PDA

View Full Version : Elton John is a sinner according to the Orthodox Church in the Ukraine



stsinner
09-16-2009, 09:05 AM
What a refreshing breath of fresh air-a church not bound by the political correctness cancer...


Spokesman Father Georgy Gulyaev said: 'Thank God it's impossible under Ukrainian law for Elton John to adopt a child.

'The Church is strictly against same-sex marriages and the damage they cause. It's written in Holy Scriptures that homosexual marriage and relations is a sin.

'It is a sin, it is against nature, and it represents the dead end of human development.

'People pretend to have good intentions, create semi-marriages and so-called families, and moreover they dare to adopt children. Unlike people who are blessed by God to create natural families, these are people who succumb to their passions.
David Furnish and Lev

'Too old': Under the current Ukrainian legislation the age difference between child and adopter must not exceed 45 years

'This is definitely a sin, there is no other word for it, and the church will never agree that people who have created same-sex "marriage" could also dare to adopt children.

'This applies to all, including Elton John. He is a sinner.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213722/Elton-John-sinner-Church-attacks-singer-plan-adopt-Ukrainian-baby-boy.html#ixzz0RH4T34Pt


Link (Spokesman Father Georgy Gulyaev said: 'Thank God it's impossible under Ukrainian law for Elton John to adopt a child.

'The Church is strictly against same-sex marriages and the damage they cause. It's written in Holy Scriptures that homosexual marriage and relations is a sin.

'It is a sin, it is against nature, and it represents the dead end of human development.

'People pretend to have good intentions, create semi-marriages and so-called families, and moreover they dare to adopt children. Unlike people who are blessed by God to create natural families, these are people who succumb to their passions.
David Furnish and Lev

'Too old': Under the current Ukrainian legislation the age difference between child and adopter must not exceed 45 years

'This is definitely a sin, there is no other word for it, and the church will never agree that people who have created same-sex "marriage" could also dare to adopt children.

'This applies to all, including Elton John. He is a sinner.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213722/Elton-John-sinner-Church-attacks-singer-plan-adopt-Ukrainian-baby-boy.html#ixzz0RH4T34Pt
)

SaintLouieWoman
09-16-2009, 09:12 AM
I believe the age would be the disqualifier itself. One of my clients who holds a responsible position in the federal courts, and his wife adopted a child from China. He said the age limit at that time was 45 years old. Elton's age, 62, is far from the normal 45 or thereabouts limit.

Gingersnap
09-16-2009, 09:36 AM
He's a sinner according to the positions of every major branch of Christianity. Gay sex is no more allowable than adultery or fornication.

Why is this concept so difficult for people? :confused:

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 11:45 AM
He's a sinner according to the positions of every major branch of Christianity. Gay sex is no more allowable than adultery or fornication.

Why is this concept so difficult for people? :confused:

Why is everything that has been considered normal and good been systematically destroyed in the last few years.

BadCat
09-16-2009, 11:48 AM
Why is everything that has been considered normal and good been systematically destroyed in the last few years.

Democrats.

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 11:49 AM
Democrats.

Rhymes with sewer rats.

FlaGator
09-16-2009, 12:12 PM
Democrats.

Folks, we have a winner!

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 12:25 PM
Why is everything that has been considered normal and good been systematically destroyed in the last few years.

Although it's not the last few years, and I would disagree with the term "good." (but since you used "considered" I won't) the reason is the rise of the individual and the decline of authority in social conduct. When the state enforces a moral code beyond the basic social contract necessary for a society to function, e.g., punishing murder, robbery, etc., it appears, on the surface at least, that everything is "normal and good." However, when people stop allowing the state to tell them how to behave, diversity in conduct appears.

For example, virtually every state has had laws against homosexuality on its books. When those laws were enforced, of course homosexuality was not apparent (although it clearly existed below the surface). When those laws were not enforced and subsequently ruled unconstitutional, the "underground" homosexuality rose to the surface.

Morality enforced by the state is no morality at all.

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 12:29 PM
Although it's not the last few years, and I would disagree with the term "good." (but since you used "considered" I won't) the reason is the rise of the individual and the decline of authority in social conduct. When the state enforces a moral code beyond the basic social contract necessary for a society to function, e.g., punishing murder, robbery, etc., it appears, on the surface at least, that everything is "normal and good." However, when people stop allowing the state to tell them how to behave, diversity in conduct appears.

For example, virtually every state has had laws against homosexuality on its books. When those laws were enforced, of course homosexuality was not apparent (although it clearly existed below the surface). When those laws were not enforced and subsequently ruled unconstitutional, the "underground" homosexuality rose to the surface.

Morality enforced by the state is no morality at all.
You can have your homosexuality ,that is fine with me but it doesn't stop there. We are expected to like and embrace these life styles and that is going to far!

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 12:33 PM
You can have your homosexuality ,that is fine with me but it doesn't stop there. We are expected to like and embrace these life styles and that is going to far!

Perhaps by some, but not all. In general, you're expected only to treat them equally with other lifestyles. If it doesn't bother you to see a man and a woman holding hands in public, why should it bother you to see two men (or two women) doing the same? In Saudi, for example, it's not unusual to see two heterosexual men doing so.

Apocalypse
09-16-2009, 12:33 PM
Church may call him a sinner for being gay.

I'll just call him a freak for his antics and how he acts.

http://www.mediacove.com/events/U_Mag/jpg/fashion/elton-john.jpg

Any one remember this?



POP legend Sir Elton John wants the internet CLOSED DOWN.

Never one to keep his opinions to himself, the Rocket Man has waded into cyberspace with all guns blazing.
He claims it is destroying good music, saying: “The internet has stopped people from going out and being with each other, creating stuff.


http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007350453,00.html

Gingersnap
09-16-2009, 12:36 PM
Morality enforced by the state is no morality at all.

True enough but behaviors that cause considerable social damage are within the purview of governments at this point in time.

Placing children in situations that pretty much defy heterosexual development isn't helpful to the 95% of children who are heterosexual (it's probably not helpful for the potential lesbians, either). If Elton John wants to help orphans, he can use the $30,000 he spends each month on floral arrangements and send that money to orphans.

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 12:36 PM
Church may call him a sinner for being gay.

I'll just call him a freak for his antics and how he acts.

http://www.mediacove.com/events/U_Mag/jpg/fashion/elton-john.jpg

Any one remember this?

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geut_2ErFKLYIBEMpXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzNDRoNDR lBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0Y4MjJfMTIw/SIG=12chuheb2/EXP=1253205110/**http%3a//www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/aug/02/newmedia.pop

Elton does a great show. In his younger days, he'd be all over the stage and the piano. I suspect he's slowed down a bit since then.

As to the quote regarding the internets, Elton John wouldn't be my first choice for either technical or social advice.

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 12:40 PM
True enough but behaviors that cause considerable social damage are within the purview of governments at this point in time.

