Homosexual Books for First Graders

[Sorovis]

Green pikachu: I must say I am pleased to see you've actually brought up points rather than insulting me in some way. First off, I did not say HURT, I said DAMAGED. There's a big difference there, one that renders your point here useless.

Refer to my paragraph above, and this point is also neutralized.

Death occurs naturally in life. Everyone eventually dies, and it is natural. Does that mean a man who wants to kill people, which naturally happens, should be granted his wish? Sorry if I am taking away his right to kill.

[Green_Pikachu]

first off, damage and hurt ARE the same thing.

and, killing is unnatural. death is natural. killing and death are different. no one has a right to kill. people do have a right to love who they want, however.

and you STILL haven't answered my question as to why homosexual couples don't deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples.

and, i've always made points in my posts. you're just too ignorant to understand them. sorry.

[Sorovis]

Explain to me how damage and pain are the same thing.

Killing is unnatural? Guess you should tell that to a lion.

Because homosexuality is wrong and avoidable.

[The Decapitated Mole]

Because homosexuality is wrong and avoidable.

...According to the bible and a bunch of mainly Christan heterosexuals. So tell me, where's the separation of church and state?

o_0
jimm

[Sorovis]

Actually according to many ex-homosexuals themselves and various scientists. I already explained where the seperation of church and state are, right here and right now. Please pay attention next time.

[Heald]

So tell me, where's the separation of church and state?

o_0
jimm

Here:

[The Decapitated Mole]

Here:

Amen.


And Sorovis, if church and state are indeed separated, then why should there not be homosexual marraiges? As I have stated earlier in the thread, I have read just about everything here, and most [if not all] of your arguments come from [gasp] the bible!

Also, in the cases you say that homosexuality is "avoidable," I think that it's more possible that they weren't actually changed, but lead into thinking so through therapy, or claim to be changed because they want to be considered "normal." Because I have several bisexual and homosexual friends, none of whom really want to be what they are, but they are nonetheless, because it is not, as you say, avoidable.

o_0
jimm

[Rei_Zero]

Well...let's see. When you are damaged, you feel pain right? When you get shot, you feel it, and it hurts. In a sense, when it comes to lifeforms, damage is hurt/pain, and therefore, it can be used interchangeably so long as it refers to something that feels. Of course, this doesn't apply to machines or rocks/other abiotic objects, but we still are in belief animals can feel physically, right?

[Sorovis]

Decapitated Mole: And most if not all of your arguments come from what then? You? Saying homosexuals were tricked into thinking they are straight is like me being tricked that I'm a male. If you are attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex, then you're heterosexual. Of course, by that I could say that homosexuals are tricked into thinking they are just that.

Rei Zero: Just because pain and damage frequently happen off eachother does not make them the same thing. What about internal damage you can't feel? Care to explain that? Besides, they are very different anyways; one is the destruction of the body while the other is electric impulses sent to your brain to signal the other. Not the same thing at all.

[Green_Pikachu]

Explain to me how damage and pain are the same thing.

i never said damage and pain are the same thing. way to read. i said damage and hurt are the same thing, which they are.

Killing is unnatural? Guess you should tell that to a lion.

funny, i didn't know we were lions. i thought we were humans.

Because homosexuality is wrong and avoidable.

first off, its not wrong. second off, its not avoidable. and even if it WAS wrong and avoidable, what does that have ANYTHING to do with homosexual couples not being allowed to have the same rights as heterosexual couples? Sounds like homophobia to me, alright.

[Sorovis]

The pariah: Hurt is to inflict pain upon somebody. Damage is to destroy some part of an object. It'd be nice if you knew what you were talking about.

So humans never hunt and kill animals then? Your argument is very flawed and vulnerable to attack, especially since you seem to have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you have any proof for what you are saying to make it a good argument, or are you just here to make me angry? Either way you have failed miserably.

[Checkmate]

If he was not written the book, would he still have refused to bow down before the romans gods?

Writing the book specifically was not the point. It's more so the fact that he was open about his faith. The romans didn't grab every individual out of their 54 million citizens and personally make them bow to the Gods. The reason they would have probably given Luke this test is that he was open about his faith. The fact that he wrote the book evidences that. My basic point basically puts one stark contrast between Homer and Luke. Luke wrote out of rebellion that could potentially (and ultimately did) get him executed. Homer wrote to put food on his table. This pretty much abolishes the notion that Luke embellished the 'tales' of Christ for entertainment's sake. Because of this Luke would care more about the truth of what he was writing than Homer would. Which was the main crux of my point.

That's of course if you take the version that Luke *did* write the gospel which bear his name. Which most serious historians do not these days, meaning Luke's overall fate is patentedly irrelevant to the discussion on the gospel writers.

While I don't have an overwhelming amount of reason to believe Luke didn't write the book, it would seem that the identity of the true writer is somewhat irrelevant. Whoever wrote the book ran a high risk of torturous execution, for being vocal about the faith. It is evident by the writing styles in both Luke and The Acts and the reference of both to Theophilus (Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1) that they are written by the same person. Therefore the accurate reputation that 'Luke' earned fromt the Acts could also be attributed to the book of Luke.

Finally Checkmate, there is enough historical evidence to believe a man named Jesus did exist (since we have no evidence such a man did not exist), I'll give you that. But frankly to claim that we have more historical evidence of him than of Abraham Lincoln - or any other American president (or heck, any other western world leader since the end of the middle ages - we have archives all over the place bursting with evidence on those people man!)?!?

I heard that from someone who most likely read it. If you object to my not being able to present evidence of such a claim I'll withdraw the specific statement. Again, more of an afterthought than an actual point.

Especially considering that as far as we've been able to ascertain (we meaning historians, not theologian - you don't ask an historian why god allow suffering, and you don't ask a theologian who did what in which year), we have no written evidence of the existence of Jesus whatsoever until 30, 40 years after he reportedly died.

On the quality scale, that's far below most of what you've tried so far.

30-40 years bare maximum. Unlike some historians that call it a hundred. Luke was the medic for St. Paul. For the Acts he probably got his information from Paul and then double checked everything with eye witnesses and other sources. Not to mention he would have probably witnessed a bit of the Acts himself.

30-40 years is not enough time for legends about Jesus to spread. That's another thing that presents a rough case for the accuracies of 'Luke's' writings. They were circulating while a couple thousand eye witnesses of Christ were still alive and could have corrected fallacies.

[Green_Pikachu]

The pariah: Hurt is to inflict pain upon somebody. Damage is to destroy some part of an object. It'd be nice if you knew what you were talking about.

at some points, the two words can be interchangeable. therefore, they have to mean very similar things, which they do. and, people can be damaged too...not just objects. it seems that YOU don't know what you were talking about.

So humans never hunt and kill animals then? Your argument is very flawed and vulnerable to attack, especially since you seem to have no idea what you're talking about.

yes, they do. but that's not what i'm arguing. if you looked at your own argument, you would see that you were trying to say men killing other men is natural. which it isn't, necessarily. Again, it seems you have no idea what you are even arguing.

