Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Pro-Gay Lobby Continues to Impress Their Views on Innocent Children
independentconservative.co… — Will Liberals allow this to have a fair viewing on Digg, or will they try to bury it and hide the truth?
IndyCon- 16 diggs
- digg it
- tvhack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7 I'll bury it your god your hate your lies and malice. Stop trying to lead everyone elses' live and maybe youll get out of that trailor park
- Himself, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1wow... there's an overwhelming level of MORALPHOBIA in this digg.
(Love != Tolerance. Hint: Jesus does not tolerate sin. He does, however, love the sinner. "Go and sin no more" NOT "Its all good")
One OUGHT be intolerant of evil.
This applies to theists and contratheists alike.
- Himself, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1wow... there's an overwhelming level of MORALPHOBIA in this digg.
- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Burying is not "Hiding the Truth". If your article gets buried - it means people dont agree - Stop putting a sad 'the pro-gays are beating us' spin on the title - Buried as Lame - there are many other threads dealing with this issue, no sense in repeating the same arguments here.
Im burying this because its lame - not because I want to hide the truth - the truth has already come out - just not the one that this author wants. - Infanticide, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I'm very much opposed to gays trying to violate our children's tiny, pink, squishy, brains with thier hard, throbbing informations.
- lowkeynz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2at least they didnt have a couple of muslim parents in the video. or gay muslim parents.
i dugg it so more people could see how lame the article was. - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Isnt it sad that the religious nuts that have been defeated in the UK - still try to peddle their hate by posting here putting a 'negative spin' on the title so that if they do get dugg down - in their own limited brains they can claim some sort of victory?
Sad...
... Very Sad - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Furthermore - Its even more sad that these people want to nurture the hate in future generations
- Himself, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2why are you hating on heteros?
- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@himself
I dont hate heterosexuals - what makes u say/think that?
- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4FTA:
"That’s a Family! is a half-hour video that depicts children explaining their various family structures, including single parents, divorced parents, adoptive parents and others. The film also contains a segment on families headed by same-sex couples, which sparked the ire of some parents."
The Ire of hate ridden parents that don't want to teach their children about sex in any form. And then have teenage kids pregnant and blame it on media and not following abstinence. Teach your stupid kids about condoms and healthy lifestyle choice (including gay if they are) so that they don't grow up to be the next generations Hate mongers like you are. You can change the future if you get yours heads out from behind your bibles. I sound upset but these 'parents' spark my ire sorry.
buried- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@AniceAtheist
So your logic is if parents do not want the Govt school to teach about homosexual couples, they are filled with hate. This is a joke. Teach YOUR KIDS what you want them to know. Let others teach their kids what they want them to know.
btw what did Jesus say?
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@AniceAtheist
- Himself, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2there's nothing impressive about the pro-queer lobby
- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Himself
What was the purpose/objective of your statement - or did you just want to feel good typing a message of hate? - AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5He likes showing his good Christian side. The whole 'love thy neighbor' really shines through
- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I'm impressed with your pro-***** lobby, though.
- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Himself
- Jamerican, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1As a father of two children my wife and I are the final authority as to what is appropriate for them to be exposed to within the confines of the education system. I also believe all parents should be allowed to freely choose whether their 8 year old children are ready to learn in regards to matters of sex and sexual behavior. IMHO at that grade level the schools should be first and foremost concentrating their efforts on preparing their young charges for the basics like reading, writing and math skills. It is not as if our children are excelling areas such as Math and Science that we can put such mootable issues such as this on their "plates". I feel that most parents send their children to school with the expectation of being educated in those basic areas leave morally complex issues for home.
- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I would totally agree with you if all parents were good parents - unfortunately that is not the case.
- IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Is Jamerican a "bad" parent if he teaches his kids that homosexual behavior is immoral, sinful and an abomination in the eyes of God?
- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah Indycon he is.
Would someone be a bad parent is they teached their kids that Asians (insert group here) are immoral, sinful and an abomination in the eyes of God?
You label a group of people with broad negative stroke and teach your children to do the same, your propagating hate and your a bad parent for doing so. - IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Homosexual behavior requires action on the part of an individual to choose to live with someone of the same gender. Unlike your terrible comparison with Asians, who take no action to be "Asian". Asian is a race of people, gay is not.
Basically any parent that does not bow to Liberal dogma is considered "bad" in your eyes. Folks like you claim to desire freedom from faith, but you impress your Liberal faith and personal world view on those who do not desire it. Even going as far as trying to teach it to innocent children.
People like yourself are fine with prayer being banned from schools, but hypocritically wish to force a view of the gay lifestyle into schools.
Oh well, good thing we bad parenting Conservatives are averaging way more babies than you folks.
My goal with this post was to expose you for who you are. Mission accomplished! - AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Homosexuals do not choose to be gay. They simply are who they are. Of course they choose to have sex with others of the same gender, and they choose to live together.
Same false choices heterosexuals make. They don't choose to be heterosexuals but they do choose to have sex with others of a different gender, and they choose to live together.
It is not liberal dogma, it is classic libertarian dogma (Do no harm, and if no real harm is committed mind your own business). Liberal dogma has a form of intolerance built in, through extreme tolerance. ie. 'tolerate even if real harm exists'
Do not confuse the two. You want to be intolerant to people that do no harm, other then your false assertion of mental or social harm which is based on unfounded personal hate or unfounded bible hate.
Liberals are intolerant of people who point out that their tolerance of harm is well... going to cause harm, for example pointing out hate and violence in islamic teachings (Which I do btw)
Prayer is not banned in any school in the country by the courts. Mandatory prayer is banned. If your child wants to pray they can pray in school quietly without making a fuss during class or however they want to during recess. No one will stop them, what has been stopped is mandating it. And yes forcing the real view that gays are a type of person, that they can be loving parents or mean parents. That they can be good or bad. That just like heterosexuals they can be anything and that their sexuality is not a positive or negative thing, it just is.
I am a fiscal conservative so don't use those terms as a badge or something. And as far as popping kids out, normally the poorer and more uneducated a group is the more children they have. A really funny satire on that is the movie Idiocracy. rent it.
You didn't expose me for anything. You exposed your own bias, you showed who you are and who you hate through your writing.
Thanks for playing - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@indycon
You have exposed nothing other than your own ignorance, and ability to fuel hate - IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I know plenty of those poor people that have babies. And they hate the fact people like you and others are trying to impress pro-gay dogma on their children.
Mandatory prayer banned. While you are OK with this garbage being sent through schools.
We see what happens when states vote on issues involving the gay lifestyle. The overwhelming majority usually votes the Conservative way. And the issues voted on involve choices people make regarding who they desire to live with. I'm glad we all agree it's a choice.
Liberalism is its own faith, with its own set of dogma and government as god. - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You know, that may be a nice-sounding sound bite, but it really has no substance to it. Liberalism, like conservatism, is a philosophy, not a religion of faith. Your religion may lead you to a philosophy, but it is not a religion.
- Jamerican, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1So since the fact that all parents are not "good" (as defined by whom or what entity is unclear) then that empowers a third party (Public School System in this case) to override the rest of the parents ability obligation and responsibility to teach their own children moral values?
How is that a good thing?- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Its not a good thing - but can you think of a better way? Anyway - what is immoral about a same-sex couple?
- IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1The better way is for government to stop trying to tell children how they should feel about relationships that most governments don't give any special license to. Many states have banned gays trying to call themselves "married" and so given the overwhelming will of the people, schools should not touch it in teaching children.
Same-sex couples are naturally ALWAYS unable to bear children. Therefore they are unproductive in EVERY case on their own. Unlike a truly married couple (one man and one woman). They can't produce and there is a divine reason behind that. It's not what God wants.
