Religion based intolerance...

[pajarito 0]

Quote

And now getting back to the original topic. When did Jesus ever advocate condemning sinners?

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

I take that as "all who don't" are condemned. What does that say to you?

[PhillyKev 0]

I'm referring to holding up signs that say "You are going to hell" and "You are destroying America". Do those sound like actions that Jesus would have done?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

And now getting back to the original topic. When did Jesus ever advocate condemning sinners?

How about, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are tying to. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.” Matthew 23:13-15

[pajarito 0]

Gotta go. Be back later.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

I'm referring to holding up signs that say "You are going to hell" and "You are destroying America". Do those sound like actions that Jesus would have done?

Of course he wouldn't hold up a sign that said that, Philly, Jesus didn't speak English.

[PhillyKev 0]

That was directed at those who were taking actions that hurt other people. Did he condemn the prostitute the same way. I think he differentiated between those who sinned against other and those that sinned against themselves.

[billvon 2,998]

>Wow…I have no idea how you got that from what I said. That’s not at
> all what I was trying to say. I was trying to point out the obvious fact
> that “two guys fu%$in” is just plain wrong and they’re not physically
> built to do that.

Men and women were not physically designed to have missionary-position sex either; it just happens to work and we like it. We were designed for doggy-style. We weren't designed for oral sex either, but again, I suspect even religious people don't abstain from that just because 'it is just plain wrong' (which, biologically, it is.)

I suspect that, like many heterosexuals, you find the concept of gay sex distasteful. No problem there, but that's not a sufficient basis to proscribe it, any more than someone who has a problem with missionary-style sex because "it's not natural" should have anything to say about your preference for it.

>The most ideal and healthy setting to raise children has been
> established in study to be a 2 parent home with a mother and a
> father.

The most ideal and healthy setting to raise children is a family with two committed parents. So far we have erected artificial barriers to having such a home with two gay parents. Claiming that "a study says only heteros have good families" is like saying that "a study shows hydrogen cars can never work because there are none on the road." I am arguing that we should remove those artificial barriers; only then will two loving parents be able to raise their children in a normal household free from governmental interference.

> I’d then ask you to give me credible proof that homosexuality is, in
> fact, a trait that someone is born with.

Was there a point that you looked at both men and women as sexually desireable, then consciously decided to choose women over men? Or were you just born that way?

>Marriage, defined as being between one man and one woman, is
> tried and true throughout the world and has been since the
>beginning of civilization for thousands of years.

So has slavery, until quite recently. Even the bible discusses the proper way to treat slaves. Doesn't make it OK.

[Vallerina 2]

So, this is just a question that came up when my coworker and I were discussing religion a few days ago. (We have many things we do not understand about religion...especially Christianity.)

As human beings we can't even comprehend the physical set up of our very own universe. There is no way that we can really understand what the edge of it is like....just how big it is....where other universes are....what lies between all the universes. Heck, we can't even understand much of what happens in our own world. When we think we finally understand something, other pieces of evidence come back frequently telling us we're wrong. If our minds can't even comprehend what's going on in the physical universe, how are we supposed to comprehend anything beyond that?

If there is a god, nobody on this Earth understands them or their purpose. I doubt that if there is a god, they would really care if I lied to my boss about being sick, and I did as much work from home as I would at the office. It's technically a sin, but it doesn't hurt anybody, and I would actually hurt the planet less by not going into work. If there really is a god, I doubt they would care about all the stupid, petty stuff that humans are way too involved in. Many religions seem to get that....that god is not really "human like" and does not care about what parts go in what holes. In the grand scheme of things, it just doesn't matter.

Also, what seems to be more of a Christian thing is the refusal to accept other beliefs and question their own. The Bible seems to be a great tool for getting people to not think for themselves.

I am not religious. I am a good person, however. I don't lie. I don't steal. I don't kill people. I volunteer my time to help others. I donate money to charities. I don't try to hurt people. I do all of that without religion.

Also, if religion really makes someone a "better" person, wouldn't they be helping others more instead of protesting stuff all of the time? Building houses for the poor seems like a better way to improve the world rather than protesting what people do in their bedrooms (and hopefully out of their bedrooms, too, so they can have some real fun!!!)

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[Vallerina 2]

I'm glad billvon quoted this:

Quote

> I’d then ask you to give me credible proof that homosexuality is, in
> fact, a trait that someone is born with.

I started this thread:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=719874#719874
Unfortunately, the story is no longer there. CNN seems to be pretty credible, though. I'll try to search for that story.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Method: Internal Evidence (Historical)

Definition: Credibility of the persons who wrote the text.

