| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/27/2009 11:03:45 AM · #2651 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Simms:
No thank you - don't want to catch anything.;) |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Like what? |
Originally posted by Simms:
Gay Diseases. |
You mean like a sense of style and taste, and a quick-witted sense of humor? |
Nope, an urge to sing along with Gloria Gaynor and buy loads of candles and cushions |
|
|
|
06/27/2009 11:14:27 AM · #2652 |
Originally posted by Simms:
No thank you - don't want to catch anything.;) |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Like what? |
Originally posted by Simms:
Gay Diseases. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You mean like a sense of style and taste, and a quick-witted sense of humor? |
Originally posted by Simms:
Nope, an urge to sing along with Gloria Gaynor and buy loads of candles and cushions |
What's wrong with Gloria Gaynor?
|
|
|
|
06/27/2009 11:24:17 AM · #2653 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Simms:
No thank you - don't want to catch anything.;) |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Like what? |
Originally posted by Simms:
Gay Diseases. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You mean like a sense of style and taste, and a quick-witted sense of humor? |
Originally posted by Simms:
Nope, an urge to sing along with Gloria Gaynor and buy loads of candles and cushions |
What's wrong with Gloria Gaynor? |
Nothing - If you're gay. |
|
|
|
06/27/2009 11:56:52 AM · #2654 |
Originally posted by Simms:
No thank you - don't want to catch anything.;) |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Like what? |
Originally posted by Simms:
Gay Diseases. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You mean like a sense of style and taste, and a quick-witted sense of humor? |
Originally posted by Simms:
Nope, an urge to sing along with Gloria Gaynor and buy loads of candles and cushions |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What's wrong with Gloria Gaynor? |
Originally posted by Simms:
Nothing - If you're gay. |
But I'm not gay, and I like Gloria Gaynor.....now what?
|
|
|
|
06/27/2009 12:15:30 PM · #2655 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Simms:
No thank you - don't want to catch anything.;) |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Like what? |
Originally posted by Simms:
Gay Diseases. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You mean like a sense of style and taste, and a quick-witted sense of humor? |
Originally posted by Simms:
Nope, an urge to sing along with Gloria Gaynor and buy loads of candles and cushions |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What's wrong with Gloria Gaynor? |
Originally posted by Simms:
Nothing - If you're gay. |
But I'm not gay, and I like Gloria Gaynor.....now what? |
In denial mate. :)
anyway, gonna drop out of this thread - kind of threadjacked it a bit.
Is this one of the longest threads on DPC? (excluding any pat me on the back please Post your favourite photo from the person above you" kind of threads) |
|
|
|
06/27/2009 01:18:46 PM · #2656 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Or you could simply admit that you haven't a clue to the reference and realize you weren't the intended audience.
It wasn't about you!.....8>) |
Well, Jeb, I'm not sure I'd go there if I were you, given your penchant for wading into threads where you respond very aggressively to posts that you were not the "intended audience" of, ya know? :-)
R. |
So.....I'm now not allowed to make a joke if it can be misconstrued?
Shall I send it out privately first for review?
Perhaps you can give me the approved list.
Here's a thought.....ask Rob if he saw it as a joke and saw the humor in it, as it was a response to his post.
ETA: If you want to assume the worst all the time, go ahead, but bear in mind that's projection, and just 'cause someone's hot button may have been pushed or they have a bad day doesn't mean they're like that all the time.
Yeah, I have my days, but it'd be nice if you wouldn't just assume that everything I have to say is rotten.
