Golly Wrote the following on 01/04/2005 08:55 AM : Okay, Come on Juniper.
Juniper Wrote the following on 01/04/2005 3:29 PM : You better get yourself sterilized right away then!
Timmy Wrote the following on 01/04/2005 3:31 PM : Juniper, you never told Mom and me you were gay!
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/04/2005 4:42 PM : Juniper - this article reinforces your opinion that homosexuality is "natural". The moral point I offerred in a previous post is that just because one has a natural inclination, an impulse, a tendency towards a certain behavior doesn't mean that that behavior is morally benign. One could argue that all moral restrictions are specific restrictions in place in our society to prevent people from doing what comes naturally. When a man gets angry at his wife and he has the impulse to strike her we hope and trust that his impulse is checked by a moral rule operating in society and imbedded in his conscience that men ought not strike women. So here we have a moral rule that limits behavior that comes naturally. All moral rules seem to function on this level. It's a non-issue if the homosexual impulse is a natural impulse. It still remains to be seen whether it is morally appropriate for us to pursue that behavior. Again, the moral discussion is a separate discussion.
I must admit there is something about this whole discussion that I'm a bit uncomfortable about and it's something that is actually related to not just homosexuality but with human sexuality in general. It's the idea that our sexual desires and preferences are formed by the process of evolution, or determined a couple of million years ago as primitive human beings.
The way this idea connects with your argument for homosexuality being "natural" is that both of these things are subtly arguing for a mechanistic kind of relationship of man to sexuality. It is a type of biological determinism suggesting we are programmed to behave in a certain way.
This way of thinking finds very fertile ground in the religion of atheism and our culture of materialism here in the U.S.. If there is nothing in the world but flesh and bones, molecules crashing in the universe, energy, forces like that, and there is no unseen, unquantifiable human forces like the soul, human will, morality, transcendent ideas, an after life, if materialism is true and only physical things exist then one can argue based on biology that we are determined to behave in a certain fashion. Homosexuals are determined by their biology to behave homosexually. Heterosexuals are determined by chemistry that has evolved for millions of years to react in a certain way. If we are biologically programmed and there are no willful actions involved, and these are things that are suggested in both of these ideas, then there is no moral content to our behavior because we are in fact determined.
So what's really to some degree at the heart of this discussion is not simply a discussion and a question about sexuality but a question and discussion about what is man and what is the nature of the universe. Is man soulish? Does he have a will that he can exercise in spite of his sexual chemistry or is he determined to do what he does by his chemistry?
If man is determined then the moral question is decided because there can't be any moral conversations unless there is a willing individual inside a body to choose one thing over another. If there is a willing individual then there can be a moral discussion. If man is determined then not only is the discussion about morality pertaining to sexuality meaningless, but it strikes a death blow not just to sexual moralizing but all moral conversations entirely. So this kind of argument, if it's true, actually proves too much. It proves that there is nothing called morality and there is no human being that can choose moral things. So why should we even waste our time discussing anything? Everything you or I do has already been determined!
Juniper, your position, simply put seem to be "Homosexuality is in fact "natural" and all the moral restrictions ought to be removed." Right? Consider that any moral statement must be founded on a moral law or moral principle. When I consider your position, I find underneath it the moral principle that 'which is natural is what is right and that which is unnatural is wrong'. If I try to dissuade you from being homosexual then I am asking you to do something unnatural and therefore that is wrong. Am I correct in the way I state this?
Well, if I accept this unspoken, underlying rule to this moral argument that it seems you're asking me to accept, if I did accept this, then all of us are faced with another problem and I don't know if you or the homosexual community is willing to accept it. The problem is that it is natural for homosexuals to be childless. In other words, if they pursued their natural inclination to homosexuality obviously they'd produce no children. That would be the natural state of affairs and therefore the right state of affairs. To go against nature would be to do something unnatural and therefore wrong. So one would have to argue that homosexuals who sought to have children would be doing something that is against their nature and therefore it would be wrong. If we were to argue based on nature the appropriateness of homosexuality we'd also have to argue in the next breath that it would be unnatural, immoral, inappropriate, wrong for homosexuals to raise children. Artificial insemination of lesbians, adoptions by homosexual males, all of that would be wrong, against nature. Nature has dictated childlessness for them. It seems to me that the two ideas go together.
Socket7 Wrote the following on 01/04/2005 5:38 PM : That was by me.
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/04/2005 6:19 PM : In fact, historically speaking, for a long time, it was the males that dressed up in fancy clothes, wore "make-up", perfumed themselves, made sure that they were so pretty and perfect.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/04/2005 6:25 PM : Socket - I'll dumb it down for ya and give you the cliff notes -
1. Homosexuality is an impulse. Homosexuals (Juniper) say it's a natural impulse and therefore it being "natural" makes it moral. I countered that if the naturalness of an act makes it morally right, than homosexuals shouldn't have children, because childlessness is a natural consequence of homosexuality.
2. The idea that homosexuality is natural and therefore moral, teamed with the idea that our sexual desires have evolved, quickly sends us down the slippery slope to a deterministic conclusion. Determinism being the idea, that morality doesn't exist, because our choices have been pre-determined by our biology. But to assume morality in the presupposition of the argument (that homosexuality is moral because it's natural) and then to disregard morality altogether with the conclusion is irrational and ridiculous.
As for your question about sexual desires and evolution? Yes we are creatures. But we are not animals. Animals run on a program. As human beings we can write our own program. You can stop pissing in your pants, and you can stop picking your nose, and you can stop both activities by an act of your will. Your dog will not stop shitting in the house if you don't train it not to. You had to program the dog, with training, behavior modification, reward and punishment. The dog cannot program itself. Do you understand the distinction now socket?
PoPo Wrote the following on 01/04/2005 7:17 PM : Patriot you got sucked into this one man. I know you fell in volunterily, but man its useless.
They argue if its ok with both people its ok.
Ok=Lawfull, but wait till its thier little 12 year old girl who volunteered to get gang banged by the mexicans in the south side projects (nothing against the Mexicans---oh gawn Neo dont you start... it was an example), then hey, its ok right?
Look, Athiests are never going to follow your reason Patriot. You gotta realise this by now. I mean they think that nothing collided with nothing and boom the univers became out of an explosion from no where. If that were true, then a universe was created 27 times today each time an explosion came outa my arse. LOL
Patriot how can you argue Bible facts with people who dont apreciate the Bible at all?
You cant. Your attention was what Juniper expected to get in these posts, dont waste your breath. I mean, he..she...it cant even see how I can dissagree with his lifestyle and still not hate him or wish him to die. Because he has been trained by his past to think that people are either gay or haters preaching hate. All you can do is be a real person who shows the example of being respectfull to him dispite the differance of opinion and hope he one day sees that there is more than what he has been tought. The time taken in this post already is rediculous.
