COUNCIL: Here’s what gay isn’t - Coeur d'Alene Press: Letters To Editor

COUNCIL: Here’s what gay isn’t

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:00 am

Just because a person is gay doesn’t mean he or she is a sex fiend, but prefer a companion of the same sex. Think about it: If your little girl has a male school teacher, are you concerned about her sexual safety? Will that teacher ravish your child? Of course not. We all know heterosexual men/ women we wouldn’t leave our girls/boys with. Ever heard of pedophiles?

The core of sexual orientation intolerance stems from a person being different from you. I sure hope one of these intolerant people doesn’t take a dislike as to the shade of lipstick I wear, lest they run me out of town, or think I’m a Commie because I drive a Honda, or I’m a hooker because my pants are too tight.

Open your minds people! You drone about Christianity. Show us what a Christian is really about. I’m not seeing it. The statement, “crime against nature” is baloney. Quite frankly my dear, it’s none of your business what choice another person makes in life. I have a novel idea: Let’s take a look in the mirror then get to work on becoming a better person.

JANIE HANSEN

Coeur d’Alene

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

15 comments:

  • DiViAnt posted at 5:46 pm on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    DiViAnt Posts: 85

    is this the mill stone to hang on the rev John Spdong's neck?
    http://www.liberator.net/articles/LiberatorMark/Spong.html

     
  • Mahiun posted at 4:06 pm on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 5644

    http://www.upworthy.com/best-explanation-of-religion-i-have-ever-heard-and-im-practically-an-atheist

     
  • DiViAnt posted at 1:58 pm on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    DiViAnt Posts: 85

    "Show us what a Christian is really about. I’m not seeing it."

    Sometimes a fireman has to violently pull a victim out of a fire. Christians are no different. we warn of the looming fire. We try to pull (convince), but a multitude of life choices keep the intended survivor clinging white knuckled to their life choice. I know many self-identified christians that refuse to let go. I have little hope for them and less for those of the gay lifestyle. Just know that a shaking is already occurring.

     
  • Rationale posted at 7:27 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1976

    Mahiun,

    You obviously cannot read...do you not understand "exhibit ONE OR MORE?" And you obviously exhibit one or more...especially the Village People look! For the record, nobody fits into any group perfectly...so your demand that gay lifestyle be a simple set of traits that all gays exemplify is asinine, and you know it! For example, how is it that an ultra-conservative like me endorses education? Now how can that be?

    Name-calling?(Troll)...yup, Mahiun...that's all you got, because you know what I have said is true.

    Lower life expectancy has NOT been debunked. Between the diseases gays spread and the mental issues/suicides, gays DO have a lower life expectancy!

    As for overpopulation, we have the technology to turn sea water into potable water...plenty of water on the earth...and extra land!

    You have issues...not because anything I've done, because I don't go drawing attention to myself like you do. You bring it on yourself!

    Hardwiring isn't the "magic." Your claim that it is genetic in the absence of ZERO PROOF is the real "magic." If humans weren't hardwired, then gender would not be important! You cannot spin that fact!

    You are lying! You claimed your grandparents knew when you were 3 that you were gay! And just because a 5 year old isn't "interested" in girl's parts means NOTHING! Once again, they do not have the physical or cognitive development to do so!

    So, NO, a three-to-five year old CANNOT exhibit a sexual preference or homosexual behavior! Notice how with all your ability to do research, you cannot come up with a gene...or in your case, any case study where a 3 year old exhibits homosexual behavior/preferences! It's because it is a LIE!

    As for getting under your skin, I bother you because I am using truth to engage your claims...and gays do not like it when they run into someone who can take the Kirk & Madsen agenda and destroy it with TRUTH!
    And while gays and their supporters constantly deny any connection to Kirk & Madsen, EVERY argument and tactic being used today comes right from their suggestions!

    The truth is the truth, even when no one believes it, and a lie is a lie, even when everybody believes it! And my stance is based on TRUTH!


     
  • Mahiun posted at 4:09 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 5644

    Truly valiant effort, Ratty --- but I'm not buying it. Nobody engages in that kind of staggeringly odious and outdated stereotyping out of mere ignorance, without a thoroughly malicious intent to inflame. It's too over-the-top to be believable, and I'm not buyin' it: I don't believe you're a clueless moron, I believe you're a troll. You're deliberately pushing the limits to see how far you can go, and deliberately being as offensive as you can, just to see if you can get a rise out of somebody --- preferably, me. Well, congratulations: it worked!