Do you have any proof for what you are saying to make it a good argument, or are you just here to make me angry? Either way you have failed miserably.

what does this have to do with anything? You've yet to even answer any of my points.

[Damian Silverblade]

You are not wanted here, leave.

[Rei_Zero]

And you do feel internal damage Sorovis. You feel it when you overexcercise. You feel it when you hit your bruises. You feel it when an organ ruptures. When you have heartburn your feeling your stomache acid eat away at the linings of your esophaqus. Your feeling the ulsers burning on your stomache. You know that achy feeling that you have when you have a high fever? That's swollen lymph nodes putting pressure on the rest of your body.

EDIT:Checkmate, do you know how easy it is for people to accept relgion without proof? There is a village in China who worship a local rain god. He is based on a famour warrior from the 3 kingdom conflict. Even though he has nothing to do with rain, they heard about his "greatness" and somehow revered him as their rain god.

[The Rusted One]

The Rusted One: One thing that makes it so unnatural is the fact that the areas that these types of sex are performed in are not built to sustain it and can cause damage, as well as contract STDs much easier, as Checkmate pointed out.

Vaginal sex causes damage, too - the only difference, in fact, is that the epithelial layer of skin is slightly thicker in the vagina - but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily "built" to sustain the friction involved in sexual intercourse without damage. And again, the only "natural" thing about vaginal sex is that that's how reproduction happens - but divorced from that, as it is in most, if not almost all, situations, vaginal sex is no more natural than any other sexual gratification, really.

Are you in a bad mood or something? I said nothing about 'enforcing' meaning these practices were forced upon the animals, only that these 'enforcers' supported the idea of natural homosexuality in animals, such as you. You greatly overreacted to what I said.

Perhaps I was in a bit of a bad mood - but whether or not I had been, I would've asked the same questions, given the ambiguous nature of your attempt to explain it. Now, I'm a proponent of homosexual interactions in animals - but that doesn't mean I see them where they're not. I don't see homosexual behavioural patterns in sparrows, for instance, and yet, given the amount of sparrows in the general area, there is certainly a large enough population, and therefore enough opportunity for such behaviours to be exhibited, I haven't seen any such behaviour. Now, it's true that I don't spend a long time studying animals (though I am very much interested), but like any scientist and naturalist would, I wouldn't just assume the behaviour is there without proof. I could say that all chimps ate strictly bananas, just because it fits in with that great old stereotype of the typical Pan troglodytes individual - but the evidence suggests something to the contrary (and to be honest, they don't actually eat any such fruit in their wild state), so no matter what I thought, I would either have to provide evidence, or not suspect it to be true until I found evidence for it.

These day-to-day interactions could be easily misinterpreted, just like anything else. While you have more power on your side based on the overwhelming evidence towards it, I am going to research the matter further.

I think you'll find the fact that male bonobos give oral sex to one another (more commonly during their adolescence than adulthood, but not totally isolated to that period in their lives) hard to "misinterpet". Besides which, it would seem that if misinterpretation was involved, could your strict adherence to something that you proclaim to be fact but have no evidence to suggest it not just be misinterpretation of what you've been told in life, or someone else's misinterpretation passed down by others to you? The point is, scientific observations, such as animal behaviours, are not just accepted willy-nilly; repeated observations must be made of the same behavioural patterns are needed before any faith is put into the theory about what the behaviour is (for instance, it's a fallacy to say that because one lioness kills all the cubs in the pride that aren't hers, all do it - but it is not fallacious to say a male lion that does kill all cubs in a pride not fathered by him does represent the general behaviour of all male lions in similar situations because there are numerous observations, past and present, in totally different parts of the entire range of the Panthera leo species, of the same behaviour being exhibited).

Comparing Christians and other religious people to homosexuals is once again inaccurate.

Let me clarify for the upteenth time, then - I am not comparing homosexuality to Christianity; I am comparing the fact that both people have been victimised at times but neither have rolled over and played dead just because they were trodden on.

First of all we are debating here why or why not homosexuality is wrong; we still have several points up to support our case of homosexuality being unnatural and reversable.

Which I am yet to see, apparently. Not to sound rude, or anything, but there is no scientific evidence that you have provided that cannot be explained by scientific theory, or is unquestionable in the face of scientific knowledge. Sure, you can claim that you can question the evidence we have provided, but you can only do so with reference to the Bible, which is not a scientific document, nor a scientifically recognised source of accurate information.

A Christian being called biggoted because of their beliefs could be applied to any living person in the world; atheist, religous, whatever.

Of course; although an Atheist that says, "I don't share your beliefs, but you're free to have them and experience as many rights as I do," is not a bigot. A Christian who says, "I'm not a bigot, or homophobic, or racist, but people who are different from me in a way I see as unnatural should not be tolerated and should not be given equal rights and equal respect," is.

Yes you did compare the two in your previous post on marriage; and yes, it is relevant if you choose to read it further. You must know by now that I say homosexuality is unnatural and reversable. Being african american is not. There, the point IS relevant.

But you provide no evidence that cannot be refuted that homosexuality is unnatural. Or reversable, actually, as I've explained how that can work without "change". And, it isn't wrong - to say so is to say, "this is wrong, therefore I don't like it - but prejudice against it, even though I can't actually say it's unnatural with backing, at all, is perfectly fine." I know I compared one thing to another in that example - and I can do so because given the fact that Black people appear in history constantly, despite the hostility they more often than not received in return for their presence, and the same being true for homosexuality, it's quite likely that homosexuality is as genetic as being of a specific race is. However, just because you can see that a Black couple will have Black children, you assume that it's natural but homosexuality isn't - which is a fallacious (and downright ignorant) assumption to make. And, in fact, sometimes people with really dark skin have really light skinned children, too, so it goes to show you the variability within the genome for different characteristics given seemingly "normal" ones in the parents. Also, no, this comparison of homosexuality with being Black or some other ethnic group is a totally different case from the one about Black slavery.

You see, once again discrimination against african americans is different than what is happening to homosexuals. Read what I posted above. Also, Luke did see Jesus himself, as well as many of the miracles He performed and when he ascended into Heaven. I imagine what he believed had quite a bit of basis to it; especially since he saw it first hand.

No, discrimination against one naturally occuring group is the same as discrimination against another; the means may be different, but the intent and the result are the same.

Also, how can you tell me that Luke did see Jesus? You know he professes to have done so, but you cannot be personally sure that he did just because he says so - or, you would believe me when I say that I didn't choose to be bisexual, but you're full of statements and accusations that I chose to despite what I tell you. Why take the words of one person you don't know exists given the lack of proof aside from the claim that he's in the Bible over the words of someone you can quite readily prove exists due to the actual interaction we're having right now? Because it's written in the Bible, a vague, scientifically unsupported book that was written a long time ago when people were a lot less knowledgeable and had trouble with the differences in other people to the point that it was okay to actually own them as slaves based on race and country of origin?