I mean can one realy argue that if one human murders and eats another because he agreed is ok?
I can tell you right now, if you walk into a hospital and tell the staff in the ER that you are considering being killed and eaten, YOU WILL BE PLACED UNDER DOCTORS ORDERS TO BE PUT INTO A MENTAL HOSPITAL FOR A 75 HOUR HOLD, TREATED, AND -MAYBE- REALEASED BUT ON MEDICATION. And if you dont beleive me check into it. As soon as a doctor hears a person talk about dieing and or things like being eaten, they can actualy have you hospitalised against your will.
Also if you want to argue sex perversions, carefull!!. You are in company with those who would also argue that its natural for children to be included into lawfull sex acts. And that could one day be your child that comes up missing. And dont say that homosexuals have rights and not pedaphiles. Niether is more or less "natural" than the other. Especialy in their minds. If you dont beleive me check out M.A.B.L.A. or M.A.M.B.L.A. They are trying to get their rights legalised also.
Look I realise there is much difference of opinion here, but its not any body's business what other adults do with other adults.
PoPo Wrote the following on 01/04/2005 7:38 PM : You know what Ill prove a kind of point. In this link, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143280,00.html is a story of such a perversion that could JUST AS EASILY BE argued is this sexual preditor's human right to his natural impulses. But man we gotta draw a line here some where. Right? I mean there are all kinds of funky and very horrible sexual fedishes out there and you all know what Im talking about. Some are raping, pedaphilia, and sleeping with dead folks, and much more. Some sexual desires are going just to far. Alot of them include taking and not asking, so how could their natural impulses not be "ok" if you apply the same theology of "if it feels good do it" to their lusts?
Alice Wrote the following on 01/04/2005 9:12 PM : A quote from PoPo "You are in company with those who would also argue that its natural for children to be included into lawfull sex acts."
I can't think of a person on this site that would say that anything like that is ok. Pedophilia is not acceptable. Any sex act where you do not have 2 consenting adults is not acceptable. In another of your posts you mention rape, necrophilia etc. Once again, you're talking about acts that lack the consent of 2 adults (or more than 2 if you're ito that). Yes, those NAMBLA people are crazy, what they talk about is sick ... but you act as those all liberals think that behaviour is ok. That's just not true. It's simply not a matter of "if it feels good, do it". It's more a matter of "if it feels good and you are with another adult who wants to do whatever it is as well, do it".
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/04/2005 9:33 PM : So, alright. Suppose for just one second that homosexuality is wrong. How do you propose to stop it? How can you eradicate it without violating the home owner's rights, etc? How can you get rid of this "blight on society" on solid nonrefutable evidence?
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/04/2005 10:45 PM : Surfer - First of all, the premise to your question is absurd. We don't "stop" anything. You have direct influence and control over (1) man - (1) human being in this world - YOURSELF. Moral decisions can only be made by a moral agent - a man. Moral decisions, by definition, can not be made by societies or governments, or nations. These groups can be said to exhibit these qualities, but decisions are made by people, who make choices based on values. It's the values that define the entity whether the entitiy is a nation or a person. But only persons make moral choices. This is important, because it's the difference between legislating morality and the majority VOTING their morality - or their values if you like. One method is clearly democratic and the other method lends itself to abuse by special interest groups and religious organizations - whether that religion is atheism, catholicism or islam.
Homosexuality is not illegal - nor should it be. It's simply immoral. Drinking wine for a muslim is against their faith and the fabric of their religion - it's immoral. But, in moderation - it's not for Christians. I wouldn't want a Muslim criminalzing the drinking of wine, anymore than I'm for the criminalization of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is wrong on a very deep moral level, but it's not the worst thing you could ever do and not everything that is wrong is or should be illegal, otherwise we become a theocracy. Our laws should be rooted in moral concepts that have proven themselves 'true' by the test of world, political history, but let's keep in mind - homosexuality is a sin of the flesh. The sin of pride of those that condemn homosexuals of their sin, (as though they themselves are sinless!) is a greater evil in God's eyes.
Civil and Criminal law - MUST be based in a balance of consequential and ontological thought processes - in experience, in case law - and theology - not merely moral idealism. Although homosexuality may be a "blight on society", in many people eyes, I believe both cultures can and must exist together. There has always been homosexual behavior as far as we know. And all indications are the behavior is getting more popular. On a civil level, accomodations should be made to offer the same government benefits to homosexual couples. Civil unions should be recognized by the state. But don't call it marriage - it's not. And don't lie to people and say you think it's moral, just because it's legal, or because you have a "friend" who is gay. Personal moral choices are only personal for the one making the decision. Any attempt by that person to influence another to adopt their morality, is simply a matter of influence, not coercision, because by definition a moral choice has to be made "freely". If you choose not to act on your homosexual impulse to please anyone but your master (whetther that master is yourself, or God) then you are simply a puppet of someone else's will. To legislate morality, is to rob humanity of the one of Christ's greatest gifts - freedom.
Juniper Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 05:59 AM : Sorry guys, backed out, was being "chased" by dear Timmy and Golly, better to shut up for a bit than to have this dissolve in some nuisance pre-teen gay bashing thread. Will be a while before I catch up with your comments!
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 08:17 AM : Sorry to hear that J. Wish you well, see you when you resurface.
Patriot, I wouldn't say that making homosexuality illegal would make the country a theocracy, after all, there are states where oral sex, sodomy, and "sex against nature" (beastiality, etc. as it is so vaguely described) is illegal. What's most important in that point is the intent.
I also wouldn't say that there is a "popularity" of homosexuality, as that would seem to imply that it is an action that people flock to and leave when they're tired of it. I would say that homosexuality is more noticed because of increased tolerance and the increase of free and available instant communication (such as blogs, this site, and many others).
I'm going to have to disagree with you again, when you say "If you choose not to act on your homosexual impulse to please anyone but your master (whetther that master is yourself, or God)" at least for the specific area of sex. The moment of sexual orgasm causes an endorphinal response, a primitve reward system, for the completion of the reproduction act. Since this "reward" is given whether in a hetero- or homosexual relationship (or alone), I should say that it stands to reason that the act of sex, whether with any other person or alone begins to move the concept away from a religious realm, particularly since the reactions are physiological. The orgasmic reflex, in fact, is not controlled by the brain. It is controlled entirely as a spinal reflex. IE: the spinal causes the orgasm before the signals ever even reach the brain. This would seem to imply more of a physical response than anything spiritual - the seperation of physical and spiritual being, of course, an idea started by Greek Philisophers and carried to a "next logical conclusion" by Dante (as evidenced by the head being spiritual and the lower parts of the body being physical and carnal or "bad"... anything lower is closer to physical and anything higher being spiritual and therefore "godly" - or "Godly").
