By the way - topical right now - here's an example of gay rights activism and shout down bigotry against opposing opinion hurting gay people terribly.





This is real; it's not an Onion article. This law is going to devastate many gay lives. And for what?

These people are as mad as religious conservatives, and more harmful to gay people. If you care about people rather than politics and isms, you'd agree with my views.

People like batair with their hateful bigotry toward anything but the extremist gay lobby view do tremendous harm to gay people, far more than religious people.

Keep making things up just shows who you are. Roy Moore not an extremist. Good stuff.

Do you have any good new lynching apologetic arguments? Sure you and Roy can work gays into it.

The reason why you are failing to win any converts here is precisely because you don't actually believe in this bigotry. I'm fully convinced that you are just taking this position because you enjoy arguing. In fact, it is the difficulty of the position that appeals to you. If you can win an argument like this, then you have demonstrated (in your mind) your unparalleled debating skills.

But who am i to stop your entertainment, right? So let's take it a step further. What is your final solution? You must realize that discouraging gay behavior has never worked in our society. Even tossing them off buildings doesn't seem to work. Gays are still here and aren't going anywhere. How will you prevent the gay behavior that you claim to detest?

More importantly, how will you do it without punishing any non-gays? How will the effeminate heteros not get caught in your net? How will the high school kid who wants to wait until he's married not be called a "******" until he plows the next girl he sees? That type of "discouragement" doesn't just target gays... it targets everyone near them.

Please don't get him started on blacks.

The reason I'm failing to win any converts is the same reason the atheists here fail to win any converts: people hold to their beliefs on this topic with a fervor approaching religion. This forum has close to zero traffic, but in more trafficked forums, you'd be surprised at the PMs I get from people who don't post.

I'm also not applyiing persuasive rhetoric; I'm pretty sure I could convert even batair to some of my view if I was willing to be sly about it. I'm trying to have an honest conversation, that's all.
I enjoy the high level view you have of my intentions, but you're basically genius-Trumping me. In reality, I believe everything I say and think it is the most correct view. But I'm pretty open minded (I'm basically an anti-bigot, tolerant of all people and opinions) so there's substantial doubt in most of my positions; perhaps you're picking that up.
Of course it's worked. It's highly effective compared to allowing or encouraging it. Look at the large increase in the prevalence of homosexual experimentation among teens over the last two generations. Look at widespread pederasty (which is homosexuality) in ancient Greece.
Of course it works. Homosexuality rates are pretty damn low in these places. It's hard on the gays though. The intention is to help, not harm them further. The government interfering in private sex lives is shameful and wrong. What was done to Alan Turing for example was unforgivable. That doesn't mean that all gay-discouraging behavior is evil. It's actually a moral good most of the time; the goal is to reduce suffering without interference in people's lives.
Unlike you or most of the left, I'm not a bigot or someone who lumps people into groups ("white men", "brown people", "the gays"). I don't think like that. For me it's about individual behavior, and nothing else. We can gently encourage people toward or away from smoking, being fat, etc as well. Just because i think we should try to discourage excessive eating doesn't mean I want a Final Solution (nice term?) to the problem of the fatty.

The imputations are all yours. My position is very simple - live and let live, on a social level, gently discourage rather than encourage personally and socially unhealthy behavior. To you that makes me Hitler; so be it.
I don't believe this is true. Smokers and fatties do ok despite programs targeting their behavior and publicly calling it unhealthy - why wouldn't gays?

Someone who holds the mainstream view of a good portion of politicians a mere 20 years ago is not an extremist, sorry.
Now I'm a lynching apologist? Why have such a dark view of your fellow man? I don't get it; it's not real and doesn't help make you more happy.

To point out that lynching was actually a social practice against criminals, and that it was done to thousands of whites also, does not make me a "lynching apologist". Lyching is a horrible thing, but it was mostly not a racist thing. That's just a fact; if facts disagree with your feelings, I choose facts.

Facts after your display here. Ok... Your new name suits you much better then having truth in it.

He has thousands of post being critical of homosexuality. He believes what he says about them. You could really tell in some of those p7 threads.

Think he just needs to have some girl stimulate his prostate. It would help him get over his anal phobias.

Thousands of posts?? lol.

