Miss Beverly Hills Thinks God Wants Gays Put to Death

[fasted3 0]

  Quote

>Those who do can recipirocate this respect by keeping their personal lives to themselves . . .

One sentence later:

>Many "wonderful people" also engage in immoral straight sex (I did once)

Why do you advocate that which you cannot be bothered to do yourself?

It's ok to talk about that. The ones he wants respect from are those who engage in 'queer sex.'

But what do I know?

[Ion01 2]

  Quote

  Quote

Homosexuality is morally wrong

Even by OT standards, there isn't anything at all wrong with homosexuality. There's nothing in there that says it's morally right or wrong to be either heterosexual or homosexual. There's just a bunch of tripe about where, when, how, and with whom it's okay to have sex.

Edit to add example:

OT says adultery is wrong
heterosexuals commit adultery
therefore:
heterosexuality is morally wrong?

You have obviously never read the bible! How about 1 cor 6:9 for starters?

As for miss beverly hills: there are extremists everywhere and we don't live under the old testament and there are actually numerous things that were wrong in the old testament that aren't anymore. For one you had to be a jew, also you couldn't eat certain unclean things, and if a woman, even in defense, grabbed a mans balls her hand was to be cut off. Jesus came to fulfill the old testament/will and bring a new one. Once the requirements of a will or testament have been met or fullfilled it is no longer in effect. It works that way even today. Technically, we don't even live by the ten commandments anymore. Ever read the sermon on the mount?
And, as stated earlier, gay people are no more a sinner than any other sinner and that includes me becuase I have sinned too and obviously will again no matter how hard I try.
This is also an example of why freedom is so important. If we are to make law based on religion then we end up with the opposite kinds of nuts in power like we have now. Instead of putting gays to death for religion they were put to death for not being evolved, as were many others, in the past. I don't want some government trying to tell me what I can and can't believe and how I must act so why should I want some government to do that to someone else? If you want to know what I believe I will tell you and why, and if I want to know what you beleive I will ask you. thats as far as it should go.
Either way, religious or athiest extremist who don't want freedom will take us to the same place.
The government should stick to the constitution and leave us alone. The government was established to protect our freedoms (which the government didn't give us by the way) not to restrict them or "protect" us from ourselves! If I want to be fat then I will be fat and I will have to pay for it either with increase medical cost or whatever.....but its my decision. Its my life. I am not effecting anyone elses freedoms! Maybe, like skydiving, I decided the payoff for being fat is worth the risk! What if I want to drive without my seat belt and kill myself. Its just me! Its my life! I am not effecting anyone elses freedoms. What if I want to drive drunk. I haven't effect anyone elses freedoms. Once I do then I should be so severly punished that I would have never even considered driving drunk but the very act of driving drunk is not effecting anyone elses freedom! (I don't even drink by the way....never tasted an achoholic drink in my life.) For goodness sakes. You can take away someone right to life (murder them) and only get a few years in jail or just claim insanity and just get "treatment" but the government thinks the problem is that there isn't enough gun regulations! Only the law abiding people follow them! Why not murder? The ramification aren't that bad......
Anyways, the point is we are supposed to be free. That even means the freedom to be gay and if you want to contract with another gay person what does the government have to do with that anyways? Besides, isn't marriage a religious institution anyways, so what the government involved with that for anyways. If it just a contract then its just a contract and the only thing the government can do is enforce a binding contract. Where does the government get the right to decide who can contract with who and for what? Why does a court get to decide that a contract is no longer binding and the ramifations not be binding when one party breaks the contractual agreement (someone cheats in a marriage and get custody of the kids and half of the stuff)? If you break any contract you are subject to the full ramifactions of that contract.....unless we call it a marriage!
Anyways, I am done.

[Ion01 2]

  Quote

There's plenty of outlets on both sides.

The thing is: Fundy Atheists and Fundy Christians are both assholes.

They spout their crap & expect the other side to bend over & take it.

I have no problem with Christian or Muslims. I have a BIG problem when they use their religion as an excuse to act like assholes.

Similarly, I have no problem with atheists. I have a BIG problem when they use their Atheist beliefs to act like assholes.

Funny thing is, I being the religious (what some would consider very religious) agree. Although, I do find something quite ironic. If you are athiest, and particularly, believe in evolution it should be expected that you are a jerk as your only "moral" is survival of the fittest. On the other side, however, we have the religious (with the exception of muslim extremist and other such religious extremist) claim to want to save people and that christ is about love and mercy so they want to force thier beliefs on people through regulation of morality (which the funny thing is that is where hitler started and was praised for have the most moral society) when, in fact, the religious should be the largest advocates of freedom. Athiest should be against freedom the most as government is for the most fit or evolved as so they can move evolution forward (also hitler and his death camps and super race).
So once again, no freedom leads to the same place.