AIDS is spread most in America by gay men. The gay lifestyle is unproductive, immoral and spreading a problem that is proving to be very costly(AIDS). - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@indycon
I am a married man - married to a man - legally in the Netherlands. How can any state say its illegal that I call myself married.
And please - lets not have the natural/not natural - AIDS arguments again - they really show u are getting desperate - unable to continue a logical discussion.
Its people like you that damage kids - not the image of a same-sex couple! - IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1No 2 men on the planet earth have ever been able to make a child on their own. Therefore it is naturally an unproductive thing. Done to satisfy your own desires and not worthy of any special sanction or acknowledgment from the government.
Let's keep up the AIDS argument, because it's an aspect of your choice of lifestyle that you wish to "bury" as you've tried with this post, but notice I've got your attention and have you all talking.
It's people like me who make kids, unlike yourself. - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@IndyCon -
1) Infertile couples cannot reproduce naturally (and some cannot reproduce, PERIOD), should we not consider them married?
2) When did you decide (choose, whatever you wish to call it) to be heterosexual? Why did you decide it, and at that time?
3) A Baptist can marry a Pentecostal; they both CHOSE to be their respective faiths, but we decided to let them marry. - IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11) Infertile couples cannot reproduce naturally (and some cannot reproduce, PERIOD), should we not consider them married?
Notice you must use the term "infertile" because typically a male and female can reproduce, PERIOD. Gays cannot. Promoting hetrosexual couples to commit and raise children is not just sound social structure, it's been proven to work throughout human history.
2) When did you decide (choose, whatever you wish to call it) to be heterosexual? Why did you decide it, and at that time?
A day after you choose whatever you are.
3) A Baptist can marry a Pentecostal; they both CHOSE to be their respective faiths, but we decided to let them marry.
A male Baptist can marry a Pentecostal female BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OF THE SAME GENDER!!! - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Notice you must use the term "infertile" because typically a male and female can reproduce, PERIOD. Gays cannot.
No, not PERIOD. Typically, a male and female can reproduce, with exceptions. If we are discriminating on the basis of reproduction, we must discriminate against all those married couples who do not produce children. And besides, if we're comparing to the norm, a gay male can "typically" reproduce with a female, and vice-versa. In fact, they are better equipped to reproduce than an infertile man.
"Promoting hetrosexual[sic] couples to commit and raise children is not just sound social structure, it's been proven to work throughout human history."
Here we get to the heart of the matter. Marriage is not, and has never been meant to be exclusively for the 'raising of children'. If it were, we would take children from unwed mothers and give them to married couples. If it were, we would take marriage benefits away from childless couples until they produced or adopted children. Marriage is a societal contract between two consenting adults to spend the rest of their lives together. It is a positive experience because it is the basis for community-building; two people sharing their resources as one.
"A day after you choose whatever you are."
What exactly is this supposed to mean? You didn't answer my question.
"A male Baptist can marry a Pentecostal female BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OF THE SAME GENDER!!!"
A Baptist and a Pentecostal have CHOSEN their religions, just as you say homosexuals have CHOSEN their sexuality. But a Baptist and Pentecostal can get married, despite their choice. To expand it out a bit, a Jew and a Hindu can get married, despite restrictions from both religions on marrying "outside the faith". They can still run down to the local courthouse, have a marriage ceremony and receive all the benefits of a marriage. Homosexuals (who have chosen, as you say, their lifestyle just as the Jew and the Hindu did) cannot.
I think you have a problem with this because you are somehow threatened by other people's sexuality. But you would only be threatened by them if you were unsure of your own. I have many homosexual friends (in fact, one of them was Best Man at my wedding), and I see them as equals, not as subhuman deviants. They did not choose the lifestyle they have; they did not choose to be ostracized, they did not choose to be reviled, they did not choose to be discriminated against, and they definitely did not choose to be afraid that the next guy they ask out might bash their head in with an iron pipe. - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@atheistacolyte
Excellent response - I like your style! - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@IndyCon -
"AIDS is spread most in America by gay men. The gay lifestyle is unproductive, immoral and spreading a problem that is proving to be very costly(AIDS)"
(1) Unproductive - Unproductive.... how?
(2) Immoral - What basis for this? The book that says (1 Samuel 22:18-19) "And the king [Saul] said to Doeg, Turn thou, and fall upon the priests. And Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon the priests, and slew on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod. And Nob, the city of the priests, smote he with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen, and asses, and sheep, with the edge of the sword."
And (1 Kings 11:1-3) "But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites: Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart."
Not exactly a moral beacon.
(3) Spreading a problem - Homosexuality existed for a very long time before HIV/AIDS. It even exists in the animal kingdom (mostly, if not entirely, among mammals, I believe). And it is not completely responsible for the problem at hand. A lot has to do with intravenous drug use, blood transfusions (especially in Africa) and even heterosexual contact (In Africa, more women are infected than men). In fact, transmission factors (in North America) OTHER than homosexual contact are at 65%. Food for thought.
@leatherscot -
Thanks. Keep up your good work. Lux sit!
- Jamerican, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"Can I think of a better way?"
Yes, we can allow the vast majority of parents (most of whom are responsible and know what's best for their own children) to raise their kids with as little outside (i.e. public school system) influence as possible. Attempting to override parental influence due to the possible actions of a select few "bad parents" is simply wrong.
After all it is the parent who is ultimately responsible for their children not the "state" nor the school system.
The default should be to allow MORE freedom to raise your own child not less.- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And the second part of the question - what is immoral about a same-sex couple - and why should children not know that they exist?
- IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1It is immoral because the same Jesus that said "love thy neighbor" also said the following:
Mark 10:6-9 (New King James Version)
6) But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’
7) ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
8) and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9) Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Jesus himself said one man and one woman is the definition of marriage. - AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And he also said that your supposed to hate your parents and your brothers and sisters.
Your also supposed to sell all your worldly possessions.
So unless your a poor hobo with no family your not following Jesus's word to the letter and thereby are a hypocrite. Using Jesus as cover for your hatred and ignoring him when you want to live in a big cushy home and love family. - IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1It's always comical when someone who does not claim Jesus attempts to tell a Christian how to follow him. To be a Christian who does what is needed to have eternal life only requires following rules such as accepting Jesus as our savior, loving our neighbors, honor your father and mother, do not cheat on your spouse, do not steal and so on. The part about giving up all possessions comes if someone wishes to reach total perfection. And I would not consider someone like Mother Teressa to have been a "hobo" who hated people. Your claims of Jesus wanting us to hate our family is false and a twist on scripture. My family loves Jesus just as I do, so we walk in agreement. We all love Him first and realize he was speaking of loving him initially and loving each other because he desires us to love our neighbors, family, children and spouse.
The Lord would have you be under this good order too if you would only accept him as your savior. - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Yes, we can allow the vast majority of parents (most of whom are responsible and know what's best for their own children) to raise their kids with as little outside (i.e. public school system) influence as possible. Attempting to override parental influence due to the possible actions of a select few "bad parents" is simply wrong."
That's a pretty big assumption there. How do you know the 'vast majority of parents' know what's best for their own children? How do you know you know what's 'best' for your children? Fact is, there's no way to know, no one knows, and to say that you know is irresponsible in and of itself. Parenting is nothing but stumbling around in the dark and hoping you're going in the direction you want to go.
"When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.... And how is not this the most reprehensible ignorance, to think that one knows what one does not know? But I, O Athenians! in this, perhaps, differ from most men; and if I should say that I am in any thing wiser than another, it would be in this, that not having a competent knowledge of the things in Hades, I also think that I have not such knowledge." -- Socrates, Plato's Apology
You only know what you want for your children, but is that truly what's best? We don't know. The only way we could know would be to involve the child in the decision, and perhaps one of the best ways is to teach the child *how* to think before you teach them *what* to think.
