Campus club seeks right to exclude gays

[Guest ShootingStylesPress]

The whole "made in his own image" is a bit sketchy, but I think it's basically that we're kinda similar looking to him? I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's essentially, face, eyes, ears, nose, etc.

 

Yeah, I know some people are born with these things missing and stuff, but it's just one more thing that happens.

[Ripper 0]

Why would anyone actively choose to be gay? I think that's a perfectly excellent question.

Yeah and if a person didn't "choose" to be gay, then god must have "made" them that way. I could be wrong but I remember reading somewhere that god made man in his own image (or something to that effect) so does that mean that god is gay?

God isn't a man or woman so heshe can't be gay. Although that must mean that god has lust to go along with the rest of these feelings he past on to us.

 

So basically, homosexuality is gods fault for not being specific.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

What a waste of truely good sarcasm

[Ripper 0]

The whole "made in his own image" is a bit sketchy, but I think it's basically that we're kinda similar looking to him? I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's essentially, face, eyes, ears, nose, etc.

 

Yeah, I know some people are born with these things missing and stuff, but it's just one more thing that happens.

I think it is more a explaination of our emotions. I mean, if you read the bible, god is a pretty cool dude, that got lonely, created Adam so that he could have someone to talk to, he got pissed off when people broke his rules, he got even more pissed off at people and would kill the shit out of them. he was jealous when they started seeing other gods, admitted he kinda fucked up once and flooded the world to get a reset, can get goaded in to silly bets (that Job story is pretty fucked up right there) had a kid....you know...did shit that basically all of us do.

 

...

 

 

except the killing part which is just not kewl....unless someone really pisses you off.

[Ripper 0]

What a waste of truely good sarcasm

Well...my answer was a sarcastic response to sarcasm....so....WHAT A WASTE OF SARCASTIC RESPONSES TO SARCASM!!!!!

 

 

 

 

...

 

 

unless this is a sarcastic response to my sarcastic answer to the sarcastic question.

 

...

 

I...I forgot what I was talking about.

[Guest SP-1]

Edwin:  Pretty much anyone who five people bearing down on them would like a hand in a fight.  Gay or straight.

No, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You've got this awful precondition going on. Your only justification for lowering yourself to help such a person is that they're about to experience physical harm. It's hypocritical dick-waving and five-year-old hero talk in regards to a person you think's going to burn in hell regardless. Helping a gay person in that situation is merely a means to show how noble a person you are, and that's it.

Man, are you looking for something to twist around? Where did I say that I wouldn't step in for anyone else? Now, the types of bigoted Christians you guys want to make the standard for Christianity WOULDN'T step in if a homosexual were being harrassed by violent hatemongers. My point wasn't that they're weaker, my point was that I don't believe anyone should be beaten to death by other humans, especially not when the issue at hand is one that can only be worked out with God.

 

If someone wants to scrap then they can do it one on one. A gay guy can whup his ass for all I care. But if some hick gets five of his friends to beat the hell outta that guy, then I'll try to help, just like I would for anyone else in that kind of unfair situation.

 

 

Eric: Shut up. Seriously. Stop trying to degrade my character when I've discussed this issue biblically many times before on this board. With you before, probably. You know where I stand on it and I don't need to reiterate it for you, or most of the other regulars here. I don't have to prove myself to you, especially not when your mind is made up already. You disregard academic biblical study in favor of trying to make it say whatever you want it to. Take the Bible as a whole, take it the way it's supposed to work, and then come talk to me. Otherwise, watch me deal with others here who are a bit more civilized in their discussion.

 

I'm finished here. The childishness is overwhelming. If anyone really wants to discuss it further PM me and I'll be happy to discuss it further there or on AIM. (Speaking of which: if you read this, Paragon, I haven't forgotten. It's still on my list of things to get to, man.)

[Ripper 0]

Eric: Shut up. Seriously. Stop trying to degrade my character when I've discussed this issue biblically many times before on this board. With you before, probably. You know where I stand on it and I don't need to reiterate it for you, or most of the other regulars here. I don't have to prove myself to you, especially not when your mind is made up already. You disregard academic biblical study in favor of trying to make it say whatever you want it to. Take the Bible as a whole, take it the way it's supposed to work, and then come talk to me. Otherwise, watch me deal with others here who are a bit more civilized in their discussion.

