Liberals all over the world try the same tricks....we can't let ourselves fall into their traps. They claim that any viewpoint not aligned with thiers is "hateful" and "bigoted" and restrictive. From the war in Iraq, to religion (which they uniformly lack), to welfare reform, to affirmative action, to the death penalty, to this topic, it's all the same. They won't EVER listen to any arguments from the opposite side, and keep saying the same things over and over. It doesn't matter what the topic is, they all read the same debate book.

Gets boring after a while. Just put on your attack shield, and take all of their arguments with a big chunk of salt, because you've heard them before. Just because you disagree with a liberal viewpoint does not make you wrong.

I would tell them, Hindu’s, Buddhist, and all others what the Bible has told me. What I am called to proclaim…

No one comes to the father if not by the son (JESUS CHRIST) If you do not believe in JESUS CHRIST (not that he existed, he was a nice guy, preacher, etc) but that he was EVERYTHING he said he was…he is, then I’m sorry and I pray that GOD helps you understand that outside of CHRIST…you, me, or anyone else is LOST.



In other words, you agree with Muslim Fundamentalism; only the cast of characters is different. Wonder why the Muslim world is prone to see Christians as representing a crusading mentality...Wonder, wonder...

Liberals all over the world try the same tricks....we can't let ourselves fall into their traps. They claim that any viewpoint not aligned with thiers is "hateful" and "bigoted" and restrictive. From the war in Iraq, to religion (which they uniformly lack), to welfare reform, to affirmative action, to the death penalty, to this topic, it's all the same. They won't EVER listen to any arguments from the opposite side, and keep saying the same things over and over. It doesn't matter what the topic is, they all read the same debate book.

Gets boring after a while. Just put on your attack shield, and take all of their arguments with a big chunk of salt, because you've heard them before. Just because you disagree with a liberal viewpoint does not make you wrong.

Ignorant people lack the ability to properly analyze a situation and so they label...and label...and label...and label till the have made the situation so simplistic they feel they have mastered understanding it.

rx8wannahave, what do you say to muslims who believe that their god says there is only one true religion and the only way for the world to have peace is to have all humans under islam?

The correct answer is that such a view is a perversion of Islamic teaching. The Qu'ran is quite specific in the respect it accords to both Moses, the primary prophet of the Jews, and to Jesus. (Each is seen as representing a respected prophet whose teachings should be revered and respected.)

It is true that the Qu'ran does not view Jesus as divine, but it doesn't claim divinity for Muhammed, either. Divinity in Islam is limited to Allah, as it is in the Jewish tradition.

The oft-cited (and misinterpreted) prescription for Muslims to undertake "jihad" against "infidels" is actually a presecription for self-defense against those outside the religious tradition that includes Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Islam, it should be remembered, was born in the midst of a political and military struggle among Arabs. As such, its prescriptions for "jihad" (i.e. struggle) were often treated in those terms, though the term itself is considerably broader in scope.

The perversion of Islamic teaching in its fundamentalist version is best understood in the context of political and cultural conflicts, both historical and contemporary, not as a direct result of the religious tradition it claims to represent. Much the same can be said of Christian (and Jewish) fundamentalism.

P.S. My apologies for engaging in a discussion of religion in this context. But since the thread appears to have partially morphed into a series of proclamations of faith, it seems to call for at least a bit of factual material.

And doc, there are many of us heterosexuals who are in favor of gay marrige.Not enough of you to matter, apparently. :D

In other words, you agree with Muslim Fundamentalism; only the cast of characters is different. Wonder why the Muslim world is prone to see Christians as representing a crusading mentality...Wonder, wonder...

What did I say to make you think I would agree with anything or any teaching from Islam? Anyway, the difference (from what I hear) is that Christ told us to love everyone while Muslim Fundamentalism states to KILL everyone that does not agree because they are better off dead.

Christians try to reach out with care, love, and hope…Muslim fundamentalist reach out with “agree” or DIE. Can’t be any more different than that! It seems we go around and around…yet you understand nothing??? Sorry, not to be harsh but I see us going around in circles yet you do not address much of anything I say.

The correct answer is that such a view is a perversion of Islamic teaching. The Qu'ran is quite specific in the respect it accords to both Moses, the primary prophet of the Jews, and to Jesus. (Each is seen as representing a respected prophet whose teachings should be revered and respected.)

The problem I have with that is that if they thought JESUS was a prophet then why don’t they believe the things he said? The things he preached about? What he called himself?

A prophet is a man of GOD, directed and led by GOD…so a true prophet is never wrong because he is only sharing what GOD told him to share. So, if JESUS was a prophet then why don’t they believe what he said? They call him a prophet because they can’t argue his love and teachings yet they leave out who he said he was, why he was here, and how to gain salvation. Why? Is he a prophet or not? So, he was a crazy prophet that said 50% correct things? Sorry…he was MORE than a prophet or not a prophet at all…there is no in-between in that subject.

It is true that the Qu'ran… My apologies for engaging in a discussion of religion in this context. But since the thread appears to have partially morphed into a series of proclamations of faith, it seems to call for at least a bit of factual material.

I cut that short, FYI, but my issue is that if that is true why don’t you hear more Muslims defending their religion from these freaks? Why don’t you see them helping America more against terrorist? Why don’t they take a more active defense of “their truth” instead of fighting and helping in secrete?

Well…because a lot, or powerful/rich, Muslims are either

A cowards

Or

B believe what the terrorist preach

I really don’t know how much they are helping but it appears that if they are helping it’s limited at best and they continue (their population) to protect or help them do their EVIL. I do not wish any bad for Muslims nor do I hate them but it’s hard to swallow they care about us or do not agree with terrorist when so many of their nations are FILLED with terrorist.

But, I wont judge them all based on their evil doers…I’m just venting what things appear to be. They or their governments need to help us A LOT more!

Back to the homosexual issue...or this will be closed.

Str8 men have equally (or even more so) equal preference for younger looking women. And many have un-equivically acted on those urges with someone under the age of 17. In fact i know more twenty-something str8 males who have dated women in their teens then i can count. Does this make most straight men pedaphiles, of course not.The term is hebephiles, and as per the graph I posted, there are a higher percentage of gays that fall into the category.

It seems to me you want justify your homophobia with what ever little piece of scientific data you can collect and apply it to every gay man and woman out there.I'm not homophobic.

But the obvious truth is you are ignorant to a lifestyle you know nothing about.I agree to being a bit ignorant about it, but there is a lot of info to be gained from that website. I dare you to tell me that the sexual antics posted there are incorrect. Have you read them? I can't post the details here, but they are quite explicit. And if true, which I am sure they are, I really have no desire to hear more about them.

You say you work with gay nurses, but how many of them have you really got to know. How many gay friends do you actually have?I know quite a few, and enjoy socializing with them, been to Vegas with a few of them, invited them to my home for parties, with their partners. Nice guys. I have zero reservations about interacting with them. They are just like anybody else (almost :) ). As long as they leave out the details of their sex lives, which I would expect any well-mannered straight person to do as well, everything is cool.

To say gay man feel awkard around woman could not be further from the truth.When you take the possibility of sexual contact out of the equation, it is a lot different interacting with women. That's when things can get awkward.

I have dated women in the past...Why? Trying to decide which way to go? ;)

In other words, you agree with Muslim Fundamentalism; only the cast of characters is different. Wonder why the Muslim world is prone to see Christians as representing a crusading mentality...Wonder, wonder...
Christian Fundamentalism = Muslim Fundamentalism. Scary, huh?

Christian Fundamentalism = Muslim Fundamentalism. Scary, huh?

I don't know if it will happen, but compareing it like that might just lead to a new persecution. FYI The Bible said it was going to happen again before the end...so it wont surprise me.

Fundamentalism is bad in general!