"On a civil level, accomodations should be made to offer the same government benefits to homosexual couples. Civil unions should be recognized by the state. But don't call it marriage - it's not."
Well, I'm a little puzzled on your statement here. One the one hand, you make a statement about the equality of the commitment of a same sex couple while knocking it down a peg or two in the next. I think I'm going to have to say here that equality is equality. Two people entering into a monogomous relationship with vows is just that. You cannot have seperate but equal.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 1:47 PM : Surfer - Marriage is between one man and one women. Period. It's the definition of marriage. If you want to re-define marriage to mean one man and one man or one woman and one woman, then why can't someone else come along and argue that marriage should mean two men and three women, or four horses, three chickens and two women?
If you're going to argue that the moral standard and definition of marriage should be changed then it would seem that you will have to accept that other's should be free to define it to what they want as well - not simply your definition. If you're going to throw the standard off the top floor of the building, I don't think you'll have much control over which floor it stops. Either marriage is between one man and one women or it's for everybody and anybody. You can't slice the round cake into square pieces and not expect to have some round edge slices now can you?
This will always be the problem with your philosophy of relative moralism. If there are no objective standards for behavior, then it's purely your will against mine. And right now, there are more of us who want marriage to mean what means then there are your kind. So I don't think this approach works in your favor in advancing your moral relativistic agenda at this point in history anyways. I'm not trying to legislate my religion, why do you feel the strong desire to legislate yours? In one post you're for the seperation of church and state, but yet, you want to change the definition of a traditional religious institution? Why not, for once, walk your talk and LIVE tolerance, by being tolerant yourself? Be tolerant of religious organizations and the traditions we practice. Christmas is when we celebrate Christ's birthday on this earth. Respect that. Marriage is when one man and one woman enter into a life-long commitment. Respect that. If you want to be with your duck or your horse or your friend Steve for the rest of your life in a commited relationship, I'll respect it and vote for legislation to support it as a civil union. But it's not a marriage anymore than a married man is a bachelor. It's pure confusion.
And by the way - You're confused about seperate and equal. The moral concepts of seperate and equal apply very well to situations like race and gender, because of the nature of these traits. However - homosexuality is a behavior. It involves choice. Race and gender do not. In our society we have seperate eating areas for those who like to smoke and for those that don't. It is seperate and it is equal.
Nony Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 2:03 PM : My younger sister's oldest boy is gay. From when he was 4 years old he prefered to play with his sisters dolls, whilst he grew up, he liked to play with "girl toys", his father bought him a lot of boy toys, even one of those mini-mopeds, hoping to get him interrested, all to no avail, he is almost 17 now. 2 years ago he told my sister that he was gay. (the boy has guts!) So there you go. My sister confided in me that she had always suspected it. Apparently he is very difficult to go shopping with (he loves to shop) because he is so aware of the latest fashions etc. He even advises his mother on what to wear to work. Oh well, just goes to show. So Patriot, how do you explain it? The 2 other kids 12 and 14 are perfectly "normal" and I can vouch for my sister and brother in law, they are not running a dysfunctional family. So please explain how can a 4 year old make a choice about his/her future morals and sexual behavior before they are even aware of them?
My sister went to one of those groups to see how to deal with it, turns out there are a lot of kids like that out there. So much for the fashion of being gay (there probably are people out there for whom an blowjob is a blowjob no matter if the mouth is male or female, and one hole is as good as the other).
If you see it evolve over time at close proximity, it all looks much more different, It is no longer theory. When my nephew officially announced he was gay, it did send a 'shockwave" through the family. All on the sudden our "liberal" and "broadminded" filosophies were put to the test. I must say, I like my family even better now.
Alice Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 2:49 PM : Why oh why do people think that if you legalise gay marriage, all kinds of weird permutations go with it? It's about two grown adults in love, nothing more. It has nothing to do with the crazy man that wants to marry his horse, or people that engage in polygamy (the two men three women thing you mentioned). We are simply talking about TWO loving adults join in matrimony.
I just don't get the objection. Some folks say that it will in some way weaken or cheapen "traditional" marriage. WTF? There are people in this world who are gay and married, believe me, it has not affected my marriage one iota. To be honest, people marrying, gay or straight, strengthens marriage!! If you want to worry about the institution of marriage, deal with the 50% divorce rate.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 3:34 PM : Nony - I think you're missing my point. Juniper contends that homosexuality is "natural" - as you're suggesting, and therefore it is moral. As I stated earlier, but maybe not clear enough - This is ridiculous! Just because a person has a natural inclination, an impulse, a tendency towards a certain behavior doesn't mean that that behavior is morally benign! Natural does not equal moral! One could argue that all moral restrictions are specific restrictions in place in our society to prevent people from doing what comes naturally. Should a man who gets angry as his wife "trust and follow" his natural impulse to strike her? All moral rules seem to function on this level. It's a NON-ISSUE if the homosexual impulse is a natural impulse!! It still remains to be seen whether it is morally appropriate for us to pursue that behavior.
And for sake of argument, let's look at your position another way. If homosexuality is natural and therefore it is moral then what about homosexuals having children? The problem is that it is natural for homosexuals to be childless! In other words, if they pursued their natural inclination to homosexuality obviously they'd produce no children. That would be the natural state of affairs and therefore the right state of affairs. To go against nature would be to do something unnatural and therefore wrong. So one would have to argue that homosexuals who sought to have children would be doing something that is against their nature and therefore it would be wrong. If we were to argue based on nature the appropriateness of homosexuality we'd also have to argue in the next breath that it would be unnatural, immoral, inappropriate, wrong for homosexuals to raise children!
Is accepting a child for who he or she is, the same thing as accepting and approving of their behavior?
PoPo Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 3:43 PM : Juniper no one is chasing you away.
Surfer I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I dont think like you do. I dont also have to stop anything just because I think its wrong. Christians are actualy told not to try to stop the "sinners" from sinning, nor judge them, nor condemn them.
And Alice when I ment "same company" I meant perverts of all kinds of sexual veriants, not people on this site.
Surfer the "brain reflex" and the "spinal reflex" are one and the same. The brain matter doesn't stop at the base of the skull, it -the brain-, *stems* down into the spinal collumn.
Nony you have some realy funky reasoning. So what if he has always felt like doing girls stuff. What if next week he turns around and admits he was confused and spends the rest of his life with one woman? What about your argument then? I spent most of my life playing with my 3 sisters and no Dad around. Does that make me gay? I loved to steal and break into homes and gov property growing up. Now Im a cop. Whats your point? One is not cemented in the ways of his past, though he may be tempted to be. My past is not my future because I choose it. That boy you mentioned made a choice, he can one day change at any moment he chooses.