Placing children in situations that pretty much defy heterosexual development isn't helpful to the 95% of children who are heterosexual (it's probably not helpful for the potential lesbians, either). If Elton John wants to help orphans, he can use the $30,000 he spends each month on floral arrangements and send that money to orphans.

In practice, I don't know that I would disagree with your statement regarding the appropriateness of homosexuals adopting children. However, the statement regarding "behaviors that cause considerable social damage are within the purview of the government" scares the hell out of me. A case can be made that drinking scotch causes "considerable social damage!" :eek: And I certainly don't want the government regulating my liquor closet any more than it already does.

BadCat
09-16-2009, 12:40 PM
You can have your homosexuality ,that is fine with me but it doesn't stop there. We are expected to like and embrace these life styles and that is going to far!

Straight from the 45 goals of Communism...


24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 12:48 PM
Straight from the 45 goals of Communism...

Well, (24) is probably correct, (25) is not being suggested, as no one is suggesting the government "promote" anything, but stay out of the matter, and, as to (26), homosexuality is definitely not "normal" if one looks at the true definition of the term as only a small percentage of the population is homosexual. However, I really wouldn't like to life in a "normal," white-bread, Levittown, Pleasant Valley Sunday society, would you? Doesn't the society depicted in "Father Knows Best" resemble the worse depictions of life in a drab, Commie society, without the fear of government?

BadCat
09-16-2009, 01:00 PM
Well, (24) is probably correct, (25) is not being suggested, as no one is suggesting the government "promote" anything, but stay out of the matter, and, as to (26), homosexuality is definitely not "normal" if one looks at the true definition of the term as only a small percentage of the population is homosexual. However, I really wouldn't like to life in a "normal," white-bread, Levittown, Pleasant Valley Sunday society, would you? Doesn't the society depicted in "Father Knows Best" resemble the worse depictions of life in a drab, Commie society, without the fear of government?

Yes.
No.

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 01:38 PM
Yes.
No.

That's a pretty scary answer, BC.

Gingersnap
09-16-2009, 01:39 PM
In practice, I don't know that I would disagree with your statement regarding the appropriateness of homosexuals adopting children. However, the statement regarding "behaviors that cause considerable social damage are within the purview of the government" scares the hell out of me. A case can be made that drinking scotch causes "considerable social damage!" :eek: And I certainly don't want the government regulating my liquor closet any more than it already does.

But it already does. You can drink all the scotch you like but if you're caught driving while intoxicated, you'll be punished with a felony conviction and about $10,000.00 in legal fees and fines. Likewise, I enjoy hunting and I'm a pretty good shot but the government won't allow me to pot squirrels even though I consider this a public service.

So, the government already prohibits behaviors that it believes would cause considerable damage. Whether we agree that they do cause damage or not is irrelevant.

BadCat
09-16-2009, 01:39 PM
That's a pretty scary answer, BC.

To you it is.

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 01:49 PM
But it already does. You can drink all the scotch you like but if you're caught driving while intoxicated, you'll be punished with a felony conviction and about $10,000.00 in legal fees and fines. Likewise, I enjoy hunting and I'm a pretty good shot but the government won't allow me to pot squirrels even though I consider this a public service.

So, the government already prohibits behaviors that it believes would cause considerable damage. Whether we agree that they do cause damage or not is irrelevant.

I agree that the government does this to a great extent and my point is that we, the people, should limit these powers whenever possible. You driving example, however, illustrates a significant distinquisher, and that's activities that can cause harm to others vs those that cannot and the concept of consenting adults. Just as I have no right to take a gun and shoot you, I have no right to run you over with an automobile. Drinking and driving increases that possibility. Therefore, it's illegal.

Public displays of affection between homosexuals do not physically harm anyone. Moreover, they are acts between consenting adults.

Gingersnap
09-16-2009, 02:03 PM
Public displays of affection between homosexuals do not physically harm anyone. Moreover, they are acts between consenting adults.

But an adopted child can't give consent. For a heterosexual child to be raised by two homosexual men is certainly harmful. Children develop their own social strategies by playing with the adult roles they see modeled in front of them. Gay men can't role model heterosexual interactions period and an effeminate gay man, such as Elton John, can't even effectively role model masculine behavior.

I won't even go into the contempt that many gay men feel for heterosexual women and all the problems that poses in raising a child of either sex.

So limiting adoptions to people who can be expected to engage in normal heterosexual social behavior is a safety issue for the child. That a tiny percentage of potentially gay boys will be deprived of homosexual role models by this is worth the greater good.

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 02:08 PM
But an adopted child can't give consent. For a heterosexual child to be raised by two homosexual men is certainly harmful. Children develop their own social strategies by playing with the adult roles they see modeled in front of them. Gay men can't role model heterosexual interactions period and an effeminate gay man, such as Elton John, can't even effectively role model masculine behavior.

I won't even go into the contempt that many gay men feel for heterosexual women and all the problems that poses in raising a child of either sex.

So limiting adoptions to people who can be expected to engage in normal heterosexual social behavior is a safety issue for the child. That a tiny percentage of potentially gay boys will be deprived of homosexual role models by this is worth the greater good.

As I said a few posts upstream, I probably wouldn't disagree with you. And that's the reason.

FlaGator
09-16-2009, 02:54 PM
Perhaps by some, but not all. In general, you're expected only to treat them equally with other lifestyles. If it doesn't bother you to see a man and a woman holding hands in public, why should it bother you to see two men (or two women) doing the same? In Saudi, for example, it's not unusual to see two heterosexual men doing so.

Why should I be compelled by law to treat with them period? If I find their behavior morally objectionable why should a business own be forced to do business with them? Why should a private landlord be forced to rent to them? The Constitution guarantees us the freedom to associate with whom ever we choose, doesn't that also give me the right not to associate with whom I choose?

BadCat
09-16-2009, 03:07 PM
Why should I be compelled by law to treat with them period? If I find their behavior morally objectionable why should a business own be forced to do business with them? Why should a private landlord be forced to rent to them? The Constitution guarantees us the freedom to associate with whom ever we choose, doesn't that also give me the right not to associate with whom I choose?

You just don't understand "hedontarianism".
If it feels good, they should be able to do it and you should be forced to like it.

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 03:18 PM
You just don't understand "hedontarianism".
If it feels good, they should be able to do it and you should be forced to like it.

Whether it feels good or not, two consenting adults (adults -- let's not slip down that good old slope into children, animals, and rocks) should be free to participate in whatever behaviour they like as long as it doesn't harm others. No, you shouldn't be forced to "like it," but you shouldn't be able to make it illegal either. I'm tempted to go into a different example other than homosexuality, but perhaps that the subject of another thread. :D

BadCat
09-16-2009, 03:20 PM
Whether it feels good or not, two consenting adults (adults -- let's not slip down that good old slope into children, animals, and rocks) should be free to participate in whatever behaviour they like as long as it doesn't harm others. No, you shouldn't be forced to "like it," but you shouldn't be able to make it illegal either. I'm tempted to go into a different example other than homosexuality, but perhaps that the subject of another thread. :D

Well, they are certainly attempting to force us to like it.
It's not working.