This is starting to look like the Political Thread. I've seen this topic before on here on another thread I am sure and it was explosive there as well. We seem to be bouncing from one topic to another. I am sorry I even posted on here to start with. I did not want this to get into details in faiths and such but at points it has started there and even challenged at times. Interesting dicussions. I am not clear however from the responses on what the Koran has about Homosexuality?

rx8wannahave, your talking mainly about the idea that as you approach the universal, you abandon the particular, this was eventually discovered in the quest for the sublime. Led by guys like Adorno, Foucault, Lacan, etc. But as you get into the later thinkers, you are left with something. So take a look at frederic jameson, and especially Slavoj Zizek, the most brilliant man alive, in my opinion. But that is beyond the realm of this discussion, and trying to bring it in speaks of an inability to deal with the discussion in the way it has been presented.


As far as accepting every word in the bible as law, you have to be careful, because you are not dealing with an original document. Everytime something is translated, no matter how good a translation, the meaning changes, the meaning also changes based on what you decide to include and not include. To say that I'm not going to listen to this part of Paul's letter to the romans because it says that slavery is ok, but i'm going to listen to this part of Paul's letter to the romans becuase it says that homosexuality is wrong, is letting your beliefs color your reading of the bible, whether you are aware of it or not.


Many of our founding fathers were deist, actually, but that is besides the point. Our founding fathers fled to america to escape theocracy.


Doc, first of all, if you oppose gay marriage, solely for the reason that you don't like homosexuals, and you don't feel they should be given the right, that is bigotry. As far as welfare reform, affirmative action, and the death penalty, have any of us ever told you that you were hateful or bigoted because of your views? As far as people listening to you , I think more would listen if you didn't use such flawed arguments :D . I assume that you are including me in your grouping of "liberals," and I very much disagree with your assertion that I lack religion.


Rx8wannahave, as far as the word of Christ, Christ never wrote anything, so it's tough to give him attribution. Where as Mohammed received the word of God, and immediately transcribed it. So, according to the mythology, the Koran is the word of God, and the New Testament is the word of Jesus, told to his buddies who wrote it down to the best of their recollection a few years later. So you're going to get more hardliners that say that the Koran should be taken literally compared to the Christians.


And you do hear differing voices between hardline and liberal muslims, mostly on Al Jazeera in fact.


The Koran forbids speaking publicly about any sexual activity, one of the reasons why the atrocities at Abu Ghirab were particularly offensive.

What did I say to make you think I would agree with anything or any teaching from Islam? Anyway, the difference (from what I hear) is that Christ told us to love everyone while Muslim Fundamentalism states to KILL everyone that does not agree because they are better off dead.

Christians try to reach out with care, love, and hope…Muslim fundamentalist reach out with “agree” or DIE. Can’t be any more different than that! It seems we go around and around…yet you understand nothing??? Sorry, not to be harsh but I see us going around in circles yet you do not address much of anything I say.



You seem to have taken it that he said simply "You believe in Muslim Fundamentalism." but the comparison actually was "So you believe in Muslim Fundamentalism - but the cast of characters is different." Which, if you compare your statements regarding Christianity to the beliefs of Muslim Fundamentalism (on very basic level):

You: What you believe to be God's word tells you that everyone must follow the teachings and beliefs (God, Jesus Christ, etc.) or have no hope of being saved.

Muslim Fundamentalism: What they believe to be God's word tells them that everyone must follow the teachings and beliefs (Allah, Muhammed...) or have no hope of being saved.

I'm sorry, but you have stated nothing that proves that Christianity is more right than Islam.

Nor should you (religious threads...)
Nor can you.

This is why I believe that while absolute truth does exist, these issues of right and wrong are left up to a personal, individual belief of what that truth is. Aside from stating our opinions about what WE believe to be right, wrong, black, gray, or white - we can't include them in arguments meant to convince others, because that just won't happen.

Doc, first of all, if you oppose gay marriage, solely for the reason that you don't like homosexuals, and you don't feel they should be given the right, that is bigotry. As far as welfare reform, affirmative action, and the death penalty, have any of us ever told you that you were hateful or bigoted because of your views?I never said I didn't like homosexuals. Please stop lying about me, I'm getting tired of it. My views on gay marriage have nothing to do with any sort of dislike of homosexuals. I just disagree with it. Period.

And yes, I have been called hateful and bigoted on this forum for opposing affirmative action and for my views on the death penalty and welfare reform. Liberal propaganda is so predictable.

Japan8, that was the purpose of the supreme court and checks and balances, to prevent a tyranny of the majority. There have been many sucesses of this idea, like deeming antimiscegenation laws unconstitutional. And doc, there are many of us heterosexuals who are in favor of gay marrige.


Judicial review is an interesting thing... I don't know if that was the original intention of the supreme court, but over time, particularly the last 20-30 years it's role has grown substantially. Is that in itself constitutional? I do understand about loose interpretation, but there obviously has to be limits as to how far the meaning can be stretched before having lost any resemblence of its original meaning...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

(I know encyclopedias aren't REAL sources, but I'm at work in Japan.. what kind of sources do you think I have at hand?)

It's good enough for most purposes, if you choose your sources well, like I have. This isn't life or death, just a friendly discussion. Until you trolled along anyway.

For pseudo-science such as you espouse, the internet certainly is good enough. For real sceience, it's not.

If you weren't so frigging dense, you would see that I listed some of them above. Do I need to type slower? Typical lawyer, only looks at the side of the story that helps his case.

You haven't yet told us what reputable scientific journal that "article" was published in. You certainly have provided a long, but totally irrelevant, list of other articles, but I have yet to see what reputable scientific journal that "article" was published in.

It's kind of amusing how you revert to childish attacks when someone is not impressed with either your rhetoric or your pseudo-science. Keep it up; it certainly shows your true colors.

For pseudo-science such as you espouse, the internet certainly is good enough. For real sceience, it's not.

You haven't yet told us what reputable scientific journal that "article" was published in. You certainly have provided a long, but totally irrelevant, list of other articles, but I have yet to see what reputable scientific journal that "article" was published in.
You obviously haven't looked at emedicine.com or merck.com, or any of the other reputable medical sites on the net.

I think the article was in the Journal of Abnormal Sexual Behavior, but I am at work and cannot access the site. The reference is documented on the site with a number that corresponds to the bibliography at the bottom (which I referenced).

Not enough of you to matter, apparently. :D

Ah, but that is yet another place where you're wrong. As you have implicitly acknowledged in previous posts, the tide will turn, and the day will come when bigots will not decide this matter. Yes, we are now in the minority, but each year, our percentage will grow, and the bigots' percentage will shrink. I do understand your strident tones, since the world is inevitably changing around you, but I certainly have no sympathy.

Ah, but that is yet another place where you're wrong. As you have implicitly acknowledged in previous posts, the tide will turn, and the day will come when bigots will not decide this matter. Yes, we are now in the minority, but each year, our percentage will grow, and the bigots' percentage will shrink. I do understand your strident tones, since the world is inevitably changing around you, but I certainly have no sympathy.
As I said, give it a generation or two. Whatever...like we agree, it really isn't going to affect me much one way or the other, other than a minor annoyance, so who cares? I can wait. Can you?

I don't understand all the hate coming from your side. After all, the majority isn't taking anything away from the gays that they already have, or have ever had for that matter. You are like an impatient demanding child, wanting his way RIGHT NOW or you are going to stomp your feet, hold your breath, and throw a hissy fit. Go right ahead, it's amusing.

As I said, give it a generation or two. Whatever...like we agree, it really isn't going to affect me much one way or the other, other than a minor annoyance, so who cares? I can wait. Can you?

