Elton john wants.... - Page 22 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-20-2006, 10:42 PM   #316
Babyface
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 16
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

do you know how hurtful that is?
A: No, he has no idea. See my earlier post about Christians who lack all empathy.
__________________

__________________
The Tonic is offline  
Old 11-20-2006, 10:47 PM   #317
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 03:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I was actually joking about you being a monster. I thought it was obvious.
Well it wasn't obvious, but I realize humor and irony can sometimes be hard to convey. But a smilie can sometimes make a world of difference.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-20-2006, 10:50 PM   #318
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Well it wasn't obvious, but I realize humor and irony can sometimes be hard to convey. But a smilie can sometimes make a world of difference.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-20-2006, 10:57 PM   #319
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:00 AM
Quote:
Homosexuality: An attempt at clarity
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, April 29, 2003

The homosexual is equal in God's eyes to the heterosexual.

Parents must love their children, including the child who is homosexual. At the same time, a homosexual child must understand a loving parent's sadness over his or her inability to sexually love a person of the opposite sex.

Society has the right and obligation to prefer heterosexuality to homosexuality. It is better for children -- they need a mother and a father. And it is better for the individual -- a woman makes a man a better person; and a man does the same for a woman. Advocating heterosexuality as society's ideal no more implies bigotry or "homophobia" than advocating marriage implies bigotry against singles or "single-phobia."

Societies that regard homosexual sex as the equivalent of heterosexual sex have far more homosexual sex. Ancient Greece esteemed man-boy sex, and consequently had far more of it than modern society.

Men who are not sexually attracted to women have no choice about being homosexual. Proponents of heterosexuality should, therefore, use the word "choose" sparingly when referring to homosexual men.

We do not know why people are homosexual. The cause may be genetic, or it may be neonatal, but we have nothing approaching proof for either explanation. It may also be psychologically induced, and in some cases this can be shown (e.g., gay men who were subjected to sexual contact with a male when they were boys). In none of these cases can a homosexual be said to have chosen to be one.

Many women in lesbian relationships, however, can find some men sexually desirable. Such homosexuals can be said to exercise some degree of choice.

A significant percentage of women in lesbian relationships have come to those relationships primarily as a result of sexual abuse by a man.

Bisexuals, by definition, exercise choice. They can be asked (though not legally coerced) to limit their sexual behavior to heterosexual relationships.

It is unfair to a child who can be adopted by a married couple to be adopted by a same-sex couple. Children have a basic human right to a mother and a father.

The Boy Scouts have the right and the duty not to place gay men in situations where they are alone with boys -- just as the Girl Scouts should not place heterosexual men in positions where they are alone with girls. Yes, most gay men control themselves around boys; but the disproportionate sexual abuse of boys by homosexual priests suggests that some proportion of gays will not be able to control this desire.

Jewish and Christian denominations are right to refuse to ordain avowed practicing homosexuals. At the same time they are not required to ask prospective clergy what their sexual orientation is. Sexual orientation is the individual's business; publicly proclaimed sexual behavior is the denomination's business.

Consensual, private sex between adults is not always acceptable. Even most gays judge consensual adult incest such as father-daughter or brother-sister (or brother-brother) sex wrong. Many gays even believe it should be illegal. Therefore, heterosexuals who draw their line of acceptance at homosexual sex are not necessarily any more bigoted than gays who draw their line at consensual incest.

The gay movement's constant linking of gay equality with equality for the trans-gendered (someone who acts like the opposite sex) undermines its moral credibility and feeds the belief that the movement seeks to undermine Judeo-Christian and Western liberal society. It is one thing to demand that gays not be fired for their private behavior or sexual orientation. But it is quite another to demand that men who wear women's clothing in public must be allowed to keep their jobs.

"Homophobic" is an epithet; often as ugly as "fag." Activists for homosexuality-heterosexuality equivalence should make arguments, not smear all those who believe in the heterosexual ideal. Likewise activists for the heterosexual ideal must never deny the humanity or dignity of the homosexual human being.

Anyone, including homosexuals, should have the right to name beneficiaries in case of death, to name the visitors they wish in case of illness, etc. That is elementary decency.

Marriage is the bedrock institution of society, and must not be redefined. If it is, there are no moral or logical grounds to prevent redefining marriage to include more than two people.

Gay activist groups are radical organizations. Opposing them no more renders a person anti-gay than having opposed communist parties rendered one anti-worker.

