[Martinelv]

Yes, it's that time of year again. Martin's bi-montly rage.

First off, can I just report my unrestrained glee at the impending self-destruction of the Anglican Church over the ordination of gay bishops. Oh what joy. The 38 anglican primates (was ever a word so appropriate ?) are tearing hairy lumps of flesh out of each other about it at the time of writing, in a castle in Belfast (that well none sanctuary of gentle disagreements). I love it, I really do. Where is the ten commandments does it say 'thee shall not lie with thy another man ? In another slice of delicious irony, it does however state 'Thee shall not kill', which is strange considering that the Church of England is the second largest shareholder in the Marconi Arms division. Incidently, anyone on here a lawyer ? I want to know why the church is excempt from sexual orientation discrimination laws. Why? And in fact, if you think about it, in laymans terms they are threatening all gays will eternal damnation. Isn't that deemed as threatening behaviour ? Can't that be prosecuted ?

Also I was glad to hear the quote from that other primate, George Dubya, stating in his boundless piety that 'He won't bash gays because I'm a sinner too'. So. The leader of the 'free' (see - bombing people towards democracy) word is saying that homosexuals are sinners. Not to mention the fact that he doesn't regard Atheists as citizens.

Rage over. For now. WA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. :twisted:

 

[gimpy34]

In Leviticus 18:22 the Bible says "no man is to have sexual relations with another man. God hates that." This is in the section of forbidden sexual practices, which mostly prohibits sex between relatives and other's wives. So, it's in there.

 

[Martinelv]

Interesting, because he also says:

PS 137:9 Happy will be the man who dashes your little ones against the stones.

Lovely.

EX 12:29 The Lord kills all the first-born in the land of Egypt.

Nice.

EZ 9:4-6 The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women ...."

Go god !!!! You mercifull son of a gun !!

LE 26:29, DT 28:53, JE 19:9, EZ 5:8-10 As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends.

Better.

DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go.

I like that one.

2SA 12:1, 19 The Lord strikes David's child dead for the sin that David has committed.

Wooo, better watch out everyone ! But I suppose we're only meant to take that sort of stuff in 'context'. Indeed.

 

[jc]

religion is all bolloxs.....if you stand by basic principles then it shouldnt be a problem...if a man wants to stick his dick in another mans bumhole then thats upto them

 

[gimpy34]

God says a lot of stuff. Most of the stuff about forbidden sexual practices in Leviticus reflect opinions that still hold true today, so I'm pretty sure people want to take that literally. The Greeks and Romans were notorious homos and look what happened to their empires. We are just protecting ourselves.

I've got a funny website for you all that my friend sent to me about a Christian Science Fair.

http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html

This is seriously some funny, archaic sh*t.

 

[lone wolf]

Ha ha, gimpy about that idea of self-protection. But what about women? I have never heard there would be any serious "God hates it" statements in the bible about sexual relationships between women. Does that mean the lesbians are under the protective arm of God? And homosexual men are on their way to Hell at the same time? However - it is no wonder, as the entity is called Him (God must be straight as a string indeed).

 

[gimpy34]

nothing about lesbians, at least hot ones. the short-haired, grungy, flanneled, dr. marten wearing ones i'm not so sure about

 

[Guest]

Did you know Gympy...ummmm, that when people react so stronlgy against homosexuality, its their own homosexual arousal they cannot deal with, or loath or despise, so they lash out at the homosexuals who are brave enough to just admit to it? You wouldnt be the first.
Wanted to tell you this, since your strong anti-gay attitude gives you away. Im becoming suspicious about your sexual preference. I think you are gay but cannot admit to it.
Your denial of your own homosexual/****-erotic feelings may also cause
anxiety states, which in turn causes your DP. Think about it :wink:

 

[lone wolf]

I think you are gay but cannot admit to it.

Not necessarily gay, but he could also be bisexual (just bc of the hot lesbian thingy he mentioned)?

 

[Guest]

Not necessarily gay, but he could also be bisexual (just bc of the hot lesbian thingy he mentioned)?

That can also be a cover-up Ninnu. People are very good at fooling themselves (and with that thinking they can fool others). But granted, bi-sexual could be too, but its mostly the 'straight' men with homosexual arousal who have strong homophobic reactions. :?

 

[gimpy34]

gays are all sinners and going to hell

and not one word I've said so far has been remotely serious

You all need to study up on sarcasm

Read up on that link I listed and you will see why women are clearly designed for carrying groceries because of their lower center of gravity. If science says its true, it must be

Peace, ladies

 

[Guest]

gays are all sinners and going to hell

and not one word I've said so far has been remotely serious

If they are not serious, then why do you say these things?

 

[Homeskooled]

Its my opinion that homosexuality has a biological basis. I dont think that you really choose it. A study done a couple of years ago showed that the amount of androgens you are exposed to in your mother's womb directly affects your bones size and hormones as an adult. That being said, I think that people are on a continuum - some more "straight" than others, some "gayer" than others. So I think its easy to say that many "straight" men might have doubts about being "gay", and some "gay" men might wonder if they're "straight". This doesnt mean that they're position on these issues is only a knee-jerk reaction to these uncomfortable thoughts, though. I think people on both sides of the issue can be principled in their beleifs, and people on both sides can be bigots. I happen to think that these may not be the most constructive sexual practices. But I dont want to hurt anyone's feelings with this statement. I have a lot of good friends who dont agree with me and are straight, and alot of good friends who dont agree with me and are gay. And I also happen to like Wendy and her posts.....so please keep the debate civil guys!

