Oct 24th 2008 3:43PM It seems my previous was either edited or got messed up as it transited the WWW.
In response to Zerat...
--What's wrong with kids seeing a gay wedding ceremony? At worst, the teacher or parent has to spend half a minute telling the kids that the pair is getting married because they love each other. It's no more "indoctrination" than Sunday school.
Since we don't allow kids to be indoctrinated at school in Sunday School topics, we shouldn't be indoctrinating them in homosexual ideology.
--As far as donating blood is concerned - outdated federal laws prohibit gay men from donating blood, regardless of whether their blood has been screened for HIV. If they're demonstrably clean, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to donate blood. And while "predominant spreaders of AIDS" is technically true, that CDC page you cite lists the second-most cause of AIDS transmission as heterosexual sex - just over 4,000 fewer cases of infection.
The FDA has made it clear that it will allow gay men to donate blood as soon as they have been given evidence that it is safe for them to do so. They have received no such scientific evidence.
With re: to heterosexual transmission of AIDS I have to ask are you seriously that dense? Female to female AIDS transmission is nigh zero. So we eliminate half of homosexuals there. That leaves at most 5% of the population and closer to 1% of the population responsible for the spreading AIDS epidemic in the US. You want to draw attention to 90-98% of the population being the second reason for spreading AIDS without paying attention to how completely and utterly disproportionate the male homosexual population is for AIDS.
--Yes, gay pride parades can be flamboyant. And yes, some demonstrations can be overtly sexual. So what? Sexuality isn't something to be ashamed of. If they feel like marching around in leather outfits once a year, why should you care?
So what? Are you kidding? Let me guess, you skipped the website didn't you?
What you call flamboyant is actually men going out on public streets urinating on each other, some drinking others' urine, performing felattio on random strangers, walking around naked with co$% rings, ejac(*&)ing from second story windows onto observers in the street, and so on. Flamboyant? Get real.
Is there something to be ashamed of? HELL YES!!
Oct 24th 2008 3:30PM What you refer to is from Romans Chapter 1.
No matter how you try and twist Scripture, men and women were given over to "shameful lusts" because of misdeeds. Whatever they may have done, their earthly punishment was "shameful lusts" (homosexuality). What sense would it make that people would commit sins and be punished to what homosexuals try and pretend to be a natural and God-acceptable state? It makes absolutely no sense. God punishes not with a normal or acceptable state but a worsened condition or state. In this case, homosexuality.
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Homosexuality is given as a punishment for pagan worship. Tell me how you think homosexuality can be a good thing when it is described as a "shameful lust", "unatural" relations, "sinful desires", "sexual impurity", "degrading...their bodies", "indecent acts", amd "perversion".
I doubt you will find no other onslaught so condemning of a specific behavior in the Bible.
Pretend all you want that you can practice and justify homosexuality and still be a Christian but no such thing exists. And before you try the old "Judge not..." retort, read the rest of that paragraph and the rest of the NT too.
Oct 24th 2008 12:33AM I feel that some of your comments need addressing.
>>What's wrong with kids seeing a gay wedding ceremony? At worst, the teacher or parent has to spend half a minute telling the kids that the pair is getting married because they love each other. It's no more "indoctrination" than Sunday school.>As far as donating blood is concerned - outdated federal laws prohibit gay men from donating blood, regardless of whether their blood has been screened for HIV. If they're demonstrably clean, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to donate blood. And while "predominant spreaders of AIDS" is technically true, that CDC page you cite lists the second-most cause of AIDS transmission as heterosexual sex - just over 4,000 fewer cases of infection. >Yes, gay pride parades can be flamboyant. And yes, some demonstrations can be overtly sexual. So what? Sexuality isn't something to be ashamed of. If they feel like marching around in leather outfits once a year, why should you care?
Oct 22nd 2008 8:06PM Since replying to embedded comments ala blog style here at WoW Insider is so cumbersome I'm just going to append my final comment to the end.
Much of America is not exposed to the activists who like to claim that homosexuality is a private issue and the government and pesky conservatives need to stay out of the bedrooms of homosexuals.
Were this indeed a private matter, most of us would be more than happy to stay out other people's bedrooms. Yet this simply isn't the case. School children in San Francisco are being taken on trips to witness a gay marriage (I guess indoctrinating children on contentious social issues is OK), some gays are advocating to lie about their homosexuality to be able to donate blood even though gay men are still the predominant spreaders of AIDs (see the Centers for Disease Control), sacrilegious gays are disrupting Catholic Church services across the country (no, I'm not Catholic), and so on.
This is anything but a private, intimate issue. If you care to see how graphic and public gay celebrations are there is a site listed below. CAUTION*** The site is extremely graphic. There are several warnings preceding any photos so enter at your own risk. There is a both an uncensored and a "blurred" version of the photos but the descriptions are still quite graphic.
Google zombietime and follow the "Up your alley fair" link.