"The default should be to allow MORE freedom to raise your own child not less."
Now the question is, though, does a parent have the right to teach the child what they think, or does a child have the right to not be indoctrinated into a belief system (note that I don't specify religion; this can be liberalism or conservatism or environmentalism or atheism) before they know how to handle the world around them? Whose right is more important?
- Jamerican, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1leatherscot
Why don't you ask yourself the following...
Why is it imperative that 8 year old children must be made to know about same sex couples?
I thought most people wanted others to stay out of their bedrooms? One group cannot cry about laws (anti-sodomy laws for example) imposing it's moral code on the personal and private lives of one group while at the same time advocating the imposing one's own moral code on another group...in this case 8 year old children and their parents.
How is this a bad thing for one and a good thing for another?
IMHO...Eight year old children and their educators should be concerned about basic education...period.- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So that those 8 year old children don't grow up with hatred in their hearts like their parents. It is an evil meme that needs to eradicated
- IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Are you saying you wish to eradicate all who disagree with your view?
Why not take the child and raise them yourself, since you feel you can tell them what they need to know?
Given you've said the word "evil", you feel there is a force in this world of evil and by definition there must be a force for good. This means you realize there really is a God and are not a true Atheist. It's time you stop running from the truth and accept that Jesus was right. He did die for your sins, to eradicate that evil you despise. - AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Are you saying you wish to eradicate all who disagree with your view?"
No of course not. People can disagree with me whenever they want. What I wish to 'eradicate' is the indoctrination of children into hate.
I said evil in the context of the meme. Not as some magical mysterious force pervading the world, but of human choice that are damaging to others. So no supernatural gibberish thanks. So no I don't 'realize' that invisible elephants in doorknobs tell us what is evil or good, nor gods, nor irrational beliefs. What tells us what is good or bad is our rational mind and our loving hearts (Due to emotions). As far as the Jesus myth is concerned it really makes no sense that an omnipotent deity made himself be born form a virgin to be killed to save mankind from himself to sit beside himself in the 'hereafter'. Stop believing in fairytales - IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1AniceAtheist, the really sad thing is that you realize you have a heart. And you can't accept it is a creation that only a loving God could create. Stop running from the truth. God created men and women to create children and 2 men cannot, because God never wanted men to be in the same bed together. This is why genital organs of the opposite sex fit each other and those of the same sex can't work together.
If you wish to eradicate this indoctrination of what you consider to be hate, you're going to have to take our babies, raise them yourself and sterilize us. Nothing else is going to work. - AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3First off your god is a myth. Second if your myth of a god only wanted people of the opposite sex together, why would he have animals that are homosexual (many mammals from sheep to monkeys). I'm pretty sure they aren't "Choosing" the lifestyle.
- Jamerican, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Why the assumption that parents of 8 year olds who have an issue with them being taught about same sex marriage have "hatred in their hearts?"
Why such a harsh conclusion? - Jamerican, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Again back to my original issue...
If gay groups want the law out of their bedroom (e.i. anti-sodomy laws) why do they demand that parents teach 8 year old children what goes on in their bedrooms? - IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Hey AniceAtheist, if you want to compare humans that choose to live a homosexual lifestyle to the actions of ignorant animals, that's your call, not mine.
- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Jamerican
I would reply - but Aniceathiest has done an excellent job for me! - AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3---"Why the assumption that parents of 8 year olds who have an issue with them being taught about same sex marriage have "hatred in their hearts?""
They do not like an entire group of people for an irrational reason. That's why.
---"If gay groups want the law out of their bedroom (e.i. anti-sodomy laws) why do they demand that parents teach 8 year old children what goes on in their bedrooms?"
no one is saying teach 8 year olds about specific sex acts. As I already wrote you could just as easily explain without prejudice by something like this:
"they love each other.Like your cousin and her boyfried except that some boys like other boys instead of girls and some girls like other girls instead of boys. people a very different but in unimportant ways in the big scheme of things. What matters is that they love and respect others."
---Hey Indycon stop putting words in my mouth like you put misinformation in your head. Homosexuality is not a choice. Your Ted Haggard is as gay as your hairdresser, he's just back in the closet to keep seling his crap to keep making money and holding influence.
- michael532111, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4One more time, for those who might have not taken the time to read the article. Here is what it says, in part:
"That’s a Family! is a half-hour video that depicts children explaining their various family structures, including single parents, divorced parents, adoptive parents and others. The film also contains a segment on families headed by same-sex couples, which sparked the ire of some parents. School officials said the video was meant to teach diversity and respect for all families, as part of the state-mandated health curriculum."
There ARE families with two dads, or two moms. There ARE children living in loving families with two dads or two moms. Fact of life. Get over it. How can teaching diversity and respect for ALL families be a bad thing???
Preaching hatred against others who might not be like you, is (or should be) an abomination in the eyes of God. You who preach hatred against loving families who happen to have two dads, or two moms, should fear the wrath of God.
Are you really that blind to the hatred you are spreading? Do you really think your God is that full of hate? You people scare me...- IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Why would I fear calling an abomination what it is? When things are out of order it's the responsibility of those who truly love God to speak the truth. Then once we've given the warning, any issues you encounter afterwards are on your own head. However if I said nothing, the judgment would fall on me for not telling you truth to save your souls.
I've been reading how the CHILDREN in such relationships turn out and they say their same sex households are pretty nasty. The gay adults might think it's working, but the children are growing up and saying otherwise.
Accepting Jesus helps one get rid of the curse of the gay lifestyle.
1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (New King James Version)
8) No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!
9) Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10) nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:8-11 (New King James Version)
8) But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,
9) knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10) for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
11) according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. - AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"I've been reading how the CHILDREN..."
So you have a couple testimonials from children brought up in bad homes that happen to be gay. How about the thousands of testimonials from children brought up in horrible homes that happen to be heterosexual. Are you going to stop them too? a few bad apples does not a bushel make.
So you quote the bible and Jesus as your excuse. Pretending that the only reason you hate is because Jesus told you too. Well Jesus also told you to sell all your worldly possession and to hate your family. If your not a loner hobo your not following the word of Jesus and therefore are simply a hypocrite that uses Jesus to excuse your irrational hatred for those that are different then you.. When it comes to things that you must change you ignore it but when it calls for others to change you jump around hysterically upset that they aren't following Christs word. - IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Children raised in a bad hetrosexual home are taken by the state and when I speak of issues in gay homes I'm not talking about a small number.
I don't hate. I love and that's why I'm here to tell you the truth.
I've already addressed your selling of all possessions babble in a previous comment. The verses I cited above from the books of Corinthians and Timothy were written by the apostle of Jesus Christ named Paul. He sold all his goods, was homeless and those are his words which agree with my view of the matter. So don't take my word for it. The homeless guy named Paul said it too. - Jamerican, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I disagree with the posters who for some odd reason wish to compare a parents aversion to teaching their 8 year old about homosexuality to "hatred" against an ethnic minority.
They are not the same thing.
What is necessary for an 8 year old to understand that there are black people, Asian, and Caucasian people?
Not much...in fact they may have already noticed with their own eyes the physical and genetic diversity of humanity.
On the other hand much more information must be given to an 8 year old in order for them to understand "same-sex" relationships because it is a sexually based BEHAVIOR...no matter whether you believe it's a choice or not homosexuality is merely a BEHAVIOR. So said sexually based BEHAVIOR must be first defined and explained to the 8 year old child in order for them to grasp the "relationship" between said same-sex couple and THAT is where the vast majority of parents take issue.
One does not have to "enter the bedroom" of a black or Asian person to define them...the same cannot be said for same-sex couples since they are defined by their sexual BEHAVIOR.
So let us dispense with the invalid comparisons to ethnicity and homosexuality.
BTW---It is also erroneous to assume that all aversion towards gays are somehow based on a religious belief.
