# Homosexuality is worse than Terrorism according to Republican Representative!



## Shinobi Mugen (Mar 10, 2008)

> *Lawmaker's anti-gay comments attract attention*
> 
> An Oklahoma lawmaker's anti-gay comments are attracting national attention.
> 
> ...



_Source:_

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFxk7glmMbo[/YOUTUBE]

Holy crap, check out the video! What a bitch... Gay-Maffia Believe It!!!


----------



## Watchman (Mar 10, 2008)

Have we found Believe It! in real life?


----------



## sperish (Mar 10, 2008)

> "Shame on the person who didn't have the courage to come and say, 'I'm going to tape you and put it out on YouTube,'" she said.


Best part of the article.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 10, 2008)

waits for this same rep to do some serious nasty gay or pedo shit :S


----------



## hello25 (Mar 10, 2008)

Kern has a right to say what she wants. Though terrorism is more of an issue than homosexuality. Im against it. but id rather be safe.


----------



## Trov (Mar 10, 2008)

As long as she doesn't redirect my tax dollars from fighting terrorists to fighting homosexuals. I don't really care what she says.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Mar 10, 2008)

Hopefull she'll get crushed like th pitiful bitch she is.

Sadly there's a little voice in my head saying "THIS IS WHAT CHRISTIANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!"


----------



## Edo (Mar 10, 2008)

Of course it is worse...after all Homosexuality causes earthquakes while terrorism doesn't 

proof:
here


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Mar 10, 2008)

:
THE GAY MAFIA RULE THE WORLD!!!


----------



## The Fireball Kid (Mar 10, 2008)

Another reason why church-and-state need to be seperated. Christianity is an ideology, not fact. Just like all the other religions. Just because the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong doesn't make it so.


----------



## A1zen (Mar 10, 2008)

What a crazy woman, talking about indoctrination of kids.. as a matter of fact she is indoctrinated but doesnt realize it. Just leave people in there own value... weird that she says homosexuality is worse than terrorisme, i beg a differ. There are lots of things worse like pedofile's. I just can't understand these homohating people, she is just trying to hide behind her religion to say whats on her mind.


----------



## Last of the Saiyans (Mar 10, 2008)

Well I guess


----------



## Yamato (Inactive) (Mar 10, 2008)

Seems legit


----------



## drache (Mar 10, 2008)

HK-47 said:


> Have we found Believe It! in real life?


 
It would make alot of sense


Here's hoping it's one more seat the GOP loses (they're on quite a losing streak lately)


----------



## Toby (Mar 10, 2008)

I'm saving this article. Such a goldmine.

Here's my mandatory NF Café point about contradiction:

""Shame on the person who didn't have the courage to come and say, 'I'm going to tape you and put it out on YouTube,'" she said."

"What is wrong with me as an American exercising *my free speech rights* on a topic that is a very big issue today?" she said."


----------



## Shinobi Mugen (Mar 10, 2008)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Sadly there's a little voice in my head saying "THIS IS WHAT CHRISTIANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!"



Just to be clear, it isn't. Anyone who says stuff like this is not a real Christian. Just like how anyone who blows himself up along with a bunch of innocent people is not a real Muslim. It's a sad thing, but people has been abusing religion for the own crazy idiologies and political agenda's throughout history. 

Any person who is for the persecution of gay people and see them as abominations and mortal sinners who should burn in hell forever is no real Christian and understands absolutely nothing about the teachings of Jesus.


----------



## Bachi-san (Mar 10, 2008)

Wow... just cause the bible says it's wrong doesn't mean it is. I don't see how sexual orientation could be a problem, i mean, everyone should be able to think and feel whatever they like! and "freedom of speech" isn't an excuse. if it is insulting or discriminating she just shouldn't say it


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 10, 2008)

So she said that Gay's have a high suicide rate right? Make a guess why that is bitch, because whores like you make their lives hell until they feel of no worth, and would rather take their lives.

What is with half of America, they're afraid of their own shadows.


----------



## Sky is Over (Mar 10, 2008)

IMO, I find the lawmaker's accusations wild and unrealistic. Saying that homosexuals who pretty much mind their own in comparison to terrorists that are out-going in spreading their form of radical islam and willing to kill those who don't confirm is just ridiculous IMO. 

I think Lewis Black hits it on mark with this segment of his show:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## barrendesert (Mar 10, 2008)

I have to admit. Listening to idiots like her take a stand on what they believe makes me feel better about myself. Of course, having such people represent our country makes me ashamed of being a fucking American. 

This country's gone to hell, guys. We need a technocracy. Seriously.


----------



## Random Nobody (Mar 10, 2008)

Of course, didn't you all know the Gay Menace was invading!?  They've already attacked New York, but thankfully our brave troops where able to vigorously beat them off ().  Shocking footage of the battle can be found here:


----------



## Lain (Mar 10, 2008)

I love how she strongly stands by her opinion and isn't afraid of how it'll affect her reputation... yet she gets pissed because her opinions are on tape.

But I do agree, she is exercising her right of free speech, and although people have the right to disagree, nobody has the right to censor her.


----------



## Juanita Tequila (Mar 11, 2008)

She is tranny that looks like a hot mess and not in a good way.


----------



## AbnormallyNormal (Mar 11, 2008)

there is no quote provided of her saying that though, its only a paraphrase or summary apparently.... but if she did say that, it seems really really far out there, hardly any republicans really believe that. trust me republicans may associate all muslims with terrorists, and hate them, but they certainly view that as a bigger threat than homosexuality


----------



## Juno (Mar 11, 2008)

Shinobi Mugen said:


> Just to be clear, it isn't. Anyone who says stuff like this is not a real Christian. Just like how anyone who blows himself up along with a bunch of innocent people is not a real Muslim. It's a sad thing, but people has been abusing religion for the own crazy idiologies and political agenda's throughout history.
> 
> Any person who is for the persecution of gay people and see them as abominations and mortal sinners who should burn in hell forever is no real Christian and understands absolutely nothing about the teachings of Jesus.



.

A christian is a christian is a christian. Some are fundamentalist, some are moderate, but they're all still christian and you can't redefine the definition of 'christian' just because some members of the religion act shamefully. People like Sally Kern are embarrassing to moderate christians, but she's no less of a christian just because she takes the morally questionable segments of the bible a little too seriously.


----------



## Shodai (Mar 11, 2008)

It disgusts me how religous people in the US are.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 11, 2008)

Praise Christ! I am so glad that there is at least one representative with the guts and the heart to stand up for what is right!



			
				Article said:
			
		

> In an exclusive interview with News9.com Kern (R-Oklahoma City) *admits it is her voice on the recording and stands by her comments*. She said she's just stating the facts on what she believes.



Good for her! Hell yeah! Stand up for morality! We need more women like her.



			
				Article said:
			
		

> "I'm not gay bashing, but according to God's word that is not the right kind of lifestyle," she said. "It has deadly consequences."



She is 100% right.



			
				Article said:
			
		

> The YouTube video was released by Washington-based political action committee *The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund*. Their Web site reads: "While this speech is remarkable in its statements, it is not unique. For every bit of hateful rhetoric we hear, scores of other anti-gay statements go unchallenged."



This only proves her right. They are already slandering her as being hateful and anti-gay. THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE HATEFUL AND ANTI-GAY!!! I'M SICK OF IT! They're the homophobes! They're the ones oppressing people who are gay and now any who offers genuine help to them!



			
				Article said:
			
		

> Rep. Kern said the gay community, especially in Oklahoma, should not be surprised by her comments because she's made similar statements in the past.
> 
> Kern said the attention isn't necessarily wanted, but she says she won't shy away from her opinions and beliefs, either.



Good for her. But I think this needs widespread attention in order to bring these facts to light and stop the gay mafia from destroying America.



			
				Article said:
			
		

> "What is wrong with me as an American exercising my free speech rights on a topic that is a very big issue today?" she said.



That's right! Well the problem is of course that she is using that free speech right to tell the truth. And we can't have that in America so long as it offends somone who isn't conservative, Christian, pro-military, or patriotic.



			
				Article said:
			
		

> One of Kern's most controversial claims is that homosexuals and homosexuality is more of a threat to the United States than terrorism.



Also 100% correct. We have protections in place against terrorism, most of which is being carried out overseas. We have no protections against the radical gay activists who are constantly working to destroy education and morality in America.



			
				Article said:
			
		

> Kern said she doesn't know who taped the speech and when it was recorded.
> 
> "Shame on the person who didn't have the courage to come and say, 'I'm going to tape you and put it out on YouTube,'" she said.



Snake in the grass, but that is to be expected of gay mafioso.



			
				Article said:
			
		

> Karen Parsons is a local *activist*. She said the majority of Oklahoman's don't care about sexual orientation.



Prove it you snake in the grass!



			
				Article said:
			
		

> "They care whether or not people are attacked," she said. "They care about whether or not their kids are bullied in school and it's this kind of speech, this kind of *hate speech* that gives the bullies the license to do it, and that's *got to stop*."



Ya see this? This activist for the gay deathstyle wants to stop Sally's free speech, labeling it as "hate speech". What did she say against homosexual people? What did she say against gay individuals? NOTHING!!! She said nothing hatful about them. She merely pointed out the very real threat of radical homosexual activism in the schools, the law, and in society. These activists are the Nazis of our time in their efforts to silence any type of opposition to their radical gay agenda.



			
				Article said:
			
		

> Parsons also said that Kern's comments are an embarrassment to Oklahoma.



Well she's certainly entitled to her opinion. I think we should let the people of Oklahoma decide that though.



			
				Article said:
			
		

> "Hate speech has such negative consequences. The words really mean something." Parsons said.



Bull shit! The only words that mean anything are words of truth because they expose the evil ugliness of the world. So if she was affected by these words then it means that the words were true and they have struck her conscience.

You know why openly gay people get offended by someone who simply thinks that homosexuality is wrong? Because they know that the other person is right.

But what happens when people outright bash Christianity or put Jesus in a jar of urine and call it art? We pray for them that they will be lead to Christ and be saved from their sins and Hell. Why? Because God teaches us to forgive our enemies and turn the other check. But let it be a Christian speaking God's word against the deathstyle of homosexuality and the gay mafia will try to get them silenced!

Don't you people understand what is going on? Do you not hear the words of this gay activist? She is advocating restricting Sally's freedom of speech! How can you call that just?



			
				Article said:
			
		

> "She's a legislative leader and people pick up on her words and they take them to be the truth."



So silence her voice? Forget that! I don't care who says it! I pick up on her words to be the truth because they are the truth. Believe it!


EDIT: I had to post this.



The only one with the guts to stand up for what is right is a woman. Where are all the men at? Why aren't they standing with her and supporting her? Cowards! Well, I'm a man. I support her!

In fact, I am so inspired by her that I think I will put a rush on my posting of the Gay Mafia thread, which will expose their evil dealings in the world. Expect it some time this week!


----------



## drache (Mar 11, 2008)

AbnormallyNormal said:


> there is no quote provided of her saying that though, its only a paraphrase or summary apparently.... but if she did say that, it seems really really far out there, hardly any republicans really believe that. trust me republicans may associate all muslims with terrorists, and hate them, but they certainly view that as a bigger threat than homosexuality


 
Yes there is, too tired to find it but she did say that verbatium to a group of reporters.


BI,

She's not telling any truths, she's just spewing her hatred and hopefully she'll lose her seat because of it. Why don't you just go be delusional in the corner because seriously when you call homosexuality worse then terrorism, that is bigotry. 

You can't have it both ways she's either a victim or a victimizer and frankly here she's a victimizer.

PS I look forward to you posting that thread aftert 9 months of talking about it.


----------



## Juno (Mar 11, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> Praise Christ! I am so glad that there is at least one representative with the guts and the heart to stand up for what is right!
> 
> Good for her! Hell yeah! Stand up for morality! We need more women like her.
> 
> ...






Nah... I don't think I'll bite.


----------



## Lezard Valeth (Mar 11, 2008)

She just confirms what a group of jew zealots said a few days ago, homosexuality caused earthquakes on jerusalem. And you know earthquake > bombs.

100% proven 




Believe It! said:


> EDIT: I had to post this.


This isn't the right thread to post pics of you BI.


----------



## Sasori-puppet#66 (Mar 11, 2008)

Homophobes suck.


----------



## Batman (Mar 11, 2008)

I find it Ironic that both this representative and terrorists are acting "in the name of God".


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Mar 11, 2008)

Believe shIt! said:
			
		

> In fact, I am so inspired by her that I think I will put a rush on my posting of the Gay Mafia thread, which will expose their evil dealings in the world. Expect it some time this week!




YES! THE GAY MAFIA THREAD IS CUMMING! I CAN'T WAIT.


----------



## Denji (Mar 11, 2008)

This is just...


----------



## Edo (Mar 11, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> Praise Christ! I am so glad that there is at least one representative with the guts and the heart to stand up for what is right!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Haku was a BOY, Believe it!


----------



## Tunafish (Mar 11, 2008)

Homosexuality being more threatening to terrorism is just ridiculous. Not only are you cutting away the pursuit of happiness from a gay person, but are ruining the image of America for being known for its freedom.

I ask homophobic assholes, what's more important: A life without happiness or a life without a country?

I understand people to follow the Bible, but where does it say in a passage in the book where you aren't permitted to love the one you hold dearest most, despite their gender? 
Honestly...


----------



## Gecka (Mar 11, 2008)

I hope that he gets buttraped


----------



## -Deidara- (Mar 11, 2008)

ROFL


----------



## Sasuke (Mar 11, 2008)

I agree with them.


----------



## Juanita Tequila (Mar 11, 2008)

Ew. I was right, she is a tranny that looks like a hot mess and not in a good way.


----------



## oldandpervy (Mar 11, 2008)

Real terrorism would censor all manner of free thought and speech...  Homosexuality isn't terrorism at all.

Real terrorism is political correctness.  Real terrorism is the threat of your livelyhood for failing to comply.  Failing the follow the crowd rather than express your individuality.

Since god's word does indeed say that homosexuality is a sin, where is the lie?  She stated a fact.  Did it hurt some peoples feelings?  Maybe, but I guess truth hurts.  If you disagree with the believings of christianity, islam, and many other religions, that's your ish.  Go worship at the church of political correctness.

Let's face the facts.  Like her or not, find her extreme or not, her view on homosexuality falls within the 70%ish majority of America.

Get over it.  American guarantees free speech, not protection from being offended.


----------



## Omolara (Mar 11, 2008)

Seabear said:


> .
> 
> A christian is a christian is a christian. Some are fundamentalist, some are moderate, but they're all still christian and you can't redefine the definition of 'christian' just because some members of the religion act shamefully. People like Sally Kern are embarrassing to moderate christians, but she's no less of a christian just because she takes the morally questionable segments of the bible a little too seriously.




I think what Mugen means is that a true Christian follows the word of Christ and adheres to His teachings. Those spouting off hate and intolerance, rather than spreading the good news of God's love for the world and redemption through Jesus Christ are not "true" Christians. Perhaps calling them poor Christians would work. I believe that hate speech (while protected under the First) is not Christian-like, and therefore ugly in the sight of God. After all, Christians were persecuted as well. People like this (though not the worst of her kind) only add fuel to the anti-theist fire.

It's sad that the most vocal of any group usually turns out to be the ones you least want representing anybody.


----------



## drache (Mar 12, 2008)

oldandpervy said:


> Real terrorism would censor all manner of free thought and speech... Homosexuality isn't terrorism at all.
> 
> Real terrorism is political correctness. Real terrorism is the threat of your livelyhood for failing to comply. Failing the follow the crowd rather than express your individuality.
> 
> ...


 
And while we're clinging to free speech that same right gives me all the right I need to tell her where to stick her beliefs.

Further even if you can say something, even if you believe in something that doesn't mean there are not consequences. One of which is the people you represent may no longer think you worthy of representing them; that's not to say you should watch waht you say just be aware that every choice has consequences.


----------



## LEVITICUS 20 (Mar 12, 2008)

A real Christian is one who follows the Word of God, and the Word of God says that homophilia is immoral, is an abomination before His eyes.

Christ said that until he returns, not one letter or one dot shall be removed from the letter of the Law, and the Law( Law of God, not man) says homophilia is immoral and an abomination.


Those so-called "christians" who do not oppose homophilia, are not real Christians, they are merely secular neopagans who are pretending to be Christians.

Homophilia is wrong precisely because God specifically said it is wrong, for God is the first last and only source and arbiter of Objective Moral Truth.

This congressman should be commended and given a medal for bravery and decency for having the guts to stand up against the homophiles and homophile coddlers and preach the Truth of God's Word.

This world needs more statesmen like her!!


The only haters in this thread are the homophile coddlers who hate Christians and other people who oppose homophilia.

If you don't want to oppose homophilia, then fine that's your decision, we're not forcing you to oppose homophilia, but for many Christians and even non-Christians, they have and they will oppose homophilia and we have every right to oppose this immoral perversion.

There should be a separation of pro-homophile ideology from the state, that would be a good and valid separation.

But you cannot separate the Church from the state, for that violates religious freedom, and freedom of conscience.

We need more people who are willing to stand up against the homocrats.

Homophilia is worse than islamic terrorism, for it is homophilia which will weaken and destroy a free society from the inside like a virus, which will make that society vulnerable to the attack of the islamic terrorists.

A country, a society  with a strong Christian foundation cannot be overcome by the islamic terrorists. 

It is only when a country or society hase been weakened by the internal rot 
and filth of homophilia can the islamic terrorists hope to win.

Believe It! , thank you for being the only person here to stand up for God's Holy Word and the brave congressman who refused to bow to the homocrats.


----------



## LEVITICUS 20 (Mar 12, 2008)

oldandpervy said:


> Real terrorism would censor all manner of free thought and speech...  Homosexuality isn't terrorism at all.
> 
> Get over it.  American guarantees free speech, not protection from being offended.



Actually , these homophiles and their coddlers do want to censor any and all free speech which opposes their immoral perverted ideology and behavior.


----------



## drache (Mar 12, 2008)

So is this another anti-BI dupe, a BI dupe or are you just that bigoted?

Oh and fyi if your god asked you to jump off a cliff would you? How about murder in cold blood? Maybe cheat on your spouse?

Because I was told to just shows poor thinking skills.


----------



## Random Nobody (Mar 12, 2008)

> But you cannot separate the Church from the state, for that violates religious freedom, and freedom of conscience.





You do realize religious freedom means you can believe in any religion right?  Meaning that having any one religion involved with state affairs is *violating religious freedom.*


----------



## LEVITICUS 20 (Mar 12, 2008)

drache said:


> So is this another anti-BI dupe, a BI dupe or are you just that bigoted?
> 
> Oh and fyi if your god asked you to jump off a cliff would you? How about murder in cold blood? Maybe cheat on your spouse?
> 
> Because I was told to just shows poor thinking skills.



And this post really shows poor thinking skills.

God never said such things, in fact His teachings are entirely the opposite.

It is people like you who are promoting things like fornication homophilia and adultery, God is against all those things.

What God says goes, he is the supreme rule maker. Problem is people like you want to be gods, you want to make the rules for yourself and everyone else.




> You do realize religious freedom means you can believe in any religion right? Meaning that having any one religion involved with state affairs is violating religious freedom.



That's called establishing a state religion. 

Establishing a state reigion is not allowed.

Separation of Church and state  is not the same as not allowing the establishment of a state religion.

But both, establising a state religion and promoting the separation of Church and state result to the loss of religious freedom.

There should be no state religion and at the same time there should be no separation of Church and state.

People and politicians can and should be allowed to follow the teachings of God in the public square.

The teachings of God should be allowed in the public square and in the laws and policies of the land.  

Separation of Church and state forbids this, that is why it is wrong.

Good thing it does not exist in the U.S. constitution.


----------



## Random Nobody (Mar 12, 2008)

> The teachings of God should be allowed in the public square and in the laws and policies of the land.



Which is different from a state religion how?  That's like saying you don't force people to be Christian but you force them to follow Christian beliefs.


----------



## Shinobi Mugen (Mar 12, 2008)

Omolara said:


> I think what Mugen means is that a true Christian follows the word of Christ and adheres to His teachings. Those spouting off hate and intolerance, rather than spreading the good news of God's love for the world and redemption through Jesus Christ are not "true" Christians. Perhaps calling them poor Christians would work. I believe that hate speech (while protected under the First) is not Christian-like, and therefore ugly in the sight of God. After all, Christians were persecuted as well. People like this (though not the worst of her kind) only add fuel to the anti-theist fire.



That’s indeed what I meant by that. I’d go as far as calling those spreading this kind of hate to be fake Christian because to anyone who understands the teachings of the bible, (instead of just quoting it and following it by the letter) such a thing goes against all of what it means to be a Christian and against everything Jesus said and did.



LEVITICUS 20 said:


> A real Christian is one who follows the Word of God, and the Word of God says that homophilia is immoral, is an abomination before His eyes.
> 
> Christ said that until he returns, not one letter or one dot shall be removed from the letter of the Law, and the Law( Law of God, not man) says homophilia is immoral and an abomination.
> 
> ...



I feel really sorry for you. You think you will get to heaven by following the exact letter of the laws in the bible, sitting in church every Sunday, and by appearing like a good conservative Christian to the outside world. But this is impossible, for no man is without sin. The way to get to heaven is through Jesus, by loving him and all of your neighbours, and by accepting the spirit behind those laws and words and stories in the bible, for without that they are meaningless, just letters and words.

Did you forget the story of Jesus and the Pharisees? The Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the law of the Sabbath by healing someone on that day. A clear violation to the letter of that law, but not to it’s spirit since Jesus responded by asking them if it was evil to do good on the Sabbath and to save a life. Jesus also preached and gathered food on the Sabbath. The meaning behind this is that the laws of God exist for the benefit of humanity, and when human needs become critical it is acceptable to violate them.


----------



## anticute (Mar 12, 2008)

Bullshit. You should love whoever you want to love. And fuck whoever you wanna fuck.... as long as it's protected sex. 

Than again _all_ Republican's are like that. Ever saw American Dad?


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Mar 12, 2008)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Hopefull she'll get crushed like th pitiful bitch she is.
> 
> Sadly there's a little voice in my head saying "THIS IS WHAT CHRISTIANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!"



I don't believe that. All Christians aren't like that. I grow tired of defending my religion from the ignorant fools that are a part of it.


narutosimpson said:


> waits for this same rep to do some serious nasty gay or pedo shit :S



Beat me to it


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 12, 2008)

drache said:
			
		

> She's not telling any truths, she's just spewing her hatred



Okay, and what did she say that was hateful?



			
				drache said:
			
		

> and hopefully she'll lose her seat because of it.



Wow, that's pretty fascist of you to say. So if someone says something offensive it means that they should lose their political title?



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Why don't you just go be delusional in the corner because seriously when you call homosexuality worse then terrorism, that is bigotry.



She didn't call it worse that terrorism. She said it is a bigger threat to American than terrorism. HUGE difference. But I wouldn't except you to get her words right. You never fully listen to or read what people say or write.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> You can't have it both ways she's either a victim or a victimizer and frankly here she's a victimizer.



She is neither one. You're the one wanting it both ways. You say gays have been victimized by her, yet you attack and slander her. Now who is trying to victimize others drache?



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> Haku was a BOY, Believe it!



Wow, that was a non-sequiter. But no, actually Haku was a girl.



			
				AkatsukiSushi said:
			
		

> Homosexuality being more threatening to terrorism is just ridiculous.



Why? If most terrorists are fighting in Iraq, and America has homeland security stopping any terrorist attacks since 9-11, then how can homosexuality not be more of a threat than terrorism? Terrorism poses almost no threat to us now that we have so many protections in place and the numbers of terrorists in the world is shrinking.

Homosexuality on the other hand is not being fought by anything. It is being advanced in the schools, communities, courts, government, and through the media on a daily basis. There are no safeguards protecting America from radical homosexual activism, and since homosexuality is a deathstyle that carries the highest risk of STD infection, that does make it a much greater threat than terrorism.



			
				AkatsukiSushi said:
			
		

> Not only are you cutting away the pursuit of happiness from a gay person



Ah bull crap. Gays can still be gay in private. It isn't our fault that they aren't happy with being gay. That is what a deathstyle does to people. If they don't like it they can change and pursue happiness the normal way.



			
				AkatsukiSushi said:
			
		

> I ask homophobic assholes, what's more important: A life without happiness or a life without a country?



That... question... doesn't help your argument. A life without happiness but with a country is more important. It is Sally Kern's assessment that homosexuality is a threat to the country, and she is right.



			
				AkatsukiSushi said:
			
		

> I understand people to follow the Bible, but where does it say in a passage in the book where you aren't permitted to love the one you hold dearest most, despite their gender? Honestly...



It isn't about love. In fact, the Bible says to love everyone. The issue here is who people have sex with, and the Bible says that people are only to have sex with the one opposite sex person they are married to. Anything else is a sin or abomination.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> And while we're clinging to free speech that same right gives me all the right I need to tell her where to stick her beliefs.



Yes it does. So who's stoppin' you? Who's calling for you to be banned for your comments?



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Further even if you can say something, even if you believe in something that doesn't mean there are not consequences. One of which is the people you represent may no longer think you worthy of representing them;



Then isn't it a good thing that she said what she believed? Now the people she represents can see who she is, and they can now make up their minds on whether to disagree with her or support her.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> that's not to say you should watch waht you say just be aware that every choice has consequences.



But they don't always have bad consequences.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> Christ said that until he returns, not one letter or one dot shall be removed from the letter of the Law, and the Law( Law of God, not man) says homophilia is immoral and an abomination.



Yes homosexuality is an abomination, sin, and deathstyle.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> Those so-called "christians" who do not oppose homophilia, are not real Christians, they are merely secular neopagans who are pretending to be Christians.



Yes, and there are actually those who pose as Christians and outright accept homosexuality! They say that the verses written all throughout the Bible condemning homosexuality are not valid or that they can be interpreted as not condemning homosexuality. They have twisted the Episcopal church to bless same-sex marriages even! I have no idea how they justify that one though. They must have thrown out everything Jesus said about marriage.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> Homophilia is wrong precisely because God specifically said it is wrong, for God is the first last and only source and arbiter of Objective Moral Truth.



Amen!



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> This congressman should be commended and given a medal for bravery and decency for having the guts to stand up against the homophiles and homophile coddlers and preach the Truth of God's Word.



I agree. I'd vote for her as president over the three current candidates.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> The only haters in this thread are the homophile coddlers who hate Christians and other people who oppose homophilia.



Correct.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> If you don't want to oppose homophilia, then fine that's your decision, we're not forcing you to oppose homophilia, but for many Christians and even non-Christians, they have and they will oppose homophilia and we have every right to oppose this immoral perversion.



I hope you stick around these forums for a long time.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> There should be a separation of pro-homophile ideology from the state, that would be a good and valid separation.



We need elected officials who stand up for morality in America.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> But you cannot separate the Church from the state, for that violates religious freedom, and freedom of conscience.



That's right. The founders wanted the government to be influenced by good religious ideals.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> We need more people who are willing to stand up against the homocrats.



Well, don't look at repubeicans. McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have written the one man one woman definition of marriage into the constitution.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> Homophilia is worse than islamic terrorism, for it is homophilia which will weaken and destroy a free society from the inside like a virus, which will make that society vulnerable to the attack of the islamic terrorists.



Hmm... well I don't know about it being worse than or even as bad as Islamic terrorism, but it is worse in America since it is much more widespread and deadly.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> A country, a society with a strong Christian foundation cannot be overcome by the islamic terrorists.
> 
> It is only when a country or society hase been weakened by the internal rot
> and filth of homophilia can the islamic terrorists hope to win.



YES! And the terrorists know it too. They have actually learned from the homosexual activists in their censoring of free speech. Now CAIR is doing the same thing to those who speak out against radical Islam.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> Believe It! , thank you for being the only person here to stand up for God's Holy Word and the brave congressman who refused to bow to the homocrats.



Thank you my friend. Are you male or female? I would like to know so I can refer to you as my brother or sister in Christ.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> Actually , these homophiles and their coddlers do want to censor any and all free speech which opposes their immoral perverted ideology and behavior.



Not only that, but they want to take away a parent's right to raise their own children! They want the schools to raise other people's kids.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Oh and fyi if your god asked you to jump off a cliff would you? How about murder in cold blood? Maybe cheat on your spouse?
> 
> Because I was told to just shows poor thinking skills.



If God commands someone to do something, they should do it. God knows best. God told Abraham to kill Isaac, and just as he was about to God stopped him. That shows that God does not command His people to do wrong. He always has a plan and he always knows what is best. Believe it!



			
				Random Nobody said:
			
		

> You do realize religious freedom means you can believe in any religion right? Meaning that having any one religion involved with state affairs is violating religious freedom.



No it doesn't.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> That's called establishing a state religion.
> 
> Establishing a state reigion is not allowed.



Correct.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> But both, establising a state religion and promoting the separation of Church and state result to the loss of religious freedom.



Right. The separation of church and state is not actually written in any U.S. laws.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> There should be no state religion and at the same time there should be no separation of Church and state.



Yes, but there should be a separation of perversity and state.



			
				LEVITICUS 20 said:
			
		

> Good thing it does not exist in the U.S. constitution.



It doesn't exist in any U.S. law.



			
				Random Nobody said:
			
		

> Which is different from a state religion how? That's like saying you don't force people to be Christian but you force them to follow Christian beliefs.



Most of the laws now are based off of Christian beliefs, or at the very least they are consistent with them.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Mar 12, 2008)

BELIEVE IT MADE A FRIENDS! 



Shinobi Mugen said:


> I feel really sorry for you. You think you will get to heaven by following the exact letter of the laws in the bible, sitting in church every Sunday, and by appearing like a good conservative Christian to the outside world. But this is impossible, for no man is without sin. The way to get to heaven is through Jesus, by loving him and all of your neighbours, and by accepting the spirit behind those laws and words and stories in the bible, for without that they are meaningless, just letters and words.
> 
> Did you forget the story of Jesus and the Pharisees? The Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the law of the Sabbath by healing someone on that day. A clear violation to the letter of that law, but not to it?s spirit since Jesus responded by asking them if it was evil to do good on the Sabbath and to save a life. Jesus also preached and gathered food on the Sabbath. The meaning behind this is that the laws of God exist for the benefit of humanity, and when human needs become critical it is acceptable to violate them.



Skillz


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 12, 2008)

Jesus did not violate them. He did good deeds on the Sabbath. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Mar 12, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> Jesus did not violate them. He did good deeds on the Sabbath. Nothing wrong with that.



Good job so totally not reply to the point.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 12, 2008)

What point did I not reply to?


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Mar 12, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> What point did I not reply to?



There *were* religious laws which Jesus broke. You said he didn't. *He did.* The Pharisees said so. 

Jesus took his own initiative and moral judgement and ignored a religious law to do what he believed was the greater good.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 12, 2008)

Pharisees < Jesus   

He didn't break the law. Besides, even if Jesus had gone against God's law, it wouldn't matter because Jesus is a part of God. He has the power to fulfill the laws, and that is what he did with other laws.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Mar 12, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> Pharisees < Jesus
> 
> He didn't break the law. Besides, even if Jesus had gone against God's law, it wouldn't matter because Jesus is a part of God. He has the power to fulfill the laws, and that is what he did with other laws.



Great example he is then. Do as I say, not as I do : /


----------



## Edo (Mar 12, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> Wow, that was a non-sequiter. But no, actually Haku was a girl.




Ummm...No, Haku was a Boy, and most probably a homosexual one, Believe it!


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 12, 2008)

LEVITICUS 20 said:


> *homophilia*



 Homophilia? Now that's a new one on me.


