Not signed in (Log In)
Random Photo
(changes every 15 minutes)
Hi ladies. My name is Larry Engleheart, I'm 24, and I like sunsets and long walks along the beach. I've had this mullet since 1985 and I'm the first person in GA to file for protection of my hair under the endangered species act.
Photo by AquaVelvet. Caption by AquaVelvet.
read and rate other captions »
post your own caption »
submit a photo to caption »
Site Supported By Ads
Recent Comments

    Sexual Orientation: Choice or Fate?
    Posted by IndigoShaper on Feb 18, 2003 at 05:48 PM

    Comments

    jellyfish's Avatar .
    jellyfish spoke on Feb 18, 2003 at 06:12 PM
    I found that quite interesting, although I don't really agree with your final conclusion.

    But when it comes down to it, who cares? The only people who have a problem with homosexual people are people with problems themselves. It's articles trying analyse and disect what makes people gay or straight that makes such a big deal of it. People should just accept it and stop trying to "understand" it.
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on Feb 18, 2003 at 06:26 PM
    Just as I'm about to make the first post, another person butts in. I was looking forward to it all day....

    Anyway, I read the whole thing - interesting. But, I don't agree that you can tell homosexuals by their actions or "effeminate" qualities. Although homosexuality may be genetic, social gender roles are not and a person may or may not "choose" to express their sexuality through gender roles. In other words, just 'cause a guy's gay doesn't mean he acts like a woman.

    I don't think homosexuals are "women in mens' bodies" (in most cases anyway, there are exceptions). Guys' parents always tell them "not to cry" and to "be a man" because thats what society expects of them, not because its an ironclad requirement for being male. Homosexuals are just men disposed to liking other men. They may be more emotional and may occasionally break gender roles because, well, they've already broken the biggest gender barrier of them all - being gay.
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Feb 18, 2003 at 09:00 PM
    triying to understand it you are one step to curing this disease
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 18, 2003 at 09:04 PM
    If homosexuals grew up in an environment where it was alright to be gay, then most likely they would act all campy and everything. It is societies influence that has produced the "straight acting" gays. Interestingly enough, girls tend to have it easier as any lesbian characteristics can be considered tom-boyishness and kissing another girl or what not is considered ok for all girls so lesbians have it easier. It's not like you are gonna see a boy kiss another boy and get away with it....
    khoury's Avatar .
    khoury spoke on Feb 18, 2003 at 09:06 PM
    Here in California, they had people vote on whether or not gay people could get/be married. I was incredibly dissapointed in this state when the majority of voters said no. Many heated arguments between myself and christians came from that. It made me sad that even today we can be so unaccepting.
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on Feb 18, 2003 at 09:09 PM
    I still don't agree that gays are naturally disposed to act like the opposite sex...maybe i'll ask my roommate what he thinks. *And yes, he's gay*
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Feb 18, 2003 at 09:19 PM
    yo have ass protextors!!!! Unless u are really ugly then it doesnt matter
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 18, 2003 at 09:24 PM
    openly gay here that would like to give their insight?

    And that brings me to another point - most gay people "come out" rather than just being gay from the beginning which is another effect society has in supressing these emotions/feelings etc. rather than giving a choice to the individual. And the Romans/Greeks didn't seem to care - they were all one big happy orgy, with any sexually oriented person having sex with anyone; it was all about getting the orgasm and strengthening social bonds etc. I guess nowadays we have become more sensitive to the issue and people have become more religiously corrupted. Sigh.
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 18, 2003 at 09:30 PM
    Those who don't act it are probably influenced too much by society.

    ON THE OTHER HAND....

    Going back to Romans/Greeks example, maybe there are 5 different orientations; camp gays, straight gays, straight straights (roar/beat chest) or gay straights and then you have your bisexuals who can go both ways. Straight gays probably would want someone to be their bitch so would take a campy gay who would probably be more subservient (although I could be wrong). Similarly straight straights would want submissive opposite sexes and so on. Bisexuals must have the best of both worlds and probably have both male and female emotional characteristics in them.
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on Feb 18, 2003 at 09:30 PM
    Hands off the religion, different societies different ways...besides, I can already here the stampede of the religious right coming this way.

    But, I think the Greeks had three different types of love. I think the most intense was usually reserved for male relationships *not sure if it was sexual*. Anyone know their history here?
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on Feb 18, 2003 at 09:32 PM
    "Immediately doubles your chances for a date on Friday night."
    WhipItGood's Avatar .
    WhipItGood spoke on Feb 18, 2003 at 09:37 PM
    If the question is whether sexual orientation is determined by nature or nurture, I believe both play a role. FWIW, one of my best friends is gay and he says he'd known he was gay for as long as he could remember. But I also believe homosexuality can be "learned" if one wants to, or if one is deprived of members of the opposite sex. Sociologists have often observed this phenomenon in prison populations...
    I think many homosexuals inordinately identify with the opposite sex, which is why they adopt effeminite (in the case of men) or butch (in women's case) mannerisms. But acting like the opposite sex isn't a prerequisite for being gay, I've met plenty of straight-acting homosexuals, too. I've also met some raging queens. It all depends on what floats your boat.
    The thing that confuses me is that there is a gay accent. Not all homosexuals have it, but it is exclusive to homosexuals and it doesn't matter where the individual is from. It's like a nasally, Richard Simmons-type of voice. If you've ever seen the Village People interviewed, you know what I mean. It seems based off a San Francisco accent, but it is not reflective of any one geography, its reflective of a culture that crosses geographical boundaries, and that strikes me as damn weird.
    As for bisexuals, they like both flavors and don't see the need to buttonhole themselves into one gender-specific sexuality. I don't see why they should.
    Tekiran's Avatar .
    Tekiran spoke on Feb 18, 2003 at 09:50 PM
    although my christian background does lend me to biased opinions. i don't so much "bash" homosexuality as I don't condone it. I don't mind being around homosexuals and, for all i care, they can go on with their alternative lifestyle. you just won't see me supporting or encouraging them. i think that if homosexuality were a natural thing, they'd be able to reproduce that way. thats my two cents.
    Leptictitious's Avatar .
    Leptictitious spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 12:48 AM
    Your right Tekiran, homosexuality isn't natural...whats your point? Lot's of stuff isn't natural: medacine, cars, computers, art, almost everything in our current way of life. So what makes homosexuals unnatural compared to you and I? Especially you, jeeze. Christians.... :rolleyes:

    (The smiley doesn't show, but you get the idea.)
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 09:42 AM
    I think we should let the homos and fags live thier own lives. Back off you Christians! Let the dykes, ass thumpers and AC/DCs do what nature tells them.
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 11:20 AM
    I have yet to see a straight guy who sashays when he walks, keeps up with the fashion scene, dresses hair, and lisps all at once.

    My best friend is gay, and I seem to be able to pick them out of a crowd every time, even when not directly interacting with them.

    There are always subtle clues. And while he may not act like a woman, he doesn't always act like a man either ;)
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 11:24 AM
    There is a big difference between a Tom-boy and a Bull dyke.

    Just as people can pick up on gay men, there is a definite air of "carpet munching" that hangs around lesbians.

    I always get a certain "man-hating" feeling from them. This isn't to say all lesbians are this way, rather that the hard core "even the pool tables have no balls" dykes send off this kind of vibe.

    I don't feel anyone "puts up" with them easier or that they get it easier because of the tom-boyishness. Folks know the difference.
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 11:30 AM
    Marriage is supposed to be a union by a higher being. I don't recall anywhere emntioned in scripture that gay marriage was allowed.

    Yes I know there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. In this regards, the state shouldn't even be allowed to govern marriages at all. Recognize them yes, say yes or no, no. This should be left to the church alone.