    I have to admit, though, to being rather dismayed that I'm apparently going to have to turn in my Gay Card (note to the truly clueless --- who, unfortunately, abound in these forums: No, there is no such thing as a "membership card to be gay". It's a friggin' joke!), because I just don't measure up to the standards:

    Gay lifestyle(includes one or more of the following):
    1) Attraction with same sex;

    Well, okay, I guess I qualify here --- but this is a sexual orientation, not a "lifestyle". Can I assume that you're leading a "straight lifestyle" by virtue of being attracted to the opposite sex?

    2) Exhibiting at least 1 of the following physical identifiers: effeminate vocal affect;
    What does this even mean?! It is impressive, though, that you managed to work in both homophobia and misogyny in a single sentence --- denigrate both women and gays in a mere 3 words! The once and future champion!

    For the record, though, I am a basso profondo, have never had any form of speech impediment or abnormality, and am usually told that my speech is unusually clear and commanding. So, there's the first demerit against my gay card....

    And y'know, I just don't remember choosing either the pitch of my speaking voice (deep), the range of my singing voice (even deeper), or my natural accent when speaking. I do remember very suddenly going from being a sweet little boy soprano in 6th grade to being a low bass in 7th grade, with no stops in-between, but I certainly didn't choose that, and didn't really even have any control over it, which made for some embarrassing moments in Jr. High chorus.....

    ...attention getting fashion statements such as pastel colors....
    OMG, I had no idea that pastels were responsible for the downfall of Western Civilization! I can well believe it, though, since I've never really liked them at all and couldn't wait for the 80's to be over, so we could finally get rid of them! Still, you might want to consider a boycott of Old Navy, which has been marketing pastel polo shirts as Father's Day gifts (presumably for straight fathers!), for a couple of decades now. And you might want to take a look at the extremely straight Sans-a-Belt crowd out at the course at Avondale, some Sunday afternoon --- f****ts every one of 'em, evidently.....

    Yet another reason I'm going to forced to surrender my gay card: I hate pastels.

    ...or dressing like the Village People...
    Boy, my leathers just really get your panties in a bunch, don't they?! But the fact is, it has nothing to do with the Village People. (The freakin' Village People??! A nearly 40-year-old reference, REALLY??! Are all straight people this clueless, out of date, and stuck in the past?) They're biker leathers, but a "dress" version, for a club event. The cap is traditional (it's called a Muir Cap), and helps hide helmet hair, indoors. It was also part of the uniform for club events, because it eliminates what happens otherwise: a sort of unspoken competition to see who can show up with the fanciest, most expensive helmet. So you leave the helmet on the bike, and everybody wears the same cap to the club event --- it's an equalizer, and it's "traditional" in several motorbike clubs.

    Why do I use a picture of me in my leathers? Because I like the pic, and it allows me to indulge in a little nostalgia, which I also like. It lets me remember when I was still able to ride, before arthritis, injuries, and surgeries took that away from me. It's just a little trip down Memory Lane, is all ---- but as sure as &*($%^#@ sets your teeth on edge, for some reason I don't fully understand, except that perhaps it stirs an unbidden erotic response somewhere in your own psyche, that you'd rather not acknowledge....

    But I do have to wonder how many full-dress Plains Indian ceremonial headdresses you've seen on the streets of Coeur d'Alene, Spokane, or even San Francisco? What, exactly, does this reference mean, besides possibly that you have a problem with bikers?

    So I'm not sure whether or not I get to keep my gay card, since I do sometimes wear leather when I get the urge to try going back on the bike, but I've never worn a Native American headdress in my life, and I hate pastels.... You may need to start an advice column here, for the Hopelessly Unfabulous.

    3) Having sexual relations with the same sex.(Just because Kirk & Madsen made sure you minimize the sexual aspect of the relationship...it still exists)
    So.....once again, then, we can assume that you're "living a straight lifestyle"? The other question that comes out of this is whether you'd still be straight if you were celibate for a prolonged period --- suppose you were laid up in a hospital bed in a body cast for several months; would you still be heterosexual? What about me: would I still be gay if it were me incapacitated in the body cast?

    You are once again confusing and conflating behaviour and orientation.

