothing to do with me not liking them or not accepting them, I don't even mind them living on the same planet as me :-) I won't even bother to mention that one of my friends for 20+ yrs is gay and hang out with him countless times. He know my stance and he accept it and I accept his choice, we get into a lot of arguments about it, we even stopped talking for a while...petty stuff, but at the end of the day we are friends and always look out for each other, although I think he have ulterior motives sometimes ;D
Big Up!
Big Up!
-
I won't even bother to mention that one of my friends for 20+ yrs is gay
Commentator: "OHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! ...and sowa plays the 'my best friend is....' card before the end of the first half....hoping to capitalize on the sympathy vote before the whistle"
Colour man: "I think that was a good strategy but it wont hold off the onslaught by the GLBTG defense team, they're sure to change tactics in the 2nd half,."
-
Maybe I am a little closed minded when it come to the difference of gays and trans, maybe I classed them as the same, but I think there is a very thin line between the 2. For instance we mainly see trans as men dressing as women and hardly ever see it as women dressing as men, are their any trans like that?
Of course there are... including some who've gone on to get testosterone treatment to grow facial hair, beards etc.
I don't too agree with your explaination or assumptions on why some gay men are attracted to feminine men, if that's the case why more straight men is not attracted to women who look and act masculine?
But how do you know how many straight men are attracted to what? Sometimes when I looking fuh news from CNN and ting, or maybe doing ah li'l Bible research online ( ;D) ah does come across some ah dem rude pictures and some ah dem man into bodybuilder woman all kinda ting. I sure it have man who like tomboy woman too.
Anyways, all this is just me trying to understand and make sense out of all this, it have nothing to do with me not liking them or not accepting them, I don't even mind them living on the same planet as me :-) I won't even bother to mention that one of my friends for 20+ yrs is gay and hang out with him countless times. He know my stance and he accept it and I accept his choice, we get into a lot of arguments about it, we even stopped talking for a while...petty stuff, but at the end of the day we are friends and always look out for each other, although I think he have ulterior motives sometimes ;D
Big Up!
Big Up!
Yuh ever thought ah asking yuh pardna all deez questions? lol I sure he, or he pardnas and dem could give yuh a much more informed answe4r than anybody on here :beermug:
-
Yuh ever thought ah asking yuh pardna all deez questions? lol I sure he, or he pardnas and dem could give yuh a much more informed answer than anybody on here :beermug:
yuh sure about dat? I feel it have some closet gays here on this forum.
to quote the Bard:
Hamlet: Madam, how like you this play?
Queen: the lady doth protest too much, methinks.
it have a lot a men protesting a lot :devil:
-
I won't even bother to mention that one of my friends for 20+ yrs is gay
Commentator: "OHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! ...and sowa plays the 'my best friend is....' card before the end of the first half....hoping to capitalize on the sympathy vote before the whistle"
Colour man: "I think that was a good strategy but it wont hold off the onslaught by the GLBTG defense team, they're sure to change tactics in the 2nd half,."
2nd half strategy: Reverse play coupled with a deviation from a frontal assault to a subtle attack from the rear.
-
I posted this in the other related thread
"I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people." Barack Obama
Presidential Proclamation--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/31/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-mon
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
The story of America's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community is the story of our fathers and sons, our mothers and daughters, and our friends and neighbors who continue the task of making our country a more perfect Union. It is a story about the struggle to realize the great American promise that all people can live with dignity and fairness under the law. Each June, we commemorate the courageous individuals who have fought to achieve this promise for LGBT Americans, and we rededicate ourselves to the pursuit of equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Since taking office, my Administration has made significant progress towards achieving equality for LGBT Americans. Last December, I was proud to sign the repeal of the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. With this repeal, gay and lesbian Americans will be able to serve openly in our Armed Forces for the first time in our Nation's history. Our national security will be strengthened and the heroic contributions these Americans make to our military, and have made throughout our history, will be fully recognized.
My Administration has also taken steps to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans in Federal housing programs and to give LGBT Americans the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital. We have made clear through executive branch nondiscrimination policies that discrimination on the basis of gender identity in the Federal workplace will not be tolerated. I have continued to nominate and appoint highly qualified, openly LGBT individuals to executive branch and judicial positions. Because we recognize that LGBT rights are human rights, my Administration stands with advocates of equality around the world in leading the fight against pernicious laws targeting LGBT persons and malicious attempts to exclude LGBT organizations from full participation in the international system. We led a global campaign to ensure "sexual orientation" was included in the United Nations resolution on extrajudicial execution -- the only United Nations resolution that specifically mentions LGBT people -- to send the unequivocal message that no matter where it occurs, state-sanctioned killing of gays and lesbians is indefensible. No one should be harmed because of who they are or who they love, and my Administration has mobilized unprecedented public commitments from countries around the world to join in the fight against hate and homophobia.
At home, we are working to address and eliminate violence against LGBT individuals through our enforcement and implementation of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. We are also working to reduce the threat of bullying against young people, including LGBT youth. My Administration is actively engaged with educators and community leaders across America to reduce violence and discrimination in schools. To help dispel the myth that bullying is a harmless or inevitable part of growing up, the First Lady and I hosted the first White House Conference on Bullying Prevention in March. Many senior Administration officials have also joined me in reaching out to LGBT youth who have been bullied by recording "It Gets Better" video messages to assure them they are not alone.
This month also marks the 30th anniversary of the emergence of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which has had a profound impact on the LGBT community. Though we have made strides in combating this devastating disease, more work remains to be done, and I am committed to expanding access to HIV/AIDS prevention and care. Last year, I announced the first comprehensive National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States. This strategy focuses on combinations of evidence-based approaches to decrease new HIV infections in high risk communities, improve care for people living with HIV/AIDS, and reduce health disparities. My Administration also increased domestic HIV/AIDS funding to support the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and HIV prevention, and to invest in HIV/AIDS-related research. However, government cannot take on this disease alone. This landmark anniversary is an opportunity for the LGBT community and allies to recommit to raising awareness about HIV/AIDS and continuing the fight against this deadly pandemic.
Every generation of Americans has brought our Nation closer to fulfilling its promise of equality. While progress has taken time, our achievements in advancing the rights of LGBT Americans remind us that history is on our side, and that the American people will never stop striving toward liberty and justice for all.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2011 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.
BARACK OBAMA
-
I won't even bother to mention that one of my friends for 20+ yrs is gay
Commentator: "OHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! ...and sowa plays the 'my best friend is....' card before the end of the first half....hoping to capitalize on the sympathy vote before the whistle"
Colour man: "I think that was a good strategy but it wont hold off the onslaught by the GLBTG defense team, they're sure to change tactics in the 2nd half,."
:rotfl:
-
Va. inmate sues after gruesome tries at sex change
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110607/ap_on_re_us/us_inmate_sex_change;_ylt=AtS0kDjjPnRGPeHgLcmzkUOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFlbWZvYXNwBHBvcwM2MwRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3Vfc19uZXdzBHNsawN2YWlubWF0ZXN1ZXM-
AP In this March 9, 2011 photo Ophelia De'lonta speaks during an interview at the Buckingham Correctional
By DENA POTTER, Associated Press 2 hrs 23 mins ago
DILLWYN, Va. Crouched in her cell, Ophelia De'lonta hoped three green disposable razors from the prison commissary would give her what the Virginia Department of Corrections will not a sex change.
It had been several years since she had felt the urges, but she had been fighting them for weeks. But like numerous other times, she failed to get rid of what she calls "that thing" between her legs, the last evidence she was born a male.
Months after the October castration attempt, De'lonta filed a federal lawsuit Friday claiming the state has failed its duty to provide adequate medical care because it won't give her the operation. She says the surgery is needed to treat her gender identity disorder, a mental illness in which people believe they were born the wrong gender.
If she wins, De'lonta would be the nation's first inmate to receive a state-funded sex change operation. Similar lawsuits have failed in a handful of other states, and lawmakers in some states are trying to ban the use of taxpayer money for the operations.
If she loses, she says she will continue to try self-surgery acknowledging another attempt could kill her.
"That's a possibility," the 50-year-old said during a recent prison interview, pausing then smiling contently. "But at the end I would have peace."
Some physical changes have already taken place. Hormones won under a 2004 court order have caused her to develop noticeable breasts. Her eyebrows are perfectly plucked, and makeup accentuates her smooth cocoa complexion.
Still, special allowances such as feminine clothing and psychotherapy aren't enough to keep her mind off wanting to become the woman she says she was born. She longs for permission to grow out her short salt and pepper hair like female inmates, even though she's housed in the all-male Buckingham Correctional Center.
Experts say that De'lonta's behavior is an unusual but not surprising manifestation of her disorder. At least 12 other inmates in Idaho, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky and North Carolina have castrated themselves over the past 14 years, and several others have tried, said psychiatry professor George R. Brown at East Tennessee State University.
"This is not a choice. Transsexuals are born and not made," said Brown, an expert in gender identity disorder. "If you didn't have this condition, why would you want to have your genitals removed, if not by a competent surgeon but by your own hand?"
While many with gender identity disorder wish to get rid of their genitals, the majority never act often because hormones and other treatments help make them feel more comfortable, Brown said.
According to research by Brown, about 27,000 people nationwide have gender identity disorder. Experts estimate 500 to 750 Americans undergo the surgery each year, with hundreds more seeking the procedure abroad.
Treatment is more readily available outside prison, though dozens of other inmates nationwide have won the right to hormones and psychotherapy. Based on counts of inmates with gender identity disorder in a half dozen states and personal correspondence with inmates during his research, Brown estimates that at least 750 of the more than 2 million prisoners nationwide had gender identity disorder in 2007, his latest count.
Inmates in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Colorado, California and Idaho also have sued to try to get the surgery, making arguments similar to De'lonta's that denying treatment violates the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment. All but one of those have failed; a decision in the decade-old Massachusetts lawsuit by convicted killer Michelle born Robert Kosilek is still pending.
Federal courts have said prisons must provide adequate medical care, and that they must protect inmates from themselves. But correctional officials and lawmakers balk at using taxpayer money for sex-change operations that can cost up to $20,000.
A Massachusetts bill to ban the use of public funds for sex change procedures, hormones and other treatments has been before a joint committee since January. Wisconsin lawmakers passed the Inmate Sex Change Prevention Act in 2006, but a federal judge declared it unconstitutional last year. The state appealed, and a decision is expected soon.
Republican Virginia Del. Todd Gilbert says he would seek state legislation if De'lonta's lawsuit is successful.
"The notion that taxpayers are going to fund a sex change is just ridiculous," says Gilbert.
Harold Clarke, who became Virginia's corrections director last year, says it would be a security risk to allow the surgeries because Virginia's inmates are housed according to their gender at birth, not anatomy. While De'lonta sleeps and showers alone, she is not segregated from male inmates. Her lawsuit also asks that she be moved to a women's prison.
Federal courts have said mental health professionals not prison officials should dictate treatment.
But Rudolph Alexander, an Ohio State University professor who has studied the treatment of inmates with gender identity disorder, believes mental health providers are reluctant to say the surgery is medically necessary because they fear for their jobs. Almost always, the deciding physician is a state employee or has a contract with it.
Advocates argue that treating repeated self-mutilations costs more than the surgeries. De'lonta, for example, has needed expensive airlifts three times for self-inflicted wounds.
The hormones and other treatments had kept her urges in check for years. She snapped Oct. 8 when an officer used a male pronoun toward her, despite a court order that prison workers refer to her as a woman.
"I screamed `She, damnit!' becoming so overwhelmed it was hard to breathe," De'lonta said.
Looking down, she felt repulsed and helpless. She cried herself to sleep, then hours later she prepared for her surgery attempt by covering her cell door's window with paper and putting towels around the commode.
Using knowledge gained from mail-order anatomy books, De'lonta cut on and off for three hours before she passed out. It took 21 stitches to repair the damage.
"It's like if this doesn't exist, then I won't have any more problems," she said.
Born Michael Stokes, she didn't understand from an early age why other girls' names were different from hers, or why she felt no connection to the boys in her gym class.
She constantly looked in mirrors and couldn't understand why the reflection was so unlike how she envisioned herself.
Years ago she legally changed her name. Ophelia was chosen for the Shakespearean woman who died for love; De'lonta because it was the last name of a slain friend; middle name Azriel for the angel who helps one cross over.
De'lonta first tried to cut herself when she was 12. By 17, she was robbing banks with the hopes of getting enough money to have a sex change operation. By 18, she was in prison, sentenced to more than 70 years for robbery, drugs, weapons and other charges.
She is eligible for parole this year, but a wide range of prison infractions mean it's unlikely she'll be released any time soon. Asked why she can't just wait until she's free to get the surgery, De'lonta says she would if she could.
"This is not something that I have any control over," she says. "This is just how I was born."
-
mad people. and who defendin it let dey daughter or son try it.
-
California governor signs bill requiring schools to teach gay history
CNN.com
Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown said Thursday he had signed a bill that will require public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.
The bill, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, will also require teachers to provide instruction on the role of people with disabilities.
"History should be honest," Brown said in a statement.
"This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books. It represents an important step forward for our state, and I thank Senator Leno for his hard work on this historic legislation."
The governor was referring to the bill's author, Sen. Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat.
California law already requires state schools to teach about the contributions of Native Americans, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Asian-Americans, among other groups.
"Today we are making history in California by ensuring that our textbooks and instructional materials no longer exclude the contributions of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Americans," Sen. Leno said in a statement.
Separately, he said the bill is thought to be the first of its kind in the nation. It will take effect in January, however, state textbooks are not likely to be updated until 2015, he said.
Leno's office cited research that shows students who learn about LGBT people are more likely to report their schools are inclusive and fair.
The bill, which passed the state legislature this month and the senate in April, according to the senator's office, is not without controversy.
It has drawn criticism from some religious and conservative groups, like the Traditional Values Coalition, a lobby organization that says it speaks on behalf of more than 43,000 churches.
"It is an outrage that Governor Jerry Brown has opened the classroom door for homosexual activists to indoctrinate the minds of California's youth, since no factual materials would be allowed to be presented," Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman and founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, said in a statement.
"If parents don't already have their children out of public schools, this should cause them to remove them," he said.
-
Allyuh want to send Preacher and Socapro mad now.
-
I find Brown is getting these bills through on the DL. You never hear about what he's doing in the news here - at least in comparison to what we just had with Arnold.
He just signed a bill that had immediate effect that made me lose income from Amazon referrals.
California sales tax law sees Amazon terminate affiliates (http://www.geek.com/articles/news/california-sales-tax-law-could-see-amazon-terminate-affiliates-20110630/)
-
Allyuh want to send Preacher and Socapro mad now.
:D
-
them fukkers takin this bullerman ting real far now.soon the time go come when a straight man walkin the road people go point and laugh......ah was watchin some shit on tv and hollywood tryin to ease up on smokin scenes yet two man kissin on every fukkin channel.
-
them f**kkers takin this bullerman ting real far now.soon the time go come when a straight man walkin the road people go point and laugh......ah was watchin some shit on tv and hollywood tryin to ease up on smokin scenes yet two man kissin on every f**kkin channel.
Macho images on our tv screens are being replaced by bullerman images slowly but surely!!
But this is what they are promoting under the guise of equality so we shouldnt be surprised!
-
Q: Where do gay people come from?
A: Straight parents.
Conclusion: get rid of straight people and we will solve the bullerman crisis.
steups
-
Q: Where do gay people come from?
A: Straight parents.
Conclusion: get rid of straight people and we will solve the bullerman crisis.
steups
There is no bullerman crisis as such! They are free to live the sexual lifestyle of their choice but should not overstep the mark by trying to influence whats sexually acceptable to straight folks and their children.
The crisis is more to do with bullermen trying to sell their sexual lifestyles as normal to the wider straight community rather than folks not accepting that these bullermen exist.
Also bullermen & gay women can easily have children if they get together or prefer to use artificial insemination so I don't think the point about getting rid of bullers by getting rid of straight folks holds much water. No one really hates them as such, they just have a perverted perception of what mother nature designed our bodies for from a sexual perspective thats all, but thats their choice!
-
Also bullermen & gay women can easily have children if they get together or prefer to use artificial insemination so I don't think the point about getting rid of bullers by getting rid of straight folks holds much water.
Most of the homosexuals in the world today are children of heterosexual unions.
I say, blame the parents who failed to instill your moral code in the bullermen of today.
now where did that emoticon for sarcasm go to?
-
Socapro, yuh thinking in a very narrow way....Homosexuality is much larger than a method of sexual intercourse. It's root is in the gender to which a person is attracted. Some people are physically/sexually attracted to people of the same gender. simple. Just because yuh doh understand it doesn't make it wrong or perverted or abnormal. The world is evolving...embrace it.
-
they just have a perverted perception of what mother nature designed our bodies for from a sexual perspective thats all, but thats their choice!
How do you know what mother nature designed our bodies for sexually? yuh talked to her or yuh read her transcript? Is only because you not gay you accept that....
Funny how man(kind) does pat themselves on the back for things they have no control over, or that they just learned from someone else without challenging it
Allyuh really good yes.
-
by "gay history" dey mean "history of gays"? why not teach that as a separate optional subject? dey saying "gay history" somehow different from "history"? dis remind of in living color when dey had men on film - like is men on history now.
(http://www.90s411.com/images/in-living-color-men-on-film.jpg)
history should focus on facts, method, etc. without studying who is a homo. steups.
-
I find this repugnant and unnecessary. Why must the state legislate social acceptability ?
-
I find this repugnant and unnecessary. Why must the state legislate social acceptability ?
yuh mean like race acceptance? there was a time not so long ago when non-white races were not socially accepted in main stream social circles. Needed some legislation to fix that.
BTW, I don't personally agree with this particular initiative to teach "gay history". But then again, it likely would not have surfaced if homosexuals were not socially accepted. These extreme initiatives are just a reaction to extreme prejudices.
Not sure if your post was meant to be sarcastic.
-
Socapro, yuh thinking in a very narrow way....Homosexuality is much larger than a method of sexual intercourse. It's root is in the gender to which a person is attracted. Some people are physically/sexually attracted to people of the same gender. simple. Just because yuh doh understand it doesn't make it wrong or perverted or abnormal. The world is evolving...embrace it.
So where then do you draw the wrong, perverted or abnormal line? Anything and everything could fly by you?
-
I find this repugnant and unnecessary. Why must the state legislate social acceptability ?
yuh mean like race acceptance? there was a time not so long ago when non-white races were not socially accepted in main stream social circles. Needed some legislation to fix that.
BTW, I don't personally agree with this particular initiative to teach "gay history". But then again, it likely would not have surfaced if homosexuals were not socially accepted. These extreme initiatives are just a reaction to extreme prejudices.
Not sure if your post was meant to be sarcastic.
I meant exactly what I said. Why should the state recognise and honour a group because of their sexuality ? It is a form of imposition of what is acceptable because clearly this has more to with highlighting sexuality than an actual achievement of historical significance.
-
I find this repugnant and unnecessary. Why must the state legislate social acceptability ?
yuh mean like race acceptance? there was a time not so long ago when non-white races were not socially accepted in main stream social circles. Needed some legislation to fix that.
BTW, I don't personally agree with this particular initiative to teach "gay history". But then again, it likely would not have surfaced if homosexuals were not socially accepted. These extreme initiatives are just a reaction to extreme prejudices.
Not sure if your post was meant to be sarcastic.
I meant exactly what I said. Why should the state recognise and honour a group because of their sexuality ? It is a form of imposition of what is acceptable because clearly this has more to with highlighting sexuality than an actual achievement of historical significance.
that's debatable based on what was reported. The way I read it, they want to include the contributions of another group - laws already exist to endure that state schools "teach about the contributions of Native Americans, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Asian-Americans, among other groups."
"Today we are making history in California by ensuring that our textbooks and instructional materials no longer exclude the contributions of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Americans," Sen. Leno said in a statement.
I am arguing that this inclusion is no different than the requirements to teach about contributions of minority races. I did not read anything about promoting sexuality.
But what seems to get in the way is the notion that homosexuality is a moral choice. And that is the crux of the matter.
The following example has been used by others. I will apply it to your post.
I meant exactly what I said. Why should the state recognise and honour a group because of their sexuality race ? It is a form of imposition of what is acceptable because clearly this has more to with highlighting sexuality race than an actual achievement of historical significance.
If you disagree with this law, then you should support a campaign to rescind the laws related to teach about the contributions of minority races.
But as Ribbit said, we should be including the contributions of all people, regardless of and sexuality (and race). But there are times when legislation is needed to level the playing field. No different that efforts that were made to recognize the contribution of afro-american in the US by promoting affirmative actions initiatives, at the expense of white folks as some may argue.
-
Socapro, yuh thinking in a very narrow way....Homosexuality is much larger than a method of sexual intercourse. It's root is in the gender to which a person is attracted. Some people are physically/sexually attracted to people of the same gender. simple. Just because yuh doh understand it doesn't make it wrong or perverted or abnormal. The world is evolving...embrace it.
So where then do you draw the wrong, perverted or abnormal line? Anything and everything could fly by you?
Exactly!
Guess some folks have no moral standards and expect everybody else to live by their standards!
I thought we were living in a democracy?
I have no problem with gays living their livestyle but please don't try to sell it as normal to my children in school at an impressionable age. Sorry but thats where I draw the moral line.
But I do understand some folks don't have the same moral lines as myself.
Guess the moto is now if we can't convert the straight adults then lets target their children and very soon we will be the moral majority!
Where do we draw the line?! Or is there no line?!! Everything is acceptable now?! Sticking your private part into another man's $hithole is now natural and morally acceptable! Yeah right?! Boy am I looking forward to a gay world!! ::)
-
I guess it depends on your view. Socapro you see homosexuality as this thing that can be sold to impressionable kids and convert them to being gay. I see homosexuality as a sexual orientation that takes place in some people regardless of what is being sold. Nobody eh sell heterosexuality to me and nobody coulda sold homosexuality to me.
As an adult I can think of some guys who I went to primary school with who are now openly gay, and truss meh, thinking back, dem fellas was gay from day one- they come up in the same heterosexual parenting environment, and we had the same general influences growing up....nobody eh sell dem nuttin'.
If yuh child straight, I eh think it matters how much man kissing on TV or how much they teaching gay history in schools... and vice versa if yuh child gay...but that's just how I see it.
-
I guess it depends on your view. Socapro you see homosexuality as this thing that can be sold to impressionable kids and convert them to being gay. I see homosexuality as a sexual orientation that takes place in some people regardless of what is being sold. Nobody eh sell heterosexuality to me and nobody coulda sold homosexuality to me.
As an adult I can think of some guys who I went to primary school with who are now openly gay, and truss meh, thinking back, dem fellas was gay from day one- they come up in the same heterosexual parenting environment, and we had the same general influences growing up....nobody eh sell dem nuttin'.
If yuh child straight, I eh think it matters how much man kissing on TV or how much they teaching gay history in schools... and vice versa if yuh child gay...but that's just how I see it.
Kicker, I think you and I share similar thoughts on homosexuality. No amount of' selling' with convert a hetero- into a homo-. Likewise, no amount of 'selling' will convert a person who thinks homosexuality is a moral choice into believing it is not ... it may happen when a close and loved one discloses his/her sexual orientation. But even then, what is more likely to happen will be that that person will be driven away due to non-acceptance.
I simply can't understand the fear and I should restrain myself from getting drawn into these no-win discussions.
-
Socapro, yuh thinking in a very narrow way....Homosexuality is much larger than a method of sexual intercourse. It's root is in the gender to which a person is attracted. Some people are physically/sexually attracted to people of the same gender. simple. Just because yuh doh understand it doesn't make it wrong or perverted or abnormal. The world is evolving...embrace it.
So where then do you draw the wrong, perverted or abnormal line? Anything and everything could fly by you?
Exactly!
Guess some folks have no moral standards and expect everybody else to live by their standards!
I thought we were living in a democracy?
I have no problem with gays living their livestyle but please don't try to sell it as normal to my children in school at an impressionable age. Sorry but thats where I draw the moral line.
But I do understand some folks don't have the same moral lines as myself.
Guess the moto is now if we can't convert the straight adults then lets target their children and very soon we will be the moral majority!
Where do we draw the line?! Or is there no line?!! Everything is acceptable now?! Sticking your private part into another man's $hithole is now natural and morally acceptable! Yeah right?! Boy am I looking forward to a gay world!! ::)
Socapro, here i go again like a moth to a flame ...
If you are so convinced that your moral lines are so right and strong, what do your children have to fear?
I jess hope for you and your children's sake, none a dem turn out gay because for sure, you will lose them as soon as they are old enough.
And, come on, your comment:
"Guess the moto is now if we can't convert the straight adults then lets target their children and very soon we will be the moral majority!"
You really think that gays have some conspiracy to convert the world's children to chose a life of homosexuality?
Finally, I hope you doh perform oral sex because sticking your private part in a woman mouth or sticking your tongue in her private part eh natural atall. Or for that matter, sticking your tongue in a woman mouth doh seem right if we follow your argument. And for sure, you must object to man/woman anal sex as well because that must be morally unacceptable.
You is make it hard for me to resist posting ...
-
Socapro, yuh thinking in a very narrow way....Homosexuality is much larger than a method of sexual intercourse. It's root is in the gender to which a person is attracted. Some people are physically/sexually attracted to people of the same gender. simple. Just because yuh doh understand it doesn't make it wrong or perverted or abnormal. The world is evolving...embrace it.
So where then do you draw the wrong, perverted or abnormal line? Anything and everything could fly by you?
Exactly!
Guess some folks have no moral standards and expect everybody else to live by their standards!
I thought we were living in a democracy?
I have no problem with gays living their livestyle but please don't try to sell it as normal to my children in school at an impressionable age. Sorry but thats where I draw the moral line.
But I do understand some folks don't have the same moral lines as myself.
Guess the moto is now if we can't convert the straight adults then lets target their children and very soon we will be the moral majority!
Where do we draw the line?! Or is there no line?!! Everything is acceptable now?! Sticking your private part into another man's $hithole is now natural and morally acceptable! Yeah right?! Boy am I looking forward to a gay world!! ::)
Socapro, here i go again like a moth to a flame ...
If you are so convinced that your moral lines are so right and strong, what do your children have to fear?
I jess hope for you and your children's sake, none a dem turn out gay because for sure, you will lose them as soon as they are old enough.
And, come on, your comment:
"Guess the moto is now if we can't convert the straight adults then lets target their children and very soon we will be the moral majority!"
You really think that gays have some conspiracy to convert the world's children to chose a life of homosexuality?
Finally, I hope you doh perform oral sex because sticking your private part in a woman mouth or sticking your tongue in her private part eh natural atall. Or for that matter, sticking your tongue in a woman mouth doh seem right if we follow your argument. And for sure, you must object to man/woman anal sex as well because that must be morally unacceptable.
You is make it hard for me to resist posting ...
Fella, kissing is a natural thing to show affection for the one you love!!
And no I'm not into that freaky oral sex shit to risk catching diseases!
As for sticking my private part up a woman's ass, to me its not that different from doing it to a man, its the same nastiness! That's the hole that this person $hits from on a daily basis, and I must find that natural & normal?! Sorry!
No wonder we have so many sexually transmitted diseases going around, some folks are into too much nastines and trying to pass it off as natural & normal sex!! Sorry I don't think mother nature planned it to be that way, for sexual purposes a penis belongs in a woman's vagina and not in someone's ass! I may love my partner but I don't love her $hit, sorry!!
-
well at least you almost consistent in your beliefs. Why is kissing 'natural"? Who said so? There are some culture that do not kiss.
But you are still mixing up sexual orientation with sexual activities. Two different things.
-
well at least you almost consistent in your beliefs. Why is kissing 'natural"? Who said so? There are some culture that do not kiss.
But you are still mixing up sexual orientation with sexual activities. Two different things.
I am afraid the only mixed up person in this argument is yourself!
Did I argue anywhere that sexual orientation and sexual activities is the same thing?
If so show me where I argued that?
On the kissing topic, I wasn't the one who brought it up, you need to look in the mirror for the culprit!
But just to clear things up, kissing our love ones is something natural to me and most other folks who Ive met in my lifetime whether straight or gay! It may not be natural to you & the household/culture you grew up in but then again some folks grew up without much love & affection in their home which is very sad! Im sorry to hear that you were deprived of natural affection as you seemed to be talking from experience!
Hope you will find love and affection and get over that sad experience one day soon! :-[
-
Socapro, yuh thinking in a very narrow way....Homosexuality is much larger than a method of sexual intercourse. It's root is in the gender to which a person is attracted. Some people are physically/sexually attracted to people of the same gender. simple. Just because yuh doh understand it doesn't make it wrong or perverted or abnormal. The world is evolving...embrace it.
So where then do you draw the wrong, perverted or abnormal line? Anything and everything could fly by you?
Exactly!
Guess some folks have no moral standards and expect everybody else to live by their standards!
I thought we were living in a democracy?
I have no problem with gays living their livestyle but please don't try to sell it as normal to my children in school at an impressionable age. Sorry but thats where I draw the moral line.
But I do understand some folks don't have the same moral lines as myself.
Guess the moto is now if we can't convert the straight adults then lets target their children and very soon we will be the moral majority!
Where do we draw the line?! Or is there no line?!! Everything is acceptable now?! Sticking your private part into another man's $hithole is now natural and morally acceptable! Yeah right?! Boy am I looking forward to a gay world!! ::)
All societies have a common morality and that morality changes over time. Western societies that didn't see slavery as immoral now condemn it. Likewise gay marriage would have been a non-starter just 20 years ago but in 20 years time it will be a non-issue.
The number of gays haven't changed and kids aren't being turned gay but the views of gays in Western society have changed such that the majority recognize gays as equals. We could quibble about what the majority is but the idea that a gay minority is somehow subjugating the morality of a majority is false. Yes, heterosexuals are a majority but the majority of heterosexuals do not consider gays or gay rights to be an affront to their "morals".
Their are societies where gays are 2nd class citizens or even criminals, Islamic states, Caribbean countries, Uganda. But you can't complain about gayness being taught as acceptable in England or the US because it is acceptable to the majority. It is not illegal, it is not acceptable to discriminate against them. The common morality is that gays are okay. Those who have strong moral objections with this "moral decay" have a right to complain but need to at least acknowledge that they do not represent a majority opinion.
-
Socapro, yuh thinking in a very narrow way....Homosexuality is much larger than a method of sexual intercourse. It's root is in the gender to which a person is attracted. Some people are physically/sexually attracted to people of the same gender. simple. Just because yuh doh understand it doesn't make it wrong or perverted or abnormal. The world is evolving...embrace it.
So where then do you draw the wrong, perverted or abnormal line? Anything and everything could fly by you?
Exactly!
Guess some folks have no moral standards and expect everybody else to live by their standards!
I thought we were living in a democracy?
I have no problem with gays living their livestyle but please don't try to sell it as normal to my children in school at an impressionable age. Sorry but thats where I draw the moral line.
But I do understand some folks don't have the same moral lines as myself.
Guess the moto is now if we can't convert the straight adults then lets target their children and very soon we will be the moral majority!
Where do we draw the line?! Or is there no line?!! Everything is acceptable now?! Sticking your private part into another man's $hithole is now natural and morally acceptable! Yeah right?! Boy am I looking forward to a gay world!! ::)
All societies have a common morality and that morality changes over time. Western societies that didn't see slavery as immoral now condemn it. Likewise gay marriage would have been a non-starter just 20 years ago but in 20 years time it will be a non-issue.
The number of gays haven't changed and kids aren't being turned gay but the views of gays in Western society have changed such that the majority recognize gays as equals. We could quibble about what the majority is but the idea that a gay minority is somehow subjugating the morality of a majority is false. Yes, heterosexuals are a majority but the majority of heterosexuals do not consider gays or gay rights to be an affront to their "morals".
Their are societies where gays are 2nd class citizens or even criminals, Islamic states, Caribbean countries, Uganda. But you can't complain about gayness being taught as acceptable in England or the US because it is acceptable to the majority. It is not illegal, it is not acceptable to discriminate against them. The common morality is that gays are okay. Those who have strong moral objections with this "moral decay" have a right to complain but need to at least acknowledge that they do not represent a majority opinion.
I don't agree with children being taught in school that battyman sex is acceptable!
Yes we can teach them that gays are human beings like everyone else and have equal rights and should not be bullied or discriminated against but teaching them that battyman sex is natural is crossing the line as far as I am concerned.
Once they don't cross that line then I'm cool! When we have morals we have to draw the line somewhere!!
-
Also people need to get past this idea of "conversion" of kids. Gays celebrate their lifestyle just as any other social group, converting people's kids is not a goal.
Parents have the opportunity and responsibility to impress the morals they choose upon their kids. The flip side is that they have to deal with all the societal trends, mores and standards that contradict those morals. I am much more bothered by the pervasive sexual imagery that kids can receive than the fact that they might be taught that "Johnny has two daddies and that's okay".
Why,? because I believe that the former actually has a chance of informing my kids behavior than the latter. Again that is an individual choice.
In your case Pro you believe that gayness can be indoctrinated/learnt. But you are so vocal about the issue of gays that i cant see your kids lacking when it comes to knowing that the gay lifestyle is unacceptable. I honestly don't think you have to worry about society converting YOUR kids because you are such a staunch advocate of traditional morals.
-
I don't agree with children being taught in school that battyman sex is acceptable!
Yes we can teach them that gays are human beings like everyone else and have equal rights and should not be bullied or discriminated against but teaching them that battyman sex is natural is crossing the line as far as I am concerned.
You need to specify what age children you are talking about because no one teaches this to young kids. Just as they don't teach the details of vaginal sex to young kids. Young kids learning that two men or women can form a family, and operate as equals in society (the latter things that you have no problem with) has nothing to do with details of how these couples interact.
Also from my knowledge of gay relationships, the whole "battyman sex" angle is overplayed. Many gays don't even engage in the batty jamming. In many relationships it is mostly loving up and oral. I know the idea os anal sex between men is meant to be objectionable on a visceral level and I am just saying that people place too much focus on it.
Once they don't cross that line then I'm cool! When we have morals we have to draw the line somewhere!!
It is not for you to decide the line. I could understand yuh not being cool with the way things and yuh right to voice your opinion but that is about it, unless yuh want to join Fred Phelps and them in the "God Hates Fags" crew.
-
Socapro, yuh thinking in a very narrow way....Homosexuality is much larger than a method of sexual intercourse. It's root is in the gender to which a person is attracted. Some people are physically/sexually attracted to people of the same gender. simple. Just because yuh doh understand it doesn't make it wrong or perverted or abnormal. The world is evolving...embrace it.
As asked in another thread, so why does the men try to look and act female or the women does dress butch?
-
Socapro, yuh thinking in a very narrow way....Homosexuality is much larger than a method of sexual intercourse. It's root is in the gender to which a person is attracted. Some people are physically/sexually attracted to people of the same gender. simple. Just because yuh doh understand it doesn't make it wrong or perverted or abnormal. The world is evolving...embrace it.
As asked in another thread, so why does the men try to look and act female or the women does dress butch?
Don't expect an answer from these confused folks anytime soon! They also ignored that same question in the previous thread on the topic!
-
I have heard multiple discussion on homosexuality, especially from doctors and inmates. Some men who have intercourse with men in prison see the person they are bulling as a woman and not a man. Even though they are engaging in a homosexual act. They say they are straight. may be it's a state of mind. My wife had a dinner party where two doctors (both atheist) who started to argue about homosexuality/anatomy/evolution. Both had very opposing views when it came to sexuality/anatomy/and being born like that.
I have worked in Media for a long time and it is safe to say that one of our focus was to normalize Homosexuality and to condition people to homosexuality. Homosexuality sell! Middle/Upper Class White Women love homos..... Why does Mike Rowe dress like the construction worker from the village people? Why does every Home construction/remodeling/design show have some kinda effeminate men as a host or side kick? Teaching Homosexuality may peak the interest of some boys/men to experiment but in the end. IT SELLS!
-
well at least you almost consistent in your beliefs. Why is kissing 'natural"? Who said so? There are some culture that do not kiss.
But you are still mixing up sexual orientation with sexual activities. Two different things.
I am afraid the only mixed up person in this argument is yourself!
Did I argue anywhere that sexual orientation and sexual activities is the same thing?
If so show me where I argued that?
On the kissing topic, I wasn't the one who brought it up, you need to look in the mirror for the culprit!
But just to clear things up, kissing our love ones is something natural to me and most other folks who Ive met in my lifetime whether straight or gay! It may not be natural to you & the household/culture you grew up in but then again some folks grew up without much love & affection in their home which is very sad! Im sorry to hear that you were deprived of natural affection as you seemed to be talking from experience!
Hope you will find love and affection and get over that sad experience one day soon! :-[
you're right.
You are quite remarkable. How you were able to infer that I grew up without love and affection is astounding, not unlike your thoughts about homosexuality. Quite amazing. Thanks for your sentiments that I will find love and affection. I will keep looking. :beermug:
-
As asked in another thread, so why does the men try to look and act female or the women does dress butch?
Not all gay men are feminine in appearance, and not all lesbians are butch in appearance... That is an overplayed stereotype...and those who are, aren't "trying"...that is their natural inclination, (ie. their natural preference for clothing, hairstyles, make up etc...) - just like you doh "try" to dress like a man when you get up in the morning for work...dressing like a man is your natural inclination...and further, I don't see how that is a logical response to being attracted to someone of the same sex...What gender you are attracted to, and how you present yourself are mutually independent and exclusive.....
-
i does hadda remember to stay away from these threads yes... The kinda nonsense rationale that i does see getting post from "progressive thinkers" does border on ludicrous.
Steups.
-
i does hadda remember to stay away from these threads yes... The kinda nonsense rationale that i does see getting post from "progressive thinkers" does border on ludicrous.
Steups.
vs. zero rationale from the "non-progressive" non-thinkers....just emotion and regurgitation of what dey learn from the generation before...
-
Gay people here to stay!
-
i does hadda remember to stay away from these threads yes... The kinda nonsense rationale that i does see getting post from "progressive thinkers" does border on ludicrous.
Steups.
vs. zero rationale from the "non-progressive" non-thinkers....just emotion and regurgitation of what dey learn from the generation before...
Ah find yuh eh giving de 'regressive' thinkers enough credit man... some ah dem happen upon they own stupidity, inspite of the efforts of the generation before.
-
all de bullers who repressing..come out!
-
all de bullers who repressing..come out!
lololol
Ah boy...
-
De only ting I learn from dis thread is Pecan is ah ultraconservative liberal who parents never love he, so he turn deacon in de week and ah freak in de sheets..ah also learn socapro does scratch records in party wit he tongue but he doh eat pussy...oh and daft and he wife does trow nice gatherings with port and caviar flowin
-
De only ting I learn from dis thread is Pecan is ah ultraconservative liberal who parents never love he, so he turn deacon in de week and ah freak in de sheets..ah also learn socapro does scratch records in party wit he tongue but he doh eat pussy...oh and daft and he wife does trow nice gatherings with port and caviar flowin
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
De only ting I learn from dis thread is Pecan is ah ultraconservative liberal who parents never love he, so he turn deacon in de week and ah freak in de sheets..ah also learn socapro does scratch records in party wit he tongue but he doh eat pussy...oh and daft and he wife does trow nice gatherings with port and caviar flowin
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
finally, an unbiased post based on observation and and not on emotion. :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
well at least you almost consistent in your beliefs. Why is kissing 'natural"? Who said so? There are some culture that do not kiss.
But you are still mixing up sexual orientation with sexual activities. Two different things.
I am afraid the only mixed up person in this argument is yourself!
Did I argue anywhere that sexual orientation and sexual activities is the same thing?
If so show me where I argued that?
On the kissing topic, I wasn't the one who brought it up, you need to look in the mirror for the culprit!
But just to clear things up, kissing our love ones is something natural to me and most other folks who Ive met in my lifetime whether straight or gay! It may not be natural to you & the household/culture you grew up in but then again some folks grew up without much love & affection in their home which is very sad! Im sorry to hear that you were deprived of natural affection as you seemed to be talking from experience!
Hope you will find love and affection and get over that sad experience one day soon! :-[
you're right.
You are quite remarkable. How you were able to infer that I grew up without love and affection is astounding, not unlike your thoughts about homosexuality. Quite amazing. Thanks for your sentiments that I will find love and affection. I will keep looking. :beermug:
You were the one who argued that kissing may not be natural so I drew my own conclusion that maybe you didn't get much affection when growing up! ;)
Good luck in your search!! :D
-
Gay people here to stay!
So what?! Are you making a declaration?! 8)
all de bullers who repressing..come out!
-
De only ting I learn from dis thread is Pecan is ah ultraconservative liberal who parents never love he, so he turn deacon in de week and ah freak in de sheets..ah also learn socapro does scratch records in party wit he tongue but he doh eat pussy...oh and daft and he wife does trow nice gatherings with port and caviar flowin
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
finally, an unbiased post based on observation and and not on emotion. :rotfl: :rotfl:
Dutty is the best!! :rotfl:
-
De only ting I learn from dis thread is Pecan is ah ultraconservative liberal who parents never love he, so he turn deacon in de week and ah freak in de sheets..ah also learn socapro does scratch records in party wit he tongue but he doh eat pussy...oh and daft and he wife does trow nice gatherings with port and caviar flowin
hilarious
-
De only ting I learn from dis thread is Pecan is ah ultraconservative liberal who parents never love he, so he turn deacon in de week and ah freak in de sheets..ah also learn socapro does scratch records in party wit he tongue but he doh eat pussy...oh and daft and he wife does trow nice gatherings with port and caviar flowin
De only ting I learn from dis thread is Pecan is ah ultraconservative liberal who parents never love he, so he turn deacon in de week and ah freak in de sheets..ah also learn socapro does scratch records in party wit he tongue but he doh eat pussy...oh and daft and he wife does trow nice gatherings with port and caviar flowin
1) Confucius say man who eat pussy, do lip service. So that will exclude Socapro. :devil:
2) Homosexuality is found in the animal kingdom. In fact, they discovered a new species of lesbian dinosaurs. They are know as "Lickalotapus"
3) Ultraconservative liberal :rotfl: I believe in capitalism, free markets, private enterprise, small government, no death penalty, theism, pro-choice, conservative feminism, same sex unions, red meat, more red meat, no handguns, marriage, bi-racial relationships, renewable and non-renewable energy, the IPCC need their heads examined, the UN is missing it mandate, standing armies, no to child labour, clean water for everyone, stamping out world hunger, football, cricket, curling, balanced environmental stewardship, hmm .. .what else?
-
Socapro- I feel your arguments, I live in Maryland/DC dem universities here teaching homo acceptability. In Media there is something called the Gay Agenda, come on nah you in entertainment. Soon in the US we ill have a woman prez then we first Gay Prez... Yes I'm declaring that Gay is here to Stay. I just doh feel is the school business to use tax payers money fuh dem kinda lessons. Let the parents deal with educating dey kids on dem facts of life (I know there are exceptions, then use the guidance councilor or teacher on a one on one basis)
Dutty- it was a nice bordeaux, small batch, deep rooted vines.
-
As asked in another thread, so why does the men try to look and act female or the women does dress butch?
Not all gay men are feminine in appearance, and not all lesbians are butch in appearance... That is an overplayed stereotype...and those who are, aren't "trying"...that is their natural inclination, (ie. their natural preference for clothing, hairstyles, make up etc...) - just like you doh "try" to dress like a man when you get up in the morning for work...dressing like a man is your natural inclination...and further, I don't see how that is a logical response to being attracted to someone of the same sex...What gender you are attracted to, and how you present yourself are mutually independent and exclusive.....
How do you explain this though? When you say attractde what do you mean, physical, emotional, sexual, what? This very confusing as with attraction comes sexual interaction and as such where does the straight part stops and the gay part begin? A woman who loves a woman but has an urge to feel penetration ??? or the vice versa with gay men ??? Like I say confusing.
Don't get me wrong I don't care about who gay or not gay as I know what I am. I just trying to see how this all goes down ::)
-
Elan hoss, I doh have the answers nah. I just rendering an opinion based on things I observe, things I hear from different folks and things I read from time to time...
I think even the experts are guessing (somewhat) when it comes to this kinda stuff.
-
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sdKq9SZBIu8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
war
-
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vx8vdF5VvvU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
war
-
MR warmonger. Ah hope when one ah yuh children or granchirren come home one day and tell yuh that they're gay, ah hope yuh could pick up yuh big dutty magnum and fly their marrow the way yuh suggesting how other ppl's children should be killed for something that is none of their fault.
nuff ah allyuh west indians livin in first world countries but still stuck in the 1700s. allyuh need tuh get over those puritan values that was instilled in allyuh by the crown, mind you, which has since moved on and has adopted modern views and ideas.
this conversation has been discussed way too much, as ah matter of fact, since i've been on this board i've seen this topic reoccur @ least 10 times and still there's no resolve or amicable conclusion, just the same morons who post their narrow minded views and make ah stink about what other ppl do in the privacy of their homes and the opposite who think outside the colloquial box.
homosexuality is nothing strange or new to this planet, this has been existing since living organisms started populating the planet and i think is high time ppl put aside their black and white views and start dealing with this in ah sensible objective manner.
my personal opinion, i don't think the history of homosexuality should be taught in schools to kids of ah certain age unless it's approached in ah purely scientific manner and even then, i think it should be @ least taught beyond middle school, but to expose young adolescents to this kinda confusion would be the same as teachin sex education to kindergartners. JMO.
-
my personal opinion, i don't think the history of homosexuality should be taught in schools to kids of ah certain age unless it's approached in ah purely scientific manner and even then, i think it should be @ least taught beyond middle school, but to expose young adolescents to this kinda confusion would be the same as teachin sex education to kindergartners. JMO.
Sensible and good post overall, but I actually think that the aim of amending the bill is to highlight achievements and historical contributions made by homosexuals...not really to teach the history of homosexuality as a sexual orientation. It's more comparable to Black/Native American appreciation from a historical perspective than it is to sex education. The conversation has gone way off track because the homophobes hear the word homosexuality in the same sentence as schools and all of a sudden they think that the kids' minds are going to be warped by images of "sexual pervervions", and that creates a fear among some that teachers will be trying to persuade kids that being gay is "normal" etc... I think that's far from what is being promoted here by amending this bill.
-
MR warmonger. Ah hope when one ah yuh children or granchirren come home one day and tell yuh that they're gay, ah hope yuh could pick up yuh big dutty magnum and fly their marrow the way yuh suggesting how other ppl's children should be killed for something that is none of their fault.
nuff ah allyuh west indians livin in first world countries but still stuck in the 1700s. allyuh need tuh get over those puritan values that was instilled in allyuh by the crown, mind you, which has since moved on and has adopted modern views and ideas.
this conversation has been discussed way too much, as ah matter of fact, since i've been on this board i've seen this topic reoccur @ least 10 times and still there's no resolve or amicable conclusion, just the same morons who post their narrow minded views and make ah stink about what other ppl do in the privacy of their homes and the opposite who think outside the colloquial box.
homosexuality is nothing strange or new to this planet, this has been existing since living organisms started populating the planet and i think is high time ppl put aside their black and white views and start dealing with this in ah sensible objective manner.
my personal opinion, i don't think the history of homosexuality should be taught in schools to kids of ah certain age unless it's approached in ah purely scientific manner and even then, i think it should be @ least taught beyond middle school, but to expose young adolescents to this kinda confusion would be the same as teachin sex education to kindergartners. JMO.
Just cool I guh tell yu sumthin right now.. My likkle son is 5 years old and him dun have 4 galfriend.. Battyman need fi dead.. MY yute name is pepper mouth and you see this song here he could sing and translate the whole thing fi yu.. we love gal ...man to man is unjust...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tkVLKlG8FQ
war
-
my personal opinion, i don't think the history of homosexuality should be taught in schools to kids of ah certain age unless it's approached in ah purely scientific manner and even then, i think it should be @ least taught beyond middle school, but to expose young adolescents to this kinda confusion would be the same as teachin sex education to kindergartners. JMO.
I don't think anyone's proposing teaching the "history of homosexuality"...
-
my personal opinion, i don't think the history of homosexuality should be taught in schools to kids of ah certain age unless it's approached in ah purely scientific manner and even then, i think it should be @ least taught beyond middle school, but to expose young adolescents to this kinda confusion would be the same as teachin sex education to kindergartners. JMO.
I don't think anyone's proposing teaching the "history of homosexuality"...
I got that from kickers post, so scene, i just miss interpret it.
-
MR warmonger. Ah hope when one ah yuh children or granchirren come home one day and tell yuh that they're gay, ah hope yuh could pick up yuh big dutty magnum and fly their marrow the way yuh suggesting how other ppl's children should be killed for something that is none of their fault.
nuff ah allyuh west indians livin in first world countries but still stuck in the 1700s. allyuh need tuh get over those puritan values that was instilled in allyuh by the crown, mind you, which has since moved on and has adopted modern views and ideas.
this conversation has been discussed way too much, as ah matter of fact, since i've been on this board i've seen this topic reoccur @ least 10 times and still there's no resolve or amicable conclusion, just the same morons who post their narrow minded views and make ah stink about what other ppl do in the privacy of their homes and the opposite who think outside the colloquial box.
homosexuality is nothing strange or new to this planet, this has been existing since living organisms started populating the planet and i think is high time ppl put aside their black and white views and start dealing with this in ah sensible objective manner.
my personal opinion, i don't think the history of homosexuality should be taught in schools to kids of ah certain age unless it's approached in ah purely scientific manner and even then, i think it should be @ least taught beyond middle school, but to expose young adolescents to this kinda confusion would be the same as teachin sex education to kindergartners. JMO.
Just cool I guh tell yu sumthin right now.. My likkle son is 5 years old and him dun have 4 galfriend.. Battyman need fi dead.. MY yute name is pepper mouth and you see this song here he could sing and translate the whole thing fi yu.. we love gal ...man to man is unjust...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tkVLKlG8FQ
war
Breddren, i worked wid big strong man who love football and could drink more beer in ah giants game than any regular fella, and guess what, dude was gay gay gay!
the man macho as all hell and could talk yuh under the table wid any sports, and as for fight, this dude could real fight.
ah time i run ah joke wid dude and call him the football fairy, the man turn round and tell meh "if yuh ever call meh ah fairy again i will knock out yuh teeth them" and he wasn't kiddin. well after that i dun de jokin wid dude BC if he did come tuh meh wid any violence ah wouldah had tuh introduce him to the equalizer.
but my point iz, it have plenty man out there passin for straight (like trinity cross), and yuh would swear that they not gay. anyway farrder as for yuh yute, not wishin anything, but i hope yuh right for yours and his sake, BC five yrs old is too early to determine sexual preference even though they may show signs of hetero or masculine straits.
-
MR warmonger. Ah hope when one ah yuh children or granchirren come home one day and tell yuh that they're gay, ah hope yuh could pick up yuh big dutty magnum and fly their marrow the way yuh suggesting how other ppl's children should be killed for something that is none of their fault.
nuff ah allyuh west indians livin in first world countries but still stuck in the 1700s. allyuh need tuh get over those puritan values that was instilled in allyuh by the crown, mind you, which has since moved on and has adopted modern views and ideas.
this conversation has been discussed way too much, as ah matter of fact, since i've been on this board i've seen this topic reoccur @ least 10 times and still there's no resolve or amicable conclusion, just the same morons who post their narrow minded views and make ah stink about what other ppl do in the privacy of their homes and the opposite who think outside the colloquial box.
homosexuality is nothing strange or new to this planet, this has been existing since living organisms started populating the planet and i think is high time ppl put aside their black and white views and start dealing with this in ah sensible objective manner.
my personal opinion, i don't think the history of homosexuality should be taught in schools to kids of ah certain age unless it's approached in ah purely scientific manner and even then, i think it should be @ least taught beyond middle school, but to expose young adolescents to this kinda confusion would be the same as teachin sex education to kindergartners. JMO.
Just cool I guh tell yu sumthin right now.. My likkle son is 5 years old and him dun have 4 galfriend.. Battyman need fi dead.. MY yute name is pepper mouth and you see this song here he could sing and translate the whole thing fi yu.. we love gal ...man to man is unjust...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tkVLKlG8FQ
war
Breddren, i worked wid big strong man who love football and could drink more beer in ah giants game than any regular fella, and guess what, dude was gay gay gay!
the man macho as all hell and could talk yuh under the table wid any sports, and as for fight, this dude could real fight.
ah time i run ah joke wid dude and call him the football fairy, the man turn round and tell meh "if yuh ever call meh ah fairy again i will knock out yuh teeth them" and he wasn't kiddin. well after that i dun de jokin wid dude BC if he did come tuh meh wid any violence ah wouldah had tuh introduce him to the equalizer.
but my point iz, it have plenty man out there passin for straight (like trinity cross), and yuh would swear that they not gay. anyway farrder as for yuh yute, not wishin anything, but i hope yuh right for yours and his sake, BC five yrs old is too early to determine sexual preference even though they may show signs of hetero or masculine straits.
allyuh man is kixs in here boi.. fi real allyuh does rell make me laugh..
war
-
I got that from kickers post, so scene, i just miss interpret it.
Nah I was just quoting the headline of the thread....
My response to your post clarifies my interpretation of the article.
-
Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/barack-obama-supports-same-sex-marriage-195124117.html
Barack Obama has become the first President in US history to unequivocally support gay marriage.
His decision has been both welcomed by gay rights groups and attacked by political opponents, heralding the start of a fight on the polarising issue ahead of the 2012 elections.
Mr Obama has always stopped short of explicitly endorsing gay marriage, often explaining that his views on the subject were "evolving".
He told ABC news: "I have hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought that civil unions would be sufficient.
"I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word marriage was something that invokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth.
"I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that same-sex couples should be able to get married."
The President said that his daughters Malia and Sasha had friends with same-sex parents, explaining that "it wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated different".
"It doesn't make sense to them and frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective."
The announcement comes on the heels of an interview given on Sunday by Vice President Joe Biden, in which he said that he was "completely comfortable" with gay people getting married.
It was widely viewed as a change of stance by the administration even though Mr Biden framed it as a personal opinion.
Opinion polls have shown that Americans increasingly approve of same sex marriage, but the issue is likely to be unpopular in key election battleground states.
President Obama's politically explosive altering of his position comes as voters in North Carolina, a state that could become either Republican or Democrat in the coming election, approved an amendment to the state constitution that marriage may only be the union of a man and a woman.
Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney said: "I have the same view on marriage as I had when I was governor and that I have expressed many times.
"I believe that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."
Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said: "President Obama has consistently fought against protecting the institution of marriage from radical social engineering at both the state and federal level."
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, who strongly supported the recent legalisation of gay marriage in New York State, said: "This is a major turning point in the history of American civil rights.
"The march of freedom that has sustained our country since the Revolution of 1776 continues, and no matter what setbacks may occur in a given state, freedom will triumph over fear and equality will prevail over exclusion."
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force director Rea Carey said: "Who benefits? Millions of families who now know that their country's leader believes in fairness for all. This is a great day for America."
Gay marriage is legal in six states in America, and Washington DC and Maryland have passed legalisation laws that have not taken effect yet.
Although Mr Obama opposed gay marriage during his 2008 election campaign, his administration has since backed a number of initiatives improving gays rights, such as repealing of the US military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and giving same sex partners improved rights over medical decisions.
-
He should have stuck with this
http://www.youtube.com/v/MbdRe1izJ9I
I AM IN SHOCK!!!
-
I doh know nah.............at ah point in time it jus hit mih dat black people should be d last people to be railin against gay rights....not dat yuh shouldn't have yuh opinion...but dat dat opinion should be weighed against our own continuing struggle for understanding and a fair shake in d world.......ah mean wah yuh goh do if you wake up in d mornin had no choice but to sit in d back ah d bus and it once again had whites only on every establishment..........jus sayin
-
ha ha, now a story coming out how romney beat up a gay fella in school. so de election is gay-lover vs gay-basher/bully. a repeat of obuma's illinois campaign where he opponent was labelled a wife-beater. he cyah lorse.
-
I doh know nah.............at ah point in time it jus hit mih dat black people should be d last people to be railin against gay rights....not dat yuh shouldn't have yuh opinion...but dat dat opinion should be weighed against our own continuing struggle for understanding and a fair shake in d world.......ah mean wah yuh goh do if you wake up in d mornin had no choice but to sit in d back ah d bus and it once again had whites only on every establishment..........jus sayin
I think that however you reach to the realization is fine, because we all come to these issues with different backgrounds and perspectives. That is a perspective for a fellow persecuted minority to empathize with gays but there are even more basic ways to look at it.
I heard Cory Booker express it really well on a podcast recently. He said that it is not about "gay rights", because then that removes the majority from fighting for the cause and makes it a minority issue, just as the civil rights movement was not about "black rights" and the suffrage movement was not about "women's rights".
He described it being about "equal rights". It is about having a society of equal citizens or a society where you have second and third class citizens. The question that people who want to limit the rights of another group have to answer is whether or not they consider these groups to be equal or less than equal.
-
Mr Obama has just lost My vote I will not support anyone who support dem bullerman dem.. f**k obama and his politricks.. now all allyuh bullerman gwan chat..
war
-
Mr Obama has just lost My vote I will not support anyone who support dem bullerman dem.. f**k obama and his politricks.. now all allyuh bullerman gwan chat..
war
Proof that cavemen still exist.
-
Mr Obama has just lost My vote I will not support anyone who support dem bullerman dem.. f**k obama and his politricks.. now all allyuh bullerman gwan chat..
war
Proof that cavemen still exist.
why you feel the need to debase and belittle cavemen? what have cave dwellers done for you to denigrate them in such a manner?
-
Mr Obama has just lost My vote I will not support anyone who support dem bullerman dem.. f**k obama and his politricks.. now all allyuh bullerman gwan chat..
war
Proof that cavemen still exist.
why you feel the need to debase and belittle cavemen? what have cave dwellers done for you to denigrate them in such a manner?
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: nice ;D
-
Mr Obama has just lost My vote I will not support anyone who support dem bullerman dem.. f**k obama and his politricks.. now all allyuh bullerman gwan chat..
war
Proof that cavemen still exist.
why you feel the need to debase and belittle cavemen? what have cave dwellers done for you to denigrate them in such a manner?
lol :rotfl:
I eh denigrate nobody (on purpose)
-
Mr Obama has just lost My vote I will not support anyone who support dem bullerman dem.. f**k obama and his politricks.. now all allyuh bullerman gwan chat..
war
War, you never stop to amaze me sometimes!!!
-
Mr Obama has just lost My vote I will not support anyone who support dem bullerman dem.. f**k obama and his politricks.. now all allyuh bullerman gwan chat..
war
War, you never stop to amaze me sometimes!!!
Nah man, Ramesh stop amazing me long time... same chune, different key.
-
Obama is a punk.
Is show all politicans are the same crooks.
-
"Ramesh" hold your ground buddy.. the whole catholic church crowding that cave you held up in. Cud care less about who marrying who, but when ah man can't voice his opinion or at least have an opinion, makes me wonder how much of a democracy we living in. But then.. being gay is the new
black jew..right! Can't say shit without being branded.
-
TT yuh should start a thread on the home improvement board called "Closet space" and see who show up
-
"Ramesh" hold your ground buddy.. the whole catholic church crowding that cave you held up in. Cud care less about who marrying who, but when ah man can't voice his opinion or at least have an opinion, makes me wonder how much of a democracy we living in. But then.. being gay is the new black jew..right! Can't say shit without being branded.
Jumbie alot of people who are of the opinion that gays should be able to get married are generally called way worse...Don't act like that opinion doesn't come under fire and persecution (unless you been living under a rock) - democracy my arse brother - if yuh only cryin' democracy when yuh opinion is on the losing end, yuh not supporting any democracy. Plus, it's one thing to have an opinion but if want to supporting referring to homos with slurs such as bullerman and categorize a step towards equal rights as "supporting de bullermen dem", then yuh arguing a different point.
-
TT yuh should start a thread on the home improvement board called "Closet space" and see who show up
Next time you step out to comment, leave de closet door slightly ajar, so yuh could scamper back in after creating that new thread yuh so desire.
-
"Ramesh" hold your ground buddy.. the whole catholic church crowding that cave you held up in. Cud care less about who marrying who, but when ah man can't voice his opinion or at least have an opinion, makes me wonder how much of a democracy we living in. But then.. being gay is the new black jew..right! Can't say shit without being branded.
Jumbie alot of people who are of the opinion that gays should be able to get married are generally called way worse...Don't act like that opinion doesn't come under fire and persecution (unless you been living under a rock) - democracy my arse brother - if yuh only cryin' democracy when yuh opinion is on the losing end, yuh not supporting any democracy. Plus, it's one thing to have an opinion but if want to supporting referring to homos with slurs such as bullerman and categorize a step towards equal rights as "supporting de bullermen dem", then yuh arguing a different point.
"if yuh only cryin' democracy when yuh opinion is on the losing end, yuh not supporting any democracy". This should not be about winning or losing. Who is the winner here? The gays who continue living as they always did or the guy who feel he can't support that?
I've never been one to degrade others by name calling etc (i may fling a 'c**t' here and there), so that is not my agenda. I just feel we need to be more open about things (have people voice how they feel), so we have a clearer picture as to where we are and where we need to be. Ramesh have a fackup way of expressing himself, but his saying homo etc and the people who have the same feelings but keeping quiet, is no different.
-
as I say let di bullerman dem gwan chat .. It dnt suprise me the people who reponded to my rant . They are the kind of persons who will support di devil if he had a ounce of "black" in him . I on di other end say it as I see it and dont have to hide behind nothing.!!!!!!!! god almighty will deal wid di bulleman and there there supporters....
War
-
I stand firmly behind marriage as exemplified in the Bible
(http://i51.tinypic.com/2079gf4.png)
-
Well I like to support what God set originally. I've been on the world long enough to know that people does sometimes just make up stuff innately contrary to God's purpose and God doesn't kill em for it. Sometimes, people does feel they actually doing good with a good heart but they does be sincerely wrong. In studying the bible it's important to understand which was given by Description (God described what He wanted) and what was Prescription (leaders made decisions based on what they thought was best.) As far as I'm concerned God made Adam an Eve and He said "It is good." You know what good means in that context? It means perfection, it mean complete. It means everything needed to care for the earth was in place. So that's where you have to take up your issue. The old testament has a lot of old world history and practices in it that simply doesn't apply today. Many of it were just people doing stuff as they saw it. Whoever want to challenge God, go ahead. God ain't sweating, the breath we breathing is His anyway. Tic Toc for everybody. God is so gracious that at the end nobody could say that they didn't get enough rope. God's ways are so above our ways that we can't even begin to quantify His wisdom, mercy and above all His love for mankind. Look, marriage is an institution enacted by God Himself. He set the parameters and endorsed it as good. Now just like that chart Pecan post, men can do whatever they feel they need to do, follow lies, geneticist or demons. Do whatever you want but anything outside of those parameters does not get the seal from the big man as marriage. You can call it marriage but it won't be marriage and it won't have the blessing of the Most High. He's given marriage many blessings. To lay down with your wife and have her open up for you. To share a baby and raise a child that look like both of you. To have a woman on your side to support and strengthen you, believe in you. (A help meet not a man meat) To struggle through life together sharing dreams, aspirations and failures. These things are blessings that God only gives to marriage as He set it up.
-
Well I like to support what God set originally. I've been on the world long enough to know that people does sometimes just make up stuff innately contrary to God's purpose and God doesn't kill em for it. Sometimes, people does feel they actually doing good with a good heart but they does be sincerely wrong. In studying the bible it's important to understand which was given by Description (God described what He wanted) and what was Prescription (leaders made decisions based on what they thought was best.) As far as I'm concerned God made Adam an Eve and He said "It is good." You know what good means in that context? It means perfection, it mean complete. It means everything needed to care for the earth was in place. So that's where you have to take up your issue. The old testament has a lot of old world history and practices in it that simply doesn't apply today. Many of it were just people doing stuff as they saw it. Whoever want to challenge God, go ahead. God ain't sweating, the breath we breathing is His anyway. Tic Toc for everybody. God is so gracious that at the end nobody could say that they didn't get enough rope. God's ways are so above our ways that we can't even begin to quantify His wisdom, mercy and above all His love for mankind. Look, marriage is an institution enacted by God Himself. He set the parameters and endorsed it as good. Now just like that chart Pecan post, men can do whatever they feel they need to do, follow lies, geneticist or demons. Do whatever you want but anything outside of those parameters does not get the seal from the big man as marriage. You can call it marriage but it won't be marriage and it won't have the blessing of the Most High. He's given marriage many blessings. To lay down with your wife and have her open up for you. To share a baby and raise a child that look like both of you. To have a woman on your side to support and strengthen you, believe in you. (A help meet not a man meat) To struggle through life together sharing dreams, aspirations and failures. These things are blessings that God only gives to marriage as He set it up.
Where does God say anything about 'marriage'... or that it's exclusively between man and woman?
-
I think it is implied!
Genesis 2:22-24
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Matthew 19:4-6.....Jesus speaking:
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Malachi 2:14 seems to point to marriage being a covenant before God, according to the Bible.
Jes saying, I feel if two man want to get married I eh have no problem with it. But it appears to me logically, marriage was meant to be man and woman.
Genesis 2:18-25 seems like God created a female and not another male.
I know that it does not specifically say man and woman alone eh, but it sure implies that.
-
I think it is implied!
Genesis 2:22-24
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Matthew 19:4-6.....Jesus speaking:
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Malachi 2:14 seems to point to marriage being a covenant before God, according to the Bible.
Jes saying, I feel if two man want to get married I eh have no problem with it. But it appears to me logically, marriage was meant to be man and woman.
Genesis 2:18-25 seems like God created a female and not another male.
I know that it does not specifically say man and woman alone eh, but it sure implies that.
In short we imputing words to God that aren't there... as I am sure you saw me say elsewhere. Opponents of gay marriage love quote that Matt 19 scripture, but that wasn't addressing the constituency of marriage (who it's comprised of), just the unbreakable unity of the marriage bond. There's a huge difference, except to those who refuse to see it.
-
You disregarding Genesis 2: 22-24?
And I really doubt that you believe that according to what was written in the Bible that a marriage is referenced as anything but a man and a woman.
As I said I doh subscribe to the Bible as the literal word of God eh, but to me it is clearly implied that marriage was between man and woman and not man/man or woman/woman.
Historically I challenge anyone to show marriages of man/man or woman/woman, well except for France lol.
-
Bakes nobody ain't imputing anything on God. TC add Genesis 2:18. Fellas this is the beginning and if you observe how God work. He start with the complete and then it reproduces after itself. If there's any imputing on God it would be making a case that God wasn't clear enough what marriage consists of.
EDIT: And TC I'm with you. Let them get "married" if they want to. It won't be marriage though. :) See?
And here is where the dilemma lies with the role of Government. Government like marriage is also an institution established by God and they have a responsibility before God and their people. They can't just go redefining stuff that they didn't implement.
-
Haaaaeeeeyyyyyy!
(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/tu1yC.YUn4uPkls2.ZDlLA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/newsweek-obama-gay-president.jpg)
-
You disregarding Genesis 2: 22-24?
And I really doubt that you believe that according to what was written in the Bible that a marriage is referenced as anything but a man and a woman.
As I said I doh subscribe to the Bible as the literal word of God eh, but to me it is clearly implied that marriage was between man and woman and not man/man or woman/woman.
Historically I challenge anyone to show marriages of man/man or woman/woman, well except for France lol.
what about man/woman+woman+woman+...+nth
that is a common occurrence with biblical figures
-
Religion again.....
-
Well I like to support what God set originally. I've been on the world long enough to know that people does sometimes just make up stuff innately contrary to God's purpose and God doesn't kill em for it. Sometimes, people does feel they actually doing good with a good heart but they does be sincerely wrong. In studying the bible it's important to understand which was given by Description (God described what He wanted) and what was Prescription (leaders made decisions based on what they thought was best.) As far as I'm concerned God made Adam an Eve and He said "It is good." You know what good means in that context? It means perfection, it mean complete. It means everything needed to care for the earth was in place. So that's where you have to take up your issue. The old testament has a lot of old world history and practices in it that simply doesn't apply today. Many of it were just people doing stuff as they saw it. Whoever want to challenge God, go ahead. God ain't sweating, the breath we breathing is His anyway. Tic Toc for everybody. God is so gracious that at the end nobody could say that they didn't get enough rope. God's ways are so above our ways that we can't even begin to quantify His wisdom, mercy and above all His love for mankind. Look, marriage is an institution enacted by God Himself. He set the parameters and endorsed it as good. Now just like that chart Pecan post, men can do whatever they feel they need to do, follow lies, geneticist or demons. Do whatever you want but anything outside of those parameters does not get the seal from the big man as marriage. You can call it marriage but it won't be marriage and it won't have the blessing of the Most High. He's given marriage many blessings. To lay down with your wife and have her open up for you. To share a baby and raise a child that look like both of you. To have a woman on your side to support and strengthen you, believe in you. (A help meet not a man meat) To struggle through life together sharing dreams, aspirations and failures. These things are blessings that God only gives to marriage as He set it up.
I think all these things would be true of a gay marriage also. except the underlined...but I know plenty heterosexual couples that can't have children from since Abraham, and I don't think that mean that their marriage is not blessed.
Bakes nobody ain't imputing anything on God. TC add Genesis 2:18. Fellas this is the beginning and if you observe how God work. He start with the complete and then it reproduces after itself. If there's any imputing on God it would be making a case that God wasn't clear enough what marriage consists of.
EDIT: And TC I'm with you. Let them get "married" if they want to. It won't be marriage though. :) See?
And here is where the dilemma lies with the role of Government. Government like marriage is also an institution established by God and they have a responsibility before God and their people. They can't just go redefining stuff that they didn't implement.
what about people who doh subscribe to the bible preacher? can they get "married" too?
btw. I wouldn't really go outa my way and march and 'support' no gay marriage...maybe in the future i might say alright like obama. but I doh dig how alyuh evangelicals does want to impose your bible (and a very silly interpretation of it too) on everybody.
-
Many old testament Biblical figures had more than one wife and concubines. Those wives were taken to increase the size of households, gain alliances, forge new alliances and to make children to work and increase wealth.
Marriage was supposed to be between man and woman, but like all things evolve so did marriage and we understand more now and human sexuality is much more complex than was understood back in the days when the Bible was being written.
-
Religion again.....
is either that or talk about the employment numbers.
gay marriage is only an issue for gays and ministers. ah hear de rev. al sharpton, does support gay marriage - he probably marry some gay couples already. rev. jeremiah wright too.
-
Love how people conveniently talk on behalf of God lol... Allyuh eh playin' allyuh self righteous nuh. Next ting yuh gonna tell me is God who wrote the bible. Why allyuh doh just leave the judging to God?
How many f*cking adulterers it have out there enjoying the full rights and benefits of heterosexual marriage? How come that doh bother allyuh moral conscience.
As ah say, let God judge.
-
"Ramesh" hold your ground buddy.. the whole catholic church crowding that cave you held up in. Cud care less about who marrying who, but when ah man can't voice his opinion or at least have an opinion, makes me wonder how much of a democracy we living in. But then.. being gay is the new black jew..right! Can't say shit without being branded.
Jumbie alot of people who are of the opinion that gays should be able to get married are generally called way worse...Don't act like that opinion doesn't come under fire and persecution (unless you been living under a rock) - democracy my arse brother - if yuh only cryin' democracy when yuh opinion is on the losing end, yuh not supporting any democracy. Plus, it's one thing to have an opinion but if want to supporting referring to homos with slurs such as bullerman and categorize a step towards equal rights as "supporting de bullermen dem", then yuh arguing a different point.
"if yuh only cryin' democracy when yuh opinion is on the losing end, yuh not supporting any democracy". This should not be about winning or losing. Who is the winner here? The gays who continue living as they always did or the guy who feel he can't support that?
I've never been one to degrade others by name calling etc (i may fling a 'c**t' here and there), so that is not my agenda. I just feel we need to be more open about things (have people voice how they feel), so we have a clearer picture as to where we are and where we need to be. Ramesh have a fackup way of expressing himself, but his saying homo etc and the people who have the same feelings but keeping quiet, is no different.
You miss my point about losing end. I meant the traditional perspective losing popularity - not who is winning or losing based on what Obama is advocating.
I have no issue with someone how disagrees with the principle of gay marriage - Can't endorse a fight against equal rights though.
-
"Ramesh" hold your ground buddy.. the whole catholic church crowding that cave you held up in. Cud care less about who marrying who, but when ah man can't voice his opinion or at least have an opinion, makes me wonder how much of a democracy we living in. But then.. being gay is the new black jew..right! Can't say shit without being branded.
Jumbie alot of people who are of the opinion that gays should be able to get married are generally called way worse...Don't act like that opinion doesn't come under fire and persecution (unless you been living under a rock) - democracy my arse brother - if yuh only cryin' democracy when yuh opinion is on the losing end, yuh not supporting any democracy. Plus, it's one thing to have an opinion but if want to supporting referring to homos with slurs such as bullerman and categorize a step towards equal rights as "supporting de bullermen dem", then yuh arguing a different point.
"if yuh only cryin' democracy when yuh opinion is on the losing end, yuh not supporting any democracy". This should not be about winning or losing. Who is the winner here? The gays who continue living as they always did or the guy who feel he can't support that?
I've never been one to degrade others by name calling etc (i may fling a 'c**t' here and there), so that is not my agenda. I just feel we need to be more open about things (have people voice how they feel), so we have a clearer picture as to where we are and where we need to be. Ramesh have a fackup way of expressing himself, but his saying homo etc and the people who have the same feelings but keeping quiet, is no different.
You miss my point about losing end. I meant the traditional perspective losing popularity - not who is winning or losing based on what Obama is advocating.
I have no issue with someone how disagrees with the principle of gay marriage - Can't endorse a fight against equal rights though.
everybody who opposed conveniently tiptoeing around that point.......
-
Well I like to support what God set originally. I've been on the world long enough to know that people does sometimes just make up stuff innately contrary to God's purpose and God doesn't kill em for it. Sometimes, people does feel they actually doing good with a good heart but they does be sincerely wrong. In studying the bible it's important to understand which was given by Description (God described what He wanted) and what was Prescription (leaders made decisions based on what they thought was best.) As far as I'm concerned God made Adam an Eve and He said "It is good." You know what good means in that context? It means perfection, it mean complete. It means everything needed to care for the earth was in place. So that's where you have to take up your issue. The old testament has a lot of old world history and practices in it that simply doesn't apply today. Many of it were just people doing stuff as they saw it. Whoever want to challenge God, go ahead. God ain't sweating, the breath we breathing is His anyway. Tic Toc for everybody. God is so gracious that at the end nobody could say that they didn't get enough rope. God's ways are so above our ways that we can't even begin to quantify His wisdom, mercy and above all His love for mankind. Look, marriage is an institution enacted by God Himself. He set the parameters and endorsed it as good. Now just like that chart Pecan post, men can do whatever they feel they need to do, follow lies, geneticist or demons. Do whatever you want but anything outside of those parameters does not get the seal from the big man as marriage. You can call it marriage but it won't be marriage and it won't have the blessing of the Most High. He's given marriage many blessings. To lay down with your wife and have her open up for you. To share a baby and raise a child that look like both of you. To have a woman on your side to support and strengthen you, believe in you. (A help meet not a man meat) To struggle through life together sharing dreams, aspirations and failures. These things are blessings that God only gives to marriage as He set it up.
Where does God say anything about 'marriage'... or that it's exclusively between man and woman?
Evidence abounds that God homosexual relationships are prohibited in the Bible. That should clue everyone is on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyway...
Genesis 2:4
A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.
Matthew 19:4
In reply he said: Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh?
The Hebrew word wife, according to Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, connotes one who is a female human being.
Hebrews 13:4
'Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.'
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
-
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
So why then does god allow them to be created........I had a neighbor few house dong from me....... dat boy was born male ......and that's pretty much all she wrote there on that topic.......dat fella was gayer than ah goose from day1............father, "normal" brother.....i.e. enough stereotypical male influence and dat state never change ........dat eh no perversion, dat etched in dey design.............so god have to be one ruthless practical joker if he so detests someting he "intentionally" created..........yes intentionally ....he is after all "All knowing" not so. and the saints wrote d bible not god.......and they were men with opinions of there own and there opinions heavily influenced there writings .......Leviticus 25-27 could easily qualify as "sociopathy" if those writings wont part of d bible
-
You disregarding Genesis 2: 22-24?
And I really doubt that you believe that according to what was written in the Bible that a marriage is referenced as anything but a man and a woman.
As I said I doh subscribe to the Bible as the literal word of God eh, but to me it is clearly implied that marriage was between man and woman and not man/man or woman/woman.
Historically I challenge anyone to show marriages of man/man or woman/woman, well except for France lol.
what about man/woman+woman+woman+...+nth
that is a common occurrence with biblical figures
Like I said not everything in the bible is by Description some things were Prescribed by men. It would be a good study to find out the initial sociology on it though. I'm sure there were reasons beyond wanting to have sex with many women.
Kounty gay couples may share love but it would never be the same as male and female. If you don't believe there was an original intent for the creation of male and female then sure you can make an argument. But don't take BMW by Honda to fix, only the manufacture backs their brands.
As for those who don't subscribe to the bible they can get married also according to law upheld by another God given institution call Government.
-
You disregarding Genesis 2: 22-24?
And I really doubt that you believe that according to what was written in the Bible that a marriage is referenced as anything but a man and a woman.
As I said I doh subscribe to the Bible as the literal word of God eh, but to me it is clearly implied that marriage was between man and woman and not man/man or woman/woman.
Historically I challenge anyone to show marriages of man/man or woman/woman, well except for France lol.
I am not disregarding anything... God describes woman as being the perfect mate for man. Of course it is implied that the perfect union is between man and woman... and logically it makes sense, life can only come from heterosexual unions. But implications aside, nowhere is same sex marriage expressly prohibited, as opponents of same sex marriage would like to have us believe.
The best they can do is point to the teachings of Paul... left to whom women would be home scrubbing floors and none ah we would be bulling.
-
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
So why then does god allow them to be created........I had a neighbor few house dong from me....... dat boy was born male ......and that's pretty much all she wrote there on that topic.......dat fella was gayer than ah goose from day1............father, "normal" brother.....i.e. enough stereotypical male influence and dat state never change ........dat eh no perversion, dat etched in dey design.............so god have to be one ruthless practical joker if he so detests someting he "intentionally" created..........yes intentionally ....he is after all "All knowing" not so. and the saints wrote d bible not god.......and they were men with opinions of there own and there opinions heavily influenced there writings .......Leviticus 25-27 could easily qualify as "sociopathy" if those writings wont part of d bible
Lefty doh hurt yuh head with the bible and who write it etc etc. It simpler than that. Do you believe there is a God? What do you believe His stance is on the matter? Then let every man follow their own conscience. Easy as pie. I do have a minister friend and she is studying at a seminary that endorse gay and lesbian ministers. So she have many friends that are gay. She has said that in her conversations almost all have had some kind of sexual abuse.
This is what mankind is fighting
Eph6:12
For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.
-
btw. I wouldn't really go outa my way and march and 'support' no gay marriage...maybe in the future i might say alright like obama. but I doh dig how alyuh evangelicals does want to impose your bible (and a very silly interpretation of it too) on everybody.
Yuh see it? Me eh marching fuh nobody, but the Christians who pushing this setta bible talk on everybody have me real shaking my head... and I staunchly Christian too eh.
-
Evidence abounds that God homosexual relationships are prohibited in the Bible. That should clue everyone is on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyway...
Genesis 2:4
A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.
Matthew 19:4
In reply he said: Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh?
The Hebrew word wife, according to Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, connotes one who is a female human being.
Hebrews 13:4
'Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.'
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
None of this saying anything.
-
You disregarding Genesis 2: 22-24?
And I really doubt that you believe that according to what was written in the Bible that a marriage is referenced as anything but a man and a woman.
As I said I doh subscribe to the Bible as the literal word of God eh, but to me it is clearly implied that marriage was between man and woman and not man/man or woman/woman.
Historically I challenge anyone to show marriages of man/man or woman/woman, well except for France lol.
I am not disregarding anything... God describes woman as being the perfect mate for man. Of course it is implied that the perfect union is between man and woman... and logically it makes sense, life can only come from heterosexual unions. But implications aside, nowhere is same sex marriage expressly prohibited, as opponents of same sex marriage would like to have us believe.
The best they can do is point to the teachings of Paul... left to whom women would be home scrubbing floors and none ah we would be bulling.
You being unfair to Paul but since you know his teaching so well.
Rom.1:24-28
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
To you it seems like God ain't clear enough. I'll take my chances with the 'Righteous Judge.' To only One that will judge to living and the dead. I can guarantee nobody getting off on no technically. To me it loud and clear.
-
she have many friends that are gay. She has said that in her conversations almost all have had some kind of sexual abuse.
And...
Is that fair grounds to deny equal rights?
-
she have many friends that are gay. She has said that in her conversations almost all have had some kind of sexual abuse.
And...
Is that fair grounds to deny equal rights?
What you talking bout? Who denying rights? Aren't the states voting? How come that ain't good enough?
-
she have many friends that are gay. She has said that in her conversations almost all have had some kind of sexual abuse.
And...
Is that fair grounds to deny equal rights?
What you talking bout? Who denying rights? Aren't the states voting? How come that ain't good enough?
Opposition to same-sex marriage is ultimately opposition to certain rights based on sexual orientation...
So if you're in favor of denying gays the right to get married, you are ultimately in favor of denying them certain rights based on their sexual orientation...
So again I ask you - In your opinion, does your observation (or your friend's observation) of sexual abuse as a pattern among gay people serve as grounds for 1) opposing same-sex marriage, and 2) ultimately intending the to deny the rights of some, based on their sexual orientation?
And if not, then what is your point?
-
Evidence abounds that God homosexual relationships are prohibited in the Bible. That should clue everyone is on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyway...
Genesis 2:4
A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.
Matthew 19:4
In reply he said: Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh?
The Hebrew word wife, according to Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, connotes one who is a female human being.
Hebrews 13:4
'Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.'
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
Um what if I don't subscribe to the Bible? or any religion for that matter?
-
Evidence abounds that God homosexual relationships are prohibited in the Bible. That should clue everyone is on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyway...
Genesis 2:4
A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.
Matthew 19:4
In reply he said: Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh?
The Hebrew word wife, according to Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, connotes one who is a female human being.
Hebrews 13:4
'Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.'
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
Um what if I don't subscribe to the Bible? or any religion for that matter?
Good question..
-
she have many friends that are gay. She has said that in her conversations almost all have had some kind of sexual abuse.
And...
Is that fair grounds to deny equal rights?
What you talking bout? Who denying rights? Aren't the states voting? How come that ain't good enough?
Individual states should not determine universal human rights. If left to the states, where would blacks and women be?
-
And...
Is that fair grounds to deny equal rights?
What you talking bout? Who denying rights? Aren't the states voting? How come that ain't good enough?
[/quote]
Opposition to same-sex marriage is ultimately opposition to certain rights based on sexual orientation...
So if you're in favor of denying gays the right to get married, you are ultimately in favor of denying them certain rights based on their sexual orientation...
So again I ask you - In your opinion, does your observation (or your friend's observation) of sexual abuse as a pattern among gay people serve as grounds for 1) opposing same-sex marriage, and 2) ultimately intending the to deny the rights of some, based on their sexual orientation?
And if not, then what is your point?
[/quote]
Kicker you just jumpin my thing an trying to twisting it. You obviously didn't ready my response to Lefty. No scene though I does do it to. Anyways based on friend these are the same that claim that they were born this way. It was her opinion that they all confessed sexual abuse in their past that triggered certain things. That was my point to Lefty. Let the states vote on it. And let the voice of the people stand and don't criticize me for my vote. You know how much schools across America imposing Homosexuality on little children and parents ain't even getting to vote? Stop believing them sound bites. Stay on God side and keep straight.
-
You being unfair to Paul but since you know his teaching so well.
Rom.1:24-28
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
To you it seems like God ain't clear enough. I'll take my chances with the 'Righteous Judge.' To only One that will judge to living and the dead. I can guarantee nobody getting off on no technically. To me it loud and clear.
I think you need to better acquaint yuhself with Paul before you tell me that I am being 'unfair' to him. What I state is hardly my own opinion, although I did arrive at it independent of others.
All them scriptures yuh cite dey... Paul sure is clear enough, if yuh subscribe to the notion that Paul absolutely speaking for God then yeah, 'God' is pretty clear.
You talking about yuh'll take yuh chance with the "righteous judge" as though is you they bulling. You sinning yuh soul by saying "yeah, let them get married if they want to"? God holding you responsible for the actions of homosexuals now? What kinda unfair God is that? Not the God I serve.
...and yeah, "states" doh vote on individual rights, not sure where you get that from.
-
Well I like to support what God set originally. I've been on the world long enough to know that people does sometimes just make up stuff innately contrary to God's purpose and God doesn't kill em for it. Sometimes, people does feel they actually doing good with a good heart but they does be sincerely wrong. In studying the bible it's important to understand which was given by Description (God described what He wanted) and what was Prescription (leaders made decisions based on what they thought was best.) As far as I'm concerned God made Adam an Eve and He said "It is good." You know what good means in that context? It means perfection, it mean complete. It means everything needed to care for the earth was in place. So that's where you have to take up your issue. The old testament has a lot of old world history and practices in it that simply doesn't apply today. Many of it were just people doing stuff as they saw it. Whoever want to challenge God, go ahead. God ain't sweating, the breath we breathing is His anyway. Tic Toc for everybody. God is so gracious that at the end nobody could say that they didn't get enough rope. God's ways are so above our ways that we can't even begin to quantify His wisdom, mercy and above all His love for mankind. Look, marriage is an institution enacted by God Himself. He set the parameters and endorsed it as good. Now just like that chart Pecan post, men can do whatever they feel they need to do, follow lies, geneticist or demons. Do whatever you want but anything outside of those parameters does not get the seal from the big man as marriage. You can call it marriage but it won't be marriage and it won't have the blessing of the Most High. He's given marriage many blessings. To lay down with your wife and have her open up for you. To share a baby and raise a child that look like both of you. To have a woman on your side to support and strengthen you, believe in you. (A help meet not a man meat) To struggle through life together sharing dreams, aspirations and failures. These things are blessings that God only gives to marriage as He set it up.
Where does God say anything about 'marriage'... or that it's exclusively between man and woman?
Evidence abounds that God homosexual relationships are prohibited in the Bible. That should clue everyone is on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyway...
Genesis 2:4
A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.
Matthew 19:4
In reply he said: Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh?
The Hebrew word wife, according to Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, connotes one who is a female human being.
Hebrews 13:4
'Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.'
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
Evidence abounds that many God homosexual relationships things are prohibited or endorsed in the Bible. But we don't observe them. The following might be food for thought from a woman's perspective:
Genesis 2:18: NIV
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Yep. those women are help, not equals
Leviticus 12:2. NIV
"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.
Leviticus 12:5, NIV
If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
Leviticus 15:19 NIV
"'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
maybe we should be quarantining women when dey menstruating or just give birth - they are so unclean!! - and look thing - 2 weeks if the baby is female and then another 66 days to be purified!
So if one insists on using the Bible to define marriage, then I maintain these statements about women should be enforced too.
-
Kicker you just jumpin my thing an trying to twisting it. You obviously didn't ready my response to Lefty. No scene though I does do it to. Anyways based on friend these are the same that claim that they were born this way. It was her opinion that they all confessed sexual abuse in their past that triggered certain things. That was my point to Lefty. Let the states vote on it. And let the voice of the people stand and don't criticize me for my vote. You know how much schools across America imposing Homosexuality on little children and parents ain't even getting to vote? Stop believing them sound bites. Stay on God side and keep straight.
I not jumping on anything. I read your responses. I'm also not criticizing your "vote" either, I just asked a question - and you quite frankly still haven't answered it.
Anyway as you say, let the states vote (whatever that means) - that's fine.
-
Well I like to support what God set originally. I've been on the world long enough to know that people does sometimes just make up stuff innately contrary to God's purpose and God doesn't kill em for it. Sometimes, people does feel they actually doing good with a good heart but they does be sincerely wrong. In studying the bible it's important to understand which was given by Description (God described what He wanted) and what was Prescription (leaders made decisions based on what they thought was best.) As far as I'm concerned God made Adam an Eve and He said "It is good." You know what good means in that context? It means perfection, it mean complete. It means everything needed to care for the earth was in place. So that's where you have to take up your issue. The old testament has a lot of old world history and practices in it that simply doesn't apply today. Many of it were just people doing stuff as they saw it. Whoever want to challenge God, go ahead. God ain't sweating, the breath we breathing is His anyway. Tic Toc for everybody. God is so gracious that at the end nobody could say that they didn't get enough rope. God's ways are so above our ways that we can't even begin to quantify His wisdom, mercy and above all His love for mankind. Look, marriage is an institution enacted by God Himself. He set the parameters and endorsed it as good. Now just like that chart Pecan post, men can do whatever they feel they need to do, follow lies, geneticist or demons. Do whatever you want but anything outside of those parameters does not get the seal from the big man as marriage. You can call it marriage but it won't be marriage and it won't have the blessing of the Most High. He's given marriage many blessings. To lay down with your wife and have her open up for you. To share a baby and raise a child that look like both of you. To have a woman on your side to support and strengthen you, believe in you. (A help meet not a man meat) To struggle through life together sharing dreams, aspirations and failures. These things are blessings that God only gives to marriage as He set it up.
Where does God say anything about 'marriage'... or that it's exclusively between man and woman?
Evidence abounds that God homosexual relationships are prohibited in the Bible. That should clue everyone is on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyway...
Genesis 2:4
A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.
Matthew 19:4
In reply he said: Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh?
The Hebrew word wife, according to Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, connotes one who is a female human being.
Hebrews 13:4
'Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.'
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
Evidence abounds that many God homosexual relationships things are prohibited or endorsed in the Bible. But we don't observe them. The following might be food for thought from a woman's perspective:
Genesis 2:18: NIV
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Yep. those women are help, not equals
Leviticus 12:2. NIV
"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.
Leviticus 12:5, NIV
If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
Leviticus 15:19 NIV
"'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
maybe we should be quarantining women when dey menstruating or just give birth - they are so unclean!! - and look thing - 2 weeks if the baby is female and then another 66 days to be purified!
So if one insists on using the Bible to define marriage, then I maintain these statements about women should be enforced too.
First time i seeing this. Goes to show people pick and choose from the Bible to suit their needs.
-
Doh study dem by die hard - it's like data mining. If yuh mine a large enough amount of data, you will find stuff to support your argument.
Plantation owners and Pro-segregationists used to use the bible to support their beliefs too, when the morality of slavery and apartheid used to be called into question.
-
First time i seeing this. Goes to show people pick and choose from the Bible to suit their needs.
boy leviticus is\was ah headcase atleast in d end parts read 25-27, it only gets curiouser and curiouser, and d writing of St. Thomas are discredited and hidden because d man dear to say yuh doh need church if yuh have god in your heart.....steups
-
Evidence abounds that God homosexual relationships are prohibited in the Bible. That should clue everyone is on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyway...
Genesis 2:4
A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.
Matthew 19:4
In reply he said: Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh?
The Hebrew word wife, according to Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, connotes one who is a female human being.
Hebrews 13:4
'Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.'
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
None of this saying anything.
I read what you said about 'nowhere does it say that same-sex marriage is expressly prohibited' and was genuinely shocked.
So you would look at the abundantly clear prohibitions against homosexual relations, repeated assertions of marriage being a union of a man and woman and still try to argue that one cannot logically conclude that a homosexual marriage would be displeasing to the Creator.
If that is your assertion, then I have nothing else to say to you.
-
Well I like to support what God set originally. I've been on the world long enough to know that people does sometimes just make up stuff innately contrary to God's purpose and God doesn't kill em for it. Sometimes, people does feel they actually doing good with a good heart but they does be sincerely wrong. In studying the bible it's important to understand which was given by Description (God described what He wanted) and what was Prescription (leaders made decisions based on what they thought was best.) As far as I'm concerned God made Adam an Eve and He said "It is good." You know what good means in that context? It means perfection, it mean complete. It means everything needed to care for the earth was in place. So that's where you have to take up your issue. The old testament has a lot of old world history and practices in it that simply doesn't apply today. Many of it were just people doing stuff as they saw it. Whoever want to challenge God, go ahead. God ain't sweating, the breath we breathing is His anyway. Tic Toc for everybody. God is so gracious that at the end nobody could say that they didn't get enough rope. God's ways are so above our ways that we can't even begin to quantify His wisdom, mercy and above all His love for mankind. Look, marriage is an institution enacted by God Himself. He set the parameters and endorsed it as good. Now just like that chart Pecan post, men can do whatever they feel they need to do, follow lies, geneticist or demons. Do whatever you want but anything outside of those parameters does not get the seal from the big man as marriage. You can call it marriage but it won't be marriage and it won't have the blessing of the Most High. He's given marriage many blessings. To lay down with your wife and have her open up for you. To share a baby and raise a child that look like both of you. To have a woman on your side to support and strengthen you, believe in you. (A help meet not a man meat) To struggle through life together sharing dreams, aspirations and failures. These things are blessings that God only gives to marriage as He set it up.
Where does God say anything about 'marriage'... or that it's exclusively between man and woman?
Evidence abounds that God homosexual relationships are prohibited in the Bible. That should clue everyone is on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyway...
Genesis 2:4
“A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.”
Matthew 19:4
In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’?
The Hebrew word “wife,” according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, “connotes one who is a female human being.”
Hebrews 13:4
'Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.'
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
Evidence abounds that many God homosexual relationships things are prohibited or endorsed in the Bible. But we don't observe them. The following might be food for thought from a woman's perspective:
Genesis 2:18: NIV
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Yep. those women are help, not equals
Leviticus 12:2. NIV
"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.
Leviticus 12:5, NIV
If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
Leviticus 15:19 NIV
"'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
maybe we should be quarantining women when dey menstruating or just give birth - they are so unclean!! - and look thing - 2 weeks if the baby is female and then another 66 days to be purified!
So if one insists on using the Bible to define marriage, then I maintain these statements about women should be enforced too.
lol Jesus also described himself as a 'helper' to mankind - is that a dishonourable thing?
Also, your references to the women stuff is neither here nor there. :-\ Homosexuality is not only condemed in the Old Testament but the New as well.
-
Doh study dem by die hard - it's like data mining. If yuh mine a large enough amount of data, you will find stuff to support your argument.
Plantation owners and Pro-segregationists used to use the bible to support their beliefs too, when the morality of slavery and apartheid used to be called into question.
Yes, and it would be clear to anyone who is somewhat literate that the Bible does/did not preach either of those things. The reasons for slavery and the ensuing racism was sociological/economic - not religious so don't even go there.
-
Well I like to support what God set originally. I've been on the world long enough to know that people does sometimes just make up stuff innately contrary to God's purpose and God doesn't kill em for it. Sometimes, people does feel they actually doing good with a good heart but they does be sincerely wrong. In studying the bible it's important to understand which was given by Description (God described what He wanted) and what was Prescription (leaders made decisions based on what they thought was best.) As far as I'm concerned God made Adam an Eve and He said "It is good." You know what good means in that context? It means perfection, it mean complete. It means everything needed to care for the earth was in place. So that's where you have to take up your issue. The old testament has a lot of old world history and practices in it that simply doesn't apply today. Many of it were just people doing stuff as they saw it. Whoever want to challenge God, go ahead. God ain't sweating, the breath we breathing is His anyway. Tic Toc for everybody. God is so gracious that at the end nobody could say that they didn't get enough rope. God's ways are so above our ways that we can't even begin to quantify His wisdom, mercy and above all His love for mankind. Look, marriage is an institution enacted by God Himself. He set the parameters and endorsed it as good. Now just like that chart Pecan post, men can do whatever they feel they need to do, follow lies, geneticist or demons. Do whatever you want but anything outside of those parameters does not get the seal from the big man as marriage. You can call it marriage but it won't be marriage and it won't have the blessing of the Most High. He's given marriage many blessings. To lay down with your wife and have her open up for you. To share a baby and raise a child that look like both of you. To have a woman on your side to support and strengthen you, believe in you. (A help meet not a man meat) To struggle through life together sharing dreams, aspirations and failures. These things are blessings that God only gives to marriage as He set it up.
Where does God say anything about 'marriage'... or that it's exclusively between man and woman?
Evidence abounds that God homosexual relationships are prohibited in the Bible. That should clue everyone is on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyway...
Genesis 2:4
“A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.”
Matthew 19:4
In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’?
The Hebrew word “wife,” according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, “connotes one who is a female human being.”
Hebrews 13:4
'Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.'
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
Evidence abounds that many God homosexual relationships things are prohibited or endorsed in the Bible. But we don't observe them. The following might be food for thought from a woman's perspective:
Genesis 2:18: NIV
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Yep. those women are help, not equals
Leviticus 12:2. NIV
"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.
Leviticus 12:5, NIV
If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
Leviticus 15:19 NIV
"'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
maybe we should be quarantining women when dey menstruating or just give birth - they are so unclean!! - and look thing - 2 weeks if the baby is female and then another 66 days to be purified!
So if one insists on using the Bible to define marriage, then I maintain these statements about women should be enforced too.
First time i seeing this. Goes to show people pick and choose from the Bible to suit their needs.
It is not a matter of people picking and choosing. The Mosaic Law became obsolete once the new covenant was made through Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. Which is also why it is no longer necessary to observe the sabbath amongst other things. You cannot compare day-to-day life of the jewish people under Mosaic law to the actual commands of the Bible. Bit ridiculous, methinks.
-
You being unfair to Paul but since you know his teaching so well.
Rom.1:24-28
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
To you it seems like God ain't clear enough. I'll take my chances with the 'Righteous Judge.' To only One that will judge to living and the dead. I can guarantee nobody getting off on no technically. To me it loud and clear.
I think you need to better acquaint yuhself with Paul before you tell me that I am being 'unfair' to him. What I state is hardly my own opinion, although I did arrive at it independent of others.
All them scriptures yuh cite dey... Paul sure is clear enough, if yuh subscribe to the notion that Paul absolutely speaking for God then yeah, 'God' is pretty clear.
You talking about yuh'll take yuh chance with the "righteous judge" as though is you they bulling. You sinning yuh soul by saying "yeah, let them get married if they want to"? God holding you responsible for the actions of homosexuals now? What kinda unfair God is that? Not the God I serve.
...and yeah, "states" doh vote on individual rights, not sure where you get that from.
I not going an get into no personal insults with you, my point is simple. Let everybody do want they feel they need to do. Yuh want to be with a man, then do it. Anybody who don't believe in God or the bible fine. Everybody should make up their bed and make themselves comfortable. In all this talk I've never insulted anyone for their view. I've simply stated what I believe. I ain't judging nobody or condemning anyone either. The same Bible I quote states that all men are condemned but for God's grace. Anyone could reach to heaven with a pure heart and find the answers they need. Fear God and keep His commands.
-
People use this 'don't judge' thing as a defence against everything. Saying what is right and wrong according to the scriptures is not judging.
If you don't subscribe to the bible, fine - but don't try to get into scriptural arguments and when you can't sway others you bawl out 'don't judge'.
Because the Bible also says:
Woe to those who are saying that good is bad and bad is good, those who are putting darkness for light and light for darkness, those who are putting bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
-
First time i seeing this. Goes to show people pick and choose from the Bible to suit their needs.
boy leviticus iswas ah headcase atleast in d end parts read 25-27, it only gets curiouser and curiouser, and d writing of St. Thomas are discredited and hidden because d man dear to say yuh doh need church if yuh have god in your heart.....steups
I have heard about parts of the bible hidden away. The Vatican have text that they don't even allow people outside to see. Makes you wonder.
-
Evidence abounds that God homosexual relationships are prohibited in the Bible. That should clue everyone is on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyway...
Genesis 2:4
A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.
Matthew 19:4
In reply he said: Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh?
The Hebrew word wife, according to Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, connotes one who is a female human being.
Hebrews 13:4
'Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.'
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
Um what if I don't subscribe to the Bible? or any religion for that matter?
1) I don't recall my response being to you.
2) Other people brought the Bible into this which is what I responded to. If you don't believe in the Bible then I suggest you keep it moving. :-\
-
Obama just lost my vote.
I guess everyone really have a price...
-
Equal rights and justice is the pinnacle? Then gay racists didn't get the memo?
-
Genesis 2:4
A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.
Doesn't say anything about homosexual marriage.
Matthew 19:4
In reply he said: Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh?
The Hebrew word wife, according to Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, connotes one who is a female human being.
Doesn't say anything about homosexual marriage.
Hebrews 13:4
'Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.'
Doesn't say anything about homosexual marriage.
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
...yeah, opinion Doesn't say anything about homosexual marriage.
I read what you said about 'nowhere does it say that same-sex marriage is expressly prohibited' and was genuinely shocked.
So you would look at the abundantly clear prohibitions against homosexual relations, repeated assertions of marriage being a union of a man and woman and still try to argue that one cannot logically conclude that a homosexual marriage would be displeasing to the Creator.
If that is your assertion, then I have nothing else to say to you.
You were saying?
-
I not going an get into no personal insults with you, my point is simple. Let everybody do want they feel they need to do. Yuh want to be with a man, then do it. Anybody who don't believe in God or the bible fine. Everybody should make up their bed and make themselves comfortable. In all this talk I've never insulted anyone for their view. I've simply stated what I believe. I ain't judging nobody or condemning anyone either. The same Bible I quote states that all men are condemned but for God's grace. Anyone could reach to heaven with a pure heart and find the answers they need. Fear God and keep His commands.
Lol... who insult you breds?
Doh study dem by die hard - it's like data mining. If yuh mine a large enough amount of data, you will find stuff to support your argument.
Plantation owners and Pro-segregationists used to use the bible to support their beliefs too, when the morality of slavery and apartheid used to be called into question.
Yes, and it would be clear to anyone who is somewhat literate that the Bible does/did not preach either of those things. The reasons for slavery and the ensuing racism was sociological/economic - not religious so don't even go there.
Toppa now yuh just picking and choosing. The reasons for marriage were also "sociological/economic"... but the bible "does/did not preach" slavery and apartheid but it preaches about marriage? Get real, lol.
-
It is not a matter of people picking and choosing. The Mosaic Law became obsolete once the new covenant was made through Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. Which is also why it is no longer necessary to observe the sabbath amongst other things. You cannot compare day-to-day life of the jewish people under Mosaic law to the actual commands of the Bible. Bit ridiculous, methinks.
False... Christ himself say he didn't come to abolish the law, so what made it "obsolete"? Even so, in saying that he is the New Covenant was speaking specifically about the requirements of the old covenant Moses made with God being no longer necessary from a religious standpoint... he wasn't talking about what you term "Mosaic law".
-
Yes, and it would be clear to anyone who is somewhat literate that the Bible does/did not preach either of those things. The reasons for slavery and the ensuing racism was sociological/economic - not religious so don't even go there.
Toppa now yuh just picking and choosing. The reasons for marriage were also "sociological/economic"... but the bible "does/did not preach" slavery and apartheid but it preaches about marriage? Get real, lol.
Thanks Bakes - Toppa you for real? lol
-
Obama just lost my vote.
I guess everyone really have a price...
who you voting for Romney ? :devil:
-
1) I don't recall my response being to you.
Didn't know this was an invitation thing. Who was addressing you when you make your first entry on this thread?
2) Other people brought the Bible into this which is what I responded to. If you don't believe in the Bible then I suggest you keep it moving. :-\
Understandable, but it's not like a send yuh the question by PM, it is for anyone ot answer or comment on...
but I ask the question because the context of this debate is about laws governing same-sex relationships. I know we gone off on a "what the Bible say" tangent but even if we accept that the Bible say that homosexuality is sin...then what? The Bible can't be a foundation for law-making in a democracy where you claim to have separation of Church and State.
How different would it be from a state run under Sharia law if we use one religion or ten religions to justify a legal definition of marriage?
The component of marriage in the public debate is not the religious one, but the social and economic one. The debate is about same-sex couples that operate in society in the same way as traditional couples being granted equal economic and social rights under the law. Rights to healthcare coverage, next of kin status, child support, child visitation priveleges in the event of a break-up etc.
Those in opposition to same-sex marriage recognition under the law need to come out and say that they believe same-sex couples are less equal than heterosexual couples and why?
-
Paul said it was better to marry than to burn.
I find it incredulous that anyone can argue that marriage was not between man and woman from the beginning!
Now as I said if the homos want to marry let them, no skin off my back, but the fact is man always married women and vice versa, not man and man and woman and woman.
Marriage as defined in the Bible and other Holy Books all relate to man and woman!
Any argument otherwise is weak. Customs and traditions are important and marriage is man and woman...plain and simple.
Now if we want to have marriage evolve to include man and man and woman and woman cool, but it is clear that marriage was between a man and a woman from the get go.
-
Paul said it was better to marry than to burn.
I find it incredulous that anyone can argue that marriage was not between man and woman from the beginning!
Now as I said if the homos want to marry let them, no skin off my back, but the fact is man always married women and vice versa, not man and man and woman and woman.
Marriage as defined in the Bible and other Holy Books all relate to man and woman!
Any argument otherwise is weak. Customs and traditions are important and marriage is man and woman...plain and simple.
Now if we want to have marriage evolve to include man and man and woman and woman cool, but it is clear that marriage was between a man and a woman from the get go.
I think you need to stop making strawman arguments... I don't recall anybody saying marriage was not between man and woman "from the beginning". The point is that the Bible doesn't define it as being exclusively between man and woman.
...actually, for that matter where in the bible is marriage defined at all?
You criticizing others for "weak" arguments, yet have nerve to be basing yours on "customs and traditions" in the same breath? Do we even have to address some ah de questionable "customs and traditions" in the Bible?
-
weak arguments? How many laws are based on customs and traditions?
Isn't common law based on civil traditions?
Come on man, it is clear that the Bible defines marriage as between a man and woman.
Eph. 5:23-32 clearly defines marriage with a nice background from Gen. 2:18, 21-24
Now yuh go make people feel I believe in Bible and God etc.
-
weak arguments? How many laws are based on customs and traditions?
Isn't common law based on civil traditions?
Come on man, it is clear that the Bible defines marriage as between a man and woman.
Eph. 5:23-32 clearly defines marriage with a nice background from Gen. 2:18, 21-24
Now yuh go make people feel I believe in Bible and God etc.
What does "common law" have to do with anything? The fact of the matter is that you're making a weak-ass argument that the bible say marriage is exclusively between man and woman, if all you have to point to is "customs and traditions". At the end of the day the law is still decided based on facts, something which yuh lacking right now.
Those passages from Ephesians and Genesis don't "define" marriage as between man and woman... they describe a heterosexual marriage. Since the Bible does not describe any homosexual marriages a fair inference may be drawn that homosexual marriages are prohibited by God/the Bible... but the absence of such isn't the same as a clear prohibition. You can't make the leap to go from an inference to saying "the Bible/God says". Big difference.
-
Genesis 2:4
“A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.”
Doesn't say anything about homosexual marriage.
Matthew 19:4
In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’?
The Hebrew word “wife,” according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, “connotes one who is a female human being.”
Doesn't say anything about homosexual marriage.
Hebrews 13:4
'Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.'
Doesn't say anything about homosexual marriage.
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
...yeah, opinion Doesn't say anything about homosexual marriage.
I read what you said about 'nowhere does it say that same-sex marriage is expressly prohibited' and was genuinely shocked.
So you would look at the abundantly clear prohibitions against homosexual relations, repeated assertions of marriage being a union of a man and woman and still try to argue that one cannot logically conclude that a homosexual marriage would be displeasing to the Creator.
If that is your assertion, then I have nothing else to say to you.
You were saying?
Excuse me but you started off saying that the Bible never spoke of the exclusivity of marriage being between a man and a woman - I showed you evidence of this.
You also made another gaffe and im[lied that the Bible never mentions 'marriage' in the first place. I provided evidence of this.
But based on your reasoning...would you also say that God would be in favour of a man marrying an animal? Since the Bible doesn't expressly prohibit it, of course.
I mean, I could understand arguing for arguing sake - but this just makes ZERO sense. I am really surprised.
-
I not going an get into no personal insults with you, my point is simple. Let everybody do want they feel they need to do. Yuh want to be with a man, then do it. Anybody who don't believe in God or the bible fine. Everybody should make up their bed and make themselves comfortable. In all this talk I've never insulted anyone for their view. I've simply stated what I believe. I ain't judging nobody or condemning anyone either. The same Bible I quote states that all men are condemned but for God's grace. Anyone could reach to heaven with a pure heart and find the answers they need. Fear God and keep His commands.
Lol... who insult you breds?
Doh study dem by die hard - it's like data mining. If yuh mine a large enough amount of data, you will find stuff to support your argument.
Plantation owners and Pro-segregationists used to use the bible to support their beliefs too, when the morality of slavery and apartheid used to be called into question.
Yes, and it would be clear to anyone who is somewhat literate that the Bible does/did not preach either of those things. The reasons for slavery and the ensuing racism was sociological/economic - not religious so don't even go there.
Toppa now yuh just picking and choosing. The reasons for marriage were also "sociological/economic"... but the bible "does/did not preach" slavery and apartheid but it preaches about marriage? Get real, lol.
What were the sociological/economic reason for marriage expressed in the Bible?
Kicker was implying that slavery, apartheid and by proxy racisim had religious roots. That is not true as any student of history should know.
-
It is not a matter of people picking and choosing. The Mosaic Law became obsolete once the new covenant was made through Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. Which is also why it is no longer necessary to observe the sabbath amongst other things. You cannot compare day-to-day life of the jewish people under Mosaic law to the actual commands of the Bible. Bit ridiculous, methinks.
False... Christ himself say he didn't come to abolish the law, so what made it "obsolete"? Even so, in saying that he is the New Covenant was speaking specifically about the requirements of the old covenant Moses made with God being no longer necessary from a religious standpoint... he wasn't talking about what you term "Mosaic law".
So then what was he talking about if it were not the Mosaic law such as circumcision and observing the sabbath?
Also, the fact that the Jews were no longer required to follow the Mosaic law and the fact that Christ's sacrifice also extended to the gentiles, made the Mosaic law obsolete.
obsolete/ˌbsəˈlēt/
Adjective:
No longer produced or used; out of date.
Verb:
Cause (a product or idea) to be or become obsolete by replacing it with something new: "we're obsoleting last year's designs".
-
Yes, and it would be clear to anyone who is somewhat literate that the Bible does/did not preach either of those things. The reasons for slavery and the ensuing racism was sociological/economic - not religious so don't even go there.
Toppa now yuh just picking and choosing. The reasons for marriage were also "sociological/economic"... but the bible "does/did not preach" slavery and apartheid but it preaches about marriage? Get real, lol.
Thanks Bakes - Toppa you for real? lol
See my response to Bakes.
-
weak arguments? How many laws are based on customs and traditions?
Isn't common law based on civil traditions?
Come on man, it is clear that the Bible defines marriage as between a man and woman.
Eph. 5:23-32 clearly defines marriage with a nice background from Gen. 2:18, 21-24
Now yuh go make people feel I believe in Bible and God etc.
What does "common law" have to do with anything? The fact of the matter is that you're making a weak-ass argument that the bible say marriage is exclusively between man and woman, if all you have to point to is "customs and traditions". At the end of the day the law is still decided based on facts, something which yuh lacking right now.
Those passages from Ephesians and Genesis don't "define" marriage as between man and woman... they describe a heterosexual marriage. Since the Bible does not describe any homosexual marriages a fair inference may be drawn that homosexual marriages are prohibited by God/the Bible... but the absence of such isn't the same as a clear prohibition. You can't make the leap to go from an inference to saying "the Bible/God says". Big difference.
hahaha Ok, homosexuality is roundly condemned, Sodom and Gomorrah got fire and brimstone for that amongst other things and yet you would sit down and say that a homosexual marriage might be ok afterall! LOL
So as I asked before, would God also approve of a man marrying an animal?
-
1) I don't recall my response being to you.
Didn't know this was an invitation thing. Who was addressing you when you make your first entry on this thread?
2) Other people brought the Bible into this which is what I responded to. If you don't believe in the Bible then I suggest you keep it moving. :-\
Understandable, but it's not like a send yuh the question by PM, it is for anyone ot answer or comment on...
but I ask the question because the context of this debate is about laws governing same-sex relationships. I know we gone off on a "what the Bible say" tangent but even if we accept that the Bible say that homosexuality is sin...then what? The Bible can't be a foundation for law-making in a democracy where you claim to have separation of Church and State.
How different would it be from a state run under Sharia law if we use one religion or ten religions to justify a legal definition of marriage?
The component of marriage in the public debate is not the religious one, but the social and economic one. The debate is about same-sex couples that operate in society in the same way as traditional couples being granted equal economic and social rights under the law. Rights to healthcare coverage, next of kin status, child support, child visitation priveleges in the event of a break-up etc.
Those in opposition to same-sex marriage recognition under the law need to come out and say that they believe same-sex couples are less equal than heterosexual couples and why?
I don't vote, I don't participate in politics, I have no party allegiance. I simply observe politics with wry cynicism.
I state my opinions on matters (when I feel like it) whether they are of a religious basis or not.
To the rest of your post, you will be better served being answered by someone who actually does participates in politics, not by me.
I entered this discussion when the Bible was brought in and all the replies have revolved around that.
-
BHO is first and foremost a Politician: One in six of his bundlers is openly gay. Funds were drying up from this community. Every election cycle he had changed his views either for or against. In 1994 he supported same sex marriage, in 2004 he was against it, in 2006 against it, 2008 against it, 2008 post elections to 2010 evolving, 2010 he employed the first openly gay Maitre D at the White House. I'm sure his campaign/election team ran the numbers and felt that this was a secure way to go: He has the black vote (% wise the largest voting block opposed to same sex marriage) even if he took this open stance on same sex marriage, the majority would still vote for him. BHO has to make this elections about social issues and not his record. :beermug:
I really felt the christians defending the bible could have articulated a stronger argument :-\
-
BHO is first and foremost a Politician: One in six of his bundlers is openly gay. Funds were drying up from this community. Every election cycle he had changed his views either for or against. In 1994 he supported same sex marriage, in 2004 he was against it, in 2006 against it, 2008 against it, 2008 post elections to 2010 evolving, 2010 he employed the first openly gay Maitre D at the White House. I'm sure his campaign/election team ran the numbers and felt that this was a secure way to go: He has the black vote (% wise the largest voting block opposed to same sex marriage) even if he took this open stance on same sex marriage, the majority would still vote for him. BHO has to make this elections about social issues and not his record. :beermug:
I really felt the christians defending the bible could have articulated a stronger argument :-\
Agree with your point of him simply being a politician which reinforces my sentiment of politics and politicians being devoid of any kind of integrity. Don't know why people still pin all their hopes on them.
But what 'stronger argument' should I(?) have made?
-
What were the sociological/economic reason for marriage expressed in the Bible?
Kicker was implying that slavery, apartheid and by proxy racisim had religious roots. That is not true as any student of history should know.
Where did I imply that? I said that the separatists used the bible to justify their actions when it was called into question -Any student of history should know that. There's a big difference between saying that and saying that slavery and apartheid had religious roots - even though there are some that will argue that as well (it was not my argument - I don't know enough to support that).
And Bakes' point was not that the socio-economics of marriage are discussed in the bible - his point is that even despite the construct of marriage being highly "economic and sociological", the bible still does comment on it - so to denounce a discussion of slavery, apartheid and the bible on the basis of it being "economic and sociological" makes no sense.
-
Understandable, but it's not like a send yuh the question by PM, it is for anyone ot answer or comment on...
but I ask the question because the context of this debate is about laws governing same-sex relationships. I know we gone off on a "what the Bible say" tangent but even if we accept that the Bible say that homosexuality is sin...then what? The Bible can't be a foundation for law-making in a democracy where you claim to have separation of Church and State.
How different would it be from a state run under Sharia law if we use one religion or ten religions to justify a legal definition of marriage?
The component of marriage in the public debate is not the religious one, but the social and economic one. The debate is about same-sex couples that operate in society in the same way as traditional couples being granted equal economic and social rights under the law. Rights to healthcare coverage, next of kin status, child support, child visitation priveleges in the event of a break-up etc.
Those in opposition to same-sex marriage recognition under the law need to come out and say that they believe same-sex couples are less equal than heterosexual couples and why?
I don't vote, I don't participate in politics, I have no party allegiance. I simply observe politics with wry cynicism.
I state my opinions on matters (when I feel like it) whether they are of a religious basis or not.
To the rest of your post, you will be better served being answered by someone who actually does participates in politics, not by me.
I entered this discussion when the Bible was brought in and all the replies have revolved around that.
lol Toppa you can answer the question without being a voter - come on. You don't need to "participate in politics" to have an opinion on equal rights - that makes no sense. The point that JDB is making is the greater point - it's the point that I made earlier too - and as lefty pointed it out - EVERYONE in this thread opposed to same-sex marriage side steps it. In fact this whole long discussion about whether the bible condemns or condones homosexual marriage is an intentional distraction from the equal rights issue at hand.
-
I don't vote, I don't participate in politics, I have no party allegiance. I simply observe politics with wry cynicism.
I state my opinions on matters (when I feel like it) whether they are of a religious basis or not.
To the rest of your post, you will be better served being answered by someone who actually does participates in politics, not by me.
I entered this discussion when the Bible was brought in and all the replies have revolved around that.
That's a shame... it should really be the other way around for the very least.
-
What were the sociological/economic reason for marriage expressed in the Bible?
Kicker was implying that slavery, apartheid and by proxy racisim had religious roots. That is not true as any student of history should know.
Where did I imply that? I said that the separatists used the bible to justify their actions when it was called into question -Any student of history should know that. There's a big difference between saying that and saying that slavery and apartheid had religious roots - even though there are some that will argue that as well (it was not my argument - I don't know enough to support that).
And Bakes' point was not that the socio-economics of marriage are discussed in the bible - his point is that even despite the construct of marriage being highly "economic and sociological", the bible still does comment on it - so to denounce a discussion of slavery, apartheid and the bible on the basis of it being "economic and sociological" makes no sense.
This is what you said:
Plantation owners and Pro-segregationists used to use the bible to support their beliefs too, when the morality of slavery and apartheid used to be called into question.
Were you not implying that people who oppose homosexual marriage based on the scriptures are akin to those who justified slavery and apartheid?
Well in case you did not know, the Bible is VERY clear in its condemnation of homosexuality whereas nothing in the Bible could have been used to justify the trans-atlantic slave trade, slavery in the Americas or apartheid in South Africa. ::)
So take your time and don't try to act as though you weren't making that comparison. Hence my 'anyone who could read...' comment.
And that was not what Bakes was saying.
-
Understandable, but it's not like a send yuh the question by PM, it is for anyone ot answer or comment on...
but I ask the question because the context of this debate is about laws governing same-sex relationships. I know we gone off on a "what the Bible say" tangent but even if we accept that the Bible say that homosexuality is sin...then what? The Bible can't be a foundation for law-making in a democracy where you claim to have separation of Church and State.
How different would it be from a state run under Sharia law if we use one religion or ten religions to justify a legal definition of marriage?
The component of marriage in the public debate is not the religious one, but the social and economic one. The debate is about same-sex couples that operate in society in the same way as traditional couples being granted equal economic and social rights under the law. Rights to healthcare coverage, next of kin status, child support, child visitation priveleges in the event of a break-up etc.
Those in opposition to same-sex marriage recognition under the law need to come out and say that they believe same-sex couples are less equal than heterosexual couples and why?
I don't vote, I don't participate in politics, I have no party allegiance. I simply observe politics with wry cynicism.
I state my opinions on matters (when I feel like it) whether they are of a religious basis or not.
To the rest of your post, you will be better served being answered by someone who actually does participates in politics, not by me.
I entered this discussion when the Bible was brought in and all the replies have revolved around that.
lol Toppa you can answer the question without being a voter - come on. You don't need to "participate in politics" to have an opinion on equal rights - that makes no sense. The point that JDB is making is the greater point - it's the point that I made earlier too - and as lefty pointed it out - EVERYONE in this thread opposed to same-sex marriage side steps it. In fact this whole long discussion about whether the bible condemns or condones homosexual marriage is an intentional distraction from the equal rights issue at hand.
Smarty pants - you are discussing a different issue. You are getting into the realm of the state and secular affairs on which I am quite content not to express an opinion. I will maintain my neutrality on those things. Let the state do what it wants but when it comes down to it: you can change the laws of man but you can't change the laws of God. I am not going to sanction gay marriage or say that it is OK. That seems to bother people like you a great deal, but ho hum.
-
I don't vote, I don't participate in politics, I have no party allegiance. I simply observe politics with wry cynicism.
