Forums | MacLife

bedstuy wrote:

What is the homosexuality "lifestyle"?  I'm still no clear.

Are you familiar with the definition of an adjective?

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

daemon wrote:

Look. I'm not saying 'by law'. I'm saying de facto. Someone is gay. A switch goes on in your brain. You go inside the bedroom in your head. And disapprove.

You disapprove of my religion then, because the only reason I call it a sin is because it is clearly defined as such by my religion.

So - I disapprove of homosexuality (and hetero sex before marriage and adultery) and you disapprove of my religion.
Isn't diversity great?

There are lots of things in the Old Testament which were sins (or not) but are no longer considered so even by arch-conservative Christians (slavery for one "non-sin" going the other way). Yes, I am troubled by how "your" religion (in quotes because clearly not all forms of Christianity object to homosexuality) picks and chooses which rules it will/will not follow and attempts to apply such to public policy which affects everyone, including those who are not followers of your religion.

If you have read the Old and New Testaments there are no sins that are longer considered. There are only people who chose to pick lines that are favorable to what point of view they want to make, not what is truthfully said and ment in the bible. Just like how McCain or Obama run there ads and pick there lines to make their points of view right.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Why didn't the Jesus write down the rules ?

These words that where spoken to man and written down, or "Rules" as you call them. Where written before Jesus was born.

resedit wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

The odd thing is that we NEVER hear of the New Testament arguments against homosexuality

That's not true.
I've detailed it numerous times.
You just do not remember that which you do not wish to acknowledge.

The phrase "Sexual Immorality" used in the NT included homosexuality - as any scholar of that culture can verify.
Furthermore, Paul gets specific in the first chapter of Romans:

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … version=31

Very true, Also the Bible holds marrige and divorce between a man and a woman. Deuteronomy 24:1-5

Freakout Jackson wrote:

Give him a break guys....res can't help himself

O.K. I have to admit, that's funny. But.... also goes to show the extent some people will go to prove thier point.
( a rat a non-Christian man if a rat could only read )

daemon wrote:

resedit wrote:

daemon wrote:

Damned right.

Now, what business is it of yours?

What is the context of your question?

it doesn't matter to me born/chosen/whatever.

It should of course be noted however that one does choose whether or not they act out on their sexual (or other) desires.

So, what exactly makes it your business, then? At all? EVER? IT'S THEIR CHOICE, NOT YOURS!

http://www.oceanstar.com/patti/lyrics/gloria.htm

O.K., what is up with adding these lyrics? and what point are you making?

CG5Addict wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

daemon wrote:

Look. I'm not saying 'by law'. I'm saying de facto. Someone is gay. A switch goes on in your brain. You go inside the bedroom in your head. And disapprove.

You disapprove of my religion then, because the only reason I call it a sin is because it is clearly defined as such by my religion.

So - I disapprove of homosexuality (and hetero sex before marriage and adultery) and you disapprove of my religion.
Isn't diversity great?

There are lots of things in the Old Testament which were sins (or not) but are no longer considered so even by arch-conservative Christians (slavery for one "non-sin" going the other way). Yes, I am troubled by how "your" religion (in quotes because clearly not all forms of Christianity object to homosexuality) picks and chooses which rules it will/will not follow and attempts to apply such to public policy which affects everyone, including those who are not followers of your religion.

If you have read the Old and New Testaments there are no sins that are longer considered. There are only people who chose to pick lines that are favorable to what point of view they want to make, not what is truthfully said and ment in the bible. Just like how McCain or Obama run there ads and pick there lines to make their points of view right.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Why didn't the Jesus write down the rules ?

These words that where spoken to man and written down, or "Rules" as you call them. Where written before Jesus was born.

resedit wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

The odd thing is that we NEVER hear of the New Testament arguments against homosexuality

That's not true.
I've detailed it numerous times.
You just do not remember that which you do not wish to acknowledge.

The phrase "Sexual Immorality" used in the NT included homosexuality - as any scholar of that culture can verify.
Furthermore, Paul gets specific in the first chapter of Romans:

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … version=31

Very true, Also the Bible holds marrige and divorce between a man and a woman. Deuteronomy 24:1-5

Freakout Jackson wrote:

Give him a break guys....res can't help himself

O.K. I have to admit, that's funny. But.... also goes to show the extent some people will go to prove thier point.
( a rat a non-Christian man if a rat could only read )

daemon wrote:

resedit wrote:

What is the context of your question?

it doesn't matter to me born/chosen/whatever.

It should of course be noted however that one does choose whether or not they act out on their sexual (or other) desires.

So, what exactly makes it your business, then? At all? EVER? IT'S THEIR CHOICE, NOT YOURS!

http://www.oceanstar.com/patti/lyrics/gloria.htm

O.K., what is up with adding these lyrics? and what point are you making?

I'm the one that has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life, the way I want to.