    4) Attention getting behavior such as Gay Pride Parades....
    Ah, I see. So.......Mardi Gras parades, Spring Break, Carnivale, and "Fill-in-the-Blank" Days parades and celebrations ---- clear, unmistakable signs of a sinful, debauched straight lifestyle? And what about the many many GLBT folk who have never attended or seen a Pride event? They're not actually GLBT? How does that work?

    forcing yourself into organizations you don't agree with, demanding privileges when your choice does not meet the criteria, et. al.
    Such as....??? How about a few specific examples? And how would this be significantly different from O'Reilly going on Jon Stewart's show (or vice versa, which has also happened), or blacks integrating country clubs, or any number of other such examples? As you yourself pointed out, sometimes you have to be willing to make a stand for what you know to be right.

    And once again, you're forced to confront the question of those who don't fit this mould --- like me, for example. Unless you count being on these forums as "forcing myself into organizations I don't agree with" --- but in that case, aren't you doing the same thing, since you regularly engage in debate here with people with whom you vehemently disagree?

    But I guess my gay card is now in tatters, because I generally feel that I simply don't have the time to waste on such groups. I prefer to keep up to date on what they're doing and saying, because I like to know my enemy, but I would never waste the time actually trying to join and constantly feeling angry and "soiled". So I must not be living a "gay lifestyle". *sigh* I'm so not with it, I guess I'll never be one of the "cool kids"....

    5) Disparaging (insulting, attacking) anybody who does not accept your choice.
    No, you're thinking of religion, and the church!

    Gays spread diseases at an exponentially higher rate.
    Oh criminy, not Paul Cameron again??!!? How many times does this quack need to be debunked before it finally sticks??!

    Next time you want to really examine the major health risks of gay men, try looking in the mirror! The World Health Organization issued a report in June 2011 stating that, "Long-standing evidence indicates that MSM [men who have sex with men] and transgender people experience significant barriers to quality health care due to widespread stigma against homosexuality and ignorance about gender variance in mainstream society and within health systems. Social discrimination against MSM and transgender people has also been described as a key driver of poor physical and mental health outcomes in these populations across diverse settings. In addition to being disproportionately burdened by STI and HIV, MSM and transgender people experience higher rates of depression, anxiety, smoking, alcohol abuse, substance use and suicide as a result of chronic stress, social isolation and disconnection from a range of health and support services.” In other words, it is you and people like you who are largely responsible for the very situation you decry....

    They also have lower life expectancy....
    Cameron again. Debunked so many times, in so many occasions, by so many different sources (including myself, multiple times right here in these forums), that I'm not going to lead you by the hand through it all over again. Suffice it to say that the researchers whose work he stole and corrupted have denounced him for it, follow-up studies have been done in Denmark and found no statistically significant different between gay and straight men based solely on sexual orientation, and Cameron was kicked out of the APA for shoddy research methodology, unethical professional behaviour, and outright lying.

    ...as well as other issues!
    Who the &*($%# doesn't??! You would, too, if you went what you and your ilk put us through! No, I take it back: you wouldn't last long enough to have "issues"; you'd fold like a house of cards after 2 weeks of the kind of discrimination, bigotry, and outright hatred that we face routinely at the hands of people like you.

    Nearly all research shows they have exponentially more sexual partners(at least those who self-identify)...
    Once again, completely untrue and thoroughly debunked. The average number of lifetime sexual partners, for both gay and straight, is 6. 98% of gay men report having had 20 or fewer sexual partners; for straight men it's 99% --- so yes, we are more promiscuous, by a whopping ONE PERCENT. And most recent studies indicate that 2% of gay men are having about 23% of the reported sexual encounters.

    As for continuing the human species...that is our natural instinct.
    Ah, yes, the "wiring" that you never seem to be able to identify, point to, or explain.... It apparently works the same way as much of the goings-on at the Hogwarts School of Wizardry: it's MAGIC!

    But when you intentionally choose a lifestyle....
    But I didn't! Now what?

    ...that actually destroys the continuation of the species, that is WRONG!
    I agree completely, but unfortunately, the industrialists, polluters, and corporate fat cats have more than enough money to buy any and every government body they'll ever need, so at present there's not much we can do about it except make our objections known, long and loud!

    Overpopulation is a misnomer...I suggest you take the square miles of land and divide it by the total population....there's plenty of land...we simply do not want to live in certain areas.
    That has to be one of the silliest arguments I have ever encountered, on any subject!