I don't understand all the hate coming from your side. After all, the majority isn't taking anything away from the gays that they already have, or have ever had for that matter. You are like an impatient demanding child, wanting his way RIGHT NOW or you are going to stomp your feet, hold your breath, and throw a hissy fit. Go right ahead, it's amusing.

Now that is a mature, thoughtful, reasoned response, as I would expect from you. So long as you can do what you can to keep gays from having equal rights, you are happy. When people point out that your attitudes are hateful and bigoted, you, of course, have to whine about the "hate" coming form "our side."

You sit there in your nice lily-white, apparently heterosexual (but you never know, "doc" so I wouldn't become too comfortable around any of those around you, who may in fact be gay) world, espousing hateful and exclusive attitudes, and whine when people call you on it? I become more and more impressed as the days progress. Last night, you were reduced to attacking me based on the Hondas I own (and, unlike you, I also own an RX-8); I'm curious as to the depths you will descend to tonight.

Can't you find an ambulance to chase or a funeral to hand out business cards at?

Can't you find an ambulance to chase or a funeral to hand out business cards at?

Thanks, "doc." I was wondering how you would stoop lower than you did last night with your bash-Honda response to me. Now I know. It will be amusing to see how you respond in the future. I know it's tough when there is no substance to support your bigotry, but your last response is pretty pathetic even by your normally low standards. Surely you can do better than that???

I regret that I cannot engage in any more of your witty repartee this evening, but my wonderful bride of several decades beckons, and, despite your neanderthal fascination, you don't hold a candle to her.

I'll "see" you tomorrow evening....

It's all in fun. Sheesh. Don't take yourself (or me for that matter) so seriously. :rolleyes:

After reading this thread I've come to the position that the position that marriage is only for heterosexuals is a religious position. (It was all the bible quotes that did it). Therefore, any government law saying supporting that position is unconstitutional since it violates the esablishment clause.

Doc's position that it'll happen anyway eventually, like outlawing execution, means that anyone who supports gay marriage is forward looking, and anyone who doesn't is behind the times. (Don't know if Doc actually said executions will eventually be outlawed, but the Supreme Court did).

The idea that gays and pedophilia are associated went out with the notion that gays are out to convert straights. I think too many gay people didn't get their free toaster after converting 5 people, so they stopped this practice. Really, all those studies that say a man who molested a boy is a homosexual act, and the man is a homosexual, must be thrown out. Now what's left on the list?

I know quite a few, and enjoy socializing with them, been to Vegas with a few of them, invited them to my home for parties, with their partners. Nice guys. I have zero reservations about interacting with them. They are just like anybody else (almost ). As long as they leave out the details of their sex lives, which I would expect any well-mannered straight person to do as well, everything is cool.

And yet the only place you learn about the sex acts homosexuals engage in is on the internet. And your remarks about how homosexual men interact with women lead me to believe it's an arms-length relationship you have. I think the biggest problem some people have with homosexuals is separating the sexual part from the social part.

I would have no reservations whatsoever about allowing a gay teenager to babysit my child.

And my final thought: When is Ellen Degeneres going to be on Queer Eye? (she really needs it)

Men who abuse boys but do not have sex with adult men are still homosexuals in my book. A variation perhaps, but it is still homosexual attraction. Why else would they fellate these youngsters? While the studies seem to show that adult homosexuals are not as prone to abuse young children, many of them are still attracted to teenagers and sometimes even adolescents. The biggest risk I see is teenagers who aren't that much older than adolescents, and who are still figuring out their sexual identity. They may have easy access to adolescent males whereas adults may not have such ready access. They may also have more difficulty finding appropriate partners, and therefore take advantage of a younger male in their care out of opportunity.

The discussion is getting old, and I'm getting tired of the flaming, so I won't have much else to say on the subject except to be careful.

Men who abuse boys but do not have sex with adult men are still homosexuals in my book. A variation perhaps, but it is still homosexual attraction. Why else would they fellate these youngsters? ...

As noted earlier in this thread, to the extent that same sex relationships with children may appear more prevalent than opposite sex relationships, the correlation is due to the greater availability of boys than girls to male pedophiles (the vast majority of all pedophiles).

The literature, even the literature you cited, indicates that girls are more likely to resist advances from men than boys are. Pedophiles know this and are more likely to seek out children (boys) who are less likely to resist abuse.

Further, families are far less likely to allow unsupervised contact between adult males and female children. On the other hand, unsupervised contact between adult males and boys is not only seen as less threatening, it is institutionalized in a number of ways including religious groups, scouting, athletics, etc.

Your contention that "Men who abuse boys but do not have sex with adult men are still homosexuals in my book" is simply not supported in the literature, again even in the literature you continue to cite. Nor is it a "variation."

Pedophilia is attaction to children. The gender of the child is largely irrelevant except as it determines the availability of a victim. Thus, your assertion that it is "still homosexual attraction" is not supported by the evidence.

Finally, as to your repeated question as to whether one prefer a heterosexual or homosexual baby sitter, the answer is fairly obvious. Even in the literature you cited, the majority of abusers are classified as heterosexual. Thus, the chances of abuse are higher with a heterosexual baby sitter.

Men who abuse boys but do not have sex with adult men are still homosexuals in my book. ...
Perhaps that explains your dubious "statistics."

... I would have no reservations whatsoever about allowing a gay teenager to babysit my child. ...
I wouldn't have reservations about allowing an openly gay person babysitting my child. But the thought of someone living that life in secret due to ignorance and bigotry worries me bigtime.

A curious related topic. :)
--------------------------------

Pentagon Spurned Plan to Initiate Enemy Homosexuality

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military rejected a 1994 proposal to develop an "aphrodisiac" to spur homosexual activity among enemy troops but is hard at work on other less-than-lethal weapons, defense officials said Sunday.

The idea of fostering homosexuality among the enemy figured in a declassified six-year, $7.5 million request from a laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio for funding of non-lethal chemical weapon research.

The proposal, disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information request, called for developing chemicals affecting human behavior "so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely affected."

"One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior," said the document, obtained by the Sunshine Project. The watchdog group posted the partly blacked-out, three-page document on its Web site.

Lt. Col. Barry Venable of the Army, a Defense Department spokesman, said: "This suggestion arose essentially from a brainstorming session, and it was rejected out of hand."

The Air Force Research Laboratory also suggested using chemicals that could be sprayed on enemy positions to attract stinging and biting bugs, rodents and larger animals.

Another idea involved creating "severe and lasting halitosis" to help sniff out fighters trying to blend with civilians.

The U.S. military remains committed to developing less-than-lethal weapons that pass stringent legal reviews and are consistent with international treaties, said Captain Dan McSweeny of the Marine Corps, a spokesman for the Pentagon (news - web sites) unit spearheading their introduction.

"We feel it's very important to offer our deployed service members and their commanders a greater range of options in dealing with increasingly complex operational environments," said McSweeny, of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.

--------------------------------

Pentagon Spurned Plan to Initiate Enemy Homosexuality

I got one. how bout a big pile of Marijuana, set it on fire, and use a big fan to blow it towards enemy positions. Then drop a bunch of full refrigerators behind enemy lines.

Really, didn't they realize that Alexander the Great was gay? I guess 1994 was before the movie Alexander came out.

Actually your logic is flawed... which doesn't necessarily make your conclusion invalid, but in this case it does.

The solution is to return to a married priesthood. This phenomenon has occured because if you were a good practicing Catholic and you were homosexual... well you couldn't get married and it was considered wrong (now more finely defined my most groups to PRACTING homosexuals). You best avenue... become a celebate priest. Unforutnately we've seen what has happened there... This isn't a homosexual issue, because the same thing has occured for heterosexual priests and female church members. can we say "Scarlet Letter" ?