FlaGator
09-16-2009, 03:22 PM
Whether it feels good or not, two consenting adults (adults -- let's not slip down that good old slope into children, animals, and rocks) should be free to participate in whatever behaviour they like as long as it doesn't harm others. No, you shouldn't be forced to "like it," but you shouldn't be able to make it illegal either. I'm tempted to go into a different example other than homosexuality, but perhaps that the subject of another thread. :D

Why?

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 03:25 PM
Why?

Because it's none of your business.

FlaGator
09-16-2009, 03:26 PM
Because it's none of your business.

Nice evasion.

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 03:38 PM
Nice evasion.

It's not an evasion at all. Whether Christians, Mulslims, social reformers, or whoever like it or not, others behaviour, given the constraints we're discussing this in, is actually none of their business. You don't have the right to dictate to people how they should behave and no "sacred text" gives you that right.

This is the blind spot which many conservatives have. They preach limited government, but they want the government to enforce their agenda just as much as the liberals want it to enforce theirs.

FlaGator
09-16-2009, 03:44 PM
It's not an evasion at all. Whether Christians, Mulslims, social reformers, or whoever like it or not, others behaviour, given the constraints we're discussing this in, is actually none of their business. You don't have the right to dictate to people how they should behave and no "sacred text" gives you that right.

This is the blind spot which many conservatives have. They preach limited government, but they want the government to enforce their agenda just as much as the liberals want it to enforce theirs.

I am not looking at it from the conservative or Christian view point. Have I made any allusion to faith in my for messages on this subject? No I have not, but yet you have assumed that I have some religious agenda in asking the question.

I am simply asking why is something OK just because two adults are consenting to it. Why is that of any value in determining the rightness or wrongness of an activity?

Gingersnap
09-16-2009, 03:49 PM
Whether it feels good or not, two consenting adults (adults -- let's not slip down that good old slope into children, animals, and rocks) should be free to participate in whatever behaviour they like as long as it doesn't harm others. No, you shouldn't be forced to "like it," but you shouldn't be able to make it illegal either. :D

I dunno. It would depend a lot on the particular behavior.

But let's use homosexuality as an example. The problem that Flagator and others have with this particular behavior is that it is being mainstreamed in schools and workplaces. To him (and to me) this is as odd as having a school host an Adultery Club (to prepare young people for the exciting ins and outs of marital two-timing) or being forced to endure workplace seminars on "Stress Management Through Masturbation".

BadCat
09-16-2009, 05:27 PM
I dunno. It would depend a lot on the particular behavior.

But let's use homosexuality as an example. The problem that Flagator and others have with this particular behavior is that it is being mainstreamed in schools and workplaces. To him (and to me) this is as odd as having a school host an Adultery Club (to prepare young people for the exciting ins and outs of marital two-timing) or being forced to endure workplace seminars on "Stress Management Through Masturbation".

You all had to take that one too?

Gingersnap
09-16-2009, 05:34 PM
You all had to take that one too?

Didn't we all.

wilbur
09-16-2009, 05:57 PM
But an adopted child can't give consent. For a heterosexual child to be raised by two homosexual men is certainly harmful. Children develop their own social strategies by playing with the adult roles they see modeled in front of them. Gay men can't role model heterosexual interactions period and an effeminate gay man, such as Elton John, can't even effectively role model masculine behavior.


Uhh its harmful? That's news to me. Cite some facts here?



I won't even go into the contempt that many gay men feel for heterosexual women and all the problems that poses in raising a child of either sex.


Where the heck are you getting this stuff? Thats quite a textbook example of prejudice.

wilbur
09-16-2009, 06:12 PM
It's not an evasion at all. Whether Christians, Mulslims, social reformers, or whoever like it or not, others behaviour, given the constraints we're discussing this in, is actually none of their business. You don't have the right to dictate to people how they should behave and no "sacred text" gives you that right.

This is the blind spot which many conservatives have. They preach limited government, but they want the government to enforce their agenda just as much as the liberals want it to enforce theirs.


I do believe one of the founding documents even mentioned something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".... in other words, it expresses the philosophy that this is a place where people are free to live according to their nature - and to be protected from having that nature impinged upon or suppressed unreasonably.

wilbur
09-16-2009, 06:16 PM
Why?

Well, if you think you have the mandate and authority to restrict the (oft cherished) behaviors and free expressions of another even when it poses no significant harm or threat, I'd have to say that's a very short sighted strategy. The only thing protecting your own skin from similar oppression at the hands of others, is might or majority - such power changes hands often.

Goldwater
09-16-2009, 06:31 PM
I am simply asking why is something OK just because two adults are consenting to it. Why is that of any value in determining the rightness or wrongness of an activity?

If it doesn't interfere in the lives of anyone who isn't consenting, then surely by the principles of the constitution, it is ok?

stsinner
09-16-2009, 06:45 PM
If it doesn't interfere in the lives of anyone who isn't consenting, then surely by the principles of the constitution, it is ok?

It's okay in the privacy of your own home, but the second my kids have to see fags kissing or holding hands it becomes a problem..

linda22003
09-16-2009, 07:10 PM
It's okay in the privacy of your own home, but the second my kids have to see fags kissing or holding hands it becomes a problem..

And what's the response if that happens?

stsinner
09-16-2009, 07:24 PM
And what's the response if that happens?

There is no response. It just bolsters my disgust for homosexuals that know that the majority of society doesn't approve of their lifestyle, yet insist on forcing it on us. It will reinforce my voting against everything regarding the birth defect and my desire make them as uncomfortable in possible when in public.
The only response might be to remove my children from the situation so that they don't observe the sickness and think it's in any way normal or moral.

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 07:35 PM
I do believe one of the founding documents even mentioned something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".... in other words, it expresses the philosophy that this is a place where people are free to live according to their nature - and to be protected from having that nature impinged upon or suppressed unreasonably.

Unless, of course, you're a SINNER IN THE EYES OF GOD, and then you must be punished. Screw the founding fathers.

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 07:48 PM
Unless, of course, you're a SINNER IN THE EYES OF GOD, and then you must be punished. Screw the founding fathers.

Now you are being inflammatory soon everyone will pile on and than you will be crying it isn't fair. The founding fathers were Christian and theists and on top of that were Masons they would never have approved of the homosexual lifestyle and you know it!

wilbur
09-16-2009, 07:57 PM
Now you are being inflammatory soon everyone will pile on and than you will be crying it isn't fair. The founding fathers were Christian and theists and on top of that were Masons they would never have approved of the homosexual lifestyle and you know it!