Now, again, we come back to the issue of perception - Luke is saying he saw Jesus do something, which is far from credible given that I can say I saw my Prime Minister flying on wings of steel at 3pm this day, and write about it, and have...what kind of credibility? What kind of following will I garner with such a claim? None - but that's because people today are far less eager to give into to claims about fabulous happenings given that they are no longer so reliant on the existence of some "greater power" byu which such things may have been possible. Did Luke see any miracles? He said so, if he indeed said so - but that's it. There is no scientific backing for it, nor for Luke's existence, or for Jesus' (and really, the only reason people don't say they didn't is because it's hard to disprove the existence of an individual [I mean, if there's no evidence, it's safe to assume that they didn't exist, but if it's a person (not some all-mighty being), and other people exist, then it can be assumed that perhaps a man with that name did exist]), and there is no backing for any of the events that the Bible says Jesus caused to happen. Luke can say he saw something firsthand; so can someone with a vision impairment, or a mental disorder. I could say, too, that I saw something firsthand - but does that mean I actually did? Not at all. Where's the proof?

Once again, I have stated along with Checkmate that homosexuality is harmful; not only physically through sexual intercourse, but the mental effects it has on the mind (I recently read this). Christians supporting homosexual rights are not following the Bible, which clearly states it is wrong.

Consuming food causes internal damage, too, you know. As does breathing. Everything does - the thing that stops you dying is that your body is regenerative on the cellular level - so really, you get harmed slightly and you don't actually get harmed at all.

Also, exactly how does being in love with someone injure you mentally if it's a member of the same gender rather than the other? It seems far more likely that you're either "reading" your information off severly skewed sites based around religious intolerance, or you're making your information up - both of which instantly nullify the use of such information as objective evidence that isn't biased. And again, how does living the way that feels right to you mean the way you're living is wrong if you hurt nobody against their will? It doesn't - but then, it seems odd you say it would given your tendency to willingly discriminate and cause mental anguish to other people based on, well, baseless claims.

Also, who's to say which is the correct Bible to follow? Does the Bible say homosexuality is wrong, or does it focus on the intercourse aspect (again assuming that homosexuality is about rampant orgies rather than feelings and attraction)? Not that this justifies any such statement that homosexual intercourse is wrong, because there is no absolute in this case (and, wouldn't you know it, there's no such thing as 'gay sex acts', given that heterosexual couples engage in anal and oral sex often as well - and no, that's not to blame on homosexuality) - and trying to purport there is is a fallacy - and is also the basis of your entire argument, strangely enough.

That 'fit' I threw was saying I wasn't going to respond to your posts until you had palpable evidence supporting your point, instead of claiming yourself as a reliable source over us. An example of a fit would be if I sat there and said something along the lines of 'you should believe me I am right and I am better than anyone else I don't even know why I am here this is pathetic your opinion sucks'.

Ah, I didn't claim myself a reliable source over you so much - because you aren't a source. If you are a straight male and you're trying to tell me what it's like to be bisexual, how can you be a source of any information about being bisexual? You can't. You can also not cite a disconnected source that also doesn't know what it's like to be bisexual and try to tell me that it knows more about it than I do. And yet, you tried to do so - that's what your fault was, and that's what you couldn't understand. You hold the Bible to be absolute and infallible, and yet here I sit, able to tell you that I have personal knowledge it is fallible, and it isn't absolute - so immediately I become the one who doesn't know, despite the fact that I will know because it's me, not you, nor anyone else.

How do I put this: I am not homophobic. Did I ever say homosexuals should be second class citizens? No, this is what you THOUGHT I said, and I did not say it at all. I have stated I am not homophobic many more times than necessary already and explained why almost as many times.

Claiming that homosexuality is wrong, and it is a choice, and people should be encouraged to "change", is basically saying, "they aren't good enough as what they are, so they should be made to change to better themselves" - i.e., "they don't count as proper people as they are." That's regarding them as second-class citizens, no questions about it. You don't agree that they should be given the right to marry, if it can be called a right, as straight people are - that's denying them the same "rights" as other people. People can claim they're not homophobic, or racist, or prejudiced at all - but if they then turn around and act contrarily to what they've just said, then they're statement that they're not bigotted goes out the window. The label fits the actions; the label depends on the actions. You cannot claim a label and act in a contrary fashion. And, I can't remember if you first claimed you weren't homophobic or not (I suspect the former), but the thing with people who claim such things is that they tend to turn out to be exactly what they claim not to be, because they use it as a kind of defence mechanism - "I know this isn't very nice, and it's quite hurtful, really, but don't think that I hate what I hate and judge me for it."

[The Decapitated Mole]

Decapitated Mole: And most if not all of your arguments come from what then? You? Saying homosexuals were tricked into thinking they are straight is like me being tricked that I'm a male. If you are attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex, then you're heterosexual. Of course, by that I could say that homosexuals are tricked into thinking they are just that.

Honestly, I'd trust myself over the bible any day.

Also, I never said that they were 'tricked' into it, just that because of the therapy they went to and the beliefs that they were supposedly being 'taught,' that they started to think that they really were changing. More than likely, though, they were, as I said, lying to be considered more 'normal.'

o_0
jimm

[Checkmate]

"Bare Maximum"?

It's only the bare maximum if you assume Luke did write it. If someone else wrote it, then all bets are off on when exactly it was written.

As for thirty years not beign enough for legends and variations in how an event is told to show up?

My bad. I don't have as much ground to stand on as I thought I did, but I still have some. Christ was crucified approx. 30 AD. Paul wrote to the Christians about his resurrection at the most 5 years later. As far as Luke goes I don't have as much info on that as I orginally thought. However, his incredible historical accuracy is still a factor to be considered.

Today people believe strongly in conspiracy theory about the Mossad/Pentagon and 9/11 which was less than THREE years ago. Heck, they believed it within *days* of it happening.

This is a somewhat poor analogy considering the amount of reception it recieved. Christianity was a huge movement starting off. Keep in mind despite all the barbarious persecutions the Christians suffered they still had an enormous movement just a few years later. I can hardly say the same for the 9/11 theory of which you speak.

(note of course that they proably wouldn't be willing to die for that belief - but that has more to do with how important the belief is to them than with the point at hand, which is that it's *VERY* easy for popular legends about certain events to settle in, especially when faced with a dramatic event (ie, death of their guide) they didn't want to believe in. They wanted to believe that Jésus hadn't really (physically) died for good, and set about trying to evidence the claim.

Also, if you consider Foxe's Book of Martyrs a reliable source (and I doubt you do) I'd be happy to present some proof and history from that source as well.

People *strongly* believe these things today. Not everyone - just fringe groups - but that's exactly what the early christians were, a fringe group in the roman empire.

fringe group? hardly.

