Gay got saved at Kilgore protest

[Pat McCotter]

You know, how come when Mike comes on here and talks about the "virtues" of celibacy and what-not everybody's OK with that, even though it's quite out of the ordinary in a marriage relationship, but as soon as I start talking about the virtues of not-being gay everybody jumps down my throat.

I don't talk about what my wife and I do in our home. The gays and lesbians I've worked alongside don't talk about what they and their partners do in their homes. Nobody's business.

The issue for me is not sex at all. The issue is individuals. The issue is how individuals treat other individuals. Those individuals who talk about their sex lives are not people I want to associate with.

Seriously, there seems to be a lot of double standards around here.

I have? different view of morality then some of the people here, and because it's a little more traditional I'm suddently piryah.

Sorry but I don't buy the left-libertarian ideal that all lifestyles are equal in morality, and that social presures are just as much force as government.

You haven't lived the life I have. You haven't seen the pain and problems that people who live immoral lifestyles get themselves into. It's one reason I oppose the welfare state so much, is because it subsidizes decadent behavior. My wife grew up in a broken home, and it's caused a lot of pain for all involved. I'm sorry I'm not just going to "tolorate" life-style choices that I believe are self destructive. I'm going to do my best to love and educate these people before they cause themselves even more grief.

My opinion only - Depression amongst gays and lesbians or anyone with a "lifestyle" different from the "norm" can be contributed to those people they love trying to change them.

And Mike, I DO know a few homosexuals who got caught up in a sort of addiction to frequenting bath-houses and things, who wanted out but simply had trouble controling their impulses. Frequenting bath-houses is a self destructive behavior. I DO know a few people who were depressed and homosexual, and their doctor treated them for depression and their homosexual feelings went away. I DO know people who have homosexual type feelings who don't want to be that way and don't want those types of feelings.

Tell Russians and Japanese - two of the cultures I am aware of who frequent bath-houses - they are demonstrating self-destructive behaviour. The people you are describing have an illness that needs to be treated. I know a lot of homosexual people who are NOT depressed. They are living normal lives in neighborhoods and at jobs that don't care what they do in their homes.

I'm NOT living in a fantasy world. It's probably just that, in the types of people I associate with I'm more likely then you are to meet these kinds of people who are addicted to their own physical lusts, realize they're self destructive and want out of their enslavement to those lusts.

This isn't about "religion." It's about empowering people to learn how to excersize self control so they behave more responcibly so they don't end-up bankrupt and/or diseased on the street.

Those gays and lesbians I have associated with exercise great self-control. The same self-control I exercise. We don't talk about our sex lives in public. We live our lives and talk about things that interest us.

Again, the issue is not sex, the issue is individuals and their treatment of other individuals.


BTW, Tracy, just to get this out of the way - I am heterosexual.

[Russell Kanning]

"Morals are a personal issue."

Now that is funny ..... what happens when poor Ward (abiding by zap) runs into Russell (doesn't believe in property rights) who steals his chili?

Property threat is illegal.

so what if it was not illegal?

[Pat K]

ZAP means you dont start violence, if some one steals your chili you wack them in the head with the pot, that is know as PAP.

[Dreepa]

ZAP means you dont start violence, if some one steals your chili you wack them in the head with the pot, that is know as PAP.

SMEAR

[Caleb]

To me, belief in god is strikingly similar to the belief that government can be good.

The reason people believe in government is because they were indoctrinated to do so.

The only reason people believe in god, is because someone told them they should.

Ian, this comparison is an analogy by assertion.  You assert that there is a similarity, that makes it so.

I like to compare believing in God to believing in life on other planets.  There is no evidence, one way or another.  One day there might be evidence, but at this point its merely conjecture. 