Wow - you've got a lot to learn about the founders. Do the names Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson ring a bell?

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 08:01 PM
Wow - you've got a lot to learn about the founders. Do the names Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson ring a bell?

Wait! I do. They were all southern Baptists, hated fags, and believed in the literal truth of the Bible. Right? :D

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 08:02 PM
Wow - you've got a lot to learn about the founders. Do the names Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson ring a bell?

Show me anywhere in any of their writings where they supported homosexuality!

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 08:10 PM
It's okay in the privacy of your own home, but the second my kids have to see fags kissing or holding hands it becomes a problem..

Why are you incapable of explaining it to them?

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 08:12 PM
There is no response. It just bolsters my disgust for homosexuals that know that the majority of society doesn't approve of their lifestyle, yet insist on forcing it on us. It will reinforce my voting against everything regarding the birth defect and my desire make them as uncomfortable in possible when in public.
The only response might be to remove my children from the situation so that they don't observe the sickness and think it's in any way normal or moral.

Do you think the majority of society disapproves of their lifestyle? Or does the majority of society not care much one way or another?

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 08:12 PM
Why are you incapable of explaining it to them?

I would just tell the little tykes those are sodomites or turd packers!

wilbur
09-16-2009, 08:16 PM
Show me anywhere in any of their writings where they supported homosexuality!

I have no idea what founders, if any, would condone homosexuality (or may have actually been homosexual). I'm not aware of any opinions expressed on the topic (not to say there isnt), specifically. One thing is clear... they went to extraordinary lengths to build a government that will necessarily be powerless to interfere with many things that many will find abhorrent, disgusting, abominations, immoral - and they saw this as a supremely good thing.

I'm sure many of those things would be and are things they themselves would describe with those nasty adjectives, yet they did it anyways. How bout that?

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 08:18 PM
I would just tell the little tykes those are sodomites or turd packers!

No, I think you would explain it on the level of the child with whom you were speaking. I believe you would also express your moral principles along with the explanation, but I believe you would find a way to communicate with your child in a meaningful way.

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 08:20 PM
The United States maintained the death penalty for convicted "sodomites" until about 1779 when Thomas Jefferson proposed that Virginia drop the death penalty for the crime and replace it with castration. Some states have revised the punishment for sodomy over the years, and some states and localities have passed laws protecting those who commit homosexual acts.
The Revolution in France brought an end to criminal laws regarding sexual activities in 1810 under the Napoleonic Code. England abolished the death penalty for acts of homosexuality in 1861. Homosexual history is one of abuse, prejudice, pain, and death.
http://rockhawk.com/homosexuals_in_history.htm

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 08:24 PM
I have no idea what founders, if any, would condone homosexuality (or may have actually been homosexual). I'm not aware of any opinions expressed on the topic (not to say there isnt), specifically. One thing is clear... they went to extraordinary lengths to build a government that will necessarily be powerless to interfere with many things that many will find abhorrent, disgusting, abominations, immoral - and they saw this as a supremely good thing.

I'm sure many of those things would be and are things they themselves would describe with those nasty adjectives, yet they did it anyways. How bout that?

There was no support for homosexuality from the founding fathers. You have got a lot to learn about them!

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 08:25 PM
Now you are being inflammatory soon everyone will pile on and than you will be crying it isn't fair. The founding fathers were Christian and theists and on top of that were Masons they would never have approved of the homosexual lifestyle and you know it!

Trust me, I can handle all of the idiots here (and that term doesn't describe everyone here, only a very defined subset). And I've proven it over and over, way before you ever heard of this board.

What I can't handle is certain mods jumping in, with the implicit threat of banning, saying don't say that to poor xxx, he's such a nice guy (or a "true gentleman") and you're a real meanie. That becomes a problem. Particulary when people call me a "pussy," "jackass," and other such names, but when I respond with "hick," I'm the villian. Who knows. Perhaps it's because my term rings true.

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 08:28 PM
No one in this entire thread has suggested that homosexuality should be illegal including me. That is not enough for those of you on the left, we must like it and embrace it or you will never be happy!

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 08:29 PM
Trust me, I can handle all of the idiots here (and that term doesn't describe everyone here, only a very defined subset). And I've proven it over and over, way before you ever heard of this board.

What I can't handle is certain mods jumping in, with the implicit threat of banning, saying don't say that to poor xxx, he's such a nice guy (or a "true gentleman") and you're a real meanie. That becomes a problem. Particulary when people call me a "pussy," "jackass," and other such names, but when I respond with "hick," I'm the villian. Who knows. Perhaps it's because my term rings true.
Stop whining.

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 08:35 PM
Stop whining.

Stop hiding behind the skirts of a mod.

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 08:38 PM
Stop hiding behind the skirts of a mod.

You were civil all day. You proved you could do it, why are you blowing it all now?

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 08:41 PM
From someone who has no rep as warrior:

Guys, you are both such an asset to the board.

Fight hard, but don't lose it.

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 08:45 PM
You were civil all day. You proved you could do it, why are you blowing it all now?

Sorry, what post of yours was I responding to? Wasn't it something like "Stop whining."

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 08:47 PM
From someone who has no rep as warrior:

Guys, you are both such an asset to the board.

Fight hard, but don't lose it.

I've always strived to be a lover, not a warrior. There was a guy here once who's name was "Cold Warrior." What a jackass he was. :D

Phillygirl
09-16-2009, 08:49 PM
From someone who has no rep as warrior:

Guys, you are both such an asset to the board.

Fight hard, but don't lose it.

You have plenty of rep as a warrior. I'm sure you fight damn hard to get into that spandex! :D

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 08:50 PM
From someone who has no rep as warrior:

Guys, you are both such an asset to the board.

Fight hard, but don't lose it.

Don't worry Bubba I'm not mad tonight.

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 08:53 PM
Sorry, what post of yours was I responding to? Wasn't it something like "Stop whining."

That was a compliment pumpkin. If you were here I'd buy you a happy meal and a milk shake.

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 08:58 PM
Don't worry Bubba I'm not mad tonight.

OMG, you think you're a match for me in the Dome. You are deluding yourself. You should check around here before making such outrageous statements.

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 09:00 PM
OMG, you think you're a match for me in the Dome. You are deluding yourself. You should check around here before making such outrageous statements.

lighten up francis!

linda22003
09-16-2009, 09:04 PM
Do you think the majority of society disapproves of their lifestyle? Or does the majority of society not care much one way or another?

By George, I think he's got it.

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 09:06 PM
You have plenty of rep as a warrior. I'm sure you fight damn hard to get into that spandex! :D

Talcum Powder.

My wife told you about the Talcum Powder!!!!:eek:

I don't have to use that much.

Does spandex make my ass look big? You've seen the pictures with Lance.

Be honest.

Phillygirl
09-16-2009, 09:12 PM
Talcum Powder.

My wife told you about the Talcum Powder!!!!:eek:

I don't have to use that much.

