|
|
Post by kats on Jul 17, 2004 2:37:09 GMT -5
Riley, this is the sort of prep I need to REALLY knock you out for insurance claims.
We just installed a speed puniching bag and I'm getting lessons off me pa. Then I'll get a tape of melon repeating the aids thing over and over again and then you stand in front of me
and whoila! A big fat insurance payment.
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jul 17, 2004 3:53:49 GMT -5
Perhaps we can focus a little more on some internal bleeding type options, you know in terms of bodily harm diversification.
I appreciate your help though Kats, relative to my personal financial planning effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Jul 17, 2004 15:44:50 GMT -5
There is absolutely no proof whatsoever to conclusively prove that aids is in existence because of gay people.
I never said there was proof. I don't think there ever will be a widespread knowledge of the proof should it ever appear. And I didn't say I was certain it was true. I said it was "possible". The reason I stick with possible is because should it be found out that homosexuality was the cause of AIDS we would never hear about it. The agenda is that powerful. Laugh if you want. That's my belief.
I bet the bubonic plague started to pay back those other terrible minorities.
OK, that was nothing other than completely uncalled for.
...and the fact that you seem to equate it with child molestation is revolting.
I never did "equate" it with child molestation. I did compare it, and there is a difference. Lemme explain. "The wages of sin is death." That means anyone guilty of committing a single sin is deserving of eternal death. That's why murder and a white lie can be compared. But to equate them would be to imply that there are precisely the same consequences on this earth for those two actions.
Oh, and I'm quite aware that homosexuality is gaining acceptance is this country. That's partly because we're being desensitized to it with constant exposure to it by the media and gays "coming out of the closet". Tchiakovsky was gay but never "came out". Instead he wrote great compositions about his struggle. Some of the greatest art in the world comes from those who are or were living with an obstacle to overcome who have chosen to fight against it and struggle rather than to give in.
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Jul 17, 2004 18:32:09 GMT -5
Of course, y'alls have movd on to more interesting things, but I did want to respond to a couple of direct questions (and then you can ask ME a direct question, like, "what in the name of all that is good am I doing posting on the CE board?"...
PunkChick writes: JAC, do you think your support for Bush might have anything to do with you being a devout Christian? I'm not saying that condescendingly; I'm just curious. A recent study showed that fervent churchgoers are much more likely to vote Republican, while non-religious people are much more likely to vote Democratic. And frankly, that doesn't surprise me at all
To be honest, no, I don't think I'm in Bush's camp these days because I am a professing Christian. I do appreciate the fact that Bush is a practicing Christian as well, and that puts my mind somewhat at ease (but likely not for the reasons the naysayers might think...).
In fact, my respect for Bush began to bloom in the months before I embraced Christianity...to be honest, before 9/11 I was every bit as unsure of his competency as the most radical follower of Michael Moore and was prone to be as outspoken about my low opinion of the man as Whoopi Goldberg with a captive audience.
But like I said, 9/11 and it's aftermath changed that. I was totally behind his decision to wage war with Iraq and I applauded the military's success in removing Saddam Hussein from power and eventually routing him out .
But my main reason for becoming a Republican was because I found myself getting fed up with the democrats. Every time I'd see Republicans and Democrats giving opposing viewpoints on the news channels it seemed like the Repubs were focussed on the issues at hand and how to deal with them while the Dems sole purpose for existance seemed to be to slag Bush and his administration and point out what they felt he was doing wrong. Maybe that's just paar for the course in politics, but it still rubs me the wrong way.
I've never liked Kerry.
JLLM writes: That's the same question I was going to ask JACkory, who said a couple of days ago at the movie board that he hadn't seen it. Have you seen it since, JACk, or at least the footage of Dubya in question? 'Cos, you know, I'm sure you wouldn't base your opinion without seeing the footage first and wondering whether there truly is anything alarming in what you see, as some have claimed.
JLLM, if you'll re-read the post in question you'll find that I wasn't stating an opinion about anything that was in the film. I was merely pointing out what Bush was doing when he learned of the WTC attacks and making a comment that 7 minutes isn't much time to expect some kind of miracle that might have kept the inevitable from occurring.