[The Rusted One]

My bad. I don't have as much ground to stand on as I thought I did, but I still have some. Christ was crucified approx. 30 AD. Paul wrote to the Christians about his resurrection at the most 5 years later. As far as Luke goes I don't have as much info on that as I orginally thought. However, his incredible historical accuracy is still a factor to be considered.

Nobody is above embellishment of a chosen story they wish to champion; like has already been said a number of times, some historical accuracy (or a lot, if it crops up in a case) does not mean absolute accuracy. Homer was able to align the appropriate customs and traditions to Mycenaean Greece when he could just as easily have employed his own culture's traditions in retelling the Iliad (to use an analogy already used before); he was surprisingly accurate given that there is no writing from the Dark Ages that separated Mycenaean Greece from the Geometric Age (writing was wiped out completely and reintroduced approximately 250 years later), and before that the only forms of writing we know that did exist, due to surviving fragments found, were palace inventories - indicating that writing was very much a practice associated with royalty, not the average Mycenaean citizen - and the writing itself was not in a script that any Greek after the Dark Ages could read, anyway. Homer wouldn't have been referring to any written sources, then, and yet he was surprisingly accurate, especially in the light of knowing that he didn't have to go to the lengths he did in order to accurately represent events that didn't happen.

This is a somewhat poor analogy considering the amount of reception it recieved. Christianity was a huge movement starting off. Keep in mind despite all the barbarious persecutions the Christians suffered they still had an enormous movement just a few years later. I can hardly say the same for the 9/11 theory of which you speak.

Actually, just because there has been no huge movement doesn't mean that there aren't people willing to perform one. Besides which, given the internet nowadays, there's hardly any need for any "movement" to be made outside of the internet itself - and face it, the likelihood of thousands of sites existing in proposition of the conspiracy theory, no matter how baseless, or how supported, it may be, is large enough to consider such a theory as having sufficient backing for it to be a "movement".

And I know that you weren't, or at least it appears so, trying to paint yourself the victim along with how many other hundreds of thousands of Christians in the world, and sure, Christians have suffered in the past, too - but that doesn't justify the current persecution by Christian groups and organisations, as well as individuals, of other groups such as homosexual people.

fringe group? hardly.

You obviously aren't familiar with Roman history, then. Rome wasn't originally Christian; it was as polytheistic as Greece was before its decline (the Empire itself was even more diverse than Rome itself because it was too large to have a single religious doctrine current from one border to the next). Christians were, in fact, far more a fringe-group than not - to suggest otherwise is folly, and is directly opposed to what we know as fact of the religious make-up of the Roman empire, and the later Roman Empire (two different concepts). The only reason for Christianity later becoming the official religion on Rome was because it was easier for a single deity than many different ones to be worshipped across the board (and almost everyone had some kind of religious belief, so inserting "god" into the place of something like Jupiter, or Zeus, or any other male leader of the gods [and most pantheons of the Ancient world did, indeed, depend on the concept of patriarchy rather than matriarchy, as did the general society itself] was not wholly impossible when it came to the various religious doctrines prevalent and present in the empire itself, and later in the Empire); and, the Emperor, seeing that claiming the will of the divine to be behind his rule, could easily assert that a single divine being, unquestioned by any others, stood behind him and that he had the divine right to rule (a motif carried on into many later European societies and cultures).

[Damian Silverblade]

What would you call them them?

http://www.incommunion.org/misc/Chap...yrSoldiers.asp (and this is a religious site).

At the time of Constantine, the percentage of Christians in the Roman Empire was perhaps 10-15%. This is 300 years (roughly) past Jesus' death, and according to the claims of apologist christians. Atheist put it as low as 3% even then.

http://www.cc-ob.org/sermons/1997/0497d.htm (and this is another religious site)

Estimated 3000 christians throughout the Roman Empire as late as 60AD. The *city* of Rome alone had near 1 000 000 inhabitants - and that's just Rome proper.

That, my friend, is pretty much a fringe group of the Roman Empire, seeing as the estimates to be found online range from 85-90 millions or so just before 0 to 60 millions (according to certain sources, others go as high as 100) circa 300 - meaning we can estimate (taking the lower estimate for roman empire population) the christians around the writing of the gospel made up about 0.005% of the roman empire. That falls down to 0.003% (aproximatively) if you take the upper population estimates.

Seems like enough of a fringe group to me.

[Sorovis]

Rei Zero: You do not always feel pain when you have internal injuries; so in that instance, pain is not associated with the damage.

Rusted One: I have said that vagi nal sex is meant to withstand that, and saying damage may occur does nothing to disprove that at all. Your head is meant to withstand trauma, but it will break if you hit it with a large hammer.

That next paragraph is done; it was made to correct a misinterpretation, and that has been completed, so let's move on.

Did I ever say that what you presented was necessarily misinterpreted? No, I said that things such as these could be, but not always.

That does not matter; their circumstances were different and it is therefor an inaccurate comparison.

Actually those NARTH sites I had up some time ago offered scientific evidence.

Actually, the only thing Christians are attempting to 'deny' homosexuals of is marriage, and they generally disagree with the practice in general (which you cannot argue against). Other than that they are treated as normal in the Christian perspective. Never did I nor anybody else say they were to be discriminated against totally because of that.

The Rusted One, any proof provided by anybody can be refuted; and you also have not given me any proof that homosexuality is genetic, merely possibilities. So until proof is given that is irrefutable, I'm not being any more ignorant than you are.

So how do I know you actually are bisexual? You profess to be, but I have not seen you so I cannot actually make sure that is true. I have told you again and again that no person has complete control or knowledge of their body, so no matter what you say, unless you have complete and absolute knowledge over your body you cannot say for a fact you did not choose to be bisexual. Where is the proof that all these homosexuals actually are homosexual? Maybe, like Luke, they are all lying, and it's some big conspiracy.

I never said the damage caused by unnatural forms of sex was minor.

Ah, here we are on the biased argument again. So I will return to my argument that anything you say could be considered biased. Going by that, anything written in favor of homosexuality by homosexuals would be biased, and that limits what evidence we have to very little. Again I bring up one of the scientists on one of my posted sites began his research with the preconception that homosexuality was genetic and irreversable. Guess what happened to him? He found out it was neither of those two.

And once again I bring up that there are heterosexuals who have at one point been homosexuals. They have personal knowledge as well, you know. Also, how does your claiming that the Bible is fallable prove that it is? I could say that Alexander the Great never existed and believe that. Does that make it true? Both the Bible and Alexander the Great have historical basis.

The thing is though, I believe homosexuality is wrong not just because the Bible said so, but because I have proof that it is not genetic, reversable, and harmful. I don't just look at one person's behaviors and label it as wrong or not.

[Rei_Zero]

You feel it, especially when it is sufficient enough, even if it is pain that you don't feel for a while(for instance, you liver blows and you suffer internal bleeding). Besides which the point, we are talking about situations where pain and damage are interchangeable.

