Page: ...
KyrianDreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England


Posted:
I've started to notice a new trend, at least in america. People are starting to tell their children (and aquantinces, whatever) that there is nothing wrong with homosexuals. They are regular human beings, should be treated like it, and deserve all (well, ok, most) of the rights of a normal human being. Their (children, friends) should treat homosexuals as such.

But said (child/friend/aquantince) should not be a homosexual themselves, b/c it is not ok for them to be homosexual, just, "other people."

Anyone else seeing this? What do you think?

At the very least, I've noticed that it means the kids are still afraid of their own desires.

Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
*shakes Coleman*

Dude! Clean out your PM box so I can send this!! I have tried 3 times now!

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


preambledmember
53 posts
Location: auckland


Posted:
quote:
The wonderfull thing here is, I dont have to give you a reason why it is moral outside of religion. If you truly want to play that way, is murder moral, outside of religious text?
You don't have to do anything. I thought you might want to. We are discussing the new homophobia, right? I am seeking reasons for its existence outside of a religious context. When I saw you post your viewpoint that it is immoral outside of biblical reasoning, I wanted to discuss that with you.

Murder is immoral in the eyes of, I would guess, approximately 99% of the world, because I can only imagine the occasional murderer thinking their actions justified. Seeking a comparison between murder and sexuality is absurd, however. The outcome of murder is the death of a person. The outcome of homosexuality, in your view, is what? Again, I suggest that all consentual human sexuality is amoral. I'd love to hear your reasoning as to why you disagree.

I get the feeling you believe homosexuality is harmful in some way. If so, please elaborate. The supposed increased risk in STD transmission is no argument - if you are going to suggest homosexuality is immoral because it is merely more dangerous than heterosexuality, then you would have to stop the entire world engaging in sexual relations, thus preventing the spread of any STD.

I do not mean to put words in your mouth there - I'm only speculating.

quote:
If I walked over to my roommate, and just hauled off and hit him would that be okay? I mean he has pissed me off alot latly and damn I do just want to hit him, I know it would feel good.

By your definition, that is okay. I mean it would feel good so why not do it?

No, by my definition that is most definitely not ok. I am not promoting blatant hedonism. The difference between you hitting someone and two persons of the same sex sharing intimacy is vast. One involves hurt. If your roommate was begging you to hit him - that would be different. Once more I feel that these comparisons suggest that you feel homosexuality is harmful - how so?

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
quote:
You don't have to do anything. I thought you might want to. We are discussing the new homophobia, right? I am seeking reasons for its existence outside of a religious context. When I saw you post your viewpoint that it is immoral outside of biblical reasoning, I wanted to discuss that with you.
Well... you know I did want to discuss it, but since I started getting attacked... hrm let me give you an example of what I mean.

This was kindly said by Soldari

quote:
You Phule!

Have you ever thought for a minute that God isn't the one who wrote the Bible*, and that these are stories, not History, and that in reality God never punished people (except the people who beleived they where being punished by God, but that's an entirely different story). It's been acknowledged and all...


Ya well... when I start recieving comments like that I stop wanting to debate and then go on the deffencive.


quote:
I am seeking reasons for its existence outside of a religious context. When I saw you post your viewpoint that it is immoral outside of biblical reasoning, I wanted to discuss that with you
I have said my piece on it, as far as I am concered there is nothing to discuss.

quote:
Seeking a comparison between murder and sexuality is absurd, however. The outcome of murder is the death of a person. The outcome of homosexuality, in your view, is what?
The outcome for an unrepented homosexual is eternal death. In my opinion.

quote:
Again, I suggest that all consentual human sexuality is amoral. I'd love to hear your reasoning as to why you disagree.