Evidence: 1. Eye-witnesses to the events that took place.
2. Respected and trusted authors.

3. Due to seriousness of claims, authors were obviously watched and examined by many for deviation from truth.

back this assertion up.

"obviously"??? no not at all, this is a circular argument, the 'respect and trust' of the authors is only accepted by believers, they are/were no more respected than any other literary figure (and that is all they are, as there is little to no actual evidence that backs their claims and observations, or verifies the events they describe from an unbiased, outside source. Find one outside source that documents the life and travels of your carpenter and his disciples that does not come from a believer. What you ‘accept’ as evidence of veracity is hearsay not evidence. Having "multiple' accounts is irrlevant if they are all using the same 'source' material to create their tales of worship and wonder.

perhaps you should look more into the literary analysis of your mythos, where simularilties in style and prose rrather convinvingly show that there existed a 'source' document for all your 'eye witness accounts'. But of course believers will claim the simularities in writing sytle and substance are coincidences rather than collective plagarism, and that the account were written 'shortly' (thus far shown in excess of 50-100+ years depending on the book) after the events supposedly ascribed took place.

your book of cultural mythos may be an interesting guide to get you through the times when you cant make ethical and moral decisions for yourself, but it is in no way anything more than the collected, edited, word of man, claiming divine inspiration, and there is no proof (following the rules of evidence, not those of your faith) that the men who claimed to witness the events described witnessed them, or that they actually occurred at all. You may have faith to that effect, but you cant back it with historically verifiable, scientific evidence.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I'm referring to holding up signs that say "You are going to hell" and "You are destroying America". Do those sound like actions that Jesus would have done?

No, Jesus might hold up a sign saying something like this.

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:8-9

Explanation quoted from NIV study Bible:
The delay of Christ’s return is related to the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to the whole world (Matthew 24:14). God wants everyone to hear the gospel and does not want anyone to perish eternally (1 Titus 2:4; see Ezekiel 33:11, note; Jonah 3:10). This truth does not mean that all will be saved, for if a person rejects God’s grace and salvation, then he or she remains lost.

“You’re destroying America seems political and out of the context of religion.” “You’re going to hell” is rather direct but the end result is the same as what I quoted above.

By the way, I happen to agree with their right to protest the "gay pride" whatever you want to call it but I don't necessarily agree with anyone just because they say they're a Christian. There are some people/organizations who misinterpret the Bible and fill in whatever fits their agenda. Many organizations have those kinds of people who decieve. Some Christian organizations are no exception. They are comprised of imperfect people just like all others.

[billvon 2,998]

>and there is no proof (following the rules of evidence, not those of
>your faith) that the men who claimed to witness the events described
> witnessed them, or that they actually occurred at all.

Not really true. There is ample evidence to show that Jesus did in fact live, and did many of the things described in the bible. There is historical evidence that he did rise sometime after he was buried, although (of course) there was no way to know if he was clinically dead when he was buried as we understand the term. There is evidence that something like the Deluge actually happened, evidence we didn't have 100 years ago.

Does that all mean that god did all that? Well, that's where faith comes in. The bible is a loosely accurate historical account of the early jews and the rise of christianity; a good deal of it is corroborated by other sources. It is not 100% accurate historically but it is accurate enough to recognize that it was certainly _based_ on verifiable historical events.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

That was directed at those who were taking actions that hurt other people. Did he condemn the prostitute the same way. I think he differentiated between those who sinned against other and those that sinned against themselves.

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus replied: “Love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments. Matthew 22:35-40

Assuming you believed in what the Bible says. You’d agree that not following the commandments without having accepted Jesus Christ as lord and savior will land you in hell, correct? The first and greatest commandment isn’t a sin against another person yet it will land you in hell just as fast as if you had killed someone and not repented. There is no difference in sin in the context of whether you will be condemned for it without the saving grace of God.

[Zenister 0]

really?

provide evidence of the sermon on the mount and miraculous feeding of the hungry masses?
please provide evidence of any of Jesus reported actions against moneylenders at the temple?
please show that a man named Jesus was even executed? by whom and what for?
his temptation by satan?
healing of lepers?
walking on water?
got a receipt for 30 pieces of silver somewhere?

id love to see the evidence you have for resurrection. I've never seen any that was more than hearsay, and i'd be really interested to see what qualifies as proof of the entire passion timeline...

there has always been corroborating evidence for biblical floods in other cultures mythos. that is a good example of a historically 'verifiable' event, however the biblical timeline leaves much to be desired and claiming 'the world' (when we know it certainly wasnt, or even a significant portion of even) flooded because of your angry divinity isn’t 'evidence' of a faith's veracity any more than claiming the sun rises because Ra pulls it through the sky every morning..

