Christian fundamentalists try to block protection for gay kids at school

[Sasquatch]

Well whatever makes a person feel better for discriminating against others.

... okay, maybe you missed the part about not treating them differently.

Though I do recall a lot of the New Testament preaching love for Sinners rather than the big T, in fact I don't think the actual word was used much if at all.

If loving somebody meant ignoring the wrong things that they do, you might have a point. I guess that would be why couples in love never argue, or why parents and children never argue. They love each other, so it doesn't matter what any of them do, right?

But my point is, if a person is discriminating against someone and that leads to them feeling victimised, there ain't no love there.

Again, I don't know where you're getting this "discrimination" idea from.

Did Jesus go around discriminating against homosexuals in the bible? NO! In fact he hung out with sinners and people deemed scummy by the rest of the populous.

Did he say that they weren't sinners?

Fair enough. But wouldn't the better solution be to ignore or accept it rather than making them feel like shit about it to the point where parts of society see homosexuality as an excuse to target a person?

So if somebody else takes something too far and does something stupid, it's my fault for thinking that their victim should change?

And does an individual Christian gain any virtue from acts against homosexuals or any other sinner?

Who is advocating "acts against homosexuals"?

So? In the context I used it, it's a valid example.

Unless you consider homosexuality to be a disability, no, it's not.

You can have a person disabled in a way that wouldn't affect his choice of work and a healthy 'normal' person will be picked ahead of him most of the time, even if less qualified.

And that'd be illegal. What's your point?

Depends on the job and the individual honestly. Individual? Well I'd prefer the 7' ogre woman over the 4' stammering midgit man for a construction job any day. Is that discriminatory? Damn right it is.

Not really. In such case, the little person's "disability" would affect his qualifications for the job.

With matters of sexuality and such the thing at stake is a person's quality of life, their dignity and their right to live as they see fit just like anyone else.

And nobody's threatening any of that.

For them being homosexual. Or is it just a coincidence homosexuals are in the firing line and it's really that all of them have a similar birth mark or something else that categorises them?

What "firing line"? "Targetting" for what? (Not for what reason, but for what action.)

It's too bad the word he did pass down is so open to manipulation.

Fix'd.

Possibly as humans likely lack the ability to comprehend God directly due to our limitations.

If one takes the Bible as the Word of God, and the Bible says that A, B, and C are wrong, it doesn't take much "comprehension" to figure out that A, B, and C are wrong.

Gay as a word with negative connotations has been used very commonly these days. eg 'He's gay', 'That's gay', 'How gay' etc. Hell, even homosexual is sometimes. 'Don't be a ****ing homo' is one I've heard a few times, often used to describe someone too scared to do something.

Languages, and specific words in those languages, adapt and change. Fifty years ago, "cool" meant slightly cold. A hundred years ago, "groovy" meant that something had a lot of grooves. If you tell somebody to "cut a rug" nowdays, chances are that the first thing they'll think of is taking a pair of scissors to a strip of carpet.

A group of people selected "gay" as "their word". It has since become synonymous with "stupid". "Homo", or "homosexual", has become synonymous with "feminine" or "weak". Just like "fundamentalist" has become synonymous, to some people, with "extreme".

And kids being as impressionable as they are will take it upon themselves to be discriminatory if taught it's ok.

That's why we shouldn't teach them that discrimination is okay. But as I've pointed out multiple times, there's a difference between realizing that somebody is different and treating thm differently for it.

Very true. Older people who lived in less tolerant times are often more likely to be discriminatory old geezers. Not always however as some were open enough to realise that we're not that different and we should just get along nicely.

For the most part, today's generation, being forced to accept others, will be less discriminatory than previous generations. And according to Chris Rock, the most racist people are old black people -- people that have experienced real racism.

I only googled it as I don't recall learning that sexuality in humans is a natural dysfunction.

It stops reproduction, does it not? Can something inhibit reproduction and not be a dysfunction?

And of course you don't recall learning it. You think public schools will admit that homosexuality is unnatural?

Says God not literally picking up a pen and writing a book. No, we know the bible comes from God through select humans. Much the same as a holy vision is communication between God and some human designated as holy messenger boy/girl. Or were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John God's pen names?

Are you made of silver? Am I actually a sasquatch? Is Pete actually ... well, nevermind.

Think about this. I'm posting this message. How do I do that? Do I just think it, and it automatically posts? Do I say it? No -- I use a keyboard. What you're reading did not come from me -- it came from my keyboard. It's what I wanted to post, sure, because I'm telling my keyboard what to put up on screen, but it does not come directly from me. Just because this message is not conveyed directly from my mind to yours doesn't mean it doesn't come from me.