    Want to take a domestic partner in a non-marriage union, great. More power to you. Write up a contract, stating that you both will make decisions as equals and share all earnings equally etc. and you are good to go.

    Just don't call it a marriage.

    Who knows, maybe the homosexual population should "invent" their own campy god and scripture. Get it recognized, and then gay mariages will be allowed in THAT religion.
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 11:34 AM
    1. Recognize where you are.

    2. Locate handle of closet door.

    3. Turn handle and push.

    4. Let eyes adjust to the sudden glare of righteous light.

    5. Step through now-opened portal into the light.
    WhipItGood's Avatar .
    WhipItGood spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 11:34 AM
    ...that in some states gay couples can get a "civil union", which is not a marriage, but is identical to one as far as the law is concerned.
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 11:42 AM
    Agape: That which is from God. An abstract or spiritual love; a willful love

    phileo: Love of the flesh, or human love, "brotherly love". A heart-felt or spontaneous love; an affectionate love

    eros: "Passionate love" Sexual in nature.
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 11:48 AM
    Perhaps God forgot to sew a tallywhacker on Eve...

    After all, why would a loving God give us such a torment that is woman? She constantly argues, berates, bitches, moans, etc.

    Men tend to get along with men better for a reason. Women get along with women. Perhaps we were never intended to reproduce since we were not meant to die in the first place.

    Maybe He said, "Heaven, I'll just give him a pair of ovaries and an attitude and call it a day. No punishment would be worse for eating the fruit which I forbade." On the 28th day man wept.

    Just my making change for your 2 cents. ;)
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 11:58 AM
    Actually medicine can be natural. If you think about it these chemicals come from somewhere in nature. It isn't like we have the power of creation. I do believe God created these plants and compounds in these ways because he meant to.

    I don't believe it has anything to do with natural or un. I believe it has to do with faith in what God says is right or wrong.

    Sacriligeous bastidges... :rolleyes:

    Word of advice, don't be a twit by trying to be insulting with the Christian label. All it does is make you look like a child who just doesn't know any better. Stereotypical insult for a non-Christian to a Christian. How about some new material at least?

    Do you have any idea how asinine is sounds? It would be like be saying "Retarded Jews" or "Terrorist Muslims." Insult specific people all you want. Leave people's religions out of it. Those few people you meet are individuals, not the religion as a whole.

    In that regard you should be glad we don't take all the non-believers and lump them together as a whole. If we did, you could be sure an inquisition would be due any day now... again ;)
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 12:01 PM
    Marriage, although rooted in scripture, is not scrictly a Christiann based contract. Buddhists may get married and so can Hindus with the same legitimacy of Christian marriages. Additionally, for all intents and purposes, they are legally and socially treated the same way.

    Therefor, I'm not sure how you can restrcit gay marriage on the grounds of Christian scriptures. Are you saying Christian churches shouldn't be allowed to perform marriage or are you saying the state, which has a legal right and historical precedent in giving marriage licenses, shouldn't recognize them? Churches do have a responsibility to follow their own doctrine and shouldn't be required to recognize homosexual marriage.

    However, states are different. In law, marriage is a legal institution that binds two people - you CANNOT take the state out of it. If you do, dozens of laws dealing with taxes, insurance, child care, welfare, ownership, etc. are annulled. There is a reason marriage licenses are given by the state. Personally, you may feel its a decision between your spouse and God. But legally, its a binding contract. This is were you have to make the distinction between the personal bond and the legal contract that is a marriage. You may not want homosexuals to get married under your god, but they can get married under your state.

    And, whats in a name anyway? The concept defines the name; the name doesn't define the concept. If you want to call it a "civil-union" it would be the exact same thing as marriage except under a different title - only a superficial difference. It doesn't make sense. Additionally, would you like the sole rights, as a heterosexual Christian, to be called a man too?
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 12:04 PM
    "Us Christians" aren't telling them how to live their lives. We DO respect people for who they are. This is a free country, we don't go and break down doors, and double tap any homosexual we find.

    You would be surprised at how many non-religios folks also do not condone homosexuality. You would also be surprised at how many Christians are also homosexual.

    Funny thing is "Us Christians" are accepting of anyone. You want to worship Christ? Weu! Bless you. Want to be a fudge packer? Hrm... well, as long as I don't have to participate... Weu! Keep on with God, and you're good to go.

    True Christians understand that the bible teaches us tollerance rather than intollerance. Sometimes their faith blinds them to the whole word rather than select parts that they have issues with themselves.

    This message from the pulpit brought to you by the letters R and J.
    Tekiran's Avatar .
    Tekiran spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 12:21 PM
    i meant that they're not a logical "society" simply for the fact that they, alone would last for only one generation. they'd be gone by Darwin's ideas as well. as for medicine, cars, computers, and art... those are aspects of our life. homosexuality, however, is a way of life. computers, cars, and medicine were made from natural resources to make us more efficient. homosexuality, is inefficient.
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 12:30 PM
    Did you notice that I never said CHRISTIAN?

    Like I said, it has to do with a higher being, or religion. Find a legitimate religion out there which says gays are allowed to pork each other and get married.

    Therefor I'm not sure where the hell you keep getting this Christian scripture argument.

    I'm saying the state shouldn't conduct marriages. They may record them if they like but they should have no say in it. (I believe they only get involved because they get to make money on the licenses.) Marriages should be left to the church of whatever religion you follow. Civil unions and contracts which are not marriage can be dealt with by the state.

    The historical precedent is only there because no one told them to knock it off. From a Christian standpoint, no man has the right to say wether I can or can not get married. That decision is for God. (Not sure how other religions work in this regard)

    Those laws shoudl have never been put in place to begin with. Remember the whole separation of church and state thing? They used it as a means to tax more and earn more revenue, thus taking away more from people.

    The contract is a binding of two fleshes by God. The piece of paper means nothing. Man's law has no hold over what is granted by God. Period. My wife feels the same way. Even if the state voided our marriage license, we would be married. We were married twice in fact. Once for us with Giod, and another time for the rest of the family to witness it.

    The "state" stuck their nose in where it didn't belong.

    MARRIAGE has nothing to do with the STATE.

    They can enter as many civil unions as they want. A religious marriage is another thing. Marriages are religious in nature. It just happens that the folks sticking their noses in it didn't have the foresight to consider all the crap that would be coming around in this day and age.

    Marriage and civil unions are two different things. One is granted by whoever you believe in, the other is the legal contract.

    It makes perfect sense. If you actually take the time to pull your head out of your ass and think about it.

    If you have a pair of balls and a pecker (or were born witht hem but had them cut off), and you are human you are a man. Lacked those to begin with but are human, you are a woman. As a species both are homosapien (The modern species of humans, the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae) not man.

    Remember get snippy and get it in return. I'm from the old testament school. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. This whole new testament thing (loving thy brother even if they are sacriligeous bastards who don't have a single cell in their brain) isn't sticking so well but I try.

    Your pal,
    Reverend Jynxed
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 12:37 PM
    my editorial, I mentioned how one person theorises that homosexuals contribute to society and yet do not contribute to the population growth which in essense is making us inefficient (diseconomies of scale I suppose?). Well anyway, so every few births brings a few homosexuals - comparable to a recessive gene which shows up every so often - anyways, if the homosexual doesn't reproduce and then dies, then no further increase to the population is reached.
    Similarly, homosexuals have the option of adopting the parentless children of the world and therefore providing the stability that parenting provides to the orphans. Therefore, humanity becomes more efficient rather than your opinion of inefficiency. Homosexuals, in theory, would parent the parentless and not burden the world with more people and thus slow down the growth to a level that can be accounted for.
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 02:45 PM
    First of all, I never got snippy. I tried my hardest to be respectful.

