Republicans Hate Gays/Want To Commit Genocide on Them

(I am not categorising here)


As I said, I was not categorising. I was pointing out that we all have impules as human beings and need to choose which ones to act upon.

(Sorry, something wrong with my quoting thingy)

Quote -"I'm going to sincerely hope and pray that you see the grave error in logic there. I can't quite put it into words....and whilst I understand you're trying to make a point, you've inadvertently associated homosexuality with the (utterly different) impulses governing the motives of a rapist or a murderer.

You couldn't be more wrong."


I have not associated the above mentioned as you say, you have decided to associate the two. I made it clear that I was not categorising. I was not putting those things in the same boat, merely using extremes to make a point. In hindsight, I should have perhaps used a milder point of reference, something like stealing cookies, or teasing your little brother (actually I cant think of a good one, but you get what I mean...). We all have these impules or perhaps more precisely, desires, and we all have to choose whether we should flick your little brothers ear or not.


Quote -"And if sex isn't purely about reproduction, then is it not reasonable to deduce that the heterosexual couple should be able to have sexual contact to express love and emotion?

And if they are "allowed" - remembering that they cannot conceive or perhaps even have "normal" sexual relations - then why can't a same-sex couple be allowed the same? Do you feel the same way about quadriplegic patients who need "alternative" ways of enjoying intimacy?"


I was making a point in purely physical terms. My argument did not suggest the act of sex to be exclusively phisical. To me sex, as you said, is used to express love and all manner of emotions. I think in a debate like this the word 'normal' becomes increasingly subjective. For the purpose of this argument I believe that normal, in terms of sexual relations, becomes a matter of the mind, of the intellect and not something physical. So I would exclude a heterosexual couple's inability to concieve, as well as a quadriplegic's circumstance, from this particular debate. I agree with you that two people of the same sex should be allowed to express feelings of love and deep emotion for each other. I have a good friend, he's my best friend, and we've been friends since we were very young. I love him. I can honestly say that, and I feel things for him which are deeply emotional, however, love, as you said, does not equate to sexual physical expression.

However, my argument hinges on the assumption that homosexuality is a non-physical 'condition' and that a SEXUAL show of affection is ab-normal, whatever normal may be. I do not have a vigorous opinion on this topic, and as I mentioned before, have nothing against gay people as individuals, but I feel that it is an ab-normal thing as a-whole.

Originally posted by The_Modulus
1) Two men=no offspring=no human race=not natural.
2) Two women=(same as above)

From Dictionary.com:

nat·u·ral (năch'ər-əl, năch'rəl) pronunciation
adj.

1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.

Sorry, but, especially in the more advanced mammals, homosexual/bisexual tendencies are commonplace in nature. This stuff isn't a product of mankind, or Satan, or the Boogey Man or what-have-you, but is practiced diversely throughout species all over the world. Leave it to humans, though, with their righteous religious institutions, to tell you what's really right, despite what God is having those two gay penguins do over there.

More on homosexuality, etc. in nature.

And actually, until the rise of Christian doctrine to promote otherwise, bisexuality has been the norm. Look back to the Greeks, who went guy-on-guy from early times, through Socrates' bisexuality, to Athens' bisexual conqueror Alexander the Great. Even Caesar. Look back to the ancient Hindus/whoever it was in the India-region that practiced homosexual fellatio as if it were as natural as any other aspect of human sexuality. Despite the Quran, ancient Arabia also widely practiced bisexuality. In fact, in the ancient world in general, as long as one had children, it mattered little who else they enjoyed spending 'special' time with. I find it hard to believe that any two consenting individuals sharing such feelings or activities could be 'wrong' or 'unnatural' or 'immoral'.

Christianity's hostility towards homosexuality seems to stem back to the Old Testament, where, in the same book that it is declared that any child that sasses their parent even once should be stoned to death, it is also stated that two men should not lay together. And from this, we now have today's situation. Allegedly this country boasts a freedom of religion, ie no religion endorsed by the state and totally open to individual interpretation, and therefore religious practices and ceremonies are similarly free. In practice, this is hardly the case at all, as I'm sure we all realize.