And yes I mean it. Nothing I have said is unreasonable or hateful or bigoted. That you think it is shows a shocking lack of perspective and philosophical breadth.
You seem far more miserable and negative toward your fellow human than me. I'm here for debate and to explore ideas; to you this is deeply personal; for someone not to accept your incredibly narrow views of morality and homosexuality means they are a bigot, a homophobe, a nazi, a terrible person who must be thwarted. It's a weird view to have of your fellow man. It's almost like the worst of religious fundamentalism or far right fascism, ironically.

You like the lamb in the woods look. How ever could someone see me as bigoted. Bring in the fainting couch.

Not really. Id guess i have a lot more friends and people i love outside my political and atheistic views then you. Every relationship ive been in has been with a Christian. All my family is.

Yup bigotry like yours erks me. You even have done it to Christians in this forum with your condescension on it. Ill make sure to point that out next time you do it.

See right here. You have to lie to "win" tells all.

Ive already said people who say homosexuality is sinful are not necessarily bigots. There needs to be more. Like if they spent thousands of posts degrading them.

It is a weird view you have invented for me with your many lies.

I seem to live in your head. You seem to genuinely believe I've posted thousands of posts on homosexuality (an obviously false statement that you keep doubling down on). I'm just going to assume you're mentally not too well and here to troll someone you feel hate for - it's pretty obvious given your lack of interest in actual topical discussion - and leave it at that. I'll stop responding to you.

No i dont. And even said so in my post that said it. Hundreds would be a more accurate guess (at least on this account) but you dont deserve accuracy since you keep lying about my views. Dont except it in return. If you need a hypocritical fainting couch they probably sell them online somewhere.
I dont hate you. Respond or not.

It's also reasonable to expect evidence if someone says ancient Greek pederasty caused significant negative effects to society. It's not clear to me it did: the Greeks used puberty to determine age of consent, so occasionally 13 was deemed old enough but more often 14 or 15; much of Europe even today accepts 14 as age of consent including Germany and Italy. I prefer age of consent being 16 out of an abundance of caution but evidently reasonable people can differ.

Pederasty had a social purpose in Greece: there were few if any schools, so the father in a well-to-do family would give permission that an adult citizen male have a relationship with the teenage pubescent son, to teach him the virtues of citizenship and guide him to adulthood. It included sex (usually the older male masturbating their penis between the younger's clenched thighs) but was not primarily for that purpose.

NAMBLA opposes all age of consent laws, because they're a group of pedophiles attracted to children incapable of giving informed consent. They can rightly be opposed because there is ~0 upside in current society to allowing their behavior, but considerable downside; we now use schools to teach teenagers to become adults.

This [PDF] has more info.

No, he doesn't believe it. Yes, he spends a LOT of energy trying to convince people that he does, but that's just part of the fun for him. It's all fake. The bigotry, the pretend outrage, everything. He's just in it for the argument.

Idk maybe. Seems very personal with Muslims you can smell the hate. If it is a put on...meh, same difference for me.

You'll excuse me for pointing out that you have said nothing prior about helping, and a great deal about discouraging. Perhaps you were waiting for the right moment.

And actually, discouraging and helping can be exclusive. Widely spread Christian dogma has had a devastating effect on the rate of HIV/AIDS cases and other STD's, by declaring condom use as immoral. There is no secular reason to ban safe sex practices, this is purely a religious problem, and an enormous one.


Your language has been really slippery, if you don't mind me saying. When you refer to 'behaviour', what are you actually talking about? In context, it just sounded a lot like 'whatever homosexuals do'.

In the West, same sex couples generally live completely normal and healthy lives. Can you be clear - these individuals are not immoral, should not be discouraged etc, is that right? If it's about 'outcomes' then this should be your consistent position.

I'll point out the obvious disconnect: you have been championing religious people that stigmatise homosexuals (or is it homosexual behaviour?), but their position has nothing to do with outcome in the way you claim your position is. What you described as a 'pony world' where homosexuality has no 'negative outcomes', that you admit you'd then find no moral issue, would continue to be a world in which your religious champions continuing to stigmatise them. You think their spiritual views line up, that in itself is highly questionable, but regardless of that, it would be entirely coincidental.

