U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-25-2009, 08:32 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 22,426,450 times
Reputation: 3868

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fracturedman View Post
I have to ask? Why are you so fixed on this question? Why would anyone care what they do?
Exactly. But what's REALLY funny about this is how many people on this thread have been screaming and yelling about how it's impossible and/or living a lie and/or just wrong.

So why aren't homosexuals allowed to do whatever they want to do, even if it is leaving homosexuality? I find it amazing that this infuriates so many people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-25-2009, 08:53 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,476,695 times
Reputation: 4104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
So then you'd have no problem with homosexuals wanting to leave that lifestyle and embrace heterosexuality?
I have no problem with it as long as it is a choice. I do have a problem when people are given a choice of switching sexual orientation or being beaten and left on a fence post to die like Mathew Shepard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 08:57 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 22,426,450 times
Reputation: 3868
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
I have no problem with it as long as it is a choice. I do have a problem when people are given a choice of switching sexual orientation or being beaten and left on a fence post to die like Mathew Shepard.
Spare the hyperbole. It doesn't add anything to the discussion.

My position, all along, has simply been to let people do what they want to do - even if that does include leaving homosexuality. And it has been absolutely amazing how much hatred and lunacy that position has aroused on this forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,476,695 times
Reputation: 4104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
Spare the hyperbole. It doesn't add anything to the discussion.

My position, all along, has simply been to let people do what they want to do - even if that does include leaving homosexuality. And it has been absolutely amazing how much hatred and lunacy that position has aroused on this forum.
I am not asking for any discussion on extremes. It seems the current discussion in politics is given a choice to live however some one wishes within confines of civil society as they wish...or choose heterosexuality or else you will be made to. I could care less myself what people choose, as long as they can choose without violent influence and reparations for a decision they have the legal capacity to make at their discretion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 09:17 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,733,231 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R. View Post
First "Christian Reconstructionists" are Calvinists, they're not of my religion at all. They're a group of fringe heretics from my perspective and of debatable real importance.

Second - Looking it up it is true that he hired 150 from Regents, more than anyone before had done. However I haven't seen evidence that this is "most" or most significant. Alito and Roberts certainly weren't from Regents. I have not checked the following thoroughly, but perhaps you can find the Regents graduates among them.

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homosexuals even in California still have most of the rights they ever had. Even there it was a popular reversal of a court decision, not a long-established right. You want to believe something so badly that I feel you take a selective and highly biased view of the facts. By any logical or meaningful assessment gays are freer than they were in 1979 or 1988. Certainly more than in 1909, the year before the term "fundamentalist" began. Likewise individuals wanting greater public religiosity go back to some of the Founders, like Benjamin Rush. So I don't think you have much real to stand on.
Oh Thomas, how little of you.

Calvanists are STILL Christians, just like you.

And 150 Evangical Christian lawyers doing "gods work" of "turning the US into a theodemocracy" is certainly something everyone should stand up and take notice of. Where do you think SCOTUS people come from?

Also, as we've already discussed in our back-and-forths, I have always stated that this is an ONGOING concern that has been in place since our Founding. I believe it began as simply due to religious persons being used to their g'ment, England, representing their religion.

The term Fundamentalists was indeed coined (in 1901 BTW) to reference certain religious people. However, that doesn't mean the mentality was coined at that time too.

Do gays enjoy more rights now? Certainly, DESPITE the RR's ongoing attempts. However, this doesn't negate the fact that the fundies are still a danger to this Nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 09:35 PM
 
Location: 30-40N 90-100W
13,856 posts, read 22,205,099 times
Reputation: 6657
As you feel of the Bible I feel about this fantasy of yours.

It's just not real. American Christians are too diverse to form a theocracy in any real sense and Reconstructionists are a pretty small group amongst them. On top of that the number of Christians who, like me, believe "Christianity is the one true faith" would not even make a majority. The things you see as signs of theocracy are not signs of anything like theocracy in any real or normal sense of the word. A fair or reasonable reading of the facts would make that abundantly clear.

Still I'd concede this, frankly, paranoid view of "Christianist soldiers" is highly important to you. So much so I should've remembered it was a waste of time arguing with you about it. If you need it you need it. I guess for other people's benefit though I do need to repeat it is not real or meaningful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 10:19 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,733,231 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R. View Post
As you feel of the Bible I feel about this fantasy of yours.

It's just not real. American Christians are too diverse to form a theocracy in any real sense and Reconstructionists are a pretty small group amongst them. On top of that the number of Christians who, like me, believe "Christianity is the one true faith" would not even make a majority. The things you see as signs of theocracy are not signs of anything like theocracy in any real or normal sense of the word. A fair or reasonable reading of the facts would make that abundantly clear.