Alice. Whats about two grown adults? Think about it...
The answer to that is not the answer to what it is between to 12 year olds is it? Its all about deffinition in this post. Thats all. Marriage was created via by for and about God. Can not argue that. In third world countries like Jamaica, they have common law marriages. Its partnership with a differant definition they are proud of. I cant make friends with some old hag at work and call it a Corporate Trust. Because all types of relationships have a distink meaning. Gay relationships are supposed to be proud and proud to not be like traditional marriage. So why do they want the label of something they are not?
Patriot good points man. You know how a word may mean something in 1705 but that same word gets missused and distorted so much its meaning changes over time, and will mean something very differant in 1939? That same thing is happening in our language today. All words and their meanings are given by man and way. And they are usualy changed by man. I say let them have the label of "marriage" its about ruined by loose terms and uncommited people so much now its not the same anyway. I thinka Godly relationship can simply be called something alltogether differant, and defined as it realy is. Maybe we can call it "anointed union" or something.... I like that better.
Nony Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 3:50 PM : I only suggest that homosexuality is normal and natural. Meaning it occurs by itself, it happens. I have not stated that it is moral. Morality is something we made up ourselves, morality changes and evolves. What was moral in 1800 is not moral now and vice versa.
This is on the same level as saying that left-handed people are wrong and unatural and right-handed ones are right. My sister is left handed and my wife and my sister in law, they all were forced in school (catholic schools) to use their right hands, it did not work. So lets discuss left- and right handedness in this light, which one of them is morally just, considering that to be left-handed made you an outcast according to the catholics, and this is not so long ago. Granted this is not as loaded an issue as homosexualtiy. But for me there is no difference.
And as far as homosexuals having children, rather educated homos having children than teenage ghetto kids having kids, because some idiot Pope in Rome keeps condemning condoms, and some idiot president thinks he can teach abstinence. Sorry.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 3:51 PM : Alice - if "anything goes" then "anything goes". If you're going to insist that morality is subjective then you have to be willing to accept the logical consequences of your position. (If you pick up one end of the stick, you also pick up the other end). If you are going to throw logic and rational thought out the window as well, then I don't know what to tell you besides - you need to get an education or else you need to find a job with a fast food establishment tending to the frying and salting operations.
Look, don't take this the wrong way, but I used to think like you. And I venture to guess everyone at some point in their road to maturity thought like you. Every moral statement I made was in reference to 'me', because in my immature mind, I thought the world revolved around me. The world doesn't revolve around you Alice. There are things that happen in this world that may not effect or impact your life, but this has very little to do with whether or not a behavior is morally benign. Morality is OBJECTIVE. Just because an issue doesn't penetrate your small subjective world, does not make the behavior or an action right or wrong. If this were the case, then you have no business talking about anything that you've never experienced.
Juniper Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 3:56 PM : Thanks PoPo, is just that Timmy and Golly turn up and start posting crap when they see my moniker, and rather than see this important topic change into some infantile and rediculous "joke" I refrained from commenting.
I must say, I am touched, some really great insights here from unexpected sources. I have seen similar post turn into absolute gay bashing after 2 comments. As far as I am concerned, this is one of the most civilized places on the net.
Alice Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 4:01 PM : I have neve suggested the world revolves around me. It doesn't. But it also doesn't revolve around you and your beliefs either. The world is here for everyone, and all consenting adults should have rights.
I have not thrown rationality and logic out the window. I believe you have done that, because you had to go and bring religious belief into this.
Get an education and a job, huh? Well, this proves once again how little you know about me. I have an education! As for a job, I'm a housewife and frequent volunteer, things I consider to be full time jobs.
If morality is objective, not dependent on people for existance, from where does it sprout? If you tell me god, so help me, I will end this conversation right now.
I think PoPo made a good point one, something about trying to discuss subjects like this from a relgious viewpoint with those who don't share that viewpoint. It simply doesn't work.
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 4:21 PM : Patriot, if you think seperate can indeed mean equal, then you're an idiot, go live in the 60s where it was accepted. If you think it can, convince the Supreme Court, jackass.
As far as you thinking I have "moral relativism", what say you about you holding everyone else in the world to your morals? You expect people to live according to your opinion and I expect them to find there own morals and yet you say I'm wrong?
You're just insecure about your sexuality. I mean, look at how vehemently you fight against homosexuality. Look at how you put women down. I think you're just scared that you might find out you're not a man at all.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 4:33 PM : Alice - so let me get this straight (pun intended) - to you, objective means "without people"? WHERE in the wide world of motorsports did you get this notion? Please, please, please tell me - who is going to think these objective thoughts?
And what religious viewpoint? Are you on crack? Where did I reference a bible verse? Where did I say God hates homos? I know you hate religion and religious people. If you had your way, you'd have me shot or hung. But in the marketplace of ideas, like this internet forum is, you're not going to pull the religious card and cry foul, when the religious card has only been played by you.
I've offerred a rational moral argument and critiqued the rational moral arguments offerred. I guess you need to decide if morality even exists in your worldview. If it does, then clearly your moral statements have a foundation. It's called Natural Law. This is not a religious concept. As human beings, we all live under the same Natural, objective, moral law. You and I may have subjective understandings of this Law that change as we change and grow. But the moral law stays the same. Murder is as wrong for you as it is for me as it is today, as it was 2000 years ago. All of our laws - civil and criminal are based in some moral principle. I realize the intersection of these two concepts -'objective and subjective' requires you to think objectively on more then one level of abstraction. But like you said - you're educated and you enjoy the mental gymnastics right?
Now if morality doesn't exist in your worldview, if there is no right or wrong, then you're right (LOL) - we have nothing to discuss. Because how can I trust your moral statement that there is no right or wrong? How can I decide if you're right or wrong about your statement if right or wrong doesn't exist? Are you starting to see the absurdity of your position?
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 4:42 PM : Damn. You found me out surfer. My cover's blown. I'm actually a 380 lb woman, who was born with a vagina and a penis. And if you must know - my vagina and penis are seperate, but I think they're equally fun to play with. LOL
Alice Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 4:45 PM : I never said you said "god hates homos". However, clear you think homosexuality is "wrong" and "sinful". Tell me where you got that idea. I think I can name that tune in one note: Religion.
You're so wrapped up in your religion you can't even seem to realise that is where you got your ideas about homosexuality. So, whether you realise it or not, the religion card was played by you as soon as you started typing.
As for my definition of "objective" I got it from the same place most people do, the dictionary. Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering the facts, not dependent on the mind for existence.
Given the definition, I don't think it's truly possible to think about anything objectively.
If you take the mind out of the equation, we're no longer talking about people. I do not see this issue as being objective. It's obviously subjective, because it allows for many interpretations. I interpret it one way, you another.