None of these propositions in any way contradicts the opening statement: The homosexual is equal in God's eyes to the heterosexual
About where I stand.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 11-20-2006, 11:04 PM   #320
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 03:00 AM
Quote:
Society has the right and obligation to prefer heterosexuality to homosexuality. It is better for children -- they need a mother and a father. And it is better for the individual -- a woman makes a man a better person; and a man does the same for a woman. Advocating heterosexuality as society's ideal no more implies bigotry or "homophobia" than advocating marriage implies bigotry against singles or "single-phobia."
That is a sad sad article, and I won't bother commenting on the author...

But I would make a few editing corrections;

Society has the right and obligation to prefer love. It is better for children -- they need love. And it is better for the individual -- love makes a man a better person; and love does the same for a woman.


The rest of the article I'd just leave in the trash.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 07:55 AM   #321
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Why are you so interested in this answer maycocksean?

It's a strange question - but I suppose it comes down to the fact that this is not adultery, because you are married. I think it would cross the line into sin if either one is harmed.

I guess I would put this in the category of "permissible" but not necessarily "beneficial."
The reason I wanted to hear the answer to this question is because, here is something that is not "natural", that doesn't "fit". The question is would that be condemned as roundly as homosexual sex or would it be considered "permissible"? If one "unnatural" act is wrong, wouldn't the other one be also?

It seems you answered the question, that "unnatural" acts are okay as long as they take place between a married man and woman.

I've been following this thread for the past few days, and basically, AEON, what I see is a circular argument that goes something like this:

"Homosexuals can't get married because homosexual sex is wrong. Homosexual sex is wrong because it is outside of marriage. "

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:03 AM   #322
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


The reason I wanted to hear the answer to this question is because, here is something that is not "natural", that doesn't "fit". The question is would that be condemned as roundly as homosexual sex or would it be considered "permissible"? If one "unnatural" act is wrong, wouldn't the other one be also?

It seems you answered the question, that "unnatural" acts are okay as long as they take place between a married man and woman.

I've been following this thread for the past few days, and basically, AEON, what I see is a circular argument that goes something like this:

"Homosexuals can't get married because homosexual sex is wrong. Homosexual sex is wrong because it is outside of marriage. "

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
It would be more accurate to say that as a Christian I am arguing that homosexuals can't get married because marriage is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman. And because I do not think the Bible endorses gay marriage - it would necessarily follow that homosexual sex is a sin - since it is sex outside of marriage (adultery).
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:23 AM   #323
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


It would be more accurate to say that as a Christian I am arguing that homosexuals can't get married because marriage is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman. And because I do not think the Bible endorses gay marriage - it would necessarily follow that homosexual sex is a sin - since it is sex outside of marriage (adultery).
Fair enough. I do recognize that as your basic stance though that wasn't always so clear as the arguments flew back and forth.

Let's push the argument a little further. Let's assume for a moment that the Biblical ideal for marriage IS between one man and one woman. The fact still remains that the Bible actually describes several different types of "less than ideal" marriages that while, okay, perhaps not CONDONED by God, were certainly permitted (with all the attentendant negative consequences too) among men that were clearly God's followers. You've got Abraham engaged in a sexual relationship with Hagar as well as his wife Sarah. You've got Isaac married to his relative Rebekah. Jacob married to sisters Leah and Rachel (who were also his relatives). You've got David with Michal, Abigail (note the relationship with Bathsheba-clearly adultery was most definitely condemned so even in these times it wasn't "anything goes". Adultery was still adultery BUT THE DEFINTION OF MARRAIGE WAS MUCH BROADER THEN THAN IT IS NOW). I've raised this point before. I'd take it a step further and say that the marriage between one man and one woman as practiced during Biblical times was far from "ideal." This is what I think Jesus was getting at when the Sadducees tried to trap him with the story about the woman married to seven brothers, each of whom died without leaving an heir. Jesus response was that they didn't understand that power of God, and that in heaven there would be neither marriage nor giving in marriage but they would be the like the angels. Now as far as I know there is no consensus within the Christian community over what Jesus meant by this statment. There are those who believe it means that marriage ends at the pearly gates, others who do not think it. I think it might mean that Jesus was saying that these people had no idea what marriage was really supposed to be about and that marriage as they understood it wouldn't it exist in heaven.

But that's speculation, I'll grant you that.