Still I'd concede this, frankly, paranoid view of "Christianist soldiers" is highly important to you. So much so I should've remembered it was a waste of time arguing with you about it. If you need it you need it. I guess for other people's benefit though I do need to repeat it is not real or meaningful.
Pat Robertson alone enjoys 28 million viewers for his 700 club a month, according to the Neilsen Ratings. Throw in the others who support Rushdooney's ideals, and you in fact have a significant number of Christians who support a theodemocracy.

But believe as you will. I'm not here to change your mind, even if it could be done. Christians like yourself tend to deny such an agenda because much of thier agenda (teh agenda they make public) you might agree with.

And I certainly don't "need a theocratic agenda" like some Myther needs 9/11 conspiracies. Your ad hominem fell short.

Start watching here, if you care to...


YouTube - Theocracy Watch: Dominion Theology (1/5)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 11:33 PM
 
10,996 posts, read 11,121,128 times
Reputation: 8355
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
While on the surface your post sounds reasonable, there are certain undercurrents I feel I must address, besides the fact that homosexuality precedes human society.

Sex is indeed the single strongest instict we have, at times even outstripping self-preservation. However, PROCREATION, as in creating offspring, is NOT an instict in and of itself.

Otherwise we wouldn't cuddle and smoke a cig with our SO's until we were sure we had made a baby.

That said, homosexual relationships are NOT all about sex, any more than hetero relationships. They look for the same exact things we do in a relationship. Love, caring, compassion, mutual support, friendship, understanding, companionship, etc. And yes, intimacy as well.

"Getting your rocks off", as you have implied in your rather msitated "historical example" above, is not homosexuality. Someone merely having their jollies isn't going to want to enter into a committed relationship, ie marriage, with someone of the same gender.
How did I imply that homosexuality is about "getting your rocks off"? I was leaning toward loyalty in the men in the army example. The fact that there are enough homosexuals to mate with each other means that nobody has to be "using" homosexuals to do anything. They wanted to sleep with each other and they did. It created a bond between them. That was the purpose. Nobody forced a hose in their mouth. And thats the point. Homosexuals are not bothering anyone, much less single straight men. They sleep with other homosexuals and they create relationships, and many have homes together where they live productive lives. So don't assume I am putting homosexuals down in any way. You are the one intent on thinking dirty thoughts about them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 11:47 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,733,231 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by temptation001 View Post
How did I imply that homosexuality is about "getting your rocks off"? I was leaning toward loyalty in the men in the army example. The fact that there are enough homosexuals to mate with each other means that nobody has to be "using" homosexuals to do anything. They wanted to sleep with each other and they did. It created a bond between them. That was the purpose. Nobody forced a hose in their mouth. And thats the point. Homosexuals are not bothering anyone, much less single straight men. They sleep with other homosexuals and they create relationships, and many have homes together where they live productive lives. So don't assume I am putting homosexuals down in any way. You are the one intent on thinking dirty thoughts about them.
You still miss the point.

The activities conducted by the ancient warriors, including Spatras and Cretes, was homoerotic in nature, not homosexual.

This I was trying to correct you on, and also outline to other posters who may be unaware the true nature of homosexuality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2009, 01:14 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,281,709 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R. View Post
As you feel of the Bible I feel about this fantasy of yours.

It's just not real. American Christians are too diverse to form a theocracy in any real sense and Reconstructionists are a pretty small group amongst them. On top of that the number of Christians who, like me, believe "Christianity is the one true faith" would not even make a majority. The things you see as signs of theocracy are not signs of anything like theocracy in any real or normal sense of the word. A fair or reasonable reading of the facts would make that abundantly clear.

Still I'd concede this, frankly, paranoid view of "Christianist soldiers" is highly important to you. So much so I should've remembered it was a waste of time arguing with you about it. If you need it you need it. I guess for other people's benefit though I do need to repeat it is not real or meaningful.
No, they won't form a solid Theocracy.

What has been done, by politicians, is to play your fears and common thoughts in order to get political gains.

Look at the Bush administration. They pushed to have gay marriage amendments onto the ballet in 2004, in Florida and Ohio. You might think that this was because they so adamantly were against gay marriage, however, this couldn't be further from the truth.

If they could have gotten ahead in the race being for gay marriage, they would have done so. However, they knew that people who classify themselves as Evangelical Christians would come out in droves to get a gay marriage ban passed. Those Evangelicals voted 2 to 1 for Bush, and they knew that to. So, he ends up winning the election by a small margin.

Thats what they are doing to y'all, and thats what they continue to do now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top