And just because God Himself didn't pick up a pen doesn't mean that the message didn't come from Him.

Ether you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, or you don't. If you don't, you shouldn't care if it is or not.

Catholicism is a form of Christianity.

That's arguable, but I don't want to get into it here.

Second, to some people real world evidence beats speculation.

And anecdotal evidence means absolutely nothing. I might know ninety-eight white people and two black people -- that doesn't mean that the world is 98% white and 2% black.

And third, BWWWWUURRRRRRR. No but really, what question do you want answered? I might be able to help you, but couldn't be effed finding the one in question. And give it to me as a straight up single bodied question to avoid ambiguity. It'll likely make my answer more clear.

I'll post it again for you.

What Christian group or organization states as their policy or collective opinion that homosexuality is more acceptable in females than it is in males?

How many more males than females who were homosexual have been seriously victimised at the hands of some considering themselves Christian? And I'm talking more than just verbally. A conservative guess is fine.

Would you be taking into account the percentage of "outspoken", or more vocal, homosexual females as opposed to males? Or the cultural taboo of assaulting females?

Just because a Christian group or organisation puts rules or policies forwards does not mean the individuals need to take notice of them and that's quite clearly visible.

And how does that reflect upon Christians any more than it reflects on people in general?

The comment was made that Christians like homosexuality in women, but not homosexuality in men. I'm just looking for some -- any sort of -- evidence to back that up.

[Furore]

... okay, maybe you missed the part about not treating them differently.

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. All I can see that doing is possibly leading to them all being treated the same unlike now where some can be easily victimised.

If loving somebody meant ignoring the wrong things that they do, you might have a point. I guess that would be why couples in love never argue, or why parents and children never argue. They love each other, so it doesn't matter what any of them do, right?

Correct in some ways I guess. But I feel the big thing is being benevolent towards your fellow man. 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.

Again, I don't know where you're getting this "discrimination" idea from.

The media mostly. I mean, most of what I see is from the US where it looks like shit has really hit the fan. 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...

Did he say that they weren't sinners?

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. The only thing it incites is meaningless hatred more often than not.

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.

Who is advocating "acts against homosexuals"?

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...

Christians against homosexuals - Google Search
A fair few by the looks of my google search...
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.

Unless you consider homosexuality to be a disability, no, it's not.

No, I merely stated that like a disability, sexuality may be something a person can't help. I honestly didn't think it was that hard to understand, especially as my words tend to be a lot more straight forwards then the bible, but onto that more later.

And that'd be illegal. What's your point?

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?

Not really. In such case, the little person's "disability" would affect his qualifications for the job.

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. That *IS* discrimination and though in the case of work you really want the people you'd feel would get the job done better, someone would suffer because of something they couldn't change.

And nobody's threatening any of that.

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. And if nobody's threatening that, why are any people against a policy promoting equality?

What "firing line"? "Targetting" for what? (Not for what reason, but for what action.)

What action have be taken by Christians against Homosexuals? Hmm... protesting at the funerals of soldiers, the Pope not acting Pro-life because the people in question were homosexual, Christians trying to convert homosexuals and 'cure them', preaching that homosexuals are evil in some cases which leads to unwarranted hate... 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. 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.

Fix'd.

So you believe your interpretation is infallible which would somehow elevate you above fallible human status? Well, let's look at another source...

There are many places in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) that have been traditionally interpreted as condemning homosexuality. Romans 1:26 and 27 has St. Paul criticizing sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. This passage has been variously interpreted to refer to all homosexual behavior, to orgiastic activity, to temple prostitution, or to heterosexuals who were engaging in same-sex exchanges. The meaning is unclear.
I Corinthians 6:9 contains a lists of activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God. One was translated as referring to masturbation, and is now sometimes translated as "homosexual". The true meaning is lost.
1 Tim 1:9 is similar to I Corinthians.
Jude 7 refers to the people of Sodom as "giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh". The latter has been variously translated as women engaging in sexual intercourse with angels and as homosexuality. The exact meaning is lost.


We conclude that St. Paul in the Christian Scriptures seems to have condemned some homosexual activity, but it is unclear which ones. There is no mention of loving, committed gay and lesbian relations in the Christian Scriptures.

- CAN A HOMOSEXUAL REMAIN A CHRISTIAN?

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. Masturbation fits under there, and I'd bet a fair few Christians are regular masturbators.

If one takes the Bible as the Word of God, and the Bible says that A, B, and C are wrong, it doesn't take much "comprehension" to figure out that A, B, and C are wrong.