 

I'm finished here. The childishness is overwhelming. If anyone really wants to discuss it further PM me and I'll be happy to discuss it further there or on AIM. (Speaking of which: if you read this, Paragon, I haven't forgotten. It's still on my list of things to get to, man.)

Dude...you are literally ducking a VERY easy question posed to you. I mean, i don't know the amount of dickiture that Eric has given you before, but he just posed a simple question in this thread and its all "i am not going to discuss this anymore because you are smelly!" i have no problem with ya or anything, but it would be alot easier to answer the question than writing 15 page long responses explaining why you won't answer the question.

[Guest SP-1]

Eric:  Shut up.  Seriously.  Stop trying to degrade my character when I've discussed this issue biblically many times before on this board.  With you before, probably.  You know where I stand on it and I don't need to reiterate it for you, or most of the other regulars here.  I don't have to prove myself to you, especially not when your mind is made up already.  You disregard academic biblical study in favor of trying to make it say whatever you want it to.  Take the Bible as a whole, take it the way it's supposed to work, and then come talk to me.  Otherwise, watch me deal with others here who are a bit more civilized in their discussion.

 

I'm finished here.  The childishness is overwhelming.  If anyone really wants to discuss it further PM me and I'll be happy to discuss it further there or on AIM.  (Speaking of which:  if you read this, Paragon, I haven't forgotten.  It's still on my list of things to get to, man.)

Dude...you are literally ducking a VERY easy question posed to you. I mean, i don't know the amount of dickiture that Eric has given you before, but he just posed a simple question in this thread and its all "i am not going to discuss this anymore because you are smelly!" i have no problem with ya or anything, but it would be alot easier to answer the question than writing 15 page long responses explaining why you won't answer the question.

Lots of dickery. Arrogant dickery. The kind that isn't even looking for a conversation, just an argument. It's borderline flame baiting with him, man. That's why I offered PM/AIM to someone that actually wanted to discuss it.

[Guest Loss]

Especially the key question:

 

Why would anyone choose to be gay?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Edwin:  Pretty much anyone who five people bearing down on them would like a hand in a fight.  Gay or straight.

No, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You've got this awful precondition going on. Your only justification for lowering yourself to help such a person is that they're about to experience physical harm. It's hypocritical dick-waving and five-year-old hero talk in regards to a person you think's going to burn in hell regardless. Helping a gay person in that situation is merely a means to show how noble a person you are, and that's it.

Man, are you looking for something to twist around? Where did I say that I wouldn't step in for anyone else? Now, the types of bigoted Christians you guys want to make the standard for Christianity WOULDN'T step in if a homosexual were being harrassed by violent hatemongers. My point wasn't that they're weaker, my point was that I don't believe anyone should be beaten to death by other humans, especially not when the issue at hand is one that can only be worked out with God.

You're not following what I'm saying. You're willing to step in and support a gay person only if they're in danger of physical harm. You won't support their rights as a group and you won't speak out against any sort of legislative injustice done to them, but you'll throw a punch if you see a gay guy getting ganged up on. You see the inconsistency here? It doesn't make you a better person to say "yeah, I'll throw down, I'll fight someone"; it just makes you someone who'll play tough guy but will go back to damning someone to a life of civil inequality after you've proven your goodness.

 

The vast majority of the Christians I know have gotten over that outdated part of their faith and have no problem with gay people. What's yours?

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Marriage has the definition of being between a man and a woman, by pretty much everyone, except for people who want to CHANGE it. The thing is, you can't change the definition of marriage, so much as you can't change the definition of a triangle as not having three sides. That's what it is.

 

Have civil unions, have all the equal rights in terms of benefits and such, if that's what's wanted. There's no discrimination here.

 

It's funny how people spend pages upon pages harping on about gay marriage, yet no one gives a shit as to more significant social injusticies, like all that goes on in third world nations. Even better is the fact that most people call Christians hypocrites when it comes to their attitude towards others, when I know so many that get up and give up significant amounts of their life to serve others in places like Africa and South America, big places they are, continents after all. But hey, they don't approve of homosexuality so they must suck.

 

Am I the only one whose also sick and tired of people having their identity defined by the fact that they're gay, or black, or whatever? Human beings are more complicated then that.

 

I didn't mention the actual topic, that being the Christian law group, because unless they are allowing a whole bunch of other sinning, like promiscuous sex and plain ole drunken debauchery, then there is nothing wrong with that. Of course, they shouldn't get funding from the school either.

[Twisted Intestine 0]

Especially the key question:

 

Why would anyone choose to be gay?