----------



## Link (Mar 12, 2008)

What a bitch.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Mar 12, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> Homophilia? Now that's a new one on me.



That's the one where you can't form scabs right?


----------



## buff cat (Mar 12, 2008)

haha "deadly consequences".....
:amazed


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 12, 2008)

The Pink Ninja said:


> That's the one where you can't form scabs right?



 I do believe it is.


----------



## Shinobi Mugen (Mar 12, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> Pharisees < Jesus
> 
> He didn't break the law. Besides, even if Jesus had gone against God's law, it wouldn't matter because Jesus is a part of God. He has the power to fulfill the laws, and that is what he did with other laws.



He violated many religious laws, yet never sinned because he never went against God's laws. There is a diffirence between the two. God asks us to love him and all other people around us, all other rules and commandments flow from this and should come natural if you adhere to those principles. If upholding any religious law conflicts with those first principles than God's will is misinterpreted by humans, something that unfortunately happens far too much.

Jesus openly affiliated himself with the worst sinners, the most hated roman tax-collectors, with prostitutes and all other people shunned by society. God has nothing against gay people, and even if he did he'd still love them as much as anyone else. If Jesus was around on earth right now he'd probably respond to all those people who were so opposed to gay people the same way as he did to the Pharisees back then.


----------



## idc lol (Mar 12, 2008)

She can say whatever she wants.  The Gay Mafia and its members, such as myself, cannot be stopped.  She is powerless before our gay hypnotism.  Yesterday, I was straight.  No longer.  Assimilate.  Assimilate.  Resistance is futile.  

Seriously, the more I hear people's opinions on things in general, the more I just want to shut myself off and never inform myself of them again.  I don't look down on those who stay blissfully ignorant of politics anymore.  It's not even full of intellects on either side, just ordinary people who are paranoid, cannot see the holes in their own logic, and want to project their desires into law.

Stuff like this just polarizes the left and the right, religion and science.  It will get to the point where conflict on another level will be inevitable.  Science wants to move us forward, religion is keeping us stagnant.  Lol @ the pope naming new sins.


----------



## Mintaka (Mar 12, 2008)

The homosexual plants are watching her every move.....

It won't be long before THEY strike and assimliate her into there masses......


----------



## Watchman (Mar 12, 2008)

idc lol said:


> She can say whatever she wants.  The Gay Mafia and its members, such as myself, cannot be stopped.  She is powerless before our gay hypnotism.  Yesterday, I was straight.  No longer.  Assimilate.  Assimilate.  Resistance is futile.
> 
> Seriously, the more I hear people's opinions on things in general, the more I just want to shut myself off and never inform myself of them again.  I don't look down on those who stay blissfully ignorant of politics anymore.  It's not even full of intellects on either side, just ordinary people who are paranoid, cannot see the holes in their own logic, and want to project their desires into law.
> 
> Stuff like this just polarizes the left and the right, religion and science.  It will get to the point where conflict on another level will be inevitable.  Science wants to move us forward, religion is keeping us stagnant.  Lol @ the pope naming new sins.





Tokoyami said:


> The homosexual plants are watching her every move.....
> 
> It won't be long before THEY strike and assimliate her into there masses......



 Now, I'm tempted to make, or at least support the making of a "Gay Mafia" FC, for the epic lulz.

You cannot resist teh buttsecks. You will be assimilated.


----------



## full_metal_ninja (Mar 12, 2008)

it  because he belives this


----------



## Mintaka (Mar 12, 2008)

HK-47 said:


> Now, I'm tempted to make, or at least support the making of a "Gay Mafia" FC, for the epic lulz.
> 
> You cannot resist teh buttsecks. You will be assimilated.


I call co conspirater/supreme gay pant.


----------



## drache (Mar 12, 2008)

LEVITICUS 20 said:


> And this post really shows poor thinking skills.
> 
> God never said such things, in fact His teachings are entirely the opposite.
> 
> ...


 
I want to be a god?!?! 

Well it's good to know you're apparently pyschic as well as psychotic.....

Your god is an ass and may he sit on a tack. 

Oh and go reread the bible 'thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live....' 'if you're right eye offends you pluck it out' go look up the laws for disobedient childern go read Job. But I'm seriously not going to go though it all.

Frankly given the nature of my challenger I don't need to exercise my brain much; try and be more of a challenge and I'll think more.




Believe It! said:


> Okay, and what did she say that was hateful?


 
Let's start with comparing terrorism to homosexuality shall we Alex?



Believe It! said:


> Wow, that's pretty fascist of you to say. So if someone says something offensive it means that they should lose their political title?


 


No it's not fascist, are you using your own definitions again? It would have been fascist if I said 'she MUST RESIGN' but I didn't. As I clearly explained we live in a representive republic that means her people can express thier disapproval but not reeelecting her. You are aware of this concept right? That no elected figure is ever a king (the president's attempts aside)




Believe It! said:


> She didn't call it worse that terrorism. She said it is a bigger threat to American than terrorism. HUGE difference. But I wouldn't except you to get her words right. You never fully listen to or read what people say or write.


 
You're attempts at semantical arguements are both pathetic and cute; she compared the two, she then concluded that homosexuality is worse. Moving on.



Believe It! said:


> She is neither one. You're the one wanting it both ways. You say gays have been victimized by her, yet you attack and slander her. Now who is trying to victimize others drache?


 
Then why are you defending her? Why are you trying to call me facist? Clearly you need to read a dictionary because you don't seem to understand basic word definitions.



Believe It! said:


> Yes it does. So who's stoppin' you? Who's calling for you to be banned for your comments?


 
When did I ever say anyone was calling for me to be banned? 

Red herring FTL.



Believe It! said:


> Then isn't it a good thing that she said what she believed? Now the people she represents can see who she is, and they can now make up their minds on whether to disagree with her or support her.


 
*shrug* I never said that she shouldn't say what she believes but like I said when you do you risk people disagreeing with you and some people's egos just can't take that.



Believe It! said:


> But they don't always have bad consequences.


 
This is a pointless observation Captain Obvious Defender of ALL that is BALANTLY obvious.



Believe It! said:


> That's right. The founders wanted the government to be influenced by good religious ideals.


 
No they didn't, why don't you actually READ the consitution and the delcaration of independence for once?



Believe It! said:


> If God commands someone to do something, they should do it. God knows best. God told Abraham to kill Isaac, and just as he was about to God stopped him. That shows that God does not command His people to do wrong. He always has a plan and he always knows what is best. Believe it!


 

Good luck proving that in a legal court.....though you might be able to arrange a trip to the loony bin.

God might have a plan but I think he lost the directions.

And blind unreasoning adherence like that is what Jesus spoke out against; but then you've never let the facts get in teh way of your hatred so why start now?

edit: I call 'supreme mugwomp-subversive converter' of said club! :smile


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 12, 2008)

Edo said:
			
		

> Ummm...No, Haku was a Boy, and most probably a homosexual one, Believe it!



Well, you're certainly entitled to your uninformed and baseless opinion. If you have any proof to back up your claims then I'd like to see it.



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> He violated many religious laws



Religious laws are made by man. They aren't valid.



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> yet never sinned because he never went against God's laws.



So we agree. That's all.



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> If upholding any religious law conflicts with those first principles than God's will is misinterpreted by humans, something that unfortunately happens far too much.



And if you would kindly notice, Christians are the ones witnessing to people who are gay and trying to help them by leading them to Christ who has the power to change them. It is the homosexual activists and those who support homosexuality that are killing people who are gay by encouraging them to stay trapped in the deathstyle.



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> Jesus openly affiliated himself with the worst sinners, the most hated roman tax-collectors, with prostitutes and all other people shunned by society.



Okay then, so we agree that Christians should be allowed to witness to people who are gay without fear of being called hateful or homophobic, right?



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> God has nothing against gay people, and even if he did he'd still love them as much as anyone else.



You're preaching to the choir. This is what we have been saying the whole time.



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> If Jesus was around on earth right now he'd probably respond to all those people who were so opposed to gay people the same way as he did to the Pharisees back then.



We are not opposed to gay people. We are for them because we are trying to help them. It is the sin of homosexuality that we oppose.

Also, you remember how I have been saying that sexual preference is a choice? Well guess how I see those people when they choose to be straight and live right. I see them as heterosexuals. When they get saved, I see them as my brothers and sisters.

So you don't have to worry about me. I would tell you to go preach to the Westbouro Craptists, but they aren't Christians, so...



			
				HK-47 said:
			
		

> Now, I'm tempted to make, or at least support the making of a "Gay Mafia" FC, for the epic lulz.



I think you're too late for making one. Raikage12 already made it... I think. Or maybe it was Chrono Nexus.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> I want to be a god?!?!



Yes, you do. You constantly complain about God and how He does things. You think you would be much better at running things than Him.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Your god is an ass and may he sit on a tack.



I rest my case.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Oh and go reread the bible 'thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live....' 'if you're right eye offends you pluck it out' go look up the laws for disobedient childern go read Job. But I'm seriously not going to go though it all.



You never went through it once. All you do is regurgitate the same vomit that you find on Bible bashing websites.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Frankly given the nature of my challenger I don't need to exercise my brain much; try and be more of a challenge and I'll think more.



But anyone too challenging and your brain shuts down. You just insult the person, tell others to ignore him or her, and then quit.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Let's start with comparing terrorism to homosexuality shall we Alex?



How did she compare the two? Are you sure you were *listening*?



			
				drache said:
			
		

> No it's not fascist, are you using your own definitions again?



You mean the correct definitions? Yes. You want her to lose her title because of her belief that homosexuality is wrong, dangerous, and harmful. That's fascist.

Would I be right in calling for Obama to drop out of the race because of his belief that the sermon on the mount condones civil unions?



			
				drache said:
			
		

> It would have been fascist if I said 'she MUST RESIGN' but I didn't.



"She's not telling any truths, she's just spewing her hatred *and hopefully she'll lose her seat because of it*." - You 



			
				drache said:
			
		

> As I clearly explained we live in a representive republic that means her people can express thier disapproval but not reeelecting her. You are aware of this concept right?



Don't try to act smart by implying that I don't know how the system works, you know what you said and now you're just trying to backpeddle out of it. Well I've got you dead to rights on this. You said nothing of the people seeing her for what she really is, or that if you lived in Oklahoma you would not vote her back into office, no! You said that because of her comments that hopefully she will LOSE her seat.

Ga-head! Now tell us that you meant her seat off of a regular office chair, not her title as state rep.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> she compared the two, she then concluded that homosexuality is worse.



How did she compare them? Did she say, "a terrorist runs into a crowd and blows himself and others up, while a homosexual on the other hand runs into a crowd of people and spreads AIDS to them"? Huh? Did she say, "here's the number of people killed by terrorism, and here is the number of people killed by AIDS transmitted through homosexual sex"? No. Did she say, "homosexuals and terrorists have similar ideologies"? No, she didn't.

So what do you mean she compared the two? She simply said that homosexuality is a bigger threat to America than terrorism is. That isn't a comparison, it's a statement. A true statement at that. Unless... you have proof that this is not true.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Then why are you defending her?



BECAUSE YOU'RE ATTACKING HER!!!



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Why are you trying to call me facist?



Because what you are saying seems quite fascist to me.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Clearly you need to read a dictionary because you don't seem to understand basic word definitions.



Fascism
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, *suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship*, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. 
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 
*Oppressive, dictatorial control.*

Fascist
–noun 
1. a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism. See: drache



			
				drache said:
			
		

> When did I ever say anyone was calling for me to be banned?



Well you so pompously touted your right to comment on Sally's comments as if that makes you right in slandering her, and I was just pointing out that no one is treating you as you are treating her.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> *shrug* I never said that she shouldn't say what she believes but like I said when you do you risk people disagreeing with you and some people's egos just can't take that.



You said that hopefully she loses her seat because of what she said, which was hateful in your opinion. So obviously you think that government officials should not have the same opinion as her.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> No they didn't, why don't you actually READ the consitution and the delcaration of independence for once?



The Constitution protects religious thought of all people. The Declaration of Independence references God.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Good luck proving that in a legal court.....though you might be able to arrange a trip to the loony bin.



If I were to follow God's plan, then I would not have to defend myself in court. I wouldn't even be caught.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> God might have a plan but I think he lost the directions.



...



			
				drache said:
			
		

> And blind unreasoning adherence like that is what Jesus spoke out against; but then you've never let the facts get in teh way of your hatred so why start now?



Got a verse, or is this just more bull crap?


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Mar 12, 2008)

Wonder if she has any kids.

I think we found Believe It!'s mom.


----------



## Vanity (Mar 12, 2008)

I wish everyone would just accept gays. It's not like they're hurting anyone. And I'm Christian but I don't think being gay is wrong. I don't think it's immoral if they are in a one on one relationship like everyone else. One of my male friends is gay and I don't have a problem with him at all.


----------



## Shinobi Mugen (Mar 12, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> Religious laws are made by man. They aren't valid.
> 
> ~
> 
> So we agree. That's all.



If we agree on this then how can you still see homosexuality as a sin. The sinfulness of homosexuality is just another man-made religious doctrine. Why would God himself view homosexuality as a sin? Homosexual love is just as much love a heterosexual love and these people hurt no one by their practices. Homosexuals turning your kids gay? Not gonna happen, people are either born gay or not. People do *not* turn gay by choice. Homosexuals corrupting the moral fabric of society? What’s wrong about love? If you are against people running around having frequent irresponsible unprotected sex with multiple partners then just say that, don’t lump all homosexuals into that category.



Believe It! said:


> And if you would kindly notice, Christians are the ones witnessing to people who are gay and trying to help them by leading them to Christ who has the power to change them. It is the homosexual activists and those who support homosexuality that are killing people who are gay by encouraging them to stay trapped in the deathstyle.
> 
> ~
> 
> ...



Eh… that’s not what you are doing. You are calling them abominations, a threat to society, immoral sinner who should burn in hell for what they are and try to convert them to heterosexuality which is impossible.

Your intension might be to save their eternal soul from hell. But to do this you turn their earthly lives into a living hell by claiming what they are is a sin and an abomination and when they find it is impossible to change they hang themselves because they can’t continue living this way. Try to help them? They don’t need to be helped. Because there is nothing wrong with what they are. They are perfectly natural the way God made them and wants them to be.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Mar 12, 2008)

OMG!  Homosexuals are worse than terrorists!  Because, after all, they go around blowing up day care centers and hospitals and churches and market places and sky scrapers and kill thousands of people because they're so full of self-righteous bullshit!

... Oh, wait, no... sorry, got that backwards.

... You know... the term, 'self-righteous bullshit' is quickly becoming one of my favorites...


----------



## drache (Mar 12, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> Yes, you do. You constantly complain about God and how He does things. You think you would be much better at running things than Him.


 
So you're claiming you know what I am thinking? *adds BI to the self proclaimed psychic list and to the psychotic list*

I'd never want to be god, why? Go watch Bruce Almighty and then you'll realize that being god (if god exists) would suck as people are just too whiny and too immature.

But thank you for trying and *failing* to put words into my mouth.



Believe It! said:


> I rest my case.


 
That's cute not only are you interjecting yourself into someone else's conversation (which is a little pompous and rude) but you're acting like you have made some sort of case.

Are you bored or just have no life so you must troll these boards?



Believe It! said:


> You never went through it once. All you do is regurgitate the same vomit that you find on Bible bashing websites.


 
And you *COMPLETELY* ignore the point and evidence, thank you I'll take that as you conceeding it to me. I win that one! (see I can do it too)



Believe It! said:


> But anyone too challenging and your brain shuts down. You just insult the person, tell others to ignore him or her, and then quit.


 
Well that certainly doesn't include you even if it's true; I refute your agruements as a hobby BI and as something to do when I want to not think about Chaos in 3 dimensions. The next time you try and insult someone's intelligence, you might want to try harder or maybe just be wiser in who you pick.



Believe It! said:


> How did she compare the two? Are you sure you were *listening*?


 


How did you pass English classes? Using 'worse' 'worse then' 'more then' 'greater' and so on are all words of COMPARISON. Saying 'I am worse' makes no sense you have to have 2 objects and the adjective *compares *them. In this case she was talking about terrorism and homosexaulity. Do you need a cranyon map to understand the basic concepts of english? 



Believe It! said:


> You mean the correct definitions? Yes. You want her to lose her title because of her belief that homosexuality is wrong, dangerous, and harmful. That's fascist.
> 
> Would I be right in calling for Obama to drop out of the race because of his belief that the sermon on the mount condones civil unions?


 
It's not a title, a title implies things that are just not true in this case. Is she a representive for her district and as such has a *SEAT* in the Congress (I'm a little unclear if that is a state seat or national seat but frankly it makes no difference). And even if she were to lose that seat she would then be called (by convention) Former Representive so you're criticism makes no sense as usual.

And what's facist about voting? Weren't you the one championing the right of people to vote? Well she spoke up and let the people she represents decide if she represents them with those words. 

That's not facist you moron that's the core of the principles of the US; you seem to only believe in this principles when it's conveint though 

You could call on Obama to do so, hell you could even try and get people to vote against him (as long as you didn't break the law but those laws are very explicit). That is your *right*, you seem to have trouble understanding that once again so perhaps you need to go take a civics class.




Believe It! said:


> "She's not telling any truths, she's just spewing her hatred *and hopefully she'll lose her seat because of it*." - You


 
And so freaken what? That's my opnion and if I could vote for or against her I'd vote against. But it's not in my hands it's in the hands of the people she represents. She is not entitled to that seat.



Believe It! said:


> Don't try to act smart by implying that I don't know how the system works, you know what you said and now you're just trying to backpeddle out of it. Well I've got you dead to rights on this. You said nothing of the people seeing her for what she really is, or that if you lived in Oklahoma you would not vote her back into office, no! You said that because of her comments that hopefully she will LOSE her seat.


 
I am not implying BI I am *stating* that you don't know how the system works. There's a difference that you don't see it is troubling.

I am sorry that you didn't understand that a seat in this context is define as it is, next time I will speak very slowly and use single syllable words in the future.

You keep trying to take my words and twist them or take them out of context and yet you keep failing; it's quite sad really.



Believe It! said:


> Ga-head! Now tell us that you meant her seat off of a regular office chair, not her title as state rep.


 
By convention even when you lose your *seat* in the Senate or House you're now called Former ' (insert relevent word here)' so even if you were talking about what I was talking about you still got it wrong.




Believe It! said:


> How did she compare them? Did she say, "a terrorist runs into a crowd and blows himself and others up, while a homosexual on the other hand runs into a crowd of people and spreads AIDS to them"? Huh? Did she say, "here's the number of people killed by terrorism, and here is the number of people killed by AIDS transmitted through homosexual sex"? No. Did she say, "homosexuals and terrorists have similar ideologies"? No, she didn't.
> 
> So what do you mean she compared the two? She simply said that homosexuality is a bigger threat to America than terrorism is. That isn't a comparison, it's a statement. A true statement at that. Unless... you have proof that this is not true.


 
She said 'homosexaulity is a threat more so then terrorism' what don't you understand about that as a comparison?

I can't make it any more clearer, either you're trolling or you just are that stupid, which is it?



Believe It! said:


> BECAUSE YOU'RE ATTACKING HER!!!


 
No I'm attacking what she's saying.




Believe It! said:


> Because what you are saying seems quite fascist to me.


 
Then you clearly don't know how to use the word.



Believe It! said:


> Fascism
> n.
> often Fascism
> A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, *suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship*, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
> ...


 
Oh that's sweet you flamed me, if you persist in that I will report you.

Where exactly do I say that she can not say what she said? (here's a hint NEVER)

What I said was 'I hope she loses her seat' which is a *consequence* if the people you represent no longer want you as thier representive. That's not facist that's just how the system works. Now either knock it off or I will report you for false ad homenium attacks. (and you can Believe it!)



Believe It! said:


> Well you so pompously touted your right to comment on Sally's comments as if that makes you right in slandering her, and I was just pointing out that no one is treating you as you are treating her.


 
Yes because she was implying that people were trying to censor her and no one is. Say what you want but words have consequences, if you don't believe that then go read political history.



Believe It! said:


> You said that hopefully she loses her seat because of what she said, which was hateful in your opinion. So obviously you think that government officials should not have the same opinion as her.


 
I think to say what she said is exactly the same thing that was said about blacks and even woman; now if her people choose her then so be it that's there choice. But that will lead to some assumptions about the type of people she represents; there's nothing saying she can't be hateful other then you know common decency and common respect but those are just minor things I'm sure......



Believe It! said:


> The Constitution protects religious thought of all people. The Declaration of Independence references God.


 
The Declaration references a God not the God and the Constitution also protects others from people using thier theology to push religious laws.



Believe It! said:


> If I were to follow God's plan, then I would not have to defend myself in court. I wouldn't even be caught.


 


Someone's been watching too many movies.




Believe It! said:


> ...


 
Whatever this was it failed, much like the rest of your 'points'.



Believe It! said:


> Got a verse, or is this just more bull crap?


 
Why don't you start with Jesus overturning the tables at the Temple? I no longer have verses memorized but it's famous in the bible you should be able to find it.


----------



## Nunally (Mar 13, 2008)

She's....amusing, I'll give her that.


----------



## Seaneleth (Mar 13, 2008)

I just have to say, about the tolerance thing.

In Christianity, God set certain laws. If you pursue a relationship with God and follow them, you're doing the right thing, and you'll go to Heaven. If you don't, you're wrong, and you'll go to hell. And you deserve it, for not obeying God's law. Correct me if I got any of that wrong.

If that's tolerance, I've got a bridge in San Fransisco I'd like to sell you. I swear, it's fabulous. 


Now, for this lady. I don't mind if she says what she says, she has a right to. I do mind if she tries to use this to prevent equal rights for people living a lifestyle that isn't inherently destructive. Unfortunately, that becomes a matter if interpretation, as there are those that think it is, but I disagree. What two (or more) consenting adults do is their own business, and society shouldn't be shitting itself over it. 

It may be wrong, but it's their right, just like making an ass of herself is hers.


----------



## neko-sennin (Mar 13, 2008)

...Because we all know homosexuals like to hijack planes, strap bombs to themselves, and form local death squads to hunt down hetero "infidels" right? 



narutosimpson said:


> waits for this same rep to do some serious nasty gay or pedo shit :S



Ah, Extreme Right History, 101


----------



## adil (Mar 13, 2008)

neko-sennin said:


> ...Because we all know homosexuals like to hijack planes, strap bombs to themselves, and form local death squads to hunt down hetero "infidels" right?



No because that wouldnt be as bad as what they really do, according to the women


----------



## ~rocka (Mar 13, 2008)

Republicans .


----------



## Incubus (Mar 13, 2008)

wut?  **


----------



## Ichiban-nin (Mar 13, 2008)

Yes, another idiot to be squashed by the karmic fist of justice! Hmm, that wouldn't be a bad special move.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 13, 2008)

Kyasurin Yakuto said:
			
		

> I wish everyone would just accept gays. It's not like they're hurting anyone.



I wish everyone would just accept smokers. It's not like they're hurting anyone.



			
				Kyasurin Yakuto said:
			
		

> And I'm Christian but I don't think being gay is wrong.



No you're not. You're no Christian if that's what you really think. The Bible states numerous times that homosexuality is wrong.



			
				Kyasurin Yakuto said:
			
		

> I don't think it's immoral if they are in a one on one relationship like everyone else.



And what Biblical verse do you base this on?



			
				Kyasurin Yakuto said:
			
		

> One of my male friends is gay and I don't have a problem with him at all.



That's fine. You shouldn't have a problem with the person, who is your friend. However, you should have a problem with the SIN that your friend has. That is, if you really are his friend. This is because sin can destroy a person's life. Do you want to see your friend's life be destroyed?

No one is calling for people to hate people who are gay. We are to hate the sin but love the sinner. We are to encourage them to live right, as God wants them to.



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> If we agree on this then how can you still see homosexuality as a sin.



Because the Bible says it is. Drinking alcohol is also a sin. Are you saying I should just let my friends get drunk and act as if everything is okay? If not, then why would I do the same for the friends of mine who are gay?



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> The sinfulness of homosexuality is just another man-made religious doctrine.



No it isn't. Everything in the Bible is there because God wants it to be. The Bible is God's word. God says that homosexuality is a sin. The end.



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> Why would God himself view homosexuality as a sin?



Because God created woman for man. It is His will and design that a man leave his father and mother and then cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. It is symbolic of man becoming one again by rejoining with the part that was taken from him to create woman. Also, God knows that if homosexuality were to be accepted, we would die as a people. Two people of the same gender don't produce children! Moreover, two bodies of the same gender are physically incompatible. So what do you mean why would God see it as a sin? Because it goes against what God's plan is for mankind, which is to be fruitful and multiply, sharing in His word.

That's like asking why God sees bestiality as a sin. It goes against His will.



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> Homosexual love is just as much love a heterosexual love and these people hurt no one by their practices.



Then why is it that about half of the people infected with HIV/AIDS in America is homosexual, especially when homosexuals are between 1.5% and 5% of the population? They hurt no one? They hurt themselves! They hurt future generations! They hurt current generations when they advocate their deathstyle in the public square. The health risks surrounding homosexuality alone is proof that it is a deathstyle.

Heterosexual love on the other hand, when use properly, is one of the most beautiful things on Earth. It establishes a natural and healthy bond between a man and woman. Their genders are naturally compatible in every way. And of course, as long as their bodies are not unnaturally damaged, they have the ability to create children.

So no, homosexual LUST is not at all equal to heterosexual love between a married man and woman.



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> Homosexuals turning your kids gay? Not gonna happen, people are either born gay or not.



Not only is there absolutely no proof of that, but there is actually proof against it. People who were once gay have changed and left the deathstyle to be straight and start their own families. You are not born with any type of sexual preference. That preference develops over time depending on how you were raised and what type of imagery you were exposed to.

Thus, the only way for gay people to increase their numbers is if kids or young adults are raised to believe that homosexuality is okay or normal. That allows them to deceive those impressionable minds further and corrupt them to practice homo or bisexuality.



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> People do not turn gay by choice. Homosexuals corrupting the moral fabric of society? What’s wrong about love?



It isn't love. It is lust. They are corrupting society by selling their immoral lust as love. It is not love. Love for those of the same gender is... a man putting his day off aside in order to help a neighbor of the same gender fix his car. It's a mother helping another mother grocery shop while controlling a bunch of screaming kids. It's two boys practicing together at the park for the big game that weekend. It's one girl helping another with her math so that she does well on the exams later that week.

You wanna know what REAL love for someone of the same gender is? It's a man risking his life by crawling through the war torn streets of some town in Iraq, dodging mortar blasts and AK-47 bullets, just to get to a fallen comrade and pulling him out of harm's way, saving his life.

That is what same-sex love really is, but to the sick leftists, same-sex love is putting your mouth on another guy in a public toilet at the train station.



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> If you are against people running around having frequent irresponsible unprotected sex with multiple partners then just say that, don’t lump all homosexuals into that category.



I'm not. I am putting homosexuality into that category, since indiscriminate promiscuous unprotected gay sex is a part of the homosexual philosophy, which is all about lust and pleasure.



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> Eh… that’s not what you are doing. You are calling them abominations, a threat to society, immoral sinner who should burn in hell for what they are and try to convert them to heterosexuality which is impossible.



Please quote me ever saying anything like this. Do it and I'll ban myself from NF forever.

I have never said anything like this, and you know it. I do not hate the people who sin. I hate the sin itself. I don't force anyone to "convert". I witness to them and show them the truth. It is up to them to either accept it or reject it. I call the sin an abomination and a threat because that is what the Bible says it is and because that is what it is in our society. I also call activists a threat because they are making homosexuality PUBLIC and forcing down everyone's throats to accept as normal and equal to heterosexuality.

I am not saying that they should burn in Hell. If I were saying that then I would be encouraging them to stay gay, like you are doing.



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> Your intension might be to save their eternal soul from hell. But to do this you turn their earthly lives into a living hell by claiming what they are is a sin and an abomination and when they find it is impossible to change they hang themselves because they can’t continue living this way.



My dear sir, we are all sinful and the things we all do are abominations to God. I can't save them from Hell, only Jesus Christ can. All I can do is show them how to accept Christ. You may be surprised to read this, but accepting Christ has nothing to do with what sexual preference you have. One can be gay and still accept Christ by asking him into their lives to save them from their sins. From there, change is possible through the power of God.

Who are you to say that change is not possible? Where do you get off telling them that they do not have the ability to change? Don't you see how oppressive that is? Telling them they haven't the will power to live the way that deep down they know to be right? You may as well place them in chains and shackles.

And what about the people who have changed? What of those who, often times through the power of God, have kicked the deathstyle's ass by overcoming their sexual addiction and succeeding in living a life that God wants them to lead? Aside from disproving the lie that change is not possible, doesn't that justify any hardship they might go through during the recovery or change process?

And don't give me that crap about gays hanging themselves because of the truth we tell them. If anything they kill themselves because YOU people keep telling them to give up and live in a way that they know to be wrong. You tell them they can't be what they want to, and you tell them they cannot possibly succeed. You make them feel hopeless and helpless.



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> Try to help them? They don’t need to be helped. Because there is nothing wrong with what they are.



They do need to be helped because homosexuality is a deathstyle that carries the highest risk of STD infection, and it leads people to miserable unfulfilled lives. They are in mortal danger so long as they are homosexual, and that is not how God wants them to be!



			
				Shinobi Mugen said:
			
		

> They are perfectly natural the way God made them and wants them to be.



Prove that anyone on this planet is born gay, and show me where in the Bible is says that God wants anyone to be gay. Prove it or else you lose the argument!



			
				drache said:
			
		

> I'd never want to be god, why? Go watch Bruce Almighty and then you'll realize that being god (if god exists) would suck as people are just too whiny and too immature.



But if you were God then you would have the power to hear them all at once.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> But thank you for trying and failing to put words into my mouth.



Okay, lets try this. Do you think that your way is better than God's way as described in the Holy Bible?



			
				drache said:
			
		

> That's cute not only are you interjecting yourself into someone else's conversation



Which happens all the time with various members around here.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 13, 2008)

Seaneleth said:
			
		

> I just have to say, about the tolerance thing.
> 
> In Christianity, God set certain laws. If you pursue a relationship with God and follow them, you're doing the right thing, and you'll go to Heaven.



Wrong. You have to be saved through God's grace, and the most common way of doing that is by asking His son Jesus Christ to come into your life and save you from your sins.



			
				Seaneleth said:
			
		

> If that's tolerance, I've got a bridge in San Fransisco I'd like to sell you. I swear, it's fabulous.



Of course that isn't tolerance. No one said it was. Tolerance is what Christians are supposed to have, not God. God can do whatever He wants. Christians are to not only tolerate homosexuals, but love them as well. We love them by showing them the true path to salvation, which is Jesus Christ. Jesus is God's tolerance for mankind. He is God's way of saving the world from the Hell that we all deserve. However, if you are not saved from your sins then you must bear your sins, and sin cannot enter the kingdom of God. This is because God does not tolerate sin. You must be saved and forgiven of your sins in order to be in God's presence.

As for Christians, we should not tolerate the sin either. If people are trying to force society to accept a sin, we should fight against that. However, we are to always love the people who sin and try to help them, because we were all once like them. Unsaved.



			
				Seaneleth said:
			
		

> Now, for this lady. I don't mind if she says what she says, she has a right to. I do mind if she tries to use this to prevent equal rights for people living a lifestyle that isn't inherently destructive.