If that's the way you really feel, then think about it REALLY hard and PLEASE let me know, because I don't need to be a detriment to the community. |
Don't get your panties in a bunch. That's why I ASKED dude. All you had to say was, "yes, I'm joking :)"
End of discussion. |
|
|
|
06/27/2009 03:51:15 PM · #2657 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Don't get your panties in a bunch. That's why I ASKED dude. All you had to say was, "yes, I'm joking :)" |
Again.....was NOT directed to you.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2009 04:42:59 PM · #2658 |
| jeez, everyone. chill out! it's just a big gay world and you're all living in it. now, who wants a cosmo? |
|
|
|
06/29/2009 04:41:14 PM · #2659 |
| Man, you guys are just trashing the king of all rant threads. Let's show some respect people! ;) |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 01:12:28 PM · #2660 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Simms:
No thank you - don't want to catch anything.;) |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Like what? |
Originally posted by Simms:
Gay Diseases. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You mean like a sense of style and taste, and a quick-witted sense of humor? |
Originally posted by Simms:
Nope, an urge to sing along with Gloria Gaynor and buy loads of candles and cushions |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
What's wrong with Gloria Gaynor? |
Originally posted by Simms:
Nothing - If you're gay. |
But I'm not gay, and I like Gloria Gaynor.....now what? |
But I'm gay, and I think Gloria Gaynor is absolutely nausea inducing, I like my music loud and dirty.....now what?
Oh sorry respect. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 01:21:23 PM · #2661 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Not in the slightest.
In case B, the man still has the RIGHT to marry. He chose not to marry and instead chose to be in an alternative relationship. He self-selected to not marry, no one infringed upon his rights. Marriage is DEFINED as one man + one woman. You cannot redefine it. Since the person you used in your example is one man, we see that he fits into that formula just fine. But to have marriage he would need to find "one woman". Otherwise he chooses not to marry.
Simple and reasonable. |
The problem here is that you imply that being gay is a choice... I am heterosexual, but never chose to. Sometime in my pre-adolescence periode, I started to notice that girls were more than just "boys with long hair that cry a lot" (please ladies, be kind enough to see the humour in this comment), and I started to get attracted to them. Same thing goes for homosexual. They never chose to be attracted to a person of the same sex. Attraction is not something one can decide. It's like if I were to ask you "why do you prefer apples over pears?" There's no answer, you just do.
And since you like to involve God in this political discussion, don't forget that, if you beleive in that sort of thing, it was God who made them homosexual. God never "defined" mariage in any way. Mariage existed well before, and I'm guessing you're in judeo-christian church, Abraham got the text-message from the all-mighty. Let me remind you that homosexuality exists and is well documented in the animal kingdom, you know, God's creatures, untainted from today's decadent society....
God's real and only important message was told through His son (still for those who beleive) : "Love Each Other as I Have Loved You"... I am not cocky enough to pretend to know what God really thinks, but I'm pretty sure he like a lot better a loving gay couple than a loveless heterosexual mariage.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2009 01:27:30 PM · #2662 |
| Well put mercillio. Marriage is *NOT* defined as between a man and a woman, nor even in religious terms. Marriage licenses are not issued by the church, and even within Christianity the church leaders saw no reason to specify "man and woman" until very recently. This is the same argument that was used before to try and "define" marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race or religionĂ¢€“ it's nothing more than a naked excuse to practice bigotry and hatred of others. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 01:33:44 PM · #2663 |
Originally posted by merchillio:
And since you like to involve God in this political discussion, don't forget that, if you beleive in that sort of thing, it was God who made them homosexual. |
when God thought of making them gay, he probably understood that the word gay means happy, joyful. He made them gay alright, but they took on the different side of meaning. Now thats not god's fault, is it.
:-) :) |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 01:47:33 PM · #2664 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
when God thought of making them gay, he probably understood that the word gay means happy, joyful. |
It's abhorrent to be happy or joyful? |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 12:20:35 PM · #2665 |
So I am in Korea now.
But gay people just plum don't exist here.
Now what to do with my invisibility powers?
MUAH HAHA HAHA! |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 01:03:05 PM · #2666 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
when God thought of making them gay, he probably understood that the word gay means happy, joyful. He made them gay alright, but they took on the different side of meaning. Now thats not god's fault, is it.
:-) :) |
The core concept of that argument is that God didn't make them gay (queer, homosexual whatever you want to call it)that they made a choice to be that way. Some may have, but very few. There is a bit of nurture in a willingness to come out of the closet, but there is a whole lot of nature in the percentage of a society that is homosexual. Heck even animals, who we don't believe make choices, have a certain percentage of their population which are homosexual. The long term double blind twin studies seem to show that genetics are much more likely to determine homosexuality than how you are raised. It would seem that being queer is slightly more of a choice than eye color, but not much more.