It is common knowledge that the government of China has banned same-sex couples from adopting and raising Chinese orphans because they have concluded that the best environment for their children is a two parent (male and female) household.
Now China being a Communist government it is highly unlikely they came to this conclusion due to religious influences. - Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I missed this:
Who here is preaching HATRED?
Who mention hate first?
- IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Why would I fear calling an abomination what it is? When things are out of order it's the responsibility of those who truly love God to speak the truth. Then once we've given the warning, any issues you encounter afterwards are on your own head. However if I said nothing, the judgment would fall on me for not telling you truth to save your souls.
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1AniceAtheist
"And he also said that your supposed to hate your parents and your brothers and sisters.
Your also supposed to sell all your worldly possessions."
What are you smoking? Do you know WHY he said sell all your worldly possessions?
On top of that....
Please quote the WHOLE THING......
Mat 19:16 And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet?
Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions.
Mat 19:23 And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Does this help? It looks by your handle that you are a Atheist. If so, why are YOU trying to tell others who believe how to live when you yourself do not believe?- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So since you believe what Jesus said, if you're not poor you should be selling your possessions. Also all since those are the things one must observe to get into heaven nowhere does it say that you must make sure homosexuals are ostracized and demeaned.
I am not telling anyone how to live. Anymore so then people would tell any racist, bigot, hate mongerer to stop. I am only asking that people stop indoctrinating kids into hate. - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Brownsville -
I'll bite. Why DID he say to sell all your worldly possessions? - tvhack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I have some good quotes as well from the holy book, green eggs and ham at least we know the authors name of my quotes and the funny things is green eggs and ham has about as much relivance to the topic. lets not quote fictional books as fact
- IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2First of all, God is very real and Jesus his Son died for your sins, regardless of whether you accept him or not, you still have an opportunity to change your mind.
The Bible says regarding children:
Proverbs 22:6 (New King James Version)
6) Train up a child in the way he should go,
And when he is old he will not depart from it.
Now given I have already explained to you what Jesus had to say about matters like marriage, it is our duty to train children up with this proper understanding of our roles for our given gender. You can call it whatever you want. I call it GOOD.
- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So since you believe what Jesus said, if you're not poor you should be selling your possessions. Also all since those are the things one must observe to get into heaven nowhere does it say that you must make sure homosexuals are ostracized and demeaned.
- Jamerican, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I disagree with the posters who for some odd reason wish to compare a parents aversion to teaching their 8 year old about homosexuality to "hatred" against an ethnic minority.
They are not the same thing.
What is necessary for an 8 year old to understand that there are black people, Asian, and Caucasian people?
Not much...in fact they may have already noticed with their own eyes the physical and genetic diversity of humanity.
On the other hand much more information must be given to an 8 year old in order for them to understand "same-sex" relationships because it is a sexually based BEHAVIOR...no matter whether you believe it's a choice or not homosexuality is merely a BEHAVIOR. So said sexually based BEHAVIOR must be first defined and explained to the 8 year old child in order for them to grasp the "relationship" between said same-sex couple and THAT is where the vast majority of parents take issue.
One does not have to "enter the bedroom" of a black or Asian person to define them...the same cannot be said for same-sex couples since they are defined by their sexual BEHAVIOR.
So let us dispense with the invalid comparisons to ethnicity and homosexuality.
BTW---It is also erroneous to assume that all aversion towards gays are somehow based on a religious belief.
It is common knowledge that the government of China has banned same-sex couples from adopting and raising Chinese orphans because they have concluded that the best environment for their children is a two parent (male and female) household.
Now China being a Communist government it is highly unlikely they came to this conclusion due to religious influences.- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Jamerican. I see what your saying, and your right. A parent would need to explain sex itself first to explain homosexual couples, You could start with saying
"they love each other.Like your cousin and her boyfried except that some boys like other boys instead of girls and some girls like other girls instead of boys. people a very different but in unimportant ways in the big scheme of things. What matters is that they love and respect others."
and wouldn't have to explain sex yet. - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Your conclusion of having to teach sexual behavior to explain homosexuality is flawed. Children understand marriage (some understand divorce, and some even understand re-marriage, too) a lot earlier than they understand sexual habits of married couples. They also understand love and affection, as long as they have a semi-decent upbringing. "Harry loves Irene. Joe loves Karen. Laurel loves Michelle. Nick loves Owen." No further explanation necessary. If a question is asked, just follow along the lines ANiceAtheist put forward. "Some boys like girls. Some boys like boys. Some girls like girls." No need to talk about sexual positions or styles. Simple as that.
- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Jamerican. I see what your saying, and your right. A parent would need to explain sex itself first to explain homosexual couples, You could start with saying
- IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Jamerican, is it just me, or are they avoiding your questions?
- McGrude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@IndyCon, no one is avoiding Jamerican's questions because he only posted one and answered it himself.
As a parent of a 9 year old, yes explaining the difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple will be difficult, but mostly because I have to explain sex and reproduction first.
Jamerican's assertion that there is a major difference between explaining homosexuality and racial differences is valid. - Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Its hard to answer when you are caught...
- McGrude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@IndyCon, no one is avoiding Jamerican's questions because he only posted one and answered it himself.
- IndyCon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It seems people with kids, those of us actually raising them, might have a different point of view from folks who may not have any children, yet they want to tell us what dogma our children should receive from a school.
- Jamerican, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1IndyCon...
Oh you mean the question I've asked about...
Why do gays want the law out of their bedrooms (aka anti-sodomy laws) yet want to force 8 year olds into their bedrooms?
Yeah it would be interesting to see if someone can address that apparent hypocrisy.
Anyway...not holding my breath on that one. :)
Again the problem is that in order to get an 8 year old to understand same-sex couples you must explain why they are attracted to each other or an 8 year old will not be able to distinguish a same-sex couple from his/her love for his same-sex sibling or parent. If the sexual aspect if left out of the explanation it does little good to introduce this subject to an 8 year old child.
And this conclusion that these parents "hate" gays is inanely simplistic.
Using that "logic" one could draw the conclusion that people who are against prayer in schools "hate" Christians. I'm sure these people would feel that is merely a knee-jerk conclusion and not well thought out but on the other hand ascribe "hatred" to these concerned parents.- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3We dont want to force 8 year olds in the bedroom - why cant they just be told 2 men can be a couple as well as a man and a woman. If the 8 year old has no knowledge of sex - why would they need to know more at this stage?
Regarding Children of Same-Sex couples not being happy? Indycon - do you have personal experience to base this on? A concrete Study? No - becuase the only official studies have taken place in Holland and the UK - and both studies were positive and dont support your statements.
As for all the bible quotes - well - thats a book in many versions, subject to interpretation thru translation. This has been thrashed out in nearly every thread on this issue here - lets not do it again - something original from the Religious Right maybe?
- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3We dont want to force 8 year olds in the bedroom - why cant they just be told 2 men can be a couple as well as a man and a woman. If the 8 year old has no knowledge of sex - why would they need to know more at this stage?
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Since AniceAtheistwants to quote the bible...
Mat 19:16 And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet?
Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions.
Mat 19:23 And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Instead of cherry picking and other nonsense, that is the TRUE quote. - tvhack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A loving, nurturing and healthy home, a home of acceptance and free from abuse is all that a child requires. Nothing about a persons sexuality or race stops a person from providing such an environment. only religion can change love to abuse, and the abusers strangely abuse in love, genital mutilation both male and female which is a practice of a number large of religions. and the preaching of intolerance which is a far more sinister abuse that its performed by all religion that continues to spiral into murder throughout the world. This intolerance is the greatest form of child abuse and is one that needs to stop today.
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0LOL... I hope you have your Koran handy...