one of these is easy

all 'sources' that can be traced to his cult are discarded, biased 'sources' are not evidence. Basic historical evidence of an individual’s existence proves nothing other than a human of that name existed at that time. I can prove my uncle existed, i cant prove he cured my aunts cancer, even if she claims he did to this day...

there isn’t anywhere near as much evidence as christians claim, much of what is provided as 'evidence' is only historical hearsay continually repeated by believers. It has roughly the same veracity as those who claim a spaceship crashed in Roswell..

of course the believers know the truth

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Men and women were not physically designed to have missionary-position sex either; it just happens to work and we like it. We were designed for doggy-style. We weren't designed for oral sex either, but again, I suspect even religious people don't abstain from that just because 'it is just plain wrong' (which, biologically, it is.)

The male sexual organ is designed to work with the female sexual organ. You’re going to argue that? I’m not saying you can’t do other things with it. I’m just saying that it wasn’t “designed” to go up another guy’s butt. Sorry to be blunt but I guess I’ve got to. Two bolts won’t hold anything together unless there’s a hole they can screw into. That argument, however, was just one of many concerning why it’s just plain wrong.

Quote

I suspect that, like many heterosexuals, you find the concept of gay sex distasteful. No problem there, but that's not a sufficient basis to proscribe it, any more than someone who has a problem with missionary-style sex because "it's not natural" should have anything to say about your preference for it.

I’m not saying they can’t do what they want. That’s their business and I’m in no way saying that there’s “a sufficient basis to proscribe it.” I’m just saying that that kind of union is not legitimate in the context of marriage and shouldn’t be treated that way.

The most ideal and healthy setting to raise children is a family with two committed parents. So far we have erected artificial barriers to having such a home with two gay parents. Claiming that "a study says only heteros have good families" is like saying that "a study shows hydrogen cars can never work because there are none on the road." I am arguing that we should remove those artificial barriers; only then will two loving parents be able to raise their children in a normal household free from governmental interference.

Where is your poof that the most ideal and healthy setting to raise children is a family with two committed parents whether they be homosexual or not?

Quote

Was there a point that you looked at both men and women as sexually desireable, then consciously decided to choose women over men? Or were you just born that way?

Oh, I agree with you that I was born heterosexual and, therefore, some homosexuals might also be born with those tendencies. I’m just saying, in the context of using that argument to support gay marriage, where’s your proof?

Quote

So has slavery, until quite recently. Even the bible discusses the proper way to treat slaves. Doesn't make it OK.

Don’t really understand your comparison of the institution of marriage and slavery. I kind of know what you’re trying to get at but its apples and oranges. You’re kind of doing what you did with the abortion – children being killed in war comparison.

[Nightingale 0]

Where is your poof that the most ideal and healthy setting to raise children is a family with two committed parents whether they be homosexual or not?

where's your proof that he's wrong?

[billvon 2,998]

>that is a good example of a historically 'verifiable' event, however
> the biblical timeline leaves much to be desired and claiming 'the
> world' (when we know it certainly wasnt, or even a significant portion
> of even) flooded because of your angry divinity isn’t 'evidence' of a
> faith's veracity any more than claiming the sun rises because Ra
> pulls it through the sky every morning..

Of course. Like I said, it is not 100% accurate, and we have to apply the filter of our experiences to it. If you had lived 7000 years ago, and a flood came and covered every single thing you could see, leaving you adrift in the center of a sea 300 miles across, what would you conclude? Keep in mind that there were no GPS satellites, aircraft or even reliable maps at that point.

>all 'sources' that can be traced to his cult are discarded . . .

Well, heck, if you disregard the writings of all jewish and (later) christian writers of the time, much of the history of the middle east disappears! Reasonable historians take the facts that can be independently verified by other sources and assume they are likely correct.

Christian zealots claim the entire bible is literally true. Atheist extremists often claim none of it is. The truth is found between the two extremes.

>id love to see the evidence you have for resurrection. I've never
> seen any that was more than hearsay, and i'd be really interested
>to see what qualifies as proof of the entire passion timeline...

About as good as any other historical evidence of that time. Several accounts corroborate it. Was the timeline accurate? Probably not completely. It may have been two days, it may have been four.

[billvon 2,998]

>The male sexual organ is designed to work with the female sexual
>organ. You’re going to argue that?

Not at all, but it was not designed to be used backwards (i.e. missionary position.) You can use it in that unnatural manner, no problem - it even happens to work. But you are 'defying nature' by doing so, just as you defy nature in a hundred other ways (delaying having children through abstinence or birth control, using drugs to keep you healthier, going to hospitals to cure your sicknesses.) Again, just because all those things are unnatural is not a reason not to do them.