Peace
Homeskooled

 

[lone wolf]

Oh, well - about the cover-up thing you said Wendy. IMO a homophobic man, who claims being straight and has a wife/girlfriend - I wouldn't think he would be totally fooling himself, when he is feeling sexual arousal bc of his partner. I may be wrong of course, but I would think that a man who feels being altogether homosexual wouldn't start a relationship with a woman just to cover his real preferences up in order to not feel an outcast in the community of straight guys.

However, I am a person who thinks that every human being is born as bisexual, but becomes straight/gay/bi bc of what she/he experiences in life - so my view is based on that assumption. But before any straight/gay dpselfhelp member decides to start a flame war against me, I must say... What do I know, as I can't experience life through any other person's eyes. Thus the theory Homeskooled presented may be right as well, and I can be wrong.

 

[gimpy34]

wendy, some people are naturally sarcastic and never serious and often there is humor in it, when preached to the right crowd, I will admit. Some get it, some don't.

As far as Ninnu's theory that everyone is born bisexual and their life experiences determine their sexuality, I will have to disagree. Even if a man has had gay sex a thousand times just because everyone else was doing it, that doesn't mean he is gay. I'm not exactly sure whether we are talking just a matter of sex or love. I consider a bisexual someone who has strong feelings for both sexes. They could equally be as much in love with a woman as they are with a man. If a man or woman has had gay sex a bajillion times but have never had strong emotions for a member of the same sex but have had that yearning, heartbreaking type feeling for a person of the opposite sex, I would just call them bicurious. If someone was to tell you they have never questioned their sexuality, I would call them a liar. It's only natural to question stuff like this. But, I can honestly say that I have never had that yearning for a man, that feeling that just drives you crazy inside. Only women have ever had that power over me.

I agree with Homeskooled, that one's sexual orientation is biological, being gay or straight is not a black or white matter. There are people who are slightly gayer or straighter than others. Society can determine one's sexual behavior but not their innermost feelings for a person, and I think most people can agree with that. I have never liked a girl just because my friends think she is hot. It may have some part in determining whether I might hook up with them or not. But, you get the point.

This is all serious, Wendy just to let you know. Sorry if I come off as a d*ckhead. I know it's hard to read some people just through written words. Especially sarcastic pricks like myself.

 

[sebastian]

For the record, i agree with the sagacious Homeskooled. I think it's biological. And i also agree with gimpy's assessment of what constitutes bi-sexuality, homosexuality, etc.

I tried my darndest to be bi-sexual during university. It was just so trendy at the time, and i thought of myself as on the cutting edge of all that hip stuff, but i could never get into it. I mean, i really couldn't get into it. It was just embarrassing, weird, and totally felt wrong. As much as i try to project an Oscar Wilde kind of personna, the truth of the matter is, only women can capture my heart. I just love you gals.

s.

 

[lone wolf]

As far as Ninnu's theory that everyone is born bisexual and their life experiences determine their sexuality, I will have to disagree. Even if a man has had gay sex a thousand times just because everyone else was doing it, that doesn't mean he is gay.

Yikes, I didn't mean just sex but the whole range of human life experience as a social being. BTW, some evidence to support my theory: there are people with DID (dissociative identity disorder), who have alters with different sexual preferences. There can be an alter who is gay and another alter who is straight in their systems. THAT may * be quite a strong evidence supporting my theory of the development of one's sexuality via socialization... Please don't get mad at me though, I am not presenting this theory as a fact but rather as a hypothetical possibility.

* Emphasizing the word "may", cuz I am only myself and cannot be anybody else - so I can't generalize things for 100 % sure.

 

[lone wolf]

By the way, about that "bicurious" thing. I may be a bit oldfashioned, but in my opinion sex without love is pointless, empty. Only wanting to test how sex would feel like with a person of the same gender - for me it is as constructive that a woman wants to have a child just to find out how it would feel like to be a mother. In those cases the other person is seen as a mere plaything/object, which IMO isn't very healthy.

 

[Martinelv]

Homosexuality is biological ? Well, knock me down with a feather. This kind of thing wants me to peel a bananna in rage.

Of course it's bloody biological. Unless we are made out of metal and are gay robots, it can't be anything else. We ARE biological machines, so our inclinations can only be biologically rooted (forgive pun), the nature/nurtue debate included.

I mean, who really gives a damn where someone sticks their pole or chews the carpet ? Is it anyones business apart from their own ? I don't understand why people even care. I'm more concerned/interested in the worrying lack of frog spawn around. (and if that isn't a Freudian prick, er, I mean slip, then I don't know what is). There's usually tons in the ponds and creeks at this time of the year, but I haven't seen any. I blame it on El Nino, or perhaps, Benzodiazepines.

How about this for sarcasm. Or it may be irony, I can never be sure. Details from the national office of statistics: (Probably)

Number of apperances of religous idols/symbols (usually Jesus or the Virgin Mary) in 2004:

In Apples: 23

In Oranges: 43

In Grapefruit:4

In Potatoes/Turnips/Other root vegetables: 75

On a crisp/chip: 2

Other assorted food/drink items: 124

In a reflection in a window or other reflective surface: 11

In a spillage (oil/blood/other): 16

On a facial or bodily deformity (such as a mole): 66

In person, or by an associated divinity (such as angel, throne, principality, etc), on international television, newspapers, internet, or other worldwide broadcasting networks, including personal apperances captured on camera or other recording devices: 0

 

[lone wolf]

Of course it's bloody biological. Unless we are made out of metal and are gay robots, it can't be anything else. We ARE biological machines, so our inclinations can only be biologically rooted (forgive pun), the nature/nurtue debate included.

Ha ha, smart ass! :twisted: But yeah, of course - you're right.