[Sorovis]

And my point is that pain and damage are not the same. Simple enough; pain is an electrical signal, damage is destruction. There's not much more to say.

[Rei_Zero]

And I'm not disputing that (anymore at least). I am saying that in certain situations the two words are interchangeable, and in the specific case we are refering to it is.

[Sorovis]

And what specific case is this? The pariah said that a great many of things in life hurt. Some of these things, not all, cause actual damage, ie. growing pains hurt but they do not cause damage.

[Checkmate]

Damian, you're sites conflict. One site says 10-15% the other says .0003%. I tend to hold with the 10-15 argument. For one I've heard more estimates in that range than the other. Also, if you finish the paragraph you'll find this quote.

"It quintupled to 1 million by 250 and then rocketed to a staggering 6 million by the turn of 300. Over the next 50 years, the church more than quintupled again, producing some 33 million confessing Christians—half the citizenry of the Roman Empire."

Now 10% doesn't seem like a fringe group to me. If 10% of every one in the United States started following Johnny Joe-Bob I would say it's definetlly worth considering. After all, that's about 28 million people. I would say that's worth considering.

Yes, I know that the 33 million estimate was after 2 and a half centuries but I think that kinda helps further my point. I hadn't heard of the WTC conspiracy theory until you told me. So I doubt people will speak of it in the year 2254. Not to say this guarntees truth.

After all, Judaism, and Islam have lasted over a millenium each. I don't believe those are true. Darwinism will probably last another hundred years or so and I don't believe that is true. Lasting a long time doesn't guarntee validity. It does however, support it.
I'm mainly attacking your standing analogy, which won't last 250 years.

Now TRO, there probably are people willing to perform a movement. The clencher is there aren't enough.

I'd like to here a reasonable theory of yours to a good reason for 'Luke' to write the book at all if it wasn't true, considering it put him on the Roman radar. Calling it embellished is basically the same as calling it fictitious. Either way, you're calling false the main meat of the matter. The miracles and claims of Christ. Again, you haven't refuted the point that Homer wrote for a living. Luke wrote out of conviction despite insane persecutions. Therefore the analogy doesn't work.

I can't really explain why Homer knew all that stuff about the war. I know I have a friend who's a perfectionist and likes to get everything right. I know I like to make sure that what I'm stating as fact is fact whenever I write fiction. Yes, I know that analogy pales in comparison to that of Homer who didn't have the internet. But we also know that Homer was quite an exceptional human being and could have been downright obsessive-compulsive about those sort of things. I really can't explain.
However, if the Illiad is written like the Odyssey (admittedly, I've only read the latter) than it's written like fiction. In the Odyssey there was great detail and suspense put into Homer's battle with the Cyclops, as well as other events. The Bible is of a much more factual writing-style. There're just written differently. The analogy is really not that great.

TRO, I hope you're not implying that Sorovis, (the lately absent) Yeah5, and I are persecuting you.

Your fringe group statement is answered in my talking to Damian. Thanks Damian for that excellent evidence.

[Sorovis]

Also, to anyone interested, here is another site claiming that their are no ties between homosexuality.

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_biol.htm

[Damian Silverblade]

Checkmate, my sources are in general agreement. The 10-15% figure is 290 years or more after Jesus died - and it's the HIGHEST figure for THAT Time.

The 0.005% figure (and such) are from 260 years before that (roughly) - more than enough time for a small population to skyrocket, especially since the increase is not based solely on new births, but also on converts.

Trying to say "the one is true and the other isn't" is a simple plain case of you trying to twist words to make them say what you want even when they just plain don't - it's obvious that Christianty as a *GROWING* movement would have more adherent (and a higher percentage of adherent) in 320 AD than in 30 AD - anyone can realize that.

Claiming - as you just did - that their 320AD percentage would be the same as their 60AD percentage is just plain bullshit, not reasonable in any way imaginable and show a total lack of intelectual honesty in mixing up and ignoring the statements accompanying my figures. (Side note : the % of Christians in 350 AD is patentedly irrelevant since by then it was the official religion of the empire)

If that's the kind of argument you're going to be putting forth now, I'm sorry to say I'll consider this debate over.

[Green_Pikachu]

The thing is though, I believe homosexuality is wrong not just because the Bible said so, but because I have proof that it is not genetic, reversable, and harmful. I don't just look at one person's behaviors and label it as wrong or not.

you don't have proof it's not genetic, you have no proof it is reversible, and you have no proof it is harmful. and obviously, you are looking at someone's behaviors and labelling it wrong.

and guess what. you still never answered my question. stop dodging it.

And my point is that pain and damage are not the same. Simple enough; pain is an electrical signal, damage is destruction. There's not much more to say.

just so you know, no one ever said pain and damage were the same. i said hurt and damage are the same. which they are. stop debating the completely wrong thing.

[Green_Pikachu]

And my point is that pain and damage are not the same. Simple enough; pain is an electrical signal, damage is destruction. There's not much more to say.

just so you know, no one ever said pain and damage were the same. i said hurt and damage are the same. which they are. stop debating the completely wrong thing.

ps: my apologies for the "double post"

[The Rusted One]

Rusted One: I have said that vagi nal sex is meant to withstand that, and saying damage may occur does nothing to disprove that at all. Your head is meant to withstand trauma, but it will break if you hit it with a large hammer.

If you read my posts, I never said vaginal sex was unnatural, or less natural than any other kind; I was stating that, removed from the purpose of reproduction, as most sexual contact is in our species, it's no more natural than any other kind. Yes, your head is supposed to deal with trauma if it needs to do so; so are your other bones. It's not a brilliant analogy, I know, but you won't hit your head with a hammer just because if you hit your tibia or fibula with one it would break, would you? No. Why? Because the effects are bad no matter what way you look at it. I'm not saying sex is similarly bad - what I am saying is that the state of one variation is the same as the state of another if you look at what one is in terms of one specific quality.

Did I ever say that what you presented was necessarily misinterpreted? No, I said that things such as these could be, but not always.

Because you seem allergic to using the quote feature, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, here. I'm going to assume it's the claims you made about naturalists seeing what "isn't there", which is basically one of the worst arguments you could possibly give. You said that homosexuality in animals was possibly misinterpreted as homosexuality when it actually wasn't, which is a baseless claim and conflicts with all of the evidence supporting it - and, given the evidence that many individuals, independent of one another, have observed, it would seem that claiming that it's all just one big misinterpretation is something of an, "I'm going to shut my eyes, block my ears and sing 'tralalalala' at the top of my voice until you go away", response.

That does not matter; their circumstances were different and it is therefor an inaccurate comparison.

What are you referring to? If you insist on not co-operating like everyone else does when they want to refer to something spoken by someone else directly by using the quote feature, then at least include your subject in the small one-sentence paragraphs so that it's clear what you actually are talking about.