Well good for you. You're a reasonable person, though I disagree with your opinion on homosexuality. I think it is inherently destructive and I base that on the evidence I have found on it. That is a different issue though. We both agree on this issue. She has the right to say what she said, so long as she is not denying EQUAL rights that people are entitled to.



			
				Seaneleth said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, that becomes a matter if interpretation, as there are those that think it is, but I disagree. What two (or more) consenting adults do is their own business, and society shouldn't be shitting itself over it.



Fine, but what she says doesn't affect them either. They still have the right to do as they want in private.



			
				Seaneleth said:
			
		

> It may be wrong, but it's their right, just like making an ass of herself is hers.



So we agree. That's good.


----------



## "LADY KISS" (Mar 13, 2008)

Mmmm, maybe this woman would need a terrorist attack on her face =S


----------



## Incubus (Mar 13, 2008)

Practicing acts of homosexuality is a sin according to the bible. But so is fornication, adultery, drunkenness, etc. I wonder if she thinks people who practice those sins are also worse than terrorists?


----------



## Jarl lKarl (Mar 13, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> Wrong. You have to be saved through God's grace, and the most common way of doing that is by asking His son Jesus Christ to come into your life and save you from your sins.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fuck you, Haku was a guy.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 13, 2008)

^Prove that Haku was a male please.


----------



## Incubus (Mar 13, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> ^Prove that Haku was a male please.



Are you talking about Haku, the character from the manga?


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 13, 2008)

Sean A. said:
			
		

> Are you talking about Haku, the character from the manga?





Haku. The greatest kunoichi of the entire Naruto series.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 13, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> ^Prove that Haku was a male please.





That's settled, now get back on topic about that fugly bitch having her period and meanwhile bitching about homosexuality.


----------



## Jarl lKarl (Mar 13, 2008)

The trend for the past 20 or so years has been inexorably towards an increasing acceptance of Homosexuality and increased Homosexual rights. I highly doubt that one upset fundie from the Bible Belt is going to put a stop to it. In short, barely newsworthy.


----------



## Incubus (Mar 13, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> That's settled, now get back on topic about that fugly bitch having her period and meanwhile bitching about homosexuality.



I was gonna post that. 

Though, I don't think BI is the only one still in denial about that.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 13, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:
			
		

> That's settled, now get back on topic about that fugly bitch having her period and meanwhile bitching about homosexuality.



First of all, that is a mistranslation. She claimed to be a "man", not a "boy". Second, how is this proof that she was a boy? This is only proof that she claimed to be a man. That does not prove that she was one though. Third, this proves that she was a girl. This is because she said this to Naruto, her enemy. Her nindo was all about deception of the enemy. Therefore what she told Naruto was a lie, and that means the truth is that she was a girl.

So thanks for posting proof that backs me up.


----------



## Edo (Mar 13, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> First of all, that is a mistranslation. She claimed to be a "man", not a "boy". Second, how is this proof that she was a boy? This is only proof that she claimed to be a man. That does not prove that she was one though. Third, this proves that she was a girl. This is because she said this to Naruto, her enemy. Her nindo was all about deception of the enemy. Therefore what she told Naruto was a lie, and that means the truth is that she was a girl.
> 
> So thanks for posting proof that backs me up.



Actually that is all the proof you need to KNOW that Haku was a BOY.

You assumed he was a girl cause he dressed like one, but the fact that he admitted that he was a boy in more than one occasion proves he was actually a cross dressing boy, Believe it!


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 13, 2008)

Edo said:
			
		

> Actually that is all the proof you need to KNOW that Haku was a BOY.



Yeaaaaaaaah...



And here is all the proof you need that Haku was a hunter-nin who was sent to kill Zabuza. 



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> You assumed he was a girl cause he dressed like one



I assumed nothing sir. I took no side on Haku's gender until after she had said that to Naruto. From that point on I knew that she was a girl and everything following that only further proved it.



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> but the fact that he admitted that he was a boy in more than one occasion



No, that was not an admission, it was a lie, and she only said she was a man once in the series.



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> proves he was actually a cross dressing boy, Believe it!



Proves she was a smart kunoichi who lied to her enemies.

Really. You people and your theories.


----------



## HAL 9000 (Mar 13, 2008)

Oh good goddess, I'm seeing double.
BI, since he's dead and is most likely never coming back, all we have to go on is his word and the word of everyone around him, which all state he's a male. Kakashi said he was, and he saw him with 3rd level sharingan which can predict movements based on muscle tensions, so... Let's get back on topic, which is:
This woman is a moronic bigot. End o' story.


----------



## ?Fallacy? (Mar 13, 2008)

Lmao I saw this on the news the other day and I laughed even though I was appalled by it. She had no cooth and is blowing homosexuality way out of proportion. It's definately not worse than terrorism. Homosexuality isn't even on my list of "Things that will certainly cause impending doom".


----------



## Edo (Mar 13, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> Yeaaaaaaaah...
> 
> 
> 
> And here is all the proof you need that Haku was a hunter-nin who was sent to kill Zabuza.



Haku needed to lie here to save Zabuza...however, HE did not need to lie to Naruto about his gender....nothing in their little chat in the forest hints that Haku was lying or needed to lie about his gender.




> I assumed nothing sir. I took no side on Haku's gender until after she had said that to Naruto. From that point on I knew that she was a girl and everything following that only further proved it.



Actually all this "_Haku was a girl_" is *solely *based on assumptions...and faulty assumptions if I may 




> No, that was not an admission, it was a lie, and she only said she was a man once in the series.



Why would HE lie about it? 

Also the pics showing him a child confirm that he was a boy.




> Proves she was a smart kunoichi who lied to her enemies.
> 
> Really. You people and your theories.




Lol, look who is talking about theories...


----------



## Seaneleth (Mar 13, 2008)

Saying Haku is a boy is as counter-intuitive as saying Orochimaru wasn't a p*d*p****. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, thinks like a duck, sounds like a duck... it's probably a duck.

The logic behind girl-Haku, more importantly, is all good logic. Deception, the style of casual dress, Naruto's unbiased reaction, the way Haku is drawn, all these things point to Haku being a girl. What people say doesn't mean much, especially in Naruto, where half the people never know what's really going on at any given point.

Besides, were Haku a boy, Orochimaru would have magically found him first. Because that's what Orochimaru does with boy orphans. 


And, this may be in left field, but how many of you honestly think he's a boy, and how many are just messing with BI?


----------



## oldandpervy (Mar 13, 2008)

drache said:


> And while we're clinging to free speech that same right gives me all the right I need to tell her where to stick her beliefs.
> 
> Further even if you can say something, even if you believe in something that doesn't mean there are not consequences. One of which is the people you represent may no longer think you worthy of representing them; that's not to say you should watch waht you say just be aware that every choice has consequences.



You are 100% correct.  

There is no freedom from consequence, which is why I laugh when celebrities shoot their mouths off and their films/albums tank.

Freedom of speech, freedom to use intellegence, freedom of discretion...

As far as representation, the aforementioned politician's view will NOT be popular among millions, but again, it does fall in like with the majority, more importantly, in this case, I'd bet it falls in line with the majority of the Oklahoma population, whom she represents IIRC.

As far as my religious take?  God says it is wrong, and I'll trust his word, however, it's not my place to judge or start a war over the issue.  I'll never be able to peacefully or intellegently argue the issue, nor will I ever touch anyone or change their mind.  With that being said, I'll leave it to God and the homosexuals to work out amongst themsevles.

I'll gladly state my beliefs and my feelings, but I'll never be pulled into a debate/arguement over the issue.


----------



## ~rocka (Mar 13, 2008)

Lol this thread went from homo worser then terrorism to haku was a girl .


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 13, 2008)

Heroes Rising said:
			
		

> BI, since he's dead and is most likely never coming back, all we have to go on is his word and the word of everyone around him



Good idea. Naruto called her "sis", "lady" in the Japanese version. Haku also referred to herself with female speech words. So that settles it. She was a girl.



			
				Heroes Rising said:
			
		

> Kakashi said he was, and he saw him with 3rd level sharingan which can predict movements based on muscle tensions, so...



Kakashi said she was a tracker ninja. Where was his sharingan eye on that one? And so what if it can predict muscle movements? It can't predict gender, as Sasuke proved when he referred to Orochimaru's disguise in the exams as a female.

Kakashi was wrong on Haku's age too. He can't see anything personal with his sharingan eye, not even why kids love cinnamon toast crunch! Besides, Haku had already figured out a strategy to defeat the sharingan because she was a genius. Kakashi couldn't read Haku even if he had tried.



			
				Heroes Rising said:
			
		

> Let's get back on topic, which is:
> This woman is a moronic bigot. End o' story.



Wait wait wait... This isn't the end of the story. Why do you think Rep. Sally Kern is a moronic bigot?



			
				Evil Believe it! said:
			
		

> Haku needed to lie here to save Zabuza...however, HE did not need to lie to Naruto about his gender...



You will agree that Haku and Zabuza had trackers after them, right? And you will also agree that trackers typically gather information on their targets in order to have a better chance at finding or catching them, right? So it is only logical that Haku would want to keep personal information about herself that could lead to her capture between her and Zabuza, right? Well the reason why she lied to Naruto was because Naruto had guessed right about her gender. He called her "lady" or "sis". So Haku, knowing that they would likely meet again in battle, had to misinform Naruto and throw him off from the truth in order to protect her true identity.

Now, the question you should ask yourself is not why Haku would lie to Naruto, because I just answered that one. The question you should ask yourself is why Haku would tell Naruto the truth. Think about it. A boy, in your opinion, goes out dressed as a girl. Then when a kid calls him a girl and buys into the outfit or disguise, the boy goes against the disguise to say that he is actually a man.

Why the hell would a boy, who is supposed to be a shinobi, tell his enemy the truth after the outfit obviously had the desired affect?



			
				Evil Believe it! said:
			
		

> nothing in their little chat in the forest hints that Haku was lying or needed to lie about his gender.



Not true. Haku had her back turned to Naruto when she said it. This indicates dishonesty. Also, she claimed to be a man, which is obviously a lie since even if she had been a male she was not old enough to be a man, which indicates adult. Also, you can't say that Haku was herself as an adult because before this she admitted to still being a kid to Zabuza, who she is the most open and honest with. Then there is the tone of her voice, which is hard to prove because it is in Japanese and you'll probably fight me on this point anyway, but in the Japanese version the voice ACTRESS said that line quickly and with a sarcastic tone. It was obviously meant to be taken as a joke by the audience.

Now aside from the hints that are present in the forest scene, further evidence is supplied before and after this scene. First, Haku uses female speech words to refer to herself in front of Zabuza. Second, she shows physical attraction to Zabuza, which shows that she is attracted to males and that typically indicates a female. Third, it is later made known that REAL trackers are after both of them. This gives her reason to lie about herself. Then, after all of this during the bridge battle Haku states that deception and catching your opponent off guard is the way of the shinobi. Since she believes in this principal it proves that what she told her enemy, Naruto, about herself was indeed a deception.



			
				Evil Believe it! said:
			
		

> Actually all this "Haku was a girl" is solely based on assumptions...and faulty assumptions if I may



Such as?



			
				Evil Believe it! said:
			
		

> Why would HE lie about it?



To protect her true identity and to help ensure that she would not be caught by the trackers.



			
				Evil Believe it! said:
			
		

> Also the pics showing him a child confirm that he was a boy.



The pics? You mean the images showing a very female looking little girl? You mean like the pic in my signature? How do the images of a little girl with long hair like her mother confirm that Haku was a boy?



			
				Seaneleth said:
			
		

> Saying Haku is a boy is as counter-intuitive as saying Orochimaru wasn't a p*d*p****. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, thinks like a duck, sounds like a duck... it's probably a duck.
> 
> The logic behind girl-Haku, more importantly, is all good logic. Deception, the style of casual dress, Naruto's unbiased reaction, the way Haku is drawn, all these things point to Haku being a girl. What people say doesn't mean much, especially in Naruto, where half the people never know what's really going on at any given point.



Right. And characters have called others by the wrong gender before finding out who they really were.

That part with Sazume or that butterfly girl during some filler arc, or even Mizuke disguised as Shizune. Also, Orochimaru disguised as that grass ninja during the exams. They all called him a "her" until Orochimaru pulled the face off.



			
				Seaneleth said:
			
		

> Besides, were Haku a boy, Orochimaru would have magically found him first. Because that's what Orochimaru does with boy orphans.



Ha ha, not necessarily but I see your point. Thanks.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Mar 13, 2008)

Why is this even being argued?

Was Haku's gender not confirmed MALE in the databook profile written by Kishimoto himself?

This is one of those things you guys should not be arguing, it is pointless. He was male, BI simply dislikes gays and therefore will NOT accept that his favorite character was gay. What he doesn't realize is that he's the only person in this world who believes it, his opinion doesn't change the *FACT* that Haku was a boy and that simply by pressing the issue continuously, and having Haku in his sig, he's actually supporting a gay manga character.

So fuck off the Haku arguments and stay on topic.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 13, 2008)

Haku was an effeminate boy,and Believe It! has repressed homosexual feelings,maing him effectively an closet homosexual.Believe It!


----------



## HAL 9000 (Mar 13, 2008)

Anomander Rake said:


> Why is this even being argued?
> 
> Was Haku's gender not confirmed MALE in the databook profile written by Kishimoto himself?
> 
> ...



/Argument
Anyway Believe it!, my statement that she is a homophobic bigot (technically redudant) is based on what she said. Watch the video, and listen to what she says.
Then again by your own statements, you're also a homophobic bigot so...


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 13, 2008)

Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Was Haku's gender not confirmed MALE in the databook profile written by Kishimoto himself?



No, since Haku's databook has not been translated yet. I am translating them now. I have the words but I still need to do more research to make sure that I have the grammar and sentence structure right.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> This is one of those things you guys should not be arguing, it is pointless. He was male, BI simply dislikes gays and therefore will NOT accept that his favorite character was gay.



Haku isn't my favorite character. Naruto is. Haku is my favorite female character. I will not accept that Haku was a male or was gay because there is no evidence to support either concept and because there is proof that she was a straight female.

I don't care if some anime character is gay or not. I acknowledge the fact that there are many gay anime characters in various animes. However, there are no gay characters in Naruto. Homosexuality is always a punchline in the Naruto series, not a respectable element.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> What he doesn't realize is that he's the only person in this world who believes it



Please click on the Haku was a Girl FC banner link to go there and read our member list to be proved wrong on that point.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> So fuck off the Haku arguments and stay on topic.



I'd like to but the thread is pretty one sided, see as how I asked for proof that Sally was a moron, bigot, homophobe, or hater and no one has posted anything. I just got questions about the Bible and stuff, so proving Haku was a girl will do until someone brings up something against Rep. Sally Kern.



			
				Heroes Rising said:
			
		

> Anyway Believe it!, my statement that she is a homophobic bigot (technically redudant) is based on what she said. Watch the video, and listen to what she says.
> Then again by your own statements, you're also a homophobic bigot so...



I did listen to it. Now I'm asking, out of all the things she said, what do YOU think was moronic or bigoted? 20 seconds GO!


----------



## Random Nobody (Mar 13, 2008)

> However, there are no gay characters in Naruto.




*Spoiler*: __ 



Sasuke just spent every chapter since his defeat of Orochimaru with a naked old man inside of him.




And what the fuck is with the off topic bullshit about Haku's Gender?  It's dead, who gives a fuck.


----------



## HAL 9000 (Mar 13, 2008)

...20 seconds? I could take 8 hours to type this thing and say it took me 20 seconds.
How's all of it? She said that a man loving another man is worse then people killing other people for no good reason.
Seems a TEENSY bit homophobic to me. Explain to me how it isn't.


----------



## NaruTayu forever (Mar 13, 2008)

You guys have some really good evidence for either way. ^_^
Lord Visnu doesn't care what the gender of the person you settle with is. You just hav 2 be faithful and worship the Lord. That lady is a horrible woman. Most people are just afraid of whats diff.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Mar 13, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> No, since Haku's databook has not been translated yet. I am translating them now. I have the words but I still need to do more research to make sure that I have the grammar and sentence structure right.



No... It's been translated. Haku is officially male, according the the databook.




Believe It! said:


> Please click on the Haku was a Girl FC banner link to go there and read our member list to be proved wrong on that point.



You mean to see the list of people who joined as a joke because they find it fun messing with you? Just how people quote you on particular things and say "Believe it!" even though it's quite obviously them having fun at your expense?

Wake up and smell the coffee, BI. The world is laughing at you, not with you.


---

As for the topic at hand, you can't realistically defend her and say she's not being a hateful bigot. To compare homosexuality, the natural attraction to a member of your own sex, to terrorism, the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, typically for political purposes and then say homosexuality is the bigger threat; that is bigotry and hate. All that is is a pompous bitch being unable to keep her nose out of other people's business.

As for "War on Homosexuality" as opposed to terrorism, that's just a war you can't win. Why? Because even if the percentage of gays out there is small, the support is generally overwhelming. Most of us have stepped out of the stone age and developed beyond barbaric thought patterns like "He's gay, he likes something I don't. That's gross." and "The bible says gay is wrong so it's wrong."

It's about time you people took your ignorant and misinformed opinions of other people and shoved them up your asses. What people do with their sex life is not your business, and they wouldn't make such open protests and cries for action that you hate oh-so-much, if people like you didn't treat them like animals in the first place. And I'm still awaiting that information on this "gay mafia".

Anyways, what? If I fuck my fiance in the ass, am I doomed to burn in Hell for all eternity? Doubtful. So I don't see what is so much different when it's a guy fucking another guy in the ass, instead. Jesus Christ, you people expect to be respected and listened to and have your opinions heard, yet you can't drop the juvenile "my mama says I shouldn't talk to you cause you look different than me" mindset. Well, all I can say is we are the future generation, and out of "we", most of us believe in homosexuality or simply letting it be. We are going to be the doctors, the politicians, the presidents, the generals, the lawyers and the judges. Either learn to live with gays and accept homosexuality, or be left behind in the dust when we take charge.

Because your hate, your bigotry and your ignorance has no place in the new world. You'll have the right to spread your opinion, of course, but expect to live a life much like Mr. Jack Thompson; always fighting a war that has never been anything but a lost cause. Feel free to try and spread your intolerance Believe It!, but expect your pleads and cries to fall on deaf ears.


----------



## Edo (Mar 13, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> You will agree that Haku and Zabuza had trackers after them, right? And you will also agree that trackers typically gather information on their targets in order to have a better chance at finding or catching them, right? So it is only logical that Haku would want to keep personal information about herself that could lead to her capture between her and Zabuza, right? Well the reason why she lied to Naruto was because Naruto had guessed right about her gender. He called her "lady" or "sis". So Haku, knowing that they would likely meet again in battle, had to misinform Naruto and throw him off from the truth in order to protect her true identity.
> 
> Now, the question you should ask yourself is not why Haku would lie to Naruto, because I just answered that one. The question you should ask yourself is why Haku would tell Naruto the truth. Think about it. A boy, in your opinion, goes out dressed as a girl. Then when a kid calls him a girl and buys into the outfit or disguise, the boy goes against the disguise to say that he is actually a man.
> 
> Why the hell would a boy, who is supposed to be a shinobi, tell his enemy the truth after the outfit obviously had the desired affect?



See databook profile written by Kishimoto himself.




> Not true. Haku had her back turned to Naruto when she said it. This indicates dishonesty. Also, she claimed to be a man, which is obviously a lie since even if she had been a male she was not old enough to be a man, which indicates adult. Also, you can't say that Haku was herself as an adult because before this she admitted to still being a kid to Zabuza, who she is the most open and honest with. Then there is the tone of her voice, which is hard to prove because it is in Japanese and you'll probably fight me on this point anyway, but in the Japanese version the voice ACTRESS said that line quickly and with a sarcastic tone. It was obviously meant to be taken as a joke by the audience.
> 
> Now aside from the hints that are present in the forest scene, further evidence is supplied before and after this scene. First, Haku uses female speech words to refer to herself in front of Zabuza. Second, she shows physical attraction to Zabuza, which shows that she is attracted to males and that typically indicates a female. Third, it is later made known that REAL trackers are after both of them. This gives her reason to lie about herself. Then, after all of this during the bridge battle Haku states that deception and catching your opponent off guard is the way of the shinobi. Since she believes in this principal it proves that what she told her enemy, Naruto, about herself was indeed a deception.



See databook profile written by Kishimoto himself.



> Such as?
> 
> To protect her true identity and to help ensure that she would not be caught by the trackers.
> 
> The pics? You mean the images showing a very female looking little girl? You mean like the pic in my signature? How do the images of a little girl with long hair like her mother confirm that Haku was a boy?




See databook profile written by Kishimoto himself. 


Back on topic:

Well the topic itself is ridiculous really, what is there to discuss?? 

I bet here worst nightmare is a homosexual terrorist...but then again when did you ever meet one?


----------



## HAL 9000 (Mar 13, 2008)

Yeah, because bombs are so not thuper.
Yeah I know, too obvious. But seriously, outside a few comic book villians/anti-heroes, there really aren't that many.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 13, 2008)

Heroes Rising said:
			
		

> ...20 seconds? I could take 8 hours to type this thing and say it took me 20 seconds.
> How's all of it? She said that a man loving another man is worse then people killing other people for no good reason.
> Seems a TEENSY bit homophobic to me. Explain to me how it isn't.



Time's up! You couldn't even post a single thing she said that was moronic or bigoted.

It is not homophobic on her part because she never said that. You didn't even listen to what she said. You probably just WATCHED the images that flickered by with people holding signs up that influence you to think that she was saying things that were hateful and homophobic. She didn't say a single thing that was hateful or homophobic. She did not say that two people of the same gender having sex with each other was a threat AT ALL. She said that the advancement of the gay agenda in the schools to indoctrinate kids to think that being gay is normal is the threat.

That does not target homosexual people at all. It targets an idea. An idea that is forced on OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS, and an idea that is seen as immoral to many Americans. That is the threat she spoke of. Not gay people.



			
				NaruTayu forever said:
			
		

> You guys have some really good evidence for either way. ^_^
> Lord Visnu doesn't care what the gender of the person you settle with is.



Or species for that matter.



			
				NaruTayu forever said:
			
		

> You just hav 2 be faithful and worship the Lord. That lady is a horrible woman.



Why is she a horrible women? What did she say that was so horrible?



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> No... It's been translated. Haku is officially male, according the the databook.



Well then, would you care to post a link to a translated copy?



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> You mean to see the list of people who joined as a joke because they find it fun messing with you?



No, the list of people who have contributed to the thread by posting their support, their Haku images and other media, as well as their thoughts and opinions on various aspects of Haku's character.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Just how people quote you on particular things and say "Believe it!" even though it's quite obviously them having fun at your expense?



You are aware that "believe it!" is Naruto's catch phrase in the English dub right? It is a popular quote.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> As for the topic at hand, you can't realistically defend her and say she's not being a hateful bigot.



Really? And here I thought that was the only way to defend her, by proving bogus claims against her to be bogus.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> To compare homosexuality, the natural attraction to a member of your own sex, to terrorism



She didn't compare the two. Damn! I disproved that with drache already. She simply said that homosexuality and the agenda to force it into schools is a bigger threat than terrorism. That does not mean that it is the same thing, or that they want to achieve the same goal, it only means that one is more dangerous to us than the other. Since we have protections in place against terrorism while we don't with homosexual indoctrination, it means that homosexual indoctrination is the bigger threat. That is just a fact.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, typically for political purposes and then say homosexuality is the bigger threat;



That does not imply that homosexuality is LIKE terrorism. Both are dangerous and destructive in their own ways. Saying homosexuality is more of a threat does not necessarily mean that it is more deadly than terrorism. It could mean that terrorism is not much of a threat because we have defenses in place to combat terrorism, and THAT is exactly the point she was making.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> that is bigotry and hate. All that is is a pompous bitch being unable to keep her nose out of other people's business.



It is not. You must listen to what she actually said. In fact, write in out here so you can read it too. Then point out to me how what she said was bigotry and hate.

And now you're making a brand new claim. She can't keep her nose out of other people's business. How so? She only gave her OPINION, and moreover she didn't want what she said taped. It was only taped because of some snake in the grass who recorded her secretly. So she wasn't trying to get in anyone's business. This was supposed to be a private conversation, but no, the anti-Christians just had to bring it to everyone's attention.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> As for "War on Homosexuality" as opposed to terrorism, that's just a war you can't win. Why? Because even if the percentage of gays out there is small, the support is generally overwhelming.



Really? What is the support in a nation where 27 of its states have constitutional protections on marriage being a one man one woman union?



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Most of us have stepped out of the stone age... [anti-American rant]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Mar 13, 2008)

Heroes Rising said:


> Yeah, because bombs are so not thuper.
> Yeah I know, too obvious. But seriously, outside a few comic book villians/anti-heroes, there really aren't that many.



Of course. Because terrorists have, ironically, the exact same mind set as our dear Believe It. He'd fit right in with the suicide bombers and blasphemy executioners.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Well then, would you care to post a link to a translated copy?



I already have, a while back in your Haku is a girl thread. You chose to discredit it, saying the "translator was probably gay".



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> No, the list of people who have contributed to the thread by posting their support, their Haku images and other media, as well as their thoughts and opinions on various aspects of Haku's character.



Keep telling yourself that, BI. Like I said, you're laughing alone. Everyone else is laughing at you.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> You are aware that "believe it!" is Naruto's catch phrase in the English dub right? It is a popular quote.



I am aware. I am also aware they still "Believe it!" your quotes to belittle the garbage you say.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Really? And here I thought that was the only way to defend her, by proving bogus claims against her to be bogus.



They aren't bogus though. You find a rare supporter of what you believe and now you'll defend what she says to the death.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> She didn't compare the two. Damn! I disproved that with drache already. She simply said that homosexuality and the agenda to force it into schools is a bigger threat than terrorism. That does not mean that it is the same thing, or that they want to achieve the same goal, it only means that one is more dangerous to us than the other. Since we have protections in place against terrorism while we don't with homosexual indoctrination, it means that homosexual indoctrination is the bigger threat. That is just a fact.



Force it in to schools? Gay children need education too, it wouldn't be "forcing" them into school if assholes like you weren't there saying "No gays in school!". And we don't need "protections" from homosexuality. This is why you're a homophobic jackass, you act like it's some disease or something. And you can't say acting like homosexuality is a disease is not being an intolerant, hateful bigot.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> That does not imply that homosexuality is LIKE terrorism. Both are dangerous and destructive in their own ways. Saying homosexuality is more of a threat does not necessarily mean that it is more deadly than terrorism. It could mean that terrorism is not much of a threat because we have defenses in place to combat terrorism, and THAT is exactly the point she was making.



Homosexuality is not dangerous and destructive. People simply realize that the old testament of the bible is pretty much a large pile of fabricated, outdated, barbaric bullshit and choose not to live their lives following it. If we did, you'd of been stoned to death a long time ago. Therefore people, like rational human beings, are choosing to accept it.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> It is not. You must listen to what she actually said. In fact, write in out here so you can read it too. Then point out to me how what she said was bigotry and hate.



I'm not going to waste my time writing out her entire speech, just so you can ignore that too.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> And now you're making a brand new claim. She can't keep her nose out of other people's business. How so? She only gave her OPINION, and moreover she didn't want what she said taped. It was only taped because of some snake in the grass who recorded her secretly. So she wasn't trying to get in anyone's business. This was supposed to be a private conversation, but no, the anti-Christians just had to bring it to everyone's attention.



Snake in the grass? Of course, had this been the other way around and it was a guy admitting he was gay and saying plans he had for the state, and some Christian video taped it secretly, you'd be on the opposite side of the fence, screaming "HE WANTS TO BRAINWASH OUR CHILDREN! THE FACT HE WANTED IT TO BE SECRET IS PROOF HE'S PART OF THE GAY MAFIA!"

You can't have it both ways.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Really? What is the support in a nation where 27 of its states have constitutional protections on marriage being a one man one woman union?



In 27 states led by 70 year old sexist, racist assholes who share a whole dumpster full of hateful, intolerant beliefs. Just wait till they die and we take over control. You will find that number dwindling quite a bit.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> [quoteAnomander Rake]Most of us have stepped out of the stone age... [anti-American rant]



Grasping at straws now, BI?



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> They treat themselves like animals. They think that's kinky or something. I'm serious. Ever seen a gay pride parade? Ever seen the Folsom Street Fair? They love being disgusting in public. It has nothing to do with us.



I have been to plenty of gay parades. They don't act any differently than women do when they're flaunting themselves as prostitutes in the street, dancing naked as strippers in clubs, how heterosexual sex is handled in porn industry, movies, tv, reality shows, etc.

You just like to point the finger at them as if they are the only ones who handle sexuality in an open way. Look around you, are you blind? Dildo shops on main streets, porno mags at newspaper stands. Nudity on day time tv.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> I already told you when I would post it. What did you forget or something?



No, I haven't forgotten. I'm reminding you that we want it now.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> If you commit any sin the you are doomed to Hell unless you accept Christ as your savior and are forgiven of your sins through him.



And if gays accept Christ?



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> What the heck are you talking about?



Forget it.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> My dear sir, if homosexuality is openly accepted, then you can have what is left of the country. It won't last long anyway.



Good. Then you can run off to Iran with your homosexual executing buddies and nothing of value will have been lost.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Whatever, homophobe.



Way to derail your entire "argument" with 2 words.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Mar 13, 2008)

... Mmm... this is looking very familiar... sort of like every other thread that deals with homosexuality that BI! comes to...

I still find it strange that terrorists- who kill thousands of people because of their obssessive beliefs- are found less dangerous than homosexuality- something that cannot 'spread,' and something that does not kill other people.  It's just a way of life that has nothing to do with anyone who isn't in a homosexual relationship.

Anyway... I'm going to go look at yaoi while I wait for BI's next post.  Mmm... yaoi...


----------



## colours (Mar 13, 2008)

> "The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation; it's just a fact," Rep. Sally Kern is heard saying on a YouTube video posted Friday.



And this is why we're always in shambles.


----------



## Kyou (Mar 14, 2008)

Lol, its so funny how little society has come in regards to tolerance.

The majority of gays and lesbians aren't fricken roving rapists like ^^^^ seems to think.

Homosexuals are people; and alot of them have to put up with such rudeness from random people; I have friends that are lesbian; and while it's awkward them like cuddling and going at it; I feel the same when straight couples I'm friends of do it lawl >_>

But; Terrorism, who kills multiple people for what reason? To show government,or whatever reason.
How can that possibly be better then that people of the same sex being together?
How ridiculous.

Homosexuality isn't always rampant, and since when did straight couples keep it all behind doors, that person really needs to get over it, lawl. Really destroyed any shred of credibility they have.


----------



## AmatorPlatonisCatullique (Mar 14, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> My dear sir, if homosexuality is openly accepted, then you can have what is left of the country. It won't last long anyway.



Oh please.  History tells us that you're dead wrong, and it would tell you the same if you read any of it.  Socrates much preferred young men (NOT boys) to women, and if he wasn't a paragon of human virtue, then the word virtue is meaningless.  For its entire existence, Rome allowed men to take other men as lovers.  Did people have a problem with it?  Some did, but they couldn't do anything other than mock.  Oh, and the Spartan soldiers had far more sex with one another than with their wives.

Did they last long?  Well, considering that each of those civilizations mentioned above lasted for at least a thousand years, I'd say they did.  And of course, in many ways they'll last forever.  They have κλέος, or "eternal fame."  Not a bad deal for a bunch of hell-bound buggers.  Oh, and regarding their hell-bound status, a couple guys I know named Dante Alighieri, John Milton, and C.S. Lewis would like to have a word with you.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 14, 2008)

Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Of course. Because terrorists have, ironically, the exact same mind set as our dear Believe It. He'd fit right in with the suicide bombers and blasphemy executioners.