Outside of marrage, it is immoral, between two members of the same sex, it is immoral. Why do I believe this, I turn once again to my religion.

quote:
I get the feeling you believe homosexuality is harmful in some way. If so, please elaborate.
I allready have, go back and read.


quote:
I do not mean to put words in your mouth there - I'm only speculating.
Dont speculate, pretend your a lawyer in a court, speculation just doent hold up. (I anit bitchin at you, just a suggestion)

quote:
No, by my definition that is most definitely not ok. I am not promoting blatant hedonism. The difference between you hitting someone and two persons of the same sex sharing intimacy is vast. One involves hurt. If your roommate was begging you to hit him - that would be different.
Okay... it was a streatch of "if it feels good do it" but still why should you say its cool for one case and not for another?

quote:
Once more I feel that these comparisons suggest that you feel homosexuality is harmful - how so?
Once again, I have given two reasons, go back and read. I am not going to give any more, if that explination isnt sufficiant, I suggest that you use your own brain to think of some, or talk to other people.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


preambledmember
53 posts
Location: auckland


Posted:
quote:
Outside of marrage, it is immoral, between two members of the same sex, it is immoral. Why do I believe this, I turn once again to my religion.
Oh. You see, at one point in this conversation, you said..

quote:
If a man loves another man as if he would want to take that man as a mate (bride just wouldnt be the right word there), that is wrong. Why is it wrong, with out using the Bible, in my opinion man and man were never physically designed to love eachother like that.
.. and I thought by saying that you were providing your reasons for feeling that homosexuality is immoral outside a religious scope (which is what you were asked to do). It appears that you were merely setting the bible aside though, not your religious beliefs.

So, really, we have nothing to talk about. I accept that you believe homosexuality is immoral, because you believe it purely from a religious standing.

quote:
Okay... it was a streatch of "if it feels good do it" but still why should you say its cool for one case and not for another?
Well, you've already answered this for me. You believe religiously that the outcome of homosexuality is negative. If I believed the same as you, I would agree that both hitting your roommate and homosexual activity were immoral.

quote:
I am not going to give any more, if that explination isnt sufficiant, I suggest that you use your own brain to think of some, or talk to other people.
Gee, thanks, I guess I'll try to engage my brain some.

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
quote:

posted 09 August, 2003 01:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outside of marrage, it is immoral, between two members of the same sex, it is immoral. Why do I believe this, I turn once again to my religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh. You see, at one point in this conversation, you said..


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a man loves another man as if he would want to take that man as a mate (bride just wouldnt be the right word there), that is wrong. Why is it wrong, with out using the Bible, in my opinion man and man were never physically designed to love eachother like that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what your saying is that everytime I mention one reason I dont agree with something, I have to mention every other reason as well? It agrivates me that you just cant put two and two together.

quote:
.. and I thought by saying that you were providing your reasons for feeling that homosexuality is immoral outside a religious scope (which is what you were asked to do). It appears that you were merely setting the bible aside though, not your religious beliefs.

Actually I was asked to do with out the Bible. Either way I have listed my reasons, what difference does it make? What are your reasons for saying its right?

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay... it was a streatch of "if it feels good do it" but still why should you say its cool for one case and not for another?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you've already answered this for me. You believe religiously that the outcome of homosexuality is negative. If I believed the same as you, I would agree that both hitting your roommate and homosexual activity were immoral.

The "if it feels good, do it" theory isnt about morality.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not going to give any more, if that explination isnt sufficiant, I suggest that you use your own brain to think of some, or talk to other people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee, thanks, I guess I'll try to engage my brain some.
Why should I give you all the answers to life? Why should I be asked to explain myself, when you dodge my questions asking you to explain yourself. Not one of you has told me why homosexuality is fine. Sorry but "it dont hurt nobody" just doesnt cut it. 9 times out of 10 drug use doesnt hurt anybody but the user, it doesnt make it right.
If you really want to know the effects I am sure you can find them on the net or Mike can tell us.


Coleman... please empty that inbox of yours!

