Quote Originally Posted by Silver View Post
Really? Because I thought you were against the changes which if memory serves me correctly were all about promoting tolerance towards the kids in schools who are different.
No. I'm against the promotion of diversity and secularism. Just because something's different doesn't mean we should include it.

Still, it has nothing to do with treating them differently because they're different.

All I can see that doing is possibly leading to them all being treated the same unlike now where some can be easily victimised.
So some people go overboard with an idea, so that makes it a bad idea?

But I feel the big thing is being benevolent towards your fellow man.
Who's arguing against that?

You may have arguments over some things, but the better men will be humble enough to realise they could be wrong and that maybe they should just accept what the other person is saying as their own beliefs that don't have to be believed or followed by anyone else. Unlike God, humans are fallible.
And do you not see the difference between one's personal beliefs and the beliefs one attains from God?

The media mostly. I mean, most of what I see is from the US where it looks like shit has really hit the fan.
It hasn't. The extremely few cases of discrimination are prosecuted to extremes.

But then I recall that the Pope himself didn't wish to support the UN protecting homosexuals in countries that kill them. Pro-life my ass...
He didn't say he didn't support their protection. He said he didn't support the legalization of homosexuality.

If jay-walking was a capital offense, and you didn't want to legalize jay-walking, that wouldn't mean that you want all jay-walkers to be executed.

Did he tell them to their face they were sinners? I don't recall him taking that approach and that's the one some Christians are taking.
Some, yes, He did.

The only thing it incites is meaningless hatred more often than not.
So something is a bad idea because people get their panties in a wad over it?

Quote Originally Posted by Me
So if somebody else takes something too far and does something stupid, it's my fault for thinking that their victim should change?
If you feel the victim should change than too ****ing right. It's the aggressor who's caused the problems, not the victim.
You're not serious, are you?

Then I guess I'm guilty of the few assaults on homosexuals, because I disagree with homosexuality -- just like those who actually carried out the assaults. I guess I'm guilty of abortion clinic bombings, because I'm against abortion -- just like those who actually carried out the bombings. I guess I'm guilty of race riots and beatings by Black Panthers, because I'm against racial inequality -- just like those who actually carried out the riots and beatings. I guess I'm guilty of raping and murdering hookers, because I disagree with prostitution. I guess I'm guilty of torturing prisoners because I disagree with terrorism. I guess I'm guilty of shooting Larry Flint because I disagree with his type of pornography. And I guess I'm guilty of the Oklahoma City bombing, because I disagree with what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

The Pope, some Christian groups, some Christian mobs, areas where Christianity is the law only it's been twisted and perverted by the people practicing it to the point where it promotes hatred and the like which to my knowledge are far from virtuous...
The Pope isn't advocating acts against homosexuals. And very few "Christian" groups do.

Christians against homosexuals - Google Search
A fair few by the looks of my google search...
Look again. Out of the ten results on the first page, seven refer to Christians against [homosexuality -- not against homosexuals. One is from "religioustolerance.org" (which is anything but) attacking the few Christians who are anti-homosexual. One is about gays calling for violence against Christians. And one is about whether or not homosexuals can be Christians. While seven of the ten are against homosexuality, none of the ten are "against homosexuals".

And some are quite an entertaining read. I notice however that many only show one side of things from the bible and most of it concerning homosexuals is Old Testament. Last I remembered, that was the more violent section that encouraged acts of vigilance and the like in some parts.
In the Bible, many of the punishments and atonements for sins -- death, sacrifices, etc. -- stopped applying after Jesus paid for all sin. That doesn't mean that what was sinful isn't anymore.

That it happens. And it happens on a large scale. What matters most, the reality or the illusion set in place so the world seems more magical?
Could you cite some evidence that "it happens on a large scale"?

Still discriminatory picking giant woman over little man. For all I'd know the little guy could carry a ton more than the woman, but if she looked strong I'd be inclined to think she could carry more.
To your knowledge, she is best suited for the job. That's not discrimination.

If the little person requested the chance to demonstrate how much he could lift or carry and you refused, or if you knew he could carry more but didn't want a little person working for you, then it would be discrimination.

Got your head in the sand? I mean honestly, I see it on a daily basis at almost every place I've worked and every school I've gone to. When someone is bullying a person due to their sexuality, they do lose some of their dignity.
Aw, shucks. There it is again, people getting made fun of and picked on.

If somebody makes fun of me for having body hair, I haven't lost any freedoms. My quality of life doesn't go down. I can still live my life as I see fit. And if I'm so weak that my self-esteem goes down and I "lose some of my dignity" whenever says something I don't like, boo-friggin'-hoo, too bad.