Does spandex make my ass look big? You've seen the pictures with Lance.

Be honest.

These are questions better answered by your wife. She is the only one you need to please.

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 09:17 PM
I've always strived to be a lover, not a warrior. There was a guy here once who's name was "Cold Warrior." What a jackass he was. :D

was.....? :p:D

I'll play something by The Who for you in the Jukebox.

stsinner
09-16-2009, 09:20 PM
Do you think the majority of society disapproves of their lifestyle? Or does the majority of society not care much one way or another?

I absolutely think the majority of society is disgusted by homosexuality.. Regardless of what Obama tells you, we are still a Christian nation with the largest sect of that being Catholicism.

It's only because most people are weary of being called names and insulted for their views and beliefs that they keep their opinions to themselves..

Homo marriage has been soundly defeated in every state where it's been put to a vote.. The only way homosexual marriage has been made legal is by judges illegally legislating from the bench. They do not have the power to do this in the judicial branch, but they're allowed to do it anyway because the only way to stop it would be to revolt, and we just don't have the stones for that in modern day America where women are increasingly becoming men and men displaying the slightest bit of testosterone are shunned..

Gingersnap
09-16-2009, 09:26 PM
Wow - you've got a lot to learn about the founders. Do the names Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson ring a bell?

Kind of:


In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages ...

I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

(June 28, 1787, the Constitutional Convention - (Benjamin Franklin's address).)

But this isn't about the religious beliefs of the Founders, it's about an Eastern European government dictating the circumstances under which it will allow a foreign person to adopt a child.

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 09:29 PM
lighten up francis!

All my Dome threads are very light and amusing. That's the trick. Never get sucked in to the anger. Stay above it and laugh. Laugh like a Steppenwolf...


…So that’s it, thought I. They’ve disfigured this good old wall with an electric sign. Meanwhile I deciphered one or two of the letters as they appeared again for an instant; but they were hard to read even by guess work, for they came with very irregular spaces between them and very faintly, and then abruptly vanished. Whoever hoped for any result from a display like that was not very smart. He was a Steppenwolf, poor fellow. Why have his letters playing on this old wall in the darkest alley of the Old Town on a wet night with not a soul passing by, and why were they so fleeting, so fitful and illegible? But wait, at last I succeeded in catching several words on end. They were:

MAGIC THEATER

ENTRANCE NOT FOR EVERYBODY

I tried to open the door, but the heavy old latch would not stir. The display too was over. It had suddenly ceased, sadly convinced of its uselessness. I took a few steps back, landing deep into the mud, but no more letters came. The display was over. For a long time I stood waiting in the mud, but in vain.

Then, when I had given up and gone back to the alley, a few colored letters were dropped here and there, reflected on the asphalt in front of me. I read:

FOR MADMEN ONLY!

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 09:29 PM
I absolutely think the majority of society is disgusted by homosexuality.. Regardless of what Obama tells you, we are still a Christian nation with the largest sect of that being Catholicism.

It's only because most people are weary of being called names and insulted for their views and beliefs that they keep their opinions to themselves..

Homo marriage has been soundly defeated in every state where it's been put to a vote.. The only way homosexual marriage has been made legal is by judges illegally legislating from the bench. They do not have the power to do this in the judicial branch, but they're allowed to do it anyway because the only way to stop it would be to revolt, and we just don't have the stones for that in modern day America where women are increasingly becoming men and men displaying the slightest bit of testosterone are shunned..

What you think is what you think. I'm not here to criticize what you believe.

I just think most people don't see homosexuality as a big deal. I don't.

I have gay friends. I have straight friends.

I also have friends who have marital difficulties. Who get into financial problems. Who get into legal troubles. I have friends who are just f*****g crazy.

I see them at church. I see them at work. They're my neighbors.

I don't have to judge them. It's not my job.

What I think I am supposed to do is love them. Beyond that, it's above my pay grade.

And I'm good with that.

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 09:34 PM
All my Dome threads are very light and amusing. That's the trick. Never get sucked in to the anger. Stay above it and laugh. Laugh like a Steppenwolf...

You and Wilbur proposed in this thread that the founding fathers would support homosexuality. Produce your evidence!

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 09:36 PM
You and Wilbur proposed in this thread that the founding fathers would support homosexuality. Produce your evidence!

I wonder if they would support or oppose homosexuality, or if they would see it as a question of freedom?

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 09:39 PM
What you think is what you think. I'm not here to criticize what you believe.

I just think most people don't see homosexuality as a big deal. I don't.

I have gay friends. I have straight friends.

I also have friends who have marital difficulties. Who get into financial problems. Who get into legal troubles. I have friends who are just f*****g crazy.

I see them at church. I see them at work. They're my neighbors.

I don't have to judge them. It's not my job.

What I think I am supposed to do is love them. Beyond that, it's above my pay grade.

And I'm good with that.

My God, Bubba. You're the wisest of us all. And I really mean that. I wouldn't have responded in that way. I would have been snide, arrogant, and cutting. Yoiu're really the man and I take my hat off to you.

Change your icon back to "the Dude." :D

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 09:41 PM
I wonder if they would support or oppose homosexuality, or if they would see it as a question of freedom?

See post #53 in this thread.

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 09:42 PM
My God, Bubba. You're the wisest of us all. And I really mean that. I wouldn't have responded in that way. I would have been snide, arrogant, and cutting. Yoiu're really the man and I take my hat off to you.

Change your icon back to "the Dude." :D

I think I will. My hair, and beard, is growing. :D

Beyond that, I'm just a guy who plays music.

And that ain't bad....

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 09:43 PM
See post #53 in this thread.

I did. I wish I could sit down and ask them.

Maybe one day.

'til then, I'll muddle along.

Peace....

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 09:44 PM
You and Wilbur proposed in this thread that the founding fathers would support homosexuality. Produce your evidence!

I really don't think that is what we proposed. Rather, I think it was the notions of indivdual freedom and less government. Like wilbur, I have little knowledge of actual quotes, but Paine, Franklin, and Jefferson were men of the world, not provencials, and were aware of differences in "moral values."

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 09:54 PM
was.....? :p:D

I'll play something by The Who for you in the Jukebox.

How about a Paul Simon? ;)

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 09:55 PM
I really don't think that is what we proposed. Rather, I think it was the notions of indivdual freedom and less government. Like wilbur, I have little knowledge of actual quotes, but Paine, Franklin, and Jefferson were men of the world, not provencials, and were aware of differences in "moral values."
If they were alive today and said homosexuality should be illegal I would say they are wrong. I would go further and state that prostitution should be legal. My body and my bedroom are none of any ones business but I also believe that you are under no obligation to embrace my ideals and will not force them on you. Homosexuals have gone way past this by intimidating Christians and churches. Stay out of my bedroom and out of my brain and heart I might add. All this said, the founding fathers did not support homosexuality. You don't show your support by cutting someones balls off!