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


preambledmember
53 posts
Location: auckland


Posted:
quote:
So what your saying is that everytime I mention one reason I dont agree with something, I have to mention every other reason as well? It agrivates me that you just cant put two and two together.
... Um, no? Where did i say that? You don't have to patronise me, either. I was saying exactly what I said, maybe you're reading too much into my responses.

quote:
What are your reasons for saying its right?
I don't have any, because as I've said several times now, I don't think it's right or wrong. Amoral. If you want my reasoning for why I believe that, feel free to ask.

quote:
The "if it feels good, do it" theory isnt about morality.
Ok, what is it about then?

quote:
Why should I give you all the answers to life?
You haven't given me any. I am merely curious about the logic you use to arrive at your conclusions regarding the immorality of homosexuality. I think we're just about done, now that it's established as purely spiritual reasoning. (Do you agree?)

quote:
Why should I be asked to explain myself, when you dodge my questions asking you to explain yourself. Not one of you has told me why homosexuality is fine.
I've just done that (partially, at least) above. I wasn't aware that I'd sidestepped any other questions. Please ask me them again if that is the case.

quote:
Sorry but "it dont hurt nobody" just doesnt cut it. 9 times out of 10 drug use doesnt hurt anybody but the user, it doesnt make it right.
I would say that "it dont hurt nobody" and "doesnt hurt anybody but the user" are two entirely different things. I'm also completely in support of careful drug use by informed adults. Just wondering, do you consider alcohol to be a drug?

quote:
If you really want to know the effects I am sure you can find them on the net or Mike can tell us.
Effects of what? Drug use? Do you mean statistics on fatalities or something? Sorry, not certain what this is in reference to!

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
I have explained myself as much as I am willing to. Your just going to have to go at it alone from here. Unless you actually have something constructive to add... then I will be more than happy to keep debating.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


preambledmember
53 posts
Location: auckland


Posted:
quote:
Originally posted by Raymund Phule:
Unless you actually have something constructive to add... then I will be more than happy to keep debating.
Unless I have something constructive to add?

... No, you know what, I'm quite happy not debating with someone who acts in such a condescending manner.


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
*laughs and adds a little check mark next to his name* Ray 1 HOP 0



Thank you

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


DentrassiGOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia


Posted:
Wow!! i think we should change the topic name to 'The Smoking Keyboards.' i was sure i saw a triple quote somewhere, where someone was quoting someone else who was quoting the original person who was quoting someone else....ahhh my brain hurts!

"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
Ya, Malcolm really needs to put a spell checker on here, and yes somtimes my brian moves onto the next word before my fingers get done with the current. You should see some of the interesting ways you can spell words haha

quote:

posted 10 August, 2003 01:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What shroes are refering to, where in the hell were you... hahaha WTF??

Your insaine! How long ago did Christianity arrive on what shores? How old were you? Were you even alive, if not how in the friggin world do you know how things were? My word I have never read anything so damn funny.


Now, I am going to try to be polite here, Frosty, you are a moron! I'm not just calling you names, I mean it.

You have no basis for what your saying, your just trying to put down something that you dont understand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a man who can't even spell archaeologist that's pretty ****ing rich.

Have you heard of archaeology? Do you understand/know that there is history beyond the bible and that people have been on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years? That christianity didn't always exist?

Probably not if you believe in The Creation - ask the american indians in your own country - they've also experienced your views on what is a righteous killing and how to force a religion upon a whole nation, and various middle east countries.

you are NOT in any situation to claim victory or superior morals.

If you find this a little confusing someone will help - but if you look at the bottom of my posts it tells you where I live - the UK - christianity came here with the Romans and was enforced on the local people who were killed if they didn't denounce their old religions.

Again it's ok to kill people who aren't christian and righteous so that's ok eh?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*laughs and adds a little check mark next to his name* Ray 1 HOP 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wouldn't bet on that. Your views here could quite happily be used against you, and i'd suspect have changed a lot of people's opinion of you

It's certainly shown how much of a good "christian" you are... go read your bible about how you should treat others and have another little think about sin.