I state my opinions on matters (when I feel like it) whether they are of a religious basis or not.
To the rest of your post, you will be better served being answered by someone who actually does participates in politics, not by me.
I entered this discussion when the Bible was brought in and all the replies have revolved around that.
That's a shame... it should really be the other way around for the very least.
Why, though?
-
toppa as much as i disagree with yuh view yuh were at least attempting to make some points..but as yuh bring up man marrying animals..that is de stupidest point pple bring up when it comes to gay marriage.
We are talking about two consenting adults! So throw away that argument.
-
I endorse a civil union with all the social and economic rights mentioned afforded to same-sex couples.
What i doh endorse is same sex couples going to a church, before a priest or minister, putting a hand on a Bible and being married in a religious ceremony. That to me is against the central tenet of any Bible-centric religion, which is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I can't believe people here actually arguing that the Bible does not expressly prohibit same sex marriage as if there is some kinda backdoor provision or technicality to allow such.
It is not about believing that same-sex couples are less than equal in any way, that is just an accusation used by proponents of same sex marriages to label opponents as discriminatory for holding on to what they know as true in their religion. From a purely legal and constitutional perspective, it is difficult to oppose anyone's rights to anything, but when you view these things from a religious perspective i can't see how that could ever be right (i admittedly view it from this perspective). And the fact of the matter is that the line of separation between church and state is blurred.
Funny place this world is, and sometimes i shudder to think of what the world is coming to.
I believe in the future, likely in my lifetime, that there will be no big distinction between the genders... Children will grow up with a choice, be it heterosexual or homosexual seeing as anything goes under the prevailing societal norms. Its only a matter of time.
-
toppa as much as i disagree with yuh view yuh were at least attempting to make some points..but as yuh bring up man marrying animals..that is de stupidest point pple bring up when it comes to gay marriage.
We are talking about two consenting adults! So throw away that argument.
::)
Excuse me, if you were following along you would see that it was in response to Bakes trying to reason that because the Bible does not explicitly say that homosexual marriages are prohibited that it could be logical to assume that it might be ok.
So I mentioned that the Bible also does not explicitly say that a man/woman cannot marry an animal, would he also say that a Bestial marriage could be a possibility according to the Bible?
Chill yuh bills.
And I would also like to add that 'consent' is not the issue here whether you're talking about homosexuals or animals. That is the stupidest point ppple bring up when it comes to gay marriage!!! ::)
-
see my edit toppa..i apologised
oh now see the edit didnt post..but i was saying i read again and saw what you were saying..Glad to see you agree on the point people like to bring up about animals tho
-
see my edit toppa..i apologised
oh now see the edit didnt post..but i was saying i read again and saw what you were saying..Glad to see you agree on the point people like to bring up about animals tho
Ok, I didn't see the edit but thank you. And I was actually be facetious in the last part. *smiles* Sorry.
-
This is what you said:
Plantation owners and Pro-segregationists used to use the bible to support their beliefs too, when the morality of slavery and apartheid used to be called into question.
Were you not implying that people who oppose homosexual marriage based on the scriptures are akin to those who justified slavery and apartheid?
No. I was just saying that the practice of picking and choosing language from a large pool of data/information to support your point doesn't always yield a conclusive argument - the segregationist piece was an example of such. First you accuse me of implying that slavery had it's roots in the religion - now you're saying I'm implying that one set of people are akin to another set of people...are you just throwing everything against the wall and hoping for something to stick?
Well in case you did not know, the Bible is VERY clear in its condemnation of homosexuality whereas nothing in the Bible could have been used to justify the trans-atlantic slave trade, slavery in the Americas or apartheid in South Africa. ::)
Ok if you say so. I was talking about Apartheid in America btw.
So take your time and don't try to act as though you weren't making that comparison. Hence my 'anyone who could read...' comment.
Easy lol. Doh buff meh so nuh... I wasn't trying to act as though anything - I think I explained myself clearly - If you don't understand it, then we can just leave it there.
And that was not what Bakes was saying.
That is what he was saying - but I'll leave it to him to clarify
Anyways I was saying, the larger point for me is about equal rights...I think that the use of the bible to support a position against same-sex marriage is a distraction from that larger more important issue. Despite me disagreeing with his overall position, I think Preacher put it in good perspective in his last post:
"I've simply stated what I believe. I ain't judging nobody or condemning anyone either. The same Bible I quote states that all men are condemned but for God's grace. Anyone could reach to heaven with a pure heart and find the answers they need."
Truetrini also made a good point about our understanding of sexuality evolving since the days the bible was written - I think that speaks volumes... On the other side of the coin, I concur with alot of what is being said by JDB and Bakes too...so across the spectrum there is a common ground if we willing to share it.
-
It is not about believing that same-sex couples are less than equal in any way, that is just an accusation used by proponents of same sex marriages to label opponents as discriminatory for holding on to what they know as true in their religion.
That's actually not true.
And if you think the only people using the bible to define marriage are those holding on to what is true in their religion, I think yuh being real naive...
I believe in the future, likely in my lifetime, that there will be no big distinction between the genders... Children will grow up with a choice, be it heterosexual or homosexual seeing as anything goes under the prevailing societal norms. Its only a matter of time.[/b]
You really think sexual orientation is a choice? I find that opinion hard to reason with. I didn't choose my sexual orientation....I don't see why it's reasonable to assume that gays chose to be gay.
-
This is what you said:
Plantation owners and Pro-segregationists used to use the bible to support their beliefs too, when the morality of slavery and apartheid used to be called into question.
Were you not implying that people who oppose homosexual marriage based on the scriptures are akin to those who justified slavery and apartheid?
No. I was just saying that the practice of picking and choosing language from a large pool of data/information to support your point doesn't always yield a conclusive argument - the segregationist piece was an example of such. First you accuse me of implying that slavery had it's roots in the religion - now you're saying I'm implying that one set of people are akin to another set of people...are you just throwing everything against the wall and hoping for something to stick?
Well in case you did not know, the Bible is VERY clear in its condemnation of homosexuality whereas nothing in the Bible could have been used to justify the trans-atlantic slave trade, slavery in the Americas or apartheid in South Africa. ::)
Ok if you say so. I was talking about Apartheid in America btw.
So take your time and don't try to act as though you weren't making that comparison. Hence my 'anyone who could read...' comment.
Easy lol. Doh buff meh so nuh... I wasn't trying to act as though anything - I think I explained myself clearly - If you don't understand it, then we can just leave it there.
And that was not what Bakes was saying.
That is what he was saying - but I'll leave it to him to clarify
Anyways I was saying, the larger point for me is about equal rights...I think that the use of the bible to support a position against same-sex marriage is a distraction from that larger more important issue. Despite me disagreeing with his overall position, I think Preacher put it in good perspective in his last post:
"I've simply stated what I believe. I ain't judging nobody or condemning anyone either. The same Bible I quote states that all men are condemned but for God's grace. Anyone could reach to heaven with a pure heart and find the answers they need."
Truetrini also made a good point about our understanding of sexuality evolving since the days the bible was written - I think that speaks volumes... On the other side of the coin, I concur with alot of what is being said by JDB and Bakes too...so across the spectrum there is a common ground if we willing to share it.
Well let me say that this 'marriage' debate is not a matter of 'equal rights' to me as you can claim any and everything is your right and cry discrimination if you're not getting it.
I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman and that is the way it has been since the beginning.
What gay rights groups are trying to do is re-define what a marriage is to include their 'unions'. But how can it be a 'rights violation' if that right had never been accorded such relationships in the first place? There is no rights violation.
If you are saying that people who maintain the view that marriage is solely between a man and a woman should change their perspective because one group has a loud mouth and they call you ignorant and bigoted if you don't agree with them, well...we're never going to see eye-to-eye as I have no intention of changing my view and have not been provided with any satisfactory reasons as to why I should.
Because even when offered all the civil rights as accorded to married heter-sexual couples they still cry discrimination because of the term civil union as opposed to marriage which tells me that it is much deeper than just legal rights.
-
It is not about believing that same-sex couples are less than equal in any way, that is just an accusation used by proponents of same sex marriages to label opponents as discriminatory for holding on to what they know as true in their religion.
That's actually not true.
And if you think the only people using the bible to define marriage are those holding on to what is true in their religion, I think yuh being real naive...
I believe in the future, likely in my lifetime, that there will be no big distinction between the genders... Children will grow up with a choice, be it heterosexual or homosexual seeing as anything goes under the prevailing societal norms. Its only a matter of time.[/b]
You really think sexual orientation is a choice? I find that opinion hard to reason with. I didn't choose my sexual orientation....I don't see why it's reasonable to assume that gays chose to be gay.
I know you're talking to Dinho and not to me but there are all sorts of sexual proclivities - not just homosexuality but others that are still, for the time being, considered...'vices' at best. Are we to just accept that they are all just inate and only deserving of a shrug?
For me, it is still a matter of right and wrong.
-
I believe in the future, likely in my lifetime, that there will be no big distinction between the genders... Children will grow up with a choice, be it heterosexual or homosexual seeing as anything goes under the prevailing societal norms. Its only a matter of time.[/b]
You really think sexual orientation is a choice? I find that opinion hard to reason with. I didn't choose my sexual orientation....I don't see why it's reasonable to assume that gays chose to be gay.
Maybe you chose unconsciously.. Maybe if from birth you grew up on an island with only homosexuals you would be open to the idea because of what that environment would have taught you.
Yes, i do think some gays born so while others become so as a product of their environment, experiences and upbringing.
For one example, what about the women who born completely heterosexual and have had toxic relationships with men that turn them off men completely.. Then through companionship with women, they develop feelings that eventually progress into homosexual relationships?? Were they born so or did they choose?
-
Dinho Kinsey kind of addresses what you saying with putting sexuality on a spectrum. Can't remember exactly what the scale was maybe 1-6 with 1 being exclusively heterosexual and six being exclusively homosexual. And found that in society many people are 4 and 2s etc.
Experiences can then make a person act on certain feelings that may have been buried within them etc.
Personally I just find it hard that some people believe that being gay is exclusively a choice. Why would so many people choose to make their lives hell, being bullied and marginalized in society..Just doesn't add up
-
Well let me say that this 'marriage' debate is not a matter of 'equal rights' to me as you can claim any and everything is your right and cry discrimination if you're not getting it.
Based on what I've read and heard, I think Obama supports gay-marriage from an equal rights perspective - or at least that is his stated reasoning. I don't think he's trying to change people's view on the biblical "definition" of marriage. And this thread is entitled Obama supports same-sex marriage...so I dunno how you can say that discussion of equal rights has no place in this debate - If you want to make your own rules about this debate, then start yuh own thread.
I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman and that is the way it has been since the beginning.
What gay rights groups are trying to do is re-define what a marriage is to include their 'unions'. But how can it be a 'rights violation' if that right had never been accorded such relationships in the first place? There is no rights violation.
Really? This hour of the day you coming with this reasoning? Come on - That rights-violation logic is just semantics to make a point... If you were to stand on any proper platform with this logic you'd would be deemed a fool...I'll leave that there.
If you are saying that people who maintain the view that marriage is solely between a man and a woman should change their perspective because one group has a loud mouth and they call you ignorant and bigoted if you don't agree with them, well...we're never going to see eye-to-eye as I have no intention of changing my view and have not been provided with any satisfactory reasons as to why I should.
Yeah that's exactly why you should change your view - because a loud mouth group calls you ignorant and bigoted for disagreeing with them... You finally starting to see the light.... Again- this hour of the day? lol
Because even when offered all the civil rights as accorded to married heter-sexual couples they still cry discrimination because of the term civil union as opposed to marriage which tells me that it is much deeper than just legal rights.
Well the truth is that civil unions generally don't grant all the same rights and protections granted under marriage, and the disparities vary from state to state - a couple's civil union is also only recognized in the state in which that couple resides...so it is in fact discriminatory...they aren't just "crying discrimination".
..So do you still think it's deeper than just equal rights? If so, what do you deem to be the real issue...other than them just being loud mouths of course.
-
I believe in the future, likely in my lifetime, that there will be no big distinction between the genders... Children will grow up with a choice, be it heterosexual or homosexual seeing as anything goes under the prevailing societal norms. Its only a matter of time.[/b]
You really think sexual orientation is a choice? I find that opinion hard to reason with. I didn't choose my sexual orientation....I don't see why it's reasonable to assume that gays chose to be gay.
Maybe you chose unconsciously.. Maybe if from birth you grew up on an island with only homosexuals you would be open to the idea because of what that environment would have taught you.
Yes, i do think some gays born so while others become so as a product of their environment, experiences and upbringing.
For one example, what about the women who born completely heterosexual and have had toxic relationships with men that turn them off men completely.. Then through companionship with women, they develop feelings that eventually progress into homosexual relationships?? Were they born so or did they choose?
'I'm gay by CHOICE': Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon faces gay backlash after claiming she chooses to be homosexual
Cynthia Nixon has sparked a backlash after claiming she is gay by choice.
The former Sex and the City star is engaged to her long-term partner Christine Marinoni - with who she has an 11-month-old son Max
She was previously in a relationship with Danny Mozes for 15 years and had two children, Samantha, 15, and nine-year-old Charlie, with him.
She touched on her decision to become a lesbian during a recent speech which angered parts of the
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) community.
And she sort to explain her position in a fresh interview with the New York Times on Sunday.
She said: 'I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line "I've been straight and I've been gay, and gay is better."
'And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it's not, but for me it's a choice, and you don't get to define my gayness for me. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it's a choice, then we could opt out.
'I say it doesn't matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not.'
Cynthia, 45, insists she hasn't always been gay and finds it 'offensive' that people say she has.
She continued: 'Why can't it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we're just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don't think that they should define the terms of the debate.
'I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn't realise I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I've been out with.'
And she claimed the homosexuals who are bent out of shape about her feelings on the issue are bigots.
She said: 'Why cant it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate?
'It seems were just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I dont think that they should define the terms of the debate.
'I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didnt realize I was gay, which I find really offensive.'I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men Ive been out with.'
Cynthia went public with her romance with redhead Christine, 44, just a year after her relationship college sweetheart Danny ended in 2003.
Christine gave birth to the couples first child together last February, a baby boy they gave the colourful moniker Max Ellington Nixon-Marinoni.
Influential gay blogger and activist John Aravosis is one of those displeased by her choice of words.
He said: 'It's not a "choice," unless you consider my opting to date a guy with brown hair versus a guy with blonde hair a "choice."
'It's only a choice among flavours I already like.'
And he claimed she was just giving people peddling anti-gay views extra ammunition.
He said: 'Every religious right hatemonger is now going to quote this woman every single time they want to deny us our civil rights.'
Gay blogger, Perez Hilton weighed in too, saying: 'We totally hear her out and true, we cannot define her "gayness," but it wasnt a choice for us. We were BORN gay. And millions of gay people around the world feel the same way.'
Her comments also attracted a strong reaction on Twitter, with one user posting: 'Two steps forward and three steps back, Cynthia tsk tsk.'
'You can CHOOSE to live your life openly or stay in the closet, but were NOT Gay by Choice #SorryCynthia,' wrote another.
Added another: 'Must admit Cynthia Nixon has done us no favours by saying its her 'choice' to be gay.'
The actress is currently promoting her new Broadway play Wit in which she plays a professor stricken with ovarian cancer.
Nixon, who dealt with a bout of breast cancer in 2006, unveiled a bald head on Live with Kelly today after shaving her head for the part.
He said: 'It's not a "choice," unless you consider my opting to date a guy with brown hair versus a guy with blonde hair a "choice."
'It's only a choice among flavours I already like.'
And he claimed she was just giving people peddling anti-gay views extra ammunition.
He said: 'Every religious right hatemonger is now going to quote this woman every single time they want to deny us our civil rights.'
Gay blogger, Perez Hilton weighed in too, saying: 'We totally hear her out and true, we cannot define her "gayness," but it wasnt a choice for us. We were BORN gay. And millions of gay people around the world feel the same way.'
Her comments also attracted a strong reaction on Twitter, with one user posting: 'Two steps forward and three steps back, Cynthia tsk tsk.'
'You can CHOOSE to live your life openly or stay in the closet, but were NOT Gay by Choice #SorryCynthia,' wrote another.
Added another: 'Must admit Cynthia Nixon has done us no favours by saying its her 'choice' to be gay.'
The actress is currently promoting her new Broadway play Wit in which she plays a professor stricken with ovarian cancer.
Nixon, who dealt with a bout of breast cancer in 2006, unveiled a bald head on Live with Kelly today after shaving her head for the part.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090942/Cynthia-Nixon-Im-gay-choice.html#ixzz1ux9T7Pgu
-
Dinho Kinsey kind of addresses what you saying with putting sexuality on a spectrum. Can't remember exactly what the scale was maybe 1-6 with 1 being exclusively heterosexual and six being exclusively homosexual. And found that in society many people are 4 and 2s etc.
Experiences can then make a person act on certain feelings that may have been buried within them etc.
Personally I just find it hard that some people believe that being gay is exclusively a choice. Why would so many people choose to make their lives hell, being bullied and marginalized in society..Just doesn't add up
Kinsey, dude?
Kinsey conducted a lot of his research in prisons and stuff. We covered him a great deal in one of my sociology classes and his research was hardly scientific. his samples weren't even random and a lot of it was extrapolation.
And I'm really not saying this based on my clearly established views. My first degree is in Sociology and this class was called Sociology of Sexuality and we read as much research and books as there exists on the topic of sexuality.
Mind you, this was of course the most liberal of courses and nothing in the research ever gave a clear-cut response that sexuality is inate. Actually the furthest they go is to say it is a combination of nature and nurture. Which is why I am usually upset when people act as though science proves that sexuality is inate - it does no such thing.
-
Based on reading that piece, I think Cynthia Nixon is bisexual (in theory can be attracted to either sex) - her choice appears to be the lifestyle or sexual partner...not her sexual orientation...she has decided to be with women, but throughout her life has been attracted to men as well...that's bisexual - not gay....or maybe her sexual orientation has changed...that a possibility? She's calling it choice, for lack of a better term, but maybe she's just not attracted to men anymore -not really a choice per se - but a change in orientation...or something changed in her...who knows?
There are bisexual people out there who chose to live straight lifestyles because of societal pressure or because the person they fall in love with is of the opposite sex - but they are open to either in theory... I actually know girls who have dated guys then ended up with girls, and are referred to as lebians... but technically they are really bisexual.
I think the point that NYTWB is making is probably a fair point... there are probably alot more bisexuals out there than we recognize...alot of them are lumped into straight or gay depending on their choice of partner....doesn't convince me that sexual orientation itself is a choice.
-
yeah kicker that's all I am talking about. It is not all black and white. There are definitely shades of grey and some make choices to stick with one sex or the other despite possibly being attracted to the next.
Toppa - I mentioned kinsey as he is one person that attempted to do some studies. Sure there are more but I never did any research on it. I wasn't saying that he was totally right or wrong, but it is a theory that was put forth and to me makes some sense putting human sexuality on a continuum, rather than just two categories.
-
I use to think homosexuality was a choice till my cousin "came out". He's a prominent Dr in the US and an expert in his discipline, some even consider him a genius. I mean a doctor/scientist should be able to know the difference between born a certain way or choosing to be a certain way right. The dude is surrounded by some sweet med students/healthcare professionals all day long and if his "dick" eh getting hard for dem... then he's gay...! Then again my wife had a cocktail party where 2 doctors broke out in an argument over the issue of "being born or choosing" to be gay. One doctor made a clever argument saying that being gay cannot be natural, since gay sex is not natural, because a man's arse is not anatomically designed for penile penetration or reception.
If in the end these people love each other and function like you and me, then by all means, look at the pros and cons, consider the unintended consequences and allow them to marry...!
-
What i doh endorse is same sex couples going to a church, before a priest or minister, putting a hand on a Bible and being married in a religious ceremony. That to me is against the central tenet of any Bible-centric religion, which is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
I don't know that this is even at issue. No one is suggesting that religions be forced to join same-sex couple sin matrimony if it is against their rules. The government's function is marriage is separate to the denominational recognition
From a purely legal and constitutional perspective, it is difficult to oppose anyone's rights to anything, but when you view these things from a religious perspective i can't see how that could ever be right (i admittedly view it from this perspective). And the fact of the matter is that the line of separation between church and state is blurred.
There are very clear lines about when it is acceptable to deny one's rights, usually when yuh break societies rules and norms. These rules and norms are set by what is generally accepted as part of society. The reason we having this debate as Truetrini alluded to is that social mores have changed. There are no rules against being homosexual. When there were rules against it, same sex couples were forbidden by society. Now is the time to examine if there should be rules against them have similar rights to heterosexual couples when they fulfill similar roles in society.
Because even when offered all the civil rights as accorded to married heter-sexual couples they still cry discrimination because of the term civil union as opposed to marriage which tells me that it is much deeper than just legal rights.
Unfortunately this is not the case. The marriage/civil union distinction is used across the country to limit the rights of same-sex couples. that is why States that have agreed to recognize same-sex couples rights have had to go the route of recognizing it as marriage. In North Carolina last week there was the opposite case where to deny same-sex couples rights they set a broad definition of what is not a mrriage that could have unintended consequences for heterosexual common-law couples.
One doctor made a clever argument saying that being gay cannot be natural, since gay sex is not natural, because a man's arse is not anatomically designed for penile penetration or reception.
Not a very clever argument at all. Being gay is not "natural" because it doesn't result in offspring through natural means, not because of the way people get off.
Not to be graphic or obscene but... is a woman's mouth anatomically designed for reception, or her hand, or her cleavage? How many different ways do heterosexual couples express themselves that is not "penis in vagina". Conversely how many homosexual couples are in relationships without anal intercourse being a central part of the relationship. For homosexual couples, as for heterosexual, companionship is defined by more than "who putting what in where".
-
Excuse me but you started off saying that the Bible never spoke of the exclusivity of marriage being between a man and a woman - I showed you evidence of this.
You also made another gaffe and im[lied that the Bible never mentions 'marriage' in the first place. I provided evidence of this.
But based on your reasoning...would you also say that God would be in favour of a man marrying an animal? Since the Bible doesn't expressly prohibit it, of course.
I mean, I could understand arguing for arguing sake - but this just makes ZERO sense. I am really surprised.
You STILL haven't shown me anything where the bible says that marriage is EXCLUSIVELY between man and woman... as I said, an inference can be drawn, but an inference is much, MUCH different from an express statement forbidding it. And thanks for pointing out the references to 'marriage'... I meant to type "definition of marriage" but that's what I typed instead so I accept the correction.
As for me saying what God would be in favor of... I never put myself in God head to say what he would or would not be in favor of. All that I have ever been saying all along is that folks pointing to the Bible for support against gay marriage can't find it there. To answer your question though, no the bible doesn't prohibit man marrying animal, as far as I know... but I think you spend too much time out there in Wackizona if you seriously making a comparison between homosexual marriage and (implied) bestiality. The bible doesn't prohibit the wanton use of nuclear weapons, abandoning newborns in the trash and a host of other things that are looked upon disfavorably in contemporary society, but those evolved with social mores over the years. So too have attitudes towards gay marriage... and we are still at the vanguard, so understandably some ah allyuh still stuck in the past.
So then what was he talking about if it were not the Mosaic law such as circumcision and observing the sabbath?
Also, the fact that the Jews were no longer required to follow the Mosaic law and the fact that Christ's sacrifice also extended to the gentiles, made the Mosaic law obsolete.
obsolete/ˌbsəˈlēt/
Adjective:
No longer produced or used; out of date.
Verb:
Cause (a product or idea) to be or become obsolete by replacing it with something new: "we're obsoleting last year's designs".
Thanks for your cut and paste definition of "obsolete"... it adds nothing to the discussion though, I think we all understand it's meaning. The issue is it's application... and to what. There is a difference between the Old Covenant, and the Laws of Moses, generally. The Old Covenant governs the spiritual contract between God and the Children of Abraham... from whom we are all spiritually descended. Mosaic law isn't a spiritual provision, as much as it governs judicial and procedural protocol which Jews were to follow. These are separate from the "Old Covenant"... which is what was fulfilled by Christ (I came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it). Christ himself never declared Mosaic law obsolete.
-
Bakes, your head in the clouds and I'm not sure why you intent on leaving it there on this issue. You would think a man of your profession would see that 1 + 1=2 The historical context of all the scriptures presented is in no way mysterious or vague in it's language. Was Eve Adam's wife? Did God make it so? Whatever you can't see, you doh want to see. Which is fine by me.
What should should the All Wise, All knowing God should have done to make it clear in your eyes? What would you have added?
Here's another. Lev. 18:22
You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination
I'm sure I don't need to unpack the historical and sociological context of this verse.
What do you think the All Wise Father missed to imply clarity on this issue?
-
hahaha Ok, homosexuality is roundly condemned, Sodom and Gomorrah got fire and brimstone for that amongst other things and yet you would sit down and say that a homosexual marriage might be ok afterall! LOL
So as I asked before, would God also approve of a man marrying an animal?
I already answered your question, but I will point you back to my response. The bible doesn't condemn incest, in fact it tacitly accepts it. Who did Cain take for a wife after he slew Abel? Yet despite him being a murderer and in-breeder he received God's protection for the rest of his life. Clearly this either points to God being accepting of incest, or that he is far more complex than simple rigid interpretation of the words of the bible might suggest.
Mind you... and this goes to Truetrini as well, if we are talking God's intent, we cannot rely on the bible as the sole authority for understanding divine intent. The bible is just a collection of books voted on by the Catholic church at the Council of Trent in 1546. There may be any number of ex-canonical works that may have shed light on divine intent were it not for the exclusion by the Catholic church. The result is that we have the word of "God" as filtered thru Catholic eyes. This doesn't invalidate what's in the "bible"... but just reminds us that what's there is not exclusive or absolute.
What were the sociological/economic reason for marriage expressed in the Bible?
Kicker was implying that slavery, apartheid and by proxy racisim had religious roots. That is not true as any student of history should know.
My friend, if you could find where I said there were "sociological/economic" reasons for marriage as expressed in the Bible, then please post it for me.
Were YOU saying that there were sociological/economic reasons for slavery and apartheid in the bible? I don't think so, so please don't distort the analogy.
I see Kicker done address this... but again, what he was saying is that proponents of these used justifications they found in the bible to support their positions. He didn't say the justifications they used were valid. I'm sure you can see how the analogy applies here.
-
And Bakes' point was not that the socio-economics of marriage are discussed in the bible - his point is that even despite the construct of marriage being highly "economic and sociological", the bible still does comment on it - so to denounce a discussion of slavery, apartheid and the bible on the basis of it being "economic and sociological" makes no sense.
And that was not what Bakes was saying.
That is indeed what I was saying... to be precise, the bible doesn't discuss the sociological/economic origins of marriage as we know it today but that doesn't mean that modern marriage isn't rooted in sociological/economic bases.
What gay rights groups are trying to do is re-define what a marriage is to include their 'unions'. But how can it be a 'rights violation' if that right had never been accorded such relationships in the first place? There is no rights violation.
You could say this about any "right".... right to vote, right to contraception, right to gender equality in the workplace, racial equality in all of society... none of these "rights" existed "in the first place", instead contemporary society has evolved to recognize them. Maybe your argument is that evolution should include some rights and not others.
-
Bakes, your head in the clouds and I'm not sure why you intent on leaving it there on this issue. You would think a man of your profession would see that 1 + 1=2 The historical context of all the scriptures presented is in no way mysterious or vague in it's language. Was Eve Adam's wife? Did God make it so? Whatever you can't see, you doh want to see. Which is fine by me.
What should should the All Wise, All knowing God should have done to make it clear in your eyes? What would you have added?
Here's another. Lev. 18:22
You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination
I'm sure I don't need to unpack the historical and sociological context of this verse.
What do you think the All Wise Father missed to imply clarity on this issue?
This from the same man who without cause or reason bawl "I not going to get into no personal insults with you"? I tell you yuh should read up some more on Paul and yuh sanctimoniously try and make ah scramble fuh de high road, yet without warrant yuh coming to tell me my "head in the clouds"? lol... aye, no wonder so many non-Christians does look at we and call we hypocrites.
btw... thanks for that posting that scripture from Leviticus, I actually forgot about that. It is interesting though that all of the focus of the bible isn't so much on gay marriage, as it is the gay sex act.
-
lol Jesus also described himself as a 'helper' to mankind - is that a dishonourable thing?
Also, your references to the women stuff is neither here nor there. :-\ Homosexuality is not only condemed in the Old Testament but the New as well.
I have to backtrack a bit in this thread due to the amount of posts in the last 20 hours and I only now checking the thread ...
You completely missed the point I was attempting to make: if you want to quote the Bible literally to support a specific argument, be aware that you open to door to challenge as the Bible is fraught with statements that many Christians chose to ignore or rationalize away; hence my quotes on the status of women as defined in the Bible. I find Bible-based 'Marriage arguments' weak if based on literal interpretations of select quotes. The Bible also says a lot of things we no longer accept today (hence my examples; btw, the Bible also condoned slavery and incest, behaviours which we deem to be unacceptable in today's societies). And my comments in no way suggest that Jesus as "a helper to mankind" is dishonourable. Why you would raise that question is perplexing. But I suppose it is no way different than saying my comments are neither here nor there .. lol
Early Christianity viewed the origin of Bible as a divine product with divine authority and hence interpreted it literally.
However, new paradigms and evolving schools of thought regarding Christianity suggest that the Bible was a human response to God and should be interpreted as being historical and metaphorical. Hence the Bible should be viewed as sacred in its status but NOT in its origin. So we read both the old and new testaments and try to learn from what is written as we embark on our spiritual journeys.
I have found this latter approach explains away many aspects that if taken literally, are really disturbing (again, the role of women, the notion of slavery, incest, and the various forms of marriage).
Do I think that Marriage is only between one man and one woman? All the quotes and arguments made by opponents of same sex marriage (in this thread and in the general media) have yet to convince me. Rather, they have done the opposite. in fact, if I were to pick and chose a concept of marriage, then it seems I have a lot to chose from, including some very disturbing versions (see the image I posted earlier).
As Bakes just point out, much of the objections to same sex unions seems to focus on the sex act. Perhaps the focus should be on relationships in general and what is necessary to sustain a loving and caring relationship. And not on whether the Bible condemns or condones certain behaviours.
-
Bakes, your head in the clouds and I'm not sure why you intent on leaving it there on this issue. You would think a man of your profession would see that 1 + 1=2 The historical context of all the scriptures presented is in no way mysterious or vague in it's language. Was Eve Adam's wife? Did God make it so? Whatever you can't see, you doh want to see. Which is fine by me.
What should should the All Wise, All knowing God should have done to make it clear in your eyes? What would you have added?
Here's another. Lev. 18:22
You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination
I'm sure I don't need to unpack the historical and sociological context of this verse.
What do you think the All Wise Father missed to imply clarity on this issue?
This from the same man who without cause or reason bawl "I not going to get into no personal insults with you"? I tell you yuh should read up some more on Paul and yuh sanctimoniously try and make ah scramble fuh de high road, yet without warrant yuh coming to tell me my "head in the clouds"? lol... aye, no wonder so many non-Christians does look at we and call we hypocrites.
btw... thanks for that posting that scripture from Leviticus, I actually forgot about that. It is interesting though that all of the focus of the bible isn't so much on gay marriage, as it is the gay sex act.
;D Yes I admit sometimes I'm a hypocrite. But not in this thread though. All them non-Christians you referring to could see I stand by my beliefs and the scriptures. Nonetheless, small thing.
You didn't answer my questions to you though. With all of this marginal evidence in the Bible on Gay Marriage/relationships. What would you have added to make it clearer? Since the God that we believe is so vague on it. And look you leading Pecan astray. :)
Lev. 18:22
You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination
This is a Law. How this go only involve the act and not the marriage?
-
If gays can't get married they turn hetero and sin no more, right?
-
Lev. 18:22
You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination
This is a Law. How this go only involve the act and not the marriage?
Does that mean only the missionary position? doggy style is forbidden? :devil:
-
;D Yes I admit sometimes I'm a hypocrite. But not in this thread though. All them non-Christians you referring to could see I stand by my beliefs and the scriptures. Nonetheless, small thing.
You didn't answer my questions to you though. With all of this marginal evidence in the Bible on Gay Marriage/relationships. What would you have added to make it clearer? Since the God that we believe is so vague on it. And look you leading Pecan astray. :)
Lev. 18:22
You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination
This is a Law. How this go only involve the act and not the marriage?
How yuh go say yuh not being a hypocrite... especially after I done point out your hypocrisy to you. The minute you ketch feelings off something I say (never mind I didn't mean anything by the comment) yuh rush to bawl yuh not on no personal insults... only to turn around and try and belittle me by telling me my head in the clouds? Or maybe yuh meant that in a complimentary way ::) Mind you, me eh ketching no feelings eh... I just amazed by the brazen about face.
As for your last question... again, there is nothing in the bible that expressly prohibits gay marriage, the prohibitions and concerns voiced in the Bible all refer to homosexual sex. There are many heterosexuals who get married and never have sex, I dunno why allyuh opponents of gay marriage so fixated on what happening (in allyuh mind) in the bedroom. I am not suggesting that gay couple will not have sex... but seems like allyuh trying to prevent them from getting married, premised on arguments that more directly target the sexual aspect of the relationship. Even if two castrati were to try and get married allyuh would oppose it even though they cyah engage in de act of "abomination" allyuh so detest. And we eh even start talking about de poor lesbians and dem, lol
As for what else I would have "liked" to see... this ent about me pardna, is what else allyuh Bible thumpers need in allyuh arsenal in order to persuade people that God prohibits gay marriage. God isn't shy about making his feelings clear about other things, lying, murder, disrespecting parents, worshiping false Gods, sleeping with next man wife. He didn't think about gay marriage or what? Doh ask what else I want from God... God eh write de Bible.
-
;D Yes I admit sometimes I'm a hypocrite. But not in this thread though. All them non-Christians you referring to could see I stand by my beliefs and the scriptures. Nonetheless, small thing.
You didn't answer my questions to you though. With all of this marginal evidence in the Bible on Gay Marriage/relationships. What would you have added to make it clearer? Since the God that we believe is so vague on it. And look you leading Pecan astray. :)
Lev. 18:22
You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination
This is a Law. How this go only involve the act and not the marriage?
How yuh go say yuh not being a hypocrite... especially after I done point out your hypocrisy to you. The minute you ketch feelings off something I say (never mind I didn't mean anything by the comment) yuh rush to bawl yuh not on no personal insults... only to turn around and try and belittle me by telling me my head in the clouds? Or maybe yuh meant that in a complimentary way ::) Mind you, me eh ketching no feelings eh... I just amazed by the brazen about face.
As for your last question... again, there is nothing in the bible that expressly prohibits gay marriage, the prohibitions and concerns voiced in the Bible all refer to homosexual sex. There are many heterosexuals who get married and never have sex, I dunno why allyuh opponents of gay marriage so fixated on what happening (in allyuh mind) in the bedroom. I am not suggesting that gay couple will not have sex... but seems like allyuh trying to prevent them from getting married, premised on arguments that more directly target the sexual aspect of the relationship. Even if two castrati were to try and get married allyuh would oppose it even though they cyah engage in de act of "abomination" allyuh so detest. And we eh even start talking about de poor lesbians and dem, lol
As for what else I would have "liked" to see... this ent about me pardna, is what else allyuh Bible thumpers need in allyuh arsenal in order to persuade people that God prohibits gay marriage. God isn't shy about making his feelings clear about other things, lying, murder, disrespecting parents, worshiping false Gods, sleeping with next man wife. He didn't think about gay marriage or what? Doh ask what else I want from God... God eh write de Bible.
dis to me is d crux ah d matter d saints had minds of their own and opinions of their own and their writings were heavily influenced by their own feelings on many issues........
-
NAACP Endorses Gay Marriage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/naacp-gay-marriage_n_1530029.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/naacp-gay-marriage_n_1530029.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009)
Less than two weeks after President Barack Obama announced his public support for gay marriage, a prominent African-American civil rights organization is following suit.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's board of directors voted to endorse gay marriage on Saturday, according to a tweet from NAACP officer Maxim Thorne.
-
My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/19/my-take-the-christian-case-for-gay-marriage/)
Editor's Note: Mark Osler is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
By Mark Osler, Special to CNN
I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage. The reason I am for gay marriage is because of my faith.
What I see in the Bibles accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we dont have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others.
A clear instruction on this comes from Simon Peter, the rock on whom the church is built. Peter is a captivating figure in the Christian story. Jesus plucks him out of a fishing boat to become a disciple, and time and again he represents us all in learning at the feet of Christ.
During their time together, Peter is often nave and clueless he is a follower, constantly learning.
After Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold. This is the Peter we see in the Acts of the Apostles, during a fevered debate over whether or not Gentiles should be baptized. Peter was harshly criticized for even eating a meal with those who were uncircumcised; that is, those who did not follow the commands of the Old Testament.
Peter, though, is strong in confronting those who would deny the sacrament of baptism to the Gentiles, and argues for an acceptance of believers who do not follow the circumcision rules of Leviticus (which is also where we find a condemnation of homosexuality).
His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?
None of us, Peter says, has the moral authority to deny baptism to those who seek it, even if they do not follow the ancient laws. It is the flooding love of the Holy Spirit, which fell over that entire crowd, sinners and saints alike, that directs otherwise.
It is not our place, it seems, to sort out who should be denied a bond with God and the Holy Spirit of the kind that we find through baptism, communion, and marriage. The water will flow where it will.
Intriguingly, this rule will apply whether we see homosexuality as a sin or not. The water is for all of us. We see the same thing at the Last Supper, as Jesus gives the bread and wine to all who are thereeven to Peter, who Jesus said would deny him, and to Judas, who would betray him.
The question before us now is not whether homosexuality is a sin, but whether being gay should be a bar to baptism or communion or marriage.
The answer is in the Bible. Peter and Jesus offer a strikingly inclusive form of love and engagement. They hold out the symbols of Gods love to all. How arrogant that we think it is ours to parse out stingily!
I worship at St. Stephens, an Episcopal church in Edina, Minnesota. There is a river that flows around the back and side of that church with a delightful name: Minnehaha Creek. That is where we do baptisms.
The Rector stands in the creek in his robes, the cool water coursing by his feet, and takes an infant into his arms and baptizes her with that same cool water. The congregation sits on the grassy bank and watches, a gentle army.
At the bottom of the creek, in exactly that spot, is a floor of smooth pebbles. The water rushing by has rubbed off the rough edges, bit by bit, day by day. The pebbles have been transformed by that water into something new.
I suppose that, as Peter put it, someone could try to withhold the waters of baptism there. They could try to stop the river, to keep the water from some of the stones, like a child in the gutter building a barrier against the stream.
It wont last, though. I would say this to those who would withhold the water of baptism, the joy of worship, or the bonds of marriage: You are less strong than the water, which will flow around you, find its path, and gently erode each wall you try to erect.
The redeeming power of that creek, and of the Holy Spirit, is relentless, making us all into something better and new.
-
Somebody give this writer a leg, two eyes and a Strong's Concordance please.
Here is the love in action and Jesus' stand on sin. Some preachers caught a woman having sex with a fella that is not her husband. They let the man go and bring the woman. They tell Jesus, the woman should be stoned according to the law, which was Jewish law. What did Jesus do? Well since he is the Real Law/Word in the flesh. He asked a simple question. "Which one of allyuh never do anything wrong?" "If you never do anything wrong, then pelt first." No one pelt, they dropped their rocks and left. Jesus turned to the woman...and this is the important part...this is the love... Because he could have stoned her. See? He says...No one is condemning you and I'm not condemning you.
Two things
1. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Seeing it in action
2. Is that all he said? Heck No!!!! He also said to her "Stop doing that."
God can't help you if He can't speak to your lifestyle. See, people want God love but God can't tell them to "stop doing that." If that's the case then you are condemned by your actions and Jesus can't help you. So must people try to twist the bible into a free for all and call it love.
This is how it works.
For God so love the world (including hypocrite preachers, rapists, child molesters and gays) that He gave his only son that whoever, believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting Life. What more you want? The bible says "For while we were yet sinners/God's enemy, Christ died for us." While we were God's enemy and deserved death he died for us.
God loves all people including professing and practicing gays. But His response is simply, stop doing that. If Jesus=Word can't speak to you on this issue then brace yourself for this.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know Gods righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
He is the Ruler...He sets the laws and the boundaries. So if you don't like it in His kingdom you free to go work for the other guy.
-
Preacher, I understand what you say, but I think you miss the point the writer trying to get across.
-
Somebody give this writer a leg, two eyes and a Strong's Concordance please.
Here is the love in action and Jesus' stand on sin. Some preachers caught a woman having sex with a fella that is not her husband. They let the man go and bring the woman. They tell Jesus, the woman should be stoned according to the law, which was Jewish law. What did Jesus do? Well since he is the Real Law/Word in the flesh. He asked a simple question. "Which one of allyuh never do anything wrong?" "If you never do anything wrong, then pelt first." No one pelt, they dropped their rocks and left. Jesus turned to the woman...and this is the important part...this is the love... Because he could have stoned her. See? He says...No one is condemning you and I'm not condemning you.
Two things
1. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Seeing it in action
2. Is that all he said? Heck No!!!! He also said to her "Stop doing that."
God can't help you if He can't speak to your lifestyle. See, people want God love but God can't tell them to "stop doing that." If that's the case then you are condemned by your actions and Jesus can't help you. So must people try to twist the bible into a free for all and call it love.
This is how it works.
For God so love the world (including hypocrite preachers, rapists, child molesters and gays) that He gave his only son that whoever, believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting Life. What more you want? The bible says "For while we were yet sinners/God's enemy, Christ died for us." While we were God's enemy and deserved death he died for us.
God loves all people including professing and practicing gays. But His response is simply, stop doing that. If Jesus=Word can't speak to you on this issue then brace yourself for this.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know Gods righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
He is the Ruler...He sets the laws and the boundaries. So if you don't like it in His kingdom you free to go work for the other guy.
How does this relate to gays or gay marriage? Just asking.
-
Preacher, I understand what you say, but I think you miss the point the writer trying to get across.
Maybe so, but my sense is that he's Lutheran. This is based on how he lumps baptism, communion and marriage together as stuff that the church offers. I've worked with Lutherans extensively and know several pastors and churches that have broken away on their main denomination because of ordination of Gay ministers etc. I have many Lutheran friends, nice people but they run their faith like a check list. For example, all stats show that when Lutheran youth get confirmed(check), high percentage leave their faith behind until they are ready to settle down, if that. Why is this important? Well, denominations that view and handle biblical institutions as a check list are more likely to lose the value and purpose of said institutions. And when that happens anything goes. And of course he attempts to qualify his views by leading with "I am a Christian." Sadly, in America that means nothing. So I may have gone a bit long Elan, on my reply, sorry. :)
I hope I was able to show from the bible, that God loves people regardless of their issues. But he hates sin. Homosexuality is a sin according to the bible. So how can an entity that claims belief in the bible/Word of God/Jesus, endorse it in a ceremony that this entity has professed for centuries to be before man and the same God that gave us the bible? Sure an argument can be made that this document was tainted by men. But I think that the historical Jesus resolves that argument by endorsing it over and over. It's believable that the God that said to the Sun and Moon, "Stay," could preserve His word if that is His intent. Because of what I've seen in nature, backed up by scripture, I believe scripture is God's Word to men. The only place left for anyone who wants to argue with the scripture on the matter is to not believe in God at all.
Long again. :)
-
Well, just so that there is no confusion on the Eternal Creator's stance on homosexual unions:
Leviticus 18 (excerpt)
Unlawful Sexual Relations
1The Lord said to Moses, 2Speak to the Israelites and say to them: I am the Lord your God. 3You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.
22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahwah (The Hebrew name for God) is fairly unequivocal on this point. I will never condemn a homosexual as it is not an easy lifestyle and I cannot imagine anyone deciding to practice this lifestyle by choice. However, if one were to believe the Bible, it is clear on this point.
Having said this, it is interesting that lesbianism is not really explicitly mentioned anywhere in the bible. It is beyond my expertise or understanding to say why. Perhaps, other members can weigh in on this issue.
-
Enough of quoting Leviticus to 'prove' that God said homosexuality is a sin.
Leviticus also stared a bunch of other 'behaviors' that were deemed unacceptable but people today chose to ignore. For example:
"'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD."
(http://barthsnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/leviticus-tattoo.jpg)
Enough
Re: lesbianism
Back then, women were property and for man's use. So lesbianism was not a big deal (I speculate). Plus the Bible was written by men, not God.
If God had written the bible, Moses would not have been able to call all dem stone tablets across the dessert. Now, if he had an Ipad, that might have made it easier.
-
Because of what I've seen in nature, backed up by scripture, I believe scripture is God's Word to men. The only place left for anyone who wants to argue with the scripture on the matter is to not believe in God at all.
So if we doh agree with you that "scripture is God's Word to men"... then that mean we doh believe in God? We cyah disagree with yuh that scripture is God's absolute and verbatim word, despite the many influences of man on said scripture?
Okay... lol
-
Enough of quoting Leviticus to 'prove' that God said homosexuality is a sin.
Leviticus also stared a bunch of other 'behaviors' that were deemed unacceptable but people today chose to ignore. For example:
"'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD."
(http://barthsnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/leviticus-tattoo.jpg)
Enough
Re: lesbianism
Back then, women were property and for man's use. So lesbianism was not a big deal (I speculate). Plus the Bible was written by men, not God.
If God had written the bible, Moses would not have been able to call all dem stone tablets across the dessert. Now, if he had an Ipad, that might have made it easier.
Good point on the hypocrisy of those who seek to condemn homosexuality and not people who get tattoos. You are also right that, in many cases, men, influenced by their own agendas, wrote the bible and not Yahwah.
However, here are my rebuttals to your points. On the issue of tattoos, just because people choose to ignore what is written about them does not invalidate what is written in scripture. The failure of people to make a big deal about it may be more down to human failings than to the failings of what is written n Scripture. An analogy would be people who ignore doctors and eat unhealthy foods, often to their own detriment, but yet condemn alcoholics and drug users. There is a lot of hypocrisy there.
Which of course ties me to my second rebuttal. If I am to understand your argument, because the bible was written by men, then it is debatable what the Eternal Creator really meant. To get a clue of the true feelings of the Almighty on the matter, let us look at the natural consequences of homosexual unions. Can a healthy man and a man or woman and a woman procreate without artificial means (i.e. in vitro fertilization)? Can a healthy man and a woman procreate without artificial means (Assuming that the man is not sterile and the woman is not infertile)? We both know the answer to these questions.
Outside of the bible, which can be misinterpreted, is a natural law. The laws of biology provide for procreation between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. A homosexual couple who is looking to have a child would have to either adopt, or one of the partners would have to go the in vitro route (which involves a male sperm fertilizing a female egg).
The laws of science are indisputable on this point. Even allowing for in vitro fertilization, there still has to be some form of male-female sexual interaction (i.e. male sperm and female egg at the minimum) in order for life to be created.
Now if you want to counter that sex is not always for procreation, then that is another matter altogether. However, bear in mind, if that were the case and everyone decided to stop having sex to procreate, then humanity will eventually become extinct.
-
Preacher, I understand what you say, but I think you miss the point the writer trying to get across.
It's believable that the God that said to the Sun and Moon, "Stay," could preserve His word if that is His intent. Because of what I've seen in nature, backed up by scripture, I believe scripture is God's Word to men. The only place left for anyone who wants to argue with the scripture on the matter is to not believe in God at all.
Long again. :)
well both the sun and moon moving eh bredder. so doh go and vote tuh teach "stationary helio and lunar science" to no kids in yuh home state yuh hear!? and the world wasn't created in no 7 earth days as we understand days to be right now seen!? doh go preachin that carbon dating is incorrect, and that all matter in the galaxy is the same age (made on the same day). and there are no 4 corners to the earth as we understand corners, right!? yuh ent really doin no service to the Greatness of the teachings in the Bible by talking X-amount.
-
Enough of quoting Leviticus to 'prove' that God said homosexuality is a sin.
Leviticus also stared a bunch of other 'behaviors' that were deemed unacceptable but people today chose to ignore. For example:
"'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD."
(http://barthsnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/leviticus-tattoo.jpg)
Enough
Re: lesbianism
Back then, women were property and for man's use. So lesbianism was not a big deal (I speculate). Plus the Bible was written by men, not God.
If God had written the bible, Moses would not have been able to call all dem stone tablets across the dessert. Now, if he had an Ipad, that might have made it easier.
Good point on the hypocrisy of those who seek to condemn homosexuality and not people who get tattoos. You are also right that, in many cases, men, influenced by their own agendas, wrote the bible and not Yahwah.
However, here are my rebuttals to your points. On the issue of tattoos, just because people choose to ignore what is written about them does not invalidate what is written in scripture. The failure of people to make a big deal about it may be more down to human failings than to the failings of what is written n Scripture. An analogy would be people who ignore doctors and eat unhealthy foods, often to their own detriment, but yet condemn alcoholics and drug users. There is a lot of hypocrisy there.
Which of course ties me to my second rebuttal. If I am to understand your argument, because the bible was written by men, then it is debatable what the Eternal Creator really meant. To get a clue of the true feelings of the Almighty on the matter, let us look at the natural consequences of homosexual unions. Can a healthy man and a man or woman and a woman procreate without artificial means (i.e. in vitro fertilization)? Can a healthy man and a woman procreate without artificial means (Assuming that the man is not sterile and the woman is not infertile)? We both know the answer to these questions.
Outside of the bible, which can be misinterpreted, is a natural law. The laws of biology provide for procreation between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. A homosexual couple who is looking to have a child would have to either adopt, or one of the partners would have to go the in vitro route (which involves a male sperm fertilizing a female egg).
The laws of science are indisputable on this point. Even allowing for in vitro fertilization, there still has to be some form of male-female sexual interaction (i.e. male sperm and female egg at the minimum) in order for life to be created.
Now if you want to counter that sex is not always for procreation, then that is another matter altogether. However, bear in mind, if that were the case and everyone decided to stop having sex to procreate, then humanity will eventually become extinct.
this debate has been repeated Ad infinitum, however, a couple of quick points (well three actually) ...
1) if people want to up hold the words of scripture as verbatim, then those people should also speak out about the other infractions of the bible. Strangely, they are silent - see my earlier posts regarding the treatment of women as prescribed in the bible.
2) if marriage is about procreation, then what about heterosexual unions that do not produce children? is the love between an infertile couple, or a couple that chose not to have children, or older adults who cannot bear children, any less that those couples with children. Any less that a same sex couple? "Natural Law" creates many instances in which many hetero unions cannot produce off-spring. Or are these cases not really natural law, but aberrations? Are we to condemn them the same way same sex unions are condemned?
3) The world's population just surpassed 7 BILLION. AND most of that came within the last 100 years!!!
(http://www.fi.edu/guide/hughes/images/pop-1a.jpg)
Do you really think that the propagation of the human race is at risk due to same sex unions?
In the past, people use the Bible to justify slavery. Thank God that was over turned.
-
Because of what I've seen in nature, backed up by scripture, I believe scripture is God's Word to men. The only place left for anyone who wants to argue with the scripture on the matter is to not believe in God at all.
So if we doh agree with you that "scripture is God's Word to men"... then that mean we doh believe in God? We cyah disagree with yuh that scripture is God's absolute and verbatim word, despite the many influences of man on said scripture?
Okay... lol
Nah I ain't trying to broad brush nuttin. :) There are influences in scripture which obviously have had human interpretation to it. However, the ones I've found doesn't change the big idea of the story. For example;
Psalms 8:4-5
What is man, that you are mindful of him? and the son of man, that you visit him?
For you have made him a little lower than the angels, and have crowned him with glory and honor
Now OT is Hebrew...that word 'angels' is not in the original manuscript. The word in the original manuscript is Elohim(Hebrew) So the verse actually means that God has made men a little lower than Himself. That would put men higher than angels. Now this gives great understanding to the power God gave to men and what happens when we pray. If you love to study the word that's a piece of stake. :) But it doesn't change the big idea of the verse nor the message of the writing. God is greater than men and extents His love to them.
Now Bakes I've come across many mistranslated words but I've never come across a completely new big idea on any topic. Concerning Old Testament references to homosexuality the big idea is solid. Mind you, it's smack in the middle of laws that modern society would never condone. Fair enough, but to me it doesn't change the big idea. God wants people to live righteously. Ok, you shouldn't stone your children for disobeying you. Does that make obeying your parents obsolete? I don't believe anything can change the big idea concerning homosexuality. All I'm saying is for that to happen you'll have to change your view of the bible, which as you see many people have different views anyway.
-
Which of course ties me to my second rebuttal. If I am to understand your argument, because the bible was written by men, then it is debatable what the Eternal Creator really meant. To get a clue of the true feelings of the Almighty on the matter, let us look at the natural consequences of homosexual unions. Can a healthy man and a man or woman and a woman procreate without artificial means (i.e. in vitro fertilization)? Can a healthy man and a woman procreate without artificial means (Assuming that the man is not sterile and the woman is not infertile)? We both know the answer to these questions.
Outside of the bible, which can be misinterpreted, is a natural law. The laws of biology provide for procreation between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. A homosexual couple who is looking to have a child would have to either adopt, or one of the partners would have to go the in vitro route (which involves a male sperm fertilizing a female egg).
The laws of science are indisputable on this point. Even allowing for in vitro fertilization, there still has to be some form of male-female sexual interaction (i.e. male sperm and female egg at the minimum) in order for life to be created.
Now if you want to counter that sex is not always for procreation, then that is another matter altogether. However, bear in mind, if that were the case and everyone decided to stop having sex to procreate, then humanity will eventually become extinct.
Without a doubt personal biases crept into the writings of men like the Apostle Paul. As critical as I am of him (and his unbridled misogyny and prudery, I still acknowledge him as the greatest and most influential Christian writer... we all have our failings. The bible thumpers want to act like God himself set pen to paper in writing the bible. It's the Catholic church who at the Council of Trent, decided to vote on which books made it into the canon, and which books were excluded. For all we know, there are books out there that contain words attributed to Christ that are not so critical of homosexuality. But we don't know b/c the good Catholic Bishops voted them out.
Proverbs 3:5 says "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding"... this is what we are supposed to do in order to decipher divine intent, turn to God for guidance as we read and interpret the Word. but nah, some want to interpret what they read literally and often in a manner that suits their agenda. I take the bible as a guide, nothing else. A great deal of what I read I take with a grain of salt... not that I disregard it as false, but rather I read it critically. For many Christians that is blasphemy... which is nonsense.
-
I'm not particularly good with Christianity and scriptures, and I don't have the depth of knowledge to withstand a heated argument on the subject, but there are the Gnostic Gospels which are supposedly the gospels rejected by the Catholic Church as they didn't fit the story they wanted to tell. I believe there are stories of a "secret" Mark gospel which (if you wish to interpret the writing in such a way) suggests a young guy was in love with Jesus and that they slept under the same roof (of course, some people literally said Jesus had a gay affair with the youth)
I must admit to being a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) concerning homosexuality. I don't see a problem with it as long as I don't have to witness it (and I don't mean the sex!) Although, of course, I think lesbianism is the 8th wonder of the world!
To me, I can understand the church being upset, but in the 21st Century, I think toleration is called for.
And I find it strange that supposedly heterosexual men who have sex with other males (i.e. prisoners, English Public Schoolboys, Armed services personnel, paedophiles) are usually the loudest voices against homosexuality.
-
When allyuh could find a verse or book in the Bible, in an apocryphal book, in a dead sea scroll or any other writing that merited consideration for inclusion into the Bible that in any way alludes to God radically changed his views on homosexuality and same sex unions.... Then by all means please lemme know.
Cause ah find all these kinda false-positive arguments allyuh coming with to suggest that because something not explicitly prohibited in the Bible mean that it could be somehow acceptable to be real lacking. By that kinda reasoning, we could basically apply that to anything not explicitly prohibited in the New Testament and cast a big wide net and say that pretty much anything goes.
Also on a side note, what does the Koran have to say on the issue and have their ever been same sex marriages conducted under muslim rites?
-
Nah I ain't trying to broad brush nuttin. :) There are influences in scripture which obviously have had human interpretation to it.
Preach between this and your earlier admission that some scripture is the result of men wanting to make rules it sounds like yuh admitting that a lot of the Bible is up to interpretation.
However, the ones I've found doesn't change the big idea of the story.
If you admit that a lot of it is subject to interpretation you have to undertsand that not everybody is going to find the same truth in the Bible.
You could also understand why people would look at a literal interpretation of some parts of the Bible and a complete ignorance of other parts as cherry-picking to suit a moral agenda.
The Bible is being presented as an unshaking foundation for societal morality on issues like homosexuality when it is flexible to the will of the person reading it. It is fine to use it as personal guide I dont see how you apply parts of it verbatim to the lives of others.
-
Enough of quoting Leviticus to 'prove' that God said homosexuality is a sin.
Leviticus also stared a bunch of other 'behaviors' that were deemed unacceptable but people today chose to ignore. For example:
"'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD."
(http://barthsnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/leviticus-tattoo.jpg)
Enough
Re: lesbianism
Back then, women were property and for man's use. So lesbianism was not a big deal (I speculate). Plus the Bible was written by men, not God.
If God had written the bible, Moses would not have been able to call all dem stone tablets across the dessert. Now, if he had an Ipad, that might have made it easier.
Good point on the hypocrisy of those who seek to condemn homosexuality and not people who get tattoos. You are also right that, in many cases, men, influenced by their own agendas, wrote the bible and not Yahwah.
However, here are my rebuttals to your points. On the issue of tattoos, just because people choose to ignore what is written about them does not invalidate what is written in scripture. The failure of people to make a big deal about it may be more down to human failings than to the failings of what is written n Scripture. An analogy would be people who ignore doctors and eat unhealthy foods, often to their own detriment, but yet condemn alcoholics and drug users. There is a lot of hypocrisy there.
Which of course ties me to my second rebuttal. If I am to understand your argument, because the bible was written by men, then it is debatable what the Eternal Creator really meant. To get a clue of the true feelings of the Almighty on the matter, let us look at the natural consequences of homosexual unions. Can a healthy man and a man or woman and a woman procreate without artificial means (i.e. in vitro fertilization)? Can a healthy man and a woman procreate without artificial means (Assuming that the man is not sterile and the woman is not infertile)? We both know the answer to these questions.
Outside of the bible, which can be misinterpreted, is a natural law. The laws of biology provide for procreation between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. A homosexual couple who is looking to have a child would have to either adopt, or one of the partners would have to go the in vitro route (which involves a male sperm fertilizing a female egg).
The laws of science are indisputable on this point. Even allowing for in vitro fertilization, there still has to be some form of male-female sexual interaction (i.e. male sperm and female egg at the minimum) in order for life to be created.
Now if you want to counter that sex is not always for procreation, then that is another matter altogether. However, bear in mind, if that were the case and everyone decided to stop having sex to procreate, then humanity will eventually become extinct.
this debate has been repeated Ad infinitum, however, a couple of quick points (well three actually) ...
1) if people want to up hold the words of scripture as verbatim, then those people should also speak out about the other infractions of the bible. Strangely, they are silent - see my earlier posts regarding the treatment of women as prescribed in the bible.
2) if marriage is about procreation, then what about heterosexual unions that do not produce children? is the love between an infertile couple, or a couple that chose not to have children, or older adults who cannot bear children, any less that those couples with children. Any less that a same sex couple? "Natural Law" creates many instances in which many hetero unions cannot produce off-spring. Or are these cases not really natural law, but aberrations? Are we to condemn them the same way same sex unions are condemned?
3) The world's population just surpassed 7 BILLION. AND most of that came within the last 100 years!!!
(http://www.fi.edu/guide/hughes/images/pop-1a.jpg)
Do you really think that the propagation of the human race is at risk due to same sex unions?
In the past, people use the Bible to justify slavery. Thank God that was over turned.
1) On your first point, just because people are selective in their censure of certain acts does not invalidate the intent of what was originally written.
2) Assuming all things are equal, healthy heterosexual couples (i.e. ones in which the men are virile and the women are fertile) are able to procreate and healthy homosexual couples (again ones in which both men are virile) or healthy lesbian couples (both women are fertile) are unable to procreate. Thus, outside of physiological issues, the male and female DNA is designed for procreation when a man and woman have sexual intercourse. Homosexual couples cannot procreate under any circumstances. In terms of whether the love bewteen one type of couple is on the same scale as another is actually not within the realms of my argument. My argument is strictly down to biology.
3) The world population is indeed seven billion, and yes, procreation is not as much as a biological imperative as it was in ancient times. However, the reason that the population became seven billion in the first place was down to heterosexual unions, whether natural or artifical. Basically, the population is seven billion because many humans literally became "fruitful and multiplied." (Quoted material taken from Genesis 1:28).
To sum up, people are free to live as they please. Please do not misunderstand me on this point. I am not a religious zealot. I will be the first to say that the spiritual life is not for everybody and everyone has to deal with the world in the way in which they feel most comfortable. However, there are always consequences for the choices that we make in life. Technically, I am free to eat whatever I want. I can eat hamburgers and steak everyday. However, there is a natural consequence for that. I will become fat, develop serious health problems (high blood pressure, clogged arteries, etc), and have a very low quality of life down the road.
If homosexuality was to become the norm, rather than the exception in the world, then yes, I stand by what I originally asserted: humans will become extinct.
I am not condemning homosexuals just for the sake of condemning them. Many of them are simply born with these tendencies. However, at the basic level, homosexuality and lesbianism is at odds with nature in that if allowed into the mainstream of sexual relationships, will eventually threaten the propogation of the human species.
-
Bukhari (72:774) - "The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, 'Turn them out of your houses .' The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman."
al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."
Ayatollah Abdollah Javadi-Amoli of Iran said, in April of 2012, that homosexuals are inferior to dogs and pigs, since these animals (presumably) do not engage in such acts.
Abu Dawud (4448) - "If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death."
-
homosexuality and lesbianism is at odds with nature in that if allowed into the mainstream of sexual relationships, will eventually threaten the propogation of the human species.
there in lies the disconnect, u assume a conscious choice on the part of most if not all gay people to be gay or whatever, I am nolonger of the view that it is a 100% choice or a perversion to be guarded against and stamped out lest the world population be wiped out, I think dat "condition" somewhere in d genome..................it's just men by there very nature are prone to sexual deviance (ah mean who on hear wouldn't "take on" ;D d in entire babes thread if they could do so with no negative consequences) an' doh lie ;) ......factor women outa dat scenario and any mark could play....and I suppose dais where people mind gettin stick....but dis not about sex as much as it is about equality in the eyes of the law and remember marriage is much ah legal concern as it is spiritual\religious in this modern context.
-
People don't decide to be Gay. I doubt any sane man or woman go just decide let me turn a gay today and run down woman/man.
Edit : the way I see it is anyone of us could of been born that way. I might not agree with the lifestyle but I ain't hating or discriminating, that is not for me to judge.
-
1) On your first point, just because people are selective in their censure of certain acts does not invalidate the intent of what was originally written.
2) Assuming all things are equal, healthy heterosexual couples (i.e. ones in which the men are virile and the women are fertile) are able to procreate and healthy homosexual couples (again ones in which both men are virile) or healthy lesbian couples (both women are fertile) are unable to procreate. Thus, outside of physiological issues, the male and female DNA is designed for procreation when a man and woman have sexual intercourse. Homosexual couples cannot procreate under any circumstances. In terms of whether the love bewteen one type of couple is on the same scale as another is actually not within the realms of my argument. My argument is strictly down to biology.
3) The world population is indeed seven billion, and yes, procreation is not as much as a biological imperative as it was in ancient times. However, the reason that the population became seven billion in the first place was down to heterosexual unions, whether natural or artifical. Basically, the population is seven billion because many humans literally became "fruitful and multiplied." (Quoted material taken from Genesis 1:28).
To sum up, people are free to live as they please. Please do not misunderstand me on this point. I am not a religious zealot. I will be the first to say that the spiritual life is not for everybody and everyone has to deal with the world in the way in which they feel most comfortable. However, there are always consequences for the choices that we make in life. Technically, I am free to eat whatever I want. I can eat hamburgers and steak everyday. However, there is a natural consequence for that. I will become fat, develop serious health problems (high blood pressure, clogged arteries, etc), and have a very low quality of life down the road.
If homosexuality was to become the norm, rather than the exception in the world, then yes, I stand by what I originally asserted: humans will become extinct.
I am not condemning homosexuals just for the sake of condemning them. Many of them are simply born with these tendencies. However, at the basic level, homosexuality and lesbianism is at odds with nature in that if allowed into the mainstream of sexual relationships, will eventually threaten the propogation of the human species.
1) OK - all I saying if that point is valid, then perhaps we should question why the other points are not. But if the Bible is to be taken literally, then the Bible thumpers better observe all tenets of the Bible and not pick and chose to define their moral compass. Thjey cant have it both ways
2) Biology - OK, biologically, we need a male and a female to procreate. But just as there are infertile males and females, a small % of the population is homosexual. But what does biology have to do with marriage? So do we deny them the right to marry because they are homosexual? We do not deny infertile couples the right to marry.
3) "If homosexuality was to become the norm" that is a supposition that has no foundation either biologically or otherwise. Homosexuality will not become the norm. Hetero couples give birth to homosexuals and children raised by homosexual parent do not necessarily become homosexual
Anyways to quote Karl Barth: "I take the Bible far too seriously to take it literally."
-
People don't decide to be Gay. I doubt any sane man or woman go just decide let me turn a gay today and run down woman/man.
Edit : the way I see it is anyone of us could of been born that way. I might not agree with the lifestyle but I ain't hating or discriminating, that is not for me to judge.
this :beermug:
and :beermug:
1) OK - all I saying if that point is valid, then perhaps we should question why the other points are not. But if the Bible is to be taken literally, then the Bible thumpers better observe all tenets of the Bible and not pick and chose to define their moral compass. Thjey cant have it both ways
2) Biology - OK, biologically, we need a male and a female to procreate. But just as there are infertile males and females, a small % of the population is homosexual. But what does biology have to do with marriage? So do we deny them the right to marry because they are homosexual? We do not deny infertile couples the right to marry.
3) "If homosexuality was to become the norm" that is a supposition that has no foundation either biologically or otherwise. Homosexuality will not become the norm. Hetero couples give birth to homosexuals and children raised by homosexual parent do not necessarily become homosexual
Anyways to quote Karl Barth: "I take the Bible far too seriously to take it literally."
-
1) OK - all I saying if that point is valid, then perhaps we should question why the other points are not. But if the Bible is to be taken literally, then the Bible thumpers better observe all tenets of the Bible and not pick and chose to define their moral compass. Thjey cant have it both ways
These are actually two separate issues: compliance with ALL tenets of the Bible and adhering to the Bible's words on homosexuals. Your statement is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. There is no necessary connection.
Of the many ideas prescribed by the Bible, the text on homosexuality is relatively clear. Yet, people going through all kinds of contortions to find a passage where the Bible sanctifies gay marriage for reasons of convenience.
-
These are actually two separate issues: compliance with ALL tenets of the Bible and adhering to the Bible's words on homosexuals. Your statement is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. There is no necessary connection.
Of the many ideas prescribed by the Bible, the text on homosexuality is relatively clear. Yet, people going through all kinds of contortions to find a passage where the Bible sanctifies gay marriage for reasons of convenience.
The Bible prescribes homosexuality? How come Dan Savage eh find dah one yet? I also didn't see anybody (here at least) looking for biblical passages that sanctify gay marriage. You sure yuh understanding what yuh reading? Or yuh 'reading' for reasons of convenience?
-
1) OK - all I saying if that point is valid, then perhaps we should question why the other points are not. But if the Bible is to be taken literally, then the Bible thumpers better observe all tenets of the Bible and not pick and chose to define their moral compass. They cant have it both ways
These are actually two separate issues: compliance with ALL tenets of the Bible and adhering to the Bible's words on homosexuals. Your statement is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. There is no necessary connection.
Of the many ideas prescribed by the Bible, the text on homosexuality is relatively clear. Yet, people going through all kinds of contortions to find a passage where the Bible sanctifies gay marriage for reasons of convenience.
I hear what you saying but the Bible is far from clear on homosexuality (this word was never used in the bible) ... nevertheless, my issue is with the use of the bible to condemn homosexuality while other 'truths' are conveniently ignored. Even if I accept the oft quoted verse from Leviticus as the overarching "law" on homosexuality, there is still too much ambiguity in other parts of the bible on this and other moral issues to insist on using the Bible to argue my position. i.e. if one wants to argue against same sex union, one should NOT use the Bible as the authoritative source of natural law. The Bible is but a guide and is Faith based.
I found an interesting paper on the Bible and Homosexuality written by the Ontario Centre for religious tolerance. Here are the conclusions:
Conclusions
There may be as many as three references in the Bible to committed homosexual relationships, none of which was condemned.
Homosexual activity in the temple by male prostitutes is clearly prohibited by the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).
Prostitution, both heterosexual and homosexual is generally condemned.
Sexual abuse of boys by adult males is condemned
St. Paul considered at least some male and female homosexual acts to be forbidden, but it is unclear precisely which acts are included. He may have been referring to:
temple prostitution,
people who are not innately gay, lesbian or bisexual, but who engaged in homosexual acts,
to child sexual abuse, or
group sexual orgies.
Paul was certainly aware of sexual orgies in Pagan temples, including both heterosexual and homosexual encounters. He would have been aware of the practice of male adults keeping a boy for sexual purposes. These may have been the only forms of same gender sex that he knew of. He did not appear to make any references in his writings to consentual, committed homosexual relationships. He probably did not know of any.
One should note that Paul also condemned women preaching (1 Cor 14:34) or wearing gold or pearls (1 Tim 2:11). He also accepted and did not condemn the institution of slavery. Many Christians feel that his writings reflect his own prejudices are not a particularly useful guide for ethics and morals in the 20th Century.
Jesus made many hundreds of statements regarding belief and behavior. However He never mentioned homosexuality.
It is the subject of endless debate whether St. Pauls prohibition of at least some homosexual acts was:
for the people in the vicinity of the Mediterranean during the 1st Century CE, or
for all people, forever.
One can argue that the ancient Israelites were surrounded by warlike tribes. Their fertility was very important if the group was to survive. The early Christian church was persecuted by the Roman government and by the Jewish religious leaders. Homosexuals tend to have few children; thus their presence would be met with opposition. At the end of the 20th Century, conditions are the exact opposite; we are threatened by our excessive fertility. Perhaps Pauls criticism of homosexuality is no longer valid, like his various prohibitions against womens behavior.
Source (http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/globalrights/sexorient/bible-gay.html)
-
Nah I ain't trying to broad brush nuttin. :) There are influences in scripture which obviously have had human interpretation to it.
Preach between this and your earlier admission that some scripture is the result of men wanting to make rules it sounds like yuh admitting that a lot of the Bible is up to interpretation.
However, the ones I've found doesn't change the big idea of the story.
If you admit that a lot of it is subject to interpretation you have to undertsand that not everybody is going to find the same truth in the Bible.
You could also understand why people would look at a literal interpretation of some parts of the Bible and a complete ignorance of other parts as cherry-picking to suit a moral agenda.
The Bible is being presented as an unshaking foundation for societal morality on issues like homosexuality when it is flexible to the will of the person reading it. It is fine to use it as personal guide I dont see how you apply parts of it verbatim to the lives of others.
Yes I see what you're saying. And you are right that some/many people read the bible and interpret it how they see it. But remember there is interpretation and translation. My points were to translation. That means that there is no wriggling out of what was really written in the Greek and Hebrew about homosexuality in the bible. The translation is solid. So regarding that, there is no room for interpretation. The big idea is corroborated by various writers over time.
As it relates to the bible and society, it's a fair question. I don't have any push back on that. However, I would say that based on Daft's post, as I assumed, many Holy books which have become foundations of societal codes such as ethics and laws seem to have the same view of homosexuality. And J, to me that says a lot. I mean, that fact baits an argument for traditional marriage outside the boundaries of religions, almost as a universal law. And that's my thing. If two men want to be together cool but you can't call it marriage. Call it civil union or something else. No one has the right to force a redefinition of such a global institution.
-
13 Things The Bible Forbids Other Than Homosexuality (That You're Probably Guilty Of Doing)
I waiting to find the Protests Groups that are forming to object to these 13 sins.
1) Tattoos: thinking of getting the Superman insignia on your bicep?
Leviticus 19:28 states: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
2) Rounded Haircuts: off to the barber?
Leviticus 19:27 states: Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
3) Men With Injured Or Cut Off Private Parts Entering Houses Of God: It's bad enough if you're a man who has had his private parts injured -- or heaven forbid cut off -- but to add insult to injury, Deuteronomy 23:1 states: He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
4) Consulting Psychics: Have you ever had your palm read? Or maybe you've consulted your horoscope for a little guidance?
Leviticus 19:31 reads: Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.
5) Gossiping: Heard some juicy news about Harold in the accounting department?
Can't wait to tell your BFF that you just read that Snooki is pregnant?
Leviticus 19:16 states: Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD.
6) Wives Helping Out Their Husbands In A Fight: Gentlemen -- if you ever get in a fight and you get the feeling your lady might jump in and lend you a hand by squeezing your opponent's... ahem... "secrets," you'd better stop her.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 states: When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets, Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
7) Eating A Ham Sandwich: Lunch time?
Leviticus 11:7-8 reads: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
8 ) Children Cursing Their Parents: Kids these days -- you never know what's going to come out of their mouths!
But hopefully your child doesn't curse you because Exodus 21:17 states: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
9) Getting Remarried After Getting Divorce: When it comes to the Bible, this is a big no-no:
Mark 10:11-12 states: Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
10) Working On The Sabbath: In our fast-paced society, does anyone really work Monday to Friday from 9-5?
Exodus 31:14-15 states: "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
11) Women Speaking In Houses Of God: Headed to church, ladies?
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 states: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
12) Eating Shrimp, Lobster, And Other Assorted Seafood: Craving a big bowl of popcorn shrimp?
Leviticus 10-11 states: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
13) Losing Your Virginity Before You Get Married: Today it might be harder to find a bride who is a virgin rather than the other way around.
But Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states: But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you
Source: I forget where I find this.
-
1) On your first point, just because people are selective in their censure of certain acts does not invalidate the intent of what was originally written.
2) Assuming all things are equal, healthy heterosexual couples (i.e. ones in which the men are virile and the women are fertile) are able to procreate and healthy homosexual couples (again ones in which both men are virile) or healthy lesbian couples (both women are fertile) are unable to procreate. Thus, outside of physiological issues, the male and female DNA is designed for procreation when a man and woman have sexual intercourse. Homosexual couples cannot procreate under any circumstances. In terms of whether the love bewteen one type of couple is on the same scale as another is actually not within the realms of my argument. My argument is strictly down to biology.
3) The world population is indeed seven billion, and yes, procreation is not as much as a biological imperative as it was in ancient times. However, the reason that the population became seven billion in the first place was down to heterosexual unions, whether natural or artifical. Basically, the population is seven billion because many humans literally became "fruitful and multiplied." (Quoted material taken from Genesis 1:28).
To sum up, people are free to live as they please. Please do not misunderstand me on this point. I am not a religious zealot. I will be the first to say that the spiritual life is not for everybody and everyone has to deal with the world in the way in which they feel most comfortable. However, there are always consequences for the choices that we make in life. Technically, I am free to eat whatever I want. I can eat hamburgers and steak everyday. However, there is a natural consequence for that. I will become fat, develop serious health problems (high blood pressure, clogged arteries, etc), and have a very low quality of life down the road.
If homosexuality was to become the norm, rather than the exception in the world, then yes, I stand by what I originally asserted: humans will become extinct.
I am not condemning homosexuals just for the sake of condemning them. Many of them are simply born with these tendencies. However, at the basic level, homosexuality and lesbianism is at odds with nature in that if allowed into the mainstream of sexual relationships, will eventually threaten the propogation of the human species.
1) OK - all I saying if that point is valid, then perhaps we should question why the other points are not. But if the Bible is to be taken literally, then the Bible thumpers better observe all tenets of the Bible and not pick and chose to define their moral compass. Thjey cant have it both ways
2) Biology - OK, biologically, we need a male and a female to procreate. But just as there are infertile males and females, a small % of the population is homosexual. But what does biology have to do with marriage? So do we deny them the right to marry because they are homosexual? We do not deny infertile couples the right to marry.
3) "If homosexuality was to become the norm" that is a supposition that has no foundation either biologically or otherwise. Homosexuality will not become the norm. Hetero couples give birth to homosexuals and children raised by homosexual parent do not necessarily become homosexual
Anyways to quote Karl Barth: "I take the Bible far too seriously to take it literally."
Implicit in your claim is the assumption that heterosexuality will always be more common than homosexuality. If I may play devil's advocate, why is that so? Perhaps because, heterosexuality is the more dominant and natural genetic traits displayed by humans? Thus making homosexuality a genetic aberration?
Again, please do not misconstrue my argument, because you still seem to missing the point. I am not about to condemn people for their lifestyles, but homosexuality, in terms of nature does not fulfill the basic imperative for human existence, i.e. propagation of the human species. Like it or not, that is the basic function of sex. Women's bodies go through the process of preparing themselves for insemination and conception every month and every time a male releases his seed, the purpose of this seed is to locate an egg to fertilize. If the sperm cannot find an egg, it dies.
From my perspective (which is that of a believer), our bodies have been created by an Infinite Intelligence, a.k.a Yahwah, God, Allah, etc. Thus, all of our bodily functions and process are as a result of this Divine function. For me, sex is a beautiful gift bestowed on humanity by this Creator for the primary purpose of reproduction. You are right that one should not take the bible literally, which is why I have not drawn heavily on biblical references in my debate. The Eternal Creator is bigger than any book or temple.
Sex's function has never changed because the Eternal Creator changes not; it is we (i.e. humanity) who have changed.
Just my two cents.
-
allyuh fellas out there who supporting the fagoots dem why dont allyuh be real .. go tell yu sons dem its ok to tek dick in he ass.. gwan nuh .. lemme see allyuh do dat .... allyuh jes talking one set a shit.. anyway .. Obama using michelle as a front yuh nuh see how this faggot does siddung wid his legs cross.. Obama is a big f**king faggot!!!!!!!!!!!! to all di people who voted for Obama to prove allyuh was not racist allyuh prove allyuh point now get f**kin Real and get this faggot out.. I use to have a picture wid this faggot in mi bar , since his confession to di world bout he is gay I remove it and now has a picture of Nicky aka Ricky Martin dick in obama mouth with Michelle under Clinton round table top .....How could terrorist them tek America serious when we president fraid di faggots dem ..
war
-
allyuh fellas out there who supporting the fagoots dem why dont allyuh be real .. go tell yu sons dem its ok to tek dick in he ass.. gwan nuh .. lemme see allyuh do dat .... allyuh jes talking one set a shit.. anyway .. Obama using michelle as a front yuh nuh see how this faggot does siddung wid his legs cross.. Obama is a big f**king faggot!!!!!!!!!!!! to all di people who voted for Obama to prove allyuh was not racist allyuh prove allyuh point now get f**kin Real and get this faggot out.. I use to have a picture wid this faggot in mi bar , since his confession to di world bout he is gay I remove it and now has a picture of Nicky aka Ricky Martin dick in obama mouth with Michelle under Clinton round table top .....How could terrorist them tek America serious when we president fraid di faggots dem ..
war
Although I do not agree with homosexuality or lesbianism, I cannot endorse your rant. It is filled with very abusive language and will only serve to alienate homosexuals and lesbians.
As has been commented on this thread, many homosexuals and lesbians are simply born that way. They do not "choose" to be attracted to people of their own sex. In fact, it would be crazy for anyone to choose the gay lifestyle because of the stigma that is still attached to it in many societies.
With all that said, the lifestyle is still unnatural as it does not produce life and that, as I have commented ad nauseum, is the basic function of sex.
-
Which of course ties me to my second rebuttal. If I am to understand your argument, because the bible was written by men, then it is debatable what the Eternal Creator really meant. To get a clue of the true feelings of the Almighty on the matter, let us look at the natural consequences of homosexual unions. Can a healthy man and a man or woman and a woman procreate without artificial means (i.e. in vitro fertilization)? Can a healthy man and a woman procreate without artificial means (Assuming that the man is not sterile and the woman is not infertile)? We both know the answer to these questions.
Outside of the bible, which can be misinterpreted, is a natural law. The laws of biology provide for procreation between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. A homosexual couple who is looking to have a child would have to either adopt, or one of the partners would have to go the in vitro route (which involves a male sperm fertilizing a female egg).
The laws of science are indisputable on this point. Even allowing for in vitro fertilization, there still has to be some form of male-female sexual interaction (i.e. male sperm and female egg at the minimum) in order for life to be created.
Now if you want to counter that sex is not always for procreation, then that is another matter altogether. However, bear in mind, if that were the case and everyone decided to stop having sex to procreate, then humanity will eventually become extinct.
Without a doubt personal biases crept into the writings of men like the Apostle Paul. As critical as I am of him (and his unbridled misogyny and prudery, I still acknowledge him as the greatest and most influential Christian writer... we all have our failings. The bible thumpers want to act like God himself set pen to paper in writing the bible. It's the Catholic church who at the Council of Trent, decided to vote on which books made it into the canon, and which books were excluded. For all we know, there are books out there that contain words attributed to Christ that are not so critical of homosexuality. But we don't know b/c the good Catholic Bishops voted them out.
Proverbs 3:5 says "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding"... this is what we are supposed to do in order to decipher divine intent, turn to God for guidance as we read and interpret the Word. but nah, some want to interpret what they read literally and often in a manner that suits their agenda. I take the bible as a guide, nothing else. A great deal of what I read I take with a grain of salt... not that I disregard it as false, but rather I read it critically. For many Christians that is blasphemy... which is nonsense.
I agree with you. The bible is a guide. In fact, it is based on very ancient Hebrew scriptures of which there is widespread disagreement amongst even Jewish leaders themselves. That is precisely why I purposely stayed away from the bible in my debate with Pecan. The scripture that I quoted (i.e. Leviticus 18:22), was simply to show evidence of God's condemnation. I understand that you are of the opinion that the bible is written by men and is thus coloured by bias. Hence, you can take that scripture with a massive dose of salt if you like.
However, setting the biblical imperative aside, homosexual unions do not fulfill the original purpose for which sex was originally intended, i.e. the creation of offspring. The whole design of the male and female body and the biological processes point towards this. This is why some couples use contraceptive measures when they become involved sexually. Because, sex without contraceptives will most likely lead to pregnancy, barring any issues such as age or infertility.
As I have said, the basis of my belief is on the miraculous nature of the world and the human body and the processes which sustain life. For me, this is not simply about homosexuality. There are many things that are unnatural and which lead to death (i.e. smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy foods, etc.) However, to keep this on the issue of homosexuality and not veer off track, I will limit my thoughts to the original thread topic.
-
However, setting the biblical imperative aside, homosexual unions do not fulfill the original purpose for which sex was originally intended, i.e. the creation of offspring.
The original purpose yuh say dey? How you come up with this?
(especially if yuh "setting the biblical imperative aside").
Because, sex without contraceptives will most likely lead to pregnancy, barring any issues such as age or infertility.
hmmm not really....
-
However, setting the biblical imperative aside, homosexual unions do not fulfill the original purpose for which sex was originally intended, i.e. the creation of offspring.
The original purpose yuh say dey? How you come up with this?
(especially if yuh "setting the biblical imperative aside").
Because, sex without contraceptives will most likely lead to pregnancy, barring any issues such as age or infertility.
hmmm not really....
Answers to 1 and 2. If one is to engage in sexual intercourse without contraceptives, then barring age and infertility issues, pregnancy will most likely result.
I understand that I did not explain myself properly in my first statement, but the fact that pregnancy is the natural outcome of sexual activity (all things being equal) that is undertaken without protective barriers is just a law of biology.
So in that sense, that is the biological purpose of the sex act and what happens when a woman of child-bearing age engages in such an act with a virile man.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
As I have said, all human bodily functions have a purpose, even the most mundane thing like excreting waste matter in the toilet.
-
Well first of all even without contraception, and with two healthy fertile individuals there is only a narrow window of time during which a woman can get pregnant in each monthly cycle - I stress can because during this window, all things being equal, it is still not always a given that it will happen....so to say that sex without contraception will MOST LIKELY lead to pregnancy is just wrong.
And to deduce that procreation is the ORIGINAL purpose of sex on the basis that procreation is a natural result of sexual activity is completely illogical...that's just two independent statements..... If you say that procreation is more important than pleasure in sustaining the human race (and even that statement isn't as straightforward as it might seem on the surface), therefore procreation is a more important natural purpose of sexual activity than pleasure is, then ok -yuh could argue that and I eh go vex with yuh...but intimacy is a powerful powerful thing fella - goes way beyond the purely biological text book teachings...even taking procreation out of the picture, we can't begin to imagine life without it...to say that sex was intended orginally for procreation sounds like you're making up your own rules for everybody else.
-
Well first of all even without contraception, and with two healthy fertile individuals there is only a narrow window of time during which a woman can get pregnant in each monthly cycle - I stress can because during this window, all things being equal, it is still not always a given that it will happen....so to say that sex without contraception will MOST LIKELY lead to pregnancy is just wrong.
And to deduce that procreation is the ORIGINAL purpose of sex on the basis that procreation is a natural result of sexual activity is completely illogical...that's just two independent statements..... If you say that procreation is more important than pleasure in sustaining the human race (and even that statement isn't as straightforward as it might seem on the surface), therefore procreation is a more important natural purpose of sexual activity than pleasure is, then ok -yuh could argue that and I eh go vex with yuh...but to say that sex was intended orginally for procreation jusso jusso....that just sounds like you're making up your own rules for everybody else.
Fine, I concede your point on the "most likely" part, but that still does not invalidate the fact that human bodies were designed for human conception. The main purpose of the sperm is to fertilize an egg. Failing that, it dies, because it did not fulfill its original purpose. We can at least agree on that point. So my claim is not as baseless as you are claiming that is. The human body is designed for human conception. Women's bodies produce eggs to be fertilized by a spermatozoon and the spermatozoon's purpose is to fertilize a female egg.
That is the purpose based on the biological makeup of the human anatomy. On the issue of pleasure, the issue is not that far apart from procreation as you are making it out to be. In order for humans to be motivated to engage in coitus continually and thus propagate the species, our bodies are designed to respond to the activity, i.e. sexual arousal.
If I did not view the sex act as something pleasurable to me, I would most likely engage in it less and less. It is basic human psychology.
Summary, procreation and sexual enjoyment are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I understand that my argument is radical and thus difficult to accept because so many have relied on the biblical argument.
-
ahhh ok - the purpose of sperm is to fertilize an egg - I can agree with that (as would most I imagine). That's different from your first position - very different.
As for your point about pleasure and procreation not being mutually exclusive - that is in part along the same lines that I was thinking..which is why I dunno how you come up with what is the "original" purpose of sexual activity...remember is "original" you say eh - I not saying yuh wrong (because frankly I don't know)- I just dunno how you decide that for everybody.
Your point eh that radical...I hear what you're saying but these issues real complex - more complex than alotta people realize on a casual day to day...I not sure we could sum up what you trying to sum up in one swoop which is why I engaged you in this back and forth :beermug:
-
I agree with you. The bible is a guide. In fact, it is based on very ancient Hebrew scriptures of which there is widespread disagreement amongst even Jewish leaders themselves. That is precisely why I purposely stayed away from the bible in my debate with Pecan. The scripture that I quoted (i.e. Leviticus 18:22), was simply to show evidence of God's condemnation. I understand that you are of the opinion that the bible is written by men and is thus coloured by bias. Hence, you can take that scripture with a massive dose of salt if you like.
However, setting the biblical imperative aside, homosexual unions do not fulfill the original purpose for which sex was originally intended, i.e. the creation of offspring. The whole design of the male and female body and the biological processes point towards this. This is why some couples use contraceptive measures when they become involved sexually. Because, sex without contraceptives will most likely lead to pregnancy, barring any issues such as age or infertility.
As I have said, the basis of my belief is on the miraculous nature of the world and the human body and the processes which sustain life. For me, this is not simply about homosexuality. There are many things that are unnatural and which lead to death (i.e. smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy foods, etc.) However, to keep this on the issue of homosexuality and not veer off track, I will limit my thoughts to the original thread topic.
I really not sure what (or who) yuh arguing against then... the gist of the debate is religiously-sanctioned homosexual marriage. To re-cap, it was just about gay marriage, but the bible thumpers conflating "marriage" to mean the involvement of the church (particularly the Christian church), so they start arguing the propriety of church-sanctioned homosexual marriage. Mind you, for purposes of the larger debate, the "gay marriage" talk does not by necessity implicate the church, but that's another matter.
Your position lies outside of this debate, and is more to the core of whether homosexuality is "right", "acceptable", "natural","[_____]" etc.
-
What about de reference to gays with Sodom and Gomorrah? These were two cities which had it good but their citizens turn to bullerman ways. God single them out for punishment specifically for this.
I claiming that the orthodox christian stance is unequivocally NOT in support of gay marriage. But the way religion is today, is by choice. There will always be some church or reverend that ready to try a ting and introduce a heterodoxy. E.g. Rev. Wright - obuma's inconvenient pastor.
Speaking for myself, the evidence in the Bible seem clear enough for me. Everyone have their own standard.
But I get the feeling, with obuma pushing this unimportant issue to the fore in an attempt to find a wedge issue, that gays are looking to (a) the state and (b) the religious to support this experiment. Some people not willing to do this and rightly so. I doh know why Obuma care so much about this trivial :bs: unimportant issue - is he going to marry some gays or come out as a gay himself? Is he speaking on behalf of his religion, now that he done break with Rev. Wright? Steups.
Anyway, gays can always find some minister to dignify their marriage and they can hire lobbyists like everyone else. That's as much as they should expect. Do not expect endorsement from a lot of christians.
Obuma should send a gay diplomat to saudi arabia and see how that go over.
1) OK - all I saying if that point is valid, then perhaps we should question why the other points are not. But if the Bible is to be taken literally, then the Bible thumpers better observe all tenets of the Bible and not pick and chose to define their moral compass. They cant have it both ways
These are actually two separate issues: compliance with ALL tenets of the Bible and adhering to the Bible's words on homosexuals. Your statement is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. There is no necessary connection.
Of the many ideas prescribed by the Bible, the text on homosexuality is relatively clear. Yet, people going through all kinds of contortions to find a passage where the Bible sanctifies gay marriage for reasons of convenience.
I hear what you saying but the Bible is far from clear on homosexuality (this word was never used in the bible) ... nevertheless, my issue is with the use of the bible to condemn homosexuality while other 'truths' are conveniently ignored. Even if I accept the oft quoted verse from Leviticus as the overarching "law" on homosexuality, there is still too much ambiguity in other parts of the bible on this and other moral issues to insist on using the Bible to argue my position. i.e. if one wants to argue against same sex union, one should NOT use the Bible as the authoritative source of natural law. The Bible is but a guide and is Faith based.
I found an interesting paper on the Bible and Homosexuality written by the Ontario Centre for religious tolerance. Here are the conclusions:
Conclusions
There may be as many as three references in the Bible to committed homosexual relationships, none of which was condemned.
Homosexual activity in the temple by male prostitutes is clearly prohibited by the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).
Prostitution, both heterosexual and homosexual is generally condemned.
Sexual abuse of boys by adult males is condemned
St. Paul considered at least some male and female homosexual acts to be forbidden, but it is unclear precisely which acts are included. He may have been referring to:
temple prostitution,
people who are not innately gay, lesbian or bisexual, but who engaged in homosexual acts,
to child sexual abuse, or
group sexual orgies.
Paul was certainly aware of sexual orgies in Pagan temples, including both heterosexual and homosexual encounters. He would have been aware of the practice of male adults keeping a boy for sexual purposes. These may have been the only forms of same gender sex that he knew of. He did not appear to make any references in his writings to consentual, committed homosexual relationships. He probably did not know of any.
One should note that Paul also condemned women preaching (1 Cor 14:34) or wearing gold or pearls (1 Tim 2:11). He also accepted and did not condemn the institution of slavery. Many Christians feel that his writings reflect his own prejudices are not a particularly useful guide for ethics and morals in the 20th Century.
Jesus made many hundreds of statements regarding belief and behavior. However He never mentioned homosexuality.
It is the subject of endless debate whether St. Pauls prohibition of at least some homosexual acts was:
for the people in the vicinity of the Mediterranean during the 1st Century CE, or
for all people, forever.
One can argue that the ancient Israelites were surrounded by warlike tribes. Their fertility was very important if the group was to survive. The early Christian church was persecuted by the Roman government and by the Jewish religious leaders. Homosexuals tend to have few children; thus their presence would be met with opposition. At the end of the 20th Century, conditions are the exact opposite; we are threatened by our excessive fertility. Perhaps Pauls criticism of homosexuality is no longer valid, like his various prohibitions against womens behavior.
Source (http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/globalrights/sexorient/bible-gay.html)
-
Yes I see what you're saying. And you are right that some/many people read the bible and interpret it how they see it. But remember there is interpretation and translation. My points were to translation. That means that there is no wriggling out of what was really written in the Greek and Hebrew about homosexuality in the bible. The translation is solid. So regarding that, there is no room for interpretation. The big idea is corroborated by various writers over time.
As it relates to the bible and society, it's a fair question. I don't have any push back on that. However, I would say that based on Daft's post, as I assumed, many Holy books which have become foundations of societal codes such as ethics and laws seem to have the same view of homosexuality. And J, to me that says a lot. I mean, that fact baits an argument for traditional marriage outside the boundaries of religions, almost as a universal law. And that's my thing. If two men want to be together cool but you can't call it marriage. Call it civil union or something else. No one has the right to force a redefinition of such a global institution.
I dont know that commonality with other religious text and rules is really significant. Likewise Omars question about the Koran and Muslim. There are many Koran-inspired laws in these countries that you would find abhorrent. These societies use the Koran to codify honour killings and the general subjugation of women (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-crimewave-that-shames-the-world-2072201.html). The definition of cherry-picking would be to say that they are right about how they view gays but they wrong about how they view women. Also, as I said before, those societies should be the best example of why religioous doctrine cannot be the pre-text for civil law in a country that preaches the separation of church and state.
The question of gays in society has to be considered in the context of the society and how the society in question has evolved. As much as I would like it to be the same everywhere I not suggesting same-sex marriage recognition in the Middle-East or even in Trinidad. In those societies people dont even pay lip-service to gays being equal, as they do in the States. Same-sex marriage recognition would be a step to far.
Likewise this was not a debate to be held in the US 100 years ago and it will not even be an issue of contention in 200 years time. I dont expect this to be the time in US history when all attitudes change. Slavery was ended in the mid-nineteenth century but Jim Crow wasnt ended for a hundred years and even now we still dealing with the stigma of racism in society.
We have a society that has come a a long way on homosexuality. From being a criminal act that was prosecuted, to a dirty little secret, to a taboo act, to something that we grudgingly accept, to something that we now claim is an accepted way of life not subject to discrimination.
I honestly think that a lot of the talk about having no problem with gays or fine with it as long as it is not in my face/backyard/family is an indication that huge sections of the population still do not view gays as equals. I understand that but even that is progress. The fact that people feel the need to be politically correct and socially sensitive about the way they describe gays is progress to equality. Recognition of same-sex marriage is a big step.
The good and bad thing about the US is the geographic and demographic diversity. Over time this will change because technology and travel will make the country more homogeneous. Currently there are only sections of the country that have adopted same-sex marriage laws within the last 20 years. We have gay co-workers, gay teachers, families with gay parents and kids, whether by adoption or surrogate, that are full contributing members of society sharing the backyards, living-rooms and classrooms with heterosexual adults and kids (the horror). Time will be enough to show that the effects of accepting people as equals in these states and the old ideas will continue to go away.
-
Yes I see what you're saying. And you are right that some/many people read the bible and interpret it how they see it. But remember there is interpretation and translation. My points were to translation. That means that there is no wriggling out of what was really written in the Greek and Hebrew about homosexuality in the bible. The translation is solid. So regarding that, there is no room for interpretation. The big idea is corroborated by various writers over time.
As it relates to the bible and society, it's a fair question. I don't have any push back on that. However, I would say that based on Daft's post, as I assumed, many Holy books which have become foundations of societal codes such as ethics and laws seem to have the same view of homosexuality. And J, to me that says a lot. I mean, that fact baits an argument for traditional marriage outside the boundaries of religions, almost as a universal law. And that's my thing. If two men want to be together cool but you can't call it marriage. Call it civil union or something else. No one has the right to force a redefinition of such a global institution.
I dont know that commonality with other religious text and rules is really significant. Likewise Omars question about the Koran and Muslim. There are many Koran-inspired laws in these countries that you would find abhorrent. These societies use the Koran to codify honour killings and the general subjugation of women (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-crimewave-that-shames-the-world-2072201.html). The definition of cherry-picking would be to say that they are right about how they view gays but they wrong about how they view women. Also, as I said before, those societies should be the best example of why religioous doctrine cannot be the pre-text for civil law in a country that preaches the separation of church and state.
The question of gays in society has to be considered in the context of the society and how the society in question has evolved. As much as I would like it to be the same everywhere I not suggesting same-sex marriage recognition in the Middle-East or even in Trinidad. In those societies people dont even pay lip-service to gays being equal, as they do in the States. Same-sex marriage recognition would be a step to far.
Likewise this was not a debate to be held in the US 100 years ago and it will not even be an issue of contention in 200 years time. I dont expect this to be the time in US history when all attitudes change. Slavery was ended in the mid-nineteenth century but Jim Crow wasnt ended for a hundred years and even now we still dealing with the stigma of racism in society.
We have a society that has come a a long way on homosexuality. From being a criminal act that was prosecuted, to a dirty little secret, to a taboo act, to something that we grudgingly accept, to something that we now claim is an accepted way of life not subject to discrimination.
I honestly think that a lot of the talk about having no problem with gays or fine with it as long as it is not in my face/backyard/family is an indication that huge sections of the population still do not view gays as equals. I understand that but even that is progress. The fact that people feel the need to be politically correct and socially sensitive about the way they describe gays is progress to equality. Recognition of same-sex marriage is a big step.
The good and bad thing about the US is the geographic and demographic diversity. Over time this will change because technology and travel will make the country more homogeneous. Currently there are only sections of the country that have adopted same-sex marriage laws within the last 20 years. We have gay co-workers, gay teachers, families with gay parents and kids, whether by adoption or surrogate, that are full contributing members of society sharing the backyards, living-rooms and classrooms with heterosexual adults and kids (the horror). Time will be enough to show that the effects of accepting people as equals in these states and the old ideas will continue to go away.
good post. :thumbsup:
-
What about de reference to gays with Sodom and Gomorrah? These were two cities which had it good but their citizens turn to bullerman ways. God single them out for punishment specifically for this.
I claiming that the orthodox christian stance is unequivocally NOT in support of gay marriage. But the way religion is today, is by choice. There will always be some church or reverend that ready to try a ting and introduce a heterodoxy. E.g. Rev. Wright - obuma's inconvenient pastor.
Speaking for myself, the evidence in the Bible seem clear enough for me. Everyone have their own standard.
But I get the feeling, with obuma pushing this unimportant issue to the fore in an attempt to find a wedge issue, that gays are looking to (a) the state and (b) the religious to support this experiment. Some people not willing to do this and rightly so. I doh know why Obuma care so much about this trivial :bs: unimportant issue - is he going to marry some gays or come out as a gay himself? Is he speaking on behalf of his religion, now that he done break with Rev. Wright? Steups.
Anyway, gays can always find some minister to dignify their marriage and they can hire lobbyists like everyone else. That's as much as they should expect. Do not expect endorsement from a lot of christians.
Obuma should send a gay diplomat to saudi arabia and see how that go over.
Again, Sodom is another one of those stores that is so often used to support the stance against homosexuality.
It begins in Genesis 18:1 and concludes 19:38. Go read it again. It involves a Lot (pun intended) more about 'homosexuality' per se. It is about a weak God who allows himself to negotiated down from destroying Sodom to finding 10 righteous people. This God even has to send his emissaries to check things out. This is not the type of all knowing God that I believe in. Anyways, the travelers back in these times, if not afforded hospitality by the locals, became the victims of ribald play - they were forced to play the role of a woman in a sexually abusive act. That is NOT homosexuality - that is just plain sexual abuse and rape and control. The story goes on and Lot rescues a couple of travelers from this abuse but cannot appease the crowd. So he offers the crown his virgin daughters to do as they please. Again consistent with the time - women are property.
Sodom was ultimately destroy, not because of homosexuality, but because of non-righteous people. People who had no respect for each other or strangers.
Many scholars support this notion. Here is the problem
"Each Bible translation reflects the world view, beliefs and mind sets of its translators. Their personal biases distort their work. There is an additional complexity facing translators: todays society is very different from that of Biblical times. It is sometimes difficult to find a current English word that closely matches a Hebrew or Greek term."
Because of inexact translations, the Bible can be used to argue for or against a myriad of moral behaviours. It all depends on what argument supports your personal moral beliefs.
To conclude: that is why I do not accept bible-based arguments to support a position. Rather, I accept the Bible as a guide to better understand my quest for spirituality.
-
Again, please do not misconstrue my argument, because you still seem to missing the point.
.
.
From my perspective (which is that of a believer), our bodies have been created by an Infinite Intelligence, a.k.a Yahwah, God, Allah, etc. Thus, all of our bodily functions and process are as a result of this Divine function. For me, sex is a beautiful gift bestowed on humanity by this Creator for the primary purpose of reproduction. You are right that one should not take the bible literally, which is why I have not drawn heavily on biblical references in my debate. The Eternal Creator is bigger than any book or temple.
Sex's function has never changed because the Eternal Creator changes not; it is we (i.e. humanity) who have changed.
Just my two cents.
You and I will have to agree to disagree.
I don't think I am missing your point. Here is what I think you are saying
1) Your primary argument against same-sex unions is based on 'natural laws' and the role of sex in human procreation. Yet your opening salvo in this recent debate was an authoritative statement on God's law regarding homosexuality, here is what you said which much authority and if this is not a Bible-based argument against homosexuality, I don't know what is ...
Well, just so that there is no confusion on the Eternal Creator's stance on homosexual unions:
Leviticus 18 (excerpt)
.
.
.
Yahwah (The Hebrew name for God) is fairly unequivocal on this point. I will never condemn a homosexual as it is not an easy lifestyle and I cannot imagine anyone deciding to practice this lifestyle by choice. However, if one were to believe the Bible, it is clear on this point.
But you claim this was just a quote to illustrate God's position (in your response to Bakes). So for the sake of argument, I will accept that and go back to the 'reproductive' based argument.
I agree that sex is the basic mechanism for procreation. What I disagree with is your conclusion that because same-sex unions cannot beget offspring (my words), they are unnatural. I simply disagree with this conclusion. There are many hetero-based unions that cannot produce off-spring. So by extension, your argument about procreation should exclude the validity of the relationships and I just cannot buy that.
You have not convinced me nor I, you. So we go leave it at that ... :beermug:
-
Again, please do not misconstrue my argument, because you still seem to missing the point.
.
.
From my perspective (which is that of a believer), our bodies have been created by an Infinite Intelligence, a.k.a Yahwah, God, Allah, etc. Thus, all of our bodily functions and process are as a result of this Divine function. For me, sex is a beautiful gift bestowed on humanity by this Creator for the primary purpose of reproduction. You are right that one should not take the bible literally, which is why I have not drawn heavily on biblical references in my debate. The Eternal Creator is bigger than any book or temple.
Sex's function has never changed because the Eternal Creator changes not; it is we (i.e. humanity) who have changed.
Just my two cents.
You and I will have to agree to disagree.
I don't think I am missing your point. Here is what I think you are saying
1) Your primary argument against same-sex unions is based on 'natural laws' and the role of sex in human procreation. Yet your opening salvo in this recent debate was an authoritative statement on God's law regarding homosexuality, here is what you said which much authority and if this is not a Bible-based argument against homosexuality, I don't know what is ...
Well, just so that there is no confusion on the Eternal Creator's stance on homosexual unions:
Leviticus 18 (excerpt)
.
.
.
Yahwah (The Hebrew name for God) is fairly unequivocal on this point. I will never condemn a homosexual as it is not an easy lifestyle and I cannot imagine anyone deciding to practice this lifestyle by choice. However, if one were to believe the Bible, it is clear on this point.
But you claim this was just a quote to illustrate God's position (in your response to Bakes). So for the sake of argument, I will accept that and go back to the 'reproductive' based argument.
I agree that sex is the basic mechanism for procreation. What I disagree with is your conclusion that because same-sex unions cannot beget offspring (my words), they are unnatural. I simply disagree with this conclusion. There are many hetero-based unions that cannot produce off-spring. So by extension, your argument about procreation should exclude the validity of the relationships and I just cannot buy that.
You have not convinced me nor I, you. So we go leave it at that ... :beermug:
You still are missing the point, because most people reduce the Eternal Creator to a book, which goes against logic. The Bible or Torah is mainly a record of various ancient cultures and their experience of the Almighty. The Almighty is bigger than any book or physical structure (i.e. Church). When humanity was created, there was no bible, yet there were always natural laws and physical laws. That is what I have been trying to impress upon you during our exchange. Trying to typecast me into some religious role illustrates that you still fail to see where I coming from.
As for my quotation of scripture, it was originally to provide evidence of references in the Bible to homosexuality, because that was the original point made. That was what my opening "salvo" was about. Also, you failed to to highlight the part of my post where I said "if one were to believe the Bible it is clear on this point" Thus, I did not cite the bible as the ultimate authority; rather I was providing a cultural perspective (i.e. Christian, which I grew up as, but am not)
As for the hetero unions that do not produce offspring, then in essence either something is wrong (the man or the woman is infertile) or the couple is aged. In the first case, there is an unnatural element because disease is present (i.e. infertility). In the second, the couple may have aged beyond the optimal age for childbearing.
The natural human condition is to be healthy. I will even extend my argument further and say that being overweight is also not natural because it upsets the body's natural equilibrium and brings with it the risk of disease. But, that is tangential to the main argument. My point is any activity that does not fulfill its original function as I have repeated ad nauseum, is unnatural, homosexuality included.
If you disagree with my conclusion, then I respect that, but please do not misrepresent where I am coming from. :beermug:
Last Edit: Today at 12:00:44 PM by kaliman2006
-
Hear d real scene...
Let the gays Marry legally...go into the district office/court house/vegas wherever and get the paperwork done. Allow them same rights legally and let them be happy.
But if they want to go to a church/mosque or other religious institution it is up to the priest/rabbi/pastor/imam/pundit etc...to do it and give his blessing.
If the "Holy Authority" don't do it and you can't have your ceremony ...say ok and press and go to a "denomination" that will welcome you with open arms and accept your same sex union as marriage.
That is the simplest and easiest way for everybody to be happy.
But what go happen is...the rejected gay couple go turn around "pun intended" and sue the damn church for discrimination.
There is no winner here...somebody have to dig a horrors and feel the hurt...but it ent sunshine and rainbow time just yet. Even though they looking at the forecast and the weatherman saying good weather on the horizon.
-
Hear d real scene...
Let the gays Marry legally...go into the district office/court house/vegas wherever and get the paperwork done. Allow them same rights legally and let them be happy.
But if they want to go to a church/mosque or other religious institution it is up to the priest/rabbi/pastor/imam/pundit etc...to do it and give his blessing.
If the "Holy Authority" don't do it and you can't have your ceremony ...say ok and press and go to a "denomination" that will welcome you with open arms and accept your same sex union as marriage.
That is the simplest and easiest way for everybody to be happy.
But what go happen is...the rejected gay couple go turn around "pun intended" and sue the damn church for discrimination.
There is no winner here...somebody have to dig a horrors and feel the hurt...but it ent sunshine and rainbow time just yet. Even though they looking at the forecast and the weatherman saying good weather on the horizon.
Nah Damian - I think that's a misconception. Gays seeking marriage and marital rights are not fighting for acceptance by any church and are not trying to force any particular religious institution to bless their marriage (at least not that I'm aware of) ...
-
Hear d real scene...
Let the gays Marry legally...go into the district office/court house/vegas wherever and get the paperwork done. Allow them same rights legally and let them be happy.
But if they want to go to a church/mosque or other religious institution it is up to the priest/rabbi/pastor/imam/pundit etc...to do it and give his blessing.
If the "Holy Authority" don't do it and you can't have your ceremony ...say ok and press and go to a "denomination" that will welcome you with open arms and accept your same sex union as marriage.
That is the simplest and easiest way for everybody to be happy.
But what go happen is...the rejected gay couple go turn around "pun intended" and sue the damn church for discrimination.
There is no winner here...somebody have to dig a horrors and feel the hurt...but it ent sunshine and rainbow time just yet. Even though they looking at the forecast and the weatherman saying good weather on the horizon.
Doh get carried away with de speculation... Churches are allowed to discriminate in how they interpret and apply their religious tenets. This is the gist behind "separation of church and state"... the state can't tell people how to worship, or IF to worship at all.
Everything else you saying is precisely what the 'gay marriage' talk (here in the US) is about. Nobody is saying "force the church and them to marry them"... but rather "let them go before the JP, or down to City Hall and get married, with the same rights and protections, just as heterosexual couples."
-
It is sometimes difficult to find a current English word that closely matches a Hebrew or Greek term."
Correct me if I am wrong. Is it true that at those time Greek was the world language, as is English in the 20th and 21st century.
-
What about de reference to gays with Sodom and Gomorrah? These were two cities which had it good but their citizens turn to bullerman ways. God single them out for punishment specifically for this.
I claiming that the orthodox christian stance is unequivocally NOT in support of gay marriage. But the way religion is today, is by choice. There will always be some church or reverend that ready to try a ting and introduce a heterodoxy. E.g. Rev. Wright - obuma's inconvenient pastor.
Speaking for myself, the evidence in the Bible seem clear enough for me. Everyone have their own standard.
But I get the feeling, with obuma pushing this unimportant issue to the fore in an attempt to find a wedge issue, that gays are looking to (a) the state and (b) the religious to support this experiment. Some people not willing to do this and rightly so. I doh know why Obuma care so much about this trivial :bs: unimportant issue - is he going to marry some gays or come out as a gay himself? Is he speaking on behalf of his religion, now that he done break with Rev. Wright? Steups.
Anyway, gays can always find some minister to dignify their marriage and they can hire lobbyists like everyone else. That's as much as they should expect. Do not expect endorsement from a lot of christians.
Obuma should send a gay diplomat to saudi arabia and see how that go over.
Again, Sodom is another one of those stores that is so often used to support the stance against homosexuality.
It begins in Genesis 18:1 and concludes 19:38. Go read it again. It involves a Lot (pun intended) more about 'homosexuality' per se. It is about a weak God who allows himself to negotiated down from destroying Sodom to finding 10 righteous people. This God even has to send his emissaries to check things out. This is not the type of all knowing God that I believe in. Anyways, the travelers back in these times, if not afforded hospitality by the locals, became the victims of ribald play - they were forced to play the role of a woman in a sexually abusive act. That is NOT homosexuality - that is just plain sexual abuse and rape and control. The story goes on and Lot rescues a couple of travelers from this abuse but cannot appease the crowd. So he offers the crown his virgin daughters to do as they please. Again consistent with the time - women are property.
Sodom was ultimately destroy, not because of homosexuality, but because of non-righteous people. People who had no respect for each other or strangers.
Many scholars support this notion. Here is the problem
"Each Bible translation reflects the world view, beliefs and mind sets of its translators. Their personal biases distort their work. There is an additional complexity facing translators: todays society is very different from that of Biblical times. It is sometimes difficult to find a current English word that closely matches a Hebrew or Greek term."
Because of inexact translations, the Bible can be used to argue for or against a myriad of moral behaviours. It all depends on what argument supports your personal moral beliefs.
To conclude: that is why I do not accept bible-based arguments to support a position. Rather, I accept the Bible as a guide to better understand my quest for spirituality.
pecan, ah feel this is word games yuh playing. ah mean, even today convicts playing the same game; how on the inside they on the "down low" but dey playing this ent de same as "homosexual". is de same kind of sophistry. if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. (aside: the meaning of sodomite - derived from sodom - come to mean precisely the kind of homosexuality yuh denying it mean.)
my point is, the tale of sodom and gomorrah can reasonably be interpreted as punishment for homosexuality. yes, the interpretation you offer may sway some but yuh cyah deny the interpretation i'm offering is not unreasonable.
your conclusion seem to leave you with the task of finding evidence of things that are mystical and spiritual outside of the Bible. if you looking to History, Science, Mother Nature, etc. , that seem at odds with the essential truth of the Revealed Word. that is fine, but then your interpretation is not really christian or biblical but rather a secular one isn't it.
-
my point is, the tale of sodom and gomorrah can reasonably be interpreted as punishment for homosexuality. yes, the interpretation you offer may sway some but yuh cyah deny the interpretation i'm offering is not unreasonable.
The Bible specifically says that Sodom and Gomorrah were punished because Lot couldn't find 10 righteous people. I think God is sufficiently clear what he prohibits and what he punishes etc. elsewhere to conclude that homosexuality was hardly the reason for the destruction of the cities. If that is why they were destroyed that would have been made much clearer... not this nebulous "10 righteous people" talk. The position that the cities were destroyed due to homosexuality has gained strength largely due to the fact that we have now come to associate "sodomy" with homosexuality (i.e. with "buggery").
-
my point is, the tale of sodom and gomorrah can reasonably be interpreted as punishment for homosexuality. yes, the interpretation you offer may sway some but yuh cyah deny the interpretation i'm offering is not unreasonable.
The Bible specifically says that Sodom and Gomorrah were punished because Lot couldn't find 10 righteous people. I think God is sufficiently clear what he prohibits and what he punishes etc. elsewhere to conclude that homosexuality was hardly the reason for the destruction of the cities. If that is why they were destroyed that would have been made much clearer... not this nebulous "10 righteous people" talk. The position that the cities were destroyed due to homosexuality has gained strength largely due to the fact that we have now come to associate "sodomy" with homosexuality (i.e. with "buggery").
No.
Here is summery of the story.
God tells Abraham he's going to destroy the city. Because the cities in God's view was overly wicked. Abraham ask God to chill if 50 righteous people were found. He couldn't find 50. Abraham break God down to 10 righteous people. He couldn't find 10. So God said the city is gonna bun. I'll send 2 messengers (Angels) to warn your cousin Lot so they could get out.
God says the city is going to be destroyed because it's wicked and then the story proceeds to point out what really pissed God off to the point of destroying the city. What brought God's wrath.
The messengers reached Lot's home and told him what God was planning to do and that he should leave immediately. Some men notice that new comers were staying at Lot's house. So they asked Lot to bring the men outside so they could rape them. After a while it became a mob. Lot, trying to calm them down and even offered his daughters, which i believed were virgins. Nah, they want Lot's guests. An altercation happen at the door and the Angels intervened and blinded the mob. THEY STILL DID NOT STOP. They crawled around trying to find the door knob. Even if they had a unique supernatural experience they still pressed forward in blindness hoping to find two new bamsee to rape. I don't want to imagine what them lil children had to endure. That's why those cities were punished.
Bakes you need to just read the text bro. Absolutely nothing about that story is nebulous.
-
No.
Here is summery of the story.
God tells Abraham he's going to destroy the city. Because the cities in God's view was overly wicked. Abraham ask God to chill if 50 righteous people were found. He couldn't find 50. Abraham break God down to 10 righteous people. He couldn't find 10. So God said the city is gonna bun. I'll send 2 messengers (Angels) to warn your cousin Lot so they could get out.
God says the city is going to be destroyed because it's wicked and then the story proceeds to point out what really pissed God off to the point of destroying the city. What brought God's wrath.
The messengers reached Lot's home and told him what God was planning to do and that he should leave immediately. Some men notice that knew comers were staying at Lot's house. So they asked Lot to bring the men outside so they could rape them. After a while it became a mob. Lot, trying to calm them down and even offered his daughters, which i believed were virgin. Nah, they want Lot's guests. And altercation happen at the door and the Angels intervened and blinded the mob. THEY STILL DID NOT STOP. The crawled around trying to find the door knob. Even if they had a unique supernatural experience they still pressed forward in blindness hoping to find two new bamsee to rape. I don't want to imagine what them lil children had to endure. That's why those cities were punished.
Bakes you need to just read the text bro. Absolutely nothing about that story is nebulous.
Thanks eh... but that is YOUR interpretation of "what really pissed God off." I dunno if because yuh name is "Preacher" yuh feel your understanding of the Bible is better than mine so that you feel yuh correcting me by telling me "No." lol.
Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
My take: The report God was getting from SnG was so egregious that he sent his emissaries to check on it.
Gen 18:21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
Gen 18:22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. [fn]
Gen 18:23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?
Gen 18:24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [fn] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it?
The whole point was to try and spare the city for the sake of the righteous who lived there.
Gen 18:25 Far be it from you to do such a thing--to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge [fn] of all the earth do right?"
Gen 18:26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."
Gen 18:27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes,
Gen 18:28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?" "If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."
Gen 18:29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?" He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."
Gen 18:30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?" He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."
Gen 18:31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?" He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."
Gen 18:32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?" He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."
Gen 18:33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.
Again, it really didn't matter the number, the point was finding righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah. We never hear the details of "the outcry", but obviously it was troubling enough that God had already set his mind to destroying the cities.
Now chapter 19, the incident which according to you "really pissed God off".
The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
Gen 19:2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
Gen 19:3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.
Gen 19:4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
Gen 19:5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Gen 19:6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
Gen 19:7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
Gen 19:8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
Gen 19:9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
Gen 19:10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door.
Gen 19:11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
Gen 19:12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here--sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here,
Gen 19:13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
They came to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah even before this "rape" incident you claiming as the real cause for its destruction.
Gen 19:14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry [fn] his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
Gen 19:15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
Gen 19:16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them.
Gen 19:17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"
Gen 19:18 But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, [fn] please!
Gen 19:19 Your [fn] servant has found favor in your [fn] eyes, and you [fn] have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die.
Gen 19:20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it--it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."
Gen 19:21 He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of.
Gen 19:22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." (That is why the town was called Zoar. [fn])
Gen 19:23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land.
Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens.
Gen 19:25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities--and also the vegetation in the land.
Your interpretation is that God was already angry, but not as angry as after this incident. There is nothing in the account that says he became "really pissed off" after this... or that he became any angrier. Again, God ent schupid... God knew even before all the talk of 50 and 45 and 30 and 10 righteous people that it didn't have enough righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah to spare the city. The only righteous ones were Lot and his children and even them wasn't that "righteous" (more on that in a bit).
Destruction of the cities was preordained before the two angels set foot in front of Lot house. It was the "wickedness" of the people, the "outcry" that reached God's ears that sealed their destruction. The bible isn't clear on what these misdeeds are but there are clues elsewhere. Funny enough as I was typing this I decided to do a Google search to find the biblical passages alluding to the "sins"... and came upon this:
Was the city destroyed because the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels (option (2) above)? The answer is obviously no. God's judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself because His decision to destroy the cities was made days before the encounter (see Genesis 18:20). Further, Peter makes it clear that the wicked activity was ongoing ("day after day"), not a one-time incident. The outcry had already been going up to God for some time.[5]
Here's the link (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702)... interesting read, which again I discovered after posting what I just typed above... clearly the author and I are on the same page where this "rapacious attempt" is concerned. Now the author/s go on to make a very logical and well thought out argument that the ultimate sin was the homosexuality of the men of the cities (not just this one rape attempt, but an on-going pattern of homosexual activity). They cite Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me.[8] Therefore I removed them when I saw it."
According to the author/s these "other" sins were minor compared to the rampant homosexuality, I don't know. There are counter-arguments cited in the discussion (from the link I provide above) that I find persuasive as well, which suggests it had little, if anything to do with homosexuality. Even though I don't fully agree with what Stand to Reason has to say on this... I find the discussion fair and balanced, unlike so much talk here on SW.net and elsewhere. As they said in the STR link "People find what they want in the Bible."
My "nebulous" comment relates to the designation of "righteous" from the discussion in Genesis 18 and 19, it isn't clear what it means => "nebulous". Ezekiel adds some context, but that context only cloudies the picture more, as it makes clear it's not all about homosexuality.
EDIT:
Ah nearly forget to come back to Lot and his children and they "righteousness"... after the cities bun and they mother turn to salt, the older daughter conspire to badden Lot head and rape him. Next morning she wasn't satisfied with that so she tell she younger sister to do the same. Next thing yuh know both ah dem get pregnant fuh dey father and make chirren (Moab being born to the older daughter) with him.