So does life exist on other planets?  I believe that it does.  That is not a statement of 100% certainty, its a statement of belief.  Now Lloydbob could come to me and say, "believing in life on other planets makes you irrational because it cannot be proven one way or the other."  But to do so is to redefine the term.  It would be irrational to assert dogmatically that life on other planets MUST exist, but to assert the possibility, and then to hold the possibility as likely to be true is not irrational.  It would be just as irrational to assert dogmatically that life on other planets does not exist.  I think making dogmatic assertions regarding something that is unknown is truly irrational.

Like I said, I'm not trying to pick on anyone here.  And I understand that we shouldn't take things too seriously, but beyond the little humorous comments often lie an attitude of condesension, that I think we have to be careful of.

Caleb

[SWilliams]

tracy saboe wrote:

OH come on guys. Joey's harmless.

Joey's a dumbass who works for a nutcase

I happen to agree with him that homosexuality is an immoral lifestyle. And I also agree that God can change peoples hearts and minds. "HE changed my 'want-to'"
Many people who are involved in a homosexual lifestyle really don't want to be in it, but it's something they've gotten addicted to. Just like some people get addicted to porn, or other sexual addictions.

people can't just up and change the way they are on a whim. It's not a choice, it's the way they're wired. Of course they don't want to be in a lifestyle that people have been telling them is wrong all their lives.
It's not wrong to be who you are!

A good point was made that maybe he DIDN'T change his desire but just his actions.

umm.. yeah.. until the next cute guy walks along and his gaydar goess ring ring, then he's riht back to what is normal for him...

Well so what? Many times sin is something that desireful. A rapest will tell you that it felt good and he desired to rape at the time -- but nobody hear would agree that it would be a moral thing to do just because he desired it and it felt good.

Sin? WTF! Being yourself is a sin? Screw you! No wonder so many of the homosexual community kill themselves at young ages- idiotic statements like what you said teach them to hate themselves. Living life hating yourself isn't a healthy way to live, and that's what leads to what you call destructive behavior that you attribute to homosexuality.

The problem with bathhouses isn't addiction to homosexuality, it's addiction to SEX. There are far, far more heterosexual sex addicts out there whose lives are controlled by that addiction. Telling a gay man to stop being gay isn't the cure, it's another nail in his coffin.

Just learn to deal with people for who, not what they are, says the TG member of this list. (i know.. i'm a weirdo.. most transpeople are far left kooks- i can't fracking stand those types...LOL)

[Pat K]

ZAP means you dont start violence, if some one steals your chili you wack them in the head with the pot, that is know as PAP.

SMEAR

???????????????????????

[Lloyd Danforth]

Knowledge of other planets is a recent phenomena.  So far, thankfully, belief in life on other planets has not been the major cause of war.  It has not been used as a control measure for people across the world.  It has not done anything to retard advancement in any cultures and it probably will never be responsible a major alteration of life on earth as the current worlwide jihad is likely to bring. 

I too believe that given the millions of other planet in the universe, life is likely on many of them.

[Dreepa]

ZAP means you dont start violence, if some one steals your chili you wack them in the head with the pot, that is know as PAP.

SMEAR

???????????????????????

Lame attempt at a joke...  PAP  SMEAR...

[Pat K]

Oh LOL I'M slow.

[Pat McCotter]

Knowledge of other planets is a recent phenomena.? So far, thankfully, belief in life on other planets has not been the major cause of war.? It has not been used as a control measure for people across the world.? It has not done anything to retard advancement in any cultures and it probably will never be responsible a major alteration of life on earth as the current worlwide jihad is likely to bring.?

I too believe that given the millions of other planet in the universe, life is likely on many of them.

Not another planet but to the Melanesians it might as well have been:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
A cargo cult is any of a group of religious movements that occurred in Melanesia, in the Southwestern Pacific.

The Cargo Cults believed that manufactured western goods ('cargo') were created by ancestral spirits and intended for Melanesian people. White people, however, had unfairly gained control of these objects. Cargo cults thus focused on purifying their communities of what they perceived as 'white' influences by conducting rituals similar to the white behavior they had observed, presuming that this activity would make cargo come.