[Ion01 2]

Interestingly, for those who don't know, hitler got his ideas for such things as the camps from the united states and eugenics. People deemed unfit were made sterile by the government and when hitler started doing what he was doing a congressman or senator (forget which one and don't want to look it up so look it up yourself) said that germany was beating the US at its own game! When many were put on trial for the camps they cited the united states to show the hippocracy in prosecuting them.

[billvon 3,073]

>If you are athiest, and particularly, believe in evolution it should be
>expected that you are a jerk as your only "moral" is survival of the fittest.

Which is akin to saying that if you are a Catholic and you believe the Bible you'd want gays put to death. Not true in most cases on either side.

>Athiest should be against freedom the most as government is for the
>most fit or evolved as so they can move evolution forward (also hitler and
>his death camps and super race).

And the religious just want to kill nonbelievers (Pope Urban II, the many Crusades) and enslave the rest (the religious arguments for slavery in America.) But again, most religious types have managed to move beyond that.

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

  Quote

There's plenty of outlets on both sides.

The thing is: Fundy Atheists and Fundy Christians are both assholes.

They spout their crap & expect the other side to bend over & take it.

I have no problem with Christian or Muslims. I have a BIG problem when they use their religion as an excuse to act like assholes.

Similarly, I have no problem with atheists. I have a BIG problem when they use their Atheist beliefs to act like assholes.

Funny thing is, I being the religious (what some would consider very religious) agree..
.
.
.
So once again, no freedom leads to the same place.

funny thing is - I, being rather agnostic, (what some would consider very apathetic on the subject) agree..)


so once again, fundamentalism of any stripe leads to the same place (less freedom)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jclalor 12]

  Quote

Even by OT standards, there isn't anything at all wrong with homosexuality. There's nothing in there that says it's morally right or wrong to be either heterosexual or homosexual. There's just a bunch of tripe about where, when, how, and with whom it's okay to have sex.

A swing and a miss.

"In Leviticus it says, 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.'

  Quote

What if I want to drive without my seat belt and kill myself. Its just me! Its my life! I am not effecting anyone elses freedoms.

When my tax dollars have to pay to have your ass cut out of your car, I have an issue.

  Quote

***What if I want to drive drunk. I haven't effect anyone elses freedoms. Once I do then I should be so severly punished that I would have never even considered driving drunk but the very act of driving drunk is not effecting anyone elses freedom!

(I don't even drink by the way....never tasted an achoholic drink in my life.)

Please never start drinking.


!

  Quote

Why not murder? The ramification aren't that bad......

Outside of the legal ramifications, I would hope your mega Christian moral compass would help you out.

[Ion01 2]

So why should your tax dollars be used to cut me out of a car and not my insurance or my money? Why should my tax dollars be used to rescue you from the bottom of a canyon you base jumped into? The point is that other people shouldn't pay (though the government) for your or my mistakes and choices. You know there are some places that make people pay for the rescue in cases where its deemed neglegant. People like to spend others money. Why have insurance when the government (other people) will pay for you to get cut out of your vehicle and you will get full medical treatment because the government requires you be treated. Why be responsible and make your house payments and not get into to much debt when the government will just pay the difference on your house?

I won't ever drink by the way, and the possibility of taking my or someone else life is large enough consequenses for me to not drink and drive....or drink at all.

And yes, I would never murder no matter what the law say just like I will never drink much less drink and drive. But not everyone agrees with me and shouldn't have to. So some people decided that if they murder someone the payoff is worth it because they get a "free gym membership", a warm place to sleep with clean sheets, don't have to work, and get free meals for a couple of years.....their life was in shambles anyways. But on the other hand when someone defends our country and kills someone while doing that they are convicted because information was kept out of the court and is sentenced for 20 years. This is the problem!

[jakee 1,563]

  Quote

Although, I do find something quite ironic. If you are athiest, and particularly, believe in evolution it should be expected that you are a jerk as your only "moral" is survival of the fittest.

Except... no.

Evolution is just what happens. By accepting evolution you're not buying into any moral code, you're just recognising reality.

Saying otherwise is like saying if you believe in gravity you must think it is immoral to go up.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 4]

  Quote

If you are athiest, and particularly, believe in evolution it should be expected that you are a jerk as your only "moral" is survival of the fittest.

That's a ridiculous assumption. Some atheists believe they that since they are responsible for their own actions and can't simply be "saved" by believing in god, then they have the moral responsibility not to hurt people in the first place.

