Who Will Go To Heaven?

[rtwngAvngr]

You know SM, oftentimes it's not the crime, but the coverup, that gets people into trouble.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
You called christains closed minded. All your words do not negate that fact. It was not a misinterpretation. You don't have to get so snippy about it.

If it comforts you to believe that was the spirit of what I was trying to say, then so be it. The problem with talking to you is that the conversation gets stuck in circular bickering over irrelevant tangential issues and never progresses. I'm quite confident that when other people read this thread, it will be clear to them who has contributed substantially to it and who has been trolling. So if you're waiting for me to "say uncle" or concede just to put an end to your childish attempts to annoy me, forget it because it ain't gonna happen.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
To those who haven't already heard it a zillion times, perhaps.

Sinsister = sin + sister, that's good stuff.

Implosives = that's just a hilarious word.

I say it over and over and I start to laugh. Implosives implosives implosives implosives:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
If it comforts you to believe that was the spirit of what I was trying to say, then so be it. The problem with talking to you is that the conversation gets stuck in circular bickering over irrelevant tangential issues and never progresses. I'm quite confident that when other people read this thread, it will be clear to them who has contributed substantially to it and who has been trolling. So if you're waiting for me to "say uncle" or concede just to put an end to your childish attempts to annoy me, forget it because it ain't gonna happen.

Yes I am comforted by my belief in your judgement and elitism. It's like hot chicken soup for the soul. The question is does your judgement and elitism exist, or is it just a fabrication of a human mind?

 

[SinisterMotives]

Buh bye, RWA.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
Buh bye, RWA.

See ya man. Your'e not ALL bad in my book ya know.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
See ya man. Your'e not ALL bad in my book ya know.

I have to say you amuse me too. Sometimes you even challenge me when you're not being silly about it. But I really must get to work now. Later!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
I have to say you amuse me too. Sometimes you even challenge me when you're not being silly about it. But I really must get to work now. Later!

Yeah. It's all good. I was inexplicably zealous, I admit.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Joz
I work in public service and I have a few gay couples as costumers. Some of them are VERY nice people. Kind, compassionate. But what they do is wrong. Not that we don't all sin, that's not what I'm saying. We as a society donot tolerate other things that weaken society such as harming children, or murdering or beating up people or taking things that don't belong to you. So why this?

How on earth does it hurt society for two people who love each other to have a committed relationship? The things you cited as harming society are harm done to innocent people: rape, murder, harm and robbery. These are actions that infringe on the individual rights of the victim.

There is no victim in a voluntary, consensual relationship.

And - given your concerns about health - encouraging monogamous relationships is in society's interest.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes you gay haters need to give this up. It's not christlike.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Big D
Roses are red and violets are blueish,

I think it's to bad we all can't be Jewish.

:rotflmao:


Whodathunkit? Big D has a sense of humor!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I thought that was funny too. i didn't know if it was ok to laugh at big d. Funny i'd choose this moment to care about decorum and appropriateness. No reason really. Just arbitrary.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Yes you gay haters need to give this up. It's not christlike.

I for one won't give up.

I'm totally against gays and gay marriages. I'll speak up and vote according to my beliefs. I would expect no less from someone who is for gay marriages as well.

By speaking up and voting you can make a difference. If all this prevents gay marriages in our society I will be thrilled. Should it be legalized, I'll be disappointed, but I won't feel guilty for being against it or speaking out against it.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
That's funny because that's exactly how peasants were treated in medieval European "Christendom" by both the powermongering clergy and the powermongering royalty.

It's the foundation of the Catholic Church as well.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I for one won't give up.

I'm totally against gays and gay marriages. I'll speak up and vote according to my beliefs. I would expect no less from someone who is for gay marriages as well.

By speaking up and voting you can make a difference. If all this prevents gay marriages in our society I will be thrilled. Should it be legalized, I'll be disappointed, but I won't feel guilty for being against it or speaking out against it.

I would prefer a civil union with a different name too. Hanging on to this issue just gets the whole party labelled as wacko. I just don't want to lose the communist libs over this issue about a word. If families in america decay, it's not because gay unions are called marriages and not gay unions.

 

[SinisterMotives]

If homosexuality is indeed an aberration that threatens the human gene pool, then natural selection will eventually weed it out. One might facetiously say the fact that gay sex cannot produce offspring is one mechanism that may contribute to a decline in the homosexual population, although that in itself is neither proof that homosexuality is intrinsically wrong or a guarantee that attempts at circumventing it won't succeed. If any genetic weeding out is to be done (which itself assumes a genetic "cause" of homosexuality), the threshhold at which it begins to happen will not necessarily be reached within our lifetimes either. Moreover, all the above assumes that H. sapiens as a whole isn't being selected against.

 

[wonderwench]

The world does not lack massive quantities of humans.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What I've read is that the brain is either masculinized or feminized based on hormone levels in the blood at a very specific time during gestation. Sometimes the levels are a little off what they "should" be. voila. Gayness. It's biological, but not necessarily genetic. Though it's possible I suppose that the hormone levels themselves could be have genetic contributors.

 

[wonderwench]

RWA - I agree with that. Homosexuality is mainly biologically determined - although there are some people (usually bi-sexual) for whom it is a choice.

Outlawing homosexuality won't stop the biological process. It didn't in the past - and the ongoing hatred and bigotry won't stop it in the future.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by wonderwench
The world does not lack massive quantities of humans.

Overpopulation is a good enough reason for natural selection to thin us out a bit. I read an article last night in which the author shows how cooperation arises out of a pool of unanimously selfish entities. He showed that any strategy that doesn't employ "niceness" (i.e., one that is as likely to defect as to cooperate regardless of the other party's move), "retaliation" (i.e., punishes defection with defection), and "forgiveness" (i.e., reverts to cooperation rather than continue to defect after initally punishing defection) will become extinct in the long run. Even if it initially succeeds by taking advantage of "nice" strategies, it will eventually destroy its own food supply, so to speak, and thus kill itself off. It may be that overpopulation, environmental destruction, and overutilization of resources will ultimately prove to be mankind's undoing in a like manner.