The most famous examples of this behavior are airstrips, airports, and radios made out of coconuts, straw, and other jungle materials that were built in the belief that transport planes full of cargo would land on them if they were built.

Today, most historians and anthropologists argue that the term 'Cargo Cult' is a misnomer that describes a variety of phenomena. However, the idea has captured the imagination of many people in the First World, and the term continues

[wdg3rd]

"Morals are a personal issue."

Now that is funny ..... what happens when poor Ward (abiding by zap) runs into Russell (doesn't believe in property rights) who steals his chili?

No problem.  Theft is initiation of force.  While I can't in initiate it, I can certainly use it to respond in defense of person or property.

I expect to have a lot of customers with guns in my restaurant.  That's because anybody who shows me a (real) gun gets a 10% discount, even cops.  Rather than the usual 50% discount to cops and 100% discount plus contents of register to anybody else with a gun.

[Eli]

I like this approach!  Sounds like a civil and well defended restauant.

[Dreepa]

"Morals are a personal issue."

Now that is funny ..... what happens when poor Ward (abiding by zap) runs into Russell (doesn't believe in property rights) who steals his chili?

No problem.? Theft is initiation of force.? While I can't in initiate it, I can certainly use it to respond in defense of person or property.

I expect to have a lot of customers with guns in my restaurant.? That's because anybody who shows me a (real) gun gets a 10% discount, even cops.? Rather than the usual 50% discount to cops and 100% discount plus contents of register to anybody else with a gun.

Open next to a gun shop (shooting range?)... I am sure the owner would like the rise in business.

Another reason to get a gun.

[tracysaboe]

"Morals are a personal issue."

Now that is funny ..... what happens when poor Ward (abiding by zap) runs into Russell (doesn't believe in property rights) who steals his chili?

No problem.  Theft is initiation of force.  While I can't in initiate it, I can certainly use it to respond in defense of person or property.

I expect to have a lot of customers with guns in my restaurant.  That's because anybody who shows me a (real) gun gets a 10% discount, even cops.  Rather than the usual 50% discount to cops and 100% discount plus contents of register to anybody else with a gun.

I see. To that "subset" of morals libertarianism deals with ARE fixed in stone and not personal. But the rest aren't.  Who are you to say what other morals are fixed and what other morals aren't?

Mike, I treat homosexuals with love and respect, but in disaproval of there livestyle much the same way you say you'd treat a person who has sex with animals. You ask me, "What's immoral about two people consenting." Well, I could just a easily ask you "What's immoral about a person peacefully having sex with his own property." Which is what animals are. Some things are wrong even if they should be perfectly legal.

Someone asked, "asking in your nature is wrong?"
Yes, many aspects of human nature are sinfull. All humans have two natures. The nature that believes in peacefull cooporation that we all endorse is one. But all humans are temped at one time or another to use force and to try and control other people. Humans are by their nature hypocrits. you see this in children. They are natural born libertarians. "It's MINE!" They always scream, They understand property rights. But on the other end of that exchange is a child trying to take things but force. That's part of human nature as well. So certainly even an aithiestic libertarian can conclude that there are parts of human nature that aren't desireable and parts that are.

Twin studies show that theire's about a 10% coralation between genetics and alchoholism. (In other words, for identical twins seperated at birth, if one twin is an alchoholic, their's a 10% chance the other one is two.) Should we endorse alchaholism as a normal, healthy, viable lifestyle for that 10% of the population just because it's "Part of their nature?"  (BTW, in twin studies seperated at birth their's only a 2% chance that if one twin is gay the other will be, so this idea that it's all "Genetic" is hogwash anyway. Not that it still hasn't BECOME normal for them because of other factors (inuteral hormones, chemicals in the envoronment, social presures, familial relationships, etc. But it's not genetic.)

Some people have a genetic prediscposition to be psychotic murderers, do libertarians "endorse" that as a viable way to be just because it's "Normal" for that person? Of coarse not. If we can agree that some attributes are wrong even though they might be normal for a given individual, then certainly iif you have an open mind, it's concievable that some things that the government should have no say in what-so-ever, might also be wrong -- even if it's normal for a given individual.