Actually those NARTH sites I had up some time ago offered scientific evidence.

Which appears not in your interests to quote, but speak of in general and rather vague terms. None of them offered any scientific evidence that could not be refuted by other scientific evidence.

Actually, the only thing Christians are attempting to 'deny' homosexuals of is marriage, and they generally disagree with the practice in general (which you cannot argue against).

For one thing, using ' ' marks around the word deny doesn't take away from the fact that you're willing to deny it - and no, you personally are willing to deny them the legal ability to be homosexual. You are also against people being free to be what they are, and against the education about them that children should receive in order to ensure people with discriminatory views don't discriminate at all.

And where is your proof, or evidence, for the claim that most homosexual people are against marriage? Do you really think that you can make such claims and expect me to take them seriously - especially when just because some don't like the idea it doesn't mean that none should be given the choice to marry who they want? If it wasn't something they wanted, why would it be such a big deal? Because they...don't...want it? Logic is not the friend of this statement. Many straight people are against marriage, too - so where is the confiscation of that privilege from straight people?

Other than that they are treated as normal in the Christian perspective. Never did I nor anybody else say they were to be discriminated against totally because of that.

You call them sinners. You regard their love for members of the same sex as a sin, as wrong, as bad. How is that regarding them as normal? It isn't. It's seeing them as different in a bad way to the point of willing to discriminate based solely on sexual orientation.

The Rusted One, any proof provided by anybody can be refuted; and you also have not given me any proof that homosexuality is genetic, merely possibilities. So until proof is given that is irrefutable, I'm not being any more ignorant than you are.

I make the claim that homosexuality is probably genetic based on what we know about genes and what we know about other genetic conditions; in my view, it probably is genetic. You state with no question that it isn't, and yet you can't provide any proof to support your flat out denial that it could be - your view is not comparable to mine because you make a claim that something is definite, and I make a claim to the contrary stating a possibility and how I think about it. Ignorance is judged based on willingness to make fallacious claims about definite states of being, and then refusing to see any other possibility although the evidence for a different view being correct is paralleled by other things with similar characteristics that are known to be what the subject is being proposed as.

So how do I know you actually are bisexual? You profess to be, but I have not seen you so I cannot actually make sure that is true.

No, you don't. I don't know that you're heterosexual, either. I assume it because of what you've said that supports it, and the fact that I don't see you as having any reason to lie (aside from religious belief - but then, how do I know you're Christian?). Why would I, similarly, lie about my sexual orientation? Without providing a motive, you can't really presume anything of me contrary to what I say.

I have told you again and again that no person has complete control or knowledge of their body, so no matter what you say, unless you have complete and absolute knowledge over your body you cannot say for a fact you did not choose to be bisexual.

You cannot, then, tell me that you didn't choose to be heterosexual - and yet, you did tell me this. You claimed that heterosexuality is genetic - but if you can make a statement about me that I know is false (given that it wouldn't be a decision made lightly and the forgotten the next day), then I can make a statement about you, too. So, when did you choose to be straight and not gay? When did you choose to be attracted to your mother rather than someone unrelated to you? And I don't care what you say, because, remember, you can't say that you didn't even though you're the only one who will know. It is true that this isn't the same as this so-called "decision", but you can't show me any proof against my claim, so the result is the same - I can say what I want about you and even though you may tell me that you know it to be false, I won't believe you because I presume to be able to tell you about yourself as if you don't know.

Where is the proof that all these homosexuals actually are homosexual? Maybe, like Luke, they are all lying, and it's some big conspiracy.

I have provided possible motive for Luke. What motive do you provide for this conspiracy? And what kind of conspiracy is it? What does it seek to do? Now, if you want to make claims that a gay person needs to prove to you that they're gay in order to be thought of as gay, then you will have to provide me with proof that you're straight or I'll decide you're just saying it because you can't handle that you're actually gay. Or that you like animals, not people.

I never said the damage caused by unnatural forms of sex was minor.

But you didn't say it was major, not provide any evidence that it was. If you assume that vaginal sexual intercourse causes minor damage, then you assume it of the other kinds, too, and repeat this assumption unless you have the evidence to state otherwise - or, when it comes down to it, you just end up making claims based on personal views that actually have no backing. You could equally claim the the world is run by giant purple elephants disguised as humans - but you don't, because that's foolish; you have no evidence for the claim, right? Well, same thing here. No evidence.

Ah, here we are on the biased argument again. So I will return to my argument that anything you say could be considered biased. Going by that, anything written in favor of homosexuality by homosexuals would be biased, and that limits what evidence we have to very little.

Here's a question - are scientific theories on homosexuality only written by homosexual people? No. Are scientists all kinds of people who present theories as divorced from personal belief as possible, and then have them investigated by other scientists in order to establish accuracy? Yes. A scientific theory on homosexuality is, then, not going to be biased, if done correctly, and especially when compared to religious claims of "immorality".

Again I bring up one of the scientists on one of my posted sites began his research with the preconception that homosexuality was genetic and irreversable. Guess what happened to him? He found out it was neither of those two.

Was his investigation scientific? Is it a representation of all homosexuals? I'd say not. Did he repeat similar experiments on heterosexual people, trying to get them to "turn" gay? No, I'd say not to this, too - which actually calls into question exactly what he was studying. If he had repeated the test on a straight person, or carried out the investigation on heterosexual people also, and had obtained results, then perhaps he would now be able to say something - but he isn't. He hasn't proven homosexuality not to be genetic, and he hasn't proven heterosexuality to be genetic. Nor have you, and yet you attempt to differentiate between two things by saying one is and one isn't, despite the fact that there is no evidence from one to support your claims while the other lacks it. Neither he, nor you, have presented proof that homosexuality is reversable beyond your claims of people who have "gone straight", which isn't limited only to homosexual to heterosexual people. It happens for straight people that "turn gay", as well - so it would seem that heterosexuality is reversable, to. And you know what? Given that, it proves nothing that what you say is more correct than what I say - but my statements that homosexuality and heterosexuality are natural, and that both are subject to the same things, is, indeed, supported.

And once again I bring up that there are heterosexuals who have at one point been homosexuals. They have personal knowledge as well, you know.

And there are homosexuals who were at one point heterosexual. What does your example state that mine doesn't? That homosexuality isn't natural? If you can claim that then I can claim that heterosexuality isn't, either.

Also, how does your claiming that the Bible is fallable prove that it is? I could say that Alexander the Great never existed and believe that. Does that make it true? Both the Bible and Alexander the Great have historical basis.

Ah, but then the Bible is the only thing that supports the Bible wholly. Many different accounts by many different authors, as well as archaeology, support Alexander's existence. Nobody's saying that Jesus didn't exist, either - just that he may not have as he is portrayed. There is no evidence for his miracles except for the Bible itself. There is also no evidence for Alexander performing miracles, but then, no claims were made that he performed them - so, which is more likely? That Alexander performed miracles, like Jesus, despite the lack of historical evidence, or that neither did, which is supported by the lack of historical evidence?