I'd kill at least one hundred terrorists just on my own. Believe it!



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> I already have, a while back in your Haku is a girl thread. You chose to discredit it, saying the "translator was probably gay".



Excuse me, I thought I asked for one just now. So where is it? All I see here is a bogus claim.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Keep telling yourself that, BI. Like I said, you're laughing alone. Everyone else is laughing at you.



Anyone who posts a request as a joke is not accepted into the fanclub. ~Zaxxon~ and Link (Chrono Nexus) can attest to that fact. There are some rules to follow with our club. So one must be serious about it and follow the rules. Someone who became a member recently even made his own banner image link for his signature. Other members have posted their favorite fanart there. So I'm very confident in our fanclub's members. I would believe them over you any day.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> They aren't bogus though. You find a rare supporter of what you believe and now you'll defend what she says to the death.



I don't need to find any other supporter. I will defend anyone who is right. She is right, and the slanderous claims against her are bogus, as I proved!



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Force it in to schools? Gay children need education too



No, we're talking about gays teaching straight children to be gay or if not gay then at least accepting of the deathstyle as normal and equal to heterosexuality.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> it wouldn't be "forcing" them into school if assholes like you weren't there saying "No gays in school!".



This is just false. No one is saying to keep gay kids out of schools, and that is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to keep the radical gay activists out of the schools so they can't brainwash the youth.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> And we don't need "protections" from homosexuality.



Really? You don't need safe sex practices then? Well thanks for admitting that you are a hateful homophobe who wants gays to get AIDS and die.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> This is why you're a homophobic jackass, you act like it's some disease or something.



No, you just don't read what I write. This is about people coming into a school and teaching young children about gay sex. OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN.

Do you have children Rake? If not, do you have a little brother or sister?



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> And you can't say acting like homosexuality is a disease is not being an intolerant, hateful bigot.



Who's acting as if it is a disease?



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Homosexuality is not dangerous and destructive.



About half of all HIV carriers are homosexuals despite the fact that they are 2.5% to 5% of the population.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> If we did, you'd of been stoned to death a long time ago.



Because of what? I'm just curious.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> I'm not going to waste my time writing out her entire speech, just so you can ignore that too.



What do you mean “too”. I have ignored nothing here. I want you to write out what you think was hateful or bigoted of her speech. If you don't do it then it means that you have nothing and I win the thread.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Snake in the grass? Of course, had this been the other way around and it was a guy admitting he was gay and saying plans he had for the state, and some Christian video taped it secretly, you'd be on the opposite side of the fence, screaming "HE WANTS TO BRAINWASH OUR CHILDREN! THE FACT HE WANTED IT TO BE SECRET IS PROOF HE'S PART OF THE GAY MAFIA!"



No I wouldn't. Not if it was just his opinion on things, as this was with Kern.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> In 27 states led by 70 year old sexist, racist assholes who share a whole dumpster full of hateful, intolerant beliefs.



Then why is it that in each of these states the amendments passed with at least 60% of the voting population voting to pass it?



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Just wait till they die and we take over control. You will find that number dwindling quite a bit.



How will you take control of the children and grandchild of those supposed 70 year olds who believe the same way their parents did?



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> I have been to plenty of gay parades. They don't act any differently *than women do when they're flaunting themselves as prostitutes* in the street, *dancing naked as strippers in clubs*, how heterosexual sex is handled *in porn industry*, movies, tv, reality shows, etc.



Ah, so you admit that I am right. Thanks. By the way, prostitution is illegal, strippers dance but they do it IN CLUBS as you said, not in the streets which would be illegal also, and yes sex in the streets is illegal as well yet you admit that gays do that too.

So again, thank you for proving my point that gays will act disgusting in public regardless of whether we oppose their deathstyle or not.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> You just like to point the finger at them as if they are the only ones who handle sexuality in an open way.



What are you talking about? I am against heterosexual sex in public. I thing Marti Gras should be banned! I am against any kind of sex that takes place outside of marriage and outside of a private household.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Look around you, are you blind? Dildo shops on main streets, porno mags at newspaper stands. Nudity on day time tv.



In Canada maybe, but not in America. Hell, in Canada a woman can walk around topless (if its warm enough).

Porn mags are sold in gas stations and convenience stores FROM BEHIND THE COUNTER. Kids can't see it. As for dildo shops, there are none on any main street. You'd probably not even see one in a back ally. The worst you'll get is a store that says “Adult Toys” on a sign out in front, and yes you have to be 18 to even enter the store. So again, kids can't see. As for nudity on daytime TV. You're full of it. That isn't even shown on nighttime TV. America has strict standards, unlike Canada.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> And if gays accept Christ?



Then they will go to Heaven when they die.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Good. Then you can run off to Iran with your homosexual executing buddies and nothing of value will have been lost.



HA! The terrorists in Iran will all come to North America if the U.S.A. Ever accepts homosexuality. Then what will you do? You'll have driven out anyone who would have defended you from the Islamofascists.



			
				S e a n said:
			
		

> Lol, its so funny how little society has come in regards to tolerance.



What is tolerance? Lets start there.



			
				S e a n said:
			
		

> The majority of gays and lesbians aren't fricken roving rapists like ^^^^ seems to think.



Strawman fallacy.



			
				S e a n said:
			
		

> Homosexuals are people; and alot of them have to put up with such rudeness from random people;



Why is that? How do random people know if they are homosexual or not?



			
				S e a n said:
			
		

> I have friends that are lesbian; and while it's awkward them like cuddling and going at it; I feel the same when straight couples I'm friends of do it lawl



Same here, but at least when opposite-sex couples do that it is normal.



			
				S e a n said:
			
		

> But; Terrorism, who kills multiple people for what reason? To show government,or whatever reason.
> How can that possibly be better then that people of the same sex being together?



She didn't say it was better. You people never listen to others. You're nothing but bigots. She said that homosexual activism in the schools is a bigger threat than terrorism, which is true if you have protections against terrorism but NONE against homosexual activism in the schools.



			
				S e a n said:
			
		

> Homosexuality isn't always rampant, and since when did straight couples keep it all behind doors



Since always. And if they don't then they go to jail.

Homosexuals do it in public and they get off. Off the hook that is.



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> Oh please. History tells us that you're dead wrong, and it would tell you the same if you read any of it.



I have studied history. It shows that countries to have embraced homosexuality have fallen within a few decades after that. Ancient Greece, Rome, etc. I have not read the revised history that is being taught in schools now though, and that is because that rewritten history is all propaganda put out by the homosexual activists.



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> -bogus history omitted-
> 
> Did they last long? Well, considering that each of those civilizations mentioned above lasted for at least a thousand years, I'd say they did.



No they didn't. They lasted a thousand years before embracing homosexuality. After they embraced it they died out within a few decades.



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> And of course, in many ways they'll last forever. They have κλέος, or "eternal fame."



Oh you're full of it. Eternal fame my ass. That is worthless when your civilization dies out.



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> Not a bad deal for a bunch of hell-bound buggers. Oh, and regarding their hell-bound status, a couple guys I know named Dante Alighieri, John Milton, and C.S. Lewis would like to have a word with you.



So you think I'm going to Hell do you? Well your wish isn't going to come true because a guy I know already had a word with me, and his name is Jesus Christ. I am saved from my sins and from Hell.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 14, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> I'd kill at least one hundred terrorists just on my own. Believe it!
> 
> About half of all HIV carriers are homosexuals despite the fact that they are 2.5% to 5% of the population.
> 
> ...


1.

2.Source pls?

3.I wish,but nope.Another uninformed "BI fact"

4.Thats kinda how you go to heaven,eh BI?You closeted selfhating homosexual

You talked to Jesus?Tell him to give me my five bucks back


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Mar 14, 2008)

Believe shIt! said:


> Because of what? I'm just curious.



He admits it Believe shIt! is gay.




> In Canada maybe, but not in America. Hell, in Canada a woman can walk around topless (if its warm enough).



More gay talk. What's wrong with breasts Believe shIt!?



> Why is that? How do random people know if they are homosexual or not?



Normally when they wish boys were girls.



> Eternal ram my ass.



Indeed



> So you think I'm going to Hell do you? Well your wish isn't going to come true because a guy I know already had a word with me, sucked my cock, and his name is Jesus Christ. I am saved from my sins and from Hell.



You sure he wasn't a Catholic priest?




yes I Know it's immature, but it's funny


----------



## Cair (Mar 14, 2008)

Last time I checked, Bin Ladden was worse than a bunch of gays having buttsecks with each other.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Mar 14, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> I'd kill at least one hundred terrorists just on my own. Believe it!







> Excuse me, I thought I asked for one just now. So where is it? All I see here is a bogus claim.



... Heheh... o, rly?  You know what that quote above this one is?



> I don't need to find any other supporter. I will defend anyone who is right. She is right, and the slanderous claims against her are bogus, as I proved!



Without CITING YOUR SOURCES, your 'facts' are meaningless.  Which is something we've been telling you for as long as I've been here...



> No, we're talking about gays teaching straight children to be gay or if not gay then at least accepting of the deathstyle as normal and equal to heterosexuality.



Any lifestyle in which you are at risk for STD's could be considered a deathstyle, btw... in fact, since everyone dies sooner or later, that's really what a lifestyle is.  A deathstyle... meh...



> This is just false. No one is saying to keep gay kids out of schools, and that is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to keep the radical gay activists out of the schools so they can't brainwash the youth.



Which... is different?  I was a 'radical gay activist' in middle and high school.



> Really? You don't need safe sex practices then? Well thanks for admitting that you are a hateful homophobe who wants gays to get AIDS and die.



... You don't think they should have any relations with anyone they're attracted to at all... and you can't stop people from fucking.  That's why so many teens have sex despite all of these shitty abstinence programs.



> No, you just don't read what I write. This is about people coming into a school and teaching young children about gay sex. OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN.



Um... yeah... that's what teachers and educators do... you don't have a problem with people teaching OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN about the evils of homosexuality.



> Do you have children Rake? If not, do you have a little brother or sister?



Lol... yeah.  Hell, for all I know, she could be a lesbian.  I don't care.  Did you know, BI!, that the whole 'deathstyle' rant of yours is completely useless against lesbians because out of all of the groups of people with different sexual orientations, they contract the fewest STD's, percentage-wise.



> Who's acting as if it is a disease?



You're saying it can spread.  Thus, you are.



> About half of all HIV carriers are homosexuals despite the fact that they are 2.5% to 5% of the population.



Source?

What do you mean too. I have ignored nothing here. I want you to write out what you think was hateful or bigoted of her speech. If you don't do it then it means that you have nothing and I win the thread.

The problem with doing so is that you don't understand even the most basic workings of the human brain.  Sexual orientation is ingrained in a person's psyche.  Otherwise straight people would raise straight children and gay people would raise gay children, which they don't.
Also, consider the places where homosexuality is punishable by death.  Do you actually think that people in countries like that would CHOOSE to be homosexual?  I mean... come on...



> Then why is it that in each of these states the amendments passed with at least 60% of the voting population voting to pass it?



Source?



> Ah, so you admit that I am right. Thanks. By the way, prostitution is illegal, strippers dance but they do it IN CLUBS as you said, not _*in the streets which would be illegal also, and yes sex in the streets is illegal as well yet you admit that gays do that too.*_



... So do straights.  Are you really that obsessed with public displays of homosexuality that you've forgotten about straight people's trespasses on the same grounds?



> So again, thank you for proving my point that gays will act disgusting in public regardless of whether we oppose their deathstyle or not.



And again I say, so will straights.



> What are you talking about? I am against heterosexual sex in public. I thing Marti Gras should be banned! I am against any kind of sex that takes place outside of marriage and outside of a private household.



... We know, and yet you don't seem to object to:



> In Canada maybe, but not in America. Hell, in Canada a woman can walk around topless (if its warm enough).



Yeah, I bet you complain a lot about that, don't you?



> Porn mags are sold in gas stations and convenience stores FROM BEHIND THE COUNTER. Kids can't see it. As for dildo shops, there are none on any main street. You'd probably not even see one in a back ally. The worst you'll get is a store that says Adult Toys on a sign out in front, and yes you have to be 18 to even enter the store. So again, kids can't see. As for nudity on daytime TV. You're full of it. That isn't even shown on nighttime TV. America has strict standards, unlike Canada.



... Um... actually, we have a costume and sex toy shop downtown.  It's pretty common knowledge.  It's also an anime shop, ironically.  Awesome shop.  And people under 18 are allowed in the shop, but they aren't allowed to buy certain products.
And what about the covers of magazines that are in stores?  Some of them are borderline pornographic.
And as far as TV goes... you're joking, right?  Let's just look at the number of movies I can name off the top of my head that have had sexual content...
The Island.
Across the Universe...
Everything is Illuminated...

Lol... I don't watch movies that much.  That's all I can come up with off the bat, and only because I watched them recently.

Now then... as for nudity in other programs... I've seen nearly naked women in at least half of all commercials that are supposed to appeal to men for some reason or another...
I'm afraid I don't have cable or satellite or whatever, so I can't say much more than that, but I've seen a lot of gore and sex on television, even when I was a little kid.



> HA! The terrorists in Iran will all come to North America if the U.S.A. Ever accepts homosexuality. Then what will you do? You'll have driven out anyone who would have defended you from the Islamofascists.



Um... what?  If any group of people has a right to hate fascists of any kind, it's the homosexuals.



> What is tolerance? Lets start there.



Sure.  Permissiveness: a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior.
 Dictionary definition.



> Why is that? How do random people know if they are homosexual or not?



Um... because they are attracted to those of the same sex... or did you not know that?



> Same here, but at least when opposite-sex couples do that it is normal.



Did you see the thread on normalcy?  There is no such thing, especially since normalcy depends on a person's perception, and since everyone is different... feh, I'd rather not try and talk philosophy with you.



> She didn't say it was better. You people never listen to others. You're nothing but bigots. She said that homosexual activism in the schools is a bigger threat than terrorism, which is true if you have protections against terrorism but NONE against homosexual activism in the schools.



Okay.  Here's why this doesn't work.  This may be true, IF YOU CONSIDER IT A THREAT.  We don't.  Therefore, from our perspective, that is what she is saying.



> Homosexuals do it in public and they get off. Off the hook that is.



Just like Matthew Shepard, eh?  Yeah, he got off, all right, when they bashed his skull in.



> I have studied history. It shows that countries to have embraced homosexuality have fallen within a few decades after that. Ancient Greece, Rome, etc. I have not read the revised history that is being taught in schools now though, and that is because that rewritten history is all propaganda put out by the homosexual activists.



... Tell me, BI!, do you have a master's degree in world history?  Roman history?  Grecian history?
Didn't think so.
But guess what?  My grandfather does.
And guess what?  You're wrong.



> Oh you're full of it. Eternal fame my ass. That is worthless when your civilization dies out.



Too bad the polar ice caps are melting and we're all going to die when our paranoia takes over and we start shooting bombs at every country in sight.  Then not only will our precious civilization die out, but we will have no legacy.  Oh, well.



> So you think I'm going to Hell do you? Well your wish isn't going to come true because a guy I know already had a word with me, and his name is Jesus Christ. I am saved from my sins and from Hell.



I don't.  There's no such place as Hell.  The closest approximation would be Auschwitz, Rwanda, and other such places.


----------



## AmatorPlatonisCatullique (Mar 14, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> I have studied history. It shows that countries to have embraced homosexuality have fallen within a few decades after that. Ancient Greece, Rome, etc. I have not read the revised history that is being taught in schools now though, and that is because that rewritten history is all propaganda put out by the homosexual activists.



Okay, lesson one: don't try to bullshit a classicist about ancient history.  I know my history and even more than that, I've read the ancients' own words.  Love between men was a long-established tradition predating Socrates by hundreds of years.  We have fragments from Aeschylus (5th century) that portray Achilles and Patroclus as being lovers, and we know that Aeschylus was an immensely popular tragedian.  Obviously the Athenians found his interpretation quite acceptable.  Plato wrote the Symposium in the 3rd century, at which time age-structured homosexual relationships were considered acceptable and even essential to Athenian society.

Fast-forward to Rome.  Homosexuality was accepted during the Republic, and several of the emperors were well-known bisexuals.  You cannot say that it only lasted a few decades.  Go read Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," and you'll see some of the REAL reasons that Rome fell.  You might be surprised.

Also, I wasn't implying that you're going to hell.  I was citing three extremely learned authors, one Catholic and two Protestant, who didn't think that the ancient Greeks or Romans were hellbound.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Mar 14, 2008)

There is a special place in hell reserved just for those who wish to impose their own conservative moral ideals on others :3


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Mar 14, 2008)

Believe It! said:
			
		

> I'd kill at least one hundred terrorists just on my own. Believe it!



I'm sure you would. I'll see you in Hell.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Excuse me, I thought I asked for one just now. So where is it? All I see here is a bogus claim.



Excuse me, I believe I've given you it in the past. You said it was written by a gay person and discredited it. I'm not the one holding on to a retarded claim because I'm in love with a gay anime character I can't accept as male.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Anyone who posts a request as a joke is not accepted into the fanclub. ~Zaxxon~ and Link (Chrono Nexus) can attest to that fact. There are some rules to follow with our club. So one must be serious about it and follow the rules. Someone who became a member recently even made his own banner image link for his signature. Other members have posted their favorite fanart there. So I'm very confident in our fanclub's members. I would believe them over you any day.



Zaxxon? Link? Thanks for proving my point for me.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> I don't need to find any other supporter. I will defend anyone who is right. She is right, and the slanderous claims against her are bogus, as I proved!



How can an opinion be right? Especially when no one but you seems to agree with it?



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> No, we're talking about gays teaching straight children to be gay or if not gay then at least accepting of the deathstyle as normal and equal to heterosexuality.



More like teaching straight kids to accept gays. I'm starting to wonder if you were raped by your uncle or something at a young age and this is what has caused your deluded paranoia.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> This is just false. No one is saying to keep gay kids out of schools, and that is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to keep the radical gay activists out of the schools so they can't brainwash the youth.



Gay activists aren't trying to get into the schools. They're kinda busy, you know, trying to win their own freedom at the moment. They're a bit preoccupied with that.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Really? You don't need safe sex practices then? Well thanks for admitting that you are a hateful homophobe who wants gays to get AIDS and die.



Where did you get any of this? Way to fail.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> No, you just don't read what I write. This is about people coming into a school and teaching young children about gay sex. OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN.



Right. Wouldn't be surprised that your ignorant ass would only be happy with future children remaining as ignorant as you.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Do you have children Rake? If not, do you have a little brother or sister?



I do have little brothers and sisters. And I'm going to have kids one day. And I think it's important each learns about gay people and learns to accept them. Me and my fiance both believe in freedom of love and choice and homosexuality. That's why I get laid and why you're gonna die alone.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Who's acting as if it is a disease?



Please.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> About half of all HIV carriers are homosexuals despite the fact that they are 2.5% to 5% of the population.



Bullshit statistic. And even if it was true, that means the other half are heterosexuals. 1/2 and 1/2.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Because of what? I'm just curious.



Barbarians of the old testament used to enjoy stoning to death anyone who believed in something or said something others didn't like. Considering no one likes what you say, you'd be dead by now.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> What do you mean ?too?. I have ignored nothing here. I want you to write out what you think was hateful or bigoted of her speech. If you don't do it then it means that you have nothing and I win the thread.



You ignore everything. You make up bullshit facts and statistics for some shit, you come up with stupid shit like You wants AIDS?" for others and when you don't have anything to say to something, you skip over it completely. You have never in the history of this forum ever once accepted that something you said was wrong, which means you are just about the shittiest debater on the forum. You are _always_ wrong and will always lose. Good day.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> No I wouldn't. Not if it was just his opinion on things, as this was with Kern.



Bullshit.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Then why is it that in each of these states the amendments passed with at least 60% of the voting population voting to pass it?



Because most voters of those states are redneck, 40+ year olds who agree with the leaders? Teenagers? Vote? Lol.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> How will you take control of the children and grandchild of those supposed 70 year olds who believe the same way their parents did?



Look around you. We don't need to take control of shit, half of America has accepted gays, nearly the rest of the world too. You're in a losing battle.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Ah, so you admit that I am right. Thanks. By the way, prostitution is illegal, strippers dance but they do it IN CLUBS as you said, not in the streets which would be illegal also, and yes sex in the streets is illegal as well yet you admit that gays do that too.



More bullshit. See above about you ignoring that which you can't argue.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> So again, thank you for proving my point that gays will act disgusting in public regardless of whether we oppose their deathstyle or not.



See above.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> What are you talking about? I am against heterosexual sex in public. I thing Marti Gras should be banned! I am against any kind of sex that takes place outside of marriage and outside of a private household.



Then your opinion means nothing.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> In Canada maybe, but not in America. Hell, in Canada a woman can walk around topless (if its warm enough).



Bullshit statistic. See above again.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Porn mags are sold in gas stations and convenience stores FROM BEHIND THE COUNTER. Kids can't see it. As for dildo shops, there are none on any main street. You'd probably not even see one in a back ally. The worst you'll get is a store that says ?Adult Toys? on a sign out in front, and yes you have to be 18 to even enter the store. So again, kids can't see. As for nudity on daytime TV. You're full of it. That isn't even shown on nighttime TV. America has strict standards, unlike Canada.



Jerry Springer, anyone? Bullshit once again, see above.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Then they will go to Heaven when they die.



k.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> HA! The terrorists in Iran will all come to North America if the U.S.A. Ever accepts homosexuality. Then what will you do? You'll have driven out anyone who would have defended you from the Islamofascists.



We would of driven out you and a some other pieces of social waste. And nothing of value was lost.


----------



## Zitianos (Mar 14, 2008)

Terrorism kills people. Homosexuality does not, last time I checked.

Don't bring God into Political Speeches.


----------



## Edo (Mar 14, 2008)

Hey Believe it! what is the biggest sin man can commit?


----------



## HAL 9000 (Mar 14, 2008)

...Ummm, explain to me how stating that acceptance of a sexual orientation between 2 consenting adults is worse then fanatics killing people is not homophobic.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 14, 2008)

Sarutobi sasuke said:


> yes I Know it's immature, but it's funny


I'm seriously starting to think that he is gay.He just hates himself.And first wet dream included Haku,who was  a boy!


Gaawa-chan said:


> ... So do straights.  Are you really that obsessed with public displays of homosexuality that you've forgotten about straight people's trespasses on the same grounds?


Its not illegal if heterosexuals do it


----------



## Naruto (Mar 14, 2008)

Diceman said:


> I'm seriously starting to think that he is gay.



I sincerely hope not. Not that each gay person represents the entire population that has an attraction for the same gender, but most people *do* label things as such. 

My sister is bi, and I'm sure she would like to kick this "believe it" guy, fucking poor excuse of a person.


----------



## Catterix (Mar 14, 2008)

Believe it! said:
			
		

> Then they will go to Heaven when they die.



Oh phew. That's me sorted then. Being a gay Christian, I'm assuming I'm out of Believe It!'s firing range?


----------



## Edo (Mar 14, 2008)

Catterix said:


> Oh phew. That's me sorted then. Being a gay Christian, I'm assuming I'm out of Believe It!'s firing range?



No one is out of his range...not even Jesus himself, Believe it!


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 14, 2008)

Edo said:


> No one is out of his range...not even Jesus himself, Believe it!



Well he does claim to be talking to him


and Edo change your avatar and signature I almost thought Believe it had become well sane reading your posts past few days or had split personalities.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 14, 2008)

Hey first I want everyone to see the fruits of their labors here...



She's been getting death threats and angry letters, e-mails, and voicemail messages. I hope all you hateful bigots are satisfied.



			
				Ura Renge said:
			
		

> Last time I checked, Bin Ladden was worse than a bunch of gays having buttsecks with each other.



And I think Rep. Sally Kern would agree with you. She never said homosexuals were worse than terrorists. She only said that homosexuality is a bigger threat to American than terrorism. This is a big difference.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Without CITING YOUR SOURCES, your 'facts' are meaningless. Which is something we've been telling you for as long as I've been here...



What do you mean without citing my sources? We are talking about what a woman SAID. I proved that the claims against her are bogus by citing what she actually said and proving that the claims about her are false!



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Any lifestyle in which you are at risk for STD's could be considered a deathstyle, btw... in fact, since everyone dies sooner or later, that's really what a lifestyle is. A deathstyle... meh...



No, death from old age is natural. Death from and STD is not. And YES any lifestyle where you're at risk of catching an STD is a deathstyle. The thing is that homosexuality is the main catalyst for STD infections. Moreover it produces no children. So there ya go.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Which... is different? I was a 'radical gay activist' in middle and high school.



No, we're talking about the organizations or groups that go to schools to spread their pro-gay propaganda. Students would simply be forbidden to spread the pro-gay propaganda. They would still be allowed to go to the school though.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> ... You don't think they should have any relations with anyone they're attracted to at all...



Yes I do. See, this is another mistake that you people make about my argument. I think they should have healthy relations with adults they are attracted to. They should be good friends with those people. Should they have sex with them? No. However, they have that right, as long as it is done in private and is consensual.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> and you can't stop people from fucking.



I'm not trying to stop them. I am simply encouraging them to be monogamous and live in a healthy and productive relationship. They can still choose to reject my advice though.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> That's why so many teens have sex despite all of these shitty abstinence programs.



They have sex BECAUSE the abstinence programs are being taught in a shitty way. We need to force teachers to teach the programs the right way.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Um... yeah... that's what teachers and educators do... you don't have a problem with people teaching OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN about the evils of homosexuality.



No it isn't what teachers and educators do. They are to teach children reading, writing, and arithmetic! And yes I do have a problem with teachers teaching the evils and dangers of homosexuality. That should be up to the parents to do! The only time it is in the school's interest is when a kid has no parent to turn to, in which case you send the kid to a couple of councilors so they can work with the kid in a private setting away from other students and teach that kid the evils and dangers of homosexuality.

As far as the classroom goes, you teach kids the things they need to be smart and productive in the world.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Lol... yeah. Hell, for all I know, she could be a lesbian. I don't care.



Okay, so you have a little sister. Now imagine ME coming into her classroom and teaching her and all of her fellow classmates how to smoke cigarettes. Yeah, I'll even go as far as to give them all free cigarettes and lighters and tell them all to smoke up!

How would you like it if I did that?



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Did you know, BI!, that the whole 'deathstyle' rant of yours is completely useless against lesbians because out of all of the groups of people with different sexual orientations, they contract the fewest STD's, percentage-wise.



But they still can't have kids and they can't live fulfilled lives because of that.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> You're saying it can spread. Thus, you are.



No, ideas can spread too. Isn't that why you're always trying to censor Christianity?



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Source?







			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> The problem with doing so is that you don't understand even the most basic workings of the human brain. Sexual orientation is ingrained in a person's psyche.



BULLSHIT!!! All scientific fact proves that sexual preference is not an inborn trait. The only people who say it is are morons and people who are trying to justify the gay deathstyle.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Otherwise straight people would raise straight children and gay people would raise gay children, which they don't.



Many people do raise straight children, but then they go off to college and they come back pot smoking homosexual hippies. What happens is that their personalities and morals get skewed by liberalism and sinful indulgences.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Also, consider the places where homosexuality is punishable by death. Do you actually think that people in countries like that would CHOOSE to be homosexual?



Okay, now think about the places in the world where murder is punishable by death. Do you really think that people in countries like that would CHOOSE to be murderers? Moreover Christians have been persecuted for their faith for centuries, yet we choose what we believe in. Yeah, your point is absurd.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Source?



Hmm... I guess Oregon's was 57%. So I was off by 3%. Big deal.





			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> ... So do straights. Are you really that obsessed with public displays of homosexuality that you've forgotten about straight people's trespasses on the same grounds?



Of course not. I say all public sex acts should be banned and illegal. The point is that gays do it in public which is disgusting and illegal. So they should be thrown in jail for it, not given a free pass because of their sexual preference.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> And again I say, so will straights.



And again I say, that should be banned too! Believe it!



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Yeah, I bet you complain a lot about that, don't you?



No, because I don't live in Canada. I think that is wrong of Canada to allow that though.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> ... Um... actually, we have a costume and sex toy shop downtown. It's pretty common knowledge.



But does it say “dildo shop” on the front, or is it more of a speak easy kind of place? Also, in what city is this shop located?



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> It's also an anime shop, ironically. Awesome shop. And people under 18 are allowed in the shop, but they aren't allowed to buy certain products.



No, it's probably a sex shop that also just happens to sell anime.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> And what about the covers of magazines that are in stores? Some of them are borderline pornographic.



They should have standards applied to that too, but the fact of the matter is that they are not pornographic.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> And as far as TV goes... you're joking, right? Let's just look at the number of movies I can name off the top of my head that have had sexual content...



None of which showed nudity without being censored.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> The Island.
> Across the Universe...
> Everything is Illuminated...



Never heard of them.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Lol... I don't watch movies that much. That's all I can come up with off the bat, and only because I watched them recently.



What about Showgirls, Species, or Terminator 3? Oh, whoops. All of those were censored for TV.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Now then... as for nudity in other programs... I've seen nearly naked women in at least half of all commercials that are supposed to appeal to men for some reason or another...



Nearly? I bet you haven't even seen halfly naked women in any commercials. Name the commercials or the products they present.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I don't have cable or satellite or whatever, so I can't say much more than that, but I've seen a lot of gore and sex on television, even when I was a little kid.



And you live in America?



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Um... what? If any group of people has a right to hate fascists of any kind, it's the homosexuals.



That isn't the issue. The issue is if the homosexuals be able to defend themselves from the Islamofascists without any help from the Christians who would have helped them had they not been driven out by them.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Sure. Permissiveness: a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior.
> Dictionary definition.



Okay... and how are we not allowing gays to do what they do in the privacy of their own homes?

I have another more descriptive definition of tolerance. It is putting up with something. That doesn't mean you have to like it or approve of it. That just means you restrain yourself enough not to go off on it. I support tolerance of gay people at the least, and this goes for people who hate them. However, I say that Christians should accept people who are gay as fellow human beings. That also does not mean that we should accept homosexuality, in fact we can hate homosexuality and oppose it vocally. But we are to love the people who are stuck in that deathstyle.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 14, 2008)

Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Um... because they are attracted to those of the same sex... or did you not know that?



See, this is why you shouldn't answer questions posed to other people. The question was, how do ordinary people on the streets know if another person is gay or not? If they can't know, then they can't be rude to them or mistreat them. That is my point. So how do they know?



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Did you see the thread on normalcy? There is no such thing



Yes there is. Normal is defined by society and their moral beliefs. America says that heterosexuality is normal and anything else is not. The end.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Okay. Here's why this doesn't work. This may be true, IF YOU CONSIDER IT A THREAT. We don't. Therefore, from our perspective, that is what she is saying.



Well fine, but she does. So it is her opinion, and her opinion is not hateful of people who are gay. In fact, she didn't say anything about gay people. So she is not hateful or bigoted. Period end of story.



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Just like Matthew Shepard, eh? Yeah, he got off, all right, when they bashed his skull in.



What does Matt Shep getting brutally killed by a fellow homosexual and a meth addict who were both later sentenced to life in prison for murder have to do with the fact that homosexual are not legally prosecuted for public indecency?



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> ... Tell me, BI!, do you have a master's degree in world history? Roman history? Grecian history?



Since when does anyone need a masters in history to KNOW history or read a history book?



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> And guess what? You're wrong.



Really? So what does your grandfather say about the fall of Ancient Greece and Rome?