I am not going to apologize for not having seen the film, as I have pointed out that I feel it to be unacceptable for me to help in even an infinitesimally small way contribute to Michael Moore's fortune. As I have also stated, EVERYTHING IN THE FILM has been hashed and re-hashed in the media, and I have read countless articles discussing it's content. I'm not saying that gives me the insight to suggest that I have an opinion about what is to be seen in the film, but I am allowed to have an opinion based upon it's CONTENT...at least I would hope that would be the case. I'd hate to think I wasted my time perusing all the websites and newsmagazines to get an idea of what the film contained for nothing...
I'll tell you what, when Fahrenheit 9/11 hits the 50 cent theatre I'll maybe sneak in after seeing another movie and watch as much as I can bear.
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Jul 17, 2004 19:19:31 GMT -5
My unsolicited 2 cents about the gay marriage thing...
Ya know, I come from a broken home and up until recently my position on marriage was pretty much "what's the big deal about it?"... That viewpoint, as naive and incorrect as it is, was the result of growing up with a mother and father who didn't seem to care one way or the other about the things married people are supposed to be concerned with. My mom and dad rarely slept in the same bed, for crying out loud. Arguing ALL the time and dragging me and my brother into it until mom finally left and to my mind that was just fine by me, she'd done what she should have done long before (selfish little snot that I was, basically unconcerned with how her leaving devestated my father)...
So if you'd have asked me a few years ago what I thought about gays wanting to get married, I'd have said "why would they bother? You can have a committed relationship without calling it 'wedlock', so who really cares?" And as I convinced myself when I co-habited with the opposite sex before getting married, "well, who cares what the public think? We're married 'in God's eyes'"... If marriage were such a big deal, I thought back then, why are you considered in this area to be "common law married" if you live with someone for a certain period of time and choose to present yourself as such?
In other words, I was never all that convinced of "the sanctity of marriage".
And these days I believe in the sanctity of marriage, having come to that conclusion as a result of several experiences in my own wedded life, but to be honest, I still kinda have that mindset that wonders why it's such a big deal for gay people to call their relationships "marriage" as opposed to "civil unions". I mean, why do they care how the general public defines their unions? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, throughout history, going so far that in some cultures marriages were arranged for the sole purpose of attempting to produce desirable offspring. It's only been in the last few decades that marriage and reproduction did not by necessity go hand-in-hand, and there's no chance for (true, biological) reproduction in homosexual relationships, so what's the big deal in wanting to be considered "married"? If it's just the chance to be able say, "we're married" then I don't see what the big deal is.
I know it's a lot more complicated than that, and maybe I'm skirting the issue (or just avoiding it head on)...but I have to say that I can't get too awful worked up about gays wanting to call their monogamous relationships "marriage". True, heterosexuals have done a lousy job holding the torch for the sanctity of marriage. I doubt homosexuals will do much better, but I don't think letting them get married is going to weaken the moral bedrock of this country any more than it has already been weakened by the general depravity of mankind and our tendency for being selfish...
As for what the Bible says about homosexuality...the word "homosexual" did not exist at the time of the Bible's writing (despite it's appearance in recent translations). I've read the opinions of ministers who can explain away what Paul was saying in the first chapter of Romans without any mention of homosexuality.
I don't know if I agree with these ministers or not, but then again I don't claim to have the level of Biblical understanding at this point to make a claim one way or the other. Like Slark alluded to, it's the all-consuming lust for another person, be they male or female, that I believe is sinful, and that's basically what Paul is taliking about when he speaks of man worshipping the creature rather than the Creator. I would say that is not a gender-specific thing.
And I apologize for the rambling aspect of this post, and even moreso for posting without much rhyme or reason...I know I ought to have a firmer stance on this subject, but I don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jul 17, 2004 22:36:01 GMT -5
I want to thank you for being honest. I will begin by saying that I do not believe you are a "moron", but I do believe you are deceived. Understand that I mean no hostility by saying that. I will not pretend for a minute that the desires you have are not an obstacle. OF COURSE they are, just as alcohol is an obstacle for some, sadomasochistic urges are for others, still others are given to urges for sex with children. Does the fact that an urge exists give it a legitimate and moral purpose? - Melon
Yeah, my reactive nature wants to jump all over you for the above statement, but I won't even though I'm aware my response will change nothing. My entire post to which you were responding came from one thing, not my supposed "homosexuality," but from the love I have experienced with another man. For you to compare my love to the "urges" of alcoholism, sadomasochism, and child molestation is inexcusable, and don't ask me why I'm even bothering to respond.