The thing is though, I believe homosexuality is wrong not just because the Bible said so, but because I have proof that it is not genetic, reversable, and harmful. I don't just look at one person's behaviors and label it as wrong or not.

You have no proof it's not genetic. I have no proof heterosexuality is not genetic, but I don't claim that it isn't. You're the only one attempting to differentiate between the two based on a lack of evidence from either side. The same for heterosexuality being reversable; there are cases of straight people becoming involved with members of their own gender - does that mean that I can claim that heterosexuality is unnatural, as you do homosexuality? No, because there's nothing to suggest it, as there isn't to suggest your claims are correct. Heterosexual intercourse causes damage, too, and on top of that, heterosexual intercourse isn't only vaginal sex - so claiming homosexuality causes "damage" is faulty. You have also not provided anything to support your claims that homosexuality causes mental damage. Also, if you didn't base your claims on the Bible, why did you use it as your primary fall-back? Seems odd that you claim to have independent thought and yet do exactly what a book tells you to do, which is to discriminate and label people sinners just because. And that's the thing - you do just look at someone's behaviours and label it as wrong; you're doing it right now. If you weren't, then you wouldn't be saying, "homosexuality is wrong, no exception, they're all sinners" - the problem with that, though, is that you are saying exactly that.

Oh, and Sorovis - once again, a Christian site against homosexuality. Sure, it has banners against gay-bashing, which is good - but it is a Christian site about "converting" gay people to being straight.

Now TRO, there probably are people willing to perform a movement. The clencher is there aren't enough.

There would be enough people worldwide.

I'd like to here a reasonable theory of yours to a good reason for 'Luke' to write the book at all if it wasn't true, considering it put him on the Roman radar. Calling it embellished is basically the same as calling it fictitious. Either way, you're calling false the main meat of the matter. The miracles and claims of Christ. Again, you haven't refuted the point that Homer wrote for a living. Luke wrote out of conviction despite insane persecutions. Therefore the analogy doesn't work.

Of course Homer did it to entertain - but he was using what was regarded as history in order to do it. He didn't invent the story of either the Iliad or the Odyssey, but of course it was embellished by him and others. It has aspects of historical accuracy, and yet is not historically ultimately accurate. Luke believed what he wrote - so what? It just means he believed it enough to write about it; that doesn't mean he was right. Otherwise, for all the Muslim people who have martyred themselves for their beliefs, we really should all be Muslim right now, right? No. Martyrdom doesn't equate to historical accuracy or ultimate truth.

I can't really explain why Homer knew all that stuff about the war. I know I have a friend who's a perfectionist and likes to get everything right. I know I like to make sure that what I'm stating as fact is fact whenever I write fiction. Yes, I know that analogy pales in comparison to that of Homer who didn't have the internet. But we also know that Homer was quite an exceptional human being and could have been downright obsessive-compulsive about those sort of things. I really can't explain.
However, if the Illiad is written like the Odyssey (admittedly, I've only read the latter) than it's written like fiction. In the Odyssey there was great detail and suspense put into Homer's battle with the Cyclops, as well as other events. The Bible is of a much more factual writing-style. There're just written differently. The analogy is really not that great.

Homer couldn't afford to be a perfectionist, due to the fact that he had to memorise the poems he recited and couldn't just change them. He didn't write them down. He knew them by heart, and taught them to pupils by heart. Now, if the Iliad is written to entertain, does that mean that story itself is any less valid than your Bible? No. Entertainment doesn't make something invalid as historic - or you'd watch any war movie and automatically think the whole war was made up because the story line of the specific characters involved entertains you. Just because the Bible is not written as entertainment doesn't mean that it is any more valid than the Iliad, or the Odyssey, especially since all three are supposed to be accounts of history. It all depends on societal tendencies in the recording of different things, too. No doubt at some point somebody would have retold Bible stories for entertainment - it's not uncommon today to have religious beliefs retold in entertaining forms. Does that make them less valid? No. It doesn't make them right, either, but it doesn't make one ancient story less believable than another.

TRO, I hope you're not implying that Sorovis, (the lately absent) Yeah5, and I are persecuting you.

No, homosexual people in general.

Damian, I'm thinking you meant Checkmate, not me, in that last statement.

[Green_Pikachu]

After all, Judaism, and Islam have lasted over a millenium each. I don't believe those are true. Darwinism will probably last another hundred years or so and I don't believe that is true. Lasting a long time doesn't guarntee validity. It does however, support it.
I'm mainly attacking your standing analogy, which won't last 250 years.

I can't really explain why Homer knew all that stuff about the war. I know I have a friend who's a perfectionist and likes to get everything right. I know I like to make sure that what I'm stating as fact is fact whenever I write fiction. Yes, I know that analogy pales in comparison to that of Homer who didn't have the internet. But we also know that Homer was quite an exceptional human being and could have been downright obsessive-compulsive about those sort of things. I really can't explain.
However, if the Illiad is written like the Odyssey (admittedly, I've only read the latter) than it's written like fiction. In the Odyssey there was great detail and suspense put into Homer's battle with the Cyclops, as well as other events. The Bible is of a much more factual writing-style. There're just written differently. The analogy is really not that great.

1). you're saying you don't believe in evolution? lol

2). Homer may not have even existed. It is commonly believed "Homer" was just a name given after all the oral traditions had been collected and written down. "Homer" could really be like 5 different guys. And, The Iliad and The Odyssey aren't religious texts. How can you compare epic poetry to a religious text?

[Sorovis]

The Rusted One: And I never said that you said that vagi nal sex was unnatural. What's your point? Like I've been saying since this started; the human reproductive organs are meant to be used in a male female manner; they are designed for sex, to withstand it, reproduce from it, and it is the one natural form of sex. I hate to have to use these types of analogies, but putting one object in a place where it fits but is not meant to fit does not make it natural.

Back in my debate with Rambunctious, she did not complain at all with my lack of quotations. If it troubles you so much, then feel free to stop using them in your replies to me and I will gladly answer without complaint. What you assumed I said is something that I've already cleared up once with you. No I did not say that everything scientific is biased.

On the NARTH issue, I would also like to refer you to my most recent site,

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_biol.htm

which I have posted once already and you seem to have missed. On a side note, you have provided no evidence that the evidence against homosexuality can be disproven, so I have no idea if you're just making this up or not.

Wow. If you actually considered what I said then you wouldn't have posted that last one. (children being taught homosexuality because it's just a lifestyle)

What you seem to lack when dissecting my posts is the ability to read them thoroughly. I never at one point said homosexuals were against marriage.

Once again, I and Checkmate have made it clear that we are all sinners, and that by that we all sin. Saying homosexuality is wrong is like saying thievery is wrong. Hate the sin, not the sinner, something I have already said very clearly.