**EDIT** Sorry... I missed your following post were you stated some of the above... :oInterestingly we have a lot of experts in the field who have never worked with sexually abused children. My wife and I both have. Another intersting note... my father is gay. He is, as he calls it, non-practicing since he discovered Jesus and now goes to a church where homosexuality is not accepted. I really can't think of any church in Northern Idaho where it is. He dislikes himself because of the fact that he is gay. Do you think that he would change his orientation if it was a choice?

I think though that all the experts on here who have never worked with children who are victims of abuse (and I don't mean in any capacity but only in the mental health field) need to pay attention to those of us who have. Most of the children I have worked with were abused by straight men. Remember as I said about 10 pages ago that the abuser in this case isn't doing it for sex but rather for control. They get off on controlling their victims. It is similar to rape. There was a website mentioned and the quote from the DSM IV that were erroneous. The DSM IV no longer has any mention of homosexuality in any kind of disorder. It is not considered to be a prelude to child abuse nor is it considered to be any kind of mental disfunction.

Any attempt to control a group of people in the way that many people do with homosexuality are adding to the disorders associated with it. You know the ones... like self-hatred (because most of the people who know you're gay don't like you because of it)... I could go on but really it's pointless since you already have a good feel for it unless you lack the capacity for empathy. Well, I guess that after reading some of the posts I can think of a few people who have little if any empathy.

Some of you should stick to subjects you understand. If you don't understand what homosexuality is then read and learn but don't throw your $.02 in just because you know how to type. I have to say that JasonHamilton, Speeed ER Doc, DonVito and others don't understand the real connections between abuser and abused in child molestation and don't understand homosexuality.

Flamethrower charged and ready

Men who abuse boys but do not have sex with adult men are still homosexuals in my book. A variation perhaps, but it is still homosexual attraction. Why else would they fellate these youngsters? While the studies seem to show that adult homosexuals are not as prone to abuse young children, many of them are still attracted to teenagers and sometimes even adolescents. The biggest risk I see is teenagers who aren't that much older than adolescents, and who are still figuring out their sexual identity. They may have easy access to adolescent males whereas adults may not have such ready access. They may also have more difficulty finding appropriate partners, and therefore take advantage of a younger male in their care out of opportunity.

The discussion is getting old, and I'm getting tired of the flaming, so I won't have much else to say on the subject except to be careful.Were you attracted to Britney Spears before she turned 18??? ;)














Gotcha!!! :D

I would like to add one more thing, if you are truelly interested in protecting your children from abuse there is a great book called Protecting the Gift: How to keep children and teenagers safe and parents sane by Gavin DeBecker. I highly recommend it. Interestingly it never mentions anything about homosexuality and this is the same Gavin DeBecker that trains Secret Service agents to spot a potential hazard in a crowd of people, who sets up security for many statesmen and stateswomen from around the world, and people who are in the media.

extremely well put! :)

Interestingly we have a lot of experts in the field who have never worked with sexually abused children. My wife and I both have. Another intersting note... my father is gay. He is, as he calls it, non-practicing since he discovered Jesus and now goes to a church where homosexuality is not accepted. I really can't think of any church in Northern Idaho where it is. He dislikes himself because of the fact that he is gay. Do you think that he would change his orientation if it was a choice?

I think though that all the experts on here who have never worked with children who are victims of abuse (and I don't mean in any capacity but only in the mental health field) need to pay attention to those of us who have. Most of the children I have worked with were abused by straight men. Remember as I said about 10 pages ago that the abuser in this case isn't doing it for sex but rather for control. They get off on controlling their victims. It is similar to rape. There was a website mentioned and the quote from the DSM IV that were erroneous. The DSM IV no longer has any mention of homosexuality in any kind of disorder. It is not considered to be a prelude to child abuse nor is it considered to be any kind of mental disfunction.

Any attempt to control a group of people in the way that many people do with homosexuality are adding to the disorders associated with it. You know the ones... like self-hatred (because most of the people who know you're gay don't like you because of it)... I could go on but really it's pointless since you already have a good feel for it unless you lack the capacity for empathy. Well, I guess that after reading some of the posts I can think of a few people who have little if any empathy.

Some of you should stick to subjects you understand. If you don't understand what homosexuality is then read and learn but don't throw your $.02 in just because you know how to type. I have to say that JasonHamilton, Speeed ER Doc, DonVito and others don't understand the real connections between abuser and abused in child molestation and don't understand homosexuality.

Flamethrower charged and ready

Were you attracted to Britney Spears before she turned 18??? ;)

<looks in the mirror nervously>
yeah well...

Thanks for your elloquence 93rd. I guess that's what I was trying to say - the relationship between a man and a boy is not a homosexual relationship. It's not a sex thing, certainly not for the boy, and for the man, it's not about sex, but about power.

now I'll go read that thread about girls dressing like ho's.

IF homosexuality is a "Choice".... why on Earth would anyone actively CHOOSE to be homosexual?

Oh boy -- I can choose to be legally prevented from marrying the person I love! Goody!
I can opt for being declared a degenerate hell-bound sinner by every religion's fundamentalists! Woo Hoo!
I can actively seek to be banned from being a Boy Scout! Their uniforms are dorky anyway.
I can legally be prevented from adopting a child who desperately needs a home! Get used to that orphanage, kiddo.
I'll get to hear closed-minded rednecks call me faggot, queer, dyke, etc. to my face! I can hardly wait.

Gee. Does this make a particle of sense to any of you who think homosexuality is a choice? Sheesh. :rolleyes:


ok i am gay and just to tell ya guys i did not choose to be gay. I just am i have no controll over it. I have dated plenty of girls and i was also in a 3 year relationship with a girl, but i knew deep down it was not right i was not truly happy. Hell if i can have a choice of course i would be straight because it would be a easier life but i dont. And i am happy now in my relationship with felipe which has been almost 9 months togeather.



u have no idea how much i want be married and have kids but untill the laws are changed i have to live with out equal rights to marry because this country wants to restrict my rights. Ect

<looks in the mirror nervously>
yeah well...

Thanks for your elloquence 93rd. I guess that's what I was trying to say - the relationship between a man and a boy is not a homosexual relationship. It's not a sex thing, certainly not for the boy, and for the man, it's not about sex, but about power.

now I'll go read that thread about girls dressing like ho's.

did some one dig up my DAMN YOU Britney Spears thread? :p :D

did some one dig up my DAMN YOU Britney Spears thread? :p :D

I was thinking of
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=50285
but same difference.

In the spirit of Jeopardy, thread hijacking and other useless knowlege, allow me to play Margaret Mead for a bit.

In Samoa, if a family has a lot of boys and few girls, they will raise one of the boys as a girl, called a fa'afafine. It's turned out some really big drag queens. The practice is still relatively common, even after the missionaries threw a hissy.

Interesting twist on personal choice, and the views of society.

In the spirit of Jeopardy, thread hijacking and other useless knowlege, allow me to play Margaret Mead for a bit.

In Samoa, if a family has a lot of boys and few girls, they will raise one of the boys as a girl, called a fa'afafine. It's turned out some really big drag queens. The practice is still relatively common, even after the missionaries threw a hissy.

Interesting twist on personal choice, and the views of society.Divine comes to mind when you mention really big drag queens. :D

I have to say that JasonHamilton, Speeed ER Doc, DonVito and others don't understand the real connections between abuser and abused in child molestation and don't understand homosexuality.
I hate to keep using my son as a rebuttal to your arguments, but once again, you couldn't be more wrong. While one case does not prove a point, I will let all of you in on why this subject pisses me off so much.