			
				Gaawa-chan said:
			
		

> Too bad the polar ice caps are melting and we're all going to die when our paranoia takes over and we start shooting bombs at every country in sight. Then not only will our precious civilization die out, but we will have no legacy. Oh, well.



No, the northern ice cap is decreasing slightly and this is because of icebergs that float to far south, and even in this case the water level does not rise except by 10% of the iceberg's mass because the ice is already displacing the water and the only water added to the sea by the iceberg is the 10% that floats above the surface of the water. The southern ice cap on the other hand (that's the south pole) is actually increasing in ice structure. So get off the global warming hysteria bandwagon already.



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> Okay, lesson one: don't try to bullshit a classicist about ancient history. I know my history and even more than that, I've read the ancients' own words. Love between men was a long-established tradition predating Socrates by hundreds of years.



I didn't say it wasn't. I said that it was not widely accepted and that any civilization to embrace it quickly died off or was overthrown.



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> We have fragments from Aeschylus (5th century) that portray Achilles and Patroclus as being lovers, and we know that Aeschylus was an immensely popular tragedian. Obviously the Athenians found his interpretation quite acceptable. Plato wrote the Symposium in the 3rd century, at which time age-structured homosexual relationships were considered acceptable and even essential to Athenian society.



And where are the Athenians now? Long gone. And are you talking about pederasty? Is that what you're advocating here?



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> Fast-forward to Rome. Homosexuality was accepted during the Republic



No it wasn't.



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> and several of the emperors were well-known bisexuals. You cannot say that it only lasted a few decades.



It lasted a few decades AFTER they embraced homosexuality. Then they were taken over by barbarians because their soldiers were too demoralized to defend their country. They saw evil and debauchery everywhere in their society, and they lost all desire to protect such a civilization. 



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> Go read Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," and you'll see some of the REAL reasons that Rome fell. You might be surprised.



I have already read about why Rome fell. Many factors contributed to it but it all stemmed from immorality and sexual perversion.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> I'm sure you would. I'll see you in Hell.



Sorry, you will never see me in Hell because I am not going there.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Excuse me, I believe I've given you it in the past.



Post it again! Post it right now, that is if you really do have it.

And no you never posted it in the past because it has not been translated yet.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> You said it was written by a gay person and discredited it. I'm not the one holding on to a retarded claim because I'm in love with a gay anime character I can't accept as male.



I'll accept that Haku was male IF there is proof of it. However, all the proof of the series indicates that Haku was female. The facts are on my side, as always.

And it sounds to me like you are holding on to a retarded claim because you're in love with a female character that you WANT to be a gay boy. What's wrong with you Rake?



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Zaxxon? Link? Thanks for proving my point for me.



I didn't prove your point, I disproved it. They tried to join either as a joke or as not really believing that Haku was a girl and they both got rejected! READ WHAT I WRITE!!!



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> How can an opinion be right? Especially when no one but you seems to agree with it?



They can be right when the FACTS back them up, as is the case with Rep. Sally Kern's opinion.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> More like teaching straight kids to accept gays.



Wrong. If that were the case then they would be teaching acceptance of EVERYONE as a fellow person who is worthy of respect. Treat others as you would want them to treat you. I learned that in school, and when I did, I didn't need some gay special rights activists telling me to accept homosexuality as normal and equal to the relationship that my parents share.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> I'm starting to wonder if you were raped by your uncle or something at a young age and this is what has caused your deluded paranoia.



I had a very healthy, happy, and balanced childhood. I have a family that loves me very much and cares about me, and I resent that remark of yours. 

This isn't paranoia, this is fact. It is a fact that this is what gays are forcing into the schools. It isn't about accepting others, it is about accepting a perverted deathstyle as normal and natural, and the whole point is that these are radical homosexuals who are teaching this to other people's kids. They are forcing immorality on other people's kids!



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Gay activists aren't trying to get into the schools. They're kinda busy, you know, trying to win their own freedom at the moment. They're a bit preoccupied with that.



And the easiest way for them to win the special rights they want is to brainwash the youth. You're a Hitler fan, as you admitted to me in a PM, so you know that the easiest way to completely change a nation is to go after the youth and indoctrinate them to think your way because they are the most impressionable.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Where did you get any of this?



You said we don't need any protections from homosexuality. Well in that case all of the HIV positive people would be having sex without protection. Which means you want them all to spread HIV. Furthermore, many medications protect homosexuals from HIV. Thus, no protections result in full blown AIDS! That means you want them to get HIV and die of AIDS, you homophobic hater you!



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Wouldn't be surprised that your ignorant ass would only be happy with future children remaining as ignorant as you.



I want kids to be taught morals by their parents. Radical concept I know, but I guess I'm just old fashioned that way.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> I do have little brothers and sisters.



Okay, and what would you say if I were to go into their classrooms and shove cigarettes into their hands and teach them all how to smoke? And what if all teachers encouraged their students to smoke up? How would you feel about that one?



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> And I'm going to have kids one day. And I think it's important each learns about gay people and learns to accept them. Me and my fiance both believe in freedom of love and choice and homosexuality.



Great. So teach your own kids your morals and leave everyone else's kids out of it to be taught by their parents. How do you like that idea?



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> That's why I get laid and why you're gonna die alone.



Well there's something I've learned about people who make comments like that one. All of them are trying to compensating for some kind of darkness in their own lives, which is why they lash out at others. So I know what's what, and so your words mean nothing to me.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Bullshit statistic. And even if it was true, that means the other half are heterosexuals. 1/2 and 1/2.



Wow, you're a quick one aren't you? Now just apply the fact that gays are between 2.5% and 5% of the population. If they are so many less gays than straights, then how can they possibly make up half of the HIV carriage cases? Explain that one to me Rake.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Barbarians of the old testament used to enjoy stoning to death anyone who believed in something or said something others didn't like. Considering no one likes what you say, you'd be dead by now.



So you're saying that you're a barbarian who would stone another the death just because they said something you don't agree with? Wow, you need help.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 14, 2008)

Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> You ignore everything.



Ohhhh I ignore everything. Sure sure. You're in such denial that it isn't even funny.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> You have never in the history of this forum ever once accepted that something you said was wrong



Yes I have. Though it has only rarely happen, but that is only because I am rarely ever wrong.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Because most voters of those states are redneck, 40+ year olds who agree with the leaders? Teenagers? Vote? Lol.



I voted for my state's constitutional amendment and I am not a redneck, I am younger than 40 years, and no I don't agree with my leaders on many things. So there ya go, you've been disproved again.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Look around you. We don't need to take control of shit, half of America has accepted gays, nearly the rest of the world too. You're in a losing battle.



Uh no, almost all of America has accepted people who are gay, but that doesn't mean we accept homosexuality as normal. Don't forget that heterosexuals are the ones having the kids. We are the parents, and thus we are the ones instilling morals into future generations.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> More bullshit.



What do you mean? I just repeated everything you said. Now you're saying that what you said was BS?



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> See above.



You just got refuted sir. Don't try to ignore the point. I beat you like a drum on this one.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Then your opinion means nothing.



Wait, so because I am consistent about my beliefs and don't have a double standard that means my opinion means nothing? So what if I had said that I am against homosexual sex in public but don't mind heterosexual sex in public? You'd be calling me a hypocrite.

So I win this point as well. I am against sex in public regardless of what kind it is.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Bullshit statistic. See above again.



Uh, that wasn't a statistic. That was a statement. Perhaps you need a good night's rest or something.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> Jerry Springer, anyone?



Springer is censored. You never see any nudity and you even have curse words bleeped out.



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> k.



Aww, what's wrong? I didn't give you any room to bash Christianity for being "intolerant" or "hateful"?



			
				Anomander Rake said:
			
		

> We would of driven out you and a some other pieces of social waste. And nothing of value was lost.



The value would be those who would defend your lives from the Islamofascist who would then be free to cut your throats for embracing homosexuality.



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> Hey Believe it! what is the biggest sin man can commit?



There's no such thing. All sins are equally as damning in the eyes of God.



			
				Heroes Rising said:
			
		

> ...Ummm, explain to me how stating that acceptance of a sexual orientation between 2 consenting adults is worse then fanatics killing people is not homophobic.



Who said it was worse? Not Rep. Sally Kern.



			
				Catterix said:
			
		

> Oh phew. That's me sorted then. Being a gay Christian, I'm assuming I'm out of Believe It!'s firing range?



If you are saved through Jesus Christ and born again through him, then you are my sibling in Christ. Being saved is what is most important. Now your change from being gay to being straight is between you and God and I pray that He give you the strength to conquer your problem so that you can live as He wants you to. Believe it!


----------



## Grimmjow (Mar 14, 2008)

hmmm this is a touchy subject.


----------



## Random Nobody (Mar 15, 2008)

> Hey first I want everyone to see the fruits of their labors here...



Blaming a bunch of people on the internet for the usual worthless death threats that come along anytime anyone says anything even slightly controversial?:rofl



> And YES any lifestyle where you're at risk of catching an STD is a deathstyle.



So any lifestyle then.  Just because your abstinent doesn't mean your gonna fall for someone else whose abstinent.


----------



## AmatorPlatonisCatullique (Mar 15, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> I didn't say it wasn't. I said that it was not widely accepted and that any civilization to embrace it quickly died off or was overthrown.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is absurd.  Firstly, sexual relationships with boys were ALWAYS considered obscene and immoral in Athens.  Sex took place between older men and younger men, usually when the younger man was between the ages of 18 and 23, since that was the age at which he needed someone to introduce him to his political responsibilities.  Such relationships often continued even when the younger man got older.

Secondly, your account of the fall of Rome is ridiculous.  For the past two centuries, the leading scholarly opinion has been that there were two principal causes for the fall of Rome: the outsourcing of its military to barbarian mercenaries, and the ideological influence of Christianity, which encouraged adherents to focus on the next life instead of life on Earth and so instilled a spirit of indifference.

I'm backed by two hundred years of scholarship on the fall of Rome and half a century of work on Greek sexuality, as well as the actual words written by actual Greeks and Romans.  You haven't even got enough respect for your own holy book to read its actual words as they were written.

Your whole damned religion disgusts me.  I'm perfectly happy to tolerate someone who wants to practice religion in private or even advocate or evangelize in public places.  But that's where it stops.  As soon as it begins attempting to regulate the private lives of non-adherents, it becomes a danger to civil liberty and a public nuisance.  I want to be able to marry another man, and you want to be able to marry a person of the opposite sex.  There is no reason that these two options cannot exist side by side, except that your religion demands that you regulate the lives of other people.  Look to your own salvation, and let the rest of us go to hell in peace.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 15, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> And YES any lifestyle where you're at risk of catching an STD is a deathstyle.


In that case,being straight is a deathstyle.And not all STDs can kill you



Believe It! said:


> The thing is that homosexuality is the main catalyst for STD infections. Moreover it produces no children. So there ya go.



Again,proof.
And no children?Great!The world was starting to get overcrowded anyway.So I congratulate you BI and rest of the people who are homosexual.
[i got nothing against homosexual or bisexual people,not to be misunderstood]


----------



## Seaneleth (Mar 15, 2008)

Okay, look. It is more than possible for a person to have a problem with homosexuality, to think it's wrong, without being one themselves! Amazing. I'm against wife-beating. I'm disgusted by it, and I think those people are scum. I don't even a religious reason for it, I just it's a cowardly and inhuman thing to do. 

BI, on the other hand, has a religious reason for not liking homosexuals. He also appears to not hate them, and he believe that there's hope for them, like all other people that haven't been saved through Jesus Christ.

Now, by the logic that it seems is being applied to make BI a closet homosexual, I'm far more easily a closet wife beater, and I need to start practicing telling women to say they fell down the stairs. But who's going to go around saying that? Or is it because homosexuals are more culturally acceptable? Is that why a person can't be against it without being called one themselves?

The point is, since his dislike of homosexuality is based on his belief system, it deserves respect as such, as it's not hurting anyone, and, at worst, is culturally regressive.

Although, I have to say, I'm pretty sure the same applies to any number of other things he's against, and there are only so many things you can secretly be.


----------



## Edo (Mar 15, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> Hey first I want everyone to see the fruits of their labors here...
> 
> 
> 
> She's been getting death threats and angry letters, e-mails, and voicemail messages. I hope all you hateful bigots are satisfied.




Well, she is the one that started this cycle of hate.




> There's no such thing. All sins are equally as damning in the eyes of God.



Ok then...

1. If all sins are equal and

2. Homosexuality is a sin according to your God, and

3. Murder is also a sin according to the same god, where terrorism is murder, then

Homosexuality = Terrorism

Which means (always according to your logic and your God) That Homosexuality is not worse than Terrorism.

So what are you debating about? even with your screwed logic Homosexuality isn't worse than Terrorism.

ps: stating that it is a bigger problem than terrorism, means that it is worse.




> I'll accept that Haku was male IF there is proof of it. However, all the proof of the series indicates that Haku was female. The facts are on my side, as always.
> 
> And it sounds to me like you are holding on to a retarded claim because you're in love with a female character that you WANT to be a gay boy. What's wrong with you Rake?



If the write himself says Haku was a boy, then that is all the proof one needs to know for a fact that Haku was a BOY

Why can't you accept that? What's wrong with you Believe it?




> Many people do raise straight children, but then they go off to college and they come back pot smoking homosexual hippies. What happens is that their personalities and morals get skewed by liberalism and sinful indulgences.



What happens is that they break free from the set of morals their parents forced upon them....they develop a personality, in other words they grow and know what they want.

Your point does not stand, if it did, then all liberals must be homosexuals and that is not the case.




> No, death from old age is natural. Death from and STD is not. And YES any lifestyle where you're at risk of catching an STD is a deathstyle. The thing is that homosexuality is the main catalyst for STD infections. Moreover it produces no children. So there ya go.



Please post scientific proof of that...

Now for the sake of argument let's assume that is true, why would you care?

I mean if STDs are among homosexuals and you are not one, then why the hell do you care what they have? Or do you plan on having sex with one?




> If you are saved through Jesus Christ and born again through him, then you are my sibling in Christ. Being saved is what is most important. Now your change from being gay to being straight is between you and God and I pray that He give you the strength to conquer your problem so that you can live as He wants you to. Believe it!



And we, all NF members, pray for your salvation too, Believe it!


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Mar 15, 2008)

Believe shIt! said:


> How would you like it if I did that?



I would not like it at all you're not my type.



> But does it say ?dildo shop? on the front, or is it more of a speak easy kind of place? Also, in what city is this shop located?



If you really want to buy a dildo I'm sure you can locate the shop with google map or something.




> No, it's probably a sex shop that also just happens to sell anime.



Like blow up Haku dolls?


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Mar 15, 2008)

This is boring.

This is Believe It, here. The guy who tried saying speaking English is illegal in Quebec, women can walk around topless as much as they like in Canada, Canada is run under a fascist government nearly identical to the likes of Nazi Germany and that Canada has one of the worst health care systems in the world.

Perfect examples of a guy who says baseless shit he calls "fact", despite knowing nothing about it. You can't win against a guy like that, "facts" as he calls them are created in his head and articles written by Christian extremists - anything else is "gay mafia" propaganda or "wrong".


----------



## Edo (Mar 15, 2008)

Anomander Rake said:


> This is boring.
> 
> This is Believe It, here. The guy who tried saying speaking English is illegal in Quebec, women can walk around topless as much as they like in Canada, Canada is run under a fascist government nearly identical to the likes of Nazi Germany and that Canada has one of the worst health care systems in the world.



HEY! if Believe it said it, then it must be TRUE. 

/sarcasm


----------



## Coteaz (Mar 15, 2008)

Goddammit, Edo, your avy and sig made me read your posts as BI's. Thanks for the confusion.


----------



## Edo (Mar 15, 2008)

Coteaz said:


> Goddammit, Edo, your avy and sig made me read your posts as BI's. Thanks for the confusion.



I am trying to change _Believe it!_'s image on NF...it is an impossible task, but somebody has to do it, believe it!

Besides, my posts make more sense than his


----------



## Circe (Mar 15, 2008)

> "The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation; it's just a fact,"


----------



## Seaneleth (Mar 15, 2008)

Coteaz said:


> Goddammit, Edo, your avy and sig made me read your posts as BI's. Thanks for the confusion.



It's very easy to tell the difference. One is green, and one is red.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 15, 2008)

Also one acknowledges Haku was a boy while the other pretends he was a girl so he can remain in the closet


----------



## Seaneleth (Mar 15, 2008)

Nemesis said:


> Also one acknowledges Haku was a boy while the other pretends he was a girl so he can remain in the closet



He can justify his logic. You justify yours.


----------



## Kieuseru (Mar 15, 2008)

lol at homosexuals being more of a threat than terrorism.  This is just ridiculous. 



Seaneleth said:


> He can justify his logic. You justify yours.





Just because this isn't Konoha library doesn't mean you don't have to read the manga.


----------



## Seaneleth (Mar 15, 2008)

I was referring, actually, to the being in the closet comment.


----------



## HAL 9000 (Mar 15, 2008)

"It's the biggest problem our nation is facing, even more than terrorism."
She's saying homosexuality is worse than terrorism.
And where are her statistics for any nation that has fully embraced homosexuality has fallen inside of ten years?


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 15, 2008)

AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> This is absurd. Firstly, sexual relationships with boys were ALWAYS considered obscene and immoral in Athens. Sex took place between older men and younger men, usually when the younger man was between the ages of 18 and 23, since that was the age at which he needed someone to introduce him to his political responsibilities. Such relationships often continued even when the younger man got older.



Sorry, but you were lied to about history either by the gay mafia or by the liberal school system, which is just a puppet of the gay mafia.



"The erotic and sexual aspect of the relationship, usually consisting of embracing, fondling and intercrural sex, *ended when the youth reached adulthood*, and evolved into a lifelong friendship (philia)."



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> Secondly, your account of the fall of Rome is ridiculous. For the past two centuries, the leading scholarly opinion has been that there were two principal causes for the fall of Rome: the outsourcing of its military to barbarian mercenaries



That had something to do with it, sure. As well as the over expansion of the country without adequate military to enforce the borders. But all of this stems from the hedonistic mentality, which included a widespread embrace of homosexuality. They only wanted riches and sex. They wanted it so much that they didn't care about their own safety. They were short term "live for the moment" perverts.



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> and the ideological influence of Christianity, which encouraged adherents to focus on the next life instead of life on Earth and so instilled a spirit of indifference.



BS! That is just an anti-Christian sentiment put forth by anti-Christian historians. Most historians reject that idea because there is no proof. Besides, Christianity does not encourage people to focus on the next life aside from ensuring that they will go to Heaven when they die. The rest of the Bible talks about how to live on Earth and how to build a strong nation that will long endure. That is why America is as strong as it is.

Besides, Christians were thrown to the lions in Rome until Constantine stopped that practice. That doesn't mean that most of Rome followed Christianity though.



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> I'm backed by two hundred years of scholarship



No, you're backed by a few years of biased storytelling. I am backed by thousands of years of historical research.



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> on the fall of Rome and half a century of work on Greek sexuality, as well as the actual words written by actual Greeks and Romans.



Well then how about the vases they painted depicted sex with minors? Or were those influenced by Christians too?



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> You haven't even got enough respect for your own holy book to read its actual words as they were written.



What do you mean by that? I respect God's word more than anything.



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> Your whole damned religion disgusts me.



Well at least you're honest about it, unlike the others around here who pretend like they don't hate the Bible.



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> I'm perfectly happy to tolerate someone who wants to practice religion in private or even advocate or evangelize in public places. But that's where it stops.



And that's all we do. So what is your problem?



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> As soon as it begins attempting to regulate the private lives of non-adherents, it becomes a danger to civil liberty and a public nuisance.



How are we doing anything to regulate the lives of those who don't believe in our faith?



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> I want to be able to marry another man, and you want to be able to marry a person of the opposite sex. There is no reason that these two options cannot exist side by side, except that your religion demands that you regulate the lives of other people.



The marriage issue has nothing to do with my faith. You should not be able to marry another man because marriage does not mean anything except the union of one man and one woman. Your relationship is disgusting. Therefore I say to you that your relationship can be practiced in private, but not forced on non-adherents to accept as normal or natural. Furthermore your disgusting relationship should not dictate what public policy is. So you're actually a hypocrite for saying that religion should not dictate policy but YOUR disgusting deathstyle should. People don't like homosexuality AmatorPlatonisCatullique! We think it's wrong, we think it's immoral, we think it's dangerous, we think it's garbage! Thus we think that it is not worthy of any recognition, especially not marriage. But far be it from us to tell others not to recognize it. Any fake church you can find to fake marry you, can throw a fake wedding for you. Go ahead. But we aren't going to let you change and corrupt society. We aren't going to raise our children to accept things that are immoral and perverse. Just like we aren't going to allow pederasty to be accepted into marriage we aren't going to allow homosexuality to be either! Believe it!



			
				AmatorPlatonisCatullique said:
			
		

> Look to your own salvation, and let the rest of us go to hell in peace.



If you want to live in Hell so much, go then and dwell there for all eternity, but I will not allow you to take America with you. Believe it!



			
				Diceman said:
			
		

> In that case,being straight is a deathstyle.And not all STDs can kill you



Being straight and abusing sex, yes that is a deathstyle as well. That is why the only true lifestyle is remaining abstinent until marriage and then only having sex with your spouse. The thing is, this is also the cure for HIV. If everyone followed this direction then all STD's would die out within 70 years or so.



			
				Diceman said:
			
		

> Again,proof.



I already posted it. The CDC reports that half of the HIV/AIDS carriage rate is through homosexual contact despite the fact that they are only 5% of the population at best. I'm not going to repeat myself a million times whenever another member chimes in demanding proof.



			
				Diceman said:
			
		

> And no children?Great!The world was starting to get overcrowded anyway.



Really? Then tell us, what is the world population and what is the total square mileage of the Earth's land surface?



			
				Diceman said:
			
		

> So I congratulate you BI and rest of the people who are homosexual.
> [i got nothing against homosexual or bisexual people,not to be misunderstood]



Yet you call me a homosexual as an insult? Well that just goes to show what a homophobe you are.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> In a word yes, if I though otherwise I'd be worshiping your god; but you knew this so why ask?



To prove that you think that you know better than God. Hence, Leviticus 20 was right about you.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> That doesn't make it any less rude



That's your opinion. The fact of the matter is that replying to point not directed at you is a normal practice around here.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Keeping saying it, maybe one day it will be the truth.



Keep saying that and maybe one day you will convince yourself that you can win a debate against me.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> It's always ironically funny to hear you say that.



It's funny because its true.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> You didn't beat me, you broke the spirit of the rules and had me DQed



Post proof of that right now or else you fail.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> probably because you knew you couldn't beat me



If you had posted when your were supposed to then you would not have been DQ'd. If you had requested a time limit extension then you would not have been DQ'd.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> If I don't have intelligence then how are you even breathing?



Breathing is not a conscious function. It is a reflex, similar to the heart's movements.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> She used words of comparison



But she did not compare the two in the way that you first claimed.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Except that comment wasn't; so you still fail.



I quoted you saying that hopefully she would lose her seat because of what she said. That means you want her to be punished for saying something that you didn't like. That is fascist. You can't escape the facts drache.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Couldn't implies you can't



And I can't because it wouldn't be correct. Moving on.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> How else would you describe not being reelected?



As "I hope she doesn't get reelected". 



			
				drache said:
			
		

> A..c..t..u..a..l..l..y...y..o..u..c..a..n..i..t..j ..u..s..t...l..o..o..k..s..l..i..k..e..t..h..i..s
> 
> Look I can still out smart you and I'm not even trying.



But you said that you would *speak slowly*, not put two dots between each letter. I said that would not work since you are on a forum and I can't hear you speak at all. So you still fail drache, only this time you failed twice on the same point.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> You quote me but you quote me in sentences and sentence fragments COMPLETELY ignoring circumstance and context. Why is it exactly you can't quote me in paragraph form?



No, drache. Calm down. We're not taking about how I reply to your posts. We are talking about what you said and me QUOTING what you said word for word. Keep up with the discussion drache.

I quoted you saying that you want her to lose her seat because of what she said. I proved that you are a fascist who does not believe in freedom of speech if that speech is the kind you disagree with.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 15, 2008)

Seaneleth said:
			
		

> Okay, look. It is more than possible for a person to have a problem with homosexuality, to think it's wrong, without being one themselves! Amazing. I'm against wife-beating. I'm disgusted by it, and I think those people are scum. I don't even a religious reason for it, I just it's a cowardly and inhuman thing to do.



Oooh, you're a self-hating wife beater who is still in the closet about it. 



			
				Seaneleth said:
			
		

> BI, on the other hand, has a religious reason for not liking homosexuals.



No, that's not correct. I don't dislike homosexuals. I hate homosexuality and I hate it when people force that on other people, especially kids, to accept as normal and natural and equal to heterosexuality.



			
				Seaneleth said:
			
		

> He also appears to not hate them, and he believe that there's hope for them, like all other people that haven't been saved through Jesus Christ.



That's right.



			
				Seaneleth said:
			
		

> Now, by the logic that it seems is being applied to make BI a closet homosexual, I'm far more easily a closet wife beater, and I need to start practicing telling women to say they fell down the stairs. But who's going to go around saying that? Or is it because homosexuals are more culturally acceptable? Is that why a person can't be against it without being called one themselves?



Heh heh. Good point. I think the reason that people still say this is because it is their only come back to a logical and irrefutable argument. No one will call you a closet wife beater because everyone with a shred of humanity disapproves of wife beating. These people on the other hand supposedly like homosexuality but will still try to use it as an insult to the person with the irrefutable argument.

In reality, I think this whole claim stems from the gay mafia's tactic of accusing the opposition to only arguing against homosexuality because of deep self denial. This is an attempt to discredit the one with the argument instead of the argument itself, which is called an ad-homonim. Another reason for this is to make the opponent doubt him or herself and actually worry if he or she is gay. Of course this only works on teenagers who are emotionally unstable because of puberty, as well as on hypochondriacs. I am neither one though, so whenever I get to the point where my opponents call me a closet case, I just take that as proof that I have won the argument.



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> Well, she is the one that started this cycle of hate.



No, she didn't. She didn't say anything hateful, and she certainly didn't threaten anyone. Are you really blaming her for others being so intolerant that they would make death threats against her? You people are the ones who are intolerant!



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> 1. If all sins are equal and
> 
> 2. Homosexuality is a sin according to your God, and
> 
> ...



Wow. You really ARE a quick one aren't you?



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> So what are you debating about? even with your screwed logic Homosexuality isn't worse than Terrorism.



Who ever said it was worse than terrorism?



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> ps: stating that it is a bigger problem than terrorism, means that it is worse.



Ah, so here is where you realized that you were just agreeing with me this whole time. Well you're not going to weasle your way out of it. You would have been better off deleting your argument before I could read it, because no, saying it is a bigger problem than terrorism (which she also did not say) does not mean it is worse or a worse sin.

Get it right. She said it is a bigger THREAT to America than terrorism. GET IT RIGHT!



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> If the write himself says Haku was a boy, then that is all the proof one needs to know for a fact that Haku was a BOY



I'll agree with that. However, Kishimoto never said that Haku was a boy.



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> Why can't you accept that? What's wrong with you Believe it?



I won't accept it because Kishimoto never said that Haku was a boy. There is nothing wrong with me.



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> What happens is that they break free from the set of morals their parents forced upon them....they develop a personality, in other words they grow and know what they want.



Yeah whatever.



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> Your point does not stand, if it did, then all liberals must be homosexuals and that is not the case.



All liberals (progressives) accept homosexuality though.



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> Please post scientific proof of that...



Scientific proof of what? That two people of the same gender can't have kids with each other? :S



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> Now for the sake of argument let's assume that is true, why would you care?



Because we have a thing in America called health caaaaaare... and people who get STDs require more health caaaaaare... and the more demand for health care there is the more society as a whole must paaaaaay.



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> I mean if STDs are among homosexuals and you are not one, then why the hell do you care what they have? Or do you plan on having sex with one?



Well I guess that's the difference between me and you, I actually care about the safety and wellbeing of other people. This is because the Bible teaches me to love my neighbor as myself. I plan to stay away from such sexual immoralities, therefore I encourage others to do the same in order to stay healthy, productive, and happy.



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> And we, all NF members, pray for your salvation too, Believe it!



I am already saved, but thank you anyway.



			
				Kieuseru said:
			
		

> lol at homosexuals being more of a threat than terrorism. This is just ridiculous.



Well at least you know what she actually said.



			
				Kieuseru said:
			
		

> Just because this isn't Konoha library doesn't mean you don't have to read the manga.



I read the manga. In fact, I read the Japanese manga too. The scan you show was mistranslated. Haku actually said “I'm a man”. This statement was obviously a lie, since even if she had been a male, she was not old enough to be a man. Therefore, what she said to Naruto was a lie and cannot be taken as proof of what gender she was. It can however be taken as evidence that she was female, since it was one of her nindos to lie to her enemies. Therefore, since Naruto thought she was female, Haku had to lie in order to throw Naruto off. So that is what she did.

I hope you realize now that you can't just read the manga. You also have to think about it and ponder the storyline behind it. Look beyond the surface! See through deception!



			
				Heroes Rising said:
			
		

> "It's the biggest problem our nation is facing, even more than terrorism."
> She's saying homosexuality is worse than terrorism.



... okay well, thanks for TRYING to quote what she said. Here is what she really said:

“I honestly think it's the biggest *threat* our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.”

Now then, read what she said. She did not say that homosexuality is worse than terrorism. She said it was a bigger threat than terrorism or Islam. In fact, I am surprised that people are not upset about this because she classified Islam as a threat. That is more controversial than saying homosexuality is the biggest threat America has, even though it is just as true. Islam is a threat, but a small one in my opinion. Most people here practice a peaceful blend of Islam. It is radical Islam that is the threat.

Point is, she didn't say it was worse, she said it was a bigger threat. That is not homophobic or hateful.



			
				Heroes Rising said:
			
		

> And where are her statistics for any nation that has fully embraced homosexuality has fallen inside of ten years?



Again, this was a private discussion. One that ended in a standing ovation for her. She wasn't presenting some kind of lesson or informational seminar on this, it was just a quick speech, and I am sure she talked about a few other things during this speech that were not related to this particular issue.


----------



## Nirgal (Mar 15, 2008)

It's funny how she refers to homosexuals as if they were a hidden society, taking over public institutions and deliverately indoctrinating kids. I'm wondering if she imagines them sitting in a room several meters underground maliciously plotting how to "gay up" america.

Although what she says is annoying for a lot of us. Specially those of us who have very good gay friends, it's perfectly correct for her to speak her mind. It'd be nice if she did it openly instead of having to be exposed by an unhappy listener.  

I agree with those who consider it hate speech as it add pressure to those who live by that "deathstyle"  . If we lived in a world in which people peacefully state their disagreement it'd be different, but that's not reality. People agressively and violently try to imposse their ideas to others. And that speech, perhaps unintencionally (perhaps not), endorses those who do that. Therefore an homosexual cannot live peacefully as others would be constantly attacking him thinking they are recieving god's aproval. 

Which takes to my main point. this is about impossing believes. It's about religious freedom more specifically about your freedom not to believe. If you do not think god exists, if you rise an eyebrown and hold a laugh when someone threaten you with hell, why should you abide his laws?


----------



## Naruto (Mar 15, 2008)

Why are you people still giving a shit about "Believe it!" says anyway? The man wants attention, just ignore him.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 15, 2008)

Nirgal said:
			
		

> It's funny how she refers to homosexuals as if they were a hidden society, taking over public institutions and deliverately indoctrinating kids.