As for deciding whether I'm right or wrong, you must use your own set of morals. I don't see my position as absurd at all. Really, my position allows us to have this conversation in the first place. Because it is subjective, we can have all of these varying opinions and ideas. If it was objective, there really wouldn't be anything to talk about.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 5:16 PM : Alice - you need help. Does 2+2 = 4? I hope in your subjective world, you realize the objective reality of this "true" statement of mathematics. Just like it is an objective reality that a man was born with a penis that fits inside a woman's vagina ever so nicely. Coincedence? I think NOT!
Even if I knelt before your god of evolution, I would see that "natural selection", favors heterosexual behavior. Without heterosexual behavior how would those who prefer homosexual behavior ever come into existence?
Why do you choose to ignore objective reality when you drivel about this topic? If your subjective viewpoint isn't based in objectifiable, rational reality, then why should anyone listen to you? Would you listen to a man who argued that 2+2 = 7?
So how about this - can you tell me in one sentence or less what your problem is? What is your problem with my position? If morality is subjective to you then why bash me as a religious freak for my subjective opinion? If your subjective opinion is different then mine, then how will we ever agree to disagree? How do we decide moral issues in society? How about this - let's vote on them!
I tried to respect your intellect and offer you objective, logical reasons for my position. I didn't reference obscure social scientific studies, I didn't reference bible verses nor did I make an arguement for homosexuality being immoral. How am I forcing my morality on you Alice - or YOU MR. SURFER? I've simply offered logical objections to your viewpoints. Is logic strictly reserved for the religious believer? I should hope you two could muster a logical argument. At least something better then: "you're an idiot" or "tell me where you got your ideas - RELIGION". - Hey Juniper! - did you ever expect a post about gay kids would turn into religion bashing? LOL
Alice, I think both you and surfer have an oppurtunity to make a clear, logical argument based on a moral principle that applies to both heterorsexuals and homosexuals if you were thinking clearly. But because both of you get hi-jacked by your emotions related to this topic, you both go for the low blow and attack the messeger. Which in my eyes makes you both quitters and losers.
Alice, your uncontrollable tendency to disregard anything a religious person says as simply "religious" makes you guilty of the same form of discrimination you cry foul about. In turn, why shouldn't I simply disregard anything you say because you're an atheist? Has it ever occurred to you, you actually encourage prejudice and discrimnation of the religious or non-religious kind with your own thinking?
Alice Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 5:35 PM : The thing is, you don't have to quote the bible for us to know where you get your ideas.
You're also not forcing your morals or religion upon me. You just happen to represent a very large group of people who would like to do just that.
Anyway, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that it makes any sort of biological or evolutionary sense for there to be gay people, yet here they are. As one defines the norm, gayness isn't normal, it's an aberation. But since it exists, we should try to handle it with as much kindness as possible. I figure that since we're talking about folks who are citizens of this world, they should have the same rights as everybody else. I just don't understand what harm it can do.
I dunno, to me it seems very simple. You've got folks that aren't hurting anyone. People who are just trying to get along in this world like anyone else. Why on earth should they be treated any differently? Yes, they want to marry. Big deal!
Yes, I disregard what relgious people have to say. But you must realise that it goes both ways. You disregard anything you hear from atheists. What's the difference?
Yes, I have strong emotions when it comes to this topic. I have very close friends who are gay. They would like to be married, and they can't be. It's very serious. Did you know that if one of them were in the hospital dying, the other would have no rights to visit the other? Did you know that? Do you realise how truly shitty that is? When I hear people saying that being gay is immoral or sinful, I look at my gay friends, and I just don't get it. These are just regular people trying to get a fair shake in life. It seems to me that if folks like you had their way, all the gay people in the world would be in deprogramming camps, to rid them of their "disorder". It's just a crying shame.
You know, not everything can be looked at with "logic". Somethings are far more powerful than that.
Anyway, I just don't care what you think about me or the way I think. You seem to think I'm a moron, and I have no time for a person like that. I have given you chance after chance to prove that you had some compassion. You don't. You have high horse morality and long winded horseshit. Far to much quine for me. I'd like to think that I'm not the only person that is sick of your perpetual judgement. You say you believe in god, but I have a feeling you think you are a god, ready at any moment to sit in judgement of everyone else. Must be nice to have all the answers. I sure don't.
Alice Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 5:36 PM : One more thing. You're often saying things like "you need help" or "your hitting the bong" or whatever. What about judge not lest ye be judged? Or does that not apply to you?
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 6:29 PM : Alice - I'm sorry, I forgot what a thin skin you have. You like to dish it out, but when you get shown the absurdity of your position and it goes too far, you play the "yee shall not judge card"! I love it!! Especially, in light of your comments on the post with the girl and the cocaine problem....what was it you said again about being non-judgemental...and live and let live?
You're not a moron, but you're like my nephew. We wrestle until he yells "uncle". And then he comes back for more, the next time I see him, because he knows it makes him stronger. Discussing our subjective understandings of objective issues is healthy for both of us.....to a degree.....which I think we just hit.
I am not God. This I am positive of. But I do have a moral opinion. You seem to hate me because I can articulate it, and it's different then yours. I do not stand in judgement of anyone. Just in judgement of behavior. Mine included. This type of judgement is required of responsible citizens, parents and really anyone who wants to influence people or make a positive impact in the world. If you are ever going to expect anyone to respect your opinion Alice, you'll have to present it in different wrapping paper then just, "well things are this or that way because I said so!". Darren might respect this argument (because he lives with your and he knows what's good for him!), but the rest of the world could care less what you think, if you can't say it clearly and with reason. Is this fair? Hardly. But it's the way it is. I'm sure you have recognized this already.
I don't harbor any fantasies about changing your mind. I just find it all too simple and fun to present a rational argument about a controversial topic and then watch you come unglued as you grasp at "religion" and "god" and all the other silly reasons you think I'm wrong. Like I said before, for someone who hates God or doesn't believe in God, you sure do spend a lot of time driving the conversation that way.
Another thing - for someone who hates religion, why do you live in the most religious country on earth? Why not move to Denmark or another part of Europe? That way you'd be with people who think more like you and you'd be offended less! Just a suggestion. I'd really hate to see you go. I hope you could still post on Codewolf.com and let us know about how great it is over there.
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 7:00 PM : And you, Patriot, when boxed into a corner, refuse to admit that you're wrong. You tell people that they're wrong because they don't follow your moralities, yet when proven wrong, you have yet to admit it. you either leave the thread or gloss over to something else. You can't stand to be wrong (I know the type better than you can imagine) and you'll do anything to prove everyone else wrong so you can be right. You write stuff here according to the phrase "you're entitled to my opinion". For example, you tell people that homosexuality is wrong, but that's based on what you believe and you judge people that are wrong based upon your subjective beliefs which you can't even defend once someone starts picking at it. You ignore your precious religion because you set the rules and make the judgement and if you believe every verse in the Bible like you say you do, you're in for one ugly morning when your God comes knocking to judge you by some subjective set of rules (because you'll be judged in the same manner you judge). But let's say by some miracle that you make it to this heaven you believe in... you gonna be God's bitch (the sybmolical marriage to the church in Revelations) and you gonna be the one put in your place.