As for what is and isn't "God's fault"; in my theology, however people are, that's how God made them. In deciding which behaviors are his and which are not, you put yourself above God, judging him and his choices for his creations. I for one, am not worthy of such a judgment. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 01:19:17 PM · #2667 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... even within Christianity the church leaders saw no reason to specify "man and woman" until very recently. ... |
They didn't NEED to specify or define it until recently. It was a given that the natural order of humanity is the union of a man and woman. Procreation, Adam and Eve, etc...
I can understand the push for homosexuals on legal merits for obtaining benefits, survival rights, property ownership, taxes, etc... While I don't believe in it, I can see the benefits and legal point. Call it a "civil union" if you want to get equal rights obtained in a legal manner without so much fuss. For many, myself included, "marriage" is a term reserved for marriage between one man and one woman. Call it old-fashioned, or any other derogative you want...that's how many feel about it, and that's one of the reasons there's such a battle on this issue. IMO of course. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 01:20:32 PM · #2668 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by zxaar:
when God thought of making them gay, he probably understood that the word gay means happy, joyful. He made them gay alright, but they took on the different side of meaning. Now thats not god's fault, is it.
:-) :) |
The core concept of that argument is that God didn't make them gay (queer, homosexual whatever you want to call it)that they made a choice to be that way. Some may have, but very few. There is a bit of nurture in a willingness to come out of the closet, but there is a whole lot of nature in the percentage of a society that is homosexual. Heck even animals, who we don't believe make choices, have a certain percentage of their population which are homosexual. The long term double blind twin studies seem to show that genetics are much more likely to determine homosexuality than how you are raised. It would seem that being queer is slightly more of a choice than eye color, but not much more.
As for what is and isn't "God's fault"; in my theology, however people are, that's how God made them. In deciding which behaviors are his and which are not, you put yourself above God, judging him and his choices for his creations. I for one, am not worthy of such a judgment. |
Exactly: case in point, a person I know who identifies herself as "bi" not understanding that gay relationships can be as loving as straight ones. She was very confused to see her lesbian friend very upset over a breakup. She didn't give a crap about any of her girlfriends apparently?? I don't get it... methinks... not bi. Seems more like a heterosexist in a "I'm a cool bi girl" clothing. Which is the most humorous contradiction to me. Much more confusing than straight, christian heterosexists. At least I get them (though vehemently disagree). But to IDENTIFY with an alternative gender preference and still be heterosexist... oh man. Will wonders never cease?
It happens. But it would be a shame to let people like that speak for the lot of us. Just like no one really wants abortion clinic bombers to speak for the whole of Christianity. There will always be people that take a title and skew it all wrong and make everyone else look bad. But Christians can take those examples and run with them as "proof" of homosexuality being a "choice" just as horribly as crazy atheists using the extremists as "proof" that religion is inherently destructive.
Potatoes, potatoes. Let's call the whole thing off. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 01:26:04 PM · #2669 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by scalvert:
... even within Christianity the church leaders saw no reason to specify "man and woman" until very recently. ... |
They didn't NEED to specify or define it until recently. It was a given that the natural order of humanity is the union of a man and woman. Procreation, Adam and Eve, etc...
I can understand the push for homosexuals on legal merits for obtaining benefits, survival rights, property ownership, taxes, etc... While I don't believe in it, I can see the benefits and legal point. Call it a "civil union" if you want to get equal rights obtained in a legal manner without so much fuss. For many, myself included, "marriage" is a term reserved for marriage between one man and one woman. Call it old-fashioned, or any other derogative you want...that's how many feel about it, and that's one of the reasons there's such a battle on this issue. IMO of course. |
Yea I mean... lets give the gays different water fountains while we're at it. Don't want to catch *gasp* THE GAY! They will still HAVE WATER. Come on! What's wrong with that? It will just be in a different place. Ohh and we could make special gay schools. Separate but equal. Do you think it would have been very productive during the civil rights movement to say "Just shut up and be glad we let you on the bus!" Hell no. When fighting for rights, we must go all the way. No pseudo-equality will do. There is no such thing!