There is absolutely nothing -- nothing that guarantees our right to never have our feelings hurt.

And if nobody's threatening that, why are any people against a policy promoting equality?
Who says they're against promoting equality? Oh, the gay news site says that. Well, I guess they're perfectly credible when it comes to what Christians think, right?

Here in the real world, it was the promotion and value of diversity that was the issue.

What action have be taken by Christians against Homosexuals? Hmm... protesting at the funerals of soldiers ...
By one group that calls themself "Christian". If I put on a dress and beat up a handicapped orphan, would you blame that on women?

... the Pope not acting Pro-life because the people in question were homosexual ...
Wrong again. But I've gone over this already.

... Christians trying to convert homosexuals and 'cure them' ...
It's bad to try to do what you can for what you believe helps people? Oh wait ... yeah, their feelings were hurt. Guess that means those people were just pure evil, what with their talking and their pamphlets.

... preaching that homosexuals are evil in some cases which leads to unwarranted hate...
Again, a few incidents of something being taken overboard mars everybody with a similar stance?

I could likely google more if you wanted. I just type in things like 'Christian' 'Homosexuals' and then a keyword like 'Violence' and several things pop up.
Here, I'll do it for you. Let me sort 'em out, too. Let's see, out of the first ten ... Three concern violence against Christians. One concerns threats of violence against Christians. One is from "religioustolerance". One is an opinion piece on an athiest site. One concerns a homosexual who labels Christians as "terrorists". One concerns a woman who falsely accuses Christians of inciting violence. One concerns an activist who blames violence on Christians. And one is a website for "gay Christians".

Yeah, a few articles will pop up along the lines of Gays wanting to get violent with Christians over Prop 8, but they didn't start this.
Ah, the old "well he started it!" line. Classic.

[quote]So you believe your interpretation is infallible which would somehow elevate you above fallible human status? Well, let's look at another source...[quote]Not at all -- I believe in what it says, not what it can be manipulated to say.

- CAN A HOMOSEXUAL REMAIN A CHRISTIAN?
"Religious tolerance" is anything but. But if you'll notice, I said manipulation ... did you pay any attention to the fact that everything the Bible says about homosexuality being sinful, according to these people, either means something completely different, or has a meaning that is "lost" or "unclear"?

And I agree with that quite well. I've read the bible a few times, and I haven't seen anything damning anything other than some acts which would drive a man away from God.
So you haven't seen any verses that say anything specifically about homosexuality? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Either you're intentionally ignoring specific verses, or you're unintentionally ignoring specific verses.

Masturbation fits under there, and I'd bet a fair few Christians are regular masturbators.
Show me the Bible verse that outlaws masturbation.

Sure, there was one man who was commanded not to spill his seed on the ground ("pull out"), and there are verses against lustful thoughts, but none specifically mention masturbation. There ARE verses, however, that specifically mention homosexuality.

Unfortunately in many cases it doesn't say that A, B or C are wrong and anything else is speculation based on things that seem similar.
It does say that homosexuality is wrong.

Are cool, groovy and cutting a rug discriminatory in the same way that gay can be used?
Is "gay" discriminatory? Better tell the GLBT community about it.

So if I made 'Christian' as my 'word' synonymous with being 'mentally inferior' and it became used that way in mainstream it would become ok?
You mean how "fundamentalist" has come to mean "extremist"? Sure, if you can make it part of the language, it'll get picked up.

Just like "gay" was picked up by some people to mean "stupid", after it was picked up by some people to mean "homosexual". "Gay" had a meaning before queers decided to call themselves that.

Well when kids are teasing a homosexual boy and not a straight boy, are they not being treated differently? Because I'd think they were.
Yes, that would be discrimination ... which nobody is supporting. ONCE AGAIN, there is a difference between realizing somebody is different and treating them differently for it.

I'd think a policy to promote equal treatage of kids regardless of sexuality would do nothing but promote understanding.
The arguments over the policy have nothing to do with equal treatment. (Not "treatage", treatment.)

And that I see as a good thing. I'm only arguing about those I feel aren't so accepting. There's still a shiteload of discrimination out there, and if enough people see it too, maybe something will come out of it, even if something small.
There's some discrimination against minority groups, yes. There's also discrimination in favor of minority groups, and between minority groups.