Awww did I find a button? Did I piss you off some how? You do seem angry. How does it feel to be on the recieving end of a $hit sandwhich for a change? Not exactly fun to have to defend yourself is it?

quote:
Have you heard of archaeology? Do you understand/know that there is history beyond the bible and that people have been on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years? That christianity didn't always exist?
Actually, archaeology, and archaeologists have proven the Bible right every time they have set out to prove it wrong. Did you know that pilars IE stone colums, have been found with names of Kings, on them. No big deal right... untill you look at the Bible, where, (comma pause for effect) they appear in the exact same order. Now before the finding, there had been no historical proof that the Bible told the truth about said Kings. Guess what, science has just proven the Bible right.

Will science ever prove what really happend in the creation of our planet and universe. I dont see it happening. Outside of religious explination there is just no way to prove what happend back when written language didnt exist, or back before the creation of man. There is just no undeniable record of what happend. That is if you use only science.

Many, if not all, religions tell about the creation of their people. Fewer tell of the creation of the whole planet. What is right and what is wrong, thats is for you to decide.


Hmm how to disprove science:

Carbon dating (this one isnt too hard): Scientists have used this tool as if it were cold hard fact. What they do is they mesure the amount of radiation that has escaped from an object throughout time.
Flaw 1. How do they know how much radiation existed in said object?

Flaw 2. How do they know that the specific object they are measuring wasing sitting in a place that for some reason drew the radiation from it more rapidly than other places.

There are more but those are pretty big holes.


Big Bang: (the easiest to disprove)

Flaw 1. An singuler explosion can push matter together in an area that has no limits. The items in an explosion would keep going in an outward patterin into infinity.

Flaw 2. What caused this explosion, where did the nessisary ingredients come from?

Primordial ooze:

Flaw 1. Oxygen needed for all life on this planet in one form or another, is also a corrosive. IE look at rust on your little brothers bike, look at the way bodies decompose, it is all due to the fault of oxidation, or oxygen stripping away whatever it is that was once there.

Now, how can life be created in an enviroment that also destroys it? Answer: it cant!

Any other theories you want to add?

There is no history beyond the Bible that can be proven. Sorry, it doesnt exist outside of theory. Theory does not prove anything because it is untested, the Bible has been put under more tests than all of the Harverd Law students combined. It has yet to fail!


quote:
Probably not if you believe in The Creation - ask the american indians in your own country - they've also experienced your views on what is a righteous killing and how to force a religion upon a whole nation, and various middle east countries.

you are NOT in any situation to claim victory or superior morals.

If you find this a little confusing someone will help - but if you look at the bottom of my posts it tells you where I live - the UK - christianity came here with the Romans and was enforced on the local people who were killed if they didn't denounce their old religions.

Yep, unfortunatly mankind does get some stupid ideas in their heads. And the Church (not the Bible) has seen its share of corruption, kinda like what the Muslim Extreamests are going though now.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not one of you has told me why homosexuality is fine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The whole point.... raymond.... is that noone should have to.

Tis very simple. Would you ask someone to explain why a man having female friends is fine? It's a ridiculous question.

So is asking why is homosexuality fine.

Then why in the world was I asked to explain myself? Why should I be put on the spot just because you and I dont share the same opinion? Huh? Riddle me that Batman!

quote:
I wouldn't bet on that. Your views here could quite happily be used against you, and i'd suspect have changed a lot of people's opinion of you

It's certainly shown how much of a good "christian" you are... go read your bible about how you should treat others and have another little think about sin.
Ohh you have intrigued me, how would someone use my views against me? My views have never been a secret. I view abortion under all circumstance to be murder, premeditated I might add. I view homosexuality as immoral and a sin.

I however, am not perfect and yes I do need to read my Bible more. Perhaps you should start.


Finally someone who shows real emotion, and doesnt wear a facade of happy dappy BS!