Come on. She never said they were a hidden society.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if she imagines them sitting in a room several meters underground maliciously plotting how to "gay up" america.



Several meters above ground actually.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> Although what she says is annoying for a lot of us. Specially those of us who have very good gay friends, it's perfectly correct for her to speak her mind. It'd be nice if she did it openly instead of having to be exposed by an unhappy listener.



But that's the thing. She can't do it openly because she would get death threats and stuff, just like she is getting now. But why is what she says annoying for those of us with very good gay friends. I have very good gay friends but I don't find what she says to be annoying. I find it to be true. I think people who really are friends with some people who are gay will take what she said to heart, since what she says is actually for the benefit of gay people.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> I agree with those who consider it hate speech as it add pressure to those who live by that "deathstyle"  .



Adds pressure? How so?



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> If we lived in a world in which people peacefully state their disagreement it'd be different, but that's not reality.



That is exactly what she did. She peacefully stated her opinion. The homosexuals who have since attacked her have not stated their disagreements peacefully. Many of them have sent her death threats.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> People agressively and violently try to imposse their ideas to others.



Which is what Sally Kern was pointing out about those pushing the gay agenda.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> And that speech, perhaps unintencionally (perhaps not), endorses those who do that. Therefore an homosexual cannot live peacefully as others would be constantly attacking him thinking they are recieving god's aproval.



How would those people know if the one they are "attacking" is gay or not?



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> Which takes to my main point. this is about impossing believes. It's about religious freedom more specifically about your freedom not to believe. If you do not think god exists, if you rise an eyebrown and hold a laugh when someone threaten you with hell, why should you abide his laws?



You should if His laws match America's laws or America's best interests. If something is bad for you, then you shouldn't do it. If something is a threat to America, you should stand up against it. That is what Sally Kern is doing, standing up against a threat.


----------



## Aldrick (Mar 15, 2008)

> Several meters above ground actually.



Those are some huge penises, then.


----------



## Brokensharingan (Mar 15, 2008)

Naruto said:


> Why are you people still giving a shit about "Believe it!" says anyway? The man wants attention, just ignore him.



Well he does have the right to voice his opinion and besides without his rediculiously long posts and comments this place would be dull

Why do people even care if someone gay or not? Does it matter if it's a guy or a girl taking it up there hole? That's the world we live in and it isn't going to change, sheesh people get so upset over these little things like sexuality. And the idea of it being worse than terrorism is stupid, I'd like to see that idiot fighting Osama


----------



## Naruto (Mar 15, 2008)

Brokensharingan said:


> Well he does have the right to voice his opinion



Just as we all have the right to tell him his opinion is completely idiotic in nature, and not just the right but the duty to point out his complete and utter stupidity.


----------



## Nirgal (Mar 15, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> Come on. She never said they were a hidden society.



 "As if they were" i said. Anyway it was a joke.



> But that's the thing. She can't do it openly because she would get death threats and stuff, just like she is getting now



Now you are the one being paranoid.



> But why is what she says annoying for those of us with very good gay friends. I have very good gay friends but I don't find what she says to be annoying. I find it to be true. I think people who really are friends with some people who are gay will take what she said to heart, since what she says is actually for the benefit of gay people.



Because it puts down the choices they've made for their lives. Do you really have gay friends? Because it seem rather difficult considering that you regard their lifestyle as a sin.



> Adds pressure? How so?



Refering to you as threat to your country bigger than terrorism is not something most people would find confortable.



> That is exactly what she did. She peacefully stated her opinion. The homosexuals who have since attacked her have not stated their disagreements peacefully. Many of them have sent her death threats.


I agree, she did nothing wrong. I wasn't refering to her when talked about violence. Yet coercion, both physical and social does exist and its use is extensive.

About the death threat, i consider that paranoia.



> Which is what Sally Kern was pointing out about those pushing the gay agenda.



I wasn't very precise when I spoke about impossing an ideal or an opinion. Maybe i just don't handle this language well enough, but what i referred to was not about indoctrination or proselitism It was about people forcing others to act in a way regardless or against what they believe. I don't think people pushing the gay agenda as you call it are doing that, but trying to change how people think. 




> How would those people know if the one they are "attacking" is gay or not?



I was refering to a situation in which a certaing someone is attacked because of being gay. Being the attacker previously aware of this person sexual preference.





> You should if His laws match America's laws or America's best interests. If something is bad for you, then you shouldn't do it. If something is a threat to America, you should stand up against it. That is what Sally Kern is doing, standing up against a threat.



The American law is not based on the bible but in the roman code. If some of the laws coincide it's meerely because rome has itself a lot to do with the creation of the bible (book selection) during the christianisation of the empire. 
Besides several other religious and states also contain countless similar laws yet it's not logical to assume a cause-consecuence relation.

About how it is destroying america: Can you provide a non religious explanation of how this is happening because i don't see how?


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Mar 15, 2008)

Shinobi Mugen said:


> Just to be clear, it isn't. Anyone who says stuff like this is not a real Christian. Just like how anyone who blows himself up along with a bunch of innocent people is not a real Muslim. It's a sad thing, but people has been abusing religion for the own crazy idiologies and political agenda's throughout history.
> 
> Any person who is for the persecution of gay people and see them as abominations and mortal sinners who should burn in hell forever is no real Christian and understands absolutely nothing about the teachings of Jesus.


Bullshit.  Who are you to decide what Christians are and are not allowed to believe?
They may not be like most Christians.  You could go so far as to call them radical or fundamentalist Christians.  But "not a real Christian"?  It's not your place to decide what a Christian is and isn't allowed to believe.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 15, 2008)

Brokensharingan said:
			
		

> Why do people even care if someone gay or not?



We care because being gay is bad, mmmkay? But if they want to do that, then it is their choice. Just keep it private.



			
				Brokensharingan said:
			
		

> Does it matter if it's a guy or a girl taking it up there hole?



Uh... yes, since only women have the "hole" made to take things IN.



			
				Brokensharingan said:
			
		

> That's the world we live in and it isn't going to change, sheesh people get so upset over these little things like sexuality.



No. We're not upset over someone's private sexuality. We are upset over people forcing open sexuality into the public school system and on little kids.



			
				Brokensharingan said:
			
		

> And the idea of it being worse than terrorism is stupid, I'd like to see that idiot fighting Osama



She didn't say it was worse than terrorism. LISTEN TO WHAT SHE REALLY SAID!



			
				Naruto said:
			
		

> Just as we all have the right to tell him his opinion is completely idiotic in nature, and not just the right but the duty to point out his complete and utter stupidity.



Ah, but you said this...



			
				Naruto said:
			
		

> Why are you people still giving a shit about "Believe it!" says anyway? The man wants attention, just ignore him.



So now you are saying that people should respond to me and tell me why I am wrong? Well, I agree. So tell me already.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> Now you are the one being paranoid.



No I'm not. Read the link that I posted a few posts back. It is at the top of the post. I posted a link to a news story stating that she has received death threats.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> Because it puts down the choices they've made for their lives.



So what? It doesn't put them down. If a friend of yours made the choice to start using drugs would you really support that activity, or would you "put down" the choice they made?



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> Do you really have gay friends? Because it seem rather difficult considering that you regard their lifestyle as a sin.



Yes I do, and they know my stance. They are tolerant of my beliefs, just as I am tolerant of their beliefs.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> Refering to you as threat to your country bigger than terrorism is not something most people would find confortable.



She didn't say that they were threats. She said that homosexuality and the gay activism in the schools to get the deathstyle accepted as normal are threats. In fact, I bet she sees gay people as victims who should be helped. In any case, she doesn't see people who are gay as threats. She sees homosexuality as a threat to those people and to the rest of America.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> I agree, she did nothing wrong. I wasn't refering to her when talked about violence. Yet coercion, both physical and social does exist and its use is extensive.



Okay fine, but I don't think she did that here.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> About the death threat, i consider that paranoia.



It is a fact. I only say she is being threatened with death because it is a fact.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> I wasn't very precise when I spoke about impossing an ideal or an opinion. Maybe i just don't handle this language well enough, but what i referred to was not about indoctrination or proselitism



No, I know what you were talking about, but I turned that around and pointed out that it is the radical homosexuals who are trying to impose their ideals on us.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> I don't think people pushing the gay agenda as you call it are doing that, but trying to change how people think.



No, because in that case they would be reaching out to every community. Instead they are trying to sue people in court so they can get special rights and privileges over others. They are also trying to censor any speech that they do not like, even if that free speech is merely a disapproval of their sexual preference.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> I was refering to a situation in which a certaing someone is attacked because of being gay. Being the attacker previously aware of this person sexual preference.



So was I. How would the "attacker" be previously aware of the other person's sexual preference?



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> The American law is not based on the bible but in the roman code.



No, sorry, I am an American and I have studied my country's history. Our laws are based on Biblical principals and our rights are derived from God.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> If some of the laws coincide it's meerely because rome has itself a lot to do with the creation of the bible (book selection) during the christianisation of the empire.



Rome had nothing to do with the Bible. Rome had something to do with Catholicism, but not the Bible and not Christianity.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> Besides several other religious and states also contain countless similar laws yet it's not logical to assume a cause-consecuence relation.



Fine, but the point still remains that when the laws are consistent with the Bible, that is a reason to obey the Bible.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> About how it is destroying america: Can you provide a non religious explanation of how this is happening because i don't see how?



By forcing kids and others to accept homosexuality as normal. This is bad because homosexuality is a self-destructive way of life. It carries the highest risk of HIV infection as well as some other STDs, and it results in no new life being created. In other words it kills off those who practice it and it cannot produce children. Thus, it is a deathstyle not a lifestyle. Kids are being taught that it is harmless, and that is wrong. It will destroy morality in America, and it will break down the view of the family, which is the most fundamental building block of any nation.



			
				Vash said:
			
		

> Bullshit. Who are you to decide what Christians are and are not allowed to believe?



He's no one. However, if he can point out verses then his opinion is worth consideration.



			
				Vash said:
			
		

> They may not be like most Christians. You could go so far as to call them radical or fundamentalist Christians. But "not a real Christian"? It's not your place to decide what a Christian is and isn't allowed to believe.



Actually, anyone who isn't saved is not a real Christian. Those who are saved but go against God's word are carnal Christians or bad Christians. God will deal with those people. Believe it! However, we can still point out if they are bad or not, since the Bible says that we shall know them by their fruits (actions or accomplishments).



			
				The Cheat said:
			
		

> Believe IT! is the most homophobic person I have ever seen, even more homophobic than was once was. No wait, that senator lady is, actually, make that politician guy who blieve gays were one reasons 9/11 happened.



Wow, did that thought ever wander off into the irrelevant.


----------



## Naruto (Mar 15, 2008)

You must be the one person on this forum I don't even give enough of a shit to try and argue with. And I don't even know you, whereas people have told me you're an ass. Not that it matters though, I've read enough. People with such a narrow view on life and even religion, that go as far as claiming homosexuality is *wrong* and can somehow pose a threat of any kind...I don't think anyone with this kind of twisted POV is entitled to anything. 

I'm not good enough of a person to put enough effort into teaching you how not to be a racist ignorant.


----------



## jinjue (Mar 15, 2008)

Seaneleth said:
			
		

> The point is, since his dislike of homosexuality is based on his belief system, it deserves respect as such, as it's not hurting anyone, and, at worst, is culturally regressive.


I never quite understood the logic behind respecting something bigoted, intolerant or hateful just because it's based on religious belief. Nor do I feel that such beliefs are harmless; clearly the fact that some people are prohibited from marrying the people they love just because some retrograde tome of dubious origin says that it is "wrong" is harmful to those people. It's a violation of civil liberties against a specific minority group that is supported solely by religious dogmata and nothing else. Such base discrimination as that has no place in any allegedly secular society and the adherents of that discrimination deserve no respect.

As for Haku, Kishimoto himself said that he was a boy. /topic

In regards to this woman, she has the right to express herself and her opinions, no matter how bigoted, hateful, repugnant, stupid and retrograde I or anyone else might think they are. Likewise, I'm free to feel that her opinions are bigoted, hateful, repugnant, stupid and retrograde, and that she's a bigoted, hateful, repugnant, stupid and retrograde person for believing what she does. However, whatever her personal opinions may be, the exact moment her vitriolic hate rhetoric negatively affects the lives of anyone else is when she needs to shut the hell up and realise that her opinion should not and does not dictate the will of the world.

Now for *Believe It!*, I'm honestly surprised that it hasn't been banned yet. I'm also not even sure that it's for real. I don't want to call Poe's Law on it quite yet, simply because it puts so much effort into its posts, but damn am I tempted to.


----------



## Nirgal (Mar 16, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> So what? It doesn't put them down. If a friend of yours made the choice to start using drugs would you really support that activity, or would you "put down" the choice they made?



It does put them down because it  refers to a characteristic that socially defines them. 

You are speaking of different things. Taking drugs is hardly a life defining choice. It doesn't change your future unless you become addicted to it and it that case it ceases to be a choice at all. Openly embracing homosexuality is.  




> Yes I do, and they know my stance. They are tolerant of my beliefs, just as I am tolerant of their beliefs.



It's easier to tolerate someones beliefs when they don't involve obliterating yours.




> She didn't say that they were threats. She said that homosexuality and the gay activism in the schools to get the deathstyle accepted as normal are threats. In fact, I bet she sees gay people as victims who should be helped. In any case, she doesn't see people who are gay as threats. She sees homosexuality as a threat to those people and to the rest of America.



Being open about his/her homosexuality is by itself a political stance. Basically what they are saying is "I don't think is wrong. I don't think it harms anybody and i think i have the right to be who i feel i am" So yes, she is considering them the threat because those very people you say she considers victims are the same who vote the gay activists she complains of and the ones endevouring to make homosexuality seem normal. 

Now if you're refering to repressed homosexuals then i'd agree with you, yet they were who i was speaking of.




> No, I know what you were talking about, but I turned that around and pointed out that it is the radical homosexuals who are trying to impose their ideals on us.



It's a different thing. After all, the imposition of your ideal involves restricting their freedom wether theirs does not stop you from doing what you please.



> No, because in that case they would be reaching out to every community. Instead they are trying to sue people in court so they can get special rights and privileges over others. They are also trying to censor any speech that they do not like, even if that free speech is merely a disapproval of their sexual preference.



So you're actually saying that they are not trying to convince people and make them share their beliefs. Obviously you have not been watching MTV.

About the rest, they could be doing all you say and more and still continue indoctrinating. Yes, i agree censorship is bad and won't argue against it , but what are you refering to when you speak about sues?




> So was I. How would the "attacker" be previously aware of the other person's sexual preference?



I assume you're aware there are hundred of way in which this hipothetic attacker could find out the sexual orientation of a person. Yet, i think you're trying to move the argument to wether the person was open about his homosexuality. Why would you do that? do you think he is to be blamed of the attack he is recieving?




> No, sorry, I am an American and I have studied my country's history. Our laws are based on Biblical principals and our rights are derived from God.



I'll concede that being south american i'm not aquainted with North American history. So i'll levae this point for now.




> Rome had nothing to do with the Bible. Rome had something to do with Catholicism, but not the Bible and not Christianity.



Are you really christian? Rome practically made the bible by selecting which books would be consider god made and which not. Year 325 council of nicae. Actually not only that, they created modern christianity.




> Fine, but the point still remains that when the laws are consistent with the Bible, that is a reason to obey the Bible.



if some state laws are consistent with some bible laws that is a reason to obey those laws but simply because the state requires you to do that. All those that are left aside do not need to be followed.




> By forcing kids and others to accept homosexuality as normal. This is bad because homosexuality is a self-destructive way of life. It carries the highest risk of HIV infection as well as some other STDs, and it results in no new life being created. In other words it kills off those who practice it and it cannot produce children. Thus, it is a deathstyle not a lifestyle. Kids are being taught that it is harmless, and that is wrong. It will destroy morality in America, and it will break down the view of the family, which is the most fundamental building block of any nation.



So single people are bad because they cannot create life? What about those who are sterile, can they be gay? after all they are not going to create new life anyway.

And about STD: It comes from promiscuity, being promiscuos and being gay are not the same thing. You can be straight and promicuos, and be gay and monogamous. Actually many religious people that have been concerned about gay marriage are  stoping monogamic people from being acknowledged as such by the state.

The morality that you refer to is a religious morality. The very concept of objective morality is religious.


----------



## jimbobwu (Mar 16, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> We care because being gay is bad, mmmkay? But if they want to do that, then it is their choice. Just keep it private.
> 
> Uh... yes, since only women have the "hole" made to take things IN.


First off, provide proof that "being gay is bad". Second of all, NO, do not quote the Bible at me. I will verbally pelt you with verses talking about inane rules about what the Bible says you CAN'T do, but is still very much condoned, even by so-called "born-again Christians" and self-righteous evangelists like you.

Oh, yeah. So lesbianism is perfectly okay, right? If women are "made" (assuming design) to take things in their holes, and your objection to anal sex is that one's anus is not "made" for such things, then do you have any valid objections to lesbian sex? Or oral sex, for that matter? Or mutual masturbation? Many gay couples do those things instead of the potentially painful anal sex, you know. And it's not a "deathstyle" at all! Lesbians have lower incidences of STDs than straight women!




Believe It! said:


> No. We're not upset over someone's private sexuality. We are upset over people forcing open sexuality into the public school system and on little kids.



Say what? Homosexuality (despite the -sexuality ending) is not all about sex or sexuality. It's about interpersonal attraction. Because ONLY teaching little kids that "boys like girls" instills the idea that not liking girls is somehow wrong and horrible. The kind of ostracizing that occurs is not unlike the sort of harassment that goes on because of the common stereotypical view of nerds. When boys are only taught the cliche of "boys play with cars, girls play with dolls", those who DON'T play with cars are ostracized. Same thing with only teaching boys that "boys like girls".

And this "sexuality" nonsense is...well, nonsense. Teaching about boys who like boys is no more sexual than teaching about boys who like girls. I mean, when you read Snow White to a kid, you don't tell him, "And they lived happily ever after because Prince Charming made sweet, sweet love to Snow White's vagina every day."

Why would it be different for a story in which two princes lived happily ever after? Moderation will still be used when kids are involved. What's with the paranoia?




Believe It! said:


> She didn't say it was worse than terrorism. LISTEN TO WHAT SHE REALLY SAID!


Let's walk you through this.

Route #1: Homosexuality (or the acceptance of it, hereby abbreviated as H/A) is called the DEATH KNELL of the United States. And that's not worse than terrorism?

Route #2: For those living in the US, "threats to the nation" are bad, agreed? (If not, then...I don't know what to say to you. Except maybe to consider some therapy)

Now, a small threat (say, a bunch of Buddhists) would be less deserving of one's attention than, say, a much bigger threat (say, a group of radical Zoroastrians with nukes), agreed?

So, if H/A is a bigger threat than terrorism, it is heavily implied that we should pay MORE attention to giving gay activists a metaphorical boot to the face, and less attention to the possibility of attacks from suicide bombers.

But no, she was NOT saying that homosexuality is worse. At least, not in those exact words. And how dare we use critical reading skills such as inference?


Believe It! said:


> So now you are saying that people should respond to me and tell me why I am wrong? Well, I agree. So tell me already.


In the hopelessly-mortal words of a man(?) known only as "Believe It!", I (I mean he) says this:


Believe It! said:


> LISTEN TO WHAT SHE REALLY SAID!


You want responses, and I am giving them. Because I still have faith in humanity. Just because I run into idiots like you on CARM on a daily basis, doesn't mean I think your lot are completely irredeemable. But that's just me. She wants others to not feed you, little trow.


Believe It! said:


> No I'm not. Read the link that I posted a few posts back. It is at the top of the post. I posted a link to a news story stating that she has received death threats.


Oh, silly goose. The OSBI investigation reveals that a grand majority of the so-called death threat e-mails she got are not, in fact, death threats. They were statements in the general area of "You ought to die" rather than "I'm going to kill you". SO, they are not death threats, just statements (they are STATING that she deserves death).

You want death threats? Ask about the homosexuals (who receive death threats) every now and then.

Oh no! People abused the anonymity of the internet to spew "death threats" at a total lunatic. And she's getting one hell of a publicity ride out of this.

What about the flipside? The ones who are threatened with being "taught a lesson" because they are gay or have supported gays? I am absolutely positive that Ian McKellan or Lance Bass have received more death threats than Sally Kern ever will.

Full transcript here: Link removed

She implies that homosexuals are a CANCER that is killing the United States, and you find it strange that people feel strongly?

It is late, and I tire of doing battle with your endless well of misinformation and unproven assertions regarding morality. I will continue with this tomorrow.


----------



## drache (Mar 16, 2008)

I think it best for now that I remove myself from this conversation.

Frankly I find it ridicluos that BI can insult my family and nothing be said about it, not even a public warning, but if that's how it is; then that's how it is.

BI ask Distracted, hell he was the one remaining judge at the time and even he admitted you didn't beat me. Only in your pathetic delusional world have you ever beaten me.

Frankly I'm done talking to you for now, I don't mind being flamed by you, I don't mind you trying to twist my words, hell I don't even mind you trying to take me out of context; it helps keep my debating skills sharp. But I *WILL NOT* tolerate you insulting my family; frankly you're lucky this is by forum and not in person because I would have kicked your ass from here to the ends of the world.

BI, frankly I thought you couldn't get any lower or any more disrepectful, well I was wrong; I'm gotta out here before I lose my temper.


----------



## Seaneleth (Mar 16, 2008)

jimbobwu said:


> First off, provide proof that "being gay is bad". Second of all, NO, do not quote the Bible at me.



 

Actually, I'm interested in this my own self. Why not share? Come on, people, provide proof for your beliefs on the matter that isn't part of your belief system. 




Oh, and BI, I mistyped that part about you not liking homosexuals.


----------



## Advent Child (Mar 16, 2008)

Ok...

I've been I've been sitting idly by and watching this thread since it started, and somewhere along the line I found a few certain messages that are so *disgustingly hypocritical* that I would feel lousy for not responding to. 

Believe It! Congradulations! You have official gained my attention. 

BI, I've been reading your posts, not only in this thread, but in others as well, and I find them irksome. And knowing full well that the best way to avoid being caught in any some never-ending paradox of back-and-forth bickering is to just ignore you, I will nevertheless surrender to temptation and attempt to set you straight once and for all. 

Now, I'm not going to tell you how wrong you and that woman are about homosexuality; drache, Heroes Rising, Edo, and many others have already done an excellent job at that. What I'm here for is to stand as the Twain-esque, Milton-esque accuser, and call you out on several subjects that, like I said earlier, are absolutely *DISGUSTING*! 

First of all, if you have nothing better to do than to sign on to NF and push your religious bullshit and intolerance on others (because that's what your doing), that shows that the only away for you to justify your beliefs is to get others to validate your claims, and so far it's not workng, and probably never will. (Now of course there will always be roobs out there who will agree with you, but that just goes and shows you what lack of substance they are). 

Now, you seem to get a raging hard-on when it comes bashing homosexuality, and then revert to the bible to justify your intolerance. *You have, on numerous occasions, said and/or implied that you are and never have been wrong* That, sir, is *ARROGANCE!!!* That is the polar opposite of how your Christ taught people to act. Unlike you, Christ never acted lke an elitist prick who needed other people to back up his claims because he couldnt do it himself. 

Next. Have you ever flamed or insulted anyone. Have you ever called drache a fascist for disagreeing with you? That is MOCKERY!!! That is what the pharisees did when they beat Christ. 
_"Blessed is he who shepards the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is *truly* the Lord's keeper."_ 
You scorn and jeer others for disagreeing with you. You are throwing the first stone, you are shouting "crucify him!", you have no respect for your fellow man. You are a *pharisee*!

Oh, and one other thing I've noticed about you.  When absolutely backed into a fucking corner, you'll try to reverse the arguement by placing the accusation on the ones making the accusations. For example, you'll somehow call the people who are calling you homophobic and intolerant, homophobic and intolerant :rofl. All I'm going to say to this is that if you try to pull this shit on me, I'm going to laugh at you and probably flame you back .

Now that I've refutted your philosophical points. Allow me to move on to your blatant historical inaccuracies. 

You said that every country that supports homosexuality has come to an end. Japan... I need not say more. 

And no, Greece and Rome did not fall because of their "sexual immorality". They fell because a religious extremist (much like youself) was made emperor, and he felt it his divine right to change all the old ways that made Rome as powerful and threatening as it was. (Oh, and you can thank Constantine for the widespread practicing of Christianity, because people will convert rather quickly if the consequences of not doing so is getting your head chopped off) As far as this guiltfest your trying to pull with this whole "the Romans threw Christians to the lions...wah wah wah!", the romans threw everyone to the fucking lions, it was a sport. In fact, they didnt even like throwing Christians to the lions because they would just lay down and die, the romans wanted people to fight back. 

Finally, I would love to argue about seperation of church and state and how we are *NOT  *a Christian nation, but history has already done that for me: there's more!
Of course, that's probably just liberal propaganda that the gay mafia uses to brainwash others into converting into homosexuality ! Really Believe it! you are too much.

In closing, BI, I'm going to issue a challenge to you. If you want to debate theology and philosophy, I'm game any time, anywhere. But be aware that I *DO* call bullshit, so prepare yourself for the worst should you accept.

Have a wonderful day


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 16, 2008)

Naruto said:
			
		

> You must be the one person on this forum I don't even give enough of a shit to try and argue with.



Then don't post. Crap or get off the pot. If you're going to reply to me then at least try to respond to my points, if not then don't reply at all.



			
				Naruto said:
			
		

> I'm not good enough of a person to put enough effort into teaching you how not to be a racist ignorant.



So now I'm racist? Where did this even come from? Just go somewhere else and stop embarrassing yourself.



			
				jinjue said:
			
		

> clearly the fact that some people are prohibited from marrying the people they love just because some retrograde tome of dubious origin says that it is "wrong" is harmful to those people.



So what, you're saying that adults should be allowed to marry children? Siblings should be allowed to marry each other, or perhaps even their own parents or cousins? People should be allowed to marry how ever many other people they want? Because that is what you're advocating when you say “some people are prohibited from marrying the people they love”. They are not prohibited. They can marry in the same way everyone else does. Marriage only means the union of one man and one woman. Nothing else. This is not set by religion but by the voting majority of Americans.



			
				jinjue said:
			
		

> It's a violation of civil liberties against a specific minority group



They don't have the right to marry someone of the same gender, no one does. Therefore it is not targeting a specific minority group.



			
				jinjue said:
			
		

> As for Haku, Kishimoto himself said that he was a boy. /topic



Kishimoto never said that Haku was a boy. If he did, then prove it!



			
				jinjue said:
			
		

> Likewise, I'm free to feel that her opinions are bigoted, hateful, repugnant, stupid and retrograde, and that she's a bigoted, hateful, repugnant, stupid and retrograde person for believing what she does.



Yes, and you are incorrect on every point, as I proved.



			
				jinjue said:
			
		

> Now for Believe It!, I'm honestly surprised that it hasn't been banned yet.



I haven't been banned because I have not broken any rules. So believe it!



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> It does put them down because it refers to a characteristic that socially defines them.



A characteristic that they think is inborn. So if they really think it is okay to be gay, then why are they so offended? Because they know it's wrong! That's why. And how does it affect them anyway? If words hurt your feelings and make you feel depressed enough to live miserably or kill yourself, then that is YOUR problem. Normal people ignore insulting words or comments directed toward them.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> You are speaking of different things. Taking drugs is hardly a life defining choice.



What do you mean it is hardly a life defining choice? Drugs can ruin someone's life! So how is it not a life defining choice?



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> It doesn't change your future unless you become addicted to it and it that case it ceases to be a choice at all.



If you make the choice, you will become addicted. Even addicts can choose to get help and stop doing drugs. So it is a choice and it is a dangerous and self-destructive choice, just as homosexuality is.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> It's easier to tolerate someones beliefs when they don't involve obliterating yours.



Their's don't obliterate my beliefs, because theirs is that sexual preferences should remain private and should not be forced down anyone's throat to accept! My beliefs don't obliterate their's because mine is that they have a choice to make, to leave the deathstyle or stay in it, and whatever they choose is up to them. That's it.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> Being open about his/her homosexuality is by itself a political stance. Basically what they are saying is "I don't think is wrong. I don't think it harms anybody and i think i have the right to be who i feel i am" So yes, she is considering them the threat



No, you're wrong. I quoted what she said. You cannot add things to what she said in order to make her sound as if she is hateful or homophobic. She did not say that people who are gay are threats. Period end of story.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> Now if you're refering to repressed homosexuals then i'd agree with you, yet they were who i was speaking of.



No it wasn't, but I wonder... what exactly is a “repressed homosexual” in your opinion?



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> It's a different thing. After all, the imposition of your ideal involves restricting their freedom wether theirs does not stop you from doing what you please.



It stops me from sending my kids to public school where they'll be indoctrinated with homosexual propaganda. It takes away my right to vote to define marriage as I think it should be. It forces me to accept homosexuality as normal. It forces me to pay for their mistakes through health insurance premiums. It forces me to acknowledge that they have special rights and special protections over me.

You have it all backwards. We are not stopping them from being gay in the privacy of their own homes. They are stopping us from moving this country forward in morality and wisdom by forcing an immoral and perverted deathstyle on us and our kids to accept as normal and natural.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> So you're actually saying that they are not trying to convince people and make them share their beliefs. Obviously you have not been watching MTV.



No, I said they are. But they are not doing it by simply talking to people and being good examples. Instead they are trying to steal special rights in courts and legislatures, and they are trying to brainwash the youth through the public schools and through the media, like what you said, MTV.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> About the rest, they could be doing all you say and more and still continue indoctrinating. Yes, i agree censorship is bad and won't argue against it , but what are you refering to when you speak about sues?



Lawsuits.

this

They did the same thing in Massachusetts. They got four out of seven judges to rule that not allowing same-sex marriage was in violation of the constitution of the state, and thus that it must be legalized. However, there was no constitutional basis for this ruling, and not only that but the ruling itself was in violation of the same constitution they referred to and on multiple counts!

Then when the state of Massachusetts' voters tried to get a voter initiative put on the ballot to constitutionally define marriage as a one man one woman union, the legislature played games, forcing the measure to be pushed off until the next year, which would delay it two years for a statewide vote. Then when it finally came time for the legislature to vote on it, they voted it down after Nancy Palosi visited the legislature and convinced 6 people to switch their votes, thus causing the measure to fail. So they told the people of that state to drop dead, basically. They would not let the people vote on it.

That is the radical gay agenda hard at work in the liberalized government. They are dirty dealing people who will go against the constitution and the will of the people just to push their own ideals through and force them on the majority. That is anti-American, and that is the threat that Sally Kern was referring to.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> I assume you're aware there are hundred of way in which this hipothetic attacker could find out the sexual orientation of a person.



Name one.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> Yet, i think you're trying to move the argument to wether the person was open about his homosexuality. Why would you do that? do you think he is to be blamed of the attack he is recieving?



If the person keeps his or her sexual preference private, AS THEY SHOULD, then the alleged attacker cannot know if the person was homosexual or not. There it is.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> Are you really christian? Rome practically made the bible by selecting which books would be consider god made and which not.



And that is where you get Catholicism, not Christianity. Christianity takes the whole Bible as the word of God. Catholicism does not, and it adds many non-Biblical practices to it.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> Year 325 council of nicae. Actually not only that, they created modern christianity.



Jesus Christ created Christianity, and John the Baptist helped shape it.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> if some state laws are consistent with some bible laws that is a reason to obey those laws but simply because the state requires you to do that. All those that are left aside do not need to be followed.