    This overlooks so many other factors that it's hard to know where to start. Okay, so we divide up all the land and apportion it to each person. So where do we shop? Where do we grow food? Where do we get rid of waste? What's left for recreation? Not to mention the simple fact that much of the land on Earth is so inhospitable to human life that it would require enormous expenditures even just to make it possible --- in a world in which poverty, scarcity, and famine are already enormous problems. How would we afford to send people to all these places no one wants to live (and by the way, there's a reason for that!), who would pay for keeping them alive at a very high cost, and who/how would decide who got shipped there? Land area will also be substantially reduced by rising sea levels in coming years.

    Your argument, whilst technically possible, is rather like giving a list of all the chemicals that make up a human being. So what?! It's missing a few vitally important details that are essential for seeing the whole picture, and the same is true of your argument here. The human species is much more endangered by too many of us than too few, and the "fit into Texas" argument is so ludicrously impractical and unrealistic as to be utterly specious.

    Farmers are paid to NOT grow crops...just to control humans. I suggest you actually think seriously about your argument!
    Farmers in capitalist or democratic-socialist countries are also free to choose what they do and do not grow, to maximize their own personal profit. And our own dietary habits are also largely responsible for these market forces that continue to encourage practices that are enormously destructive to the environment, and eat up huge swaths of land that could otherwise be given over to reducing overcrowding and human misery.

    Now, one way to alleviate this would be through government policy, but I think I can safely assume that you would not be a fan of that approach! So for all practical and real-world intents and purposes, there are too many of us to be able to adequately provide food and clean water. Now, of course, if you and other Americans were to substantially --- no, make that "dramatically" --- reduce our standard of living, we could stretch the planet's resources much closer to sustaining all of us. But, in order for every person on the planet to live as the average American does, it would require four and a half Earths to provide the food, water, and other resources! Are you willing to give up your way of life so that others could have a better one?

    As for a 3 year old not being gay, it is NOT blatantly false! It is an irrefutable FACT!
    Whatever you say, Ratty, whatever you say..... Now be a good boy, quit stamping your foot and throwing a tantrum, and take your medicine. Then you can lie down for your nap....

    Three year olds do not have the physical, sexual, or cognitive development to exhibit anything that can be remotely be construed as "homosexual activity."
    Perhaps that's why no one but yourself has suggested that they engage in "homosexual activity". But 3-year-olds and even younger can and do exhibit physiological responses to external stimuli, up to and including pupil dilation and spontaneous erection. And they can and do exhibit cognitive, affective, and behavioural patterns that have been documented as fairly accurate predictors of adult sexual orientation. This is not "activity", this is "involuntary response".

    At three years old, the most they can be is curious about body parts!
    And I was --- but consistently much more curious about boy parts than girl parts. I was really pretty much uninterested in finding out more about girl parts. I never claimed I was engaging in sexual activity at 3 years of age, I claimed that by the time i was no older than 5 (not 3), I was having involuntary bodily responses to being around males, and that it produced pleasurable bodily sensations that I was unable to identify at the time. I'm sorry that fact troubles you so deeply, but it remains true, nonetheless. I was there; you were not.

    You need to stop LYING just to support your choice!
    This is a pretty serious charge, that I really think should be taken up with the Press moderators and editorial staff. Would you like to contact them, or shall I?

    TODDLERS CANNOT EXHIBIT HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY!
    Now, we just talked about this, remember? Doctor said he'd take down the padding and think about letting you out of your Hug-Me Coat, but only if you stayed calm.........

     
  • Mahiun posted at 4:45 pm on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 5644

    The "target" of one's affections??! I didn't realize this was a military exercise involving acquisition of "targets". And you have the nerve to call my love life perverted??!

    How do homosexuals meet other homosexuals?
    You have a pretty inordinately high level of interest in this topic, for somebody who claims to find the whole idea loathsome, Niles....

    But for the record: the same way straight people do --- at church, at club meetings, at bars, at the supermarket, on the commuter train, on the Internet..... And no, it isn't anyone of the same sex. It's anyone of the same sex to whom you're attracted and who seems to be attracted to you, too. Flirting is flirting. Same as straights, I imagine. If you're just zeroing in on random women and hoping for the best, you've got bigger problems than anybody in these forums is going to be able to help you with!

    but if the other person isn't homosexual how will they feel if a homosexual guy tries to entice l'amour?
    How does a woman feel it she's approached by a straight guy, but either isn't available or isn't interested? If she's capable of maturity beyond a 12-year-old, she'll likely feel flattered for the attention, but will politely decline the flirtation. Why should this be any different?! If I see somebody in the grocery store and ask him out and he's not gay, what's to prevent him from simply saying, "Well, I'm flattered, but I'm not gay. But thanks, and good luck!" ??