It seems to me that your religious beliefs form your opinions on homosexuality, which is fine, you shall have them. What I seriously don't get is that religion is a personal choice, you have your faith, I have mine, and I don't think your faith has the right to infringe on mine. I'm not asking you or anyone else to come over and have dinner with me and my boyfriend, and I'm not expecting anyone to accept us with open arms. The world doesn't work that way. We are a couple of "homos," and we're well aware of the attitudes towards us, so we keep it to ourselves. Why not let us live our lives and go in the path we feel is right, just as you have the right to go on your own. With that said, realize that we have our own beliefs and we as human beings don't deserve to have our feelings stuck in the same classification as alcoholism, sadomasochism, and child molestation. Alcoholism is the abuse of a drug, sadomasochism is essentially abuse for pleasure, and child molestation is where an adult individual abuses a child (who doesn't have the mental capacity to choose) for their own sexual purposes. Once again, I'm not coming from the aspect of what you consider "homosexuality" here, I'm talking about the love I feel for another man.
RE: AIDS
First off, HIV/AIDS is a global problem that reaches all walks of life, not just homosexuals.
The initial spread of HIV/AIDS in this country amongst homosexuals happened because of attitudes you displayed above. Before HIV/AIDS hit, there wasn't as much of a reason for homosexual men to wear protection because they couldn't get each other pregnant. Yes, there were other diseases out there, but nothing that really ever compared to HIV/AIDS. Once the HIV/AIDS problem arose amongst the homosexual community, it wasn't a very big issue to the mainstream considering gays were seen as a fringe group in society that people didn't really understand or care to. Nothing was really done about the spread of the disease until it started spreading amongst the straight population. That is fact.
You're a Christian, refer to the teachings of Christ before you decide to respond. Show even an ounce of the compassion that man had, and I might start to respect you considering you're preaching religious teachings from the religion that bears his name.
RE: Gay Marriage
I'm not against gay marriage, but it's not something I care much about. I don't place any stock in that institution. I think that if two straight people who are in love have the right to be recognized under the law, then two gay people should have the same right. I would also like to offer a compromise considering people want to use another word for the marriages of a minority of people. All partnerships under law should be recognized as "civil unions," and only when two people choose to be married under relgious conditions should it be called "marriage." There's a solution for the religious folk who believe that gays using the term "marriage" defiles their religious institution.
Ein Sof,
Matheus
|
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Jul 17, 2004 23:28:05 GMT -5
Matheus,
I was comparing what I consider to be unnatural urges. I was defining "unnatural". I did not mean to imply that you are no different than a child molester!!! You are right to clarify that homosexual relationships are between consenting adults while child molestation is abuse of an unwilling child. And thus I'm sorry for even using that example to define "unnatural". So let's stick with sadomasochism. That takes place between consenting adults as well. There are many who would claim that sadomasochism is performed by themselves with "love". "Sex" between 2 men involves the same amount of "love" IMO as what the sadomasochists would claim. Why? Because the rectum was not made for the penis, the male's or the female's. So do I frown equally on unnatural heterosexual relations? YES.
If the parts don't fit, it's just not natural. And JACKory, I do believe that Paul speaks of "homosexual offenders". Perhaps that's not in the KJV but I've definitely seen it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jul 17, 2004 23:52:14 GMT -5
Actually, Melon, the parts do fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jul 18, 2004 2:31:59 GMT -5
lol
nice to see you back around Matt
|
|
|
|
Post by kats on Jul 18, 2004 2:55:20 GMT -5
"I never said there was proof. I don't think there ever will be a widespread knowledge of the proof should it ever appear. And I didn't say I was certain it was true. "
Hate to be correcting you, but you said it was a shunned truth. That pretty much says that you think it to be true. Thus, assumingly, I thought you might have proof to back this 'truth' up.
Look, I was entirely reactionary because I've witnessed a straight man suffering AIDS and dying from it. And I like to think that god would not be so fucking vengeful as to make ANYONE have to live through that. Particularly children. It is the most revolting disease, and maybe if you got to witness it first hand, you might understand. Furthermore (airing out dirty cupboards), I fought off a molestation at eight from an older boy and when it happened with another boy, I was blamed for it by hsi mother. Thus, I lived with blame, hate, guilt and pain until I moved on (even though I dont think anyone can completely). Homosexuality does not hurt me. It does not make people live with hate and guilt. It doesn't impact upon you every day of your life. So, naturally, what you implied made me feel ill.
My argument against what you said wasn't based entirely upon emotion, either. There are substantial facts to argue what you're saying. So, I find issue with you calling it 'truth', when it's clearly your opinion and that's fine, but I think its bullshit and I'm not the only one who thinks so. I just don't see at all how your aids argument could be jusitified.