When my son was 6 years old, he was molested by his 15 year old male cousin, a prissy gayboy who weighed about 200 pounds at the time. We too, thought as many of you that this would be a safe situation. It was the very first time we had left them alone unsupervised together.This subhuman piece of sh*t was arrested, taken away in handcuffs, charged with a second degree felony (only inappropriate touching is necessary for this charge, not penetration), and eventually copped a plea bargain for probation to avoid a 20 year sentence. Yes, he could have been transferred to adult prison after he turned 18, instead he picked up trash on the side of the freeway, gets drug tested, has a 10 pm curfew and has other restrictions until he turns 18, when his record will be cleared. And for those who read the death penalty thread, you can guess what punishment I wanted to give him. :mad:

This wasn't about power, it was about a horny f*cking pervert who looked at gay porn on my computer 5 minutes before he touched my 6 year old son's dick and jacked off on him. The police still haven't given me back my computer. And yes, this now 17 year old is GAY, not just a child molester. The websites he was looking at included bigblackd*cks.com, so it wasn't just kids he was interested in.

So all of you can STFU, I don't really give a f*ck what you think. You are wrong.

Interestingly we have a lot of experts in the field who have never worked with sexually abused children. My wife and I both have. Another intersting note... my father is gay. He is, as he calls it, non-practicing since he discovered Jesus and now goes to a church where homosexuality is not accepted. I really can't think of any church in Northern Idaho where it is. He dislikes himself because of the fact that he is gay. Do you think that he would change his orientation if it was a choice?

I think though that all the experts on here who have never worked with children who are victims of abuse (and I don't mean in any capacity but only in the mental health field) need to pay attention to those of us who have. Most of the children I have worked with were abused by straight men. Remember as I said about 10 pages ago that the abuser in this case isn't doing it for sex but rather for control. They get off on controlling their victims. It is similar to rape. There was a website mentioned and the quote from the DSM IV that were erroneous. The DSM IV no longer has any mention of homosexuality in any kind of disorder. It is not considered to be a prelude to child abuse nor is it considered to be any kind of mental disfunction.

Any attempt to control a group of people in the way that many people do with homosexuality are adding to the disorders associated with it. You know the ones... like self-hatred (because most of the people who know you're gay don't like you because of it)... I could go on but really it's pointless since you already have a good feel for it unless you lack the capacity for empathy. Well, I guess that after reading some of the posts I can think of a few people who have little if any empathy.

Some of you should stick to subjects you understand. If you don't understand what homosexuality is then read and learn but don't throw your $.02 in just because you know how to type. I have to say that JasonHamilton, Speeed ER Doc, DonVito and others don't understand the real connections between abuser and abused in child molestation and don't understand homosexuality.

Flamethrower charged and ready

Why single out my post? I haven't argued against those findings about the lack of connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. My point about Catholic priests wasn't that homosexuality causes this... it is the lack of a married priesthood and further compounded by pressure resulting from having their "feelings"/lifestyle rejected by the Catholic church. Similar things happen with heteosexuals as well (as I said earlier) with them and female members... I believe girls were included as well. However, of course boys would be repesented more as only boys can become altar servers... duh! Like i said.. why single out my post?

...I will let all of you in on why this subject pisses me off so much.
...
So all of you can STFU, I don't really give a f*ck what you think. You are wrong.
d'oh, sorry to push a button Doc.

god bless the eskis, they share their women

d'oh, sorry to push a button Doc.No worries, it wasn't you who pushed it.

I'm sure some of you are too polite to raise the BS flag, but are suspicious that I made this up to "gay bash" because I'm "bigoted and hateful." Wrong again.

I would point you to this post (http://www.rx8club.com/showpost.php?p=208510&postcount=65) in a similar thread. (http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=17660)

I'm sure some of you are too polite to raise the BS flag, but are suspicious that I made this up to "gay bash" because I'm "bigoted and hateful." Wrong again.

There's no reason to think you made it up; it happens. My middle child, a girl, was molested by a workman in our house when she was 7. We had prepared her, in general, for such an event; she slugged him, screamed and ran, so no harm was done (we were in the house at the time; we got him convicted on one felony count and one misdemeanor, after staring down the prosecutor who wanted to let him plead to just a misdemeanor, but he still served no jail time).

It's a horrible thing to happen, but I think it's a pity to blame all gays because of that one event. Everyone loses that way, including you, and that's too bad.

It's a horrible thing to happen, but I think it's a pity to blame all gays because of that one event. Everyone loses that way, including you, and that's too bad.
I don't "blame all gays." I only want people to not have a false sense of security around them, particularly teenagers, as I said, who might not have access to appropriate "partners." Maybe teenage boys in general shouldn't babysit, whether they are gay or not. Too many hormones. This was a kid we trusted and liked, who was practically a member of our household he was there so much, and the first chance he got he abused that trust in the worst way.

I just don't want others go through what my family went through.

edit: Oh, by the way, I never lose.

your anger over this issue is clearly clouding your judgement

I don't "blame all gays." I only want people to not have a false sense of security around them, particularly teenagers, as I said, who might not have access to appropriate "partners." Maybe teenage boys in general shouldn't babysit, whether they are gay or not. Too many hormones. This was a kid we trusted and liked, who was practically a member of our household he was there so much, and the first chance he got he abused that trust in the worst way.

I just don't want others go through what my family went through.

edit: Oh, by the way, I never lose.

your anger over this issue is clearly clouding your judgementYou wouldn't be the first person to have a bad outcome after questioning my judgement. I'm talking medical judgement, not making a threat.

I stand behind my statements, take my advice or don't.

I hate to keep using my son as a rebuttal to your arguments, but once again, you couldn't be more wrong. While one case does not prove a point, I will let all of you in on why this subject pisses me off so much.

This wasn't about power, it was about a horny f*cking pervert who looked at gay porn on my computer 5 minutes before he touched my 6 year old son's dick and jacked off on him. The police still haven't given me back my computer. And yes, this now 17 year old is GAY, not just a child molester. The websites he was looking at included bigblackd*cks.com, so it wasn't just kids he was interested in.

So all of you can STFU, I don't really give a f*ck what you think. You are wrong.ER Doc I apologize if my post upset you and I can see that it did. I certainly can appreciate where you are coming from and I understand why you are upset. I only want to point out that your situation is not the normal one. Do some homosexuals molest children? Of course they do but the rate is no higher than it would be among heterosexual men. As far as your son goes I hope he is able to come to terms with it. I know with an illness such as his it can be very difficult to help them. Now at least I can see why this subject has been so personal for you and I want you to know that I think sex offenders don't get the punishment they deserve, especially when children are involved.

The book I recommended in my previous post goes doubly for you. I really would like you to read it and to tell me what you think.

Unfortunately my wife works with at least 2 kids a month who were abused sexually in their lives. And she has had as many as 6 new cases in a month period that were sexually abused. The national statistic is that most child molesters are able to abuse 40-60 kids before they are caught. I hope in your situation that you were able to put a stop to it before anyone else was.

Why single out my post? I haven't argued against those findings about the lack of connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. My point about Catholic priests wasn't that homosexuality causes this... it is the lack of a married priesthood and further compounded by pressure resulting from having their "feelings"/lifestyle rejected by the Catholic church. Similar things happen with heteosexuals as well (as I said earlier) with them and female members... I believe girls were included as well. However, of course boys would be repesented more as only boys can become altar servers... duh! Like i said.. why single out my post?Sorry I wasn't trying to single out your post and when I started my post I was going to agree with you. I believe pretty strongly in the Orgone energy as described by Wilhelm Reich and originally presented by Sigmund Freud (until his Victorian era collegues rebelled). This would be a sexual energy that runs through the body. It exists in everyone and makes up a large aspect of our physical health. The Yogis would call the energy Laya or more commonly Kundalini.