The main point here by myself and a few others is that this (Same sex couples) should not be taught in schools. Let the PARENTS deal with it when they FEEL it is time.
You want the Govt out of the bedroom but you want the Govt to discuss the bedroom in school. - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Brownsville -
"LOL... I hope you have your Koran handy..."
What does this mean? I don't want to have to call you a bigoted asshole, but if I must...
"The main point here by myself and a few others is that this (Same sex couples) should not be taught in schools. Let the PARENTS deal with it when they FEEL it is time."
Then why not have the PARENTS deal with mathematics when they FEEL it is time. Or writing. Or history. The public school has a responsibility not to the individual parent, but to the society which the parent belongs to, and to which (like it or not) homosexuals and their advocates belong. It has a responsibility to produce educated citizens who best reflect the ideals of the society around them (not that they succeed in this endeavor, but that's an argument for a different thread), not ones which best reflect the ideals of their individual parents.
"You want the Govt out of the bedroom but you want the Govt to discuss the bedroom in school."
Once again, there is no need to discuss homosexual behavior to discuss homosexual couples, just as there is no need to discuss heterosexual behavior to discuss heterosexual couples.
LOL... I hope you have your brain handy...
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0LOL... I hope you have your Koran handy...
- Jamerican, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"A loving, nurturing and healthy home, a home of acceptance and free from abuse is all that a child requires. Nothing about a persons sexuality or race stops a person from providing such an environment. only religion can change love to abuse,"
Really? So what religion convienced Communist China to ban the adoption of Chinese children to same-sex couples? What religion allowed the Communist Chinese Government to conclude that a two parent male female household was the best environment for their children?
"and the abusers strangely abuse in love, genital mutilation both male and female which is a practice of a number large of religions. and the preaching of intolerance which is a far more sinister abuse that its performed by all religion that continues to spiral into murder throughout the world. This intolerance is the greatest form of child abuse and is one that needs to stop today."
Anyone who believes teaching one's children "intolerance" (if a parent were short sighted enough to do so) is the "greatest form of child abuse" has never been nor even spoken to a child welfare case worker. Children have suffered far worse than you can imagine and teaching intolerance (while wrong) doesn't even make the list.- tvhack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Firstly I have dealt with a great number of those who have been abused from early childhood. So don't judge my comment as trivializing the abuse of children. (p.s. those within these churches aren't exactly innocent in regards to the abuse of minors.)
But I also watched the twin towers fall watched the mass murder of the tottsies in Rwanda. The genocide of the former Yugoslavia. these are a fraction of the abuses that have happened in my lifetime. Not to mention those that have come before. These actions are systemic of the children abused and indoctrinated from the values taught by religion in early life. How many children of the world would you like to see suffering from loss of life and / or from the loss of one or both of their primary caregivers. All children are suffering because of this abuse.
- tvhack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Firstly I have dealt with a great number of those who have been abused from early childhood. So don't judge my comment as trivializing the abuse of children. (p.s. those within these churches aren't exactly innocent in regards to the abuse of minors.)
- Jamerican, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"We dont want to force 8 year olds in the bedroom - why cant they just be told 2 men can be a couple as well as a man and a woman. If the 8 year old has no knowledge of sex - why would they need to know more at this stage?"
At 8 years old why must be told anything in that regard at all? Don't you think that is perhaps too young? Many resposible parents do.
Again same-sex couples are defined by their SEXUAL BEHAVIOR and without making that distinction an 8 year old child would not see the difference between the love and affection between brothers or sisters and gays and lesbians.
You cannot claim to "teach" a child something if you give them incomplete data. So either you force the child all the way into your bedroom or not at all. You cannot have it both ways where you demand privacy in your bedroom and yet expect 8 year old children to fully understand what goes on there.- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Totally disagree - you dont have to explain heterosexual activities to an 8 year old - so why would you have to explain homosexual activities?
Heterosexual couples are also defined by their SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR - whats the difference?
I agree that you cannot teach on incomplete data at each level of the argument - but by not telling your kids about same-sex relationships - are you not giving incomplete data???
Are you scared that if your kid knew about same-sex couples - that they are in danger of being part of one - if so - you are sadly wrong - a kid cant 'decide' to be gay - Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Agreed!
Why would anyone worried about couples at school? Why do we need to bring couples into the school in the first place?
Let the PARENTS decide what to TEACH their OWN children about relationships. I trust the parents before I trust the GOVT...
Do all the kids know everything about history they need to know? Math is in the pocket, reading scores are off the charts so everyone is now bored to tears so lets teach "Heather has two mommies"
Teaching 8yr olds about same sex marriages is a joke.
- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Totally disagree - you dont have to explain heterosexual activities to an 8 year old - so why would you have to explain homosexual activities?
- Jamerican, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0"We dont want to force 8 year olds in the bedroom - why cant they just be told 2 men can be a couple as well as a man and a woman. If the 8 year old has no knowledge of sex - why would they need to know more at this stage?"
At 8 years old why must be told anything in that regard at all? Don't you think that is perhaps too young? Many resposible parents do.
Again same-sex couples are defined by their SEXUAL BEHAVIOR and without making that distinction an 8 year old child would not see the difference between the love and affection between brothers or sisters and gays and lesbians.
Even 8 year olds see the affection between mother and father and know that is not the same type of affection parents have for their children nor is it the same between same sex siblings. Many 8 year olds would at least wonder if same-sex couple carry on physically the same way their mother and father do. Children are curious and often want to know more.
You cannot claim to "teach" a child something if you give them incomplete data. So either you force the child all the way into your bedroom or not at all. You cannot have it both ways where you demand privacy in your bedroom and yet expect 8 year old children to fully understand what goes on there.
Again...schools should concentrate on the basics and allow parents to teach their young 8 year old children moral issues at home when the parent feels their child is READY. Let us allow parents more FREEDOM not less. No one likes to be FORCED into something due to the "possibility" of what the worst of us "might" do. - tvhack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@leatherscot regarding " you are sadly wrong - a kid cant 'decide' to be gay" I do not believe that homosexuality to be a genetic disease, which precludes anyone to be gay.
Anybody has the right of their feelings whether caused by genetics or an active decission and/or both.- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I also dont think that it is a generic disease - but I do believe it to be genetic and not a matter of choice
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0AniceAtheist:
You said....
"I'll bite. Why DID he say to sell all your worldly possessions?"
OK, lets go over each verse.....
Mat 19:16 And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
The young man wants eternal life, he wants to know what to do.
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.
Here Jesus is saying if you want eternal life, follow the commandment that was given to Moses by God.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Here Jesus gives him 6 of the 10 commandments after he ASKED...
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet?
He says he is missing something...
Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Key word sir... PERFECT.... To be perfect as others who are following him, give up EVERYTHING. There is Treasure in heaven for you when you do this. Then follow me in my ministry... He still could get eternal life from what he knows today, but Jesus says if you want to be P E R F E C T....
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions.
Did not want to give up what he had.
Mat 19:23 And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
They can not give up things of this world. They can not serve two masters.
So why do you mention this hate your parents thing?
On top of that, why do you mention hate? You call God a fairytale and a story. Do you feel the same about Allah? Do you have hate for Allah? Do you have hate for Christians?- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3First, it was me and not ANiceAtheist who asked.
Second, I didn't ask for a blow-by-blow retelling of the verses listed.
Third (and most relevantly), if the young man could have gone to the treasures of heaven with his possessions, why is it so hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? Presumably, a rich man could exercise those 6 commandments (the more sensible ones, by the way; I wonder why Jesus didn't espouse the following of those first 4?) and enter heaven (as you imply). Why, then, would this young man be immediately dejected by the fact that he has 'great possessions'? Wouldn't he rather be more elated that he's always been on the path to heaven? Or, do only those who sell everything and follow Jesus get to go to heaven?
- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3First, it was me and not ANiceAtheist who asked.
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0tvhack:
You said:
"But I also watched the twin towers fall watched the mass murder of the tottsies in Rwanda. The genocide of the former Yugoslavia. these are a fraction of the abuses that have happened in my lifetime. Not to mention those that have come before. These actions are systemic of the children abused and indoctrinated from the values taught by religion in early life. How many children of the world would you like to see suffering from loss of life and / or from the loss of one or both of their primary caregivers. All children are suffering because of this abuse."
Seems you left out how many people were killed in Communist Countries like the USSR which killed Millions, China killed millions, other countries who believed in Darwin which enslaved and killed millions and so on. Funny how you mention religious abuse but NOT A PEEP on Non Religious abuse.
BTW, From what I read, Rwanda was not a religious thing.- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Okay... **cracking knuckles**
The USSR and China, while atheistic in nature, built cults of personality around their respective leaders (Lenin/Stalin and Chairman Mao). These cults of personality are also seen in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, North Korea and the Jonesboro cult (drink the Flavor-Aid...). In fact, the argument can be made that Christianity is a cult of personality that has merely gained widespread acceptance. All these cults of personality have/had the trappings of religion: thanking "dear leader" for the blessings they receive daily, a very high representation in art, music and literature (all positive), and dedication of the individual to serve "dear leader" wherever they lead. This absolutism, this horrifying subservience of the human spirit to the will of one person or organization is what religion represents.
If people could be spiritual on their own and not have to impede on anyone else's lives, I'd have no problem with that. Unfortunately, it just isn't that way. People think it is their moral duty to convert or otherwise chastise people they view as immoral or simply 'others', and this is where we get planes flying into skyscrapers, and zealots killing abortion doctors and bombing clinics, and fundamentalists rioting at the sight of a holy figure in a cartoon. In the case of rapists and child molesters and murderers, I would agree it is society's responsibility to contain that element which is unarguably dangerous to the community as a whole. But being homosexual does not cause anyone else pain or suffering. Being an atheist does not cause anyone else pain or suffering. Being a fundamentalist does. Being a bigot does.
- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Okay... **cracking knuckles**
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0atheistacolyte:
While you crack you knuckles....You are about to get kicked in the pants on your comment....
Your argument is weak. Don't try to move the goalpost after the ball is already kicked and on the ground.
"The USSR and China, while atheistic in nature, built cults of personality around their respective leaders (Lenin/Stalin and Chairman Mao)"
They were atheist. PERIOD. Your argument is if no one believes in anything, everything will be OK. They did not believe in God. PERIOD. The trapping argument is a joke. Did they believe in God, no. They did not allow churches! You want to change the goalpost because you know of the many many deaths that the USSR, China and Cambodia and others have done and they were ATHEIST countries. They did not allow practice of religion.
Who did the leaders in these countries worship?
Remember words mean things:
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
one who believes that there is no deity
This is what the word means.
By using your logic, being an Atheist is a religion. You believe in nothing and you want to force your beliefs on others. (Which Atheist will do)
Now to this: "Being an atheist does not cause anyone else pain or suffering."
Do you really want to make this argument?
Lenin and Mao destroyed CHURCHES where people can worship. Pol Pot killed thousands, in Cambodia, they killed MILLIONS, China killed millions and so did the USSR. No suffering in death huh? No suffering in wanting to practice your religion huh?- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Being an atheist doesn't make me or anyone else despotic leaders of fascist regimes anymore than you believing in a god makes you the pope. You're saying that atheism directly leads to these consequences. Well, it doesn't.
Those were all countries in Asia, too. Therefore, all Asian countries are despicable human-rights-violating regimes which cause suffering on the grandest scale. Tibet, anyone?
By the way, Pol Pot was Cambodia's leader.
Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Next time you try to engage someone in a battle of wits, try to bring more than the bit of straw you munch on. - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Brownsville
You really dont understand the concepts of expanding discussions and looking at close parallels to help UNDERSTAND an issue? atheistacolyte is not saying the USSR or China worship god, he is rightly identifying clear similarities between "cults of personality" and religions
And using the deeds of Lenin and Mao to respond to the fact that Being an atheist does not cause pain or suffering is damn weak!
- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Being an atheist doesn't make me or anyone else despotic leaders of fascist regimes anymore than you believing in a god makes you the pope. You're saying that atheism directly leads to these consequences. Well, it doesn't.
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0atheistacolyte:
Either you think only you can read or everyone is stupid....
Look at what YOU said:
"In fact, the argument can be made that Christianity is a cult of personality that has merely gained widespread acceptance. All these cults of personality have/had the trappings of religion:"
First you want to compare these evil murders to Christianity then you say you don't. You made the comparison, not me. You got caught with a really bad argument, not me. Atheist countries has killed more people in the absent of religion than others.
"You're saying that atheism directly leads to these consequences." They did. They forced atheism on everyone. They HARMED people, they killed people. They took away their freedom.
btw.... Russia is in part Asia and Europe.
Also, about the blow by blow on asking me about the scripture I quoted:
First, you asked.
Second, where I am from, there is an old saying: Don't start none, wont be none.
Third, On your rant, why do you care?
Fourth: Did you not read what I wrote?
@leatherscot
Lets look back for a second. Here is what was said by atheistacolyte:
"Being an atheist does not cause anyone else pain or suffering." This is not true. You really have to have your head in the sand to believe this...
He made a ***** poor attempt to link Mao and Lenin to religion. The thing they BOTH tried to get rid of.
Of course there is link between Golf and Baseball. His argument is to say that because they are both on ESPN they are the same.
The issue on this discussion is simple. 8yr old children do not need to learn and/or discuss if two people of the same sex should be called a married couple. Nor should sex be taught to 8yr olds period.
This is the job for parents.- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Either you think only you can read or everyone is stupid...."
Not everyone. Just you.
"First you want to compare these evil murders to Christianity then you say you don't. You made the comparison, not me. You got caught with a really bad argument, not me. Atheist countries has killed more people in the absent of religion than others."
Actually, I made a comment that suggested a link between the totalitarianism of the Chinese and Russian regimes and the totalitarianism of some Christian sects (Some others are actually peaceful, and I respect them far more than I respect those sects which try to make their 'morality' into secular law). I did not get 'caught with a really bad argument', because you obviously didn't refute it. Bring it on.
"They did. They forced atheism on everyone. They HARMED people, they killed people. They took away their freedom."
Once again, these regimes were totalitarian. Totalitarian governments, by definition, have heavy government involvement in the public and private lives of its citizens. It's ironic that fundamentalists want to create a totalitarian theocracy, since that will make it far more like Stalin and Mao than any government I would want. As an aside, Sweden has a very high proportion (something around 60-80%) of atheists in it's population, yet you don't hear anything about the Swedish massacres.
"btw.... Russia is in part Asia and Europe."
Such a small portion of Russia is in Europe, it can be considered either. The Gulags were in Siberia, an Asian territory.
"First, you asked."
Yes, *I* did. Not ANiceAtheist. To recap, you said:
"AniceAtheist:
You said....
"I'll bite. Why DID he say to sell all your worldly possessions?""
That was actually me.
"Second, where I am from, there is an old saying: Don't start none, wont be none."
I've got a saying where I'm from, too: I think, therefore I am.
"Third, On your rant, why do you care?"
Why aren't you rebutting my argument?
"Fourth: Did you not read what I wrote?"
I did. Can you read what I wrote?
"Lets look back for a second. Here is what was said by atheistacolyte:"
Well, at least you *DO* know when I'm writing something when it suits you.
'"Being an atheist does not cause anyone else pain or suffering." This is not true. You really have to have your head in the sand to believe this...'
And I'm waiting for some kind of support for this..... any day now.....