    Maybe they can talk the 13 year old into giving it a try.
    So you're gonna double down on the whole "Gay = Pedophile" shtick, huh? Ah, Niles, you never fail to disappoint.....

     
  • Rationale posted at 4:44 pm on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1976

    Mahiun,

    Gay lifestyle(includes one or more of the following):

    1) Attraction with same sex;
    2) Exhibiting at least 1 of the following physical identifiers: effeminate vocal affect; attention getting fashion statements such as pastel colors, skinny jeans, or dressing like the Village People...
    3) Having sexual relations with the same sex.(Just because Kirk & Madsen made sure you minimize the sexual aspect of the relationship...it still exists)
    4) Attention getting behavior such as Gay Pride Parades, forcing yourself into organizations you don't agree with, demanding privileges when your choice does not meet the criteria, et. al.
    5) Disparaging (insulting, attacking) anybody who does not accept your choice.

    Just because you exhibit other human behaviors means nothing.

    Gays spread diseases at an exponentially higher rate. They also have lower life expectancy, as well as other issues! Nearly all research shows they have exponentially more sexual partners(at least those who self-identify)...

    As for continuing the human species...that is our natural instinct. But when you intentionally choose a lifestyle that actually destroys the continuation of the species, that is WRONG! Overpopulation is a misnomer...I suggest you take the square miles of land and divide it by the total population....there's plenty of land...we simply do not want to live in certain areas. Farmers are paid to NOT grow crops...just to control humans. I suggest you actually think seriously about your argument!

    As for a 3 year old not being gay, it is NOT blatantly false! It is an irrefutable FACT! Three year olds do not have the physical, sexual, or cognitive development to exhibit anything that can be remotely be construed as "homosexual activity." At three years old, the most they can be is curious about body parts! If a boy toddler is in a dressing room with daddy, he stares at daddy's parts. Put him in a dressing room with mommy, and he might ask why mommy's parts are different! But that is the extent of it. Just because your family decided for you doesn't make your claim true! You need to stop LYING just to support your choice!

    TODDLERS CANNOT EXHIBIT HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY!

     
  • DCIDAHO posted at 2:44 pm on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    DCIDAHO Posts: 2990

    "the target of ones affections is quite obvious. Any person of the opposite sex."
    Niles, that is one (just one) of the stupidest things you've ever written (and you have a lengthy list). If you want anyone to respect your views, you really need to think through before you write.

     
  • DeNiles posted at 1:55 pm on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    How do homosexuals meet other homosexuals? For heterosexuals the target of ones affections is quite obvious. Any person of the opposite sex. Wait a minute - I just answered my own question. Hot dang. For homosexuals the object of their burning affection is obvious - it is anyone of their own sex.

    Um, but if the other person isn't homosexual how will they feel if a homosexual guy tries to entice l'amour toujours? Ah who cares? Maybe they can talk the 13 year old into giving it a try. It is normal, after all.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 11:28 am on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 5644

    Okay, Ratty, put up or shut up: what, exactly, is this alleged "gay lifestyle"?! If you cannot define the term, then you don't get to use the term --- and so far, despite the innumerable times that you and other on these forums have casually tossed out this term, NOT ONE OF YOU has even attempted to actually define it. Could it be that the term actually has no meaning...???

    "Apple" is a lifestyle: Apple everything, from MacBook to iMac to Apple TV to AirPort Extreme to iPad to iPod Touch to iPhone 5 to OS X. And I'll cop guilty to that; I'm an Apple guy all the way. I lead an "Apple lifestyle".

    "Martha Stewart" is a lifestyle; nothing less than perfection is acceptable, and one is expected to be making one's own water, when one is not polishing the garbage cans and waxing the driveway (and doing a little insider trading). I tried a few of her recipes, and aside from one for cranberry relish that I make every T'giving, they mostly don't work. And I have neither the time nor the inclination to live a Martha Stewart lifestyle.