Much, much, much more common are the accusations of discrimination where there is none. "Crying wolf", if you will. Stupid people getting pissy about others not promoting their choices, in this situation. In the case of the recent political cartoon, stupid people getting pissy and fabricating "racism" where there was none, simply because the cartoon featured a monkey (the same week a crazed monkey was in the news) and mentioned the stimulus bill (the same week the stimulus bill was in the news).

Not only do these false accusations aggrivate those they are made against, but also when a credible accusation is finally made, most people are so used to bullshit and mountains out of molehills that they don't pay any attention to the cases with merit.

Not really, no. I believe I went on to say... ... Humanity has evolved past the need for traditional methods for better or worse.
The technology to overcome a dysfunction does not change whether or not it's a dysfunction.

Catholic schooled the entire way. It's really just that around here, schools are required to teach what's best accepted as well as some alternative theories in their science classes.
That's one thing that many people don't like about Catholicism -- instead of focusing on what's right and true, they focus on what's popular.

Last I checked, keyboards do not have minds and the keyboard is just a method for communicating the ideas from your head.
Just like God used men as a method of communicating His Word.

Yes, the bible does come from God, but he gave it to us through men and you can see that different writers had a different style of writing indicating that though the word is from God, it was written by very real men.
And what difference does this make?

How is it arguable? It is one of the older denominations and retains traditional aspects some other denominations have dropped. And it's also the largest Christian denomination around.
Popularity doesn't make it accurate. It's a different discussion for a different thread, one I'd enjoy debating with knowledgeable people. (All too often, people jump into issues like that with stuff like, "OMG you're dum of cours its Christian!")

Anecdotal evidence means a lot a good deal of the time.
When it's not credible, not proveable, and not applicable, it doesn't mean anything.

Well searching around I couldn't find anything more than anecdotal evidence which you'll likely brush aside, but my favourite theory is that a patriarchal organisation like a Christian church full of straight powerful men would feel more comfortable with gay woman due to homosexual men possibly hitting on them or perhaps even them falling in love with a homosexual which would likely make them question their faith and current direction.
So let's get this straight ... your theory is that Christian men are uncomfortable with homosexual men because they don't want to get hit on or fall in love with a man?

Also a good percentage of males admit to regularly masturbating in publications that do quizzes and as a major percentage of the world identify as Christians, that would likely mean a deal of Christians masturbate. And lesbians would likely make good masturbation material I believe.
So your next theory is that people that take quizzes masturbate, and somehow you know that some of them are Christian, and somehow you know that they masturbate to lesbians, and somehow you know that finding something attractive means it's not sinful?

I'm sure getting wasted off my ass every night would be very fun. Sleeping with a different woman (or two!) every night would be fun, too. Some heavy recreational drug use, I bet that would be fun too. But just because an attraction might be there doesn't mean I don't realize it's wrong.

There's also that the bible is based in Middle Eastern areas, and there didn't seem to be as much respect for women as men in that time period in general. Having several wives was all the rage for some people.
And that means they like lesbians?

Take everything into account. The cultural taboo of assualting females could very well be a big part of it. Once again it's discriminatory even if it's justifiable for some.
There's no way to tell what the causes are of more homosexual men being assaulted than homosexual women. It might just be "guys hate gay guys but love gay women", or it might be that men don't want to assault women, or that women aren't as outspoken about their sexuality.

So I could take a US show like for example, Jerry Springer. Now what percentage of people in that show's large audience do not chant 'We Love Lesbians' whenever the chant starts? Last I looked, most were chanting it and if 78.5% of US people are Christian, that to me would indicate that unless the audience was made up of a small minority audience, a lot of Christians were chanting that they love lesbians.
You said it was a long shot, but ... wow.

First ... well, first, you're lumping Mormon and Catholic in with Christian, but oh well. Other than that ... first, you assume that everybody who "identifies" as Christian actually is a Christian. I think we both know that nowhere near 75% of the American population even attends religious services. Second, you assume that the audience of Jerry Springer is an accurate representation of the religious diversity in America. Third, you're assuming that the few who don't chant aren't Christians, and those who do are -- or, at the very least, that the majority of those who chant are. Fourth, you're assuming that chanting "we love lesbians" on the Jerry Springer Show is clearly representative of one's views on homosexuality.

I've never heard the same for gay men.
Fifth, you're assuming that the Jerry Springer Show has gay men on stage as often as it has lesbians on stage. Sixth, you're assuming that since you haven't seen it, it doesn't happen. Seventh, you're assuming that they even have a chant for gay men. Eighth, you're assuming that the lack of a chant reveals a difference of appreciation.

And ninth, you're assuming that you can get an accurate representation of Christian views on homosexuality of each sex by watching a the Jerry Springer Show.