This whole "Christianity is irrational" thing is really just an ad homin attack. If you're going to call something irrational, you need to use facts and logic to point out why. Simply saying it is, doesn't make it so.

In fact, their are many rational people who were aithiests that were convinced of the truth of Christianity through the use of their reason.

If you read anything by Sir Fred Hoyle, British astronomer and physicist. He was an aithiest -- and sadly died an aithiest as far as I know, but he said many times that that aithiesm was based on faith. Several times in his discoveries he waas known to say that his aithiesm was "severaly shaken."

Or Robert Jastro, another cosmotologists and physicist, was an agnostic, but he was quoted as saying that physicists strive to reach the top of the mountain of truth, only to find the theologins have been their waiting for them.

Go pick up a copy of "Darwin's Black Box, which points out the irreducible complexicy of much of the microbiological life and biomechanical stuff that goes on in our cells. Darwin him-self said that if a person could find that if systems in living things could be shown to be irreducibly complex then it would invalidate his whole theory. The simple phenomina of blood clotting requires over 900 different enzymes, protiens, amino acids, and vitamins all to work together in ordere for it to work. If only one of those ingredients was missing a mammal would either bleed to death or the whole system would completely clot up and kill it. Such systems can't evolve incrimentally. And each individual cell has numerous such systems, as well as each individual organ, and inter organ system has numerous such irrreducibly complex systems. In fact to say that a body would use energy to develope hundreads of different protiens, amino acids, and other chemicals that were all entirely worthless untill the whole system is in place actually contradicits darwinian and neo-darwiniian theories. Because in the process of waisting all the energy they would be less viable then other organizims that didn't waist that energy. And since it takes numerous generations for these things to take place it's actually more reasonably to assume that the more vibrant ones would be the ones to servive -- as opposed to these organizism that expend energy uselessly.

Or take Bolton Davidheiser, who grew up in a family that practically worshiped evolution. He spend his entire child-hood studying evolution and evolutionary theories. But starting seeing things being ignore when he went to accomplish his doctorate. He would read papers and notic holes in their theories, logical falacies, and in some cases studies that contradicted established evolutional theory being blatently ignored. Through the use of his mind and reason he decided that believing in evolution and believing that we all just got here by chance to be a greator leap of faith then believing in a god.

The fact is, the aithiest is asking me to believe a positive. That evolution is how we all got here. According to the logic of the aithiests on thiss forum then, it's up to YOU to prove that, not up to me to disprove it. Frankly I find that absurd and a gross rational contradiction. At least I admit that by belief is based partially on faith. I simply think faith in the existence of a creater is easier then faith in the existence of some mysterious "force" of evolution that has numerous microbiological, palentological, and other problems.

At least Fred Hoyle admitted his aithiesm was based on faith. And I can respect him for that. Robert Jastrow NEW that he didn't know, and hence considered himself agnonstic, but knowing that he didn't know, is still more knowledge then the aithiests who say they're aithiest purely because of reason have.

Or take William Albright. Famous Archeologist who was taugh that all the stories in the Old testament were just myths. He set out to prove that theory, and ended up disproving it. Discovering that the explenations of where cities were and the geographic destribed of the era were very exact. He discovered simular things about the New Testament books Luke and Acts. Here's another aithiest, who through the use of reason decided that believing in God simply made more rational sense.

Heck, read C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" He started out an aithiest, and through logic decided that it really didn't make much sense.

So lets not hear anymore of this "Religion is irrational" nonsence. There are many very rational people who've come to the conclusion that athiesm  -- as in the positive belief that there's no such thing as a God -- is even less rational.

Rational people can have disagreements. Many times if the initial conditions of a logic chain are different, the logic can be perfect, yet the conclusions different. Many times these differences in oppinion regarding the initial conditions can even be proven to be unprovable. In such situations it's best to simply realize that both parties are rational and agree to disagree.

Tracy