Sure they don't need to be. None of them really need to be. But if you want a good life then you need to follow them. Hence why many of our laws are based on the Bible's.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> So single people are bad because they cannot create life?



They are wrong to not create life. Everyone should at least replace themselves on the Earth if they are capable.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> What about those who are sterile, can they be gay? after all they are not going to create new life anyway.



They they can't because homosexuality is unnatural for humans and it is dangerous and self-destructive. These people should still get married and have that loving bond, and then if they want kids they can adopt.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> And about STD: It comes from promiscuity, being promiscuos and being gay are not the same thing.



Yes they are, because being gay is all about lust and sexual pleasure. Safe sex goes against this mindset, and that is why most gays disregard safe sex practices AND are promiscuous.


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 16, 2008)

Nirgal said:
			
		

> You can be straight and promicuos, and be gay and monogamous. Actually many religious people that have been concerned about gay marriage are stoping monogamic people from being acknowledged as such by the state.



The Goodridge couple, the leading same-sex couple in the Massachusetts court case I mentioned before, were together for a long time before they got “married” in their state. You know how long their “marriage” lasted? Two years. Yeah. After all that time and all that effort to get their “equal rights” and “equal title”, they ended up “divorcing”. So we just really don't know who is going to be monogamous and who will not. So that is why we can't legalize same-sex marriage. Their group is just too promiscuous and unfaithful to allow into marriage.



			
				Nirgal said:
			
		

> The morality that you refer to is a religious morality. The very concept of objective morality is religious.



No it isn't. Many atheists also consider morality to be crucial to their lives and America, and they too vote to protect marriage.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> First off, provide proof that "being gay is bad".



Bottom of the post in the following link.

Hans Appelqvist - _Tonefilm_



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> Oh, yeah. So lesbianism is perfectly okay, right? If women are "made" (assuming design) to take things in their holes, and your objection to anal sex is that one's anus is not "made" for such things, then do you have any valid objections to lesbian sex?



Yes, since they have nothing on their bodies to put into another woman that provides mutual pleasure.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> Or oral sex, for that matter? Or mutual masturbation? Many gay couples do those things instead of the potentially painful anal sex, you know. And it's not a "deathstyle" at all! Lesbians have lower incidences of STDs than straight women!



That is because of the lack of penetration. And yes I am against all those things if they take place outside of marriage. All sex outside of marriage is bad and immoral because sex creates a chemical bond between people. This is a fact. Therefore that bond should only be shared between a man and a woman who are married for life.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> Say what? Homosexuality (despite the -sexuality ending) is not all about sex or sexuality.



Yes it is. It is about sex between two people of the same gender. This is just a blatant fact. Accept it or don't reply to the issue.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> It's about interpersonal attraction.



No it's not! Establishing common friendships is about that.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> Because ONLY teaching little kids that "boys like girls" instills the idea that not liking girls is somehow wrong and horrible.



Uh... it is. You're telling me that you don't like ANY girls?



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> The kind of ostracizing that occurs is not unlike the sort of harassment that goes on because of the common stereotypical view of nerds.



So then where is your hate crime protection against nerds?



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> When boys are only taught the cliche of "boys play with cars, girls play with dolls"



Stop stop stop. I am not saying to teach that in schools. Parents can do that. Schools should educate kids in the sciences, writing, history, the economy, and the English language.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> And this "sexuality" nonsense is...well, nonsense. Teaching about boys who like boys is no more sexual than teaching about boys who like girls.



I'll assume that “like” means “physical attraction to”. Yes it is more sexual because homosexuality is all about sex, whereas teaching that boys like girls is a normal and natural thing. Moreover, same-sex attraction is immoral and perverted. Kids should not be learning about perverted things. However, I am not saying schools should teach this. Parents should.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> I mean, when you read Snow White to a kid, you don't tell him, "And they lived happily ever after because Prince Charming made sweet, sweet love to Snow White's vagina every day."



But the story does portray a romantic relationship between the man and woman characters. A story that would portray two characters of the same gender having a romantic relationship would only encourage kids to think that such relationships are normal. THEY ARE NOT NORMAL!



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> Why would it be different for a story in which two princes lived happily ever after? Moderation will still be used when kids are involved. What's with the paranoia?



It's as I said. They would be taught to think that such a relationship is normal and natural. Equal to the male/female relationship. That would corrupt those kids. So that should not be allowed to happen. Romantic love between one male and one female is the only acceptable plot for a children's story.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> Route #1: Homosexuality (or the acceptance of it, hereby abbreviated as H/A) is called the DEATH KNELL of the United States. And that's not worse than terrorism?



No, it's not. Because homosexuality as an individual choice that only destroys the individual, and that individual can always CHANGE and choose to live right. A terrorist blows himself up and kills many others and spreads fear into others. There is no hope for them. This costs millions of dollars or less depending on the severity of the attack. Therefore terrorism is worse.

However, homosexuality is the bigger threat because terrorism has been targeted for extermination and we have many things in place to protect us from it. Homosexuality and the radical gay agenda does not have anything standing against it other than a group of moral America who are not united under any focused organization.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> Route #2: For those living in the US, "threats to the nation" are bad, agreed? (If not, then...I don't know what to say to you. Except maybe to consider some therapy)
> 
> Now, a small threat (say, a bunch of Buddhists) would be less deserving of one's attention than, say, a much bigger threat (say, a group of radical Zoroastrians with nukes), agreed?
> 
> So, if H/A is a bigger threat than terrorism, it is heavily implied that we should pay MORE attention to giving gay activists a metaphorical boot to the face, and less attention to the possibility of attacks from suicide bombers.



Wrong. She never said give less attention to terrorism. In fact she said that she considers terrorism to be a very serious threat. Your logic just doesn't follow. She is saying to give both thing attention. The government and military can fight the war. The states and their people can fight the threats at home.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> But no, she was NOT saying that homosexuality is worse. At least, not in those exact words. And how dare we use critical reading skills such as inference?



So you agree that she didn't say it was worse. Thanks for agreeing with me.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> Oh, silly goose. The OSBI investigation reveals that a grand majority of the so-called death threat e-mails she got are not, in fact, death threats. They were statements in the general area of "You ought to die" rather than "I'm going to kill you". SO, they are not death threats, just statements (they are STATING that she deserves death).



You didn't read the article. That part only defined what a death threat was, not that what she was getting were not death threats. This is the problem with you people. You never read anything the right way, you never listen to what people actually say, and you go into every debate half-cocked. That is why you people always lose.

Yes the majority of e-mails are not death threats, but that does not change the fact that she is getting some death threats. Therefore, my point is proved. I win.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> You want death threats? Ask about the homosexuals (who receive death threats) every now and then.



Irrelevant. The point still remains that Sally is getting death threats simply for stating her opinion.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> Oh no! People abused the anonymity of the internet to spew "death threats" at a total lunatic. And she's getting one hell of a publicity ride out of this.



No, not anonymity, e-mails. Those all have accounts with NAMES and IP addresses... I hope they are all tracked down and brought to justice.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> What about the flipside? The ones who are threatened with being "taught a lesson" because they are gay or have supported gays?



That's wrong and they should report it to the police. What's your point?



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> She implies...



Stop. You are reading into what she said and putting your own biased spin on it, just as the one who wrote the article you linked to did. Biased source that distorted the facts. Next.



			
				jimbobwu said:
			
		

> It is late, and I tire of doing battle with your endless well of misinformation



How am I misinformed when I am the one quoting her word for word and YOU are the one making things up?



			
				drache said:
			
		

> I think it best for now that I remove myself from this conversation.



Good idea.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Frankly I find it ridicluos that BI can insult my family



I didn't insult your family. Get on with this.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> BI ask Distracted, hell he was the one remaining judge at the time and even he admitted you didn't beat me.



Sure drache, whatever you say.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> I don't mind you trying to twist my words



Twist them how, by quoting you word for word?



			
				drache said:
			
		

> hell I don't even mind you trying to take me out of context; it helps keep my debating skills sharp.



Yeah... you'll be up to wet noodle sharpness in no time.


----------



## Sky is Over (Mar 16, 2008)

OMG, this thread is *legendary.* 

In all honesty, kudos and compliments for the thread SM.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Mar 16, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> Yes they are, because being gay is all about lust and sexual pleasure. Safe sex goes against this mindset, and that is why most gays disregard safe sex practices AND are promiscuous.



Wow talk about uninformed opinion,BI STYLE!.There are promiscuous gays and there are those who are not.Just like straight people.
So,your wrong,I WIN!


----------



## Shinobi Mugen (Mar 16, 2008)

Masashi Kishimoto said:


> OMG, this thread is *legendary.*
> 
> In all honesty, kudos and compliments for the thread SM.



Lol, thanks Kishi. Although i gave up debating Believe It many pages ago, now i just come here to laugh at all his crap.....


----------



## Believe It! (Mar 16, 2008)

You gave up because I wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnn!!!


----------



## Sky is Over (Mar 16, 2008)

Shinobi Mugen said:


> Lol, thanks Kishi. Although i gave up debating Believe It many pages ago, now i just come here to laugh at all his crap.....



I've never gotten into a debate with him, but despite some of the opnions being unjust, he is persistent.

And looking over some of your posts, I can say that we're in agreement over some things.


----------



## Shinobi Mugen (Mar 16, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> You gave up because I wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnn!!!



No, i gave up because it's like Ghandi trying to convince Hitler about non-violence. Or Mandela trying to convince the KKK to love black people...


----------



## Lezard Valeth (Mar 16, 2008)

You got to admit Believe It! is much like Naruto, he never gives up and if being wise means sometimes to give up, then he prefers to live as ...


----------



## jinjue (Mar 16, 2008)

Believe It! said:
			
		

> Kishimoto never said that Haku was a boy. If he did, then prove it!


It was stated in the canon and was never contradicted. Get over it.

As for the rest of your "points", I'm sorry, but I refuse to "debate" with bigoted retrogrades that clearly have no soddin' clue what they're talking about. If you were expecting any kind of entertainment from me, you were sadly mistaken.


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 16, 2008)

screw them bible thumping jack asses


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 17, 2008)

and I wonder why I don't vote


----------



## Nirgal (Mar 17, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> A characteristic that they think is inborn. So if they really think it is okay to be gay, then why are they so offended? Because they know it's wrong! That's why. And how does it affect them anyway? If words hurt your feelings and make you feel depressed enough to live miserably or kill yourself, then that is YOUR problem. Normal people ignore insulting words or comments directed toward them.



That's absurd. So a black person that is insulted because of his race feels depressed because he thinks those who insult him are right, and that being black is bad? of course not, he feels bad because he is being targeted. As any normal person would feel. It's true that most people have enough fortitude to endure insults but it also depends on the quantity of those. It's not the same having one person tell you off than several millons.



> What do you mean it is hardly a life defining choice? Drugs can ruin someone's life! So how is it not a life defining choice?



That depends on how much you take. I do drugs and i'm a working man who goes to college and speaks several languages. I also have had a girlfriend for more than two years and many friends some of which i've been with since i was 2 years old. So i'm an utterly normal person.




> If you make the choice, you will become addicted. Even addicts can choose to get help and stop doing drugs. So it is a choice and it is a dangerous and self-destructive choice, just as homosexuality is.



Addiction itself isn't a choice. You can make a choice to try to overcome your addiction as you've said though. but doing drugs can reach to a point in which will isn't enough to stop it so it ceases to be choice.





> Their's don't obliterate my beliefs, because theirs is that sexual preferences should remain private and should not be forced down anyone's throat to accept! My beliefs don't obliterate their's because mine is that they have a choice to make, to leave the deathstyle or stay in it, and whatever they choose is up to them. That's it.



Your belief is that they should stop inmediatly to do what they are doing. therefore it does imply obliterating their way of life.





> No, you're wrong. I quoted what she said. You cannot add things to what she said in order to make her sound as if she is hateful or homophobic. She did not say that people who are gay are threats. Period end of story.



I wasn't i was pointing out that any open homosexual as he consider his way of life normal and healthy will always strive to show himself and others alike him as what they think they are: normal innocuos people. And because of that they are constantly, even if unintencionally, being political activists and influencing people. Therefore they are exactly alike as those being deemed a threat by this woman.





> No it wasn't, but I wonder... what exactly is a “repressed homosexual” in your opinion?



Hides his sexual orientation to others and/or refuses to engage in same gender sex.



> It stops me from sending my kids to public school where they'll be indoctrinated with homosexual propaganda. It takes away my right to vote to define marriage as I think it should be. It forces me to accept homosexuality as normal. It forces me to pay for their mistakes through health insurance premiums. It forces me to acknowledge that they have special rights and special protections over me.



No one is doing any of those things to you.  If in school your kids are taught that homosexuality is normal you can always teach them otherwise. Who would they believe?

Defining marriage is not an individual right, your freedom is not being disrupted. that's as if i complained that democracy is restricting my right to make my own laws.

You are not being forced to accept homosexuality as normal either you can think whatever you want, the idea is that those who think otherwise can be acknowledged as normal by the state.

Again: homosexuality and promiscuity are differente things. Mingling one with the other is just a sophism to win an argument.





> You have it all backwards. We are not stopping them from being gay in the privacy of their own homes. They are stopping us from moving this country forward in morality and wisdom by forcing an immoral and perverted deathstyle on us and our kids to accept as normal and natural.



On the contrary no one is forcing "an immoral and perverted deathstyle" to you. You can live however you want to live. You are perfectly allowed to marry a woman if you want. Yet you are forcing your moral non-perverted lifestyle on them who cannot choose to marry a samegender person if they want and enjoy their pervertion as they see fit.





> No, I said they are. But they are not doing it by simply talking to people and being good examples. Instead they are trying to steal special rights in courts and legislatures, and they are trying to brainwash the youth through the public schools and through the media, like what you said, MTV.



You started with a "no" with your previous respond to my comment "they are trying to convince people" so i assumed as i logically would.




> Lawsuits.



Never denied they existed.



> Name one.


 I'll name several:

1. the person present himself as gay person.
2. when the person is asked about the looks of person of the opposite gender he/she refrains from judging claiming he/she prefers people of the same gender for sex.
3. The person is seen making out with someone of the same gender.
4. the person is seen holding hands with someone of the same gender.
5. a huge etc...





> If the person keeps his or her sexual preference private, AS THEY SHOULD, then the alleged attacker cannot know if the person was homosexual or not. There it is.



So it's their fault? 





> And that is where you get Catholicism, not Christianity. Christianity takes the whole Bible as the word of God. Catholicism does not, and it adds many non-Biblical practices to it.



the bible is a compilation of several gospels chosen by roman priests during the council iIve mentioned already. That convention defined modern christianity as it stablished several relevant concept that were previously debated such as the divinity of Jesus Christ. it's true that the bible was created for catholicism , but it's also true all other current variations of christianism use the same book as well and therefore it's valid to say that the roman are responsible for the main concepts of todays christianity.




> Jesus Christ created Christianity, and John the Baptist helped shape it.



Jesus died (or ascended if you prefer) long before christinaty was unified. Before the romans, christianity had so many variations each so different from the other that they could almost be considered totally different religions. Many of the gospels they followed presented a jesus totally different than how it's portrayed today. The romans were the ones who decided to dismiss those gospels and consider others as divine or god made. So by defining what story was really holy and which wasn't they made christianity as it's today.  





> Sure they don't need to be. None of them really need to be. But if you want a good life then you need to follow them. Hence why many of our laws are based on the Bible's.



That's when religious freedom comes. I don't want to live what you consider a good life so, Why should I?





> They are wrong to not create life. Everyone should at least replace themselves on the Earth if they are capable.



Yet you wouldn't fobid people to be single, so why would you forbid people to marry other people of the same gender?




> They they can't because homosexuality is unnatural for humans and it is dangerous and self-destructive. These people should still get married and have that loving bond, and then if they want kids they can adopt.



First of all, many animals engage in homosexual activity, so how can it not be natural. After all they' ve always done it and clearly no one is forcing them to do it.

The self destructive part comes from the fallacy of wanting to associate promiscuoity with homosexuality.




> Yes they are, because being gay is all about lust and sexual pleasure. Safe sex goes against this mindset, and that is why most gays disregard safe sex practices AND are promiscuous.



That's just you assumption. Sex itself is about pleasure. either straight or gay. People who only have sex for procreating represent only 0.00001% of the world population and they are missing something great. So if everyone has sex for pleasure then why are gays being isolated as only offenders?


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 17, 2008)

enough of the huge freaking quotes


----------



## Nirgal (Mar 17, 2008)

It was supposed to be longer. But i had to cut it because of the maximum space limit. Here is the rest.



> The Goodridge couple, the leading same-sex couple in the Massachusetts court case I mentioned before, were together for a long time before they got “married” in their state. You know how long their “marriage” lasted? Two years. Yeah. After all that time and all that effort to get their “equal rights” and “equal title”, they ended up “divorcing”. So we just really don't know who is going to be monogamous and who will not. So that is why we can't legalize same-sex marriage. Their group is just too promiscuous and unfaithful to allow into marriage.



And i can name several straigh couples whose marriages lasted hours. Does that mean straight people shouldn't marry either? Because straight people are also promiscuos. I'm straight and pretty promiscuos and i'd be more promiscuos if i could, but right now i'm in love so don't do it because i wouldn't cheat on her, but if I was single again i would pretty much sleep with every women willing to do it. (if not fat or old)





> No it isn't. Many atheists also consider morality to be crucial to their lives and America, and they too vote to protect marriage.



Atheist people may consider their own subjective morality as important or may be just stupid enough not to know morality can be described as either subjective or objective. But if they are atheist they are not following god's morality or if they are they solely do it because it happens to match their own subjective morality. The point is that for those of us who don't believe in God and therefore disregard objective morality, if our subjective morality allow us to engage, if we want to, in same gender sex, we should be allowed to do it. We shouldn't have to abide god's law. Because our religous freedom allows us to ignore it.


----------



## Spirit (Mar 17, 2008)

God said? But...but...your country is not theocratic. It's secular. Apparently your people agreed to silence God in the first place. How could you quote God when it's imperative to understand that you leave God no say in governing your country?


Gay people stays!!


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 17, 2008)

I would love to see God show up and prove these jack asses wrong


----------



## Edo (Mar 17, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> *Yeah yeah. Big talk over the Internet = wuss in real life. Real men don't need to talk big over then net because real men know that they are above any ?troll? or ?nerd? on a message board.
> *
> *You and raikage12 should get fake married, since you'd make a lovely pair. He's threatened me over the net as well.
> *
> ...



Hey Vash....so name calling is okay when BI does it, but not when other members do??? 

I didn't call him any names to begin with, I only replied to his replies the way he replies to all posters.

But it seems we are not allowed to criticize BI anymore.


----------



## maximilyan (Mar 17, 2008)

of course its worse than a fabricated idea. what isnt?


----------



## jimbobwu (Mar 17, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> The Goodridge couple, the leading same-sex couple in the Massachusetts court case I mentioned before, were together for a long time before they got ?married? in their state. You know how long their ?marriage? lasted? Two years. Yeah. After all that time and all that effort to get their ?equal rights? and ?equal title?, they ended up ?divorcing?. So we just really don't know who is going to be monogamous and who will not. So that is why we can't legalize same-sex marriage. Their group is just too promiscuous and unfaithful to allow into marriage.


Right. We don't know. But unless proven otherwise, how would we know/not know? I mean, are you going to look at the Goodridge couple and say, "nope, gays can't keep a marriage going"?

By that sort of logic, we ought to look at Britney Spears and say, "nope, blondes can't marry" or "nope, pop stars can't marry"?

Your idiotic excuse for a "proof" uses NUMEROUS non-empirical sources of evidence, such as personal emotions, assertion of specific moral beliefs ad nauseum, and outright contradictions (such as claiming that believing homosexuality to be inborn is not rooted in science, when various studies have already found biological links to homosexuality, including prenatal hormone levels). I don't know how YOU manage to find it satisfactorily conclusive when entire boards of trained professional psychologists can easily refute even more of your little tirade than I already have.

"Orgasm > Family, dignity, friends, morality, emotional stability, children, marriage, etc."

This presents the false dichotomy that sexual pleasure is exclusive to family, dignity, friends, morality, emotional stability, children, marriage, "etc". When two men enter a romantic relationship, HOW in the WORLD are they foregoing their family, dignity, friends, morality, emotional stability, children, and marriage? Marriage is denied to them in a large number of states. Children are difficult due to outdated adoption laws. Other than those two, I don't see how your suggestion that having a boyfriend is the equivalent of lessening the importance of my family, my dignity, my friends, and my morality. Do you understand what INFERENCE and IMPLICATION are? They're basic literary skills. By implication, you are saying that people who choose to have homosexual relationships are somehow loosening their ties to their family, are abandoning their dignity, are caring less about their friends, are somehow less moral, and are more emotionally unstable.

Take a quick look at the "List of logical fallacies" and see how many mistakes you've made in the previous post alone. I wouldn't be surprised if your ego drives you to say "zero".



Believe It! said:


> No it isn't. Many atheists also consider morality to be crucial to their lives and America, and they too vote to protect marriage.



Presuming the false premise that homosexuality is immoral, when no EMPIRICAL evidence has indicated it to be so. And then you have the nerve to use this false premise to suggest that people who choose to vote against homosexual marriage value 'morality' more than others. Circular reasoning, anyone?



Believe It! said:


> Bottom of the post in the following link.
> 
> Hans Appelqvist - _Tonefilm_


See above. With anyone else, I would assume that you need not be told. But I'm not exactly dealing with an "opponent" of average intellect here. I feel as though I'm tainting the word "opponent" by using it on you. Turning arrogance against the arrogantly religious is such sweet irony.


Believe It! said:


> Yes, since they have nothing on their bodies to put into another woman that provides mutual pleasure.


Cunnilingus and fellatio can be mutually pleasurable experiences, as can prostate stimulation (in men) and digital penetration (in women). Unless you feel like denying that one's hands and one's tongue are not part of their bodies.


----------



## jimbobwu (Mar 17, 2008)

Believe It! said:


> That is because of the lack of penetration. And yes I am against all those things if they take place outside of marriage. All sex outside of marriage is bad and immoral because sex creates a chemical bond between people. This is a fact. Therefore that bond should only be shared between a man and a woman who are married for life.


Circular reasoning with non-sequiturs here.

1-I am against [blah] because they take place outside of marriage.
2-I am against all forms of [blah] outside marriage.
3-[Blah] should only be allowed for people who are married.
4-I am against allowing certain people to get married, BECAUSE they practice [blah]

"I see, and why are you against this practice of [blah]?"

Restart at #1.



Believe It! said:


> Yes it is. It is about sex between two people of the same gender. This is just a blatant fact. Accept it or don't reply to the issue.


Presuming unproven facts, I see. The psychological definition of homosexuality is that of the sexual orientation, which (and I quote from the APA here) is not narrowly limited to sexual attraction, but also implies an emotional, romantic, or affectional attraction towards others of the same sex. Accept the fact, or don't reply to something in which you clearly have done little research of your own.


Believe It! said:


> No it's not! Establishing common friendships is about that.


No. Believe it or not, the relationship that two gay lovers share falls under the category of "interpersonal relationship". Shocking, I know, but interpersonal relationships are not limited to common friendships.



Believe It! said:


> Uh... it is. You're telling me that you don't like ANY girls?


Since you defined "like" in your post below, I find it quite silly of you to use an ambiguous definition of "like" here. Amphiboly?



Believe It! said:


> So then where is your hate crime protection against nerds?


I don't recall being quoted as being supportive of hate crime legislation. Presumptuous prick.


Believe It! said:


> Stop stop stop. I am not saying to teach that in schools. Parents can do that. Schools should educate kids in the sciences, writing, history, the economy, and the English language.


But your objection to "forcing open sexuality" on public school carries no weight then, if schools stepped completely out of the loop. Because your objection was based on the assumption that homosexuality has ONLY a sexual side. Your objection to homosexuality as a purely sexual phenomenon is false, because the oxytocins in our systems strengthens the romantic/emotional bonds between two people regardless of sex. The point is, schools, by providing such material as Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc, are ALREADY teaching heterosexuality openly. If you want schools to be completely removed from the subject of sexual orientation, might I suggest that all materials in which characters of different gender fall in love? After all, is that not open sexuality (of the heterosexual sort)?


Believe It! said:


> I'll assume that like means physical attraction to. Yes it is more sexual because homosexuality is all about sex, whereas teaching that boys like girls is a normal and natural thing. Moreover, same-sex attraction is immoral and perverted. Kids should not be learning about perverted things. However, I am not saying schools should teach this. Parents should.


False premise of assuming SSA to be immoral and perverted. This sets up the intentionally unbalanced footing that gayness is somehow "more sexual" than straightness. This also presumes that just because boys with girls is the GENERAL norm, that those who do not conform to the norm are unnatural. Once upon a time, painkillers for birthing mothers was considered "immoral" and "unnatural" as well, simply because it was thought that the norm (birth being a painful process) ought to be applied to everyone.


Believe It! said:


> But the story does portray a romantic relationship between the man and woman characters. A story that would portray two characters of the same gender having a romantic relationship would only encourage kids to think that such relationships are normal. THEY ARE NOT NORMAL!


Purely anecdotal, personal, and overall insulting. Prove that TO GAYS, same sex relations are abnormal. Because normality is personal. What comes naturally and feels normal doesn't necessarily apply to someone else. The majority of couples in this country consist of people of the same religion, but does that necessarily mean that interfaith relations are "NOT NORMAL"? They do not conform to the norm, but does that make them perverted and unnatural? If your objection to allowing gays to marry is that gays can still CHOOSE to marry opposite sex partners, then would you have any objections to banning interfaith marriage? After all, it's not a civil rights issue! A Hindu would not be denied his right to marry a woman, as long it's a Hindu, right?


Believe It! said:


> It's as I said. They would be taught to think that such a relationship is normal and natural. Equal to the male/female relationship. That would corrupt those kids. So that should not be allowed to happen. Romantic love between one male and one female is the only acceptable plot for a children's story.


No comment on the sheer absurdity of this statement. It not only implies SS relations to be inferior, it assumes the immorality of SS relationships and the moral superiority of heterosex relationships.

Just...wow.


Believe It! said:


> No, it's not. Because homosexuality as an individual choice that only destroys the individual, and that individual can always CHANGE and choose to live right. A terrorist blows himself up and kills many others and spreads fear into others. There is no hope for them. This costs millions of dollars or less depending on the severity of the attack. Therefore terrorism is worse.


I disagree. I'd say that referring to something as the death knell of a NATION (she did not say "personal death knell") is very much saying that it affects things on a large scale. Oh, and I love how much of an idiot you've demonstrated yourself to be. I don't brag about my grammar because I KNOW that I can make mistakes, but since you bragged here, 





Believe It! said:


> Great, another one who can't spell or use proper grammar.


I suppose I should get to do a bit of holier-than-thou gloating here. 
"...homosexuality as an individual choice that only destroys the individual..."
Either you meant to write "...homosexuality is an..." or you've applied "as" incorrectly.


Believe It! said:


> Wrong. She never said give less attention to terrorism. In fact she said that she considers terrorism to be a very serious threat. Your logic just doesn't follow. She is saying to give both thing attention. The government and military can fight the war. The states and their people can fight the threats at home.


When the fuck did she say that last part? An intelligent person can follow my line of logic and see where the inference that bigger threats (homosexuality/acceptance) deserve more attention than smaller threats (not small, just smallER) makes sense. But then again, you're not exactly a prime example of that category. How you manage to "infer" that she meant for the military to fight the war while the people should fight the threat of homosexuality. She doesn't even mention the military here.


Believe It! said:


> So you agree that she didn't say it was worse. Thanks for agreeing with me.


admin turning him??????
Learn it, love it, but don't hurt your little head trying to use it.


Believe It! said:


> You didn't read the article. That part only defined what a death threat was, not that what she was getting were not death threats. This is the problem with you people. You never read anything the right way, you never listen to what people actually say, and you go into every debate half-cocked. That is why you people always lose.


Sweeping generalization aside, Brown herself said that the e-mails she was getting wouldn't be characterized as death threats. The grand majority of what she got were NOT death threats.

Good lord. You make me sleepy.


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 17, 2008)

can we lay off the huge quote on quote


----------



## fghj (Mar 18, 2008)

Cell said:


> Another reason why church-and-state need to be seperated. Christianity is an ideology, not fact. Just like all the other religions. Just because the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong doesn't make it so.


It is, unless you live in Iran or something. What you're really saying is "Christian morality should be banned".


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 18, 2008)

this group here is trying to control everything, hell they pull the FCC's strings


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 18, 2008)

fghj said:


> It is, unless you live in Iran or something. What you're really saying is "Christian morality should be banned".



 Christian morality, Muslim morality...hell, any morality which sprang from the fascist Jew religion.


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 18, 2008)

personally I am so sick of this religous crap


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 18, 2008)

Sean Connery said:


> personally I am so sick of this religous crap



We will fight them on the beaches. With like, our nudity..it would scare anyone away and cause their bibles to burst into flames.

Mr. Connery..it's time we dropped trou.


----------



## fghj (Mar 18, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> Christian morality, Muslim morality...hell, any morality which sprang from the fascist Jew religion.


We should switch to Ethiopian morality, look how advanced and superior they are.


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 18, 2008)

I have a better religion, called I'll belive it when I see it


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 18, 2008)

fghj said:


> We should switch to Ethiopian morality, look how advanced and superior they are.



Those wet sloppy liberal pussies who are letting the Muslims stomp all over them? Fuck the Europeans and fuck the Americans..it's time for a new world with new ideologies.


----------



## fghj (Mar 18, 2008)

Now you sound like Hitler. But okay you do that, I'll stick with the culture that gave world Adam Smith, Newton, Galileo, Einstein...


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 18, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> Those wet sloppy liberal pussies who are letting the Muslims stomp all over them? Fuck the Europeans and fuck the Americans..it's time for a new world with new ideologies.



jesus f'ing christ


----------



## HAL 9000 (Mar 18, 2008)

I have returned. In response to BI's response:
Explain to me how stating a lifestyle between two consenting adults is a bigger threat than terrorism is anything but homophobic and hateful? And I don't care where she was saying it, she is spouting blatant BS.
And Edo, it's not intended as a double standard, it just appears that way. Because Believe it! is spouting such unpopular (see also: Bigoted) opinions, he ends up with most of the fourum alligned against him. As such some mods are inclined to be more forgiving. 
And I never threatened you over the internet BI. Don't lie.


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 18, 2008)

fghj said:


> Now you sound like Hitler. But okay you do that, I'll stick with the culture that gave world Adam Smith, Newton, Galileo, Einstein...



 If anything your post proves that a religious world has bred many brilliant atheists.

Also, comparisons of me to Hitler are kind of funny since the theologians are more like Hitler than I'll ever be.


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 18, 2008)

oh good lord


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 18, 2008)

Sean Connery said:


> oh good lord



 Blasphemy against the true left! Give me thirty pushups, Connery.


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 18, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> Blasphemy against the true left! Give me thirty pushups, Connery.



kiss my


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 18, 2008)

You're not as scathingly atheist in this thread as you've been known to be in the past, Connery...we can only counter militant theism with militant secularism. Let's be the shining paladins of Secularism, you and I. We'll revel in gay orgies on pentagrams and have a grand old time.


----------



## batanga (Mar 18, 2008)

In before religion


Oh wait...


----------



## Moonshine (Mar 18, 2008)

what a flipping bitch...homosexuality is ruining everything? you should just die bitch...I hate people who are so closed minded like this...i would never vote for someone like her...


----------



## MaxJenius (Mar 18, 2008)

While I strongly disagree with her views at least she isn't gonna bitch out and apologize for her personal opinions. Just hope she doesn't get back into that position of power.