'He made a ***** poor attempt to link Mao and Lenin to religion. The thing they BOTH tried to get rid of.'
Actually, it's not ***** poor because you say it is. See, you actually have to refute something to have intelligent debate.
'Of course there is link between Golf and Baseball. His argument is to say that because they are both on ESPN they are the same.'
No, my point is to say they're both on ESPN because they're sports. Recognize them for what they are. You're missing the forest for the trees.
"The issue on this discussion is simple. 8yr old children do not need to learn and/or discuss if two people of the same sex should be called a married couple. Nor should sex be taught to 8yr olds period."
And your mind on this discussion is even simpler. No one here is advocating that the children be taught about sex, merely that the video they showed in the schools which describes the family structure of two heterosexual couples, single parents, remarriages and same-sex parents is a valid video.
- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Either you think only you can read or everyone is stupid...."
- Himself, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1riiiight. And what of other deviants like some sociopaths? 'They were born with the inclination to rape and murder. They are entitled to their feelings. You cannot tell them not to derive sexual pleasure from torturing innocent people nor can you prevent them from sating themselves'
isn't relativism fun?
wait.. the typical response will make some reference to hurt or injury and or consent. The *thumbnailed* response is to have you recognize intangible injury, as from this thread the non-physical damage done to a child, transcendental if you will. If you cannot admit of the former then the discussion is over as your values are such.. your attempt to inflict your deviant expectation of warped-tolerance. If you do grasp the concept we can explore further the type of injury upon another in a consensual deviant sexual relationship and the nature of love, which has not yet been explored here.
Consent does not mitigate harm. Choice does not effect justice. Perception does not effect change in the object. Freedom is not license. Unwanted consequences do not cease to exist.
Homosexual acts, as with other deviant activities with regard to grave issues, are an affront to the dignity of the actor and recipient, and then some.
The hypocritical intolerance is rife. Why can't you people be tolerant of parents who don't wish to scandalize their own children? That's awfully hateful of you. Only you have the right to be offended? Why is that exactly?
What about to each his own?
You queers get bent out of shape when you think other people are controlling how you live, but yet when the pro-deviant movement tries regulate what parents teach their children, and those same parents object you're shocked?
You deny absolute truth, and then insist that the tenants of liberalism are the only truth? Nope, no faulty logic there.
Anarchy for all?
(As a teeny tiny minority are you sure that's a wise ideology for you deviants to pursue?)- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Your delusional.
transcendental harm? I get it, you think a deity is real, Your specific deity hates gays, so you think teaching your kid that gays are ok will ***** off your deity. Well then all that can be said is. Your delusional and your trying to pass on your delusion. Nothing that I have said in any other comment has changed your opinion because your opinion is rooted in your delusion. But I'm not going to break your delusion on a digg forum. What I will point out is keep your delusions to yourself because it is very harmful to society please and thanks.
PS: not all people demanding civil rights for blacks were black nor is everybody demanding equal rights for homosexuals, gay. But funny thing is everyone against civil rights was a Bigot, and everyone against equal rights for Gays is too. - Himself, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1deity? Where in my response did I mention one? You're a bit delusional: see things that aren't there.
Equal rights for those with black skin? Yes because they are human with a demonstrable genetic difference in skin color coding. The original contention was that black skinned people were not human. No one is contesting the human-ness of sexual deviants. They have the same right to live as you or I. Do deviants deserve more rights than everyone else?
Certainly not. - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It is absolutely amazing to me that people like you can exist. I really, really hope you live to see the day when homosexuals are truly accepted within this society as human beings.
- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@atheistacolyte
I agree with everything you said - but sadly I dont think people like the submitter here, Himself, Jamerican, Brownsville etc will ever listen - why? because they dont WANT to - they would have to reTHINK reEVALUATE, change their opinion; thats much to stressful for their conditioned, controlled brains to handle.
- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Your delusional.
- tvhack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This topic is now a waste of my time so for my final note.
I look forward to the day when all churches are taxed as corporations are,
televangelists are charged for obtaining goods by deception and the end all religion.
The way the religious are jumping up and down like morons killing each other in the name of the flying spaghetti monster the sooner that day will come.
and the war-crimes of theology will finally end.
but personally I have two beautiful children to raise- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0See TVHACH did something that atheistacolyte and others need to see:
Look at the last comment:
"I have two beautiful children to raise."
See it is about the PARENTS raising their children, Parents teaching what the children need to know, NOT the Govt!!!
If parents want to teach their kids about sex and couples, it is their business. If parents do not, it is their business and their right. If they want to teach their religion to the kids or if they do not, it is their right.
On some other things he is dead wrong. Atheist are killing more people and holding more people down than religion. - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Brownsville
Youre really 'grabbing at straws now'!!
I think what tvhack meant - was that he would rather spend time with his children rather than read/respond to your drivel
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0See TVHACH did something that atheistacolyte and others need to see:
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0@atheistacolyte
You do a great job at moving the goalpost...
FACT:
USSR = Atheist
CHINA = ATHEIST
PERIOD.
No religion period in these two countries. They murdered millions and put others in prison. They have freedom from religion but look what they have done. You want to try to put all the evil in the world on religion. I say it is the LACK of religion is the true problem.
btw:
"First, you asked."
Yes, *I* did. Not ANiceAtheist. To recap, you said:
"AniceAtheist:
You said....
"I'll bite. Why DID he say to sell all your worldly possessions?""
That was actually me.
I know, I made the correction some time ago on another reply...
The truth here is that you are an atheist. That is your business. I am not. You have a much bigger problem with me than I with you.
It all boils down to this:
ATHEIST = Coward and will soon be a Muslim. Get your Koran ready- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow, Brownsville. I think you are putting forward a better argument for abortion than I ever could.
Merely because two nations have one (among other things) in common, does not mean all the evils are due to that one thing. How's about this:
Enron = CORPORATION
WorldCom = CORPORATION
Both have entered bankruptcy due to accounting scandals. Therefore, by your logic:
CORPORATIONS = EVIL
Rwanda = AFRICAN
Congo = AFRICAN
Both have committed genocide. Therefore, by your logic:
AFRICAN NATIONS = EVIL
You are such an amazing idiot it staggers my mind. How about recognizing my point on Sweden?
Religion is not the cause of all evils; that's ridiculous. I pointed out that there is probably an element common to totalitarianism and organized religion which is a root cause of some pretty atrocious evils. Your atrophied brain seems incapable of comprehending this.
"I know, I made the correction some time ago on another reply..."
I just looked through all your replies. You didn't. Mentiroso.
"It all boils down to this:"
This is gonna be good...
"ATHEIST = Coward and will soon be a Muslim. Get your Koran ready"
You never fail to disappoint.
Brownsville = ignorant, bigoted and with any luck will remove his genes from the gene pool as soon as the opportunity presents itself - Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@atheistacolyte
So now I am a bigot.
Prove this.
Now I am ignorant:
Prove that also.
The points I have seen here is that Religion is the cause of all the worlds ills and without religion, everything will be OK. I pointed out at least 2 countries who did not allow religion and they killed MILLIONS EACH.
Someone here tried to quote the bible and did a ***** poor job.
Show me where I have hate for homosexuals.
Show me where I have hate for Atheist.
I just said they were cowards and will become Muslim if their hand was forced. Like I said, get your Koran ready....
- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow, Brownsville. I think you are putting forward a better argument for abortion than I ever could.
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@leatherscot
Get a clue, look what he said:
"This topic is now a waste of my time so for my final note."
Don't be stupid, he was looking at the whole topic. What he said was the truth and you don't want to hear the truth. He has children to raise. He is raising them, not the GOVT. You want to push your agenda sooo bad, you will say anything.- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The crap continues....
- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The crap continues....