This is opposed to murderers in prison that believe they are "forgiven" simply because they've "found god." Something I think is pure horse shit.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ion01 2]

  Quote

  Quote

Although, I do find something quite ironic. If you are athiest, and particularly, believe in evolution it should be expected that you are a jerk as your only "moral" is survival of the fittest.

Except... no.

Evolution is just what happens. By accepting evolution you're not buying into any moral code, you're just recognising reality.

Saying otherwise is like saying if you believe in gravity you must think it is immoral to go up.

Not to get into evolution verse creation thing and the supposed "science" of evolution but, yes, by accepting evolution you are not accepting a moral code....why? because there is no morality. The only law is survival of the fittest. Morals are contrary to this idea. Keeping the people with genes for cancer alive to spead it is contrary to evolution. Keeping the metally retarded around is contrary. To help someone weaker than you is contrary as you are more fit so evolution demands you not help or you are fighting against "reality". If you are the most fit then why can't you murder, that is what has gotten us to be the most advanced species is because we could kill all the others! The death camps are logical what evolution requires for the human race to advance. You must clean the gene pool just as you do in race horses. Its no different. We are all just animals and if you can kill an animal then you can kill eachother.....its what will cause the advancement of our race and lets face it......if the end result is to advance our species so there are no more retarded people or cancer or desease then its a good thing. The end justifies the means! Its for the greater good. There is no other logical conclusion. There is no other way.....its just recongizing reality! Reality is tats going to happen slow or we can just speed it up....or we can claim there this thing called morality which fights against evolution...... just recognize reality.........

[quade 4]

  Quote

Not to get into evolution verse creation thing and the supposed "science" of evolution but, yes, by accepting evolution you are not accepting a moral code....why? because there is no morality.

Pure bull shit.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,563]

  Quote

The only law is survival of the fittest. Morals are contrary to this idea. Keeping the people with genes for cancer alive to spead it is contrary to evolution. Keeping the metally retarded around is contrary. To help someone weaker than you is contrary as you are more fit so evolution demands you not help or you are fighting against "reality".

Except, once again, evolution is not a moral code. Evolution is not a set of instructions on how to live your life. Evolution demands nothing from you. If you accept evolution, you don't need to take it upon yourself to try and further human evolution.

Evolution is simply what happens.

  Quote

You must clean the gene pool just as you do in race horses.

Why?

Why must I?

  Quote

There is no other logical conclusion.

I don't think you even know what the word means.

  Quote

Reality is tats going to happen slow or we can just speed it up

Reality is that gravity's going to push you down sooner or later, so why not just throw yourself down a hole?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,073]

> Why should my tax dollars be used to rescue you from the bottom of
> a canyon you BASE jumped into?

Because not even the most callous conservative would let a 12 year old girl die in the street if she couldn't pay for her own care - even if it was her fault she was playing in the street to begin with.

>Why have insurance when the government (other people) will pay for you
>to get cut out of your vehicle and you will get full medical treatment
>because the government requires you be treated.

No, because human beings have something called "compassion." It is ironic indeed that religious conservatives often argue against any public expression of this moral imperative.

[DJL 235]

  Quote

If you don't believe in God and take no interest in the Church, that's fine. But if you feel the need to offer rebuttal every time someone says something nice about the Bible you might want to examine your own attitude.

The title and thus context of the thread is: "Miss Beverly Hills Thinks God Wants Gays Put to Death"

I do realize that this isn't the pure context of your statement but I'd like to take this back to the big picture.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[labrys 0]

  Quote

A swing and a miss.

"In Leviticus it says, 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.'

The swing and the miss are all yours. I'll try to dumb it down a bit:

The quote from Leviticus condemns a sexual act, not innate sexuality. It doesn't say 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman or desires to lie with mankind'

Homosexuality exists independent of action, just as heterosexuality does.

Owned by Remi #?

[Airman1270 0]

  Quote

>Those who do can recipirocate this respect by keeping their personal lives to themselves . . .

One sentence later:

>Many "wonderful people" also engage in immoral straight sex (I did once)

Perfect.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

You really thought this throwaway comment was worthy of rebuttal?

I was talking about the ongoing effort to bring the whole gay thing topic to our attention in the first place. Barring total media fasting, it has been damn near impossible in the past 20+ years to go 3-4 consecutive days without the issue of homosexuality being brought to our attention.

One example: In the mid-1990's a woman applied for a job with the Georgia state Attorney General's office. During the interview process she volunteered that she was a lesbian. (Nobody asked.) She eventually did not get the job, then sued, claiming "discrimination."