Nobody here hates you because you articulate your opinion (at least I hope) - so don't flatter yourself, we aren't jealous of your silly appearance of intelligence. People who hate you do so for far worse reasons, I'm sure.
People who live in this country do so for reasons that are none of your business. Perhaps maybe you should go to another country yourself to spread the light of your religion, whatever this mixture of Catholicism and Evangelism is that you seem to believe in. Maybe then you'll find people who will agree with you.
(psst... I've watched Alice's comments. Picking an intelligence fight with her is the wrong thing to do. I have more respect for her intelligence than I have for my own. You're welcome Alice.)
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 7:17 PM : Surfer, I seem to have missed the memo on this one. I have a question. Except for your pandering to Alice, what the fuck are you talking about?
Paragraph #1 seems to be about how you believe we disagree and you're pissed because I won't admit you're right? Ok. You're right about your opinion. And then some non-sense about how God is going to judge me?....as though you know the mind of God? The same God you claim to not believe in? Why not threaten me with judgement from Santa Clause for cryin' out loud?
Paragraph #2 seems to be about your objections to my suggestion for Alice.
Paragraph #3 if Alice is so intelligent, (and she is), then why do you feel required to argue for her in paragraph #2?
Please, please, please, please show me where you believe you've offerred a logical argument in this post, here today. Yes our opinions are different on this subject. But your silly argument that "I'm an idiot", does not prove you are right about homosexuality. Just that my position frustrates you to the point of elementary school tactics.
Alice Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 7:44 PM : This is not the most religious country in the world. Try living in Iran. I'd say that most countries in the middle east are far more religious than the US.
As for Surfer's comments about me, I'm truly flattered. I suppose he's at least one person who gives a shit about my opinions.
As for right and wrong about homosexuality, I'm starting to believe it can't be argued (like so many other things). It seems that you're looking for someone to change your mind about something that you have already made up your mind about. What's the point? I assume it's that you just like to argue. You came into this knowing full well how you feel, and that it isn't going to change.
As for living in another country, I have ever intention of doing so. But not because you or anyone else tells me to. I chose a long time ago to move. At the moment I'm saving my money (that way I can properly support myself in the country of my choice). You are right though, I do not fit in here. I've known that for a long time. Why do you think I married a foreigner?
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/05/2005 8:20 PM : Pandering? You've proved my point, thank you.
I don't believe in your god. Big difference. I'm not pissed because you won't admit anything. You just run like a coward when cornered. One admission or good act does not a saint make. You're "admission" does not impress me.
I don't argue for Alice. It just gets tiring watching you stick your opinions and lack of wit into other people's affairs in ways that really aren't justified.
"my position frustrates you"
Is that what you've been trying to do? Frustrate people? What a waste of time... and there you go, sticking your opinions in again (which, I must add, is wrong)
Tell me, how can you justify telling other people flat out that they are wrong because it doesn't fit your morality? And don't give me a line about how God says this or that, because you have stated before, you stand on the Bible. If you want people to listen to you and entertain what you say with seriousness, you need to be prepared to back your points up without this patchwork religion you claim. After all, people not in religion (and those having secular problems) don't always want to hear scriptural stances quoted at them... they want reasonable things they can grasp. Good thing you're not a psychologist.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 01:25 AM : Man surfer, I'm really disappointed in you. I mean I thought you hated me. Why the love letter? Please - if you're going to try and get your temper up and act like your throwing your dick on the table in some passive-aggressive attempt to make up for your lack of intelligent, articulate thought pertaining to the topic, then at least make me think you've got something more then the 2 inch killer your wife has to put up with! Either bring it like you've got a pair or else save the 3rd grade whit and wisdom for your next dungeons and dragons sleep over at the "dungeon master's" house.
The last time I wrote something that offended your delicate moral sensibilities, you followed me around on every topic for a week! If you've gone off your medication again, and I'm going to be the target of one of your tantrums, then at least have the courage to be creative with your mindless diahrea! I mean, we're online - it's not like I'm in front of you or I know where you live! You should be able to muster some courage behind your computer right? Insult me like you really are a man instead of a whiny, sniveling vagina.
Come on now surfer! - you've done a hell of a lot better job of whining like a bitch then the crybaby session you offer above. Put your balls into man!! How about a few "assholes" or "fuck yous"?! Make me believe you could at least be capable of throwing a chair! Please. It'll make your post more fun to show to my co-workers and friends.
(Man, if I only had a knickel for everytime I found myself on the receiving end of a passive-aggressive melt-down from a scared little boy, stuck inside a man's body, trying desperately to communicate in a man's world, with boy philosophies......)
Alice Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 01:38 AM : Patriot, have you ever wondered why you're often on the receiving end of a letter from a pissed off person?
You're just not a very nice person. You use dirty tricks to TRY to win arguments. You take every opportunity to insult people. You have an incredible high opinion of your intelligence (appears to be slightly above average to me). You're a real dick to be honest. Frankly, I don't understand it, because you are fairly bright. I can only assume that you're intelligence is all you have, so you wave it like a flag. You lash out at anyone who questions you because you couldn't live with the idea that you might possibly be wrong. Shame really. I imagine you married a very vaccuous woman who thinks the sun shines out of your ass. I imagine she makes you feel like quite the hero.
And yes, I'm going here again. For someone who claims to be following jesus' path, you have a very foul mouth and hateful heart. Maybe you should look into why you get so nasty with people. It's one thing to have a heated discussion, quite another to throw your toys out of the pram and curse like a drunken biker.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 02:22 AM : Thank you Alice. That's much better then the drivel Surfer offerred me. But I don't know what a "pram" is? If this a british word? What does it mean? I guess if I'm throwing my toys out of it, it's some kind of box or chest? The insult would mean more to me, if I knew what you meant.
You know it just dawned on me.....it works with insults too. You know, like when you tell a joke and you have to explain it, then the joke isn't funny anymore. Well now that I've asked you to explain your insult, it kind of takes whatever potential effectiveness it had away. It's almost like, by using a word I couldn't possibly know the meaning to, it proves and reminds me how little you really know about me. You obviously think you know a lot about me. I mean just in the past few days, you've told me about my sex life with my wife, why my wife loves me, the strength or lack of depth of my commitment to my faith, and a whole host of other topics that aren't part of any thread I'm posting to. Why? Does your hate for people that are different then you really run that deep? These are my opinions for crying out loud! If you can't disagree and argue with a twinkle in your eye, then why do you post?