J.Hendrix The corrolary is that I take responsibility for my own screwups. And successes.

Look, I'm flummoxed by anyone who abrogates unto themselves to peep on people's personal lives and 'judge'. (A lesson in FISA's latest follies, fwiw.)

I don't begrudge anyone a happy hetero thing. Why should anyone be upset, and sometimes violent,  about two people having fun together?

Better than Iraq, for instance. Now, there's a nice moral act.

resedit wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

The odd thing is that we NEVER hear of the New Testament arguments against homosexuality

That's not true.
I've detailed it numerous times.
You just do not remember that which you do not wish to acknowledge.

The phrase "Sexual Immorality" used in the NT included homosexuality - as any scholar of that culture can verify.
Furthermore, Paul gets specific in the first chapter of Romans:

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … version=31

Good, thank you for giving a CLEAR response--you must admit that your previous assertion from Acts was at best vague and still brings up the problem of "cafeteria" Christianity (at least for those who enjoy a bloodwurst). And I also applaud your changes on legislating private sexual behavior--this is more consistent toward your claim of being a libertarian and I withdraw my smirking comment on your libertarianism.

I still have to get a response on why YOUR (to be clear: this doesn't apply just to resedit) rulebook should apply to ME as a non-believer (being derailed by thin-slicing of the Bible). If I am a believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may His Noodly Appendage touch you, RAmen) and believe that everyone should become a pirate to stop global warming, why shouldn't my beliefs be enacted into law? Penn Jillette used to wear some gaudy Masonic pin that belonged to his grandfather. When Masons would come up to him and tell him that he wasn't allowed to wear that pin (since Jillette has never been a member of the Masons, much less being the high muckymuck in that organization that his grandfather was), he would reply (pointing to his questioner): "No, YOU aren't allowed to wear this because you're a Mason. For me it's just a pin."

EDIT: found that "smirking comment" and changed it.

Last edited by D'Eyncourt (2008-10-24 3:04 pm)

robco wrote:

Well, now Apple is supporting the immoral, sinful, homersexual lifestyle by donating $100K to fight Prop 8. I wonder if this means Rush will quit using Macs...

Hate Rush, Love Apple. but I still won't vote no on Prop 8. Just because I don't agree with Apple's view, does not mean I won't buy a great product. That should be also that a-holes view.  So, I will contintue not to listen to Rush, and will buy my Mac Pro.

Ribtorus wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Resedit, let's make this nice and personal... Do you adhere to an epileptic lifestyle?

I imagine many illnesses can dictate a lifestyle, and some, like epilepsy, might create lifestyle choices because of how and why cerrtain symptoms might likely be manifest. Reasons for such choices can range from one's own comfort, all the way to the safety of oneself or others.

That's not a lifestyle, epilepsy for some is something that can not be controlled.  If it is, it can only be by medication. I would not call such discomfort a lifestyle.

This thread is going places

jerwin wrote:

Resedit, let's make this nice and personal... Do you adhere to an epileptic lifestyle?

Would you have a problem if I pursued a career as a passenger airline pilot?

Res, Jerwin, a friendly warning, knock off the personal attacks

CG5Addict wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Resedit, let's make this nice and personal... Do you adhere to an epileptic lifestyle?

I imagine many illnesses can dictate a lifestyle, and some, like epilepsy, might create lifestyle choices because of how and why cerrtain symptoms might likely be manifest. Reasons for such choices can range from one's own comfort, all the way to the safety of oneself or others.

That's not a lifestyle, epilepsy for some is something that can not be controlled.  If it is, it can only be by medication. I would not call such discomfort a lifestyle.

Well, various illnesses and syndromes can modify how one goes about living-- possibly in dramatic ways. I mean, if you (or alas, the state) don't trust yourself to drive, you walk or ride a bicycle-- and if possible learn to enjoy doing so. But on the other hand, it's so much more profound than a "lifestyle", because the element of choice is not there. Nor is it as stereotypical as a lifestyle-- the solutions one devises for oneself are individual, and assumptions from outsiders are not especially welcome either.

I'm not going to entertain the idea that homosexuality is a disease-- but it's something that's not so easily  shrugged off, and I imagine that stereotypes are just as unwelcome. 

When people talk up the gay lifestyle, they are either trying to sell something, trying to imply a choice that doesn't exist, or trying to fit gays into little cubbyholes.

jerwin wrote:

When people talk up the gay lifestyle, they are either trying to sell something, trying to imply a choice that doesn't exist, or trying to fit gays into little cubbyholes.

Oh the irony is unbelievable.

Read that statement.
Seriously.
Read it.

resedit wrote:

jerwin wrote:

When people talk up the gay lifestyle, they are either trying to sell something, trying to imply a choice that doesn't exist, or trying to fit gays into little cubbyholes.

Oh the irony is unbelievable.

Read that statement.
Seriously.
Read it.

Irony? What Irony? I proofread most of my posts on this board.