Pop culture may be making being gay "cool".

 

If you are a bi-sexual, you may choose to be gay, just because you have more fun with guys.

 

Maybe to make a statement.. like you've grown up with a gay bashing father, so you engage in sexual activity with a gay partner just to tell your father to fuck off.

 

You might just be curious and try that side of the fence.

 

Or maybe... "Everyone else is doing it!"

[Guest Loss]

Pop culture may be making being gay "cool".

I don't know that this is the case. Sure, there are guys who get their rocks off to lesbians, but there is still a lot of gay bashing in movies and on television shows. Will Truman and Jack McFarland aren't "cool", they're embarassing stereotypes. Ditto for the Fab Five. I do think American society has embraced certain aspects of gay culture, but I don't think it's ever really been fashionable to be gay at all.

 

If you are a bi-sexual, you may choose to be gay, just because you have more fun with guys.

 

Chosen homosexuality is not real homosexuality. I do think there are some who throw a label on themselves to make a statement, but in the same way Spiderpoet doesn't consider Christians who do so true Christians, I don't think "gays" who do so are being honest with themselves.

 

The only choice one makes is to accept himself for who he is. Heterosexuals do not have homosexual desires, or at least that's the case if they're being honest when they say so.

 

Of course this all depends on whether or not you see sexuality as a sense of being or a sense of doing. I tend to favor the former over the latter.

 

Maybe to make a statement.. like you've grown up with a gay bashing father, so you engage in sexual activity with a gay partner just to tell your father to fuck off.

 

I do think this happens in some instances, but I don't know that that's true homosexuality. I think, if anything, it's a combination of nature and nurture. Admittedly, many people who identify themselves as homosexuals have experienced some sort of abuse or trauma at some point in their lives. Many haven't. The same could be said for heterosexuals.

 

Or maybe... "Everyone else is doing it!"

 

Only 10% of the population identifies themselves as gay, according to the last survey I read.

 

You did succeed in stating reasons why some may choose homosexuality, so in that sense, you did answer my question logically. I do think, however, that we're talking about two different types of people, and I think such cases are the exception more than the rule.

 

I like to think my circumstances are the rule. All of my other gay friends would agree.

[Guest Loss]

Marriage has the definition of being between a man and a woman, by pretty much everyone, except for people who want to CHANGE it. The thing is, you can't change the definition of marriage, so much as you can't change the definition of a triangle as not having three sides. That's what it is.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Marriage is not a scientific term, nor is it a mathematical term. "Triangle" is a mathematical term with factual, Latin roots and real, possible application.

 

I should also point out that it's conservatives who are setting out to redefine marriage as being between one man and one woman, not liberals. Perhaps they feel backed into that corner, I don't know.

 

Marriage has never been properly defined, and now it's being defined in a way that is in the interest of convention over equality, which is un-American.

 

Have civil unions, have all the equal rights in terms of benefits and such, if that's what's wanted. There's no discrimination here.

 

Yes and no. There are some conservatives who support civil unions who do not think that gays should get a tax break even if civil unions are legalized, which is a form of discrimation. Having marriage and civil unions be separate is the new millenium equivalent of having black and white water fountains and segregated schools. If all things were equal, I personally do not think that arguing about a difference in terminology is a war worth waging. Historically, there is proof that separate, but equal doesn't work.

 

While most heterosexuals see this issue as one in pragmatic, black-and-white terms, most homosexuals see this as symbolic. To us, it's not a battle for marriage rights, it's a battle for full equality. It's the final piece of the puzzle.

 

It's funny how people spend pages upon pages harping on about gay marriage, yet no one gives a shit as to more significant social injusticies, like all that goes on in third world nations.

 

I don't know that this is fair. Gay marriage has been a hot topic practically everywhere in 2004, and it's been politicized by both parties. I agree that there are far more important things to worry about than gay marriage. If those who are opposed to it would stop fighting it and let the chips fall where they may, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

Even better is the fact that most people call Christians hypocrites when it comes to their attitude towards others, when I know so many that get up and give up significant amounts of their life to serve others in places like Africa and South America, big places they are, continents after all. But hey, they don't approve of homosexuality so they must suck.

 

That makes them hypocritical. I don't know if it means they "suck". Where were the churches, and President Reagan for that matter, in the early days of the spread of AIDS? No one was touching the issue because it was originally called a "rare cancer" caused by a "homosexual lifestyle", yet when it started spreading to heterosexuals, it became a crusade. Many Christians saw AIDS as God delivering justice against those who have dishonored him. Many Christians still see it that way.