Personally, I see little good in any organized religion, especially when it promotes not improving one's self in any universally moral way, but instead focusing anger and even hatred upon those who differ, even when it has absolutely no bearing on anyone other than those who practice it. Christians, if you don't like homosexuals, please cry to yourself or something instead of constantly denouncing them as 'lost' according to your old book, or even violently physically assaulting them, etc., because it's none of your business what these people do! Even if they want to get married, a religious practice, I say get out their way and let them do it. Our state endorses no particular brand of religion here (or isn't supposed to).

It's not hurting anyone, and personally..

I would keep my mouth shut in regards to whether or not I believe everyone should follow such a book as the Bible until I could produce some evidence of some of these historical artifacts and fairy tale characters and places like Heaven and Hell and Satan and the Boogey Man. And then maybe you should take it a step further and prove that homosexuality is wrong before judging anyone or telling them what they can or cannot do. Masses of people have tendencies to help justify their beliefs simply with the fact that so many other, similar people believe the same things. And that is why the world was flat for so long. Don't be so arrogant as to assert such beliefs in a way that inhibits the freedom of others! You can't know that you're right, no matter how much "faith" you can muster, so please do every thinking person on this planet a favor and let us think for ourselves.

Basically, what I'm asking is please get off these people's backs. I see nothing wrong with homosexuals, and do not discriminate, and would certainly send no one to burn for all eternity for anything (even though this was a translational error anyway), and I find it hard to believe that any truly loving God would behave any differently. At any rate I'm certainly no God, and yet apparently I'm more loving and considerate of others than the one most Christians today envision. If it's really in the nature God to discriminate and judge such people, or even murder them because of these differences, then I flip God the bird, and let him do with me what he will, because this universe must be a sick creation anyway.

I hope I don't offend anyone any more than it would take to get some critical thinking going on here. It just disturbs me when masses of people are driven by certain institutions to think negatively of others for no just reason. We've seen enough examples of this even since the 1940s. People need to think for themselves.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by The_Modulus
I have not associated the above mentioned as you say, you have decided to associate the two. I made it clear that I was not categorising. I was not putting those things in the same boat, merely using extremes to make a point.

Whether you meant to or not, you've implied here that very simply there's little difference between homosexual urges, and the urges of a rapist. That's what came across so strongly...though you are adamant that's not what you were suggesting, it is indeed the impression I got.

We all have these impules or perhaps more precisely, desires, and we all have to choose whether we should flick your little brothers ear or not.

Absolutely, we all have impulses

There is, however, a marked difference between an impulse to kiss someone, and an impulse to make that person your victim. That's the point I was making.

I was making a point in purely physical terms. My argument did not suggest the act of sex to be exclusively phisical. To me sex, as you said, is used to express love and all manner of emotions. I think in a debate like this the word 'normal' becomes increasingly subjective.

That's actually what I was trying to get across.

If it's ok to express love and emotion - then should that not apply across the board to every consenting human? "Normal" is indeed very subjective, and that's just one reason why it should never be used to decide what may or may not happen legally or morally between two consenting adults.

Is it not terribly unfair to restrict this allowance to a select group who happen to fit a particular demographic?

I love him. I can honestly say that, and I feel things for him which are deeply emotional, however, love, as you said, does not equate to sexual physical expression.

And I'd guess that the love you feel for him is simply not the romantic love you'd feel for someone with whom you'd like to spend the rest of your life

I do see your points.

I'm just going to agree to disagree with the opinions

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Whether you meant to or not, you've implied here that very simply there's little difference between homosexual urges, and the urges of a rapist. That's what came across so strongly...though you are adamant that's not what you were suggesting, it is indeed the impression I got.

Maybe I did rub off a bit harshly in my innitial post.

There is, however, a marked difference between an impulse to kiss someone, and an impulse to make that person your victim. That's the point I was making.

That is true.

I'm just going to agree to disagree with the opinions

Agreed.