    I said Christian because Christian values predominantly influence this country. I've talked to Jews and they've said they have no problem with homosexuality *I do know there are four types, I've talked to two of them*. In fact, some support equal treatment of homosexuals. Orthodox Jews, however, do not condone it. Buddhism isn't as much a faith as it is a way of life, so it doesn't care. Hinduism isn't clear. Islam, of course, is a no. But these faiths have not had as much idealogical impact nor political influence as Christianity.

    Secondly, historical precedent or not and aside from personal beliefs, marriage is a legal institution by practice. The states hand out licenses for various other things: medicine, marriage and law are among them. And as I said, for purposes of law the state keeps track of marriages as a legal contract - same with law licenses and medicine licenses. Why else do you have to pay alimony and split property if you divorce? Furthremore, if states give marriage licenses for monetary reasons, why would they propose eliminating the marriage penalty? States have a vested interest in promoting marriage because it keeps families straight and off welfare rolls. Additionally, funds collected are often used for funding things such as family violence prevention. The funds you pay basically go back to you. And, the amount of money made of marriage licenses is negligible compared to other state taxes / services.

    "The establishment of religion [connotes] sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity." - Supreme Court As first applied to the federal government, the Constitution says it has no business doing those things listed. However, although you can take the federal government out of the business of God, you cannot take God out of the business of the federal government. Every day, Congress opens a session with a prayer, the Supreme Court begins with a prayer, people pledge to "one nation under God," etc. Furthermore, religion influences morality, and, in turn, laws are passed based on morality. States have the inherent purpose in protecting the public's morality and good. And take out Thomas Jefferson's proposed ten Amendments. So don't go around saying seperation of church and state because here it doesn't apply - no church is being created nor funded.

    Marriages are religious in nature because of personal beliefs, not social beliefs. I do grant that for you and many others, marriage is a holy union. For others who may be unreligious or unaccepted, marriage is the highest pledge between two consenting adults to spend the rest of their lives together. Whichever you choose should be, as you say, between you and God - but live and let live. Make your personal decisions and let others make theirs.
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 02:54 PM
    I'm sorry if I insulted you, although I still can't see how I did. Whereas you are talking about a religious bond, I'm mainly concerned with a legal bond since we are dealing with politics. Although, I do accept that issues dealing with morality and legality aren't not necessarily seperate in all cases.
    WhipItGood's Avatar .
    WhipItGood spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 03:20 PM
    Hey, all this talk about religion has me wondering, what happened to our new pal JC4EVR?
    JC4EVR's Avatar .
    JC4EVR spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 04:11 PM
    YOu can beleive whatever yo uwant when it comes to homos**uals but we all aknow that the Gay Lobby is trying to cirrupt us and make us thingk that it is "ok to be gay". Well it's not and the true followers of Christ would never believe such rubbish nonesnese. REMEMBER that He will rise again and take only the true followers of God to heaven wwith him.
    dr_taber's Avatar .
    dr_taber spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 04:24 PM
    Only ONE state allows civil unions, and it is only recognized in that one state, Vermont I believe. The differences are between the two are quite broad as well.
    dr_taber's Avatar .
    dr_taber spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 05:23 PM
    Aside from all the racist, sexist, discriminatory, and ignorant propaganda you vomit out, it really bothers me how badly your grammar skills are. The way I figure it, people who have minds as diseased as yours are already a danger to a normal society. But if they can't just do the basics like LETTING GO of the shift key after you get that first letter down of a sentence, or hitting the space bar AFTER you finish typing a word, imagine what you forget to do in reality. It really scares me that you walk the streets, possibly even drive. *shudder*

    I've come to realize that for some people it must be trendy on the internet to type like a second grader, because this makes them look non-conformist. But you don't seem like that. It's almost like you just don't know. But shit dude, you look like your typing with your fucking elbows!

    Unless you actually are a second grader (which I haven't ruled out) you must look at what you type and see your mistakes right? I say this not out of concern for you, but more concern for me, because every time I read one your posts, I feel like I'm trying to decipher CIA crypted messages and it gives me a headache.

    P.S.

    All things are possible through our Lord, of the Rings
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 06:59 PM
    PRINCE (or the artist formally known as (or did he change again?))
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 08:01 PM
    Good to see at least one good clean bash based on stupidity and not faith.
    khoury's Avatar .
    khoury spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 08:30 PM
    Whether or not the state should recognize a religion is irrelevant. The fact remains is that marriage is a legal contract recognized by states that has an effect on many other things in your life. Everything from taxes to loans. So until civil unions are the only things that the states recognize, homosexuals should be allowed the right of marriage.
    khoury's Avatar .
    khoury spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 08:33 PM
    I too have questioned the accent. Where did it start? I can see why it continues, but why was it created in the first place.
    khoury's Avatar .
    khoury spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 08:36 PM
    How about "annoying, fanatical, right wing, conservative, un-accepting christians" :rollseyes:
    khoury's Avatar .
    khoury spoke on Feb 19, 2003 at 08:50 PM
    Word.
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 09:57 AM
    Tank: Morning, did you sleep? You will tonight, I guarantee it. I'm Tank, I'll be your operator.

    Neo: You don't...you don't have any...
    Tank: Holes? Nope. Me and my brother, Dozer, we're both one hundred percent pure, old fashioned, home grown human, born free right here in the real world. A genuine child of Zion.

    Neo: Zion?

    Tank: If the war was over tomorrow, Zion is where the party would be.

    Neo: It's a city?

    Tank: The last human city. The only place we have left.

    Neo: Where is it?

    Tank: Deep underground, near the earth's core where it's still warm. Live long enough you might even see it. God-damn, I...I got to tell you, I'm fairly excited to see what you're capable of, if Morpheus is right and all...I'm not supposed to talk about this, but if you are...a very exciting time. We got a lot to do. We got to get to it.... Now, we're supposed to start with these operation programs first, that's a major boring shit. Let's do something more fun. How about combat training.

    Neo: Jujitsu? I'm going to learn Jujitsu?... Holy shit.

    Tank: Hey Mikey, I think he likes it. How about some more?

    Neo: Hell yes. Hell yeah.

    Morpheus: How is he?
    Tank: Ten hours straight. He's a machine.


    Neo: I know Kung Fu.
    Morpheus: Show me.

    (Construct)

    Morpheus: This is a sparring program, similar to the programmed reality of the
    Matrix. It has the same basic rules, rules like gravity. What you must learn is that these rules are no different that the rules of a computer system. Some of them can be bent. Others can be broken. Understand? Then hit me if you can.... Good. Adaptation, improvisation. But your weakness is not your technique.

    (Nebuchadnezzar)
    Mouse: Morpheus is fighting Neo.

    (Construct)

    Morpheus: How did I beat you?

    Neo: Your too fast.

    Morpheus: Do you believe that my being stronger or faster has anything to do with my muscles in this place? You think that's air you're breathing now?... Again.

    (Nebuchadnezzar)

    Mouse: Jesus Christ, he's fast. Take a look at his neural-kinetics, they're way above normal.

    (Construct)

    Morpheus: What are you waiting for? You're faster than this. Don't think you are, know you are.... Come on. Stop trying to hit me and hit me.

    (Nebuchadnezzar)

    Mouse: I don't believe it.
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 11:12 AM
    .............?
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 12:19 PM
    The accent, psychologically represents the carefree life that most campy gay people have or what to express which is why only a few gays have them and it should not necessarily be an identifying factor. For example, the slurr in the words can be in such like "noooOOOooOOoOO hunnnaaaayYy that shirt is likeeee tottttttttally wrongggg!". Perhaps it is because they are liberalised/refreshed/enlightened because they have come out and are not denying anything.

    Similarly, straight gays who are still in the closet or conspicous about the image they present speak in a more masculine, deep voice so their sexuality is rather ambigious to figure out.