    "Jet setter" is a lifestyle --- and one I would happily lead, had I the funds to do so. But I don't, so I'm pretty much a stay-at-home guy. But the common thread in all of these is that "lifestyle" is a function of geographical location and socioeconomic status, and has nothing whatsoever to do with either gender or sexual orientation. So again, I'll say, "Put up or shut up": what is this "gay lifestyle" that you so fear and loathe??! Define it, or drop it.

    Now, "disease"......
    You mean like the alarmingly high rates of Human Papilloma Virus (incurable, causes cervical cancer), Chlamydia (causes genital deformation and infertility if not treated early), and Genital Herpes among [[gasp!!]] straight college students?! Clearly, "youth" and "college" are dangerous, wanton, immoral lifestyles that must be outlawed and eliminated! NIC must be shut down immediately, and then we can move on to Gonzaga, Whitworth, and EWU!!!

    Or perhaps you meant the distressing rate of unintended teen pregnancy in this country, with rates consistently highest in the so-called Bible Belt states? One of the largest contributors to the overall public health and social welfare costs in this country, exceeding STDs by quite a bit. And a problem that seems to be pretty dam rare among GLBT.... Obviously, "straight" is a lifestyle choice this country simply cannot afford --- if we can't actually put them to death, we should at least do everything in our power to prevent them from recruiting more of our children into their ranks! Oh, wait.......where are we getting the children, in the first place??! Oh, yeah.............

    STDs are the result of unprotected sex. Period. They're really not picky about either the sex or the sexual orientation of the transmission vectors; they're an Equal Opportunity Destroyer. If you have unprotected sex with an infected partner, you are at risk. Period. End of story. No matter how you try to spin it otherwise.

    But it raises an interesting question: if your "gotcha" is supposedly sexually transmitted diseases among gay men, then why are you worried about any potential health risks? Is there something you'd like to tell us, or do you simply not understand the difference between communicable diseases and sexually transmitted diseases?

    ...cannot continue the human species!
    Why is is my duty to do so? The species seems to be doing a stellar job of (over)reproducing itself without my assistance. We are not about to die out from underpopulation; we are, instead, threatening to kill ourselves off through overpopulation and ever-fiercer competition for ever-dwindling resources. A little less "reproduction of the species" would actually benefit both the species and the planet. This is an extraordinarily weak, specious argument, when all it takes to refute it is a casual glance at readily available empirical evidence.

    Says the man whose family was convinced that a 3 year old was "gay"....
    How is this relevant? And why the "quotes"? I said that this was their claim; I did not say one way or the other whether I believed the claim to be credible.

    ...even though it is biologically and cognitively impossible for a 3 year old to be such!
    This is so blatantly false and staggeringly ignorant that it really does not merit the implied credibility that further discussion would lend to it.


     
  • Rationale posted at 10:27 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1976

    Says the man whose lifestyle choice spreads disease at an alarming rate, and cannot continue the human species!

    Says the man whose family was convinced that a 3 year old was "gay"...even though it is biologically and cognitively impossible for a 3 year old to be such!

     
  • DCIDAHO posted at 9:39 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    DCIDAHO Posts: 2990

    Most Christians aren't Christ -like.

     
  • ecclesia posted at 4:15 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    ecclesia Posts: 19

    Ignorance exposed by lack of knowledge and understanding.

    I know several gay pedophiles one which is exempt from sexual predator listing. I also know a heterosexual predator who is exempt.

    Whose mirror should they look into?

     
  • Mahiun posted at 1:06 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 5644

    Exactly! This is precisely why it's our duty to rush around to every table in whatever restaurant we happen to be in, grabbing shrimp cocktails out of the hands of those about to commit the abomination of eating shellfish! This is why ham sandwiches are prohibited by law! This is why cotton-polyester clothing, plowing the corners of fields on the prairie, and shaving are all illegal! This is why there is no such thing as divorce in this country!

    Because it's our duty to not only refrain from any and all of these things ourselves, but to make sure that nobody else commits any of these transgressions, either. It's not that we derive any personal enjoyment from supervising every little aspect of other people's lives, mind you ---- it's just that our sense of duty is so strong that we simply have no other choice but to run their lives for them! It's a burden we're willing to bear.....

     
  • Rationale posted at 11:16 am on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1976

    Janie,

    Great, it's never anyone's business what anyone else does. Let's embrace relative moralism and "survival of the fittest."

    The misnomer for non-Christians is that they believe Christians should simply accept everything...even when they know the choice is wrong!

    Please!

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks

Stocks