I have not really thought about this topic much in the past, I have always been neutral on the subject and quite nonplused. I am glad that I have given it some thought here, I am still thinking hard about what 'normal' is and to what extent we have all been brainwashed to believe this that or the other to be a norm. Although my opinion remains, deep down I still think that it is somehow not quite 'normal'.
I guess I just cant imagine what it's like to be gay.

Wait, can't have kids is unnatural, so all these 50+ women who have gone through menopause and can no longer have kids are unnatural and need to be taken out back and shot? Or a 4 year old can't have kids, kill it? So you support killing anyone 0-11 and 50+?

OK - I'm going to bite my tongue here and not lash out like I really really want to. I've noticed 'someone' has 'simmered down' a little since they started posting in this thread so I'm going to show the same courtesy.

Here's what it's like to be gay -

It's JUST like being straight - except we prefer our partners 'jiblets' to be the same as ours - the feelings are the same, the attraction is the same as what you feel for people of the opposite sex, the love is the same - the arguments are the same - the planning for a life together is the same - we grow old the same - we die the same.

Yes, there are some bad gay people out there - JUST LIKE there are BAD straight people out there.

We know that M+M cannot equal BABY, and F+F cannot equal BABY - it's not like we think we can reproduce with each other, so there's no need to tell us - it's a moot point.

We 'know' it's not 'natural' . . . to you - - That's what makes you straight, and us gay.

Being gay is as natural to us as being straight is to you.

It's that simple.

It's NOT a choice - No one would choose to be thought of like we are, to go through what we have to go through - Do you think we start out straight, and just decide one day that "hey, I think I want EVERYONE else to HATE ME - I want all my friends and family to disown me and push me away - I want to fear for my life and be really depressed and hear people tell me that I'm going to hell, yes, that would be fun!" ?

What IS a choice is to stop living a lie and admit to one's self that they are gay, and unless they want to spend the rest of their life 'faking' being straigt, they will die alone unless they come out of the closet.

What's "bad" is living in the 21st century and still having to hear how un-human we are, how 'unnatural' we are - how sick and perverted we are - worrying about being beaten up or even killed because of how we are. How we don't deserve to live like 'normal' humans or have the same EQUAL (not special) rights as they do.

I imagine most of the people that are 'against' homosexuality, or don't 'believe' in it (like it's the easter bunny ) probably think "How can they be like that, how can they do that to themselves and their family? - WHY can't they understand that they need to 'turn' straight so they can be one of us and be 'normal'? What will it take for me to show them that they are evil and going to hell?"

I can't help but thinking "How can they not see that this is NOT a choice - Why can't they see that this is just how I am? - Why are they so afraid of us and hate us so much? What do they think we want to take from them? What do they think we want to do to them? Why can't they just treat us like human beings? Can't they see how much it hurts us to be treated like that?”

Comparing us to murderers and rapists (directly or not) is ridiculous - putting us on the same 'plateau' as them is asinine - In murder and rape there is a VICTIM!!!!!!!! Something is being done to someone AGAINST THEIR WILL!!!!!!! - When it comes to regular, everyday homosexuals (not the evil ones portrayed on the 700 club) IT IS CONCENTUAL!!!!!!! No one is having to do anything against their will - If you don't like it, you DON'T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE!!!!!!! But you have no right to tell us we can't, or shouldn't, or that what we're doing is wrong or punishable.

If you are straight, I imagine that if you ‘had’ to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same sex, it would probably make you sick, make you throw-up, shame you in ways you couldn’t imagine, keep you awake at night with nightmares of what you were 'forced' to do. - That’s the same way a gay person feels about sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex – Straight sex is just as ‘icky’ to us as gay sex is to you -

I don't know if I can make it any simpler. The vein on my forehead is hurting from trying to find ways to get the point across -

We don't want to turn you into one of us - Please don't try to turn us into one of you

We just want to be treated with the same respect you'd treat anyone else with.