She eventually lost, but caused much social upheaval and uneeded waste of legal resources. All because she approached the matter not as an issue of her own lack of judgement, but as some sort of bigotry because she sticks her tongue in the same place I like to stick mine.

Suppose I mentioned these things in a job interview, then didn't get hired. How many lawyers would be lining up to bring my case to court?

Cheers,
Jon

• Quote

[billvon 3,073]

>You really thought this throwaway comment was worthy of rebuttal?

Apparently you thought it worthy of rebuttal!

You stated that you want people to keep their personal lives to themselves, and then one sentence later posted aspects of your personal life on a public board to win an argument. Do you really not see the irony there?

>Barring total media fasting, it has been damn near impossible in the
>past 20+ years to go 3-4 consecutive days without the issue of
>homosexuality being brought to our attention.

That's 3-4 more days than people go on here without bringing up the topic of their heterosexuality. Why don't you complain about that? Why the double standard?

>In the mid-1990's a woman applied for a job with the Georgia state
>Attorney General's office. During the interview process she volunteered
>that she was a lesbian. (Nobody asked.) She eventually did not get the
>job, then sued, claiming "discrimination."

Yep. People sue when they don't get hired. They claim it's because they are christian, female, black, lesbian, white and muslim. Heck, white students claim discrimination all the time; they feel that black students are given an unfair advantage. There's even a "National Alliance Against Christian Discrimination!"

Are these evidence that Christians, whites, females etc are a bunch of whiners?

>but as some sort of bigotry because she sticks her tongue in the same
>place I like to stick mine.

So you want us to keep our personal lives to ourselves, but you also want to get on line and discuss what sort of sexual acts you enjoy to win an Internet argument? Think about what you just did before you condemn others for doing the same.

>Suppose I mentioned these things in a job interview, then didn't get
>hired. How many lawyers would be lining up to bring my case to court?

Well, lawyers from the National Alliance Against Christian Discrimination might take you up on it. A few years ago I served on a jury where a guy was suing a woman for sexual discrimination; he said she made him "feel bad" in the workplace when they broke up. His employer eventually fired him. Give him a call; I'm sure he can give you the number of his lawyer.

[Amazon 7]

  Quote

I was talking about the ongoing effort to bring the whole gay thing topic to our attention in the first place. Barring total media fasting, it has been damn near impossible in the past 20+ years to go 3-4 consecutive days without the issue of homosexuality being brought to our attention.

OMG>>>>>>>THE FAIRYS ARE COMING>>>>> THE FAIRYS ARE COMING..... HIDE YOUR CHILDREN

[jclalor 12]

  Quote

  Quote

A swing and a miss.

"In Leviticus it says, 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.'

  Quote

The swing and the miss are all yours. I'll try to dumb it down a bit:

The quote from Leviticus condemns a sexual act, not innate sexuality. It doesn't say 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman or desires to lie with mankind'

Homosexuality exists independent of action, just as heterosexuality does.

This verse and most others make no mention if the "deed" was done.

Kings 1
Jehoshaphat "did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord" and "took" the homosexuals (sodomites) "out of the land," or as the RSV says, "he exterminated" them. 22:43, 46

This is how God shows he loves the sinner but hates the sin?

[mnealtx 0]

  Quote

This is how God shows he loves the sinner but hates the sin?

Old Testament vs. New Testament. Nice try.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jclalor 12]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

This is how God shows he loves the sinner but hates the sin?

Old Testament vs. New Testament. Nice try.

Whats the difference? Jesus said he was here to fulfill the old law.

Matthew 5:17-18
Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

[Ion01 2]

  Quote

  Quote

Not to get into evolution verse creation thing and the supposed "science" of evolution but, yes, by accepting evolution you are not accepting a moral code....why? because there is no morality.

Pure bull shit.

Wow! you have convinced me with your sound logic and facts!

[Andy9o8 2]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

Not to get into evolution verse creation thing and the supposed "science" of evolution but, yes, by accepting evolution you are not accepting a moral code....why? because there is no morality.

Pure bull shit.

Wow! you have convinced me with your sound logic and facts!

I was actually going to give much the same type of summarily dismissive response, but Quade beat me to it. Is it because we're inadequate to the task? Hardly. But as anyone who, for examples, raised small children and dealt with their intransigence in irrational contrast to all logic and reason, there are some types of arguments that are so completely bizarre and off-the-wall that it's obviously pointless to even try arguing with. Yours, for example.

[pirana 0]

[replyY'know I've never understood this hostility to "fundamentalism" The word simply means basic or essential. Would you fly with a pilot who did not respect the fundamentals of powered flight?

Cheers,
Jon