Personally I think sexuality is a continuum. Some are 100% hetero, some 100% gay but the majority somewhere between the two but not necessarily being aware of or acting upon it.
I like clean gladiators that have had a shower ;)
while participating on this website (one of the only three places i've discussed religion online) i asked a question:.
i've observed quite a few posts and comments here about religious intolerance toward gay men and women (i'm quoting), the terror and murder of homosexuals instigated by christians.
the religion i was raised in was in agreement with the bible based view that alternative lifestyles are immoral but they never instigated any hateful rhetoric toward gay men or women.
Personally I think sexuality is a continuum. Some are 100% hetero, some 100% gay but the majority somewhere between the two but not necessarily being aware of or acting upon it.
I like clean gladiators that have had a shower ;)
while participating on this website (one of the only three places i've discussed religion online) i asked a question:.
i've observed quite a few posts and comments here about religious intolerance toward gay men and women (i'm quoting), the terror and murder of homosexuals instigated by christians.
the religion i was raised in was in agreement with the bible based view that alternative lifestyles are immoral but they never instigated any hateful rhetoric toward gay men or women.
I have never understood how gay - let's call them partnerships - undermine marriage. There were many well-articulated comments earlier in the thread.
@PS - are you really a left-handed gay? :)
while participating on this website (one of the only three places i've discussed religion online) i asked a question:.
i've observed quite a few posts and comments here about religious intolerance toward gay men and women (i'm quoting), the terror and murder of homosexuals instigated by christians.
the religion i was raised in was in agreement with the bible based view that alternative lifestyles are immoral but they never instigated any hateful rhetoric toward gay men or women.
This is probably wildly simplistic but here goes...Does it not depend how one views marriage? If one views marriage as a religious statement about the relationship between two people who love each other and symbolises their commitment then I don't see why the relevant religion cannot regulate the terms of it.
If it is not a religious statement, and for many it isn't, then what is it? Without all of the religious baggage associated with it, marriage is simply a contract between two people as far as I can see. Unless there is some established state religion I do not see what role the state should have in regulating who can and cannot enter into such an agreement. I do not see why certain types of such agreement should be endorsed and subsidised by the state and others not.
As for supporting marriage through tax concessions and the like: those who marry or enter into such partnerships presumably, for the most part, do so by choice do they not? Why should everybody else support this through their taxes?
As far as children are concerned;I think this complicates the situation: having them is a choice for most people in the western world at least. If a person decides to take on this responsibility why must I pay for it through my taxes? In other places around the world I can fully understand why people have large families - the burden for supporting parents in old-age is shouldered by the children (not the state). If mortatlity rates are high for children then naturally they will have more children.
Once a child is with us though I can see that, even if the parents have been irresponsible, it is not the fault of the child and it is, I think, in all parties' interests to see that the child is properly cared for, fed and educated. I do not see that the parents should gain from their irresponsibility though. Perhaps there is some way to provide for the child without encouraging the less responsible in our societies to have even more kids.
while participating on this website (one of the only three places i've discussed religion online) i asked a question:.
i've observed quite a few posts and comments here about religious intolerance toward gay men and women (i'm quoting), the terror and murder of homosexuals instigated by christians.
the religion i was raised in was in agreement with the bible based view that alternative lifestyles are immoral but they never instigated any hateful rhetoric toward gay men or women.
I am a left-handed queer. Am I special ? :)
while participating on this website (one of the only three places i've discussed religion online) i asked a question:.
i've observed quite a few posts and comments here about religious intolerance toward gay men and women (i'm quoting), the terror and murder of homosexuals instigated by christians.
the religion i was raised in was in agreement with the bible based view that alternative lifestyles are immoral but they never instigated any hateful rhetoric toward gay men or women.
I'd follow Paul McCartney anywhere
Isn't that stalking? :)
no chatroom.
no profile settings option.
you can't see members who are currently online.
Maybe more fantasy threads featuring girls that really like each other.
That's in your own hands - arf arf
i started reading the book "who wrote the bible" by richard elliot friedman this week.
i'm a little over halfway through it today, and have found it to be quite informative and enlightening.
with every page i read, i realize again what a tiny jw bubble i have spent my life inside.. have you read this book?
Apparently it is only the first 5 books of the OT is that true?
okay gang, warning!.
this is going to sound real new-christian preachy to some of you, but hey, this was 1982ish, so don't come down too hard on me.
i just tend to put all i got into my work, but i've mellowed out (called "getting older").. i am not a fan of churches or institutions personally; more of a loner.
I wish I'd know all this in 1982 lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the_god_delusion.
the god delusion is a 2006 bestselling non-fiction book by british biologist richard dawkins, professorial fellow of new college, oxford, and inaugural holder of the charles simonyi chair for the public understanding of science at the university of oxford.. .
in the god delusion, dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.
I was a bit perplexed by the God Delusion. About 90% of it seemed to be about organised religion to me and I couldn't find anything I disagreed with. It did read like a rant a lot of the time and was tiring in places for that reason. It seemed to me that there was very little in it about the existence of a God and it appeared to confuse the issues of religion and the existence of some form of God. I don't think it shed much light on the subject indicated by the title but there was a great deal of factual information in it.
Personally I would like to rest certainty on the issue on fact. If this isn't possible, then I would prefer to defer judgement. Belief is a personal thing however when one wishes to convince others of one's own belief there needs to be a rational explanation of the reason for holding the belief in the first place. I don't think blind faith much value, if any.
they insist you must wear you and whats more it must be placed in clear view for everyone else to see.. i have been challenged before now " sister!
are you wearing your badge!?
" it made me wonder why?
You should be proud of your Kingdung label Brother/Sister :)