    By the way that accent is not exclusive to homosexuals; low testosterone levels during development can give a perpetual higher voice that most people. Therefore, any variation in tone to express a word or such is more apparent in someone who has a higher voice than a lower voice and therefore it could sound like your so-called "gay accent".
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 12:44 PM
    "phileo: Love of the flesh, or human love, "brotherly love". A heart-felt or spontaneous love; an affectionate love"

    If you feel horny go fuck someone even if it happens to be male. :P
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 12:51 PM
    I distinctly remember hearing that one of the angels (gabriel etc?) in heaven or whatever (forgive my religious ignorance) is gay, or represented gay people or acted gay - it was something he did, or was doing, or the way he was described. Anyone know what I'm on about? Hmmm could this mean that there was mass misinterpretation of the bible? Or could it just be a literary anomoly?
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 01:25 PM
    Theologian John Shelby Spong, also a bishop, asserts the Apostle Paul was gay. I'm not even gonna try figuring that one out.

    Or you could be talking about the time when men of the City of Sodom tried to break into Lot's house to gang rape God's angels who had come to warn righteous Lot of impending doom.

    Dunno about the gay angel thing tho....are you sure it wasn't the apostle?
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 01:29 PM
    It had something to do with that religion and it was significant enough to prove that people like JC4EVR contradict themselves especially when famous religious people are gay. I mean, if god doesn't approve of gay people, why would one become an apostle or any other religious icon?
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 01:38 PM
    [link]

    ...but always be skeptical when looking at the site. Everyone has an agenda to prove.
    Tr0LL's Avatar .
    Tr0LL spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 01:42 PM
    Did Jesus ever get any punani or was he celibate like Morrissey?
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 02:14 PM
    It seems that there ARE gay parents: [link]

    And for Divide&Conquer and Reverend, here is the gay side of the whole marriage issue: [link]
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 02:15 PM
    doesn't work
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 02:25 PM
    take the spaces out of the url..there are two
    here : [link] <--

    oh yeah, and this was on a shirt in one of the schools over here:
    "Every time a Republican dies, a gay angel gets it wings!"
    I'll let you imagine what happened when people saw that in Texas...
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 02:28 PM
    Bad........ 2 spaces ahhhhhhhhhhhh!
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 02:46 PM
    Here is some rather interesting info: [link]
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 02:58 PM
    "Every time a republican dies, a queer angel gets its wings." A student gay advocacy group make and sold these T-shirts at Texas A&M University during Coming Out Week. Campus republicans came out in force.

    ..I thought it was kinda funny :P

    read about it here: [link]
    Leptictitious's Avatar .
    Leptictitious spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 03:57 PM
    I noticed that there is alot of Christians in here saying that the Bible is not Anti-Gay, have you ever read the Bible? I have, and it is very Anti-Homosexual, the biggest story being the one where God Destroyed the City of Sodom because of its abundance of homosexuals. Thats the direct interpretation out of the Bible. Since that teaching has become under attack lately, alot of Christians are trying to preserve the Church and mix up the meanings so they dont sound so harsh. My favorite is the interpretation that God was pissed and Destroyed a LARGE area of civilisation, Sodom was just in the way. Gee God, your so kind and loving now that we know you only wipe out homosexuals if there conveniently 'in the the way'. Jeeze, its God, you think he'd have a little better accuracy?
    Leptictitious's Avatar .
    Leptictitious spoke on Feb 20, 2003 at 03:59 PM
    ...and yes, I'm and athiest.
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Feb 21, 2003 at 10:17 PM
    Homosexuality has been observed in other species in the Animal kingdom. Birds and dogs have been seen having sex with other birds and dogs of the same sex. This means that homosexuality is more natural and not purely choice. Few would argue birds have such a choice. -SH
    khoury's Avatar .
    khoury spoke on Feb 22, 2003 at 12:58 AM
    why did someone post some script from the matrix here?
    khoury's Avatar .
    khoury spoke on Feb 22, 2003 at 01:00 AM
    Either they don't specifically mention it or they say he was pure or some shit like that. Can't remember.
    jellyfish's Avatar .
    jellyfish spoke on Feb 22, 2003 at 06:21 AM
    My dog (female) is always trying to get it on with the cat (also female). Go figure.
    daydreamtime's Avatar .
    daydreamtime spoke on Feb 23, 2003 at 11:41 PM
    Well, actually she is multisexual, as she will hump anything. Dogs have a remarkable far off look in their eyes when they are screwing miscellanious objects. I don't think it is out of lust just pure instinct to hump things. She's a girl and she humps, nothing is "touching" her package, what could she get out of it? She does it anyway. Who CARES? If people would involve themselves in their own sex lives instead of trying to dictate everyone else's then there would be a lot less war.
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Feb 24, 2003 at 11:40 AM
    I thought he was in the category of "other". Ya know... not gay, not straight... just messed up in the head.
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Feb 24, 2003 at 11:43 AM
    There is a difference. Porkin your family would be eros. Just loving them as humans can love without sex is phileo.
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Feb 24, 2003 at 12:02 PM
    I don't really care what their "issue" is.

    My "issue" is that marriages are something from God. As a result, God doesn't condone gay marriages. Hence, they shouldn't get "married".

    There is no debating the point. It is what I believe. If you believe differently, great, more power to you. I don't have to like it, or accept it, just as you don't have to like or accept my opinion.

    This Christian is more concerned with what works for himself and doing things right than what other folks are doing.

    You won't find me lobbying against everyone getting married to their sisters, or brothers. I won't be seen gay bashing. I will not recognize a marriage that isn't from God however, especially when it comes to one technically not allowed by scripture.

    Wanna be domestic partners? Weu! I'm happy for you. Feel free to do it. Marriage for me is sacred ;)

    This doesn't mean that I will condemn people for what they do, I just don't agree with it.

    Contrary to the belief of those who don't believe... Christianity is not intollerance and bigotry. Open your minds as you demand we do, and stop acting so hypocritical... (This isn't directed at you Hoochie, this is just a general comment for those jerks who want to attack Christians as a whole because they can't handle the fact that we have someone in a high place to rely on ;)

    I think I'm done expressing myself on this topic. It won't go anywhere. I believe in what I believe in and no one can change that. I do feel bad for those who will be going to hell but hey, they could enjoy the balmy weather in hell. Who am I to tel them they are wrong for liking it hot? Heh.
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Feb 24, 2003 at 12:07 PM
    It isn't necessarily being homosexual as much as the act of following those urges.

    It is the act of sodomy. Any unclean sexual act which isn't there for reproduction really. Plug him or HER in the ass and it is a sin.

    Toss his or her salad? Take a tank-top and shorts with you when you die.

    The bible referenced more fo the depravity of the acts rather than the preference of loving someone as an individual. The only problem is that being gay, you aren't likely to just live with your partner and abstain from the vile sex acts no?

    You need to remember that is wan't just because of homos that Sodom was destroyed. There was rape, and other non homosexual evil going ont here as well.

    I do believe He had great accuracy when it came to the great flood. It goes along with the saying... "kill em all, and let God sort them out."

    Straights who plug chicks in the ass are just as guilty of the same sin.

    Same goes for the lust filled thoughts. It isn't acceptable for straights either.
    dr_taber's Avatar .
    dr_taber spoke on Feb 24, 2003 at 01:30 PM
    Dogs (and other mammals) actually have a reason why they like to hump all up your leg. A friend of mind had a dog that would always hump her stuffed bear. Every time someone would come over her apartment, there'd she go, workin' it on teddy. This happened constantly, especially when people were around. She brought her pup to the vet to find out what was going on. The vet told her that dogs have a level on insecurity, just like humans. They don't want to feel inferior, so to show that they are the dominant animal they will hump all other animals. Sort of like saying "I am the master! Look at me while I hump my subordinates!"