----------



## Byakuya (Mar 18, 2008)

lol republicans


----------



## fghj (Mar 18, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> If anything your post proves that a religious world has bred many brilliant atheists.


And the greatest man atheist societes produced is...Stalin.



> Also, comparisons of me to Hitler are kind of funny since the theologians are more like Hitler than I'll ever be.


Is that something like thetans?


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 18, 2008)

this is reminding me of that episode of south park


----------



## Edo (Mar 18, 2008)

So many posts need deletion...I wonder where is Vash when you need him?


----------



## banzai_kid (Mar 18, 2008)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Hopefull she'll get crushed like th pitiful bitch she is.
> 
> Sadly there's a little voice in my head saying "THIS IS WHAT CHRISTIANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!"



That is not what all Christians believe. Yes  a lot of Christians don't agree with it, but it is all about how you read the bible. more likely than not it will be the old school Christians that will actually speak out against gays. They are contradicting themselves. The bible says that Christians should love and respect all people yet they make hateful comments like this. I agree with what my 8th grade religion book said, you don't have to agree with their lifestyle but Christ taught us to love one another. I don't exactly agree with the lifestyle they choose to live but i respect their decisions and i would never say anything hateful about the decisions they choose to make. Its their life.


----------



## batanga (Mar 18, 2008)

fghj said:


> And the greatest man atheist societes produced is...Stalin.


----------



## jimbobwu (Mar 18, 2008)

fghj said:


> And the greatest man atheist societes produced is...Stalin.
> 
> 
> Is that something like thetans?


And the greatest man that theocratic societies produced? Whoops, oxymoron.


----------



## BAD BD (Mar 18, 2008)

he has a gd thry


----------



## fghj (Mar 19, 2008)

Well, thanks for reinforcing my argument.


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 19, 2008)

fghj said:


> And the greatest man atheist societes produced is...Stalin.



 Poor example. Stalin was a proponent of forced, state enforced atheism. My vision is a world where more people freely reject religion, and that world isn't far off. Every five years, fewer people are polled as being religious.


----------



## nendo-chan (Mar 19, 2008)

That's just... Ugh.  What the hell is this 'homosexual agenda' all these right-wing nuts keep babbling about??  I've seen the phrase so many times, but does anyone want to tell me what it IS??  (Other than hateful and biased cruelty?)
~nendo


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 19, 2008)

nendo-chan said:


> That's just... Ugh.  What the hell is this 'homosexual agenda' all these right-wing nuts keep babbling about??  I've seen the phrase so many times, but does anyone want to tell me what it IS??  (Other than hateful and biased cruelty?)
> ~nendo




 I imagine the "homosexual agenda" is equality - but for them to call it a homosexual agenda is dishonest, because many heterosexual people including myself want homosexuals as first class citizens also, not the brunt of people's jokes or worse, tasteless aggression.


----------



## nendo-chan (Mar 19, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> I imagine the "homosexual agenda" is equality - but for them to call it a homosexual agenda is dishonest, because many heterosexual people including myself want homosexuals as first class citizens also, not the brunt of people's jokes or worse, tasteless aggression.



Thankies.  (Should I just say 'thanks', because this is a serious thread??)  But really.  I may just be a kid, but even I see the hatred, abuse, and discrimination.  There's a a saying from one of my favourite books (which despite being fantasy has quite a few underlying political messages) that goes like this: "You can hit a man in the face with a haddock, and he'll still call it a mouse if that's what he wants to see."  Which, in my mind, perfectly describes the denial of these people.  Christians in America believe, that because their prosecution is done with, they can turn a blind eye to the plight of others.  CHRISTIANS ARE ABUSED RIGHT ALONGSIDE HOMOSEXUALS IN MANY COUNTRIES!!!  GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS!!!  I myself was born into a Christian family.  I may not like the religion, but I bother to learn about it.  Oftentimes, I wish that those who so harshly put down gays would do the same.  If Jesus were to see these things, what do you think he'd have to say??  Remember how the children wanted to see him, and how the Apostles shooed them away, saying "No, no, go away!  Jesus is tired, and he has no time for the likes of you!"  Then they turned to him, expecting praise for keeping the 'unworthy' away.  But instead, He was angry, and yelled at them for refusing the children.  He beckoned the children forwards, and accepted them freely, giving them the same love he gave to ALL HUMANKIND!  Those who oppose homosexuality seem to enjoy interpreting the Bible, so allow me to give them a taste of their own medicine.  This may be just paraphrasing, but I think I conveyed the message here. That reading is about accepting EVERYONE, even those whom modern society scorns and spits upon.  And why?  Because 'they are not like us'.  Weren't you a child once, Representative Kern?  And don't try to tell me that gays aren't human.  They're people, just like us.  And the only thing that sets them apart is the cruelty people show.  
So just give this little blurb a thought from someone who believes in God, and equality for all.  So I'm just a kid.  But isn't that where we all started?
~nendo


----------



## jimbobwu (Mar 19, 2008)

nendo-chan said:


> That's just... Ugh.  What the hell is this 'homosexual agenda' all these right-wing nuts keep babbling about??  I've seen the phrase so many times, but does anyone want to tell me what it IS??  (Other than hateful and biased cruelty?)
> ~nendo



My homosexual agenda:
-Pick up groceries at Kroger
-Get my bike tires checked
-Finish my assignments for Physics and Calculus
-Destroy the moral foundations of American society by having sex with other men

The sad thing is, there are people out there who can't tell I'm joking.


----------



## Ryuk (Mar 20, 2008)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Hopefull she'll get crushed like th pitiful bitch she is.
> 
> Sadly there's a little voice in my head saying *"THIS IS WHAT CHRISTIANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!"*



You know are secret.


----------



## Nirgal (Mar 20, 2008)

jimbobwu said:


> My homosexual agenda:
> -Pick up groceries at Kroger
> -Get my bike tires checked
> -Finish my assignments for Physics and Calculus
> *-Destroy the moral foundations of American society by having sex with other men*



I knew it! I Knew it!


----------



## Lycanthropy (Mar 20, 2008)

I really don't understand what goes on in some people's head.
And it amazes me that she seems to think that people can be turned gay.


----------



## batanga (Mar 20, 2008)

Zoop said:


> And it amazes me that she seems to think that people can be turned gay.


People can be turned gay, and people can be turned heterosexual, or bi.


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 21, 2008)

batanga said:


> People can be turned gay, and people can be turned heterosexual, or bi.



reminds me of the one on mad tv

watching Ellen turns you gay or lesbian


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 21, 2008)

batanga said:


> People can be turned gay, and people can be turned heterosexual, or bi.



People can discover those things, I believe, but don't kid yourself into thinking people are "turned". This isn't star wars, it's real ass life.


----------



## Maruta (Mar 21, 2008)

Is she trying to say that there were no gay people in the Bible? 

Dude,I live in a country that doesn't have to do with this shit, but this is EXACTLY what my mother believes..

But she did once compare homosexuality to necrophilia and zoophilia...


----------



## fghj (Mar 21, 2008)

> People can discover those things, I believe, but don't kid yourself into thinking people are "turned". This isn't star wars, it's real ass life.


I hope you can prove this.



> But she did once compare homosexuality to necrophilia and zoophilia...


Isn't it the same?


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 22, 2008)

People can't turn gay, or straight. Whoevers says that is lying.

Isn't Believe it a dupe? I doubt that someone can be that retarded.


----------



## BAD BD (Mar 22, 2008)

CrimemasterGogo said:


> People can't turn gay, or straight. Whoevers says that is lying.



Yes you can. According to bigots.

And bigots know all.


----------



## Scarlet Pencil (Mar 22, 2008)

> People can't turn gay, or straight. Whoevers says that is lying.



Actually, some people can.  My grandmother, for instance, chose to be homosexual.  However, I believe most people do not choose their orientation, although some may.  ^_^


----------



## MaxJenius (Mar 22, 2008)

CrimemasterGogo said:


> People can't turn gay, or straight. Whoevers says that is lying.



Someone has already asked for proof of this statement that I highly doubt you're qualified to make.

I hypothesize that it's personal preference and nothing more. Preferences can change several times over the course of one's life.


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 22, 2008)

MaxJenius said:


> Someone has already asked for proof of this statement that I highly doubt you're qualified to make.
> 
> I hypothesize that it's personal preference and nothing more. Preferences can change several times over the course of one's life.



I hypothesize that you're full of shit. I never chose to be attracted to girls, and some guys never chose to be attracted to guys.



fghj said:


> Isn't it the same?



 Congratulations, fascist. You've just compared consensual sex between two adults to rape of a child or an animal. You're officially as big a douche bag as Believe It!


----------



## Advent Child (Mar 22, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> Congratulations, fascist. You've just compared consensual sex between two adults to rape of a child or an animal. You're officially as big a douche bag as Believe It!


Absolutely right. Animals havent developed sentience, the ability to make conciouss decisions, and children lack the intelligence and understanding of sex to truly give consent. Two adults, however, regardless of sexuality, have the ability to rationaly consent.


----------



## Dementia (Mar 22, 2008)

That reporter is a bit crazy if you ask me. Okay, I don't have anything against word freedom, but this is just ridiculous. Certain people might actually get hooked up on her words. _Then_ there will be terrorism.


----------



## raininggemini (Mar 22, 2008)

they're just scared cuz they might have to deal with homosexual terrorists..

besides, i like gay guys. My cousin's gay and he's fun to hang out with.


----------



## jinjue (Mar 22, 2008)

MaxJenius said:
			
		

> Someone has already asked for proof of this statement that I highly doubt you're qualified to make.


Absolute proof to that end does not as of yet exist given our still limited understanding of sexual psychology. However, there are extensive studies that have been done and are still being done that suggest that there is a legitimate correlation between the sexual orientation and physiology of a given individual. So although one cannot absolutely state at this point in time that sexual orientation is entirely nature over nurture and/or personal choice, studies exist that do support the hypothesis that it most certainly is not merely an issue of choice.

If anyone wants to learn more about these studies, great! GFE, so I suggest starting there.

In any case, ask yourself if you actively _chose_ to be your current sexual orientation. Although I do not know anyone here well enough to make any absolute claims, nor would I ever be arrogant enough to even try, I would genuinely be surprised (and more than a little sceptical) if any among you could honestly claim that your orientation was an issue of choice instead of unconscious, ingenerate preference.



			
				Pilaf said:
			
		

> Congratulations, fascist. You've just compared consensual sex between two adults to rape of a child or an animal. You're officially as big a douche bag as Believe It!


Agreed, on all counts. For shame, *fghj*. For shame.


----------



## Raijin_thunder (Mar 22, 2008)

He has my vote.


----------



## IBU (Mar 22, 2008)

Scarlet Pencil said:


> Actually, some people can.  My grandmother, for instance, chose to be homosexual.  However, I believe most people do not choose their orientation, although some may.  ^_^



If you are bisexual, you can choose to go after women or men exclusively, but this does not make you straight or gay, it just means that you act on one attraction but not another.


----------



## Xion (Mar 22, 2008)

jinjue said:


> Absolute proof to that end does not as of yet exist given our still limited understanding of sexual psychology. However, there are extensive studies that have been done and are still being done that suggest that there is a legitimate correlation between the sexual orientation and physiology of a given individual. So although one cannot absolutely state at this point in time that sexual orientation is entirely nature over nurture and/or personal choice, studies exist that do support the hypothesis that it most certainly is not merely an issue of choice.
> 
> If anyone wants to learn more about these studies, great! GFE, so I suggest starting there.
> 
> In any case, ask yourself if you actively _chose_ to be your current sexual orientation. Although I do not know anyone here well enough to make any absolute claims, nor would I ever be arrogant enough to even try, I would genuinely be surprised (and more than a little sceptical) if any among you could honestly claim that your orientation was an issue of choice instead of unconscious, ingenerate preference.



Naturalistic fallacy (if natural).

Fail.


----------



## Advent Child (Mar 22, 2008)

Raijin_thunder said:


> He has my vote.


And who is that?


----------



## jinjue (Mar 22, 2008)

II Xion II said:
			
		

> Naturalistic fallacy (if natural).
> 
> Fail.


And how, exactly, would a narutalistic fallacy even apply to the contents of my post? I'm not talking about ethics or morals, you know.


----------



## Amaretti (Mar 22, 2008)

II Xion II said:


> Naturalistic fallacy (if natural).
> 
> Fail.



Actually no. It would be a naturalistic fallacy if he was saying that homosexuality was right and moral because it is natural, or wrong and immoral because it is unnatural. However, he was only commenting that homosexuality is unlikely to be a conscious choice going by what we know of sexuality, as whether or not people could actively choose their sexuality was the thread of the convo. No one was talking about the morality or ethics of homosexuality. (Yet.)

And I think you meant to say 'Appeal to Nature' fallacy anyway. I assume that's what you mean since the 'naturalistic fallacy' is even less relevant to what he wrote than the 'appeal to nature'.


----------



## IBU (Mar 22, 2008)

II Xion II said:


> Naturalistic fallacy (if natural).
> 
> Fail.



Naturalistic Fallacy debunks all universal ethical theories besides Ethical Intuitionism. And Ethical Intuitionism is problematic, because it is difficult if our intuitions stem from are genetics or from social and cultural conditioning.

My point is you are right, to say that that if that was a person's justification it would be a naturalistic fallacy, but unless you have a reason why homosexuality is wrong. Not just something that leads to a given end, please say so.

Normative claims are decidedly emotional, for we simply substitute the word good for something else we have distaste for. Ex. Stealing is wrong! Stealing is something that does not allow a person to keep what they have earned, and I dont like that.  Usually the second statement is what is meant by the first statement, but they are different. And thus while the second sentence may be true, the first is simply an expression of disgust.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Mar 22, 2008)

I agree with that statement, I went to an all boys school and guys do all kind of stuff in the toilets in the mornings. Which sucks because we're not allowed in class before the bell rings  so staying the toilets is the best thing you can do to keep warm in the winter. From that moment on i started bringing my headphones to school, god damn you gay people!


----------



## Raikiri? (Mar 22, 2008)

I agree, thinking your gay means your mentally messed up (seriously), thinking that its ok that you think your gay means your even more screwed up - I'm pissed off with gays being accepted as normal when they should be recieving mental care - its the honest truth.


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 22, 2008)

my thoughts on republicans


----------



## Piekage (Mar 22, 2008)

@ Thread topic. This is why I don't vote.

@ Homosexuality. I honestly don't see the big deal. So two men like each other. So? If God has a problem with it, don't you think he'd do something about it by now, Omnipotent power and all? Of course, I don't trust the bible either. Or anyone who uses it as an excuse.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Mar 22, 2008)

scott_237 said:


> I agree, thinking your gay means your mentally messed up (seriously), thinking that its ok that you think your gay means your even more screwed up - I'm pissed off with gays being accepted as normal when they should be recieving mental care - its the honest truth.



The second coming of Hilter! 

But we're all allowed to have our own opinions, if that's your opinion fair enough sir.


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 22, 2008)

Piekage said:


> @ Thread topic. This is why I don't vote.
> 
> @ Homosexuality. I honestly don't see the big deal. So two men like each other. So? If God has a problem with it, don't you think he'd do something about it by now, Omnipotent power and all? Of course, I don't trust the bible either. Or anyone who uses it as an excuse.



agreed, if god hated homos, he would of done something about it

another reason I hate republicans


----------



## EvanNJames (Mar 22, 2008)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> The second coming of Hilter!
> 
> But we're all allowed to have our own opinions, if that's your opinion fair enough sir.


 

To think, for some reason I thought you'd agree with him. 

Homosexuals are just as sane and insane as heterosexuals... for one, both are actually willing to involve their lives into another's in what is called a relationship, which is one of the craziest things anyone can do.

Last time I checked, I didn't see a great amount of gay women and men running around like a bag women, throwing cats. So if you believe homosexuals are more mentally damaged than heteros, then that's your opinion.... but it's a stupid one, scott.


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 22, 2008)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> The second coming of Hilter!
> 
> But we're all allowed to have our own opinions, if that's your opinion fair enough sir.



you mean like this



and this


----------



## EnragedMongol (Mar 22, 2008)

I agree fully with Sally Kern.

And regardless of what anybody believes is the right answer, Believe it showed more class than all of the defenders of the gays.


----------



## Xion (Mar 22, 2008)

funkmasterswede said:


> Naturalistic Fallacy debunks all universal ethical theories besides Ethical Intuitionism. And Ethical Intuitionism is problematic, because it is difficult if our intuitions stem from are genetics or from social and cultural conditioning.
> 
> My point is you are right, to say that that if that was a person's justification it would be a naturalistic fallacy, but unless you have a reason why homosexuality is wrong. Not just something that leads to a given end, please say so.
> 
> Normative claims are decidedly emotional, for we simply substitute the word good for something else we have distaste for. Ex. Stealing is wrong! Stealing is something that does not allow a person to keep what they have earned, and I dont like that.  Usually the second statement is what is meant by the first statement, but they are different. And thus while the second sentence may be true, the first is simply an expression of disgust.



The point is that whether or not homosexuality is "natural" (the definition itself is subject to debate), being natural does not have to make something morally right.

The argument is impossible to win on both sides of the issue, mostly because morality has many possible interpretations, including absolutism and relativism and what defines our morals. Even something so basic as "killing is wrong" can be debated to no end.

So in the end we draw our morals from our beliefs. And that is exactly what you and I and everyone else do.


----------



## jinjue (Mar 23, 2008)

II Xion II said:
			
		

> The point is that whether or not homosexuality is "natural" (the definition itself is subject to debate), being natural does not have to make something morally right.


No, that was not the point. At least, that wasn't _my_ point. My point had nothing at all to do with morals or ethics or anything of the sort and everything to do with pointing out the fact that as far as we know, sexual orientation isn't solely a case of personal choice. Ergo, as morals and ethics were never part of my point, such as it was, to begin with, the naturalistic fallicy and/or the appeal to nature fallacy do not apply to my post. Duh.

*Amaretti* and *funkmasterswede*, thank you for taking the time to further explain exactly why the naturalistic fallacy and/or the appeal to nature fallacy didn't actually apply. Also, in case anyone was wondering, I'm a chick.


----------



## Sean Connery (Mar 23, 2008)

oh good lord


----------



## Advent Child (Mar 23, 2008)

> I agree, thinking your gay means your mentally messed up (seriously), thinking that its ok that you think your gay means your even more screwed up - I'm pissed off with gays being accepted as normal when they should be recieving mental care - its the honest truth.


Yes we should put them in mental care...

... and then, when that doesnt work, we should put them all in concentration camps...

...and after a while we can do what we want with em. Hell, we can even kill them and turn them into lamp shades and shoes.

You sir, are on the same train of thought that led to the holocaust. Fundies like you are the ones with the mental deficiency. 



> And regardless of what anybody believes is the right answer, Believe it showed more class than all of the defenders of the gays.


:rofl:rofl


----------



## Xion (Mar 23, 2008)

jinjue said:
			
		

> No, that was not the point. At least, that wasn't *my* point. My point had nothing at all to do with morals or ethics or anything of the sort and everything to do with pointing out the fact that as far as we know, sexual orientation isn't solely a case of personal choice. Ergo, as morals and ethics were never part of my point, such as it was, to begin with, the naturalistic fallicy and/or the appeal to nature fallacy do not apply to my post. Duh.
> 
> Amaretti and funkmasterswede, thank you for taking the time to further explain exactly why the naturalistic fallacy and/or the appeal to nature fallacy didn't actually apply. Also, in case anyone was wondering, I'm a chick.



a.) I was not talking to you. Who are you anyway? 

b.) And read my below post to see my reference to the naturalistic fallacy.



Amaretti said:


> Actually no. *It would be a naturalistic fallacy if he was saying that homosexuality was right and moral because it is natural, or wrong and immoral because it is unnatural*. However, he was only commenting that homosexuality is unlikely to be a conscious choice going by what we know of sexuality, as whether or not people could actively choose their sexuality was the thread of the convo. No one was talking about the morality or ethics of homosexuality. (Yet.)
> 
> And I think you meant to say 'Appeal to Nature' fallacy anyway. I assume that's what you mean since the 'naturalistic fallacy' is even less relevant to what he wrote than the 'appeal to nature'.



That is precisely what I was referring to.

But I know that was not his argument, I was just being terse that arguing that something is natural (if it is) does not mean it is morally right in case he was heading in that direction.

My analysis would have been more thorough had I felt like debating him more thoroughly.


----------



## jinjue (Mar 23, 2008)

II Xion II said:
			
		

> a.) I was not talking to you. Who are you anyway?


Wow, are you serious or just taking the piss? Damn, it looks like you're serious. Way to pay attention there, guy. Let me remind you because you've so obviously forgotten, I'm the person you originally quoted when you erroneously brought up the naturalistic fallacy in the first place.



			
				II Xion II said:
			
		

> b.) And read my below post to see my reference to the naturalistic fallacy.


Great. Too bad none of that applies to my post in question, which you brought up and quoted when you claimed that I was "fail" because of the naturalistic fallacy.



			
				II Xion II said:
			
		

> But I know that was not his argument [...]


My argument, not "his" argument or anyone else's argument. I cannot reiterate this enough, but I was the person that you originally quoted with the whole naturalistic fallacy accusation to begin with. So your accusation was against me and my post. Also, I don't think that you did know that my argument was not an appeal to nature until you were openly corrected by myself, and then more thoroughly by *Amaretti*. Unlike some people, I actually do remember what happened on the page beforehand and not once did you ever state, tersely or otherwise, that an appeal to nature does not legitimately justify homosexuality as being something morally right. Even if you had stated that it wouldn't matter because it's still completely irrelevant to what I posted. But no, you simply said, and I will quote:



			
				you said:
			
		

> Naturalistic Fallacy.
> 
> Fail.


So...yeah. Whatever. If this is some attempt at backtracking to cover your glaring fuckup, you fail miserably.


----------



## Xion (Mar 23, 2008)

jinjue said:


> Wow, are you serious or just taking the piss? Damn, it looks like you're serious. Way to pay attention there, guy. Let me remind you because you've so obviously forgotten, I'm the person you originally quoted when you erroneously brought up the naturalistic fallacy in the first place.



Oops. Sorry.

I thought it was funkmasterswede. 

I went back a page and verified it.



			
				jinjue said:
			
		

> Great. Too bad none of that applies to my post in question, which you brought up and quoted when you claimed that I was "fail" because of the naturalistic fallacy.
> 
> 
> My argument, not "his" argument or anyone else's argument. I cannot reiterate this enough, but I was the person that you originally quoted with the whole naturalistic fallacy accusation to begin with. So your accusation was against me and my post. Also, I don't think that you did know that my argument was not an appeal to nature until you were openly corrected by myself, and then more thoroughly by *Amaretti*. Unlike some people, I actually do remember what happened on the page beforehand and not once did you ever state, tersely or otherwise, that an appeal to nature does not legitimately justify homosexuality as being something morally right. Even if you had stated that it wouldn't matter because it's still completely irrelevant to what I posted. But no, you simply said, and I will quote:
> ...



IF you were heading in that direction.

This is the Cafe not the Debate Corner, if you expected me to give a thorough analysis of your argument then you were mislead.

I was just pointing out that using the fact that it is natural would not mean that it is right. I probably should have elaborated.

  



			
				jinjue said:
			
		

> My argument, not "his" argument or anyone else's argument. I cannot reiterate this enough, but I was the person that you originally quoted with the whole naturalistic fallacy accusation to begin with. So your accusation was against me and my post. Also, I don't think that you did know that my argument was not an appeal to nature until you were openly corrected by myself, and then more thoroughly by Amaretti. Unlike some people, I actually do remember what happened on the page beforehand and not once did you ever state, tersely or otherwise, that an appeal to nature does not legitimately justify homosexuality as being something morally right. Even if you had stated that it wouldn't matter because it's still completely irrelevant to what I posted. But no, you simply said, and I will quote:
> 
> So...yeah. Whatever. If this is some attempt at backtracking to cover your glaring fuckup, you fail miserably.



Okay I get the fucking point. I already apologized.

You are getting a little bitchy now.


----------



## jinjue (Mar 23, 2008)

II Xion II said:
			
		

> IF you were heading in that direction.


Then why didn't you say that? Simply stating "Naturalistic fallacy. Fail." makes you look like an idiot that doesn't know what you're talking about. Granted, I don't even see the purpose of replying as you did under the assumption that I or anyone else _might_ go in that direction for two reasons: one, it's wholly irrelevant to what was actually stated, and two, arguing against a point, assumed or otherwise, that was never actually stated is a strawman, which is logically fallacious in and of itself.



			
				II Xion II said:
			
		

> This is the Cafe not the Debate Corner, if you expected me to give a thorough analysis of your argument then you were mislead.


I didn't expect any kind of analysis, thorough or otherwise. At the same time, I wasn't expecting a completely irrelevant, erroneous, strawman rebuttal either.



			
				II Xion II said:
			
		

> I was just pointing out that using the fact that it is natural would not mean that it is right.


Which was, again, completely irrelevant in the first place so why even bother? Also, again, you didn't point out shit; you accused me of being logically fallacious when in fact, my post had nothing to do with the fallacy you pointed out. That means that you either a, didn't know what the naturalistic fallacy is (which is especially notable even now because what you're claiming isn't the naturalistic fallacy at all, it's the appeal to nature fallacy), or b, you were arguing against a strawman. Either way, I'm hardly the one that failed here.



			
				II Xion II said:
			
		

> You are getting a little bitchy now.


That's because you're apparently still trying to justify and defend your response. It kind of makes your apology ring a little hollow. It also makes me question whether you actually "get it" or not. Hmmm.


----------



## Xion (Mar 23, 2008)

jinjue said:


> Then why didn't you say that? Simply stating "Naturalistic fallacy. Fail." makes you look like an idiot that doesn't know what you're talking about. Granted, I don't even see the purpose of replying as you did under the assumption that I or anyone else _might_ go in that direction for two reasons: one, it's wholly irrelevant to what was actually stated, and two, arguing against a point, assumed or otherwise, that was never actually stated is a strawman, which is logically fallacious in and of itself.



a.) Not debate corner
b.) You're new here. You have to learn how we reply. 



			
				jinjue said:
			
		

> I didn't expect any kind of analysis, thorough or otherwise. At the same time, I wasn't expecting a completely irrelevant, erroneous, strawman rebuttal either.



Well I can do a real debate if you want.

But that might involve tons or unnecessary ownage. 

By the way, that was a joke in case you are unable to process tone. 



			
				jinjue said:
			
		

> Which was, again, completely irrelevant in the first place so why even bother? Also, again, you didn't point out shit; you accused me of being logically fallacious when in fact, my post had nothing to do with the fallacy you pointed out. That means that you either a, didn't know what the naturalistic fallacy is (which is especially notable even now because what you're claiming isn't the naturalistic fallacy at all, it's the appeal to nature fallacy), or b, you were arguing against a strawman. Either way, I'm hardly the one that failed here.



Lighten up. You seem very angry.

And please clarify what the difference is between the appeal to nature fallacy and the naturalistic fallacy.

What I gathered from studying fallacies was that they were essentially the same thing. I am not aware of the minute differences between the two. Honestly, formal logic bores me, but I need to know it a bit to study all the aspects of low-level computer programming.

And if you are about to call me fail because I muddled a definition a bit of a little known fallacy in formal logic (a subject which itself is not extremely well known), then damn...that's cruel.

You are overreacting. Let it die.



			
				jinjue said:
			
		

> That's because you're apparently still trying to justify and defend your response. It kind of makes your apology ring a little hollow. It also makes me question whether you actually "get it" or not. Hmmm.



And your tone suggests that you get overly emotional and critical in arguments. Not a great quality to have in debates.


----------



## jinjue (Mar 23, 2008)

II Xion II said:
			
		

> b.) You're new here. You have to learn how we reply.


Yes, thank you for pointing out the obvious. Also, by "we" I hope you're referring to only yourself because I honestly would rather that not everyone here reply as incorrectly and in such an ill-mannered fashion as you have seen fit to do.



			
				II Xion II said:
			
		

> Lighten up. You seem very angry. [...] And your tone suggests that you get overly emotional and critical in arguments. Not a great quality to have in debates.


Then it seems that I may not be the only here incapable of processing tone.



			
				II Xion II said:
			
		

> And please clarify what the difference is between the appeal to nature fallacy and the naturalistic fallacy.


The appeal to nature fallacy is the assumption that just because something is natural, that something is also right, proper or good. The naturalistic fallacy is much more complicated as it occurs when one assumes that specific conclusions, typically moral and/or ethical ones, can be drawn from a proposition of specific natural properties from any given thing. Exempli gratia, it would be a naturalistic fallacy to assume that smoking weed is good on the premise that because smokng weed is naturally pleasant, and being pleasant is naturally good, that smoking weed is also naturally good.



			
				II Xion II said:
			
		

> And if you are about to call me fail because I muddled a definition a bit of a little known fallacy in formal logic (a subject which itself is not extremely well known), then damn...that's cruel.


Actually, I called you fail just to throw the word back at you. Spiteful? Yes. Uncalled for? Considering the irony and unnecessary rudeness of the original accusation, I felt it was well deserved.



			
				II Xion II said:
			
		

> You are overreacting. Let it die.


I'm merely responding to your points. That is all.


----------



## Raikiri? (Mar 23, 2008)

I think your going slightly OTT saying im the next hitler, I'm just saying people who shag animals/children are looked at as being mentally ill because the thing they are doing is not natural - if you ask me, being gay is certainly not natural either so why do people think its ok? I cant believe this world ffs....


----------



## batanga (Mar 23, 2008)

scott_237 said:


> I think your going slightly OTT saying im the next hitler, I'm just saying people who shag animals/children are looked at as being mentally ill because the thing they are doing is not natural - if you ask me, being gay is certainly not natural either so why do people think its ok? I cant believe this world ffs....


Everything that happens within the natural world is natural. So all those things are completely natural.

Dogs hump peoples legs, they hump anything. Also the term "child" can be different in different cultures, some might say under 18 years old, some might say under 16. 
Also, you said people who shag animals/children. So according to you, children, let's take two 15 year olds, who make love are unnatural?


You sir, are not making sense.


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 23, 2008)

Because Gay sex is between two people that can consent to it , please don't compare it to rape.


----------



## Harmonie (Apr 11, 2008)

Sorry to bump this topic, but I have to... because this pisses me off. Especially since she is in my state. I can not (well I can... but...) believe people are so ignorant around here.

I suppose it's okay to be opposed to gay marriage and such (still it's none of your business anyways) but saying it's worse than terrorism is proof that she is an idiot. I don't see homosexuals attacking buildings.

America is founded on freedom of religion, which I'm pretty sure also means freedom from religion. Either way, establishing things based on what a religion says is against what the country is founded on.  

She should just shut up and not be lesbian herself. That's all that should matter... She won't be going to hell if other people are homosexual. It's not her fault if gay marriage is legalized, I can't see why she has to be such an asshole about it.


----------



## davidpliskin (Apr 11, 2008)

to look at her statement of homosexuality being worse than terrorism, she definitely sympathize with terrorism that share her views such as the kkk, which is sad but not surprising. or on a simpler note all that hot lesbian action is making her lust in her loins and she feels ashamed.


----------



## ninja man (Apr 11, 2008)

they are both bad ones just plain gross


----------



## ZeroBlack (Apr 12, 2008)

lol @ this woman
oh well it could be worse
this could've been said in Kansas


----------



## jimbobwu (Apr 13, 2008)

ninja man said:


> they are both bad ones just plain gross


What a well thought-out and reasonable argument.


----------