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 10:05 PM
How about a Paul Simon? ;)

Good suggestion.....

stsinner
09-16-2009, 10:12 PM
What you think is what you think. I'm not here to criticize what you believe.

I just think most people don't see homosexuality as a big deal. I don't.

I have gay friends. I have straight friends.

I also have friends who have marital difficulties. Who get into financial problems. Who get into legal troubles. I have friends who are just f*****g crazy.

I see them at church. I see them at work. They're my neighbors.

I don't have to judge them. It's not my job.

What I think I am supposed to do is love them. Beyond that, it's above my pay grade.

And I'm good with that.

Nowhere did I say that I advocate actively insulting them or otherwise acting on my beliefs, but when they can't just leave it alone when we give them civil unions, or when they have to make out in public, etc., I think that's agitating.. They know that people don't want to see them making out, and when they'd don't have the respect to wait until they get behind closed doors, I don't have the respect to say that it's fine.

As I've said before, I work for a dyke in a volunteer position, and she's very respectful and doesn't make out with her partner in front of me.. She calls me all the time for help and just to catch up, and we are pretty good friends.. We can be because, as you said, it's not my job to judge her lifestyle, so I don't.. But if she were to get lewd in front of me, I don't think I'd be working for her anymore..

BadCat
09-16-2009, 10:22 PM
Homos are defects (probably genetic).

As with any defect, they should be purged from the system.

Crystal Wizard
09-16-2009, 10:25 PM
If they were alive today and said homosexuality should be illegal I would say they are wrong. I would go further and state that prostitution should be legal. My body and my bedroom are none of any ones business but I also believe that you are under no obligation to embrace my ideals and will not force them on you. Homosexuals have gone way past this by intimidating Christians and churches. Stay out of my bedroom and out of my brain and heart I might add. All this said, the founding fathers did not support homosexuality. You don't show your support by cutting someones balls off!

You think prostitution should be legal!!! :eek: People have been banned from this board for uttering that blasphemy. :D

BadCat
09-16-2009, 10:27 PM
You think prostitution should be legal!!! :eek: People have been banned from this board for uttering that blasphemy. :D

I don't think that was the reason.

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 10:29 PM
Nowhere did I say that I advocate actively insulting them or otherwise acting on my beliefs, but when they can't just leave it alone when we give them civil unions, or when they have to make out in public, etc., I think that's agitating.. They know that people don't want to see them making out, and when they'd don't have the respect to wait until they get behind closed doors, I don't have the respect to say that it's fine.

As I've said before, I work for a dyke in a volunteer position, and she's very respectful and doesn't make out with her partner in front of me.. She calls me all the time for help and just to catch up, and we are pretty good friends.. We can be because, as you said, it's not my job to judge her lifestyle, so I don't.. But if she were to get lewd in front of me, I don't think I'd be working for her anymore..

Good. Good on ya. For real.

IMHO, most belief comes from a good place. I don't, for a minute, believe that you would do wrong to a real person in your real life. And I don't think you would teach your child to do any differently.

In the heat and hyperbole of an Internet discussion, things are said in the moment just because of the format. I do it too. I'll get hot and bothered about sports or music. We all got our buttons. We all push the buttons of others.

Understood.

I like being on a forum like this. Fire away and hammer away and it's all good. I get something from just about everyone who posts here. I listen to the things that are said and they represent something real in our society today.

This isn't just for show. I think what we say here matters. Maybe I take it too seriously, but to me, a forum like this matters. What we say her has an effect.

I feel a respect, even reverence, for what people believe. Even if I disagree with a person.

The fact that a person talks with me is significant. I think it really does matter.

megimoo
09-16-2009, 10:30 PM
You think prostitution should be legal!!! :eek: People have been banned from this board for uttering that blasphemy. :DWhen your liver finally gives up the ghost all of those old hookers you frequent will all go back to the nursing homes !

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 10:31 PM
I don't think that was the reason.
Honestly there are a lot of ugly pathetic people that would be a lot safer to be around if they could have sex. Not everyone can get it free because of their looks and personality.

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 10:32 PM
Homos are defects (probably genetic).

As with any defect, they should be purged from the system.

Is a genius a defect?

Should Mozart be purged?

Einstein? Ghandi?

And there is no system. There is only what people do.

BadCat
09-16-2009, 10:32 PM
Honestly there are a lot of ugly pathetic people that would be a lot safer to be around if they could have sex. Not everyone can get it free because of their looks and personality.

I don't have anything against legalized prostitution.
I do think that it should be at the state level though.

BadCat
09-16-2009, 10:36 PM
Is a genius a defect?

Should Mozart be purged?

Einstein? Ghandi?

And ther is no system. There is only what people do.

Every species is designed (evolved) to do one thing...reproduce.
Homo sapiens seem to think that they are special, because they do more than that, it's all pap, the sum of it is that we are here to procreate.

A person who is attracted to a person of the same sex is therefore, a defect, useless to the species.

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 10:38 PM
Should Mozart be purged?



Only if he is constipated!

wilbur
09-16-2009, 10:38 PM
You and Wilbur proposed in this thread that the founding fathers would support homosexuality. Produce your evidence!

Ahem.... lets quit trying to distract from your gaff shall we?

You said they were Christians and theists! Produce your evidence! Some surely were, it was quite a mixed lot... but.. yeah..

I don't believe I uttered the words "they would support homosexuality" - I actually explicitly pointed out, that I did not know what their opinions on the issue were - to summarize, what I did say was that they designed the founding documents by philosophies that ideally allow a person to live according to their nature.

But alas, not even their brilliance could escape all primitive cultural mores in which they lived - some of them owned slaves, as others have pointed out - and so even they failed to even realize some of the extreme ways in which they betrayed their own ideals, completely unawares. But if we look at the core philosophies of the founders, yes, we will find a system that supports homosexuals, abolition, and a whole lot more.

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 10:40 PM
Ahem.... lets quit trying to distract from your gaff shall we?

You said they were Christians and theists! Produce your evidence! Some surely were, it was quite a mixed lot... but.. yeah..

I don't believe I uttered the words "they would support homosexuality" - what I did say was that they designed the founding documents by philosophies that ideally allow a person to live according to their nature.

But alas, not even their brilliance could escape all primitive cultural mores in which they lived - some of them owned slaves, as others have pointed out - and so even they failed to even realize some of the extreme ways in which they betrayed their own ideals, completely unawares. But if we look at the core philosophies of the founders, yes, we will find a system that supports homosexuals, abolition, and a whole lot more.
Gaff my ass you were using the founding fathers to defend homosexuality. You had better thank more resent leadership for that.

wilbur
09-16-2009, 10:44 PM
Gaff my ass you were using the founding fathers to defend homosexuality. You had better thank more resent leadership for that.