Sadly, that little speech you gave applies to you as well. You say that I am close-minded to any argument against what I believe. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me any and all evidence I give against the genetic occurances of homosexuality you have ignored or dismissed as biased.

And would Luke lie about seeing Jesus? Then why accuse him of it?

How about this: I decided to be heterosexual the day that males and females began reproducing by means of sexual intercourse. Heterosexuality is genetic, like I've said. The organs that each gender has compliments the other for sexual reproduction; and that is what sexual attraction is for. It no longer matters if this sexual intercourse is meant for reproduction, but that sexual intercourse stays as it was meant to be.

Does this motive you gave have any support? It was just a guess, and you have no idea what Luke thought when he wrote in the Bible. I was simply pointing out how ridiculous it was to speculate Luke may have been lying; to do so is to question all of history.

I believe the accusation of no evidence lies on you; not me. "Anal sex does carry some risks to health and comfort even in the absence of a risk of sexually transmitted disease. "The vag ina is well adapted to sex, being strengthened for this activity and secreting its own lubrication, whereas the anus and rectum are not." (thanks to Wikipedia).

Well, I have seen no scientific evidence that was not biased supporting homosexuality; yet I have seen and posted evidence against it. Nice how that works, huh?

How about what I just posted? That one person who changed his ideas on homosexuality started unbiased, something you have stressed easily. The fact he changed his mind due to evidence should be enough.

Or how about that homosexuality is something of the mind, not genetic at all but something that occurs due to mental stress from a physical experience.

Once again, Checkmate, yeah5, and I have posted facts that the Bible is indeed supported by other documents. Along with archeology. Such as that civilization the Bible spoke of that no one knew anything about. That was regarded as a flaw for a long time, until they discovered that the Bible was right.

I said that I looked for evidence to see whether or whether not homosexuality is wrong; I indeed found quite a bit, even though you seem unable to actually read it with the open mind you accuse me of lacking. And about the sodomy issue not being created or exclusively used by homosexuals; the Bible says clearly as well that any type of unnatural sex is wrong. Meaning the heterosexuals who preform it sin as well.

For a long time I disliked mentally retarded people, and I was naturally annoyed by them. Finding that it was not their fault at all and they could not help it changed my outlook drastically, and I no longer hold the dislike for them. Now I do not 'dislike' homosexuals in general, but I disagree with their practices, and I have seen no solid evidence telling me that they cannot help it.

[Damian Silverblade]

You are not wanted here, leave.

[Green_Pikachu]

hmmm...sorovis keeps dodging my question....

why do homosexual couples not deserve the same rights that heterosexual couples get? you said you advocated the homosexual couples being robbed of their rights. that means you're homophobic, obviously. prove me wrong

[m3lk0rz]

tl; dr

however all arguments against homosexuality from a moral standpoint must be based entirely on religion, and specifically christianity. you cannot expect to have a coherent argument if you base your thoughts entirely on religion, so stop posting about the morality of homosexuality. it makes you look stupid and ignorant, and fanatical; it doesn't advance your cause.

what is moral is what is legal and what does not interfere with other people's rights and happiness. homosexuality does neither. please stop posting stupid and rambling "arguments" sorovis

[Razola]

Irony: People complaining about a homophobia, then saying "amen" to a southern stereotype.

Ass.

[Checkmate]

Damian, I'm sorry for the miscommunication, but I poorly wrote my last post. That led to your misinterpretation of it.

First off, I talked about 250AD not 350AD. During that time they were still undergoing some of the worst of persecutions. Certainly wasn't the official religion of the empire.

I think I did say that your sources contradict. If that is true, I apologize for the fallacious statement.

The main point of my post was that I was contradicting your WTC conspiracy analogy. In the 200's AD, they were certainly not a fringe group. 60 AD they may have been, but that changed. No, I'm not a prophet, but I definetly don't think the WTC group will grow to the numbers the Christians did.

[Checkmate]

2). Homer may not have even existed. It is commonly believed "Homer" was just a name given after all the oral traditions had been collected and written down. "Homer" could really be like 5 different guys. And, The Iliad and The Odyssey aren't religious texts. How can you compare epic poetry to a religious text?

Sorry for the double post, but I had to thank Green Pikachu for the support. I've been arguing against that point for the past 5-6 pages

[Damian Silverblade]

Ok, glad to see it was more of a misunderstanding.

The truth of the matter (re : WTC) is that there's no way to know how things will turn over the next few hundred years. Certainly conspiracy theorists have only grown in strength and number over the years over the Moon Landing (1969), the Kennedy Assassination (196? - don't rightly remember which ATM), The Pearl Harbor attack (1941) and so forth. In fact the "fringe conspiracy theory" for the last has since then come to be nearly as accepted (if not even more so accepted) than the "official" version - it's split half and half or so.

Of course, I'll note here that a "fringe group" theory is not by default wrong (the relevance of the WTC example is simply "do you realize how quickly alternate histories begin to show up?". After all, if they were then virtually all political, economical, religious and social theories the world has ever known would be wrong by virtue of having been a fringe theory at some point in time. Communism was a fringe theory, so was capitalism. Catholicism, Christianism and Atheism were all fringe groups at some point in time. Darwinism the same, and so forth.

(NOTE : the reverse statement is true also : just because a theory was dominant and we therefore have many more copies of their text left doesn't mean the text themselves are worth more than other, less dominant texts. READ : just because we have more manuscrips of the Bible than of, say, Caesar's commentary is patentedly irrelevant to how trustworthy each is.)

Regarding the point you and Green Pikachu make, I'll beg your pardon but this is not quite true. The bible and Illiad started out as the same thing : the national epics of the Greeks and Hebrews - the tale of how they had come to be were they were, who their ancestors were, what they had done. The Illiad (and the story of the Trojan War on which it is based) were NOT originally epic poetry meant to amuse or any such : they were what the then-Greeks believed to be history.

The difference in how they developed lies probably in the fact that the Hebrews had far stronger religious feelings than the Greeks. They wove a very jealous, wrathful God in their history, to the point that actually challenging their national epic would have been to challenge God.

By comparison the Greeks had a more complex relation with religion (they prayed to the god, offered sacrifices, etc - but their relation with the gods was grounded in the present. Wether or not god X had done Y or Z in antiquity was patentedly irrelevant to his existence and what he would do now (incidentally, I agree with the Greeks where most gods are concerned). Therefore, questioning the national epic was not challenging the very basis of society.

Hence why the story of the Trojan War got demoted rather swiftly in Greece, whereas in Israel the OT remained a state-of-the-art story for a long while, and still is considered so by many.

The other relevance of the Illiad to the points is as was already illustrated : it demonstrate that it's possible for a historical text (which was MEANT to represent what the then-greeks thought was history - again, just because it was WRITTEN in poetry form doesn't make it somehow "less historical") to have *some* facts rights without having *ALL* facts right.