Originally posted by The_Modulus
...as I mentioned before, have nothing against gay people as individuals, but I feel that it is an ab-normal thing as a-whole.

Please read my posts before trying to bash me.

About the murderer and rapist thing; as above, read my posts before you bash me. You just really want me to have categorised them together so that you can get all worked up and try to bash my post. Thats the problem about some members here, to them its all about 'winning' the 'argument', crushing other peoples opinions, waving their little flags of 'think for yourselves' and 'deny ignorance' to get people to believe what THEY believe. Ignorance is not believing in whatever you dont. We come here to learn, share ideas and DISCUSS. I feel that I have posted without mallice (ok the first post was a bit sarcastic and flashy, but not malice) but I have not bashed anyone or their opinions. We come here to deny ignorance and have an open mind about things, I have an open mind: your comment of 'simmering down' am I not allowed to have absorbed an idea from another member and changed my opinion?

I will say nothing further here. My opinions have been expressed on the posts I have made, read them before you bash me some more.

modulus

Originally posted by Amethyst

And if anyone's guilty of violence, it's gays.

Gays vandalize church, leave obscene messages on answering machine (Note--I don't endorse Dobson)

Well the site is just a little bit biased and is pushing a very much pro-christian morale agenda. I do agree with the article though that it is vandalism and the churches right for free speach. However, my reaction to this is the exact same as what the FBI agent told the church.

Even though the incident could be classified under federal law as a hate crime, though, the FBI refused to get involved. Haynes said an agent told him he should expect a negative reaction if he was going to post such an "inflammatory" message on his sign.

They got exactly what they wanted.

Church janitor assaulted by gays

Personally I think worldnutdaily articles need to be taken with a grain of salt. Most of their articles are activist propoganda. However, the story can possibly be traced back to a cleveland newspaperhere from thissite.
I would like to make something very clear about this article though. There is nothing stating and no evidence given that confirns these thugs were gay or pro-gay. They could have been very much anit-homosexuality. Here's why.

As the men fled, Bilski said, one yelled, "This is a message for Pastor Paul."

Endrei said the point of his Sunday sermon was "we love the homosexual, but we hate the sin."

They could have been miffed that the pastor quoted as preaching his congregation will still show love for the homosexuals. Someone who is anti homosexuality could have taken that first part out of context as quickly as a pro-homosexual could have taken the second piece out. If there is an article that states the arresting of these thugs, as well as thier motives, I would like to have seen it. However at the Cleveland newspaper site you have to pay for old archives, which isn't worth it to me.

Homosexuals Committing Hate Crimes

Sorry, but I have been unable to trace this back to any legitimate source. I thought I saw an article about it, when I googled it, on WND or a site called freerepublic, both very much activist and biased sites. However, a search on either of those sites for this church brought not a single match. Also I tried to do a search of the local paper but it's search function is not working for me at least. Also searched foxnews and USA today and found nothing. So until there is a legitimate source for the story I remain skeptical.

Christians are not guilty of hate. Gays are.

I deleted what precede this statement on accident, so I am giving the benefit of the doubt from you're other posts that it would be taken out of context like this, and to anyone one else who reads this far to take this quoted part as a grain of salt. However, with the three incidents you have given, what about the dude who blew up the abortion clinic? This is also an associated press article on the arrest of Eric Rudolph We are all guilty of hate, to some degree. There are extreme and violent activists everywhere for every cause.

Edit: after going back and rereading your post, the arrogance of that line is absurd. I now also believe that I did not take that line out of context , unless that is that Phelps guy's view, so I will leave my post as was.



[edit on 8-10-2005 by silentlonewolf]

Silentwolf, you get a WATS from me! You did the opposite of what I did, I posted links to my proof, you took someone else's links and stomped on them as the wrong/bias that they were.

Also, if every gay person on this planet committed a hate crime on a christian it wouldn't equal a tenth of the ones christians have committed on everyone else. Crusades anyone? Witch trials anyone? Blowing up of abortion clinics anyone? KKK/CCC/FCR anyone? How come there are no peace loving republican groups? All republican groups are Anti-Gay/Jew/Black/Science, why? How come none of them are Pro-Peace? Wait Log Cabin Republicans, which the other 99.9% of republicans want to kill...