 

Am I the only one whose also sick and tired of people having their identity defined by the fact that they're gay, or black, or whatever? Human beings are more complicated then that.

 

You're hardly the only one. I long for the day when no one cares who's gay or straight and gays have full equality and it's one big, happy parade. Call me a dreamer. It can't happen yet, sadly.

 

I didn't mention the actual topic, that being the Christian law group, because unless they are allowing a whole bunch of other sinning, like promiscuous sex and plain ole drunken debauchery, then there is nothing wrong with that. Of course, they shouldn't get funding from the school either.

 

Agreed 100%.

[Twisted Intestine 0]

You did succeed in stating reasons why some may choose homosexuality, so in that sense, you did answer my question logically. I do think, however, that we're talking about two different types of people, and I think such cases are the exception more than the rule.

 

I like to think my circumstances are the rule. All of my other gay friends would agree.

I agree with you that being gay by choice is an exception to the rule, and that for most it's not a choice and they're just gay by nature. I was just thinking of possible reasons it'd be a choice for someone.

 

You may have already known this, but if not, just making sure that we're on the same page.

[Guest Loss]

I wanted to share something:

 

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red and he placed them on separate continents," wrote a Virginia appeals court judge as late as 1965. "The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Not only was intermarriage considered anti-Christian, it was deemed morally repugnant. "Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit," said Georgia's Sen. Seaborn Roddenberry in 1912. "Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy."

 

Sound familiar?

[Guest Loss]

And yes, we're on the same page. I thought you made a good point.

[Damaramu 0]

The whole "made in his own image" is a bit sketchy, but I think it's basically that we're kinda similar looking to him? I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's essentially, face, eyes, ears, nose, etc.

 

Yeah, I know some people are born with these things missing and stuff, but it's just one more thing that happens.

Why is Jesus white in every image I see of him? Considering where he was born wouldn't he be Arab?

[Twisted Intestine 0]

The whole "made in his own image" is a bit sketchy, but I think it's basically that we're kinda similar looking to him? I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's essentially, face, eyes, ears, nose, etc.

 

Yeah, I know some people are born with these things missing and stuff, but it's just one more thing that happens.

Why is Jesus white in every image I see of him? Considering where he was born wouldn't he be Arab?

Of course not! Arabic people are evil!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Why is Jesus white in every image I see of him? Considering where he was born wouldn't he be Arab?

Yeah, I could see some church in OK hanging a picture of what Jesus REALLY looked like...

[Crimson Platypus 0]

Jesus werent no A-Rab, Jesus were Amerikan ya hear?

[Guest Loss]

Blame Michelangelo.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

--Loss, thinking he had someone pegged wrong

Eh, I wasn't in the greatest of moods when we had our little pissing contest becasue that was around the time my one kitty died...

[therealworldschampion 0]

Why is Jesus white in every image I see of him? Considering where he was born wouldn't he be Arab?

 

Well I never saw Jesus as an Arab ever....ever

[Guest CronoT]

Why is Jesus white in every image I see of him? Considering where he was born wouldn't he be Arab?

 

Well I never saw Jesus as an Arab ever....ever

That's because Jesus wasn't an Arab; he was Hebrew. Hebrews and Israelites are the descendants of Adam and Eve, and the Arabs and Persians are the descendants of Cain.

[Damaramu 0]

Why is Jesus white in every image I see of him? Considering where he was born wouldn't he be Arab?

 

Well I never saw Jesus as an Arab ever....ever

That's because Jesus wasn't an Arab; he was Hebrew. Hebrews and Israelites are the descendants of Adam and Eve, and the Arabs and Persians are the descendants of Cain.

But he wasn't white was he?

[MrRant 0]

Pink.

[Guest CronoT]

Why is Jesus white in every image I see of him? Considering where he was born wouldn't he be Arab?

 

Well I never saw Jesus as an Arab ever....ever

That's because Jesus wasn't an Arab; he was Hebrew. Hebrews and Israelites are the descendants of Adam and Eve, and the Arabs and Persians are the descendants of Cain.

But he wasn't white was he?

There are even some Biblical theories that Jesus may have been either full or part Black.

[Ravenbomb 0]

Leviticus 19:26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.

 

...so...have clocks been evil this whole time?

[MrRant 0]

Jesus vs. The Sundial

 

The Battle over Time.