Nowhere does the Bible mention punishment for this nastiness... so interpreting the Bible literally then (as allyuh insist nah), it must be okay tuh have incestuous relations between father and daughter.... say nothing of it happening without consent, aka rape. Rape and incest okay, but homosexuality not ::)
My point isn't to argue for one or against the other... my point is that the 'truth' is a lot more nuanced than you Bible thumpers want to believe. It is certainly more nuance than even I can comprehend... God hasn't revealed everything that's in his mind to us, so we shouldn't presume to stand in his place on moral issues. Ultimate judgment is his and his alone.
-
The text is clear Bakes. God had made up his mind that he was gonna destroy the city because it was wicked, as you read on in the story it shows the extent of their wickedness in God's mind. Since He was the one that made the proclamation. No one could imply that the text isn't referencing itself. The text speaks for itself.
As it relates to Lot the only reason for him being spared is one. Abraham prayed for him and two. He obviously feared God to some degree. This is shown by how he 1. Honored the servants of God 2. Offered his daughters in their place 3. Was thankful for God's grace and mercy.
Righteousness does not mean that you are perfect. It means a belief in God that submits your life to His decrees. Scriptures says Abraham believed God and it was account to him as righteousness.
Is God going to destroy a city unless He's pissed of? I could say, unless you've uncured His wrath but the idea is the same. How about this? The cities made God angry enough to destroy them and here is the account. Your response pulling stuff from all over the place. Again you don't seem to think that the scriptures are clear as it relates to God's mind on this issue. So when "people like me" quote it, somehow we are making up our own interpretation. Was God angry with the cities? Did God destroy the cities? What is the written account? I'm not the one inventing excuses for the scriptures to not mean what it means.
-
I find God is very limited eh. he had to send emissaries to find out if the outcry was true? he had tos end people two of them to destroy the vcity on his behalf. Phew, he eh sound so mighty at all ent?
free will be damed..do as I say or I destroy you.
hehehehehehe
What a mighty God allyuh serving.
-
your conclusion seem to leave you with the task of finding evidence of things that are mystical and spiritual outside of the Bible. if you looking to History, Science, Mother Nature, etc. , that seem at odds with the essential truth of the Revealed Word. that is fine, but then your interpretation is not really christian or biblical but rather a secular one isn't it.
yuh serious? many Christian scholars will disagree with that rigid conclusion.
-
You still are missing the point, ... Trying to typecast me into some religious role illustrates that you still fail to see where I coming from.
If you disagree with my conclusion, then I respect that, but please do not misrepresent where I am coming from. :beermug:
Last Edit: Today at 12:00:44 PM by kaliman2006
nah man. You doing a good job all by yourself. :devil:
-
I find God is very limited eh. he had to send emissaries to find out if the outcry was true? he had tos end people two of them to destroy the vcity on his behalf. Phew, he eh sound so mighty at all ent?
free will be damed..do as I say or I destroy you.
hehehehehehe
What a mighty God allyuh serving.
and this is a just another example than one can argue that the Bible is Biblical man's interpretation of the word of God.
Really, does the God need emissaries?
-
Back to homosexuality or for that matter, any issue which offends the moral code of people.
Based on these posts, I have identified three reasons people use to argue against homosexuality
1) Prejudice: for reasons unknown, many people just plain dislike or hate homosexuals. this begs the question "what did a homosexual ever do to you to warrant this hatred?". Why so much hatred? What demons are you wrestling with?
2) Science: this pertains to "natural law". Homosexuality is wrong because high-order life depends on male/female reproduction. i.e Homosexuality flies in the face of natural law. OK, what about other deviation from norm? such as physical deformities, blindness, deafness, genetic defects, cancer etc. Are these people any less that the "normal" human being? Even if homosexuality was a choice, "SO WHAT?" You really think the human race will perish?
3) Religion: today is Pentecost and the homily was about words. The power of words to divide or unite. When religion is used to speak out against homosexuality, all I see are words of scripture being used to divide. Words of scripture should be used to unite, to be inclusive. Words from the pulpit should be encouraging, not condemning.
-
You still are missing the point, ... Trying to typecast me into some religious role illustrates that you still fail to see where I coming from.
If you disagree with my conclusion, then I respect that, but please do not misrepresent where I am coming from. :beermug:
Last Edit: Today at 12:00:44 PM by kaliman2006
nah man. You doing a good job all by yourself. :devil:
Well, I am religious in the sense that I believe in a Supreme Being. However, I am not necessarily aligned with any organized religion. I do not take the Bible as the infallible Word of the Eternal Creator. There are many passages that have been distorted in order to suit hidden agendas.
I would even go as far to say that the stories recounted in the bible reflect a particular culture, and are not necessarily appropriate for different cultures. Each culture will experience the Almighty according to its own culture and understanding. The current Christian model reflects a primarily Euro-centric bias. However, I digress....
Coming back to the point of this thread, I actually support gay couple's rights to enage in civil unions. However, religious denominations, which have their own beliefs, should not be forced to endorse the gay lifestyle, if it goes against their fundamental religious tenets. If the US Constitution were to be amended as such, this would violate the separation of Church and State which obtains in the USA.
Regardless of my personal feelings on the manner of the unions, homosexuals should be free to live as they please.
-
Coming back to the point of this thread, I actually support gay couple's rights to enage in civil unions. However, religious denominations, which have their own beliefs, should not be forced to endorse the gay lifestyle, if it goes against their fundamental religious tenets. If the US Constitution were to be amended as such, this would violate the separation of Church and State which obtains in the USA.
Regardless of my personal feelings on the manner of the unions, homosexuals should be free to live as they please.
Uhm that is not the point of this thread... never was. "Religious denominations" aren't the only ones who perform marriages.
-
I find God is very limited eh. he had to send emissaries to find out if the outcry was true? he had tos end people two of them to destroy the vcity on his behalf. Phew, he eh sound so mighty at all ent?
free will be damed..do as I say or I destroy you.
hehehehehehe
What a mighty God allyuh serving.
Ent? He should just shoot first. No need for questions since He knows everything. :) But then if that was the case we wouldn't be having this conversation, exercising our free will, getting kicks on how stupid He is. Since our evolved minds is above the rationale of a creator it is safe then to assume that He doesn't exist. There was another city carded for the bullet. It was called Nineveh, this time the emissary was Jonah. Jonah wanted them punished but this was God's heart to the people.
People's Response after hearing the word Repent:
Jonah 3
6. When Jonahs warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:
By the decree of the king and his nobles:
Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.
10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.
Jonah's response:
He was pissed because he felt and wanted God to destroy to city.
Jonah 4
9 But God said to Jonah, Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?
It is, he said. And Im so angry I wish I were dead.
10 But the Lord said, You have been concerned about this plant, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 11 And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their leftand also many animals?
God always sends emissaries to reach out to man. Old testament, New Testament, He sent His son. He sent my own mother, relatives friends, old ladies in churches, people on the street. That's His Grace and love for us. You have free will just be prepared to reap what you sow.
-
Coming back to the point of this thread, I actually support gay couple's rights to enage in civil unions. However, religious denominations, which have their own beliefs, should not be forced to endorse the gay lifestyle, if it goes against their fundamental religious tenets. If the US Constitution were to be amended as such, this would violate the separation of Church and State which obtains in the USA.
Regardless of my personal feelings on the manner of the unions, homosexuals should be free to live as they please.
Uhm that is not the point of this thread... never was. "Religious denominations" aren't the only ones who perform marriages.
I am aware that religious denominations aren't the only ones that perform marriages, so please spare me the condescending reply.
The point of this thread is Barack Obama's support of gay marriage, is it not? The thread then veered off into a religious direction and then other directions and I admit that I was off-topic at times. However, I am aware of that, and do not need your input.
Thank you very much and have a good evening.
-
I am aware that religious denominations aren't the only ones that perform marriages, so please spare me the condescending reply.
The point of this thread is Barack Obama's support of gay marriage, is it not? The thread then veered off into a religious direction and then other directions and I admit that I was off-topic at times. However, I am aware of that, and do not need your input.
Thank you very much and have a good evening.
Hahaha.. lol "condescending reply"?? You haven't seen condescension fella so ease up on de oversensitivity.
The fact that the thread "veered off into a religious direction" doesn't make that religious direction the "point of the thread". People only jump all over the religious aspect because they feel gays shouldn't be married because the Bible say so. Read between the lines... religious bodies shouldn't be forced to perform these marriages... aka same shit you say in yuh last post.
Gays could easily go down to the JP and get married without church, mosque or synagogue getting involved so the whole "religious direction" thing is a non-starter. You don't need my input but yuh getting it all the same... that's usually how participating in a public discussion works. Now take two Midol and go cry on yuh f**king pillow.
-
I find God is very limited eh. he had to send emissaries to find out if the outcry was true? he had tos end people two of them to destroy the vcity on his behalf. Phew, he eh sound so mighty at all ent?
free will be damed..do as I say or I destroy you.
hehehehehehe
What a mighty God allyuh serving.
Ent? He should just shoot first. No need for questions since He knows everything. :) But then if that was the case we wouldn't be having this conversation, exercising our free will, getting kicks on how stupid He is. Since our evolved minds is above the rationale of a creator it is safe then to assume that He doesn't exist. There was another city carded for the bullet. It was called Nineveh, this time the emissary was Jonah. Jonah wanted them punished but this was God's heart to the people.
People's Response after hearing the word Repent:
Jonah 3
6. When Jonahs warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:
By the decree of the king and his nobles:
Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.
10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.
Jonah's response:
He was pissed because he felt and wanted God to destroy to city.
Jonah 4
9 But God said to Jonah, Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?
It is, he said. And Im so angry I wish I were dead.
10 But the Lord said, You have been concerned about this plant, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 11 And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their leftand also many animals?
God always sends emissaries to reach out to man. Old testament, New Testament, He sent His son. He sent my own mother, relatives friends, old ladies in churches, people on the street. That's His Grace and love for us. You have free will just be prepared to reap what you sow.
You have time with TT?
God didn't have to send emissaries or none of that, but he does things in a way that us humans can relate and understand. Rather than just pulling Lot and them out himself or warning them himself, he sent angels in human form so that they could understand why the city was being destroyed and why they were being saved. TT only here chooking fire.
-
You have time with TT?
God didn't have to send emissaries or none of that, but he does things in a way that us humans can relate and understand. Rather than just pulling Lot and them out himself or warning them himself, he sent angels in human form so that they could understand why the city was being destroyed and why they were being saved. TT only here chooking fire.
[/quote]
True. :beermug: Trying to get him to sign up as an emissary. The pay good and yuh cyah match the retirement fund. ;)
-
I am aware that religious denominations aren't the only ones that perform marriages, so please spare me the condescending reply.
The point of this thread is Barack Obama's support of gay marriage, is it not? The thread then veered off into a religious direction and then other directions and I admit that I was off-topic at times. However, I am aware of that, and do not need your input.
Thank you very much and have a good evening.
Hahaha.. lol "condescending reply"?? You haven't seen condescension fella so ease up on de oversensitivity.
The fact that the thread "veered off into a religious direction" doesn't make that religious direction the "point of the thread". People only jump all over the religious aspect because they feel gays shouldn't be married because the Bible say so. Read between the lines... religious bodies shouldn't be forced to perform these marriages... aka same shit you say in yuh last post.
Gays could easily go down to the JP and get married without church, mosque or synagogue getting involved so the whole "religious direction" thing is a non-starter. You don't need my input but yuh getting it all the same... that's usually how participating in a public discussion works. Now take two Midol and go cry on yuh f**king pillow.
Thank you for staying true to form...You are nothing if not predictable.
Borse man, you really think I have time to bent out of shape over some internet personality named "Bakes"? I eh even know you from Adam (No biblical pun intended). Doh study it borse, I think I will be okay, lol.
As for you, I really hope this internet thing is not your true personality, or you have bigger problems than worrying about me crying into a pillow (being an insufferable know-it-all can't be much fun).
Since you (whoever you are) always have to be the forum policeperson, take win...
I have better things to do with my time.....
-
Thank you for staying true to form...You are nothing if not predictable.
Borse man, you really think I have time to bent out of shape over some internet personality named "Bakes"? I eh even know you from Adam (No biblical pun intended). Doh study it borse, I think I will be okay, lol.
As for you, I really hope this internet thing is not your true personality, or you have bigger problems than worrying about me crying into a pillow (being an insufferable know-it-all can't be much fun).
Since you (whoever you are) always have to be the forum policeperson, take win...
I have better things to do with my time.....
"Borse man"... you's de one ketching feelings over a simple comment I make, bawling 'bout how I "condescending". But yuh not getting bent out ah shape... righto. Yuh post yuh response at 1:08... think about it, and come back and fix it up some more at 1:35... but yuh have better things to do with yuh time. Good thing too... yuh mighta be here all night.
-
Thank you for staying true to form...You are nothing if not predictable.
Borse man, you really think I have time to bent out of shape over some internet personality named "Bakes"? I eh even know you from Adam (No biblical pun intended). Doh study it borse, I think I will be okay, lol.
As for you, I really hope this internet thing is not your true personality, or you have bigger problems than worrying about me crying into a pillow (being an insufferable know-it-all can't be much fun).
Since you (whoever you are) always have to be the forum policeperson, take win...
I have better things to do with my time.....
"Borse man"... you's de one ketching feelings over a simple comment I make, bawling 'bout how I "condescending". But yuh not getting bent out ah shape... righto. Yuh post yuh response at 1:08... think about it, and come back and fix it up some more at 1:35... but yuh have better things to do with yuh time. Good thing too... yuh mighta be here all night.
And yet you up during the early morning hours to track my comments and posted times (pot calling kettle black?). For your info, I am a night owl fella, and I am on a well-deserved vacation so doh hot up yuh head about my posting times.....
As I said, I really not too bent out of shape about your response to me. It is actually amusing that you think that you are the only one capable of understanding the point of thread and that it is incumbent on you to correct me...
But perhaps you're right. I should get back to the lady friend. I really do have better things to do with my time....
PS: For your info, there was a typo in this post, since you are tracking my online posting times.
-
the simple question is, are gays in your eyes lesser humans....then what of handicaps..... I imagine in the bible times I would not stand much of a chance in life...I get a hard time even now......so what we deny people rights because some how much thousand year book penned in a simpler time by arguably simpler minds says so......ah mean dis book pass through some seriously questionable hands.......lets us not forget that alot of d shitty ting going on in dis planet has its roots in prejudice.........I doh know christian does claim to closely follow d teachings of Jesus, but what of his examples of tolerance.....because some ah allyuh sure as hell miss dat boat
my ting is....yuh born...yuh here...yuh should be equal....end ah story.
-
Amm ... anytime I decide to stop posting, Kali you does write someting that have me shaking my head.
Your reply to Bakes ...
And yet you up during the early morning hours to track my comments and posted times (pot calling kettle black?). For your info, I am a night owl fella, and I am on a well-deserved vacation so doh hot up yuh head about my posting times.....
As I said, I really not too bent out of shape about your response to me. It is actually amusing that you think that you are the only one capable of understanding the point of thread and that it is incumbent on you to correct me...
But perhaps you're right. I should get back to the lady friend. I really do have better things to do with my time....
PS: For your info, there was a typo in this post, since you are tracking my online posting times.
So it is the wee hours of the morning and you with your lady friend (not wife) on vacation. I jess hope you studying (either science or religion; take your pick) because here is what you stated last week ....
From my perspective (which is that of a believer), our bodies have been created by an Infinite Intelligence, a.k.a Yahwah, God, Allah, etc. Thus, all of our bodily functions and process are as a result of this Divine function. For me, sex is a beautiful gift bestowed on humanity by this Creator for the primary purpose of reproduction. You are right that one should not take the bible literally, which is why I have not drawn heavily on biblical references in my debate. The Eternal Creator is bigger than any book or temple.
Sex's function has never changed because the Eternal Creator changes not; it is we (i.e. humanity) who have changed.
Just my two cents.
I trust that you are NOT having sex for non-primary reasons
-
the simple question is, are gays in your eyes lesser humans....then what of handicaps..... I imagine in the bible times I would not stand much of a chance in life...I get a hard time even now......so what we deny people rights because some how much thousand year book penned in a simpler time by arguably simpler minds says so......ah mean dis book pass through some seriously questionable hands.......lets us not forget that alot of d shitty ting going on in dis planet has its roots in prejudice.........I doh know christian does claim to closely follow d teachings of Jesus, but what of his examples of tolerance.....because some ah allyuh sure as hell miss dat boat
my ting is....yuh born...yuh here...yuh should be equal....end ah story.
Amen :beermug:
-
STEUPS
This is the type on nonsense that literal interpretations of the Bible leads to.
http://www.youtube.com/v/d2n7vSPwhSU
Thousand Protest Pastor Charles Worley Who Preached Putting Gays And Lesbians In Electrified Pen
he even uses the argument (at 1:00) that in a few years they will die out because they cant reproduce. LOL
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/27/protesters-denounce-minis_n_1549339.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/27/protesters-denounce-minis_n_1549339.html)
-
Back to homosexuality or for that matter, any issue which offends the moral code of people.
Based on these posts, I have identified three reasons people use to argue against homosexuality
1) Prejudice: for reasons unknown, many people just plain dislike or hate homosexuals. this begs the question "what did a homosexual ever do to you to warrant this hatred?". Why so much hatred? What demons are you wrestling with?
What 'hatred'? You seem to love them well enough. ::) The typical refrain - if you condemn homosexuality you must be a bigot.
2) Science: this pertains to "natural law". Homosexuality is wrong because high-order life depends on male/female reproduction. i.e Homosexuality flies in the face of natural law. OK, what about other deviation from norm? such as physical deformities, blindness, deafness, genetic defects, cancer etc. Are these people any less that the "normal" human being? Even if homosexuality was a choice, "SO WHAT?" You really think the human race will perish?
Hmmm...comparing homosexuality to diseases and other biological defects and/or mutations...not sure that line of reasoning would support your over-arching point.
3) Religion: today is Pentecost and the homily was about words. The power of words to divide or unite. When religion is used to speak out against homosexuality, all I see are words of scripture being used to divide. Words of scripture should be used to unite, to be inclusive. Words from the pulpit should be encouraging, not condemning.
You are speaking a bunch of nonsense. The Bible speaks on many topics, not just homosexuality, and the scriptures provide immense hope for mankind and is a manifest demonstration of God's love. However, God has standards and requirements. There are things that are condemned and prohibited, homosexuality being amongst them. It is one thing if you are not a Christian/believe in the Bible, that's your choice but you cannot try to dictate what the Bible should or should not say. Who are you exactly???
???
-
God has standards and requirements.
so we come right back to the sanctimonious declaration that some are less equal because god "say" so yet he created all the world, sees all and knows all hhmmmmm
-
Back to homosexuality or for that matter, any issue which offends the moral code of people.
Based on these posts, I have identified three reasons people use to argue against homosexuality
1) Prejudice: for reasons unknown, many people just plain dislike or hate homosexuals. this begs the question "what did a homosexual ever do to you to warrant this hatred?". Why so much hatred? What demons are you wrestling with?
What 'hatred'? You seem to love them well enough. ::) The typical refrain - if you condemn homosexuality you must be a bigot.
2) Science: this pertains to "natural law". Homosexuality is wrong because high-order life depends on male/female reproduction. i.e Homosexuality flies in the face of natural law. OK, what about other deviation from norm? such as physical deformities, blindness, deafness, genetic defects, cancer etc. Are these people any less that the "normal" human being? Even if homosexuality was a choice, "SO WHAT?" You really think the human race will perish?
Hmmm...comparing homosexuality to diseases and other biological defects and/or mutations...not sure that line of reasoning would support your over-arching point.
3) Religion: today is Pentecost and the homily was about words. The power of words to divide or unite. When religion is used to speak out against homosexuality, all I see are words of scripture being used to divide. Words of scripture should be used to unite, to be inclusive. Words from the pulpit should be encouraging, not condemning.
You are speaking a bunch of nonsense. The Bible speaks on many topics, not just homosexuality, and the scriptures provide immense hope for mankind and is a manifest demonstration of God's love. However, God has standards and requirements. There are things that are condemned and prohibited, homosexuality being amongst them. It is one thing if you are not a Christian/believe in the Bible, that's your choice but you cannot try to dictate what the Bible should or should not say. Who are you exactly???
???
touched a nerve did I? I would suggest you re-read my post.
Based on the arguments against homosexuality posted in the thread beginning on page 5, I categorized them into three groupings. Then asked questions or made statements to try to understand the underlying reasoning for each scenario.
Are you disputing the reasons for condemnation? If so, please provide some more alternatives. If not prejudice; if not scientific rationalization; if not grounded in religious beliefs; then what?
btw, I consider myself a Christian and had you taken the time to read my other posts carefully, you would have know that and would also know where I stand on the Bible. i.e. it is metaphorical and sacramental, sacred in its status and function, but not in its origin. Where am I dictating what the Bible should or should not say? The Bible says what is says. Our interpretations are different.
You roll your eyes and say "What 'hatred'? You seem to love them well enough." That is exactly the type of knee-jerk bigoted statement that gays have to live with every day. Do you dispute that gays are not hated by many?
-
STEUPS
This is the type on nonsense that literal interpretations of the Bible leads to.
http://www.youtube.com/v/d2n7vSPwhSU
Thousand Protest Pastor Charles Worley Who Preached Putting Gays And Lesbians In Electrified Pen
he even uses the argument (at 1:00) that in a few years they will die out because they cant reproduce. LOL
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/27/protesters-denounce-minis_n_1549339.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/27/protesters-denounce-minis_n_1549339.html)
Doh make joke nah man. This is what we really into. ;D
http://www.youtube.com/v/u9SS95q2kpg
-
Amm ... anytime I decide to stop posting, Kali you does write someting that have me shaking my head.
Your reply to Bakes ...
And yet you up during the early morning hours to track my comments and posted times (pot calling kettle black?). For your info, I am a night owl fella, and I am on a well-deserved vacation so doh hot up yuh head about my posting times.....
As I said, I really not too bent out of shape about your response to me. It is actually amusing that you think that you are the only one capable of understanding the point of thread and that it is incumbent on you to correct me...
But perhaps you're right. I should get back to the lady friend. I really do have better things to do with my time....
PS: For your info, there was a typo in this post, since you are tracking my online posting times.
So it is the wee hours of the morning and you with your lady friend (not wife) on vacation. I jess hope you studying (either science or religion; take your pick) because here is what you stated last week ....
From my perspective (which is that of a believer), our bodies have been created by an Infinite Intelligence, a.k.a Yahwah, God, Allah, etc. Thus, all of our bodily functions and process are as a result of this Divine function. For me, sex is a beautiful gift bestowed on humanity by this Creator for the primary purpose of reproduction. You are right that one should not take the bible literally, which is why I have not drawn heavily on biblical references in my debate. The Eternal Creator is bigger than any book or temple.
Sex's function has never changed because the Eternal Creator changes not; it is we (i.e. humanity) who have changed.
Just my two cents.
I trust that you are NOT having sex for non-primary reasons
Well, I have been with my significant other a long time, so I will leave you to draw your own conclusions on that score....
Anyway, I am not going to be online long, I am about to go out and enjoy some of the weather.
Have a good day :beermug:
-
And yet you up during the early morning hours to track my comments and posted times (pot calling kettle black?). For your info, I am a night owl fella, and I am on a well-deserved vacation so doh hot up yuh head about my posting times.....
As I said, I really not too bent out of shape about your response to me. It is actually amusing that you think that you are the only one capable of understanding the point of thread and that it is incumbent on you to correct me...
But perhaps you're right. I should get back to the lady friend. I really do have better things to do with my time....
PS: For your info, there was a typo in this post, since you are tracking my online posting times.
You's ah kinda imps or what? When did I (metaphorically) call you black? You's de one bawl yuh have better things to do with yuh time. Me eh really care what time you posting or how much... I just pointing out the inconsistency between what yuh claiming and what yuh doing. I doh have to "track" you online... it right there in yuh post, lol. But yeah, get back tuh yuh lady friend... she probably wondering what happen tuh she panty and dem.
-
True. :beermug: Trying to get him to sign up as an emissary. The pay good and yuh cyah match the retirement fund. ;)
Yeah man, we still have time tuh work on him... he just wandering in de desert right now, eh Truetrini? ;D
-
True. :beermug: Trying to get him to sign up as an emissary. The pay good and yuh cyah match the retirement fund. ;)
Yeah man, we still have time tuh work on him... he just wandering in de desert right now, eh Truetrini? ;D
I relaxing at an oasis right now.
-
And yet you up during the early morning hours to track my comments and posted times (pot calling kettle black?). For your info, I am a night owl fella, and I am on a well-deserved vacation so doh hot up yuh head about my posting times.....
As I said, I really not too bent out of shape about your response to me. It is actually amusing that you think that you are the only one capable of understanding the point of thread and that it is incumbent on you to correct me...
But perhaps you're right. I should get back to the lady friend. I really do have better things to do with my time....
PS: For your info, there was a typo in this post, since you are tracking my online posting times.
You's ah kinda imps or what? When did I (metaphorically) call you black? You's de one bawl yuh have better things to do with yuh time. Me eh really care what time you posting or how much... I just pointing out the inconsistency between what yuh claiming and what yuh doing. I doh have to "track" you online... it right there in yuh post, lol. But yeah, get back tuh yuh lady friend... she probably wondering what happen tuh she panty and dem.
I explained to you that I am on vacation and am on vacation with the lady friend, so no inconsistency there....
As for the "panty" joke, the less said about that remark the better.
Anyway, have a good night.
-
Back to homosexuality or for that matter, any issue which offends the moral code of people.
Based on these posts, I have identified three reasons people use to argue against homosexuality
1) Prejudice: for reasons unknown, many people just plain dislike or hate homosexuals. this begs the question "what did a homosexual ever do to you to warrant this hatred?". Why so much hatred? What demons are you wrestling with?
What 'hatred'? You seem to love them well enough. ::) The typical refrain - if you condemn homosexuality you must be a bigot.
2) Science: this pertains to "natural law". Homosexuality is wrong because high-order life depends on male/female reproduction. i.e Homosexuality flies in the face of natural law. OK, what about other deviation from norm? such as physical deformities, blindness, deafness, genetic defects, cancer etc. Are these people any less that the "normal" human being? Even if homosexuality was a choice, "SO WHAT?" You really think the human race will perish?
Hmmm...comparing homosexuality to diseases and other biological defects and/or mutations...not sure that line of reasoning would support your over-arching point.
3) Religion: today is Pentecost and the homily was about words. The power of words to divide or unite. When religion is used to speak out against homosexuality, all I see are words of scripture being used to divide. Words of scripture should be used to unite, to be inclusive. Words from the pulpit should be encouraging, not condemning.
You are speaking a bunch of nonsense. The Bible speaks on many topics, not just homosexuality, and the scriptures provide immense hope for mankind and is a manifest demonstration of God's love. However, God has standards and requirements. There are things that are condemned and prohibited, homosexuality being amongst them. It is one thing if you are not a Christian/believe in the Bible, that's your choice but you cannot try to dictate what the Bible should or should not say. Who are you exactly???
???
touched a nerve did I? I would suggest you re-read my post.
Based on the arguments against homosexuality posted in the thread beginning on page 5, I categorized them into three groupings. Then asked questions or made statements to try to understand the underlying reasoning for each scenario.
And?
Are you disputing the reasons for condemnation? If so, please provide some more alternatives. If not prejudice; if not scientific rationalization; if not grounded in religious beliefs; then what?
What?
btw, I consider myself a Christian and had you taken the time to read my other posts carefully, you would have know that and would also know where I stand on the Bible. i.e. it is metaphorical and sacramental, sacred in its status and function, but not in its origin. Where am I dictating what the Bible should or should not say? The Bible says what is says. Our interpretations are different.
How can you be a Christian and still support things that are contrary to the scriptures. How many different interpretations are there of this:
What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit Gods kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit Gods kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God
And how can you claim to be a Christian and yet say that the Bible is metaphorical and does not originate from God? Then you are neither a Christian in beliefs nor in practice, sir.
All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
You roll your eyes and say "What 'hatred'? You seem to love them well enough." That is exactly the type of knee-jerk bigoted statement that gays have to live with every day. Do you dispute that gays are not hated by many?
What knee-jerk bigotry? Because I said you seem to like them well enough? steups Stop reaching.
Do I dispute that gays are hated by many? Scorning the act is not necessarily the same as scorning the person.
-
Back to homosexuality or for that matter, any issue which offends the moral code of people.
Based on these posts, I have identified three reasons people use to argue against homosexuality
1) Prejudice: for reasons unknown, many people just plain dislike or hate homosexuals. this begs the question "what did a homosexual ever do to you to warrant this hatred?". Why so much hatred? What demons are you wrestling with?
What 'hatred'? You seem to love them well enough. ::) The typical refrain - if you condemn homosexuality you must be a bigot.
2) Science: this pertains to "natural law". Homosexuality is wrong because high-order life depends on male/female reproduction. i.e Homosexuality flies in the face of natural law. OK, what about other deviation from norm? such as physical deformities, blindness, deafness, genetic defects, cancer etc. Are these people any less that the "normal" human being? Even if homosexuality was a choice, "SO WHAT?" You really think the human race will perish?
Hmmm...comparing homosexuality to diseases and other biological defects and/or mutations...not sure that line of reasoning would support your over-arching point.
3) Religion: today is Pentecost and the homily was about words. The power of words to divide or unite. When religion is used to speak out against homosexuality, all I see are words of scripture being used to divide. Words of scripture should be used to unite, to be inclusive. Words from the pulpit should be encouraging, not condemning.
You are speaking a bunch of nonsense. The Bible speaks on many topics, not just homosexuality, and the scriptures provide immense hope for mankind and is a manifest demonstration of God's love. However, God has standards and requirements. There are things that are condemned and prohibited, homosexuality being amongst them. It is one thing if you are not a Christian/believe in the Bible, that's your choice but you cannot try to dictate what the Bible should or should not say. Who are you exactly???
???
touched a nerve did I? I would suggest you re-read my post.
Based on the arguments against homosexuality posted in the thread beginning on page 5, I categorized them into three groupings. Then asked questions or made statements to try to understand the underlying reasoning for each scenario.
And?
Are you disputing the reasons for condemnation? If so, please provide some more alternatives. If not prejudice; if not scientific rationalization; if not grounded in religious beliefs; then what?
What?
btw, I consider myself a Christian and had you taken the time to read my other posts carefully, you would have know that and would also know where I stand on the Bible. i.e. it is metaphorical and sacramental, sacred in its status and function, but not in its origin. Where am I dictating what the Bible should or should not say? The Bible says what is says. Our interpretations are different.
How can you be a Christian and still support things that are contrary to the scriptures. How many different interpretations are there of this:
What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit Gods kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit Gods kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God
And how can you claim to be a Christian and yet say that the Bible is metaphorical and does not originate from God? Then you are neither a Christian in beliefs nor in practice, sir.
All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
You roll your eyes and say "What 'hatred'? You seem to love them well enough." That is exactly the type of knee-jerk bigoted statement that gays have to live with every day. Do you dispute that gays are not hated by many?
What knee-jerk bigotry? Because I said you seem to like them well enough? steups Stop reaching.
Do I dispute that gays are hated by many? Scorning the act is not necessarily the same as scorning the person.
If that is how you define Christianity, then I and many others are not a Christian. Go look up Marcus Borg, especially a book he wrote entitled "The Heart of Christianity". Marcus J. Borg is Canon Theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Portland, Oregon.
But I suspect that the "progressive" Episcopalians and Anglicans may not meet your definition of what it is to be Christian.
It is obvious to me that you did not get the gist of my post and you and I have fundamental differences of opinion that cannot be resolved so I will leave it at that.
-
Blah, blah, blah, Pecan. These scriptures might help you out cos I really don't know what kind of 'Christianity' you referring to. And it is VERY true that MANY people who claim to be Christians are not really Christians. On that we certainly agree.
2 Peter 1:20, 21
20 For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by mans will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.
"Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19, 20)
"I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought."1 Corinthians 1:10.
-
Blah, blah, blah, Pecan. These scriptures might help you out cos I really don't know what kind of 'Christianity' you referring to. And it is VERY true that MANY people who claim to be Christians are not really Christians. On that we certainly agree.
2 Peter 1:20, 21
20 For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by mans will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.
"Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19, 20)
"I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought."1 Corinthians 1:10.
loosely translated ....,lets all all read this book like mindless zombies............. hah lawd aye
-
This thread has certainly stirred up some powerful responses.
In the midst of all of this passion, we should always remember to respect each other's opinion. Remember, for all the Christians out there, that the Eternal Creator gave man the gift of free will. Thus, people are free to live and believe as they want.
As a believer in a Supreme Being, yet not as one who follows any structured religion (Christianity, Roman Catholicism, etc.), I would never try to "convert" anyone to my belief system. Everyone has been blessed with an intellect and common sense and need to come to their own understanding of the world.
Thus, if one wants to homosexual, well so be it. I am not going to be a hypocrite and say I agree with the lifestyle, but people can do what they want because everyone is big and have sense.
-
All these years I here thinking Christianity and Roman Catholicism wamore or less the same... the one being a subset of the other? Ah well...
Toppa, that Corinthians quote eh really saying nutten... not trying to nitpick, but dat was really just Paul making sure all the disciples (spread out as they were by now) stay on message.
-
One important difference between the two is that priests cannot marry and their counterparts (i.e. Reverends). Another important difference is that Catholics believe in praying to Mary, saints, etc. This link explains it even better than I could:
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a19.htm
So yes, I think my distinction has merit.
-
All these years I here thinking Christianity and Roman Catholicism wamore or less the same... the one being a subset of the other? Ah well...
Toppa, that Corinthians quote eh really saying nutten... not trying to nitpick, but dat was really just Paul making sure all the disciples (spread out as they were by now) stay on message.
Right, meaning that people should not depart from what the Bible teaches or try to put their own 'spin' on it - but the message should be truthful and united.
-
Blah, blah, blah, Pecan. These scriptures might help you out cos I really don't know what kind of 'Christianity' you referring to. And it is VERY true that MANY people who claim to be Christians are not really Christians. On that we certainly agree.
2 Peter 1:20, 21
20 For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by mans will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.
"Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19, 20)
"I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought."1 Corinthians 1:10.
loosely translated ....,lets all all read this book like mindless zombies............. hah lawd aye
What is loosely translated?
-
One important difference between the two is that priests cannot marry and their counterparts (i.e. Reverends). Another important difference is that Catholics believe in praying to Mary, saints, etc. This link explains it even better than I could:
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a19.htm
So yes, I think my distinction has merit.
The simplest, most functional definition of "Christianity" is a belief in the deity of Christ. Roman Catholics share in that belief therefore one cannot legitimately argue a distinction between "Christianity" and "Roman Catholicism," all Roman Catholics by definition, are still Christians. I believe what you are referring to as "Christianity" is really Protestantism. But anyways... doh study this "insufferable know-it-all", lol.
Right, meaning that people should not depart from what the Bible teaches or try to put their own 'spin' on it - but the message should be truthful and united.
Paul wasn't arguing nutten about de Bible... the Bible was still 300 years away... the bible as we know it... 1300 years. Paul feel he was de only cipher of Christ's teachings, even though he never walk with the man. He was even beefing with Peter and Mary Magdalene, who actually knew Christ and walked with him. Most of that is an aside though... yeh he wanted Timothy and Titus and them to not stray. He served a very important role in that capacity... which is one of the reasons I still love him, warts and all.
My larger point is that we tend to look at the Bible as though it was composed in a vacuum and came out one complete unit. It wasn't... was written over God knows how many years and yes there's synchronicity throughout the collected works which justify us treating them collectively as a unit, but because they're not, it makes sense (in my mind) follow the spirit, and not the letter of the words.
-
One important difference between the two is that priests cannot marry and their counterparts (i.e. Reverends). Another important difference is that Catholics believe in praying to Mary, saints, etc. This link explains it even better than I could:
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a19.htm
So yes, I think my distinction has merit.
The simplest, most functional definition of "Christianity" is a belief in the deity of Christ. Roman Catholics share in that belief therefore one cannot legitimately argue a distinction between "Christianity" and "Roman Catholicism," all Roman Catholics by definition, are still Christians. I believe what you are referring to as "Christianity" is really Protestantism. But anyways... doh study this "insufferable know-it-all", lol.
Right, meaning that people should not depart from what the Bible teaches or try to put their own 'spin' on it - but the message should be truthful and united.
Paul wasn't arguing nutten about de Bible... the Bible was still 300 years away... the bible as we know it... 1300 years. Paul feel he was de only cipher of Christ's teachings, even though he never walk with the man. He was even beefing with Peter and Mary Magdalene, who actually knew Christ and walked with him. Most of that is an aside though... yeh he wanted Timothy and Titus and them to not stray. He served a very important role in that capacity... which is one of the reasons I still love him, warts and all.
My larger point is that we tend to look at the Bible as though it was composed in a vacuum and came out one complete unit. It wasn't... was written over God knows how many years and yes there's synchronicity throughout the collected works which justify us treating them collectively as a unit, but because they're not, it makes sense (in my mind) follow the spirit, and not the letter of the words.
Yes, which was one reason why Christ was at odds with the Pharisees...but does the spirit of the law run contrary to the 'letter of the law' with regards to homoesexuality?
But the principle I was taking away from the Corinthians scripture was that of consistency and unity amongst the congregation - there can't be one version of this and that but staying to the truth of the Bible.
-
Quote from Bakes,
The simplest, most functional definition of "Christianity" is a belief in the deity of Christ. Roman Catholics share in that belief therefore one cannot legitimately argue a distinction between "Christianity" and "Roman Catholicism," all Roman Catholics by definition, are still Christians. I believe what you are referring to as "Christianity" is really Protestantism. But anyways... doh study this "insufferable know-it-all", lol.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borse man, I have already moved on eh, but it seems as if you in some sort of pedantic kick so good luck with that....
Anyway, I going back to enjoying USA vs Brazil...
P.S. I edited because I put the wrong team. Please doh hold it against me counsellor..
-
Yes, which was one reason why Christ was at odds with the Pharisees...but does the spirit of the law run contrary to the 'letter of the law' with regards to homoesexuality?
But the principle I was taking away from the Corinthians scripture was that of consistency and unity amongst the congregation - there can't be one version of this and that but staying to the truth of the Bible.
Honestly... I don't know. The letter seems to condemn it... but not sure what the 'spirit' says.
There is language, primarily in the OT that clearly indicates that homosexuality is wrong. There is language in the NT, largely from Paul, which condemns male-male unions. If this is enough for you and others to say that "God" condemns it... then won't be upset with that, I think that's a reasonable interpretation. For me personally though, I think that Christ is the final arbiter of how we should live our lives. From what I know he hasn't said anything specifically against gay unions, or even homosexuality itself. I doh know de Bible inside out like I used to, so perhaps he did somewhere. So that gray area for me is where I'm kinda stuck. I personally not in favor of homosexuality, I still have reservations about gay marriage... but I'm not sure that I have enough for me personally to say "God doh like that, bun dat".
-
Quote from Bakes,
The simplest, most functional definition of "Christianity" is a belief in the deity of Christ. Roman Catholics share in that belief therefore one cannot legitimately argue a distinction between "Christianity" and "Roman Catholicism," all Roman Catholics by definition, are still Christians. I believe what you are referring to as "Christianity" is really Protestantism. But anyways... doh study this "insufferable know-it-all", lol.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borse man, I have already moved on eh, but it seems as if you in some sort of pedantic kick so good luck with that....
Anyway, I going back to enjoying USA vs Brazil...
P.S. I edited because I put the wrong team. Please doh hold it against me counsellor..
I dunno why you feel you have tuh tell we what yuh doing off de board nah fella, lol If yuh moving on juss move on.
-
Quote from Bakes,
The simplest, most functional definition of "Christianity" is a belief in the deity of Christ. Roman Catholics share in that belief therefore one cannot legitimately argue a distinction between "Christianity" and "Roman Catholicism," all Roman Catholics by definition, are still Christians. I believe what you are referring to as "Christianity" is really Protestantism. But anyways... doh study this "insufferable know-it-all", lol.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borse man, I have already moved on eh, but it seems as if you in some sort of pedantic kick so good luck with that....
Anyway, I going back to enjoying USA vs Brazil...
P.S. I edited because I put the wrong team. Please doh hold it against me counsellor..
I dunno why you feel you have tuh tell we what yuh doing off de board nah fella, lol If yuh moving on juss move on.
For no reason borse, it's what one calls "a throw-away remark." However, knowing your penchant for honing in on parenthetical material (exhibit a: I try to restore same sanity to an increasingly overheated discourse on this thread, and all you can focus on is some semantic technicality in parentheses; then again you truly are a lawyer, lol) and not focusing on the substance of posts, that is why I made my remark and why I anticipated this response.
You have been taking the bait for a few days now.
This internet thing of yours (it cannot be what one classifies as a "personality) really have me thinking that I should conduct research on certain internet personality disorders.
See, you have been a guinea pig and you have not really realized it...
Anyway, I hope you get treatment.
Over and out.
-
Yes, which was one reason why Christ was at odds with the Pharisees...but does the spirit of the law run contrary to the 'letter of the law' with regards to homoesexuality?
But the principle I was taking away from the Corinthians scripture was that of consistency and unity amongst the congregation - there can't be one version of this and that but staying to the truth of the Bible.
Honestly... I don't know. The letter seems to condemn it... but not sure what the 'spirit' says.
There is language, primarily in the OT that clearly indicates that homosexuality is wrong. There is language in the NT, largely from Paul, which condemns male-male unions. If this is enough for you and others to say that "God" condemns it... then won't be upset with that, I think that's a reasonable interpretation. For me personally though, I think that Christ is the final arbiter of how we should live our lives. From what I know he hasn't said anything specifically against gay unions, or even homosexuality itself. I doh know de Bible inside out like I used to, so perhaps he did somewhere. So that gray area for me is where I'm kinda stuck. I personally not in favor of homosexuality, I still have reservations about gay marriage... but I'm not sure that I have enough for me personally to say "God doh like that, bun dat".
Well that's fair. :beermug:
Ey just a passing stat. allyuh. MN now has more gays the San Fran.
-
Well that's fair. :beermug:
Ey just a passing stat. allyuh. MN now has more gays the San Fran.
Oho... is dat what have yuh paro so? ;D
-
Blah, blah, blah, Pecan.
typical response when you take issue with others and don't have a meaningful response other than to quote the Bible or ask one word questions. I tried to wrap this up on a civil note and you respond in a condescending fashion.
Perhaps if you opened your mind and read more,your would understand what type of Christianity I am talking about and you might have an appreciation that we all have different interpretations of the Bible not withstanding that yours is the correct one. ::) (not a very Christian like response but then again, I am not Christian to quote you)
I take the Bible too Seriously to take it literally. You take the Bible literally. Best of luck in trying to observe everything in the Bible, especially all passages from Leviticus, including the ones on the women.
Here is the Christianity I am talking about (cut and paste from Wikipedia) for your convenience since you have not taken the time to understand what others believe.
Homosexuality and the Anglican Church of Canada
2004 synod resolution
In May 2004, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada passed a resolution on homosexuality, urging the church to continue dialogue and to:
affirm the crucial value of continued respectful dialogue and study of biblical, theological, liturgical, pastoral, scientific, psychological and social aspects of human sexuality; and call upon all bishops, clergy and lay leaders to be instrumental in seeing that dialogue and study continue, intentionally involving gay and lesbian persons...to prepare resources for the church to use in addressing issues relating to human sexuality including the blessing of same sex unions and the changing definition of marriage in society.[10]
The resolution concluded that the Synod:
Affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships."
Yes, the debate on homosexuality continues in the Anglican Church and not everyone agrees. In your world, you are right and everyone who disagree with you are wrong.
If you want to live in an insular world, fine. But recognize that:
- your arguments are recursive - you quote the bible to prove that the bible is right - that is akin to saying "I am right because I said so"
- there are many who don't agree with your interpretation and that does not make them un -Christian.
In closing .... that is the type of Christianity I am talking about. But you have the right to reject it - I have no problem with it but don't try to force other to accept it by denying them the right to marriage - the topic of this thread to begin with.
blah, blah, blah
-
Court: Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional for denying same-sex married couples federal benefits
(AP) BOSTON - An appeals court ruled Thursday that the heart of a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples is unconstitutional.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against married same-sex couples by denying them federal benefits.
The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize same-sex marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on same-sex marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004.
The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married same-sex couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.
The court didn't rule on the law's other provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states.
During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for same-sex married couples said the law amounts to "across-the-board disrespect." The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA.
An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rational basis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that states would be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The group said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage and has the power to define terms used to federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.
Since DOMA was passed in 1996, many states have instituted their own bans on same-sex marriage, while eight states have approved it, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington's laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.
Last year, President Obama announced the U.S. Department of Justice would no longer defend the constitutionality of the law. After that, House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57444462/court-defense-of-marriage-act-unconstitutional-for-denying-same-sex-married-couples-federal-benefits/
-
Blah, blah, blah, Pecan.
typical response when you take issue with others and don't have a meaningful response other than to quote the Bible or ask one word questions. I tried to wrap this up on a civil note and you respond in a condescending fashion.
Perhaps if you opened your mind and read more,your would understand what type of Christianity I am talking about and you might have an appreciation that we all have different interpretations of the Bible not withstanding that yours is the correct one. ::) (not a very Christian like response but then again, I am not Christian to quote you)
I take the Bible too Seriously to take it literally. You take the Bible literally. Best of luck in trying to observe everything in the Bible, especially all passages from Leviticus, including the ones on the women.
Here is the Christianity I am talking about (cut and paste from Wikipedia) for your convenience since you have not taken the time to understand what others believe.
Homosexuality and the Anglican Church of Canada
2004 synod resolution
In May 2004, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada passed a resolution on homosexuality, urging the church to continue dialogue and to:
affirm the crucial value of continued respectful dialogue and study of biblical, theological, liturgical, pastoral, scientific, psychological and social aspects of human sexuality; and call upon all bishops, clergy and lay leaders to be instrumental in seeing that dialogue and study continue, intentionally involving gay and lesbian persons...to prepare resources for the church to use in addressing issues relating to human sexuality including the blessing of same sex unions and the changing definition of marriage in society.[10]
The resolution concluded that the Synod:
Affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships."
Yes, the debate on homosexuality continues in the Anglican Church and not everyone agrees. In your world, you are right and everyone who disagree with you are wrong.
If you want to live in an insular world, fine. But recognize that:
- your arguments are recursive - you quote the bible to prove that the bible is right - that is akin to saying "I am right because I said so"
- there are many who don't agree with your interpretation and that does not make them un -Christian.
In closing .... that is the type of Christianity I am talking about. But you have the right to reject it - I have no problem with it but don't try to force other to accept it by denying them the right to marriage - the topic of this thread to begin with.
blah, blah, blah
You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?
If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?
So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?
You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?
Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.
-
You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?
If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?
So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?
You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?
Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.
I just reading and observing the debate but Toppa you real disappoint with this argument. It flimsy too bad.
-
You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?
If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?
So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?
You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?
Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.
I just reading and observing the debate but Toppa you real disappoint with this argument. It flimsy too bad.
I am asking him to provide evidence of different interpretations that can be read into the scriptures.
For example - the Bible says 'You must not lie.' How many other ways can that be interpreted? Isn't it simply that you must not lie??? And even if you use different words for 'lie' - you know, synonyms - does the meaning not remain the same?
That is the point I am trying to illustrate.
When people bring the argument of 'different interpretations' of the Bible, usually at the heart of the matter is their trying to inject their own meanings into the scriptures.
-
You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?
If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?
So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?
You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?
Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.
I just reading and observing the debate but Toppa you real disappoint with this argument. It flimsy too bad.
I am asking him to provide evidence of different interpretations that can be read into the scriptures.
For example - the Bible says 'You must not lie.' How many other ways can that be interpreted? Isn't it simply that you must not lie??? And even if you use different words for 'lie' - you know, synonyms - does the meaning not remain the same?
That is the point I am trying to illustrate.
When people bring the argument of 'different interpretations' of the Bible, usually at the heart of the matter is their trying to inject their own meanings into the scriptures.
For the most part, your argument is valid. There are some texts which are beyond disputation. However, you should be mindful of the fact that the current English language version of the bible differs from the original language in which it was written and as such has been the subject of much debate and division amongst biblical scholars. A very good friend of mine, who happens to be a Jewish rabbi, has bemoaned some of the shoddy scholarship in terms of translations of biblical texts, and has even gone as far to argue that the current state of the bible misrepresents the true character and nature of the Almighty.
With that said, he is unequivocal in his denunciation of issues such as homosexuality, and has echoed the same argument that I have made concerning homosexuality. However, this represents his and my view, a view which should not be imposed on others.
Concerning gay marriage, I am sure I have made my views on the matter clear. For those who may have missed it, I have no problem with marriage as government-sanctioned practice, as long as religion is left out of it, as it would violate the separation of Church and State.
-
You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?
If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?
So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?
You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?
Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.
I have provided ample evidence, you just refusing to see it.
That "Anglican group" you so readily dismiss if the Anglican Church of Canada (the 3rd largest Christian denomination (yes I said Christian) in Canada. From your reply, you hardly bothered to go to the source to see where it came from.
I referred you to "The Heart of Christianity". Marcus J. Borg, You dismissed that as blah, blah, blah.
Then you have the gall to presume that your intelligence is superior to the academics, scholars and the leadership majority of the entire Anglican Church of Canada?
Face it Toppa, you have your own opinion about the Bible but don't presume to judge the intelligence of others who have different interpretations of the Bible.
I also see you avoid addressing all the examples I make regarding the literal interpretations of the Bible. I have re-posted several examples and I pray to God that you do not interpret them literally.
Exodus 21:17 states: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
or this on virginity
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states: But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you
or these
Leviticus 12:2. NIV
"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.
Leviticus 12:5, NIV
If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
Leviticus 15:19 NIV
"'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
I mean, do you stay indoors the entire time during your period? After all you are UNCLEAN becasue if anyone accidentally touches you they too shall be unclean. btw, how do you interpret "unclean".
:banginghead: :banginghead: :banginghead:
I am beginning to think you belong to the same group of people who come knocking at my door trying to sell their version of Christianity and refuse to engage in a well balanced debate because you insist that there is a single interpretation of a book that has been written over hundreds of years, by different people and translated into English. If only language was so clear..
-
You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?
If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?
So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?
You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?
Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.
I have provided ample evidence, you just refusing to see it.
That "Anglican group" you so readily dismiss if the Anglican Church of Canada (the 3rd largest Christian denomination (yes I said Christian) in Canada. From your reply, you hardly bothered to go to the source to see where it came from.
I referred you to "The Heart of Christianity". Marcus J. Borg, You dismissed that as blah, blah, blah.
Then you have the gall to presume that your intelligence is superior to the academics, scholars and the leadership majority of the entire Anglican Church of Canada?
Face it Toppa, you have your own opinion about the Bible but don't presume to judge the intelligence of others who have different interpretations of the Bible.
I also see you avoid addressing all the examples I make regarding the literal interpretations of the Bible. I have re-posted several examples and I pray to God that you do not interpret them literally.
Exodus 21:17 states: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
or this on virginity
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states: But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you
or these
Leviticus 12:2. NIV
"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.
Leviticus 12:5, NIV
If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
Leviticus 15:19 NIV
"'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
I mean, do you stay indoors the entire time during your period? After all you are UNCLEAN becasue if anyone accidentally touches you they too shall be unclean. btw, how do you interpret "unclean".
:banginghead: :banginghead: :banginghead:
I am beginning to think you belong to the same group of people who come knocking at my door trying to sell their version of Christianity and refuse to engage in a well balanced debate because you insist that there is a single interpretation of a book that has been written over hundreds of years, by different people and translated into English. If only language was so clear..
dread u simply not goin and get through all dat "hardcoding" yuh hands will get tired.............. prejudice is many things but rational it will never be
-
Pecan nice post. Religion is a dangerous thing depending on how a person interprets the writings.
It would have plenty dead girls from stoning if those writings were taken literally. But yet the bible says not to kill. Talk about mix signals.
-
You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?
If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?
So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?
You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?
Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.
I have provided ample evidence, you just refusing to see it.
That "Anglican group" you so readily dismiss if the Anglican Church of Canada (the 3rd largest Christian denomination (yes I said Christian) in Canada. From your reply, you hardly bothered to go to the source to see where it came from.
I referred you to "The Heart of Christianity". Marcus J. Borg, You dismissed that as blah, blah, blah.
Then you have the gall to presume that your intelligence is superior to the academics, scholars and the leadership majority of the entire Anglican Church of Canada?
Face it Toppa, you have your own opinion about the Bible but don't presume to judge the intelligence of others who have different interpretations of the Bible.
I also see you avoid addressing all the examples I make regarding the literal interpretations of the Bible. I have re-posted several examples and I pray to God that you do not interpret them literally.
Exodus 21:17 states: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
or this on virginity
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states: But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you
or these
Leviticus 12:2. NIV
"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.
Leviticus 12:5, NIV
If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
Leviticus 15:19 NIV
"'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
I mean, do you stay indoors the entire time during your period? After all you are UNCLEAN becasue if anyone accidentally touches you they too shall be unclean. btw, how do you interpret "unclean".
:banginghead: :banginghead: :banginghead:
I am beginning to think you belong to the same group of people who come knocking at my door trying to sell their version of Christianity and refuse to engage in a well balanced debate because you insist that there is a single interpretation of a book that has been written over hundreds of years, by different people and translated into English. If only language was so clear..
dread u simply not goin and get through all dat "hardcoding" yuh hands will get tired.............. prejudice is many things but rational it will never be
Lefty boy, I reached a stage a few years ago where I started questioning things. Then my eyes were open. After growing up on a strick Roman Catholic diet, I could not be blinded anymore by the Christian hypocrits.
Edit: the worse is to hear somebody say I am a christian then do wickedness to somebody after.
-
dread u simply not goin and get through all dat "hardcoding" yuh hands will get tired.............. prejudice is many things but rational it will never be
LOL. same ting Mrs. P just tell me. She unless I am being entertained by this, I just wasting my time. She say "same ting I just told you except he more succinct." The 'he' is you.
She also said that Toppa cannot admit to anything I say because that means she will have to re-think everything she has been thought to believe in and that is not a likely scenario.
-
Pecan nice post. Religion is a dangerous thing depending on how a person interprets the writings.
It would have plenty dead girls from stoning if those writings were taken literally. But yet the bible says not to kill. Talk about mix signals.
According to some, there is but one way to interpret the Bible. The right way.
On the other hand, if the whore has been stoned to die, that is not actually killing as God has given them permission to kill her. So, the message may not be mixed at all. (and for those who don't understand, my comment was laced with sarcasm).
-
Pecan nice post. Religion is a dangerous thing depending on how a person interprets the writings.
It would have plenty dead girls from stoning if those writings were taken literally. But yet the bible says not to kill. Talk about mix signals.
Well DHW to be honest the signal isn't mixed at all. That is why it's not enough to use the OT alone to support or denounce the topic. Signals will be mixed if OT implies one thing and NT implies something else. As we know that's not the case concerning the topic. DHW, understand this, the world view of the laws we are criticizing were state laws/tribal laws etc. It was societal codes. And as extreme as they were they were all tried. I can't articulate the role of government for societies but it is a fabulous study. Not sure if you understand that a trail validated who really got stoned. The bed rock of these laws and codes which in my opinion, were of mixed origins (some were from God and others were from men), were based on the 10 commandments. Again,if you look at the historical context and you'll understand the laws. Check this, if God speaks to you through a burning bush, turns your rod into snakes, part the Red Sea, Mana from Heaven, talking to you, give you ten commands for the people etc. And you see and experience this with your own two eyes and it's entrusted to you to raise up a society. Mind you, knowing how God hates sin. And He had already threatened to kill everyone and raise up an new people that would trust Him. I feel you ain't gonna turn a blind eye to people playing the ass. And if you experience all that and still wanna act the fool then you deserve what you get. Obeying God wasn't a casual thing. He was their King. Obeying God was linked to the survival and success of the people. So against that backdrop you can understand the language against homosexuality. In the new testament Jesus reinforces that marriage is between a man and a woman but he didn't Stone the woman caught in adultery. See? He just told her to stop doing that. I believe that God's heart. Stop doing that.
-
Stop doing that.
but preacher stop doing what.........if we saying dat god responsible for everyting dat here now, yuh ent tink he did know it would have homosexuals ......he see all knows all and is d creator right.........so what yuh tryin to say......god eh know what going on on he own production line.......free will simply doh apply here it have enough physical if not solid biological evidence dat homosexuals born dat way..... so what dey suppose to do with dey self.....go some where and dead....all dem tryin to do is settle down with d security and benefits dat marriage affords dem...dias all ....equality in the eyes of the law of the land. tank god dat eh d bible in dis instance because all d various crusades and inquisitions done rack up ah monumental body count aready and we doh need more
-
Stop doing that.
but preacher stop doing what.........if we saying dat god responsible for everyting dat here now, yuh ent tink he did know it would have homosexuals ......he see all knows all and is d creator right.........so what yuh tryin to say......god eh know what going on on he own production line.......free will simply doh apply here it have enough physical if not solid biological evidence dat homosexuals born dat way..... so what dey suppose to do with dey self.....go some where and dead....all dem tryin to do is settle down with d security and benefits dat marriage affords dem...dias all ....equality in the eyes of the law of the land. tank god dat eh d bible in dis instance because all d various crusades and inquisitions done rack up ah monumental body count aready and we doh need more
:beermug:
-
Pecan nice post. Religion is a dangerous thing depending on how a person interprets the writings.
It would have plenty dead girls from stoning if those writings were taken literally. But yet the bible says not to kill. Talk about mix signals.
Well DHW to be honest the signal isn't mixed at all. That is why it's not enough to use the OT alone to support or denounce the topic. Signals will be mixed if OT implies one thing and NT implies something else. As we know that's not the case concerning the topic. DHW, understand this, the world view of the laws we are criticizing were state laws/tribal laws etc. It was societal codes. And as extreme as they were they were all tried. I can't articulate the role of government for societies but it is a fabulous study. Not sure if you understand that a trail validated who really got stoned. The bed rock of these laws and codes which in my opinion, were of mixed origins (some were from God and others were from men), were based on the 10 commandments. Again,if you look at the historical context and you'll understand the laws. Check this, if God speaks to you through a burning bush, turns your rod into snakes, part the Red Sea, Mana from Heaven, talking to you, give you ten commands for the people etc. And you see and experience this with your own two eyes and it's entrusted to you to raise up a society. Mind you, knowing how God hates sin. And He had already threatened to kill everyone and raise up an new people that would trust Him. I feel you ain't gonna turn a blind eye to people playing the ass. And if you experience all that and still wanna act the fool then you deserve what you get. Obeying God wasn't a casual thing. He was their King. Obeying God was linked to the survival and success of the people. So against that backdrop you can understand the language against homosexuality. In the new testament Jesus reinforces that marriage is between a man and a woman but he didn't Stone the woman caught in adultery. See? He just told her to stop doing that. I believe that God's heart. Stop doing that.
Preacher, I have been reading your posts and while we may disagree on some things, at least your arguments seem to be based on a reasonable flow of logic. You try to explain what many see as inconsistencies in the Bible and as you stated in this post, the differences between the OT and the NT.
I certainly share your opinion that the laws and rules in the Bible originated with both God and Man. But we differ in that you see the 'law' against homosexuality as one originating with God but I see that one as one originating with the Biblical men in their effort to 'guess' or worse yet, presume they know what God would want. The hubris of these men is their downfall.
But having said that, if we read scripture and try to see the underlying stories and messages, taken within the context of the times, we get a better understanding of our spirituality. And that is why many view the Bible as sacred in its status and function, but NOT in its origins.
The Bible is a beautiful book but the overarching message in the NT of Love seems to be sometimes cast away when many use the Bible to divide instead of unite.
-
Stop doing that.
but preacher stop doing what.........if we saying dat god responsible for everyting dat here now, yuh ent tink he did know it would have homosexuals ......he see all knows all and is d creator right.........so what yuh tryin to say......god eh know what going on on he own production line.......free will simply doh apply here it have enough physical if not solid biological evidence dat homosexuals born dat way..... so what dey suppose to do with dey self.....go some where and dead....all dem tryin to do is settle down with d security and benefits dat marriage affords dem...dias all ....equality in the eyes of the law of the land. tank god dat eh d bible in dis instance because all d various crusades and inquisitions done rack up ah monumental body count aready and we doh need more
Please provide the evidence of this.
Thanks.
-
You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?
If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?
So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?
You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?
Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.
I have provided ample evidence, you just refusing to see it.
What evidence? We must have a different definition of what constitutes 'evidence'. lol!
That "Anglican group" you so readily dismiss if the Anglican Church of Canada (the 3rd largest Christian denomination (yes I said Christian) in Canada. From your reply, you hardly bothered to go to the source to see where it came from.
Actually, maybe you should re-read that you posted, it was actually one group making an appeal to the Anglican Church of Canada to revisit their stance on homosexual marriage. I would hardly call that compelling.
I referred you to "The Heart of Christianity". Marcus J. Borg, You dismissed that as blah, blah, blah.
And I should accept "The Heart of Christianity" as what, exactly? I am baffled by your line of reasoning as well as the point you are attempting to prove.
Then you have the gall to presume that your intelligence is superior to the academics, scholars and the leadership majority of the entire Anglican Church of Canada?
hahaha
Face it Toppa, you have your own opinion about the Bible but don't presume to judge the intelligence of others who have different interpretations of the Bible.
How about actually answering the question I posed to you regarding 'interpretation'. Should be simple, no? Or perhaps not...
I also see you avoid addressing all the examples I make regarding the literal interpretations of the Bible. I have re-posted several examples and I pray to God that you do not interpret them literally.
Exodus 21:17 states: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
or this on virginity
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states: But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you
or these
Leviticus 12:2. NIV
"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.
Leviticus 12:5, NIV
If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
Leviticus 15:19 NIV
"'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
I mean, do you stay indoors the entire time during your period? After all you are UNCLEAN becasue if anyone accidentally touches you they too shall be unclean. btw, how do you interpret "unclean".
:banginghead: :banginghead: :banginghead:
I am beginning to think you belong to the same group of people who come knocking at my door trying to sell their version of Christianity and refuse to engage in a well balanced debate because you insist that there is a single interpretation of a book that has been written over hundreds of years, by different people and translated into English. If only language was so clear..
You silly man - before you try to engage in a debate on the Bible - you should make sure you know it, first.
The Bible explains the Mosaic law, the reason for its existence in the past, and why it is no longer in force - which blows your nonsense above out of the water.
Galations 3: 19-25
Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one. 21 Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. 22 But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.
23 However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.
Do you need me to explain these scriptures further? *yawn*
As I said, before you get into a debate on the Bible - make sure you know it first or else I will continue to laugh at you.
-
Pecan nice post. Religion is a dangerous thing depending on how a person interprets the writings.
It would have plenty dead girls from stoning if those writings were taken literally. But yet the bible says not to kill. Talk about mix signals.
Well DHW to be honest the signal isn't mixed at all. That is why it's not enough to use the OT alone to support or denounce the topic. Signals will be mixed if OT implies one thing and NT implies something else. As we know that's not the case concerning the topic. DHW, understand this, the world view of the laws we are criticizing were state laws/tribal laws etc. It was societal codes. And as extreme as they were they were all tried. I can't articulate the role of government for societies but it is a fabulous study. Not sure if you understand that a trail validated who really got stoned. The bed rock of these laws and codes which in my opinion, were of mixed origins (some were from God and others were from men), were based on the 10 commandments. Again,if you look at the historical context and you'll understand the laws. Check this, if God speaks to you through a burning bush, turns your rod into snakes, part the Red Sea, Mana from Heaven, talking to you, give you ten commands for the people etc. And you see and experience this with your own two eyes and it's entrusted to you to raise up a society. Mind you, knowing how God hates sin. And He had already threatened to kill everyone and raise up an new people that would trust Him. I feel you ain't gonna turn a blind eye to people playing the ass. And if you experience all that and still wanna act the fool then you deserve what you get. Obeying God wasn't a casual thing. He was their King. Obeying God was linked to the survival and success of the people. So against that backdrop you can understand the language against homosexuality. In the new testament Jesus reinforces that marriage is between a man and a woman but he didn't Stone the woman caught in adultery. See? He just told her to stop doing that. I believe that God's heart. Stop doing that.
Preacher, I have been reading your posts and while we may disagree on some things, at least your arguments seem to be based on a reasonable flow of logic. You try to explain what many see as inconsistencies in the Bible and as you stated in this post, the differences between the OT and the NT.
I certainly share your opinion that the laws and rules in the Bible originated with both God and Man. But we differ in that you see the 'law' against homosexuality as one originating with God but I see that one as one originating with the Biblical men in their effort to 'guess' or worse yet, presume they know what God would want. The hubris of these men is their downfall.
But having said that, if we read scripture and try to see the underlying stories and messages, taken within the context of the times, we get a better understanding of our spirituality. And that is why many view the Bible as sacred in its status and function, but NOT in its origins.
The Bible is a beautiful book but the overarching message in the NT of Love seems to be sometimes cast away when many use the Bible to divide instead of unite.
Yes brother respect.. :beermug: It's a tough call concerning who wrote what, did God describe it to be so or did men prescribe it based on their worldview at the time. Honestly, I really don't think it matters. I think though Pecan that we have to assume a higher form of logic is in play. I know for me my believe system is able to see these potentially man made inferences and weight them against the assumption of an all powerful God that is still in control of the big idea. Yes we don't stone our kids anymore for disobedience but we still expect them to obey. If that is true then you must approach the text based on the big idea in view of the historical, economical and geographical context of the time and not say "Oh Gorm, God killing children". :) Those kids weren't our kids today, completely different society. Yes men influenced and added to societal methods as they saw it with the purpose of upholding God's big idea. Was Moses credible before God? Was Joshua credible before God? According to the text, they were. If that is true and God is real you can't turn a blind eye to what they attempted to uphold in their community of leadership. Plus, nowhere in the scriptures it implies that God had lost control and the document had no longer become sacred. The premise of Christianity is that God is all powerful and His will prevails above all. Men cannot hinder God's plans. If that is true then we're back were we started. What is God original intent? It's a fair question and I believe that His big idea has been preserved concerning homosexuality in the old testament and new testament. The presupposition is that God is in control and the bible is a Holy book. There is no other presup if God is real. ;D That's the premise I have, researched and believed. I've never come across a devote Muslim that didn't think the Quran Holy but was down with Mohammed and Allah. ;D The OT is man's futile attempt to be reconnected with God through sacrifice and laws. The NT is that Christ became the perfect sacrifice for our sins and now we can live/fulfill the (Law/God's Big Idea) by submitting to God's statutes by the Holy Spirit.
-
Stop doing that.
but preacher stop doing what.........if we saying dat god responsible for everyting dat here now, yuh ent tink he did know it would have homosexuals ......he see all knows all and is d creator right.........so what yuh tryin to say......god eh know what going on on he own production line.......free will simply doh apply here it have enough physical if not solid biological evidence dat homosexuals born dat way..... so what dey suppose to do with dey self.....go some where and dead....all dem tryin to do is settle down with d security and benefits dat marriage affords dem...dias all ....equality in the eyes of the law of the land. tank god dat eh d bible in dis instance because all d various crusades and inquisitions done rack up ah monumental body count aready and we doh need more
Please provide the evidence of this.
Thanks.
Do mind he...He just saying what people tell him.
-
Toppa that is a very great scripture regarding the purpose of the law. That is a very clear why.
Galations 3: 19-25
Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one. 21 Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. 22 But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.
Thanks for teaching me this one.
-
Explain gay sheep, gay geese etc. Thanks. By the way as far as evidence goes....are people supposed to be born with club feet? Spina bifida? Anotia / Microtia? Down syndrome? Polydatyly? Indeterminate sex (aka Hermaphrodite?) Fused limbs? etc. etc.?
stop the hate and the shit man..the Bible is man's work..steups
-
You silly man - before you try to engage in a debate on the Bible - you should make sure you know it, first.
The Bible explains the Mosaic law, the reason for its existence in the past, and why it is no longer in force - which blows your nonsense above out of the water.
Galations 3: 19-25
Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one. 21 Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. 22 But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.
23 However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.
Do you need me to explain these scriptures further? *yawn*
As I said, before you get into a debate on the Bible - make sure you know it first or else I will continue to laugh at you.
Nice passage it explains a lot. In fact I will look to it in the future. thanks :beermug:
In answer to your question bolded above: "Yes I do".
Please explain why the Leviticus 18:22 is still in force while the others I quoted are no longer in force?
re: 2004 Anglican Synod (go look up 'Synod" and see what it means)
In May 2004, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada passed a resolution on homosexuality, urging the church to continue dialogue ...
The resolution concluded that the Synod:
Affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships."[10]
That resolution was CARRIED (i.e passed) by General Synod, that means the majority of the Anglican leadership in Canada agreed with the resolution. It was not a "group" as you continue to insist.
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/appendix/p3.12.cfm
http://www.anglican.ca/primate/ptc/smr/
It is a FACT that within the Anglican Church of Canada, debate continues on same sex union and blessings and the point I am attempting to make is that the 'single and only interpretation of bible" that you adhere to is not a simple issue.
If it were so simple, there would be no debate and there would be only one Christian denomination in the World.
I have no doubt you can quote the bible left, right and centre, but the simple fact remains that not all Christians have a single interpretation as you continue to insist.
What it comes down to is your view that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
-
It is time for this thread to die a natural death. The only thing that can be achieved here is a stalemate.
-
What it comes down to is your view that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
starts and ends right there
Do mind he...He just saying what people tell him.
and u hold fast to the words of chauvinistic sociopath so we even
-
What it comes down to is your view that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
starts and ends right there
Do mind he...He just saying what people tell him.
and u hold fast to the words of chauvinistic sociopath so we even
:) ok :beermug:
-
You silly man - before you try to engage in a debate on the Bible - you should make sure you know it, first.
The Bible explains the Mosaic law, the reason for its existence in the past, and why it is no longer in force - which blows your nonsense above out of the water.
Galations 3: 19-25
Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one. 21 Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. 22 But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.
23 However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.
Do you need me to explain these scriptures further? *yawn*
As I said, before you get into a debate on the Bible - make sure you know it first or else I will continue to laugh at you.
Nice passage it explains a lot. In fact I will look to it in the future. thanks :beermug:
In answer to your question bolded above: "Yes I do".
Please explain why the Leviticus 18:22 is still in force while the others I quoted are no longer in force?
There are commandments that still carried over.
For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!
Acts 15:28,29
Also the scripture I posted before from Corinthians affirming those who will not inherit God's Kindgom - idolaters, adulterers, fornicators, drunkards, revilers, men who lie with men, etc...
And as a side-note, there is a scripture in Jude that talks about Sodom and Gomorrah
Jude 7
So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.
re: 2004 Anglican Synod (go look up 'Synod" and see what it means)
In May 2004, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada passed a resolution on homosexuality, urging the church to continue dialogue ...
The resolution concluded that the Synod:
Affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships."[10]
That resolution was CARRIED (i.e passed) by General Synod, that means the majority of the Anglican leadership in Canada agreed with the resolution. It was not a "group" as you continue to insist.
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/appendix/p3.12.cfm
http://www.anglican.ca/primate/ptc/smr/
It is a FACT that within the Anglican Church of Canada, debate continues on same sex union and blessings and the point I am attempting to make is that the 'single and only interpretation of bible" that you adhere to is not a simple issue.
If it were so simple, there would be no debate and there would be only one Christian denomination in the World.
I have no doubt you can quote the bible left, right and centre, but the simple fact remains that not all Christians have a single interpretation as you continue to insist.
What it comes down to is your view that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
But what are they basing this on??? What scriptures?
This is what I would say to that Anglican body:
Isaiah 55:8-9
And more pertinently:
Romans 1:18-32
18 For Gods wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. 20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the worlds creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. 22 Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things.
24 Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, 25 even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.
28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, 29 filled as they were with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malicious disposition, being whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them.
-
CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, who has been reluctant to talk about his personal life in public, revealed that he is gay in an essay posted online on Monday.
The celebrity journalist and host of the current affairs program 360 said he had kept his sexual orientation private for personal and professional reasons but came to think that remaining silent had given some people a mistaken impression that he was ashamed.
"The fact is, I'm gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn't be any more happy, comfortable with myself and proud," he wrote in a letter to well-known commentator Andrew Sullivan, who writes the blog the Dish for the news website the Daily Beast.
The letter was written in response to Sullivan asking Cooper his thoughts on an Entertainment Weekly story about the recent tendency for gay people in the public eye to come out in a more restrained way than in the past. Cooper, a personal friend of Sullivan, gave Sullivan permission to publish his email response.
Cooper, the son of U.S. heiress Gloria Vanderbilt, had long been the subject of rumours about his sexual orientation. He said that in a perfect world, it wouldn't be anyone's business but that there is value in "standing up and being counted."
"I still consider myself a reserved person, and I hope this doesn't mean an end to a small amount of personal space," he wrote. "But I do think visibility is important, more important than preserving my reporter's shield of privacy."
-
Dog bites man where is d news?
-
No shit
-
"New tune from Rudder..its on youtube..someone post the link cause i cant right now"
-
"New tune from Rudder..its on youtube..someone post the link cause i cant right now"
oh sh!t lol :rotfl:
-
Maybe just maybe Obama is a great conman?
Checkout this video!
http://www.youtube.com/v/4Yro63c7B7A
-
Maybe just maybe Obama is a great conman?
Checkout this video!
http://www.youtube.com/v/4Yro63c7B7A
socapro .. I might not like di man because he is a self proclaim faggot, but let dem f**k off.. Di man is an american and who gaves a f**k if he is a muslim.. Dey keep stressing Hosein.. let dem christian faggots go f**k themselves and stop trying to bring di man down..Barrack is all of dem f**king father.. Obama had my vote until his confession of being a battyman , I still like di man but cya vote for him because I dnt like battyman and he support dem , them pussyhole dem still wah see di man Birthpaper??? dem pussyhole dem is plain ediats!!!!!!!!!!!! jes like di faggot who told me Barrack dont look like an American.. Well what does an american look like I ask di faggot ?.. Pure f**king assholes.. Americans are so f**king dumb dat they think every Muslim is a terrorist.. so they keep stressing di man middle name /,..cheups.. well I go play dumb like dem I feal say every pastor is a child molester.. dey are a bunch of dumb ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dem faggots mf does raise mi blood pressure when I see shit like dat on youtube
war
-
Aye Toppa, another set of Anglicans who support same-sex blessings.
Source - Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/episcopal-church-gay-couples-same-sex-blessings_n_1663291.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false)
Episcopal Church Approves Gay Couples' Same-Sex Blessings
Sixteen years after first allowing gays and lesbians to become priests and nine years after electing its first gay bishop, the Episcopal Church on Tuesday became the largest Christian denomination in the U.S. to offer religious blessings to same-sex couples.
The monumental decision, approved by a thick margin at the church's triennial General Convention in Indianapolis, means that priests in the 1.9 million-member church can officiate blessings to same-sex couples who are in long-term relationships beginning in December.
The church's House of Deputies voted 171 to 41, with nine people saying they were divided, to support a same-sex blessings liturgy that will be used during a three-year trial before the church meets again and decides if it should be permanent. The deputies' vote was done in two parts, with lay members approving the blessings by 78 percent and clergy members approving by 76 percent.
The vote followed Monday's decision by the church's House of Bishops supporting the measure by a 111 to 41, with three abstentions. Both groups have to approve new legislation.
Some Episcopal bishops currently allow same-sex blessings in their dioceses, but many have said they will not allow them unless the church has an official liturgy -- the words exchanged between a couple and a priest during the ceremony.
The new liturgy will not be mandatory. Bishops who do not approve of same-sex relationships will be allowed to bar its use in their dioceses. Priests who choose to not perform same-sex ceremonies will not face discipline.
The liturgy does not represent a religious marriage -- the church defines marriage as being between a man and a woman -- though some clergy in states that allow civil marriage officiate secular marriages in their churches.
During debate on Tuesday, many members of the church spoke in favor of same-sex blessings, while fewer spoke against them.
"I believe we are doing the loving thing, we are doing what Jesus would call on us to do," said the Rt. Rev. Michael Curry, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, in an interview. "We are finding a way to to support and care for people who have shown lifelong care and love for each other," added Curry, who voted for the legislation and has been officiating same-sex marriages in his own diocese since 2004.
"This singular motion ... will result in the Episcopal Church of the United States marching not simply out of step with but completely out of line with the faith," said the Rev. David Thurlow of South Carolina, a deputy who planned to vote against the proposal.
Tuesday's vote followed the church's decision on Monday to allow the ordination of transgender people. That vote to change to the church's "nondiscrimination canons" to include "gender identity and expression" overwhelmingly passed the church House of Bishops and House of Deputies. It makes it illegal to bar from the priesthood people who were born into one gender and live as another or who do not identify themselves as male or female. It added to church rules against discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disability and age.
The Episcopal Church is the U.S.-based wing of the Anglican Communion, an 85 million-member global denomination. In addition to its U.S.-based members, it has 173,000 members in other countries and territories, including the British Virgin Islands, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, Taiwan and Venezuela.
Liberal trends in the church regarding the ordination of gay priests and bishops have increasingly strained its relations with its more conservative counterparts in the United Kingdom and Africa. The election in 2003 of its first gay bishop, the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, caused several dioceses to defect. The same day the Episcopal Church voted to allow transgender priests, the church's English counterpart, the Church of England, delayed until the fall a controversial vote on appointing women bishops.
The Episcopalians follow the 1.2 million-member United Church of Christ, which voted to approve same-sex marriage ceremonies in 2005. The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) also allow same-sex marriage ceremonies. In addition, Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish denominations allow same-sex blessings. In 2009, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America let churches recognize same-sex relationships, but it did not endorse an official church policy or liturgy for blessings.
At its biennial national meeting in Pittsburgh last week, the Presbyterian Church (USA) narrowly rejected a measure that would have changed its definition of marriage from being a union between a man and a woman to one between "two people." In April at its General Conference in Tampa, the United Methodist Church also upheld its teaching on homosexuality, which does not recognize same-sex marriages or unions.
Below is the text of "The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant: Liturgical Resources for Blessing Same-Sex Relationships" in the Episcopal Church.
"The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant: Liturgical Resources for Blessing Same-Sex Re...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99747257/The-Witnessing-and-Blessing-of-a-Lifelong-Covenant-Liturgical-Resources-for-Blessing-Same-Sex-Relationships
-
So? Why should I care what some Anglican diocese decides?
Am I Anglican?
-
Again using the Bible to discriminate and harahgue people. Who cares if two men or two women want to get into same sex marriage?
What precipitates the hate?
-
So? Why should I care what some Anglican diocese decides?
Am I Anglican?
your response speaks volumes.
-
Look how me and Pecan agreeing on something, like God Walking in the midst
-
Look how me and Pecan agreeing on something, like God Walking in the midst
all we need is for you and JC to agree on something and the circle will be closed.
-
So? Why should I care what some Anglican diocese decides?
Am I Anglican?
your response speaks volumes.
It says exactly what I wanted it to say. Where in my responses have I ever indicated that I gave creedence to what a particular body, be it Anglican or otherwise, had to say on this matter? The only thing I give credence to what is found in the Bible - not things that directly contradict it. You clearly have not been following debtae very closely if you thought I would have been swayed by this decision of the Anglican diocese. Steupssssssss
-
So? Why should I care what some Anglican diocese decides?
Am I Anglican?
your response speaks volumes.
It says exactly what I wanted it to say. Where in my responses have I ever indicated that I gave creedence to what a particular body, be it Anglican or otherwise, had to say on this matter? The only thing I give credence to what is found in the Bible - not things that directly contradict it. You clearly have not been following debtae very closely if you thought I would have been swayed by this decision of the Anglican diocese. Steupssssssss
lol, steups all you want if it makes you feel superior and better than the rest of us ungodly folk.
Well obviously you have not been following the debate as well. My intention was never to sway you, it was to point out that your point of view is NOT universal and often contrary to other interpretations of the Bible.
And if you want to ignore that fact, c'est la vie.
Hence my response
"your response speaks volumes"
-
So? Why should I care what some Anglican diocese decides?
Am I Anglican?
your response speaks volumes.
It says exactly what I wanted it to say. Where in my responses have I ever indicated that I gave creedence to what a particular body, be it Anglican or otherwise, had to say on this matter? The only thing I give credence to what is found in the Bible - not things that directly contradict it. You clearly have not been following debtae very closely if you thought I would have been swayed by this decision of the Anglican diocese. Steupssssssss
and one more thing ...
this statement and the preceding one is exactly why men like TT despise religion so much. Your two statements reflects a strict paradigm that often does more harm than good.
-
Look how me and Pecan agreeing on something, like God Walking in the midst
all we need is for you and JC to agree on something and the circle will be closed.
I agree with justcool on may issues, jes not his Islam loving bullshit.
-
Well, I have made my views clear on the matter and will not rehash them, but the conclusion that I have come to is that everyone on here should just agree to disagree. It is obvious that religion is a very sensitive topic, with people espousing their own beliefs.
As I have said, I do not agree with homosexuality, but will never force my beliefs on any other person, and people are free to live as they see fit, as long as it does not violate the laws of the land.
-
So? Why should I care what some Anglican diocese decides?
Am I Anglican?
your response speaks volumes.
It says exactly what I wanted it to say. Where in my responses have I ever indicated that I gave creedence to what a particular body, be it Anglican or otherwise, had to say on this matter? The only thing I give credence to what is found in the Bible - not things that directly contradict it. You clearly have not been following debtae very closely if you thought I would have been swayed by this decision of the Anglican diocese. Steupssssssss
and one more thing ...
this statement and the preceding one is exactly why men like TT despise religion so much. Your two statements reflects a strict paradigm that often does more harm than good.
Truth is universal, religions? lol
-
Well, I have made my views clear on the matter and will not rehash them, but the conclusion that I have come to is that everyone on here should just agree to disagree. It is obvious that religion is a very sensitive topic, with people espousing their own beliefs.
As I have said, I do not agree with homosexuality, but will never force my beliefs on any other person, and people are free to live as they see fit, as long as it does not violate the laws of the land.
... sometime the rule of law has to be challenged because homosexuality was unlawful at one time (and still may be in some states not sure). The first Director and second commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Ontario, Dr.Daniel G. Hill had to leave the US because he married a white woman and he was black and interracial marriages were not allowed. Had he observed the rule of law, he would not have married his love.
But I have to admit that I did post the Episcopal announcement for two reasons
1) It was relevant as it was just announced this week.
2) to stir the pot a bit. But sometimes sarcasm does not manifest well in an on-line forum.
-
Look how me and Pecan agreeing on something, like God Walking in the midst
all we need is for you and JC to agree on something and the circle will be closed.
I agree with justcool on may issues, jes not his Islam loving bullshit.
so the circle is closed. The Higgs field is complete.
-
Well, I have made my views clear on the matter and will not rehash them, but the conclusion that I have come to is that everyone on here should just agree to disagree. It is obvious that religion is a very sensitive topic, with people espousing their own beliefs.
As I have said, I do not agree with homosexuality, but will never force my beliefs on any other person, and people are free to live as they see fit, as long as it does not violate the laws of the land.
... sometime the rule of law has to be challenged because homosexuality was unlawful at one time (and still may be in some states not sure). The first Director and second commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Ontario, Dr.Daniel G. Hill had to leave the US because he married a white woman and he was black and interracial marriages were not allowed. Had he observed the rule of law, he would not have married his love.
But I have to admit that I did post the Episcopal announcement for two reasons
1) It was relevant as it was just announced this week.
2) to stir the pot a bit. But sometimes sarcasm does not manifest well in an on-line forum.
I have to say that the Faith of my childhood (Anglican Church) did the right thing with the announcement last week. I saw the voting and was quite pleased with results.
Science has shown that there are reasons for certain things. Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Just as my race is not a choice.
Leave the people alone, I find it incredulous that after being educated we can find ways to fuel our hate especially with religion as the main reason.
-
Well, I have made my views clear on the matter and will not rehash them, but the conclusion that I have come to is that everyone on here should just agree to disagree. It is obvious that religion is a very sensitive topic, with people espousing their own beliefs.
As I have said, I do not agree with homosexuality, but will never force my beliefs on any other person, and people are free to live as they see fit, as long as it does not violate the laws of the land.
... sometime the rule of law has to be challenged because homosexuality was unlawful at one time (and still may be in some states not sure). The first Director and second commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Ontario, Dr.Daniel G. Hill had to leave the US because he married a white woman and he was black and interracial marriages were not allowed. Had he observed the rule of law, he would not have married his love.
But I have to admit that I did post the Episcopal announcement for two reasons
1) It was relevant as it was just announced this week.
2) to stir the pot a bit. But sometimes sarcasm does not manifest well in an on-line forum.
I have to say that the Faith of my childhood (Anglican Church) did the right thing with the announcement last week. I saw the voting and was quite pleased with results.
Science has shown that there are reasons for certain things. Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Just as my race is not a choice.
Leave the people alone, I find it incredulous that after being educated we can find ways to fuel our hate especially with religion as the main reason.
if some people would forget Leviticus for bit and jus watch wit unbiased eyes, dey would see dat as plain as day. I think we do great disservice to the greatest gift god gave us when we lock our minds within the narrow confines of this book we call d bible
-
Disclaimer: I am NOT a Christian, I have no religion, I do not believe that there is a God or gods.
But I do have a very serious question for peeps on here.
The Bible roundly opposes and takes a very hard line against homosexuals and homosexuality.
How can anyone claim to be a Christian and still see no problem with homosexuality?
Is the Bible the Word of God or is it outdated, irrelevant, confining, and simply not worth reading?
Is it an ancient document with superstitious tales that bear no resemblance to modern life?
Or its an archaic book of rules for religious fundamentalistsa list of black-and-white dos and donts that are arbitrary, old-fashioned, and just plain unreasonable.?
Is it a guide sent by God to illuminate the paths of mankind, is it God's truth and should be followed word for word?
How can one claim to be Christian and yet deviate from what is written in the Bible?
The Bible itself claims to be the inspired Word of God, or "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21).
Psalm 119:105 says, "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path."
the Bible teaches us that forgiveness of sins is found in Jesus alone, "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved, (Acts 4:12).
Yet it preaches destruction and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Says: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
That pretty much wipes most of not all us off that Heavenly list.
Back to homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
So what makes a man say that he is a Christian and still have no trouble with homosexuals? How can a Christian Church allow gay marriages, Gay clergy etc.? How can you say that you are a Christian and yet shun Bible teachings, doctrine and dogma?
I seek truthful admissions.
Thanks
-
You seek "truthful admissions" as much as the Republicans do...
-
You seek "truthful admissions" as much as the Republicans do...
Rubbish. How can you be a Christian and not follow the Bible?
Straighforward.
I remember not too long ago you dismissed being born gay and stated it was a choice. or maybe it was the act was a choice.
Come on man..answer the facking question if you can.
-
I was baptized anglican and that's pretty much it for me on the religious front............I have my lil bit ah homophobia too, but I jus faced discrimination on so many levels that I cannot advocate the denial of rights to people dat do nothing more dan being born different.....born different......ah mean god supposed to be several steps ahead ah we....being all knowin and all.....I refuse to believe he\she\it didn' know dat men would be attracted to men and women to women..........I know some religious people doh like to hear it but the writers of the bible were arguably simpler minds and in arguably simpler times and it didn't take much more than a loud voice and a fair bit of charisma to "speak for God"
-
So? Why should I care what some Anglican diocese decides?
Am I Anglican?
your response speaks volumes.
It says exactly what I wanted it to say. Where in my responses have I ever indicated that I gave creedence to what a particular body, be it Anglican or otherwise, had to say on this matter? The only thing I give credence to what is found in the Bible - not things that directly contradict it. You clearly have not been following debtae very closely if you thought I would have been swayed by this decision of the Anglican diocese. Steupssssssss
lol, steups all you want if it makes you feel superior and better than the rest of us ungodly folk.
Well obviously you have not been following the debate as well. My intention was never to sway you, it was to point out that your point of view is NOT universal and often contrary to other interpretations of the Bible.
And if you want to ignore that fact, c'est la vie.
Hence my response
"your response speaks volumes"
Show me where the Anglican diocese has articulated that their stance is based on the Bible and what scriptures they used to lend support to gay marriage. Since you want to talk about 'different interpretations'. Did they even base it on the Bible? If they did then show me. If not, shut up.
-
I was baptized anglican and that's pretty much it for me on the religious front............I have my lil bit ah homophobia too, but I jus faced discrimination on so many levels that I cannot advocate the denial of rights to people dat do nothing more dan being born different.....born different......ah mean god supposed to be several steps ahead ah we....being all knowin and all.....I refuse to believe he\she\it didn' know dat men would be attracted to men and women to women..........I know some religious people doh like to hear it but the writers of the bible were arguably simpler minds and in arguably simpler times and it didn't take much more than a loud voice and a fair bit of charisma to "speak for God"
:beermug:
-
You seek "truthful admissions" as much as the Republicans do...
Rubbish. How can you be a Christian and not follow the Bible?
Straighforward.
I remember not too long ago you dismissed being born gay and stated it was a choice. or maybe it was the act was a choice.
Come on man..answer the facking question if you can.
You 'remember' that? From where... the deep, dark recesses of your ass? If yuh going to lie at least make it interesting.
-
I was baptized anglican and that's pretty much it for me on the religious front............I have my lil bit ah homophobia too, but I jus faced discrimination on so many levels that I cannot advocate the denial of rights to people dat do nothing more dan being born different.....born different......ah mean god supposed to be several steps ahead ah we....being all knowin and all.....I refuse to believe hesheit didn' know dat men would be attracted to men and women to women..........I know some religious people doh like to hear it but the writers of the bible were arguably simpler minds and in arguably simpler times and it didn't take much more than a loud voice and a fair bit of charisma to "speak for God"
Preach on brother!
-
You seek "truthful admissions" as much as the Republicans do...
Rubbish. How can you be a Christian and not follow the Bible?
Straighforward.
I remember not too long ago you dismissed being born gay and stated it was a choice. or maybe it was the act was a choice.
Come on man..answer the facking question if you can.
You 'remember' that? From where... the deep, dark recesses of your ass? If yuh going to lie at least make it interesting.
I cannot remember in which thread but your stance on gay unions and homosexuality has evolved. You went from Not supporting gay unions to now supporting it (unless it is your support for Obama that is driving the change), and you did say at one time that homosexuality was a choice, eithe that or the ACT was a choice.
No lie. you did post such. I doh reach in my ass to pull out nutten cuase I doh put nutten or have anyone putting nutten up there. Farless the dark regions of same.
-
I cannot remember in which thread but your stance on gay unions and homosexuality has evolved. You went from Not supporting gay unions to now supporting it (unless it is your support for Obama that is driving the change), and you did say at one time that homosexuality was a choice, eithe that or the ACT was a choice.
No lie. you did post such. I doh reach in my ass to pull out nutten cuase I doh put nutten or have anyone putting nutten up there. Farless the dark regions of same.
My stance on gay unions HAS evolved... but don't try and play slick, that is not what you stated earlier. My stance on homosexuality has also evolved... about 10-15 years ago, and well before I started posting online...let alone posting on this website. You claim that I posted on here that homosexuality is a choice... well find said post. Take yuh time.
-
I not going and search the archives, It was sometime around when you stated people claimed that gays were cured etc. I am not making it up, during that time you also stated that you felt marriage was between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation too.
I am not making this up, as I said you either said it was a choice or that the act was a choice!!!
-
I not going and search the archives, It was sometime around when you stated people claimed that gays were cured etc. I am not making it up, during that time you also stated that you felt marriage was between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation too.
I am not making this up, as I said you either said it was a choice or that the act was a choice!!!
Well I guess we could just take your word for it ::)
And of COURSE the homosexual act is a choice... duh!! lol That so elementary that I doubt I would have even needed to say that.
-
It says exactly what I wanted it to say. Where in my responses have I ever indicated that I gave creedence to what a particular body, be it Anglican or otherwise, had to say on this matter? The only thing I give credence to what is found in the Bible - not things that directly contradict it. You clearly have not been following debtae very closely if you thought I would have been swayed by this decision of the Anglican diocese. Steupssssssss
Show me where the Anglican diocese has articulated that their stance is based on the Bible and what scriptures they used to lend support to gay marriage. Since you want to talk about 'different interpretations'. Did they even base it on the Bible? If they did then show me. If not, shut up.
How can a decision rooted in the ethic of Christ not be scriptural?
The Bible made a literal provision for slavery among other pronouncements including menstruation. Do we advocate this for today? We should if we give full credence to the words in the Bible.
By no stretch of the imagination am I attempting to sway you.
What I am trying to do is challenge your core values and beliefs so that OTHERS who chance upon this post will have more insight into Christianity and its various manifestations.
Here are some interesting facts:
1) No where in the Gospels do the words "religion" and "Christianity" appear
2) The word "Christian" only appears three times but as a derision of the followers of Christ
3) There is not a single verse in the New testament that implied that Jesus promised, began, or intended to begin any religion
4) Jesus was inclusive
These facts can lead one to conclude:
1) Following Jesus was not a matter of religion
2) It is more about the an ethic; a revelation of God's truth; how we live and treat each other; a revolution of the human heart
3) Jesus never intended to start a religion; it is the followers of Jesus who have tried to interpret what he meant and they are the creators of Christianity, in its myriad of forms.
4) In the ethic & spirit of Jesus, we are evolving further & welcoming our LGBT brothers & sisters into full inclusion.
... and raises these questions:
1) Is my faith based on some truth?
2) or is my faith just blind faith based on the literal interpretation of the Bible?
So I will not "Shut Up" because religion is under siege. You don't have to read my responses. Go Google the word "hermeneutics" and see where I am coming from with respect to different interpretations.
Comment to TT: so being a Christian does not necessarily mean following the Bible since the Bible did not specifically refer to Christianity and what that meant. For me, it means believing in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and trying to live by his principles and ethics.
-
hahahaha
A decision rooted in the ethic of Christ? Did that sound fancy and clever in your head?
Anyway, you still cannot show me that they based their stance on what is written in the Bible.
Show me which scriptures they got this 'different interpretation' from.
-
hahahaha
A decision rooted in the ethic of Christ? Did that sound fancy and clever in your head?
Anyway, you still cannot show me that they based their stance on what is written in the Bible.
Show me which scriptures they got this 'different interpretation' from.
I have in previous posts but you refuse to accept it.
you don't get it, do you?
-
hahahaha
A decision rooted in the ethic of Christ? Did that sound fancy and clever in your head?
Anyway, you still cannot show me that they based their stance on what is written in the Bible.
Show me which scriptures they got this 'different interpretation' from.
I have in previous posts but you refuse to accept it.
you don't get it, do you?
In a previous post you showed me where this Anglican diocese used the Bible to determine they needed to change their stance on gay marriage?
-
Lol.
-
hahahaha
A decision rooted in the ethic of Christ? Did that sound fancy and clever in your head?
Anyway, you still cannot show me that they based their stance on what is written in the Bible.
Show me which scriptures they got this 'different interpretation' from.
I have in previous posts but you refuse to accept it.
you don't get it, do you?
In a previous post you showed me where this Anglican diocese used the Bible to determine they needed to change their stance on gay marriage?
actually, I was wrong in implying that I had posted a specific reference to your question above.
What I wanted to say is that the Anglicans in USA and Canada have been debating this issue and have studied scripture to come to their conclusions and subsequent resolutions and that this decision would not have been done without seriously studying scripture. That is a given.
What I have posted though are links to topics on "emerging Christianity" and how the Bible is interpreted (whether the literally word of God or man's interpretation of the word of God)
That is what I meant by "you don't get it?" because you have summarily dismissed any opinion or study of the Bible that does not coincide with your view. While I can be accused of the same (i.e. not accepting your position), unlike you, I have asked questions regarding the inconsistencies in the Bible and have come to a conclusion that makes sense to me based on Jesus Christ's teachings, and allows me to reconcile what is stated in the Bible with respect to how we treat others. Yes, "the ethic of Jesus did sound fancy and clever in my head" but you know what? it is also accurate.
At least Preacher attempted to answer those inconsistencies. If I recall, you just quoted more scripture to support your position and conveniently ignore the inconsistencies I mentioned.
Bootstrap arguments ...
-
hahahaha
A decision rooted in the ethic of Christ? Did that sound fancy and clever in your head?
Anyway, you still cannot show me that they based their stance on what is written in the Bible.
Show me which scriptures they got this 'different interpretation' from.
I have in previous posts but you refuse to accept it.
you don't get it, do you?
In a previous post you showed me where this Anglican diocese used the Bible to determine they needed to change their stance on gay marriage?
actually, I was wrong in implying that I had posted a specific reference to your question above.
What I wanted to say is that the Anglicans in USA and Canada have been debating this issue and have studied scripture to come to their conclusions and subsequent resolutions and that this decision would not have been done without seriously studying scripture. That is a given.
LOL And you know what how? Were you aware that there are other Anglican diocese(s??) around the world which have spoken out vehemently against the changes being instituted in the English and now American bodies?
What I have posted though are links to topics on "emerging Christianity" and how the Bible is interpreted (whether the literally word of God or man's interpretation of the word of God)
That is what I meant by "you don't get it?" because you have summarily dismissed any opinion or study of the Bible that does not coincide with your view. While I can be accused of the same (i.e. not accepting your position), unlike you, I have asked questions regarding the inconsistencies in the Bible and have come to a conclusion that makes sense to me based on Jesus Christ's teachings, and allows me to reconcile what is stated in the Bible with respect to how we treat others. Yes, "the ethic of Jesus did sound fancy and clever in my head" but you know what? it is also accurate.
At least Preacher attempted to answer those inconsistencies. If I recall, you just quoted more scripture to support your position and conveniently ignore the inconsistencies I mentioned.
Bootstrap arguments ...
What inconsistencies in the Bible did I ignore?
-
hahahaha
A decision rooted in the ethic of Christ? Did that sound fancy and clever in your head?
Anyway, you still cannot show me that they based their stance on what is written in the Bible.
Show me which scriptures they got this 'different interpretation' from.
I have in previous posts but you refuse to accept it.
you don't get it, do you?
In a previous post you showed me where this Anglican diocese used the Bible to determine they needed to change their stance on gay marriage?
actually, I was wrong in implying that I had posted a specific reference to your question above.
What I wanted to say is that the Anglicans in USA and Canada have been debating this issue and have studied scripture to come to their conclusions and subsequent resolutions and that this decision would not have been done without seriously studying scripture. That is a given.
LOL And you know what how? Were you aware that there are other Anglican diocese(s??) around the world which have spoken out vehemently against the changes being instituted in the English and now American bodies?
What I have posted though are links to topics on "emerging Christianity" and how the Bible is interpreted (whether the literally word of God or man's interpretation of the word of God)
That is what I meant by "you don't get it?" because you have summarily dismissed any opinion or study of the Bible that does not coincide with your view. While I can be accused of the same (i.e. not accepting your position), unlike you, I have asked questions regarding the inconsistencies in the Bible and have come to a conclusion that makes sense to me based on Jesus Christ's teachings, and allows me to reconcile what is stated in the Bible with respect to how we treat others. Yes, "the ethic of Jesus did sound fancy and clever in my head" but you know what? it is also accurate.
At least Preacher attempted to answer those inconsistencies. If I recall, you just quoted more scripture to support your position and conveniently ignore the inconsistencies I mentioned.
Bootstrap arguments ...
What inconsistencies in the Bible did I ignore?
yeah, I do know that much of the global South disagree with the move as well as some withing the USA and Canada. Can it be they have different interpretations of scripture? If they did not, they will all be unified in their position on homosexuality and that has been my main point all along.
Help me with the provision for slavery as specified in the Bible and all the other restrictions that I posted earlier. Now of course, for example, if you support the notion of slavery and you quarantine yourself during your menstruation, I stand corrected.
-
yeah, I do know that much of the global South disagree with the move as well as some withing the USA and Canada. Can it be they have different interpretations of scripture? If they did not, they will all be unified in their position on homosexuality and that has been my main point all along.
Help me with the provision for slavery as specified in the Bible and all the other restrictions that I posted earlier. Now of course, for example, if you support the notion of slavery and you quarantine yourself during your menstruation, I stand corrected.
Post your scriptures, please and thanks.
And I believe I already addressed the issue of the Mosaic Laws... ::)
-
Luke 12:47-48
1 Timothy 6:1-2
Ephesians 6:5
Toppa, if God is from Alpha to Omega, from everlasting to everlasting and He changes not. If his word will not return to Him void....how can you or anyone else separate New Testament from New Testament?
The Ten Commandments are not in the New Testament.
-
Luke 12:47-48
1 Timothy 6:1-2
Ephesians 6:5
Toppa, if God is from Alpha to Omega, from everlasting to everlasting and He changes not. If his word will not return to Him void....how can you or anyone else separate New Testament from New Testament?
The Ten Commandments are not in the New Testament.
I am not separating the New Testament from the Old Testament. I specifically explained why the Mosaic laws are no longer enforced. It represented the Old Covenant of the Israelites until the new covenant entered into force through Christ.
1) The Bible does not advocate slavery but says that 'man has dominated man to his injury' - I would hardly call that a ringing endorsement.
2) where slavery did exist amongst the Israelites (Jews even offered themselves up into service to pay off debts, etc) - the Bible provided guidelines so that the slaves were not mistreated and abused.
3) You do not even understand the scriptures you quoted. For example the 'slave' in the Luke verse, you just quote verse 47 and 48 but read up a bit further...
41 Then Peter said: Lord, are you saying this illustration to us or also to all? 42 And the Lord said: Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? 43 Happy is that slave, if his master on arriving finds him doing so! 44 I tell YOU truthfully, He will appoint him over all his belongings. 45 But if ever that slave should say in his heart, My master delays coming, and should start to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting [him] and in an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. 47 Then that slave that understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do in line with his will will be beaten with many strokes. 48 But the one that did not understand and so did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him; and the one whom people put in charge of much, they will demand more than usual of him.
So this faithful and discreet slave refers to those who are to see to the spiritual needs of the congregation, those who have been appointed to safeguard the flock until the day of the master's coming. (Jesus Christ).
This is reiterated again the Matthew 24:45-47
45 Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings.
-
oK fair enough address the other verses.
Thanks.
IS Mosaic Law separate from God's law...as the name Mosaic refers to Moses ( I already know the answer)?
That verse still addresses violence against slaves and servants...that must have been normal for Christ to even use it as illustrations.
-
oK fair enough address the other verses.
Thanks.
IS Mosaic Law separate from God's law...as the name Mosaic refers to Moses ( I already know the answer)?
That verse still addresses violence against slaves and servants...that must have been normal for Christ to even use it as illustrations.
How would it have been normal simply because Christ used it in his illustration. Do you understand what the illustration is saying? :-\
Are you also going to say that every parable Christ used was used because it was 'normal'? So the prodigal son, all that stuff...really?
Also I do not understand your question of 'is the Mosaic Law different from God's law.'
Anyway, the other verses you quoted:
1Timothy - 1 Let as many as are slaves under a yoke keep on considering their owners worthy of full honor, that the name of God and the teaching may never be spoken of injuriously. 2 Moreover, let those having believing owners not look down on them, because they are brothers. On the contrary, let them the more readily be slaves, because those receiving the benefit of their good service are believers and beloved.
Ephesians 6:5-6
5 YOU slaves, be obedient to those who are [YOUR] masters in a fleshly sense, with fear and trembling in the sincerity of YOUR hearts, as to the Christ, 6 not by way of eye-service as men pleasers, but as Christs slaves, doing the will of God whole-souled.
Yes, and? Didn't I already answer this?
Still don't see how this is the Bible advocating slavery. :(
-
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
<< Leviticus 20:13 >>
CHINESE
人 若 与 男 人 苟 合 ， 像 与 女 人 一 样 ， 他 们 二 人 行 了 可 憎 的 事 ， 总 要 把 他 们 治 死 ， 罪 要 归 到 他 们 身 上 。
FRENCH
Si un homme couche avec un homme comme on couche avec une femme, ils ont fait tous deux une chose abominable; ils seront punis de mort: leur sang retombera sur eux.
GERMAN
Wenn jemand beim Knaben schlft wie beim Weibe, die haben einen Greuel getan und sollen beide des Todes sterben; ihr Blut sei auf ihnen.
SWEDISH
Om en man ligger hos en annan man ssom man ligger hos en kvinna, s gra de bda en styggelse; de skola straffas med dden, blodskuld lder vid dem.
NORWEGIAN
Nr en mann ligger hos en annen mann som en ligger hos en kvinne, da har de begge gjort en vederstyggelig gjerning; de skal late livet, deres blod vre over dem!
-
I refuse to believe that god is the vengeful unreasonable asshole that those who claim to write for him and his more artless believers think him to be.............
-
I refuse to believe that god is the vengeful unreasonable asshole that those who claim to write for him and his more artless believers think him to be.............
You have a point there. The problem with the bible also is that there are passages that have been mistranslated and taken out of context. For me, basing any belief system on a book is a problematic way to confirm one's beliefs, especially one which has books deleted from it and scriptures misrepresented.
However, based on what Pastor Stuart posted above, there is at least a rationale for Christian beliefs concerning homosexuality, and believers should not be forced to become hypocrites regarding by contradicting what they believe was written in the Bible concerning this belief. Of course, Christians are selective in which beliefs they choose to adhere to. However, I suspect with an issue regarding such a powerful and intimate act such as sex, Christians are voiciferous in their condemnation of the act.
Again, based on my earlier responses, my problem has to do with the unnatural nature of the act. However, I am not selective in my disapproval of unnatural acts. For me, gluttony is on the same level, as it abuses the body and throws the body out of balance, usually resulting in conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.
However, I digress.
-
I refuse to believe that god is the vengeful unreasonable asshole that those who claim to write for him and his more artless believers think him to be.............
You have a point there. The problem with the bible also is that there are passages that have been mistranslated and taken out of context. For me, basing any belief system on a book is a problematic way to confirm one's beliefs, especially one which has books deleted from it and scriptures misrepresented.
However, based on what Pastor Stuart posted above, there is at least a rationale for Christian beliefs concerning homosexuality, and believers should not be forced to become hypocrites regarding by contradicting what they believe was written in the Bible concerning this belief. Of course, Christians are selective in which beliefs they choose to adhere to. However, I suspect with an issue regarding such a powerful and intimate act such as sex, Christians are voiciferous in their condemnation of the act.
Again, based on my earlier responses, my problem has to do with the unnatural nature of the act. However, I am not selective in my disapproval of unnatural acts. For me, gluttony is on the same level, as it abuses the body and throws the body out of balance, usually resulting in conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.
However, I digress.
despite hypocrisy and rightly so I might add on the Bible's or more accurately it's writers' often abhorrent view of and treatment of women, I mean seriously if a "godly" man can think on and make a conscious measured and independent decision to treat with his wife and daughters in a dignified manner during their time of the month and despite what "levi" has to say....... why can't we similarly offer measured thought to other aspects of the bible that in one form or another advocates intolerance and murder to treat with anything else it deems unnatural............I mean the stories of Jesus Christ all seemed to strike on one single note... tolerance....yet many christians seem far from........
-
I refuse to believe that god is the vengeful unreasonable asshole that those who claim to write for him and his more artless believers think him to be.............
You have a point there. The problem with the bible also is that there are passages that have been mistranslated and taken out of context. For me, basing any belief system on a book is a problematic way to confirm one's beliefs, especially one which has books deleted from it and scriptures misrepresented.
However, based on what Pastor Stuart posted above, there is at least a rationale for Christian beliefs concerning homosexuality, and believers should not be forced to become hypocrites regarding by contradicting what they believe was written in the Bible concerning this belief. Of course, Christians are selective in which beliefs they choose to adhere to. However, I suspect with an issue regarding such a powerful and intimate act such as sex, Christians are voiciferous in their condemnation of the act.
Again, based on my earlier responses, my problem has to do with the unnatural nature of the act. However, I am not selective in my disapproval of unnatural acts. For me, gluttony is on the same level, as it abuses the body and throws the body out of balance, usually resulting in conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.
However, I digress.
despite hypocrisy and rightly so I might add on the Bible's or more accurately it's writers' often abhorrent view of and treatment of women, I mean seriously if a "godly" man can think on and make a conscious measured and independent decision to treat with his wife and daughters in a dignified manner during their time of the month and despite what "levi" has to say....... why can't we similarly offer measured thought to other aspects of the bible that in one form or another advocates intolerance and murder to treat with anything else it deems unnatural............I mean the stories of Jesus Christ all seemed to strike on one single note... tolerance....yet many christians seem far from........
First of all, what distinction are you trying to make between the Bible and "it's writers"?
And at the bolded... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
First of all, what distinction are you trying to make between the Bible and "it's writers"?
And at the bolded... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
well sense d bible supposed to be gods word.........but have never write ah single letter him self.....................
and u can roll your eyes all u want.............cherry pickin to serve a narrow minded agenda is dishonest at best........but then apparently the kingdom of god only accepts mindless hypocritical drones.
-
First of all, what distinction are you trying to make between the Bible and "it's writers"?
And at the bolded... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
well sense d bible supposed to be gods word.........but have never write ah single letter him self.....................
and u can roll your eyes all u want.............cherry pickin to serve a narrow minded agenda is dishonest at best........but then apparently the kingdom of god only accepts mindless hypocritical drones.
You are the one who is cherry-picking. Either that or you're very obtuse.
-
First of all, what distinction are you trying to make between the Bible and "it's writers"?
And at the bolded... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
well sense d bible supposed to be gods word.........but have never write ah single letter him self.....................
and u can roll your eyes all u want.............cherry pickin to serve a narrow minded agenda is dishonest at best........but then apparently the kingdom of god only accepts mindless hypocritical drones.
You are the one who is cherry-picking. Either that or you're very obtuse.
where?
-
First of all, what distinction are you trying to make between the Bible and "it's writers"?
And at the bolded... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
well sense d bible supposed to be gods word.........but have never write ah single letter him self.....................
and u can roll your eyes all u want.............cherry pickin to serve a narrow minded agenda is dishonest at best........but then apparently the kingdom of god only accepts mindless hypocritical drones.
The bible is supposed to be God's Word. However, imperfect human minds have corrupted His Perfect Message and the Blueprint that he set out for mankind. Actually, a Jewish Rabbi told me that this state of affairs can be traced back to an angel named Peneme, who was an angel who taught man the art of writing. According to the Rabbi's teaching, this triggered mankind's fall from the Original Edenic State because man was never meant to give testimony of their fealty to the Divine by use of pen and ink. Here's a link, which explains this further:
http://friendleo.com/angelicguardian/pp.html
Thus, the Bible, according to the Rabbi, was not the original way that God intended to serve Him. However, man fell away and the Scriptures were used a tool to keep man connected to the Mind and Will of the Divine. However, at the risk of belabouring a point, when you have imperfect men attempt to faithfully and accurately pen the thoughts of the Eternal Creator, they inject their cultural biases and human frailties into whatever they write, despite their best intentions.
With regard to the original thread topic, God has given given mankind free will, which means that humans are free to live as they want and no one, not me nor any Christian, should impose our beliefs on others, especially regarding homosexuality. By the same token, people who defend homosexuality should not impose their belief systems on Christians or myself, who are entitled to their beliefs concerning this practice.
-
With regard to the original thread topic, God has given given mankind free will, which means that humans are free to live as they want and no one, not me nor any Christian, should impose our beliefs on others, especially regarding homosexuality. By the same token, people who defend homosexuality should not impose their belief systems on Christians or myself, who are entitled to their beliefs concerning this practice.
that's it right there, I not imposing anything....All I saying is all man\woman are born or should be born equal....dat is d essence of every argument I tried to make......I say give them "gays" dey rights, suck it up and take one for your fellow human being, cause it is the just thing to do, they are after all human... not so...while others saying hell no.....why.....cause d bible say so......which by extension is..... god say so...it cannot be conclusively proven dat god write or endorse a single line.....he put all ah we here but eh know he design have a chink.......I tink if he testing anyting ....is we capacity to live for and with each other and I must say his grand experiment does feel like a monumental failure more often dan not
-
Lefty you have rel patience boy.
-
With regard to the original thread topic, God has given given mankind free will, which means that humans are free to live as they want and no one, not me nor any Christian, should impose our beliefs on others, especially regarding homosexuality. By the same token, people who defend homosexuality should not impose their belief systems on Christians or myself, who are entitled to their beliefs concerning this practice.
that's it right there, I not imposing anything....All I saying is all man\woman are born or should be born equal....dat is d essence of every argument I tried to make......I say give them "gays" dey rights, suck it up and take one for your fellow human being, cause it is the just thing to do, they are after all human... not so...while others saying hell no.....why.....cause d bible say so......which by extension is..... god say so...it cannot be conclusively proven dat god write or endorse a single line.....he put all ah we here but eh know he design have a chink.......I tink if he testing anyting ....is we capacity to live for and with each other and I must say his grand experiment does feel like a monumental failure more often dan not
Fair enough :beermug:
We have found common ground.
-
yeah, I do know that much of the global South disagree with the move as well as some withing the USA and Canada. Can it be they have different interpretations of scripture? If they did not, they will all be unified in their position on homosexuality and that has been my main point all along.
Help me with the provision for slavery as specified in the Bible and all the other restrictions that I posted earlier. Now of course, for example, if you support the notion of slavery and you quarantine yourself during your menstruation, I stand corrected.
Post your scriptures, please and thanks.
And I believe I already addressed the issue of the Mosaic Laws... ::)
Here is what you said about the Mosaic Laws
You silly man - before you try to engage in a debate on the Bible - you should make sure you know it, first.
The Bible explains the Mosaic law, the reason for its existence in the past, and why it is no longer in force - which blows your nonsense above out of the water.
Galations 3: 19-25
Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one. 21 Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. 22 But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.
23 However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.
Do you need me to explain these scriptures further? *yawn*
As I said, before you get into a debate on the Bible - make sure you know it first or else I will continue to laugh at you.
and here is what i replied with ...
Nice passage it explains a lot. In fact I will look to it in the future. thanks :beermug:
In answer to your question bolded above: "Yes I do".
Please explain why the Leviticus 18:22 is still in force while the others I quoted are no longer in force?
I don't recall if you ever explained why Leviticus 18:22 was exempt under the Mosaic Laws. If you did, please re-post or send me the link so I can try to understand.
-
With regard to the original thread topic, God has given given mankind free will, which means that humans are free to live as they want and no one, not me nor any Christian, should impose our beliefs on others, especially regarding homosexuality. By the same token, people who defend homosexuality should not impose their belief systems on Christians or myself, who are entitled to their beliefs concerning this practice.
that's it right there, I not imposing anything....All I saying is all man\woman are born or should be born equal....dat is d essence of every argument I tried to make......I say give them "gays" dey rights, suck it up and take one for your fellow human being, cause it is the just thing to do, they are after all human... not so...while others saying hell no.....why.....cause d bible say so......which by extension is..... god say so...it cannot be conclusively proven dat god write or endorse a single line.....he put all ah we here but eh know he design have a chink.......I tink if he testing anyting ....is we capacity to live for and with each other and I must say his grand experiment does feel like a monumental failure more often dan not
Lefty, what wrong with you? You eh realize that being gay is a choice that dey does make. I remember when I made the choice not to be gay and engage in gayness. And since gayness is a choice, then it flies in the face of the Bible which is "The Word of God" (and thanks be to him).
And what is that non-politically correct reference about the gay Chinese?
-
First of all, what distinction are you trying to make between the Bible and "it's writers"?
And at the bolded... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
well sense d bible supposed to be gods word.........but have never write ah single letter him self.....................
and u can roll your eyes all u want.............cherry pickin to serve a narrow minded agenda is dishonest at best........but then apparently the kingdom of god only accepts mindless hypocritical drones.
You are the one who is cherry-picking. Either that or you're very obtuse.
where?
Everywhere. Out of the whole Bible you combed out what? The restrictions on women during their menstrual period under Mosaic law?
Ignoring the explanations provided for the Mosaic law and the fact that they are no longer in force?
steups boy go from here plz.
-
yeah, I do know that much of the global South disagree with the move as well as some withing the USA and Canada. Can it be they have different interpretations of scripture? If they did not, they will all be unified in their position on homosexuality and that has been my main point all along.
Help me with the provision for slavery as specified in the Bible and all the other restrictions that I posted earlier. Now of course, for example, if you support the notion of slavery and you quarantine yourself during your menstruation, I stand corrected.
Post your scriptures, please and thanks.
And I believe I already addressed the issue of the Mosaic Laws... ::)
Here is what you said about the Mosaic Laws
You silly man - before you try to engage in a debate on the Bible - you should make sure you know it, first.
The Bible explains the Mosaic law, the reason for its existence in the past, and why it is no longer in force - which blows your nonsense above out of the water.
Galations 3: 19-25
Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one. 21 Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. 22 But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.
23 However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.
Do you need me to explain these scriptures further? *yawn*
As I said, before you get into a debate on the Bible - make sure you know it first or else I will continue to laugh at you.
and here is what i replied with ...
Nice passage it explains a lot. In fact I will look to it in the future. thanks :beermug:
In answer to your question bolded above: "Yes I do".
Please explain why the Leviticus 18:22 is still in force while the others I quoted are no longer in force?
I don't recall if you ever explained why Leviticus 18:22 was exempt under the Mosaic Laws. If you did, please re-post or send me the link so I can try to understand.
::)
Because it is also reiterated in the New Testament as being sinful (just the same as idolatry, etc) and provided MANY scriptures of this from Acts, Roman and Corinthians.
How come allyuh don't complain about what the Bible says about adultery, etc?
What's with this special love for homosexuals?
If you want to lambast the Bible, why don't you lambast the things it says about murder, fornication, stealing...???
Bunch of jokers.
-
With regard to the original thread topic, God has given given mankind free will, which means that humans are free to live as they want and no one, not me nor any Christian, should impose our beliefs on others, especially regarding homosexuality. By the same token, people who defend homosexuality should not impose their belief systems on Christians or myself, who are entitled to their beliefs concerning this practice.
that's it right there, I not imposing anything....All I saying is all man\woman are born or should be born equal....dat is d essence of every argument I tried to make......I say give them "gays" dey rights, suck it up and take one for your fellow human being, cause it is the just thing to do, they are after all human... not so...while others saying hell no.....why.....cause d bible say so......which by extension is..... god say so...it cannot be conclusively proven dat god write or endorse a single line.....he put all ah we here but eh know he design have a chink.......I tink if he testing anyting ....is we capacity to live for and with each other and I must say his grand experiment does feel like a monumental failure more often dan not
Ignoring the rest ah shit in that post...
Where you see me say homosexuals should NOT have any so-called 'rights'? I said that was a secular decision left up to the state and I was neutral in those regards. When I expressed my neutrality, some of you tried to draw me into an argument saying I can still give an opinion or whatever nonsense it was.
My only aim here is to defend Bible truths. If you guys keep the Bible out of your so-called debates then I would not get involved. But don't try to defend your positions by ridiculing and pouring scorn on the faith of millions. That does get me vex.
-
::)
Because it is also reiterated in the New Testament as being sinful (just the same as idolatry, etc) and provided MANY scriptures of this from Acts, Roman and Corinthians.
what's with the rolling eyes?
You forgot to include "slavery" in the brackets.
Strictly speaking the NT says nothing about homosexuality. Maybe the English translation does. But please point me to the Greek or Aramaic translations that speak to homosexuality. At most only three passage in the NT refers to what we call homosexual activity .
Romans 1:2627, 1 Corinthians 6:910, and 1 Timothy 1:811. Where in Acts and Corinthians are those other references? Where are the others in Romans?
No where in the Gospels does Jesus talk about homosexual behaviour. From what I researched (yes, I did some internet research), nowhere in Acts, Hebrews, Revelations or the letters from James, Peter, John and Jude are references to homosexuality. If I am wrong, then help me out here.
Based on my research, I have concluded that there is scant references to homosexuality in the NT, suggesting that it was not a big deal for Jesus or the earlier followers of Jesus.
Slavery vs, Homosexuality: I still see a disconnect in your rejection of homosexuality as per the NT and your rejection of slavery even though there are reference to slavery in the NT.
References to slavery in the NT: Matthew 18:25, Mark 14:66, Luke 12:45-48, Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 4:1, Timothy 6:1-3
So I still maintain that if you going to reject homosexuality based on scripture, then you better reject the abolition of slavery.