You find me a Non-Hate Group Republican thingy and I'll show you a Democrat Group with a spine.(none exist so on either side so I'm safe, like betting on a Mike Tyson vs Bill Gates boxing match)

Originally posted by Full Metal
Silentwolf, you get a WATS from me! You did the opposite of what I did, I posted links to my proof, you took someone else's links and stomped on them as the wrong/bias that they were.

Don't get me wrong. One incident could be confirmed. One has no evidence, to my knowledge, that it was by pro homosexuals, and one I couldn't coroborate. Speaking of biased sites, did you even happen to consider the sites you used? Also nowhere in your articles do I see anything about half of america wanting to commit genocide against gays.

Also, if every gay person on this planet committed a hate crime on a christian it wouldn't equal a tenth of the ones christians have committed on everyone else. Crusades anyone? Witch trials anyone? Blowing up of abortion clinics anyone? KKK/CCC/FCR anyone? How come there are no peace loving republican groups? All republican groups are Anti-Gay/Jew/Black/Science, why? How come none of them are Pro-Peace? Wait Log Cabin Republicans, which the other 99.9% of republicans want to kill...

There is no equal to any hate crime or violence. Most people are good and decent in every religion, culture aand society in the world. It isn't republicans, christians, muslims, jews, africans, republicans, democrats, I think you get my point. Every group has it's fanatics, and some of them would like to eradicate those that they are prejudice against, including gays and christians alike. Most people, including many of these evil republicans you keep mentioning, don't want genocide. That idea is almost as absurd as saying christians don't hate. There are bad apples in every barrel. I hope the thugs that set fire to ANY church or that beat up that janitor, are found and prosecuted.


[edit on 8-10-2005 by silentlonewolf]

Silent is right, most of the people that have a religion, there are those that aren't religious that are decent and good people. Yes, every group does have their fanatics, Republicans have George W. Bush, "Christians" have Pat Robertson, Democrats have anyone they want, Muslims have or had the Iyotollah, Africans and Jews had no real fanatics but just a few that were a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Silent is right on most Repulicans too, the mindful Republicans do not want genocide because they actually care about people. If I'm wrong on that statement, which I probably am, correct me please. I believe that those persons that did burn or the thugs that beat up the janitor should be punished to maximum H U M A N E extent.

Originally posted by Full Metal
Silentwolf, you get a WATS from me! You did the opposite of what I did, I posted links to my proof, you took someone else's links and stomped on them as the wrong/bias that they were.

Giving someone a WATS for being ignorant? As I like to say, truth comes out as bias to those who like to spread lies.

Also, if every gay person on this planet committed a hate crime on a christian it wouldn't equal a tenth of the ones christians have committed on everyone else. Crusades anyone? Witch trials anyone? Blowing up of abortion clinics anyone? KKK/CCC/FCR anyone? How come there are no peace loving republican groups? All republican groups are Anti-Gay/Jew/Black/Science, why? How come none of them are Pro-Peace? Wait Log Cabin Republicans, which the other 99.9% of republicans want to kill...

Again you're showing ignorance. REAL Christians don't believe in such violence. Furthermore, it was the CATHOLIC church that went on crusades and conducted the inquisitions. And you want to know who else was a victim of the inquisitions? BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS, that's who!

And I'm not a Republican.

Here's a topic that's makes even non-Christians go stir crazy, and that is the death penalty. The pros and cons for this type of punishment go hand in hand almost. If it comes to be that the death penalty is an obsolete form of punishment, then I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

Here are three pros and cons about it.

Pro - person is convicted of a haneous crime.
Con - person sits on Death Row for twenty years.
Pro - it is a form a justice for the family of the victim.
Con - It could also be an injustice to a person's family that knew their relative did not commit said crime.
Pro - You can only die by lethal injection.
Con - You die too quick from the injection.