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. I don't recall many of the current vices of the age mentioned and it's only interpretation of things that are vaguely similar that allow a person to take a stab at whether it's right or wrong for a Christian to do. If a person believes their interpretation is infallible, they are too proud.

Languages, and specific words in those languages, adapt and change. Fifty years ago, "cool" meant slightly cold. A hundred years ago, "groovy" meant that something had a lot of grooves. If you tell somebody to "cut a rug" nowdays, chances are that the first thing they'll think of is taking a pair of scissors to a strip of carpet.

Are cool, groovy and cutting a rug discriminatory in the same way that gay can be used?

A group of people selected "gay" as "their word". It has since become synonymous with "stupid". "Homo", or "homosexual", has become synonymous with "feminine" or "weak". Just like "fundamentalist" has become synonymous, to some people, with "extreme".

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? I get the feeling Christians would be just as offended as homosexuals are in this case if that were the case...

That's why we shouldn't teach them that discrimination is okay. But as I've pointed out multiple times, there's a difference between realizing that somebody is different and treating thm differently for it.

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. Maybe I'm missing something, IDK. I'd think a policy to promote equal treatage of kids regardless of sexuality would do nothing but promote understanding.

For the most part, today's generation, being forced to accept others, will be less discriminatory than previous generations. And according to Chris Rock, the most racist people are old black people -- people that have experienced real racism.

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.

It stops reproduction, does it not? Can something inhibit reproduction and not be a dysfunction?

Not really, no. I believe I went on to say...

I only googled it as I don't recall learning that sexuality in humans is a natural dysfunction. I do recall hearing it was a problem when it stopped a species of animal from reproducing, but also recall that the tools a creature uses are part of it's defining characteristics and that humans have invented such tools as artifical insemination and the like which would allow homosexuals to produce geneticly related offspring. Or a homosexual could just adopt which is an amazing act of agape love which would give a needy child a home.

Humanity has evolved past the need for traditional methods for better or worse.

And of course you don't recall learning it. You think public schools will admit that homosexuality is unnatural?

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. And I always preferred Science over Maths and English here solely because it gave me room to speculate.

Are you made of silver? Am I actually a sasquatch? Is Pete actually ... well, nevermind.

I certainly wear a lot of Silver, for all I know you're a sasquatch and Pete would have to be Pete if Pete is who he is.

Think about this. I'm posting this message. How do I do that? Do I just think it, and it automatically posts? Do I say it? No -- I use a keyboard. What you're reading did not come from me -- it came from my keyboard. It's what I wanted to post, sure, because I'm telling my keyboard what to put up on screen, but it does not come directly from me. Just because this message is not conveyed directly from my mind to yours doesn't mean it doesn't come from me.

If not from your mind then whose? Last I checked, keyboards do not have minds and the keyboard is just a method for communicating the ideas from your head. 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 just because God Himself didn't pick up a pen doesn't mean that the message didn't come from Him.

I never said that. Merely that He didn't directly write it. And why would He need to?

Ether you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, or you don't. If you don't, you shouldn't care if it is or not.

Oh I believe it is the word of God, but I also believe that he didn't hop down, use a pen to write it and publish different parts under pen names.

That's arguable, but I don't want to get into it here.

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.

And anecdotal evidence means absolutely nothing. I might know ninety-eight white people and two black people -- that doesn't mean that the world is 98% white and 2% black.

Anecdotal evidence means a lot a good deal of the time. Without it a few things would be accepted as truth in times when lies were prevalent. Granted it's best used in a support role, but it definetely has it's uses.

And I also ask you this, how many people would act like those in your example? I don't know too many people myself that would think that way, but it might just be as our science classes here involve sample studies using better estimation techniques.

I'll post it again for you.

What Christian group or organization states as their policy or collective opinion that homosexuality is more acceptable in females than it is in males?

Cheers. Now let's see...
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. There's also females have no penis and can't have penis/vagina sex and many old stuffy Christians seem to lack an imagination. Why does that matter? Well I see very few younger men in positions of power in the Church. Priests, perhaps the odd bishop... Not much else. All speculation. OH YEAH! 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.

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. Damn, discrimination stretches a good deal back...

Would you be taking into account the percentage of "outspoken", or more vocal, homosexual females as opposed to males? Or the cultural taboo of assaulting females?

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.

And how does that reflect upon Christians any more than it reflects on people in general?

It reflects on people in general but it also applies directly to individuals calling themselves Christian who don't always act as Christian as they should.

The comment was made that Christians like homosexuality in women, but not homosexuality in men. I'm just looking for some -- any sort of -- evidence to back that up.