How come allyuh don't complain about what the Bible says about adultery, etc?
What's with this special love for homosexuals?
If you want to lambast the Bible, why don't you lambast the things it says about murder, fornication, stealing...???
Bunch of jokers.
this has got to rank up there with the best asinine comment award category.
Where have I stated that I support adultery? I just don't understand your references to adultery. I am NOT the one taking the Bible literally. You seemed to have forgotten that fact. I am just as critical of the Bible when it comes to verses on murder, fornication, adultery, etc.. Go read "The Sins of Scripture" . Oh wait, I already suggested that so my suggestion will fall on deaf ears.
This thread is about "Homosexuality" not murder, not fornication, not adultery.
And your continued comments about "loving homosexuals" speaks volumes (again)
This is about fair treatment by both secular and non-secular groups to a group of people who have been marginalized.
This is not about "loving homosexuals", a statement that appears to be a thinly disguised phrase about your complete and utter disdain.
Let me quote the Gospels:
Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12)
For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him. (John 3:16-17)
FINALLY
Where have I ever lambasted the Bible?
I have always maintain that the Bible is a sacred book. I am lambasting the interpretations of the Bible that would deny fair treatment to anyone.
-
With regard to the original thread topic, God has given given mankind free will, which means that humans are free to live as they want and no one, not me nor any Christian, should impose our beliefs on others, especially regarding homosexuality. By the same token, people who defend homosexuality should not impose their belief systems on Christians or myself, who are entitled to their beliefs concerning this practice.
that's it right there, I not imposing anything....All I saying is all man\woman are born or should be born equal....dat is d essence of every argument I tried to make......I say give them "gays" dey rights, suck it up and take one for your fellow human being, cause it is the just thing to do, they are after all human... not so...while others saying hell no.....why.....cause d bible say so......which by extension is..... god say so...it cannot be conclusively proven dat god write or endorse a single line.....he put all ah we here but eh know he design have a chink.......I tink if he testing anyting ....is we capacity to live for and with each other and I must say his grand experiment does feel like a monumental failure more often dan not
Ignoring the rest ah shit in that post...
Where you see me say homosexuals should NOT have any so-called 'rights'? I said that was a secular decision left up to the state and I was neutral in those regards. When I expressed my neutrality, some of you tried to draw me into an argument saying I can still give an opinion or whatever nonsense it was.
My only aim here is to defend Bible truths. If you guys keep the Bible out of your so-called debates then I would not get involved. But don't try to defend your positions by ridiculing and pouring scorn on the faith of millions. That does get me vex.
they same way you ridicule me with your *rolling eyes*, your *yawns*, your acerbic comments, especially when your defense of so called "Bible truths" also pours scorn on the faith of millions as well?
-
hahaha
I did not bring up the topic of slavery, you guys did and I answered those questions.
So you are making zero sense with regards to that.
And you want the original Greek Aramaic scriptures? I was not aware that you were fluent in those two languages. Please, let me know and I'll try to get those versions for you.
Keep beating round de bush. I have already provided ample evidence of the condemnation of homosexual acts in the New testament, scripture you yourself quoted in your most recent response.
But I suppose now it is just 'scant evidence'? LOL!
You have no point whatsoever. The only point you've ever had is that there are 'different interpretations' of the Bible. That's the defence you've been hiding behind this whole time.
Give me the 'different interpretation' for this:
What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit Gods kingdom?+ Do not be misled. Neither fornicators,+ nor idolaters,+ nor adulterers,*+ nor men kept for unnatural purposes,+ nor men who lie with men,*+ 10 nor thieves, nor greedy+ persons, nor drunkards,+ nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit Gods kingdom
-
::)
Because it is also reiterated in the New Testament as being sinful (just the same as idolatry, etc) and provided MANY scriptures of this from Acts, Roman and Corinthians.
what's with the rolling eyes?
You forgot to include "slavery" in the brackets.
Strictly speaking the NT says nothing about homosexuality. Maybe the English translation does. But please point me to the Greek or Aramaic translations that speak to homosexuality. At most only three passage in the NT refers to what we call homosexual activity .
Romans 1:2627, 1 Corinthians 6:910, and 1 Timothy 1:811. Where in Acts and Corinthians are those other references? Where are the others in Romans?
No where in the Gospels does Jesus talk about homosexual behaviour. From what I researched (yes, I did some internet research), nowhere in Acts, Hebrews, Revelations or the letters from James, Peter, John and Jude are references to homosexuality. If I am wrong, then help me out here.
Based on my research, I have concluded that there is scant references to homosexuality in the NT, suggesting that it was not a big deal for Jesus or the earlier followers of Jesus.
Slavery vs, Homosexuality: I still see a disconnect in your rejection of homosexuality as per the NT and your rejection of slavery even though there are reference to slavery in the NT.
References to slavery in the NT: Matthew 18:25, Mark 14:66, Luke 12:45-48, Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 4:1, Timothy 6:1-3
So I still maintain that if you going to reject homosexuality based on scripture, then you better reject the abolition of slavery.
How come allyuh don't complain about what the Bible says about adultery, etc?
What's with this special love for homosexuals?
If you want to lambast the Bible, why don't you lambast the things it says about murder, fornication, stealing...???
Bunch of jokers.
this has got to rank up there with the best asinine comment award category.
Yeah, of course you would also miss that point spectacularly.
What I was highlighting was - why is homosexuality such a touchy issue for you all? Why is the Bible not also dragged through the mud based on its stance on adultery, other forms of fornication, murder, lying, stealing, drunkeness etc, etc, etc.
Sound like allyuh is the ones picking and choosing to me.
-
I guess in Pecan's mind 'men who lie with men' means anything BUT homosexuality.
I would have you know that 'lie' there refers to sexual intercourse.
K, bud?
-
Why am I an atheist? Look at this thread and see why.
Fack religion.
-
Exodus 21:2
If thou buy an Hebrew servant....
Exodus 21:7
If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant....
Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Exodus 22:3
If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
Leviticus 22:11
If the priest buy any soul with his money....
Leviticus 25:39
And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee....
Leviticus 25:44-46
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.
Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.
Colossians 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.
1 Timothy 6:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
Titus 2:9-10
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.
1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Anyone reading these in context must come to the conclusion that slavery and peonage is implicitly encouraged in the Bible.
ANyone making the argument that the Bible describes some form of "moral slavery," should read Leviticus 25:44-46 these verses proves otherwise that the bible is talking about something much different; namely, one man having the right to own another man (or woman or child) based on race or nationality.
"44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Those who say that Pre New Testament slavery is different than New Testament slavery should take their time and feel free to look up the surrounding quotes to see if they add some sort of missing context that could possibly make sense of such a barbaric mentality!
Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)
I decided to delve a bit into the early Church's attitudes towards slavery and I discovere a few things.
I set out to discover exactly what views early Church leaders had on the issue? I uncovered an almost universal approval of slavery among these leaders. But no only leaders, but early christians too defended slavery (along with other forms of extreme social stratification) as instituted by God and as being an integral part of the natural order of men. At all points, their reasoning was clearly and easily supported by the Bible passages quoted above.
Let us allow them to tell us in their very own words:
The slave should be resigned to his lot, in obeying his master he is obeying God... (Saint John Chrysostom)
...slavery is now penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance. (Saint Augustine)
These thoughts, beliefs and attitudes continued throughout European history, even as the institution of slavery evolved and in most cases slaves became "serfs" - little better than actual slaves and living in a deplorable situation which the church declared as being divinely ordered.
Edmund Gibson, Anglican Bishop in London, made it clear in the 18th century that Christianity freed us from the slavery of sin, not from earthly and physical slavery:
The Freedom which Christianity gives, is a Freedom from the Bondage of Sin and Satan, and from the Dominion of Men's Lusts and Passions and inordinate Desires; but as to their outward Condition, whatever that was before, whether bond or free, their being baptized, and becoming Christians, makes no manner of Change in it.
Even as recently as the 1950's and 60's, people claiming to be christians vehemently and vociferously opposed desegregation or "race-mixing" for religious reasons. They refer to the "curse" of poor Ham as they fought to maintain the status quo and the preservation of teh separation of the races.
I have read posts here and I see that some people assume the truth of what they believe. Their determination to see and discover some form of divine sanction for what thye believe is written in their Holy Book(s). It is my humble (yes seriously now) that these beleivers would be much betetr off if they tried todefend their ideas on their own merits, but I quite honestly doubt they are capable of it.
Perhaps they doubt themselves too, and that's why they don't try.
I refuse to ever accpet any kind form or sort of "common sense" defense of any biblical interpretation. Historically, the idea that one interpretation or the other is just "common sense" continues to be utilized as fact and the way it is or should be on myriad topics, including today's topic of slavery adn homosexuality. Defense of an interpretation can only be done via rational, logical argument. Unfortunately for some christians, that has been used effectively on every side of every issue, too - including today's topic of slavery.
Maybe that means that using the Bible isn't a valid defense of an idea? Could be...
-
I have read posts here and I see that some people assume the truth of what they believe. Their determination to see and discover some form of divine sanction for what thye believe is written in their Holy Book(s). It is my humble (yes seriously now) that these beleivers would be much betetr off if they tried todefend their ideas on their own merits, but I quite honestly doubt they are capable of it.
Perhaps they doubt themselves too, and that's why they don't try.
I refuse to ever accpet any kind form or sort of "common sense" defense of any biblical interpretation. Historically, the idea that one interpretation or the other is just "common sense" continues to be utilized as fact and the way it is or should be on myriad topics, including today's topic of slavery adn homosexuality. Defense of an interpretation can only be done via rational, logical argument. Unfortunately for some christians, that has been used effectively on every side of every issue, too - including today's topic of slavery.
Maybe that means that using the Bible isn't a valid defense of an idea? Could be...
papayo!
-
You have no point whatsoever. The only point you've ever had is that there are 'different interpretations' of the Bible. That's the defence you've been hiding behind this whole time.
Give me the 'different interpretation' for this:
What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit Gods kingdom?+ Do not be misled. Neither fornicators,+ nor idolaters,+ nor adulterers,*+ nor men kept for unnatural purposes,+ nor men who lie with men,*+ 10 nor thieves, nor greedy+ persons, nor drunkards,+ nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit Gods kingdom
Belittle me all you want .... there are millions of people who will disagree with your conclusions.
And what is this nonsense about hiding behind anything?
See Below for different interpretations of your version of 1 Corinthians 6 9-10, which I gather was obtained, word-for-word, including an exclamation mark and uppercase "YOU" from the Jehovah's Witness On line Bible.
Hmmm .. you a Jehovah Witness? They use to come to my house until I tried to make a deal with them. I said you come to my church one Sunday morning and I will invite you in to discuss the Bible. They never came back. I even offered them a book I was reading called "The Science of Good and Evil"
Anyway, back to the matter at hand ...
Some of these versions mention homosexuality explicitly, some don't.
Given the historical context of the time when the Bible was written, "lie with men" could have a variety of meanings.
Jehovah Witness New World Translation - word-for-word with your quote
9 What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit Gods kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit Gods kingdom.
21st Century King James Version
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God.
Common English Bible
9 Dont you know that people who are unjust wont inherit Gods kingdom? Dont be deceived. Those who are sexually immoral, those who worship false gods, adulterers, both participants in same-sex intercourse,[a] 10 thieves, the greedy, drunks, abusive people, and swindlers wont inherit Gods kingdom.
American Standard Version
9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
GOD Word Translation
9 Dont you know that wicked people wont inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals, 10 or thieves, those who are greedy or drunk, who use abusive language, or who rob people will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Darby Translation
9 Do ye not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor abusive persons, nor [the] rapacious, shall inherit [the] kingdom of God.
King James Version
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Phillips New testament
9-11 Have you forgotten that the kingdom of God will never belong to the wicked? Dont be under any illusionneither the impure, the idolater or the adulterer; neither the effeminate, the pervert or the thief; neither the swindler, the drunkard, the foul-mouthed or the rapacious shall have any share in the kingdom of God.
The Message
9-11Don't you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don't care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens in God's kingdom
New Life Version
9 Do you not know that sinful men will have no place in the holy nation of God? Do not be fooled. A person who does sex sins, or who worships false gods, or who is not faithful in marriage, or men who act like women, or people who do sex sins with their own sex, will have no place in the holy nation of God. 10 Also those who steal, or those who always want to get more of everything, or who get drunk, or who say bad things about others, or take things that are not theirs, will have no place in the holy nation of God
NIV
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Wycliffe Bible
9 Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men,
10 neither thieves, neither avaricious men [neither covetous men, or niggards], neither men full of drunkenness, neither cursers, neither raveners, shall wield the kingdom of God.
Worldwide English
9-10 Do you not know that bad people will have no part in the kingdom where God rules? Do not be fooled. There are some people who will not have part in that place. They are those who commit adultery of any kind, those who have idols, or steal, or are always wanting more, or talk wrong things about people, or drink plenty of strong drink, or take things by force, or curse.
Youngs Literal Translation
9 have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit.
-
I have read posts here and I see that some people assume the truth of what they believe. Their determination to see and discover some form of divine sanction for what thye believe is written in their Holy Book(s). It is my humble (yes seriously now) that these beleivers would be much betetr off if they tried todefend their ideas on their own merits, but I quite honestly doubt they are capable of it.
Perhaps they doubt themselves too, and that's why they don't try.
I refuse to ever accpet any kind form or sort of "common sense" defense of any biblical interpretation. Historically, the idea that one interpretation or the other is just "common sense" continues to be utilized as fact and the way it is or should be on myriad topics, including today's topic of slavery adn homosexuality. Defense of an interpretation can only be done via rational, logical argument. Unfortunately for some christians, that has been used effectively on every side of every issue, too - including today's topic of slavery.
Maybe that means that using the Bible isn't a valid defense of an idea? Could be...
papayo!
TT, Mosaic Law explains everything. What part of that recursive argument don't you get?
-
All em big words like recursive and ting...the new test. and the old test. regards homosexuality as a sin as well as extolling slaves to be obedient...thanks to google yes ;)
What part of that you and Toppa doh get?
-
All em big words like recursive and ting...the new test. and the old test. regards homosexuality as a sin as well as extolling slaves to be obedient...thanks to google yes ;)
What part of that you and Toppa doh get?
if you were my slave, I would treat you well unless you disobeyed me.
on a serious note, this topic has prompted me to learn more about scriptures I have Toppa, you and others to thank for that. The discussions led me to find various scholarly articles and non-scholarly ones that explored the issue of homosexuality (and other 'sins') in the Bible. Why is this so important to me? On a personal level, I believe in God and for me to hold true to this belief, I need to reconcile the 'sins of scripture' with the world we live in today and the suffering that surround us.
It was Lefty who say "... I tink if he [God] testing anyting ....is we capacity to live for and with each other and I must say his grand experiment does feel like a monumental failure more often dan not". At times, I does wonder to.
I firmly believe that accepting every thing that is written in the Bible at face value often leads to the type of behaviour that detracts from religion. So much wrong is done in the name of religion and you are right, religious folk have to be held to a higher standard with regard to these wrongs. And in my view, treating homosexuals as sinners goes against the ethic of Christ. Jesus, in every sense, was an includer: adulterers, tax collectors, racially impure, the mentally ill, etc. It's unreasonable and inconsistent to suggest that he would not have been an includer with gays and lesbians.
-
I respect and admire your faith. no shitting around...I do.
But I need to correct you, there i nothing wrong with treating homos as sinners. Indeed Christ according to the Bible calld adulterers, scribes, pharisees, tax collectors etc. sinners. but He did say that he cam to save sinners...and yeah he was really inclusive, infact he hung around with the dregs of society, so Ia gree with you that He would have discriminated and ostracized homosexuals.
Mark 12 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
29The most important one, answered Jesus, is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 31The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/outing-sally-ride-her-sexual-orientation-nothing-space-212649158.html
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/oo7ekgwBAA7suHztsTZ1PQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thelookout/sally-ride-dead.jpg)
Maybe the idea of gays in space is just so exciting that it has overwhelmed Sally Ride's eulogists, who really should be parsing her achievements in astrophysics, accident investigations and middle-school education, rather than trying to make hay out of her mellow lesbian romantic life.
Commenters just seem like gay astronauts. After all, the first slashfic gay romances spun out of fictional male friendships involved men in space, namely Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock of "Star Trek." The stories were called Kirk/Spock fiction, and the name "slash" was given to the genre. Neil/Buzz slashfic also exists. There's not much of it, but it can be pretty lewd. Those who like to keep their memories of Apollo 11 chaste, or believe that slashfic defames real-life people featured in it, should never, ever put "Neil/Buzz slashfic" into a search engine.
At the same time, there was Sally Ride. Her amazing life wasn't fiction, or fan fiction, or slashfic. She really was the first woman and first gay person and youngest astronaut in space. And she and her collaborator and co-author Tam O'Shaughnessy, a biologist and school psychology professor, really did live together for three decades. This was well-known to family and friends.
Ride died Monday. Much of her adoring public learned the details of her domestic arrangements only posthumously. In this way, she was like most celebrities who die. I didn't know until I read the obituary, for example, that Davy Jones of the Monkees, who died in February, had been married three times. I was also surprised to learn that Etta "At Last" James, who died in January, had been married to one man through 42 years (during her heroin and coke addictions), and that she had two sons.
But for some reason the fact that Ride's live-in relationship with O'Shaugnessy was only revealed when she died, bugged commenters like Andrew Sullivan who managed to find feminist secrecy in Ride's and O'Shaughnessy's promotion (O'Shaugnessy was the head of Ride's company) as a woman first and a lesbian second.
"Feminists," he writes on the Daily Beast, citing no examples, "often 'inned' lesbian pioneers, or the lesbians closeted themselves. This was not because they were in a reactionary movement; it was because they were in a progressive movement that did not want to be 'tarred' with the lesbian image."
For social liberals, Sally Ride's posthumous out-coming is a luxury problem in the extreme. She was the first female, the youngest and the first gay in outer freaking spaceand a major force in space policymaking. What's more, Ride alone served on the two presidential commissions that investigated both the 1986 Challenger crash and the 2003 Columbia accident, which together killed fourteen astronauts. Without fear or favor, Ride concluded that NASA made the same errors in judgment both times.
Is it more important than any of this that, having been married briefly to a man, Ride eventually settled down with a woman? Ride's identity as both gay and female is an embarrassment of riches that presents an irresistible opportunity, it seems, to kvetch rather than celebrate a life astoundingly well led.
-
must say, de biotech boom has been a real bust ....
TT, yuh prescription fill?
==
Propecia turned me into a woman, man claims (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/propecia-turned-woman-man-claims-235329178.html)
A software engineer who was trying to combat hair loss says a generic form of Propecia caused him to develop breasts and made his hips widen like a woman's.
And now, after nine months of taking finasteride, 38-year-old William McKee goes by the name Mandi and is considering having a complete sex change.
"My rock-hard chest from the gym began to soften . . . reaching the point where I had noticeable 'breasts' even under my clothing," McKee told the New York Post.
"My shoulders were literally falling into a more feminine position, and my hips were loosening and becoming wider as on a woman's body."
The changes have left McKee's former life in disarray. He is now separated from his wife of 10 years, with whom he has a five-year-old son. The Tampa, Florida, resident has also left his career in Silicon Valley behind, now describing himself as an aspiring music producer and DJ.
Describing his former self as "athletic and driven," McKee now wears a blonde wig, makeup, women's clothing and says he is thinking of having breast augmentation. In addition, McKee says he has gone from heterosexual to homosexual.
"It felt like the 'me' that I've always known was not there anymore," he told the Post.
There are several possible sexual side effects associated with finasteride, but they typically involve a lack of libido. The drug itself works by inhibiting the conversion of testosterone.
Writing on his personal blog, McKee says the drug is commonly taken by men who are in the early stages of gender reassignment.
"I wasn't always this way. I am early on my path of transitioning to live full-time as a woman, although for 9 months I did take 1 of the 2 most popular drugs that doctors prescribe to men who wish to become a woman," he writes.
'The thing is I didn't take Finasteride to become a woman. I took it to prevent male-pattern hair loss (baldness) after seeing Merck's ad campaign for years saying that Propecia (Finasteride) can stop hair loss in men."
And as the Daily Mail notes, the transition has been a painful one for McKee. In addition to losing his wife, he writes that he considered suicide as the physical changes also began affecting his emotional state.
"My entire life has fallen apart in a slow and agonizing downward spiral that led me on a roller coaster ride of depression, anxiety, panic attacks, a severe and disabling loss of focus and concentration, feminization of my body, loss of and inability to work, homelessness, social rejection and isolation, and a complete alteration of my body's chemistry and self-identity," he writes.
"And it was more than just my life being affected. I was married to an amazing and beautiful woman who lost her husband, and I am father to an amazing 5 year-old-boywho lost his dad."
In a recent statement, Merck denied any known association between Propecia (finasteride) and sexual side effects:
"Merck believes that Propecia (Finasteride) has demonstrated safety and efficacy profiles and that the product labeling appropriately describes the benefits and risks of the drug to help inform prescribing," the company wrote in the statement.
And while several lawsuits have been filed by men who say the drug affected their sexuality, McKee is not eligible to join the suit since he purchased a generic form of the drug from an online distributor based in India.
Still, Mandi has been active on his personal Facebook page, writing that he hopes all of the media exposure of his story helps others who might be going through a similar experience.
Before:
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/vRdpin9QBRO9bf2xjm0xJg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thesideshow/WilliamMcKee.jpg)
After:
(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/nKaBLXrEPNVGdtoYEvD4rg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thesideshow/MandiMcKee.jpg)
-
(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/nKaBLXrEPNVGdtoYEvD4rg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thesideshow/MandiMcKee.jpg)
[/quote]
Induce Emesis
-
[Induce Emesis
doh lie, yuh know of nobody was lookin yuh woulda hit it
-
Ribbit, I have noticed your propensity to call me out on idiotic issues. You doh need no prescription to act whoreish... you born so.
-
(http://gyronny.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/404142_519155091435269_390706744_n.jpg)
-
(http://gyronny.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/404142_519155091435269_390706744_n.jpg)
This is exactly why I feel all this religion is shit. Even allyuh most Holy Book inconsistent and willy nilly.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3xrDyEF7BA
-
good buss he facking head...
war
-
Gays to have rights in Govts gender policy
T&T Guardian.
By Yvonne Baboolal
Homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals in T&T will no longer be discriminated against if the national gender policy is approved by Cabinet. Minister in the Ministry of Gender, Child and Youth Development Ramona Ramdial says there is a proposal in the policy that a person should not be discriminated against because of his or her sexual orientation.
Asked if that was promoting gay rights, Ramdial said: Whether we say it or not, it is already an informal part of our society.
It is phrased differently (in the policy). Its more of a human-rights thing, and according to international standards. The gender policy has been drafted from a human-rights perspective, and is more about equal opportunities. She noted that the gay groups with whom discussions were held were more interested in equal opportunity in the workplace rather than same-sex marriage.
They felt they were being discriminated against in the workplace. They were not thinking so far ahead as same-sex marriages. Colin Robinson, of the group Caiso (Coalition Advocating for Inclusion of Sexual Orientation), was delighted at the news.
I am thrilled, he told the T&T Guardian yesterday evening. We believe the gay, lesbian and bisexual community in T&T should have the same protection against discrimination that every other citizen enjoys. We are in the 21st century. Robinson said the group had never advocated for gay rights, but about not being discriminated against in the areas of housing, employment and the provision of goods and services.
Former Gender, Child and Youth Development Minister Verna St Rose-Greaves was fired because she had a pro-abortion and pro-gay rights position, Spors Minister Anil Roberts said in a newspaper interview yesterday. But Ramdial said she was not fired only because of that. There were many different reasons, one being she supported a certain stand the Government did not agree with, she said.
Ramdial said the Government did not agree with making abortion legal. Asked if abortion rights were not included in the gender policy, therefore, she said: After consultation with stakeholders, the idea of allowing abortion in rare instances is now being discussed. For instance, if a very young girl is raped, because of her biological make-up, she will not be able to carry a pregnancy without risk.
Attorney Lynette Seebaran Suite, head of Aspire, which advocates sexual and reproductive health and rights, said the group would be in favour of decriminalising homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. All right-thinking citizens would feel the same way, too, she said. She said that would mean doing away with old buggery laws.
Seebaran-Suite said Aspire also would be in favour of abortion in the cases of rape and incest to minors. Dr Gabrielle Hosein, of the Institute for Gender and Development Studies at the University of the West Indies, agreed with the Governments stand on gay rights and abortion.
She said: If the policy proposes programmes and legislation should be brought in line with the position that one should not be discriminated against, based on his sexual orientation, it is a position we encourage and would like to see formally approved. Also, if the policy proposes the safe and legal termination of pregnancy on the basis of rape and incest, and to minors, that certainly is a development we welcome.
That provision does not guide medical practice at present and leads to great confusion in the safe termination of pregnancy. At Thursdays post-Cabinet media briefing, Minister of Gender, Child and Youth Development Marlene Coudray said the policy was before Cabinet while consultation also was taking place.
Its almost to the end, but we are making sure we consult with anyone who has any input to make even at this stage, she added. Laws which would have to be amended to bring them in line with the proposed gender policy include the Equal Opportunity Act, which does not outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation; the Immigration Act, which allows the exclusion of homosexuals from T&T; and the Sexual Offences Act.
-
Gays to have rights in Govts gender policy
T&T Guardian.
By Yvonne Baboolal
Homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals in T&T will no longer be discriminated against if the national gender policy is approved by Cabinet. Minister in the Ministry of Gender, Child and Youth Development Ramona Ramdial says there is a proposal in the policy that a person should not be discriminated against because of his or her sexual orientation.
Asked if that was promoting gay rights, Ramdial said: Whether we say it or not, it is already an informal part of our society.
It is phrased differently (in the policy). Its more of a human-rights thing, and according to international standards. The gender policy has been drafted from a human-rights perspective, and is more about equal opportunities. She noted that the gay groups with whom discussions were held were more interested in equal opportunity in the workplace rather than same-sex marriage.
They felt they were being discriminated against in the workplace. They were not thinking so far ahead as same-sex marriages. Colin Robinson, of the group Caiso (Coalition Advocating for Inclusion of Sexual Orientation), was delighted at the news.
I am thrilled, he told the T&T Guardian yesterday evening. We believe the gay, lesbian and bisexual community in T&T should have the same protection against discrimination that every other citizen enjoys. We are in the 21st century. Robinson said the group had never advocated for gay rights, but about not being discriminated against in the areas of housing, employment and the provision of goods and services.
Former Gender, Child and Youth Development Minister Verna St Rose-Greaves was fired because she had a pro-abortion and pro-gay rights position, Spors Minister Anil Roberts said in a newspaper interview yesterday. But Ramdial said she was not fired only because of that. There were many different reasons, one being she supported a certain stand the Government did not agree with, she said.
Ramdial said the Government did not agree with making abortion legal. Asked if abortion rights were not included in the gender policy, therefore, she said: After consultation with stakeholders, the idea of allowing abortion in rare instances is now being discussed. For instance, if a very young girl is raped, because of her biological make-up, she will not be able to carry a pregnancy without risk.
Attorney Lynette Seebaran Suite, head of Aspire, which advocates sexual and reproductive health and rights, said the group would be in favour of decriminalising homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. All right-thinking citizens would feel the same way, too, she said. She said that would mean doing away with old buggery laws.
Seebaran-Suite said Aspire also would be in favour of abortion in the cases of rape and incest to minors. Dr Gabrielle Hosein, of the Institute for Gender and Development Studies at the University of the West Indies, agreed with the Governments stand on gay rights and abortion.
She said: If the policy proposes programmes and legislation should be brought in line with the position that one should not be discriminated against, based on his sexual orientation, it is a position we encourage and would like to see formally approved. Also, if the policy proposes the safe and legal termination of pregnancy on the basis of rape and incest, and to minors, that certainly is a development we welcome.
That provision does not guide medical practice at present and leads to great confusion in the safe termination of pregnancy. At Thursdays post-Cabinet media briefing, Minister of Gender, Child and Youth Development Marlene Coudray said the policy was before Cabinet while consultation also was taking place.
Its almost to the end, but we are making sure we consult with anyone who has any input to make even at this stage, she added. Laws which would have to be amended to bring them in line with the proposed gender policy include the Equal Opportunity Act, which does not outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation; the Immigration Act, which allows the exclusion of homosexuals from T&T; and the Sexual Offences Act.
Public policy is always driven by "the West". Won't be long before medical ganja arrives (officially).
-
Asylum, TT public policy has always been "western driven". We were created by the socalled western man. The foundation of our legal system is almost totally western. Our psyche is western in outlook. What names do most non-Indos carry. It is by and large western.
-
Wait... abortion still illegal in Trinidad??
Nah! lol
-
look trouble .. War gorne home and they make this announcement. Hmmmm
-
look trouble .. War gorne home and they make this announcement. Hmmmm
LOLOL is he government as well. He go dead.
-
look trouble .. War gorne home and they make this announcement. Hmmmm
Doh worry, that ole homophobe will be snooping around the site bc he eh have no other life. just wait, he will come runnin barking out all his bigotry about who should live and who deserves to be euthanized. :D
-
Ah deadin Weary and pecan :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: stone cold :rotfl:
-
Kamla praised for moves to remove laws against gays
Published:
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has been congratulated by regional and international organisations on her commitment to end discrimination against gay people in T&T. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), an organ of the Organisation of American States (OAS), issued a statement on December 20 welcoming Persad-Bissessars comments in a letter to Lance Price of the UK-based Kaleidoscope Trust.
Price had written to the PM complaining about T&Ts immigration law and the Sexual Offences Act, which he said discriminated against homosexuals. Section 8 of the Immigration Act bars entry to homosexuals, describing them as a prohibited class. In her response, dated August 14, Persad-Bissessar said her Government was giving due consideration to the issues raised by Price.
IACHR noted the PMs position was consistent with the commitment made by OAS member states on June 4, 2012 to consider, within the parameters of the legal institutions of their domestic systems, adopting public policies against discrimination by reason of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The organisation said it had received ample information on the extreme violence and discrimination faced by lesbians, gays and trans- bisexual and intersex people throughout the Americas, including the English-speaking Caribbean, and is acutely aware that several countries of that region, including T&T, still have laws criminalising same-sex sexual relations between consenting adults and other laws used to penalise individuals because of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Amnesty International, also on December 20, noted the PM and her Cabinet have now an historic opportunity to ensure that the Prime Ministers words become a reality. Amnesty pointed out that T&Ts Sexual Offences Act criminalises consenting same-sex relationships, making them punishable with up to 25 years imprisonment, depending on the age of those found guilty, and that the Equal Opportunities Act 2000 (EOA) explicitly excludes discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Also referencing to Section 8 of the Immigration Act, Amnesty acknowledged that those provisions were not enforced but they contributed to creating a discriminatory environment. Meanwhile, the Guyana Equality Forum (GEF) applauded the PM, saying it stood in solidarity with its Caricom sister.
Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar, who continues to display firm political judgment, will definitely set a legacy by recognising the rights and humanity of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) citizens in the twin-island republic, said GEF representative Alistair Sonaram. Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar should to be seen by the rest of the region as a bold female politician who took a firm step towards human rights and equality and we hope her bold leadership inspires other Caricom heads of state, he added.
The Rev Dr Sid Mohn, president of the Chicago-based NGO Heartland Alliance, said the PMs comments demonstrated an awareness of and respect for human rights.
-
Fire bun the PP for dey faggotry and gay loving..fire bun Kamla and Jack for embracing this stinking lifestyle as normal.
Dem cyar win another election in T&T from now on is PNM.
Cyar support this nonsense giving rights to the batty bwoys.
hahahahahahahahaha
Ah could jes hear de monga now lol
-
Babylon ah listen from near and far
Not even go ask dem what dem peeping for
-
"It is now our generations task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law -- for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." - President Barack Obama, Inauguration Speech, 2013
http://www.whitehouse.gov/inauguration-2013 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/inauguration-2013)
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBJh2idCQAAS6aH.jpg)
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBJh9VyCcAAW9Iu.jpg)
-
Here is an interesting question for us to debate.
Is being Gay a life style choice like choosing to be a priest or to be celibate?
Or is it an identity that you are born with like being born white, black, male or female?
So is being gay a behaviour or is it an identity?
What would make someone Gay minus them taking part or wanting to take part in sex with someone of the same sex?
PS: Btw the same question can be asked of someone being Straight, is it a behaviour or an identity like being white, black, male or female?
-
So is being gay a behaviour or is it an identity?
neither.
sexual attraction is not a behaviour. sucking a d*ck is behaviour.
a child is not born with an identity. but they can be born into an identity.
being gay is a little like cancer (no offence meant), you might be born predisposed to it, or you could catch it due to environmental reasons, imo
-
There is also a growing philosophy out there knocking at the door of of schools. It implies that gender is not real and your sex is a choice. You hear me? So a piggy no longer makes you a male you can choose. Good luck explaining that in biology and reproduction. But I'm sure they'll find a way. And as usual they'll get a free pass from the evolutionist. Evil is waxing worse in the earth, please repent of your sins before you die. God's will is the no one would perish that's why He sent His only son to pay the ultimate price for this world.
-
It lies in the brain. All these so call people giving advice is a setta bible pushers. Alyuh really think a straight man or woman will just suddenly decide to turn gay out of the blue? Most born that way or suffer from some sort of abuse. And keep religion out of this, most of them priest bulling boys. Plain talk. This thread will just turn into the bible say this and god say that. So I'm out. I don't like the behaviour but that's the reality deal with it.
-
Don't really care... to be honest.
-
So is being gay a behaviour or is it an identity?
neither.
sexual attraction is not a behaviour. sucking a d*ck is behaviour.
a child is not born with an identity. but they can be born into an identity.
being gay is a little like cancer (no offence meant), you might be born predisposed to it, or you could catch it due to environmental reasons, imo
This seems logical. I can agree with your view here.
-
So is being gay a behaviour or is it an identity?
neither.
sexual attraction is not a behaviour. sucking a d*ck is behaviour.
a child is not born with an identity. but they can be born into an identity.
being gay is a little like cancer (no offence meant), you might be born predisposed to it, or you could catch it due to environmental reasons, imo
So why yuh say cancer? yuh coulda say diabetes. and the notion that thereMUST BE some environmental issues is rubbish in my opinion.
Give me an example of some "environmental reasons"
-
So is being gay a behaviour or is it an identity?
neither.
sexual attraction is not a behaviour. sucking a d*ck is behaviour.
a child is not born with an identity. but they can be born into an identity.
being gay is a little like cancer (no offence meant), you might be born predisposed to it, or you could catch it due to environmental reasons, imo
So why yuh say cancer? yuh coulda say diabetes. and the notion that thereMUST BE some environmental issues is rubbish in my opinion.
Give me an example of some "environmental reasons"
I doh tink it environmental either I know a fella, had male role models "good and bad" all he life and could be identified as gay as a goose from early childhood..........that's not learned behavior diaz ah genetic or biological "anomaly" for want of another phrase ....it jus not found yet but dey in yuh dna somewhere.
-
So is being gay a behaviour or is it an identity?
neither.
sexual attraction is not a behaviour. sucking a d*ck is behaviour.
a child is not born with an identity. but they can be born into an identity.
being gay is a little like cancer (no offence meant), you might be born predisposed to it, or you could catch it due to environmental reasons, imo
So why yuh say cancer? yuh coulda say diabetes. and the notion that thereMUST BE some environmental issues is rubbish in my opinion.
Give me an example of some "environmental reasons"
where on god's green earth did you hear me say there MUST be environmental issues?
and don't come with the polictically correct nonsense either. diabetes and cancer can both be terminal. i specifically said no offence, so jump off that horse.
a simple example of environmental reasons is growing up in a home when one/both parents is homosexual and it is discussed openly. that would make 'experimentation' easier, and therefore make it easier to form gay relationships. or being molested at an early age by a person of either sex. or non-violent emotional trauma like an emotionally abusive relationship that turns a woman from men into a same sex relationship. or just developing a friendship that might turn into a relationship.
yuh never watch the crying game or what?
-
Some of you guys are losing focus of the topic I raised and please note this is not designed to be a religious Gay-bashing thread, to try to condemn anyone for being Gay if they are that way inclined.
Is being Gay a behaviour/lifestyle or clear identity like being male, female, black or white?
Btw identity means that you can look at someone and identify them as being that particular thing right away without guessing.
The question I tabled can also be asked of straight people as well.
-
Some of you guys are losing focus of the topic I raised and please note this is not designed to be a religious Gay-bashing thread, to try to condemn anyone for being Gay if they are that way inclined.
Is being Gay a behaviour/lifestyle or clear identity like being male, female, black or white?
Btw identity means that you can look at someone and identify them as being that particular thing right away without guessing.
The question I tabled can also be asked of straight people as well.
identity can also mean what people identify themselves as. and you cannot always tell, especially with women. unless she wearing a lumberjack shirt, combat boots, and like to pee standing up with a cigarette dangling from her bottom lip, lol
-
Some of you guys are losing focus of the topic I raised and please note this is not designed to be a religious Gay-bashing thread, to try to condemn anyone for being Gay if they are that way inclined.
Is being Gay a behaviour/lifestyle or clear identity like being male, female, black or white?
Btw identity means that you can look at someone and identify them as being that particular thing right away without guessing.
The question I tabled can also be asked of straight people as well.
identity can also mean what people identify themselves as. and you cannot always tell, especially with women. unless she wearing a lumberjack shirt, combat boots, and like to pee standing up with a cigarette dangling from her bottom lip, lol
If I am white and female (and also insane) so I have the illusion that I am black and male and identify myself as such does that make me black and male?
Again my definition of identity is something that is clear and obvious once your strip a person naked of any items that can be used to disguise or hide their identity.
-
Some of you guys are losing focus of the topic I raised and please note this is not designed to be a religious Gay-bashing thread, to try to condemn anyone for being Gay if they are that way inclined.
Is being Gay a behaviour/lifestyle or clear identity like being male, female, black or white?
Btw identity means that you can look at someone and identify them as being that particular thing right away without guessing.
The question I tabled can also be asked of straight people as well.
identity can also mean what people identify themselves as. and you cannot always tell, especially with women. unless she wearing a lumberjack shirt, combat boots, and like to pee standing up with a cigarette dangling from her bottom lip, lol
If I am white and female (and also insane) so I have the illusion that I am black and male and identify myself as such does that make me black and male?
Again my definition of identity is something that is clear and obvious once your strip a person naked of any items that can be used to disguise or hide their identity.
lol, there are many different degrees of insanity, social illusions, temporality and various combinations of such. but delineation becomes increasingly difficult once you start approaching tangible boundries such as biology. in my opinion...an insane white and female cannot normally cross those biological boundries. however with the passage of time sociological adjustments/drift might cause another person or group of people to see a white female as a black male. same way some races have recently come to see others as full human beings.
genetic complement is a good base to start. but sometimes even how you look is not always a clear indication of your genetics. some traditional american indians cultures used to identify gays in their community as 'two spirited people'. so sometimes identity also depends on the limitations/elasticity of the cultural paradigm in which the observer exists. and then you have the question of god etc. i doh really have the answers, just speculating.
-
Here is an interesting question for us to debate.
Is being Gay a life style choice like choosing to be a priest or to be celibate?
Or is it an identity that you are born with like being born white, black, male or female?
So is being gay a behaviour or is it an identity?
What would make someone Gay minus them taking part or wanting to take part in sex with someone of the same sex?
PS: Btw the same question can be asked of someone being Straight, is it a behaviour or an identity like being white, black, male or female?
neither
you are not born with an "identity"; your identity develops over time based on many variables that may include: race, culture, environment, experiences, relationship, etc.,
Do 'straight' people consider their sexual orientation their identify? I suspect that most don't. So I would not consider race or gender to be "identity".
I see that you defined what "identity" means to you in your last post. But I would not define identify as such.
edit: to clarify, I think you are born with it and while some may identify as being 'gay', that may not necessarily be the case for all who are gay. For example, I was born straight but I do not identify as being straight.
-
Hear nah allyuh fellas on real kicks oui. Gender is not an identity? lol In which country, century or period in history was gender not an identity? Whenever were boys not different from girls or males from females? Suddenly we are so enlightened. In trying to be so wise with this thing we becoming fools. Why? Because it's trendy to support gay rights? What? Wait! If you don't share the same view you are seen as a hater? Please. So people claim to be born gay. The real question is: What can't you be born? What can't you claim as a birthright? :) Because the same precepts used to support people being born gay has to be used on other claims. Can someone be born a Serial Killer? A Pedophile? A Rapist? These claims are already being made fellas. Heck!! Let's bring it home. You're from T&T and you like plenty woman. Your grand father and father was sweet on the girls, it's in your blood, so to speak. Now that you are married, should your wife accept that? "Honey I was born this way." lol Would you accept it if your wife made the claim? Look regardless of whether you agree with my philosophy of homosexuality being sin. The question stands. What can't you claim as a birthright or an identity? Truth is, you can be born all these things. All this stuff is the manifestation of sin. We are all born with sin and it manifests itself in different ways for different people. From alcoholism to homosexuality, it's all sin and everyone have their issue. Scripture tells us that the sins of the fathers are passed down to the 3rd and the 4th generation. A generation is 45 years so. That means you are born into certain struggles passed on by your family. It's in your blood. What does this really mean? There are demonic rights and influences over our lives that we didn't sign up for and it is up to you to break the power of these things over your life. Scripture says that sin is in the blood. Well that's your DNA right there. That's why Christ had to shed His blood(Sinless) for our sins. The power of His life covers the sin in our life. His blood relieves the demonic influences of their rights over us. You heard it before, "He came to set the captives free." Satan wants godless societies. All this stuff is just doctrines of demons. God made man and woman (watch it now), male and female He created them. Throughout time young men have been thought in many various ways, by various traditions about what it is to be a man/male as part of their identity. Young boys were thought by elder men how to provide for their families, protect and love their wives, care for their children and be a wholesome contributor to the broader community. Could you image a world without this fundamental doctrine? STOP ENDORSING BABYLON SYSTEM, YOU WILL SHARE IN BABYLON'S FIRE
-
Wait
I have to retract my comment about gender as a identity.
I was defining 'identify' incorrectly.
edit: Preacher you will love this...
The Toronto School Board has defined "six" gender identities, Interestingly, sexual orientation is not included as an identity.
The Newly proposed, Ontario curriculum, which teaches six genders (male, female, transgendered, transsexual, two-spirited and inter-sexed)
have fun with this approach.
-
Gender is not an identity? lol In which country, century or period in history was gender not an identity? Whenever were boys not different from girls or males from females? Suddenly we are so enlightened. In trying to be so wise with this thing we becoming fools. Why? Because it's trendy to support gay rights?
Lol, gender and sex are used interchangeably but they are slightly different. Gender is closer to femininity or masculinity, its the complement of characteristics that one has as a male or a female. That, imo is a identity you subscribe to or are given by your peers, the society you were born into, and you can be viewed as such within institutions such as the legal system. But sex...that is what you were born with. You are sexed as a male and female. At least that is how things stand in cultural context.
If you don't share the same view you are seen as a hater? Please.
Not always, but yes sometimes you are accused as being a hater unfairly if you don't agree with the mainstream. But sometimes its true...bigots often disguise dissaproval under the guise of 'freedom', and sometimes religion.
Because the same precepts used to support people being born gay has to be used on other claims. Can someone be born a Serial Killer? A Pedophile? A Rapist? These claims are already being made fellas. Heck!! Let's bring it home. You're from T&T and you like plenty woman. Your grand father and father was sweet on the girls, it's in your blood, so to speak. Now that you are married, should your wife accept that? "Honey I was born this way." lol Would you accept it if your wife made the claim?
The point can be made somewhat moot by the fact that 'being born gay' means being born with the genetics to have homosexual attraction. But while a person may never comitt a homosexual act, and even if they get married or turn to the priesthood...they still homosexual. You may be born with predilections to be a rapist, pedophile or serial killer. But these are descriptors represent choices that led to ACTIONS. Plus homosexuality is condoned partly because it is supposedly between consenting adults. Hardly the case with rape, pedophilia or serial killing.
There are demonic rights and influences over our lives that we didn't sign up for and it is up to you to break the power of these things over your life. Scripture says that sin is in the blood. Well that's your DNA right there. That's why Christ had to shed His blood(Sinless) for our sins. The power of His life covers the sin in our life. His blood relieves the demonic influences of their rights over us. You heard it before, "He came to set the captives free." Satan wants godless societies. All this stuff is just doctrines of demons.
Well said, love the idea of self-responsibility and breaking powerful influences that lead people to destruction. But if being gay is a sin, and if sin is in the blood via DNA , is it then possible to be born with gay DNA? or rapsit DNA? After all, how do so many people who are well brought up, educated, usually god-fearing people comitt such viles acts as pedophilia unless it was passed down through generations/blood/heritage, as you said. What is DNA but coding for traits that are passed down through generations?
-
Imho, I would say it's an identity. I have heard about heterosexual males and females experimenting with homosexual relationships; however, in most of my experiences and interractions, many are born with these feelings. In one extreme case, I remember a guy telling me that he considered committing suicide because he was raised by his parents, one of whom was an Anglican priest, to believe it was wrong.
So, for the most part, I think many are born that way.
-
The Toronto School Board has defined "six" gender identities, Interestingly, sexual orientation is not included as an identity.
The Newly proposed, Ontario curriculum, which teaches six genders (male, female, transgendered, transsexual, two-spirited and inter-sexed)
Pecan I need to research what 2 spirited means. Interested that they even use that word. But this is sad to me.
Zando genes are being linked to violent behavior. It has been called the Murder gene. So frankly, it's the same claim as being born gay. There are very interesting reads on it. So the question still stands in my view. What can't you claim as a birthright? So yes I believe that you can be born with tendencies and motivations manifesting itself in your life. However, the biggest influence is choice. If you experiment with things you shouldn't be experimenting with or someone commits you to some injustice this can also bind you to certain behaviors. A person my have never struggled with drugs and alcohol until they choose a couple indiscretions, then their is a significant challenge in their life. An absent father can set their son or daughter on a very challenging path in life. Most of the time they just repeat how they were treated. Your body is learning, it's recording, remembering and responding on a cellular level. That's why you should never just go with the satisfaction of the flesh because more often than not it's fights against all that's pure in you. Brother indulge me in this scripture here it's Pro. 3 1-8..Check what's at the end
Wisdom Bestows Well-Being
1. My son, never forget the things I have taught you. Store my commands in your heart. 2. If you do this, you will live many years, and your life will be satisfying. 3. Never let loyalty and kindness leave you! Tie them around your neck as a reminder. Write them deep within your heart. 4. Then you will find favor with both God and people, and you will earn a good reputation. 5. Trust in the Lord with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding. 6. Seek his will in all you do, and he will show you which path to take. 7. Dont be impressed with your own wisdom. Instead, fear the Lord and turn away from evil. 8. Then you will have healing for your body and strength for your bones.
-
The Toronto School Board has defined "six" gender identities, Interestingly, sexual orientation is not included as an identity.
The Newly proposed, Ontario curriculum, which teaches six genders (male, female, transgendered, transsexual, two-spirited and inter-sexed)
Pecan I need to research what 2 spirited means. Interested that they even use that word. But this is sad to me.
Let me point you towards the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) website to assist with your research ...
http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=10471&menuid=27720&pageid=23861
Two-spirit: an English term coined to reflect specific cultural words used by First Nation and other indigenous peoples for those in their cultures who are gay or lesbian, are transgendered or transsexual, or have multiple gender identities. Historically, two-spirit persons were spiritual leaders and healers and revered by their community.
More on gender identity
http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=10471&menuid=34015&pageid=28957
Here is an excerpt on the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity:
Sexual orientation is about attraction. It is distinguished from gender identity, which refers to the internal or psychological sense of being male or female, both, or neither. Sexual orientation is an identity based on ones sexual, romantic and/or emotional attraction to members of the same-sex (homosexual), other sex (heterosexual), both sexes (bisexual), people of many gender-identities (polysexual), or people all gender-identities (pansexual). Even though they are often lumped together under the LGBTTIQ umbrella, lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer are sexual orientations, whereas transgender/transsexual, two-spirit and intersex are considered gender identities. Trans people may or may not also identify as lesbian, gay or bi. Some trans-identified people who have transitioned to a sex that is the same as their gender identity, identify as heterosexual. Sexual orientation can be viewed on a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Likewise, gender identity can range from full femininity to full masculinity, and include various combinations of both genders along the gender continuum, as well as being gender-neutral.
Is sexual orientation or gender identity a choice? Sexual orientation is not a choice, as we dont usually choose whom we fall in love with, or are attracted to. Gender identity is very personal, deep-seated and not a choice. However, the expression of ones sexual orientation and gender identity may be depending on the persons environment, or safety.
(Source: Adapted from Positive Space Resource Manual, Ryerson University)
The religious right has been very vocal in their objections to this policy.
-
... Your body is learning, it's recording, remembering and responding on a cellular level. That's why you should never just go with the satisfaction of the flesh because more often than not it's fights against all that's pure in you. Brother indulge me in this scripture here it's Pro. 3 1-8..Check what's at the end
Wisdom Bestows Well-Being
1. My son, never forget the things I have taught you. Store my commands in your heart. 2. If you do this, you will live many years, and your life will be satisfying. 3. Never let loyalty and kindness leave you! Tie them around your neck as a reminder. Write them deep within your heart. 4. Then you will find favor with both God and people, and you will earn a good reputation. 5. Trust in the Lord with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding. 6. Seek his will in all you do, and he will show you which path to take. 7. Dont be impressed with your own wisdom. Instead, fear the Lord and turn away from evil. 8. Then you will have healing for your body and strength for your bones.
Why do you equate homosexuality with the satisfaction of the flesh? That is a common misconception about homosexuals.
But here is the overarching question:
What is there to be afraid of when it comes to homosexuality? If it goes against God's law, then God will deal with them when they die. Does God really need our help to expunge the world of his failures?
Anyway, this topic has has argued on the forum over and over again so let's accept the fact that this will not be resolved here.
-
... Your body is learning, it's recording, remembering and responding on a cellular level. That's why you should never just go with the satisfaction of the flesh because more often than not it's fights against all that's pure in you. Brother indulge me in this scripture here it's Pro. 3 1-8..Check what's at the end
Wisdom Bestows Well-Being
1. My son, never forget the things I have taught you. Store my commands in your heart. 2. If you do this, you will live many years, and your life will be satisfying. 3. Never let loyalty and kindness leave you! Tie them around your neck as a reminder. Write them deep within your heart. 4. Then you will find favor with both God and people, and you will earn a good reputation. 5. Trust in the Lord with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding. 6. Seek his will in all you do, and he will show you which path to take. 7. Dont be impressed with your own wisdom. Instead, fear the Lord and turn away from evil. 8. Then you will have healing for your body and strength for your bones.
Why do you equate homosexuality with the satisfaction of the flesh? That is a common misconception about homosexuals.
But here is the overarching question:
What is there to be afraid of when it comes to homosexuality? If it goes against God's law, then God will deal with them when they die. Does God really need our help to expunge the world of his failures?
Anyway, this topic has has argued on the forum over and over again so let's accept the fact that this will not be resolved here.
that
-
Pecan doh feel no how. I'm a Christian so, I'm just referencing my book on the issue. That's where I get my moral compass from. This does not mean that I am morally perfect but there is a standard beyond me that I believe to be the truth on the issue. The bible refers to it as such. And frankly I'm not trying to resolve any issue or convince anyone. I gave my opinion as everyone else did. As far as I'm concerned we just talking. This from Rom.
Gods Wrath Against Sinful Humanity
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know Gods righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
-
Pecan I need to research what 2 spirited means. Interested that they even use that word. But this is sad to me.
If I not mistaken, 2 spirited is the term aboriginal/First Nation people (Native American, Canadian etc) use for gay people in their culture. Yes....it have gay aboriginal peeps too but the definition of what is commonly called "gay" is interestingly explained thusly:
""Two-spirited" or "two-spirit" usually indicates a person whose body simultaneously manifests both a masculine and a feminine spirit."
It doh talk about sexuality or sexual orientation at all.
My wife is doing her masters on a similar topic and one of her cohort members (study group) is First Nations which is where I first heard of this term. She said that two spirit people are among the most respected in that culture.
-
Very interesting stuff for me.
-
Isn't it time to embrace marriage equality?
http://myvoicetv.net/blog/isnt-it-time-to-embrace-marriage-equality/
Years from now, when historians are studying our current era, they will wonder why it took us so long to correct the continued violation of civil rights against gays. The same thing is happening now when people look into the facts surrounding civil rights and African-Americans. It goes without saying though, that some people have never accepted our nations decisions which ended years of struggles on the part of the black community. Those people were and still are on the wrong side of history. The same could be said about those who now stand against gay marriage. They believe the government should legislate morality, as if we were under a theocracy, as opposed to our democracy. It doesnt matter what you think about homosexuality or gay marriage on a personal level. What does matter it that everyone should accept the fact that by denying two people who love each other the right to marry, we are violating their civil rights. We are a nation that preaches Gods love on Sunday, but somehow find that message irrelevant on the other days. That is hypocritical and wrong. Our nation is guided by the Constitution, and in that document are two clauses which should assist anyone who is dubious of the gay marriage movement. Those two clauses are the equal protection clause and the full faith and credit clause requiring that the states recognize and honor each others laws.
Recently, many members of Congress, mostly Democrats, have publicly stated that they support gay marriage. These politicians state their views have evolved and now they are enlightened and accept the idea of same sex couples could actually love each other. Where have these people been? Its really quite incredible to stop and realize that there is no bold leadership in Congress today. In this case, it is clear that the members were reading poll data and actually listening to the citizens, who now overwhelmingly support gay marriage.
Where has the leadership been on this issue? As far back as Jimmy Carters campaign for President, we can find gay rights planks in the Democratic Party platform. So, in reality, Democrats have always favored gay rights, even though that legislative agenda was never overwhelmingly accepted by party members. It wasnt until a year ago, that it came to the forefront of our society, when President Obama embraced the idea of gay marriage. Another President, Ronald Reagan, has been mentioned recently, with people wanting to know how he felt about the issue. Reagan was quoted in 1980 saying: My criticism is that [the gay movement] isnt just asking for civil rights; its asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I. On the other hand, Reagan was personally tolerant of gays, in fact, the first gay couple stayed overnight at the White House during his presidency. They had come to celebrate Nancy Reagans 60th birthday. Politically, Reagan bent over backwards to appease his ardent supporters, many of which were Christian conservatives. Many of those supporters were fond of saying that Aids was Gods judgment on gays. And, indeed, it took Reagan a long time to recognize the epidemic, although he was appalled by conservative Christian demonstrations in the late seventies against gays.
Recommended: If we dont unite we can be toast
Even Bill OReilly, the Fox News host, became embroiled in what has become a very public discussion. OReilly was debating conservative radio host Laura Ingraham on this subject when he stated the truth, that same-sex marriage opponents often thump the Bible to make their point. Many people know, using common sense, that we cant create policy out of religious beliefs. Conservative Christians think that the Bible is the definitive word on homosexuality. The fact is that Christians who use the Bible to attack gays are greatly distorting what it actually says. God doesnt make mistakes; he makes people, people He loves. What they should believe is that we have two commandments to abide by: Love God and love others. There are no conditions for who to love and who to judge. We are to love everybody, plain and simple and not judge them. So, OReilly was right in the sense that we are a democracy, not a theocracy, and that conservative Christians arent walking their talk and instead being hypocritical.
The time is now to change our attitude and fears and accept gay marriage, not only accept it, but embrace it. The gay community is a vital thread in the fabric of our nation. So, we await the Supreme Courts ruling, which will come in June. Lets hope and pray that common decency and good sense prevails. And if they rule against gays, then perhaps our Congress can actually get some work done by legislating the issue.
-
Gay youth calls for rights in Constitution
By Sascha Wilson (Guardian).
A bold declaration by a young man that he is gay and wants gay rights included in the new Constitution drew criticism from other contributors at the constitutional reform consultation in San Fernando on Wednesday night.
His forthrightness did not sit well with several people, who argued that the lifestyle went against religious teachings and would be to the detriment of society. Standing in front of a packed room at the National Academy for Performing Arts South Campus, Raynia Seegobin said he wanted equal rights and freedom for gay men and women enshrined in the Constitution.
He asked that the word sexual orientation be included in the section of the Constitution which states that there shall be no discrimination by reason of race, origin, colour, religion, sex, in the fundamental human rights and freedoms of citizens. Seegobin, who was accompanied by other gay men, said no longer should he go to a job interview and worry that he might not be hired because he gesticulated too much or did not conform to the ideal image of what a man should be.
Being gay, he said, must also not deprive him from receiving state benefits. Immediately after his contribution, Azan Baksh stood up, declaring he was a Muslim and as a Muslim he wanted to be able to exercise his religious right to have four wives. Laughter erupted from the audience but the chairman, Errol Fabien, said Baksh was making a serious suggestion and joked: Why only Muslims must have four wives?
La Romain resident Joseph Harbajan said he had gay friends and they should be loved and appreciated and not treated as freaks. However, he said, it would be very dangerous to change the law about gays.
Former minister speaks
Former government minister Subhas Panday said laws governing party funds must be passed. There is no law governing the behaviour of the party. Anything short of that, he said, would be spinning top in mud. I sell toolum when I raise money for the party, added Panday.
-
If they want to bull man, that is them problem and business but dont ask me to vote for them or support them and if they bring they shit by me, they will regret they was f00cking born.
Blasted big hard stones man f00cking each other.
Yuh eh see this world sick !!!!!!
A man with big mustache sucking yuh toetie and kissing yuh. Or bulling you and breeding hard hard on yuh neck... STINKING BARSTARDS !!!!!!
Fire go bun them f00ckers.
Even animals know they place !!!!
Yuh ever see a father lion f00cking another one !!!
Steups....
Faggots and Gays is a blight and will blight yuh country for life, de innocent will pay.
-
Ah hope Kamla Persad-Bissessar children come out gay, becareful who and what you support for votes, it does back fire on yuh.
-
A man with big mustache sucking yuh toetie and kissing yuh. Or bulling yuh and breeding hard hard on yuh neck...
sounds like a man talking from experience oui .. just repeating what I said on the other board :-\
-
His forthrightness did not sit well with several people, who argued that the lifestyle went against religious teachings and would be to the detriment of society.
This so ironic .. a statement coming from a country in which the year-to-date murder count is 117
I think T&T have more to worry about than whether or not some man bulling Sam and breathing down his neck.
-
:rotfl: sense Pecan
-
Ah radda be a f00cker theif than a homo especially de ones bulling lil chirren just like Pecan daddy.
-
Ah radda be a f00cker theif than a homo especially de ones bulling lil chirren just like Pecan daddy.
wha happen sam? meh gyal and me daddy now part of this?
why you protesting so much? stop fighting dat gag re-flex and jess swallow
-
A man with big mustache sucking yuh toetie and kissing yuh. Or bulling yuh and breeding hard hard on yuh neck...
sounds like a man talking from experience oui .. just repeating what I said on the other board :-\
ent sando have a big moustache?
-
:thinking:
-
Maybe that is why Sam so vex .. ;)
-
Is Obama gay, is he a conman, a liar and can't be trusted?
Have a look at these videos and you decide!
Pt 1 Barack Obama - Homosexual Allegations By Larry Sinclair Press conference!
http://www.youtube.com/v/j3uqgRb0a7k
Pt 2 Barack Obama - Homosexual Allegations By Larry Sinclair Press conference!
http://www.youtube.com/v/mw8qn_z6MmI
Pt 3 Barack Obama - Homosexual Allegations By Larry Sinclair Press conference!
http://www.youtube.com/v/fY-HN6MWF3s
Pt 4 Barack Obama - Homosexual Allegations By Larry Sinclair Press conference!
http://www.youtube.com/v/9WYgjrcIMFY
Pt 5 Barack Obama - Homosexual Allegations By Larry Sinclair Press conference!
http://www.youtube.com/v/VIfryzo2KNc
Pt 6 Barack Obama - Homosexual Allegations By Larry Sinclair Press conference!
http://www.youtube.com/v/DZbMZR0ehww
-
WHERE EVIL GROWS: CIA Created OBAMA; CIA Runs DRUGS / MILITARY
http://www.youtube.com/v/tklZr6cKXdQ
-
@socapro - i heard about that larry sinclair thing a few years back. obama wouldn't be the first in the white house.
-
Gays tolerated in T&T says survey
By Yvonne Baboolal (Guardian).
The majority of people in T&T are either tolerant or accepting of homosexuals rather than homophobic. Also, lesbian/bisexual/gay/transgender (LBGT) issues are not as politically dangerous as politicians think. These were the results of a survey, funded by the British High Commission and conducted by the Barbados-based Caribbean Development Research Services Inc (CADRES), of attitudes toward homosexuals in T&T. The results were announced at a press conference at the All Saints Anglican Church, Port-of-Spain, yesterday by CADRES director Peter Wickham.
The information, well received by the local LBGT community, came on the eve of the celebration of International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia today. The day also coincides with the 23rd anniversary of the World Health Organisations removal of homosexuality from its list of diseases and mental illnesses. A CADRES press summary said the survey demonstrated 36 per cent of the population could genuinely be described as homophobic and eight per cent were unsure about the issue. Conversely, this means 56 per cent of Trinbagonians are either tolerant or accepting of homosexuals. The acceptance of homosexuality is greater than the rejection. The survey basically says T&T is not a homophobic country. Wickham said the acceptance of homosexuality could be because there were a lot of people in T&T with gay friends.
Lynette Seebaran-Suite of the group Aspire, which advocates for sexual and reproductive rights, was at the conference in solidarity with the LBGT community. Wickham said a random selection of 1,080 men and women all over T&T from the age groups 18-30, 31-65 and 65 years and over were interviewed but a full report explaining the methodology and limitations of the survey was unavailable to the media. He said more women than men were interviewed because there were more women in T&T than men and noted that women and younger people were more comfortable with homosexuals. The latest Central Statistical Office census states there are more men than women in T&T. Colin Robinson, of Coalition Advocating for Inclusion of Sexual Orientation (CAISO), said the survey confirmed a suspicion his group had that T&T was not as homophobic as was believed.
Wickham said the survey found that despite the largely positive stance of the majority of citizens, a lot of misunderstanding about homosexuality still existed. The misunderstanding was the general belief that homosexuality was a choice.
The CADRES survey also showed if there were legislative change about homosexuals it would not affect voters and would have no significant negative impact for a political party. Matt Nottingham, political officer at the British High Commission, who attended the conference, said the commission had funded similar studies in Guyana and Barbados because the LBGT issue was of very high priority to the British Government. The issue of equality and basic human rights is being recognised by the British Government, he said. Jeanne Roach-Baptiste, assistant lecturer at the Institute for Gender and Development Studies at UWI, said even if the study showed 56 per cent of people in T&T were tolerant or accepting of homosexuals, the remaining percentage against it and unsure was still high. She also noted there was a big difference between the words tolerant and accepting.
(http://www.guardian.co.tt/sites/default/files/field/image/homophobia.jpg)
Attorney Lynette Seebaran-Suite, centre, chairman of Advocates for Safe Parenthood (Aspire), is introduced to Barbadian Peter Wickham, director of research at Caribbean Development Research Services Inc, by Colin Robinson, head of the Coalition Advocating for Inclusion of Sexual Orientation (CAISO) during a meeting to discuss the survey on public attitudes to homosexuality on International Day against Homophobia. PHOTO: NICOLE DRAYTON
-
He said more women than men were interviewed because there were more women in T&T than men and noted that women and younger people were more comfortable with homosexuals. The latest Central Statistical Office census states there are more men than women in T&T.
This alone telling me this 'Survey' may not be very valid or reliable...
And I would like to see the exact wording of the questions being asked...
-
they interviewed ppl who look like they would be okay with anything.
-
Dais not news. stueeeppssss!!
i don't know bout today, but when i was ah yute in T&T the place was loaded with gays and no one payed them squat.
as ah matter of fact, growing up in town gave me a birds eye view on how tolerant trinidadians were towards a lot of things. right in the heart of town on calvery hill to be exact the most notorious faggot in the history of T&T lived and thrived in peace, and well protected by the community.
as ah matter of fact, junior (aka betty wright) lived right next to the legendary Dr Rat who was good friends with the gay icon, and could be seen seen "out in the open" sharing ganja with him/her on many occasions of which i was a witness to the fact !!
this individual was not ostracized or scorned, but rather, was well liked and accepted.
there was another well known openly flamboyant gay man by the name of kelvin who went by the alias (sarah vaughn or boiled eggs). he used to sell boiled eggs in the heart of town in a white pigtail bucket, hence the name.
kelvin was ah grown arse man in my parents age group and he was well respected and revered amongst EDR folks. this faggot used to walk wid ah white handle razor and was not afraid to use it, in other words, he had ah real criminal mind as well he should, he was from was from st, john's street lower laventille road surrounded by badjohns.
when kelvin came to town it was like ah fanfare. he was a favorite or a saltfish (that's the colloquial term used for a well liked person in the old days) woman, man and children all flocked to kelvin for eggs and laughs, that was ah funny arse nigga if i ever seen one, just as fuuny as tommy joseph :rotfl:
kelvin and junior was not the only two, the town was full of openly gay dudes who ppl loved and respect, as ah matter of fact most of them were tailors, seamstress and market men who loved hanging around women.
so my point, from where i stand, i remember when ppl really started paying attention to gays in a negative way, and that was when the rastafarian movement became prevalent in T&T and AIDS started spreading and killing out the faggots,
and yet ppl weren't as perturbed as ppl in other countries, but before that it had gays hanging out in woodford sq @ night selling bamsee and hooking up, and no one batted an eye.
right on duke street by the hall of justice was their hang out spot on the side walk, and no body bothered them or killed them.
so all this talk about trinidad tolerant towards gays is old news! after all we are not jamaicans who have this puritan "old english" church of GOD driven mentality, we are a mainly roman catholic society where anything goes until lent.
-
Coudray: Gay rights out of proposed gender policy
By Yvonne Baboolal (Guardian).
God still reigns supreme in T&T, according to the Constitution, and gay rights will not be a part of the Governments draft national policy on gender and development. Minister of Gender, Youth and Child Development Marlene Coudray, finally breaking her silence on the controversy yesterday, said gay rights were not a part of the gender policy which is now before Cabinet, nor were they likely to be.
Coudray was responding to questions on a survey by the Caribbean Development Research Services Inc, which reportedly showed the majority of citizens were either tolerant or accepting of homosexuality and that it was not politically dangerous. Coudray, who was at an open house held by her ministry at the Centre of Excellence, was asked whether gay rights would be included in the gender policy.
There is nothing in (it) that speaks to any gay rights. There were rumours all over the place that certain things are in the draft that are not, she said. The draft policy is before Cabinet and those issues were not part of it, so they are not likely to come up to affect the policy at all at this stage. Coudray said this decision was not hers, but the unanimous wish of the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO), which represents 25 different religious organisations, and a large number of other faith-based organisations.
It really is not up to me, she said. The ministry held two consultations with the religious groups at Capital Plaza on April 24 and May 3 and, according to IRO head Pundit Harrypersad Maharaj, they sent out a warning in advance to the Government that it would not get support for the legalisation of homosexuality.
Coudray said, I convened a meeting with faith-based organisations and the IRO and its members and we had a very extensive, open and frank discussion with them. We had to extend the discourse to two days and we came to terms with what they would like to see (in the gender policy). They reminded us the Constitution is based on the supremacy of God. So those views are documented to be put forward. Proposals were formulated to be sent to the Finance and General Purposes Committee.
The F&GP is a subcommittee of Cabinet. The minister said some word on the policy would be coming soon. Asked if a representative of the gay community had met with her, she said no one sought to meet with her as minister. Asked to comment on the survey, Coudray replied, We need to know the sample size and all of that.
She said it took 30-plus years for the gender policy to come into being but it had never before reached the level of Cabinet, which was something to be commended. She said the delay was due to an effort to hear everyones views. Maharaj, noting that religious groups represented a significant proportion of the population, said the argument put forward was that gender, according to religious beliefs, constituted male and female, not homosexuals or other.
We all unanimously agreed that from time immemorial humans were created as male and female, not homosexuals and all these kinds of things. Maharaj said Leela Ramdeen, of the Catholic Commission for Social Justice, who was at the consultation with the minister, referred to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which declared that the term gender referred only to the two sexes of male and female.
Maharaj said while there might be objections to the religious communitys position, its members are holding to it very firmly. We cant tell people how to live their lives but we are saying it must not become lawful. If the Government ever intends to legalise same-sex marriages in T&T, we are sending out a warning in advance it will not get the support of the religious community.
-
Coudray: Gay rights out of proposed gender policy
By Yvonne Baboolal (Guardian).
Coudray said, I convened a meeting with faith-based organisations and the IRO and its members and we had a very extensive, open and frank discussion with them. ........ Asked if a representative of the gay community had met with her, she said no one sought to meet with her as minister.
-
By John Newland, Staff Writer, NBC News
Michelle Obama confronted a gay-rights protester who heckled her at a Democratic fundraiser in Washington on Tuesday, offering to give her the microphone and leave, before the crowd cheered for the first lady to stay.
Obama was 12 minutes into a planned 20-minute speech at a couples home when a woman standing at the front of the small crowd interrupted, demanding that President Barack Obama sign an executive order on gay rights.
One of the things I dont do well is this, the first lady said before walking down from the lectern and approaching the protester, according to a pool reporter covering the event.
Obama told the woman that people gathered in the backyard tent could "listen to me or you can take the mic, but I'm leaving, before telling the crowd, You all decide. You have one choice.
At that, the crowd began chanting for Obama to stay as one woman told the protester, You need to leave.
The woman was escorted out, shouting that she was a lesbian looking for federal equality before I die.
Obama then returned to the lectern and finished her speech, getting loud applause as she did.
Those in attendance, apparently including the protester, had paid $500 to $10,000 for tickets to the event, which was held at the home of power couple Karen Dixon and Nan Schaffer.
The heckler was identified as Ellen Sturtz, an activist with the GetEQUAL campaign group, which campaigns for lesbian and gay rights, by several media.
Sturtz told The Washington Post that she was surprised by the first lady's actions.
She came right down in my face, Sturtz said. I was taken aback.
-
Chirlane McCray: From Gay Trailblazer to Politician's Wife
http://www.essence.com/2013/05/09/politicians-wife-chirlane-mccray/
In 1979 Chirlane McCray was a lesbian, out loud and proud. She said so herself, in a groundbreaking essay in ESSENCE simply called "I Am a Lesbian." That article was a revelation, perhaps the first time a Black gay woman had spoken so openly and honestly about her sexuality in a Black magazine. "I discovered my preference for women early," she wrote, "before getting locked into a traditional marriage."
Now, 34 years later, the same Chirlane McCray, 58, is happily immersed in a "traditional marriage." Her husband, Bill de Blasio, is running in one of the most fiercely contested Democratic mayoral primaries in decades, and his wife of 19 years and mother of their two teenage children is front and center in his campaign as strategist, confidante and political partner.
So how did this self-possessed lesbian turn into a seemingly classic political wife? McCray returns "home" to the pages of ESSENCE, and the audience who embraced her so many years ago, to talk about life's unexpected twists and turns, the fluidity of love, dirty politics and her 180-degree turn.
ESSENCE: Why did you write that first essay?
CHIRLANE McCRAY: Because in 1979, I thought it important to dispel the myth that there are no gay Black people, that Black people just didn't do that sort of thing. That article was my way of telling Black women across the country, "You are not alone."
ESSENCE: How was it received?
McCRAY: I remember how excited everyone was and how I was celebrated. I'm proud that at such a young age I was brave enough to go to ESSENCE and fight to write that article. I felt positive about what I'd done.
ESSENCE: How did you first meet Bill?
McCRAY: In 1991 I was working in the press office at the [NYC] Commission on Human Rights and was sent over to City Hall. I was wearing West Africaninspired clothing and a nose ring, and Bill says he had the love-at-first-sight experience. I did note what a good-looking guy he was and that he was funny and smart and made other people laugh.
ESSENCE: Were you worried about him being a manand White?
McCRAY: All I could think about was, He's six years younger than me!
ESSENCE: So how did you go from being a lesbian to falling in love with a man?
McCRAY: By putting aside the assumptions I had about the form and package my love would come in. By letting myself be as free as I felt when I went natural.
ESSENCE: Still, was it strange being with a man, after so long?
McCRAY: I came out at 17. I hadn't really dated any men. I thought, Whoa, what is this? But I also didn't think, Oh, now I'm attracted to men. I was attracted to Bill. He felt like the perfect person for me. For two people who look so different, we have a lot in common. We are a very conventional, unconventional couple.
ESSENCE: How did you tell Bill about your past?
McCRAY: Other people told him in the beginning. Then at some point I gave him the article and said, "Look, this is who I am and you should read this." It shook him up. But he didn't show it. He was cool about it.
ESSENCE: Do you consider yourself bisexual?
McCRAY: I am more than just a label. Why are people so driven to labeling where we fall on the sexual spectrum? Labels put people in boxes, and those boxes are shaped like coffins. Finding the right person can be so hard that often, when a person finally finds someone she or he is comfortable with, she or he just makes it work. As my friend Vanessa says, "It's not whom you love; it's that you love."
ESSENCE: Are you still attracted to women?
McCRAY: I'm married, I'm monogamous, but I'm not dead and [laughs] Bill isn't either. I know my husband loves me fiercely and passionately. I know he supports me and will always stand up for me.
ESSENCE: How did you feel when your ESSENCE article from 1979 was leaked online and then the New York Post printed a cartoon of you and your husband in bed?
McCRAY: I thought the article would have [come out] sooner or later. I was rather dismissive of the whole thing. But then that cartoon! What the New York Post did was just really nasty. It was racist, ignorant and crude.
ESSENCE: If Bill gets elected, what kind of first lady of New York will you bea Michelle Obama?
McCRAY: It's too early to say what I will work on, but I'll be my own person. I'd like to be out in the city every day listening to what people are saying, and asking about what they need. I'd like to inspire others by doing as much as I can to help people who are trying to make a better life for themselves and others.
-
They should have rights as other people have
By Anna Ramdass (Express).
PRIEST BATS FOR GAYS
A Catholic priest has come out in support of the gay community, saying their rights, including the right to love whomever they want, should be included in the Constitution.
Dr Fr Stephen Geofroy captured the attention of the audience with his comments during consultation on the draft Constitution at the University of the West Indies Sport and Physical Education Centre, St Augustine, on Monday evening.
Geofroy said the matter should not be debated further and instead Government should be embracing of all its people.
Now on the issue of sexual orientation being subject to further national discussion...discussion about what? Arent LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender), arent they not humans still, yes or no? said Geofroy.
Yes? Then they should have rights as other people have, he continued as he received loud applause from the packed hall.
Geofroy said there was no debate on whether gays are people or not as they have expressed themselves clearly that they are part and parcel of this countrys culture.
Weve come over a long history of slavery and indentureship and now it is time to break the many things that denigrate the person, said Geofroy.
This is certainly one of the things we have to do and we have to be very decisive of it.
Geofroy said there has been discrimination on the basis of race, colour and class in this country.
...I dont see the difference with sexual orientation. We are citizens of a country and people have the right to love who they want irrespective, said Geofroy .
He said to continue discussing the issue at a national level without taking a decision was to go the way of other countries such as Nigeria and Uganda as part of a political agenda.
I think we should avoid that like the plague, he said.
Geofroy said the rights of a minority should not be suffered because of the majority as the bill of rights speaks to upholding the dignity of all.
We do not belong to a theocracy, neither are we in a religious oligarchy where people impose their beliefs on others, said Geofroy.
He said if it was this way then moves would be made to criminalise adultery, masturbation and the use of condoms.
Then all of these things should be looked at and in my tradition I would say first, they are all sins so I think we have to be very careful on human rights and our rights to our own belief but not the right to impose it on the rest of the population, he said.
The draft Constitution recommends that the Chapter on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms should not be altered and the issue of sexual orientation and human rights should be made the subject of further national discussion and public education.
Executive director of the Coalition Advocating for Inclusion of Sexual Orientation (CAISO), Colin Robinson, who spoke before Geofroy, expressed his disappointment that the draft Constitution did not offer equal protection and rights to persons who are gay.
Robinson said he felt ashamed when reading the draft Constitution which states there should be further discussion on the issue.
Shame that my nations leading lights would miss that the point of a Constitution is to protect people from others. That the lack of consensus about my rights is the most compelling reason why they need protection. Shame that the conclusion of my nations constitutional reformers is that all I am worth is further national discussion, and that I will only merit constitutional protection when I dont need it as much.
Heartbreak that you got it so clearly; and you wouldnt do anything about it. And I wonder if I feel such shame, what do young LGBT people in our nation with much less resilience and a less-loving family than me feel reading your report, he continued.
Robinson called on the commissioners, among them Legal Affairs Minister Prakash Ramadhar, to ensure that protection for sexual orientation and gender be added to the Constitutions Bill of Rights.
Speaking to the Express yesterday by phone, Robinson said he was not surprised by Geofroys comments.
Hes a real Catholic...I was encouraged, I wasnt surprised, he said.
He said it was not the first time someone of the Catholic faith has expressed such views.
Robinson said there was a small group of Catholics and Anglican clergy members as well as a Hindu pandita who offer pastoral care to persons from the gay community and give them the opportunity to worship.
Robinson said Trinidad and Tobago has reached a place where the glass is half full and political leadership is required to fill that glass and ensure rights for all.
CAISO staff attorney Richie Maitland pointed out during the consultation that a research poll conducted by the Caribbean Development Research Services of Barbados found that 56 per cent of this countrys population accepted gays.
He said ten years ago, under the Peoples National Movement (PNM) regime, it was stated in the draft gender policy that the issue of gay rights should be discussed further and the same is being said today.
I just wonder how long this will take, how long we will be discussing this matter? he asked, adding that there needs to be no more political cowardice in ensuring constitutional protection for the LGBT community.
-
They should have rights as other people have
By Anna Ramdass (Express).
PRIEST BATS FOR GAYS
A Catholic priest has come out in support of the gay community, saying their rights, including the right to love whomever they want, should be included in the Constitution.
Dr Fr Stephen Geofroy captured the attention of the audience with his comments during consultation on the draft Constitution at the University of the West Indies Sport and Physical Education Centre, St Augustine, on Monday evening.
Geofroy said the matter should not be debated further and instead Government should be embracing of all its people.
Now on the issue of sexual orientation being subject to further national discussion...discussion about what? Arent LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender), arent they not humans still, yes or no? said Geofroy.
Yes? Then they should have rights as other people have, he continued as he received loud applause from the packed hall.
Geofroy said there was no debate on whether gays are people or not as they have expressed themselves clearly that they are part and parcel of this countrys culture.
Weve come over a long history of slavery and indentureship and now it is time to break the many things that denigrate the person, said Geofroy.
This is certainly one of the things we have to do and we have to be very decisive of it.
Geofroy said there has been discrimination on the basis of race, colour and class in this country.
...I dont see the difference with sexual orientation. We are citizens of a country and people have the right to love who they want irrespective, said Geofroy .
He said to continue discussing the issue at a national level without taking a decision was to go the way of other countries such as Nigeria and Uganda as part of a political agenda.
I think we should avoid that like the plague, he said.
Geofroy said the rights of a minority should not be suffered because of the majority as the bill of rights speaks to upholding the dignity of all.
We do not belong to a theocracy, neither are we in a religious oligarchy where people impose their beliefs on others, said Geofroy.
He said if it was this way then moves would be made to criminalise adultery, masturbation and the use of condoms.
Then all of these things should be looked at and in my tradition I would say first, they are all sins so I think we have to be very careful on human rights and our rights to our own belief but not the right to impose it on the rest of the population, he said.
The draft Constitution recommends that the Chapter on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms should not be altered and the issue of sexual orientation and human rights should be made the subject of further national discussion and public education.
Executive director of the Coalition Advocating for Inclusion of Sexual Orientation (CAISO), Colin Robinson, who spoke before Geofroy, expressed his disappointment that the draft Constitution did not offer equal protection and rights to persons who are gay.
Robinson said he felt ashamed when reading the draft Constitution which states there should be further discussion on the issue.
Shame that my nations leading lights would miss that the point of a Constitution is to protect people from others. That the lack of consensus about my rights is the most compelling reason why they need protection. Shame that the conclusion of my nations constitutional reformers is that all I am worth is further national discussion, and that I will only merit constitutional protection when I dont need it as much.
Heartbreak that you got it so clearly; and you wouldnt do anything about it. And I wonder if I feel such shame, what do young LGBT people in our nation with much less resilience and a less-loving family than me feel reading your report, he continued.
Robinson called on the commissioners, among them Legal Affairs Minister Prakash Ramadhar, to ensure that protection for sexual orientation and gender be added to the Constitutions Bill of Rights.
Speaking to the Express yesterday by phone, Robinson said he was not surprised by Geofroys comments.
Hes a real Catholic...I was encouraged, I wasnt surprised, he said.
He said it was not the first time someone of the Catholic faith has expressed such views.
Robinson said there was a small group of Catholics and Anglican clergy members as well as a Hindu pandita who offer pastoral care to persons from the gay community and give them the opportunity to worship.
Robinson said Trinidad and Tobago has reached a place where the glass is half full and political leadership is required to fill that glass and ensure rights for all.
CAISO staff attorney Richie Maitland pointed out during the consultation that a research poll conducted by the Caribbean Development Research Services of Barbados found that 56 per cent of this countrys population accepted gays.
He said ten years ago, under the Peoples National Movement (PNM) regime, it was stated in the draft gender policy that the issue of gay rights should be discussed further and the same is being said today.
I just wonder how long this will take, how long we will be discussing this matter? he asked, adding that there needs to be no more political cowardice in ensuring constitutional protection for the LGBT community.
A Christian priest, a Rabbi and Catholic priest were in a boat and saw some young boys drowning, the Christian priest says "let save those kids", the Rabbi says "f00ck them" and the Catholic priest say "we have time".
-
President Museveni Agrees to Sign Tough Anti-gay Measure
http://www.youtube.com/v/n5ln0yBViBM
The bill was first introduced in 2009 and initially proposed a death sentence for homosexual acts, but was amended to prescribe jail terms and life for what it called aggravated homosexuality. The anti-homosexuality bill was passed by the Ugandan parliament in December. Homosexuality is taboo in African countries and illegal in 37 countries. Activists say few Africans are openly gay, fearing imprisonment, violence and loss of their jobs.
Uganda signs anti-gay law
http://www.youtube.com/v/t67gT44f71M
News: Ugandan president signs anti-gay law AFP Aljazeera.com - 8 hours ago Uganda's president has signed a controversial anti-gay bill that allows harsh penalties for "homosexual offences", calling them "mercenaries".
Uganda's Anti-gay Bill Signed into Law
http://www.youtube.com/v/lncR72rfUco
President Museveni defying significant international pressure to sign tough anti-homosexuality measures into law. People found guilty of practicing so-called 'aggravated homosexuality' can now be handed a lifetime jail sentence and first time offenders can be punished with 14 years in jail.
Museveni Hits Back at the West over Anti-Gay Law
http://www.youtube.com/v/s7MALJzvFZk
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has hit back at Western nations over their threats to cut ties with the country over a bill criminalising homosexuality. Recently U.S. President Barack Obama condemned the proposed move by Uganda's President, warning that such a move would alter US relations with Uganda.Michael Baleke has this report from Kampala.
-
If all these African leaders think that homsexuality is the cause of their countries' problem, then they have real issues. How long this man running Uganda. Is time for him to go.
-
Homosexuality threatens the arts, fuels crimeClarke
Published: Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Yvonne Baboolal
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-02-25/homosexuality-threatens-arts-fuels-crime%E2%80%94clarke
Homosexuality is not only threatening the arts but is used to indoctrinate gang members, says artist LeRoy Clarke. The T&T Guardian asked Clarke to elaborate on the comment he made last week at his book launch which shocked and outraged some of his fellow artists, members of the gay community and others. In a phone interview yesterday, Clarke related homosexuality to the increase in crime, saying young men are usually indoctrinated into gangs with homosexuality and because of the violation of their manhood use the gun as a symbol of their masculinity.
He added: It is brought about by power bases that manipulate the principles that hold our heritage for their own advantage. Something is happening with the gender paradigm today. We had guidelines where we looked at certain types of conduct as abominations. We took it from the scriptures. The Bible, he added, was one of those and verses clearly refer to homosexuality, men with men and women with women, as unnatural and an abomination. Today, the word abomination does not have the same tone. People indulge abominations, accede to them, Clarke lamented. At 73, I can say the world is no longer mine, he said.
Asked exactly what he meant by saying homosexuality was threatening the arts, Clarke said with the exception of the sailor and maybe the midnight robber, there were no longer any definitely male costumes in Carnival, not even in portrayals of the devil. An effeminating power has taken over the costumes and even the rhythm of the music. Carnival is no longer male and female.
This is a very serious matter. We are dealing with a problem that is threatening our heritage. Fifty, 60 years ago what is happening now was not prevalent. I grew up in Gonzales.
The conversion is threatening identity. It had made it into a oneish kind of place, he added. Clarke said he had been hearing rumours about the reactions to his comment, expected to be misunderstood and did not expect the comment to be popular. But, he said, I dont feel threatened. I believe in God.
Asked which god he believed in, since he was an Orisha elder, Clarke replied: I started off as Anglican. I am an Orisha elder now. But I have gone even beyond that. I do believe in a God I dont know. All I know is I have God-yearning and it is to that I yield. Clarke said he was not waging war on anybody but was speaking about something that made people uncomfortable but others were afraid to talk about it. He said homosexuality was threatening not only the arts but the dream of becoming a society. There was a need to have discussions like these without animosity, he said. Why is it we are afraid to speak? I come out (sic) and suddenly I am a bad fella. Somebody needs to point out that something is definitely off-balance, he added.
Retrograde thinking
Writer Monique Roffey said she had been deeply affected by Clarkes comment. She said: It is not what I would call progressive. It shows a lack of connection with modern thinking. if you consider the UK where gays were granted rights to marry. It shows lack of awareness, compassion, humanity. This is such a big error of judgment. It is very surprising because it is a very intolerant thing to say about gay people, about a so-called minority who fought long and hard for equal rights. This feels really retrograde. The Bible, she pointed out, is 3,000 years old.
On her own sexuality, Roffey said: I am not lesbian. I am queer. Her erotic life is described in the award-winning Trinidad-born British writers memoir, With the Kisses of his Mouth.
In it she tells of a sexual odyssey she embarked upon after a dramatic breakup, which led her into the worlds of casual-sex dating sites, western neo-tantra, Native American neo-shamanic sacred sex practices... the famous swingers resort of Cap DAgde, and to a cave in the south of France where Mary Magdalene is said to have escaped and prayed for 30 years after the death of Christ. Some light BDSM (bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism), some sex magick, some five-rhythms dancing and a couple of Bronze Age Stone circles also feature.
Roffey said, as reflected in her memoir, she struggled to find a place for herself in the world outside the mainstream, challenging the heterosexual norm. If you are different to mainstream, you face constant criticism. This is the kind of comment associated with the conservative mainstream. There is no space on the planet for that kind of thinking, she added.
Discrimination is colonial
If Clarke was speaking on behalf of artists, he was not speaking for artist/writer Christopher Cozier, who has been internationally recognised with a 2014 Prince Claus Fund Award. It is deeply ironic that he has built his career on conversations about recognising the value of people of African descent and discriminatory colonial laws. Laws discriminating against gays are also colonial, Cozier said. Nazi Germany under Hitler discriminated against Jews, the physically challenged and gays, he said. And so did the apartheid system in South Africa under white rule.
Cozier said he was not gay but knew a lot of gay people and young people reading Clarkes comments may wonder what were their prospects in a place like T&T. Its sad when he and people like Pastor Cuffie say the same thing, he said. Told the Bible denounced homosexuality, Cozier replied: I am not into that kind of thing.
Attention-seeking babblings
Founder/director of the Bocas Lit Fest Marina Salandy-Brown said: What nonsense. The ruination of the arts here is the lack of a proper arts policy for the country that has been articulated and communicated to the people, the lack of planning, infrastructure and public education. The poverty of the arts discourse is at the heart of the problem and these attention-seeking babblings from someone who should know better are just proof of that. Carnival bandleader and designer Brian MacFarlane said: It is unfortunate that Mr Clarke has chosen to make this comment. I have always had great respect for him and his work. People from all walks of life, be it colour, creed, race or sexual orientation, have contributed to the development of culture in all its forms in T&T and continue to do so. Actor and 3Canal member Wendell Manwarren said he had no comment to make on anything Leroy Clarke said.
-
Early onset dementia.
-
Leroy, of all people.
-
Great work by the Ugandan president !!!
Maybe not the death sentence but I agree to not support this Gay shit, that blights your country.
Man and Woman can reproduce, gays can't. Its simple, even animals knows this.
Yuh ever see a father lion f00cking another father lion.
Humans is disgusting.
We living in sodom and gomorrah.
A big hard stones man acting like a blasted female stabbing only shit.
Shit stabbers.
-
Putin say if they took a vote world-wide about homos pushing queer culture on minors, 90% would be against it. Yet all de Olympics coverage have de token gay/lesbian because of de gay lobby. Look a DJ here in Toronto who did run his mouth on all kind of thing make an anti-gay joke and he out of a job. Democracy and homos doh mix.
-
Great work by the Ugandan president !!!
Maybe not the death sentence but I agree to not support this Gay shit, that blights your country.
Man and Woman can reproduce, gays can't. Its simple, even animals knows this.
Yuh ever see a father lion f00cking another father lion.
Humans is disgusting.
We living in sodom and gomorrah.
A big hard stones man acting like a blasted female stabbing only shit.
Shit stabbers.
The sheer level of stupidity is overwhelming here, lets wade through shit creek
that blights your country.
Why?
Man and Woman can reproduce, gays can't.
Are those who are infertile also morally inferior in your opinion? What about those who choose not to reproduce?
Its simple, even animals knows this.
Yuh ever see a father lion f00cking another father lion.
Erm.. Yes. Homosexuality is widely observed in the animal kingdom, why don't you educate yourself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Lions
We living in sodom and gomorrah.
Really? Sodom's major crime seems to be more inhospitality than homosexuality, although this is all interpretation. - http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/sodom.html
A big hard stones man acting like a blasted female stabbing only shit.
Shit stabbers.
You're against anal sex in totality I imagine? Any particular reason? Also, are you so insecure about your own masculinity that the thought of dudes sexing up other dudes sets off alarms in your head?
I recommend you challenge your own opinions, check out this video about debunking the top 5 arguments against Gay Marriage, for example- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmFLe_CmLBw .
Your positions are at best bigoted, because you are actively discriminating against people who have no choice over whom they find sexually attractive. Given your comments I'll go ahead and infer that you're a Christian, in which case you might find it interesting to note that Jesus is not attributed to have said anything about homosexuality in the bible - clearly it wasn't a topic interesting or important enough for him to be quoted on.
Instead, I suggest some other bible verses for you to dwell on;
Exodus 23:4-5 -If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.
Exodus 23:9 and Deuteronomy 10:19- Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Exodus 25:7 - Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God:for I am the LORD your God.
Psalms 34:13-14 - Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.
Psalms 38:7 - Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.
Proverbs 10:12 - "Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins."
-
Please leave Jesus and God name out of your pathetic argument. As a moderator you should be setting an example not defending Gays.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination - King James Bible (Leviticus 18:22)
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin - New Living Translation
"'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable - New International Version
You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination - American King James Version
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads - New International Version
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them - King James Bible
-
I saw a trailer for a documentary which claims that American missionaries in Uganda has been lobbying the government in criminalizing homosexuality.
"God Loves Uganda" is the name.
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/m3_hKv4pEM4
-
Please leave Jesus and God name out of your pathetic argument. As a moderator you should be setting an example not defending Gays.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination - King James Bible (Leviticus 18:22)
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin - New Living Translation
"'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable - New International Version
You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination - American King James Version
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads - New International Version
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them - King James Bible
None of which said or attributed to Jesus, all Old Testament, which was my point there. Clearly the Bible is against homosexuality, as it is against eating shellfish ("But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you." Leviticus 11:10) and a whole host of other random and stupid things.
My example is not to discriminate, if you lack the moral decency to follow that then the fault lies in you sir. If your problem with homosexuality lies with the bible, then I expect, to be morally and logically consistent, you don't eat crab, it's ok to force your wife/mistress/daughter to get raped to death by an angry mob instead of a man/angel (Genesis 9:8), working on the day of the Sabbath (even collecting sticks) is punishable by death (Exodus 35:2).
Basically there are too many ridiculous rules to state, suffice to say it's highly unlikely you observe all 613 commandments.
-
Tiresais, I am not going to go back and forth with this topic.
Let them be who they are.
Just do not expect me to support this nonesense.
It would be interesting to see all the people who supports this that it comes in their lives in some form. Then you would sing a different song.
The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] - Numbers 14:18 (Generational Curses).
-
Trinidad and Tobago has no gay people. I have never met a gay person in my life in Trinidad. What I have met are people who I suspect to be gay. People who upon getting to know them soon start crossing the line with their insinuations and advances. I have traveled all over the world and I have seen gay people living peaceful and productive lives raising families etc. In Trinidad, the gay community loves to remain hidden but come carnival Monday and Tuesday you can see the majority and the front runners of the community in the tiniest of pum pum shorts wining down low on the ground like if it's some sort of pride parade. A couple years ago someone organised a march to advance gay rights in the country. Only 4 people showed up for the march. In Trinidad there are a lot of down low homosexuals. A lot of them appear to have families and appear to be straight. They also hold significant power in the public and private sectors.
-
Tiresais, I am not going to go back and forth with this topic.
Let them be who they are.
Just do not expect me to support this nonesense.
It would be interesting to see all the people who supports this that it comes in their lives in some form. Then you would sing a different song.
The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] - Numbers 14:18 (Generational Curses).
You'll quote the anti-gay text, but when it prices slaves to be sold you're all silent - you're a hypocrite. Tell me what's the conversion rate on a shekle these days Pastor? How much does the bible think I should demand for my slaves?
I have a number of gay friends - it affects me not, and I support their right to love whomever they love. Your passage condones punishing the child for the sins of the father - thanks for making my point about its immorality for me.
-
So let me ask the forum. If any of your children turn out to be "GAY", what allyuh go do?
-
Since people quoting the Bible, I will follow suit on quoting the bible, but for marriage, not homosexuality ...
I am all for Traditional Marriage as defined in the bible. After all, if it in the Bible, it must be true .. unless of course you decided to conveniently use Mosaic Law to explain away the inconvenient aspects of the bible you chose to ignore.
Steups ...
(https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/4fad667a42542a00030018ba/attachments/biblemarriage.jpg)
-
So let me ask the forum. If any of your children turn out to be "GAY", what allyuh go do?
probably stone dem ... I think that is allowed somewhere in the Bible.
-
Tiresais, I am not going to go back and forth with this topic.
Let them be who they are.
Just do not expect me to support this nonesense.
It would be interesting to see all the people who supports this that it comes in their lives in some form. Then you would sing a different song.
The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] - Numbers 14:18 (Generational Curses).
You'll quote the anti-gay text, but when it prices slaves to be sold you're all silent - you're a hypocrite. Tell me what's the conversion rate on a shekle these days Pastor? How much does the bible think I should demand for my slaves?
well is 50 shekels for a rape victim. I would think a slave is worth at least twice that.
-
Whenever this topic comes up, I tell myself to stay away.
Then I read a few hateful and bigoted comments and I inevitably find myself responding.
Ok, I think I got it out of my system.
-
Tiresais, I am not going to go back and forth with this topic.
Let them be who they are.
Just do not expect me to support this nonesense.
It would be interesting to see all the people who supports this that it comes in their lives in some form. Then you would sing a different song.
The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] - Numbers 14:18 (Generational Curses).
You'll quote the anti-gay text, but when it prices slaves to be sold you're all silent - you're a hypocrite. Tell me what's the conversion rate on a shekle these days Pastor? How much does the bible think I should demand for my slaves?
I have a number of gay friends - it affects me not, and I support their right to love whomever they love. Your passage condones punishing the child for the sins of the father - thanks for making my point about its immorality for me.
When saying so ... hmmm :thinking: ... Pastor Stuart, help me out nah ... introduce Tiresais to 1 Samuel 17:46.
Soon come.
-
Tiresais, I am not going to go back and forth with this topic.
Let them be who they are.
Just do not expect me to support this nonesense.
It would be interesting to see all the people who supports this that it comes in their lives in some form. Then you would sing a different song.
The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] - Numbers 14:18 (Generational Curses).
You'll quote the anti-gay text, but when it prices slaves to be sold you're all silent - you're a hypocrite. Tell me what's the conversion rate on a shekle these days Pastor? How much does the bible think I should demand for my slaves?
I have a number of gay friends - it affects me not, and I support their right to love whomever they love. Your passage condones punishing the child for the sins of the father - thanks for making my point about its immorality for me.
When saying so ... hmmm :thinking: ... Pastor Stuart, help me out nah ... introduce Tiresais to 1 Samuel 17:46.
Soon come.
So your response is to threaten me with violence? Stay classy. Sticking to the "love thy neighbour, love thy enemy" eh? Bigots always get violent when their prejudice is challenged.
In terms of if my kid turns out gay, then fine - they have to live their own life, and whilst I'd prefer them to pass on my genes (selfish genes en all), that ultimately isn't my call. I'd want them to be happy and as a parent I want the best for them. Homosexuality isn't a choice - the evidence so far is that you're born homosexual or heterosexual. I suppose you must know this on some level - you don't find men attractive right? Can you choose to find men attractive?
-
Tiresais, I am not going to go back and forth with this topic.
Let them be who they are.
Just do not expect me to support this nonesense.
It would be interesting to see all the people who supports this that it comes in their lives in some form. Then you would sing a different song.
The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] - Numbers 14:18 (Generational Curses).
You'll quote the anti-gay text, but when it prices slaves to be sold you're all silent - you're a hypocrite. Tell me what's the conversion rate on a shekle these days Pastor? How much does the bible think I should demand for my slaves?
I have a number of gay friends - it affects me not, and I support their right to love whomever they love. Your passage condones punishing the child for the sins of the father - thanks for making my point about its immorality for me.
When saying so ... hmmm :thinking: ... Pastor Stuart, help me out nah ... introduce Tiresais to 1 Samuel 17:46.
Soon come.
So your response is to threaten me with violence? Stay classy. Sticking to the "love thy neighbour, love thy enemy" eh? Bigots always get violent when their prejudice is challenged.
Having read Asylum's posts for the last few years, I think he was poking at Pastor Stuart. Not you. Not that the articulate Asylum need my help that is.
-
Great work by the Ugandan president !!!
Maybe not the death sentence but I agree to not support this Gay shit, that blights your country.
Man and Woman can reproduce, gays can't. Its simple, even animals knows this.
Yuh ever see a father lion f00cking another father lion.
Humans is disgusting.
We living in sodom and gomorrah.
A big hard stones man acting like a blasted female stabbing only shit.
Shit stabbers.
The sheer level of stupidity is overwhelming here, lets wade through shit creek
that blights your country.
Why?
Man and Woman can reproduce, gays can't.
Are those who are infertile also morally inferior in your opinion? What about those who choose not to reproduce?
Its simple, even animals knows this.
Yuh ever see a father lion f00cking another father lion.
Erm.. Yes. Homosexuality is widely observed in the animal kingdom, why don't you educate yourself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Lions
We living in sodom and gomorrah.
Really? Sodom's major crime seems to be more inhospitality than homosexuality, although this is all interpretation. - http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/sodom.html
A big hard stones man acting like a blasted female stabbing only shit.
Shit stabbers.
You're against anal sex in totality I imagine? Any particular reason? Also, are you so insecure about your own masculinity that the thought of dudes sexing up other dudes sets off alarms in your head?
I recommend you challenge your own opinions, check out this video about debunking the top 5 arguments against Gay Marriage, for example- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmFLe_CmLBw .
Your positions are at best bigoted, because you are actively discriminating against people who have no choice over whom they find sexually attractive. Given your comments I'll go ahead and infer that you're a Christian, in which case you might find it interesting to note that Jesus is not attributed to have said anything about homosexuality in the bible - clearly it wasn't a topic interesting or important enough for him to be quoted on.
Instead, I suggest some other bible verses for you to dwell on;
Exodus 23:4-5 -If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.
Exodus 23:9 and Deuteronomy 10:19- Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Exodus 25:7 - Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God:for I am the LORD your God.
Psalms 34:13-14 - Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.
Psalms 38:7 - Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.
Proverbs 10:12 - "Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins."
F00ck off yuh bullaman !!!!
-
I don't think it's as simple as being born gay or straight. I have seen gay men who persistently harrass straight men to the point where they only stop when they are threatened or some sort of action whether violent or not is taken against them. Again, this is Trinidad gay means something completely different to what it means in Europe and the Us. I have never met a gay man in Trinidad. They are all hidden. I have met people I suspect to be gay and upon getting to know them some more they slowly cross the line and begin advancing on your personal space. It sickens me. I would like for us to develop a culture of "coming out" because it is a community that I want nothing to do with outside of having to work with them in a professional capacity. I don't want to go to a club and hang out with some gay guy or something. As ignorant as it may sound I'm just not interested in having them as a friend or even an acquaintance. That's my preference.
-
F00ck off yuh bullaman !!!!
Ah, clearly your positions are well thought out and not total bigotry and childish ignorance. Touch Sam, touch
-
I don't think it's as simple as being born gay or straight. I have seen gay men who persistently harrass straight men to the point where they only stop when they are threatened or some sort of action whether violent or not is taken against them. Again, this is Trinidad gay means something completely different to what it means in Europe and the Us. I have never met a gay man in Trinidad. They are all hidden. I have met people I suspect to be gay and upon getting to know them some more they slowly cross the line and begin advancing on your personal space. It sickens me. I would like for us to develop a culture of "coming out" because it is a community that I want nothing to do with outside of having to work with them in a professional capacity. I don't want to go to a club and hang out with some gay guy or something. As ignorant as it may sound I'm just not interested in having them as a friend or even an acquaintance. That's my preference.
You directly contradict yourself here - you say you've never seen a gay man in Trinidad, then talk about how you've seen gay men "harass" people. You have some terrible misconceptions that seem common amongst homophobic groups - I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but you've specifically claimed you are afraid and don't like homosexuals, which is the definition of Homophobia.
At the end of the day they're just like me and you, except that they find men attractive instead of women - there's no other defining trait of a gay person. You get 'Queens' who are the equivalent of macho-guys - people who sadly define themselves solely by their sexuality, and you get normal people for whom sexuality is not the over-riding defining characteristic of themselves. You say they're hidden - why? Because they will face a terrible backlash for something they had no choice over - we all have no choice over who we find attractive.
Homosexuality is not defined by the act itself - psychological studies find that a much larger percentage of the population have had a gay 'experience' than who recognise they are gay, suggesting that sexuality is not a binary concept but something that changes over time (again, this is not a choice element, just like your preference in women might change over time but isn't a choice you make).
Maybe ask yourself why you think that way? Have you actually seen gay people act that way, or is it an influence of the media and culture, who tell you think this way? Prejudice is a product of society - people reproduce discrimination through generations and it's not until it's challenge that you, say, realise that there's no difference between black, white or any other ethnicity.
-
I don't think it's as simple as being born gay or straight. I have seen gay men who persistently harrass straight men to the point where they only stop when they are threatened or some sort of action whether violent or not is taken against them. Again, this is Trinidad gay means something completely different to what it means in Europe and the Us. I have never met a gay man in Trinidad. They are all hidden. I have met people I suspect to be gay and upon getting to know them some more they slowly cross the line and begin advancing on your personal space. It sickens me. I would like for us to develop a culture of "coming out" because it is a community that I want nothing to do with outside of having to work with them in a professional capacity. I don't want to go to a club and hang out with some gay guy or something. As ignorant as it may sound I'm just not interested in having them as a friend or even an acquaintance. That's my preference.
You directly contradict yourself here - you say you've never seen a gay man in Trinidad, then talk about how you've seen gay men "harass" people. You have some terrible misconceptions that seem common amongst homophobic groups - I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but you've specifically claimed you are afraid and don't like homosexuals, which is the definition of Homophobia.
At the end of the day they're just like me and you, except that they find men attractive instead of women - there's no other defining trait of a gay person. You get 'Queens' who are the equivalent of macho-guys - people who sadly define themselves solely by their sexuality, and you get normal people for whom sexuality is not the over-riding defining characteristic of themselves. You say they're hidden - why? Because they will face a terrible backlash for something they had no choice over - we all have no choice over who we find attractive.
Homosexuality is not defined by the act itself - psychological studies find that a much larger percentage of the population have had a gay 'experience' than who recognise they are gay, suggesting that sexuality is not a binary concept but something that changes over time (again, this is not a choice element, just like your preference in women might change over time but isn't a choice you make).
Maybe ask yourself why you think that way? Have you actually seen gay people act that way, or is it an influence of the media and culture, who tell you think this way? Prejudice is a product of society - people reproduce discrimination through generations and it's not until it's challenge that you, say, realise that there's no difference between black, white or any other ethnicity.
I feel that way based on personal experience. Bro I have also lived and worked overseas in other countries where gay people are out and about in public and they are proud of it. I don't hate gay people. I hate what gay represents in Trinidad. That whole hidden part is what I am getting at. I have never seen a gay man in Trinidad. It have people who we suspect to be gay but when they are asked they deny it to the death and then they carry on and try to get close to you and then slowly begin crossing boundaries to the point where they have to be violently threatened. That has happened to a lot of people I know. These gay men literally go about trying to convert straight men or even get them in a compromising position. It's really sick. I am all for giving them rights and all that but on a personal level I don't want them near me. Mind you that is trini gay men. The ones I have met overseas go about their lives and live very productive lives. The ones in trini appear very hidden, they tend to get close to the women in society and influence them etc. I know this one once told a guy that in order for him to get to a particular women he would have to go through him as in literally. That's disgusting.
-
As I've said, you can't 'convert' people to homosexuality because it's not a choice, and it's not that they're trying to convert anyone. When you have to fly under the radar or face massive public backlash and discrimination, being 'hidden' is essential to continue having an otherwise normal life. Possibly you've found yourself in areas that are considered 'gay friendly' where men will be more forward about their sexuality, or more likely you're dramatically mis-interpreting their behaviour, which is understandable if you have no experience of gay people and have no gay friends.
Your stories certainly don't represent the norm, it's like if my only experience of Trinidadians was carnival! Clearly I'd have a drastically different opinion, and certainly wouldn't guess it's a religious country!
-
Congo, exactly where you does lime where yuh get this unwanted sexual attention from men?
Unwanted sexual advances is to be decried, whether it is man-on-woman, man-on-man, woman-on- woman or woman-on-man or any other gender-on-gender. It is unwanted and is therefore sexual harassment. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation. That has nothing to do with homosexuality. Sexual predators come in all orientations and no one group has a monopoly.
-
@ Terisais -
The Bible does not promote prejudice against people. However, its view of homosexual acts is clear.
You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.Leviticus 18:22.
As part of the Mosaic Law, this prohibition was one of many moral laws given specifically to the nation of Israel. Even so, the commandment expresses Gods view of homosexual acts, whether by Jews or non-Jews, when it says: It is a detestable thing. The nations around Israel practiced homosexuality, incest, adultery, and other acts prohibited by the Law. Therefore, God viewed those nations as unclean. (Leviticus 18:24, 25)
God's view of homosexuality did not change in the Christian era:
God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene.Romans 1:26, 27
1 Timothy 2:4 tells us that it is God's will that people of all sorts be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of the truth.
And in 1 Corinthian 6:9-11, we see what sorts of acts will not inherit God's Kingdom (Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners) but then it goes on to say "And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God".
Anyway, all that to say that God's standards have not changed with regards to sexual immorality, etc.
-
Congo, exactly where you does lime where yuh get this unwanted sexual attention from men?
Unwanted sexual advances is to be decried, whether it is man-on-woman, man-on-man, woman-on- woman or woman-on-man or any other gender-on-gender. It is unwanted and is therefore sexual harassment. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation. That has nothing to do with homosexuality. Sexual predators come in all orientations and no one group has a monopoly.
I don't lime in any particular place. They are all over. Now overseas if you don't want to interact with gay people you avoid certain bars etc. They have basically segregated themselves from society to protect their community and enjoy each other's company. In Trinidad it's not like that.
I think our culture plays a significant part in how gay people conduct themselves. That has never happened to me when I was overseas and interacting with gay people. I think in Tnt they know that there exists a stigma so the person would hardly report it. We also encourage a culture that loves to promote baccanal and confusion so I think they community thrives on that as well. Like I keep saying, no one ever comes out...everyone is just a suspect. The scary thing is that they are all around us and constantly pretending to be straight or "hiding" their gayness. I find that to be unacceptable. I hate that on the low stuff. I should have a choice whether I want to socialize with you or not. This friend of mine had a friend who was his work colleague and ended up being his bedrin. Both of them used to pump all over, that was his riding partner. One day the boy basically got him drunk and came onto him when they were alone. You would never suspect that this guy is gay. Men would be tracking women and all that. Relll hollywood business. That what pisses me off.That was a mad scene. The man never suspected that he was gay. Imagine that. That is scary
-
Hi Toppa, you and I have been here before. Not sure if I ever shared this paper with you on Romans 1-18-32
Romans 1:18-32 amidst the gay-debate: Interpretative options
Jeremy Punt, Department of Old & New Testament, University of Stellenbosch
http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/view/238/172
CONCLUSIONS
The nature of Pauls argument in Romans 1 suggests that it is in a certain way an elaborated version of the argument found in 1 Thessalonians (1 Th 4:3-6 in particular), and cannot simply be cited in arguing against homosexuality today. Paul is concerned about the purity of followers of Christ from Gentile stock and they should thus avoid the sexual practices of Gentiles who do not know God, inevitably practices in which people are wronged (Stowers 1994:97). Paul did not, however, provide specific directives for either lesbigays who know God or lesbigays in committed relationships that do not exploit anyone (cf Johnson 2006:135), because such identities were not readily available options in the first century CE.
A sexual ethic informed by perspectives from the New Testament challenges the assumptions which make reproductive sex into a norm. For example, when Jesus or Paul talks about marriage, neither of them insists upon procreation as a rational or functional justification (Williams 2002:6). Sexual orientation or constitutional or core homosexuality was not considered options in ancient thinking about sexuality; neither were committed, caring same-sex relationships seriously contemplated in a context where homoerotic acts were necessarily conflated with immorality, debauchery and licentiousness (Johnson 2006:136).
In short, Pauls argument in Romans 1 cannot be applied directly to what modern people know about homosexuality, as much as his instructions about hair lengths and dress codes are also considered inappropriate for direct appropriation today.
Anyway, the point I want to make in this thread is that while your position on the Bible, Homosexuality and God's view on homosexuality, is clear, there are also other differing positions. And many of these are from people who consider themselves to be religious scholars and believers.
-
@ Terisais -
The Bible does not promote prejudice against people. However, its view of homosexual acts is clear.
You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.Leviticus 18:22.
As part of the Mosaic Law, this prohibition was one of many moral laws given specifically to the nation of Israel. Even so, the commandment expresses Gods view of homosexual acts, whether by Jews or non-Jews, when it says: It is a detestable thing. The nations around Israel practiced homosexuality, incest, adultery, and other acts prohibited by the Law. Therefore, God viewed those nations as unclean. (Leviticus 18:24, 25)
God's view of homosexuality did not change in the Christian era:
God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene.Romans 1:26, 27
1 Timothy 2:4 tells us that it is God's will that people of all sorts be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of the truth.
And in 1 Corinthian 6:9-11, we see what sorts of acts will not inherit God's Kingdom (Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners) but then it goes on to say "And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God".
Anyway, all that to say that God's standards have not changed with regards to sexual immorality, etc.
The problem is that the bible has not changed its opinions on a number of actions you would consider immoral. For example, Slavery is justified in both the Old and New Testament, but presumably you don't believe this to be morally acceptable?
The problem is that you pick and choose your morality - you choose to use the bible to justify your prejudice against homosexuals, but clearly don't accept other moral teachings within the book. Consequently, it appears that you are either morally arbitrary within an understand of morality derived from the bible, or simply picking and choosing which prejudiced opinions to hold and flimsily backing that up with passages from the bible.
Or maybe you have some rationale for why you accept some passages and reject others in the bible?
-
Congo, exactly where you does lime where yuh get this unwanted sexual attention from men?
Unwanted sexual advances is to be decried, whether it is man-on-woman, man-on-man, woman-on- woman or woman-on-man or any other gender-on-gender. It is unwanted and is therefore sexual harassment. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation. That has nothing to do with homosexuality. Sexual predators come in all orientations and no one group has a monopoly.
I don't lime in any particular place. They are all over. Now overseas if you don't want to interact with gay people you avoid certain bars etc. They have basically segregated themselves from society to protect their community and enjoy each other's company. In Trinidad it's not like that.
I think our culture plays a significant part in how gay people conduct themselves. That has never happened to me when I was overseas and interacting with gay people. I think in Tnt they know that there exists a stigma so the person would hardly report it. We also encourage a culture that loves to promote baccanal and confusion so I think they community thrives on that as well. Like I keep saying, no one ever comes out...everyone is just a suspect. The scary thing is that they are all around us and constantly pretending to be straight or "hiding" their gayness. I find that to be unacceptable. I hate that on the low stuff. I should have a choice whether I want to socialize with you or not. This friend of mine had a friend who was his work colleague and ended up being his bedrin. Both of them used to pump all over, that was his riding partner. One day the boy basically got him drunk and came onto him when they were alone. You would never suspect that this guy is gay. Men would be tracking women and all that. Relll hollywood business. That what pisses me off.That was a mad scene. The man never suspected that he was gay. Imagine that. That is scary
this is all very confusing. I live in North America and the gay people I know have not segregated themselves from society. In fact far from it. They belong and interact with the community like anybody else.
As far as Trinidad goes, ever wonder why "they" hide. Maybe it is because of the societal pressures that prevent them from living normal, unfettered lives?
Anyway, you as well, have certainly made your position clear. But what you have described is certainly not my experience.
-
@ Terisais -
Or maybe you have some rationale for why you accept some passages and reject others in the bible?
Toppa explained her rationale to me once. It is Mosaic law.
-
Yeah but I am sure there are places that have gay bars etc so yeah straight people wouldn't go to a gay bar etc. I think they are gay for convenience here. The gay community is hidden here but they carry a lot of weight and look out for each other in terms of jobs etc. It's such a weird situation here. I think our age difference would also mean a different experience in terms of interacting with the community. I think that discrimination talk is mess. It's not like we are hanging them in the square or putting tires around their necks filled with gasoline. That discrimination talk is mess. The gay people we suspect are all influential and affluent members of society but then again that's the circle that I roll in so I wouldn't be able to speak for the lil ghetto boy who's gay and any sort of stuff he may be experiencing in his circle. It's so funny, that no one ever actually comes out as gay in tnt but the minute someone speaks against gay community etc people are always quick to defend and it's usually women especially. I would like to see more confirmed and vocal members of the gay community. Stop hiding behind NGOs etc come out and show us who you are. These people love to be gay for convenience.
-
Hi Toppa, you and I have been here before. Not sure if I ever shared this paper with you on Romans 1-18-32
Romans 1:18-32 amidst the gay-debate: Interpretative options
Jeremy Punt, Department of Old & New Testament, University of Stellenbosch
http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/view/238/172
CONCLUSIONS
The nature of Pauls argument in Romans 1 suggests that it is in a certain way an elaborated version of the argument found in 1 Thessalonians (1 Th 4:3-6 in particular), and cannot simply be cited in arguing against homosexuality today. Paul is concerned about the purity of followers of Christ from Gentile stock and they should thus avoid the sexual practices of Gentiles who do not know God, inevitably practices in which people are wronged (Stowers 1994:97). Paul did not, however, provide specific directives for either lesbigays who know God or lesbigays in committed relationships that do not exploit anyone (cf Johnson 2006:135), because such identities were not readily available options in the first century CE.
A sexual ethic informed by perspectives from the New Testament challenges the assumptions which make reproductive sex into a norm. For example, when Jesus or Paul talks about marriage, neither of them insists upon procreation as a rational or functional justification (Williams 2002:6). Sexual orientation or constitutional or core homosexuality was not considered options in ancient thinking about sexuality; neither were committed, caring same-sex relationships seriously contemplated in a context where homoerotic acts were necessarily conflated with immorality, debauchery and licentiousness (Johnson 2006:136).
In short, Pauls argument in Romans 1 cannot be applied directly to what modern people know about homosexuality, as much as his instructions about hair lengths and dress codes are also considered inappropriate for direct appropriation today.
Anyway, the point I want to make in this thread is that while your position on the Bible, Homosexuality and God's view on homosexuality, is clear, there are also other differing positions. And many of these are from people who consider themselves to be religious scholars and believers.
Hi Pecan, I'm not interested in essays written by whoever that was written by, with whatever agenda they had - I'm only interested in what God's word says. And yes, you and I have been here before, that's why my comment was directed at Terisais.
-
@ Terisais -
Or maybe you have some rationale for why you accept some passages and reject others in the bible?
Toppa explained her rationale to me once. It is Mosaic law.
Please do not lie. I have never said that.
-
Yeah but I am sure there are places that have gay bars etc so yeah straight people wouldn't go to a gay bar etc. I think they are gay for convenience here. The gay community is hidden here but they carry a lot of weight and look out for each other in terms of jobs etc. It's such a weird situation here. I think our age difference would also mean a different experience in terms of interacting with the community. I think that discrimination talk is mess. It's not like we are hanging them in the square or putting tires around their necks filled with gasoline. That discrimination talk is mess. The gay people we suspect are all influential and affluent members of society but then again that's the circle that I roll in so I wouldn't be able to speak for the lil ghetto boy who's gay and any sort of stuff he may be experiencing in his circle. It's so funny, that no one ever actually comes out as gay in tnt but the minute someone speaks against gay community etc people are always quick to defend and it's usually women especially. I would like to see more confirmed and vocal members of the gay community. Stop hiding behind NGOs etc come out and show us who you are.
You assert they have a lot of influence, then talk about how you don't discriminate. Look your flickering between paranoia here, coming up with some anti-gay consipiracy, and then saying you don't discriminate. Look at this board - change the word "Gay" or "homosexual" with "Black" or "Christian" and tell me you wouldn't consider that discrimination. Again they don't come out as boht me and pecan have noted - if you do you face despicable comments like Sam's or Stuarts - if every time you showed your face in public you were greeted with some racist slur you too might not spend much time in public.
-
@ Terisais -
The Bible does not promote prejudice against people. However, its view of homosexual acts is clear.
You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.Leviticus 18:22.
As part of the Mosaic Law, this prohibition was one of many moral laws given specifically to the nation of Israel. Even so, the commandment expresses Gods view of homosexual acts, whether by Jews or non-Jews, when it says: It is a detestable thing. The nations around Israel practiced homosexuality, incest, adultery, and other acts prohibited by the Law. Therefore, God viewed those nations as unclean. (Leviticus 18:24, 25)
God's view of homosexuality did not change in the Christian era:
God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene.Romans 1:26, 27
1 Timothy 2:4 tells us that it is God's will that people of all sorts be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of the truth.
And in 1 Corinthian 6:9-11, we see what sorts of acts will not inherit God's Kingdom (Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners) but then it goes on to say "And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God".
Anyway, all that to say that God's standards have not changed with regards to sexual immorality, etc.
The problem is that the bible has not changed its opinions on a number of actions you would consider immoral. For example, Slavery is justified in both the Old and New Testament, but presumably you don't believe this to be morally acceptable?
The problem is that you pick and choose your morality - you choose to use the bible to justify your prejudice against homosexuals, but clearly don't accept other moral teachings within the book. Consequently, it appears that you are either morally arbitrary within an understand of morality derived from the bible, or simply picking and choosing which prejudiced opinions to hold and flimsily backing that up with passages from the bible.
Or maybe you have some rationale for why you accept some passages and reject others in the bible?
Slavery has never been justified in the Bible. Rather Ecclesiastes 8:9 says that "man has dominated man to his injury."
-
To bring this thread back to the title and to quote a Priest that I know:
"Regardless of whether you stand in favour or in opposition to the hot button issues in the Church today whether you agree with the blessing of same sex marriage or whether you dont believe its Gods will there is no argument that can justify seeking to somehow purify Gods world through hatred and persecution. God invites us to join with Him to transform His world through compassion, through love, and through daily intentional action."
