Am I the only one here who is appalled by this thread? What is it about the US that is so censorious? What does it matter what some ignorant wandering desert tribesman wrote 4,000 years ago when society was ignorant, homophobic and misogynistic? I am not gay, but I will defend to the death the right of gays to be a force for good in this society. Get over it. Were you aware that slavery has been abolished?
4 edits
Originally posted by Pianoman1Most of the Christians on this site who do not support gay rights do not condemn people for being gay. It is gay sex they object to on religious grounds. Providing gay people leave the sex alone, these Christians are quite happy for them to be good members of society.
Am I the only one here who is appalled by this thread? What is it about the US that is so censorious? What does it matter what some ignorant wandering desert tribesman wrote 4,000 years ago when society was ignorant, homophobic and misogynistic? I am not gay, but I will defend to the death the right of gays to be a force for good in this society. Get over it. Were you aware that slavery has been abolished?
So the right you would be defending is the right for two consenting adults to do as they please in the privacy of their own homes.
You may find that they ask you whether you think gay sex is moral. I still find this a baffling question. It's like asking whether red smells nice (apologies to any synaesthetes out there).
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhat untruths did he pass on, i found none, are you saying that those millions of persons who contracted HIV through homosexual sex did not have their lives ended prematurely? Is it the length of time resulting in premature death you are terming untrue, then produce figures of your own. Are you saying that after having the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among gay men like since records began that its not been essentially destructive to millions of people? Oh dear, why don't you tell us why in those cases that he stated was in your words, untrue, hmm?
You are a kid? You feel harassed because I pointed out that you deliberately pass on untruths? Or are you just lashing out in anger because I hit a sore spot?
why don't attack the data instead of the individual who posted it?
Originally posted by twhiteheadSore spot? You have got to be kidding. All your comments are so trivial I will not waste my time here on this thread.
You are a kid? You feel harassed because I pointed out that you deliberately pass on untruths? Or are you just lashing out in anger because I hit a sore spot?
Originally posted by checkbaiterHe should attack the data rather than the person who produced it, but its almost obligatory for those devoid of reason to attack your personality, i wouldn't stress out.
Sore spot? You have got to be kidding. All your comments are so trivial I will not waste my time here on this thread.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI am going to have to thumb this post down, rice when cooked properly, should be fragrant!
Most of the Christians on this site who do not support gay rights do not condemn people for being gay. It is gay sex they object to on religious grounds. Providing gay people leave the sex alone, these Christians are quite happy for them to be good members of society.
So the right you would be defending is the right for two consensual adults to do ...[text shortened]... g question. It's like asking whether red smells nice (apologies to any synaesthetes out there).
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have checked all his posts in every thread in this forum?
what untruths did he pass on, i found none,
I was referring to a number of untrue statements he made with regards to science recently in this forum. I pointed one out to him and he acknowledged his mistake and that he did not have the education to actually know the accuracy of the statement in question. He then continued to post more untrue claims which I pointed out, but he decided to ignore me from then on. So I have concluded that he is well aware that he is passing on false claims but doesn't care because he thinks that lying for God is OK. Hence my question to him as to what he thinks God thinks about it. If he tells me he thinks God admires people that lie for him then fine, I will leave him alone and let him tell whatever lies he likes.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadso you decide to attack him personally rather than the data he produced, why is that any more moral?
You have checked all his posts in every thread in this forum?
I was referring to a number of untrue statements he made with regards to science recently in this forum. I pointed one out to him and he acknowledged his mistake and that he did not have the education to actually know the accuracy of the statement in question. He then continued to post more un ...[text shortened]... ople that lie for him then fine, I will leave him alone and let him tell whatever lies he likes.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat data did he offer to support this statement -
what untruths did he pass on, i found none, are you saying that those millions of persons who contracted HIV through homosexual sex did not have their lives ended prematurely? Is it the length of time resulting in premature death you are terming untrue, then produce figures of your own. Are you saying that after having the highest ever recorded fig ...[text shortened]... your words, untrue, hmm?
why don't attack the data instead of the individual who posted it?
'Shell fish, pork, and all these other foods talked about in the bible are not good for you.'
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI attacked him personally? I asked him a fair question: what does he think God thinks about him passing on untruths.
so you decide to attack him personally rather than the data he produced, why is that any more moral?
That he passes on untruths is without question. He admitted doing so.
He said he doesn't care what we think, only what God thinks.
So I think it is a fair question to ask what God thinks. He doesn't have to answer (as he clearly wont from his response).
He then accused me of harassing kids. Now that is a personal attack.
Originally posted by twhiteheadits a personal attack, if you want to attack, then attack the data!
I attacked him personally? I asked him a fair question: what does he think God thinks about him passing on untruths.
That he passes on untruths is without question. He admitted doing so.
He said he doesn't care what we think, only what God thinks.
So I think it is a fair question to ask what God thinks. He doesn't have to answer (as he clearly wont from his response).
He then accused me of harassing kids. Now that is a personal attack.