Originally posted by Amethyst
Christians are not guilty of hate. Gays are.

Goodness gracious, talk about density!!! So gays are naturally hateful people?

Hate is rarely unfounded. There is a a source where hatred comes from. If gays weren't treated like garbage all those years, you think they would be hating?

I'll give you a hint: no.

Sweat, what makes you think that gays are automatically hated? Being a homosexual is something a person does by choice, it is not hereditary. As for not being able to bear child Tinkle, it is natural but it hardly ever happens. When it does happen, it is because someone has a problem where they can't reproduce. Amethyst, there are even some Christians that are guilty of hate, i. e. Pat Robertson.

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
Sweat, what makes you think that gays are automatically hated? Being a homosexual is something a person does by choice, it is not hereditary.

What makes you think being homosexual is a choice?

If we weren't so 'automatically hated' there would be no need for discussions like this one - I'm not accusing You specifically of hating, but just people in general. People are afraid of what they don't 'get' - enough fear leads to hate - that's the reason for racism, sexism, war, religious persecution etc. . .

Seriously - I'm not trying to start an arguement, just serious discussion -

Please tell me how someone 'knows' they are straight? Are they equally attracted to both sexes and then one day actually put their straight orientation in one hand and thier gay orientation in the other, examine them both very carefully and then decide which one "fits" better?

Is that how it works for straight people? I'd really like to know - I don't ever remember being, in ANY way, attracted to girls, and then one day just "choosing" to stop being attracted to them and decide that I was 100% attracted to boys. It didn't work that way for me.

I can't say I was 'born' gay - I don't know if anything 'happened' to me growing up that 'turned' me gay. I can't say I was raised to beleive that being gay was 'ok'. I had no gay role-models, I didn't know anyone that was gay and decided I wanted to be like them - All I know is I've NEVER been attracted to girls - and I WAS attracted to boys when I started feeling those hormones kick in during puberty - I knew it wasn't normal - I'd never been lead to beleive anything other than boys and girls are 'supposed' to grow up, get married, have kids. I KNEW that was what was 'expected' - but I also knew from early on that I didn't want to have anything to do with girls.

I lied to myself about it - never actually conciously admitting it to myself, but I knew it was there - Who could I tell? Who would have sat there and listened to me say it, and still been there for me a minute later? I was so afraid that if anyone knew I'd lose all my friends and family, get kicked out of my house, the 'private christian school' I went to (trust me, going to a school like that, you NEVER feel that it's "OK" to be gay) - I was already labeled a 'sissy' because I wasn't a "rough and tumble" boy - I didn't like sports - I didn't chase girls and talk about them like they were sexual objects. I was so afraid that someone would one day "figure it out" and then I'd get the living hell beat out of me, be cut off from the people that I loved, and thought that the people that loved me wouldn't anymore if they knew.

Does that sound like something ANYONE would choose?

And contrary to popular belief, it's not JUST about SEX - just because those three letters are in the words "homoSEXual and SEXual orientation" does not mean it's all about the sex - is being straight "all about the sex"? If you told your girlfriend or wife that your attraction to her was "all about the sex", how many nanoseconds would it take for there to be a hand print emblazend across your face? It's about who you feel comfortable sharing your life with - the kind of person you want to share your hopes and dreams and desires with - those you want to be emotionally connected to - AND about the sex, not JUST the sex.

I cannot imagine sharing the rest of my life with a woman - I cannot imagine 'pretending' to be straight, fooling some woman into believing that I am, tricking her into marrying me, attempting to have sex with her so in 9 months she'll pop out some 'proof' that I'm straight. Who is that good for? is that what I'm 'supposed' to do? That is not what feels natural to me, so why am I supposed to go through all that? How would you feel if you'd been married for years and then found out it was all a lie, an attempt for your spouse to be something that they knew they never were in the first place - that every time they had sex with you, they were disgusted by it and the reason they closed their eyes or kept the lights off during sex was because they had to imagine they were having sex with someone of the same gender?