I have signed this petition to support freedom. Even if you stand against homosexuality, this is not the way to treat fellow beings.
Uganda's infamous anti-gay bill has been signed into law by President Museveni. Our friends in Uganda are calling for the whole world to make noise to not let this awful law go unnoticed.
If thousands and thousands of us speak out right now we can get world leaders, major corporations, and religious institutions with sway in Uganda to use their influence as our friends on the ground challenge this bill in court.
Sign now to show Uganda's leaders that we will not stay silent while innocent people are being attacked and locked up forever.
Will you join me and sign the petition against the law now?
www.allout.org/kill-the-bill
https://www.allout.org/en/actions/kill-the-bill
(https://allout-production-site.s3.amazonaws.com/allout_image_6064_full.jpg)
-
@ Terisais -
Or maybe you have some rationale for why you accept some passages and reject others in the bible?
Toppa explained her rationale to me once. It is Mosaic law.
Please do not lie. I have never said that.
Sorry Toppa, that is what I took away from the debate we had before. If that is not the case, I sincerely apologize.
-
Man is level gays in T&T. Dem eh no hiding. Them men does stroll though town on an afternoon normel. I remember when the Magistrate tell Alister Ventour to come back to court dress as a man and put him out the court cause he show up wearing are halter back and are pillazo pants.
-
@ Terisais -
The Bible does not promote prejudice against people. However, its view of homosexual acts is clear.
You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.Leviticus 18:22.
As part of the Mosaic Law, this prohibition was one of many moral laws given specifically to the nation of Israel. Even so, the commandment expresses Gods view of homosexual acts, whether by Jews or non-Jews, when it says: It is a detestable thing. The nations around Israel practiced homosexuality, incest, adultery, and other acts prohibited by the Law. Therefore, God viewed those nations as unclean. (Leviticus 18:24, 25)
God's view of homosexuality did not change in the Christian era:
God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene.Romans 1:26, 27
1 Timothy 2:4 tells us that it is God's will that people of all sorts be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of the truth.
And in 1 Corinthian 6:9-11, we see what sorts of acts will not inherit God's Kingdom (Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners) but then it goes on to say "And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God".
Anyway, all that to say that God's standards have not changed with regards to sexual immorality, etc.
The problem is that the bible has not changed its opinions on a number of actions you would consider immoral. For example, Slavery is justified in both the Old and New Testament, but presumably you don't believe this to be morally acceptable?
The problem is that you pick and choose your morality - you choose to use the bible to justify your prejudice against homosexuals, but clearly don't accept other moral teachings within the book. Consequently, it appears that you are either morally arbitrary within an understand of morality derived from the bible, or simply picking and choosing which prejudiced opinions to hold and flimsily backing that up with passages from the bible.
Or maybe you have some rationale for why you accept some passages and reject others in the bible?
Slavery has never been justified in the Bible. Rather Ecclesiastes 8:9 says that "man has dominated man to his injury."
Sir you have clearly not read your bible;
Leviticus 25:44-46 - As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.
Ephesians 6:5 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ
Titus 2:9-10 - Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.
Tell me again how the bible doesn't condone slavery. Seriously, people pick and choose from the bible - biblical justification for slavery was a major topic of the anti-abolitionist movement. So you pick the verses that allow you to discriminate against the 'other', the 'unknown' that you are uncomfortable with, whilst conveniently ignoring the passages that condone horrific acts and immorality. Sometimes this is caused by you not reading the bible, and instead listening only to your pastor, so I encourage you to actually read the bible and see some of the crazy stuff in it.
-
Man is level gays in T&T. Dem eh no hiding. Them men does stroll though town on an afternoon normel. I remember when the Magistrate tell Alister Ventour to come back to court dress as a man and put him out the court cause he show up wearing are halter back and are pillazo pants.
There are also a lot of on the low ones. The ones higher up are really on the low. They are also very influential and look out for each other. It's a very close knit community. It's the down low ones I really can't stand. I don't mind if you are public with it and your position is clear that way I could make a decision to not socialize with you or be anywhere near you outside of a professional capacity. I'm a professional, if we working together we could work together I have no problem with that but if you want to catch a drink after work then I'm sorry that's where we need to go our separate ways. I have no problem with gay people or their right to lead productive lives. All I ask is that you keep that sort of behaviour away from me. Let me live in peace also. What so wrong with that? This is all about preference.
-
Man is level gays in T&T. Dem eh no hiding. Them men does stroll though town on an afternoon normel. I remember when the Magistrate tell Alister Ventour to come back to court dress as a man and put him out the court cause he show up wearing are halter back and are pillazo pants.
There are also a lot of on the low ones. The ones higher up are really on the low. They are also very influential and look out for each other. It's a very close knit community. It's the down low ones I really can't stand. I don't mind if you are public with it and your position is clear that way I could make a decision to not socialize with you or be anywhere near you outside of a professional capacity. I'm a professional, if we working together we could work together I have no problem with that but if you want to catch a drink after work then I'm sorry that's where we need to go our separate ways. I have no problem with gay people or their right to lead productive lives. All I ask is that you keep that sort of behaviour away from me. Let me live in peace also. What so wrong with that? This is all about preference.
Change the word "Gay" for "Blacks" or "Muslims" to understand why your position is discriminatory. The same type of attitudes have greeted a number of different sects of society. Again you keep claiming things about a community you specifically say you haven't seen or experienced in Trinidad - you have no evidence and no reason for this opinion - it's irrational at best.
-
Homosexuality threatens the arts, fuels crimeClarke
Published: Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Yvonne Baboolal
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-02-25/homosexuality-threatens-arts-fuels-crime%E2%80%94clarke
Homosexuality is not only threatening the arts but is used to indoctrinate gang members, says artist LeRoy Clarke. The T&T Guardian asked Clarke to elaborate on the comment he made last week at his book launch which shocked and outraged some of his fellow artists, members of the gay community and others. In a phone interview yesterday, Clarke related homosexuality to the increase in crime, saying young men are usually indoctrinated into gangs with homosexuality and because of the violation of their manhood use the gun as a symbol of their masculinity.
He added: It is brought about by power bases that manipulate the principles that hold our heritage for their own advantage. Something is happening with the gender paradigm today. We had guidelines where we looked at certain types of conduct as abominations. We took it from the scriptures. The Bible, he added, was one of those and verses clearly refer to homosexuality, men with men and women with women, as unnatural and an abomination. Today, the word abomination does not have the same tone. People indulge abominations, accede to them, Clarke lamented. At 73, I can say the world is no longer mine, he said.
Asked exactly what he meant by saying homosexuality was threatening the arts, Clarke said with the exception of the sailor and maybe the midnight robber, there were no longer any definitely male costumes in Carnival, not even in portrayals of the devil. An effeminating power has taken over the costumes and even the rhythm of the music. Carnival is no longer male and female.
This is a very serious matter. We are dealing with a problem that is threatening our heritage. Fifty, 60 years ago what is happening now was not prevalent. I grew up in Gonzales.
The conversion is threatening identity. It had made it into a oneish kind of place, he added. Clarke said he had been hearing rumours about the reactions to his comment, expected to be misunderstood and did not expect the comment to be popular. But, he said, I dont feel threatened. I believe in God.
Asked which god he believed in, since he was an Orisha elder, Clarke replied: I started off as Anglican. I am an Orisha elder now. But I have gone even beyond that. I do believe in a God I dont know. All I know is I have God-yearning and it is to that I yield. Clarke said he was not waging war on anybody but was speaking about something that made people uncomfortable but others were afraid to talk about it. He said homosexuality was threatening not only the arts but the dream of becoming a society. There was a need to have discussions like these without animosity, he said. Why is it we are afraid to speak? I come out (sic) and suddenly I am a bad fella. Somebody needs to point out that something is definitely off-balance, he added.
Retrograde thinking
Writer Monique Roffey said she had been deeply affected by Clarkes comment. She said: It is not what I would call progressive. It shows a lack of connection with modern thinking. if you consider the UK where gays were granted rights to marry. It shows lack of awareness, compassion, humanity. This is such a big error of judgment. It is very surprising because it is a very intolerant thing to say about gay people, about a so-called minority who fought long and hard for equal rights. This feels really retrograde. The Bible, she pointed out, is 3,000 years old.
On her own sexuality, Roffey said: I am not lesbian. I am queer. Her erotic life is described in the award-winning Trinidad-born British writers memoir, With the Kisses of his Mouth.
In it she tells of a sexual odyssey she embarked upon after a dramatic breakup, which led her into the worlds of casual-sex dating sites, western neo-tantra, Native American neo-shamanic sacred sex practices... the famous swingers resort of Cap DAgde, and to a cave in the south of France where Mary Magdalene is said to have escaped and prayed for 30 years after the death of Christ. Some light BDSM (bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism), some sex magick, some five-rhythms dancing and a couple of Bronze Age Stone circles also feature.
Roffey said, as reflected in her memoir, she struggled to find a place for herself in the world outside the mainstream, challenging the heterosexual norm. If you are different to mainstream, you face constant criticism. This is the kind of comment associated with the conservative mainstream. There is no space on the planet for that kind of thinking, she added.
Discrimination is colonial
If Clarke was speaking on behalf of artists, he was not speaking for artist/writer Christopher Cozier, who has been internationally recognised with a 2014 Prince Claus Fund Award. It is deeply ironic that he has built his career on conversations about recognising the value of people of African descent and discriminatory colonial laws. Laws discriminating against gays are also colonial, Cozier said. Nazi Germany under Hitler discriminated against Jews, the physically challenged and gays, he said. And so did the apartheid system in South Africa under white rule.
Cozier said he was not gay but knew a lot of gay people and young people reading Clarkes comments may wonder what were their prospects in a place like T&T. Its sad when he and people like Pastor Cuffie say the same thing, he said. Told the Bible denounced homosexuality, Cozier replied: I am not into that kind of thing.
Attention-seeking babblings
Founder/director of the Bocas Lit Fest Marina Salandy-Brown said: What nonsense. The ruination of the arts here is the lack of a proper arts policy for the country that has been articulated and communicated to the people, the lack of planning, infrastructure and public education. The poverty of the arts discourse is at the heart of the problem and these attention-seeking babblings from someone who should know better are just proof of that. Carnival bandleader and designer Brian MacFarlane said: It is unfortunate that Mr Clarke has chosen to make this comment. I have always had great respect for him and his work. People from all walks of life, be it colour, creed, race or sexual orientation, have contributed to the development of culture in all its forms in T&T and continue to do so. Actor and 3Canal member Wendell Manwarren said he had no comment to make on anything Leroy Clarke said.
Leroy Clarke clarifies his statement about Homosexuality and males being raped being possibly linked to Gang Crime.
Leroy Clarke on Homosexuality, Gender, and Crime: Richie Maitland Responds
http://www.youtube.com/v/kdudXodx8pg
Master Artist Cheif LeRoy Clarke discusses his controversial comments on homosexuality, gender, and crime with TV6 Morning Edition host Martin Blades. Attorney for CAISO (Coalition Advocating for Inclusion of Sexual Orientation) Richie Maitland then responds to Clarke's comments.
-
Tiresais, maybe you should do better research. The original-language words rendered slave or servant are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ʽe′vedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2Sa 11:21; 2Ch 10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 32:9). In respectful address, a Hebrew, instead of using the first person pronoun, would at times speak of himself as a servant (ʽe′vedh) of the one to whom he was talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8) ʽE′vedh was used in referring to servants, or worshipers, of God generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) and, more specifically, to special representatives of God, such as Moses.
Another example of the use of the word 'slave' is found in Matthew 24:45 which talks about the Faithful and Discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics. Do you know what that refers to?
-
Man is level gays in T&T. Dem eh no hiding. Them men does stroll though town on an afternoon normel. I remember when the Magistrate tell Alister Ventour to come back to court dress as a man and put him out the court cause he show up wearing are halter back and are pillazo pants.
There are also a lot of on the low ones. The ones higher up are really on the low. They are also very influential and look out for each other. It's a very close knit community. It's the down low ones I really can't stand. I don't mind if you are public with it and your position is clear that way I could make a decision to not socialize with you or be anywhere near you outside of a professional capacity. I'm a professional, if we working together we could work together I have no problem with that but if you want to catch a drink after work then I'm sorry that's where we need to go our separate ways. I have no problem with gay people or their right to lead productive lives. All I ask is that you keep that sort of behaviour away from me. Let me live in peace also. What so wrong with that? This is all about preference.
@Congo: Sounds perfectly reasonable to me! :beermug:
-
Tiresais, maybe you should do better research. The original-language words rendered slave or servant are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ʽe′vedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2Sa 11:21; 2Ch 10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 32:9). In respectful address, a Hebrew, instead of using the first person pronoun, would at times speak of himself as a servant (ʽe′vedh) of the one to whom he was talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8) ʽE′vedh was used in referring to servants, or worshipers, of God generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) and, more specifically, to special representatives of God, such as Moses.
Another example of the use of the word 'slave' is found in Matthew 24:45 which talks about the Faithful and Discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics. Do you know what that refers to?
This is clearly no the case in Leviticus, again;
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
You are property, to be traded as a commodity - this is the definition of slavery. You can make up excuses, but the facts are that the bible advocates slavery, going as far as to specifically note the prices you should sell your daughter for. This is both in text and in practice - slavery was considered acceptable amongst the earliest church and well into the 18th/19th century by Christians, whom frequently quoted the bible in support of their position.
Again;
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6)
Explain to me how I am misinterpreting this text? What about this one;
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)
Explain the context here, and explain how changing the word "slave" to "servant" changes the fact that these passages are clearly describing slaves, and in the last one, sex slaves.
-
There have been bullers hovering openly around since I remember in the 80's and I'm sure before.......it's even more open now and even more noticeable with young people..........walk in the mall......any mall on any given day.......and Carnival is a free for all........violence should only be a result of violence......not lifestyle
-
@ Terisais -
Or maybe you have some rationale for why you accept some passages and reject others in the bible?
Toppa explained her rationale to me once. It is Mosaic law.
Please do not lie. I have never said that.
Sorry Toppa, that is what I took away from the debate we had before. If that is not the case, I sincerely apologize.
Toppa, I found the post you made about Mosaic Law. It was response to DHW stating that "people pick and chose" what they want from the Bible, not unlike what Tiresais stated. DHW was replying to your response to quotes I had made listing many prohibitions in the Bible. But then you replied
"It is not a matter of people picking and choosing. The Mosaic Law became obsolete once the new covenant was made through Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. Which is also why it is no longer necessary to observe the sabbath amongst other things. You cannot compare day-to-day life of the jewish people under Mosaic law to the actual commands of the Bible. Bit ridiculous, methinks."
So I concluded that it was because of Mosaic Law (i.e the lack thereof) that we could ignore these prohibitions but not ignore the others (i.e Homosexuality) because of the new covenant with God. So I did not lie. as you stated. Your rationale was based on the notion of Mosaic Law.
here is is the thread history with your quote ...
Well I like to support what God set originally......... The old testament has a lot of old world history and practices in it that simply doesn't apply today. Many of it were just people doing stuff as they saw it.
Where does God say anything about 'marriage'... or that it's exclusively between man and woman?
Evidence abounds that God homosexual relationships are prohibited in the Bible. That should clue everyone is on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyway...
Genesis 2:4
A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.
Matthew 19:4
In reply he said: Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh?
The Hebrew word wife, according to Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, connotes one who is a female human being.
Hebrews 13:4
'Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.'
God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.
Evidence abounds that many God homosexual relationships things are prohibited or endorsed in the Bible. But we don't observe them. The following might be food for thought from a woman's perspective:
Genesis 2:18: NIV
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Yep. those women are help, not equals
Leviticus 12:2. NIV
"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.
Leviticus 12:5, NIV
If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
Leviticus 15:19 NIV
"'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
maybe we should be quarantining women when dey menstruating or just give birth - they are so unclean!! - and look thing - 2 weeks if the baby is female and then another 66 days to be purified!
So if one insists on using the Bible to define marriage, then I maintain these statements about women should be enforced too.
First time i seeing this. Goes to show people pick and choose from the Bible to suit their needs.
It is not a matter of people picking and choosing. The Mosaic Law became obsolete once the new covenant was made through Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. Which is also why it is no longer necessary to observe the sabbath amongst other things. You cannot compare day-to-day life of the jewish people under Mosaic law to the actual commands of the Bible. Bit ridiculous, methinks.
-
It is clear that homosexuality has been around from even the biblical time. It has been around in the Caribbean ever since the Euros brought Africans to this land. I don't know when some of us started being that way. But it is something that DID NOT JUST STARTED. It has been around for centuries. And these laws in the bible against homosexuality may be legitimate from the point of master-slave relationship. The people who wrote the book knew that the MEN who had power was able to do all abominable acts because of their status. The slave master used to do anything to the slave, his wife and children. And that is why I think it was included in the bible. To chastise MEN of power for the abuses they dealt to their subjects.
-
There is a pervasive lack of reading comprehension in this thread... particularly as it relates to the responses to Toppa's comments.
-
I don't think it's as simple as being born gay or straight. I have seen gay men who persistently harrass straight men to the point where they only stop when they are threatened or some sort of action whether violent or not is taken against them. Again, this is Trinidad gay means something completely different to what it means in Europe and the Us. I have never met a gay man in Trinidad. They are all hidden. I have met people I suspect to be gay and upon getting to know them some more they slowly cross the line and begin advancing on your personal space. It sickens me. I would like for us to develop a culture of "coming out" because it is a community that I want nothing to do with outside of having to work with them in a professional capacity. I don't want to go to a club and hang out with some gay guy or something. As ignorant as it may sound I'm just not interested in having them as a friend or even an acquaintance. That's my preference.
Good going Congo.
-
Thoughts on this video?
http://www.youtube.com/v/JDKL-f9Iwds
-
God Loves You as You Are: A Message for All Gay and Transgender Latinos From an American Missionary in Costa Rica
Huffington Post (by Richard M. Weinberg)
"We must now have the courage to take the final step and call homophobia and heterosexism what they are. They are sin. Homophobia is a sin. Heterosexism is a sin."
Thus preached the Very Rev. Gary Hall, dean of Washington National Cathedral, in an October 2013 sermon. The sermon was part of a special service that the Cathedral offered to honor lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth who suffer daily from intimidation, discrimination, and violence. Although quotes like that raise eyebrows, another part of the sermon that I consider even more important was when Dean Hall said:
It is not only just OK to be gay, straight, bisexual, or transgender; it is good to be that way, because that is the way God has made you. ... Your sexuality is good. The church not only accepts it. The church celebrates it and rejoices in it. God loves you as you are, and the church can do no less.
Read More (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-m-weinberg/god-loves-you-as-you-are-_b_4856189.html)
-
Go foock yuhself with that shit.
You believe what you want and I will believe what I want.
F00cking shit stabbers.
-
Go foock yuhself with that shit.
You believe what you want and I will believe what I want.
F00cking shit stabbers.
I pity your hatred and ignorance.
-
Go foock yuhself with that shit.
You believe what you want and I will believe what I want.
F00cking shit stabbers.
I pity your hatred and ignorance.
Doh pity me, pity de man who yuh bulling, yuh nasty f00cker, stabbing shit, only shit on yuh prick, yuh go get Gonorrhea.
Child molesters and rapest in de same boat.
-
Go foock yuhself with that shit.
You believe what you want and I will believe what I want.
F00cking shit stabbers.
I pity your hatred and ignorance.
Doh pity me, pity de man who yuh bulling, yuh nasty f00cker, stabbing shit, only shit on yuh prick, yuh go get Gonorrhea.
Child molesters and rapest in de same boat.
Sam, who are you? Truetrini once told me you and a couple other posters were actually the same person. Furthermore the the posts made by these three accounts were being done by a prominent forum member. If this is the case, then you just trolling to stir the pot. In either case, these comments are just reason for suspending your account.
-
And where Trurtrini is?
Look, de man keep going on with this shit, so I going on to. De man callin me all kinda name, so I acting de same...
Maybe some of de things I say might be lil harsh, but I stand by my point.
-
Go foock yuhself with that shit.
You believe what you want and I will believe what I want.
F00cking shit stabbers.
I pity your hatred and ignorance.
Doh pity me, pity de man who yuh bulling, yuh nasty f00cker, stabbing shit, only shit on yuh prick, yuh go get Gonorrhea.
Child molesters and rapest in de same boat.
Sam, who are you? Truetrini once told me you and a couple other posters were actually the same person. Furthermore the the posts made by these three accounts were being done by a prominent forum member. If this is the case, then you just trolling to stir the pot. In either case, these comments are just reason for suspending your account.
There is no reason to suspend Sam's account because he views the act of shit stabbing as disgusting.
Nothing is wrong with Sam holding that view as he is entitled to hold his views and to express it.
Its called freedom of speech provided we are still living in a democracy.
-
Go foock yuhself with that shit.
You believe what you want and I will believe what I want.
F00cking shit stabbers.
I pity your hatred and ignorance.
Doh pity me, pity de man who yuh bulling, yuh nasty f00cker, stabbing shit, only shit on yuh prick, yuh go get Gonorrhea.
Child molesters and rapest in de same boat.
Sam, who are you? Truetrini once told me you and a couple other posters were actually the same person. Furthermore the the posts made by these three accounts were being done by a prominent forum member. If this is the case, then you just trolling to stir the pot. In either case, these comments are just reason for suspending your account.
There is no reason to suspend Sam's account because he views the act of shit stabbing as disgusting.
Nothing is wrong with Sam holding that view as he is entitled to hold his views and to express it.
Its called freedom of speech provided we are still living in a democracy.
:applause: :applause:
Thank you SP.
American got them bright.
They dictate the world through Hollywood.
-
I never see an issue that does get men so agitated as the gay issue. Not even racism does get men so hot. The man has a right to his views and you could pity him how much you want it still isn't going and change his views. In the world, everyone is dictated by white people. White people decide what is moral, what is wrong and what is valuable. The funny thing is that these principles change every couple of centuries and the entire civilisation dances to the tune just to be called "progressive".
Why the fook the world doesn't take this same attention and aggression to fight the blood diamond trade...Steupsss
-
I wouldn't dream of banning his account - why would I when his disgraceful behaviour is out on show now? Not that I would for any other reason - as far as I know his shocking prejudice and lack-lustre morality don't violate the rules of the forum.
At the end of the day, you hate gays because you're ignorant - you flick through the bible to find a passage that confirms your prejudice against 'others', those who are not like you, in the same way that racists have done in the past, whilst skipping the parts that are immoral despite a literal bible reading (i.e. slavery, stoning unruly children and adulterers, etc). They made no choice about who they find attractive, just as you've made no choice in being heterosexual, yet you daemonise them and come up with ridiculous paranoia stories akin to the pre-WWII atmosphere around German Jews. Literally, the same claims - "They claim Hollywood/the media" (with no evidence), "They are secretly controlling political opinion/the country at the highest level" (despite the horiffic levels of discrimination they face).
This is why history education and education against propaganda is so important - still clearly in evidence today in a myriad of ways. You need to critically asses your opinions and prejudice here; some of you have suggested agreement with locking them up for a life sentence - you're saying gay sex is the equivalent of murder? Equivalent of taking a mother's child from them? Really? If so I suggest that a more clear-headed evaluation of your position would make obvious the immorality and injustice of your arguments.
-
I never see an issue that does get men so agitated as the gay issue. Not even racism does get men so hot. The man has a right to his views and you could pity him how much you want it still isn't going and change his views. In the world, everyone is dictated by white people. White people decide what is moral, what is wrong and what is valuable. The funny thing is that these principles change every couple of centuries and the entire civilisation dances to the tune just to be called "progressive".
Why the fook the world doesn't take this same attention and aggression to fight the blood diamond trade...Steupsss
Tell dem yuh not on King James Version.
-
Read my post again. Sam is entitled to his opinions. But there is no need to direct that type of language at another poster. The right to free speech comes with responsibility and decorum, both of which have been tossed out the window in the post that I responded to. I will have to review the forum rules. But calling a man a "nasty f00cker, stabbing shit, only shit on yuh prick, yuh go get Gonorrhea" is a fine example of a comment that should not be tolerated. Dick all to do with freedom of speech. So don't give me that crap comment about democracy. When some of us express our opinions (i.e. Free Speech), Sam responds with derogatory comments that have little to do with rationale debate. Just personal attacks. Free speech and democracy. Yeah. Right.
This thread was about the situation in Uganda. Whether you agree/disagree on the gay issue, imprisoning people for being gay is morally repugnant and a violation of human rights.
-
Read my post again. Sam is entitled to his opinions. But there is no need to direct that type of language at another poster. The right to free speech comes with responsibility and decorum, both of which have been tossed out the window in the post that I responded to. I will have to review the forum rules. But calling a man a "nasty f00cker, stabbing shit, only shit on yuh prick, yuh go get Gonorrhea" is a fine example of a comment that should not be tolerated. Dick all to do with freedom of speech. So don't give me that crap comment about democracy. When some of us express our opinions (i.e. Free Speech), Sam responds with derogatory comments that have little to do with rationale debate. Just personal attacks. Free speech and democracy. Yeah. Right.
This thread was about the situation in Uganda. Whether you agree/disagree on the gay issue, imprisoning people for being gay is morally repugnant and a violation of human rights.
Ribbit opined that "democracy and homos doh mix".
Putin say if they took a vote world-wide about homos pushing queer culture on minors, 90% would be against it. Yet all de Olympics coverage have de token gay/lesbian because of de gay lobby. Look a DJ here in Toronto who did run his mouth on all kind of thing make an anti-gay joke and he out of a job. Democracy and homos doh mix.
-
Putin, the poster boy for democracy. I want to emigrate to the Crimea. It doh have homos there.
-
Tiresais, I am not going to go back and forth with this topic.
Let them be who they are.
Just do not expect me to support this nonesense.
It would be interesting to see all the people who supports this that it comes in their lives in some form. Then you would sing a different song.
The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] - Numbers 14:18 (Generational Curses).
You'll quote the anti-gay text, but when it prices slaves to be sold you're all silent - you're a hypocrite. Tell me what's the conversion rate on a shekle these days Pastor? How much does the bible think I should demand for my slaves?
I have a number of gay friends - it affects me not, and I support their right to love whomever they love. Your passage condones punishing the child for the sins of the father - thanks for making my point about its immorality for me.
When saying so ... hmmm :thinking: ... Pastor Stuart, help me out nah ... introduce Tiresais to 1 Samuel 17:46.
Soon come.
So your response is to threaten me with violence? Stay classy. Sticking to the "love thy neighbour, love thy enemy" eh? Bigots always get violent when their prejudice is challenged.
Having read Asylum's posts for the last few years, I think he was poking at Pastor Stuart. Not you. Not that the articulate Asylum need my help that is.
Tiresais needed de help. My comment was multi-purposed, but nothing he latched onto.
-
I never see an issue that does get men so agitated as the gay issue. Not even racism does get men so hot. The man has a right to his views and you could pity him how much you want it still isn't going and change his views. In the world, everyone is dictated by white people. White people decide what is moral, what is wrong and what is valuable. The funny thing is that these principles change every couple of centuries and the entire civilisation dances to the tune just to be called "progressive".
Why the fook the world doesn't take this same attention and aggression to fight the blood diamond trade...Steupsss
congo, yuh highlight a real issue with society. the scale on which we weigh important vs irrelevant issues has been corrupted even inverted. some gays get offended in a socially conservative country and is 24/7 coverage from all de homos in de media. not a peep about real devestation being wrought by de arms industry, illicit trades, etc.. not a 4king peep. a gay's feeling worth more than the life of some of dese children in syria, africa, etc..
-
Yeah and they always quick to equate this to what happened to black people and slavery etc. Never mind the fact that black people still fighting for a bare minimum in this world yeah. Slavery was a brutal and despicable act. Wake me up when we are rounding up gays and shipping them all over the world to pick cotton. We in the progressive world are not chasing gays and kicking their heads in. We have laws and they have rights. Men fighting up with Uganda but really and truly it's none of our business. Adulterous women are stoned in the islamic countries and thieves have their hands cut off also. Does that make them any less progressive than us? You can't measure everyone with the same yardstick.
All of a sudden the western world has found its moral center with this gay issues and the posters up on top coming here with all sort of fancy articles and quotes to try and convince others that they are wrong and backward. GTFOH with that bs. This gay issue is a smokescreen. I say give them marriage. Let them be miserable as well and also give the people who want to marry a car or a piece of plastic that right as well.
Tell the gays get in line, black people still have rights that they are fighting to get. I never see a group of people who have made their sexual preference such a public and defining aspect of their lives. No one cares what you are doing in the privacy of your own bedroom. There are more important things going on in this world.
-
The Bible say!!!!! ;D Ah reach late. You don't need the bible for this anyways.
-
The Bible say!!!!! ;D Ah reach late. You don't need the bible for this anyways.
Amen. Coming from you, that's divine. Yuh doh need de Bible fuh dis. Selah.
-
Putin, the poster boy for democracy. I want to emigrate to the Crimea. It doh have homos there.
is that the point?
-
Africa Against Homosexuals: African President: Homosexuals "Disgusting"
http://www.youtube.com/v/oArKOrrTO0k
-
congo, yuh highlight a real issue with society. the scale on which we weigh important vs irrelevant issues has been corrupted even inverted. some gays get offended in a socially conservative country and is 24/7 coverage from all de homos in de media. not a peep about real devestation being wrought by de arms industry, illicit trades, etc.. not a 4king peep. a gay's feeling worth more than the life of some of dese children in syria, africa, etc..
Ribbit / Congo
Some observations
1) This thread is about homosexuality, so naturally you will not find debates about blood diamonds, syria, and other issues. I am sure if you glance at major news feeds, you will not find dis-proportionate airplay that favours homosexuality above any other topic.
2) I searched this forum and found at least 13 distinct threads that broached homosexuality directly and indirectly. Here are 12 of them:
http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=61515.msg883751#msg883751
Plus this one makes thirteen.
I think the obsession with homosexuality seems predisposed to those who object to it.
Based on my sampling of 13 threads, here if the frequency of forum members who started a thread pertaining to homosexuality:
Trini_2018: 4
Socapro: 3
War: 2
Preacher: 1
Airman: 1
Weary1969: 1
Tallman: 1
pecan: 1
At least 10 out of 13 threads were started by members who have certainly made it know that they disapprove of homosexuality.
So at least on this forum, the "24/7 coverage from all de homos in de media" (to quote you), is not coming from self proclaimed homos ....
-
lol. men does real conduct dey research in here boy. Tallman, allyuh shud apply 4 grant funding.
-
I saw a couple of these homies out and bad both carnival Monday and Tuesday. If you see behaviour. They wore the tightest and tiniest pum pum shorts and moving like some skettel. They were also wining and grinding on each other at times. That is what trini gays like. They like this wotless bs. Ask them to march for rights next week and you'll be lucky if 2 show up. All that nasty behaviour and nobody get their face buss or head spit open. Somebody was saying that trinidad does victimize homosexuals. HA!
-
Sometimes we see supposedly "straight" women in bikini and beads wining up on one another. Are they gay or what?
-
I saw a couple of these homies out and bad both carnival Monday and Tuesday. If you see behaviour. They wore the tightest and tiniest pum pum shorts and moving like some skettel. They were also wining and grinding on each other at times. That is what trini gays like. They like this wotless bs. Ask them to march for rights next week and you'll be lucky if 2 show up. All that nasty behaviour and nobody get their face buss or head spit open. Somebody was saying that trinidad does victimize homosexuals. HA!
lol this post reminded me of a picture that has been floating around the net today.
(https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/988392_727056130674931_990623082_n.jpg)
-
Sometimes we see supposedly "straight" women in bikini and beads wining up on one another. Are they gay or what?
Seemingly, over de years ... that has become permissible permissive conduct. First noticed it in Barbados (which might be answer in itself :devil:).
-
Yeah @Toppa...That is the kinda nastyness I talking about. That's his "gay" props at work. Never mind the fact that other homosexuals in other countries get their head bashed in for being slightly gay, this homie has the freedom to do this thing. We don't have gays in Trinidad, we have macomere men. I bet ya for the rest of the year, not a semblence of gayness from this guy.
Sometimes we see supposedly "straight" women in bikini and beads wining up on one another. Are they gay or what?
Steups, you for real. Man wining on man is completely different to gyal wining on gyal. Get real
-
Yeah @Toppa...That is the kinda nastyness I talking about. That's his "gay" props at work. Never mind the fact that other homosexuals in other countries get their head bashed in for being slightly gay, this homie has the freedom to do this thing. We don't have gays in Trinidad, we have macomere men. I bet ya for the rest of the year, not a semblence of gayness from this guy.
Sometimes we see supposedly "straight" women in bikini and beads wining up on one another. Are they gay or what?
Steups, you for real. Man wining on man is completely different to gyal wining on gyal. Get real
congo.........dat not in no closet....everybody and dey have camera.......gays dat flyin under d radar not wearin dat.............so I goh put my money an bet if yuh see he on ah normal yuh goh know right of d bat.......as for this thread don't support such laws because I don;t think it's "learned" behavior
-
Don Feder, communications director of the World Congress of Families, speaks at a press conference in Kiev, Ukraine, in October 2013. This is his full speech, with the translations edited out.
WCF's Don Feder Speaks Against Gay Rights in Kiev
http://www.youtube.com/v/uiUPj0GJueU
I have to agree with most of what he points out regards the Gay Agenda. :thumbsup:
-
Don Feder, communications director of the World Congress of Families, speaks at a press conference in Kiev, Ukraine, in October 2013. This is his full speech, with the translations edited out.
WCF's Don Feder Speaks Against Gay Rights in Kiev
http://www.youtube.com/v/uiUPj0GJueU
I have to agree with most of what he points out regards the Gay Agenda. :good:
This is the nutjob who said "Gays "armed with vibrators" a bigger threat than Vladimir Putin". It's nice to see that you're hanging out with stellar examples of the human race over on homophobic bigot corner.
-
Don Feder, communications director of the World Congress of Families, speaks at a press conference in Kiev, Ukraine, in October 2013. This is his full speech, with the translations edited out.
WCF's Don Feder Speaks Against Gay Rights in Kiev
http://www.youtube.com/v/uiUPj0GJueU
I have to agree with most of what he points out regards the Gay Agenda. :thumbsup:
This is the nutjob who said "Gays "armed with vibrators" a bigger threat than Vladimir Putin". It's nice to see that you're hanging out with stellar examples of the human race over on homophobic bigot corner.
I agree with most of the points he made because they are factual.
I am not a bigot just because I agree with him. I also view the homosexual act as repulsive, very risky to ones health and against the laws of reproduction and family values.
Also I am not homophobic as I am not afraid of gay people just like I am not afraid of drug addicts, alcoholics and other folks who habitually take unnecessary risks with their health.
I will happily work alongside gays in a professional job environment but just don't ask me or anyone else I care about to join with them in their perverted sexual lifestyle, that is all.
-
Kenyan MPs back President Museveni on anti-gay bill
http://www.youtube.com/v/QAVanVUigr0
Kenyan MPs voice their support for a move by President Yoweri Museveni to sign the Anti homosexuality bill into law. Their statements follow a confirmation from the President that he would sign the controversial bill into law. Kenyan MPs have voiced their support for a move by President Yoweri Museveni to sign the Anti homosexuality bill into law. Their statements follow a confirmation from the President that he would sign the controversial bill into law. When passed into law, those convicted of aggravated homosexuality face a life sentence.
-
I agree with most of the points he made because they are factual.
I am not a bigot just because I agree with him. I also view the homosexual act as repulsive, very risky to ones health and against the laws of reproduction and family values.
Also I am not homophobic as I am not afraid of gay people just like I am not afraid of drug addicts, alcoholics and other folks who habitually take unnecessary risks with their health.
I will happily work alongside gays in a professional job environment but just don't ask me or anyone else I care about to join with them in their perverted sexual lifestyle, that is all.
Two questions:
1. Which of his points are "factual"? Because I watched the entire 5 mins and thought he was talking a pack of rubbish.
2. How often to gays aske you to "joint them in their perverted sexual lifestyle"? In fact, has it ever happened at all?
-
A group of prominent Ugandan scholars, lawmakers and gay rights activists have dragged the government to the Constitutional Court over the enactment of the Anti-Homosexuality law. The group contends that the law violates key human rights provisions enshrined in the Constitution. Solomon Serwanjja has more....
Uganda: Gay activists challenge act in court
http://www.youtube.com/v/7O9LUW2---U
-
I agree with most of the points he made because they are factual.
I am not a bigot just because I agree with him. I also view the homosexual act as repulsive, very risky to ones health and against the laws of reproduction and family values.
Also I am not homophobic as I am not afraid of gay people just like I am not afraid of drug addicts, alcoholics and other folks who habitually take unnecessary risks with their health.
I will happily work alongside gays in a professional job environment but just don't ask me or anyone else I care about to join with them in their perverted sexual lifestyle, that is all.
Two questions:
1. Which of his points are "factual"? Because I watched the entire 5 mins and thought he was talking a pack of rubbish.
2. How often to gays aske you to "joint them in their perverted sexual lifestyle"? In fact, has it ever happened at all?
To question 1. since you are the one disputing what the Communications Director of the World Congress of Families said in his statements as being factual then it is up to you to point out/breakdown what he said that isn't factual point by point.
To question 2. yes I have been asked on a couple of occasions in the past. Once was when I went to the house of a male friend who I did not realise was gay. I of course left immediately when I realised why I was invited round to his house.
Sadly within a year of that incident he died and his family never revealed exactly what he died of but my strong suspicion based upon his sexual life style was that he died of aids.
-
To question 1. since you are the one disputing what the Communications Director of the World Congress of Families said in his statements as being factual then it is up to you to point out/breakdown what he said that isn't factual point by point.
To question 2. yes I have been asked on a couple of occasions in the past. Once was when I went to the house of a male friend who I did not realise was gay. I of course left immediately when I realised why I was invited round to his house.
Sadly within a year of that incident he died and his family never revealed exactly what he died of but my strong suspicion based upon his sexual life style was that he died of aids.
It's not up to me to do anything... you said you agreed with him and made the assertion that his statements were "factual", meaning premised on facts not opinion. I'm asking you which of those statements you believe to be factual. It's far easier to approach it this way than the way you're suggesting. What's the harm to you, either way you'll end up having to substantiate your claim, whether you state your agreements or I state my disagreements.
As for the second... so you were propositioned once by a friend and that has been fueling your paranoia all these years that gays want to have sex with you? Doesn't that reveal more about you than about gays and the supposed "gay agenda"?
-
To question 1. since you are the one disputing what the Communications Director of the World Congress of Families said in his statements as being factual then it is up to you to point out/breakdown what he said that isn't factual point by point.
To question 2. yes I have been asked on a couple of occasions in the past. Once was when I went to the house of a male friend who I did not realise was gay. I of course left immediately when I realised why I was invited round to his house.
Sadly within a year of that incident he died and his family never revealed exactly what he died of but my strong suspicion based upon his sexual life style was that he died of aids.
It's not up to me to do anything... you said you agreed with him and made the assertion that his statements were "factual", meaning premised on facts not opinion. I'm asking you which of those statements you believe to be factual. It's far easier to approach it this way than the way you're suggesting. What's the harm to you, either way you'll end up having to substantiate your claim, whether you state your agreements or I state my disagreements.
As for the second... so you were propositioned once by a friend and that has been fueling your paranoia all these years that gays want to have sex with you? Doesn't that reveal more about you than about gays and the supposed "gay agenda"?
Once again I don't need to say anything as the video speaks for itself. I simply said that I agree with most of what he said because it is factual. If you disagree then that is down to you but you are yet to point out exactly what he said that isn't factual and that you don't agree with.
Regards to my second point if you read what I said properly you would realize that I was propositioned more than once but I decided to give just one example.
Also I would like to point out that I am not paranoid or scared of gays as I will happily work alongside any gay person in a professional environment and would not treat them any different to anyone else.
However I have no interest in engaging in their sexual life style or in socializing with them too much outside of the work environment because I normally have much more fruitful things to do in my spare time that is of much more interest to myself. There is also a saying that goes "birds of a feather flock together" and since I am not that way inclined I see no reason to go out of my way to socialize with gays.
My motto in life is live and let live provided you don't try to impose your life style onto mines.
-
Once again I don't need to say anything as the video speaks for itself. I simply said that I agree with most of what he said because it is factual. If you disagree then that is down to you but you are yet to point out exactly what he said that isn't factual and that you don't agree with.
Regards to my second point if you read what I said properly you would realize that I was propositioned more than once but I decided to give just one example.
Also I would like to point out that I am not paranoid or scared of gays as I will happily work alongside any gay person in a professional environment and would not treat them any different to anyone else.
However I have no interest in engaging in their sexual life style or in socializing with them too much outside of the work environment because I normally have much more fruitful things to do in my spare time that is of much more interest to myself. There is also a saying that goes "birds of a feather flock together" and since I am not that way inclined I see no reason to go out of my way to socialize with gays.
My motto in life is live and let live provided you don't try to impose your life style onto mines.
1. I'll point out the mischaracterizations and inaccuracies in his comments... we'll see if you're forthright enough to come and challenge them with your "facts" when I do.
2. So some gays have hit on you in the past and that has you paranoid... got it.
3. You will be tempted to argue that you're not paranoid... but the evidence is there in the bolded paragraph. Who's trying to force you to engage in homosexual behavior/lifestyle... or trying to force you to socialize with gays? You're already socializing with gays, whether you realize it or not... your experience with your friend should be enough to make you realize this so you might as well relax and stop being so paranoid.
-
Bakes they're not interested in rational debate - I pointed out the hypocrisies in the previous thread and they were ignored...
-
Once again I don't need to say anything as the video speaks for itself. I simply said that I agree with most of what he said because it is factual. If you disagree then that is down to you but you are yet to point out exactly what he said that isn't factual and that you don't agree with.
Regards to my second point if you read what I said properly you would realize that I was propositioned more than once but I decided to give just one example.
Also I would like to point out that I am not paranoid or scared of gays as I will happily work alongside any gay person in a professional environment and would not treat them any different to anyone else.
However I have no interest in engaging in their sexual life style or in socializing with them too much outside of the work environment because I normally have much more fruitful things to do in my spare time that is of much more interest to myself. There is also a saying that goes "birds of a feather flock together" and since I am not that way inclined I see no reason to go out of my way to socialize with gays.
My motto in life is live and let live provided you don't try to impose your life style onto mines.
1. I'll point out the mischaracterizations and inaccuracies in his comments... we'll see if you're forthright enough to come and challenge them with your "facts" when I do.
2. So some gays have hit on you in the past and that has you paranoid... got it.
3. You will be tempted to argue that you're not paranoid... but the evidence is there in the bolded paragraph. Who's trying to force you to engage in homosexual behavior/lifestyle... or trying to force you to socialize with gays? You're already socializing with gays, whether you realize it or not... your experience with your friend should be enough to make you realize this so you might as well relax and stop being so paranoid.
I told you that I am not paranoid of gays. I have worked with gays and had no issues with them provided they don't make any unwanted sexual advances.
Because I prefer not to knowingly socialize with them because I have better things to do doesn't mean I am paranoid of them.
Next thing you will be trying to come with the argument that I am homophobic when I am not.
I simply don't see their their sexual life style as healthy and in line with what nature intended and that's it.
-
A group of prominent Ugandan scholars, lawmakers and gay rights activists have dragged the government to the Constitutional Court over the enactment of the Anti-Homosexuality law. The group contends that the law violates key human rights provisions enshrined in the Constitution. Solomon Serwanjja has more....
Uganda: Gay activists challenge act in court
http://www.youtube.com/v/7O9LUW2---U
Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.
-
...and *poof* Pecan comment disappear
Bakes they're not interested in rational debate - I pointed out the hypocrisies in the previous thread and they were ignored...
Nah, I willing tuh give Socapro a chance to defend his position if he care. I coming back with mih observations on the vid in a bit.
-
A group of prominent Ugandan scholars, lawmakers and gay rights activists have dragged the government to the Constitutional Court over the enactment of the Anti-Homosexuality law. The group contends that the law violates key human rights provisions enshrined in the Constitution. Solomon Serwanjja has more....
Uganda: Gay activists challenge act in court
http://www.youtube.com/v/7O9LUW2---U
Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.
I suspect that those lawyers are being paid handsomely by the Gay Rights movement so decided to take the money and go thru the motions.
I won't be surprised if they happily lose the case and go laughing all the way to the bank as they are Ugandan lawyers after all who know how much the vast majority of folks in the country support the Anti-Gay laws.
-
yeah... I decided not to engage.
-
A group of prominent Ugandan scholars, lawmakers and gay rights activists have dragged the government to the Constitutional Court over the enactment of the Anti-Homosexuality law. The group contends that the law violates key human rights provisions enshrined in the Constitution. Solomon Serwanjja has more....
Uganda: Gay activists challenge act in court
http://www.youtube.com/v/7O9LUW2---U
Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.
I suspect that those lawyers are being paid handsomely by the Gay Rights movement so decided to take the money and go thru the motions.
I won't be surprised if they happily lose the case and go laughing all the way to the bank as they are Ugandan lawyers after all who know how much the vast majority of folks in the country support the Anti-Gay laws.
Yes I imagine their legal fight is funded by the Gay Rights movements and anti-discrimination groups and NGOs, just as a movement against an anti-catholic bill might receive support from the Catholic church and Catholic organisations. But given the people involved are gay themselves I doubt they will be 'laughing to the bank' as you so glibly put it. It's their lives on the line - just by simply standing out in front of the camera they face a violent backlash.
Those who fought against apartheid, slavery, and institutional racism too faced the same popular backlash, with a public whole-heartedly against their movement - did the overall majority support for slavery make it right? I mean the bible is pretty clear that you can enslave your fellow man and woman (take a sex slave alongside your wife why don't you?), so you would have been in favour for your fellow man to be enslaved?
-
A group of prominent Ugandan scholars, lawmakers and gay rights activists have dragged the government to the Constitutional Court over the enactment of the Anti-Homosexuality law. The group contends that the law violates key human rights provisions enshrined in the Constitution. Solomon Serwanjja has more....
Uganda: Gay activists challenge act in court
http://www.youtube.com/v/7O9LUW2---U
Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.
I suspect that those lawyers are being paid handsomely by the Gay Rights movement so decided to take the money and go thru the motions.
I won't be surprised if they happily lose the case and go laughing all the way to the bank as they are Ugandan lawyers after all who know how much the vast majority of folks in the country support the Anti-Gay laws.
Yes I imagine their legal fight is funded by the Gay Rights movements and anti-discrimination groups and NGOs, just as a movement against an anti-catholic bill might receive support from the Catholic church and Catholic organisations. But given the people involved are gay themselves I doubt they will be 'laughing to the bank' as you so glibly put it. It's their lives on the line - just by simply standing out in front of the camera they face a violent backlash.
Those who fought against apartheid, slavery, and institutional racism too faced the same popular backlash, with a public whole-heartedly against their movement - did the overall majority support for slavery make it right? I mean the bible is pretty clear that you can enslave your fellow man and woman (take a sex slave alongside your wife why don't you?), so you would have been in favour for your fellow man to be enslaved?
Why are you projecting?
I simply stated my suspicion and I don't think you are correct in assuming that all those people bringing the case against the Ugandan government are gay.
We will eventually see what the outcome is to see if my suspicions turn out to be correct or not.
-
A group of prominent Ugandan scholars, lawmakers and gay rights activists have dragged the government to the Constitutional Court over the enactment of the Anti-Homosexuality law. The group contends that the law violates key human rights provisions enshrined in the Constitution. Solomon Serwanjja has more....
Uganda: Gay activists challenge act in court
http://www.youtube.com/v/7O9LUW2---U
Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.
I suspect that those lawyers are being paid handsomely by the Gay Rights movement so decided to take the money and go thru the motions.
I won't be surprised if they happily lose the case and go laughing all the way to the bank as they are Ugandan lawyers after all who know how much the vast majority of folks in the country support the Anti-Gay laws.
Yes I imagine their legal fight is funded by the Gay Rights movements and anti-discrimination groups and NGOs, just as a movement against an anti-catholic bill might receive support from the Catholic church and Catholic organisations. But given the people involved are gay themselves I doubt they will be 'laughing to the bank' as you so glibly put it. It's their lives on the line - just by simply standing out in front of the camera they face a violent backlash.
Those who fought against apartheid, slavery, and institutional racism too faced the same popular backlash, with a public whole-heartedly against their movement - did the overall majority support for slavery make it right? I mean the bible is pretty clear that you can enslave your fellow man and woman (take a sex slave alongside your wife why don't you?), so you would have been in favour for your fellow man to be enslaved?
Why are you projecting?
I simply stated my suspicion and I don't think you are correct in assuming that all those people bringing the case against the Ugandan government are gay.
We will eventually see what the out come is to see if my suspicions turn out to be correct or not.
No of course some of them are not gay, just like all those against segregation weren't black and those against slavery weren't slaves - for evil to win requires good people to stand idly by. These people, regardless of whether they are gay or not, face a violent backlash for standing up for another citizen, another human being's rights
-
A group of prominent Ugandan scholars, lawmakers and gay rights activists have dragged the government to the Constitutional Court over the enactment of the Anti-Homosexuality law. The group contends that the law violates key human rights provisions enshrined in the Constitution. Solomon Serwanjja has more....
Uganda: Gay activists challenge act in court
http://www.youtube.com/v/7O9LUW2---U
Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.
I suspect that those lawyers are being paid handsomely by the Gay Rights movement so decided to take the money and go thru the motions.
I won't be surprised if they happily lose the case and go laughing all the way to the bank as they are Ugandan lawyers after all who know how much the vast majority of folks in the country support the Anti-Gay laws.
Yes I imagine their legal fight is funded by the Gay Rights movements and anti-discrimination groups and NGOs, just as a movement against an anti-catholic bill might receive support from the Catholic church and Catholic organisations. But given the people involved are gay themselves I doubt they will be 'laughing to the bank' as you so glibly put it. It's their lives on the line - just by simply standing out in front of the camera they face a violent backlash.
Those who fought against apartheid, slavery, and institutional racism too faced the same popular backlash, with a public whole-heartedly against their movement - did the overall majority support for slavery make it right? I mean the bible is pretty clear that you can enslave your fellow man and woman (take a sex slave alongside your wife why don't you?), so you would have been in favour for your fellow man to be enslaved?
Why are you projecting?
I simply stated my suspicion and I don't think you are correct in assuming that all those people bringing the case against the Ugandan government are gay.
We will eventually see what the out come is to see if my suspicions turn out to be correct or not.
No of course some of them are not gay, just like all those against segregation weren't black and those against slavery weren't slaves - for evil to win requires good people to stand idly by. These people, regardless of whether they are gay or not, face a violent backlash for standing up for another citizen, another human being's rights
That is your assumption that will remain an assumption without proof.
The Ugandan people in general are pretty civilized from my observations so I would be surprised to see or hear of any violence towards anyone involved in the case.
-
Steups @SocaPro...You still fighting up with him. Listen all this gay talk is just a smoke screen. All this violent backlash talk is another smokescreen. Nobody care about those gay people enough to split their heads open. Like the fairies that they pretend to be they are living in a fairy tale. People only ask that you use your discretion when conducting your gay activities. Inform the world that you are gay. That way when I am asked to come over to your house for a drink or something I know what your intentions are.
I once had a lecturer who was on the down low. This guy had a girlfriend and other smokescreens. You would never guess that he was on that side. After awhile this man start to cross the line and I realise that I was the prey in the situation. When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me. Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick. After that homie had very little to do with me and he became very professional. This after threatening to penalise me academically etc. I never outed him to anyone, he continued living his life with his smokescreens and all. That is most people's position, live and let live. Just don't come around me with that nastiness.
The scary thing about down low n*ggas is that they don't use protection is the gay community so what they catch they bringing it back for the women they lying with. Talk about the fact that the gay community has always had one of the highest incidences of STD's. Those are the facts. You all could try and window dress this how much you want the facts remain. That is nastiness to the extreme. If you all like that, put it in ur mouths and choke on it.
-
Socapro, stop wasting your time answering this bullarman lover nah.
He bring slavery, child abuse and women abuse into this gay topic.
Off douse all is bad, but we talking about fagotts, here.
He bulling man in they bottom, better he stick he prick in some mud in de lagoon.
Next thing he toe-tea swell up with back up shit in he prick head.
Somebody balls hitting he on he chin.
-
Steups @SocaPro...You still fighting up with him. Listen all this gay talk is just a smoke screen. All this violent backlash talk is another smokescreen. Nobody care about those gay people enough to split their heads open. Like the fairies that they pretend to be they are living in a fairy tale. People only ask that you use your discretion when conducting your gay activities. Inform the world that you are gay. That way when I am asked to come over to your house for a drink or something I know what your intentions are.
I once had a lecturer who was on the down low. This guy had a girlfriend and other smokescreens. You would never guess that he was on that side. After awhile this man start to cross the line and I realise that I was the prey in the situation. When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me. Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick. After that homie had very little to do with me and he became very professional. This after threatening to penalise me academically etc. I never outed him to anyone, he continued living his life with his smokescreens and all. That is most people's position, live and let live. Just don't come around me with that nastiness.
The scary thing about down low n*ggas is that they don't use protection is the gay community so what they catch they bringing it back for the women they lying with. Talk about the fact that the gay community has always had one of the highest incidences of STD's. Those are the facts. You all could try and window dress this how much you want the facts remain. That is nastiness to the extreme. If you all like that, put it in ur mouths and choke on it.
:beermug: :beermug: :beermug:
-
Try allyuh best to leave slavery and apartheid etc. out ...
-
Try allyuh best to leave slavery and apartheid etc. out ...
Ent !!!....
A man trying to create a smoke screen to cover fags.
-
A group of prominent Ugandan scholars, lawmakers and gay rights activists have dragged the government to the Constitutional Court over the enactment of the Anti-Homosexuality law. The group contends that the law violates key human rights provisions enshrined in the Constitution. Solomon Serwanjja has more....
Uganda: Gay activists challenge act in court
http://www.youtube.com/v/7O9LUW2---U
Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.
I suspect that those lawyers are being paid handsomely by the Gay Rights movement so decided to take the money and go thru the motions.
I won't be surprised if they happily lose the case and go laughing all the way to the bank as they are Ugandan lawyers after all who know how much the vast majority of folks in the country support the Anti-Gay laws.
Yes I imagine their legal fight is funded by the Gay Rights movements and anti-discrimination groups and NGOs, just as a movement against an anti-catholic bill might receive support from the Catholic church and Catholic organisations. But given the people involved are gay themselves I doubt they will be 'laughing to the bank' as you so glibly put it. It's their lives on the line - just by simply standing out in front of the camera they face a violent backlash.
Those who fought against apartheid, slavery, and institutional racism too faced the same popular backlash, with a public whole-heartedly against their movement - did the overall majority support for slavery make it right? I mean the bible is pretty clear that you can enslave your fellow man and woman (take a sex slave alongside your wife why don't you?), so you would have been in favour for your fellow man to be enslaved?
Why are you projecting?
I simply stated my suspicion and I don't think you are correct in assuming that all those people bringing the case against the Ugandan government are gay.
We will eventually see what the out come is to see if my suspicions turn out to be correct or not.
No of course some of them are not gay, just like all those against segregation weren't black and those against slavery weren't slaves - for evil to win requires good people to stand idly by. These people, regardless of whether they are gay or not, face a violent backlash for standing up for another citizen, another human being's rights
That is your assumption that will remain an assumption without proof.
The Ugandan people in general are pretty civilized from my observations so I would be surprised to see or hear of any violence towards anyone involved in the case.
You are shockingly ignorant. Just google David Kato - gay rights activist in Uganda who fought a magazine that published the name and occupation of "suspected homosexuals". After winning his lawsuit, he was murdered by anti-gay protesters.
-
Steups @SocaPro...You still fighting up with him. Listen all this gay talk is just a smoke screen. All this violent backlash talk is another smokescreen. Nobody care about those gay people enough to split their heads open. Like the fairies that they pretend to be they are living in a fairy tale. People only ask that you use your discretion when conducting your gay activities. Inform the world that you are gay. That way when I am asked to come over to your house for a drink or something I know what your intentions are.
I once had a lecturer who was on the down low. This guy had a girlfriend and other smokescreens. You would never guess that he was on that side. After awhile this man start to cross the line and I realise that I was the prey in the situation. When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me. Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick. After that homie had very little to do with me and he became very professional. This after threatening to penalise me academically etc. I never outed him to anyone, he continued living his life with his smokescreens and all. That is most people's position, live and let live. Just don't come around me with that nastiness.
The scary thing about down low n*ggas is that they don't use protection is the gay community so what they catch they bringing it back for the women they lying with. Talk about the fact that the gay community has always had one of the highest incidences of STD's. Those are the facts. You all could try and window dress this how much you want the facts remain. That is nastiness to the extreme. If you all like that, put it in ur mouths and choke on it.
You held a gun to someone's head? You're a f**king psycho, there's no question about it. Seek professional help because you are a horrible human being.
-
Steups @SocaPro...You still fighting up with him. Listen all this gay talk is just a smoke screen. All this violent backlash talk is another smokescreen. Nobody care about those gay people enough to split their heads open. Like the fairies that they pretend to be they are living in a fairy tale. People only ask that you use your discretion when conducting your gay activities. Inform the world that you are gay. That way when I am asked to come over to your house for a drink or something I know what your intentions are.
I once had a lecturer who was on the down low. This guy had a girlfriend and other smokescreens. You would never guess that he was on that side. After awhile this man start to cross the line and I realise that I was the prey in the situation. When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me. Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick. After that homie had very little to do with me and he became very professional. This after threatening to penalise me academically etc. I never outed him to anyone, he continued living his life with his smokescreens and all. That is most people's position, live and let live. Just don't come around me with that nastiness.
The scary thing about down low n*ggas is that they don't use protection is the gay community so what they catch they bringing it back for the women they lying with. Talk about the fact that the gay community has always had one of the highest incidences of STD's. Those are the facts. You all could try and window dress this how much you want the facts remain. That is nastiness to the extreme. If you all like that, put it in ur mouths and choke on it.
You held a gun to someone's head? You're a f**king psycho, there's no question about it. Seek professional help because you are a horrible human being.
Tacitly perhaps. Definitively, you can't say that "he" did that. Re-read the post.
Nonetheless, a reprehensible situation no doubt ... as such, shouldn't your condemnation be distributed to the other party also?
-
Steups @SocaPro...You still fighting up with him. Listen all this gay talk is just a smoke screen. All this violent backlash talk is another smokescreen. Nobody care about those gay people enough to split their heads open. Like the fairies that they pretend to be they are living in a fairy tale. People only ask that you use your discretion when conducting your gay activities. Inform the world that you are gay. That way when I am asked to come over to your house for a drink or something I know what your intentions are.
I once had a lecturer who was on the down low. This guy had a girlfriend and other smokescreens. You would never guess that he was on that side. After awhile this man start to cross the line and I realise that I was the prey in the situation. When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me. Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick. After that homie had very little to do with me and he became very professional. This after threatening to penalise me academically etc. I never outed him to anyone, he continued living his life with his smokescreens and all. That is most people's position, live and let live. Just don't come around me with that nastiness.
The scary thing about down low n*ggas is that they don't use protection is the gay community so what they catch they bringing it back for the women they lying with. Talk about the fact that the gay community has always had one of the highest incidences of STD's. Those are the facts. You all could try and window dress this how much you want the facts remain. That is nastiness to the extreme. If you all like that, put it in ur mouths and choke on it.
You held a gun to someone's head? You're a f**king psycho, there's no question about it. Seek professional help because you are a horrible human being.
Tacitly perhaps. Definitively, you can't say that "he" did that. Re-read the post.
Nonetheless, a reprehensible situation no doubt ... as such, shouldn't your condemnation be distributed to the other party also?
Given Congo's paranoid and homophobia, I find his claim less believable than his admission that he held a gun to the man's head. He said that he went and got some friends and held 'chrome' to his head. How are you defending this? Look to yourself.
-
Steups @SocaPro...You still fighting up with him. Listen all this gay talk is just a smoke screen. All this violent backlash talk is another smokescreen. Nobody care about those gay people enough to split their heads open. Like the fairies that they pretend to be they are living in a fairy tale. People only ask that you use your discretion when conducting your gay activities. Inform the world that you are gay. That way when I am asked to come over to your house for a drink or something I know what your intentions are.
I once had a lecturer who was on the down low. This guy had a girlfriend and other smokescreens. You would never guess that he was on that side. After awhile this man start to cross the line and I realise that I was the prey in the situation. When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me. Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick. After that homie had very little to do with me and he became very professional. This after threatening to penalise me academically etc. I never outed him to anyone, he continued living his life with his smokescreens and all. That is most people's position, live and let live. Just don't come around me with that nastiness.
The scary thing about down low n*ggas is that they don't use protection is the gay community so what they catch they bringing it back for the women they lying with. Talk about the fact that the gay community has always had one of the highest incidences of STD's. Those are the facts. You all could try and window dress this how much you want the facts remain. That is nastiness to the extreme. If you all like that, put it in ur mouths and choke on it.
You held a gun to someone's head? You're a f**king psycho, there's no question about it. Seek professional help because you are a horrible human being.
Tacitly perhaps. Definitively, you can't say that "he" did that. Re-read the post.
Nonetheless, a reprehensible situation no doubt ... as such, shouldn't your condemnation be distributed to the other party also?
Given Congo's paranoid and homophobia, I find his claim less believable than his admission that he held a gun to the man's head. He said that he went and got some friends and held 'chrome' to his head. How are you defending this? Look to yourself.
So in addition to re-reading ... have a look at the meaning of the word "reprehensible".
-
Steups @SocaPro...You still fighting up with him. Listen all this gay talk is just a smoke screen. All this violent backlash talk is another smokescreen. Nobody care about those gay people enough to split their heads open. Like the fairies that they pretend to be they are living in a fairy tale. People only ask that you use your discretion when conducting your gay activities. Inform the world that you are gay. That way when I am asked to come over to your house for a drink or something I know what your intentions are.
I once had a lecturer who was on the down low. This guy had a girlfriend and other smokescreens. You would never guess that he was on that side. After awhile this man start to cross the line and I realise that I was the prey in the situation. When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me. Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick. After that homie had very little to do with me and he became very professional. This after threatening to penalise me academically etc. I never outed him to anyone, he continued living his life with his smokescreens and all. That is most people's position, live and let live. Just don't come around me with that nastiness.
The scary thing about down low n*ggas is that they don't use protection is the gay community so what they catch they bringing it back for the women they lying with. Talk about the fact that the gay community has always had one of the highest incidences of STD's. Those are the facts. You all could try and window dress this how much you want the facts remain. That is nastiness to the extreme. If you all like that, put it in ur mouths and choke on it.
You held a gun to someone's head? You're a f**king psycho, there's no question about it. Seek professional help because you are a horrible human being.
Tacitly perhaps. Definitively, you can't say that "he" did that. Re-read the post.
Nonetheless, a reprehensible situation no doubt ... as such, shouldn't your condemnation be distributed to the other party also?
Given Congo's paranoid and homophobia, I find his claim less believable than his admission that he held a gun to the man's head. He said that he went and got some friends and held 'chrome' to his head. How are you defending this? Look to yourself.
So in addition to re-reading ... have a look at the meaning of the word "reprehensible".
Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick.
-
Steups @SocaPro...You still fighting up with him. Listen all this gay talk is just a smoke screen. All this violent backlash talk is another smokescreen. Nobody care about those gay people enough to split their heads open. Like the fairies that they pretend to be they are living in a fairy tale. People only ask that you use your discretion when conducting your gay activities. Inform the world that you are gay. That way when I am asked to come over to your house for a drink or something I know what your intentions are.
I once had a lecturer who was on the down low. This guy had a girlfriend and other smokescreens. You would never guess that he was on that side. After awhile this man start to cross the line and I realise that I was the prey in the situation. When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me. Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick. After that homie had very little to do with me and he became very professional. This after threatening to penalise me academically etc. I never outed him to anyone, he continued living his life with his smokescreens and all. That is most people's position, live and let live. Just don't come around me with that nastiness.
The scary thing about down low n*ggas is that they don't use protection is the gay community so what they catch they bringing it back for the women they lying with. Talk about the fact that the gay community has always had one of the highest incidences of STD's. Those are the facts. You all could try and window dress this how much you want the facts remain. That is nastiness to the extreme. If you all like that, put it in ur mouths and choke on it.
You held a gun to someone's head? You're a f**king psycho, there's no question about it. Seek professional help because you are a horrible human being.
Tacitly perhaps. Definitively, you can't say that "he" did that. Re-read the post.
Nonetheless, a reprehensible situation no doubt ... as such, shouldn't your condemnation be distributed to the other party also?
Given Congo's paranoid and homophobia, I find his claim less believable than his admission that he held a gun to the man's head. He said that he went and got some friends and held 'chrome' to his head. How are you defending this? Look to yourself.
So in addition to re-reading ... have a look at the meaning of the word "reprehensible".
Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick.
Fella, I wasn't there and neither were you. Unless congo returns to state definitively that he held the weapon to the person's temple, how do you know definitively that one of the "carload" did not so act?
-
Steups @SocaPro...You still fighting up with him. Listen all this gay talk is just a smoke screen. All this violent backlash talk is another smokescreen. Nobody care about those gay people enough to split their heads open. Like the fairies that they pretend to be they are living in a fairy tale. People only ask that you use your discretion when conducting your gay activities. Inform the world that you are gay. That way when I am asked to come over to your house for a drink or something I know what your intentions are.
I once had a lecturer who was on the down low. This guy had a girlfriend and other smokescreens. You would never guess that he was on that side. After awhile this man start to cross the line and I realise that I was the prey in the situation. When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me. Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick. After that homie had very little to do with me and he became very professional. This after threatening to penalise me academically etc. I never outed him to anyone, he continued living his life with his smokescreens and all. That is most people's position, live and let live. Just don't come around me with that nastiness.
The scary thing about down low n*ggas is that they don't use protection is the gay community so what they catch they bringing it back for the women they lying with. Talk about the fact that the gay community has always had one of the highest incidences of STD's. Those are the facts. You all could try and window dress this how much you want the facts remain. That is nastiness to the extreme. If you all like that, put it in ur mouths and choke on it.
You held a gun to someone's head? You're a f**king psycho, there's no question about it. Seek professional help because you are a horrible human being.
Tacitly perhaps. Definitively, you can't say that "he" did that. Re-read the post.
Nonetheless, a reprehensible situation no doubt ... as such, shouldn't your condemnation be distributed to the other party also?
Given Congo's paranoid and homophobia, I find his claim less believable than his admission that he held a gun to the man's head. He said that he went and got some friends and held 'chrome' to his head. How are you defending this? Look to yourself.
So in addition to re-reading ... have a look at the meaning of the word "reprehensible".
Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick.
Fella, I wasn't there and neither were you. Unless congo returns to state definitively that he held the weapon to the person's temple, how do you know definitively that one of the "carload" did not so act?
This type of back-bending is why I asked you to look to yourself. If someone tells you they went to some guy with his friends and a gun was held up to their head, would you think to yourself "oh well it's not definitive"? What if it was your father? Sibling? Child?
-
We can infer from Congo's post that at minimum, he participated in putting "some chrome to his temple". Whether he or another member of the "carload" he picked up did it still speaks to his state of mind.
Even if we believe his claim that the other party became violent and threatened him academically, there are other avenues for relief.
-
I am throwing a question out.
Both Congo and Socapro claim to be the victims of sexual harassment or even sexual assault (my words). The perpetrators are "in the closet" gays.
QUESTION: Has any other other male heterosexual on this forum been the victim of sexual harassment/assault committed by a male homosexual?
I am heterosexual but I have never had a gay person proposition me - and I have been around for several decades.
-
Steups @SocaPro...You still fighting up with him. Listen all this gay talk is just a smoke screen. All this violent backlash talk is another smokescreen. Nobody care about those gay people enough to split their heads open. Like the fairies that they pretend to be they are living in a fairy tale. People only ask that you use your discretion when conducting your gay activities. Inform the world that you are gay. That way when I am asked to come over to your house for a drink or something I know what your intentions are.
I once had a lecturer who was on the down low. This guy had a girlfriend and other smokescreens. You would never guess that he was on that side. After awhile this man start to cross the line and I realise that I was the prey in the situation. When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me. Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick. After that homie had very little to do with me and he became very professional. This after threatening to penalise me academically etc. I never outed him to anyone, he continued living his life with his smokescreens and all. That is most people's position, live and let live. Just don't come around me with that nastiness.
The scary thing about down low n*ggas is that they don't use protection is the gay community so what they catch they bringing it back for the women they lying with. Talk about the fact that the gay community has always had one of the highest incidences of STD's. Those are the facts. You all could try and window dress this how much you want the facts remain. That is nastiness to the extreme. If you all like that, put it in ur mouths and choke on it.
You held a gun to someone's head? You're a f**king psycho, there's no question about it. Seek professional help because you are a horrible human being.
Tacitly perhaps. Definitively, you can't say that "he" did that. Re-read the post.
Nonetheless, a reprehensible situation no doubt ... as such, shouldn't your condemnation be distributed to the other party also?
Given Congo's paranoid and homophobia, I find his claim less believable than his admission that he held a gun to the man's head. He said that he went and got some friends and held 'chrome' to his head. How are you defending this? Look to yourself.
So in addition to re-reading ... have a look at the meaning of the word "reprehensible".
Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick.
Fella, I wasn't there and neither were you. Unless congo returns to state definitively that he held the weapon to the person's temple, how do you know definitively that one of the "carload" did not so act?
This type of back-bending is why I asked you to look to yourself. If someone tells you they went to some guy with his friends and a gun was held up to their head, would you think to yourself "oh well it's not definitive"? What if it was your father? Sibling? Child?
Tiresais, save the self-righteous bullshit. In all of this, you have conveniently skirted the other wrong. Aside from that, you may be inserting "facts" based on an emotional perception of the event. Indeed your emotion surrounding the event is evident ... yet none of your emotion ascribes any comment to the person whose unwanted sexual advance triggered the lamentable events.
Look to yourself yuh say? I'm looking at myself and I'm looking at you and I'm telling you clearly ... calling someone paranoid because he (or she) experienced an unwanted sexual advance and reacted poorly is f**kery. Unmitigated at that. Let me remind you: you called congo a quote unquote f-ing psycho ... and told him to seek professional help.
I think you need to "look at yourself" if you have absolutely NOTHING to say about the lecturer's conduct. Bullshit is bullshit.
-
We can infer from Congo's post that at minimum, he participated in putting "some chrome to his temple". Whether he or another member of the "carload" he picked up did it still speaks to his state of mind.
Even if we believe his claim that the other party became violent and threatened him academically, there are other avenues for relief.
Re: the first bold ... No disagreement here. At least that. In a post above, I used the language "tacitly perhaps". I don't know enough to assert more.
Re: the second bold ... his state of mind as the victim of an unwanted sexual advance from one who is alleged to have abused a position of authority (lecturer/student) or as an actor who could not/did not respond to the events on his own?
Unquestionably other avenues of relief other than the threat of deadly force existed ...
-
You held a gun to someone's head? You're a f**king psycho, there's no question about it. Seek professional help because you are a horrible human being.
Tacitly perhaps. Definitively, you can't say that "he" did that. Re-read the post.
Nonetheless, a reprehensible situation no doubt ... as such, shouldn't your condemnation be distributed to the other party also?
Given Congo's paranoid and homophobia, I find his claim less believable than his admission that he held a gun to the man's head. He said that he went and got some friends and held 'chrome' to his head. How are you defending this? Look to yourself.
So in addition to re-reading ... have a look at the meaning of the word "reprehensible".
Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick.
Fella, I wasn't there and neither were you. Unless congo returns to state definitively that he held the weapon to the person's temple, how do you know definitively that one of the "carload" did not so act?
This type of back-bending is why I asked you to look to yourself. If someone tells you they went to some guy with his friends and a gun was held up to their head, would you think to yourself "oh well it's not definitive"? What if it was your father? Sibling? Child?
Tiresais, save the self-righteous bullshit. In all of this, you have conveniently skirted the other wrong. Aside from that, you may be inserting "facts" based on an emotional perception of the event. Indeed your emotion surrounding the event is evident ... yet none of your emotion ascribes any comment to the person whose unwanted sexual advance triggered the lamentable events.
Look to yourself yuh say? I'm looking at myself and I'm looking at you and I'm telling you clearly ... calling someone paranoid because he (or she) experienced an unwanted sexual advance and reacted poorly is f**kery. Unmitigated at that. Let me remind you: you called congo a quote unquote f-ing psycho ... and told him to seek professional help.
I think you need to "look at yourself" if you have absolutely NOTHING to say about the lecturer's conduct. Bullshit is bullshit.
Sir maybe you need to re-read - I explicitly stated I don't find his assertion credible. He has shown in other topics as in this one to be homophobic, with paranoid delusions about a "global gay agenda" or some other pro-gay shady organisation. Given his delusions and violent behaviour it's more likely he totally misread the information and acted on his deep anti-homosexual prejudices.
-
You held a gun to someone's head? You're a f**king psycho, there's no question about it. Seek professional help because you are a horrible human being.
Tacitly perhaps. Definitively, you can't say that "he" did that. Re-read the post.
Nonetheless, a reprehensible situation no doubt ... as such, shouldn't your condemnation be distributed to the other party also?
Given Congo's paranoid and homophobia, I find his claim less believable than his admission that he held a gun to the man's head. He said that he went and got some friends and held 'chrome' to his head. How are you defending this? Look to yourself.
So in addition to re-reading ... have a look at the meaning of the word "reprehensible".
Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick.
Fella, I wasn't there and neither were you. Unless congo returns to state definitively that he held the weapon to the person's temple, how do you know definitively that one of the "carload" did not so act?
This type of back-bending is why I asked you to look to yourself. If someone tells you they went to some guy with his friends and a gun was held up to their head, would you think to yourself "oh well it's not definitive"? What if it was your father? Sibling? Child?
Tiresais, save the self-righteous bullshit. In all of this, you have conveniently skirted the other wrong. Aside from that, you may be inserting "facts" based on an emotional perception of the event. Indeed your emotion surrounding the event is evident ... yet none of your emotion ascribes any comment to the person whose unwanted sexual advance triggered the lamentable events.
Look to yourself yuh say? I'm looking at myself and I'm looking at you and I'm telling you clearly ... calling someone paranoid because he (or she) experienced an unwanted sexual advance and reacted poorly is f**kery. Unmitigated at that. Let me remind you: you called congo a quote unquote f-ing psycho ... and told him to seek professional help.
I think you need to "look at yourself" if you have absolutely NOTHING to say about the lecturer's conduct. Bullshit is bullshit.
Sir maybe you need to re-read - I explicitly stated I don't find his assertion credible. He has shown in other topics as in this one to be homophobic, with paranoid delusions about a "global gay agenda" or some other pro-gay shady organisation. Given his delusions and violent behaviour it's more likely he totally misread the information and acted on his deep anti-homosexual prejudices.
That's your response? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: You can't be serious.
-
So you ascribe value to your narratives, but not to those of others? Quite the colonial approach.
-
We can infer from Congo's post that at minimum, he participated in putting "some chrome to his temple". Whether he or another member of the "carload" he picked up did it still speaks to his state of mind.
Even if we believe his claim that the other party became violent and threatened him academically, there are other avenues for relief.
Re: the first bold ... No disagreement here. At least that. In a post above, I used the language "tacitly perhaps". I don't know enough to assert more.
Re: the second bold ... his state of mind as the victim of an unwanted sexual advance from one who is alleged to have abused a position of authority (lecturer/student) or as an actor who could not/did not respond to the events on his own?
Unquestionably other avenues of relief other than the threat of deadly force existed ...
I am prone to reading posts hastily and admittedly, do not always grasp all the nuances of said posts. But I usually walk away with an overall sense/impression of the poster based on the image that is projected in these posts.
With Congo, I am not left with the sense that he would be cowed by the actions of people whose actions he describes as "nastiness".
Are you suggesting that he was so emotionally distraught that his reaction is defensible? In any event, the suggestion that he seek help is not without merit.
-
We can infer from Congo's post that at minimum, he participated in putting "some chrome to his temple". Whether he or another member of the "carload" he picked up did it still speaks to his state of mind.
Even if we believe his claim that the other party became violent and threatened him academically, there are other avenues for relief.
Re: the first bold ... No disagreement here. At least that. In a post above, I used the language "tacitly perhaps". I don't know enough to assert more.
Re: the second bold ... his state of mind as the victim of an unwanted sexual advance from one who is alleged to have abused a position of authority (lecturer/student) or as an actor who could not/did not respond to the events on his own?
Unquestionably other avenues of relief other than the threat of deadly force existed ...
I am prone to reading posts hastily and admittedly, do not always grasp all the nuances of said posts. But I usually walk away with an overall sense/impression of the poster based on the image that is projected in these posts.
With Congo, I am not left with the sense that he would be cowed by the actions of people whose actions he describes as "nastiness".
Are you suggesting that he was so emotionally distraught that his reaction is defensible? In any event, the suggestion that he seek help is not without merit.
Congo can talk fuh himself ... but ...
It might be instructive to distinguish between his expressions now (based on his accumulated experience) and his ability to address the situation then. Whether big umman, big man or lil gyul or smallman, someone abusing a position of authority distorts one's ability to leverage the situation on even terms. The response that follows is a product of this.
Congo's posts indicate that he wanted finality ... he wanted a prompt resolution ... and he wanted to put his position across clearly and forcibly. His posts also indicate he believes in a bright line ... do yuh ting, but leave me out of it. Note he said ... after that both parties never had an issue and he didn't act to report the matter. Perhaps that was the result of the zero sum situation, but it seems to indicate a level of maturity and commonsense.
-
I am throwing a question out.
Both Congo and Socapro claim to be the victims of sexual harassment or even sexual assault (my words). The perpetrators are "in the closet" gays.
QUESTION: Has any other other male heterosexual on this forum been the victim of sexual harassment/assault committed by a male homosexual?
I am heterosexual but I have never had a gay person proposition me - and I have been around for several decades.
While we await the findings ... what signficance do you attach to the question?
-
I am throwing a question out.
Both Congo and Socapro claim to be the victims of sexual harassment or even sexual assault (my words). The perpetrators are "in the closet" gays.
QUESTION: Has any other other male heterosexual on this forum been the victim of sexual harassment/assault committed by a male homosexual?
I am heterosexual but I have never had a gay person proposition me - and I have been around for several decades.
While we await the findings ... what signficance do you attach to the question?
I suspect that my wait will be in perpetuity and uneventful, but nevertheless ...
I have a hypothesis that one factor (and there are others) that forms one's opinions regarding a segment of our society (ex. race, culture, gender, religion, ethnicity, and in this case sexual orientation), may be negative or traumatic experiences with members of that segment.
Two examples:
A female rape victim may have a difficulty time with men, generally speaking; or a bad experience with a member(s) of a religious faith may lead you to conclude that all members of that faith are to be avoided.
Both Socapro and Congo stated that they were victims of unwanted sexual attention originally disguised as benign socialization. And I think that they both responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender. And they have both made their positions clear on homosexuality.
I am curious if there are forum members who feel that they have been victimized. I have never been victimized and my views on homosexuals are liberal. Congo and Socapro have been victimized and their views are conservative, some would argue, even hateful and bigoted.
Just curious if anecdotal data supports my hypothesis. That's all.
-
I was approached on d water taxi, didn' even realize what d scene was wit dat person until ah day I come in d boat, person say mornin, I say mornin and gone my way......now I start realize ah while before dat, that he used to kinda go out he way to say mornin to me in particular.......but someting about me...me eh know if is d handicapped ting, but all manner of people does jus feel d need to have ah chat with me for whatever reason...me eh know ??? .....so I thought dais what dat was......though d "mornin" did song lil different dat day...............I gone an sit down, d brother pass ress he hand on my shoulder in a way dat jus set off alarm bells...................after dat I jus start approachin he different......when I get frosty yuh does know it.......and dat was d end ah dat.......I still doh tink gays is heterosexuals with vice................your orientation some where in yuh biological make up.............dis talk about choice is BS.
So even with dat experience above I still tink it wrong to legislate against dem......... d only problem I have with dem is d rumours of unfettered debauchery within their community and ting like dat and closets bringin home diseases to their wives...........if u choose to "choose" , "choose" and stick to it ....if your want to change yuh "choice" make ah clean break.
-
Matthew use to flash he eyes for me :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: I didn't mind cause Lisa Carr use to be with him and....well you know that creation.
-
Now I am not a big guy by any means. Today I weigh only 135 pounds so being cornered by a man who is at least 235 pounds is not a nice situation. The whole scenario really began when he began bombarding me with texts. Mind you he did ask for my phone number and I ignored him. I actually told him that I don't give my phone number to men. Needless to say he got my phone number from admin and soon the texts occured. Atleast 10 times a day I was being messaged. The texts were really creative. They weren't incriminating if read at face value by a neutral. At this point I was still being respectable seeing that he was lecturer etc. Soon he crossed the line and started talking about being on the down low and that he suspect that I am etc. Then it got really explicit, I think after being ignored etc he just needed to put that out there. I confronted him by text saying stuff like that was really disrespectful and he should respect the student/ lecturer barrier and also that I wasn't interested in that lifestyle. At this point he denied that he was gay, aggressively so to the point where he was texting in Caps or "shouting". Again, I told him that I have nothing against what he does but it's not something that I am interested in. Again he denied and the texts stopped. So next time for class he held me back after class and was like he's sorry about what he said and he hoped that this doesn't affect our professional relationship etc. I was like yeah I could be professional as long as you don't penalise me unfairly or treat me any different because of what happened. We agreed then he asked to see the phone. I was like nah, I don't have it on me. I guess he realised that he had crossed the line and some stuff he said could be incriminating. So I ended up cornered and he dipped his hand in my pocket and took the phone. When I turned to leave, I felt his hand clasp my neck and he dipped his hand in my pocket and took the phone. At that time I was freaking out, I didn't even ask for the phone back or try to fight back I already had another plan in place.
My father is ex Brit military, he does a lot of security consulting in Latin America and the caribbean. I went and talk to one of his partners, he became worried because he felt the aggressive nature of this homie could result in harm to me in the future. So he got some of his "friends" to go with me to get my phone back and to send a message basically. I didn't put any chrome to anyone's head. I didn't need to. Up to this day I still haven't told my family what happened. My family would never let this lie and they would never allow it to reach to court. It's just how things are dealt with in the circles we live in.
Some of you all fail to realise that this is Trinidad we live in. I know things that will keep you all up at night. Some stuff never even make the news. This is not a paradise that you all like to believe. The same way I was cornered and my phone taken, is the same way I could have been easily kidnapped. We don't play with people who are willing to cross the line. Court was never going to be an option because I don't want my name mixed up with that sort of stuff. For the remainder of the class term I had to be in class with a bodyguard outside in a car who would come looking if I didn't get back to him within 5 mins of class being over. After that incident, he had minimal contact with me. He wouldn't even pick me to answer a question, this after calling me his "A" student a couple weeks earlier and bragging about me to his colleagues. I had to chose a complete different specialty in third year to get away from him as he was the head of the field I was interested in going into and doing those courses meant having class with him atleast 4 times a week in comparison to just the one class before.
-
Homosexuality is deviant unnatural behavior as is defined by a dictionary .
Most has no problem with these people if they are closeted where it belongs but when it is constantly paraded about as if it is some to be be proud of then it becomes a problem
In my opinion the people that controls the media , finances and Hollywood are deliberately pushing the Homosexual agenda to destroy christian and all other religion values .
It is at a point now where if one is against this lifestyle , it is made to appear as if there is something wrong with that person .
Some are saying that they are born this way but if that is so , why not treat it as a birth defect?
-
@congo wow ok then...........all ah dat no wonder u have it out like dat..................wow......I have to say I might have done someting similar.....dat jus wrong
-
Homosexuality is deviant unnatural behavior as is defined by a dictionary .
Most has no problem with these people if they are closeted where it belongs but when it is constantly paraded about as if it is some to be be proud of then it becomes a problem
In my opinion the people that controls the media , finances and Hollywood are deliberately pushing the Homosexual agenda to destroy christian and all other religion values .
It is at a point now where if one is against this lifestyle , it is made to appear as if there is something wrong with that person .
Some are saying that they are born this way but if that is so , why not treat it as a birth defect?
how exactly do u propose to fix a persons nature.......forget gays dat can pass as straight....what about obviously effeminate boys, who ent get exposed to gays in dey early life........how do u explain away dat................whey dey learn it from
-
A group of prominent Ugandan scholars, lawmakers and gay rights activists have dragged the government to the Constitutional Court over the enactment of the Anti-Homosexuality law. The group contends that the law violates key human rights provisions enshrined in the Constitution. Solomon Serwanjja has more....
Uganda: Gay activists challenge act in court
http://www.youtube.com/v/7O9LUW2---U
Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.
I suspect that those lawyers are being paid handsomely by the Gay Rights movement so decided to take the money and go thru the motions.
I won't be surprised if they happily lose the case and go laughing all the way to the bank as they are Ugandan lawyers after all who know how much the vast majority of folks in the country support the Anti-Gay laws.
Yes I imagine their legal fight is funded by the Gay Rights movements and anti-discrimination groups and NGOs, just as a movement against an anti-catholic bill might receive support from the Catholic church and Catholic organisations. But given the people involved are gay themselves I doubt they will be 'laughing to the bank' as you so glibly put it. It's their lives on the line - just by simply standing out in front of the camera they face a violent backlash.
Those who fought against apartheid, slavery, and institutional racism too faced the same popular backlash, with a public whole-heartedly against their movement - did the overall majority support for slavery make it right? I mean the bible is pretty clear that you can enslave your fellow man and woman (take a sex slave alongside your wife why don't you?), so you would have been in favour for your fellow man to be enslaved?
Why are you projecting?
I simply stated my suspicion and I don't think you are correct in assuming that all those people bringing the case against the Ugandan government are gay.
We will eventually see what the out come is to see if my suspicions turn out to be correct or not.
No of course some of them are not gay, just like all those against segregation weren't black and those against slavery weren't slaves - for evil to win requires good people to stand idly by. These people, regardless of whether they are gay or not, face a violent backlash for standing up for another citizen, another human being's rights
That is your assumption that will remain an assumption without proof.
The Ugandan people in general are pretty civilized from my observations so I would be surprised to see or hear of any violence towards anyone involved in the case.
You are shockingly ignorant. Just google David Kato - gay rights activist in Uganda who fought a magazine that published the name and occupation of "suspected homosexuals". After winning his lawsuit, he was murdered by anti-gay protesters.
What happened to David Kato back in 2011 is highly unlikely to happen to anyone working on this case so once again I am putting it to you that you have made an assumption regards those working on this case being likely to face a violent backlash.
-
Congo to bad you had to not report him .Wonder how many innocent boys he rape since then.
Funny guess you right tho you had him warned at crome point and these men here blame you as the one needing help.lol.
These predator s use kids shame to remain undetected. And now I guess they under the protection of the gay rights movements.
Guess unless one of these men grab one of these sympathizers and bugger the shat outer them or they boy or girl child .nahh they to civil to use violence ,guess we're just savages.
add : I wonder if these new gay parents if there kids were to get sodomized by one of these Authority figures ,if they would get mad ,or just look at it as a coming of age event lol.
-
Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.
I suspect that those lawyers are being paid handsomely by the Gay Rights movement so decided to take the money and go thru the motions.
I won't be surprised if they happily lose the case and go laughing all the way to the bank as they are Ugandan lawyers after all who know how much the vast majority of folks in the country support the Anti-Gay laws.
Yes I imagine their legal fight is funded by the Gay Rights movements and anti-discrimination groups and NGOs, just as a movement against an anti-catholic bill might receive support from the Catholic church and Catholic organisations. But given the people involved are gay themselves I doubt they will be 'laughing to the bank' as you so glibly put it. It's their lives on the line - just by simply standing out in front of the camera they face a violent backlash.
Those who fought against apartheid, slavery, and institutional racism too faced the same popular backlash, with a public whole-heartedly against their movement - did the overall majority support for slavery make it right? I mean the bible is pretty clear that you can enslave your fellow man and woman (take a sex slave alongside your wife why don't you?), so you would have been in favour for your fellow man to be enslaved?
Why are you projecting?
I simply stated my suspicion and I don't think you are correct in assuming that all those people bringing the case against the Ugandan government are gay.
We will eventually see what the out come is to see if my suspicions turn out to be correct or not.
No of course some of them are not gay, just like all those against segregation weren't black and those against slavery weren't slaves - for evil to win requires good people to stand idly by. These people, regardless of whether they are gay or not, face a violent backlash for standing up for another citizen, another human being's rights
That is your assumption that will remain an assumption without proof.
The Ugandan people in general are pretty civilized from my observations so I would be surprised to see or hear of any violence towards anyone involved in the case.
You are shockingly ignorant. Just google David Kato - gay rights activist in Uganda who fought a magazine that published the name and occupation of "suspected homosexuals". After winning his lawsuit, he was murdered by anti-gay protesters.
What happened to David Kato back in 2011 is highly unlikely to happen to anyone working on this case so once again I am putting it to you that you have made an assumption regards those working on this case being likely to face a violent backlash.
What do you base your assertion that it's "highly unlikely"? Kato was a very high profile rights activist, these guys are much less known both nationally and internationally. This is also a shift in your position, before you couldn't imagine such "uncivilised" behaviour, and when I point out this has happened before you claim I'm making an assumption.
-
Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.
I suspect that those lawyers are being paid handsomely by the Gay Rights movement so decided to take the money and go thru the motions.
I won't be surprised if they happily lose the case and go laughing all the way to the bank as they are Ugandan lawyers after all who know how much the vast majority of folks in the country support the Anti-Gay laws.
Yes I imagine their legal fight is funded by the Gay Rights movements and anti-discrimination groups and NGOs, just as a movement against an anti-catholic bill might receive support from the Catholic church and Catholic organisations. But given the people involved are gay themselves I doubt they will be 'laughing to the bank' as you so glibly put it. It's their lives on the line - just by simply standing out in front of the camera they face a violent backlash.
Those who fought against apartheid, slavery, and institutional racism too faced the same popular backlash, with a public whole-heartedly against their movement - did the overall majority support for slavery make it right? I mean the bible is pretty clear that you can enslave your fellow man and woman (take a sex slave alongside your wife why don't you?), so you would have been in favour for your fellow man to be enslaved?
Why are you projecting?
I simply stated my suspicion and I don't think you are correct in assuming that all those people bringing the case against the Ugandan government are gay.
We will eventually see what the out come is to see if my suspicions turn out to be correct or not.
No of course some of them are not gay, just like all those against segregation weren't black and those against slavery weren't slaves - for evil to win requires good people to stand idly by. These people, regardless of whether they are gay or not, face a violent backlash for standing up for another citizen, another human being's rights
That is your assumption that will remain an assumption without proof.
The Ugandan people in general are pretty civilized from my observations so I would be surprised to see or hear of any violence towards anyone involved in the case.
You are shockingly ignorant. Just google David Kato - gay rights activist in Uganda who fought a magazine that published the name and occupation of "suspected homosexuals". After winning his lawsuit, he was murdered by anti-gay protesters.
What happened to David Kato back in 2011 is highly unlikely to happen to anyone working on this case so once again I am putting it to you that you have made an assumption regards those working on this case being likely to face a violent backlash.
What do you base your assertion that it's "highly unlikely"? Kato was a very high profile rights activist, these guys are much less known both nationally and internationally. This is also a shift in your position, before you couldn't imagine such "uncivilised" behaviour, and when I point out this has happened before you claim I'm making an assumption.
I have not shifted my position. Provided it does not and has not happened in this instance, you trying to paint another victim picture is as good as a lie.
I have noticed this is a regular tactic being used by folks in the gay rights movement, always playing victim to forward their perverted agenda. You claim that you are likely to suffer violence/abuse when in reality you are the ones most likely to do the abusing once in a position of power over others and given the opportunity.
-
Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?
-
Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.
I suspect that those lawyers are being paid handsomely by the Gay Rights movement so decided to take the money and go thru the motions.
I won't be surprised if they happily lose the case and go laughing all the way to the bank as they are Ugandan lawyers after all who know how much the vast majority of folks in the country support the Anti-Gay laws.
Yes I imagine their legal fight is funded by the Gay Rights movements and anti-discrimination groups and NGOs, just as a movement against an anti-catholic bill might receive support from the Catholic church and Catholic organisations. But given the people involved are gay themselves I doubt they will be 'laughing to the bank' as you so glibly put it. It's their lives on the line - just by simply standing out in front of the camera they face a violent backlash.
Those who fought against apartheid, slavery, and institutional racism too faced the same popular backlash, with a public whole-heartedly against their movement - did the overall majority support for slavery make it right? I mean the bible is pretty clear that you can enslave your fellow man and woman (take a sex slave alongside your wife why don't you?), so you would have been in favour for your fellow man to be enslaved?
Why are you projecting?
I simply stated my suspicion and I don't think you are correct in assuming that all those people bringing the case against the Ugandan government are gay.
We will eventually see what the out come is to see if my suspicions turn out to be correct or not.
No of course some of them are not gay, just like all those against segregation weren't black and those against slavery weren't slaves - for evil to win requires good people to stand idly by. These people, regardless of whether they are gay or not, face a violent backlash for standing up for another citizen, another human being's rights
That is your assumption that will remain an assumption without proof.
The Ugandan people in general are pretty civilized from my observations so I would be surprised to see or hear of any violence towards anyone involved in the case.
You are shockingly ignorant. Just google David Kato - gay rights activist in Uganda who fought a magazine that published the name and occupation of "suspected homosexuals". After winning his lawsuit, he was murdered by anti-gay protesters.
What happened to David Kato back in 2011 is highly unlikely to happen to anyone working on this case so once again I am putting it to you that you have made an assumption regards those working on this case being likely to face a violent backlash.
What do you base your assertion that it's "highly unlikely"? Kato was a very high profile rights activist, these guys are much less known both nationally and internationally. This is also a shift in your position, before you couldn't imagine such "uncivilised" behaviour, and when I point out this has happened before you claim I'm making an assumption.
I have not shifted my position. Provided it does not and has not happened in this instance, you trying to paint another victim picture is as good as a lie.
I have noticed this is a regular tactic being used by folks in the gay rights movement, always playing victim to forward their perverted agenda. You claim that you are likely to suffer violence/abuse when in reality you are the ones most likely to do the abusing once in a position of power over others and given the opportunity.
There's really nothing more to say to you - you're talking absolute rubbish. ALL the evidence points to the serious physical and mental harm that the LGBT community faces in parts of the Caribbean and Africa. You are paranoid - asserting there is some secret gay conspiracy in the halls of power, whilst ignoring the weekly reports of attacks against homosexuals globally. Whenever I give you a counter-example, you gloss over it, or make crazy assertions without any supporting evidence.
Your position has no factual basis, no basis in reality. I could give you a thousand examples and you would still believe what you believe, so there's no point.
-
Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?
this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......
-
Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?
this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......
I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.
Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"
-
Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?
this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......
I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.
Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"
You're full of it. First, you evade the unwanted sexual advance, then you decide to re-diagnose Congo ... as long as you arrive at a position consistent with your destination, right? Let me guess, next on the playbook is he's a hypocrite.
So now Congo has gone from needing one type of professional help (for being a "f**king psycho ... because [he's] a horrible human being") to needing professional help because he's experienced psychological trauma? Hmmm, interesting. I suppose he's in denial, huh?
To hark on it would be immoral? How about it seems unethical not to apologise given your strident selective condemnation? That would have been the stand-up thing to do.
In essence you're proselytizing; and because the Gospel according to Tiresais is not being received by the infidel, you've labelled the infidel as possessing a warped perception of reality.
I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comparisons to race because that would just blow up the spot.
-
Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?
this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......
I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.
Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"
You're full of it. First, you evade the unwanted sexual advance, then you decide to re-diagnose Congo ... as long as you arrive at a position consistent with your destination, right? Let me guess, next on the playbook is he's a hypocrite.
So now Congo has gone from needing one type of professional help (for being a "f**king psycho ... because [he's] a horrible human being") to needing professional help because he's experienced psychological trauma? Hmmm, interesting. I suppose he's in denial, huh?
To hark on it would be immoral? How about it seems unethical not to apologise given your strident selective condemnation? That would have been the stand-up thing to do.
In essence you're proselytizing; and because the Gospel according to Tiresais is not being received by the infidel, you've labelled the infidel as possessing a warped perception of reality.
I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comparisons to race because that would just blow up the spot.
He needs professional help, my position has not changed.
-
Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?
this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......
I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.
Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"
You're full of it. First, you evade the unwanted sexual advance, then you decide to re-diagnose Congo ... as long as you arrive at a position consistent with your destination, right? Let me guess, next on the playbook is he's a hypocrite.
So now Congo has gone from needing one type of professional help (for being a "f**king psycho ... because [he's] a horrible human being") to needing professional help because he's experienced psychological trauma? Hmmm, interesting. I suppose he's in denial, huh?
To hark on it would be immoral? How about it seems unethical not to apologise given your strident selective condemnation? That would have been the stand-up thing to do.
In essence you're proselytizing; and because the Gospel according to Tiresais is not being received by the infidel, you've labelled the infidel as possessing a warped perception of reality.
I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comparisons to race because that would just blow up the spot.
He needs professional help, my position has not changed.
Good luck living in Trini.
-
Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?
this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......
I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.
Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"
You're full of it. First, you evade the unwanted sexual advance, then you decide to re-diagnose Congo ... as long as you arrive at a position consistent with your destination, right? Let me guess, next on the playbook is he's a hypocrite.
So now Congo has gone from needing one type of professional help (for being a "f**king psycho ... because [he's] a horrible human being") to needing professional help because he's experienced psychological trauma? Hmmm, interesting. I suppose he's in denial, huh?
To hark on it would be immoral? How about it seems unethical not to apologise given your strident selective condemnation? That would have been the stand-up thing to do.
In essence you're proselytizing; and because the Gospel according to Tiresais is not being received by the infidel, you've labelled the infidel as possessing a warped perception of reality.
I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comparisons to race because that would just blow up the spot.
He needs professional help, my position has not changed.
Good luck living in Trini.
Hah looks like I'll need it.
-
Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?
this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......
I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.
Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"
You're full of it. First, you evade the unwanted sexual advance, then you decide to re-diagnose Congo ... as long as you arrive at a position consistent with your destination, right? Let me guess, next on the playbook is he's a hypocrite.
So now Congo has gone from needing one type of professional help (for being a "f**king psycho ... because [he's] a horrible human being") to needing professional help because he's experienced psychological trauma? Hmmm, interesting. I suppose he's in denial, huh?
To hark on it would be immoral? How about it seems unethical not to apologise given your strident selective condemnation? That would have been the stand-up thing to do.
In essence you're proselytizing; and because the Gospel according to Tiresais is not being received by the infidel, you've labelled the infidel as possessing a warped perception of reality.
I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comparisons to race because that would just blow up the spot.
He needs professional help, my position has not changed.
Good luck living in Trini.
Hah looks like I'll need it.
What you'll need is better judgement.
-
Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?
this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......
I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.
Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"
You're full of it. First, you evade the unwanted sexual advance, then you decide to re-diagnose Congo ... as long as you arrive at a position consistent with your destination, right? Let me guess, next on the playbook is he's a hypocrite.
So now Congo has gone from needing one type of professional help (for being a "f**king psycho ... because [he's] a horrible human being") to needing professional help because he's experienced psychological trauma? Hmmm, interesting. I suppose he's in denial, huh?
To hark on it would be immoral? How about it seems unethical not to apologise given your strident selective condemnation? That would have been the stand-up thing to do.
In essence you're proselytizing; and because the Gospel according to Tiresais is not being received by the infidel, you've labelled the infidel as possessing a warped perception of reality.
I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comparisons to race because that would just blow up the spot.
He needs professional help, my position has not changed.
Good luck living in Trini.
Hah looks like I'll need it.
so d asshole dat try to assault him doh need none, he jus gay an' misunderstood, what if d situation did end bad for congo, how about dat, you f**k up oui and might be d one actually in need of help
-
Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?
this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......
I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.
Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"
You're full of it. First, you evade the unwanted sexual advance, then you decide to re-diagnose Congo ... as long as you arrive at a position consistent with your destination, right? Let me guess, next on the playbook is he's a hypocrite.
So now Congo has gone from needing one type of professional help (for being a "f**king psycho ... because [he's] a horrible human being") to needing professional help because he's experienced psychological trauma? Hmmm, interesting. I suppose he's in denial, huh?
To hark on it would be immoral? How about it seems unethical not to apologise given your strident selective condemnation? That would have been the stand-up thing to do.
In essence you're proselytizing; and because the Gospel according to Tiresais is not being received by the infidel, you've labelled the infidel as possessing a warped perception of reality.
I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comparisons to race because that would just blow up the spot.
He needs professional help, my position has not changed.
Good luck living in Trini.
Hah looks like I'll need it.
so d asshole dat try to assault him doh need none, he jus gay an' misunderstood, what if d situation did end bad for congo, how about dat, you f**k up oui and might be d one actually in need of help
If true, it's clear the lecturer is in the initial wrong- relationships between students and lecturers are usually banned by universities as they compromise the student-lecturer relationship and undermine the unbiased of your marking. That's even before we get to the other problems here.
I'm not interested in that as much as I am the question at hand - homosexuality. The lecturer is gay, but his actions were not the product of this, just like rape is not a crime of heterosexuality if it's a woman being assaulted by a man. Sure, they require one-another - clearly a heterosexual lecturer wouldn't have approached him (depending on your definition of sexuality - a Kinsey scale renders this point less important as sexuality changes over time), but it wasn't his homosexuality that made him sexually assault Congo, just as heterosexuality is no the cause of the sexual assault of women
-
Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.
I suspect that those lawyers are being paid handsomely by the Gay Rights movement so decided to take the money and go thru the motions.
I won't be surprised if they happily lose the case and go laughing all the way to the bank as they are Ugandan lawyers after all who know how much the vast majority of folks in the country support the Anti-Gay laws.
Yes I imagine their legal fight is funded by the Gay Rights movements and anti-discrimination groups and NGOs, just as a movement against an anti-catholic bill might receive support from the Catholic church and Catholic organisations. But given the people involved are gay themselves I doubt they will be 'laughing to the bank' as you so glibly put it. It's their lives on the line - just by simply standing out in front of the camera they face a violent backlash.
Those who fought against apartheid, slavery, and institutional racism too faced the same popular backlash, with a public whole-heartedly against their movement - did the overall majority support for slavery make it right? I mean the bible is pretty clear that you can enslave your fellow man and woman (take a sex slave alongside your wife why don't you?), so you would have been in favour for your fellow man to be enslaved?
Why are you projecting?
I simply stated my suspicion and I don't think you are correct in assuming that all those people bringing the case against the Ugandan government are gay.
We will eventually see what the out come is to see if my suspicions turn out to be correct or not.
No of course some of them are not gay, just like all those against segregation weren't black and those against slavery weren't slaves - for evil to win requires good people to stand idly by. These people, regardless of whether they are gay or not, face a violent backlash for standing up for another citizen, another human being's rights
That is your assumption that will remain an assumption without proof.
The Ugandan people in general are pretty civilized from my observations so I would be surprised to see or hear of any violence towards anyone involved in the case.
You are shockingly ignorant. Just google David Kato - gay rights activist in Uganda who fought a magazine that published the name and occupation of "suspected homosexuals". After winning his lawsuit, he was murdered by anti-gay protesters.
What happened to David Kato back in 2011 is highly unlikely to happen to anyone working on this case so once again I am putting it to you that you have made an assumption regards those working on this case being likely to face a violent backlash.
What do you base your assertion that it's "highly unlikely"? Kato was a very high profile rights activist, these guys are much less known both nationally and internationally. This is also a shift in your position, before you couldn't imagine such "uncivilised" behaviour, and when I point out this has happened before you claim I'm making an assumption.
I have not shifted my position. Provided it does not and has not happened in this instance, you trying to paint another victim picture is as good as a lie.
I have noticed this is a regular tactic being used by folks in the gay rights movement, always playing victim to forward their perverted agenda. You claim that you are likely to suffer violence/abuse when in reality you are the ones most likely to do the abusing once in a position of power over others and given the opportunity.
There's really nothing more to say to you - you're talking absolute rubbish. ALL the evidence points to the serious physical and mental harm that the LGBT community faces in parts of the Caribbean and Africa. You are paranoid - asserting there is some secret gay conspiracy in the halls of power, whilst ignoring the weekly reports of attacks against homosexuals globally. Whenever I give you a counter-example, you gloss over it, or make crazy assertions without any supporting evidence.
Your position has no factual basis, no basis in reality. I could give you a thousand examples and you would still believe what you believe, so there's no point.
My position has no factual basis?
Facts are none of the people on the case on behalf of the Gay Rights movement in Uganda who are opposing and fighting against the new laws have suffered any violent attacks and you are simply scare mongering as the gay rights movement usually does.
Fact also are that the Gay Rights movement are now actively seeking to victimize anyone who opposes the teaching of Gay sex as natural and healthy in schools in America and Christian teachers are now actively being prevented from getting jobs in schools.
It is an aggressive agenda that will now stop until Christian and other Religious teachings are completely driven out of all schools in America and around the world.
See video below as more evidence of the systematic victimization now taking place.
Coach Dave Ready to Lead Prayer Into America's Schools
https://www.youtube.com/v/QcZoVt-7KGs
And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.
-
Allyuh really need to keep quoting the entire f**king chain in each response?? This shit making each response hard to read... not that much is being said.
-
Coach Dave Ready to Lead Prayer Into America's Schools
https://www.youtube.com/v/QcZoVt-7KGs
And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.
Yes, he was passed over because of the Gay lobby, and not because he's a f**king moron...
http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo
-
tiresais you readin like didn' even read or seriously consider congo's account ,therein lies d actual issue......yuh fly off d handle when the gay get assaulted, but sudden loss yuh "voice" when it became clear dat violence reciprocated violence..............a would imagine that condemnation would go both ways in such a case............so regardless of how yuh try to spin it yuh silence speakin louder than yuh words. gross hypocrisy of d highest order.
I done
-
tiresais you readin like didn' even read or seriously consider congo's account ,therein lies d actual issue......yuh fly off d handle when the gay get assaulted, but sudden loss yuh "voice" when it became clear dat violence reciprocated violence..............a would imagine that condemnation would go both ways in such a case............so regardless of how yuh try to spin it yuh silence speakin louder than yuh words. gross hypocrisy of d highest order.
I done
*sigh* as I've said in other threads, I am against violence in total. My reading of his account was that the lecturer panicked when he realised that the phone compromised his life, both professionally and personally, and so stole/mugged (latter meaning through use of force) the phone back. His actions were clearly not acceptable, as I've said. My "sympathy" (if you can call it that, I think the lecturer is being a prick from the first instance) with the guy is that his position is forced due to the intense homophobia he would experience were he to come out - a similar study in Jamaica ("the most homophobic place in the world") by the Human Rights Watch found that homosexuals were more likely to marry early in order to protect themselves from the intense scrutiny that might come, i.e. as a defence mechanism. This 'scrutiny' involves being hacked with machetes - one of the most recent cases was a 17 year old stabbed to death for cross-dressing.
The appropriate response to this is not to get a bunch of ex-military blokes to criminally threaten the person with a deadly weapon. Congo should have shipped him into the university and police and let them deal with it. Instead, he responded to a crime with a crime, and now has a genuine phobia of homosexuals. This isn't just a secular understanding of the law - Jesus specifically removes "An Eye For an Eye" at the Sermon on the Mount, so even within his own moral framework he is inconsistent.
This is all by-the-by, I'm not sure why you think I'm silent given my posts, but that's for you to think and feel. My main point is that Congo was clearly scarred by these events and should at least see a counsellor who might be able to help him deal with the whole incident.
-
Coach Dave Ready to Lead Prayer Into America's Schools
https://www.youtube.com/v/QcZoVt-7KGs
And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.
Yes, he was passed over because of the Gay lobby, and not because he's a f**king moron...
http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo
If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.
The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the end of the day.
Point of the matter is that there is an ongoing campaign by the Gay Rights movement to remove all Christian and religious teachings from schools in America and it is now having a serious effect on those who are getting jobs.
If the coach was Gay and for the Gay Rights movement he clearly would have been given the job as he was clearly the most qualified candidate who applied.
-
And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.
Yes, he was passed over because of the Gay lobby, and not because he's a f**king moron...
If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.
The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the day.
Point of the matter is that there is an ongoing campaign by the Gay Rights movement to remove all Christian and religious teachings from schools in America and it now having a serious effect on those who are getting jobs.
If the coach was Gay and for the Gay Rights movement he clearly would have been given the job as he was clearly the most qualified candidate who applied.
Would you have a problem with a racist coach being employed? Anti-Christian coach? Anti-Islam? If a coach is expected to coach players from diverse backgrounds and sexualities, an essential qualification of the job is to be able to have a working relationship with your players.
-
tiresais you readin like didn' even read or seriously consider congo's account ,therein lies d actual issue......yuh fly off d handle when the gay get assaulted, but sudden loss yuh "voice" when it became clear dat violence reciprocated violence..............a would imagine that condemnation would go both ways in such a case............so regardless of how yuh try to spin it yuh silence speakin louder than yuh words. gross hypocrisy of d highest order.
I done
Congo's isolated anecdotal account no more proves that gays are aggressive and violent, any more than the Ariel Castro case proves that Puerto Ricans (or heterosexuals for that matter) are violent, sexual deviants.
-
And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.
Yes, he was passed over because of the Gay lobby, and not because he's a f**king moron...
http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo
If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.
The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the day.
Point of the matter is that there is an ongoing campaign by the Gay Rights movement to remove all Christian and religious teachings from schools in America and it now having a serious effect on those who are getting jobs.
If the coach was Gay and for the Gay Rights movement he clearly would have been given the job as he was clearly the most qualified candidate who applied.
Would you have a problem with a racist coach being employed? Anti-Christian coach? Anti-Islam? If a coach is expected to coach players from diverse backgrounds and sexualities, an essential qualification of the job is to be able to have a working relationship with your players.
My problem is that he was clearly the BEST man for the job but was victimized because of his Christian belief.
If he was Gay and clearly the best man for the job I would have similarly expected him to get the job provided he would not have allowed his personal sexual life style to influence how well and unbiased he was going to perform his job on a professional level.
-
And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.
Yes, he was passed over because of the Gay lobby, and not because he's a f**king moron...
http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo
If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.
The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the day.
Point of the matter is that there is an ongoing campaign by the Gay Rights movement to remove all Christian and religious teachings from schools in America and it now having a serious effect on those who are getting jobs.
If the coach was Gay and for the Gay Rights movement he clearly would have been given the job as he was clearly the most qualified candidate who applied.
Would you have a problem with a racist coach being employed? Anti-Christian coach? Anti-Islam? If a coach is expected to coach players from diverse backgrounds and sexualities, an essential qualification of the job is to be able to have a working relationship with your players.
My problem is that he was clearly the BEST man for the job but was victimized because of his Christian belief.
If he was Gay and clearly the best man for the job I would have similarly want him to get the job provided he would not have allowed his personal sexual life style to influence how well on unbiased he was going to perform his job on a professional level.
I understand your concern here - you see it as discrimination against his Christian beliefs, but my counter still stands - if the university wants gay players not to be discriminated against then he is clearly not hte best man for the job regardless of his qualifications.
Again - if he was racist with teh same qualifications would he be the best man for the job?
-
tiresais you readin like didn' even read or seriously consider congo's account ,therein lies d actual issue......yuh fly off d handle when the gay get assaulted, but sudden loss yuh "voice" when it became clear dat violence reciprocated violence..............a would imagine that condemnation would go both ways in such a case............so regardless of how yuh try to spin it yuh silence speakin louder than yuh words. gross hypocrisy of d highest order.
I done
Congo's isolated anecdotal account no more proves that gays are aggressive and violent, any more than the Ariel Castro case proves that Puerto Ricans (or heterosexuals for that matter) are violent, sexual deviants.
wasn't my point, was speakin specifically about him appearing to gloss over the fact that the "wrong" went both ways.............I think I made it clear that I am not anti-gay or anti gay rights so it was an attempt to demonize anyone.....was addressin the imbalance in his responses to congo's initial comments and eventual qualification of said comments
dais all :beermug:
-
And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.
Yes, he was passed over because of the Gay lobby, and not because he's a f**king moron...
http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo
If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.
The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the day.
Point of the matter is that there is an ongoing campaign by the Gay Rights movement to remove all Christian and religious teachings from schools in America and it now having a serious effect on those who are getting jobs.
If the coach was Gay and for the Gay Rights movement he clearly would have been given the job as he was clearly the most qualified candidate who applied.
Would you have a problem with a racist coach being employed? Anti-Christian coach? Anti-Islam? If a coach is expected to coach players from diverse backgrounds and sexualities, an essential qualification of the job is to be able to have a working relationship with your players.
My problem is that he was clearly the BEST man for the job but was victimized because of his Christian belief.
If he was Gay and clearly the best man for the job I would have similarly want him to get the job provided he would not have allowed his personal sexual life style to influence how well on unbiased he was going to perform his job on a professional level.
I understand your concern here - you see it as discrimination against his Christian beliefs, but my counter still stands - if the university wants gay players not to be discriminated against then he is clearly not hte best man for the job regardless of his qualifications.
Again - if he was racist with teh same qualifications would he be the best man for the job?
What makes you assume that he would have discriminated against Gay students?
Would have been better to fairly give him the job and then if he committed such an offense in the future, discipline/dismiss him for not being totally professional in doing his job.
I don't think his track record shows anywhere in the past that he has discriminated against Gay students in the course of doing his job.
This is what bothers me with the Gay Rights movement. You complain about being discriminated against and are always quick to play the victim card even when you have not been victimized and are being treated fairly but will discriminate against others if placed in a position of power at the blink of an eye.
-
If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.
The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the end of the day.
If you took the time to watch the video and think for yourself you would understand:
1) The other video is sympathetic to his cause so of course it would skew the facts in his favor. The video paints this rejection as being premised on his faith, when in fact there are ample reasons why this idiot should not be on the public payroll, say nothing of being let anywhere to coaching children.
2) That you would say that the video I posted does not explain why he was not hired, serious calls into question your intelligence. Maybe you didn't watch the video, but in it he justifies the need for bullying in society. This at a time when bullying is the chief emerging problem in American schools. So painting by numbers for you... schools are fighting a growing problem where bullying threatens the proper administration of the school environment, where a number of students have been assaulted, killed and pressured into suicide, and here you have this idiot coach tacitly encouraging bullying... and yet you don't think the school had a legitimate reason to reject him? Are you even being serious? You can't see how the video I posted helps explain his rejection?
And that's not even the half of it. This coach forced his players to pray with him (http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook/2014/02/13/americas-most-christian-football-coach-rejected-from-job-actually-coaching-football/)... which as a Christian might be acceptable, but what if he was muslim and he forced your child to pray to Allah? What if he was a Satanist and he forced your child to pray to Satan? This might be hard for you to understand, but the US Constitution says that there must be a separation of Church and State... the State can't go into a Church and tell them what to pray or how to pray, and conversely, the "Church" cannot intrude into PUBLIC schools and force prayer on anyone.
-
And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.
Yes, he was passed over because of the Gay lobby, and not because he's a f**king moron...
http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo
If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.
The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the day.
Point of the matter is that there is an ongoing campaign by the Gay Rights movement to remove all Christian and religious teachings from schools in America and it now having a serious effect on those who are getting jobs.
If the coach was Gay and for the Gay Rights movement he clearly would have been given the job as he was clearly the most qualified candidate who applied.
Would you have a problem with a racist coach being employed? Anti-Christian coach? Anti-Islam? If a coach is expected to coach players from diverse backgrounds and sexualities, an essential qualification of the job is to be able to have a working relationship with your players.
My problem is that he was clearly the BEST man for the job but was victimized because of his Christian belief.
If he was Gay and clearly the best man for the job I would have similarly want him to get the job provided he would not have allowed his personal sexual life style to influence how well on unbiased he was going to perform his job on a professional level.
I understand your concern here - you see it as discrimination against his Christian beliefs, but my counter still stands - if the university wants gay players not to be discriminated against then he is clearly not hte best man for the job regardless of his qualifications.
Again - if he was racist with teh same qualifications would he be the best man for the job?
What makes you assume that he would have discriminated against Gay students?
Would have been better to fairly give him the job and then if he committed such an offense in the future, discipline/dismiss him for not being totally professional in doing his job.
I don't think his track record shows anywhere in the past that he has discriminated against Gay students in the course of doing his job.
This is what bothers me with the Gay Rights movement. You complain about being discriminated against and are always quick to play the victim card even when you have not been victimized and are being treated fairly but will discriminate against others if placed in a position of power at the blink of an eye.
So if you had two candidates, Candidate A is better qualified, but has used twitter and facebook to say things like "Blacks are the inferior race", whilst candidate B has no such comments in their social media, you would pick Candidate A?
-
If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.
The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the end of the day.
If you took the time to watch the video and think for yourself you would understand:
1) The other video is sympathetic to his cause so of course it would skew the facts in his favor. The video paints this rejection as being premised on his faith, when in fact there are ample reasons why this idiot should not be on the public payroll, say nothing of being let anywhere to coaching children.
2) That you would say that the video I posted does not explain why he was not hired, serious calls into question your intelligence. Maybe you didn't watch the video, but in it he justifies the need for bullying in society. This at a time when bullying is the chief emerging problem in American schools. So painting by numbers for you... schools are fighting a growing problem where bullying threatens the proper administration of the school environment, where a number of students have been assaulted, killed and pressured into suicide, and here you have this idiot coach tacitly encouraging bullying... and yet you don't think the school had a legitimate reason to reject him? Are you even being serious? You can't see how the video I posted helps explain his rejection?
And that's not even the half of it. This coach forced his players to pray with him (http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook/2014/02/13/americas-most-christian-football-coach-rejected-from-job-actually-coaching-football/)... which as a Christian might be acceptable, but what if he was muslim and he forced your child to pray to Allah? What if he was a Satanist and he forced your child to pray to Satan? This might be hard for you to understand, but the US Constitution says that there must be a separation of Church and State... the State can't go into a Church and tell them what to pray or how to pray, and conversely, the "Church" cannot intrude into PUBLIC schools and force prayer on anyone.
I did not watch the second video you posted because as far as I am aware the coach supposed support of bullying was not an issue raised with him not being given the coaching job and he was basically narrowed down as the best candidate for the job before suddenly not being given the job at the last minute.
The reason given for it was his Christian values and likeliness to try to impart some of those values onto his students rather than his supposed stance on bullying.
Its Saturday and I am here looking at football and doing a number of things while also posting to this discussion board so will try to look at the video you posted later when I can concentrate on it to see if it bears any relevance to him not being given the job. I some how doubt it has any connection as his stance on bullying was not the reason given for him not getting the job at the last minute.
PS: Btw I hope you realize that Allah is just the same God that Christians prayer to by a different name.
-
I coming back with mih observations on the vid in a bit.
1. the family is threatened
Where is his proof that the "family" is being threatened by the "gay agenda"? As opposed to say, divorce, incest, infidelity and out of wedlock births?
2. The American people have said they dont want to change the definition of marriage
Meaningless... in the 60s "the American people" also said they didn't want interracial marriage... or equal rights for black people for that matter. The will of the majority is a persuasive, not mandatory authority.
3. The rationale for gay marriage can used can be used to justify any deviancy
Begins with the disavowed premise that homosexuality is "deviant" behavior. We may think of it as morally or statistically deviant, but again... the exact thing was used to argue against interracial marriages. In fact, nothing prevents the same arguments from being made today. Bottom line is that sex between two consenting adults is in no way comparable between sex between an adult and a child, or sex betrween a human and an animal. The argument fails on its face.
4. Movement to legitimize pedophilia- 2011 group seeking to normalize sexual relations with children
5. Patent nonsense... the symposium (http://news.yahoo.com/b4u-act-pedophilia-takes-step-toward-being-considered-212800919.html)was held to promote the need for treatment for people sexually attracted to children, so that they could be helped BEFORE they act on their attraction. Even if you wanted to argue the the goals of ThinkB4Uact are nefarious... one symposium, by one organization hardly constitutes a "movement". You can't even argue "that's how it starts" because 3 years later and there has been no momentum or follow up.
6. In Berkeley two lesbians trying to turn 11-year old boy into a girl, drugs/surgery, no one objecting
Actually, people are objecting... but this was done after consultation with medical professionals, prompted by the little boy threatening to cut off his own penis. Say what you will of the story (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html), but it's hardly proof of a deviant conspiracy by "the gay agenda."