    So when my friend had people over, her dog was actually "showing off" to the guests. To the dog, the bear was just as alive as you or me, and she wanted to make sure everyone knew who was the queen of the house. So dog humping isn't really a sexual thing at all, although there are some animals that do actually have sex with other animals of the same gender.
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Feb 24, 2003 at 01:37 PM
    NOTHING YOU CAN SAY CAN TAKKKKKE ME AWAY FROM MY GODDDDDD *MY GODDD* :P HEE!
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 24, 2003 at 01:40 PM
    Little Bear..... :(
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Feb 24, 2003 at 05:53 PM
    Why do you always assume that your religions' concepts are actually the only explanation for the existence of this world? It is quite possible that there is/is not a God, and there are arguments for each case. However, all it would have taken is one person who writes a so called novel in that period in time, which gets mistaken for a holy scripture, there is no physical evidence to support your theories. All I ask of christians is that they accept other peoples own beliefs for what they are, and if they choose not to believe in anything, then so be it, but not to impose their religion as the be all and end all of every possible explanation for the worlds existence. I only say this from personal experiences of christians, who cannot accept that there is any other explanation for this world coming into existence apart from their views. Do not call us "non-believers" narrow-minded when you will not accept other people's views. Do not expect us to conform to your rules, because we may or may not agree with them, and since they are not law, we have no legal obligation to take them into consideration. Do not say that gays try to inflict their own rules upon others, as they do not, I have never seen a case of this, and if you have, I would be willing to see it and take it under reflection. Oh and in reference to the comments about camp people, I know quite a few who aren't gay, and it is by no means only a trait in gays. Heh some straight people even actively pretend to be gay, I cannot see to what end though, possibly just for attention, and they are the most camp people around. However, I do know one gay who does fit the aforementioned characteristics of keeping up with fashions, looking after their hair, etc. but this is only one out of many, many who choose to keep their real sexualities hidden, because of biased morons like you who choose to inflict their opinions on the majority in forms of hatred for that which they do not understand.
    lovemonkey's Avatar .
    lovemonkey spoke on Feb 25, 2003 at 09:36 AM
    Personally i think there has a been a huge increase in gays in the past century due to the fact the world is pretty much at capacity for humans. Theres no need for more humans, everyday life doesnt require a family anymore to take care of you when your older and more and more people are getting through life without children. (obviously differs country to country) So people are doing different things.

    Also spied up there somewhere comments stating straight men don't follow fashion etc... I personally don't agree. Somebody will always go one step further with personal appearance than the last, so one group of people from society may regard that as gay but in turn that so called gay person may also go on to say the next, more ellaborate dresser maybe gay. It's an on going chain and shouldnt really come into the equation.

    Appearance, a persons manner etc... doesnt really define anything, it's just where someone wants to stick their nob or what they wanna lick that define's a sexuality.
    burn2shine's Avatar .
    burn2shine spoke on Feb 25, 2003 at 09:47 AM
    Are you out of your freaking mind? To say that the increase in homosexuality is because of the world's carrying capacity is almost more idiotic than that idiot JC4EVR. Homosexuality is not anything new...it's a well known fact that Romans used to engage in same sex orgys at specific bathhouses, and that was over 2,000 years ago! (also, does anyone find it a bit suspicious that the Bible, written during the Roman empire, goes out of it's way to condemn gays? Maybe Paul just never got a reacharound...)

    Humans, gay or not, are born with the instinct to reproduce. This isn't something that can be turned off, just like you can't stop animals from trying to reproduce. Even gay couples want to express themselves as parents through adoption. So the argument that our environment has something to do with homosexuality is also false.

    There's no real point in getting into the rest of your argument, because it's pretty immature. I think you might be just joking around with this whole thing but if not...God help us. And please don't breed. If there IS one thing the Earth doesn't need more of, it's idiots.
    lovemonkey's Avatar .
    lovemonkey spoke on Feb 25, 2003 at 10:04 AM
    I didnt say introduction i said increase, vast increase at that. I never said it's has only just come about. And don't get cocky, i'm not an idiot.

    personally i want to smash your fuckin' face in now tbh, post your address if it's UK
    burn2shine's Avatar .
    burn2shine spoke on Feb 25, 2003 at 10:10 AM
    I take it that you weren't kidding then.

    My apologies for misreading, but your comment is still really stupid. I mean, these things don't flucuate and the fact that you offer no evidence to back up your claim I think just further proves it.

    What is tbh? Is that some kind of threat? And I'll post my address, assuming you are willing to come over the pond and find me...
    lovemonkey's Avatar .
    lovemonkey spoke on Feb 25, 2003 at 10:16 AM
    tbh is "to be honest", no im not gonna go over to america and I havn't claimed anything, i've just stated "i think"

    you must be the idiot you have totally misread the majority of my post
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 25, 2003 at 10:19 AM
    THIN, LANKY WHITE BOY IN TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA!

    Considering all the fat asses in the US and the oldies in Florida YOU CAN'T MISS! :P
    burn2shine's Avatar .
    burn2shine spoke on Feb 25, 2003 at 10:26 AM
    Good one. Cept that we don't have that many old people up here. Though there are a lot of fatties...hmm, maybe I could hide between them to cushion any projectiles thrown at me ;)
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Feb 25, 2003 at 10:36 AM
    take the bullet in the chest if I had to than crawl into some blobs butt crack! :O
    dr_taber's Avatar .
    dr_taber spoke on Feb 26, 2003 at 01:57 PM
    We actually have a higher percentage of elder population than any other state in the U.S.

    That is to say, California may have MORE old folks, but we have a high percentage in comparison to our total population.
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Feb 28, 2003 at 01:27 AM
    This is quite the topic. I do not agree with homosexuality for 3 reasons. The first is of course what God has to say. The second is nature. There is no biological reason for it. Hell I'm a guy and I love my guy friends. There's a difference between love and sexual immorality.
    Last is the little voice in me called my conscious. That tells me this is wrong. I am told to be more open minded towards the subject. How can I be when I am hit on by gay guys? I know these guys are "nice people" but come on. I don't press my convictions on others. I also feel the same way about lesbians. Of course I look at 2 girls, but I know it's wrong. That is a downfall of mine. That's all I have to say about that.
    RisingPower's Avatar .
    RisingPower spoke on Feb 28, 2003 at 11:14 AM
    It's spelt conscience, and the fact is there's nothing stopping you from punching someone who comes onto you if you don't want them to. Most gays wouldn't even consider getting within 1 metre of you unless they really knew you and had an interest in you, and I think you would know about that. I am not religious, nor are quite a few people, so that reason is bullshit except in the case of religious people who are gay. Mind you I've seen many christians acting as hypocrites, they do not follow their faith in every way, only the ways which suit them, then they pray to god for forgiveness because they cannot accept the responsibility for that which they have done. You want to argue from natures point? There was a program on channel 4 (UK) recently which documented the fact that it was natural, showing many animals which carried out those acts which are pertained to be "gay". You don't like being hit on by a girl, what do you do? Do the same to a guy. If they still don't respond, react in a suitable way. I seriously hope you're not a christian, because if you look at lesbians like that, and gays in an entirely different way, you're seriously not adhering to your religious concepts, and moreover biased. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not, it's still going to happen, and there's nothing you can do about it.
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Feb 28, 2003 at 04:46 PM
    Misspelled something or made a typo.

    Since I can say with 99.99% certainty that you have in fact at some point made an error, you would also fall under your strict labeling of grammatical offenders. Nice to meet you Mr. Moron.