Before anyone decides that being gay is a 'choice' - look deep inside and think about what choice you had - and could you change your sexual orientation as easily as you think gay people can? It's not a lightswitch - if it was, I'd choose straight in a heartbeat - not because I don't like being gay, or because I want to be attracted to girls (if that were the case, I'd already be 'straight', or at least Bi) but because I WANT to fit in with everyone else, I WANT to know what 'normal' feels like - It's not my fault that the majority's idea of 'normal' is not what I am.

As for not being able to bear child Tinkle, it is natural but it hardly ever happens. When it does happen, it is because someone has a problem where they can't reproduce.

Hardly ever happens, huh? I guess all those fertility clinics are just there for fun?

Some people just have the need to be a parent - is that another 'impulse' that people are just supposed to put in some Tupperware and stick in the freezer FOREVER? This is not just a gay/lesbian thing, or a single female thing, it's a 'need to procreate' thing - If someone can afford to go through the fertility process then why should they be denied the 'right' to get pregnant? Any straight couple (that's able) can get pregnant, whether they are married or not, financially able or not, GOOD PARENTS or not - but denying someone the right to procreate just because they don't have a marriage license, or because they don't fit the 'ideal' of a 'normal' family is WRONG! - If it's made so you have to get a 'permit' to procreate, then who's going to set the standards for that 'straight married couple'? Are they financially stable enough to have a child? Are they going to be good parents? Who knows, but nobody has the right (or ability) to see the future and know who's going to turn out to be a good parent.

Amethyst, there are even some Christians that are guilty of hate

Duh!


[edit on 10/14/05 by paulthefourth]

Originally posted by Amethyst

Originally posted by Full Metal
Silentwolf, you get a WATS from me! You did the opposite of what I did, I posted links to my proof, you took someone else's links and stomped on them as the wrong/bias that they were.

Giving someone a WATS for being ignorant? As I like to say, truth comes out as bias to those who like to spread lies.

How was my post ignorant? I simply looked at your sites and with the exception of one incident (which from what I have found, has no evidence linked to pro-homosexual, nor to that sermon. It's all speculation from what you have provided and other sources I have found.) Nothing could be found to back up your articles. Also you use WND which is known to be very unreliable and very biased. As I have also said in my second post, Full metal does not give any evidence to support his own claims, except for a few quotes by some of the idiots of the fundamental christian right, and there is no link to the republicans, all rapped up in two very biased sites of his own. Well no ties unless you want to take Pat Robertson seriously with him taking credit for getting Bush into office.

REAL Christians don't believe in such violence. Furthermore, it was the CATHOLIC church that went on crusades and conducted the inquisitions. And you want to know who else was a victim of the inquisitions? BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS, that's who!

The catholic church is a christian institution. Also, by comparison, the most famous of the witch trials were by the puritans. Most of those that were burned were christians. I knew a girl (18 so a legal adult), went to a private babtist school, got pregnant 2 months before she graduated. She volunteer much of her time during highschool to tutoring and other work. She was also a 3,5 student. They expelled her for becoming pregnant out of wedlock. Now this is a privately funded school and they can do as want. That's fine, though I don't agree with the decision. However, they are also a christian founded institution, and they persecuted her based on the bible.

Also many homosexuals follow the bible and are "good bible believing christians" with the exception of their choice in partners.

Sweat, what makes you think that gays are automatically hated? Being a homosexual is something a person does by choice Gimmefootball

? Choice? As far as I know it isn't a choice... I tried to do the opposite, I am attracted to women, so I tried to look at the guys they thought were hot, sorry, but no attraction to them. So, how come it doesn't work? If it was a choice I could bounce from girl to boy to girl no problem. But I can't, I have no attraction to men, women are what I want, what I find attractive, what does it for me. Do gays just wake up one day and say "Hmmm, women are nice but I want to see what the other side is like." and poof they no longer become attracted to women?

My point exactly Full. C H O O S I N G to be a homosexual is just that, a CHOICE! It's these egotistical Christians that want us to think it is a hereditaric trait, which it is not a trait.