This all sounds very familiar. Something being "reserved" for one group over another. "Old fashioned" isn't derogatory, in fact I find it the opposite; its sugar coated bullcrap. Old fashioned is straw hats and tapioca pudding. Thinking one group is better than another based on sexual preference, color, religion, etc, is discrimination, plane and simple. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 02:55:14 PM · #2670 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by scalvert:
... even within Christianity the church leaders saw no reason to specify "man and woman" until very recently. ... |
They didn't NEED to specify or define it until recently. It was a given that the natural order of humanity is the union of a man and woman. |
So homosexuality is a new phenomenon? LOL! There were "gay marriages" for 1000+ years after the Bible. The move was purely a maneuver to exert church control over people, including marriage itself, which had formerly been entirely a civil matter of declaring commitment to another person. Essentially, it still is... marriage licenses are issued by the state, and no church involvement (or assurance of procreation) is required. If two elderly (or sterile) people can be recognized as legally married in a ceremony performed by a justice of the peace or ship captain, then you're out of excuses because there is obviously no need for religious conformity or procreation- bigotry is all that remains.
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 14:56:41. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 06:17:10 PM · #2671 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
As for what is and isn't "God's fault"; in my theology, however people are, that's how God made them. In deciding which behaviors are his and which are not, you put yourself above God, judging him and his choices for his creations. I for one, am not worthy of such a judgment. |
nor am I, I guess I'll see when I meet Him. Until then, I'll try to live my life with a much love for my co-humans as possible...
Unless you're trying to sleep with someone, their sexual orientation is absolutely none of your business. And no I'm not preaching the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, I prefer "Don't ask, don't judge, don't worry"
I think the best way to see if you are homophobic is to ask yourself (and really really realy answer honnestly) "How would I react if my son or daughter were to announce me that he or she is gay?" The correct answer would be "I'll hold him/her in my arms and tell them that I love them" (Coming out to your parents must be, I guess, the most difficult task an homosexual must face)
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 06:54:30 PM · #2672 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by scalvert:
... even within Christianity the church leaders saw no reason to specify "man and woman" until very recently. ... |
They didn't NEED to specify or define it until recently. It was a given that the natural order of humanity is the union of a man and woman. |
So homosexuality is a new phenomenon? LOL! There were "gay marriages" for 1000+ years after the Bible. The move was purely a maneuver to exert church control over people... |
Yes, but when you said, my brother is getting married, it was assumed it was to a woman. Not another man.
Now we have to specify (along with the state) what being married is. Between a man and a woman (being in California). |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 09:13:04 PM · #2673 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Yes, but when you said, my brother is getting married, it was assumed it was to a woman. Not another man. |
Do we even have to go ther with what kind of trouble making assumptions brings?
Originally posted by Nullix:
Now we have to specify (along with the state) what being married is. Between a man and a woman (being in California). |
Yeah, really.......It certainly has nothing to do with two people who love each other making a commitment to each other to love, honor, and cherish each other, right? |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 09:50:11 PM · #2674 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Do we even have to go ther with what kind of trouble making assumptions brings? |
I can tell you from personal observation that at the best medical schools they teach doctors that it makes -- as they depict it as a visual representation for memory reinforcement -- an ASS/U/ME ...
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 21:50:48. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:11:35 PM · #2675 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by scalvert:
... even within Christianity the church leaders saw no reason to specify "man and woman" until very recently. ... |
They didn't NEED to specify or define it until recently. It was a given that the natural order of humanity is the union of a man and woman. |
So homosexuality is a new phenomenon? LOL! There were "gay marriages" for 1000+ years after the Bible. The move was purely a maneuver to exert church control over people... |
Yes, but when you said, my brother is getting married, it was assumed it was to a woman. Not another man.
Now we have to specify (along with the state) what being married is. Between a man and a woman (being in California). |
So in short, "No dear brother, you can't get married. You must have misunderstood the meaning." Is that what this message conveys? "Have to be specific" no we don't. Why? So you can exclude people from a right you take for granted. Even your own brother? That is just cold. |
|