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


DentrassiGOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia


Posted:
hmmmmm. interesting views....when the topic drifts onto science i feel the need to post....

carbon dating is a great discussion. the trouble is that when carbon dating actually surports historical records - the dead sea scrolls are a great example - everyone embraces it and says its wonderful. however when the dating does not match up - such as the shroud of turin - the test of which said it was dated approx 1000AD (i think), the technology is condemned as groundless by religion.

the thing that is often said about physical and quantum chemistry, is the more that you understand it, the more you realise you dont. its an incredibly complicated subject ive studied for three years, and its a big call to make about carbon dating. i dont believe its perfect, but it has been independantly proved - often on egyptian remains whose dates are precisely known. in this case archeology has proven aspects of the bible - particularly the egyptians (they were fanatical time and record keepers). if carbon dating, egpytian history, and biblical texts appear to agree, its a bit hard to disprove carbon dating.

in reference to the big bang (funnily enough, a concept originally suggested by belgian priest Georges Lemaitre). sure it is a theory. theres lots of evidence that doesnt prove it beyond belief, but it IS interesting.
to me, im not convinced by either creationist or big bang theory. i havent been blown away by the proof for either.

well, i seem to have drifted off homophobia, but bringing science into it has opened up a different angle.

back to homophobia and requoting each other multiple times!! enjoy Wow! what that an entire post without an insult??

"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
hrm... subject change again hehe

Sorry all theorys of evoloution have holes, I may not be the one to explain them but they are there.

Nobody has succeded in disproving creationisim.


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohh you have intrigued me, how would someone use my views against me? My views have never been a secret. I view abortion under all circumstance to be murder, premeditated I might add. I view homosexuality as immoral and a sin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because they might have got the impression that you're highly judgemental, violent, potentially a rapist combining and confusing sex and violence with ease, an unrepentant bigot, capable of killing without remorse, a chauvenist who doesn't think women should be allowed control of their own bodies, uneducated and self-righteous

hahahahahahahaha

Wow, "highly judgemental and violent", maybe.

"Potentially a rapist, combining and confusing sex and violance with ease, an unrepentant bigot". Where did you get that from?

"Capable of killing without remorse", maybe.

"Who doesn't think women should be allowed to control of their own bodies, uneducated self righteous"... well... no

If a woman is allowed to murder just because the child isnt out of her body, then why should it be against the law to murder just because the person isnt inside your body? I believe that life begins at conception. There for it would be murder to destroy the life growing inside of her.

Uneducated, if spelling is the only way you can tell of my education, then well... ya I can see me being uneducated. Or maybe just the fact that I type at 83 words a minute makes for interesting spelling at times! Ohh and I said that I had no clue how to spell archaeologist. Thats how you spelled it, though it doesnt look right to me.

Perhaps having the ability to dissasemble and reassemble the majority of the weapons the USMC has BLIND FOLDED... that must make me friggin retarded.

[ 11. August 2003, 00:01: Message edited by: Raymund Phule ]

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
A hater and a slanderer, what will be your next feat?

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
Ya sorry I shoulda said something about it instead of swaping to the other page I hit the post button... opps


Ohh I am more than prepared to tell them that evoloution is rubbish and that God made everything. I just cant spell


Well... what sells best in the Western world? Sex and violence.


Well... if we didnt go off topic, and just kept repeating everything everyone said this topic wont make it to page 6. Yes I know we are on page 4 now but who knows how much longer till we hit page 5

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
See what I mean?

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


poiaholic22member
531 posts

Posted:
quote:
Originally posted by Raymund Phule:

Mike has repeatedly said about his disgust for America and its government (no matter who is in office). Now this is my opinion and is not law, but I believe that in order to truly call yourself a member of a country you must have some loyalty to it. Going off of what Mike has said in the past, he has no loyalty.

Granted this is only my opinion.

And why should he be loyal to a country that won't be loyal to him? I wonder to myself how the Prez's desire to codify marriage sits with the minority of servicemen and women who happen to be homosexual.Are they any less willing to die for this country?

Granted this is only my opinion.


I am not homophobic so I do find Ray's point of view slightly disturbing but I am also not fit to judge anyone so I accept it for what it is.

I am not homophobicphobic either and find it slightly disturbing that the same people who demand tolerance for a group of people would be so intolerant of those who disagree.