    You also misapply the term hypocrite. It would be hypocritical to go out and spout something you don't believe in, but when you try to live up to those beliefs, even if you fail, you are not hypocritical. When one tries to follow their belief to the best of their ability they are not hypocrites. If that were the case, no one but Christ could be saved, and only He would not be considered a hypocrite.

    After all, only Christ is perfect, and we are not Christ. We can only strive to be Christ-like, doing our best, failing, getting back up after dusting ourselves off, and trying again.

    Also, something to keep in mind lesbians are gays. Both are homosexually oriented. The gay MEN took the term for their own use, leaving women with lesbian. Gay applies to any homosexual, meaning anyone who has sexual relation with the same sex.

    If you want to get your panties in a bunch over it, gay shouldn't be used for homosexuals at all. It should be left to older meanings like being happy (not campy) or full of joy.

    You'll also note the guy mentioned his failing in regards to lesbians. He isn't a hypocrite. He adheres as best he can. He is forgiven for it as long as he makes an effort.

    I would suggest you rethink your posts before hitting the button. When a post is as flawed as yours was, it is way to easy for anyone to walk on in and tear it apart.

    Better yet, check the attitude at the door before you have it handed to you... by way of insertion into your ass sideways.

    Suffering from cranial rectumitis? I'm sure you can find several practicioners in your area that specialize in curing that affliciton... of course the cure usually comes in the form of a baseball bat to the temple.

    Your pal,
    Reverend Jynxed
    RisingPower's Avatar .
    RisingPower spoke on Feb 28, 2003 at 06:38 PM
    I thought i said spelling. You might want to check over what you just said, it doesn't make any sense. It is almost impossible to make a typo in a post because you normally read the post over to ensure it makes sense before posting it. Your religion is hypocritical because you automatically assume all the rules to be followed down to the nearest mm, however, practically I tend to find most christians only adhere to certain restraints of christianity. I am not saying that this is true for all christians though. Btw, it's mispelt, not mispelled. I begin to wonder who taught you english. Indeed, gay originally meant happy/joyful and it should have been used for that purpose, but many homophobes decided to use it against guys who had relationships with other guys. Yes, lesbians are homosexual too, your point being? My point was why lesbians follow a different set of rules than those that apply to male homosexuals, since they are committing the same sort of act, i.e not being straight. Do you think that some male homosexuals don't make an effort not to like other males? Don't try to understand something you have no concept of. I do not claim not to have made a spelling error ever, but I rarely, very very rarely make them in posts. However, I would say i make them quite often in other various forms of communication, however the very fact he put conscious, instead of conscience, suggests he has no idea as to what the two very different words actually mean.
    Your religion is flawed, as nobody could possibly adhere to it in the fullest sense of the word, they can only strive to try and meet it, some more successfully than others, however, you pay more attention to some concepts than to others mentioned in the bible. There is where the hypocrisy lies, you call yourselves christians yet you seem to miss out certain concepts which actually apply, as they may force you to alter your presumptions/arguments, but you pay attention to those which support your arguments/presumptions. Homosexual men didn't take the word gay for their own usage, homophobes used it as a way of describing homosexual men as a means of discrimination. Your post is flawed entirely, but I wouldn't expect anything more intellectual from you of all people.
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 01, 2003 at 03:25 AM
    gram·mar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grmr)
    n.

    The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences.
    The study of structural relationships in language or in a language, sometimes including pronunciation, meaning, and linguistic history.

    The system of inflections, syntax, and word formation of a language.
    The system of rules implicit in a language, viewed as a mechanism for generating all sentences possible in that language.

    A normative or prescriptive set of rules setting forth the current standard of usage for pedagogical or reference purposes.
    Writing or speech judged with regard to such a set of rules.
    A book containing the morphologic, syntactic, and semantic rules for a specific language.

    The basic principles of an area of knowledge: the grammar of music.
    A book dealing with such principles.


    I do believe spelling does fall under proper syntax (usage) as well as the other rules governing word formation.

    Next point...

    There is a type of correction called an editor's oversight. These errors tend to happen due to the fact that the human brain tends to auto-correct for us. These errors are also hard to spot on a pass-through. While some are blatant, it could be a mis-firing synapse. It happens, it doesn't make anyone a moron... except by your own reasoning, thus making yourself a moron as well.

    Third point...

    The religion is not hypocritical. What you PERCEIVE and what actually goes on are two different things. Simply said, your perceptions are flawed.

    Fourth...

    mis·spell ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ms-spl)
    tr.v. mis·spelled, or mis·spelt (-splt) mis·spell·ing, mis·spells
    To spell incorrectly

    Even if one were to use the "spelt" version it involved two S's not one. Try checking the dictionary before trying to correct someone, you'll appear less the fool.

    Fifth...

    "I would say i make them quite often "

    Along with grammatical errors. Seems "hypocritical" (yes deliberate misuse) when you just stated you very rarely make them in a post. See the above point regarding editorial errors. Mind you I'm not coming down the on error, rather the idiot who is acting like a jerk to others to make mistakes.

    Sixth...

    The religion is not flawed. The people are. Humans are imperfect. Period. As for paying more attention to one thing vs another, that is another personal flaw. I look at everything equally in terms of sin. I don't hold men who plug a woman in the ass any higher than men who plug other men in the ass. Sodomy is wrong regardless of who does it. This goes for the other sins as well... even my cussing ;)

    Seventh...

    So far you havn't shown any proof that my argument is flawed yet I'm able to shoot down everything you toss out there.

    As for those things I haven't touched... I never bothered because ti seemed to me you were putting words in my mouth.

    I never stated lesbians didn't follow the same rules. Quite the contrary I feel they are just as wrong as gay men. I was only stating that it was a personal trial for the other individual in regards to being more accepting to lesbians. That is his flaw, not mine.

    Trying to understand something I have no concept of... heh funny. I do believe I have a concept of human nature in some respects. My best friend is also gay and we have had MANY long talks regarding the subject. He is also a Christian, and strives to follow scripture. I have the utmost respect for him.

    It would be safe to say I have a fairly deep grasp of the subject as I have lived with it for years.

    If it were the homophobes who labeled them, why do they keep the term for their own use? Suddenly your argument doesn't make sense. Funny how that works when you are completely wrong eh?

    It's ok, if you still can't understand something as simply put as this reply, then I'll be sure to lower myself morally and intellectually to allow you some chance at grasping simple concepts and thoughts.

    Flawed indeed...


    Hey Ricky, how bout an age verification on the posts to keep the kids from opening their pie-holes? Heh. :D
    RisingPower's Avatar .
    RisingPower spoke on Mar 01, 2003 at 07:34 AM
    No, we prefer to be called queers, etc. Syntax in that case would be referring to the structure of sentences from words, not the way in actual words are formed.
    spell ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spl)
    v. spelled, or spelt (splt) spell·ing, spells
    v. tr.
    To name or write in order the letters constituting (a word or part of a word).
    To constitute the letters of (a word): These letters spell animal.
    To add up to; signify: Their unwise investment could spell financial ruin.

    syntax

    \Syn"tax\, n. [L. syntaxis, Gr. ?, fr. ? to put together in order; sy`n with + ? to put in order; cf. F. syntaxe. See Syn-, and Tactics.] 1. Connected system or order; union of things; a number of things jointed together; organism. [Obs.]

    They owe no other dependence to the first than what is common to the whole syntax of beings. --Glanvill.

    2. That part of grammar which treats of the construction of sentences; the due arrangement of words in sentences in their necessary relations, according to established usage in any language.

    I suggest you actually read a dictionary before you try to make any comments on languages which are not correct.

    Yes, I admit I missed out an s, but I didn't get two words confused with each other, nor confusing the correct form for the past tense of a word. Grammatical errors you have already clearly shown to be to do with the structure of sentences. I.e using commas, periods, etc.

    Your opinion on lesbians is not held by all though, many believe them to be more 'ok' than queers.