Look at tvhacks Previous Post
A loving, nurturing and healthy home, a home of acceptance and free from abuse is all that a child requires. Nothing about a persons sexuality or race stops a person from providing such an environment. only religion can change love to abuse, and the abusers strangely abuse in love, genital mutilation both male and female which is a practice of a number large of religions. and the preaching of intolerance which is a far more sinister abuse that its performed by all religion that continues to spiral into murder throughout the world. This intolerance is the greatest form of child abuse and is one that needs to stop today.
Do you want to rethink your last comment Brownsville?- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0No need to leatherscot.....
The main point here is that the SCHOOLS should not teach or worry about who or what is a family. As others have said, it should be up to the parents. TVHACKS said the same thing.
If we are going to debate who or what is a family or couple, fine. Let the PARENTS decide what their children are taught. Let the schools teach reading and writing and math.
No need for the teacher to decide what a family is or is not.
Since it is already proven that Atheist has killed more without religion, there is no need to go further.
Simple question:
Do you agree or disagree that sex, family and same sex marriages should be taught by the parents? - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@brownsville
If they are good parents - yes - BUT what is so bad about showing a same sex couple - they show a hetero couple with no issue.
Simple Question:
Whats the big problem with showing a same-sex couple? - Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0So now you decide which family is good and which is bad?
For my kids, I do not want them being taught that same sex couples are OK.
MY CHOICE. MY KIDS.
"BUT what is so bad about showing a same sex couple - they show a hetero couple with no issue."
If you have an issue, that is your right.
Like I have said before, teach the BASICS
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0No need to leatherscot.....
- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You are a bigot because you are a prejudiced person intolerant of those who disagree with you. I am not a bigot because I have no problem with religious people who do not impose their beliefs on my life. I have no problem with Jainists, Buddhists and many other religions which closer reflect a philosophical leaning than a religion. If you could just sit in your church and not do anything in the real world to harm anyone, I wouldn't have a problem with you. But you are purposefully impeding the social acceptance of a group of human beings because of your antiquated moral beliefs on homosexuality. The reason I don't have a problem with them is because they have consensual sex with people of the same gender. Not a problem for me if my kids are homosexual or not; it will just be who they are. I have a problem with rapists and molesters of any orientation because they cause harm and suffering.
You are ignorant because you are not able to grasp that this argument is about a ½-hour video ALREADY DESCRIBING FAMILY STRUCTURES to 8-year-olds. If heterosexual couples and single parents get mentioned, why can't homosexuals? If 8-year-olds can comprehend heterosexual couples, why can't they comprehend homosexual couples? If there is nothing inherently sexual in teaching about heterosexual couples, then there is nothing inherently sexual in teaching about homosexual couples.
Let me tell you something about cowardice. Cowardice is hiding behind an ancient book, claiming it's word as divine, cherrypicking phrases that support your ideology while not knowing or caring about phrases that contradict your ideology. Cowardice is labelling an entire group of people by the actions of a few. Cowardice is claiming to know what you don't know and not owning up to it.
At least atheists have the courage to stand up and say "I don't know what I don't know." At least they attempt to be rational. At least their philosophical stance is based on careful deliberation and rational processes. At least they understand that there is no next world, so we have to make this one the best it can be. At least I do know I cannot become an honest theist without extreme evidence showing me my position is incontrovertibly wrong.
I feel as though I'm shouting against the wind, or flailing wildly against the impregnable walls of your willful ignorance. I will no longer try to correct you, because you are beyond correction, beyond reason and beyond hope. The only positive I shall extract from this is that many people have enjoyed what I've written, and disliked what you have vomited from your keyboard.
Lux sit!- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0This is where you really miss the mark:
On your first paragraph... "You are a bigot because you are a prejudiced person intolerant of those who disagree with you" Show me this nonsense. Also...."But you are purposefully impeding the social acceptance of a group of human beings because of your antiquated moral beliefs on homosexuality." Show me this also. Show me where I dogged out homosexuals. You ran your mouth now back that up. With this statement: "I have a problem with rapists and molesters of any orientation because they cause harm and suffering." Same here.
On your second paragraph, In my opinion, Govt schools should teach reading, math, science and music not who is or who is not a family or who is hetro and who is homo. Teach the 3 "R"s. Let parents decide subjects about family and sex.
On your third paragraph, cowardice is saying "I don't believe in anything!" It take faith to believe and courage to stand up on your faith.I can admit there is something bigger than me. You can not. Speaking of fairy tales, since you do not believe in God I can bet that you believe in Evolution, something you cant prove, something that makes no sense and it a fairy tale that is taught in schools as FACT.
On number 4, This is why I call Atheist cowards: When push comes to shove, you will give up your beliefs and call on God. Somewhere along the line, you will give it. When your life is on the line, you will find God. On top of that, when Islam really starts taking off, you will have a choice and I know where you will choose. I am ready to die for what I believe, you are not.
On number 5, If you need a crying towel, go to Wal-Mart. - michael532111, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ atheistacolyte
Thank you for your thoughtful, reasoned comments. You have the patience of a saint - far more than I have. I look forward to reading your posts in other areas in the future.
Lux sit - You have shed a lot of light, thank you... Unfortunately, there are some here who are driven by emotions and blind fear. For them, your logic is futile.
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0This is where you really miss the mark:
- Jamerican, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0leatherscot said"I agree with everything you said - but sadly I dont think people like the submitter here, Himself, Jamerican, Brownsville etc will ever listen - why? because they dont WANT to - they would have to reTHINK reEVALUATE, change their opinion; thats much to stressful for their conditioned, controlled brains to handle."
Oh brother...Sadly so many "debates" devolve into personal attacks instead of a normal discussion among adults. Why must I be "controlled and conditioned" if I merely disagree with you? Is it possible for someone to have an opposing view and not be some "brain controlled" zombie? Can you not see why many of these parents simply feel they do not want to introduce issues such as sexual behavior to their 8 year old children? Is that at all understandable in any way?
Only gays regually identify themselves by their sexual BEHAVIOR. There are no HETROSEXUAL pride parades nor HETEROSEXUAL games in NYC. Gays put it on themselves to be defined soley by their sexual BEHAVIOR so that is the only way to fully describe a same-sex relationship. So your comparsion of gays to hetrosexuals in this case is quite invalid.
Without explaining the sexual component of a same-sex couple you are hardly distinquishing that relationship from a boy who loves his brother or his father. Incomplete information will only confuse an 8 year old not educate him/her.
At that age (8 yrs old) class time is best spent learning the basics. When the school delves into certain unresolved areas regarding personal values and morals it opens itself to many interpetations and counter arguments...unlike teaching 2 + 2 =4 which is what schools should be concentrating their efforts on.
Again no one has explained why is it good to restrict the FREEDOMS of the majority of parents simply because of the "possible" misbehavior of a "few"? Why is this a good thing?- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0How true Jamerican. I correct someone trying to use scripture the wrong way and I am a bigot.
- Jamerican, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Anyhooo...
Has there been any study done to conclude that forcing a parent to have his/her child taught something they disagree with (for whatever reason...kids not ready...would rather teach it a home...whatever) actually works to decrease negative feelings towards the subject? Have any of these groups refer to a study to indicate that their tactic will achieve the results they desire?
Could this abridgment of parental freedom in fact have the opposite effect and cause parents who did not have any ill feelings towards gays to develop them?
Think about it...forcing all the parents to do something, just because you assume some, most or all of them are "hateful" is not a positive way to introduce anyone to a subject. You would get push-back from anyone especially when it comes to parent and child.
And let's dispense with the personal attacks that have no place in an adult debate. Shall we?
In any event I too have kids to raise so later gents.- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0In any event I too have kids to raise so later gents...
Seems like this was said before. Let the PARENTS raise the children.
- Brownsville, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0In any event I too have kids to raise so later gents...
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by