>Where is your poof that the most ideal and healthy setting to raise
> children is a family with two committed parents whether they be
> homosexual or not?

My own experiences watching children of all sorts grow up. A great many heterosexual couples have created abhorrent environments for children; the few homosexual parents I've known have created good environments for their children. There are way too few to get a big enough sample base to make a hard call though, since we currently forbid gay marriage in 99.99% of the country.

>Oh, I agree with you that I was born heterosexual and, therefore,
> some homosexuals might also be born with those tendencies. I’m
> just saying, in the context of using that argument to support gay
> marriage, where’s your proof?

Again, my own experiences and those of my friends. A skydiver friend of mine has told me that he never chose to be gay; his sex drive came about the same way mine did (i.e. it just happened) but he was attracted to men instead. I generally trust my experiences and the experiences of my friends more than I trust third hand stories.

>Don’t really understand your comparison of the institution of
> marriage and slavery.

You were claiming that marriage has always been that way and therefore it's OK. Slavery had always been that way, too. That means that "it's always been that way" is not a valid reason to keep doing it if it's wrong.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

>all 'sources' that can be traced to his cult are discarded . . .

Well, heck, if you disregard the writings of all jewish and (later) christian writers of the time, much of the history of the middle east disappears! Reasonable historians take the facts that can be independently verified by other sources and assume they are likely correct.

Christian zealots claim the entire bible is literally true. Atheist extremists often claim none of it is. The truth is found between the two extremes.

essentially you have to look at the agenda of the writer/source. Is it a event being recorded, or is it persuasive? does the author have a reason beyond documenting history/events as they occured? is he pushing a particular social, religious, or political view? Is he recording the story as he was told? by who and for what reason? what level of proof/evidence is created in each instance?

show one outside (ie non christian) source that supports the assertions in the gospels, and the actions of its principle characters.

Quote

If you had lived 7000 years ago, and a flood came and covered every single thing you could see, leaving you adrift in the center of a sea 300 miles across, what would you conclude? Keep in mind that there were no GPS satellites, aircraft or even reliable maps at that point.

well if i had the divine voice of god in my ear everyday as i was recording his words (and not mine mind you ) i'd assume he'd probably get the geography right...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 2,998]

>essentially you have to look at the agenda of the writer/source.

Of course. And things that are written by a biased source with no corroboration are extremely suspect. Things that are written by any source with corroboration are less suspect, and sources known to be relatively unbiased (and corroborated) are the most reliable of all.

>show one outside (ie non christian) source that supports the
>assertions in the gospels, and the actions of its principle characters.

Easy. From the Koran:

002.087 YUSUFALI: We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay!

061.006 YUSUFALI: And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"

From the Sanhedrin around 100AD:

"During the time of Passover they executed Yeshu (of Nazareth). An announcement was made for forty days before this saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) will be stoned in that he has practiced sorcery and deceived and led Israel astray. Let everyone who knows contrary, come and plead for his defense. But they found nothing in his defense and crucified him . . ."

>well if i had the divine voice of god in my ear everyday as i was
> recording his words (and not mine mind you ) i'd assume he'd
> probably get the geography right...

Well, if you had eaten a lot of mushrooms to gain enlightenment you might make a few mistakes . . .

I don't think the bible was written by god, or even that the bible was written by men used by god as writing implements. It was written by ordinary men who did the best they could with what they could see and understand. Much of the history and the facts they got wrong; but I believe they were errors in interpretation of what they saw since they did not understand the world the same way we do. They were not deliberate errors, and the errors such as they are overly a basically true story.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

So, this is just a question that came up when my coworker and I were discussing religion a few days ago. (We have many things we do not understand about religion...especially Christianity.)

As human beings we can't even comprehend the physical set up of our very own universe. There is no way that we can really understand what the edge of it is like....just how big it is....where other universes are....what lies between all the universes. Heck, we can't even understand much of what happens in our own world. When we think we finally understand something, other pieces of evidence come back frequently telling us we're wrong. If our minds can't even comprehend what's going on in the physical universe, how are we supposed to comprehend anything beyond that?

We’re not meant to know and understand everything.

Quote

If there is a god, nobody on this Earth understands them or their purpose. I doubt that if there is a god, they would really care if I lied to my boss about being sick, and I did as much work from home as I would at the office. It's technically a sin, but it doesn't hurt anybody, and I would actually hurt the planet less by not going into work. If there really is a god, I doubt they would care about all the stupid, petty stuff that humans are way too involved in. Many religions seem to get that....that god is not really "human like" and does not care about what parts go in what holes. In the grand scheme of things, it just doesn't matter.