By denying ourselves a normal healthy sexual lifestyle or because of abuse in a sexual nature some people will begin to have all kinds of disorders or disfunctions. Part of our mental health includes healthy sex. When priests or monks deny that aspect of themselves they had better be able to deal with the implications in a heathy manner or it will come out in ugly ways. We all know about the poor alter boys or the stories of the Marqis de Sade. If you were to look at life during the Victorian era you would see plenty of evidence. I could go into great detail about this but let's just suffice to say that whether this is an aura or mental health is irrelevant and a normal lifestyle needs to include a healthy sexual output. Hope that clears it up. Sorry for the confusion. :o

I don't "blame all gays." I only want people to not have a false sense of security around them, particularly teenagers, as I said, who might not have access to appropriate "partners." Maybe teenage boys in general shouldn't babysit, whether they are gay or not. Too many hormones. This was a kid we trusted and liked, who was practically a member of our household he was there so much, and the first chance he got he abused that trust in the worst way.

I just don't want others go through what my family went through.

edit: Oh, by the way, I never lose.I babysat several kids when I was a young teenager. Of course I was already doing it because of my large family with so many siblings more than ten years younger than me. I was trusted and never abused that trust. I will say though that most boys in their early teens didn't have the responsibilities I did for taking care of and looking out for children as I did. Part of my job was to keep those kids safe from harm and that included sexual predators. I was also already having sex with girls close to my age so why would I have had any interest in a young child? That may have set me apart as well.

Regardless of Speeder's background his logic is still severly flawed...

Broad statements based on anecdotal evidence is rarely sound...as a doctor and scientist I do believe he logically understands that, but emotions are so powerful.

Instead of directing his anger and frustration towards a constructive goal of education and prevention of sexual violence he chooses to wallow in hate and ignorance.

And so I reassert my claim that I feel sorry for him and not angry at him over his views.

I don't know about what Speeder is saying (I mean I have no clue about it not that I disagree) but did I miss a post here? What happend to Speeder's son? Sorry for being insensitive about that question Speeder...forgive me, I just seem to have missed something???

I don't know about what Speeder is saying (I mean I have no clue about it not that I disagree) but did I miss a post here? What happend to Speeder's son? Sorry for being insensitive about that question Speeder...forgive me, I just seem to have missed something???The story is on page 20.

How completely lazy of me, I ran through page 20 cause I was at work...rushing...and I missed that.

Speed-ER I'm so sorry...sorry your son had to go through that, what can I say...nothing...I'm so sorry!

Sorry I wasn't trying to single out your post and when I started my post I was going to agree with you. I believe pretty strongly in the Orgone energy as described by Wilhelm Reich and originally presented by Sigmund Freud (until his Victorian era collegues rebelled). This would be a sexual energy that runs through the body. It exists in everyone and makes up a large aspect of our physical health. The Yogis would call the energy Laya or more commonly Kundalini.

By denying ourselves a normal healthy sexual lifestyle or because of abuse in a sexual nature some people will begin to have all kinds of disorders or disfunctions. Part of our mental health includes healthy sex. When priests or monks deny that aspect of themselves they had better be able to deal with the implications in a heathy manner or it will come out in ugly ways. We all know about the poor alter boys or the stories of the Marqis de Sade. If you were to look at life during the Victorian era you would see plenty of evidence. I could go into great detail about this but let's just suffice to say that whether this is an aura or mental health is irrelevant and a normal lifestyle needs to include a healthy sexual output. Hope that clears it up. Sorry for the confusion. :o

No, no problem at all. What you said was exactly my point about Catholic priests (monks, nuns, etc.). Humans are not only social, but sexual animals. When need physical contact. I really think the Catholic church needs to take a good look at this, but good sources say it won't happen under Pope John Paul II. His successor is seen as very likely to change this cannon law among a few others.

How completely lazy of me, I ran through page 20 cause I was at work...rushing...and I missed that.

Speed-ER I'm so sorry...sorry your son had to go through that, what can I say...nothing...I'm so sorry!

Doc... I echo those sentiments. I really feel for your son and what your family has gone through. The offender having been a trusted family friend could only have made it that much more difficult. However... similar to 93rd.. I am the oldest grandchild on my mother's side and I grew up primarily with that family... my cousins being more like brothers and sisters (one is also my goddaughter) to me. As the oldest I was, of course, made to babysit the "kids" many many times. There were no problems of that nature... misbehaving children?... yeah of course... abuse? No. But as 93rd pointed out... maybe it is a function of things such as responsibilities and maturity...

As the oldest I was, of course, made to babysit the "kids" many many times. There were no problems of that nature... misbehaving children?... yeah of course... abuse? No.
You aren't gay either, and neither is 93rd.


(OK, I'll shut up now.....) :D

and I appreciate everyone's kind words of support.

Ok, here is my take on this as a gay Christian. First of all why are we even discussing this? I think it is because a lot of politicians in DC, on both sides of the aisle, realized that this country is facing some really tough issues right now and they also realized that they don't have a single solution to any of these issues, so they decided to distract us all with gay marriage. It is perfect for them, it gets conservatives worked up and it gets liberals worked up. Since there is already a federal law on the books called the Deffense of Marriage Act (signed by Clinton) they didn't want to press for another law so they decided on a Constitutional ammendment that they knew had almost zero chance of passing but more importantly they knew would take years and years and years to work through the process. So no ammendment for years, and in the meantime if anything did actually happen it would be in the courts hands and politicians LOVE to put the blame for things on the courts, so for the guys in DC it was a win/win situation. For the people of this country it is nothing but a loss no matter which way things wind up, this is what we should be discussing is how our politicians are wasting their time and ours on this "issue".

As far as gay marriage itself, well it doesn't really matter to me. If I find mr. right then we will live as thoguh we are married no matter what the government or anyone else thinks, at that point it will only matter what we think and what God thinks. Personally I think God will be quite happy, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality, he however siad that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven, he also supported the sepperation of church and state (render unto Caesar what is Caesr's), and got pretty upset when he saw people trying to make money and increase their power by using God's name, but not once did he mention homosexuality. Seems like if it was so important he would have said something about it, but no, he decided to talk about the things I mentioned above along with things like love and helping each other out and charity.

I didn't decide to be gay, I have known I was gay for as long as I can remember, as far as I am concerned God made me this way, so I think I am going to use my time focusing on the same things Christ did. I think worrying about the gay marriage thing, no matter which side you find yourself on, is a waste of everyone's time when there are so many issues of much greater importance to think about.

You aren't gay either, and neither is 93rd.


(OK, I'll shut up now.....) :D

and I appreciate everyone's kind words of support.I resemble that remark... :p

PROOF! that conservative christians are crazy...HOW tHE Fuck is our president one of them?!:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/20/sponge.bob.reut/index.html

PROOF! that conservative christians are crazy...HOW tHE Fuck is our president one of them?!
Umm, coz there weren't enough whiny liberal p*ssies to vote him out?

Umm, coz there weren't enough whiny liberal p*ssies to vote him out?

well there were sure enough ***content edited*** to vote him in!

PROOF! that conservative christians are crazy...HOW tHE Fuck is our president one of them?!:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/20/sponge.bob.reut/index.html

Your lumping of all conservative Christians into one category ("crazy") based on a few people leads me to remember a few terms from this thread...

bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

prejudice
n: Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.

Your lumping of all conservative Christians into one category ("crazy") based on a few people leads me to remember a few terms from this thread...

bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

prejudice
n: Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.

"irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group" there is no irrational suspicion that conservative christians...and I do mean seriously conservative...are crazy

takedown Spongebob? That is crazy...it is simply a case of homophobic hate-mongers

many Christians squirm when the word Christian is used even when referring to ultra conservative groups who are about as christian as stalin was a communist...no need to squirm folks...you should be fighting against this ultra conservative movement...it will destroy our country

although I do have hope for our country Conservative Christians will loose their modern day Crusade...as their reasoning, their functioning, and their organization as a whole have not evolved and the natural events of time will eventually wipe them out.

although I do have hope for our country Conservative Christians will loose their modern day Crusade...as their reasoning, their functioning, and their organization as a whole have not evolved and the natural events of time will eventually wipe them out.