While many gays will say this is not representative of them, you have seen here that gays are defending the notion of gay pride events and relying on your ignorance and lack of media coverage to slip it past you. You also see no public movements to condemn such behavior thus showing silent consent to such behavior.
Oct 21st 2008 7:18PM John, how about actually replying to the post to you vice the one to Danimal.
We're waiting for you to support all the suppositions you were making.
>>I'll go with choice 4, Magick, since the first two don't really apply to me, and choice 3 doesn't make any sense.
Did 3 not make sense because it alluded to the post you decided to ignore that called you out and drawing conclusions from assumptions that only exist in your mind?
>>Hmm, let's start with one that shows that "gay" is a natural phenomenon in the world, not just among humans. (titles included in case links don't work as intended)
In case your education may be lacking, there's a dramatic difference between man and animals. People love to show how close we are to primates but on species flies in jets and the other is known for it's poo-flinging, animalistic behaviors. You want to make this whole conversation ride on a debate over evolution yet you can't even seem to tell the obvious differences in animals and men.
>>Gay animals out of the closet?
Nice links but I asked for some unbiased sources. Both Slate and MSNBC are notoriously progressive. You know there are actually science and medical sites out there that you can site, correct?
>>Hmm. The case is pretty clear that homosexuality is a natural genetic state in a small portion of any natural population, be it humans or any other animal. (Follow the links to the study in the slate article)
Autism is a natural state. Should we call it normal?
>>This all sets aside the greater issue with what you've said here -- namely, the idea that there is such a thing as a fixed "natural state" and anything outside that is a mutation and therefore invalid.
There are relatively "normal" mutations and some rather abnormal mutations. Are you being disingenuous or are you unable to make such simple distinctions?
>>I won't be checking in any more tonight -- i've got mccain fliers to hand out. Like I said, I'm a republican -- I just happen to think gay people are afforded by the constitution the same rights I enjoy.
Such as men marrying women and women marrying men? Or the new rights being invented to allow men to marry men or women marry women?
One last question--what's your take on the hypocritical stance of many gays to deny multiple men and women from marrying (polygamy) or family members from marrying? What if two gay brothers wanted to marry? Wow, that'd be a real dilemma for them wouldn't it?
Oct 21st 2008 6:57PM Great point Lisa. Too bad so many of those promoting tolerance are so afraid (or merely hateful) of the exchange of ideas that they mark every single opposing view down into oblivion.
I realize I learn more by speaking to those who differ in opinion but it seems so many on the progressive side of the argument are only interested in pats on the back and demonizing their opponents.
The hypocrisy is rather telling. "Don't say fa@@ot!! Don't use gay in a negative way!" "Bigot!" "Hatemonger!" "Homophobe!"
And they're either completely dishonest in their discourse or they're simply blind to their hypocrisy.
Oct 21st 2008 6:26PM Before I respond to the meat of your post Danimal, I'll give you the opportunity for a couple things.
1. Show that you're open-minded and condemn the marked-down posts that are not hyperbolic and merely challenging the role of homosexuality. If you and others like you are genuinely looking for an exchange of ideas and believe that tolerance is the goal rather than unthinking acceptance, I think you'll admit that silencing people because of personal bias is a bad thing.
2. You say that you attack my argument and not me then try and paint me into a box. Clarify that you don't intend to paint me in box or that you aren't attacking me when you imply that I'd be unhonorable and take the cheap and easy route. Also that you didn't intend that I am some white supremacist or the moral equivalent.
3. Lastly, please let's not fall into silly assumptions like our friend John and make asusmptions like about the need to travel. Have you been in the artic circle? How about across the Middle East? Europe? Africa?
4. And assuming that you do take an even-handed approach, please link to me an unbiased source that shows homosexuality is a natural genetic state and not a mutation or merely a choice. That way we can get to the meat of the issue.
Oct 21st 2008 5:51PM John, since you've decided to label me as uneducated, how about sharing your educational accomplishments and then contrast and compare them to my own. Oh wait, you have no clue about my educational accopmlishments.
Let's move on then. Since you want to call me also bigoted and narrow-minded then I welcome you to either link to my views about homosexuality and the rights of people with certain sexual proclivities on which you based your conclusion. Since there exists none here and you don't know me from Adam you can just admit that though you try and pretend and be an educated 30-year old you base your arguments of complicated issues on assumptions.
"Thank you for.." showing that you know nothing about me or my views but are quick to jump to a conlcusion based on your ignorance. Now go play with your kid where you might have a chance of convincing someone that you're smart.
Oct 21st 2008 5:44PM Saint, thus your complete inability to do anything other than demonize them with name-calling instead of making mature arguments?
Seems you like to project. It's quite common among progressive liberals so don't feel too bad.
Oct 21st 2008 5:26PM Thanks for proving my point. Given the opportunity to prove me wrong by arguing the substance of my argument you instead make a personal attack.
And it's the likes of that going around calling people nazis, fascists, and brown shirts.
The true nature of GLBT and "progressive liberals" shows its face so quickly. If it weren't so sad, it'd be funny.