We wouldn’t understand much at all concerning his purpose for our lives unless he didn’t give it to us in his written word, the Bible. The Bible clearly states that he does care even if all you’re doing is hurting yourself and nobody else. You’re right. It does make Christianity different from some other religions.

Quote

Also, what seems to be more of a Christian thing is the refusal to accept other beliefs and question their own. The Bible seems to be a great tool for getting people to not think for themselves.

“Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord.” Isaiah 1:18”

”Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15”

God didn’t want us not to think or to have “blind faith.”

Quote

I am not religious. I am a good person, however. I don't lie. I don't steal. I don't kill people. I volunteer my time to help others. I donate money to charities. I don't try to hurt people. I do all of that without religion.

”What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” Romans 3:9-12

Some here have made fun of it but I would challenge you to go to www.thewayofthemaster.com, answer “No” to the question of “Are you a Christian?” and take the 10 Commandments test to see how righteous you really are.

Quote

Also, if religion really makes someone a "better" person, wouldn't they be helping others more instead of protesting stuff all of the time? Building houses for the poor seems like a better way to improve the world rather than protesting what people do in their bedrooms (and hopefully out of their bedrooms, too, so they can have some real fun!!!)

Religion doesn’t necessarily make you a better person. See previous quote. Your works, however good they may be, do not make you righteous.

”For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

We’re not meant to know and understand everything.

Then how are you sure you even understand what God wants?

Quote

We wouldn’t understand much at all concerning his purpose for our lives unless he didn’t give it to us in his written word, the Bible.

All humans are prone to error. How do you know that every single person that wrote the Bible did so without error? It's been translated from its original language as well. How do you know that original meanings haven't been changed when error-making-humans translated it?

Quote

God didn’t want us not to think or to have “blind faith.”

I didn't say God did. Puritans definitely used the Bible as a tool to control the masses. Many other groups of people did as well.

Quote

Some here have made fun of it but I would challenge you to go to www.thewayofthemaster.com, answer “No” to the question of “Are you a Christian?” and take the 10 Commandments test to see how righteous you really are.

That's my main problem with it. There's no differentiation between lying to my parents when I was four about eating cookies and lying about something actually important. So, I have sinned just as badly as someone who has stolen a million dollars from a charity because I stole a candy bar from a store when I was 8. Common sense will tell you which one is worse, but they are equal sins. That's just silly. Plus, I never claimed I want to be righteous. I want to be a good person who helps more than I hurt. I wish more Christians would realize that if I'm not doing harm to anyone else, then all of their big signs will never change me.

Quote

Religion doesn’t necessarily make you a better person.

One thing we agree upon! Lack of religion doesn't necessarily make you a worse person either.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[pajarito 0]

Quote

show one outside (ie non christian) source that supports the assertions in the gospels, and the actions of its principle characters.

The Unwitting Testimony Of Unbelievers To The New Testament

“We add to this the testimony of unbelievers. Unwittingly, they have given testimony to the early composition of the New Testament. Speaking of Celsus, a man living in the second century who hated Christianity, Bishop Fallows writes: This unbeliever, although he caused great annoyance to the believers in Christ living in his day, and seemed to be disturbing the foundations of the Christian faith, rendered more real service to Christianity than any father of undisputed orthodoxy in the Church. He admits all the grand facts and doctrines of the gospel, as they were preached by the Apostles, and contained in the acknowledged writings, for the sake of opposing. He makes in his attacks eighty quotations from the New Testament, and appeals to it as containing the sacred writings of Christians, universally received by them as credible and Divine. He is, therefore, the very best witness we can summon to prove that the New Testament was not written hundreds of years after the Apostles were dust; but in less than a century and a half had been received by the Christian Church all over the world. He expressly quotes both the synoptic Gospels, as they were termed (the first three Gospels), and the Gospel of St. John” (Bishop Fallows, Mistakes of Ingersoll and His Answers, pp. 91,92).

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Where is your poof that the most ideal and healthy setting to raise children is a family with two committed parents whether they be homosexual or not?

where's your proof that he's wrong?

Are you acting as defense counsel for Billvon now?

I would think, since it is part of the homosexual movement's agenda to change the definition of marriage to include them, that the burdon of proof would be in their court. That is, if they're going to use that argument to give support to their cause.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

part of the homosexual movement's agenda

The agenda, from the e-mails that I pirate, is mostly about the encouragement of the use of hair gel amongst heterosexual men at this point.

The kid raising stuff comes after the proper use of beauty products.