7. Bathroom laws part of a campaign to abolish gender distinctions
While I don't agree with the law, I'm not that opposed to it either. But all that aside, transgendered people are not "gay", therefore this has nothing to do with a "gay agenda"... only an ignorant person would confuse the two.
8. No more mother and father now parent 1 and parent 2
And this is evidence of a gay agenda??
9. What starts as asking for tolerance demands obedience
When it comes to laws, yes... but people are still free to think/believe what they want. Civil Rights laws have hardly stopped the incidence of racism in society. So much for the "obedience" talk.
10. Persecution of Christianity- churches will be prosecuted
Foolishness. Addressed elsewhere there is no evidence of this happening. The separation of church and state has already been discussed on the other thread... no need for more explanation here.
11. Free speech and freedom of religion undermined by gay agenda
Again... patent foolishness. See above.
Over to you now Socapro... defend the "points" yuh in agreement with. I firmly expect yuh to shrink from the task.
-
I did not watch the second video you posted because as far as I am aware the coach supposed support of bullying was not an issue raised with him not being given the coaching job and he was basically narrowed down as the best candidate for the job before suddenly not being given the job at the last minute.
You clearly picking and choosing what evidence is out there to support your own bias and ignorance. The coach's stance on this and several other issues are well known and highly controversial. He was the former coach of a CHRISTIAN school... where he was free to talk about Jesus and preach the bible all he want. That school FIRED him... you need to look into why that is. Maybe the fault is with the man himself. But nah... is because he Christian. The gays at his former Christian school get him fired. Nonsense. He was the leading candidate according to the School Superintendent. The Superintendent does not have the unilateral authority to hire and fire... the School Board does. There was ample reasons to not hire this fool... you need to educate yourself on the issues instead of watching nonsense videos and assuming.
The reason given for it was his Christian values and likeliness to try to impart some of those values onto his students rather than his supposed stance on bullying.
Foolishness. These 'reasons' were given where? You have proof... or yuh just going by what was said in the video?
Its Saturday and I am here looking at football and doing a number of things while also posting to this discussion board so will try to look at the video you posted later when I can concentrate on it to see if it bears any relevance to him not being given the job. I some how doubt it has any connection as his stance on bullying was not the reason given for him not getting the job at the last minute.
PS: Btw I hope you realize that Allah is just the same God that Christians prayer to by a different name.
I hope you realize that there are serious differences between Islam and Christianity beyond the name by which each calls its Supreme Being. Islam is not compatible with Christianity just as Judaism is not compatible with Christianity, given that both of those other religions deny the deity of Christ.
-
(http://www.dispatch.com/export/system/modules/com.titan.sites.dispatch/img/header/header-image.jpg?cmpid=tplnnv)
Lakewood school board wont hire Daubenmire as football coach
HEBRON, Ohio It appears that the two great passions of Dave Daubenmires life coaching and preaching are incompatible, at least to three of the five board members of Lakewood Local Schools.
The board voted 3-2 tonight to reject Superintendent Jay Gaults recommendation to hire the controversial Daubenmire as Lakewood High Schools head football coach.
Daubenmire, 61, has been a provocative figure since 1997 when, as coach of London High School, complaints about him praying with the football team prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to sue the district.
That suit was settled out of court in 1999, and Daubenmire was given another one-year coaching contract with the promise that hed stop praying with his players. But in early 2000, after leading his team to an undefeated season, he resigned.
Almost immediately, Daubenmire started Pass the Salt Ministries, and later another group, Minutemen United, drawing both followers and critics with his conservative Christian views.
In 2007, Minutemen United drew headlines for interrupting services at churches in Granville and Columbus that welcomed gay members.
He often speaks of manhood and the sissification of todays boys.
In a video posted last summer, he said the womens movement came along because the men withdrew and ran back in the closet and hid behind their wives skirts.
Many of those things were brought up last night in Lakewood Highs gym as 22 members of an audience that exceeded 100 stood to speak to the board. Of those impassioned speakers, nine, including Elyzabeth Holford, the executive director of Equality Ohio, urged the board to vote no.
Thirteen spoke in favor of Daubenmire, many of whom cited his success on the field. He coached at Heath High from 1982 to 1988 before taking over at London, where he coached for the next 11 seasons, guiding that team to the playoffs five times between 1992 and 1999.
Most recently, he started the football program at Fairfield Christian Academy in Lancaster in 2008, going 23-8 with two playoff appearances in his final three seasons before he was fired after the 2012 season, citing a difference of opinion with the administration.
Its time to get this right, said Mark Nichols, a football booster. Our kids deserve the best. Hire the best. I believe thats Dave Daubenmire.
Daubenmire, who lives in Hebron and is a Lakewood grad, gave a loud, fiery appeal on his behalf.
Board members Judy White, Trisha Good and Bill Gulick voted against hiring Daubenmire. Tim Phillips and Forrest Cooperrider were in favor of the $5,520 one-year contract.
-------------------
Note that is says NOTHING about his Christian faith or a a "gay agenda"... I await your proof that he was fired because of his faith.
-
@ Congo: Serious stuff. What you described is sexual harassment (the text messages) and assault (when he grabbed you). That man needs to be held accountable for his actions. No question. I would not be surprised that this traumatic experience is a factor in moulding your views and opinions about the gay community. I just hope that your support network is helpful in dealing with the event and that you have found ways to cope. Best wishes man. From what I have heard from support groups who help women in equivalent situations, many victims have a difficult time coming to terms with what happened to them.
Realize though, what you described is not representative of homosexuals per se. And that it is exactly the stereotype that is perpetuated by the anti-gay activists when it comes to their agenda.
@those who think that Tiresais is completely off-base
You all seem to conveniently ignore his comment
If true, it's clear the lecturer is in the initial wrong ... The lecturer is gay, but his actions were not the product of this, just like rape is not a crime of heterosexuality if it's a woman being assaulted by a man. ... but it wasn't his homosexuality that made him sexually assault Congo, just as heterosexuality is no the cause of the sexual assault of women
All the LBGT community want is to live a life free from hate and bigotry. That is their Agenda.
The anti-gay activists are hell bent on linking sexual assault, pedophilia and other sex crimes to homosexuals. Homosexuals are no more or less prone to committing sex crimes as their heterosexuals counterparts.
@ Qmire: show me peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate that homosexuals are predisposed to committing sex crimes at higher rates that heterosexuals. Until I see that, I will not hold much faith in generalized statements and anecdotes, skewed by personal biases, prejudices and related agendas, that portray homosexuals as evil sexual deviants.
-
Answer me this first were you always of the belief that being gay is fine , since a teen or were you desensitized into it being normal from media?
-
@Pecan. I have lived away and interacted with gay people there do seem to live very productive lives. I have never had any problems with gay people away. I'm talking about people who come to school with pink highlights in their hair gay. They go about their lives and don't seem to bother anyone etc. I have never been hit on by a gay person while I was away. No one ever tried to sneak up on me or anything like that. My beef is with this hidden community here at home. The ones at home here tend to be aggressive and out of place at times. I am not the only person who has been harrassed by members of this community. The women also do it as well. I have heard about girls being touched and kissed by other girls on the sly etc. I don't know if its' the trini in them that makes them so aggressive or frontish but the people of the community are definitely more aggressive than the ones I have encountered overseas. What I honestly can't stand is not knowing. That's why I say they are "conveniently gay". They parade themselves for carnival etc, they get close to the women as make up artists etc but get them to march for their own rights, they become invisible.
PS. My action against the lecturer wasn't a result of him being gay. It was more a result of him becoming aggressive and threatening to me. Had it been some other person who put a knife to my throat and stole my phone I would have reacted the exact same way. He crossed the line and needed to be dealt with in a serious manner. It's a jungle in this island and I make no apologies for my action.
-
Answer me this first were you always of the belief that being gay is fine , since a teen or were you desensitized into it being normal from media?
Sure. But I might ramble on a bit ...
As a pre-adolescence growing in T&T, we used to make jokes about 'buller men". In fact I though the word "buller" was only associated with having sex with a man (somebody on this forum a few yeas ago said it applied to heterosexual sex as well). In Canada, the jokes continued but I can say the issue of homosexuality was never something that I consciously though about. The same way it was never an issue of someone being tall or short, fat or thin, black or white, male or female. I would comment on the differences, make jokes about the differences but never consciously discriminated against anyone. I have to thank my parents for this attitude and they came from bush in Trinidad.
In the early '80s, though my wife's workplace, I was introduced to more gay folk - men and women and again, it was never an issue. But I began to think more on the issue when my wife's cousin came out as being gay to us in early '90s. He described growing up in Jamaica and how he always knew that he was "different' from the other boys but could not define what it was. When he emigrated to the USA, he eventually realized he was gay. And here is the interesting part, as soon as he could, he left home and moved across the country so that he would not have to tell his father and brothers that he was gay; they simply would not accept it. His experiences began to shape my thoughts - the media had nothing to do with it.
I have since become acquainted with openly gay men and women. They want love and acceptance as much as anyone else wants. Being gay is not about physical sex as so many people insist. It has nothing to do with "shit stabbing" as Sam so eloquently put it. yes there are elements in the gay community that engage in risky behaviour - but no more so than some many heterosexuals - just look at the number of escort services, massage parlors and other aspects of the sex trade that cater to heterosexuals. I mean, there is a web site (Ashley Madison) that caters to people who want to have extramarital affairs!
These folk do not prey on anyone. The media has not been the major factor that influenced by opinion. The second factor that shaped my opinion was religion and those in the Anglican Church of Canada. These priests have been leading the charge for same sex acceptance within the church. The question they raised was: "what did it mean to be around and experience Jesus?" Jesus was an includer: adulterers, tax collectors, racially impure, the mentally ill, etc. Therefore, it is unreasonable and inconsistent to suggest that Jesus would have excluded gays and lesbians.
So my "desensitization" as you put it if far from my reality. In fact, I am more sensitive to those who are being ostracized just because of who they are. And perhaps that is why I have a difficult time staying away from the threads.
The use of the Bible or Natural Law to argue against Gays is just a smoke screen for those who, for whatever reason, cannot come to grip with the diversity within our society.
-
@Pecan. I have lived away and interacted with gay people there do seem to live very productive lives. I have never had any problems with gay people away. I'm talking about people who come to school with pink highlights in their hair gay. They go about their lives and don't seem to bother anyone etc. I have never been hit on by a gay person while I was away. No one ever tried to sneak up on me or anything like that. My beef is with this hidden community here at home. The ones at home here tend to be aggressive and out of place at times. I am not the only person who has been harrassed by members of this community. The women also do it as well. I have heard about girls being touched and kissed by other girls on the sly etc. I don't know if its' the trini in them that makes them so aggressive or frontish but the people of the community are definitely more aggressive than the ones I have encountered overseas. What I honestly can't stand is not knowing. That's why I say they are "conveniently gay". They parade themselves for carnival etc, they get close to the women as make up artists etc but get them to march for their own rights, they become invisible.
PS. My action against the lecturer wasn't a result of him being gay. It was more a result of him becoming aggressive and threatening to me. Had it been some other person who put a knife to my throat and stole my phone I would have reacted the exact same way. He crossed the line and needed to be dealt with in a serious manner. It's a jungle in this island and I make no apologies for my action.
Congo, you have been consistent with what you call the "conveniently gay" people in Trinidad and their reluctance to march for their rights. But consider this: perhaps the reason why they are not more visible is due to potential backlash they might experience in Trinidad?
-
Answer me this first were you always of the belief that being gay is fine , since a teen or were you desensitized into it being normal from media?
Sure. But I might ramble on a bit ...
As a pre-adolescence growing in T&T, we used to make jokes about 'buller men". In fact I though the word "buller" was only associated with having sex with a man (somebody on this forum a few yeas ago said it applied to heterosexual sex as well). In Canada, the jokes continued but I can say the issue of homosexuality was never something that I consciously though about. The same way it was never an issue of someone being tall or short, fat or thin, black or white, male or female. I would comment on the differences, make jokes about the differences but never consciously discriminated against anyone. I have to thank my parents for this attitude and they came from bush in Trinidad.
In the early '80s, though my wife's workplace, I was introduced to more gay folk - men and women and again, it was never an issue. But I began to think more on the issue when my wife's cousin came out as being gay to us in early '90s. He described growing up in Jamaica and how he always knew that he was "different' from the other boys but could not define what it was. When he emigrated to the USA, he eventually realized he was gay. And here is the interesting part, as soon as he could, he left home and moved across the country so that he would not have to tell his father and brothers that he was gay; they simply would not accept it. His experiences began to shape my thoughts - the media had nothing to do with it.
I have since become acquainted with openly gay men and women. They want love and acceptance as much as anyone else wants. Being gay is not about physical sex as so many people insist. It has nothing to do with "shit stabbing" as Sam so eloquently put it. yes there are elements in the gay community that engage in risky behaviour - but no more so than some many heterosexuals - just look at the number of escort services, massage parlors and other aspects of the sex trade that cater to heterosexuals. I mean, there is a web site (Ashley Madison) that caters to people who want to have extramarital affairs!
These folk do not prey on anyone. The media has not been the major factor that influenced by opinion. The second factor that shaped my opinion was religion and those in the Anglican Church of Canada. These priests have been leading the charge for same sex acceptance within the church. The question they raised was: "what did it mean to be around and experience Jesus?" Jesus was an includer: adulterers, tax collectors, racially impure, the mentally ill, etc. Therefore, it is unreasonable and inconsistent to suggest that Jesus would have excluded gays and lesbians.
So my "desensitization" as you put it if far from my reality. In fact, I am more sensitive to those who are being ostracized just because of who they are. And perhaps that is why I have a difficult time staying away from the threads.
The use of the Bible or Natural Law to argue against Gays is just a smoke screen for those who, for whatever reason, cannot come to grip with the diversity within our society.
Yep seems about right .I pretty much feel the same way ,in the mid eighties I use to here some atrocious stories of gay men being assaulted in trini ,just for been gay ,even then without media it just sound cruel an inhumane .
Some of these boys where just weak,harmless and innocent and gay .
But obviously this world cant be simple ,innocent ,black and white ,harmless and naive as our 2 little post now can it .It surely must be much more sinister ,especially coming to something as taboo and ancient as Homosexuality .
Am trying to watch the cricket so I may respond it parts here trow some petrol ect .
-
@Pecan. I have lived away and interacted with gay people there do seem to live very productive lives. I have never had any problems with gay people away. I'm talking about people who come to school with pink highlights in their hair gay. They go about their lives and don't seem to bother anyone etc. I have never been hit on by a gay person while I was away. No one ever tried to sneak up on me or anything like that. My beef is with this hidden community here at home. The ones at home here tend to be aggressive and out of place at times. I am not the only person who has been harrassed by members of this community. The women also do it as well. I have heard about girls being touched and kissed by other girls on the sly etc. I don't know if its' the trini in them that makes them so aggressive or frontish but the people of the community are definitely more aggressive than the ones I have encountered overseas. What I honestly can't stand is not knowing. That's why I say they are "conveniently gay". They parade themselves for carnival etc, they get close to the women as make up artists etc but get them to march for their own rights, they become invisible.
PS. My action against the lecturer wasn't a result of him being gay. It was more a result of him becoming aggressive and threatening to me. Had it been some other person who put a knife to my throat and stole my phone I would have reacted the exact same way. He crossed the line and needed to be dealt with in a serious manner. It's a jungle in this island and I make no apologies for my action.
*Amateur psychiatrist hat* That anxiety in not knowing either way is probably a product of the douche-bag lecturer - knowing lets you put your guard up and feel distant from them. The question you should ask is - "Why does it matter if they're gay or not?" If they're not a sexual assaulter then it won't matter either way - the issue isn't whether they're gay, but whether they're likely to assault you.
Maybe ask yourself "Why don't they come out as gay?" - that's a more productive question. How would you feel if your family member came out gay? Brother/Sister? Father? Son?
If your response is a highly negative one, then you know why they stay "on the down low".
-
Looks like this thread has turned into a discussion about down low gays and that culture. That kind of thing is disturbing. Didn't they have some court case recently where a fella kill another that made a pass at him and de court agree that it was temporary insanity and free de fella?
-
...
If true, it's clear the lecturer is in the initial wrong- relationships between students and lecturers are usually banned by universities as they compromise the student-lecturer relationship and undermine the unbiased of your marking. That's even before we get to the other problems here.
I'm not interested in that as much as I am the question at hand - homosexuality. The lecturer is gay, but his actions were not the product of this, just like rape is not a crime of heterosexuality if it's a woman being assaulted by a man. Sure, they require one-another - clearly a heterosexual lecturer wouldn't have approached him (depending on your definition of sexuality - a Kinsey scale renders this point less important as sexuality changes over time), but it wasn't his homosexuality that made him sexually assault Congo, just as heterosexuality is no the cause of the sexual assault of women
In inching towards Pecan's post related to this post ... please clarify the bolded.
-
...
If true, it's clear the lecturer is in the initial wrong- relationships between students and lecturers are usually banned by universities as they compromise the student-lecturer relationship and undermine the unbiased of your marking. That's even before we get to the other problems here.
I'm not interested in that as much as I am the question at hand - homosexuality. The lecturer is gay, but his actions were not the product of this, just like rape is not a crime of heterosexuality if it's a woman being assaulted by a man. Sure, they require one-another - clearly a heterosexual lecturer wouldn't have approached him (depending on your definition of sexuality - a Kinsey scale renders this point less important as sexuality changes over time), but it wasn't his homosexuality that made him sexually assault Congo, just as heterosexuality is no the cause of the sexual assault of women
In inching towards Pecan's post related to this post ... please clarify the bolded.
Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.
While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history [...] An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life. [...] A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist.
Check the wikipedia article on this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale His research was pretty ground-breaking and broke a lot of assumptions that were a product of Western Monotheism over the past 2000 years. Famously the Greeks didn't classify sexuality this way, and a number of societies have been more accepting about homosexuality in the past, but it's way out of my area of expertise so I won't be making any arguments from history.
-
There was nothing scientific about Kinsley's research. I fail to see why people continue to cite it.
-
There was nothing scientific about Kinsley's research. I fail to see why people continue to cite it.
Please expand - what makes you say that?
-
There was nothing scientific about Kinsley's research. I fail to see why people continue to cite it.
Please expand - what makes you say that?
Kinsey's work was largely discredited in part because he was sleeping with the test subjects, both male and female. Your string of hits continues.
-
There was nothing scientific about Kinsley's research. I fail to see why people continue to cite it.
Please expand - what makes you say that?
Kinsey's work was largely discredited in part because he was sleeping with the test subjects, both male and female. Your string of hits continues.
I'm not finding the same info you two have foiund - could you link me to academic papers disproving the Kinsey Scale? I only find papers that confirm or build on the findings...
-
There was nothing scientific about Kinsley's research. I fail to see why people continue to cite it.
Please expand - what makes you say that?
Kinsey's work was largely discredited in part because he was sleeping with the test subjects, both male and female. Your string of hits continues.
I'm not finding the same info you two have foiund - could you link me to academic papers disproving the Kinsey Scale? I only find papers that confirm or build on the findings...
Yea all I'm finding are papers like this that also argue for a continum of sexuality (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3811548) or this one talking about its continued influence (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813665)
-
There was nothing scientific about Kinsley's research. I fail to see why people continue to cite it.
Please expand - what makes you say that?
Kinsey's work was largely discredited in part because he was sleeping with the test subjects, both male and female. Your string of hits continues.
Also due to a large portion of his research being done amongst prison populations...those findings then being extrapolated onto the general public. I mean come on...
-
There was nothing scientific about Kinsley's research. I fail to see why people continue to cite it.
Please expand - what makes you say that?
Kinsey's work was largely discredited in part because he was sleeping with the test subjects, both male and female. Your string of hits continues.
Also due to a large portion of his research being done amongst prison populations...those findings then being extrapolated onto the general public. I mean come on...
In response, Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's successor as director of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research, cleaned the Kinsey data of purported contaminants,[citation needed] removing, for example, all material derived from prison populations in the basic sample. In 1979, Gebhard (with Alan B. Johnson) published The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 19381963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research. Their conclusion, to Gebhard's surprise he claimed, was that none of Kinsey's original estimates were significantly affected by this bias: that is, the prison population and male prostitutes had the same statistical tendency as those who willingly participated in discussion of previously taboo sexual topics. The results were summarized by historian, playwright, and gay-rights activist Martin Duberman, "Instead of Kinsey's 37% (men who had at least one homosexual experience), Gebhard and Johnson came up with 36.4%; the 10% figure (men who were "more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55"), with prison inmates excluded, came to 9.9% for white, college-educated males and 12.7% for those with less education.[6]
A simple wikipedia search would have dispelled this concern - suffice to say that criticism is about the percentage claiming to be homosexual, not the validity of the scale itself.
-
This thread is about the president of Uganda criminalizing homos ,
This is Uganda business and Uganda business alone
The Americans or no one for that matter are in a position to lecture Uganda on morality.
-
This thread is about the president of Uganda criminalizing homos ,
This is Uganda business and Uganda business alone
The Americans or no one for that matter are in a position to lecture Uganda on morality.
just curious .. where do you draw the line when interference or non-interference is warranted regarding policies/behaviour of foreign governments? Should other countries ignore the Russia/Crimea/Ukraine issue because that is "Russia business alone"?
-
Pecan you're playing into their hand - notice every time we refute or rubbish their arguments the topic is changed.
-
I hope you realize that there are serious differences between Islam and Christianity beyond the name by which each calls its Supreme Being. Islam is not compatible with Christianity just as Judaism is not compatible with Christianity, given that both of those other religions deny the deity of Christ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism
-
Pecan you're playing into their hand - notice every time we refute or rubbish their arguments the topic is changed.
After your invocation of Kinsey, I cede to your expertise on rubbish.
-
The only think more perfect than earthling females in the universe is the oxygen molecule .To not like them is akin to not liking oxygen and therefore not normal lol.
But we as men accept abnormalities on the planet ...like a weird fish or an ugly primate.
-
The only think more perfect than earthling females in the universe is the oxygen molecule .To not like them is akin to not liking oxygen and therefore not normal lol.
But we as men accept abnormalities on the planet ...like a weird fish or an ugly primate.
"The only thing more perfect than earthling white people in the universe is the oxygen molecule. To not like them is akin to not liking oxygen and therefore not normal lol.
But we as White men accept abnormalities on the planet ...like a weird fish or an ugly primate"
Hopefully the example shows you how insulting and prejudiced your comment comes across.
-
Pecan you're playing into their hand - notice every time we refute or rubbish their arguments the topic is changed.
After your invocation of Kinsey, I cede to your expertise on rubbish.
Yes and your rubbished it with all your immense evidence? Or was it just you talking shit again? Asylumseeker you've shown yourself to keep distance from rational arguments and reasoned debate, so I'm not exactly shocked to see you poke your head up, before receding once again.
-
Pecan you're playing into their hand - notice every time we refute or rubbish their arguments the topic is changed.
After your invocation of Kinsey, I cede to your expertise on rubbish.
Yes and your rubbished it with all your immense evidence? Or was it just you talking shit again? Asylumseeker you've shown yourself to keep distance from rational arguments and reasoned debate, so I'm not exactly shocked to see you poke your head up, before receding once again.
Fella, you should shy away from any assertion of rationality and reason. It continues to compromise your credibility. You have in very short order littered the forum with a long and broad trail of enterprising, but deficient and unsustainable propositions. Let me know if you want to be directed to that ample evidence. If anything, you're hobbling Pecan's progress. Left to your own devices, you would need Houdini.
And as regards the other item ... listen here, you're obviously not educated as to the historical record. This is the appetizer not the entree.
-
Pecan you're playing into their hand - notice every time we refute or rubbish their arguments the topic is changed.
After your invocation of Kinsey, I cede to your expertise on rubbish.
Yes and your rubbished it with all your immense evidence? Or was it just you talking shit again? Asylumseeker you've shown yourself to keep distance from rational arguments and reasoned debate, so I'm not exactly shocked to see you poke your head up, before receding once again.
Fella, you should shy away from any assertion of rationality and reason. It continues to compromise your credibility. You have in very short order littered the forum with a long and broad trail of enterprising, but deficient and unsustainable propositions. Let me know if you want to be directed to that ample evidence. If anything, you're hobbling Pecan's progress. Left to your own devices, you would need Houdini.
And as regards the other item ... listen here, you're obviously not educated as to the historical record. This is the appetizer not the entree.
Hmmmm, well I won't hold my breath :p
-
In Greek mythology, Tiresias (/taɪˈrisiəs/; Greek: Τειρεσίας; also transliterated as Teiresias) was a blind prophet of Thebes, famous for clairvoyance and for being transformed into a woman for seven years.
:heehee:
-
In Greek mythology, Tiresias (/taɪˈrisiəs/; Greek: Τειρεσίας; also transliterated as Teiresias) was a blind prophet of Thebes, famous for clairvoyance and for being transformed into a woman for seven years.
:heehee:
Yup, I was more focused on the first part of that when picking the name 10 or more years ago lol.
-
It have a few people on this thread who need a hug.
From UpWorthy
What If You Stick A Gay Person And An Anti-Gay Straight Person In A Room And Ask Them To Hug?
Adam Mordecai Adam Mordecai
Not sure if you heard, but there was a big craze around the "First Kiss" video where a filmmaker set up two strangers to meet and kiss like they'd just finished drinks and were heading back to someone's apartment. The Gay Women Channel on YouTube decided to have a little fun with it. They found some mildly homophobic but open volunteers to meet gay people and have a very safe, platonic hug. The results were surprisingly heartwarming. Especially at 2:07. And 2:31. And 2:44. And then at 3:00, I
https://www.youtube.com/v/j1WEtFFPVBU
-
Hug a gay day ?.Maybe a cute lesbo ,see am not anti Daygaydic.
But what they need a hug for now..think they looking for love in all the wrong places.
-
Tommy breaks down the purpose of the Gay agenda in regards to the Black community. :thumbsup:
HomoThug Raps About Gay Love & Tommy Breaks Down How It Harms The Black Community!
http://www.youtube.com/v/X0rMrFiCvj4
-
Tommy breaks down the purpose of the Gay agenda in regards to the Black community. :thumbsup:
HomoThug Raps About Gay Love & Tommy Breaks Down How It Harms The Black Community!
http://www.youtube.com/v/X0rMrFiCvj4
Wow, you're so far gone you don't see the absolute hypocrisy and absurdity of this.
-
Tommy breaks down the purpose of the Gay agenda in regards to the Black community. :thumbsup:
HomoThug Raps About Gay Love & Tommy Breaks Down How It Harms The Black Community!
http://www.youtube.com/v/X0rMrFiCvj4
Wow, you're so far gone you don't see the absolute hypocrisy and absurdity of this.
Tommy was 100% on point but I don't expect a lover of the Poof life style and with no concern for the breakdown of Black family life in America or elsewhere to agree.
In other words this video was not posted to please you or for your benefit.
-
Tommy breaks down the purpose of the Gay agenda in regards to the Black community. :thumbsup:
Wow, you're so far gone you don't see the absolute hypocrisy and absurdity of this.
Tommy was 100% on point but I don't expect a lover of the Poof life style and with no concern for the breakdown of Black family life in America or elsewhere to agree.
In other words this video was not posted to please you or for your benefit.
Yes clearly the breakdown in black family life is due to homosexuality, not centuries of racism, discrimination, and in recent decades an explosion in drug addition and crime. Your prejudice has clouded any semblance of rational thought,
-
Tommy breaks down the purpose of the Gay agenda in regards to the Black community. :thumbsup:
Wow, you're so far gone you don't see the absolute hypocrisy and absurdity of this.
Tommy was 100% on point but I don't expect a lover of the Poof life style and with no concern for the breakdown of Black family life in America or elsewhere to agree.
In other words this video was not posted to please you or for your benefit.
Yes clearly the breakdown in black family life is due to homosexuality, not centuries of racism, discrimination, and in recent decades an explosion in drug addition and crime. Your prejudice has clouded any semblance of rational thought,
You are talking trash that was never argued in the video but as I said the video was not posted for your benefit and your arguments don't refute anything that was actually said in the video.
-
Socapro, what happen to "freedom of speech" as you were so quick to bring up in the other thread? Sam could voice his opinion but Tiresais can't voice his opinion on the video you posted? If you want to keep your post exclusive, use another venue.
btw, are you going to let Bakes dismantle the World Congress of Families communications director arguments without a rebuttal?
-
I doh like gayness, unless is 2 ladies giving me an exhibition
-
Socapro, what happen to "freedom of speech" as you were so quick to bring up in the other thread? Sam could voice his opinion but Tiresais can't voice his opinion on the video you posted? If you want to keep your post exclusive, use another venue.
btw, are you going to let Bakes dismantle the World Congress of Families communications director arguments without a rebuttal?
I never told Tiresais that he cannot post. What I said is that what I posted was not for his benefit nor was it to please him and also that his predictable red-herring comments did not refute anything that was said in the video I posted. Simple as that.
Tiresais is free to post whatever off target red-herring arguments he wants to post.
Did I state anywhere in my post that he should be banned for posting a red-herring argument that no one else was arguing? No I didn't! 8)
-
Lets throw some more controversy into the arguments in this thread.
Pastor Manning states on his church notice board that based on his Bible, Jesus would stone Homos!
Setting The Jesus Teaching On Homosexuals a Straight
http://www.youtube.com/v/FVLlKK2VaqY
This only goes to show that some of the stuff in the Bible could be down to one's own personal interpretation of the scriptures.
-
Lets throw some more controversy into the arguments in this thread.
Pastor Manning states on his church notice board that based on his Bible, Jesus would stone Homos!
Setting The Jesus Teaching On Homosexuals a Straight
http://www.youtube.com/v/FVLlKK2VaqY
This only goes to show that some of the stuff in the Bible could be down to one's own personal interpretation of the scriptures.
Why stop there? The bible is very clear about the fact taht you should stone unruly children and adulterers. Where's your rock Socapro?
-
This only goes to show that some of the stuff in the Bible could be down to one's own personal interpretation of the scriptures.
...and therein lies the problem.
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart and lean not on thine own understanding;
- Proverbs 3:5
-
No way.Jesus was like Buddha ,a master never would he hurt a fellow human no matter what they do or did.Come on now.
-
Lets throw some more controversy into the arguments in this thread.
Pastor Manning states on his church notice board that based on his Bible, Jesus would stone Homos!
Setting The Jesus Teaching On Homosexuals a Straight
http://www.youtube.com/v/FVLlKK2VaqY
This only goes to show that some of the stuff in the Bible could be down to one's own personal interpretation of the scriptures.
Why stop there? The bible is very clear about the fact taht you should stone unruly children and adulterers. Where's your rock Socapro?
I simply posted the video of what a Pastor said on the topic to add to the discussion. What he said is not my argument so don't know why you are illogically interpreting his argument as mines.
Why not use your brain for a change and stop getting so emotional and personal with your arguments?
-
But jesus never did say any thing about it .he stayed out it I guess.
-
But jesus never did say any thing about it .he stayed out it I guess.
In the video the Pastor made quotes from the Bible with verses and chapters to back up his argument.
So its either the Pastor is lying about what is stated in the Bible (ie. he made up the verses) or he has a solid argument to back up his assertion. Anyone with a Bible of their own should be able to confirm the accuracy of the verses that he was quoting from.
-
Well truth be told I didnt look at the vid.But after your post I did watch piece. Am seeing what he doing he quoting the old testament leviticus and deuteronomy ,and saying jesus would follow his old mans laws lol.
-
Well truth be told I didnt look at the vid.But after your post I did watch piece. Am seeing what he doing he quoting the old testament leviticus and deuteronomy ,and saying jesus would follow his old mans laws lol.
You can laugh all you like but his argument is solid.
He said that Jesus did not come to change the old laws but to fulfilled them.
That Pastor is very clever and seems to have a clearer understanding of the Bible than most! 8)
-
Jesus was so much more enlightened than those laws ,no wonder the jews says that cyah be yah weh son.
-
Pastor Manning? God are you going through the litany of crazy people?
Why won't you answer my question - if you're taking these books why don't you stone adulterers? Why don't you stone unruly children?
On the Sermon on the mount - have you actually read that? He says he's not changing the law AND THEN CHANGES THE LAW ("Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Matthew 5:38-40).
It also warns you specifically about hating your enemy;
"Ye have heard that it hath been aid, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But Isay unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44).
Maybe you should read the bible more?
-
Pastor Manning? God are you going through the litany of crazy people?
Why won't you answer my question - if you're taking these books why don't you stone adulterers? Why don't you stone unruly children?
On the Sermon on the mount - have you actually read that? He says he's not changing the law AND THEN CHANGES THE LAW ("Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Matthew 5:38-40).
It also warns you specifically about hating your enemy;
"Ye have heard that it hath been aid, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But Isay unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44).
Maybe you should read the bible more?
You need to stop getting so emotion my dear.
Did I say anywhere that I am a religious follower of the Bible?
My non-acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy life style is just based on common sense and knowing the biology of how the human body was designed to work.
I simply posted what sounded like a solid argument from a religious perspective from a Pastor who quoted from the Bible and seems to have a clearer understanding of the Bible than most of us here in this thread.
Video was simply posted to add to the discussions in this thread from a religious perspective.
If you can't refute what he said from a Biblical perspective then that says a lot.
-
If jesus had hated gays he woulda never send Simon peter to Rome .Which was gay central lol.
Thats where things really got corrupt.
-
Pastor Manning? God are you going through the litany of crazy people?
Why won't you answer my question - if you're taking these books why don't you stone adulterers? Why don't you stone unruly children?
On the Sermon on the mount - have you actually read that? He says he's not changing the law AND THEN CHANGES THE LAW ("Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Matthew 5:38-40).
It also warns you specifically about hating your enemy;
"Ye have heard that it hath been aid, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But Isay unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44).
Maybe you should read the bible more?
You need to stop getting so emotion my dear.
Did I say anywhere that I am a religious follower of the Bible?
My non-acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy life style is just based on common sense and knowing the biology of how the human body was designed to work.
I simply posted what sounded like a solid argument from a religious perspective from a Pastor who quoted from the Bible and seems to have a clearer understanding of the Bible than most of us here in this thread.
Video was simply posted to add to the discussions in this thread from a religious perspective.
If you can't refute what he said from a Biblical perspective then that says a lot.
Erm what were those passages if not a refutation?
Please do explain how you arrive at that conclusion from a secular position. Last time I checked, you're likely wearing unnatural clothing (synthetic), moving around in unnatural methods (automobiles) made from unnatural materials (steel, plastics), eating unnatural food and drink (additives, etc), using unnatural communications (computer, phone), living an unnatural life (sitting at a desk), cleaning and sleeping in unnatural ways (shower, bed) and otherwise unnaturally doing a bunch of other stuff.
On the other hand, homosexuality has been observed naturally in a whole host of animals, check wikipedia for a list; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
So in short, you're wrong
-
Pastor Manning? God are you going through the litany of crazy people?
Why won't you answer my question - if you're taking these books why don't you stone adulterers? Why don't you stone unruly children?
On the Sermon on the mount - have you actually read that? He says he's not changing the law AND THEN CHANGES THE LAW ("Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Matthew 5:38-40).
It also warns you specifically about hating your enemy;
"Ye have heard that it hath been aid, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But Isay unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44).
Maybe you should read the bible more?
You need to stop getting so emotion my dear.
Did I say anywhere that I am a religious follower of the Bible?
My non-acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy life style is just based on common sense and knowing the biology of how the human body was designed to work.
I simply posted what sounded like a solid argument from a religious perspective from a Pastor who quoted from the Bible and seems to have a clearer understanding of the Bible than most of us here in this thread.
Video was simply posted to add to the discussions in this thread from a religious perspective.
If you can't refute what he said from a Biblical perspective then that says a lot.
Erm what were those passages if not a refutation?
Please do explain how you arrive at that conclusion from a secular position. Last time I checked, you're likely wearing unnatural clothing (synthetic), moving around in unnatural methods (automobiles) made from unnatural materials (steel, plastics), eating unnatural food and drink (additives, etc), using unnatural communications (computer, phone), living an unnatural life (sitting at a desk), cleaning and sleeping in unnatural ways (shower, bed) and otherwise unnaturally doing a bunch of other stuff.
On the other hand, homosexuality has been observed naturally in a whole host of animals, check wikipedia for a list; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
So in short, you're wrong
Nothing you can ever say in this life can persuade me that the act of sticking a penis into someone's rectum whether they are male or female, is natural and healthy.
So I advise you to stop wasting your time and to try that lame perverted argument on someone else who is a little more gullible and brain dead.
-
Pastor Manning? God are you going through the litany of crazy people?
Why won't you answer my question - if you're taking these books why don't you stone adulterers? Why don't you stone unruly children?
On the Sermon on the mount - have you actually read that? He says he's not changing the law AND THEN CHANGES THE LAW ("Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Matthew 5:38-40).
It also warns you specifically about hating your enemy;
"Ye have heard that it hath been aid, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But Isay unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44).
Maybe you should read the bible more?
You need to stop getting so emotion my dear.
Did I say anywhere that I am a religious follower of the Bible?
My non-acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy life style is just based on common sense and knowing the biology of how the human body was designed to work.
I simply posted what sounded like a solid argument from a religious perspective from a Pastor who quoted from the Bible and seems to have a clearer understanding of the Bible than most of us here in this thread.
Video was simply posted to add to the discussions in this thread from a religious perspective.
If you can't refute what he said from a Biblical perspective then that says a lot.
Erm what were those passages if not a refutation?
Please do explain how you arrive at that conclusion from a secular position. Last time I checked, you're likely wearing unnatural clothing (synthetic), moving around in unnatural methods (automobiles) made from unnatural materials (steel, plastics), eating unnatural food and drink (additives, etc), using unnatural communications (computer, phone), living an unnatural life (sitting at a desk), cleaning and sleeping in unnatural ways (shower, bed) and otherwise unnaturally doing a bunch of other stuff.
On the other hand, homosexuality has been observed naturally in a whole host of animals, check wikipedia for a list; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
So in short, you're wrong
Nothing you can ever say in this life can persuade me that the act of sticking a penis into someone's rectum whether they are male or female, is natural and healthy.
So I advise you to stop wasting your time and to try that lame perverted argument on someone else who is a little more gullible and brain dead.
Translation: "I don't care about evidence or rational debate, I will cling to my prejudice regardless of any reasonable argument"
-
In the video the Pastor made quotes from the Bible with verses and chapters to back up his argument.
So its either the Pastor is lying about what is stated in the Bible (ie. he made up the verses) or he has a solid argument to back up his assertion. Anyone with a Bible of their own should be able to confirm the accuracy of the verses that he was quoting from.
False dichotomy. He could be telling the truth... or he could be lying... or he could be mistaken. Why eliminate mistake from the equation? The fact is that the pastor (giving him the benefit of the doubt that it's not something he's doing deliberately) is mistaken in his interpretation and application of the scripture. He quotes Matt 5:17-19 where Jesus talks about the old "law" not being abolished, but those laws had nothing to do with stoning anybody, and they were not even penal laws. The context is critical... the Disciples were asking him whether they should still observe the Sabbath, whether they should still circumcise their sons, observe a kosher diet etc. Christ explains to them here that he did not come to abolish those laws, but to fulfill them.
What does this mean? Well, before Christ came, there was a Covenant between God and Abraham, and much later on a Covenant between God and Moses. Jews observed these covenants as a means of achieving salvation. Well with the birth (and crucifixion/resurrection) of Christ, Christians believe that one achieves salvation not through anything we do (good deed, observe Abrahamic or Mosaic law etc.) but rather by the Grace of God for having believed that Christ is the Savior/path to Salvation. This is what Jesus meant when he said he came to FULFILL, by believing in him, that fulfills the previous requirement of keeping the old Covenant. This is why Christ is referred to as the "New Covenant."
This is the "law" that the pastor cited... not any law related to stoning anybody. On that he is quite wrong.
-
Pastor Manning? God are you going through the litany of crazy people?
Why won't you answer my question - if you're taking these books why don't you stone adulterers? Why don't you stone unruly children?
On the Sermon on the mount - have you actually read that? He says he's not changing the law AND THEN CHANGES THE LAW ("Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Matthew 5:38-40).
It also warns you specifically about hating your enemy;
"Ye have heard that it hath been aid, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But Isay unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44).
Maybe you should read the bible more?
You need to stop getting so emotion my dear.
Did I say anywhere that I am a religious follower of the Bible?
My non-acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy life style is just based on common sense and knowing the biology of how the human body was designed to work.
I simply posted what sounded like a solid argument from a religious perspective from a Pastor who quoted from the Bible and seems to have a clearer understanding of the Bible than most of us here in this thread.
Video was simply posted to add to the discussions in this thread from a religious perspective.
If you can't refute what he said from a Biblical perspective then that says a lot.
Erm what were those passages if not a refutation?
Please do explain how you arrive at that conclusion from a secular position. Last time I checked, you're likely wearing unnatural clothing (synthetic), moving around in unnatural methods (automobiles) made from unnatural materials (steel, plastics), eating unnatural food and drink (additives, etc), using unnatural communications (computer, phone), living an unnatural life (sitting at a desk), cleaning and sleeping in unnatural ways (shower, bed) and otherwise unnaturally doing a bunch of other stuff.
On the other hand, homosexuality has been observed naturally in a whole host of animals, check wikipedia for a list; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
So in short, you're wrong
Nothing you can ever say in this life can persuade me that the act of sticking a penis into someone's rectum whether they are male or female, is natural and healthy.
So I advise you to stop wasting your time and to try that lame perverted argument on someone else who is a little more gullible and brain dead.
Translation: "I don't care about evidence or rational debate, I will cling to my prejudice regardless of any reasonable argument"
Translation: There is little that is rational about your arguments but my distain for the homosexual act is very rational and cannot be logically argued with.
-
Yo just cause some male animal doing the nasty doh mean men should. Don't know when it started , it had have started after last near extinction after the last ice age.But I doubt it was there with the first perfect humans.
-
In the video the Pastor made quotes from the Bible with verses and chapters to back up his argument.
So its either the Pastor is lying about what is stated in the Bible (ie. he made up the verses) or he has a solid argument to back up his assertion. Anyone with a Bible of their own should be able to confirm the accuracy of the verses that he was quoting from.
False dichotomy. He could be telling the truth... or he could be lying... or he could be mistaken. Why eliminate mistake from the equation? The fact is that the pastor (giving him the benefit of the doubt that it's not something he's doing deliberately) is mistaken in his interpretation and application of the scripture. He quotes Matt 5:17-19 where Jesus talks about the old "law" not being abolished, but those laws had nothing to do with stoning anybody, and they were not even penal laws. The context is critical... the Disciples were asking him whether they should still observe the Sabbath, whether they should still circumcise their sons, observe a kosher diet etc. Christ explains to them here that he did not come to abolish those laws, but to fulfill them.
What does this mean? Well, before Christ came, there was a Covenant between God and Abraham, and much later on a Covenant between God and Moses. Jews observed these covenants as a means of achieving salvation. Well with the birth (and crucifixion/resurrection) of Christ, Christians believe that one achieves salvation not through anything we do (good deed, observe Abrahamic or Mosaic law etc.) but rather by the Grace of God for having believed that Christ is the Savior/path to Salvation. This is what Jesus meant when he said he came to FULFILL, by believing in him, that fulfills the previous requirement of keeping the old Covenant. This is why Christ is referred to as the "New Covenant."
This is the "law" that the pastor cited... not any law related to stoning anybody. On that he is quite wrong.
I have no argument with you or the Pastor but based on his arguments and the accuracy of the scriptures that he quoted he makes a solid argument.
Your view that he is mistaken is entirely subjective.
Remember what I said when I posted the video?
This only goes to show that some of the stuff in the Bible could be down to one's own personal interpretation of the scriptures.
-
You need to stop getting so emotion my dear.
Did I say anywhere that I am a religious follower of the Bible?
My non-acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy life style is just based on common sense and knowing the biology of how the human body was designed to work.
I simply posted what sounded like a solid argument from a religious perspective from a Pastor who quoted from the Bible and seems to have a clearer understanding of the Bible than most of us here in this thread.
Video was simply posted to add to the discussions in this thread from a religious perspective.
If you can't refute what he said from a Biblical perspective then that says a lot.
But he DID refute them... or at least point to the same thing that I pointed to, in no way was Christ saying the old law still had any effect, he just didn't prohibit anyone from following it. And note here the use of the singular "law"... not "laws." This is important, because again, Christ was speaking about a particular law, the Laws of Moses. This has nothing to do with any criminal sanction or penal law, such as stoning people. You're right... the pastor IS being very clever, but in a false prophet kinda way.
For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
Matt 24:24
-
I have no argument with you or the Pastor but based on his arguments and the accuracy of the scriptures that he quoted he makes a solid argument.
Your view that he is mistaken is entirely subjective.
Remember what I said when I posted the video?
This only goes to show that some of the stuff in the Bible could be down to one's own personal interpretation of the scriptures.
You implied above that you are not a "religious follower of the Bible"... I'm telling you as somehow who has studied the Bible, that this so-called "pastor" is very wrong. This isn't anything new that I'm telling you here, this is settled Christian theology, what Christ was referring to. Manning is corrupting the Word of God to serve his own purposes. You don't have to take it from me... but trust me, I am right on this one. All you have to do is Google "Abrogation of Mosaic Law" and you'll see for yourself. Whether you agree that the old Law was abrogated or not, you'll see specifically what law Christ was referring to, it wasn't a criminal or penal law, it was the Laws of Moses.
-
Yo just cause some male animal doing the nasty doh mean men should. Don't know when it started , it had have started after last near extinction after the last ice age.But I doubt it was there with the first perfect humans.
The example of homosexuality in animals is to illustrate that the "unnatural" arguments simply don't wash - depending on how you define "natural" exactly ("observed in nature" seems the most obvious definition to me, but this is the problem with ill-defined concepts). You content there were "first perfect humans", which we clearly disagree on (me being an atheist and rejecting creationism en all), so there's not much traction to be had on an argument between us... Not sure why you think it had to start after the last near extinction though? Again you might be approaching the question accepting some sort of "Adam and Eve" scenario, so maybe there's no bridging the gap, but from a scientific point of view it's likely ot have been present in our species since the beginning, given that the other primates also exhibit homosexual behaviour.
-
I have no argument with you or the Pastor but based on his arguments and the accuracy of the scriptures that he quoted he makes a solid argument.
Your view that he is mistaken is entirely subjective.
Remember what I said when I posted the video?
This only goes to show that some of the stuff in the Bible could be down to one's own personal interpretation of the scriptures.
You implied above that you are not a "religious follower of the Bible"... I'm telling you as somehow who has studied the Bible, that this so-called "pastor" is very wrong. This isn't anything new that I'm telling you here, this is settled Christian theology, what Christ was referring to. Manning is corrupting the Word of God to serve his own purposes. You don't have to take it from me... but trust me, I am right on this one. All you have to do is Google "Abrogation of Mosaic Law" and you'll see for yourself. Whether you agree that the old Law was abrogated or not, you'll see specifically what law Christ was referring to, it wasn't a criminal or penal law, it was the Laws of Moses.
As a point of interest - does that mean you believe the 10 commandments (along with the other 603) are no longer binding?
-
As a point of interest - does that mean you believe the 10 commandments (along with the other 603) are no longer binding?
Stop the shit... it is not a point of interest, as I stated, whether one believes the laws were abrogated or not... that has little to do with the present discussion.
-
I have no argument with you or the Pastor but based on his arguments and the accuracy of the scriptures that he quoted he makes a solid argument.
Your view that he is mistaken is entirely subjective.
Remember what I said when I posted the video?
This only goes to show that some of the stuff in the Bible could be down to one's own personal interpretation of the scriptures.
You implied above that you are not a "religious follower of the Bible"... I'm telling you as somehow who has studied the Bible, that this so-called "pastor" is very wrong. This isn't anything new that I'm telling you here, this is settled Christian theology, what Christ was referring to. Manning is corrupting the Word of God to serve his own purposes. You don't have to take it from me... but trust me, I am right on this one. All you have to do is Google "Abrogation of Mosaic Law" and you'll see for yourself. Whether you agree that the old Law was abrogated or not, you'll see specifically what law Christ was referring to, it wasn't a criminal or penal law, it was the Laws of Moses.
Okay, I'll look into it. Thanks for giving your view point.
-
Did not think you would , but moving on was not even thinking about Adam and Eve .But thats a good point maybe that's where it started , because after the fall of those first 2 jews , baal started all sorts of debacary. Thats when gods forbidade man on man .
Was not in his plan.
-
Did not think you would , but moving on was not even thinking about Adam and Eve .But thats a good point maybe that's where it started , because after the fall of those first 2 jews , baal started all sorts of debacary. Thats when gods forbidade man on man .
Was not in his plan.
How could Adam and Eve been Jews without the Torah? Also, given that God is the only God, who is Baal? If he's a false god, then he has no will to start the debauchery that you speak of.
I think we're going off topic a little tho
-
Baal was Adams grandson.And all the jews descended from Adam and Eve.
-
Baal was Adams grandson.And all the jews desented from Adam and Eve.
Well apparently everyone descended from Adam and Eve, so that's a bit of a moot point :).
-
Apparently .
Except cavemen I think.Cause am not a jew lol
-
Did not think you would , but moving on was not even thinking about Adam and Eve .But thats a good point maybe that's where it started , because after the fall of those first 2 jews , baal started all sorts of debacary. Thats when gods forbidade man on man .
Was not in his plan.
How could Adam and Eve been Jews without the Torah? Also, given that God is the only God, who is Baal? If he's a false god, then he has no will to start the debauchery that you speak of.
I think we're going off topic a little tho
You ask many questions there .Answered 2 already, Baal ended up being a demi god his Uncle Seth also I believe , Able died some say the true son of Adam.
One True god u ask, he said he's the God of the jews eint it .
BAAL started Babylon his city all mam o man and woman to oman started there.
So yeah he and his arch angel lucifer bring it on this planet.Atleast gays have great pedigree lol.
His children. .children of babylon son.
And lastly I don't think it's off topic , since am trying to figure how and when homosexuality came into being.
-
Did not think you would , but moving on was not even thinking about Adam and Eve .But thats a good point maybe that's where it started , because after the fall of those first 2 jews , baal started all sorts of debacary. Thats when gods forbidade man on man .
Was not in his plan.
How could Adam and Eve been Jews without the Torah? Also, given that God is the only God, who is Baal? If he's a false god, then he has no will to start the debauchery that you speak of.
I think we're going off topic a little tho
You ask many questions there .Answered 2 already, Baal ended up being a demi god his Uncle Seth also I believe , Able died some say the true son of Adam.
One True god u ask, he said he's the God of the jews eint it .
BAAL started Babylon his city all mam o man and woman to oman started there.
So yeah he and his arch angel lucifer bring it on this planet.Atleast gays have great pedigree lol.
His children. .children of babylon son.
And lastly I don't think it's off topic , since am trying to figure how and when homosexuality came into being.
But if God didn't want this then why didn't he stop it? If you're arguing they're descended from these "children of babylon" then it clearly isn't a choice as we don't choose our parents. Given too that the scientific evidence shows that homosexuality isn't a choice, how is it right that God subject some people to these desires and not to others? What did gays do to deserve being gay? Moreover, why did God make this behaviour occur in nature? Does he hate sheep and lions too?
-
Lesbian Knocks On Church Door, What Happens Is Priceless [VIDEO]
http://www.youtube.com/v/EgeFMOHqDp4
-
Yo we just stated the creation story and all you want to know is man .hardcore homie.
Any way I think for an atheist ,your giving him a lot of power aand credit.
And also understab better .after the devil corrupt eve .man went while.Had nothing to do with yah weh.
An like pro say to you .stop being do emotional nancy your slip is showing.
We traced gay back to adam grandkids. Am cool with the theory ,how the hell you want me to know why he didnt finish them of in Sodom he droppef a nuclear bomb on them .they drop aids on them .they not going anywhere lol.
-
Nothing you can ever say in this life can persuade me that the act of sticking a penis into someone's rectum whether they are male or female, is natural and healthy.
So I advise you to stop wasting your time and to try that lame perverted argument on someone else who is a little more gullible and brain dead.
So lesbians ok?
-
Yo we just stated the creation story and all you want to know is man .hardcore homie.
Any way I think for an atheist ,your giving him a lot of power aand credit.
Well as an atheist I give him no power, I don't think he, or God, exists.
We traced gay back to adam grandkids.
Who's we?
Am cool with the theory ,how the hell you want me to know why he didnt finish them of in Sodom he droppef a nuclear bomb on them .they drop aids on them .they not going anywhere lol.
AIDs affects everyone, not just homosexuals. Are you saying that God created AIDs explicitly to kill homosexuals?
-
So the problem with you guys .Just be happy you will never get full acceptance ,stop forcing ppl .You are not the same ,just like downs syndrome ppl ,and midgets human but different .live with it.
Men will never fully accept you because you like man ,women will never fully accept you because you like man .
You can self procreate ,so you depend on hetrosexuals to hopefully make little mutants to join your ranks .
Your just one DNA strand modification from been fixed lol.
But lucky for you all a lot of powerfull ppl are gay and there pushing there agenda ,to the point where you cant turn on the TV without seen them .
-
"no" to your question. But the implication was clear that he should keep his opinion to himself.
Again, no response to Bakes reply?
You are good on opinionated responses and videos based on ideology but unable to refute opposing arguments with replies containing any substance that can be substantiated with statistical or scientific evidence.
Here, lemme post some links to reports (from smarter people than you or me) that argue banning same sex unions are unconstitutional in the USA.
Posted: 03/21/2014: Michigan's 10-year-old ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Friday in Detroit. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/21/michigan-gay-marriage_n_4985957.html)
"The Court finds Rosenfelds testimony to be highly credible and gives it great weight," he wrote. "His research convincingly shows that children of same-sex couples do just as well in school as the children of heterosexual married couples, and that same-sex couples are just as stable as heterosexual couples."
Updated 8:37 AM EST, Thu February 27, 2014 Texas ban on same-sex marriage struck down by federal judge (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/texas-same-sex/)
Texas on Wednesday became the latest state to have a federal judge strike down its same-sex marriage ban, thanks to a sweeping decision holding that its current prohibition has no "legitimate governmental purpose."
Better get use to notion that antiquated opinions, although popular, are beginning to go the way of the dodo bird.
-
So the problem with you guys .Just be happy you will never get full acceptance ,stop forcing ppl .You are not the same ,just like downs syndrome ppl ,and midgets human but different .live with it.
Men will never fully accept you because you like man ,women will never fully accept you because you like man .
You can self procreate ,so you depend on hetrosexuals to hopefully make little mutants to join your ranks .
Your just one DNA strand modification from been fixed lol.
But lucky for you all a lot of powerfull ppl are gay and there pushing there agenda ,to the point where you cant turn on the TV without seen them .
aye Quags, still waiting for your link to peer-reviewed studies ....
-
You have more gay peers than I do .Cant help yah I have none.
-
You have more gay peers than I do .Cant help yah I have none.
lol, so there is no evidence that gays have a higher disposition for committing sexual assaults than heteros.
Thus, I will stand by by original statement: "Until I see that, I will not hold much faith in generalized statements and anecdotes, skewed by personal biases, prejudices and related agendas, that portray homosexuals as evil sexual deviants"
-
Anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church leader Fred Phelps dies
RIP
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26669967
The former leader of a US church that was widely known for its inflammatory anti-gay protests has died, his family has said.
The Reverend Fred Phelps Sr, founder of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, died on Wednesday evening at 84.
The church, made up mostly of his family, rose to international notoriety with its practice of picketing funerals of fallen US troops.
It claimed their deaths were punishment for America's tolerance of gay people.
'Diabolical'
Their signs read "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Thank God for 9/11" and the like, and bore messages offensive to gay and lesbian people.
Born in Mississippi in 1929, Mr Phelps was raised a Methodist and was selected to attend the US Military Academy.
He was ordained a Baptist minister, though Westboro was not attached to any mainstream denomination.
Mr Phelps earned a law degree from Washburn University in 1964, but was stripped of his licence to practise in Kansas in 1979.
The Kansas Supreme Court said Mr Phelps made false statements in documents and "showed little regard" for professional ethics.
....
-
You have more gay peers than I do .Cant help yah I have none.
lol, so there is no evidence that gays have a higher disposition for committing sexual assaults than heteros.
Thus, I will stand by by original statement: "Until I see that, I will not hold much faith in generalized statements and anecdotes, skewed by personal biases, prejudices and related agendas, that portray homosexuals as evil sexual deviants"
look at the Renaissance period .See those cherubs baby boys .See all those teenage boys in most of thopse artists works .
Look at the Roman churches ,look at the parents putting there gay son to be priests in the seminaries . Look at all the acolytes sp[ .Who where molested for hundreds of years . Look at the fact that they got away.
No wonder the Anglicans dont mind now .
Look at the Hockey coaches look what they did to Flurry and Kennedy .
Look at the incest in the 50 ,60 and 70s .
All hovering and hiding under the radar,so many kids being born gay ,where do you think there fathers came from ,what they magically appear. This generation open now and might not be as bad ,because they dont have to sneek and hide to grab a piece of ass. But it was not always like that fred.
Look in that tread with the jew guy hiding in trini ,kidnapping little boys in NJ.
Am not anti gay they have a right to be ,but ppl also have a right to not fully love them if they choose ,you cant just make the planets ppl all magically like gays over 10 years .Never happen ,naive.
A lot of bad shit happened ,and now its politically incorrect ,to still remember.
-
...but ppl also have a right to not fully love them if they choose ,you cant just make the planets ppl all magically like gays over 10 years .Never happen ,naive.
I don't think anyone is saying people have to "fully love" let alone love gays. Just like people don't have to magically like black people after nearly 1,000 years or so of antipathy against us. The issue is not about "love" but rather of respect. Whether any of us agree with homosexuality or not, no matter how repulsive we think the act is, that is grown people business what they want to do. To advocate violence or discrimination against them, that is where I personally draw the line.
-
Oh shit I forgot the boy shouts ,them was bad bad ,.
Didnt want to post this eh Pecan,but you so insistent.
Is this what you wanted ?
-
...but ppl also have a right to not fully love them if they choose ,you cant just make the planets ppl all magically like gays over 10 years .Never happen ,naive.
I don't think anyone is saying people have to "fully love" let alone love gays. Just like people don't have to magically like black people after nearly 1,000 years or so of antipathy against us. The issue is not about "love" but rather of respect. Whether any of us agree with homosexuality or not, no matter how repulsive we think the act is, that is grown people business what they want to do. To advocate violence or discrimination against them, that is where I personally draw the line.
I fully agree ,but ppl will always have whatever prejudices ,for what ever reason .Sometimes you cant change it .Ppl just sometimes have to accept that we are visiting this planet and we cant change everything about its ppl we meet or hear about .
-
Nothing you can ever say in this life can persuade me that the act of sticking a penis into someone's rectum whether they are male or female, is natural and healthy.
So I advise you to stop wasting your time and to try that lame perverted argument on someone else who is a little more gullible and brain dead.
So lesbians ok?
Provided they have no desire to reproduce and are happy to become extinct, I guess they are! :thumbsup:
-
For the record Gay folks can do and say whatever they like once it does not negatively impact on my rights to live a positive, natural and productive life and on my freedom of speech.
-
Oh shit I forgot the boy shouts ,them was bad bad ,.
Didnt want to post this eh Pecan,but you so insistent.
Is this what you wanted ?
*sigh*
pedophilia is not homosexuality. Go do some research nah.
And being homosexuality is not about the physical sex. I sounding like a broken record.
-
Oh shit I forgot the boy shouts ,them was bad bad ,.
Didnt want to post this eh Pecan,but you so insistent.
Is this what you wanted ?
*sigh*
pedophilia is not homosexuality. Go do some research nah.
And being homosexuality is not about the physical sex. I sounding like a broken record.
For the record I have no issue with homosexuals other than them trying to promote the sexual act that most of them engage in as natural and healthy to the general public when it is exactly the opposite.
-
Am done on this topic.Except missionaries are still as dangerous as hundreds of years ago.Somebody on this tread said they told the Ugandan president to jail these ppl.And then Africa gets the blame . American missionaries are bad seen a documentary where there encourage non voodoo haitians to beleive that voodoo practitioners bring on the wrath of god.many get attacked and killed because of this.
-
Oh shit I forgot the boy shouts ,them was bad bad ,.
Didnt want to post this eh Pecan,but you so insistent.
Is this what you wanted ?
*sigh*
pedophilia is not homosexuality. Go do some research nah.
And being homosexuality is not about the physical sex. I sounding like a broken record.
For the record I have no issue with homosexuals other than them trying to promote the sexual act that most of them engage in as natural and healthy to the general public when it is exactly the opposite.
I can agree with that .at no point should kids ever believe this is a normal thing to try.sickos if them ever try to even suggest it.
-
Oh shit I forgot the boy shouts ,them was bad bad ,.
Didnt want to post this eh Pecan,but you so insistent.
Is this what you wanted ?
*sigh*
pedophilia is not homosexuality. Go do some research nah.
And being homosexuality is not about the physical sex. I sounding like a broken record.
For the record I have no issue with homosexuals other than them trying to promote the sexual act that most of them engage in as natural and healthy to the general public when it is exactly the opposite.
I can agree with that .at no point should kids ever believe this is a normal thing to try.sickos if them ever try to even suggest it.
:beermug:
-
For the record I have no issue with homosexuals other than them trying to promote the sexual act that most of them engage in as natural and healthy to the general public when it is exactly the opposite.
...and what that have to do with you, why is that any of your business? Are they trying to force you to perform the act? If it doesn't involve you or infringement of anyone's rights why does it concern you? Either way yuh contradicting yuhself, elsewhere yuh post that
For the record Gay folks can do and say whatever they like once it does not negatively impact on my rights to live a positive, natural and productive life and on my freedom of speech.
How are they "promoting" gay sex to begin with... and for argument's sake, let's say that they are, how is that negatively impacting your rights?
-
For the record I have no issue with homosexuals other than them trying to promote the sexual act that most of them engage in as natural and healthy to the general public when it is exactly the opposite.
...and what that have to do with you, why is that any of your business? Are they trying to force you to perform the act? If it doesn't involve you or infringement of anyone's rights why does it concern you? Either way yuh contradicting yuhself, elsewhere yuh post that
For the record Gay folks can do and say whatever they like once it does not negatively impact on my rights to live a positive, natural and productive life and on my freedom of speech.
How are they "promoting" gay sex to begin with... and for argument's sake, let's say that they are, how is that negatively impacting your rights?
I already stated my view that I have no problem with Gays once they don't try to promote the perverted sexual act that they regularly engage in as natural and healthy to the general public. It becomes my business if it is pushed in my face at every turn and also if they try to promote the homosexual act as natural and healthy to children in our schools and against the wishes of the majority of parents.
Pushing something in my face that I find naturally disgusting is against my rights as a human being to not have to be exposed to it, its as simple as that. I have no problem once it is not pushed in my face on daily basis.
-
Where is all this anal sex being promoted?
What corners of the world and the internet you hanging out in?
-
I already stated my view that I have no problem with Gays once they don't try to promote the perverted sexual act that they regularly engage in as natural and healthy to the general public. It becomes my business if it is pushed in my face at every turn and also if they try to promote the homosexual act as natural and healthy to children in our schools and against the wishes of the majority of parents.
Pushing something in my face that I find naturally disgusting is against my rights as a human being to not have to be exposed to it, its as simple as that. I have no problem once it is not pushed in my face on daily basis.
Let's examine this circular piece of logic... according to YOU, you alone determine your "rights", not a court, not a government, not an authority... you alone determine. So you find homosexual intercourse "naturally disgusting" so by extension anybody who participates in it, or who asserts their right to... are violating your "rights."
That piece of specious logic (being charitable here) aside, you claim that homosexual sex is being promoted in schools and being "pushed in your face." Like FF say... whey de hell you does be hanging out? In all my born years I never witness homosexual sex. Nobody never push nutten in my face... not even on de internet. Sounds like you does be watching gay porn den feel conflicted about it.
-
Hmm. ..
The lady doth protest too much, methink.
-
I already stated my view that I have no problem with Gays once they don't try to promote the perverted sexual act that they regularly engage in as natural and healthy to the general public. It becomes my business if it is pushed in my face at every turn and also if they try to promote the homosexual act as natural and healthy to children in our schools and against the wishes of the majority of parents.
Pushing something in my face that I find naturally disgusting is against my rights as a human being to not have to be exposed to it, its as simple as that. I have no problem once it is not pushed in my face on daily basis.
Let's examine this circular piece of logic... according to YOU, you alone determine your "rights", not a court, not a government, not an authority... you alone determine. So you find homosexual intercourse "naturally disgusting" so by extension anybody who participates in it, or who asserts their right to... are violating your "rights."
That piece of specious logic (being charitable here) aside, you claim that homosexual sex is being promoted in schools and being "pushed in your face." Like FF say... whey de hell you does be hanging out? In all my born years I never witness homosexual sex. Nobody never push nutten in my face... not even on de internet. Sounds like you does be watching gay porn den feel conflicted about it.
Big fail Bakes!! I will entertain you with your shaky argument.
Firstly show me where I argued anywhere that I alone determine my "rights", and not a court, nor a government, nor an authority?
That is solely your argument Bakes not mines and I think you are stretching badly there for something that can hold water for an argument, sorry to say.
Also if I find something disgusting that does not mean that anyone participating in the activity is violating my "rights".
They will only be doing so IF they insist in doing the act publicly and in MY presence against my will when it is clearly meant to be an act done in the privacy of your own home and would also be in violation of public decency laws if done in a public area in most civilized countries.
Also I did not claim that the homosexual sex is being promoted in all schools as I used the important qualifying word "IF", go back and read what I said again.
Regards the being "pushed in my face" argument, IF you are trying to carry out a homosexual act in a public place without regard for how others may view it then they have a RIGHT to complain to you that this is a public place and you need to take your homosexual act somewhere in private where it is not in their face.
I also believe that in most civilized countries you will be breaking public decency laws and may also risk being arrested.
However what you do in the privacy of your own home is none of my damn business just like what I do in the privacy of my own home is none of yours and I am not telling you what to do or even care what you do in the privacy of your own home.
Hope my clarification of what I said and what I believe my RIGHTS are has now been cleared up and that you would respect my RIGHTS to not have something that I find disgusting done publicly in my face just like I am more than happy to respect your rights to the same.
-
A hmm. . Socapro, your dissertation also applies to heterosexual sex.
-
A hmm. . Socapro, your dissertation also applies to heterosexual sex.
Yeap!! Rights I acknowledge are human rights that apply to one and all. I do not believe in Gay rights or Heterosexual rights but in Human rights as we are all human beings.
In this song Shadow sums up my view on Human Rights perfectly. :thumbsup:
Shadow - Human Rights (1979)
http://www.youtube.com/v/pLI2oqm8LVs
-
You real jokey yes, without even trying... but okay, leh we dance.
Big fail Bakes!! I will entertain you with your shaky argument.
Firstly show me where I argued anywhere that I alone determine my "rights", and not a court, nor a government, nor an authority?
That is solely your argument Bakes not mines and I think you are stretching badly there for something that can hold water for an argument, sorry to say.
"Pushing something in my face that I find naturally disgusting is against my rights as a human being to not have to be exposed to it, its as simple as that."
I know for a fact that no court, no government, no authority" determined this to be against your human rights... so who made that determination... if not you alone?
Also if I find something disgusting that does not mean that anyone participating in the activity is violating my "rights".
They will only be doing so IF they insist in doing the act publicly and in MY presence against my will when it is clearly meant to be an act done in the privacy of your own home and would also be in violation of public decency laws if done in a public area in most civilized countries.
Also I did not claim that he homosexual sex is being promoted in all schools as I used the important qualifying word "IF", go back and read what I said again.
Regards the being "pushed in my face" argument, IF you are trying to carry out a homosexual act in a public place without regard for how others may view it then they have a RIGHT to complain to you that this is a public place and you need to take your homosexual act somewhere in private where it is not in their face.
I also believe that in most civilized countries you will be breaking public decency laws and may also risk being arrested.
So who having all this gay sex in public or in your presence that have you so upset with "the Gay Agenda"? That have you posting video after video? What prompting that, some kinda fear or paranoia that gays will someday start bulling down de place in public?
-
You real jokey yes, without even trying... but okay, leh we dance.
Big fail Bakes!! I will entertain you with your shaky argument.
Firstly show me where I argued anywhere that I alone determine my "rights", and not a court, nor a government, nor an authority?
That is solely your argument Bakes not mines and I think you are stretching badly there for something that can hold water for an argument, sorry to say.
"Pushing something in my face that I find naturally disgusting is against my rights as a human being to not have to be exposed to it, its as simple as that."
I know for a fact that no court, no government, no authority" determined this to be against your human rights... so who made that determination... if not you alone?
Also if I find something disgusting that does not mean that anyone participating in the activity is violating my "rights".
They will only be doing so IF they insist in doing the act publicly and in MY presence against my will when it is clearly meant to be an act done in the privacy of your own home and would also be in violation of public decency laws if done in a public area in most civilized countries.
Also I did not claim that he homosexual sex is being promoted in all schools as I used the important qualifying word "IF", go back and read what I said again.
Regards the being "pushed in my face" argument, IF you are trying to carry out a homosexual act in a public place without regard for how others may view it then they have a RIGHT to complain to you that this is a public place and you need to take your homosexual act somewhere in private where it is not in their face.
I also believe that in most civilized countries you will be breaking public decency laws and may also risk being arrested.
So who having all this gay sex in public or in your presence that have you so upset with "the Gay Agenda"? That have you posting video after video? What prompting that, some kinda fear or paranoia that gays will someday start bulling down de place in public?
Bakes you are still stretching for argument, are things really that slow on your end?
I already said I don't care what you or anyone else does in the privacy of your own home.
All my arguments are based on IF the homosexual act is done or promoted in a public place and in the presence of others who may find it disgusting. Also as I said, I believe it will be in breach of public decency laws in most civilized countries.
I think we need to labor on some other points because you are really stretching here and coming up short.
What I find uncomfortable about the Gay Agenda is that it seems to be pushing a sexual life style that is favoured by a minority onto the unwilling majority and no one is allowed to say hold up here this is going too far least they be labelled as homophobic.
-
Got some time on my hands tonight so lets deal with your list of arguments.
Firstly before I start let's clarify that I did not say that I agreed with EVERYTHING Mr Don Feder said but I did agree with MOST of what he said.
1. the family is threatened
Where is his proof that the "family" is being threatened by the "gay agenda"? As opposed to say, divorce, incest, infidelity and out of wedlock births?
I believe that the impact of the Gay agenda is one of the many factors threatening the traditional family but it is definitely not the only factor and the other things you mentioned are also factors.
2. The American people have said they dont want to change the definition of marriage
Meaningless... in the 60s "the American people" also said they didn't want interracial marriage... or equal rights for black people for that matter. The will of the majority is a persuasive, not mandatory authority.
Don't see any argument here as that is exactly what the Gay Rights movement is seeking to do.
3. The rationale for gay marriage can used can be used to justify any deviancy
Begins with the disavowed premise that homosexuality is "deviant" behavior. We may think of it as morally or statistically deviant, but again... the exact thing was used to argue against interracial marriages. In fact, nothing prevents the same arguments from being made today. Bottom line is that sex between two consenting adults is in no way comparable between sex between an adult and a child, or sex betrween a human and an animal. The argument fails on its face.
Homosexuality is a deviant behaviour based on the natural laws of reproduction but I also believe that people should be free to do whatever they wish to in the privacy of their homes provided that they are not doing harm to anyone else outside of themselves.
4. Movement to legitimize pedophilia- 2011 group seeking to normalize sexual relations with children
If the legitimize pedophilia movement is being supported by the Gay Rights movement then Mr Don Feder is raising a valid concern.
5. Patent nonsense... the symposium (http://news.yahoo.com/b4u-act-pedophilia-takes-step-toward-being-considered-212800919.html)was held to promote the need for treatment for people sexually attracted to children, so that they could be helped BEFORE they act on their attraction. Even if you wanted to argue the the goals of ThinkB4Uact are nefarious... one symposium, by one organization hardly constitutes a "movement". You can't even argue "that's how it starts" because 3 years later and there has been no momentum or follow up.
As I said I agreed with most of what Mr Feder said but not with everything.
6. In Berkeley two lesbians trying to turn 11-year old boy into a girl, drugs/surgery, no one objecting
Actually, people are objecting... but this was done after consultation with medical professionals, prompted by the little boy threatening to cut off his own penis. Say what you will of the story (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html), but it's hardly proof of a deviant conspiracy by "the gay agenda."
Lets hope you are right on this one or that would be quite worrying if it is a goal of the Gay Rights Agenda.
7. Bathroom laws part of a campaign to abolish gender distinctions
While I don't agree with the law, I'm not that opposed to it either. But all that aside, transgendered people are not "gay", therefore this has nothing to do with a "gay agenda"... only an ignorant person would confuse the two.
I agree that if a transgender person has changed sex that they should be able to use the ladies if they are now a lady or the men's if they are now a man. However they should not be entitled to use both the men's and the ladies so if they are alowed to use both then Mr Don Feder is raising a valid concern on that point.
8. No more mother and father now parent 1 and parent 2
And this is evidence of a gay agenda??
If this new classification is now being rolled out then it is partly as a result of the gay agenda together with too much political correctness.
9. What starts as asking for tolerance demands obedience
When it comes to laws, yes... but people are still free to think/believe what they want. Civil Rights laws have hardly stopped the incidence of racism in society. So much for the "obedience" talk.
Mr Don Feder made a good point so can't see much of an argument here.
10. Persecution of Christianity- churches will be prosecuted
Foolishness. Addressed elsewhere there is no evidence of this happening. The separation of church and state has already been discussed on the other thread... no need for more explanation here.
I believe there is enough evidence of some priest being pressured to conduct Gay marriages even when they view it as against their Christian and church teachings that is based on the Bible.
11. Free speech and freedom of religion undermined by gay agenda
Again... patent foolishness. See above.
Over to you now Socapro... defend the "points" yuh in agreement with. I firmly expect yuh to shrink from the task.
Foolishness but I see it happening more and more and in fact I have already been called homophobic on this forum by a certain fellow just because I view the homosexual act as unnatural and healthy and I am not afraid to say it.
Hope you enjoy my replies and sorry for leaving it this long. :beermug:
-
Bakes you are still stretching for argument, are things really that slow on your end?
I already said I don't care what you or anyone else does in the privacy of your own home.
All my arguments are based on IF the homosexual act is done or promoted in a public place and in the presence of others who may find it disgusting. Also as I said, I believe it will be in breach of public decency laws in most civilized countries.
I think we need to labor on some other points because you are really stretching here and coming up short.
What I find uncomfortable about the Gay Agenda is that it seems to be pushing a sexual life style that is favoured by a minority onto the unwilling majority and no one is allowed to say hold up here this is going too far least they be labelled as homophobic.
Fella, yuh not making any sense. Yuh saying that yuh would only be offended/feel like yuh right violated IF gays do this and do that. Yuh claim then that yuh have nothing against them... implying that gays are PRESENTLY not doing the things you fear... having sex in public, promoting it in schools (I hope you realize just how much of a mad man yuh sounding like) etc. So if the NOT doing these things... why are you keeping up with this crusade of posting all these anti-gay videos etc? Clearly is paranoia... and irrational fear of these things that yuh claim gays might hypothetically do.
And again... how are gays "pushing" their 'sexual lifestyle' on anybody? I have to put sexual lifestyle in quotes because once more you are fixated on the sexual aspect of homosexuality rather than the same sex romantic/emotional/attraction.
-
Got some time on my hands tonight so lets deal with your list of arguments.
Firstly before I start let's clarify that I did not say that I agreed with EVERYTHING he said but I did agree with MOST of what he said.
Steups... this is why I REPEATEDLY asked you to identify what you agreed with so that I could limit my response to just those things.
-
Got some time on my hands tonight so lets deal with your list of arguments.
Firstly before I start let's clarify that I did not say that I agreed with EVERYTHING he said but I did agree with MOST of what he said.
Steups... this is why I REPEATEDLY asked you to identify what you agreed with so that I could limit my response to just those things.
Sorry did not have the time!
-
I believe that the impact of the Gay agenda is one of the many factors threatening the traditional family but it is definitely not the only factor and the other things you mentioned are also factors.
You "believe"... but Feder advanced it as truth. Do you have any proof that this is happening for fact?
Homosexuality is a deviant behaviour based on the natural laws of reproduction.
Not everybody can reproduce. Some men are sterile, some women infertile. Are they "deviant" or "unnatural"?
If the legitimize pedophilia movement is being supported by the Gay Rights movement then Mr Don Feder is raising a valid concern.
"If"... "If"... no proof.
Lets hope you are right on this one a that would be quite worrying.
You don't have to believe me... that's why I included a link to the story (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html)
I believe there is enough evidence of some priest being pressured to conduct Gay marriages even when they view it as against their Christian and church teachings that is based on the Bible.
Where is the 'evidence'... can you post some links of priests, pastors etc. being pressured to conduct Gay marriages?
Foolishness but I see it happening more and more and in fact I have already been called homophobic on this forum by a certain fellow just because I view the homosexual act as unnatural and healthy and I am not afraid to say it.
Hope you enjoy my replies and sorry for leaving it this long. :beermug:
People disagreeing with your position is not an attack on your 'freedom of speech'... in any case that freedom is not absolute, but has to be exercised within certain constraints. This has always been the case, you can't just say whatever you want to say without response or repercussions.
It's cool that you take yuh time... this ent school, all ah we posting as we have time :beermug:
-
I believe that the impact of the Gay agenda is one of the many factors threatening the traditional family but it is definitely not the only factor and the other things you mentioned are also factors.
You "believe"... but Feder advanced it as truth. Do you have any proof that this is happening for fact?
The proof is in the fact of how regular black actors are being asked to do gay or cross dressing roles in Hollywood movies and this behaviour being emulated by more and more Black men in the real world who are being influenced by what they see on the TV or in the movies.
Homosexuality is a deviant behaviour based on the natural laws of reproduction.
Not everybody can reproduce. Some men are sterile, some women infertile. Are they "deviant" or "unnatural"?
No they are just unfortunately sterile or infertile but that is not the norm in most healthy human beings.
Some infertile people also seek fertility treatment which sometimes work.
Fertile people also lose the power to reproduce after a certain age.
If the legitimize pedophilia movement is being supported by the Gay Rights movement then Mr Don Feder is raising a valid concern.
"If"... "If"... no proof.
I said if because I don't know for sure if that is true.
Lets hope you are right on this one a that would be quite worrying.
You don't have to believe me... that's why I included a link to the story (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html)
Will take a read.
I believe there is enough evidence of some priest being pressured to conduct Gay marriages even when they view it as against their Christian and church teachings that is based on the Bible.
Where is the 'evidence'... can you post some links of priests, pastors etc. being pressured to conduct Gay marriages?
I have heard stories in the news in the past so will try to find a few links and post them.
Foolishness but I see it happening more and more and in fact I have already been called homophobic on this forum by a certain fellow just because I view the homosexual act as unnatural and healthy and I am not afraid to say it.
Hope you enjoy my replies and sorry for leaving it this long. :beermug:
People disagreeing with your position is not an attack on your 'freedom of speech'... in any case that freedom is not absolute, but has to be exercised within certain constraints. This has always been the case, you can't just say whatever you want to say without response or repercussions.
It's cool that you take yuh time... this ent school, all ah we posting as we have time :beermug:
What I see happening more and more in the media is that folks are being labelled homophobic if they give a view that is deemed to be Anti the Gay Rights Agenda and some are even starting to lose their jobs over it so soon most folks would be too scared to speak out for fear of being labelled homophobic and then made an example of.
-
Bakes you are still stretching for argument, are things really that slow on your end?
I already said I don't care what you or anyone else does in the privacy of your own home.
All my arguments are based on IF the homosexual act is done or promoted in a public place and in the presence of others who may find it disgusting. Also as I said, I believe it will be in breach of public decency laws in most civilized countries.
I think we need to labor on some other points because you are really stretching here and coming up short.
What I find uncomfortable about the Gay Agenda is that it seems to be pushing a sexual life style that is favoured by a minority onto the unwilling majority and no one is allowed to say hold up here this is going too far least they be labelled as homophobic.
Fella, yuh not making any sense. Yuh saying that yuh would only be offended/feel like yuh right violated IF gays do this and do that. Yuh claim then that yuh have nothing against them... implying that gays are PRESENTLY not doing the things you fear... having sex in public, promoting it in schools (I hope you realize just how much of a mad man yuh sounding like) etc. So if the NOT doing these things... why are you keeping up with this crusade of posting all these anti-gay videos etc? Clearly is paranoia... and irrational fear of these things that yuh claim gays might hypothetically do.
And again... how are gays "pushing" their 'sexual lifestyle' on anybody? I have to put sexual lifestyle in quotes because once more you are fixated on the sexual aspect of homosexuality rather than the same sex romantic/emotional/attraction.
Are you really this slow Bakes or are you just bored and looking for unnecessary argument to past your time?
I don't think they have yet implemented the teaching of Gay sex as normal and natural in ALL schools but I believe that is one of the definite goals of the Gay Rights Agenda movement. If you find that difficult to believe no need to worry as I am confident that we will all see more and more examples of it being put forward on the syllabus of schools in America and elsewhere in the coming months and years.
We can post the many examples as they come up in the news.
PS: Btw I am not on any crusade, just posted a couple of videos that I mostly agreed with and to help stir some discussion on the forum, that is all.
California passes bill mandating pro-gay teaching in schools, no parent opt-out
BY THADDEUS BAKLINSKI
SACRAMENTO, July 6, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A bill requiring public schools to teach the historical contributions of homosexual Americans was approved by the California legislature on Tuesday, July 5. The bill also prohibits any school material or instruction that reflects adversely on homosexuality, bisexuality or transgenderism, and prohibits parents from removing children from classes over offensive material.
Click link to read more: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/california-passes-bill-mandating-pro-gay-teaching-in-schools-no-parent-opt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Parents protest bid to teach about sexuality
Published: 09 Jan 2014 12:30 GMT+01:00
More than 65,000 parents and teachers in southern Germany have signed an online petition against plans to teach children about homosexuality in school.
The petition, which by Thursday had collected over 65,700 signatures, wants to lobby parliament to sink plans in the state of Baden-Wrttemberg to make teachers talk to pupils more frankly about homosexuality.
The initiative, by Baden-Wrttembergs ruling regional Green/SPD coalition, wants to include "acceptance of sexual diversity" in the curriculum so that children are told about different lifestyles and relationships at a young age.
But it has met strong resistance from teachers and parents.
Supporters say the curriculum change will promote tolerance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual and intersexual people. Critics say it would "go beyond the aim of preventing discrimination" to actively promote "the ideology of the rainbow.
According to the petition, which was launched by a teacher, the plans would see an "educational, moral and ideological re-education of the general school system."
Regional Green Party head Oliver Hildenbrand has accused petition signatories of displaying "a shocking amount of homophobia," the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported on Thursday, and added the curriculum change would help create an environment where children learned tolerance.
The Greens coalition partners in the state government, the SPD, have also expressed shock at resistance to the plan. "The current online petition contains a spirit of severe intolerance," SPD regional education expert Stefan Fulst-Blei told the FAZ.
Signatories are hoping the regional parliament will take their petition into account when it comes to a debate on the culture ministry's initiative to include "acceptance of sexual diversity" in the 2015 education plan.
The initiative has been quietly criticized by grassroots Conservative politicians from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who would prefer sex education in schools to focus on norms and values.
Click link to read more: http://www.thelocal.de/20140109/petition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Primary school teachers 'could face sack' for refusing to promote gay marriage
By John Bingham, The Telegraph (UK)
3:39PM GMT 18 Nov 2012
Primary school teachers could face the sack for refusing to promote gay marriage once same-sex unions become law, a minister has signalled.
Liz Truss, an education minister, refused to rule out the possibility that teachers, even in faith schools, could face disciplinary action for objecting on grounds of conscience.
Miss Truss said simply that it was impossible to know what the impact of the legislation would be at this stage.
Her admission came in a letter to a fellow Conservative MP, David Burrowes, last month.
Mr Burrowes, a practising Christian, originally wrote to Maria Miller, the equalities minister, raising concerns about the impact on schools of the Coalitions plans to change the marriage laws.
It followed the publication of a legal opinion by Aidan ONeill QC, a barrister in the same London chambers as Cherie Blair, commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage, which campaigns against same-sex unions.
Mr ONeill, an expert on human rights, was asked to advise on the impact redefining marriage to include same-sex couples could have on schools, churches, hospitals, foster carers and public buildings.
Among his conclusions was that schools could be within their statutory rights to dismiss staff who wilfully fail to use stories or textbooks promoting same-sex weddings.
Click link to read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9686306/Primary-school-teachers-could-face-sack-for-refusing-to-promote-gay-marriage.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there are many more examples like the above three from around the world.
-
Are you really this slow Bakes or are you just bored and looking for unnecessary argument to past your time?
I don't think they have yet implemented the teaching of Gay sex as normal and natural in ALL schools but I believe that is one of the definite goals of the Gay Rights Agenda movement. If you find that difficult to believe no need to worry as I am confident that we will all see more and more examples of it being put forward on the syllabus of schools in America and elsewhere in the coming months and years.
We can post the many examples as they come up in the news.
PS: Btw I am not on any crusade, just posted a couple of videos that I mostly agreed with and to help stir some discussion on the forum, that is all.
California passes bill mandating pro-gay teaching in schools, no parent opt-out
BY THADDEUS BAKLINSKI
SACRAMENTO, July 6, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A bill requiring public schools to teach the historical contributions of homosexual Americans was approved by the California legislature on Tuesday, July 5. The bill also prohibits any school material or instruction that reflects adversely on homosexuality, bisexuality or transgenderism, and prohibits parents from removing children from classes over offensive material.
Click link to read more: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/california-passes-bill-mandating-pro-gay-teaching-in-schools-no-parent-opt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Parents protest bid to teach about sexuality
Published: 09 Jan 2014 12:30 GMT+01:00
More than 65,000 parents and teachers in southern Germany have signed an online petition against plans to teach children about homosexuality in school.
The petition, which by Thursday had collected over 65,700 signatures, wants to lobby parliament to sink plans in the state of Baden-Wrttemberg to make teachers talk to pupils more frankly about homosexuality.
The initiative, by Baden-Wrttembergs ruling regional Green/SPD coalition, wants to include "acceptance of sexual diversity" in the curriculum so that children are told about different lifestyles and relationships at a young age.
But it has met strong resistance from teachers and parents.
Supporters say the curriculum change will promote tolerance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual and intersexual people. Critics say it would "go beyond the aim of preventing discrimination" to actively promote "the ideology of the rainbow.
According to the petition, which was launched by a teacher, the plans would see an "educational, moral and ideological re-education of the general school system."
Regional Green Party head Oliver Hildenbrand has accused petition signatories of displaying "a shocking amount of homophobia," the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported on Thursday, and added the curriculum change would help create an environment where children learned tolerance.
The Greens coalition partners in the state government, the SPD, have also expressed shock at resistance to the plan. "The current online petition contains a spirit of severe intolerance," SPD regional education expert Stefan Fulst-Blei told the FAZ.
Signatories are hoping the regional parliament will take their petition into account when it comes to a debate on the culture ministry's initiative to include "acceptance of sexual diversity" in the 2015 education plan.
The initiative has been quietly criticized by grassroots Conservative politicians from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who would prefer sex education in schools to focus on norms and values.
Click link to read more: http://www.thelocal.de/20140109/petition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Primary school teachers 'could face sack' for refusing to promote gay marriage
By John Bingham, The Telegraph (UK)
3:39PM GMT 18 Nov 2012
Primary school teachers could face the sack for refusing to promote gay marriage once same-sex unions become law, a minister has signalled.
Liz Truss, an education minister, refused to rule out the possibility that teachers, even in faith schools, could face disciplinary action for objecting on grounds of conscience.
Miss Truss said simply that it was impossible to know what the impact of the legislation would be at this stage.
Her admission came in a letter to a fellow Conservative MP, David Burrowes, last month.
Mr Burrowes, a practising Christian, originally wrote to Maria Miller, the equalities minister, raising concerns about the impact on schools of the Coalitions plans to change the marriage laws.
It followed the publication of a legal opinion by Aidan ONeill QC, a barrister in the same London chambers as Cherie Blair, commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage, which campaigns against same-sex unions.
Mr ONeill, an expert on human rights, was asked to advise on the impact redefining marriage to include same-sex couples could have on schools, churches, hospitals, foster carers and public buildings.
Among his conclusions was that schools could be within their statutory rights to dismiss staff who wilfully fail to use stories or textbooks promoting same-sex weddings.
Click link to read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9686306/Primary-school-teachers-could-face-sack-for-refusing-to-promote-gay-marriage.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there are many more examples like the above three from around the world.
I guarantee you that I'm not the one making himself seem slow here. I ask you direct questions and all you've been doing is dancing and obfuscating. I'm not the only one calling you out on it either, but if it makes you feel better to think that I am then go right ahead. You still have yet to offer anything that supports or substantiates your position... cutting and pasting articles from biased websites don't help you. SB48, the California bill is a "pro-Gay" bill the same way teaching Black history is a "pro-Black" law. In short it is nonsense. This is what the bill is about:
"In particular, according to chief author Sen. Mark Leno, it 'ensures that the historical contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are accurately and fairly portrayed in instructional materials by adding LGBT people to the existing list of under-represented cultural and ethnic groups already included in the states inclusionary education requirements.'"
The Telegraph article's headline is misleading... the teachers won't "possibly" be sacked for refusing to "promote gay marriage" they could be sacked for refusing to teach the LAW. There's no reasoning with people like you if you insist on distorting reality to further your own agenda.
-
I can't take you serious nah fella. Tyler Perry dressing as Madea and Martin Lawrence as Big Momma is threatening families because men watching that are emulating them? Seriously? No, seriously?? Where's the evidence that black men... or men in general are following these examples? The more you talk the crazier you are beginning to sound, no lie.
-
Are you really this slow Bakes or are you just bored and looking for unnecessary argument to past your time?
I don't think they have yet implemented the teaching of Gay sex as normal and natural in ALL schools but I believe that is one of the definite goals of the Gay Rights Agenda movement. If you find that difficult to believe no need to worry as I am confident that we will all see more and more examples of it being put forward on the syllabus of schools in America and elsewhere in the coming months and years.
We can post the many examples as they come up in the news.
PS: Btw I am not on any crusade, just posted a couple of videos that I mostly agreed with and to help stir some discussion on the forum, that is all.
California passes bill mandating pro-gay teaching in schools, no parent opt-out
BY THADDEUS BAKLINSKI
SACRAMENTO, July 6, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A bill requiring public schools to teach the historical contributions of homosexual Americans was approved by the California legislature on Tuesday, July 5. The bill also prohibits any school material or instruction that reflects adversely on homosexuality, bisexuality or transgenderism, and prohibits parents from removing children from classes over offensive material.
Click link to read more: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/california-passes-bill-mandating-pro-gay-teaching-in-schools-no-parent-opt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Parents protest bid to teach about sexuality
Published: 09 Jan 2014 12:30 GMT+01:00
More than 65,000 parents and teachers in southern Germany have signed an online petition against plans to teach children about homosexuality in school.
The petition, which by Thursday had collected over 65,700 signatures, wants to lobby parliament to sink plans in the state of Baden-Wrttemberg to make teachers talk to pupils more frankly about homosexuality.
The initiative, by Baden-Wrttembergs ruling regional Green/SPD coalition, wants to include "acceptance of sexual diversity" in the curriculum so that children are told about different lifestyles and relationships at a young age.
But it has met strong resistance from teachers and parents.
Supporters say the curriculum change will promote tolerance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual and intersexual people. Critics say it would "go beyond the aim of preventing discrimination" to actively promote "the ideology of the rainbow.
According to the petition, which was launched by a teacher, the plans would see an "educational, moral and ideological re-education of the general school system."
Regional Green Party head Oliver Hildenbrand has accused petition signatories of displaying "a shocking amount of homophobia," the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported on Thursday, and added the curriculum change would help create an environment where children learned tolerance.
The Greens coalition partners in the state government, the SPD, have also expressed shock at resistance to the plan. "The current online petition contains a spirit of severe intolerance," SPD regional education expert Stefan Fulst-Blei told the FAZ.
Signatories are hoping the regional parliament will take their petition into account when it comes to a debate on the culture ministry's initiative to include "acceptance of sexual diversity" in the 2015 education plan.
The initiative has been quietly criticized by grassroots Conservative politicians from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who would prefer sex education in schools to focus on norms and values.
Click link to read more: http://www.thelocal.de/20140109/petition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Primary school teachers 'could face sack' for refusing to promote gay marriage
By John Bingham, The Telegraph (UK)
3:39PM GMT 18 Nov 2012
Primary school teachers could face the sack for refusing to promote gay marriage once same-sex unions become law, a minister has signalled.
Liz Truss, an education minister, refused to rule out the possibility that teachers, even in faith schools, could face disciplinary action for objecting on grounds of conscience.
Miss Truss said simply that it was impossible to know what the impact of the legislation would be at this stage.
Her admission came in a letter to a fellow Conservative MP, David Burrowes, last month.
Mr Burrowes, a practising Christian, originally wrote to Maria Miller, the equalities minister, raising concerns about the impact on schools of the Coalitions plans to change the marriage laws.
It followed the publication of a legal opinion by Aidan ONeill QC, a barrister in the same London chambers as Cherie Blair, commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage, which campaigns against same-sex unions.
Mr ONeill, an expert on human rights, was asked to advise on the impact redefining marriage to include same-sex couples could have on schools, churches, hospitals, foster carers and public buildings.
Among his conclusions was that schools could be within their statutory rights to dismiss staff who wilfully fail to use stories or textbooks promoting same-sex weddings.
Click link to read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9686306/Primary-school-teachers-could-face-sack-for-refusing-to-promote-gay-marriage.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there are many more examples like the above three from around the world.
I guarantee you that I'm not the one making himself seem slow here. I ask you direct questions and all you've been doing is dancing and obfuscating. I'm not the only one calling you out on it either, but if it makes you feel better to think that I am then go right ahead. You still have yet to offer anything that supports or substantiates your position... cutting and pasting articles from biased websites don't help you. SB48, the California bill is a "pro-Gay" bill the same way teaching Black history is a "pro-Black" law. In short it is nonsense. This is what the bill is about:
"In particular, according to chief author Sen. Mark Leno, it 'ensures that the historical contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are accurately and fairly portrayed in instructional materials by adding LGBT people to the existing list of under-represented cultural and ethnic groups already included in the states inclusionary education requirements.'"
The Telegraph article's headline is misleading... the teachers won't "possibly" be sacked for refusing to "promote gay marriage" they could be sacked for refusing to teach the LAW. There's no reasoning with people like you if you insist on distorting reality to further your own agenda.
State my position on what Bakes?! What the hell are you going on about?
I know you love to argue with people but you are beyond ridiculous some times.
State my position on what?!
Yes I am dumb and slow so please tell me what I need to state my position on that I haven't already stated my position on?
You must seriously be bored!
-
I can't take you serious nah fella. Tyler Perry dressing as Madea and Martin Lawrence as Big Momma is threatening families because men watching that are emulating them? Seriously? No, seriously?? Where's the evidence that black men... or men in general are following these examples? The more you talk the crazier you are beginning to sound, no lie.
Please don't because it is mutal most times!
You have this way of trying to feel that you alone have sense, no wonder why you have fallen out with most posters who try to engage you. I am done.
-
Please don't because it is mutal most times!
You have this way of trying to feel that you alone have sense, no wonder why you have fallen out with most posters who try to engage you. I am done.
LOL... "no wonder why you have fallen out with most posters who try to engage you." Like I could give shit fella. I'm not on this site to make enemies but I damn sure not here to try and make friends either... I post my opinion and who don't like how I do so are free to ignore it. This naked-ass appeal to majority isn't doing much to help your argument. As for me "trying to feel that (I) alone have sense", that is your own insecurities manifesting themselves. You talking shit as usual, and because I calling you out on it yuh getting yuh emotional panties in a bunch and shifting to the ad hominem approach. This isn't about me or my personality, is about the abject shit that yuh posting. I was trying to be civil about it but since yuh want to take it on the personal level we could do that too. Ah waiting fuh yuh to try and delete mih post next... yuh done notorious fuh that once people call yuh out.
-
State my position on what Bakes?! What the hell are you going on about?
I know you love to argue with people but you are beyond ridiculous some times.
State my position on what?!
Yes I am dumb and slow so please tell me what I need to state my position on that I haven't already stated my position on?
You must seriously be bored!
Probably the one accurate thing you've said all discussion... I said "support or substantiate" your position, you don't understand what that means? I didn't ask you to "state" your position, I know well what your position is, I was asking you to provide a logical basis for it. Evidently I was asking too much, and your apparent inability with reading comprehension puts everything in perspective.
Carry on :beermug:
-
Please don't because it is mutal most times!
You have this way of trying to feel that you alone have sense, no wonder why you have fallen out with most posters who try to engage you. I am done.
LOL... "no wonder why you have fallen out with most posters who try to engage you." Like I could give shit fella. I'm not on this site to make enemies but I damn sure not here to try and make friends either... I post my opinion and who don't like how I do so are free to ignore it. This naked-ass appeal to majority isn't doing much to help your argument. As for me "trying to feel that (I) alone have sense", that is your own insecurities manifesting themselves. You talking shit as usual, and because I calling you out on it yuh getting yuh emotional panties in a bunch and shifting to the ad hominem approach. This isn't about me or my personality, is about the abject shit that yuh posting. I was trying to be civil about it but since yuh want to take it on the personal level we could do that too. Ah waiting fuh yuh to try and delete mih post next... yuh done notorious fuh that once people call yuh out.
Blah blah blah blah, get a life Bakes! I said I am done so take win! I am not here on an ego trip like you are.
-
Socapro, I realized that you will disagree with most of, if not everything I state below. But in the long run, your fears will not be realized and your way of life will not change because:
1) The gays will not take over the world
2) There will be no increased bulling in the street - my guess is that most countries have indecency laws that prohibit public displays of physical sex.
3) There will be no change in pedophilia behaviour - we already have laws for that and heterosexuals already have that market captured.
4) Children will not be converted to homosexuals. Homosexuality is not learnt behaviour.
5) Sex education is sex education. Homosexuality will be recognized as just one aspect of human sexuality when discussed in school and will be treated in an age-appropriate manner. <edit> "Gay Sex" will not be taught. The same way they do not teach "heterosexual sex". Homosexuality is not about anal sex although that myth seem to have a life of its own.
6) The family will not be decimated because of same sex unions. The family already under other pressures and same-sex unions is not one of them.
7) The world will not stop spinning on it axis.
Socapro, being gay is OK (that almost rhymes if you stress the correct syllable). No need to fight it or shun it. Yeah, I know what you have stated for the record. So just leave it at that and stop conjuring "what if" scenarios that are unlikely.
There is a subliminal message in there .. somewhere
-
State my position on what Bakes?! What the hell are you going on about?
I know you love to argue with people but you are beyond ridiculous some times.
State my position on what?!
Yes I am dumb and slow so please tell me what I need to state my position on that I haven't already stated my position on?
You must seriously be bored!
Probably the one accurate thing you've said all discussion... I said "support or substantiate" your position, you don't understand what that means? I didn't ask you to "state" your position, I know well what your position is, I was asking you to provide a logical basis for it. Evidently I was asking too much, and your apparent inability with reading comprehension puts everything in perspective.
Carry on :beermug:
My position is that I don't care what Gays do in the privacy of their own homes but it becomes my concern if they want to promote gay sex in public to everyone and to have it taught in schools to our children as natural and healthy regardless of the view of the parents.
End of story and I don't need to substantiate anything there unless you are lacking in English comprehension and regular common sense.
I've already posted a few different examples of what is happening in schools around the globe which will be of concern to anyone who has young children attending school like many of us do.
Now back to enjoying the big football game because I have a life and don't have an ego problem of always trying to prove that I am smarter than everyone else even over the most petty and insignificant things.
-
Socapro, I realized that you will disagree with most of, if not everything I state below. But in the long run, your fears will not be realized and your way of life will not change because:
1) The gays will not take over the world
If they do then mankind will become extinct so I am no more worried about that happening than you are.
Tell me something I did not know next time.
2) There will be no increased bulling in the street - my guess is that most countries have indecency laws that prohibit public displays of physical sex.
How you know that for sure regards no increased bulling in the streets? Were you at T&T carnival this year?
Most countries have laws but not all countries choose to enforce all their laws do they?
3) There will be no change in pedophilia behaviour - we already have laws for that and heterosexuals already have that market captured.
Have you got the figures to prove that more heterosexuals than homosexuals are pedophiles or are you just yapping off and trying to sound clever?
4) Children will not be converted to homosexuals. Homosexuality is not learnt behaviour.
There is ample proof of folks who started off as heterosexuals and who turned to a homosexual life style later on in life after being groomed and converted by a homosexual. I can post you a video with an example if you like.
5) Sex education is sex education. Homosexuality will be recognized as just one aspect of human sexuality when discussed in school and will be treated in an age-appropriate manner.
You can't say that for sure unless it is your school and you are the one supervising the lessons.
To be honest I don't mind youngsters being taught at the appropriate age, the facts about anal sex being unnatural and perverted based on our natural bodily functions and also about the extra high health risk involved if ever it is done at anytime without a condom.
6) The family will not be decimated because of same sex unions. The family already under other pressures and same-sex unions is not one of them.
I am most concerned about the Black family which is already decimated and more Black men turning into poofs and more Black women trying to replace the missing Black men is not going to help the Black family coupled with all the other factors already negatively affecting it.
7) The world will not stop spinning on it axis.
Socapro, being gay is OK (that almost rhymes if you stress the correct syllable). No need to fight it or shun it. Yeah, I know what you have stated for the record. So just leave it at that and stop conjuring "what if" scenarios that are unlikely.
I already said that Gay folks can do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own homes and it is not my business.
It only becomes my business if or when they try to promote their sexual life style to everyone else as natural and healthy which of course is a lie. At least be honest and accurate and stop trying to gloss it over.
My "what if" scenarios are already happening in certain schools around the world and are not just likely but already a reality. This will be rolled out in more and more schools and become the norm over the coming months and years guaranteed unless normal folks stand up and say "no, this is going too far" without the fear of being branded as homophobic.
On a related note I believe they should also introduce Drug Addiction Prevention lessons in schools to help youngsters at an appropriate age become more aware of the dangers of getting involved with different drugs.
The powers that be who need a steady supply of new drug takers to keep their markets going will not be supportive of this move however.
-
White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling Uganda and places like Russia to protect the faggots .
There is an agenda at work and that is to corrupt all the nations of the world but this couldn't happen until the chosen people had a president who they could control .
All major religions frowned upon the faggot lifestyle but now it is forced upon the masses .
I read on this here forum where teachers can be sanctioned for not making their classrooms faggot friendly in spite of the fact that it clashes with their moral and spiritual beliefs
This is being pushed by those who controls the media , finances , law and Hollywood
-
White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling Uganda and places like Russia to protect the faggots .
There is an agenda at work and that is to corrupt all the nations of the world but this couldn't happen until the chosen people had a president who they could control .
All major religions frowned upon the faggot lifestyle but now it is forced upon the masses .
I read on this here forum where teachers can be sanctioned for not making their classrooms faggot friendly in spite of the fact that it clashes with their moral and spiritual beliefs
This is being pushed by those who controls the media , finances , law and Hollywood
Wow, racist, homophobic and paranoid all in one post. Why don't you throw in some sexism too just to complete the picture?
-
Racist? It was white people who outlawed and demonized homosexuality. Now they have deemed it acceptable and worthy and the entire world needs to as well? White people deem diamonds valuable so Africans need to lose limbs to ensure that women have engagement rings...Let's do a tally of the damage done to this planet by white people and I bet you they outnumber any other race.
By white I don't mean the average white person. I'm talking about white establishment.
-
Racist? It was white people who outlawed and demonized homosexuality. Now they have deemed it acceptable and worthy and the entire world needs to as well? White people deem diamonds valuable so Africans need to lose limbs to ensure that women have engagement rings...Let's do a tally of the damage done to this planet by white people and I bet you they outnumber any other race.
By white I don't mean the average white person. I'm talking about white establishment.
You'll find no argument against that from me, my argument was against accusing white people for being responsible for all the evils. But be under no illusions - it's not 'cause we were white, it's because the most powerful nations in the world were in Europe, where the population was overwhelmingly white. Thus the second issue is false-attribution - The Chinese in their early history basically ethnically cleansed what is now Southern China, slavery was a staple of nearly every society across the world regardless of race. Apartheid was both supported and opposed by white people, it's harsh to blame "white people" (whatever that means - are Russians as white as Britons? Are White Trini's as white as Americans?) for these ills, especially given that white people showed a propensity for inflicting these ills on each other as well.
-
White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling Uganda and places like Russia to protect the faggots .
There is an agenda at work and that is to corrupt all the nations of the world but this couldn't happen until the chosen people had a president who they could control .
All major religions frowned upon the faggot lifestyle but now it is forced upon the masses .
I read on this here forum where teachers can be sanctioned for not making their classrooms faggot friendly in spite of the fact that it clashes with their moral and spiritual beliefs
This is being pushed by those who controls the media , finances , law and Hollywood
Kindly refrain from fascist comments.
First warning.
TY..
-
Racist? It was white people who outlawed and demonized homosexuality. Now they have deemed it acceptable and worthy and the entire world needs to as well? White people deem diamonds valuable so Africans need to lose limbs to ensure that women have engagement rings...Let's do a tally of the damage done to this planet by white people and I bet you they outnumber any other race.
By white I don't mean the average white person. I'm talking about white establishment.
You'll find no argument against that from me, my argument was against accusing white people for being responsible for all the evils. But be under no illusions - it's not 'cause we were white, it's because the most powerful nations in the world were in Europe, where the population was overwhelmingly white. Thus the second issue is false-attribution - The Chinese in their early history basically ethnically cleansed what is now Southern China, slavery was a staple of nearly every society across the world regardless of race. Apartheid was both supported and opposed by white people, it's harsh to blame "white people" (whatever that means - are Russians as white as Britons? Are White Trini's as white as Americans?) for these ills, especially given that white people showed a propensity for inflicting these ills on each other as well.
I see today you're wearing your imperial hat.
You do understand how the term "white people" entered the lexicon, don't you? You do understand why "black people" have been "black people", don't you? You do understand the lexical and experiential polarities, don't you?
-
I see today you're wearing your imperial hat.
You do understand how the term "white people" entered the lexicon, don't you? You do understand why "black people" have been "black people", don't you? You do understand the lexical and experiential polarities, don't you?
His point nonetheless is valid... they were exploitative not by dint of melanation, or lack thereof, but because they had powerful navies and were ruthlessly exploitative. Given the state of warfare and conquest among tribes in Africa, had they the same naval capabilities and knowledge of the world as it then existed, then they too would likely have colonized other nations just the same. What would have flowed from that is anyone's guess, but no one race is inherently superior/inferior to the other.
-
Racist? It was white people who outlawed and demonized homosexuality. Now they have deemed it acceptable and worthy and the entire world needs to as well? White people deem diamonds valuable so Africans need to lose limbs to ensure that women have engagement rings...Let's do a tally of the damage done to this planet by white people and I bet you they outnumber any other race.
By white I don't mean the average white person. I'm talking about white establishment.
You'll find no argument against that from me, my argument was against accusing white people for being responsible for all the evils. But be under no illusions - it's not 'cause we were white, it's because the most powerful nations in the world were in Europe, where the population was overwhelmingly white. Thus the second issue is false-attribution - The Chinese in their early history basically ethnically cleansed what is now Southern China, slavery was a staple of nearly every society across the world regardless of race. Apartheid was both supported and opposed by white people, it's harsh to blame "white people" (whatever that means - are Russians as white as Britons? Are White Trini's as white as Americans?) for these ills, especially given that white people showed a propensity for inflicting these ills on each other as well.
I see today you're wearing your imperial hat.
You do understand how the term "white people" entered the lexicon, don't you? You do understand why "black people" have been "black people", don't you? You do understand the lexical and experiential polarities, don't you?
*Sigh*, I appreciate "white people" forms a colonial dichotomy in opposition to the "black people". Seriously I get that. That is irrelevant to my point - were it that black people inhabited Europe whilst white people inhabited Africa, the dichotomy would be reversed. The root cause of this evil is not the colour of their skin or the levels of skin pigmentation. You also know this to be true I hope - the lightness of a person's skin does not have any bearing on their morals. The root cause was the power imbalance and inequity, coupled with cultural and religious (if you consider them different) norms that had no objection to slavery, no objection to cruel treatment of those who did not follow their religion, or that 'other' group safely separated from the conception of self.
-
I see today you're wearing your imperial hat.
You do understand how the term "white people" entered the lexicon, don't you? You do understand why "black people" have been "black people", don't you? You do understand the lexical and experiential polarities, don't you?
His point nonetheless is valid... they were exploitative not by dint of melanation, or lack thereof, but because they had powerful navies and were ruthlessly exploitative. Given the state of warfare and conquest among tribes in Africa, had they the same naval capabilities and knowledge of the world as it then existed, then they too would likely have colonized other nations just the same. What would have flowed from that is anyone's guess, but no one race is inherently superior/inferior to the other.
No one ... not me, not congo, not Ramgoat, NO ONE ... made any assertion rooted on skin color/melanation etc. ... Tiresais injected that needlessly ... all the foregoing comments expressed some appreciation of constructed power.
-
No one ... not me, not congo, not Ramgoat, NO ONE ... made any assertion rooted on skin color/melanation etc. ... Tiresais injected that needlessly ... all the foregoing comments expressed some appreciation of constructed power.
I think you need to pay closer attention to the words of those whom you would presume to defend... otherwise just speak for yourself.
White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling
-
Racist? It was white people who outlawed and demonized homosexuality. Now they have deemed it acceptable and worthy and the entire world needs to as well? White people deem diamonds valuable so Africans need to lose limbs to ensure that women have engagement rings...Let's do a tally of the damage done to this planet by white people and I bet you they outnumber any other race.
By white I don't mean the average white person. I'm talking about white establishment.
You'll find no argument against that from me, my argument was against accusing white people for being responsible for all the evils. But be under no illusions - it's not 'cause we were white, it's because the most powerful nations in the world were in Europe, where the population was overwhelmingly white. Thus the second issue is false-attribution - The Chinese in their early history basically ethnically cleansed what is now Southern China, slavery was a staple of nearly every society across the world regardless of race. Apartheid was both supported and opposed by white people, it's harsh to blame "white people" (whatever that means - are Russians as white as Britons? Are White Trini's as white as Americans?) for these ills, especially given that white people showed a propensity for inflicting these ills on each other as well.
I see today you're wearing your imperial hat.
You do understand how the term "white people" entered the lexicon, don't you? You do understand why "black people" have been "black people", don't you? You do understand the lexical and experiential polarities, don't you?
*Sigh*, I appreciate "white people" forms a colonial dichotomy in opposition to the "black people". Seriously I get that. That is irrelevant to my point - were it that black people inhabited Europe whilst white people inhabited Africa, the dichotomy would be reversed. The root cause of this evil is not the colour of their skin or the levels of skin pigmentation. You also know this to be true I hope - the lightness of a person's skin does not have any bearing on their morals. The root cause was the power imbalance and inequity, coupled with cultural and religious (if you consider them different) norms that had no objection to slavery, no objection to cruel treatment of those who did not follow their religion, or that 'other' group safely separated from the conception of self.
Yeah, we've had years and years ... centuries to appreciate that. Thanks for the education.
-
No one ... not me, not congo, not Ramgoat, NO ONE ... made any assertion rooted on skin color/melanation etc. ... Tiresais injected that needlessly ... all the foregoing comments expressed some appreciation of constructed power.
I think you need to pay closer attention to the words of those whom you would presume to defend... otherwise just speak for yourself.
White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling
Yuh responding like you've been in a lexical abyss ... the statement problematic for other reasons ... does not signify because they are "white".
-
No one ... not me, not congo, not Ramgoat, NO ONE ... made any assertion rooted on skin color/melanation etc. ... Tiresais injected that needlessly ... all the foregoing comments expressed some appreciation of constructed power.
I think you need to pay closer attention to the words of those whom you would presume to defend... otherwise just speak for yourself.
White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling
Yuh responding like you've been in an lexical abyss ... the statement problematic for other reasons ... does not signify because they are "white".
Are you a professional troll or something? You keep playing word games when meanings are clear - his accusation was "White people". If he wanted to say "colonial powers" or "Western Nations" or "Europeans" he would have said so. You are the one asserting a different definition - he can defend himself.
-
Yuh responding like you've been in an lexical abyss ... the statement problematic for other reasons ... does not signify because they are "white".
Actually, I'm responding like I'm talking to a 5-year old... seeing that that is how you insist on approaching the discussion. He made clear reference to the race of the perpetrators, not to the perpetrators themselves. Are the Russians part of these "white people"? Scandinivians? How are "white people" responsible for slavery when Africans, Persians, Arabs and other Semitic people were guilty of the same practices, including those which most directly impacted the African slave trade? A reasonable argument can be made that the division fomented by the Belgians gave rise to the environment of distrust in Rwanda and the Congo... but are we seriously absolving the local warlords and criminals for the genocide? Or is it only genocide when perpetrated by "white people"? The statement is beyond "problematic" it is foolish talk... he would have been better served to say "Europeans"... at least the charge of racism would not have been applicable, not that that would have been any more accurate.
-
No one ... not me, not congo, not Ramgoat, NO ONE ... made any assertion rooted on skin color/melanation etc. ... Tiresais injected that needlessly ... all the foregoing comments expressed some appreciation of constructed power.
I think you need to pay closer attention to the words of those whom you would presume to defend... otherwise just speak for yourself.
White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling
Yuh responding like you've been in an lexical abyss ... the statement problematic for other reasons ... does not signify because they are "white".
Are you a professional troll or something? You keep playing word games when meanings are clear - his accusation was "White people". If he wanted to say "colonial powers" or "Western Nations" or "Europeans" he would have said so. You are the one asserting a different definition - he can defend himself.
Tiresais, I appreciate that you're holding Ramgoat to a demand of accountability. No problem here. However, in doing so, we must not engage in pretence ... use of the term "white people" amongst people bearing the historical antecedents which you very well understand ... is not a reference to ALL people who are phenotypically white ... nor is it a proposal that historical antecedents occurred merely because of such phenotype.
Trying to distort the use of the term ... absent historical antecedents is what I have a problem with here. Put otherwise, allyuh fully well know what de ass he is referring to when he uses the term ... beyond that blast him for incorrect historical assertions etc. .... but doh play like you have NO idea that he does not mean somebody in Ingushetia. Gimme a break.
-
Yuh responding like you've been in an lexical abyss ... the statement problematic for other reasons ... does not [necessarily] signify because they are "white".
Actually, I'm responding like I'm talking to a 5-year old... seeing that that is how you insist on approaching the discussion. He made clear reference to the race of the perpetrators, not to the perpetrators themselves. Are the Russians part of these "white people"? Scandinivians? How are "white people" responsible for slavery when Africans, Persians, Arabs and other Semitic people were guilty of the same practices, including those which most directly impacted the African slave trade? A reasonable argument can be made that the division fomented by the Belgians gave rise to the environment of distrust in Rwanda and the Congo... but are we seriously absolving the local warlords and criminals for the genocide? Or is it only genocide when perpetrated by "white people"? The statement is beyond "problematic" it is foolish talk... he would have been better served to say "Europeans"... at least the charge of racism would not have been applicable, not that that would have been any more accurate.
Yeah. A descriptor laden with meaning ... not unlike "black people".
-
Tiresais, I appreciate that you're holding Ramgoat to a demand of accountability. No problem here. However, in doing so, we must not engage in pretence ... use of the term "white people" amongst people bearing the historical antecedents which you very well understand ... is not a reference to ALL people who are phenotypically white ... nor is it a proposal that historical antecedents occurred merely because of such phenotype.
Trying to distort the use of the term ... absent historical antecedents is what I have a problem with here. Put otherwise, allyuh fully well know what de ass he is referring to when he uses the term ... beyond that blast him for incorrect historical assertions etc. .... but doh play like you have know idea that he does not mean somebody in Ingushetia. Gimme a break.
This is nonsense. If any white person was to say "black people are responsible for all of the crimes perpetrated on American society" that person would correctly be branded a racist. That person would get no quarter in arguing that when he said "black people" he did not mean "ALL people who are phenotypically black... nor is it a proposal that their [criminal behavior] occurred merely because of such phenotype"... such an argument would be labeled sophism... which is what you're currently engaging in. Reckless talk is reckless talk... doh try to play Ms. Cleo or Atticus Finch, let Ramgoat speak for himself, it's his responsibility to make clear his meaning, not for the reader to assume how to decipher it. Even in contemplation of the "historical antecedents" to which you have so tenuous attached your campaign in his defense, the statement still rings false for all the reasons which I've already outlined.
-
Asylum, if we buy into your argument, then Flex need to retract his warning. I must conclude that Flex viewed ramgoat's post as inflammatory and not as potentially ambiguous as I think you suggest.
-
Asylum, if we buy into your argument, then Flex need to retract his warning. I must conclude that Flex viewed ramgoat's post as inflammatory and not as potentially ambiguous as I think you suggest.
He might have a point... since Flex saw the post as fascist, lol!
-
Asylum, if we buy into your argument, then Flex need to retract his warning. I must conclude that Flex viewed ramgoat's post as inflammatory and not as potentially ambiguous as I think you suggest.
He might have a point... since Flex saw the post as fascist, lol!
I "get" Flex's meaning ... unlike "some" inflexible strict constructionist poster with a penchant for using the words "back-bending", "hypocrite" and "cowardice" ... who although chained to a dictionary ... couldn't seem to locate "F". :devil: But ah bet he could find "PM".
-
White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling Uganda and places like Russia to protect the faggots .
There is an agenda at work and that is to corrupt all the nations of the world but this couldn't happen until the chosen people had a president who they could control .
All major religions frowned upon the faggot lifestyle but now it is forced upon the masses .
I read on this here forum where teachers can be sanctioned for not making their classrooms faggot friendly in spite of the fact that it clashes with their moral and spiritual beliefs
This is being pushed by those who controls the media , finances , law and Hollywood
Kindly refrain from fascist comments.
First warning.
TY..
Asylum, if we buy into your argument, then Flex need to retract his warning. I must conclude that Flex viewed ramgoat's post as inflammatory and not as potentially ambiguous as I think you suggest.
Hehheh, ;) This is forum policy ...
2. Racism in any form is not welcomed on this site and will not be tolerated at all. This includes references to anyones race in a derogatory manner, whether it involves the use of racial pejoratives or not. Racial pejoratives (such as the N-word and C-word [examples]) will ABSOLUTELY NOT BE TOLERATED.
Work that out.
And, given the focus of this thread ... maybe you should invest in expanding the policy :devil: ... given the unbolded silence respecting other matters.
[pecan, yuh on detention] ;D
-
Asylum, the obliqueness of your posts often have me pulling out my decipher books (in addition to the dictionary too ;D).to figure out what yuh saying.
Let me give it a shot
1) If the forum policy on "racism" is to be observed, then isn't Tireais initial comment about Ramgoat's "white people" comment relevant? yet you censured him but have now quoted forum policy that seems to support Tiresais comments as well as the reason for Flex's warning. I trying to work it out but failing miserably.
2) "unbolded silence" - I admit I did recently use 1 point, white typeface to make a comment. But I don't think you referring to that .. or are you? or are you now referring to the evolution of this thread from homosexuality to racism?
3) Is the detention for my Manicou avatar as per Dutty?
4) I going to TO tomorrow. Any messages you want me to pass on Olivia Chow or Rob Ford - If I see them on the subway? Does Olivia Chow's platform have substance?
-
Asylum, the obliqueness of your posts often have me pulling out my decipher books (in addition to the dictionary too ;D).to figure out what yuh saying.
Let me give it a shot
1) If the forum policy on "racism" is to be observed, then isn't Tireais initial comment about Ramgoat's "white people" comment relevant? yet you censured him but have now quoted forum policy that seems to support Tiresais comments as well as the reason for Flex's warning. I trying to work it out but failing miserably.
This is under review for subsequent comment.
2) "unbolded silence" - I admit I did recently use 1 point, white typeface to make a comment. But I don't think you referring to that .. or are you? or are you now referring to the evolution of this thread from homosexuality to racism?