"To say someone is closeminded and ignorant because they don't agree with the majority is to be closeminded and ignorant"

It's interesting the conclusions you can come up with when you really think about this.

Forgiveness is a wonderful feeling to embrace.

poiaholic22member
531 posts

Posted:
quote:
Originally posted by Raymund Phule:

Perhaps having the ability to dissasemble and reassemble the majority of the weapons the USMC has BLIND FOLDED... that must make me friggin retarded.
Wouldn't this be more along the the lines of familiarity?

Sorry off topic.

DioHoP Mechanical Engineer
729 posts
Location: OK, USA


Posted:
Ths issue of national loyalty is a little bit overgeneralizing... yes, the President is a devout Southern Baptist (a religion known for the minister carrying a rag to wipe the sweat off their brow during a sermon), but his opinions are not the opinions of the country. He can try to institute legislation toward his ends, but it does fall upon the representatives in government to fully approve of those proposals.

If the President's bias is supposed to represent the opinion of his entire country, how did the striking down of the anti-sodomy laws in his own home state slip by? Or the approval of gay marriages in states like Vermont?

I honestly think the situation is getting better for homosexual persons, and no matter how the hyper-conservative crowd tries to claw for whatever shreds of their old traditional beliefs they can still enforce, it's going to keep going in much the same direction. Just like equality for black citizens and women, it's a slow and ongoing process but in the end it should settle into a stable situation that everyone approves of.

What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
quote:
And why should he be loyal to a country that won't be loyal to him?
Yep, the whole 60 million person country is against Mike.

quote:
I wonder to myself how the Prez's desire to codify marriage sits with the minority of servicemen and women who happen to be homosexual.Are they any less willing to die for this country?
I cant say there are no homosexuals in the military, but as of right now it is against the law to be homosexual and in the military. (I dont understand, nor do I agree with this.)

quote:
I am not homophobic so I do find Ray's point of view slightly disturbing but I am also not fit to judge anyone so I accept it for what it is.

I'm not homophobic either, but I do not agree with homosexuality.


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Raymund Phule:

Perhaps having the ability to dissasemble and reassemble the majority of the weapons the USMC has BLIND FOLDED... that must make me friggin retarded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wouldn't this be more along the the lines of familiarity?
All education really is, is familiarity with the subject.

Ask a doctor who isnt familier with the human anatomy how succesfull their practice is.

Ask a rocket scientist who knows nothing about propultion, aerodynamics, and whole hell of a bunch of other subjects, how many successfull launches they have had

Homosexuals should be treated equal, however, I will never agree that it is moral or just.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
Frosy, you dont see me trying to correct anyone do you?

I wasnt going around telling my opinion untill I was asked.

But if you really wish to take the term Plankeye, litterally then I have every right to speek on as I am not homosexual. Plankeye would mean that I was a homosexual telling other homosexuals not to be. Basically it means dont be a hypocrite.

Basically, I wouldnt be the one to judge a spelling bee

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


poiaholic22member
531 posts

Posted:
quote:
Originally posted by Raymund Phule:


[QB] [QUOTE] And why should he be loyal to a country that won't be loyal to him?
Yep, the whole 60 million person country is against Mike.


Isn't the U.S. closer to 360 million people? I could be mistaken.

Just for the sake of discussion did you not feel betrayed and unappreciated during the war when you saw and heard about all the anti-war protests going on? Even though the amount of our population against the war was only a portion of the number of our people you still weren't happy about it.

So true it isn't like the whole country is against him but when the President, the numero uno guy in this country, announces to the nation that people like Mike shouldn't have the right to seek the same happiness that others are afforded you're saying that he should just brush it off because it's only the President's opinion?

Just to clarify my opinion so as not to cause any flare-ups, I brought up the subject of loyalty because I can understand why he feels the way he does.

Respect to you all

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California


Posted:
Point well taken *adds a little hash mark by Poiaholics name* good job

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"


Page: ...

Similar Topics Server is too busy. Please try again later. No similar topics were found
      Show more..

HOP Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more...