The point is this, the Biblical "description" of marriages in which God's faithful followers were engaged is a far cry from anything we would consider ideal or even legal today. So I guess what doesn't make sense to me is why God wouldn't at the very least do the same for the gay man or lesbian woman today that he did for the incestous polygamist such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Biblical times. Why wouldn't He say for them, as Paul did for us heterosexuals, that it is "better to marry than to burn?" Note Paul's chief rationale for marriage in that passage in 1 Corinthians is that it must be done "if you can't control yourself." Why would God bar a homosexual from having that same "out." No pun intended.

Even if we were to allow homosexuals to marry we still wouldn't be redifining marriage as much as it was "redefined" during Biblical times.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:25 AM   #324
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 05:00 AM
I enjoy your comments, maycocksean. I'm glad I stepped away to allow other people to comment. I have to learn to not "monopolize the conversation" as much as I conventionally do.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:30 AM   #325
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus
I enjoy your comments, maycocksean. I'm glad I stepped away to allow other people to comment. I have to learn to not "monopolize the conversation" as much as I conventionally do.
I've found the interchange interesting, and I can certainly appreciate your frustration at times.

I didn't post earlier, not because the converstaion was being "monopolized" but because I just didn't have time to post a thoughtful reply.

But I'm off work for the rest of the week for Thanksgiving break and (despite the fact that I have a scratchy throat and should really go to bed--it's 11:30 P.M. here) I can now stay up late and start posting.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 09:14 AM   #326
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I would join the priesthood.


my jaw literally dropped open when i read this.

literally.

how breathtakingly arrogant, akin to, "well, if i were blind, i would try learning how to see."

and, under Benedict, even celibate gay men are deemed unfit to be priests.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 09:15 AM   #327
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Not to cut in here....

But the monster of a liberal christian is wondering if you are in the area this week?

I am pretty drugged up.....I have detoxed because I have to work tomorrow...but as I pass the gravel from the surgery, I intend to take pills again.

Are you areound this week...and are we hooking up?




i'll PM you and get my catholic schoolgirl outfit ironed.






__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 09:18 AM   #328
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




my jaw literally dropped open when i read this.

literally.

how breathtakingly arrogant, akin to, "well, if i were blind, i would try learning how to see."

and, under Benedict, even celibate gay men are deemed unfit to be priests.
If you read further down - you will find I was being sarcastic.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 09:19 AM   #329
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I was kidding. Even though I did consider the priesthood.

Although - I do think a celibate life is a spiritual call for some.


oh, so being gay is god telling me to be celibate?

i could go off on a rant here as to how life in the closet is physically, emotionally, and spiritually destructive and the source of nearly all self-destructive behavior and the primary cause of new cases of HIV infection, but i suppose it's more important to make the homophobic heteros feel more comfortable.

but, seriously, what am i supposed to do?

how am i supposed to live my life?

how am i supposed to be a multi-dimensional human being?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 09:28 AM   #330
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


About where I stand.


yes, it's always refreshing to read about one's self. i wonder if there's a white person out there who can sum up how society should feel about and treat African-Americans.

and as for this comment:

[q]Yes, most gay men control themselves around boys; but the disproportionate sexual abuse of boys by homosexual priests suggests that some proportion of gays will not be able to control this desire.
[/q]

fuck you. i mean, just FUCK YOU.

how dare you equate PEDOPHILIA with HOMOSEXUALITY. a pedophile cannot be said to have a sexual orientation comparable to hetero or homosexuality. most men who are attracted to young boys are attracted to them because THEY AREN'T MASCULINE! THEY HAVE FEMININE CHARACTERISTICS! THEY ARE NOT LIKEWISE ATTRACTED TO SEXUALLY MATURE ADULT MALES WHO HAVE BODY HAIR, MUSCLES, AND FULLY DEVELOPED GENITALIA.

[q]Therefore, heterosexuals who draw their line of acceptance at homosexual sex are not necessarily any more bigoted than gays who draw their line at consensual incest.[/q]

again: fuck you. FUCK YOU.

how dare you sit there and compare incest with homosexuality. please name for me one person who is harmed by consensual homosexual sex? and now let's talk about all the children who have been irreversably scarred by incest.

you are absolutely, 100% BIGOTED if you're going to draw out some of the most offensive comparisons possible in order to justify your own bigotry.

[q]None of these propositions in any way contradicts the opening statement: The homosexual is equal in God's eyes to the heterosexual[/q]

and with this statement, the author drowns in his own lack of self-awareness.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com