You'll notice that the word "faggot" wasn't met with any opprobrium. Under your portfolio, I thought you should be tasked to address that ... given your legacy of activism in the field ... per forum debates and ... Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. :devil:
3) Is the detention for my Manicou avatar as per Dutty?
Amnesty might be granted if yuh substitute manicou fuh de goat. See below. Buh yuh will need to consult with Jumbie and Dutty to confirm what to pair that with if babash is unavailable. Sam tell meh babash is de preferred ting to lash that with.
4) I going to TO tomorrow. Any messages you want me to pass on Olivia Chow or Rob Ford - If I see them on the subway? Does Olivia Chow's platform have substance?
She going to win anyway? It doh matter. Offer Rob Ford the curry goat complemented with finely granulated rice that has a white powdery finish. He go love that! ... with a Red Stripe.
-
In no particular order
1) New avatar. Troll and a Ramgoat
2) No more LBGT activism on this forum; my position has been stated. So no comment on faggots unless it is a firebrand.
3) I hope Olivia don't win, for that matter too, Ford has worn out his welcome. Just leaves Tory who may be too right wing for you I suspect.
4) Hmmmm ... Sweat rice for Ford? Not Jamaican so he might object.
-
His hook is the white powdery ... :rotfl:
-
White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling Uganda and places like Russia to protect the faggots .
There is an agenda at work and that is to corrupt all the nations of the world but this couldn't happen until the chosen people had a president who they could control .
All major religions frowned upon the faggot lifestyle but now it is forced upon the masses .
I read on this here forum where teachers can be sanctioned for not making their classrooms faggot friendly in spite of the fact that it clashes with their moral and spiritual beliefs
This is being pushed by those who controls the media , finances , law and Hollywood
Kindly refrain from fascist comments.
First warning.
TY..
Some one mentioned that I should have used less inflammatory terms like colonials and Europeans but at the end of the day ,Europeans and colonials are still whites ,
There is no need for a second warning , if you have to kick me out of here then so be it but I will say this and that is the level on discourse here is more of a higher and educated quality .
I do not like to be censored and I prefer to say what I feel without being offensive and as a moderator , I guess you have to do what you have to do
-
P.S. That Ramgoat is yuh old nemesis. (http://www.youtube.com/v/06_pHaZj09E) :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
ah feel so
-
P.P.S. Yuh detention was for unveiling the plot.
-
Asylum, the obliqueness of your posts often have me pulling out my decipher books (in addition to the dictionary too ;D).to figure out what yuh saying.
yeah Asylumseeker, try and talk 'normel' nah
when you and Bakes shitting somebody up, the effect wears off or just isnt there when ah have to go to dictionary.com to find the meaning of the words ;D
-
In no particular order
1) New avatar. Troll and a Ramgoat
2) No more LBGT activism on this forum; my position has been stated. So no comment on faggots unless it is a firebrand.
3) I hope Olivia don't win, for that matter too, Ford has worn out his welcome. Just leaves Tory who may be too right wing for you I suspect.
4) Hmmmm ... Sweat rice for Ford? Not Jamaican so he might object.
Ah only jes realize yuh really do that ...
-
White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling Uganda and places like Russia to protect the faggots .
There is an agenda at work and that is to corrupt all the nations of the world but this couldn't happen until the chosen people had a president who they could control .
All major religions frowned upon the faggot lifestyle but now it is forced upon the masses .
I read on this here forum where teachers can be sanctioned for not making their classrooms faggot friendly in spite of the fact that it clashes with their moral and spiritual beliefs
This is being pushed by those who controls the media , finances , law and Hollywood
Kindly refrain from fascist comments.
First warning.
TY..
Some one mentioned that I should have used less inflammatory terms like colonials and Europeans but at the end of the day ,Europeans and colonials are still whites ,
There is no need for a second warning , if you have to kick me out of here then so be it but I will say this and that is the level on discourse here is more of a higher and educated quality .
I do not like to be censored and I prefer to say what I feel without being offensive and as a moderator , I guess you have to do what you have to do
My point about your first sentence here is that you are mis-attributing the problem here, and the result is that it has a large potential to come across as racist. There's an important distinction that you're not making - they didn't commit these crimes because they were white - the colour of their skin was incidental, unless you're arguing that their skin colour had some part to play?
-
White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling Uganda and places like Russia to protect the faggots .
There is an agenda at work and that is to corrupt all the nations of the world but this couldn't happen until the chosen people had a president who they could control .
All major religions frowned upon the faggot lifestyle but now it is forced upon the masses .
I read on this here forum where teachers can be sanctioned for not making their classrooms faggot friendly in spite of the fact that it clashes with their moral and spiritual beliefs
This is being pushed by those who controls the media , finances , law and Hollywood
Kindly refrain from fascist comments.
First warning.
TY..
Some one mentioned that I should have used less inflammatory terms like colonials and Europeans but at the end of the day ,Europeans and colonials are still whites ,
There is no need for a second warning , if you have to kick me out of here then so be it but I will say this and that is the level on discourse here is more of a higher and educated quality .
I do not like to be censored and I prefer to say what I feel without being offensive and as a moderator , I guess you have to do what you have to do
My point about your first sentence here is that you are mis-attributing the problem here, and the result is that it has a large potential to come across as racist. There's an important distinction that you're not making - they didn't commit these crimes because they were white - the colour of their skin was incidental, unless you're arguing that their skin colour had some part to play?
mis attributing ?, me racist? , no I stated exactly what I meant but first let me address the racist part . My definition of racism is " prejudice with power " and that is when one has the power to deny one a promotion or a raise on account of the fact that the victim is melanin challenged .
I don't have that power and therefore I cannot be a racist .
You mentioned the point that Persians Africans and Semites were also involved in slavery but that is a false equivalency as their involvement was minuscule when compared with western Europe .
I will also say this also and that is skin color does come into play as they justify the degrading and enslavement of people who are not like them especially black people as doing gods work .
They interpreted the bible and Torah to justify the enslavement if Black people, who they say are the descendants of Ham ... fetchers of water and Hewers of wood for them.
i am choosing my words carefully and therefore , I will not elaborate further as the sword of Damocles is hanging over my head with the banning threat
I will however reiterate that They are in no position to lecture Uganda and all of Africa for that matter , , The Caribbean,.. India Russia , the Arab world to be accepting towards Gays
-
Racist? It was white people who outlawed and demonized homosexuality. Now they have deemed it acceptable and worthy and the entire world needs to as well? White people deem diamonds valuable so Africans need to lose limbs to ensure that women have engagement rings...Let's do a tally of the damage done to this planet by white people and I bet you they outnumber any other race.
By white I don't mean the average white person. I'm talking about white establishment.
You'll find no argument against that from me, my argument was against accusing white people for being responsible for all the evils. But be under no illusions - it's not 'cause we were white, it's because the most powerful nations in the world were in Europe, where the population was overwhelmingly white. Thus the second issue is false-attribution - The Chinese in their early history basically ethnically cleansed what is now Southern China, slavery was a staple of nearly every society across the world regardless of race. Apartheid was both supported and opposed by white people, it's harsh to blame "white people" (whatever that means - are Russians as white as Britons? Are White Trini's as white as Americans?) for these ills, especially given that white people showed a propensity for inflicting these ills on each other as well.
I see today you're wearing your imperial hat.
You do understand how the term "white people" entered the lexicon, don't you? You do understand why "black people" have been "black people", don't you? You do understand the lexical and experiential polarities, don't you?
*Sigh*, I appreciate "white people" forms a colonial dichotomy in opposition to the "black people". Seriously I get that. That is irrelevant to my point - were it that black people inhabited Europe whilst white people inhabited Africa, the dichotomy would be reversed. The root cause of this evil is not the colour of their skin or the levels of skin pigmentation. You also know this to be true I hope - the lightness of a person's skin does not have any bearing on their morals. The root cause was the power imbalance and inequity, coupled with cultural and religious (if you consider them different) norms that had no objection to slavery, no objection to cruel treatment of those who did not follow their religion, or that 'other' group safely separated from the conception of self.
It was capitalism, dear. Slavery, colonialism, mass exploitation, all had its genesis in the capitalist system.
-
White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling Uganda and places like Russia to protect the faggots .
There is an agenda at work and that is to corrupt all the nations of the world but this couldn't happen until the chosen people had a president who they could control .
All major religions frowned upon the faggot lifestyle but now it is forced upon the masses .
I read on this here forum where teachers can be sanctioned for not making their classrooms faggot friendly in spite of the fact that it clashes with their moral and spiritual beliefs
This is being pushed by those who controls the media , finances , law and Hollywood
Kindly refrain from fascist comments.
First warning.
TY..
Some one mentioned that I should have used less inflammatory terms like colonials and Europeans but at the end of the day ,Europeans and colonials are still whites ,
There is no need for a second warning , if you have to kick me out of here then so be it but I will say this and that is the level on discourse here is more of a higher and educated quality .
I do not like to be censored and I prefer to say what I feel without being offensive and as a moderator , I guess you have to do what you have to do
My point about your first sentence here is that you are mis-attributing the problem here, and the result is that it has a large potential to come across as racist. There's an important distinction that you're not making - they didn't commit these crimes because they were white - the colour of their skin was incidental, unless you're arguing that their skin colour had some part to play?
But wasnt their "whiteness" later used as a justification for the subjugation of Blacks? White superiority, white privilege, colourism in the West Indies and other former colonies. Please, let us try to be candid here.
-
White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling Uganda and places like Russia to protect the faggots .
There is an agenda at work and that is to corrupt all the nations of the world but this couldn't happen until the chosen people had a president who they could control .
All major religions frowned upon the faggot lifestyle but now it is forced upon the masses .
I read on this here forum where teachers can be sanctioned for not making their classrooms faggot friendly in spite of the fact that it clashes with their moral and spiritual beliefs
This is being pushed by those who controls the media , finances , law and Hollywood
Kindly refrain from fascist comments.
First warning.
TY..
Some one mentioned that I should have used less inflammatory terms like colonials and Europeans but at the end of the day ,Europeans and colonials are still whites ,
There is no need for a second warning , if you have to kick me out of here then so be it but I will say this and that is the level on discourse here is more of a higher and educated quality .
I do not like to be censored and I prefer to say what I feel without being offensive and as a moderator , I guess you have to do what you have to do
My point about your first sentence here is that you are mis-attributing the problem here, and the result is that it has a large potential to come across as racist. There's an important distinction that you're not making - they didn't commit these crimes because they were white - the colour of their skin was incidental, unless you're arguing that their skin colour had some part to play?
mis attributing ?, me racist? , no I stated exactly what I meant but first let me address the racist part . My definition of racism is " prejudice with power " and that is when one has the power to deny one a promotion or a raise on account of the fact that the victim is melanin challenged .
I don't have that power and therefore I cannot be a racist .
You mentioned the point that Persians Africans and Semites were also involved in slavery but that is a false equivalency as their involvement was minuscule when compared with western Europe .
I will also say this also and that is skin color does come into play as they justify the degrading and enslavement of people who are not like them especially black people as doing gods work .
They interpreted the bible and Torah to justify the enslavement if Black people, who they say are the descendants of Ham ... fetchers of water and Hewers of wood for them.
i am choosing my words carefully and therefore , I will not elaborate further as the sword of Damocles is hanging over my head with the banning threat
I will however reiterate that They are in no position to lecture Uganda and all of Africa for that matter , , The Caribbean,.. India Russia , the Arab world to be accepting towards Gays
Well your definition of racism is flat out wrong. Anyone can be racist, it is simply discrimination on the basis of race. "Power" is not a key determinant, your argument seems to be a depressing reformulation of the argument that "I'm black/Asian/other minority so I can't be racist". You are claiming "white people" are inherently immoral, as you are attributing the evils perpetrated during the colonial era on the basis of skin colour. The insinuation is that you believe that no other race would have done the same, ergo that Black people, in the same situation, would not have carried out mass-scale slavery and exploitation of white people if white people had lived in Africa and Black people in Europe.
On your second point, you were the one who said white people were responsible for all these problems - my counter point was that the majority of societies across the world have had religious or cultural laws that sanctified or justified slavery, across a number of different races. This is not a false equivalency - the crime is the same, what's different is the scale in this particular instance. Is your argument that only white people would enslave a lot, whereas all other races would enslave a little?
The conception of "other" is the important thing here, not the skin colour per se. Simply put, it's easier to enslave someone who looks totally different from you, as they are more obviously not of your 'culture', 'tribe', or other socio-cultural delineation. Ireland was the hub of the North-Western European slave trade before the 1000s, for example, due to intense Viking raids and slave trading. It wasn't the colour of the skin that allowed slavery, simply a cultural emphasis on military might combined with particular religious conceptions. My point is that even if Africans had had the similar skin colour there would have been some other arbitrary trait for which the powerful countries of Europe would have enslaved Africans, for virtue of not being European and unable to resist.
This has turned from your original racist comments, to hopefully trying to show you that race wasn't he pre-determinate factor. You need to look deeper than the skin - there were a whole host of power structures, cultural changes, religious doctrines, and technological and organisational advances that led to the triangular slave trade that saw over 10 million Africans brutalised for cash crops.
To Toppa - hello dear. Yes, capitalism is a major determinant, but given that slavery existed in cultures without a capitalistic system we know it can't be the only determinant. As I said to Ramgoat, White exceptionalism (and in the modern era, "White saviour" narratives) is a product of Europe's rise. Had China cotinued to be the most developed country from 1400 onwards we might be talking about an "Asian Exceptionalism", or if the Islamic world had continued to be the most developed nations in Europe after 1000 we might be talking about "Arab exceptionalism" (not so crazy, the Caliphates owned all of Spain and some parts of south-western France before receding).
-
White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity . .. slavery ., apartheid , genocide and here they are telling Uganda and places like Russia to protect the faggots .
There is an agenda at work and that is to corrupt all the nations of the world but this couldn't happen until the chosen people had a president who they could control .
All major religions frowned upon the faggot lifestyle but now it is forced upon the masses .
I read on this here forum where teachers can be sanctioned for not making their classrooms faggot friendly in spite of the fact that it clashes with their moral and spiritual beliefs
This is being pushed by those who controls the media , finances , law and Hollywood
Kindly refrain from fascist comments.
First warning.
TY..
Some one mentioned that I should have used less inflammatory terms like colonials and Europeans but at the end of the day ,Europeans and colonials are still whites ,
There is no need for a second warning , if you have to kick me out of here then so be it but I will say this and that is the level on discourse here is more of a higher and educated quality .
I do not like to be censored and I prefer to say what I feel without being offensive and as a moderator , I guess you have to do what you have to do
My point about your first sentence here is that you are mis-attributing the problem here, and the result is that it has a large potential to come across as racist. There's an important distinction that you're not making - they didn't commit these crimes because they were white - the colour of their skin was incidental, unless you're arguing that their skin colour had some part to play?
But wasnt their "whiteness" later used as a justification for the subjugation of Blacks? White superiority, white privilege, colourism in the West Indies and other former colonies. Please, let us try to be candid here.
It wasn't even "later" ... that was from the day trans-Atlantic enslavement began. Doh be seduced by these apologist, reconstructionist revisionists.
-
only on dis forum could a thread about homos turn into one about slavery. :frustrated:
-
Excerpted from Tiresais' contribution above:
Simply put, it's easier to enslave someone who looks totally different from you, as they are more obviously not of your 'culture', 'tribe', or other socio-cultural delineation.
Keep going ...
-
@Terisais, the slavery that existed in those societies cannot be compared to the savagery of the trans-atlantic slave trade. Also, other empires enjoyed world dominance at different times yet such large-scale, structural brutality - the effects of which still resonate today - did not exist.
Now I am not really one to condemn an entire people (not saying others have) but lets not try to "whitewash" history with the "oh, it wasnt so bad" and the "well others kinda sorta did it too".
-
@Terisais, the slavery that existed in those societies cannot be compared to the savagery of the trans-atlantic slave trade. Also, other empires enjoyed world dominance at different times yet such large-scale, structural brutality - the effects of which still resonate today - did not exist.
Now I am not really one to condemn an entire people (not saying others have) but lets not try to "whitewash" history with the "oh, it wasnt so bad" and the "well others kinda sorta did it too".
:beermug:
-
Guys you're entirely mis-interpreting my statement, so let me be clear;
1) Slavery was taken to brutal new heights by the European Colonial powers
2) The direct effects were the enslavement of a large African population, enforced labour for the enrichment of a small rich elite from Europe, and later the United States.
3) The indirect effects were just as bad - you find today that those nations in Africa that traded the most slaves have the worst development outcomes. This is because it fractured ethnicities, turning group against group and African against African (if such a term can be applied).
4) The people who did this were white
5) Their whiteness was incidental. Their white skin did not cause them (the small rich elite) to become slavers.
As I explained in the post above, the explanations are deep, multifaceted, and encapsulate the rise of Europe and the "Great Divergence" in incomes between the West and the Rest. Nowhere did I say "it wasn't so bad" - that's simply flat out wrong. Read my damn posts. To say it happened because Europeans were white (i.e. the colour of their skin caused them to act this way) is just moronic.
-
Guys you're entirely mis-interpreting my statement, so let me be clear;
1) Slavery was taken to brutal new heights by the European Colonial powers
2) The direct effects were the enslavement of a large African population, enforced labour for the enrichment of a small rich elite from Europe, and later the United States.
3) The indirect effects were just as bad - you find today that those nations in Africa that traded the most slaves have the worst development outcomes. This is because it fractured ethnicities, turning group against group and African against African (if such a term can be applied).
4) The people who did this were white
5) Their whiteness was incidental. Their white skin did not cause them (the small rich elite) to become slavers.
As I explained in the post above, the explanations are deep, multifaceted, and encapsulate the rise of Europe and the "Great Divergence" in incomes between the West and the Rest. Nowhere did I say "it wasn't so bad" - that's simply flat out wrong. Read my damn posts. To say it happened because Europeans were white (i.e. the colour of their skin caused them to act this way) is just moronic.
First of all, you're the only person saying that.
Secondly, to say that slavery and colonialism benefited just a minority elite is laughable. The wealth amassed by the British empire during the days of colonialism is directly related to the UK's development, which benefited the population as a whole.
Also the strife amongst the enthnic groups in modern African nation-states are again a direct result of the colonial powers firstly arbitrarily carving up Africa without a care to inidigenous geo-political systems of governance, then favouring one group over the other and pitting them against each other. That's why in modern-day Nigeria there is such tension between the Muslims to the North and the Christians to the South or in Rwanda when the Belgians favoured and uplifted the minority Tutsis at the expense of the Hutus...which led to one of the worst genocides on the continent. And I won't even mention the continued destabilisation attempts by the West, such as the assasination of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo...all to ensure the continued exploitation of the continent.
Now no-one is trying to beat up on you because you're white (if you're white - I don't know or care), but I don't think you have a very good grasp of colonial history. Understandable if you were raised in the UK - they obviously gloss over much of it.
-
@Terisais, the slavery that existed in those societies cannot be compared to the savagery of the trans-atlantic slave trade. Also, other empires enjoyed world dominance at different times yet such large-scale, structural brutality - the effects of which still resonate today - did not exist.
Now I am not really one to condemn an entire people (not saying others have) but lets not try to "whitewash" history with the "oh, it wasnt so bad" and the "well others kinda sorta did it too".
Red herring. No one has made the argument that "it wasn't so bad" or "well others kinda sorta did it too". The original statement was that white people were responsible for ALL of the enumerated ills... including slavery. The point of bringing in other slavers into the discussion is to show that it began in other societies long before the Europeans became involved. To say that we cannot compare the two is not only ridiculous, but also irrelevant. The issue is about genesis of a practice, not who did it better/worse. The true "whitewashing" would be to lay slavery at the feet of "white people" as Ramjackass is trying to do.
-
First of all, you're the only person saying that.
You might want to scroll thru the thread again.
Secondly, to say that slavery and colonialism benefited just a minority elite is laughable. The wealth amassed by the British empire during the days of colonialism is directly related to the UK's development, which benefited the population as a whole.
You'd have a very hard time proving that the lower classes in England benefitted much, if at all, from the Trans Atlantic slave trade. Wealth was consolidated in the hands of the landed aristocracy the the upper classes to whom it spilled over. Anything that trickled down to the natives on the streets were tangential crumbs at best.
Also the strife amongst the enthnic groups in modern African nation-states are again a direct result of the colonial powers firstly arbitrarily carving up Africa without a care to inidigenous geo-political systems of governance, then favouring one group over the other and pitting them against each other. That's why in modern-day Nigeria there is such tension between the Muslims to the North and the Christians to the South or in Rwanda when the Belgians favoured and uplifted the minority Tutsis at the expense of the Hutus...which led to one of the worst genocides on the continent. And I won't even mention the continued destabilisation attempts by the West, such as the assasination of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo...all to ensure the continued exploitation of the continent.
I think you need to spend some time studying pre-colonial Africa, particularly West Africa, to appreciate just how incorrect this is. The divisions that existed among the various tribes were well-established by the time the Europeans arrived in Africa. If anything they were more ruthless in exploiting those differences than naturally might have occurred.
Now no-one is trying to beat up on you because you're white (if you're white - I don't know or care), but I don't think you have a very good grasp of colonial history. Understandable if you were raised in the UK - they obviously gloss over much of it.
It's amazing how much glossing over is being done, in the name of proving that the other side in this discussion, is guilty of the same.
-
Guys you're entirely mis-interpreting my statement, so let me be clear;
1) Slavery was taken to brutal new heights by the European Colonial powers
2) The direct effects were the enslavement of a large African population, enforced labour for the enrichment of a small rich elite from Europe, and later the United States.
3) The indirect effects were just as bad - you find today that those nations in Africa that traded the most slaves have the worst development outcomes. This is because it fractured ethnicities, turning group against group and African against African (if such a term can be applied).
4) The people who did this were white
5) Their whiteness was incidental. Their white skin did not cause them (the small rich elite) to become slavers.
As I explained in the post above, the explanations are deep, multifaceted, and encapsulate the rise of Europe and the "Great Divergence" in incomes between the West and the Rest. Nowhere did I say "it wasn't so bad" - that's simply flat out wrong. Read my damn posts. To say it happened because Europeans were white (i.e. the colour of their skin caused them to act this way) is just moronic.
First of all, you're the only person saying that.
Secondly, to say that slavery and colonialism benefited just a minority elite is laughable. The wealth amassed by the British empire during the days of colonialism is directly related to the UK's development, which benefited the population as a whole.
Also the strife amongst the enthnic groups in modern African nation-states are again a direct result of the colonial powers firstly arbitrarily carving up Africa without a care to inidigenous geo-political systems of governance, then favouring one group over the other and pitting them against each other. That's why in modern-day Nigeria there is such tension between the Muslims to the North and the Christians to the South or in Rwanda when the Belgians favoured and uplifted the minority Tutsis at the expense of the Hutus...which led to one of the worst genocides on the continent. And I won't even mention the continued destabilisation attempts by the West, such as the assasination of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo...all to ensure the continued exploitation of the continent.
Now no-one is trying to beat up on you because you're white (if you're white - I don't know or care), but I don't think you have a very good grasp of colonial history. Understandable if you were raised in the UK - they obviously gloss over much of it.
READ MY POSTS. You are accusing me of things I plainly didn't argue for!
Secondly, to say that slavery and colonialism benefited just a minority elite is laughable. The wealth amassed by the British empire during the days of colonialism is directly related to the UK's development, which benefited the population as a whole.
Direct benefits from slavery and colonialism would have initially accrued to the rich elite, i.e. those who could afford the ships and crew to sell the slaves. It's hard to argue that the poor majority of Great Britain during the 1600s saw any benefit from this. The main benefit, if that's the appropriate word, was that the money accrued to a select few in UK - rich merchants. This upset the power balance between the landed aristocracy and the new rich, those who benefited from trade more broadly, but more specifically slavery and the colonies. This shift in Parliament's power had a number of effects, but the flash point was the English Civil War, where the money of these merchants was essential in the invitation/invasion of William of Orange, and the instituting of a Constitutional Monarchy that protected the rights of individual wealth and property from expropriation from the state.
Undeniably, slavery had a big benefit to the development of the UK economy (Economists aren't sure if that benefit greatly accelerated the UK's rise, or was necessary in it), but the exact relationship is more problematic - countries such as Portugal and Spain clearly didn't benefit as much given they had high levels of poverty into the 1900s. The real issue is why the UK benefited more from slavery than other countries, if it indeed did so. The answer, as I've pointed out elsewhere, is that there were a complex web of socio-economic and political changes over hundreds of years (at least from 1350 after the Black Death) that led to the United Kingdom adopting restraints on the monarch and the protection of private property. These elements were key in preventing the spending sprees of monarchs seen in France and Spain, and facilitating capital accumulation during the Industrial Revolution.
Also the strife amongst the enthnic groups in modern African nation-states are again a direct result of the colonial powers firstly arbitrarily carving up Africa without a care to inidigenous geo-political systems of governance, then favouring one group over the other and pitting them against each other. That's why in modern-day Nigeria there is such tension between the Muslims to the North and the Christians to the South or in Rwanda when the Belgians favoured and uplifted the minority Tutsis at the expense of the Hutus...which led to one of the worst genocides on the continent. And I won't even mention the continued destabilisation attempts by the West, such as the assasination of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo...all to ensure the continued exploitation of the continent.
Agreed - the boarders of Africa are arbitrary. There was an intersting paper done by William Easterly that took into account the "straightness" of boarders in the world, and found that those with straighter boarders had lower developmental outcomes (the point being that straight boarders were arbitrary decisions made by colonial powers that made no account for local ethnic groups, cultures or religions). I've brought up the assassination of Lumumba in the Russia thread - a disgraceful and evil act that set in motion the fractured Congo of today.
Now no-one is trying to beat up on you because you're white (if you're white - I don't know or care), but I don't think you have a very good grasp of colonial history. Understandable if you were raised in the UK - they obviously gloss over much of it.
You're talking out of your ass - I have a thorough knowledge of colonial history. You simply are failing at reading my damn posts. On the last point - education in the UK is shockingly pro-colonial, in a subtle way. There's this depressing mindset that somehow the British Empire was good for the countries it subjected...
-
@ Bakes - Congo said "white people" did so and so...I think that's different from saying "they did so-and-so because they were white."
Slavery and colonialism benefited the British population at large in that it was the foundation for the development and advancement of their society. Their wealth, their infrastructure, their advancements were all the result of their subjugation of others.
Also, the arbitrary carving up of Africa resulted in the division of already established polities and the creation of new 'countries'. Perfect example of this is the Yoruba people who already had their own political systems, governance, etc but were separated into three different countries during colonialism - Nigeria and Benin - now having the compete with various other ethnic groups. Result - conflict.
-
Slavery and colonialism benefited the British population at large in that it was the foundation for the development and advancement of their society. Their wealth, their infrastructure, their advancements were all the result of their subjugation of others.
How do you know this? All the evidence I've found in Economic History (my specialism) so far is that England was already seeing income growth (well, stagnation before an incredibly slow growth for London and SE, as opposed to Malthusian falls experienced in Europe) above its European neighbours for 150 years before 1562, when the first English slaving expedition started. This is why the question of whether it was essential for (capitalistic) development is not clear cut. I still think it was an integral part in England's rise, specifically because of how it changed the power dynamics in Britain towards a merchant elite, but the question is not clear cut. We probably won't ever know for sure - we're dealing with counter-factuals.
-
Slavery and colonialism benefited the British population at large in that it was the foundation for the development and advancement of their society. Their wealth, their infrastructure, their advancements were all the result of their subjugation of others.
How do you know this? All the evidence I've found in Economic History (my specialism) so far is that England was already seeing income growth (well, stagnation before an incredibly slow growth for London and SE, as opposed to Malthusian falls experienced in Europe) above its European neighbours for 150 years before 1562, when the first English slaving expedition started. This is why the question of whether it was essential for (capitalistic) development is not clear cut. I still think it was an integral part in England's rise, specifically because of how it changed the power dynamics in Britain towards a merchant elite, but the question is not clear cut. We probably won't ever know for sure - we're dealing with counter-factuals.
Have you ever read the book Capitalism and Slavery by Dr Eric Williams?
-
Spain was merciless ,bloodthirty to the Aztecs and other Ameridians lawd ,England ,Portugal and Italy too . Especially when they find gold ,silver and jewels.
Humans will never know what we lost with the lost of those ppl .We lost the whole history of us.They use to laugh when missionaries try to teach them.
Only because those ancient humans where murdered they brought workers .But by then the gold was already mined.
Hundreds of billions ....haha Spain broke now.
-
Spain was merciless ,bloodthirty to the Aztecs and other Ameridians lawd ,England ,Portugal and Italy too . Especially when they find gold ,silver and jewels.
Humans will never know what we lost with the lost of those ppl .We lost the whole history of us.They use to laugh when missionaries try to teach them.
Only because those ancient humans where murdered they brought workers .But by then the gold was already mined.
Hundreds of billions ....haha Spain broke now.
Funny enough I always asked myself the question how can Spain lay claim to sunken treasure that is found... when dey really tief it from the Incas and Aztecs
-
Spain was merciless ,bloodthirty to the Aztecs and other Ameridians lawd ,England ,Portugal and Italy too . Especially when they find gold ,silver and jewels.
Humans will never know what we lost with the lost of those ppl .We lost the whole history of us.They use to laugh when missionaries try to teach them.
Only because those ancient humans where murdered they brought workers .But by then the gold was already mined.
Hundreds of billions ....haha Spain broke now.
Funny enough I always asked myself the question how can Spain lay claim to sunken treasure that is found... when dey really tief it from the Incas and Aztecs
I guess they have no shame or no regrets bro.England says the same with there ship wrecks.
And nobody could say nothing its not polite.
-
Spain was merciless ,bloodthirty to the Aztecs and other Ameridians lawd ,England ,Portugal and Italy too . Especially when they find gold ,silver and jewels.
Humans will never know what we lost with the lost of those ppl .We lost the whole history of us.They use to laugh when missionaries try to teach them.
Only because those ancient humans where murdered they brought workers .But by then the gold was already mined.
Hundreds of billions ....haha Spain broke now.
Funny enough I always asked myself the question how can Spain lay claim to sunken treasure that is found... when dey really tief it from the Incas and Aztecs
I guess they have no shame or no regrets bro.England says the same with there ship wrecks.
And nobody could say nothing its not polite.
This jogged a memory - I was in London with my cousin and one of his friends from Spain and the Spanish bloke was lamenting the fact that Spain were not "as good as the British" when it came to exploiting the colonies and he went on and on without a care to our quizzical expressions. The guy was genuinely sad about Spain's "ineptitude"! I was so shocked.
-
Also remember that the slave trade was sactioned by the Catholic Church yeah.
-
Also remember that the slave trade was sactioned by the Catholic Church yeah.
the same church who burned all the ancient medical books and burned the doctors and herbalist which set back our medicine more than 4000 years ,during the inquisition and help killed the infidels incas and aztecs.
-
For those reveling in the revisionist fiction that the European slavers were that much worse than their African and Arab predecessors (who were engaged in the trade going all the way back to the Roman Empire):
"We passed a slave woman shot or stabbed through the body and lying on the path. [Onlookers] said an Arab who passed early that morning had done it in anger at losing the price he had given for her, because she was unable to walk any longer".
The Last Journals of David Livingstone, in Central Africa, from 1865 to His Death (http://books.google.com/books?id=AA75Tx77sHwC&pg=PA46&dq&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=false)
-
Slavery and colonialism benefited the British population at large in that it was the foundation for the development and advancement of their society. Their wealth, their infrastructure, their advancements were all the result of their subjugation of others.
How do you know this? All the evidence I've found in Economic History (my specialism) so far is that England was already seeing income growth (well, stagnation before an incredibly slow growth for London and SE, as opposed to Malthusian falls experienced in Europe) above its European neighbours for 150 years before 1562, when the first English slaving expedition started. This is why the question of whether it was essential for (capitalistic) development is not clear cut. I still think it was an integral part in England's rise, specifically because of how it changed the power dynamics in Britain towards a merchant elite, but the question is not clear cut. We probably won't ever know for sure - we're dealing with counter-factuals.
Have you ever read the book Capitalism and Slavery by Dr Eric Williams?
Strap on yuh seat belt and prepare for a roller coaster ride ...
-
Spain was merciless ,bloodthirty to the Aztecs and other Ameridians lawd ,England ,Portugal and Italy too . Especially when they find gold ,silver and jewels.
Humans will never know what we lost with the lost of those ppl .We lost the whole history of us.They use to laugh when missionaries try to teach them.
Only because those ancient humans where murdered they brought workers .But by then the gold was already mined.
Hundreds of billions ....haha Spain broke now.
Funny enough I always asked myself the question how can Spain lay claim to sunken treasure that is found... when dey really tief it from the Incas and Aztecs
I seem to remember them having to return some of their ill-gotten gains ... a couple years ago ... Right around the time they were re-acquiring sunken treasure. Ah cyah recall which nation successfully pressed the case for return.
-
Even today, the descendants of the slave drivers and owners live like kings while the descendants of slaves live in squalor even in countries where the majority race is black. In some places the "whites" own over 70 percent of the wealth whilst only making up 5 percent of the population. In what world is that right? That comes back to the fact that we still paying for actions taken over 200 years ago. It's no secret that "white" people consider themselves closest to God and made in his image. They used their "white" skin as a reason to enslave others.
-
@ Congo: what do you propose as the solution to right all wrongs?
-
@Pecan...I don't think there are any solutions that could right any wrongs. At the end of the day, the stronger party will always advantage the weaker one. We can't change that. At best, you can educate yourself and know and understand your history but history is also written by the victors. We keep seeing movies made about slavery but we never see movies about black people before slavery. I was watching the new 300 movie and I was wondering to myself how the hell can America make a movie about Greek history. In an ideal world, the 300 story would be told by Greeks and made with Greek actors right but such is the world we live in.
-
If you really begin to question history you would come up with uncomfortable answers. Can black people really be christians when the only reason they know about christ is through the slave trade.
That's what links homosexuality with race. Now it's "white" people telling us that homosexuality should be accepted and if you don't then something is wrong with you. It was them who outlawed it in the first place but now it's cool because they say that it is. It's amazing that the most valuable and in demand resources in the world are what they control or can get their hands on.
I was studying capitalism today. That whole concept is evil and downright cruel at best. Discard food if you can't make a profit out of it etc. I'm sure other cultures had much better and neighborly economic policies that combated poverty and starvation.
-
Getting to keep the Caribbean Island's was kinda cool.The Americans ein't even get a mule.
-
@Pecan...I don't think there are any solutions that could right any wrongs. At the end of the day, the stronger party will always advantage the weaker one. We can't change that. At best, you can educate yourself and know and understand your history but history is also written by the victors. We keep seeing movies made about slavery but we never see movies about black people before slavery. I was watching the new 300 movie and I was wondering to myself how the hell can America make a movie about Greek history. In an ideal world, the 300 story would be told by Greeks and made with Greek actors right but such is the world we live in.
fair enough with respect to righting wrongs. I would take it one step further. to quote Desmond Tutu:
""Doesnt forgiveness let the person who hurt you off the hook? Forgiveness isnt a get-out-of-jail-free card. Forgiving doesnt let the other person off the hook, it lets you off the hookwhen you forgive you choose to no longer be a victim." - Archbishop Desmond Tutu
-
If you really begin to question history you would come up with uncomfortable answers. Can black people really be christians when the only reason they know about christ is through the slave trade.
That's what links homosexuality with race. Now it's "white" people telling us that homosexuality should be accepted and if you don't then something is wrong with you. It was them who outlawed it in the first place but now it's cool because they say that it is. It's amazing that the most valuable and in demand resources in the world are what they control or can get their hands on.
I was studying capitalism today. That whole concept is evil and downright cruel at best. Discard food if you can't make a profit out of it etc. I'm sure other cultures had much better and neighborly economic policies that combated poverty and starvation.
cursory internet searches suggest Christianity was in Africa well before the slave trade.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2013/03/christianitys_african_roots.html
http://www.africanchristian.org/
http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/students/curriculum/m14/activity4.php
I am not addressing the homosexual part as I done with that topic.
Capitalism is very effective as achieving prosperity. When combined with philanthropy, much good can result.
-
@Pecan...Who is to say that 200 years from now we wouldn't be looked as backward because we didn't allow people to marry and have sex with animals.
We've been told that capitalism allows for prosperity. That's still a concept that's foreign to some communities.
-
... Can black people really be christians when the only reason they know about christ is through the slave trade.
This is shit talk. You really need to educate yourself on certain matters before you open your mouth and make yuhself sound ignorant.
-
... Can black people really be christians when the only reason they know about christ is through the slave trade.
This is shit talk. You really need to educate yourself on certain matters before you open your mouth and make yuhself sound ignorant.
Really? So please tell me why do the other races all have deities that looks just like them and represent their cultures and history?
-
... Can black people really be christians when the only reason they know about christ is through the slave trade.
This is shit talk. You really need to educate yourself on certain matters before you open your mouth and make yuhself sound ignorant.
Really? So please tell me why do the other races all have deities that looks just like them and represent their cultures and history?
Ever look at a Hindu god? blue, green and many-handed? I have yet to see a Indian looking like that. Congo, you should really use Google a little when it comes to commenting on this particular topic.
As I said, Christianity was in Africa before the slave trade. Plus I don't Christians know what their God looks like. Jesus was a man but was also divine.
-
Ever saw a Hindu God perched on top of an ostrich? No but present are elephants and cobra snakes..Animals indigenous to India... I'm talking about the facial structures and the texture of the hair etc. Christianity may have been in Africa before the slave trade but the slave trade directly allowed for its mass adoption. The predominant religion in Mexico is Catholicism. This is a direct result to the Spaniards arriving.
-
@Pecan...Who is to say that 200 years from now we wouldn't be looked as backward because we didn't allow people to marry and have sex with animals.
We've been told that capitalism allows for prosperity. That's still a concept that's foreign to some communities.
I cant say what will happen 200 years from now. But to compare a relationship between consenting adults to a human-animal relationship. where there is an imbalance or power is a non sequitar.
I would rather live in a capitalistic than a communistic society. What would you propose as an alternative to capitalism? A north Korea style society?
-
Ever saw a Hindu God perched on top of an ostrich? No but present are elephants and cobra snakes..Animals indigenous to India... I'm talking about the facial structures and the texture of the hair etc. Christianity may have been in Africa before the slave trade but the slave trade directly allowed for its mass adoption. The predominant religion in Mexico is Catholicism. This is a direct result to the Spaniards arriving.
That is not what you posted. this is what you said:
"Really? So please tell me why do the other races all have deities that looks just like them and represent their cultures and history?"
Here is what you also said: Can black people really be christians when the only reason they know about christ is through the slave trade.
But you are allowed to change your argument when the first attempt fails.
-
Really? So please tell me why do the other races all have deities that looks just like them and represent their cultures and history?
Do you know what the Christian deity looks like... you've seen him? Why yuh doh stop before yuh make yuhself look like ah even bigger ass?
-
Congo wah yah saying dread , whatever became of the African gods.And why ain't they more prominent ,recognized and respected like all the other races and nations. ...if that what you trying to say ,that's a good point .
And I don't know will have to give that some thought.
-
Ok I think about it Africa have one of the greatest most sophisticated religions on the planet great as the Indians even maybe greater.Just the ppl choose Allah and the Christians stole its teachings then discredited it .Its dead now funny thing is not even its followers understood it , so great was it.
As for the smaller religions across that vast continent non as great , spirit religions which doctors and dead religions. Who knows maybe TM.lol
-
@Pecan...I don't think there are any solutions that could right any wrongs. At the end of the day, the stronger party will always advantage the weaker one. We can't change that. At best, you can educate yourself and know and understand your history but history is also written by the victors. We keep seeing movies made about slavery but we never see movies about black people before slavery. I was watching the new 300 movie and I was wondering to myself how the hell can America make a movie about Greek history. In an ideal world, the 300 story would be told by Greeks and made with Greek actors right but such is the world we live in.
fair enough with respect to righting wrongs. I would take it one step further. to quote Desmond Tutu:
""Doesnt forgiveness let the person who hurt you off the hook? Forgiveness isnt a get-out-of-jail-free card. Forgiving doesnt let the other person off the hook, it lets you off the hookwhen you forgive you choose to no longer be a victim." - Archbishop Desmond Tutu
Yea , Desmond should tell the Jews to forgive Hitler
-
Asylum, you may be on to something.
-
Do any thing you want against these sheepish humans muhaha ,crimes against humanity. Then let time past and generations die ,let the young forget and tell them jesus say to forgive , while our generations will be richer than god.Works everytime.
And if the kids find a lost artifact we take it back.
Excellent.
-
Do any thing you want against these sheepish humans muhaha ,crimes against humanity. Then let time past and generations die ,let the young forget and tell them jesus say to forgive , while our generations will be richer than god.Works everytime.
And if the kids find a lost artifact we take it back.
Excellent.
I fed up go to museums in Europe and see them filled with artifacts from all over the world.
-
Congo wah yah saying dread , whatever became of the African gods.And why ain't they more prominent ,recognized and respected like all the other races and nations. ...if that what you trying to say ,that's a good point .
And I don't know will have to give that some thought.
Had they the means to spread their teachings I'm sure the world today would look different.
-
Slavery and colonialism benefited the British population at large in that it was the foundation for the development and advancement of their society. Their wealth, their infrastructure, their advancements were all the result of their subjugation of others.
How do you know this? All the evidence I've found in Economic History (my specialism) so far is that England was already seeing income growth (well, stagnation before an incredibly slow growth for London and SE, as opposed to Malthusian falls experienced in Europe) above its European neighbours for 150 years before 1562, when the first English slaving expedition started. This is why the question of whether it was essential for (capitalistic) development is not clear cut. I still think it was an integral part in England's rise, specifically because of how it changed the power dynamics in Britain towards a merchant elite, but the question is not clear cut. We probably won't ever know for sure - we're dealing with counter-factuals.
Have you ever read the book Capitalism and Slavery by Dr Eric Williams?
To my discredit I havent but will be taking that out of the library the moment I touch down in Port of Spain. Trying to find Trinidadian history books in this country is surprisingly hard even with an academic library. The problem is that it was written in 1944, and our knowledge of slavery and the economics of colonialism has progressed quite well. From the 60's onwards Economic history started using quantitative methods quite intensively, which revealed things like a much smaller profit from slavery than previously thought. Rather than highlight papers you won't be able to access without a university pass, this book review from 2002 does a good job of highlighting the major issues in the field; http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/259
The problem is that we imagine Britain the nation siphoning off cheap resources and thus benefiting from lower prices, but tat's not the essence of capitalism here. What happened was that the 'benefits' of exploitation were captured by this powerful mercantile elite, who demanded prices higher than the world price for the goods made in the colonies, whilst simultaneously pushing for policies that heavily favoured these products whilst discouraging/embargoing alternative sources from outside the British Empire. This gave them the capital needed to invest in the machinery and land necessary for the Industrial Revolution.
However, the question on whether this was essential or [greatly accelerated[/b] British Industrialisation is very contentious simply because there are so many factors at play. Britain already had more constraints on the Monarchy than the other big colonial powers (France, Spain and Portugal) before 1400 (Magna Carta being important here), which some see as the truly critical step for industrialisation, as it allowed investors and individuals to retain the proceeds of their work whilst discouraging monarchs from racking up huge debts (which undermined banks when they went bankrupt and refused to pay). Secondly, Britain had an abundance of natural resources that would be important during the IR, namely coal and iron. Thirdly, the restraints on the monarch meant that they could not capture all the benefits of colonialism like what happened in Spain, Portugal, and France. This left individuals with capital to reinvest, expanding the mercantile sectors. Fourthly, Britain had a strong legacy of seafaring unmatched by the other European powers as it was essential to their defence (the "wooden wall") - it's no accident that Portugal was the first on the scene (given they also had a pressing need for a navy). They were lucky that navies were going to be so essential from the 1500s to 1950s in that regard.
The other critiques of it being essential point to the lack of progress in Spain, Portugal and France. The former two certainly profited monetarily more than England simply due to the amount of rare metals and gems they expropriated from Latin America. This caused massive inflation locally and across Europe for a hundred years, so it certainly wasn't all that beneficial in the end - it hurt domestic industries as the currency appreciated (lowering demand for exports) and really hurt teh poor, whose costs of living rose as a result.
If you find the question of why nations are rich today, definitely check out "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" by David Landes, it's a good read. Also check the work of Nicholas Craft, who changed the way we thought about hte Industrial Revolution (turns out British economic growth took place later than we though - after 1850 for "modern" rates of growth, as Steam was totally cost-inefficient until the invention of high-pressure steam), and Stephen Broadberry, who has done a bunch of papers on the "Great Divergence", i.e. when did Europe pull away from Asia in development?
-
A Trinidadian history book yuh say? In your mind that must be prioritised after Aesop's Fables. :rotfl:
Written in 1944 ... yet you mention Malthus :rotfl:
-
Pastor Manning gives his view on the purpose behind the Gay Agenda of promoting Homosexuality to everyone.
Depopulate The Earth: Have Homo Sex But No Babies
https://www.youtube.com/v/ZHb1Y0PRylg
Gentrification For Planet Earth: Homosexuals Flooding Harlem Nights
https://www.youtube.com/v/gBrSthYcqJA
-
A Trinidadian history book yuh say? In your mind that must be prioritised after Aesop's Fables. :rotfl:
Written in 1944 ... yet you mention Malthus :rotfl:
Asylum, your ignorance is depressing - maybe you can come up with some convenient definition to somehow counteract this :p. Malthus' theory holds very well for the vast majority of history and only breaks down with the agricultural revolution of Britain. The best example of this is the Black Death - the wages of Europeans increased as people died of the Black Death and all but GB and Low counties (modern Belgium and Netherlands) saw a fall in income as populations recovered. His theory breaks down with the advances in agricultural technology from the 1700s onwards, but even then Britain's food price rises (as we still needed to import food to feed our population) prevented the poorest in Britain from benefiting until the 1800s.
Moreover, this isn't even relevant to the damn point! It's a fact that European nations (minus the nations I've talked about) faced falls in income consistent with Malthusian theory between 1350 and 1700. It's not as if you'd be talking on subjects you don't know now is it Asylum?
-
A Trinidadian history book yuh say? In your mind that must be prioritised after Aesop's Fables. :rotfl:
Written in 1944 ... yet you mention Malthus :rotfl:
Asylum, your ignorance is depressing - maybe you can come up with some convenient definition to somehow counteract this :p. Malthus' theory holds very well for the vast majority of history and only breaks down with the agricultural revolution of Britain. The best example of this is the Black Death - the wages of Europeans increased as people died of the Black Death and all but GB and Low counties (modern Belgium and Netherlands) saw a fall in income as populations recovered. His theory breaks down with the advances in agricultural technology from the 1700s onwards, but even then Britain's food price rises (as we still needed to import food to feed our population) prevented the poorest in Britain from benefiting until the 1800s.
Moreover, this isn't even relevant to the damn point! It's a fact that European nations (minus the nations I've talked about) faced falls in income consistent with Malthusian theory between 1350 and 1700. It's not as if you'd be talking on subjects you don't know now is it Asylum?
Stick to your knitting. I read Malthus when you were conceiving pissing your pants. Try not to make every deflection an unsolicited foray into spitting out what you learned yesterday. Did you know that institutions of learning pre-dated your impertinent arse?
Quite correctly you observe, that wasn't the damn point. You haven't read Williams, but yet you embark on a dismissive trajectory?
1. Capitalism and Slavery is not a Trinidadian history book ... wash yuh mouth and show some :cursing: respect. However, it is a book written by a historian of Trinidadian nationality ... find the nuance in that. AND, it's not hard to locate in any good university library.
2. The point of the second line seems to have been lost on you.
(Incidentally... both Williams and Malthus have been the subject of critique).
-
Slavery and colonialism benefited the British population at large in that it was the foundation for the development and advancement of their society. Their wealth, their infrastructure, their advancements were all the result of their subjugation of others.
How do you know this? All the evidence I've found in Economic History (my specialism) so far is that England was already seeing income growth (well, stagnation before an incredibly slow growth for London and SE, as opposed to Malthusian falls experienced in Europe) above its European neighbours for 150 years before 1562, when the first English slaving expedition started. This is why the question of whether it was essential for (capitalistic) development is not clear cut. I still think it was an integral part in England's rise, specifically because of how it changed the power dynamics in Britain towards a merchant elite, but the question is not clear cut. We probably won't ever know for sure - we're dealing with counter-factuals.
Have you ever read the book Capitalism and Slavery by Dr Eric Williams?
To my discredit I havent but will be taking that out of the library the moment I touch down in Port of Spain. Trying to find Trinidadian history books in this country is surprisingly hard even with an academic library. The problem is that it was written in 1944, and our knowledge of slavery and the economics of colonialism has progressed quite well. From the 60's onwards Economic history started using quantitative methods quite intensively, which revealed things like a much smaller profit from slavery than previously thought. Rather than highlight papers you won't be able to access without a university pass, this book review from 2002 does a good job of highlighting the major issues in the field; http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/259
The problem is that we imagine Britain the nation siphoning off cheap resources and thus benefiting from lower prices, but tat's not the essence of capitalism here. What happened was that the 'benefits' of exploitation were captured by this powerful mercantile elite, who demanded prices higher than the world price for the goods made in the colonies, whilst simultaneously pushing for policies that heavily favoured these products whilst discouraging/embargoing alternative sources from outside the British Empire. This gave them the capital needed to invest in the machinery and land necessary for the Industrial Revolution.
However, the question on whether this was essential or [greatly accelerated[/b] British Industrialisation is very contentious simply because there are so many factors at play. Britain already had more constraints on the Monarchy than the other big colonial powers (France, Spain and Portugal) before 1400 (Magna Carta being important here), which some see as the truly critical step for industrialisation, as it allowed investors and individuals to retain the proceeds of their work whilst discouraging monarchs from racking up huge debts (which undermined banks when they went bankrupt and refused to pay). Secondly, Britain had an abundance of natural resources that would be important during the IR, namely coal and iron. Thirdly, the restraints on the monarch meant that they could not capture all the benefits of colonialism like what happened in Spain, Portugal, and France. This left individuals with capital to reinvest, expanding the mercantile sectors. Fourthly, Britain had a strong legacy of seafaring unmatched by the other European powers as it was essential to their defence (the "wooden wall") - it's no accident that Portugal was the first on the scene (given they also had a pressing need for a navy). They were lucky that navies were going to be so essential from the 1500s to 1950s in that regard.
The other critiques of it being essential point to the lack of progress in Spain, Portugal and France. The former two certainly profited monetarily more than England simply due to the amount of rare metals and gems they expropriated from Latin America. This caused massive inflation locally and across Europe for a hundred years, so it certainly wasn't all that beneficial in the end - it hurt domestic industries as the currency appreciated (lowering demand for exports) and really hurt teh poor, whose costs of living rose as a result.
If you find the question of why nations are rich today, definitely check out "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" by David Landes, it's a good read. Also check the work of Nicholas Craft, who changed the way we thought about hte Industrial Revolution (turns out British economic growth took place later than we though - after 1850 for "modern" rates of growth, as Steam was totally cost-inefficient until the invention of high-pressure steam), and Stephen Broadberry, who has done a bunch of papers on the "Great Divergence", i.e. when did Europe pull away from Asia in development?
I don't know much bout all this economic history of Britain but I do know that the catalyst of the industrial revolution was sugar and cotton .
These were produced on the exploitation of black slaves.
Sugar and cotton then was what oil is today
-
Stick to your knitting. I read Malthus when you were conceiving pissing your pants.
Looks like you should have read a bit more then, 'cause clearly you're not actually understanding the content.
Did you know that institutions of learning pre-dated your impertinent arse?
And yet not a single point of my actual argument addressed. Asylum you're tiring, you try to mask your ignorance with deflections and personal attacks.
Quite correctly you observe, that wasn't the damn point. You haven't read Williams, but yet you embark on a dismissive trajectory?
As I went to pains to point out, I addressed the general points put forward - that slavery was essential ot the UK's rise. I also linked you to a review that talked about his work.
1. Capitalism and Slavery is not a Trinidadian history book ... wash yuh mouth and show some :cursing: respect. However, it is a book written by a historian of Trinidadian nationality ... find the nuance in that. AND, it's not hard to locate in any good university library.
On that, my bad, it was my poor paragraph construction that conflated the two issues. I know it's not a Trinidadian history book that was a separate point. His general points about the importance of colonialism I have addressed elsewhere - simply put more recent evidence (from the 70s onwards) has somewhat overturned a number of the arguments with the benefit of better data. You should take a chill pill and get less defensive - I'm not sure why your fragile ego is tied up with his work.
2. The point of the second line seems to have been lost on you.
(Incidentally... both Williams and Malthus have been the subject of critique).
How about you READ MY POSTS. It's the third time I've had to point this out - everyone is jumping down my throat for points I haven't made. If you have the mental capacity why don't you try reading Asylum. That they've both been subject to critique is totally irrelevant and the argument of a child. The question is whether the critique was correct, whether that critique was answered, and the bearing it has on the question. Malthus' theory was based on observations of the pre-modern era that are still relevant today; I don't know William's total argument as I've pointed out so I talked about the problem in general in distinguishing whether slavery/colonialism was essential or just accelerated the rise of the UK. If you lack the reading comprehension to get that after 3/4 posts then just go away and play with lego.
Before you respond, read my damn posts. I'm fed up of correcting your lack of comprehension or reading.
-
And how do you know they've "over turned" the arguments when you havent even read the book?
-
And how do you know they've "over turned" the arguments when you havent even read the book?
Read. My. Posts. I'm not going to waste my time going over the same points twice because you can't read.
-
I have read your posts and they still beg the question...
-
Rather than highlight papers you won't be able to access without a university pass, this book review from 2002 does a good job of highlighting the major issues in the field; http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/259
-
Tiresais, you've invested a response addressed to some content that you have perceived or imagined. I'll take that up in another post.
Regardless of your condensation of the analysis of Williams' work, I find/found it laughable/lamentable that you have/had not read Williams, a seminal work ... Hence, a partial reason for my reaction above.
In scholarship the reading of foundational material is fundamental. This has nothing to do with the critical assertions of others ... it's a free-standing fact ... and presumably, reading the material on your own should position you to formulate/reformulate your own thoughts.
Striking a selectively contemptuous tone under such circumstances is deserving of the pushback you have received. I used the word "dismissive" above with that in mind ... not directed singularly to the actual scholarship critique (of which I have long been aware!)
This is a Trinbago forum ... you should be mindful of the audience, rather than presupposing that responses are rooted exclusively in scholarly contention.
Pull yuh socks up and tighten yuh belt!
-
Tiresais, you've invested a response addressed to some content that you have perceived or imagined. I'll take that up in another post.
Regardless of your condensation of the analysis of Williams' work, I find/found it laughable/lamentable that you have/had not read Williams, a seminal work ... Hence, a partial reason for my reaction above.
In scholarship the reading of foundational material is fundamental. This has nothing to do with the critical assertions of others ... it's a free-standing fact ... and presumably, reading the material on your own should position you to formulate/reformulate your own thoughts.
Striking a selectively contemptuous tone under such circumstances is deserving of the pushback you have received. I used the word "dismissive" above with that in mind ... not directed singularly to the actual scholarship critique (of which I have long been aware!)
This is a Trinbago forum ... you should be mindful of the audience, rather than presupposing that responses are rooted exclusively in scholarly contention.
Pull yuh socks up and tighten yuh belt!
You might consider Williams a seminal work, but I don't - I don't tailor the facts to suit my audience either - I'm not going to patronise people on the forum by fawning over Williams without having read him. Whilst holding judgement on his work (beyond stating that I don't consider it a seminal work), the points the forum and the review have raised give me a rough idea of the theories proposed, and I have given a response on the issue of contention (whether slavery/colonialism was essential or a powerful accelerator to Britain's rise). Whether any paper is seminal is of course a subjective thing (as you pointed out, if it forms the foundation of other theories then whether it is outdated or not wouldn't disqualify it, merely make it less urgent), but the debate on the Economics of slavery and the rise of Great Britain has moved very far since the 1940s, which I have tried to point out numerous times. I will read Williams, but I don't consider it a priority over my current, contemporary research interests (that focus on the Caribbean-Chinese trade relations and development potential from that).
Scholarship doesn't require foundational readings in the manner you are suggesting - secondary sources such as textbooks, or papers that build on the theory whilst explaining the original one could and usually do suffice for building on that knowledge. Otherwise, we'd need to re-read Adam Smith every time we tried to write a paper. Until I read Williams' work I cant say for sure what I think about his work in particular, but that doesn't mean I can't have a perspective on the fundamental issues at play, and doesn't mean I can't recognise the general arguments when people assert things about his work. You don't need to have read Marx to know it forms an important foundation of the critiques of Capitalism, and you may not even need to read Marx's work to talk about Primitive Accumulation of Capital, as you might have read and understood David Harvey's significant contributions to the area, giving you an understanding of Marx's work.
-
To go back on topic....
Same-sex marriage now legal as first couples wed
BBC News
The first same-sex weddings have taken place after gay marriage became legal in England and Wales at midnight.
Politicians from the main parties have hailed the change in the law.
David Cameron said the move sent a message that people were now equal "whether gay or straight", but some religious groups remain opposed.
Scotland passed a similar law in February; the first same-sex marriages are expected there in October. Northern Ireland has no plans to follow suit.
In an article for the Pink News website, the prime minister wrote: "This weekend is an important moment for our country.
"It says we are a country that will continue to honour its proud traditions of respect, tolerance and equal worth."
The law change would encourage young people unsure of their sexuality, he added.
Later on Saturday morning, Mr Cameron tweeted: "Congratulations to the gay couples who have already been married - and my best wishes to those about to be on this historic day."
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said "Britain will be a different place" as a result.
He congratulated his party for being part of the reform, saying: "If our change to the law means a single young man or young woman who wants to come out, but who is scared of what the world will say, now feels safer, stronger, taller - well, for me, getting into coalition government will have been worth it just for that."
Labour leader Ed Miliband congratulated those planning to tie the knot.
"This is an incredibly happy time for so many gay couples and lesbian couples who will be getting married, but it's an incredibly proud time for our country as well, recognising equal marriage in law," he said.
However, he warned that the "battle for true equality" was not yet won.
Read More (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26793127)
-
How is that back on topic? I thought the thread was about Uganda.
And whether a piece of work is seminal is not at all subjective. You cannot have a serious discussion on the economics of slavery without referencing Williams's work. His work was and is widely acclaimed but Britain refused to make it available in Britain until a couple decades later. I wonder why...
-
Asylum, you may be on to something.
:salute:
-
How is that back on topic? I thought the thread was about Uganda.
And whether a piece of work is seminal is not at all subjective. You cannot have a serious discussion on the economics of slavery without referencing Williams's work. His work was and is widely acclaimed but Britain refused to make it available in Britain until a couple decades later. I wonder why...
Yes, you can have a serious discussion about it without referencing Williams work - I have already done so in this topic. Why do you think his work from 1944 is still vital in the discussion? His work not being available is probably a combination of racism and the still-existent British Empire considering itself somehow a "civilising" influence on the world. As I've mentioned earlier, the British Empire is still seen as something that did good by the British public due to the pro-colonial education and mindset of the elites of this country. That's not to say there isn't considerable dissidence with this concept, especially from the Left in this country, but the feelings were much more intense in the 1950s, and this was the same time in which MI6 were disrupting independence movements in the colonies, so it's sadly no great surprise that his work wouldn't be published.
This is irrelevant to whether the arguments have merit of course. I've stated my interpretation on the current evidence - Slavery and colonialism were essential to Britain's rise indirectly, through empowering and enriching those who had an incentive to protect private property and enterprise in the economy, undermining the monarchy and supporting Parliament. North and Weingast (1989) were some of the first to make this point, which has been built upon by a number of authors since (North especially built his theories into New Institutionalism, of which I am a subscriber, that talked about the importance of socio-cultural and political "institutions" (the norms by which we live and order society) in the development of nations). The evidence for direct impact is not good - the profits of slavery and the empire were simply too small compared to our GDP. Maintaining an empire is incredibly costly, one of the reasons Adam Smith argued against it, and it's likely that the burden of maintaining the world's largest and most powerful navy on one of the world's not-so-impressively-sized islands undermined the financial benefits to teh state. O'Brien's 1982 paper on the contribution of the "periphery" to growth notes that the profits of colonialism and slavery are often exaggerated. Commerce between Europe and the Rest of the World was relatively small between 1450 and 1750, with the vast majority of trade and financial flows between European nations. He found that it wasn't a "uniquely profitable field of enterprise" - even by 1790 only 4% of Europe's GDP was exported ot the Rest of the world, with imports on a similar scale. Even if we assume a very large 50% profit margin (much higher than likely) and 50% reinvestment rate (again ludicrously high) we still end up at 1% of GNP, which is less than 10% of the gross investment of the time. Some have even argued that the colonies were a net drain (something I strongly disagree with) - Thomas (1968) compared the social rate of return to the bond rates at the time and found the return was less for colonies (2%) than the bond rate (3.5%), which led him to conclude that Britain would have been better off without colonies. Coelho (1973) specifically looked at the West Indies, and found that Britain paid a price over the world average for its sugar imports from the Caribbean.
Moreover, if Slavery was essential to Industrialisation then Portugal should have industrialised years before the UK - 10% of the population of Lisbon were slaves and they were involved in slave trading from at least 1445 (due to proximity to the Islamic traders of NW Africa). They received papal legitimacy for this in 1455 with Romanus Pontifex, and managed to ship 4.5 million of the 9.4 million slaves between 1500 and 1870 (depending on which figures for African Slave trading numbers you take). They nicked the plantation model from Cyprus and Crete (Venetian practice), which later disseminated to the other European colonial powers.
On Great Britain, Crafts and Harley (1985) successfully argued that too much weight was being given on the cotton industry, which whilst being the fastest growing was not representative of the broader economy. This led to much slower growth rates - 0.52% per capita per year between 1801-1831. Basically the evidence pointed to a much later benefit to the British Economy - after 1840 - than Williams would have been aware of.
To summarise my personal position - both the biggest benefits and the most devastating costs of slavery and colonialism were found in the way it shaped societies on both sides. Rent-seeking and exploitation were encouraged, leading to systems of governance predicated on corruption in the colonies, simply existing to the aggrandisement of a select elite of British society. In Britain, this elite were the reason a constitutional monarchy was instituted, limited the power of the executive and affording (as a by-product) citizens of the United Kingdom (after it formed in 1776) freedoms unavailable to those on Continental Europe. Britain's huge navy kept safe trade routes around Europe and parts of the colonial empire, facilitating long-distance trade that would again benefit those who would be essential in the Industrial Revolution. Simultaneously, Black African slaves were ground into dust to service the needs of this grotesque masquerade, predicated on a new (or old) system orientated around the accumulation of capital, in order to improve your wealth free from the risk of expropriation by the state (which for the non-noble was a major concern before). In India, Britain inserted itself at the top of the caste system, making use of an already exploitative system for its own benefit, whilst moving labour around through indenture servants as if they were cattle or capital. The whelping pups of the noble and merchant elite went to India to fatten their wallets at the expense of the local populations, and took their ill-gotten gains back to Britain where they financed the major advancements of our time.
Hopefully, that clears up any misunderstandings, assuming people read my damn posts
-
lawd, ah next dissertation. is post like this make me glad for dutty and sam.
-
"It says we are a country that will continue to honour its proud traditions of respect, tolerance and equal worth."
I'm confused...This is England we talking about? Proud traditions of respect, tolerance and equal worth? They must be out of their f**king mind to make a statement like this. England? f**king England?
-
"It says we are a country that will continue to honour its proud traditions of respect, tolerance and equal worth."
I'm confused...This is England we talking about? Proud traditions of respect, tolerance and equal worth? They must be out of their f**king mind to make a statement like this. England? f**king England?
Tiresais sounds like a white English man who worships the Queen and looks down on Black and Caribbean people.
Let's hope I am right because if he is one of us then that's even more disappointing as it means that he has been thoroughly brainwashed.
-
"It says we are a country that will continue to honour its proud traditions of respect, tolerance and equal worth."
I'm confused...This is England we talking about? Proud traditions of respect, tolerance and equal worth? They must be out of their f**king mind to make a statement like this. England? f**king England?
Tiresais sounds like a white English man who worships the Queen and looks down on Black and Caribbean people.
Let's how I am right because if he is one of us then that's even more disappointing as it means that he has been thoroughly brainwashed.
READ MY POSTS you ignorant moron. 1) I'm a republican in the sense that I wish to abolish the monarchy. 2) READ. MY. POSTS. 3) READ MY DAMN POSTS
Your shocking inability to simply read a piece of text is incredibly frustrating. What is it with people responding to my posts here - Do you just skip my posts and make up your own bacchanal?
-
England abandon the monarchy? Never
-
I have been reading the recent exchanges between Tiresais and Asylum/Toppa. I am not schooled in the subject matter as these posters appear to be, notwithstanding their respective criticisms of each others knowledge and understanding of the issue. The contempt put forth by Tiresais is no more or less than the contempt put forth by his detractors - some may argue even less.
Tiresais, your problem is that what you have argued is unpopular and an affront to some as it attacks the very nature of what they hold near and dear to their hearts. When this occurs, a natural reaction is to reject your argument while ignoring the evidence that supports your position. But if I am to draw a conclusion, I would have to side with you as I remained unconvinced by the counter-arguments.
Asylum and Toppa, I was hoping that you would have delivered compelling arguments; instead you both chose to respond with comments that did carry any evidence-based weight that furthered your cause. In fact, Asylums comment that This is a Trinbago forum ... you should be mindful of the audience, rather than presupposing that responses are rooted exclusively in scholarly contention seems to suggest that scholarly arguments that critique a popular theory/hypothesis/belief should be tempered to avoid pushback and hurting the sensibilities or feelings of its members.
The original debate about skin colour and slavery seems to have devolved into whether Tiresais should be allowed to argue his position without challenging the work by Dr. Williams. The very essence of scholarly research is to acquire knowledge and if that means challenging well established works, then so be it. And in many cases, it may not be necessary to personally review foundational material if other scholars have already done so. While ideal, it simply may not be required.
With respect to slavery, the propensity to subjugate other races is more likely related to who wielded the bigger stick at the time of conflict. This propensity has nothing to do with skin colour and I would be surprised if that is the case. What the Europeans did vis--vis Africa and other countries they colonized was heinous and just plain wrong but likely no different than what other peoples, with superior firepower, would have done at that juncture in humanitys history. Given the inherent violence in human nature, I find it difficult to accept that any society united by race, culture or geography would have behaved any differently if their military might was superior to that of the Europeans; a common characteristic of human behaviour is that we are wont to kill each other just take a look around at the world today mind you, we are getting better.
Asylum, Toppa, make your case; instead of arguing that Tiresais arguments are not worthy of debate, prove him wrong (i.e., stop arguing semantics, or that he is wrong because he is wrong (or brainwashed as per Socapro) - that type of argument is for the school yard). As it stands, his arguments, to us unwashed, seems to carry a hell of a lot more weight than what you and others have collectively presented.
-
You might consider Williams a seminal work, but I don't - I don't tailor the facts to suit my audience either - I'm not going to patronise people on the forum by fawning over Williams without having read him. Whilst holding judgement on his work (beyond stating that I don't consider it a seminal work).
You should have just posted this bolded statement and remain silent on the rest.
If you haven't read him then how can you have an opinion as to whether the book IS or ISN'T seminal? The logical contradiction aside, your subjective appreciation of the magnitude of the work is immaterial in light of the objective evidence to the contrary. The book was published in 1944 and was the first time in the 100 years since Abolition that anyone had challenged the prevailing notion that a wave of moral campaigning was the the genesis for Abolition and later Emancipation. This was no specious claim either. This book was a more fleshed out version of his dissertation which he successfully defended at Oxford in 1938. To state, let alone try to argue that the work was NOT seminal is a fool's errand.
-
How is that back on topic? I thought the thread was about Uganda.
And whether a piece of work is seminal is not at all subjective. You cannot have a serious discussion on the economics of slavery without referencing Williams's work. His work was and is widely acclaimed but Britain refused to make it available in Britain until a couple decades later. I wonder why...
His dissertation was rejected by six different publishers in the UK... even in the US he couldn't find any takers. It wasn't until years later that UNC Press agreed to publish it, albeit in the more nuanced version which became Capitalism and Slavery.
-
Yes, you can have a serious discussion about it without referencing Williams work - I have already done so in this topic.
Correction... you have attempted to do so. Especially given the controversy generated by Williams' work and the efforts to discredit it since, any derivative work that you read which presume to present his thesis is at best a distillation of his ideas, if not an outright bastardization of the same. We can trust secondary sources on Wealth of Nations because there was no similar controversy accompanying that book. No matter the forum, if you want to be taken seriously on a subject or author, it's hardly the smartest thing that you do to suggest that an examination of the primary source is surplus. That's like debating the Bible by relying on criticisms and expositions of the same.
-
Moreover, if Slavery was essential to Industrialisation then Portugal should have industrialised years before the UK - 10% of the population of Lisbon were slaves and they were involved in slave trading from at least 1445 (due to proximity to the Islamic traders of NW Africa). They received papal legitimacy for this in 1455 with Romanus Pontifex, and managed to ship 4.5 million of the 9.4 million slaves between 1500 and 1870 (depending on which figures for African Slave trading numbers you take). They nicked the plantation model from Cyprus and Crete (Venetian practice), which later disseminated to the other European colonial powers.
I just had to come back to your post to address this... I'm puzzled that someone who claims advanced knowledge, if not learning, in this field, would make such a palpably broad and inaccurate statement. This assumes that all else were equal in Portugal and Britain. Was it not you who argued earlier that Britain had the advantage of coal and iron to help spur the industrial growth of the nation? Cheap slave labor was but one of the factors (if not the key factor) spurring Britain's industrial growth. Remove that cheap slave labor and there would be no Industrial Revolution, Williams argues. That doesn't mean that cheap slave labor is ALL that you need. Very simplistic analysis on your part.
-
Very good speech by Farrakhan on President Obama's endorsing Gay marriage that is hard to dissect.
Farrakhan responds to President Obama endorsing Gay marriage
https://www.youtube.com/v/39dW48MjBMY
Btw, today it became legal in the UK for Gays to get married but even when we go by the Oxford Dictionary definition of marriage it says: the formal union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife.
In my humble opinion to allow gays to get married makes a mockery of the original meaning and purpose of marriage. Apart from the mockery of marriage it can now be seriously argued that Gays officially have more rights than heterosexuals here in the UK because they can get married as well as join in civil unions so I don't want to hear any gays complaining about victimization any longer as that is now a red-herring argument.
-
pecan, I will have more to say but let me assure you the Trinbago reference had nothing to do with an emotive response. Prior to immersing ourselves in the discussion, I made the "strap on your seatbelt" comment in objective anticipation of where Tiresais was heading.
I have no problem with uncomfortable analysis ... however when one's bias is radicated and expressed with veiled machinations, I'm on alert. He keeps saying read his damn posts ... check. Check.
-
Very good speech by Farrakhan on President Obama's endorsing Gay marriage that is hard to dissect.
Btw, today it became legal in the UK for Gays to get married but even when we go by the Oxford Dictionary definition of marriage it says: the formal union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife.
In my humble opinion to allow gays to get married makes a mockery of the original meaning and purpose of marriage. Apart from the mockery of marriage it can now be seriously argued that Gays officially have more rights than heterosexuals here in the UK because they can get married as well as join in civil unions so I don't want to hear any gays complaining about victimization any longer as that is now a red-herring argument.
Different cultures can't even agree on the number of people involved in the marriage (single wife? Multiple wives? Sex slaves included?). Moreover, this is the fallacy of age - simply because it's always been so doesn't make it right - slavery was acceptable since ancient time, yet that doesn't make it right. If you had read the next line you'd note that the dictionary allows for a union between the same sex. Marriage is a societal and cultural construct - no single actor, be them religion, state or group, has a monopoly on the definition of marriage.
On the rights issue - are you saying that all black discrimination ended with the end of segregation? Your argument simply doesn't hold up - victimisation and discrimination persist on race, religion, gender and sexuality despite legal safeguards.
-
You might consider Williams a seminal work, but I don't - I don't tailor the facts to suit my audience either - I'm not going to patronise people on the forum by fawning over Williams without having read him. Whilst holding judgement on his work (beyond stating that I don't consider it a seminal work).
You should have just posted this bolded statement and remain silent on the rest.
If you haven't read him then how can you have an opinion as to whether the book IS or ISN'T seminal? The logical contradiction aside, your subjective appreciation of the magnitude of the work is immaterial in light of the objective evidence to the contrary. The book was published in 1944 and was the first time in the 100 years since Abolition that anyone had challenged the prevailing notion that a wave of moral campaigning was the the genesis for Abolition and later Emancipation. This was no specious claim either. This book was a more fleshed out version of his dissertation which he successfully defended at Oxford in 1938. To state, let alone try to argue that the work was NOT seminal is a fool's errand.
There are thousands (literally) of textbooks and papers on the slavery era, but you can know that some are seminal and others are not without reading it. My judgement is simply in relation to the questions at play - was slavery essential to Britain's rise. I can't judge whether it was seminal for anything outside that. I'm not surprised that a Trinbago forum would consider it seminal, simply because we like to push forward our own heroes and representatives, and sometimes inflate their importance. I'm just going to leave this point and read the book I think, this is purely subjective at this point.
-
Yes, you can have a serious discussion about it without referencing Williams work - I have already done so in this topic.
Correction... you have attempted to do so. Especially given the controversy generated by Williams' work and the efforts to discredit it since, any derivative work that you read which presume to present his thesis is at best a distillation of his ideas, if not an outright bastardization of the same. We can trust secondary sources on Wealth of Nations because there was no similar controversy accompanying that book. No matter the forum, if you want to be taken seriously on a subject or author, it's hardly the smartest thing that you do to suggest that an examination of the primary source is surplus. That's like debating the Bible by relying on criticisms and expositions of the same.
You think the Wealth of Nations wasn't contentious? He faced criticism from contemporary Mercantile factions and those who followed, such as Hamilton and List, who both argued that free trade had to be curtailed in order to develop America and Germany respectively. Moreover, the interpretation of his work in relation to the social and moral norms of the time was another point of contention - this is the same man who wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments after all. No major piece of work is uncontentious - if it wasn't it wouldn't be worth writing.
None of that means that you can't have a base understanding from derivative works - you'll need to consult the original to make up your own mind ultimately, but to say you can only learn his work by his own book is simplistic. I didn't say it was surplus, I said it was low priority - *sigh* read my posts... I have responded on the major controversies that his book is said to cover, you can take these and respond with specific points from William's book if you like?
Whilst people jump on my back about this - have you all read his book? I've found a free version here; https://archive.org/details/capitalismandsla033027mbp
-
Moreover, if Slavery was essential to Industrialisation then Portugal should have industrialised years before the UK - 10% of the population of Lisbon were slaves and they were involved in slave trading from at least 1445 (due to proximity to the Islamic traders of NW Africa). They received papal legitimacy for this in 1455 with Romanus Pontifex, and managed to ship 4.5 million of the 9.4 million slaves between 1500 and 1870 (depending on which figures for African Slave trading numbers you take). They nicked the plantation model from Cyprus and Crete (Venetian practice), which later disseminated to the other European colonial powers.
I just had to come back to your post to address this... I'm puzzled that someone who claims advanced knowledge, if not learning, in this field, would make such a palpably broad and inaccurate statement. This assumes that all else were equal in Portugal and Britain. Was it not you who argued earlier that Britain had the advantage of coal and iron to help spur the industrial growth of the nation? Cheap slave labor was but one of the factors (if not the key factor) spurring Britain's industrial growth. Remove that cheap slave labor and there would be no Industrial Revolution, Williams argues. That doesn't mean that cheap slave labor is ALL that you need. Very simplistic analysis on your part.
Again, if you had read my posts more carefully.... I pointed out that this is evidence against the essentialness of slavery. Spain also had a fair amount of mineral wealth (including coal) during this period, so simply shift the argument to there - the point still stands. Those nations with the most intensive slave trading are not the major winners. Moreover, of those countries developing during the "Second Industrial Revolution", Germany had barely any slave trading before their Industrial Revolution, Japan similarly.
Cheap slave labour was to the benefit of the plantation owners - as I've pointed out there's a misconception on capitalism - it never tries to benefit the state, simply individuals with capital. Plantation owners and the mercantile class worked human beings to death as if they were cattle, whilst over charging Britain for the imports through Parliamentary acts limiting trade on key good to the colonies, guaranteeing them a better price than the world average for the time. Cheap labour was essential indirectly - by enriching this class whom could grow powerful enough to place constraints on the monarchy. We agree on the essential nature of colonialism, but for different reasons.
-
Tiresais, to what extent did slavery benefit the USA? So far the discussions have focused on eastern hemisphere
-
Asylum, can you point me to examples of his "radicated bias and veiled bias"? I don't see it. But then again, I have been accused of being naive when it comes to racism.
-
Asylum, can you point me to examples of his "radicated bias and veiled bias"? I don't see it. But then again, I have been accused of being naive when it comes to racism.
Racism? Who the hell is talking about racism?
-
Very good speech by Farrakhan on President Obama's endorsing Gay marriage that is hard to dissect.
Btw, today it became legal in the UK for Gays to get married but even when we go by the Oxford Dictionary definition of marriage it says: the formal union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife.
In my humble opinion to allow gays to get married makes a mockery of the original meaning and purpose of marriage. Apart from the mockery of marriage it can now be seriously argued that Gays officially have more rights than heterosexuals here in the UK because they can get married as well as join in civil unions so I don't want to hear any gays complaining about victimization any longer as that is now a red-herring argument.
Different cultures can't even agree on the number of people involved in the marriage (single wife? Multiple wives? Sex slaves included?). Moreover, this is the fallacy of age - simply because it's always been so doesn't make it right - slavery was acceptable since ancient time, yet that doesn't make it right. If you had read the next line you'd note that the dictionary allows for a union between the same sex. Marriage is a societal and cultural construct - no single actor, be them religion, state or group, has a monopoly on the definition of marriage.
On the rights issue - are you saying that all black discrimination ended with the end of segregation? Your argument simply doesn't hold up - victimisation and discrimination persist on race, religion, gender and sexuality despite legal safeguards.
First the homos high-jacked and changed the meaning of the word Gay and now they are high-jacking and trying to change the meaning of the word marriage.
Last time I checked marriage was an institution defined in the Bible and other holy books that was meant to be between a man and a woman for legally supporting each other, reproducing and building a family but now it is being made a mockery of by the Homos and Lesbis as part of the Gay Agenda.
My argument on the rights issue is that Gays now have MORE rights and choices than heterosexuals in the area of marriage so I no longer want to hear any Gays moaning about victimization and lack of equality in that area.
Next thing on the agenda for the Gay Rights movement will be trying to teach the lie of gay sex and marriage being natural and healthy in ALL schools regardless of the parents opinion on the matter or even the teachers willingness to participate due to their moral or religious principles.
Honestly I am not the religious type but I can definitely see the days of Sodom and Gomorrah as described in the Bible coming back but this time on a much bigger worldwide scale.
I am not a Farrahkhan fan but what he says in that video above (in Reply #35) about marriage and the American constitution being based on principals laid out in the Bible is hard to dismiss.
-
Tiresais, to what extent did slavery benefit the USA? So far the discussions have focused on eastern hemisphere
Sadly not knowledgeable in American economic history beyond the basics. Had an impact for sure but again it won't be clear cut - in some ways making agriculture profitable has a nullifying effect on efforts to industrialise, as investment usually flows to those sectors that give the highest returns. If agriculture is being uniquely profitable due to slavery then private investment goes into that and not into the capital required for manufacturing. On the other hand, America saw mass-migration during the 1800s, giving a large labour pool for capitalists on the East Coast to use, regardless of slavery. The cotton would still have been needed and post-indepedence (if they would end up declaring it without the slavery profits) it's unlikely they could have tapped into Indian or West Indian cotton. Then again there were ample alternative industrialisation paths open to the US, with ample coal and iron supplies metallurgy was one route, as would have been chemicals similar to Germany. Of course, there was always oil, sweet sweet oil.
-
Socapro you maintain positions without justification or rationality - these aren't beliefs, these are delusions worthy of your average religious fundamentalist.
First the homos high-jacked and changed the meaning of the world Gay and now they are high-jacking and trying to change the meaning of the world marriage.
Homosexuals didn't "hijack" the word, if that is indeed possible - again if you just bothered to check your facts instead of spitting vitriol for once. You simply never check your own facts do you? Check wikipedia for a basic primer - it was being used for purposes other than happy for centuries.
Last time I checked marriage was an institution defined in the Bible and other holy books that was meant to be between a man and a woman for legally supporting each other, reproducing and building a family but now it is being made a mockery of by the Homos and Lesbis as part of the Gay Agenda.
Wrong again. As I've pointed out numerous times whom marriage incorporates differs greatly between these books. Moreover, 'defining' a word doesn't give ownership, and marriage pre-dates all the major religions in existence, meaning they weren't even the ones who defined it. And thank god for that! Descriptions of marriage in the Old Testament are tantamount to Chattel slavery. Homosexuals want the same rights to their relationship that heterosexuals have - legal recognition. This allows them a much easier and cheaper legal route to determine things like parental rights on children and the estate after death. There's no plot here - just people who love each other and who want the law to reflect that.
My argument on the rights issue is that Gays now have MORE rights and choices than heterosexuals in the area of marriage so I no longer want to hear any Gays moaning about victimization and lack of equality in that area.
Absolute rubbish - where's your justification for this? Again you've not answered my point - did racism end with the end of segregation? You avoid all the points against your prejudice and just make new arguments. Your position is the definition of fundamentalism - total aversion to facts and arguments that don't fit with your world view.
Next thing on the agenda for the Gay Rights movement will be trying to teach the lie of gay sex and marriage being natural and healthy in ALL schools regardless of the parents opinion on the matter or even the teachers willingness to participate due to their moral or religious principles.
Your arguments are exactly the same as those who argued against interracial marriage. As I've pointed out in previous posts - homosexuality is natural, unless you have a different definition of natural that isn't "that which is observed in nature".
Honestly I am not the religious type but I can definitely see the days of Sodom and Gomorrah as described in the Bible coming back but this time on a much bigger worldwide scale.
I find this hard to believe, given all of your posts so far have suggested a faith on your part - you frequently argue from religious scripture and from the ramblings of moronic preachers. Given that the portrayals of Soddom and Gomorrah are clearly not reality (unless you believe people tried to rape angels?), why would you assume this ever happened if you didn't have faith?
I am not a Farrahkhan fan but what he says in that video above (in Reply #35) about marriage and the American constitution being based on principals laid out in the Bible is hard to dismiss.
Except that the Constitution guarantees religious freedom (something clearly against the 10 commandments) and in the Treaty of Tripoli President Joohn Adams states unequivocally that the United States is not a Christian Nation;
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
-
@Tireais....Are you a homosexual? This is a serious question
-
Tiresais, to what extent did slavery benefit the USA? So far the discussions have focused on eastern hemisphere
Sadly not knowledgeable in American economic history beyond the basics. Had an impact for sure but again it won't be clear cut - in some ways making agriculture profitable has a nullifying effect on efforts to industrialise, as investment usually flows to those sectors that give the highest returns. If agriculture is being uniquely profitable due to slavery then private investment goes into that and not into the capital required for manufacturing. On the other hand, America saw mass-migration during the 1800s, giving a large labour pool for capitalists on the East Coast to use, regardless of slavery. The cotton would still have been needed and post-indepedence (if they would end up declaring it without the slavery profits) it's unlikely they could have tapped into Indian or West Indian cotton. Then again there were ample alternative industrialisation paths open to the US, with ample coal and iron supplies metallurgy was one route, as would have been chemicals similar to Germany. Of course, there was always oil, sweet sweet oil.
Having resources like iron , coal and oil does not lead to industrialization . Cheap labor does and what is cheaper labor than slavery?
When one thinks of slavery they only think about plantations and agriculture and not on the peripheral factors like the financial and insurance industry that facilitated this evil practice ,
The wealth generated by by these other industries allowed for the exploitation of the natural resources , but it all began on the backs of slaves..
If only the possessions of natural resources led to industrialization then Africa would have been the richest continent ,
Europe was basically a backward continent and it only became rich after the discovery of the western hemisphere , this combined with the inherently evil genocidal nature of the white man who mostly eradicated the the natives in their brutal exploitation of them and when they were done began their rape of Africa .
They brought all the proceeds back to Europe and that is how they became rich and industrialized
Their evil nature was of such that after the slaves were freed that they opened the floodgates to European immigration in America especially for skilled tradesman because the whiteman in America could hardly turn a screw ... all the skilled trades were done by slaves and so further depriving the blackman.
All this talk about economic theories and the path to industrialization is all bullshit ... was done on the exploitation of African slaves and other indigenous peoples like in India . Indonesia as in the case of the dutch
-
@Tireais....Are you a homosexual? This is a serious question
Nope. Heterosexual
-
Asylum, can you point me to examples of his "radicated bias and veiled bias"? I don't see it. But then again, I have been accused of being naive when it comes to racism.
Racism? Who the hell is talking about racism?
Ramgoat
-
So I guess it's settled then - you are a racist.
Having resources like iron , coal and oil does not lead to industrialization . Cheap labor does and what is cheaper labor than slavery?
100% wrong - if cheap labour leads to industrialisation then all you would need is an abundance of labour. How can you make steel without coal and iron exactly? Where's your proof for this?
When one thinks of slavery they only think about plantations and agriculture and not on the peripheral factors like the financial and insurance industry that facilitated this evil practice ,
Then you think to narrowly sir. Barclays got rich off the slave trade, and a number of the institutions taken for granted today find their roots in the evil practice of slavery. Slavery is more than simply owning human beings - it's the whole infrastructure and social system engineered around extracting wealth out of expendable and transferable human beings. To limit your analysis to the plantation is to miss the wood for the trees.
The wealth generated by by these other industries allowed for the exploitation of the natural resources , but it all began on the backs of slaves..
Yes and no, as I pointed out in my points. It wasn't the money, but who got the money that was the critical factor.
If only the possessions of natural resources led to industrialization then Africa would have been the richest continent ,
Well no, because firstly the resources you're thinking of weren't exploitable by the locals without the appropriate technology and capital, all of which was centred in Eurasia. This delves into a deeper question as to why Africa did not develop on the same path or speed as Europe and Asia, which is a complex question to say the least. Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" has one particular thesis on this - namely that the geological and ecosystem factors alone favoured Eurasia over Africa and Latin America. I'd recommend that as a read if you're really interested in this question, which has some interesting hypotheses.
Europe was basically a backward continent and it only became rich after the discovery of the western hemisphere...
Europe was a backward continent circa 1000 A.D., depending on how you measure this, but by 1400 North-Western Europe had overtaken China as the most developed place on Earth.(see Maddison's seminal work "The World Economy: A Millennial perspective"). Europe's rise, thus, had started before its embarkation on colonisation. Indeed it would have been impossible for them to conquer such large swathes of the world without some technological or military advantage, given the relatively small numbers compared to the natives.
this combined with the inherently evil genocidal nature of the white man who mostly eradicated the the natives in their brutal exploitation of them and when they were done began their rape of Africa .
White men are inherently evil? They have a genocidal nature? This is such disgusting racism that it barely warrants a response, but I shall. You sir are a racist, and I think less of you for it.
They brought all the proceeds back to Europe and that is how they became rich and industrialized
As I've pointed out, in England's case the expropriation form the colonies was simply not enough to matter on its own, it mattered in an indirect sense, which is much more important in explaining their rise than the monetary value of the goods themselves. Do you have any evidence for your position?
Their evil nature was of such that after the slaves were freed that they opened the floodgates to European immigration in America especially for skilled tradesman because the whiteman in America could hardly turn a screw ... all the skilled trades were done by slaves and so further depriving the blackman.
More racism and unsubstantiated claims. European migration to America was already extraordinarily high before emancipation, so that point is plainly wrong. Where is your evidence for the claim about "all the skilled trades were done by slaves"? Where do you get your racist rants from? White men could hardly turn a screw? America was specifically targeting highly-skilled migrants from Europe, as the majority were unskilled workers from the poorer parts of Europe (Southern Italy and Ireland especially). However, the people who put them to work were clearly skilled - American Industrialisation was mostly home-grown in the sense that either the inventions and/or the implementation of the capital required was done by Americans.
All this talk about economic theories and the path to industrialization is all bullshit ... was done on the exploitation of African slaves and other indigenous peoples like in India . Indonesia as in the case of the dutch
Yes all this talk about reasoned evidence is bullshit, so you can make racist rants against white people. How about you remove your head from your arse and actually consider the fact that we're all human beings. Slavery is a blight on the history of the European powers, and that demands an understanding of how it came to be. Claiming that skin pigmentation caused it is a disservice to an important question.
-
Do you work within the community as an advocate for gay rights or something?
-
I'm not surprised that a Trinbago forum would consider it seminal, simply because we like to push forward our own heroes and representatives, and sometimes inflate their importance.
This right here is the crux of why you are rubbing everyone wrong with your comments, your position is premised on the assumption that we are inflating William's importance just because he shares our heritage. Frankly it's insulting... so yes, stop at this point. Whether you choose to stop AND read the book, that's up to you.
-
None of that means that you can't have a base understanding from derivative works - you'll need to consult the original to make up your own mind ultimately, but to say you can only learn his work by his own book is simplistic. I didn't say it was surplus, I said it was low priority - *sigh* read my posts... I have responded on the major controversies that his book is said to cover, you can take these and respond with specific points from William's book if you like?
Genius... no one is saying you can't have a "base understanding"... we are saying you cannot comment dismissively about his work or deny it's seminal contribution to the economic analysis of slavery, without having a sound appreciation of his ideas, the best was to do so is to read the book.
You don't have to keep repeaint "read my posts" like a broken record. I make it a point to quote what I'm responding to so as to emphasize that I'm responding directly to something you've said. In short, I have read everything that I choose to respond to.
-
Again, if you had read my posts more carefully.... I pointed out that this is evidence against the essentialness of slavery. Spain also had a fair amount of mineral wealth (including coal) during this period, so simply shift the argument to there - the point still stands. Those nations with the most intensive slave trading are not the major winners. Moreover, of those countries developing during the "Second Industrial Revolution", Germany had barely any slave trading before their Industrial Revolution, Japan similarly.
Cheap slave labour was to the benefit of the plantation owners - as I've pointed out there's a misconception on capitalism - it never tries to benefit the state, simply individuals with capital. Plantation owners and the mercantile class worked human beings to death as if they were cattle, whilst over charging Britain for the imports through Parliamentary acts limiting trade on key good to the colonies, guaranteeing them a better price than the world average for the time. Cheap labour was essential indirectly - by enriching this class whom could grow powerful enough to place constraints on the monarchy. We agree on the essential nature of colonialism, but for different reasons.
No one was trading in slaves as the British were during this period... Britain had assumed naval superiority from Spain by the 17th century, and not just in warfare. England didn't benefit from slavery because of capitalism... she benefited because of mercantilism and the remission of profits back to England. One of the chief complaints by the plantocracy were the high taxes, for instance. The plantation economies of the Spanish and Francophile islands simply wasn't on par, a chief factor which you conveniently overlook.
-
Again, if you had read my posts more carefully.... I pointed out that this is evidence against the essentialness of slavery. Spain also had a fair amount of mineral wealth (including coal) during this period, so simply shift the argument to there - the point still stands. Those nations with the most intensive slave trading are not the major winners. Moreover, of those countries developing during the "Second Industrial Revolution", Germany had barely any slave trading before their Industrial Revolution, Japan similarly.
Cheap slave labour was to the benefit of the plantation owners - as I've pointed out there's a misconception on capitalism - it never tries to benefit the state, simply individuals with capital. Plantation owners and the mercantile class worked human beings to death as if they were cattle, whilst over charging Britain for the imports through Parliamentary acts limiting trade on key good to the colonies, guaranteeing them a better price than the world average for the time. Cheap labour was essential indirectly - by enriching this class whom could grow powerful enough to place constraints on the monarchy. We agree on the essential nature of colonialism, but for different reasons.
No one was trading in slaves as the British were during this period... Britain had assumed naval superiority from Spain by the 17th century, and not just in warfare. England didn't benefit from slavery because of capitalism... she benefited because of mercantilism and the remission of profits back to England. One of the chief complaints by the plantocracy were the high taxes, for instance. The plantation economies of the Spanish and Francophile islands simply wasn't on par, a chief factor which you conveniently overlook.
For the benefit of the forum, can you explain the difference between capitalism and mercantilism.
-
nice posts socapro. not sure about the sotomayor one but the first one and the farrakhan clip made sense. doh study tiresais and bakes - dey using standard trolling tactics. dey want everything spell out for them like a eula so dey could look for typos and claim it doh make sense. dey should married each other to prove how gay-positive they are. steups.
one more thing - that point made in the first clip about the gay parents trying to change their adopted boy into a girl. that kind of thing is disturbing. that's one thing that de feminists get right - pushing dat kind of thing onto children is wrong - it's abuse. de feminists doh want girls to be sexualized and dey right. but dese gays pushing for kids to "come out" in school; kids in primary school whose stones eh drop "coming out" because of dis gay agenda. steups.
-
For the benefit of the forum, can you explain the difference between capitalism and mercantilism.
Mercantilism is a heavily regulated system of trade whereby European nations circumscribed how their colonies could conduct business, with whom they could conduct business, and how much of their business profits they could keep, while remitting part to the mother country.
Capitalism in its simplest form is premised on the free market system, conducting business with whomever provides the best economic result.
-
Farrahkhan gives his view on homosexuality all the way back in 1972, very intelligent.
I don't think his view would have changed that much 42 years later in 2014.
Farrakhan Speaks on Homosexuality: Is it Natural? (1972)
https://www.youtube.com/v/VCDfqXN9AHw
Minister Louis Farrakhan answers a question about homosexuality.
This interview was conducted in 1972 on SOUL TV in New York.
-
And here is Farrahkhan's up to date view on Homosexuality.
HOMOSEXUALITY: Dave Shappelle & Hollywood, Minister Farrakhan "Speaks"
https://www.youtube.com/v/RIIhUcHIv1Q
Dave Chappelle Will Not Wear A Dress . Hence.. African!
https://www.youtube.com/v/7lbFRYF-bbM
-
Asylum, can you point me to examples of his "radicated bias and veiled bias"? I don't see it. But then again, I have been accused of being naive when it comes to racism.
Racism? Who the hell is talking about racism?
Ramgoat
I am not talking about racism . I am talking about something more evil , more devilish , more sinister. more diabolical
-
Funny but when I went to one of my barbershops this weekend there was a big discussion about Usain Bolt and why some youths in Jamaica smashed his junior record this weekend.
The Jamaican barber who was trimming my hair made me laugh when he said that Bolt was condoning battyman business by wearing a dress in that Virgin TV advert so the youths in Jamaica got angry and broke his junior record as Jamaicas don't condone the battyman business that Bolt is now promoting! :D
See the advert that Bolt did that now seems to have many Jamaican men very upset with him.
Usain Bolt stars as a whole family in new Virgin Media ad
https://www.youtube.com/v/IbJa1E8Yhgo
I will bet anyone that Bolt initially did not like the idea of wearing a dress in this advert and they offered him an extra large bonus just to do it. More evidence of the Gay agenda specially directed at Black men in full effect. This is not just a conspiracy theory with no basis in reality like some folks with their heads in the sand would try to argue.
-
Extracted from Tiresais above:
Europe was a backward continent circa 1000 A.D., depending on how you measure this, but by 1400 North-Western Europe had overtaken China as the most developed place on Earth.(see Maddison's seminal work "The World Economy: A Millennial perspective").Europe's rise, thus, had started before its embarkation on colonisation. Indeed it would have been impossible for them to conquer such large swathes of the world without some technological or military advantage, given the relatively small numbers compared to the natives.
And how did you determine that? Via a cup of tea with Angus before he departed this life?
-
Extracted from Tiresais above:
Europe was a backward continent circa 1000 A.D., depending on how you measure this, but by 1400 North-Western Europe had overtaken China as the most developed place on Earth.(see Maddison's seminal work "The World Economy: A Millennial perspective").Europe's rise, thus, had started before its embarkation on colonisation. Indeed it would have been impossible for them to conquer such large swathes of the world without some technological or military advantage, given the relatively small numbers compared to the natives.
And how did you determine that? Via a cup of tea with Angus before he departed this life?
Hah, sadly not. He's one of the few academics to attempt to quantify GDP per capita over the past 2 thousand years and is heavily cited in the literature, hence my (subjective) opinion that it's a seminal work.
-
Again, if you had read my posts more carefully.... I pointed out that this is evidence against the essentialness of slavery. Spain also had a fair amount of mineral wealth (including coal) during this period, so simply shift the argument to there - the point still stands. Those nations with the most intensive slave trading are not the major winners. Moreover, of those countries developing during the "Second Industrial Revolution", Germany had barely any slave trading before their Industrial Revolution, Japan similarly.
Cheap slave labour was to the benefit of the plantation owners - as I've pointed out there's a misconception on capitalism - it never tries to benefit the state, simply individuals with capital. Plantation owners and the mercantile class worked human beings to death as if they were cattle, whilst over charging Britain for the imports through Parliamentary acts limiting trade on key good to the colonies, guaranteeing them a better price than the world average for the time. Cheap labour was essential indirectly - by enriching this class whom could grow powerful enough to place constraints on the monarchy. We agree on the essential nature of colonialism, but for different reasons.
No one was trading in slaves as the British were during this period... Britain had assumed naval superiority from Spain by the 17th century, and not just in warfare. England didn't benefit from slavery because of capitalism... she benefited because of mercantilism and the remission of profits back to England. One of the chief complaints by the plantocracy were the high taxes, for instance. The plantation economies of the Spanish and Francophile islands simply wasn't on par, a chief factor which you conveniently overlook.
Do you have any evidence of France and Spain's inefficiency? 17th Century seems much to early to me - both Portugal and (after independence) the Dutch were significant threats to the RN at or after this time.
-
Extracted from Tiresais above:
Europe was a backward continent circa 1000 A.D., depending on how you measure this, but by 1400 North-Western Europe had overtaken China as the most developed place on Earth.(see Maddison's seminal work "The World Economy: A Millennial perspective").Europe's rise, thus, had started before its embarkation on colonisation. Indeed it would have been impossible for them to conquer such large swathes of the world without some technological or military advantage, given the relatively small numbers compared to the natives.
And how did you determine that? Via a cup of tea with Angus before he departed this life?
Hah, sadly not. He's one of the few academics to attempt to quantify GDP per capita over the past 2 thousand years and is heavily cited in the literature, hence my (subjective) opinion that it's a seminal work.
Uh-huh ...
Probably because you're so full of shite that the effluent has contaminated your objectivity.
-
Do you work within the community as an advocate for gay rights or something?
No - I consider it every person's duty to defend the rights of your fellow human beings, and to challenge prejudice and discrimination.
-
Extracted from Tiresais above:
Europe was a backward continent circa 1000 A.D., depending on how you measure this, but by 1400 North-Western Europe had overtaken China as the most developed place on Earth.(see Maddison's seminal work "The World Economy: A Millennial perspective").Europe's rise, thus, had started before its embarkation on colonisation. Indeed it would have been impossible for them to conquer such large swathes of the world without some technological or military advantage, given the relatively small numbers compared to the natives.
And how did you determine that? Via a cup of tea with Angus before he departed this life?
Hah, sadly not. He's one of the few academics to attempt to quantify GDP per capita over the past 2 thousand years and is heavily cited in the literature, hence my (subjective) opinion that it's a seminal work.
Uh-huh ...
Probably because you're so full of shite that the effluent has contaminated your objectivity.
Any retort other than ad hominem attacks? 'cause all you've actually done is insult me rather than respond to my point.
-
In short, I have read everything that I choose to respond to.
This is why I keep telling people to read my posts. You cannot weigh my arguments from snippets - the posts are more than the sum of their parts.
-
For the benefit of the forum, can you explain the difference between capitalism and mercantilism.
Mercantilism is a heavily regulated system of trade whereby European nations circumscribed how their colonies could conduct business, with whom they could conduct business, and how much of their business profits they could keep, while remitting part to the mother country.
Capitalism in its simplest form is premised on the free market system, conducting business with whomever provides the best economic result.
These definitions are not specific enough. Mercantilism referred to a quasi-closed trading, whereby nations tried to accumulate precious metals and currency, seeing trade as a zero-sum whereby imports weakened the nation (in some broad sense, whether it be strengthening your enemies or having to give up wealth). Within this type of thought, colonies became an essential "cordoning off" of resources for the nations that guaranteed access within the nation.
Capitalism is simply organising the economy around the profit motive for individuals and using markets (and the price mechanism) to allocate resources and choices over production in the economy. You can have a mercantilist Capitalist system, for example, as they are not mutually exclusive. Free trade is often argued to be of benefit from capitalistic perspectives, as the benefits of a market should expand as it gets larger (increased specialisation and division of labour were the key factors for Adam Smith). They key aspect here is the role of individuals - economic activity is the preserve of private actors, whilst the state is to preserve the conditions for the market (and price mechanism) to work (such as justice, property rights, and public goods that couldn't be provided by the market such as street lighting and national defence). These actors often make profit (especially in the early stages) by accumulating capital (goods and services used in the act of production but not used up, such as machinery, factories, and education), which they can use to make more profit, and then re-invest into more capital (see Marx's Primitive Accumulation).
Importantly, capitalist actors pursue profit over other objectives - the role of a firm is to be profitable. Thus, their actions are not simply contained to the market system - actions such as regulatory capture (influencing/controlling those who are supposed to regulate them), bribery and corruption (to ensure favourable legislation), and anti-competitive practices (monopolies, corporate espionage, and predatory behaviour) are in a number of important circumstances ways to maximise profits and/or minimise losses. Within the context of teh colonies you had both strands of thought - Parliament legislated to heavily favour "imports" (if that's the right word) from the colonies because they stood to gain - Parliament in the 1700s was made up heavily of those with a personal interest in the colonies, whether it be owning the plantations that sold the products or whose children would fill the lucrative administrative posts in India and the New World. Thus, Britain paid a higher price than it should have due to legislative capture - private individuals maximised profit by using the mechanisms of power within Britain to raise prices above what they would receive in free markets and free trade. You can clearly see this behaviour in the Western legislators when it comes to resource extraction, and you can see this in the neo-colonial way in which the West and Western countries engage with the developing world (especially Africa)
-
Extracted from Tiresais above:
Europe was a backward continent circa 1000 A.D., depending on how you measure this, but by 1400 North-Western Europe had overtaken China as the most developed place on Earth.(see Maddison's seminal work "The World Economy: A Millennial perspective").Europe's rise, thus, had started before its embarkation on colonisation. Indeed it would have been impossible for them to conquer such large swathes of the world without some technological or military advantage, given the relatively small numbers compared to the natives.
And how did you determine that? Via a cup of tea with Angus before he departed this life?
Hah, sadly not. He's one of the few academics to attempt to quantify GDP per capita over the past 2 thousand years and is heavily cited in the literature, hence my (subjective) opinion that it's a seminal work.
Uh-huh ...
Probably because you're so full of shite that the effluent has contaminated your objectivity.
Any retort other than ad hominem attacks? 'cause all you've actually done is insult me rather than respond to my point.
It's actually in response to your comment rather than per se ad hominem. You impeach yourself. Re-read yuh own damn post? Lol.
(By the way, you have no basis for rejecting ad hominem. None. And, I haven't started to insult you yet. I'm still being charitable).
-
In short, I have read everything that I choose to respond to.
This is why I keep telling people to read my posts. You cannot weigh my arguments from snippets - the posts are more than the sum of their parts.
... not gifted enough to figure out that one having read everything one has chosen to respond to ... does not mean that one has not read everything?
-
Do you work within the community as an advocate for gay rights or something?
No - I consider it every person's duty to defend the rights of your fellow human beings, and to challenge prejudice and discrimination.
So you're like a missionary sent to the colonies, yet silent at home? Lehwe make a turn in Brixton nah.
-
dis thread exhausting and ent even read 5% ah it :-\ :-\
-
...
When you have to fly under the radar or face massive public backlash and discrimination, being 'hidden' is essential to continue having an otherwise normal life.
...
An element of why the equivalency of race should be left out of the discourse.
-
tiresais you readin like didn' even read or seriously consider congo's account ,therein lies d actual issue......yuh fly off d handle when the gay get assaulted, but sudden loss yuh "voice" when it became clear dat violence reciprocated violence..............a would imagine that condemnation would go both ways in such a case............so regardless of how yuh try to spin it yuh silence speakin louder than yuh words. gross hypocrisy of d highest order.
I done
Congo's isolated anecdotal account no more proves that gays are aggressive and violent, any more than the Ariel Castro case proves that Puerto Ricans (or heterosexuals for that matter) are violent, sexual deviants.
Where dis come from?
-
I have a hypothesis that one factor (and there are others) that forms one's opinions regarding a segment of our society (ex. race, culture, gender, religion, ethnicity, and in this case sexual orientation), may be negative or traumatic experiences with members of that segment.
Two examples:
A female rape victim may have a difficulty time with men, generally speaking; or a bad experience with a member(s) of a religious faith may lead you to conclude that all members of that faith are to be avoided.
Both Socapro and Congo stated that they were victims of unwanted sexual attention originally disguised as benign socialization. And I think that they both responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender. And they have both made their positions clear on homosexuality.
I am curious if there are forum members who feel that they have been victimized. I have never been victimized and my views on homosexuals are liberal. Congo and Socapro have been victimized and their views are conservative, some would argue, even hateful and bigoted.
Just curious if anecdotal data supports my hypothesis. That's all.
Findings on the hypothesis?
-
I am throwing a question out.
Both Congo and Socapro claim to be the victims of sexual harassment or even sexual assault (my words). The perpetrators are "in the closet" gays.
QUESTION: Has any other other male heterosexual on this forum been the victim of sexual harassment/assault committed by a male homosexual?
I am heterosexual but I have never had a gay person proposition me - and I have been around for several decades.
While we await the findings ... what signficance do you attach to the question?
I suspect that my wait will be in perpetuity and uneventful, but nevertheless ...
I have a hypothesis that one factor (and there are others) that forms one's opinions regarding a segment of our society (ex. race, culture, gender, religion, ethnicity, and in this case sexual orientation), may be negative or traumatic experiences with members of that segment.
Two examples:
A female rape victim may have a difficulty time with men, generally speaking; or a bad experience with a member(s) of a religious faith may lead you to conclude that all members of that faith are to be avoided.
Both Socapro and Congo stated that they were victims of unwanted sexual attention originally disguised as benign socialization. And I think that they both responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender. And they have both made their positions clear on homosexuality.
I am curious if there are forum members who feel that they have been victimized. I have never been victimized and my views on homosexuals are liberal. Congo and Socapro have been victimized and their views are conservative, some would argue, even hateful and bigoted.
Just curious if anecdotal data supports my hypothesis. That's all.
I only just spotted the highlighted paragraph above with an accusation from Pecan that included my name.
So Mr Pecan please bring the quote and show me where I ever said that I was a victim of unwanted sexual attention from a homo originally disguised as benign socialization and responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender?!
I've never been violent or have threatened violence against a Gay person in all my life not that it may not happen in the future if I am ever put in a position where I am left with no choice in order to defend myself from physical abuse or assault.
Some of you fellas are either dangerous liars or lack English comprehension skills. :shameonyou:
If Pecan is unable to bring the quote of me saying I was violent or threatened violence against a homo who made unwanted sexual advances then I expect an apology posted in this thread for his heterophobic lies within the next 24 hours. The clock is ticking! :Police:
-
Do you work within the community as an advocate for gay rights or something?
No - I consider it every person's duty to defend the rights of your fellow human beings, and to challenge prejudice and discrimination.
So you're like a missionary sent to the colonies, yet silent at home? Lehwe make a turn in Brixton nah.
Why do you think I'm silent at home? You know what they say about ASSumptions there Asylum.
-
Extracted from Tiresais above:
Europe was a backward continent circa 1000 A.D., depending on how you measure this, but by 1400 North-Western Europe had overtaken China as the most developed place on Earth.(see Maddison's seminal work "The World Economy: A Millennial perspective").Europe's rise, thus, had started before its embarkation on colonisation. Indeed it would have been impossible for them to conquer such large swathes of the world without some technological or military advantage, given the relatively small numbers compared to the natives.
And how did you determine that? Via a cup of tea with Angus before he departed this life?
Hah, sadly not. He's one of the few academics to attempt to quantify GDP per capita over the past 2 thousand years and is heavily cited in the literature, hence my (subjective) opinion that it's a seminal work.
Uh-huh ...
Probably because you're so full of shite that the effluent has contaminated your objectivity.
Any retort other than ad hominem attacks? 'cause all you've actually done is insult me rather than respond to my point.
It's actually in response to your comment rather than per se ad hominem. You impeach yourself. Re-read yuh own damn post? Lol.
(By the way, you have no basis for rejecting ad hominem. None. And, I haven't started to insult you yet. I'm still being charitable).
You attacked me as full of shit without addressing the point whatsoever. Care to respond?
-
...
When you have to fly under the radar or face massive public backlash and discrimination, being 'hidden' is essential to continue having an otherwise normal life.
...
An element of why the equivalency of race should be left out of the discourse.
They always quick to say that what two consenting do in their bedroom is their own business and people shouldn't get involved but the funny thing is that I could point out a person based on race. I could see a black man coming from a mile away and have no doubt that he is black etc. I can't tell a gay person from a straight...If a gay person doesn't portray gay tendencies how can they then be identified and discriminated against? It so funny that people chose to compare being gay to being black. A black person can't hide his or her skin color. A gay person could hide from the public. This discrimination talk is rubbish. No one cares...If as people say that gay only occurs in the bedroom then why the need to fly under the radar?
-
...
When you have to fly under the radar or face massive public backlash and discrimination, being 'hidden' is essential to continue having an otherwise normal life.
...
An element of why the equivalency of race should be left out of the discourse.
They always quick to say that what two consenting do in their bedroom is their own business and people shouldn't get involved but the funny thing is that I could point out a person based on race. I could see a black man coming from a mile away and have no doubt that he is black etc. I can't tell a gay person from a straight...If a gay person doesn't portray gay tendencies how can they then be identified and discriminated against? It so funny that people chose to compare being gay to being black. A black person can't hide his or her skin color. A gay person could hide from the public. This discrimination talk is rubbish. No one cares...If as people say that gay only occurs in the bedroom then why the need to fly under the radar?
Good post but I expect the usual suspects to pussy foot around the points you made in order to continue playing the Gay victimization card.
-
Do you have any evidence of France and Spain's inefficiency? 17th Century seems much to early to me - both Portugal and (after independence) the Dutch were significant threats to the RN at or after this time.
Nothing I say is by accident, you are quite adept at charging people to "read [your] damn posts" but apparently can't summon the ability in yourself to reciprocate.
No one was trading in slaves as the British were during this period... Britain had assumed naval superiority from Spain by the 17th century, and not just in warfare.
So...
As to the question of the contributions of the colonies to the development of the European motherland... the advantage was the remission of profits back to the motherland. This in turn was influenced by the availability of slave labor. The two major players in the slave trade were England and Spain. Certainly from the 18th century on, if I am to concede that the 17th was too early, England's navy had superseded Spain's.
-
In short, I have read everything that I choose to respond to.
This is why I keep telling people to read my posts. You cannot weigh my arguments from snippets - the posts are more than the sum of their parts.
Fella... I read your damn posts, and I chose to respond to snippets rather than write a frigging dissertation each time on peripheral arguments. What's so hard to understand?
-
They always quick to say that what two consenting do in their bedroom is their own business and people shouldn't get involved but the funny thing is that I could point out a person based on race. I could see a black man coming from a mile away and have no doubt that he is black etc. I can't tell a gay person from a straight...If a gay person doesn't portray gay tendencies how can they then be identified and discriminated against? It so funny that people chose to compare being gay to being black. A black person can't hide his or her skin color. A gay person could hide from the public. This discrimination talk is rubbish. No one cares...If as people say that gay only occurs in the bedroom then why the need to fly under the radar?
You actually believe half the shit you does post dred? You ever hear of the terms "passing" or the "one-drop rule"??
How many of these people (http://www.policymic.com/articles/80841/12-beautiful-portraits-of-black-identity-challenging-the-one-drop-rule) you could spot a mile away and have no doubt as to their racial identity?
On the one hand many ah allyuh proclaiming loud and clear that allyuh doh want no "homos" around allyuh, allyuh doh want to socialize with them. Yet in the same breath bawling discrimination against gays is nonsense, not even realizing the internal contradictions in your own statements.
-
On the one hand many ah allyuh proclaiming loud and clear that allyuh doh want no "homos" around allyuh, allyuh doh want to socialize with them. Yet in the same breath bawling discrimination against gays is nonsense, not even realizing the internal contradictions in your own statements.
Just to remove my name from your "many of allyuh" suspects list, I have worked with gay work colleagues on a number of occasions and have never complained to them or anyone else that I don't want to work with gays provided they don't try to cross the line of professionalism in the work place.
To me that would be the same as me complaining that I don't want to work with Whites or Indians or anyone else because of who they are. I will work with anyone who is professional because I believe in equality, professionalism and productivity in the work place.
I don't really care what you do in your private time including if you take drugs or shoot animals or engage in anal sex as a hobby once it doesn't affect your professionalism and performance at the workplace.
But as I said before, outside of work I have my own social interests with like minded people and most times don't even have time to socialize with my straight work colleagues far less the gay ones who I may or may not be aware are gay.
Me not having an interest in socializing with Gay work colleagues outside of work is not discrimination and anyone who tries to make such a claim is missing a few brain cells or wants to deny everyone of their democratic right of choice of who they knowingly choose to socialize with.
Now that I have removed my name from the ""many of allyuh", list, you can carry on....
-
@ Tiresais
Given the intensity of historians' reaction to Williams's work and the centrality of British industrialization to historical scholarship, it is curious that there has not been until now a publication relating to Caribbean slavery, Atlantic trade and British industrialization in this popular Cambridge series. This may partly be explained by the fact that the majority of scholars working on British industrialization tend to be highly skeptical of the Williams thesis'. As Morgan himself observes, the "insights and evidence" offered by Williams in Capitalism and Slavery are "much contested", though the study still remains "seminal" (p. 113). There remain, however, scholars for whom Williams's claims about the profits from slavery and British capital accumulation retain much merit. Moreover, others, including Morgan, have sought to explore more thoroughly than Williams other possible lines of connection between slavery, external trade and British industrialization. In this respect, the debate between slavery and the British Industrial Revolution that Williams helped to ignite almost sixty years ago remains very much alive. Whether, as Morgan hopes, his booklet succeeds in prompting fresh research (p. 5) rather than simply providing an accessible summary of current debates for students, is open to question.
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/259
To express scepticism about Williams' work is one thing, but to insist that assessing the work as seminal turns on your subjectivity is jackassness ... "radicated in your bias and veiled machinations".
I reiterate: you are full of shit.
-
I'm not surprised that a Trinbago forum would consider it seminal, simply because we like to push forward our own heroes and representatives, and sometimes inflate their importance.
This right here is the crux of why you are rubbing everyone wrong with your comments, your position is premised on the assumption that we are inflating William's importance just because he shares our heritage. Frankly it's insulting... so yes, stop at this point. Whether you choose to stop AND read the book, that's up to you.
Ab-so-lute-ly!
I'll add also that it's a question of respect. The fella has been out of order in his delivery. Trinis real tolerant. He couldn't ah run up on another forum denigrating and distorting at will.
-
Asylum, can you point me to examples of his "radicated bias and veiled bias"? I don't see it. But then again, I have been accused of being naive when it comes to racism.
Racism? Who the hell is talking about racism?
Ramgoat
Come nah man ... we both know that Ramgoat's comments were extrinsic to my statements. You asked me what my words meant, and then you stated that you have been "accused of being naive when it comes to racism" ... the suggestion being that I was charging Tiresais with racism.
-
They always quick to say that what two consenting do in their bedroom is their own business and people shouldn't get involved but the funny thing is that I could point out a person based on race. I could see a black man coming from a mile away and have no doubt that he is black etc. I can't tell a gay person from a straight...If a gay person doesn't portray gay tendencies how can they then be identified and discriminated against? It so funny that people chose to compare being gay to being black. A black person can't hide his or her skin color. A gay person could hide from the public. This discrimination talk is rubbish. No one cares...If as people say that gay only occurs in the bedroom then why the need to fly under the radar?
You actually believe half the shit you does post dred? You ever hear of the terms "passing" or the "one-drop rule"??
How many of these people (http://www.policymic.com/articles/80841/12-beautiful-portraits-of-black-identity-challenging-the-one-drop-rule) you could spot a mile away and have no doubt as to their racial identity?
On the one hand many ah allyuh proclaiming loud and clear that allyuh doh want no "homos" around allyuh, allyuh doh want to socialize with them. Yet in the same breath bawling discrimination against gays is nonsense, not even realizing the internal contradictions in your own statements.
Still doesn't change the fact that those people would be discriminated on based on their outer features. I know I can't tell if they are gay or not based on looking at them. If a person choose not to socialise with a gay person outside of work but in a professional capacity could maintain a professional rapport does that make them a homophobe? It's a preference.
-
...
When you have to fly under the radar or face massive public backlash and discrimination, being 'hidden' is essential to continue having an otherwise normal life.
...
An element of why the equivalency of race should be left out of the discourse.
They always quick to say that what two consenting do in their bedroom is their own business and people shouldn't get involved but the funny thing is that I could point out a person based on race. I could see a black man coming from a mile away and have no doubt that he is black etc. I can't tell a gay person from a straight...If a gay person doesn't portray gay tendencies how can they then be identified and discriminated against? It so funny that people chose to compare being gay to being black. A black person can't hide his or her skin color. A gay person could hide from the public. This discrimination talk is rubbish. No one cares...If as people say that gay only occurs in the bedroom then why the need to fly under the radar?
They are comparable because neither is a choice - being homosexual is no more a choice than heterosexual. You simply cannot 'choose' to find men attractive can you? Discrimination happens whether the issue in question is obvious/readily appraent or not - are you saying that Irish people weren't subject to discrimination by the British for example? You can hide your Irishness if you don't talk, but that's not the point, the point is that you are facing discrimination if you reveal that you are Irish and that's the problem, not that you didn't hide it well enough. This also explains why they "need to fly under the radar" - by revealing their sexuality they face discrimination, so in order to avoid being discrimination they need to hide who they are.
-
Asylum, can you point me to examples of his "radicated bias and veiled bias"? I don't see it. But then again, I have been accused of being naive when it comes to racism.
Racism? Who the hell is talking about racism?
Ramgoat
Come nah man ... we both know that Ramgoat's comments were extrinsic to my statements. You asked me what my words meant, and then you stated that you have been "accused of being naive when it comes to racism" ... the suggestion being that I was charging Tiresais with racism.
Sorry, my racism comment was not meant to imply what you inferred. I edited what I had originally written and the final result did not convey what I was trying to say.
What I was trying to say is that my naivety (and I used racism as a example because race was part of the ongoing discussions that was triggered by Ramgoat's "white people" comment) often prevents me detecting underlying messages. So someone may be behaving in a racist fashion to my family and I simply do not see it even though it is right in front of my face. So the analogy I was trying to make is that I do not see Tiresais's "radicated bias and veiled bias" and perhaps the reason for this is that I am naive - the same way I am naive about racism - the key word is "naive" not "racism".
And my "Ramgoat" reply reflected what Ramgoat had just posted.
-
@ Tiresais
Given the intensity of historians' reaction to Williams's work and the centrality of British industrialization to historical scholarship, it is curious that there has not been until now a publication relating to Caribbean slavery, Atlantic trade and British industrialization in this popular Cambridge series. This may partly be explained by the fact that the majority of scholars working on British industrialization tend to be highly skeptical of the Williams thesis'. As Morgan himself observes, the "insights and evidence" offered by Williams in Capitalism and Slavery are "much contested", though the study still remains "seminal" (p. 113). There remain, however, scholars for whom Williams's claims about the profits from slavery and British capital accumulation retain much merit. Moreover, others, including Morgan, have sought to explore more thoroughly than Williams other possible lines of connection between slavery, external trade and British industrialization. In this respect, the debate between slavery and the British Industrial Revolution that Williams helped to ignite almost sixty years ago remains very much alive. Whether, as Morgan hopes, his booklet succeeds in prompting fresh research (p. 5) rather than simply providing an accessible summary of current debates for students, is open to question.