I was using the founding documents and philosophies of this country to defend homosexuality (and living according to ones nature, whatever that may be).

But I bet Thomas Paine is rolling in his grave right now, that you called him a Christian.

megimoo
09-16-2009, 10:45 PM
Every species is designed (evolved) to do one thing...reproduce.
Homo sapiens seem to think that they are special, because they do more than that, it's all pap, the sum of it is that we are here to procreate.

A person who is attracted to a person of the same sex is therefore, a defect, useless to the species.
Dominant Monkeys use it as a way to force weaker males into submission !

!

BadCat
09-16-2009, 10:47 PM
Dominant Monkeys use it as a way to force weaker males into submission !

!

So do Arabs and convicts.

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 10:48 PM
I was using the founding documents and philosophies of this country to defend homosexuality (and living according to ones nature, whatever that may be).

But I bet Thomas Paine is rolling in his grave right now, that you called him a Christian.

Yeah right! the documents from men that decided to quit killing homosexuals two years after they got into power and only castrate them instead. I wouldn't want you for a lawyer!

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 10:48 PM
Every species is designed (evolved) to do one thing...reproduce.
Homo sapiens seem to think that they are special, because they do more than that, it's all pap, the sum of it is that we are here to procreate.

A person who is attracted to a person of the same sex is therefore, a defect, useless to the species.

A person who does not reproduce is superfluous?

Jesus. St Paul. Thoreau. Soren Kierkegaard. Isaac Newton. Handel.

There is fucking and there is breeding. And then there is thinking. And doing.

They are not dependent upon one another.

One uses a penis. The other uses a brain, and maybe even a soul.

Imagine that.

Rockntractor
09-16-2009, 10:52 PM
I was using the founding documents and philosophies of this country to defend homosexuality (and living according to ones nature, whatever that may be).

But I bet Thomas Paine is rolling in his grave right now, that you called him a Christian.

I said Christians and theists. I should have added Deist.

Paine’s theism, however invested with biblical and Christian phraseology, was a birthright. It appears clear from several allusions in “The Age of Reason” to the Quakers that in his early life, or before the middle of the eighteenth century, the people so called were substantially Deists. An interesting confirmation of Paine’s statements concerning them appears as I write in an account sent by Count Leo Tolstoi to the London Times of the Russian sect called Dukhobortsy (The Times, October 23, 1895). This sect sprang up in the last century, and the narrative says:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=631&Itemid=288

wilbur
09-16-2009, 10:52 PM
Yeah right! the documents from men that decided to quit killing homosexuals two years after they got into power and only castrate them instead. I wouldn't want you for a lawyer!

One can have a great, amazing philosophy, yet still fail understand all the logical consequences of it... and therefore fail to live up to it.

BadCat
09-16-2009, 10:56 PM
A person who does not reproduce is superfluous?

Jesus. St Paul. Thoreau. Soren Kierkegaard. Isaac Newton. Handel.

There is fucking and there is breeding. And then there is thinking. And doing.

They are not dependent upon one another.

One uses a penis. The other uses a brain, and maybe even a soul.

Imagine that.

Society has uses for people, that has nothing to do with the fact, that if a person is sexually attracted to a member of the same sex, it is a DEFECT in the species.

SaintLouieWoman
09-16-2009, 10:56 PM
You were civil all day. You proved you could do it, why are you blowing it all now?

Why indeed?

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 10:56 PM
One can have a great, amazing philosophy, yet still fail understand all the logical consequences of it... and therefore fail to live up to it.

Wilbur, if I ever were able to live up to my beliefs, I would have to confess that my beliefs were, or are, inadequate.

If I can reach toward my beliefs then I will be, in some measure, content......

...or at least interested.....

Gingersnap
09-16-2009, 10:57 PM
I was using the founding documents and philosophies of this country to defend homosexuality (and living according to ones nature, whatever that may be).

And ignoring my contribution to the discussion involving Franklin. Regardless of the individual beliefs of the Founders, they were wholly united on the idea that the country would founder without adherence to Christian (specifically, Protestant) values.

All the Founders believed that Christian values were inherently vital to the management and conduct of a nation free from monarchy and Catholicism (despite one being Catholic).

But that's neither here nor there when it comes to a foreign nation setting policy on orphan adoption.

Bubba Dawg
09-16-2009, 11:00 PM
Society has uses for people, that has nothing to do with the fact, that if a person is sexually attracted to a member of the same sex, it is a DEFECT in the species.

That is true only if we are animals.

If we are animals, then you win. Nothing else matters.

If we aren't animals, then you also win.....because you can hold a pebble in your hand and look upon a star......

Yeah, I'm full of shit. So what.....?

Lars1701a
09-16-2009, 11:30 PM
Trust me, I can handle all of the idiots here (and that term doesn't describe everyone here, only a very defined subset). And I've proven it over and over, way before you ever heard of this board.

What I can't handle is certain mods jumping in, with the implicit threat of banning, saying don't say that to poor xxx, he's such a nice guy (or a "true gentleman") and you're a real meanie. That becomes a problem. Particulary when people call me a "pussy," "jackass," and other such names, but when I respond with "hick," I'm the villian. Who knows. Perhaps it's because my term rings true.

Funny I still haven't seen you handle anyone as of yet. You really think too much of yourself.


On edit: when it comes to whores and booze, yes you probably know more then I do but from what I have observed of your other "skills" there leaves much to be desired. (Oh I found at least 3 misspelled words in your little post)

megimoo
09-17-2009, 12:05 AM
Why indeed?After a wee libation or more his nasty nature shines through !

Crystal Wizard
09-17-2009, 05:48 AM
After a wee libation or more he nasty nature shines through !

Sorry, megs. But, as usual, wrong. My last post last night was at 10:25. I had a 10:30 call to India for a proposal. One should never mix scotch and business.

I get nasty when people get nasty with me. Simple as that.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-17-2009, 06:40 AM
Wow - you've got a lot to learn about the founders. Do the names Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson ring a bell?


Thomas Jefferson was a one of the leaders in his local Anglican Church, he remained so until his death. All of his agnostic quotes come from a period after the death of several loved ones and while he was in France away from support.

Take away that relatively short time period and his writings are absolutely Christian. Characterizing him as anything else exposes a huge misunderstanding (or purposeful misrepresentation) of the man as a whole.

Ben Franklin was also a believer - and even proposed prayers at the Constitutional Convention. He was indeed a Deist, but Deism back than was different than we understand it to be now. There were only two real partings with the Christian Church:

He believed (mostly - but There are exceptions) in a creating god but not a God that intervened in man's affairs. There were exceptions to this - so he parted from orthodox Deism in this and was closer to mainline Christians.

He also QUESTIONED the divinity of Christ. Note that I did not say denied the divinity, he questioned it. He feared that the Bible had been tampered with and therefore he was unsure of this matter. He is probably best characterized as a Jesus-centered Deist.