You also have to understand that I have only ever met two conservatives in my life. My local MP and her yesman who went to my high school and used to say things like burn all gays, etc etc etc. I'm not accustomed to those beliefs even existing. CE is the only interaction that I have with conservative people. It boggles my mind that homophobia exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by kats on Jul 18, 2004 2:58:01 GMT -5
By any chance Melon, if you don't mind me asking...are you Catholic?
No offence meant if you're not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jul 18, 2004 8:37:19 GMT -5
What do you think of blowjobs, Melon?
|
|
|
|
Post by PC on Jul 18, 2004 9:15:46 GMT -5
Kat, Melon isn't Catholic, but he is a born-again Christian. He believes in a 100% literal Bible, if I'm not mistaken.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 18, 2004 10:34:21 GMT -5
I still kinda have that mindset that wonders why it's such a big deal for gay people to call their relationships "marriage" as opposed to "civil unions". I mean, why do they care how the general public defines their unions? Just to respond to this question, JAC... I think you have to distinguish between different parts of the gay marriage movement. Some (both gay and straight) think we need to call gay unions "marriage" for reasons of respect and acceptance. They read into the "civil union" tag an implied judgment of inferiority. And here, I'm quite skeptical of this portion of the movement, which tends to be, actually, the much more conservative side of the gay rights movement - folks like Andrew Sullivan, who want gay marriage so that gays can be "normalized" and brought wholly into the mainstream. People like Sullivan care deeply about labels and terminology. On the other hand, there are those who say civil unions aren't good enough only because civil unions are created by states and thus confer none of the federal benefits that married couples receive. Here, no one really cares about the name itself - marriage or civil union - but about the package of benefits relevant to each. Those who fight for gay marriage along these lines merely want gay unions to receive all the same rights and benefits as straight unions. The example I've given repeatedly regards immigration rights. Tell my friend whose boyfriend just broke up with him because he had no hope that they would ever be in the same country again that civil unions are good enough. He doesn't actually give a shit whether their partnership is called marriage or not, he just wants to be able to bring his (now ex) boyfriend back to the states, like any straight married couple could, and he can't. Personally, I'm much more sympathetic to this kind of reasoning. If supporters of civil unions are prepared to support them at a federal level, one which conferred all the same federal rights and benefits as straight marriages, then, by all means, don't call it marriage. Call it whatever floats your boat. Just make it equal. Cheers, M |
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Jul 18, 2004 12:54:53 GMT -5
Kat, Melon isn't Catholic, but he is a born-again Christian. He believes in a 100% literal Bible, if I'm not mistaken.
That is correct. I am a Bible literalist which means I believe in the part that says "Christ is the end of the law to those who believe." Meaning that when Jesus came He fulfilled the law making righteousness to come only through faith in Him and not by adhering to a list of rules. I do NOT believe that the best way to convert homosexuals is to go around giving intellectual arguments as to why homosexuality is wrongl, even though I do resort to doing that at times. I believe the only way to convert anyone is through showing God's love. Once someone accepts Christ(and nobody has to change their lifestyle to come to Christ but rather they can only come to Him just as they are, homosexual or whatever) God takes care of the rest. Allow me to give an example:
A friend of mine that I used to work for told me of a man that his wife was used of God to convert to Christianity. He told me that he stepped in the way because the young man was living with a girl that wasn't his wife and said,"You're going to have to choose: the Lord or your girlfriend." Immediately the man was turned off and walked away from his newfound conversion. To this day, my friend blames himself for "getting in God's way". He said, in effect,"God would have taken care of the fact that he was living with that girl without my help. It would have been no problem but I had to jump the gun and mess everything up. It is my fault that he was turned off and I continue to pray that he'll come back to the Lord to this day."
I heard a preacher say once that a man was shining his shoes in Chicago. The preacher asked the man, "Where do you go to church?" The man told him and as the conversation went along he told the man that he was a pastor. Then the man responded,"What do you think of those homosexuals?" The pastor responded,"Well, I think God loves them." The man frowned at him. The preacher walked away in disgust after his shoes were shined thinking,"Some people think that there is a group of people out there, namely homosexuals, who God hates so bad He can't wait to send them to hell. Some people think they are....I can hardly say this without balling....'lost causes'. I was once a 'lost cause'."
I was too.
|
|