Of the Trayvon Martin fan club. That rings a bell

Actually, I've made clear multiple times that this is about helping. Homosexuality is a deeply harmful choice compared to being straight. To the extent that it is a choice, it is therefore best discouraged.
Sure. But the point I was making is that the discouraging of homosexuality is in an attempt to help people, just like discouraging smoking or overeating or drug user or unsafe sex. We discourage the behavior, educate about its harm, not ostracize the people involved. We do this all this time with lots of things; I don't get why homosexuality is somehow special and to discourage the behavior is a great evil.
Entering into same sex relationships is less emotionally and mentally healthy on average. The science is clear. Entering into male same sex relationships is also far less physically and sexually healthy.

Well, so do most kids who were sexually abused. Or drug users. Yet we discourage both. It's a question of relative health. I'm sure there are plenty of happy gay people, at least for a time. There are plenty of happy drug users too.
Well, male homosexuality is a deeply lustful and less intimate behavior than heterosexual coupling - they have 8x the number of lifetime partners. I don't think frequent changing of sex partners is moral or immoral, but it's less spiritually pure and probably less emotionally healthy.
It should be discouraged just like smoking should be, for the same reasons.

My position is perfectly consistent.
I haven't been championing them, I've been protecting them from bigotry. I extend the same toward gays if someone is bigoted toward them. I don't see why gays are a protected animal and religious people are not. There's no reason for it except the hatred and bullying spewed by the gay lobby, indoctrinating people.
Yes of course...if homosexuality was emotionally, physically, spiritually and mentally healthy, I'd be in there enjoying it myself.

I contend that if it was a healthy behavior, it probably wouldn't have been stigmatized in the first place.

It's not coincidental the same way as the bible saying you shouldn't eat pig is not coincidental. Pigs were full of human-transferable parasites that for example cows or goats didn't have anywhere near the parasite load.

But if was then sure. Life is full of coincidence and serendipity.

Nope. You have been using them as a tool.

Lots of Gays end up killing themselves because family and friends don't accept them. But hell if they would just change their life choices they would be happy and healthy. Why didn't they think of that?

There are far more reasons than that. Why omit the other reasons?
It's more a matter of prevention than cure. To save people from the unhappiness you describe above. Again, it is settled science that homosexuality is less physically, mentally and sexually healthy. But I guess the disapproval of relatives is causing this as well?

This is that thing where ToothSayer claims anything to the contrary is soft-science politicised propaganda and then inserts his own version of reality.

He knows this is bunk but it's not going to stop him.

Animal sacrifices were done for a specific reason, and were required to be done under the old testaments law.

But according to Romans 10:4 Jesus Christ was the end of the law.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth

Heb 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

Heb 10:2
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

Heb 10:3
But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

Heb 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Heb 10:5
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Heb 10:6
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Heb 10:7
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Heb 10:8
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Heb 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Heb 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all..

Again:

The answer to this question can be found here:

https://outreachjudaism.org/outreach...ews-for-jesus/

It will take a few minutes to read, but I think the most important sentence is:

"Contrary to the missionary claim that blood sacrifice is the only method of atonement in the Bible, there are three methods of atonement clearly defined in the Jewish Scriptures: The Sin Sacrifice, repentance, and charity."

and this one is also important:

"Refutation IV: Hosea foretold that the Jewish people would be without a sacrificial system, and instructed us to replace animal offerings with prayer"

So with this being the case, from a Jewish perspective, there's no reason to read what the New Testament says on this subject.

Mason

Always reading around the scriptures instead of the actual scriptures - never a good idea. And to top that off, the jews rejected the Christ. Jewish perspective from the time they denied the Christ until now, is not a good basis for truth. They completely ignored the truth then and they are doing it now also....

So, believe what you want and read want you want, but if you want the truth about it, you need to read the scriptures that actually refer to it, that are relevant... Hebrews as I suggested above...

You can read commentary about the word and rely upon that for truth, that's all hearsay. Search the scriptures and prove what you say. I am showing you where to look, to give you a good start. You can't read the old testament either because that was written for the Christians learning, not directly to them, The 7 Church Epistles were written to the Christians. And Hebrews was written to the Hebrew/Christians at that time who refused to stop living according to the law.