    Referring to the spelling mistakes, I said other forms of communications, not posts. That is not being hypocritical as they are two completely different things. One where you get the chance to look over what you've written to ensure it makes sense, the other where you send immediately.

    Yes, people are flawed, in many many ways, but if someone only adheres to their religion in say one or two aspects like say the 5th commandment, but happily goes around abusing his/her mothers/fathers. Would he still call himself a christian then? I don't think you can really call anyone a perfect christian, and some use their own religion to unjustify what others are, regardless of the fact there are concepts in the bible that may relate to them which they do not adhere to.
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 01, 2003 at 10:06 AM
    I hope you were beign sarchastic...

    queer ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kwîr)
    adj. queer·er, queer·est
    Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
    Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
    Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.
    Slang. Fake; counterfeit.
    Feeling slightly ill; queasy.

    Aside from the stolen terminology which again was turned into an offensive slang, queer seems worse. But hell, if you want to be called fagmo I'm happy to oblige.

    As for syntax perhaps in your view syntax is only reserved for structure of sentences but it applies to all of it. For example, back in the old days of syntax errors of the pc jr., one would come across them by making silly typos as well.

    As for yoru comment about reading the dictionary... which one? I tend to stick with the american heritage or websters myself. It is all pretty simple to understand if you half half a brain, which I'm going to presume you do not because you cannot seem to grasp such simple concepts.

    So far I have not made an error using commas or periods. I write in a speaking style. I do not write like a textbook. If I wrote like a textbook it would be rather dull. I would have to say writing like a textbook is borring for both the reader and the writer.

    I took a technical writing class and preferred creative. Sorry kido, you are way out in left field. You have erred.

    "Referring to the spelling mistakes, I said other forms of communications, not posts. That is not being hypocritical as they are two completely different things. One where you get the chance to look over what you've written to ensure it makes sense, the other where you send immediately."

    There is no case where you cannot look over something before sending it. Is someone holding a gun to your head saying type and click?

    I do believe only oral communication would justifyably allow for errors. Granted these aren't spelling errors, but usage errors do happen. This is what is known as the proverbial "brain fart."

    As for the 5th commandment and parent bashing comment...

    It all depends on what is in their heart. Are they truly meaning to be cruel? Are they just in a bad situation? Christ knows what is in your heart. As long as you strive to do your best you cannot fail in the end.

    As I said the only perfect "Christian" is Christ himself. Everyone else who follows the faith strives to be like him. They strive for that perfection even when they fail.

    Do try to stay on track with the points you are failing to make. After all a sign of someone's poor debats skills is a tactic some call deflecting. This crops up when they cannot refute the points someone makes, and then shifts their points or arguments to something else in an attempt to harry, confuse, confound, etc.

    An example is probably necessary for your diminished intellect...

    You make a point. I counter that point. You then bring up another point which I may have said but twisted it to your own means, presenting it as a new argument. This new argument is of course different from the original point which was refuted. I of course refute the twisted point you make. You then bring up another obscure point which has even less to do with the original point made. Suddenly the argument went from talking about how you are a complete dick to someone else, regardless of the fact that you have no place to talk, to being about what a homosexual wants to be called. Which then stretches into many different spin-offs of the original topic. Each of these spin-offs also twist and fray until they too do not resemble their origin.

    Back to the point at hand...

    You are a fucktard.
    You just like everyone else are imperfect.
    I don't give a flying fuck what a homosexual prefers to be called (I always thought HUMAN was the most fitting.)
    You are wrong.
    You won't win.

    Cheers!
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 01, 2003 at 10:07 AM
    sarcastic ;)
    RisingPower's Avatar .
    RisingPower spoke on Mar 01, 2003 at 01:09 PM
    Considering it's actually entitled "english", might be best to use an english dictionary no? I think oxford may just be slightly more likely to be correct than you, just possibly. Yes you can look over messages before you send them, but you are still more likely to make errors than when you're typing normally in conversations, where it really doesn't matter whether you are 100% correct or not. Where exactly did I make a comment about your usage of grammar? I was making the point you said "grammatical" in a subject which was originally about spelling. Now you can't accept that syntax in terms of writing is grammatical, and therefore building up sentences from words, not building the words. You have erred, so many times, it's not even worth counting all of them. I would say someone who confuses grammar with spelling has a diminished intellect. Don't they teach the differences between the two in primary school? With long messages like this you have plenty of time to make changes to what you have written, not with things like msn, where nobody even cares, as it is not referred to. Also, please avoid writing combinations of words, it just goes to prove you don't have a single brain cell. I hope all the spelling errors in your answer were intended, including "justifyably". It's justifiably in case you're wondering. Us english invented this language, not you, fucktard. Do tell me why christians can never accept that they're wrong?
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Mar 01, 2003 at 01:46 PM
    This editorial is about sexual orientation - not spelling, punctuation and grammer!
    RisingPower's Avatar .
    RisingPower spoke on Mar 01, 2003 at 01:53 PM
    Sorry about that :)
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Mar 01, 2003 at 01:57 PM
    Now that that is out of the way - tell us Foobs what your beliefs on sexual orientation are. An added bonus (and comment hits increaser ;)) would be to tell us how religion plays a part in people's decisions. Thank you :)
    RisingPower's Avatar .
    RisingPower spoke on Mar 01, 2003 at 03:50 PM
    Personally I think that people should be able to do whatever they want to, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone, it's nobody elses business. Religion I don't think should play a part in people's decisions, unless the people involved may carry out acts which do not follow the concepts of that religion. If christians, hindus, whatever do not like gays/bis, then tough luck, they can't stop it, no more than anyone can stop islam extremists who actually do harm. Islam extremists are the people who should have more criticism, not gays. Personally i'm bi, and I don't think it's right to have to pretend generally that you're not bisexual/gay, as otherwise you get dissentary remarks, or even attacked physically because of what you are.
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Mar 02, 2003 at 12:47 AM
    You bisexual hunny bunny you!
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Mar 02, 2003 at 10:35 AM
    Jump the Fence [link]
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Mar 02, 2003 at 02:33 PM
    i tend to agree with most of wat the great and intellectual hoochiebagoochie mentioned in the above metnioned splurge of assumption and opinions combined. i do feel that homosexuals are shunned in society as a whole and are not thought of as equal to those who feel they will lose their sense of "natural" hetrosexuality if they expose themselves to homosexials. however i also believe that people who are ignorant of people who are gay should look withtin themselves to find out about what the real reason is for their absurd and rude behaviour. not all people are ignorant, some are just scared. being scared can b overcome, and i think that is where hte problem lies, people need to face their potential fear of the homosexual man or woman, and begin to understnad that they are not a different race of individuals, that they are normal people who are different. when these petrified people (who ofcourse do not admit they are scared of homosexuals) do not take the incentive to find out the truth about homosexuals and who stray away from gettin to know a gay person, that is when they begin to become offensive and rude. when these scared and eventually ignorant people realise that they cannot change gay people into "straighhood" they feel the only way to relieve their frustrated selves, it to lash out. the problem lies there. these people need to look at a homosexual the same way they look at any other human being. we need to teach them that being prejudiced against gay pepole, is equivelent to being rascist toward any other race of people. there is no difference. we need to help change the way people think, and help them open the doors of narrowmindedness and welcome them into the land of open-mindedness without scaring them away. taht is all

    Desiphreak leaves the building--do not follow me
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 12:34 AM
    this link like that plague
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 12:40 AM
    I was reading some view points on another message board, and I just started wondering...does being gay - which may or may not be a choice according to some - mean youre condemned or is it the sexual acts you perform?

    A straight guy would be commiting a sin if he had sex with a prostitute, its his action not his sexual preference thats condemned. Is it the same with homosexuals that have sex with other homosexuals?