Alice, you act likes it's some dirty little secret that I come here to debate. I hate to burst your bubble, but I'm not really that interested in what you think of me. Your perception of my charachter is more a projection of your own personality and values then any real information you think you know about me. If you were a lifelong friend and you really knew me, I'd care about what you think of me. But I don't.
You're intelligent, but you're intellectually lazy. You pie out and go for the personal insults, instead of exercising some emotional maturity and using your feelings to help better your thinking. Beat me at my own game, if I piss you off so much. Out reason me. Take my arguments and cripple the conclusions by hacking at my presuppositions. Think two or even three steps ahead. And save the personal attacks for those that you love, for those that really want your affection and hate. Or if you must crap your diaper and throw it at me, at least sprinkle some wit in with it?....and I was born and raised in California. I have no idea what a "pram" is. Please use American Engish words. Toys are kept in a toy chest.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 02:33 AM : Oh yes, and your question Alice.....the only passive aggresive ty-raids that I've been on the receiving end of have been from Surfer. Although he went on vacation for a few weeks in between Thanksgiving and Christmas, so I kind of hit a dry spell. And as for the why? Well just speculating here, but I imagine it's because he doesn't like it when someone with an opposing viewpoint turns his fragile little boy philosophy on it's ear and rattles his cage a bit.
Nony Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 03:07 AM : 'Well just speculating here, but I imagine it's because he doesn't like it when someone with an opposing viewpoint turns his fragile little boy philosophy on it's ear and rattles his cage a bit.'
Something about pot kettle and black comes to mind.
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 08:41 AM : You present your opinion as fact and then go on these long self-appointed crusades (apparently not having the ability to condense your words) about how you need to teach the population about how your opinions are right and how your rules are right and everyone must believe your religion. If you were to not be so forceful, I suspect you might get some respect for your opinions occassionally.
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 08:43 AM : And by the way, you have yet to challenge my beliefs. You'll know when you do, butI doubt you have enough awareness to really figure out how.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 10:58 AM : Surfer you are right. Good points. I hadn't thought of it that way before.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 10:58 AM : Nony you are right. Good points. I hadn't thought of it that way before.
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 11:05 AM : I look forward to your posts after considering this! Thank you.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 11:12 AM : Surfer you are right. Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way before.
Alice Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 11:28 AM : Lemme tackle this one first "I mean just in the past few days, you've told me about my sex life with my wife, why my wife loves me"
I haven't done anything of the sort. Perhaps you misinterpreted something I wrote, but I never said those things. Yes, you gave us your description of love, which I inturn said was not very romantic, but I don't question that you love your wife .. you just had a rather dry way of saying it. As for your sex life, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm trying to remember where this might have come up. I guess it could have been when the subejct was porn or maybe homosexuality .. I don't remember .. but it must hae really bothered you to stick in your mind. The thing is, I can't help your perceptions, because that's all they are. What you perceive and what is actually going on are ususally two different things.
Quote two: "Or if you must crap your diaper and throw it at me, at least sprinkle some wit in with it?"
First off, this is a disgusting thing top say. Secondly, stop implying that I'm some stupid child. Third, I don't do this to you. I have loss with my temper with you only once that I can think of (and it still sits in the forum). All other times you perceive that I have lost my temper, you're sadly mistaken.
Quote five (the one that makes me laugh the most): "and I was born and raised in California. I have no idea what a "pram" is. Please use American Engish words. Toys are kept in a toy chest."
I can use whatever english I like. I certainly hope there isn't some sort of language police here. Besides, why should I have to dumb down what I say just because you happen to be from California?
Anyway, what really amuses me about this is your hold response. You're getting uncomfortable because you don't understand something. I mean, you must be, you referenced it twice in one post. Here is what I don't understand ... when I see a word I don't recognize, I look it up in a dictionary so I can find out what it means .. you see, I like to educate myself, but you would prefer to stay ignorant and not have to learn and funny "foreign" words. Rather than do that, you decided to assume what you thought it meant, and you were wrong.
The word pram is short for perambulator. It refers to a childs stoller or carriage.
Alice Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 11:41 AM : Oooh, looks like patriot has taken a vow of respect.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 11:45 AM : Alice you are right. Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way before
Alice Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 11:46 AM : Dan, huh? I don't know if you ever thought about it, but patriot takes things to a personal level frequently. He's no better than the rest of us. He's watching howdy doody along with the rest of us here in the peanut gallery.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 11:48 AM : Dan, I'd prefer to stay on topic. :)
It's about homosexual kids, homosexuality and all the ancillary issues these subjects touch on.
What's your two cents about the issue?
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 12:34 AM : Nooo! Don't do it Dan! Don't join the peanut gallery!
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 1:05 PM : "Oooh, looks like patriot has taken a vow of respect."
Maybe he's pandering. :)
Jean-Jacques Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 2:30 PM : Dan, your 2 cents are worth a dollar in my book!
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 2:31 PM : Surfer, you are right. Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way before.
Nony Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 2:45 PM : Patriot, you on Prozac or something?
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 2:50 PM : I'm not against homosexuals Mr. Dan. Just the idea of moral relativism, which can be used to justify ANY behavior.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 3:08 PM : Nope. Never tried the stuff. Does a prescription of it come with kiddie kryptonite? I'm just having a hard time getting a thoughtful critique of my ideas. Sky used to engage them. But I'd have to weed through 8 paragraphs of personal attacks to get 3 sentences of relative content. But now everyone wants to kung-fu fight me instead of my opinion. So now I get personal attacks and attacks on my wife, and my faith, without any content! I don't have the time or energy to fight on two fronts, so I've got to make a choice. Either defend my ideas, or defend ME. The ideas are more interesting to defend. The pissing contests are fun to a degree when they're in good humor. But I forgot for a moment who I'm dealing with here. I mean if my wife happened to look over my shoulder and see that she's getting dragged into the slander?? I of course would point out that all anyone knows is that she's Mrs. Patriot!....but if you're married Nony, I'm sure you're very familiar with how territorial women can be. It doesn't matter if someone insults their screen name...it's still personal. Anyway, it takes two to box. I'm sitting the next smear session out.
Nony Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 3:28 PM : Patriot, yup I'm married and familiar with what you imply. Good to know nothing is wrong. Got me worried there for a moment.
Golly Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 3:50 PM : Juniper-"Thanks PoPo, is just that Timmy and Golly turn up and start posting crap when they see my moniker, and rather than see this important topic change into some infantile and rediculous "joke" I refrained from commenting."
I have reviewed this thread and the only comment I made was "Okay, Come on Juniper." You consider this crap and refrain from commenting? Touchy, touchy.