I keep wondering who this generic "Conservative Christian" "organization" (to quote you) is, who are apparently:

a) Crazy
b) Crusading

Alliteration aside, there are people who are dragging down our country with their wrong ideas from ALL sides... but I can't think of any wide-spreading organizations that are truly doing so, aside from a few members of their groups who have extreme ideas. And once again, that applies to ALL sides.

I keep wondering who this generic "Conservative Christian" "organization" (to quote you) is, who are apparently:

a) Crazy
b) Crusading

Alliteration aside, there are people who are dragging down our country with their wrong ideas from ALL sides... but I can't think of any wide-spreading organizations that are truly doing so, aside from a few members of their groups who have extreme ideas. And once again, that applies to ALL sides.I think he is referring to a movement and that would be the Charismatic Christian movement. These are the Bob Larson and Benny Hinn group. The followers of TBN and other radical fundamentalist Christians who believe that the second coming of Jesus is upon us and has been for the last 30 years.

Ok, here is my take on this as a gay Christian... If I find mr. right then we will live as thoguh we are married no matter what the government or anyone else thinks, at that point it will only matter what we think and what God thinks. Personally I think God will be quite happy, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality, he however siad that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven, he also supported the sepperation of church and state (render unto Caesar what is Caesr's), and got pretty upset when he saw people trying to make money and increase their power by using God's name, but not once did he mention homosexuality. Seems like if it was so important he would have said something about it, but no, he decided to talk about the things I mentioned above along with things like love and helping each other out and charity.

I didn't decide to be gay, I have known I was gay for as long as I can remember, as far as I am concerned God made me this way, so I think I am going to use my time focusing on the same things Christ did. I think worrying about the gay marriage thing, no matter which side you find yourself on, is a waste of everyone's time when there are so many issues of much greater importance to think about.

So misinformed...??? GOD never said? Friend...have you read the Bible? I hope you don't take that the wrong way but you are so wrong about this. If you are a Christian I pray that GOD helps you come to understand the error of your rationalization...truly, I hope you learn the error of what you are saying and telling people that have little to no clue about GOD or what JESUS said or didn't say.

I was going to stay out of this already but my GOD...Truemag, you have NO CLUE what you are talking about in regards to Christians yet you speak with an arrogance of knowing everything about us.

Did you read your statement? Tolerance...is that what it sounded like? It was complete generalizations about who we are and what we are about. You focus on the minority FALSE Christians and then say we are all alike.

Most people want me to not speak up...I try, but when the arrogant IGNORANCE that is being spoken I can't hold back...this is such fabrication, such lack of respect and HONESTY...it's truly beyond me???

My GOD...if this website is any indication of the general public, it's going to get worse and WORSE for us Christians...but I'll worry not, it's written...it will come...it's just a matter of time...

So misinformed...??? GOD never said? Friend...have you read the Bible? I hope you don't take that the wrong way but you are so wrong about this. If you are a Christian I pray that GOD helps you come to understand the error of your rationalization...truly, I hope you learn the error of what you are saying and telling people that have little to no clue about GOD or what JESUS said or didn't say.

I was going to stay out of this already but my GOD...Truemag, you have NO CLUE what you are talking about in regards to Christians yet you speak with an arrogance of knowing everything about us.

Did you read your statement? Tolerance...is that what it sounded like? It was complete generalizations about who we are and what we are about. You focus on the minority FALSE Christians and then say we are all alike.

Most people want me to not speak up...I try, but when the arrogant IGNORANCE that is being spoken I can't hold back...this is such fabrication, such lack of respect and HONESTY...it's truly beyond me???

My GOD...if this website is any indication of the general public, it's going to get worse and WORSE for us Christians...but I'll worry not, it's written...it will come...it's just a matter of time...

I can't make any sense of this post; are you trying to tell someone else that his interpretation of the word of God is wrong? If so, it takes a special arrogance for you to accuse him of arrogance; if not, could you perhaps explain to me what you are trying to say?

My GOD...if this website is any indication of the general public, it's going to get worse and WORSE for us Christians...but I'll worry not, it's written...it will come...it's just a matter of time...

HOPEFULLY it will get much worse for 'you' hardcore Christians...not that you have EVER struggled

As the most followed and most powerful by sheer numbers, religion in the US, Christianity (and let me specifically say NOT ALL Christians, my Dad for instance is not one) have suppressed and sought to impose/force NOT just their religion but their reality on the Non-Christians of the country. What is even more disturbing is the fact that doing so IS BUILT INTO THE FUNDAMENTALS OF CHRISTIANITY!!!!!! ie 'Spreading the word of Jesus to put it lightly'

and so these Christians who can't mind their own damn business feel they are spreading the word of G-d and doing a good deed or whatever the hell u call it meanwhile my network TV is being censored, Christian holidays are the only religious holidays taken as government days off, Blue Laws keep us from buying a Car on church sunday, I can't by adult toys/movies/etc. without going to some warehouse district, I can't hire a prostitute if I wanted to, people are ashamed of their supposedly 'G-d' made bodies, we have an IDIOT for a President, the Bible or as Christians call it 'Old Testament' was hijacked and inaccurately translated, virginity is for some reason cherished, homosexuals can't marry (hard to adopt children too), and I can't have more than one wife.

Why do we call the US 'The Land of the Free' again? it should be called 'The Land of the Christians'

HOPEFULLY it will get much worse for 'you' hardcore Christians...not that you have EVER struggled

....meanwhile my network TV is being censored, Christian holidays are the only religious holidays taken as government days off, Blue Laws keep us from buying a Car on church sunday, I can't by adult toys/movies/etc. without going to some warehouse district, I can't hire a prostitute if I wanted to, people are ashamed of their supposedly 'G-d' made bodies, we have an IDIOT for a President, the Bible or as Christians call it 'Old Testament' was hijacked and inaccurately translated, virginity is for some reason cherished, homosexuals can't marry (hard to adopt children too), and I can't have more than one wife.

Why do we call the US 'The Land of the Free' again? it should be called 'The Land of the Christians'That's awfully presumptuous of you to claim to know who has struggled and who hasn't.

And looking at the way you would like the country to be, I must say I'm glad the Christians are in charge. Of course part of your "problem" is you live in Minnesota!

Doh! How about moving to Nevada, smart guy? At least your porn/prostitute fetish would be satisfied. Most of the rest of your dream-wishes won't happen no matter who is president, at least in your lifetime....which based on your attitude, will be far below the average duration, I predict.

I don't want a Prostitute...I just want the Freedom to use one

Also WTF...men can have their shirt off in public but woman can't? that is DEFINITELY the fault of Christianity

and so I rest my case

Christianity=No Breasts

Me No Happy

If you saw breasts everywhere you looked, they wouldn't be as special. Sometimes a little mystery is better. Ever been to a nude beach? Not as nice as what you would think.

If you saw breasts everywhere you looked, they wouldn't be as special. Sometimes a little mystery is better. Ever been to a nude beach? Not as nice as what you would think.

I've been to many...it isn't about the breasts, it is about the freedom

well it is about the breasts too

and I've see my Gf's breasts everyday for years...they are still just as special if not more special each time I see them

I can't make any sense of this post; are you trying to tell someone else that his interpretation of the word of God is wrong? If so, it takes a special arrogance for you to accuse him of arrogance; if not, could you perhaps explain to me what you are trying to say?