    Just want some opinion, and trying to help hoochie's post become the all-star editorial ;)
    DC's Avatar .
    DC spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 01:29 AM
    This question is aimed towards those who are religious
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 11:09 AM
    Sorry kid, I lost interest because you are a complete idiot.

    Sorry, it was fun for a while but making fun of gimps gets old after a while.

    Feel free to come back once you are out of school. Until then, I do believe it is permanent tea time for "wittle wankers."

    "Us english" indeed. Don't even need to hit that one. Hahahaha.
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 11:18 AM
    Technically it is the sexual acts. There is also the part about looking at others in a lusty way...

    Both of those are issues for straight folks too. Sodomy, and other "unnatural" acts are considered a sin. Seems even straights can do these, and as such, it isn't only a problem for gays.

    Yes most pastors tend to focus on the gay community because they are completely blidned by the truth of the matter. Either that or they think it is ok because they as a straight person does it so it must be ok. (They tend to twist the bible as they see fit to work it as they need to.)

    A real pastor will explain his comments. He should mention that it isn't the being gay part that is bad, but the unnatural byproducts of said lifestyle.

    My best friend is gay. He abstains from sex because it is a sin for him to do it in the fashion which is natural for HIM. Sure he gets a few lusty thoughts about guys but no one is perfect. Straight folks do it too.

    Having sex out of wedlock is a sin. Doesn't matter who you are. Gay, straight, doesn't matter. Sexual preference is kind of defaulted because all the sex acts done by gays tend to fall under the not natural or unlawful because they are out of wedlock as provided by God.

    Hope that helps.
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 12:20 PM
    must be a religious freak. If sodomy is a sin, how can you expect gay people (men for that matter) experience some replica of intercourse? After all, they have predominantly female characteristics (such as an attraction to other men). If your friend DOES abstain from sex (yes, oral sex is sex too), then good for him, even though I feel he is scared of religion and/or corrupted by it. Then again, if he has you as a best friend, who refers to the bible often here, then he is probably lying to you to keep you happy and your mutual friendship intact. Many people can lie about anything to keep others happy which I say would most likely be the case for your friend. Having sex is human nature and to abstain for such a reason is stupid. Sex should only be of concern when picking the mate, rather than choosing the way it should be done. And if anyone really cared about the 7 sins, we would not have fat people, greedy people etc etc. So what makes one sin more important than the other; they all seem pretty equal to me and people break them all the time without regret - will they all go to hell?
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 12:30 PM
    "Having sex out of wedlock is a sin"

    If having sex out of wedlock is a sin, and wedlock, ie. marriage, is provided by God; does that mean all the people who do not know about religion, or have a religion which contradicts Christianity or any other major religion for that matter, are going to >(BURN IN HELL>(??? I don't think so! If god is really the megalomaniac he is described as, then he would, through allllllll his power, make sure than, for example, tribes in the jungle would have access to the bible so that they are not ignorant. Although you get your preachers flying in and tempting them with food and healthcare and then the bible, not everyone will truly convert to an extent that they will be "saved".
    No religion is 100% right - then again - no religion MIGHT be 100% wrong. There are so many contradictions that no decision made based on religion can be set in stone.

    P.S. This is directed at your comment rather than yourself as a person on Foo! :) so don't take things the wrong way :):):):):):):):):)
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 01:48 PM
    Take a deep breath....now relax. I wanted to see another side of this opinion, don't bash him for just stating his beliefs - thats what I wanted to hear.

    Okay, next question for the Rev. Is it sinful for a gay man to have a romantic but not sexual relationship with another gay man? Its impossible, but what if?

    -D&C
    RisingPower's Avatar .
    RisingPower spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 01:54 PM
    People should only take their actions into perspective based upon their religion, and what they actually want to do, which they can live with on their conscience, without harming others. Some people cannot accept that they do not agree/follow other people's concepts, they have the inability to accept that they may be wrong. This is their major downfall. I choose not to believe in God, because there are so many reasons to believe that there isn't a God. Why would God allow a world to have so much suffering? Yes, there's the christian concept that suffering is only brought on by man itself, and is necessary, but how is it necessary for volcanoes etc? Wouldn't these be counted as flaws in God's design? Hence, if God does exist, God is flawed, if not, only the earth is. Another question is, how much do we really know about satan, could satan be really as bad as he was described in the bible? I prefer to go on fact rather than fable.
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 02:16 PM
    Another person who doesn't read the P.S. line....
    "don't bash him for just stating his beliefs"

    While I said..

    "THIS IS DIRECTED AT YOUR COMMENT RATHER THAN YOURSELF AS A PERSON ON FOO SO DON'T TAKE THINGS THE WRONG WAY"

    :mfinger:
    RisingPower's Avatar .
    RisingPower spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 02:22 PM
    Some guy who claims to be straight, yet at the same time possibly interested in guys too, just started talking to me.
    IndigoShaper's Avatar .
    IndigoShaper spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 02:25 PM
    Ancient Roman/Ancient Greek of him.....:P
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 02:32 PM
    Hoochie I'd suggest you not take such a path with me. As I stated before what folks choose to do is for them to decide. I'm only worried abotu what I do and don't do.

    Since sodomy is a sin I don't expect them to experienceany form of intercourse unless it is in a normal marriage. I'm not going to tell them they can't but I don't expect them to sin either.

    Funny thing is, he turned me into a Christian. It would be wise of you to not insult him. Don't call him a liar. I would kill for him.

    Sex is only nature when it is done for reproduction. Doing it just to get off isn't nature. Having sex for sex is because humans brought other feelings and emotions onto the playing field. Lust, euphoria, etc.

    Have I ever stated that the sins were not equal? We have been on the sex one because it involves gay/straight orientation. I do believe I have been more than fair stating that even the straight folks are just as much in sin.

    Now, kindly pull your fucking head out of your ass and stop beign such a cunt. I didn't doa damn thing to you to cause you to speak in such a manner but I'm more than willing to give back as it's dished.

    I take as well as I give, and give as well as I take.

    Old school bible... eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 02:37 PM
    The reverend's comment states his beliefs and opinions which define him as a person. It might be surprising to you, but religious people take religion very seriously. As far as I can tell, you mocked God *called him a megalomaniac*, said abstaining from sex for religious and idealistic reasons is stupid *I'm sure people in the Catholic faith appreciate this* and pretty much said religion was stupid for its contradictions.

    And speaking of contradictions, you keep saying "lets be tolerant towards gays" but then you bash Christians. Are you sure you don't have heatstroke?

    -D&C
    Reverend Jynxed's Avatar .
    Reverend Jynxed spoke on Mar 03, 2003 at 02:40 PM
    Technically yes they would burn in hell. The deciding factor however, is if they decide to "repent" by asking Christ into their hearts, and asking for forgiveness.

    It really doesn't matter how bad you are, or how often you fail. God knows we aren't perfect and wants us to lean on him. It is for everyone to decide what they will or won't do in that regard.

    People have free choice. We as Christians are called to minister or witness to others. It is up tot hem wether they decide to follow or not. We were given the task to seek out those who weren't in the know and share the wealth.

    For me and I'm pretty sure the rest of the Christians feel this way... Chrsitianity is 100% right (for us) It also doesn't matter to us that you think it is wrong except in the regard that I at least feel sorry for you because you don't know any better. But hey, free will, your choice.

    I try and keep the playing field very level. Rather than bother with the folks who are closed minded and refuse to hear anything a Christian has to say, defaulting to the opposite stance of said Christian, I just let them alone. That is one of my failings as a Christian... the fact that I don't give a shit if you burn in hell. You made your choice, live with it. I'd rather spend that extra time helping folks out where I can. I would rather share the Word with folks who aren't prejudiced against Christians.