Fact is, if you post something like this, I am certainly going to comment in a playful manner. Heck, I admit it, I am homophobic. You obviously, are not.
Like I have said before "no harm no foul!"
Alice Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 4:05 PM : Patriot, I did makes assumptions about your wife .. but only after you had brought up my husband. What was it you said about dishing it out and not taking it? Hmmm.
As for the subject itself, you act as if I never made one, when I most certainly did. You just chose to disregard it. I don't see much point in us "debating" anymore. I'm sure we'll make the occasional comment on some of the funnier stories, but never anything serious. I've tried chatting with you, it's pointless.
I suppose you think you're the better man by bowing out .. but I must ask, who's the quitter now?
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 4:08 PM : Alice, you are right. Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way before.
Juniper Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 4:12 PM : Hi Golly, cool that you bring this to my attention. I was actually refering to another post (the one about education and religion), and I did not want to see this one going down the same way. I can handle a good joke, but let us keep joking to the ones like "happy birthday" or other frivoulous subjects if you don't mind. Actually, Golly you are funny in nice way, Timmy is funny in a racist way, so comment here was more based on the "humour" spouted by Timmy.
Golly Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 4:25 PM : Juniper-Education and Religion. Oh yea, the Butt Pirate thing. Good point. Everything else...no problem, we are cool. Group Hug? Okay, I grossed myself out again.
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 5:38 PM : "I mean if my wife happened to look over my shoulder and see that she's getting dragged into the slander??"
Oh look, more hypocrisy coming from someone that does the same thing all the time. How can you expect anyone to take you serious when you complain about people doing the same thing you do? Good for the goose, I say. Besides, I doubt you'd let her do anything, what with how she supposedly knows her place and all that other stuff you talk about.
Oh, and it's print, therefore called 'libel'.
Don't quit now Patriot, keep your namesake! A Patriot doesn't quit! And after all that outpouring of your true self! Look into your pain, get strength from it. Grow. Become more than you have allowed yourself to be!
And Patriot, your repetition of comments to blow people off... that stoped working in the third grade man! Get real! Surely you have more witty things to say! Perhaps your intellect is not as quick as Alices, mine, or Nony's? If you had just admitted this a long time ago, you might be able to hold more than one conversation at a time!
I usually smile when I read your posts. Now I'm just laughing... at you.
*thinks for a minute* I think I know why you're fighting two fronts, there kiddo. *gasp* Could it be that maybe you started this whole "personal" attack issue? Looks like you can't handle it the way everyone else has been. You should work on that! Think of all the havoc you could let loose once you master your emotions and think more quickly!
Oh, and let me save you the trouble...
Surfer, you are right. Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way before.
Things are so much nicer when you're agreeable. Now, if you'd stop yammering about it like a furby.
Patriot Wrote the following on 01/06/2005 5:56 PM : Surfer, you make alot of good points and I respect your opinion.
PoPo Wrote the following on 01/07/2005 11:41 AM : This is silly to argue in an open forum wether sexual preferance in ok or not. Its a private matter, and should stay private. PERIOD.
I dont agree with it, but its still a private issue.
Surfer Wrote the following on 01/07/2005 1:43 PM : PoPo, I can agree with you to a point. However, conceptual and philosophical discussion of even personal issues can lead to the enlightenment of all involved. While it's not likely that anything will be accomplished here, for the most part I, and I hope others, enjoy seeing the dynamics of humanity and the interaction of people who have nothing in common other than certain basic human needs. This is a great experiment and I hope CW gets some kind of reward for this laboratory,
PoPo Wrote the following on 01/11/2005 1:31 PM : Timmy you are lost in your self.
What am I supposed to prove to you? Do you think any of this matters?
I for merely being a Christian can never be "right" in any way. To argue with people here about something as private as sexuality is useless. Its a bunch of wasted time. In the end the Christian idea will always be wrong, and the liberal lifestyle will continue on. The only way to prove a point is to know a person and see there example as a "Person" not as a virtual personality. What did I cop out on? What you think thats ganna instigate me to continue this argument? For what? To what end? The only thing in life that matters is your family, and what you leave behind for them when you die. Thats it. All this crap about what some one else does in there bedroom is bulogna!!! Its not your business, and if they want you to know what they do with their tool, they need counceling.
Tou argue on this open forum that internet service providers "X", need to get a message about not abusing their clientel with unfair fees and price hikes is a topic with a reasonable productive potential HERE. But we can argue in here for ten years about what Juniper does with his penis, yet it still remains that it is his equipment not ours, and none of our business. Now if some company moves to my neighborhood trying to open a store to sell kiddie porn or promote anything to do with sexualy angled content torwards juiviniles, then it will be closed shortly one way or another, but its not ganna be a result of what our brains manage to muster together here as a result. Will it? No.
So each of us needs to get out of each others bedrooms, and mind our own business. If another man fails to God, it is between him and God alone. Not us. The only people we are responsible for is our children. And if thats hard enough for you all that we have to start trying to convince others to live our way, then I want to adopt your kids.
Ok so thats my little spill...I kinda regret it too.
Alice Wrote the following on 01/11/2005 1:34 PM : I like the point you made here PoPo.
No judgement, not acceptance, just tolerance.
I think people often forget what tolerance means. It doesn't mean you approve or condone somthing, it's more like acknowledging that it has a right to exist. I'm glad you haven't got confused.
Golly Wrote the following on 01/11/2005 1:38 PM : Oh No...we are back here now?
PoPo Wrote the following on 01/12/2005 12:55 AM : Alice if you want to know, I learned this idea of accepting others rights to choose what they wish to, from Gods allowance of me to choose him or not. Of course sinics can see this bigger story as a cup half empty, but for me its half full. I am happy with my life but know Im not perfect and therfor its not my place to judge another person for failing to God. Its God place to bring condemnation. But even Jesus said we will be judged by our own words. So I need to be cautious of my self and what I say. No one else has to answer for my screw ups anyway. I have enough to worry about with out adding the fallbacks of other people into play.
Alice Wrote the following on 01/12/2005 1:03 PM : I think that's a very cool attitude PoPo.
PoPo Wrote the following on 01/12/2005 3:50 PM : I live to searve you oh great "oops".
By the way. Im sorry your parrents were compelled to name you "oops"
Timmy Wrote the following on 01/12/2005 3:52 PM : I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo,I will follow PoPo.
Timmy Wrote the following on 01/12/2005 4:09 PM : I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops,I will follow Po Poops.
PoPo Wrote the following on 01/17/2005 12:29 AM : CW im sorry these two have nothing creative or constructive to add to the posts and forums, they seem to dull all worth while conversations.
Geez and I cant help but feel like Ive encouraged the empty meaningless bable from these hollow helmuts.