I’m going to try and explain as best as I can. There are NO shades of truth or interpretations of the Bible, did I get your attention…

No, don't stop reading just yet...let me further explain. The CORE beliefs of our Christian faith can not be interpreted, here are CORE Christian beliefs:

There is one GOD, creator of the universe and LORD over all things.
GOD’s law/moral code or truth is unchangeable (we have no right to modify the TRUTH, the LAW)
JESUS CHRIST is the only begotten son of GOD (I won’t go into the trinity which is complicated at best)
JESUS CHRIST endured earthly temptation as we all do but walked a perfect life obeying & fulfilling GOD’s law
JESUS CHRIST came to Earth (having existed all along) to fulfill the law and die for OUR SINS
JESUS CHRIST rose from death on the 3rd day after he was killed
No one comes to the father if not by the son, JESUS CHRIST
We are not saved by the law (for none of us keep all of it as we should) but by grace alone (the law is our guide)
GOD’s word is infallible written by many men inspired & directed by the holy sprit
JESUS CHRIST is the messiah of the Old Testament and that prophesy was fulfilled in him
JESUS CHRIST will come again for his people and he will judge all of humanity

The above (which might be missing something…I’m still learning myself) is not left to interpretation but is a universal truth and Christians can not disagree on it. So, what is left to interpretation?

What happens when you die? Some say you go directly to heaven or hell while others say you go into a sleep until JESUS comes again. Will thinking one way or the other cause you to lose salvation, NOPE! We can disagree on this…

JESUS second coming has two parts ( (1) People are taken before tribulation and then (2) After tribulation) or JESUS CHRIST comes all in one moment taking the saved and condemning the lost. Will thinking one way or the other cause you to lose salvation, NOPE! We can disagree on this…

So, do you understand that something’s in our faith can be disagreed about while others can’t. You can’t say I’m a Christian yet you live in open sin without repenting. You can’t say I’m Christian but I live by my own rules or moral code. I’m Christian (I believe in CHRIST…who he said he was, what he did for us, and he is coming back) yet I can live as before with no change. You can’t say any of that if you are truly a Christian…

That would by what we call a hypocrite, do as I say (GOD’s word tells you) but not as I do (how we live our lives in actuality). There is a long journey of growing in CHRIST and all the changes will not be overnight (trust me I get frustrated with the pace ALL THE TIME…and it’s my own fault, my own lacking that slow down the pace).

If you call yourself a Christian yet there is no difference between you and someone who is lost, confused, or has no spiritual life…then are you truly a Christian? What do you think that means…that means that CHRIST died for us in vain? Why did he come if it was not to CHANGE our way of thinking, living, and save us from our sinful condition? He came proclaiming the truth and baring witness of the hypocrisy of “religious” leaders of the day that added, changed, modified, and ultimately did not live by the law given by GOD through Moses but by their own “created” moral code & false teachings. JESUS came in truth and love, GREAT LOVE for those who are lost (all of us at one point or another in our lives) but he did not come to dilute the truth/law, etc…but to fulfill it…save us from the wages of sin, and be our example.

I can go on and on, but that should be enough for now. Again, if you want to further discuss please PM since it’s hard to explain everything in a few paragraphs and they say we are not to talk about this type of stuff.

Final thing, I want to explain that when I say ignorance (I do not mean it as being dumb, I apologize if that was what people took it as) I mean “not knowing” of the truth not out of stupidity (GOD does not like that word or when we call each other that). Not knowing something and being dumb are two different things, and again I mean it as “not knowing” not calling anyone stupid…not at all!


HOPEFULLY it will get much worse for 'you' hardcore Christians...not that you have EVER struggled

You always reveal your heart with your words…I have revealed mine, and you have revealed yours. You wish bad for me, well I’ll do what CHRIST told me…GOD help this person come to understand the truth and forgive him of his sins and ignorance (not knowing) as I pray and ask you to forgive mine.

What do you know of my struggles? Those things are between me and GOD but I can confess that like all men (human’s I mean) I have fallen and sinned like all the rest. I have been selfish and lied…and I have battled lust or the physical desires throughout my adult life. GLORY to my savior JESUS CHRIST for saving me from myself, this world, and that old serpent…for I was lost but now I’m found.

As the most followed and most powerful by sheer numbers, religion in the US, Christianity (and let me specifically say NOT ALL Christians, my Dad for instance is not one) have suppressed and sought to impose/force NOT just their religion but their reality on the Non-Christians of the country.

In this country…force? How…did we put you in jail? Did we kill those that disagreed? Have I threatened anyone with harm unless they agree? Force…you are the one forcing Christians to either agree with you or SHUT UP…with your other statement you also wished us harm, bad, etc. Force...is what you are trying to do to us.


What is even more disturbing is the fact that doing so IS BUILT INTO THE FUNDAMENTALS OF CHRISTIANITY!!!!!! ie 'Spreading the word of Jesus to put it lightly'

We are called to share (share, not force) the gospel per JESUS’s word…if a man has a light does he cover it? If we are aware of the truth behind all of Satan’s deceptions…are we not to share it with others who do not know of it? If we are called to love everyone…are we not to share the most important thing with others…SALVATION? How could we say we loved others if we allowed them to pass us by constantly living and condemning themselves with their sins, in ignorance, or in hate towards the truth…do we stand aside and allow that? If so…then we truly do not love you, we just want you to like us or not to harm us.

I’ll talk…and keep talking because I slowly am learning to care about someone other than myself. I’m slowly learning how to love others…I’ll share this light, because I want others to find salvation also. GOD LOVES us all and JESUS died out of love for us and to give us a chance for salvation…so yes, I’ll talk…and continue to talk. No, I wont force…because GOD does not force either, but unlike GOD…I have no power to judge…he will.

and so these Christians who can't mind their own damn business feel they are spreading the word of G-d and doing a good deed or whatever the hell u call it meanwhile my network TV is being censored, Christian holidays are the only religious holidays taken as government days off, Blue Laws keep us from buying a Car on church sunday, I can't by adult toys/movies/etc. without going to some warehouse district, I can't hire a prostitute if I wanted to, people are ashamed of their supposedly 'G-d' made bodies, we have an IDIOT for a President, the Bible or as Christians call it 'Old Testament' was hijacked and inaccurately translated, virginity is for some reason cherished, homosexuals can't marry (hard to adopt children too), and I can't have more than one wife.

Why do we call the US 'The Land of the Free' again? it should be called 'The Land of the Christians'

Again, you revealed your heart…you understand less than I thought…so, you need these words more than I thought…

Oh yeah...ask your girlfriend to come and read again, I would love to hear what she had to say. You helped change her...I wonder if you are allowing her to see the other side (the one that disagree's with you)...or are YOU FORCEING her to know of only your created truth...I pray she wakes up one day...

GOD HELP YOU…

The post above suggests an answer to the question Nick raised with regard to "who this generic Christian organization is who are (a) crazy and (b) crusading.."

Unfortunately, the post appropriates the term "Christian" for a set of beliefs that is by no means universal among those who label themselves with the term. Among other assertions, the emphasis on salvation by "grace alone," the promulgation of a "trinity," the claim that "God's word is...written by many men... directed by the Holy Spirit," the expectation of an expected "tribulation," and the claim that some specific beliefs admit disagreement while others do not are all aspects of Christian belief about which there is substantial disagreement among those who call themselves "Christians."

All in all, the claims made in the post represent a specific conservative Protestant interpretation of Christian doctrine that would not be shared wholly even by the largest single group of "Christians," Roman Catholics, much less all "Christians."

I certainly have no interest in debating theological points at all and believe such debate is especially inappropriate in this forum. However, to claim that the set of beliefs put forth above, much less any implications of those beliefs for one's moral code is the one and only interpretation of "Chritianity" is offensive both to a broad religious tradition and to many who consider themselves "Christians" but do not share a rigid, narrow, and (many would say) superstitious view of the faith.

This is not a religious discussion. There are boards specifically for that, and this is not one of them. Closed.