Any sort?
Well it's a long shot, but it's all I can think of that can be seen on film or similar. 25%-30% of the world's population are Christian. Now amazingly, 78.5% of North Americans identify as Christian. 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. I've never heard the same for gay men.

Where did I get that statistic of 78.5% you might be wondering?
I got it from the CIA, here:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...elds/2122.html
Just add the US denominations up.

[Sasquatch]

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?

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.

[Furore]

And do you not see the difference between one's personal beliefs and the beliefs one attains from God?

And how might one decide which is which? If you're some kind of special divine messenger, I want proof. Because something about that reeks of wrongness to me.

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.

No, it's your fault for thinking a victim should change rather than an aggressor. But if you don't support a peaceful way of doing things than you are a part of the problem. I'm not saying that you in particular aren't supporting such a thing, but people that are against a peaceful way of doing things definetely are.

Aw, shucks. There it is again, people getting made fun of and picked on.

Does that make it right? I'm all for ribbing and kids toughening themselves up, but I feel it should be for stupid reasons that'll be either forgotten later or frowned upon by a kid's family. Like personal appearance, divorce etc. Things like that are hard on a kid but they can ready them for more of the same in the workforce.

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.

It's ok to cry. Let it all out buddy. Most of us don't care if you have excess body hair.

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

Not even those people who get in the way and defend a person against that kind of thing? Because that's the guy I was and though it got me in trouble a few times, I wouldn't have had it any other way. Idealism is like that though. It's the ultimate high. And people seemed to like me for it, unless they were the kinds who were picking on others. Then, they tended to hate me with some exceptions. Can't be everyone's friend sadly. And my tendancy to be a smartass every so often rarely helps my cause, but I digress...

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?

If enough of you did that I'd be very inclined to blame hairy transexuals. Women don't have penises.

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.

Fine, let's civilise the savages. FOR THE GLORY OF <insert_whichever_country_religion_or_organisation _here_in_caps>!!. History shows us that trying to change people is always a good thing, yeps...

Ah, the old "well he started it!" line. Classic.

Well, it's quite valid. In terms of conflict, if it don't get started it don't exist.

Not at all -- I believe in what it says, not what it can be manipulated to say.

Which translation? Or do you read the language it was originally written in? And also bear in mind that what you get from the bible mightn't be the same as what someone else gets from the bible. This is what I mean by interpretation. Parables for example were used by Jesus to explain advanced concepts to simpler people and some were quite multi-layered.

It does say that homosexuality is wrong.

Where? And feel free to quote it from whichever bible you like, but also mention which bible you used. It could very well be why you think as you do.

The technology to overcome a dysfunction does not change whether or not it's a dysfunction.

If that is true than humans must be one of the most useless creatures ever to exist. Without the technology to overcome our dysfunctions we'd be helpless, especially as many of us these days don't know a life without them.

And there are some creatures that use tools to do things like crack a hard shell or something to feed. If they didn't have this technology they'd possibly die if they didn't adapt.

The technology makes a creature functional where previously they were dysfunctional. While using it they lose the dysfunction so I fail to see how they're still dysfunctional.

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.

Not really, I think many schools are like that here. See catholics don't believe half the stuff taught at the school in question, that was merely so we'd be informed. I've no doubt some of it was forced by the government just as things such as sex education, specifically the usage of contraceptives.

If anything it's those crazy protestants who went and changed things around.[/sarcasm]

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.

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.

Catholics and Mormons are Christians. And I wouldn't know that 75% of Americans do not attend churches as I'm not American. But even if some don't attend church, not all Christians are regular church goers. Some go Easter and Christmas, some don't go at all. Doesn't mean they're not Christian. All I assumed is that if a percentage that high were Christian and the audience was that big and as many people as I could see were yelling that they loved lesbians, some of those yelling they loved lesbians were likely Christian. When the percentage of the country's population is 78.5% (closer to 80% than 75% really) I can feel safe to assume there were Christians there chanting. And for all the episodes I have seen (a shitload while in school) I can say I never saw an episode where people chanted their love of gay men.

As for your ninth point, I assumed no such thing. I merely tried to answer this:

The comment was made that Christians like homosexuality in women, but not homosexuality in men. I'm just looking for some -- any sort of -- evidence to back that up.

It supports the theory that some Christians might prefer homosexuality in women rather than men. I doubt any Christian or Christian organisation would directly say it due to the outcry that would almost certainly pop up.

========

As much as I feel some conflict on a smaller scale can be fun at times, I can see that with conflict on a larger scale all that happens is a bunch of people suffer. Why allow hatred, misunderstanding and various prejudices to take root in a society's children when all it can lead to is more stupid conflict?