Let me quote him:


You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it: But I do not take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho' it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.

-- Letter to Ezra Stiles March 9, 1790


Most of his supposedly anti-Christian writings were against the leadership who emphasized the ceremony of religion rather than the aspects of helping others.


These people you mention, when you actually read the bulk of their work are NOT what you claim.

FlaGator
09-17-2009, 07:49 AM
That is true only if we are animals.

If we are animals, then you win. Nothing else matters.

If we aren't animals, then you also win.....because you can hold a pebble in your hand and look upon a star......

Yeah, I'm full of shit. So what.....?

I think that what badcat is getting at is that humans are the only land based species that has turned sex in to a recreational activity. Because we use it for recreation doesn't suddenly justify its use outside of it's original scope which was for a man and a woman to procreate. The natural order of things is for men and women to be attracted to each other and then to exercise that attraction by sexual fulfillment with the potential to produce offspring. Just because they choose not to or can't procreate does not violate the desire to express a natural urge. However, homosexual behavior can never produce offspring even if that was a desired outcome and is in fact a parody of the intended natural behavior.A child can sit behind the wheel of his dad's car and pretend to drive but without the necessary equipment it is only make believe.

SaintLouieWoman
09-17-2009, 08:36 AM
Sorry, megs. But, as usual, wrong. My last post last night was at 10:25. I had a 10:30 call to India for a proposal. One should never mix scotch and business.

I get nasty when people get nasty with me. Simple as that.

I hadn't been on the board when you started it again with me, the "some mod" and the little "hick" slam. You never learn. So I guess you can't blame it on the booze this time, just your lovely temperament.

Lars1701a
09-17-2009, 11:41 AM
LOL


Hell hath no fury as a lady scorned :)


I guess all that booze and whore chasing didnt save him :(


Taking bets on how long before this insecure "man" tries to come back.

FlaGator
09-17-2009, 12:34 PM
LOL


Hell hath no fury as a lady scorned :)


I guess all that booze and whore chasing didnt save him :(


Taking bets on how long before this insecure "man" tries to come back.

Stevie Wonder could see that coming.

Lars1701a
09-17-2009, 04:50 PM
Stevie Wonder could see that coming.

Ya I bet his Angles are in a funk tonight.;):D

Bubba Dawg
09-17-2009, 08:04 PM
I think that what badcat is getting at is that humans are the only land based species that has turned sex in to a recreational activity. Because we use it for recreation doesn't suddenly justify its use outside of it's original scope which was for a man and a woman to procreate. The natural order of things is for men and women to be attracted to each other and then to exercise that attraction by sexual fulfillment with the potential to produce office. Just because they choose not to or can't procreate does not violate the desire to express a natural urge. However, homosexual behavior can never produce offspring even if that was a desired outcome and is in fact a parody of the intended natural behavior.A child can sit behind the wheel of his dad's car and pretend to drive but without the necessary equipment it is only make believe.

Interesting. Hadn't thought of it that way. I think of most sexual activity as being recreational and not for procreation. Many people, I'm sure, engage is promiscuous behaviors just for pleasure. Woody Allen said that... sex without love is an empty pleasure, but as empty pleasures go, it's one of the best.

But there is also the role of a sexual relationship within a loving relationship. There is a closeness, intimacy actually, that comes from having no other sexual partner for 5 or 10 or 20 years except your significant other. I have known gay people who were in such relationships. Procreation was never a goal in such relationships. I do not consider the love they may have for each other as being a parody of anything. It is an unnecessary comparison.

Gingersnap
09-17-2009, 08:19 PM
I do not consider the love they may have for each other as being a parody of anything. It is an unnecessary comparison.

It's pretty necessary for traditional Christians. One of the constant problems with sexual relationships in a secular sense is that they can only be evaluated or valued based on pleasure itself. The intimacy and bonding you are describing can be found in some secular sexual relationships but it isn't really the norm. People get old, get bored, get Viagra and they're off to a more exciting interaction.

By making the creation of child (while possible) the center of any potential sexual engagement, even if the odds are long indeed that conception will occur, we infuse a kind of sacredness into the act and this also fuels an acknowledgment of the dignity and worth of two people doing it. They aren't just animated sex toys. They have a worth and a divine purpose within marriage as potential parents that is more important than just being good friends and gifted sexual athletes.

Bubba Dawg
09-17-2009, 08:25 PM
It's pretty necessary for traditional Christians. One of the constant problems with sexual relationships in a secular sense is that they can only be evaluated or valued based on pleasure itself. The intimacy and bonding you are describing can be found in some secular sexual relationships but it isn't really the norm. People get old, get bored, get Viagra and they're off to a more exciting interaction.

By making the creation of child (while possible) the center of any potential sexual engagement, even if the odds are long indeed that conception will occur, we infuse a kind of sacredness into the act and this also fuels an acknowledgment of the dignity and worth of two people doing it. They aren't just animated sex toys. They have a worth and a divine purpose within marriage as potential parents that is more important than just being good friends and gifted sexual athletes.

You'll never get old and boring Ginger. :D

If there is love then there is sacredness.

Gingersnap
09-17-2009, 08:44 PM
You'll never get old and boring Ginger. :D

If there is love then there is sacredness.

LOL! Calvin (among others) would beg to differ. ;)

Bubba Dawg
09-17-2009, 08:45 PM
LOL! Calvin (among others) would beg to differ. ;)

I'm totally certain you are correct about Mr. Calvin. ;):D

Rockntractor
09-17-2009, 08:48 PM
LOL! Calvin (among others) would beg to differ. ;)

Calvin! Are you cheating on me?

Gingersnap
09-17-2009, 08:51 PM
Calvin! Are you cheating on me?

I'm pure as the driven snow - ask anybody at Bob's Theological Discount Store and Bar. :p

Rockntractor
09-17-2009, 08:53 PM
I'm pure as the driven snow - ask anybody at Bob's Theological Discount Store and Bar. :p

If you can't trust Bob who can you trust!

FlaGator
09-17-2009, 09:04 PM
Interesting. Hadn't thought of it that way. I think of most sexual activity as being recreational and not for procreation. Many people, I'm sure, engage is promiscuous behaviors just for pleasure. Woody Allen said that... sex without love is an empty pleasure, but as empty pleasures go, it's one of the best.

But there is also the role of a sexual relationship within a loving relationship. There is a closeness, intimacy actually, that comes from having no other sexual partner for 5 or 10 or 20 years except your significant other. I have known gay people who were in such relationships. Procreation was never a goal in such relationships. I do not consider the love they may have for each other as being a parody of anything. It is an unnecessary comparison.

Sex is like pizza. When it's good it's good and when it's bad... it's still pretty good.:D

Bubba Dawg
09-17-2009, 09:07 PM
Sex is like pizza. When it's good it's good and when it's bad... it's still pretty good.:D

LOL. Is the Loop still open in San Marco?