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/259
To express scepticism about Williams' work is one thing, but to insist that assessing the work as seminal turns on your subjectivity is jackassness ... "radicated in your bias and veiled machinations".
I reiterate: you are full of shit.
And who decides what is seminal exactly? Asylum you're quick to attack, but again you're failing with your definitions.
-
I only just spotted the highlighted paragraph above with an accusation from Pecan that included my name.
So Mr Pecan please bring the quote and show me where I ever said that I was a victim of unwanted sexual attention from a homo originally disguised as benign socialization and responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender?!
I've never been violent or have threatened violence against a Gay person in all my life not that it may not happen in the future if I am ever put in a position where I am left with no choice in order to defend myself from physical abuse or assault.
Some of you fellas are either dangerous liars or lack English comprehension skills. :shameonyou:
If Pecan is unable to bring the quote of me saying I was violent or threatened violence against a homo who made unwanted sexual advances then I expect an apology posted in this thread for his heterophobic lies within the next 24 hours. The clock is ticking! :Police:
You serious? are your sensibilities so offended you have time to look for reasons for and to demand an apology?
-
Yeah but there are anti discrimination laws to protect them against that sort of thing. That's why I believe that argument is nought. If they are offended then they could take action..I find gays in Trinidad to be fraudulent...Anytime a anti-gay statement is made, you never see them. All you see are a couple straight people who appear to be speaking on behalf of the gay community. A gay march in Trinidad would probably have 4 people in it. They are cowards.
-
Do you have any evidence of France and Spain's inefficiency? 17th Century seems much to early to me - both Portugal and (after independence) the Dutch were significant threats to the RN at or after this time.
Nothing I say is by accident, you are quite adept at charging people to "read [your] damn posts" but apparently can't summon the ability in yourself to reciprocate.
No one was trading in slaves as the British were during this period... Britain had assumed naval superiority from Spain by the 17th century, and not just in warfare.
So...
As to the question of the contributions of the colonies to the development of the European motherland... the advantage was the remission of profits back to the motherland. This in turn was influenced by the availability of slave labor. The two major players in the slave trade were England and Spain. Certainly from the 18th century on, if I am to concede that the 17th was too early, England's navy had superseded Spain's.
Bakes you made a statement about French and Spanish plantations being inefficient - do you have any evidence for that claim?
Maybe we're crossing wires here because I have already stated that slavery was essential to the rise of Great Britain, the difference is that I understand that the question is still in contention in the literature.
As I pointed out previously, it was who gained these profits, no the profits themselves that determined the path of Britain's development in my opinion, simply because the profit itself from the colonies was not high enough to matter in terms of gross national investment. Whilst Britain could wrest teh seas from Spain it still had The Netherlands to contend with - they were a major threat to British shipping into the 1700s, which necessitated massive expenditure to maintain the world's largest fleet. This was a major burden for teh nation's coffers, not to mention the stationing of troops across the world who need to be supplied and maintained. Maintaining the colonies was in short very costly to the British Exchequer, further limiting the profits of slavery and colonialism to the state.
Could you please provide evidence for your positions - I took/take the question seriously so I've provided ample evidence and references for my position - could you do the same please?
-
@ Tiresais
Given the intensity of historians' reaction to Williams's work and the centrality of British industrialization to historical scholarship, it is curious that there has not been until now a publication relating to Caribbean slavery, Atlantic trade and British industrialization in this popular Cambridge series. This may partly be explained by the fact that the majority of scholars working on British industrialization tend to be highly skeptical of the Williams thesis'. As Morgan himself observes, the "insights and evidence" offered by Williams in Capitalism and Slavery are "much contested", though the study still remains "seminal" (p. 113). There remain, however, scholars for whom Williams's claims about the profits from slavery and British capital accumulation retain much merit. Moreover, others, including Morgan, have sought to explore more thoroughly than Williams other possible lines of connection between slavery, external trade and British industrialization. In this respect, the debate between slavery and the British Industrial Revolution that Williams helped to ignite almost sixty years ago remains very much alive. Whether, as Morgan hopes, his booklet succeeds in prompting fresh research (p. 5) rather than simply providing an accessible summary of current debates for students, is open to question.
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/259
To express scepticism about Williams' work is one thing, but to insist that assessing the work as seminal turns on your subjectivity is jackassness ... "radicated in your bias and veiled machinations".
I reiterate: you are full of shit.
And who decides what is seminal exactly? Asylum you're quick to attack, but again you're failing with your definitions.
From the twisted Gospel according to Tiresais to the malicious misrepresentation of the academe. Steups, you quasi-intellectual fraud ... the only thing I'm failing at can't be accomplished across cyberspace.
-
Do you work within the community as an advocate for gay rights or something?
No - I consider it every person's duty to defend the rights of your fellow human beings, and to challenge prejudice and discrimination.
So you're like a missionary sent to the colonies, yet silent at home? Lehwe make a turn in Brixton nah.
Why do you think I'm silent at home? You know what they say about ASSumptions there Asylum.
There was no room nor need to assume. Let's examine the alternatives: you're being either contradictory, "hypocritical" or prevaricatory. At best, you're an ambiguous equivocator.
Lehme know when yuh reach Brixton (or Socapro's barbershop).
-
I'm not surprised that a Trinbago forum would consider it seminal, simply because we like to push forward our own heroes and representatives, and sometimes inflate their importance.
This right here is the crux of why you are rubbing everyone wrong with your comments, your position is premised on the assumption that we are inflating William's importance just because he shares our heritage. Frankly it's insulting... so yes, stop at this point. Whether you choose to stop AND read the book, that's up to you.
Ab-so-lute-ly!
I'll add also that it's a question of respect. The fella has been out of order in his delivery. Trinis real tolerant. He couldn't ah run up on another forum denigrating and distorting at will.
Not to mention that no taint is applied to Englishmen reviewing the scholarship of their compatriot predecessors, but cursory remarks by a Trini respecting a Trini are imbued with "sentiment".
This pontificating charlatan is inherently turning CLR in his grave. Deny him entry.
-
Still doesn't change the fact that those people would be discriminated on based on their outer features. I know I can't tell if they are gay or not based on looking at them. If a person choose not to socialise with a gay person outside of work but in a professional capacity could maintain a professional rapport does that make them a homophobe? It's a preference.
Actually it does. Many of those people could pass for another ethnicity, other than black. The Asian-looking fella for instance, could fit into any Hmong community without a problem, save for several of the sisters pictured fitting into Dominican communities without anyone being able to visibly tell them apart from the larger community. Few if any, would suspect that they are black, therefore there is minimal probability that they would experience anti-black racism... put another way, since you missed it the first time... they could "pass." I could just as easily find someone who could pass as white... since you seem intent on construing this only in terms of white-on-black racism.
As for the second comment about exercising one's "preference" isn't homophobia... that's like arguing, I don't want to associate with black people because of their black skin... but I'm not a racist, that's just my preference. You don't get to argue you're not a homophobe when you are making it clear that the reason why you don't want to associate with them is their sexual orientation.
-
I'm not surprised that a Trinbago forum would consider it seminal, simply because we like to push forward our own heroes and representatives, and sometimes inflate their importance.
This right here is the crux of why you are rubbing everyone wrong with your comments, your position is premised on the assumption that we are inflating William's importance just because he shares our heritage. Frankly it's insulting... so yes, stop at this point. Whether you choose to stop AND read the book, that's up to you.
Ab-so-lute-ly!
I'll add also that it's a question of respect. The fella has been out of order in his delivery. Trinis real tolerant. He couldn't ah run up on another forum denigrating and distorting at will.
Not to mention that no taint is applied to Englishmen reviewing the scholarship of their compatriot predecessors, but cursory remarks by a Trini respecting a Trini are imbued with "sentiment".
This pontificating charlatan is inherently turning CLR in his grave. Deny him entry.
*sigh* you distrust my position, fine, but I don't tink his work is seminal. The response by the forum is completely over the top - accusing me of X and Y. All I said is that I don't consider it seminal, and you're coming out with this? And you're tolerant?
-
Do you work within the community as an advocate for gay rights or something?
No - I consider it every person's duty to defend the rights of your fellow human beings, and to challenge prejudice and discrimination.
So you're like a missionary sent to the colonies, yet silent at home? Lehwe make a turn in Brixton nah.
Why do you think I'm silent at home? You know what they say about ASSumptions there Asylum.
There was no room nor need to assume. Let's examine the alternatives: you're being either contradictory, "hypocritical" or prevaricatory. At best, you're an ambiguous equivocator.
Lehme know when yuh reach Brixton (or Socapro's barbershop).
Ya ain't interested in conversation, just harassing me. I keep asking you to justify your positions but you want bacchanal. You claim things about me without evidence or justification. It's really sad.
-
Do you work within the community as an advocate for gay rights or something?
No - I consider it every person's duty to defend the rights of your fellow human beings, and to challenge prejudice and discrimination.
So you're like a missionary sent to the colonies, yet silent at home? Lehwe make a turn in Brixton nah.
Why do you think I'm silent at home? You know what they say about ASSumptions there Asylum.
There was no room nor need to assume. Let's examine the alternatives: you're being either contradictory, "hypocritical" or prevaricatory. At best, you're an ambiguous equivocator.
Lehme know when yuh reach Brixton (or Socapro's barbershop).
They would probably deliberately cut Tiresais's throat while giving him a shave (and call it an accident) if he even dared open his mouth and try to defend Bolt wearing a dress in that Virgin Media advert (see video in Reply #45) and unforgivingly making Jamaican men in general look like sissies! :devil:
-
Do you work within the community as an advocate for gay rights or something?
No - I consider it every person's duty to defend the rights of your fellow human beings, and to challenge prejudice and discrimination.
So you're like a missionary sent to the colonies, yet silent at home? Lehwe make a turn in Brixton nah.
Why do you think I'm silent at home? You know what they say about ASSumptions there Asylum.
There was no room nor need to assume. Let's examine the alternatives: you're being either contradictory, "hypocritical" or prevaricatory. At best, you're an ambiguous equivocator.
Lehme know when yuh reach Brixton (or Socapro's barbershop).
Asylum, you truly think that Tiresais commentary and opinions on homosexuality is ambiguous equivocation?. He has been very clear on his position vis-a-vis homosexuality. He might have been harsh with Congo but his description of the issue has been far from ambiguous. And exactly what is the equivocation part - the fact that he is vocal on homosexual discrimination but less so on what you would have liked to see on the slavery / capitalism discussion as seen from the non-British side of the debate ?
-
Bakes you made a statement about French and Spanish plantations being inefficient - do you have any evidence for that claim?
Maybe we're crossing wires here because I have already stated that slavery was essential to the rise of Great Britain, the difference is that I understand that the question is still in contention in the literature.
As I pointed out previously, it was who gained these profits, no the profits themselves that determined the path of Britain's development in my opinion, simply because the profit itself from the colonies was not high enough to matter in terms of gross national investment. Whilst Britain could wrest teh seas from Spain it still had The Netherlands to contend with - they were a major threat to British shipping into the 1700s, which necessitated massive expenditure to maintain the world's largest fleet. This was a major burden for teh nation's coffers, not to mention the stationing of troops across the world who need to be supplied and maintained. Maintaining the colonies was in short very costly to the British Exchequer, further limiting the profits of slavery and colonialism to the state.
Could you please provide evidence for your positions - I took/take the question seriously so I've provided ample evidence and references for my position - could you do the same please?
Come nah man... go back and properly read what I posted. I said the France and Spain weren't very efficient at extracting profits from the plantations in the colonies... is it NOT Mercantilism we're talking about? I made no comment on the efficiency of the colonial plantations themselves. British mercantilism was by far more ruthlessly efficient at reducing the profit margins generated by the plantations, in large part because Britain had naval superiority such that it could enforce embargoes against trade with rival European nations. The French and Spanish didn't have quite the same scale of production coming out of the colonies, and lacking the ability to enforce reciprocal trade embargoes against the British, couldn't prevent their Antillean colonies from trading with the British, in the same manner that the British could.
-
I only just spotted the highlighted paragraph above with an accusation from Pecan that included my name.
So Mr Pecan please bring the quote and show me where I ever said that I was a victim of unwanted sexual attention from a homo originally disguised as benign socialization and responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender?!
I've never been violent or have threatened violence against a Gay person in all my life not that it may not happen in the future if I am ever put in a position where I am left with no choice in order to defend myself from physical abuse or assault.
Some of you fellas are either dangerous liars or lack English comprehension skills. :shameonyou:
If Pecan is unable to bring the quote of me saying I was violent or threatened violence against a homo who made unwanted sexual advances then I expect an apology posted in this thread for his heterophobic lies within the next 24 hours. The clock is ticking! :Police:
You serious? are your sensibilities so offended you have time to look for reasons for and to demand an apology?
As I said if you cannot bring the quote of me saying I reacted violently to an unwanted sexual advance from a gay person then it proves that you are a liar or have reading comprehension difficulties.
Now which is it as you seem unable to bring the quote?! :Police:
-
Do you work within the community as an advocate for gay rights or something?
No - I consider it every person's duty to defend the rights of your fellow human beings, and to challenge prejudice and discrimination.
So you're like a missionary sent to the colonies, yet silent at home? Lehwe make a turn in Brixton nah.
Why do you think I'm silent at home? You know what they say about ASSumptions there Asylum.
There was no room nor need to assume. Let's examine the alternatives: you're being either contradictory, "hypocritical" or prevaricatory. At best, you're an ambiguous equivocator.
Lehme know when yuh reach Brixton (or Socapro's barbershop).
Asylum, you truly think that Tiresais commentary and opinions on homosexuality is ambiguous equivocation?. He has been very clear on his position vis-a-vis homosexuality. He might have been harsh with Congo but his description of the issue has been far from ambiguous. And exactly what is the equivocation part - the fact that he is vocal on homosexual discrimination but less so on what you would have liked to see on the slavery / capitalism discussion as seen from the non-British side of the debate ?
None of the above?! Those comments apply to this immediate exchange ... although his response bears the hallmarks he has applied elsewhere.
-
Yeah but there are anti discrimination laws to protect them against that sort of thing. That's why I believe that argument is nought. If they are offended then they could take action..I find gays in Trinidad to be fraudulent...Anytime a anti-gay statement is made, you never see them. All you see are a couple straight people who appear to be speaking on behalf of the gay community. A gay march in Trinidad would probably have 4 people in it. They are cowards.
Gays in Trinidad generally know their place. They are fully aware that their sexual lifestyle is a perversion of nature and hence they thankfully don't try to promote it to everyone else.
Regards discrimination most gays in T&T who are known to be gay are generally treated just the same as anyone else in the work place so they generally have nothing much to complain about in regards to discrimination.
I don't hear stories in T&T of gays being beaten up just for being gay but I do regularly hear stories of poor folks in certain areas being picked on by the police and being discriminated against when seeking employment just because they are from those areas and this is much more of a concern to me than so called Gay rights.
-
*sigh* you distrust my position, fine, but I don't tink his work is seminal. The response by the forum is completely over the top - accusing me of X and Y. All I said is that I don't consider it seminal, and you're coming out with this? And you're tolerant?
All you said is that you don't consider it seminal but your "attitude" in putting forth that position has been entirely dismissive of the scholarship, and further comments reveal your subconscious anti-colonial bias. Put another way, you dismissed Capitalism and Slavery out of hand without having any real basis for dismissing it. You still haven't put forth any substantive argument against it... you keep offering your irrelevant subjective take on the issue "I don't think it's seminal". Irrelevant because it is subjective, irrelevant because it is a distinctly minority opinion in academia. It is doubly irrelevant because your "subjective" opinion was arrived at without so much as reading the work or otherwise inform yourself so that you could independently formulate a basis for your subjective opinion. You can't offer bullshit and then complain that people are not later tolerant of the same.
-
Bakes you made a statement about French and Spanish plantations being inefficient - do you have any evidence for that claim?
Maybe we're crossing wires here because I have already stated that slavery was essential to the rise of Great Britain, the difference is that I understand that the question is still in contention in the literature.
As I pointed out previously, it was who gained these profits, no the profits themselves that determined the path of Britain's development in my opinion, simply because the profit itself from the colonies was not high enough to matter in terms of gross national investment. Whilst Britain could wrest teh seas from Spain it still had The Netherlands to contend with - they were a major threat to British shipping into the 1700s, which necessitated massive expenditure to maintain the world's largest fleet. This was a major burden for teh nation's coffers, not to mention the stationing of troops across the world who need to be supplied and maintained. Maintaining the colonies was in short very costly to the British Exchequer, further limiting the profits of slavery and colonialism to the state.
Could you please provide evidence for your positions - I took/take the question seriously so I've provided ample evidence and references for my position - could you do the same please?
Come nah man... go back and properly read what I posted. I said the France and Spain weren't very efficient at extracting profits from the plantations in the colonies... is it NOT Mercantilism we're talking about? I made no comment on the efficiency of the colonial plantations themselves. British mercantilism was by far more ruthlessly efficient at reducing the profit margins generated by the plantations, in large part because Britain had naval superiority such that it could enforce embargoes against trade with rival European nations. The French and Spanish didn't have quite the same scale of production coming out of the colonies, and lacking the ability to enforce reciprocal trade embargoes against the British, couldn't prevent their Antillean colonies from trading with the British, in the same manner that the British could.
I'd be interested in your sources for this - where did you get the info? You make a number of assertions here - not "...quite the same scale of production..." and "Britain... was by far more ruthlessly efficient at reducing the profit margins..." that I'd like to know the source of. On the broader argument , this also doesn't counter my point that, as far as teh evidence currently shows, the amount of profit from the colonies wasn't enough on its own to have kick-started the Industrial Revolution - I strongly recommend Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson's 2005 work on "The rise of Europe: Atlantic trade, institutional change and economic growth." on this topic - it's really interesting to say the least and articulates the arguments better than I could. Again my contention is that the profit from the colonies wasn't enough, and that it mattered because it promoted certain social, cultural, political and legal norms that fostered development. These were essential to the IR and most likely wouldn't have happened without the colonies and slavery.
-
*sigh* you distrust my position, fine, but I don't tink his work is seminal. The response by the forum is completely over the top - accusing me of X and Y. All I said is that I don't consider it seminal, and you're coming out with this? And you're tolerant?
All you said is that you don't consider it seminal but your "attitude" in putting forth that position has been entirely dismissive of the scholarship, and further comments reveal your subconscious anti-colonial bias. Put another way, you dismissed Capitalism and Slavery out of hand without having any real basis for dismissing it. You still haven't put forth any substantive argument against it... you keep offering your irrelevant subjective take on the issue "I don't think it's seminal". Irrelevant because it is subjective, irrelevant because it is a distinctly minority opinion in academia. It is doubly irrelevant because your "subjective" opinion was arrived at without so much as reading the work or otherwise inform yourself so that you could independently formulate a basis for your subjective opinion. You can't offer bullshit and then complain that people are not later tolerant of the same.
I said it was important but not seminal! Again you lack comprehension and it's grating. Read my posts! I have an anti-colonial bias? Yes I disagree with colonialism vehemently, although I think you meant pro-imperialist? If so, you're utterly wrong, and again if you had read my posts you'd know that. I have absolutely NOT dismissed his scholarship - otherwise I wouldn't be reading it!
Just take the damn time to read my posts or shut up, you're showing your ignorance.
-
I only just spotted the highlighted paragraph above with an accusation from Pecan that included my name.
So Mr Pecan please bring the quote and show me where I ever said that I was a victim of unwanted sexual attention from a homo originally disguised as benign socialization and responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender?!
I've never been violent or have threatened violence against a Gay person in all my life not that it may not happen in the future if I am ever put in a position where I am left with no choice in order to defend myself from physical abuse or assault.
Some of you fellas are either dangerous liars or lack English comprehension skills. :shameonyou:
If Pecan is unable to bring the quote of me saying I was violent or threatened violence against a homo who made unwanted sexual advances then I expect an apology posted in this thread for his heterophobic lies within the next 24 hours. The clock is ticking! :Police:
You serious? are your sensibilities so offended you have time to look for reasons for and to demand an apology?
As I said if you cannot bring the quote of me saying I reacted violently to an unwanted sexual advance from a gay person then it proves that you are a liar or have reading comprehension difficulties.
Now which is it as you seem unable to bring the quote?! :Police:
LOL, are you backing off on the apology demand?
I said I was done with the homosexual debate, but I am being dragged back into it with a 24 warning no less.
Here is where you stated that you had been subject to unwanted sexual attentions. (I used the word victim to describe you as that is an appropriate word to describe the target of sexual assaults or the targets of unwanted sexual attentions)
... To question 2. yes I have been asked on a couple of occasions in the past. Once was when I went to the house of a male friend who I did not realise was gay. I of course left immediately when I realised why I was invited round to his house.
Sadly within a year of that incident he died and his family never revealed exactly what he died of but my strong suspicion based upon his sexual life style was that he died of aids.
In my post, the one to which you are objecting, I stated I think that they both responded . . I did not categorically state that you reacted with violence. And why did I say I think? - because I was left with an impression that reacting violently was viewed by you as an appropriate response. At the time, I did not make an effort to find the quote. So, with your demand for an apology, I went looking for it.
This is what I found as the basis for my comment - your response to Congo. You replied with three beer mugs count em, three. That was the cue that led me to concluded that you condone putting chrome to somebody head. That planted the "violent response" seed and that is why I wrote "I think ...".
Steups @SocaPro.... When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me. Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick. After that homie had very little to do with me and he became very professional. This after threatening to penalise me academically etc. I never outed him to anyone, he continued living his life with his smokescreens and all. That is most people's position, live and let live. Just don't come around me with that nastiness.
:beermug: :beermug: :beermug:
You are correct in stating that you never explicitly stated that you responded with the threat of violence or with violence. In that I was mistaken. Nevertheless, you seem to condone the threat of violence if not violence to the tune of 3 beer mugs raised in a toast. If my conclusion is wrong, then delete that 3-beer mug post and stop accusing me of lying.
And dont hold your breath waiting for an apology.
Your obsession with the Gay Agenda - I mean, you even made the effort go all the way back to page 4 of this 14 page thread to re-read it, your repeated insistence on how you feel about homosexuals; the number of threads you initiate on the topic and the number of anti-gay videos you post, are bewildering.
You keep talking about not having "... an interest in socializing with Gay work colleagues outside work ..." What does that have to do with anything unless of course you honestly think that gay socializing is all about bulling each other in the arse. Are you so insecure in your sexuality that you have to keep repeating that to yourself that homosexuality is wrong? Like a mantra?
People socialize because they have non-sexual things in common such as: work, hobbies, sports, friendship, theatre, festivals, food, parties, etc. You think that homosexuals don't do these things too, with their gay and non-gay friends? Your distorted sense of what homosexuals do in their private time is astounding.
Show me where I lied - not misspoke or misquoted or misinterpreted, but where I deliberately, knowingly lied. In fact, I too demand an apology - from you. I want you to apologize for accusing me of making heterophobic lies because three beer mugs is not a lack of reading comprehension. But unlike you, 48 hours will suffice. Ah, what the hell, I'll give you a week. But then again, I don't expect anything from you.
steups ...
BTW, Bakes "accused" you of watching too much gay porn. You going to demand an apology from him too? because he was obviously lying as well.
I already stated my view that I have no problem with Gays once they don't try to promote the perverted sexual act that they regularly engage in as natural and healthy to the general public. It becomes my business if it is pushed in my face at every turn and also if they try to promote the homosexual act as natural and healthy to children in our schools and against the wishes of the majority of parents.
Pushing something in my face that I find naturally disgusting is against my rights as a human being to not have to be exposed to it, its as simple as that. I have no problem once it is not pushed in my face on daily basis.
Let's examine this circular piece of logic... according to YOU, you alone determine your "rights", not a court, not a government, not an authority... you alone determine. So you find homosexual intercourse "naturally disgusting" so by extension anybody who participates in it, or who asserts their right to... are violating your "rights."
That piece of specious logic (being charitable here) aside, you claim that homosexual sex is being promoted in schools and being "pushed in your face." Like FF say... whey de hell you does be hanging out? In all my born years I never witness homosexual sex. Nobody never push nutten in my face... not even on de internet. Sounds like you does be watching gay porn den feel conflicted about it.
The only apology you will get from me is for the length of this post,
steups squared
-
I said it was important but not seminal! Again you lack comprehension and it's grating. Read my posts! I have an anti-colonial bias? Yes I disagree with colonialism vehemently, although I think you meant pro-imperialist? If so, you're utterly wrong, and again if you had read my posts you'd know that. I have absolutely NOT dismissed his scholarship - otherwise I wouldn't be reading it!
Just take the damn time to read my posts or shut up, you're showing your ignorance.
I lack comprehension, look fellah haul yuh f**king mudder c**t eh? Whole f**king thread yuh only reciting ah pack a f**kery and I've been doing my best to not insult and this is how you want to respond to me? You are rightfully being derided as the jackass that you are, since you've joined the forum you've proved yourself to be a master of making bombastic and unsubstantiated positions. The only f**king reason you're reading Williams now is because it's been made painfully obvious even to an inbred like you that you don't know what the f**k you're talking about. Your head's so far up your ass that you've taken the bullshit you're spewing as fact, polluted by your own ignorance as you are.
-
I said it was important but not seminal! Again you lack comprehension and it's grating. Read my posts! I have an anti-colonial bias? Yes I disagree with colonialism vehemently, although I think you meant pro-imperialist? If so, you're utterly wrong, and again if you had read my posts you'd know that. I have absolutely NOT dismissed his scholarship - otherwise I wouldn't be reading it!
Just take the damn time to read my posts or shut up, you're showing your ignorance.
I lack comprehension, look fellah haul yuh f**king mudder c**t eh? Whole f**king thread yuh only reciting ah pack a f**kery and I've been doing my best to not insult and this is how you want to respond to me? You are rightfully being derided as the jackass that you are, since you've joined the forum you've proved yourself to be a master of making bombastic and unsubstantiated positions. The only f**king reason you're reading Williams now is because it's been made painfully obvious even to an inbred like you that you don't know what the f**k you're talking about. Your head's so far up your ass that you've taken the bullshit you're spewing as fact, polluted by your own ignorance as you are.
Touched a nerve? You've made a bunch of claims without any evidence, whilst I spend way too much time laying out my arguments in detail and with evidence. But of course I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about? Go calm down and come back when you're more civil please.
-
I only just spotted the highlighted paragraph above with an accusation from Pecan that included my name.
So Mr Pecan please bring the quote and show me where I ever said that I was a victim of unwanted sexual attention from a homo originally disguised as benign socialization and responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender?!
I've never been violent or have threatened violence against a Gay person in all my life not that it may not happen in the future if I am ever put in a position where I am left with no choice in order to defend myself from physical abuse or assault.
Some of you fellas are either dangerous liars or lack English comprehension skills. :shameonyou:
If Pecan is unable to bring the quote of me saying I was violent or threatened violence against a homo who made unwanted sexual advances then I expect an apology posted in this thread for his heterophobic lies within the next 24 hours. The clock is ticking! :Police:
You serious? are your sensibilities so offended you have time to look for reasons for and to demand an apology?
As I said if you cannot bring the quote of me saying I reacted violently to an unwanted sexual advance from a gay person then it proves that you are a liar or have reading comprehension difficulties.
Now which is it as you seem unable to bring the quote?! :Police:
LOL, are you backing off on the apology demand?
I said I was done with the homosexual debate, but I am being dragged back into it with a 24 warning no less.
Here is where you stated that you had been subject to unwanted sexual attentions. (I used the word victim to describe you as that is an appropriate word to describe the target of sexual assaults or the targets of unwanted sexual attentions)
... To question 2. yes I have been asked on a couple of occasions in the past. Once was when I went to the house of a male friend who I did not realise was gay. I of course left immediately when I realised why I was invited round to his house.
Sadly within a year of that incident he died and his family never revealed exactly what he died of but my strong suspicion based upon his sexual life style was that he died of aids.
In my post, the one to which you are objecting, I stated I think that they both responded . . I did not categorically state that you reacted with violence. And why did I say I think? - because I was left with an impression that reacting violently was viewed by you as an appropriate response. At the time, I did not make an effort to find the quote. So, with your demand for an apology, I went looking for it.
This is what I found as the basis for my comment - your response to Congo. You replied with three beer mugs count em, three. That was the cue that led me to concluded that you condone putting chrome to somebody head. That planted the "violent response" seed and that is why I wrote "I think ...".
Steups @SocaPro.... When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me. Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick. After that homie had very little to do with me and he became very professional. This after threatening to penalise me academically etc. I never outed him to anyone, he continued living his life with his smokescreens and all. That is most people's position, live and let live. Just don't come around me with that nastiness.
:beermug: :beermug: :beermug:
You are correct in stating that you never explicitly stated that you responded with the threat of violence or with violence. In that I was mistaken. Nevertheless, you seem to condone the threat of violence if not violence to the tune of 3 beer mugs raised in a toast. If my conclusion is wrong, then delete that 3-beer mug post and stop accusing me of lying.
And dont hold your breath waiting for an apology.
Your obsession with the Gay Agenda - I mean, you even made the effort go all the way back to page 4 of this 14 page thread to re-read it, your repeated insistence on how you feel about homosexuals; the number of threads you initiate on the topic and the number of anti-gay videos you post, are bewildering.
You keep talking about not having "... an interest in socializing with Gay work colleagues outside work ..." What does that have to do with anything unless of course you honestly think that gay socializing is all about bulling each other in the arse. Are you so insecure in your sexuality that you have to keep repeating that to yourself that homosexuality is wrong? Like a mantra?
People socialize because they have non-sexual things in common such as: work, hobbies, sports, friendship, theatre, festivals, food, parties, etc. You think that homosexuals don't do these things too, with their gay and non-gay friends? Your distorted sense of what homosexuals do in their private time is astounding.
Show me where I lied - not misspoke or misquoted or misinterpreted, but where I deliberately, knowingly lied. In fact, I too demand an apology - from you. I want you to apologize for accusing me of making heterophobic lies because three beer mugs is not a lack of reading comprehension. But unlike you, 48 hours will suffice. Ah, what the hell, I'll give you a week. But then again, I don't expect anything from you.
steups ...
BTW, Bakes "accused" you of watching too much gay porn. You going to demand an apology from him too? because he was obviously lying as well.
I already stated my view that I have no problem with Gays once they don't try to promote the perverted sexual act that they regularly engage in as natural and healthy to the general public. It becomes my business if it is pushed in my face at every turn and also if they try to promote the homosexual act as natural and healthy to children in our schools and against the wishes of the majority of parents.
Pushing something in my face that I find naturally disgusting is against my rights as a human being to not have to be exposed to it, its as simple as that. I have no problem once it is not pushed in my face on daily basis.
Let's examine this circular piece of logic... according to YOU, you alone determine your "rights", not a court, not a government, not an authority... you alone determine. So you find homosexual intercourse "naturally disgusting" so by extension anybody who participates in it, or who asserts their right to... are violating your "rights."
That piece of specious logic (being charitable here) aside, you claim that homosexual sex is being promoted in schools and being "pushed in your face." Like FF say... whey de hell you does be hanging out? In all my born years I never witness homosexual sex. Nobody never push nutten in my face... not even on de internet. Sounds like you does be watching gay porn den feel conflicted about it.
The only apology you will get from me is for the length of this post,
steups squared
What a long-winded reply just to try to disguise the fact that I proved that you were lying!
And you don't have to apologize for your lie which suits me fine as it only confirms that you did it deliberately but at least you weren't allowed to get away with your yap yap BS! :beermug:
And btw I gave 3 cheers to Congos's post because he said that he was threatened with violence:
"When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me."
and he responded in kind which he was fully entitled to do as far as I am concerned as it is called self-defence and self-preservation in my book.
A good lesson I learnt many many years ago is that folks will only try to take advantage of you in life if they believe you would just sit there and take it and won't retaliate. So if you threaten me with violence then as far as I am concerned I am fully entitled to threaten you back. We need more mutual respect in this world.
If you paid attention to that Shadow song I posted the other day about "Human Rights" in this very thread then you would have fully understood why I gave 3 cheers to Congo's post but that does not mean that I condone violence against Gays.
However as you seem to find it difficult to engage those brain cells of yours sometimes, I can see why you would take me saying cheers to Congo's post as sanctioning violence against Gays. To spell it out for you what I sanction is a human's right to self-defense but maybe you are not smart enough to understand that so here is the Shadow song again to explain, hope you take a better listen this time. :beermug: :beermug: :beermug:
Shadow - Human Rights (1979)
https://www.youtube.com/v/pLI2oqm8LVs
-
Touched a nerve? You've made a bunch of claims without any evidence, whilst I spend way too much time laying out my arguments in detail and with evidence. But of course I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about? Go calm down and come back when you're more civil please.
Your intellectual arms are infinitely too short to touch anything on my end so don't flatter yourself. If anything I'm disappointed with myself for giving you the benefit of the doubt when others arrived at the conclusion much earlier to treat you with the contempt you so rightly deserve. You are an assclown of the highest order and henceforth will be ignored as such.
-
So I guess it's settled then - you are a racist.
Having resources like iron , coal and oil does not lead to industrialization . Cheap labor does and what is cheaper labor than slavery?
100% wrong - if cheap labour leads to industrialisation then all you would need is an abundance of labour. How can you make steel without coal and iron exactly? Where's your proof for this?
When one thinks of slavery they only think about plantations and agriculture and not on the peripheral factors like the financial and insurance industry that facilitated this evil practice ,
Then you think to narrowly sir. Barclays got rich off the slave trade, and a number of the institutions taken for granted today find their roots in the evil practice of slavery. Slavery is more than simply owning human beings - it's the whole infrastructure and social system engineered around extracting wealth out of expendable and transferable human beings. To limit your analysis to the plantation is to miss the wood for the trees.
The wealth generated by by these other industries allowed for the exploitation of the natural resources , but it all began on the backs of slaves..
Yes and no, as I pointed out in my points. It wasn't the money, but who got the money that was the critical factor.
If only the possessions of natural resources led to industrialization then Africa would have been the richest continent ,
Well no, because firstly the resources you're thinking of weren't exploitable by the locals without the appropriate technology and capital, all of which was centred in Eurasia. This delves into a deeper question as to why Africa did not develop on the same path or speed as Europe and Asia, which is a complex question to say the least. Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" has one particular thesis on this - namely that the geological and ecosystem factors alone favoured Eurasia over Africa and Latin America. I'd recommend that as a read if you're really interested in this question, which has some interesting hypotheses.
Europe was basically a backward continent and it only became rich after the discovery of the western hemisphere...
Europe was a backward continent circa 1000 A.D., depending on how you measure this, but by 1400 North-Western Europe had overtaken China as the most developed place on Earth.(see Maddison's seminal work "The World Economy: A Millennial perspective"). Europe's rise, thus, had started before its embarkation on colonisation. Indeed it would have been impossible for them to conquer such large swathes of the world without some technological or military advantage, given the relatively small numbers compared to the natives.
this combined with the inherently evil genocidal nature of the white man who mostly eradicated the the natives in their brutal exploitation of them and when they were done began their rape of Africa .
White men are inherently evil? They have a genocidal nature? This is such disgusting racism that it barely warrants a response, but I shall. You sir are a racist, and I think less of you for it.
They brought all the proceeds back to Europe and that is how they became rich and industrialized
As I've pointed out, in England's case the expropriation form the colonies was simply not enough to matter on its own, it mattered in an indirect sense, which is much more important in explaining their rise than the monetary value of the goods themselves. Do you have any evidence for your position?
Their evil nature was of such that after the slaves were freed that they opened the floodgates to European immigration in America especially for skilled tradesman because the whiteman in America could hardly turn a screw ... all the skilled trades were done by slaves and so further depriving the blackman.
More racism and unsubstantiated claims. European migration to America was already extraordinarily high before emancipation, so that point is plainly wrong. Where is your evidence for the claim about "all the skilled trades were done by slaves"? Where do you get your racist rants from? White men could hardly turn a screw? America was specifically targeting highly-skilled migrants from Europe, as the majority were unskilled workers from the poorer parts of Europe (Southern Italy and Ireland especially). However, the people who put them to work were clearly skilled - American Industrialisation was mostly home-grown in the sense that either the inventions and/or the implementation of the capital required was done by Americans.
All this talk about economic theories and the path to industrialization is all bullshit ... was done on the exploitation of African slaves and other indigenous peoples like in India . Indonesia as in the case of the dutch
Yes all this talk about reasoned evidence is bullshit, so you can make racist rants against white people. How about you remove your head from your arse and actually consider the fact that we're all human beings. Slavery is a blight on the history of the European powers, and that demands an understanding of how it came to be. Claiming that skin pigmentation caused it is a disservice to an important question.
In trying to dissect my points you comes across being disingenuous at best .
When I stated that the peripheral industries like Insurance and Banking were all parts parcels of the slave trade , you claimed that I think narrowly as if I was was not aware of this fact. You gave the example of Barclay but I can also add the Lehman Bros and Aetna Insurance to the mix .
Another fallacy that you stated was that North Western Europe surpassed China's GDP sometime in 1400 AD
Up until the eighteen century , China and India controlled half the world's GDP and dont quote some Eurocentric economic historian to try and refute this fact
-
Also don't ask me for any evidence regarding my posts , it is not my job to enlighten you . Go and look for the evidence yourself
-
What a long reply just to try to disguise the fact that I proved that you were lying!
And you don't have to apologize for your lie which suits me fine as it only confirms that you did it deliberately but at least you weren't allowed to get away with your yap yap BS! :beermug:
No disguises Socapro - I did not lie and was willing to let your accusation pass - but you insisted.
I explained the genesis of my comment and correctly concluded that your 3-mug salute condoned his response. My operative phrase was "I think ..."
You Shadow post was done on March 22, more than a week after my post that you are now taking objection to. Not relevant to your defense of your accusation. A poor deflection at best.
But it is your prerogative to ignore my explanation and continue to insist that I am a liar.
If that makes you feel superior then all the power to you.
-
What a long reply just to try to disguise the fact that I proved that you were lying!
And you don't have to apologize for your lie which suits me fine as it only confirms that you did it deliberately but at least you weren't allowed to get away with your yap yap BS! :beermug:
No disguises Socapro - I did not lie and was willing to let your accusation pass - but you insisted.
I explained the genesis of my comment and correctly concluded that your 3-mug salute condoned his response. My operative phrase was "I think ..."
You Shadow post was done on March 22, more than a week after my post that you are now taking objection to. Not relevant to your defense of your accusation. A poor deflection at best.
But it is your prerogative to ignore my explanation and continue to insist that I am a liar.
If that makes you feel superior then all the power to you.
As I already explained I am not one for threatening violence against Gays or anyone else but I am all for folks having the right to defend themselves in kind if threatened with violence.
If you were smart enough you would have worked that out and not be viewing my cheers to Congo's post about defending himself against violence as me advocating violence against Gays.
My cheers to Congo's post would have been the same if the initial person who threatened him with the violence to which he reacted was a straight person. I don't discriminate when it comes to a human's right to self-defense.
The Shadow song I posted was just to emphasize my position on "Human Rights" but you should have been able to logically work it out even if I did not post the Shadow song and so the date I posted the song should really be irrelevant to your ability to use your common sense.
-
Look, I raising a point of order here. Flex, Tallman, E-man really this thread supposed to be about Museveni. I heard an address from de interfaith community in Kampala praising de President for this law. I come to this thread and find page after page of unrelated banter most of which originating from Tiresais who supposed to be a moderator on the other board and should know better. What de hell?! Seriously, can all de slavery and colonialism stuff be moved out?
-
Look, I raising a point of order here. Flex, Tallman, E-man really this thread supposed to be about Museveni. I heard an address from de interfaith community in Kampala praising de President for this law. I come to this thread and find page after page of unrelated banter most of which originating from Tiresais who supposed to be a moderator on the other board and should know better. What de hell?! Seriously, can all de slavery and colonialism stuff be moved out?
Why? Threads often branch out into other areas.
-
Touched a nerve? You've made a bunch of claims without any evidence, whilst I spend way too much time laying out my arguments in detail and with evidence. But of course I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about? Go calm down and come back when you're more civil please.
Your intellectual arms are infinitely too short to touch anything on my end so don't flatter yourself. If anything I'm disappointed with myself for giving you the benefit of the doubt when others arrived at the conclusion much earlier to treat you with the contempt you so rightly deserve. You are an assclown of the highest order and henceforth will be ignored as such.
You make points but don't justify yourself - you're throwing out opinions without justification. You betray your ignorance sir - when you go away and read some of the relevant material hopefully you can come back with some relevant points to discuss.
-
In trying to dissect my points you comes across being disingenuous at best .
When I stated that the peripheral industries like Insurance and Banking were all parts parcels of the slave trade , you claimed that I think narrowly as if I was was not aware of this fact. You gave the example of Barclay but I can also add the Lehman Bros and Aetna Insurance to the mix .
Another fallacy that you stated was that North Western Europe surpassed China's GDP sometime in 1400 AD
Up until the eighteen century , China and India controlled half the world's GDP and dont quote some Eurocentric economic historian to try and refute this fact
I responded to your post point-by-point - how is that disingenuous? I'm giving you the undeserved respect of a proper reply.
No I said they developed past China. China's GDP is higher than Britains but do you think China is more developed? There are a number of ways to measure development, in history we focus on two more objective methods - GDP per capita and wage rates. The former is estimated to have overtook China in 1400 by Maddison. Exact timing isn't possible this far back in history, but certainly befor 1500 GDP per capita was higher in Europe than in China. The latter was roughly the same time for NW Europe - wage rates are a good indication because of the Malthusian trap I've mentioned earlier - it's a constant of world history that any growth, however tiny, in GDP per capita was typically eaten up with increased population growth, only rising when a "positive check" (Malthus' rather weird phrase, including famines, plagues and wars) lowered the population. NW Europe were the first countries to break this trap - managing to maintain rising GDP per capita incomes alongside increases in population, and this slow process started around 1400.
Here's a Google search of Maddison's work - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=maddison+gdp+per+capita&rlz=1C1ASUM_enGB476GB476&oq=maddison+gdp+per+capita&aqs=chrome..69i57.5055j1j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
The first search result was set up by his academic colleagues after his death in 2010 that talks about and updates his work. The second result is an excel file with the data if you're interested in it. On a purely GDP level, "India" (of course at the time it wasn't unified) was above China for a while as it had a higher population. No one is trying to refute that they held that much GDP - hell Maddison is likely the author of the figures you're quoting!
-
Also don't ask me for any evidence regarding my posts , it is not my job to enlighten you . Go and look for the evidence yourself
Bullshit. If you make a claim then back it up. If I tell you that Unicorns exist, and then tell you "don't as me for evidence, it's not my job to enlighten you" you should do exactly what I'm doing - call out your bullshit.
-
Look, I raising a point of order here. Flex, Tallman, E-man really this thread supposed to be about Museveni. I heard an address from de interfaith community in Kampala praising de President for this law. I come to this thread and find page after page of unrelated banter most of which originating from Tiresais who supposed to be a moderator on the other board and should know better. What de hell?! Seriously, can all de slavery and colonialism stuff be moved out?
Agreed Ribbit - we should move this discussion out of this forum. If I had mod powers I would have done :)
-
As I already explained I am not one for threatening violence against Gays or anyone else but I am all for folks having the right to defend themselves in kind if threatened with violence.
If you were smart enough you would have worked that out and not be viewing my cheers to Congo's post about defending himself against violence as me advocating violence against Gays.
My cheers to Congo's post would have been the same if the initial person who threatened him with the violence to which he reacted was a straight person. I don't discriminate when it comes to a human's right to self-defense.
The Shadow song I posted was just to emphasize my position on "Human Rights" but you should have been able to logically work it out even if I did not post the Shadow song and so the date I posted the song should really be irrelevant to your ability to use your common sense.
Please point me to my post in which I stated that you advocate violence against gays absent of self defense? to that I will apologize if I am wrong.
You accuse me of lying. I did not.
Now you accuse me of stating that you advocate violence against gays. I did not.
-
As I already explained I am not one for threatening violence against Gays or anyone else but I am all for folks having the right to defend themselves in kind if threatened with violence.
If you were smart enough you would have worked that out and not be viewing my cheers to Congo's post about defending himself against violence as me advocating violence against Gays.
My cheers to Congo's post would have been the same if the initial person who threatened him with the violence to which he reacted was a straight person. I don't discriminate when it comes to a human's right to self-defense.
The Shadow song I posted was just to emphasize my position on "Human Rights" but you should have been able to logically work it out even if I did not post the Shadow song and so the date I posted the song should really be irrelevant to your ability to use your common sense.
Please point me to my post in which I stated that you advocate violence against gays absent of self defense? to that I will apologize if I am wrong.
You accuse me of lying. I did not.
Now you accuse me of stating that you advocate violence against gays. I did not.
I see you are trying to play clever and dumb at the same time but anyone with a brain can workout what you were saying and implying in post below so I decided to make my position crystal clear to you and to everyone else least I be falsely accused of being homophobic by the gullible ones reading your post and taking it as gospel.
Both Socapro and Congo stated that they were victims of unwanted sexual attention originally disguised as benign socialization. And I think that they both responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender. And they have both made their positions clear on homosexuality.
I am curious if there are forum members who feel that they have been victimized. I have never been victimized and my views on homosexuals are liberal. Congo and Socapro have been victimized and their views are conservative, some would argue, even hateful and bigoted.
Just curious if anecdotal data supports my hypothesis. That's all.
And btw, when I was approached I did not view it as being victimized as you term it as I am not a fan of playing the victim card at every opportunity. I simply said I was not that way inclined and therefore was not interested and took myself away. Simple.
The only way I would have viewed myself as being victimized is if the perpetrator was in a position of power and insisted on making future advances even after I made my position clear that I was not interested.
-
Both Socapro and Congo stated that they were victims of unwanted sexual attention originally disguised as benign socialization. And I think that they both responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender. And they have both made their positions clear on homosexuality.
I am curious if there are forum members who feel that they have been victimized. I have never been victimized and my views on homosexuals are liberal. Congo and Socapro have been victimized and their views are conservative, some would argue, even hateful and bigoted.
Just curious if anecdotal data supports my hypothesis. That's all.
Ah not sure that "victimized" is ah word that covers the landscape. How about "offended"? How about "angered"?
-
Both Socapro and Congo stated that they were victims of unwanted sexual attention originally disguised as benign socialization. And I think that they both responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender. And they have both made their positions clear on homosexuality.
I am curious if there are forum members who feel that they have been victimized. I have never been victimized and my views on homosexuals are liberal. Congo and Socapro have been victimized and their views are conservative, some would argue, even hateful and bigoted.
Just curious if anecdotal data supports my hypothesis. That's all.
Ah not sure that "victimized" is ah word that covers the landscape. How about "offended"? How about "angered"?
Recall in my original post, I inserted the phrase "(my words)" as it related to the use of the word "victim".
http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=61701.msg887693#msg887693
I chose the word "victim" because I felt that it described anyone who was the target of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault. And there are many proponents of the use of that word as a tool to underscore the seriousness of sexual harassment and assault.
I have to agree with Socapro as it is an overused word. Congo was physically assaulted - so he was a victim of an assault. Not necessarily an inappropriate use of the word. The words "angered" or "offended" might be more appropriate for Socapro's example.
-
... what I'm suggesting is that there's room for all of these word choices and others.
-
I see you are trying to play clever and dumb at the same time but anyone with a brain can workout what you were saying and implying in post below so I decided to make my position crystal clear to you and to everyone else least I be falsely accused of being homophobic by the gullible ones reading your post and taking it as gospel.
Both Socapro and Congo stated that they were victims of unwanted sexual attention originally disguised as benign socialization. And I think that they both responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender. And they have both made their positions clear on homosexuality.
I am curious if there are forum members who feel that they have been victimized. I have never been victimized and my views on homosexuals are liberal. Congo and Socapro have been victimized and their views are conservative, some would argue, even hateful and bigoted.
Just curious if anecdotal data supports my hypothesis. That's all.
And btw, when I was approached I did not view it as being victimized as you term it as I am not a fan of playing the victim card at every opportunity. I simply said I was not that way inclined and therefore was not interested and took myself away. Simple.
The only way I would have viewed myself as being victimized is if the perpetrator was in a position of power and insisted on making future advances even after I made my position clear that I was not interested.
So you have now migrated from an outright accusation to "anyone with a brain can workout what you were saying and implying" in my post.
I was not implying anything - I clearly stated what I stated. I was hypothesizing that there might be a link between conservative views on homosexuality (and yes, some would argue that these views are hateful and bigoted - no obfuscation implied) and unpleasant experiences (the word I used was victimized) with members of the gay community. If you chose to believe anything else than what I wrote, then that is your issue.
I have lost count of the number of times you have stated your views oh how you "have no problems with Gays". You don't think that the less gullible would be more inclined to agree with you given the plethora of homosexual related posts and threads you have made? Why would they listen my "BS" posts that I made back on March 14 when you have repeatedly made your position known in this and the other thread. If you had not resurrected my posts, it would have died quietly, with no one the wiser. But no, you had to bring it up and give it air time for those gullible readers to ingest.
Back to Bakes post which you have so far ignored - as a PSA, I suggest you better clear up what Bakes speculated on, less the more gullible on this forum believe that too.
http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=61701.msg888725#msg888725
OK, I done. Feel free to reply to get the last word.
-
... what I'm suggesting is that there's room for all of these word choices and others.
agree
-
I see you are trying to play clever and dumb at the same time but anyone with a brain can workout what you were saying and implying in post below so I decided to make my position crystal clear to you and to everyone else least I be falsely accused of being homophobic by the gullible ones reading your post and taking it as gospel.
Both Socapro and Congo stated that they were victims of unwanted sexual attention originally disguised as benign socialization. And I think that they both responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender. And they have both made their positions clear on homosexuality.
I am curious if there are forum members who feel that they have been victimized. I have never been victimized and my views on homosexuals are liberal. Congo and Socapro have been victimized and their views are conservative, some would argue, even hateful and bigoted.
Just curious if anecdotal data supports my hypothesis. That's all.
And btw, when I was approached I did not view it as being victimized as you term it as I am not a fan of playing the victim card at every opportunity. I simply said I was not that way inclined and therefore was not interested and took myself away. Simple.
The only way I would have viewed myself as being victimized is if the perpetrator was in a position of power and insisted on making future advances even after I made my position clear that I was not interested.
So you have now migrated from an outright accusation to "anyone with a brain can workout what you were saying and implying" in my post.
I was not implying anything - I clearly stated what I stated. I was hypothesizing that there might be a link between conservative views on homosexuality (and yes, some would argue that these views are hateful and bigoted - no obfuscation implied) and unpleasant experiences (the word I used was victimized) with members of the gay community. If you chose to believe anything else than what I wrote, then that is your issue.
I have lost count of the number of times you have stated your views oh how you "have no problems with Gays". You don't think that the less gullible would be more inclined to agree with you given the plethora of homosexual related posts and threads you have made? Why would they listen my "BS" posts that I made back on March 14 when you have repeatedly made your position known in this and the other thread. If you had not resurrected my posts, it would have died quietly, with no one the wiser. But no, you had to bring it up and give it air time for those gullible readers to ingest.
Back to Bakes post which you have so far ignored - as a PSA, I suggest you better clear up what Bakes speculated on, less the more gullible on this forum believe that too.
http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=61701.msg888725#msg888725
OK, I done. Feel free to reply to get the last word.
You really feel people are dumb don't you? Maybe you should go into politics.
Anyone with a working brain cell could see what you said and what you tried to imply and I pointed out exactly why you were lying or for the least you were deliberately trying to mislead others reading your post about what I said.
Next time stop imagining things and trying to falsely imply to others who could be reading that it is true.
I've already debunked both of your points regards what you were "thinking" and falsely trying to imply and also why you were thinking wrong because of your twisted interpretation of me saying 3 cheers to Congo's post because he exercised his God given human right to defend himself from violence.
Now that you have clearly been shown up for trying to mislead others and for not being clever enough to see the clear logic of why Congo had to reciprocate the threat so that he would not be bothered again I suggest you should move on as you have clearly lost this argument.
If you had some shame and integrity you would have already apologized and moved on but I don't think you are noble and man enough to do that which is really down to your own personal shortcomings and not mines.
PS:
Btw I have not created a plethora of threads on this topic, there you go lying again. Just this one giving the current news of what was happening in Uganda and another one which I felt was worth discussing regards the obvious Gay Agenda that seems to be negatively impacting almost every country on the planet.
This thread only became one of the hottest threads on the forum because of the interest shown in the topic by you guys and in fact after starting this thread on what was happening in Uganda, all matter of related topics have been posted to this thread by posters like yourself which I am not responsible for.
In fact if you go back and check, after I started this thread I think I did not post to it again for a few days and the thread had already taken on a life of its own from you guys being obsessed with it before I decided to contribute some of my views on the topic.
Finally if you were observant you would have noticed that Asylumseeker quoted your post with the "Lie" as I view it in Reply #389 just before I replied in Reply #390 so I did not go back thru the old pages as you imagined that I did to resurrect anything as it was there steering me and everyone else in their face who were reading the latest posts added to the thread. Once again you are believing everything that you imagine to be true which is dangerous. When will you ever learn from your mistakes? ::)
-
Doh pull me into allyuh bacchanal... is picong I was throwing at Socapro, although yuh have to really question why he campaigning as hard as he is about something which he admits doesn't affect him.
-
Doh pull me into allyuh bacchanal... is picong I was throwing at Socapro, although yuh have to really question why he campaigning as hard as he is about something which he admits doesn't affect him.
I am not campaigning about anything, just debating points raised in this thread and defending my position and will not allow any fools here to falsely call me homophobic. Some of you guys can't seem to handle the fact that I can defend my point of view which is totally logical to anyone with working brain cells.
PS:
And btw Bakes you are an expert at twisting words which usually amounts to lying and sounding very convincing, no wonder you would make an excellent lawyer or politician.
I never argued anywhere that the Gay Agenda doesn't affect me as it does or will affect everyone on the planet if left unchecked. What I said is that I don't care what Gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms which is completely different argument.
-
I am not campaigning about anything, just debating points raised in this thread and defending my position and will not allow any fools here to falsely call me homophobic. Some of you guys can't seem to handle the fact that I can defend my point of view which is totally logical to anyone with working brain cells.
You self-triumphantly claiming that your point of view is "totally logical" doesn't make it so. I have pointed out your many contradictions, flat out erroneous statements and unsubstantiated assertions over and over again. It is a waste of an exercise engaging you in any sort of constructive debate, so don't slander logic by claiming it for your cause.
PS:
And btw Bakes you are an expert at twisting words which usually amounts to lying and sounding very convincing, no wonder you would make an excellent lawyer or politician.
I never argued anywhere that the Gay Agenda doesn't affect me as it does or will affect everyone on the planet if left unchecked. What I said is that I don't care what Gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms which is completely different argument.
I am good at what I do because I can smell bullshit a mile away and call it for what it is. You trying to slur me as a liar does nothing to mask the utter emptiness of your position. It is telling that the only other person to co-sign on anything that you've said is that other infamous half-wit, Ribbit. I'd be worried in your shoes if that's the best company I could attract. Retard that you are though, you actually take that as a compliment, and now contorting yuh elbows to pat yuhself on the back.
I specifically asked how earlier (and I'm not about to go back and look for it) how it is that gays or the so-called gay agenda affecting you. You responded with some hypothetical bullshit about "IF" it continues what might happen... and just so that I didn't miss the gist, you emphasized that you were saying IF. If implies uncertainty... something that may or may not come to pass, it doesn't describe a current situation. Therefore you dimwit, if it doesn't describe your current situation then it's not currently affecting you. It's really not that hard to understand. For all of your self-professed logical proficiency, it is evident that you're still struggling with the basics.
-
I am not campaigning about anything, just debating points raised in this thread and defending my position and will not allow any fools here to falsely call me homophobic. Some of you guys can't seem to handle the fact that I can defend my point of view which is totally logical to anyone with working brain cells.
You self-triumphantly claiming that your point of view is "totally logical" doesn't make it so. I have pointed out your many contradictions, flat out erroneous statements and unsubstantiated assertions over and over again. It is a waste of an exercise engaging you in any sort of constructive debate, so don't slander logic by claiming it for your cause.
PS:
And btw Bakes you are an expert at twisting words which usually amounts to lying and sounding very convincing, no wonder you would make an excellent lawyer or politician.
I never argued anywhere that the Gay Agenda doesn't affect me as it does or will affect everyone on the planet if left unchecked. What I said is that I don't care what Gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms which is completely different argument.
I am good at what I do because I can smell bullshit a mile away and call it for what it is. You trying to slur me as a liar does nothing to mask the utter emptiness of your position. It is telling that the only other person to co-sign on anything that you've said is that other infamous half-wit, Ribbit. I'd be worried in your shoes if that's the best company I could attract. Retard that you are though, you actually take that as a compliment, and now contorting yuh elbows to pat yuhself on the back.
I specifically asked how earlier (and I'm not about to go back and look for it) how it is that gays or the so-called gay agenda affecting you. You responded with some hypothetical bullshit about "IF" it continues what might happen... and just so that I didn't miss the gist, you emphasized that you were saying IF. If implies uncertainty... something that may or may not come to pass, it doesn't describe a current situation. Therefore you dimwit, if it doesn't describe your current situation then it's not currently affecting you. It's really not that hard to understand. For all of your self-professed logical proficiency, it is evident that you're still struggling with the basics.
Problem with you is that most of the time you don't actually point out any real contradictions in my position.
What you do is cleverly try to twist and misrepresent what I have said just to try to have a time wasting argument which simply amounts to an exercise in ego-tripping and trying to prove that you are more clever than everyone else.
I seriously don't have time for your time wasting and nit-picking exercises in ego-tripping right now as I am following the CL football games.
I may get back to dealing with your time wasting nit-picking and twisting after the games have ended.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Okay the CL football games are over and Bakes the King of nit-picking and twisting what people said in order to have an unnecessary argument is at it again. Let me deal with his irrelevant and twisted points.
The If's that I mentioned when you were previously allowed to waste my time with your ego-tripping unnecessary arguments was in regards to the teaching of Gay sex in schools.
I used both the words "If" and "when" because I recognize that not ALL schools are currently teaching Gay sex on their syllabus as morally okay to their students. I also did post examples of where it was already happening and where teachers and parents were not happy with the proposals.
However I also recognition that its one of the main goals of the folks pushing the Gay Agenda to have the teaching of Gay sex introduced in ALL schools around the world which will eventually have an effect on all of us who have young children attending school and are concerned about what they are taught as morally okay, healthy and natural.
So I made it clear that the aggressive Gay Agenda is a concern of mines and everyone else and anyone who wants to argue otherwise is a fool as I would not have posted this thread and the other one and contributed so strongly if it wasn't a concern of mines as it should be a concern to everyone else with children that cares about their future, their health and their morals.
However I did clarify on a number of occasions that what Gay folks do in the privacy of their bedrooms is not my concern and I don't think that gays should be victimized for doing whatever they choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms provided that it brings no harm to anyone else outside of themselves.
That is my position and it cannot be made any clearer and it is totally logical and based on the reality of what is going on around the world today and us all being more aware of what is going on and not all unwillingly falling victims to the Gay agenda.
However if you are personally happy to be a victim of the Gay agenda that is also your choice and good luck to you especially if you still wish to argue that it don't exist despite all the common sense evidence out there.
-
Problem with you is that most of the time you don't actually point out any real contradictions in my position.
What you do is cleverly try to twist and misrepresent what I have said just to try to have a time wasting argument which simply amounts to an exercise in ego-tripping and trying to prove that you are more clever than everyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Okay the CL football games are over and Bakes the King of nit-picking and twisting what people said in order to have an unnecessary argument is at it again. Let me deal with his irrelevant and twisted points.
Don't be an ass... and don't flatter yuhself. My life is accomplished enough that I don't need to prove anything to anybody on this forum, least of all that I am more "clever" than everyone else. That fiction that you have in your head adds nothing to my life, it doesn't pay my bills and it doesn't keep me warm and dry at night.
Further, I get paid very well to argue in real life... I don't have to engage in worthless pursuits on the internet just to get into or win arguments. Someone less invested in their emotions would be able to appreciate that I enjoy engaging in discussions on a wide variety of topics... not only here but elsewhere. Where something doesn't make sense to me I will explore that... if in the process it becomes necessary to bring you along as participant or passenger then that very well may happen, until it becomes unproductive... as this particular trip as become.
-
Problem with you is that most of the time you don't actually point out any real contradictions in my position.
What you do is cleverly try to twist and misrepresent what I have said just to try to have a time wasting argument which simply amounts to an exercise in ego-tripping and trying to prove that you are more clever than everyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Okay the CL football games are over and Bakes the King of nit-picking and twisting what people said in order to have an unnecessary argument is at it again. Let me deal with his irrelevant and twisted points.
Don't be an ass... and don't flatter yuhself. My life is accomplished enough that I don't need to prove anything to anybody on this forum, least of all that I am more "clever" than everyone else. That fiction that you have in your head adds nothing to my life, it doesn't pay my bills and it doesn't keep me warm and dry at night.
Further, I get paid very well to argue in real life... I don't have to engage in worthless pursuits on the internet just to get into or win arguments. Someone less invested in their emotions would be able to appreciate that I enjoy engaging in discussions on a wide variety of topics... not only here but elsewhere. Where something doesn't make sense to me I will explore that... if in the process it becomes necessary to bring you along as participant or passenger then that very well may happen, until it becomes unproductive... as this particular trip as become.
Thank you very much, and glad you finally realized that this fruitless ego-trip of yours is wastefully unproductive.
I was hopeful that you would get there in the end like I did a number of posts ago after our last fruitless encounter. :beermug:
-
Thank you very much, and glad you finally realized that this fruitless ego-trip of yours is wastefully unproductive.
I was hopeful that you would get there in the end like I did a number of posts ago after our last fruitless encounter. :beermug:
You clearly dealing with some kinda cognitive deficit... I was done with you a while now, I simply responded to tell Pecan don't draw me into allyuh thing, and give you some support as well by telling him is only kicks I was on with the gay porn thing. But yuh so friggin dotish that yuh couldn't even see that for what it was, yuh had to start back ah ole talk, now acting like I inveigle you into talk? Look fella go make ah blasted turn yes.
-
Thank you very much, and glad you finally realized that this fruitless ego-trip of yours is wastefully unproductive.
I was hopeful that you would get there in the end like I did a number of posts ago after our last fruitless encounter. :beermug:
You clearly dealing with some kinda cognitive deficit... I was done with you a while now, I simply responded to tell Pecan don't draw me into allyuh thing, and give you some support as well by telling him is only kicks I was on with the gay porn thing. But yuh so friggin dotish that yuh couldn't even see that for what it was, yuh had to start back ah ole talk, now acting like I inveigle you into talk? Look fella go make ah blasted turn yes.
I saw that for what it was you fool and I already stated in a post a while ago that I don't take much of what you post seriously anyway. ;D
Nice one! :thumbsup:
-
Findings on the hypothesis?
Did not see this post until it was brought to my attention yesterday.
Finding are inconclusive. Only two replies.
-
Latest update!
Pastor Manning is definitely making a fool of these Homos who have been trying to intimidate him!
Apparently the protest ended when some unemployed Black men who live in the community decided to chase the homos off their block!! :rotfl:
Hey Hey Ho Ho: All Homosexuals Got To Go
https://www.youtube.com/v/4xEULcGGUv8
Homosexuals protested outside the ATLAH World Missionary Church on Saturday, 29 March 2014.
-
Findings on the hypothesis?
Did not see this post until it was brought to my attention yesterday.
Finding are inconclusive. Only two replies.
The original language might have been too restrictive ...
-
Interesting!
Pastor Manning and John from Philadelphia address freedom of speech and the rise of a new American fascist state and also the disrespectful habit of homos always trying to attach their fight to the plight of what they view as the economically weak Black community.
John From Philly Explains The Humanist Homosexual Movement
https://www.youtube.com/v/rmUdvHfPGuw
-
I have been reading the recent exchanges between Tiresais and Asylum/Toppa. I am not schooled in the subject matter as these posters appear to be, notwithstanding their respective criticisms of each others knowledge and understanding of the issue. The contempt put forth by Tiresais is no more or less than the contempt put forth by his detractors - some may argue even less.
...
Asylum and Toppa, I was hoping that you would have delivered compelling arguments; instead you both chose to respond with comments that did carry any evidence-based weight that furthered your cause. In fact, Asylums comment that This is a Trinbago forum ... you should be mindful of the audience, rather than presupposing that responses are rooted exclusively in scholarly contention seems to suggest that scholarly arguments that critique a popular theory/hypothesis/belief should be tempered to avoid pushback and hurting the sensibilities or feelings of its members.
The original debate about skin colour and slavery seems to have devolved into whether Tiresais should be allowed to argue his position without challenging the work by Dr. Williams. The very essence of scholarly research is to acquire knowledge and if that means challenging well established works, then so be it. And in many cases, it may not be necessary to personally review foundational material if other scholars have already done so. While ideal, it simply may not be required.
...
Asylum, Toppa, make your case; instead of arguing that Tiresais arguments are not worthy of debate, prove him wrong (i.e., stop arguing semantics, or that he is wrong because he is wrong (or brainwashed as per Socapro) - that type of argument is for the school yard). As it stands, his arguments, to us unwashed, seems to carry a hell of a lot more weight than what you and others have collectively presented.
Since this post, I think these concerns (not merely the bolded) have been sufficiently ventilated and addressed.
-
...
With respect to slavery, the propensity to subjugate other races is more likely related to who wielded the bigger stick at the time of conflict. This propensity has nothing to do with skin colour and I would be surprised if that is the case. What the Europeans did vis--vis Africa and other countries they colonized was heinous and just plain wrong but likely no different than what other peoples, with superior firepower, would have done at that juncture in humanitys history. Given the inherent violence in human nature, I find it difficult to accept that any society united by race, culture or geography would have behaved any differently if their military might was superior to that of the Europeans; a common characteristic of human behaviour is that we are wont to kill each other just take a look around at the world today mind you, we are getting better.
Even with acknowledging the Burnsian notion of "man's inhumanity to man", this contributes dangerous suppositional reasoning that's perhaps a comfort to historical oppressors, and - to put it mildly - likely taxing and vexing to history's catalogue of the oppressed. One has doubts as to the comprehensive utility of applying ceteris paribus in reconstructing the history of the world. Inverting and conflating Arawaks into Caribs and Caribs into Arawaks is somewhat deontologically challenging, not to mention invariably reductionist and problematic.
-
I have been reading the recent exchanges between Tiresais and Asylum/Toppa. I am not schooled in the subject matter as these posters appear to be, notwithstanding their respective criticisms of each others knowledge and understanding of the issue. The contempt put forth by Tiresais is no more or less than the contempt put forth by his detractors - some may argue even less.
...
Asylum and Toppa, I was hoping that you would have delivered compelling arguments; instead you both chose to respond with comments that did carry any evidence-based weight that furthered your cause. In fact, Asylums comment that This is a Trinbago forum ... you should be mindful of the audience, rather than presupposing that responses are rooted exclusively in scholarly contention seems to suggest that scholarly arguments that critique a popular theory/hypothesis/belief should be tempered to avoid pushback and hurting the sensibilities or feelings of its members.
The original debate about skin colour and slavery seems to have devolved into whether Tiresais should be allowed to argue his position without challenging the work by Dr. Williams. The very essence of scholarly research is to acquire knowledge and if that means challenging well established works, then so be it. And in many cases, it may not be necessary to personally review foundational material if other scholars have already done so. While ideal, it simply may not be required.
...
Asylum, Toppa, make your case; instead of arguing that Tiresais arguments are not worthy of debate, prove him wrong (i.e., stop arguing semantics, or that he is wrong because he is wrong (or brainwashed as per Socapro) - that type of argument is for the school yard). As it stands, his arguments, to us unwashed, seems to carry a hell of a lot more weight than what you and others have collectively presented.
Since this post, I think these concerns (not merely the bolded) have been sufficiently ventilated and addressed.
Well I was hoping that Bakes would share his evidence/support for his claims before setting that to rest, sadly he get vex and left.
-
Socapro do you even attempt to get a well-rounded understanding of the issue, or is this man's inane ramblings the sole source for you?
-
Socapro do you even attempt to get a well-rounded understanding of the issue, or is this man's inane ramblings the sole source for you?
You believe whatever you wish (as I don't really care what you believe) and I will keep posting stuff that is of interest and very relevant to this thread about the ongoing Gay Agenda.
Even if you are slow I am sure that you will eventually realize that you can't control what I post to this thread especially when it is very relevant to the topic at hand.
-
Socapro do you even attempt to get a well-rounded understanding of the issue, or is this man's inane ramblings the sole source for you?
You believe whatever you wish (as I don't really care what you believe) and I will keep posting stuff that is of interest and very relevant to this thread about the ongoing Gay Agenda.
Even if you are slow I am sure that you will eventually realize that you can't control what I post to this thread especially when it is very relevant to the topic tabled.
Where am I controlling your posting? I am challenging you and your opinions, which is the right of all individuals in countries where free speech is guaranteed. Your viewpoint is narrow, puerile, and often relies on sources that are simply homophobic and paranoid. If your opinion is formed by this, your opinion has the same weaknesses. You refer to some "Gay agenda" - was there a "Black Agenda" during the civil rights movement? "Woman's Agenda" during their struggle? "Trinbagonian Agenda" during the isles struggles with colonialism? What is this "Gay Agenda"? What form does it take? Who are its backers? What is its aim? Why is this aim seen as undesirable?
-
Socapro do you even attempt to get a well-rounded understanding of the issue, or is this man's inane ramblings the sole source for you?
You believe whatever you wish (as I don't really care what you believe) and I will keep posting stuff that is of interest and very relevant to this thread about the ongoing Gay Agenda.
Even if you are slow I am sure that you will eventually realize that you can't control what I post to this thread especially when it is very relevant to the topic tabled.
Where am I controlling your posting? I am challenging you and your opinions, which is the right of all individuals in countries where free speech is guaranteed. Your viewpoint is narrow, puerile, and often relies on sources that are simply homophobic and paranoid. If your opinion is formed by this, your opinion has the same weaknesses. You refer to some "Gay agenda" - was there a "Black Agenda" during the civil rights movement? "Woman's Agenda" during their struggle? "Trinbagonian Agenda" during the isles struggles with colonialism? What is this "Gay Agenda"? What form does it take? Who are its backers? What is its aim? Why is this aim seen as undesirable?
:bs: Your words are empty and you are not challenging shit.
All you do is basically try to attack the character of the messenger rather than deal with the details of the message and hence I cannot and will not take you seriously.
Go waste someone else's time who is not concerned about dealing with what was actually said and shown in those two videos I posted above in Replies #54 & #55.
-
Socapro do you even attempt to get a well-rounded understanding of the issue, or is this man's inane ramblings the sole source for you?
You believe whatever you wish (as I don't really care what you believe) and I will keep posting stuff that is of interest and very relevant to this thread about the ongoing Gay Agenda.
Even if you are slow I am sure that you will eventually realize that you can't control what I post to this thread especially when it is very relevant to the topic tabled.
Where am I controlling your posting? I am challenging you and your opinions, which is the right of all individuals in countries where free speech is guaranteed. Your viewpoint is narrow, puerile, and often relies on sources that are simply homophobic and paranoid. If your opinion is formed by this, your opinion has the same weaknesses. You refer to some "Gay agenda" - was there a "Black Agenda" during the civil rights movement? "Woman's Agenda" during their struggle? "Trinbagonian Agenda" during the isles struggles with colonialism? What is this "Gay Agenda"? What form does it take? Who are its backers? What is its aim? Why is this aim seen as undesirable?
:bs: Your words are empty and you are not challenging shit.
All you do is basically try to attack the character of the messenger rather than deal with the details of the message and hence I cannot and will not take you seriously.
Go waste someone else's time who is not concerned about dealing with what was actually said and shown in those two videos I posted above in Replies #54 & #55.
What's the point? Both me and Bakes have responded to your trash videos point-by-point but you're too cowardly or too lazy to respond. If I respond to any of the videos you'll just make some close-minded statement like "well I believe X" and totally ignore rational points - as you've told us in the past. You post anti-gay propaganda and ignore all challenges. You're intellectually dishonest at best.
-
Socapro do you even attempt to get a well-rounded understanding of the issue, or is this man's inane ramblings the sole source for you?
You believe whatever you wish (as I don't really care what you believe) and I will keep posting stuff that is of interest and very relevant to this thread about the ongoing Gay Agenda.
Even if you are slow I am sure that you will eventually realize that you can't control what I post to this thread especially when it is very relevant to the topic tabled.
Where am I controlling your posting? I am challenging you and your opinions, which is the right of all individuals in countries where free speech is guaranteed. Your viewpoint is narrow, puerile, and often relies on sources that are simply homophobic and paranoid. If your opinion is formed by this, your opinion has the same weaknesses. You refer to some "Gay agenda" - was there a "Black Agenda" during the civil rights movement? "Woman's Agenda" during their struggle? "Trinbagonian Agenda" during the isles struggles with colonialism? What is this "Gay Agenda"? What form does it take? Who are its backers? What is its aim? Why is this aim seen as undesirable?
:bs: Your words are empty and you are not challenging shit.
All you do is basically try to attack the character of the messenger rather than deal with the details of the message and hence I cannot and will not take you seriously.
Go waste someone else's time who is not concerned about dealing with what was actually said and shown in those two videos I posted above in Replies #54 & #55.
What's the point? Both me and Bakes have responded to your trash videos point-by-point but you're too cowardly or too lazy to respond. If I respond to any of the videos you'll just make some close-minded statement like "well I believe X" and totally ignore rational points - as you've told us in the past. You post anti-gay propaganda and ignore all challenges. You're intellectually dishonest at best.
As I said I can't and don't take your side tracking, time wasting arguments seriously which mainly focus on attacking the messenger.
Until you look at both those videos that I posted and can comment honestly and with some logic on what was covered and discussed to confirm that you have looked at them, I am not going to waste my time trying to engage you.
Let me post both those videos again for those who missed them as I suspect you were trying to push them off the latest page in this thread so that no one else can get a chance to view them and give their feedback on what is going on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Latest update!
Pastor Manning is definitely making a fool of these Homos who have been trying to intimidate him!
Apparently the protest ended when some unemployed Black men who live in the community decided to chase the homos off their block!! :rotfl:
Hey Hey Ho Ho: All Homosexuals Got To Go
https://www.youtube.com/v/4xEULcGGUv8
Homosexuals protested outside the ATLAH World Missionary Church on Saturday, 29 March 2014.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pastor Manning and John from Philadelphia address freedom of speech and the rise of a new American fascist state and also the disrespectful habit of homos always trying to attach their fight to the plight of what they view as the economically weak Black community.
John From Philly Explains The Humanist Homosexual Movement
https://www.youtube.com/v/rmUdvHfPGuw
-
You really are paranoid aren't ya? I'm posting to keep them off the page? Man you have issues that extend beyond homophobia...
-
Even with acknowledging the Burnsian notion of "man's inhumanity to man", this contributes dangerous suppositional reasoning that's perhaps a comfort to historical oppressors, and - to put it mildly - likely taxing and vexing to history's catalogue of the oppressed. One has doubts as to the comprehensive utility of applying ceteris paribus in reconstructing the history of the world. Inverting and conflating Arawaks into Caribs and Caribs into Arawaks is somewhat deontologically challenging, not to mention invariably reductionist and problematic.
I would like to respond to this but I need to fully digest what I think you are saying - in a few days. :beermug:
-
Gay Agenda at Work?
Mozilla CEO resigns: Why anti-gay politics spelled his doom
EMMA WOOLLEY, Special to The Globe and Mail, Published Wednesday, Apr. 02 2014, 4:01 PM EDT,
Last updated Thursday, Apr. 03 2014, 3:24 PM EDT
UPDATE: Mozilla has confirmed the resignation of Brendan Eich, in a blog post from Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker that also apologized for the controversy: "We didnt act like youd expect Mozilla to act. We didnt move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. Were sorry. We must do better." The column below was written on Wednesday:
How much should we judge executives according to their personal beliefs? Thats the question raised by the latest Internet firestorm; this time it is over the appointment of Brendan Eich as Mozillas new CEO. Why? Well, in 2008, Mr. Eich donated $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, which aimed to ban non-heterosexual marriage in California.
On one level the appointment of Mr. Eich is no surprise: The inventor of JavaScript co-founded the Mozilla project in 1998, and when the foundation was established in 2003 he acted as its long-time chief technology officer. But it remains alarming. Mozilla markets itself as the leading innovator of all that is open and inclusive, and selecting someone who is anti-gay rights as its leader seems counterintuitive. In response, Mozilla issued a statement claiming its official stance is that it supports LGBT equality.
Allowing someone with these known beliefs to carry on and be promoted higher in leadership seems irresponsible, especially as this isnt the first time Mr. Eichs donation has ignited a firestorm for Mozilla. When it became public knowledge in 2012, there was a similar outcry but Mr. Eich stayed on and in fact, doubled-down on his beliefs. On his blog, he wrote: Im not going to discuss Prop 8 here or on Twitter. There is no point in talking with the people who are baiting, ranting and hurling four-letter abuse.
Throughout the post, Mr. Eich justifies his beliefs under the banner of diversity, which seems to mean being able to hold whatever anti-gay beliefs one has as long as they dont hurt anyone. (Unless of course youre just giving money to the anti-gay folks on the frontlines. Thats just fine.)
Along with bemoaning the people being mean to him on the Internet, he says: the donation does not in itself constitute evidence of animosity. Those asserting this are not providing a reasoned argument, rather they are labeling dissenters to cast them out of polite society.
It seems that a polite society at least in Mr. Eichs view is one where a person can actively support an anti-gay initiative and not have to answer to the people whose lives are impacted by its actions. By financially supporting a cause that said I do not view these people as deserving of all the same rights I have, and acting appalled when people were vocally upset about it, Mr. Eich was not taking responsibility for anything.
In a new post, Mr. Eich assures readers that he will uphold Mozillas community guidelines and work with LGBT communities and allies to listen and learn what does and doesnt make Mozilla supportive and welcoming. He makes no attempt to clarify his beliefs or why he donated, but points to Mozillas initiatives and asks us to trust him through show, not tell.
He tried again to convince Mozilla supporters that his beliefs dont matter in yesterdays interview with CNet, saying: Beliefs that are protected, that include political and religious speech, are generally not something that can be held against even a CEO. I understand there are people who disagree with me on this one.
Well, people might have been willing to let this particular belief slide if it wasnt for the whole actively-trying-to-diminish-gay-rights-on-the-side thing. Thats something people are going to rightfully ask questions about.
Financially supporting bigoted ballot propositions aside, its easy to talk about separating beliefs and work when those beliefs are ideological as it tends to be on the anti side of gay marriage debate. On the other side, those beliefs become oppressive forces that directly impact the lives of already marginalized people.
As a result, people think Mr. Eich cant be trusted. Mozilla employees are publicly asking him to resign, and other businesses have joined the cause by targeting Mozilla products. OKCupid asked Firefox users to consider using a different browser, and the founders of Rarebit announced that they were boycotting the Firefox marketplace.
In fact, its their story that really highlights just how personal these issues are. Being a binational gay couple, up until this summer when the Supreme Court overturned Proposition 8, Michael was here on a temporary visa, tied to his job, wrote co-founder Hampton Catlin. Luckily, he loved working there, but we were not able to do anything on our own. If you leave your job, you lose your visa. So, due to Prop 8, Michael was unable to co-found a business with me.
Good leaders embody the values of their organizations they dont just pick and choose between equality and an open web. If Mozilla truly wants to be seen as a fair and progressive foundation, it should reconsider who they place at the helm.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/digital-culture/mozillas-new-boss-in-trouble-for-his-anti-gay-politics/article17774743/?click=dlvr.it
-
You really are paranoid aren't ya? I'm posting to keep them off the page? Man you have issues that extend beyond homophobia...
There you go once again with your lame tendency for personal attacks and trying to mislabel others.
I don't have any issues but have simply observed that you always try your best to avoid anything that could make common sense coming from folks you don't usually agree with and have personally attacked, from being highlighted. I am not paranoid unless being observant of your behaviour makes one paranoid in your book.
Your posts are generally a waste of space and don't deal with details of the issue tabled outside of the name calling and trying to mislabel others which is simply a deliberate distraction from the real topic at hand.
-
...
With respect to slavery, the propensity to subjugate other races is more likely related to who wielded the bigger stick at the time of conflict. This propensity has nothing to do with skin colour and I would be surprised if that is the case. What the Europeans did vis--vis Africa and other countries they colonized was heinous and just plain wrong but likely no different than what other peoples, with superior firepower, would have done at that juncture in humanitys history. Given the inherent violence in human nature, I find it difficult to accept that any society united by race, culture or geography would have behaved any differently if their military might was superior to that of the Europeans; a common characteristic of human behaviour is that we are wont to kill each other just take a look around at the world today mind you, we are getting better.
Even with acknowledging the Burnsian notion of "man's inhumanity to man", this contributes dangerous suppositional reasoning that's perhaps a comfort to historical oppressors, and - to put it mildly - likely taxing and vexing to history's catalogue of the oppressed. One has doubts as to the comprehensive utility of applying ceteris paribus in reconstructing the history of the world. Inverting and conflating Arawaks into Caribs and Caribs into Arawaks is somewhat deontologically challenging, not to mention invariably reductionist and problematic.
What de f**k you talking about mate , I aint got a clue . Yes I got a grade 10 education but I do feel adequate in my comprehension abilities but Burnsian notion? I know that Mr Burns from the Simpsons is an evil man but what has that got to do wid anything?
-
Gay Agenda at Work?
Mozilla CEO resigns: Why anti-gay politics spelled his doom
EMMA WOOLLEY, Special to The Globe and Mail, Published Wednesday, Apr. 02 2014, 4:01 PM EDT,
Last updated Thursday, Apr. 03 2014, 3:24 PM EDT
UPDATE: Mozilla has confirmed the resignation of Brendan Eich, in a blog post from Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker that also apologized for the controversy: "We didnt act like youd expect Mozilla to act. We didnt move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. Were sorry. We must do better." The column below was written on Wednesday:
How much should we judge executives according to their personal beliefs? Thats the question raised by the latest Internet firestorm; this time it is over the appointment of Brendan Eich as Mozillas new CEO. Why? Well, in 2008, Mr. Eich donated $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, which aimed to ban non-heterosexual marriage in California.
On one level the appointment of Mr. Eich is no surprise: The inventor of JavaScript co-founded the Mozilla project in 1998, and when the foundation was established in 2003 he acted as its long-time chief technology officer. But it remains alarming. Mozilla markets itself as the leading innovator of all that is open and inclusive, and selecting someone who is anti-gay rights as its leader seems counterintuitive. In response, Mozilla issued a statement claiming its official stance is that it supports LGBT equality.
Allowing someone with these known beliefs to carry on and be promoted higher in leadership seems irresponsible, especially as this isnt the first time Mr. Eichs donation has ignited a firestorm for Mozilla. When it became public knowledge in 2012, there was a similar outcry but Mr. Eich stayed on and in fact, doubled-down on his beliefs. On his blog, he wrote: Im not going to discuss Prop 8 here or on Twitter. There is no point in talking with the people who are baiting, ranting and hurling four-letter abuse.
Throughout the post, Mr. Eich justifies his beliefs under the banner of diversity, which seems to mean being able to hold whatever anti-gay beliefs one has as long as they dont hurt anyone. (Unless of course youre just giving money to the anti-gay folks on the frontlines. Thats just fine.)
Along with bemoaning the people being mean to him on the Internet, he says: the donation does not in itself constitute evidence of animosity. Those asserting this are not providing a reasoned argument, rather they are labeling dissenters to cast them out of polite society.
It seems that a polite society at least in Mr. Eichs view is one where a person can actively support an anti-gay initiative and not have to answer to the people whose lives are impacted by its actions. By financially supporting a cause that said I do not view these people as deserving of all the same rights I have, and acting appalled when people were vocally upset about it, Mr. Eich was not taking responsibility for anything.
In a new post, Mr. Eich assures readers that he will uphold Mozillas community guidelines and work with LGBT communities and allies to listen and learn what does and doesnt make Mozilla supportive and welcoming. He makes no attempt to clarify his beliefs or why he donated, but points to Mozillas initiatives and asks us to trust him through show, not tell.
He tried again to convince Mozilla supporters that his beliefs dont matter in yesterdays interview with CNet, saying: Beliefs that are protected, that include political and religious speech, are generally not something that can be held against even a CEO. I understand there are people who disagree with me on this one.
Well, people might have been willing to let this particular belief slide if it wasnt for the whole actively-trying-to-diminish-gay-rights-on-the-side thing. Thats something people are going to rightfully ask questions about.
Financially supporting bigoted ballot propositions aside, its easy to talk about separating beliefs and work when those beliefs are ideological as it tends to be on the anti side of gay marriage debate. On the other side, those beliefs become oppressive forces that directly impact the lives of already marginalized people.
As a result, people think Mr. Eich cant be trusted. Mozilla employees are publicly asking him to resign, and other businesses have joined the cause by targeting Mozilla products. OKCupid asked Firefox users to consider using a different browser, and the founders of Rarebit announced that they were boycotting the Firefox marketplace.
In fact, its their story that really highlights just how personal these issues are. Being a binational gay couple, up until this summer when the Supreme Court overturned Proposition 8, Michael was here on a temporary visa, tied to his job, wrote co-founder Hampton Catlin. Luckily, he loved working there, but we were not able to do anything on our own. If you leave your job, you lose your visa. So, due to Prop 8, Michael was unable to co-found a business with me.
Good leaders embody the values of their organizations they dont just pick and choose between equality and an open web. If Mozilla truly wants to be seen as a fair and progressive foundation, it should reconsider who they place at the helm.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/digital-culture/mozillas-new-boss-in-trouble-for-his-anti-gay-politics/article17774743/?click=dlvr.it
What do you think or yuh too fraid to talk?
Well I think we will see more and more of this happening around the world until most folks are too scared for their jobs to say what they truly belief about the issue of Gay marriage from a religious perspective.
The days of freedom of speech and even freedom of choice could be rapidly coming to an end.
-
Lets try to get this thread back on topic. Here is some latest news from Uganda.
Anti-Gay prayers; Museveni: "Uganda doesn't need donor aid."
https://www.youtube.com/v/kHR8vBnstlA
President Yoweri Museveni has condemned western countries for allegedly attacking African culture, accusing them of attempting to give orders to African leaders.
Museveni made the comments at the National Thanksgiving prayers by the Inter-religious Council to celebrate the passing into law the Anti-Homosexuality bill.
Uganda's President backs new anti-gay law
https://www.youtube.com/v/HHC1t4VPaWI
March. 31 - During a rally with supporters, Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni voices his approval of a harsh new anti-gay law. Jillian Kitchener reports.
Uganda Anti-gay Law Celebrations
https://www.youtube.com/v/FY4CwW8dUdc
Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni says there will be no repeal of the country's new anti-gay laws. That is despite the threat by Western donors that they'll cut aid. Museveni was addressing a rally called to celebrate the new legislation. CCTV's Allan Cheror reports.
-
While I share the sentiments of Museveni on the gay lifestyle ,criminalizing the practice is plain wrong.
Gays in Uganda do not flaunt their gayness in gay pride parades or in demanding special rights . They are mostly closeted .
He comes across as autocratic and stereotypical as an African leader . Museveni is being influenced by Southern evangelical fundamentalist Christians like Scot Lively and Jim Corsi . Jim Corsi is a leader and founder of the Birther movement and these evangelical priests has no love for Black people here in the US, they are racist to the core and has found a useful idiot in Museveni.
This president has allowed Scot Lively to address the Ugandan parliament for 5 hours.
They Gays has a stranglehold on Obama and Miseveni is making a mistake in crossing these people .. The Uganda economy will suffer and moreover Museveni is sounding like an inflexible, unreasonable hardcore hateful christian fundamentalist zealot
-
While I share the sentiments of Museveni on the gay lifestyle ,criminalizing the practice is plain wrong.
Gays in Uganda do not flaunt their gayness in gay pride parades or in demanding special rights . They are mostly closeted .
He comes across as autocratic and stereotypical as an African leader . Museveni is being influenced by Southern evangelical fundamentalist Christians like Scot Lively and Jim Corsi . Jim Corsi is a leader and founder of the Birther movement and these evangelical priests has no love for Black people here in the US, they are racist to the core and has found a useful idiot in Museveni.
This president has allowed Scot Lively to address the Ugandan parliament for 5 hours.
They Gays has a stranglehold on Obama and Miseveni is making a mistake in crossing these people .. The Uganda economy will suffer and moreover Museveni is sounding like an inflexible, unreasonable hardcore hateful christian fundamentalist .
Based upon all the News clips I have viewed on the issue in Uganda, President Museveni only signed the bill into power because that is what the majority of people in Uganda were demanding and if he wanted to be voted back into power come elections then he had little choice but to sign the bill.
That has been my observation and if you view all the Uganda news clips I have posted to this thread you would realize that he had little choice IF he wanted to be voted back into power come elections.
From my observation signing the Anti-Gay bill was not President Museveni's personal unilateral decision.
He only did what the majority of Ugandans demanded.
-
While I share the sentiments of Museveni on the gay lifestyle ,criminalizing the practice is plain wrong.
Gays in Uganda do not flaunt their gayness in gay pride parades or in demanding special rights . They are mostly closeted .
He comes across as autocratic and stereotypical as an African leader . Museveni is being influenced by Southern evangelical fundamentalist Christians like Scot Lively and Jim Corsi . Jim Corsi is a leader and founder of the Birther movement and these evangelical priests has no love for Black people here in the US, they are racist to the core and has found a useful idiot in Museveni.
This president has allowed Scot Lively to address the Ugandan parliament for 5 hours.
They Gays has a stranglehold on Obama and Miseveni is making a mistake in crossing these people .. The Uganda economy will suffer and moreover Museveni is sounding like an inflexible, unreasonable hardcore hateful christian fundamentalist .
Based upon all the News clips I have viewed on the issue in Uganda, President Museveni only signed the bill into power because that is what the majority of people in Uganda were demanding and if he wanted to be voted back into power come elections then he had little choice but to sign the bill.
That has been my observation and if you view all the Uganda news clips I have posted to this thread you would realize that he had little choice IF he wanted to be voted back into power come elections.
From my observation signing the Anti-Gay bill was not President Museveni's personal unilateral decision.
He only did what the majority of Ugandans demanded.
If a poll was done in countries or places that are not Eurocentric say like the Caribbean , Africa , Asia, the results would be the same as in Uganda regarding gays .
It became an issue in Uganda because it was pushed by Museveni with help and resources from the hateful evangelicals to stir up the masses. A true states man would have diffused the situation and not let it reach the point where the lifestyle had to be criminalize .
Mark my words , this law will be rescinded after pressure from the Gay lobby and Obama from the States.
' I have this hypothesis that Putin is being punished , not because of Crimea but rather the laws he enacted regarding the gays in Russia but like I stated it is only a hypothesis.
The gay lobby in the States is all powerful and you don't f**k with these people .
Miseveni and Uganda will pay a severe price
-
What do you think or yuh too fraid to talk?
Well I think we will see more and more of this happening around the world until most folks are too scared for their jobs to say what they truly belief about the issue of Gay marriage from a religious perspective.
The days of freedom of speech and even freedom of choice could be rapidly coming to an end.
Why are you soliciting my opinion? You have already made it clear what you think of it.
However, I will answer:
Freedom of speech has consequences. You are appointed CEO of a company that embodies a certain set of values and you actively reject those values on the side and in doing so create backlash from employees and other stakeholders? Well he better live with the consequences.
-
Question: is the idea of an "agenda" considered pejorative?
-
Question: is the idea of an "agenda" considered pejorative?
Usually - "movement" might be less pejorative. As I asked a little earlier, was it a "Black Agenda", "Anti-colonial Agenda"? Agenda is a loaded phrase suggesting conspiracy, often acting against the public good.
-
While I share the sentiments of Museveni on the gay lifestyle ,criminalizing the practice is plain wrong.
Gays in Uganda do not flaunt their gayness in gay pride parades or in demanding special rights . They are mostly closeted .
He comes across as autocratic and stereotypical as an African leader . Museveni is being influenced by Southern evangelical fundamentalist Christians like Scot Lively and Jim Corsi . Jim Corsi is a leader and founder of the Birther movement and these evangelical priests has no love for Black people here in the US, they are racist to the core and has found a useful idiot in Museveni.
This president has allowed Scot Lively to address the Ugandan parliament for 5 hours.
They Gays has a stranglehold on Obama and Miseveni is making a mistake in crossing these people .. The Uganda economy will suffer and moreover Museveni is sounding like an inflexible, unreasonable hardcore hateful christian fundamentalist .
Based upon all the News clips I have viewed on the issue in Uganda, President Museveni only signed the bill into power because that is what the majority of people in Uganda were demanding and if he wanted to be voted back into power come elections then he had little choice but to sign the bill.
That has been my observation and if you view all the Uganda news clips I have posted to this thread you would realize that he had little choice IF he wanted to be voted back into power come elections.
From my observation signing the Anti-Gay bill was not President Museveni's personal unilateral decision.
He only did what the majority of Ugandans demanded.
If a poll was done in countries or places that are not Eurocentric say like the Caribbean , Africa , Asia, the results would be the same as in Uganda regarding gays .
It became an issue in Uganda because it was pushed by Museveni with help and resources from the hateful evangelicals to stir up the masses. A true states man would have diffused the situation and not let it reach the point where the lifestyle had to be criminalize .
Mark my words , this law will be rescinded after pressure from the Gay lobby and Obama from the States.
' I have this hypothesis that Putin is being punished , not because of Crimea but rather the laws he enacted regarding the gays in Russia but like I stated it is only a hypothesis.
The gay lobby in the States is all powerful and you don't f**k with these people .
Miseveni and Uganda will pay a severe price
I am not quite sure about that (highlighted in red), you need to view the full video below to fully understand President Museveni's position and exactly why he signed the bill into law.
Below is the full video of the Ugandan President's signing the law against homosexuality into effect and press conference (not the media edited version) where he also presents the details of what the bill addresses and also explains exactly why he eventually decided to sign the bill into law after first refusing to sign it because of the difficult question of if people can be born Gay.
President Museveni signs Anti homosexuality Law Feb 2014
https://www.youtube.com/v/rvssoW9H2AQ
Go to 11:40 for where he signs the bills and fully explains why he did, makes sense.
After watching this video anyone who is balanced and intelligent will understand why President Museveni decided it was in his country's interest to sign the bill.
Until you watch the video from 11 mins 40 secs onwards it is hard to make a balanced judgement on President Museveni being a tyrant as many folks are now trying to depict him as.
I think we all need to respect the choice of the Ugandan people and I support them in their rights to decide their own laws.
Scientific Findings:
The Ugandan President basically said that he decided to sign the bill because their panel of top scientists who also worked in conjunction with top foreign European scientists found out that for those who argue that some folks are born Gay, they discovered that 35% of the tendency was due to genetic abnormalities or nature while a much higher percentage 65% of the tendency was down to nurturing.
Apparently they did extensive tests including tests on identical twins in Sweden and came up with the results which proved to them beyond a shadow of a doubt that no one is born 100% Gay and that nurturing plays a much greater role (65%) than nature (35%) in practically all cases.
They also discovered that the majority of local Gays in Uganda were actually heterosexuals who were recruited into that lifestyle for financial reasons and who never viewed themselves as being born Gay.
I believe this is the summary of the new Ugandan Anti Homosexuality Laws:
1. It is against the law to recruit Ugandans into homosexuality and especially teaching it as acceptable to their children in schools
2. Ugandans must not break the law and allow themselves to be recruited into homosexuality
3. No public display of sex (applies to both homosexuals and heterosexuals) which should be done in a private area or in the privacy of your home.
4. Local Ugandans who are into the homosexual lifestyle should come forward and seek help and will be supported to help them move back into a heterosexual lifestyle as has been proven possible by the scientific evidence (35% nature & 65% nurture for those who considered themselves to be born gay).
5. Repeat offenders could receive life imprisonment but will be offered treatment and counselling in order to have their sentence shortened and can be released once cured.
6. Foreign homosexuals are totally safe from arrest provided they don't break any of Uganda's laws.
I may not be totally accurate but believe above 6 points are a basic summary of what the new Ugandan laws against homosexuality cover and how they will be applied. My summary of their Anti-Gay Laws is subject to updating as it is based on what I have gathered so far from viewing the various news items from Uganda.
-
Latest news!!
Pastor Manning willing to forgive homos who vandalized his church announcement sign if they attend his church service tomorrow Saturday 5th April at 11am and ask for their forgiveness.
After forgiving them if they attend the service and ask for forgiveness he is also willing to pray with his congregation to help cast out their homo demons so that when they depart they will hopefully go forth healed from their homosexuality and will sin no more!
ATLAH Church Willing To Forgive Homosexual Vandals
https://www.youtube.com/v/qwOc330Nqqc
This one will be interesting!! Pastor Manning the most entertaining Pastor on the Internet by miles!! :rotfl:
-
I suspect my views are very far from Pro & his pastor partner, but The Mozilla thing is real sh!t. (Although admittedly I ent know exactly yet how much pressure he was under to resign, or if he throw in the towel too soon).
-
What do you think or yuh too fraid to talk?
Well I think we will see more and more of this happening around the world until most folks are too scared for their jobs to say what they truly belief about the issue of Gay marriage from a religious perspective.
The days of freedom of speech and even freedom of choice could be rapidly coming to an end.
Why are you soliciting my opinion? You have already made it clear what you think of it.
However, I will answer:
Freedom of speech has consequences. You are appointed CEO of a company that embodies a certain set of values and you actively reject those values on the side and in doing so create backlash from employees and other stakeholders? Well he better live with the consequences.
Perhaps both intended and unintended ...
To quote Phillipe Couillard: "I would say that freedom of expression sometimes has unintended consequences."
-
Interesting interview with President Museveni on Hard Talk from exactly 2 years ago that also gives us his perspective on the promotion of homosexuality in Uganda before the new Anti Gay bill that he recently signed was presented to their parliament.
President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda On Hard Talk Pt,1-2
https://www.youtube.com/v/0vWAdY0uZvA
President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda On Hard Talk Pt,2-2
https://www.youtube.com/v/QjaqtTMF24c
-
Museveni is suffering from delusions of grandeur . Why does he has to have troops in Somalia fighting the AL shabab movement whose ideology is similar to his regarding homosexuality ? In addition he has troops in CAR,
He cannot even defeat the Kony movement in his own country . I am now more than ever convinced that this man is a fundamentalist christian fanatic
-
Museveni is suffering from delusions of grandeur . Why does he has to have troops in Somalia fighting the AL shabab movement whose ideology is similar to his regarding homosexuality ? In addition he has troops in CAR,
He cannot even defeat the Kony movement in his own country . I am now more than ever convinced that this man is a fundamentalist christian fanatic
Nope he is not and if you view the full video that I posted in Reply #460 above he clearly explains exactly why he is not during the course of the question and answer section after he explained why he signed the new bill into law.
-
Even with acknowledging the Burnsian notion of "man's inhumanity to man", this contributes dangerous suppositional reasoning that's perhaps a comfort to historical oppressors, and - to put it mildly - likely taxing and vexing to history's catalogue of the oppressed. One has doubts as to the comprehensive utility of applying ceteris paribus in reconstructing the history of the world. Inverting and conflating Arawaks into Caribs and Caribs into Arawaks is somewhat deontologically challenging, not to mention invariably reductionist and problematic.
I would like to respond to this but I need to fully digest what I think you are saying - in a few days. :beermug:
@ Asylum ... OK, I have some time now ....
So if I understand what you said (I had to use the dictionary :) ):
Postulating this scenario is dangerous.. why? because it "excuses" or explains or rationalizes Europeans' participation in the slave trade? and this indirectly sanctions their behaviour and diminishes the atrocities visited upon the oppressed? Therefore one should not engage in these "what if" alternatives because at best, it does not prove anything? Recall, this line of debate had its roots in a comment from ramgoat: "White people are responsible for all the evils perpetrated on humanity" - I was attempting to say that skin colour was accidental, and not the underlying reason for "evil". i.e. non-whites have the same propensity for evil as whites. While this comment may be vexing to the oppressed, it does not take away from the reality of human nature nor was it meant to comfort the oppressors.
-
As I told you folks they are going to start introducing this Gay nastiness to children in schools across America.
This is only the start folks, don't say I never warned you!
The Manning Report On Fistgate
https://www.youtube.com/v/AqfPEEdY18Q
The Manning Report On "Fistgate" Conference. Recorded 7 April 2014.
After viewing video you can go here for more details: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/
-
Young and Gay: Jamaica's Gully Queens
https://www.youtube.com/v/ILXVpFQVEbw
-
Interesting, depressing.
-
I have been researching into the original meaning of certain words we use today and discovered that the word "Bad" was originally used in Old English to describe a homosexual or paedophile.
Check it out people!
Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bad)
bad (adj.)
c.1200, "inferior in quality;" early 13c., "wicked, evil, vicious," a mystery word with no apparent relatives in other languages.* Possibly from Old English derogatory term bddel and its diminutive bdling "effeminate man, hermaphrodite, pederast," probably related to bdan "to defile." A rare word before 1400, and evil was more common in this sense until c.1700. Meaning "uncomfortable, sorry" is 1839, American English colloquial.
Comparable words in the other Indo-European languages tend to have grown from descriptions of specific qualities, such as "ugly," "defective," "weak," "faithless," "impudent," "crooked," "filthy" (such as Greek kakos, probably from the word for "excrement;" Russian plochoj, related to Old Church Slavonic plachu "wavering, timid;" Persian gast, Old Persian gasta-, related to gand "stench;" German schlecht, originally "level, straight, smooth," whence "simple, ordinary," then "bad").
Comparative and superlative forms badder, baddest were common 14c.-18c. and used as recently as Defoe (but not by Shakespeare), but yielded to comparative worse and superlative worst (which had belonged to evil and ill).
As a noun, late 14c., "evil, wickedness." In U.S. place names, sometimes translating native terms meaning "supernaturally dangerous." Ironic use as a word of approval is said to be at least since 1890s orally, originally in Black English, emerging in print 1928 in a jazz context. It might have emerged from the ambivalence of expressions like bad n!gger, used as a term of reproach by whites, but among blacks sometimes representing one who stood up to injustice, but in the U.S. West bad man also had a certain ambivalence:
These are the men who do most of the killing in frontier communities, yet it is a noteworthy fact that the men who are killed generally deserve their fate. [Farmer & Henley]
*Farsi has bad in more or less the same sense as the English word, but this is regarded by linguists as a coincidence. The forms of the words diverge as they are traced back in time (Farsi bad comes from Middle Persian vat), and such accidental convergences exist across many languages, given the vast number of words in each and the limited range of sounds humans can make to signify them. Among other coincidental matches with English are Korean mani "many," Chinese pei "pay," Nahuatl (Aztecan) huel "well," Maya hol "hole."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This gives a whole new meaning to the term "badman" that a lot of so-called tough Blackmen regularly use to describe themselves! :laugh:
So the moral of the story here is to always be careful of words you use to describe yourself if you haven't done research into the original meaning of the word.
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/dsUXAEzaC3Q
-
How come our T&T PM didn't think similarly about the need for a referendum before forcing thru the Run-off Elections amendment that is designed to help keep her government in office?
I sense clear double-standards here! :thumbsdown:
At least she is smart enough to realize that attempting to change that law without consulting the T&T public first can lead to her party losing the next elections.
PM: Gay rights not legally possible (http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-09-26/pm-gay-rights-not-legally-possible)
Published: Friday, September 26, 2014 (T&T Guardian)
This country is nowhere near ready to establish a referendum dealing with the decriminalisation of homosexuality and gay rights as it is not legally possible says Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar. She made the remarks while fielding questions from members of the local media after delivering yesterdays feature address at the T&T Investment Conference in Manhattan. At this moment it is not legally possible. The draft gender policy came to the Cabinet, discussed at length and given the very divided voices of Trinidad and Tobago. It will not be prudent for Government to proceed in that direction... its too divided. There is no consensus on that issue, Persad-Bissessar said.
Pressed whether decriminalisation was being considered, she maintained it would be unwise for Government to go in that direction. The PM also spoke on the topic while having the one-on-one conversation with Lakshmi Singh, an anchor for National Public Radio, based in Washington. Describing the issue as very touchy and sensitive, the Prime Minister said the policy was produced before the Peoples Partnership came into office in 2010 and it had never seen the light of day. This was because the previous government faced many persons who were against issues for decriminalising gays and our present government picked it up, dusted it off and put it for discussions again, Persad-Bissessar said.
She said tremendous opposition was faced, especially from the Roman Catholic Church, but the issue of gay rights, the PM said, was not really for the Government to decide. I think that is an issue that is not really for the Government to decide at this time in our country. It is an issue that the people must decide and therefore one that may require as a referendum to get the views of the people... personal views are not good enough. But at this time we are very divided in Trinidad and Tobago, Persad-Bissessar added. She urged that people should not be discriminated based on their sexual orientation.
-
She side step the issue quite smartly by blaming the Catholics for the opposition. Catholics are no longer the majority religion in TT.
-
She side step the issue quite smartly by blaming the Catholics for the opposition. Catholics are no longer the majority religion in TT.
I think they still are unless you're drawing a distinction between "practising" Catholics and nominal ones.
-
She side step the issue quite smartly by blaming the Catholics for the opposition. Catholics are no longer the majority religion in TT.
I think they still are unless you're drawing a distinction between "practising" Catholics and nominal ones.
Well a lot of people have left the church and they are now in penticostal churches. you have baptists, SDA, Presbytarians, Anglicans, Mormons, Muslim, Hindus. So I eh sure Catholics are the majority as before. They still influential and still have one holiday. That is Corpus Christi
-
I wonder if (the excuse) "Catholic" is supposed to be umbrella for all "Christian" type religions?
Side note.
Read recently where a St Lucia youth was given an appeal on his "refugee" claim in Canada based on his mother's claim that she is a lesbian and she is endangered in St Lucia. His claim is based on he was targeted as a kid as his mother was gay. The mother lost her case, but if his case wins (probably a precedent) he'll be able to sponsor her.
-
I have a hard time believing this woman is a lawyer... you never leave issues involving human rights to a a referendum vote. Imagine the Tutsi government holding a referendum on Hutu rights... or Americans holding a referendum on Native American rights? Madness.
-
homosexuality is not a human right .
It is sexually deviant behavior. Decriminalizing homosexuality , why stop there ?, Soon the pedophiles and the practitioners of bestiality will be clamoring for decriminalizing as well
::) ::) smh..........
-
Alright I offended by this thread title :D
anyway mods we better than that here, why not rename it 'Alternative Lifestyle' or something similar
Thanks :beermug:
-
Alright I offended by this thread title :D
anyway mods we better than that here, why not rename it 'Alternative Lifestyle' or something similar
Thanks :beermug:
"Thread dealing with Gay issues" will be a better title as not everyone posting this thread is Gay.
-
"Thread dealing with Gay issues" will be a better title as not everyone posting this thread is Gay.
I dunno seems like you quite 'happy' at home in this thread.
-
The only reason I don't like the word gay is because I can't ask ramgoat if he really gay(meaning happy)today.
-
Hate that gays took the rainbow colours from us ... They had no right .
-
Who deleted Ramgoat's comment and why?
-
"Thread dealing with Gay issues" will be a better title as not everyone posting this thread is Gay.
I dunno seems like you quite 'happy' at home in this thread.
Well guess I am just as comfortable in here as you are then, does that mean something in your mind?
Btw I am only posting here because I decided not to complain about one of the Mods moving my "Kamla say "Decriminalisation of homosexuality in T&T not legally possible"" thread to this one.
-
Well guess I am just as comfortable in here as you are then, does that mean something in your mind?
Btw I am only posting here because I decided not to complain about one of the Mods moving my "Kamla say "Decriminalisation of homosexuality in T&T not legally possible"" thread to this one.
You eh 'comfortable', you fixated... that was the implication.
-
Who deleted Ramgoat's comment and why?
the minute we start sanctioning the suppression of opinions we step into dangerous ground
-
Well guess I am just as comfortable in here as you are then, does that mean something in your mind?
Btw I am only posting here because I decided not to complain about one of the Mods moving my "Kamla say "Decriminalisation of homosexuality in T&T not legally possible"" thread to this one.
You eh 'comfortable', you fixated... that was the implication.
If going on about what you constantly think about makes you feel good then cool. :beermug:
I was actually looking to post article in the dedicated Kamla "Mis-steps" thread and couldn't find it so created a new thread which then got moved here by one of the Mods.
Kamla's mis-step on this occasion happens to be her double-standard about needing a referendum to change the law against Gay sex while she did not think they needed a referendum to change our voting system because it is seen as giving them an advantage in the next elections.
But I guess that is not your focus.
In fact I think I will try harder to find that Kamla thread and re-post the article there as I originally intended.
-
Who deleted Ramgoat's comment and why?
not just his/her comment, but other's immediately after and after brownsugars
like the UNC controlling this media as well ;)
-
So to the Moderator (Brownsugar?) who is deleting people's comments...what is the reason for this?
Only comments of a particular vein are now permitted? What nonsense going on here?
-
Is this the new normal? Reality show coming soon
-
Lol...Caitlyn got moved to the gays thread :rotfl: Is a man who identifies as a woman and engages in sexual relations with women considered gay? :devil:
As odd as Bruce/Caitly Jenner is, he's/she's still probably the most normal one in that family.
-
^^ Moderators quick to move it boi ;D
-
not sure if this the right thread but i see enough references from earlier posts regarding non-traditional or deviant behaviour.
what is this thing with the duggars? that fella is a 4king molestor. mike huckabee run to DEFEND him. those southern people does stick together. dem people eh right. ah guess dem and de catholic church share some common ground then.
steups - they running christianity into the mud >:(
-
well well..
Jamaica to host first Gay Pride celebration in August
http://www.loopnewsbarbados.com/content/jamaica-host-first-gay-pride-parade-august
Jamaican gays and lesbians will be staging its first Pride celebration in August, the Jamaica Forum of Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) has announced.
PRiDEJA 2015 will be held under the theme. "The Pride of a People: Breaking the Rules of Oppression".
JFLAG is using crowd funding site GoFundMe to raise funds for the project, noting on the website that "Every dollar raised will support our mission to bring our diverse community together for a moment of celebration."
The exact date of the celebration has not been disclosed as yet but JFLAG said "This independence festival will be attended by over 1,000 persons."
"Planned events include an opening ceremony, a symposium, a cultural show, a flash mob, sporting activities, a trade show for LGBT businesses, and a party," the lobby group said.
The event already has one high-profile supporter in the form of Jamaican recording artiste Diana King. King, who revealed she was a lesbian three years ago, took to social media on Sunday to share JFLAG's plea to the "World" to support Jamaica's first Pride celebrations.
Pride celebrations are held across the world to celebrate the LGBT community.
August is the same month as Jamaica's Independence celebrations.
-
Warner: Time to talk gay rights
T&T Newsday
Rather than avoid it, the nation must begin discussions on gay rights, ILP leader Jack Warner said yesterday.
Touching on some issues on the campaign trail, Warner said whatever his personal stance on gay rights, he will ultimately do what is in the best interest of Trinidad and Tobago. These remarks followed the Peoples National Movements position yesterday at its manifesto launch that it is an issue to be discussed.
Warner said, I dont think that I could say yay or nay to gay rights.
It is something I believe that has to be discussed on a wider level, and I dont think that I should impose my view on the nation or on anybody. And therefore I much prefer to have a wider level of discussion than before I say whether I am for or against. He continued, I believe that personal sexual preferences, they are private. However, if you use your sexual preferences to get benefits for others, by using state resources, then thats wrong.
And therefore I make a distinction.
Once you dont use state resources to benefit those who have your sexual preference. Warner was speaking during a walkabout after the launch of the ILP office in Cunupia.
He said he is expecting a vicious campaign against him by Prime Minister Kamla Persad- Bissessar and the United National Congress as a whole.
Warner, who has giving exposes on the Prime Ministers personal life, as well as members of her Government, said, I expect a vicious campaign, almost worse than (the) Chaguanas by-election. And we expect the Prime Minister to come here with tons of people to walk through here and make racial slurs about me. I also expect her to come here and talk about me negatively. Warner said though that he would do all in his power to not behave in the manner that he expects the PM to do.
However, he said that if he is pushed far enough, I will match them. Regarding the opening of his office in Cunupia, Warner said it is the third constituency office set up by his party. He added that representation and action must be the watch words of his party.
-
One ting about Ben Carson he speak his mind eh. This one a couple months old
https://www.youtube.com/v/PwVSQ5kGXMA
-
One ting about Ben Carson he speak his mind eh. This one a couple months old
https://www.youtube.com/v/PwVSQ5kGXMA
Proving his mind is full of crap. Seriously, he uses what happens sexually in confined same-sex prisons and evidence that homosexuality is a choice?
It's such a shame that people so ignorant about sexuality have such a popular platform to speak such bullshit.
-
Jamaican Government warned!
Urged to resist pressure from British PM to support gay agenda
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Government-warned-_19231117
RELIGIOUS leaders and other proponents of traditional marriage and the family have cautioned the Government ahead of today's visit by British Prime Minister David Cameron against caving to the gay agenda.
The call was made during a mass rally Sunday in Half-Way-Tree, at which the Portia Simpson Miller-led Administration was urged to resist international pressures to put the nation on a path to repealing the buggery law and legalising same-sex marriage.
-
Of all the problems in Jamaica, the civil rights of the LGBT community should be the least of their worries.
-
The results of yesterdays referendum showed a clear no vote for both same-sex marriages and same-sex unions in Bermuda
https://www.facebook.com/MyVTv/posts/1204524526232548
-
Someone showed me this video of T&T Pride Parade. I told them that this video does not look like any part of T&T that I know. Can someone please clarify.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0GFrxUYwgA
-
just looked up the restaurant in the first scene, Le Jardin Litteraire
is in Fort de France, Martinique, not Port of Spain
https://www.facebook.com/Le-Jardin-Litt%C3%A9raire-160569980674076/
plus the security t-shirts are in french 'securite'
-
I don't think is TT. I am almost sure that I is not TT.
-
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/bDnMzKtUmvKIAXAn.9AMNg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTAyNDtoPTY4NDtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/3ab907abcc35c579ab62b5ba21260f89fc097828.jpg)
Brilliant 'batty boy' challenging Caribbean homophobia
Paris (AFP) - He's brilliant and charismatic and should be one of Jamaica's heroes up there on the pedestal with Usain Bolt and the reggae and dancehall stars who stand in the long shadow of Bob Marley.
But Jamaica has trouble embracing the novelist Marlon James, even after he won one of the world's top literary prizes, the Man Booker, last year, the first Caribbean writer to do so since V S Naipaul 45 years ago.
The reason is simple. "I'm a batty boy," James told AFP, using the derogatory island slang for gay.
In Jamaica homosexual acts are punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Ragga stars like Buju Banton have called for the murder of gay men, and a string of horrific killings a few years ago prompted rights groups to brand it the "most homophobic place on earth".
Yet James argues that "Jamaica has come a long way" since. And he hopes the international success of his book, "A Brief History of Seven Killings" -- which turns on an attempted assassination of Marley in 1976 -- will help.
"It is still a very homophobic country, though it has evolved for the better in a lot of ways," he said. "Which doesn't mean I feel totally safe."
When the US-based writer returned in glory earlier this year to give the Bob Marley lecture at his old alma mater, the University of the West Indies, "people were really supportive but there was still a Facebook page saying, 'Should a homosexual be talking about Bob Marley?'"
- 'Inciting hatred' -
"You can imagine what the comments on it were like... The trouble is I know who put up the page. It is somebody who works in the arts, yet she's still a flipping homophobe, and has no problem inciting hatred.
"She said at one point, 'I read the book and I thought it was good, but should this batty boy...'"
What cheered him however was being invited to talk to the university's gay student association.
"I was so stunned we had one. Even if there was one I would never have gone," said 45-year-old James.
Ten years ago riot police had to fire on a mob who chased a gay student through the campus, and in 2012 security guards at the island's University of Technology beat up a man who had sought refuge from a similarly homophobic crowd.
Violence is never far away in James' "A Brief History of Seven Killings". Critics have called the book a virtuoso evocation of the dark days of the late 1970s, when rival political factions fought on the streets of Kingston, with the CIA arming gangsters to unseat the socialist Michael Manley -- who Marley supported.
- Cold War battle -
"Jamaica became another Cold War battleground," James said, "and as elsewhere the US ended with some very strange bedfellows."
But rather than stop his story at the failed attempt to kill Marley, who was shot in the arm and carried the bullet to his grave, James -- who also wears his hair in dreadlocks -- became fascinated with what happened to the gunmen afterwards.
"These men for the most part vanished. There are rumours about what happened to them -- who was shot, whose throat was slit, who was hung... Jamaicans made an effort to destroy them and make sure they never existed. Of course that fired my imagination," James said.
"I had no idea that two people involved in the Marley assassination became instrumental in bringing crack to America. So I followed the gun and murder and drug trail, and the CIA and the Cold War" right to 1991.
"The whole writing of this book was crazy. The very first paragraph that I wrote is now on page 458. I wanted to write something quick, brief and brutal," he added.
But the book ended up at nearly 700 pages. "It is some crazy shit," James laughed, "that breaks every rule, so don't ask me why it works. But it does."
.
-
Not sure if he shoulda go there :-X
In any case they can't discipline him for stating his beliefs....he just repeating what the bible say (his church's interpretation at least)
When I see the headline I thought he was offering a different kinda cure :rotfl:
I say the same damn thing.
I NOW seeing this thread. LOL!!!
-
Some real madness happening in Ontario. Dey trying to pass a law making it a hate crime to use de wrong pronoun when referring to someone in lgbtq+ community. Dey about to run a prof out of U of T. Anyone see these "new" pronouns used anywhere? Them millinials that come up with this idle as all hell. Steups!
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/10/19/u-of-t-tells-outspoken-prof-to-stop-making-public-statements
-
Gay rights activist launches survey to measure T&T's homophobia
RACHAEL ESPINET (NEWSDAY).
Two years after consensual homosexual sex acts were decriminalised by the High Court, gay rights activist Jason Jones wants to determine how heterosexuals feel about the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI+) community.
Jones announced this on Friday at 4Play bar in St James as he launched the T&T National LGBTQ+ survey.
On April 18, 2018, Justice Devindra Rampersad ruled that Sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act were unconstitutional and made it null. It was later amended to include the words without consent.
Section 13 criminalised buggery, either between a man and a woman or between two men. Section 16 criminalised acts of serious indecency which are defined as acts arousing the genital organs for sexual gratification. Heterosexuals were exempted from serious indecency once done in private.
Jones, a UK-based activist from TT, now wants to determine if the ruling has changed the public's perspective towards the LGBTI+ community in TT.
I think one of the things that is going very wrong, not just in Trinidad and Tobago, but in LGBT rights across the world, is we are focusing on the people who are enemies. A lot of advocacy is focusing on trying to change hearts and minds. I disagree with that idea.
I think if somebody's mind is cold and hard, if they're racist, if they're homophobic, if they are transphobic. We shouldn't be wasting our time trying to change their hearts and minds, Jones said.
Under a score of LGBTI+ people and their allies gathered at the bar while the event was streamed live on Facebook.
Jones said after his victory in the court, he believes homophobic rhetoric has decreased in the country. He wants to measure if his assumption is true.
The hearts and minds that I want to focus on are within my community. The fact that LGBT people can see themselves differently. After the victory in 2018, that's who I want to grab, that's the people I want to say, You take your pride and take that back into your community. And the only way to do that is by knowing what your community feels about you.
Jones partners in this survey are Dr Keon West, a tenured associate professor in social psychology from Goldsmiths, University of London and Prof Rose-Marie Belle Antione, dean of law at the University of the West Indies.
Students from the law faculty will help conduct the research. He is unsure of when the survey will begin but said it would take place over four weeks in eight parts of the country.
He said the survey is 75 per cent finalised and he welcomes input from interested people.
Anyone who wants to add a question to the survey can email ttnationalsurvey@gmail.com.
(https://newsday.co.tt/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/7773871-1024x620.jpg)
Gay rights activist Jason Jones, right, speak to invited guests at the launch of LGBTQ+ survey for TT at 4Play bar and lounge, St James on Friday. - ROGER JACOB