“marriage is not a civil right – you’re not black!”
And what if some of them ARE black? …Oh, wait. We’re talking about Republicans here. :p
“Miscegnation is not a civil right – you’re not gay!” See? I can make mind-numbingly stupid statements, too, Ms. Coulter!
What a fudging idiot.
Badly bleached dumb blonde!
My first reaction on reading this was “DUMB Bitch”!!! On careful reflection my reaction has shifted to “DUMB STUPID BITCH”!!! What part of EQUALITY does she not understand? Perhaps ‘Q’ is a little too difficult for her to cope with!
Just who is this ‘blonde bimbo’ … although her ‘blonde’ status may well come from a bottle … looks like her roots needs a touch-up and would someone tell her NOT to forget the eyebrows next time!!!!
. . . Sorry but I have always been Kertin Challanged skin wise
Do I really have to become a “Minstrel” just to get married, according to Ann Coulter.
Stonewall agree with her!
I also agree with her.
Man Coulter has entered himself into next year’s Kentucky Derby.
A human in a samesex relationship is different from a human in a samerace relationship?
It is totally against civil rights to deny someone marriage arbitrarily
“We pledge to support marriage – the lifelong covenantal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. We believe it is divinely ordained, the only context for sexual intercourse, and the most important unit for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all. We call on government to honour, promote and protect marriage and we refuse to submit to any edict forcing us to equate any other form of sexual partnership with marriage. We commit ourselves to continue affirming what we believe as Christians about sexual morality, marriage, and the family.” Westminster declaration
If you believe that (and I do) marriage is not a civil right. If you feel gay folk need their own institution to affirm their union, then feel free to define one – I thought that was what Civil Partnerships were meant to do!?
Does Ann Coulter seriously believe heterosexual monogamy is ‘divinely ordained’? I doubt it, her values I think are just run-of-the-mill conservatism.
And how typical of an American to focus on the wealth of some individuals and imagine it justifies generalisations – bet she wouldn’t dare use that formula to argue against Jews being able to marry gentiles!
I’m all for trying to understand the mindset of one’s opponents, but I fear in this instance Coulter will just be revelling in all the additional publicity and laughing all the way to the bank with her fee.
“We pledge to support marriage – the lifelong covenantal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. We believe it is divinely ordained, the only context for sexual intercourse…”
Can someone explain to me why Jehovah supposedly changed his mind between testaments? The examples of the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob alone hardly support the proposition that there’s anything divinely approved about monogamy.
gay marriage is not a civil next you will be saying that you are being discriminated in child adoption WHEN DOES ALL THE CRYING STOP BY HOMOSEXUALS ON THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA AND TYPING NIGGER IN THE CHAT ROOMS ALONG WITH OTHER DAMNING RACIST INSULTS WHEN ARE THOSE REMARKS GOING TO BE CALLED OUT AND PUT ON MAIN STREAM MEDIA ANN C. DO YO THANG GURL BECAUSE YOU ARE 100% CORRECT BABY GURL…
We commit ourselves to continue affirming what we believe as Christians about sexual morality, marriage, and the family.
That’s not going to cut it in a secular society, I’m afraid. Marriage pre-dates Christianity by tens of thousands of years. This includes same-sex marriage in cultures such as that of the Native Americans, too (that’s right: gay marriage pre-dates Christianity!).
Why should Christians be able to dictate to us their own version of marriage? The whole point of a secular society is that people are free to practice religion as a personal thing and NOT to force it on others.
marriage is not a civil next you will be saying that you are being discriminated in child adoption
As others have already pointed out, both of those things come under the definition of civil rights. They literally are civil rights – those rights which guarantee equal treatment regardless of ethnicity, sex, sexuality, etc., etc. You can’t get any more basic than that.
B-RAD – it is a civil right plus people are LBGT are discriminated against and using racial abuse do not make it right
Ann Coulter couldn’t ever be right as she’s a bigot
Ann Coulter is simply twisted, offensive and literally impossible for her to get laid. Hence this persona.
What Pumpkin Pie said, last time I checked Christians don’t have the monopoly on marriage.
Is she seriously suggesting no-one ever got married until Jesus came up with the idea?
We want civil rights, and we don’t require a permission slip from Ann Coultier (of all people).
And B-Rad – you might want to try taking off caps lock and using some full stops and punctuation on the next post.
FYI two wrongs don’t make a right, and I’m not keen on racism either. Go back 60 years and mixed race marriage was frowned on. The status quo is not set in concrete, and that’s a good thing.
You’ve all missed the interesting point here by fixating on Ann Coulter (which she’d love, of course), and that’s the existence of unapologetically conservative gays in American politics. Leftists hate it when they lose a minority, one which dares to be truly diverse and break ranks from their client group status, but here you have strong, vocal Republican Party gays (like Conservative Party ones here) – all of whom are making other American conservatives realise how ordinary we all are (look at the booing off the stage of the homphobic speaker at CPAC 2010, the biggest gathering of American conservatives on the calendar, to be co-sponsored in 2011 by GoProud – the gay conservative group).
“If you believe that (and I do) marriage is not a civil right. If you feel gay folk need their own institution to affirm their union, then feel free to define one – I thought that was what Civil Partnerships were meant to do!? ”
Why should we, another John? Marriage existed long before Christianity, and, yes, some of those marriages were between people of the same sex.
Interestingly, do you know what your statement reminded me of? This is no comment on you because I’m sure you’re no racist (genuinely sure), but similar comments were made by those who opposed interracial marriages in the US.
As for Ann Coulter. I don’t take her seriously at all. She’s allegedly made some outrageous statements. She’s either nutty or doing it to get attention. Check out these quotes from Ann:
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”
“God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”
“”If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president.”
She has made offensive comments about Jews, about Muslims…oh, I could go on and on. I just laugh at her.
B-RAD. Non one is crying, we are fighting. And it won’t stop until we have equality. Why do you not use any punctuation in your sentences? You’re just like dean.
Far and away the best thing to do, Iris. Mind you, in fairness I must admit I appreciate her argument that divorced politicians are hypocrites if they oppose gay marriage.
She looks like a skeleton from the Adaams Family, and she should go back into the attic and spare us from her homophobia.
At the Equality Network’s annual conference, we plan this year to discuss the issues of LGBT equality in a culturally diverse society, and how we can get equality in marriage and civil partnership law.
In the UK civil marriage and civil partnership are secular relationships, open to all regardless of religion: we believe they should be open to all regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. All are welcome at our conference, providing they treat everyone there with respect and civility, challenging ideas, not attacking people.
Why are you on a gay website?
From your puerile uppercase dribbling, one can assume 2 things.
1. You wish to save us all in the name of YOUR religion.
2. You are a closet gay who hates oneself, no doubt as taught to you by vociferous religious life hating parents.
You can get an injunction on that and sue their breeches off for ruining your life with their hatred.
Couple of million waiting if your parents priest fiddled with you.
From which specific branch of religious indoctrination do you come?
The one just past WALMART or the other next to
GUN’s GOD N BURGERS are US.
It always amuses me why people like you and Ms Coulter go out of their way to make other tax paying, law abiding citizens lives so difficult all based on a 2000 year old book that I guarantee in conversation I could rip to bits.
Expensive looking teeth she has there.
How many of the poor would that help. ASK Jesus.
Paying dentists is better than saving the poor.
Just ask the Vatican, they know.,
Coulter is partially right. Its not a civil right but something even more; its a HUMAN RIGHT: The right to be and associate with the person you may love! And yes, Coulter is strictly flapping her outrageous mouth for publicity so she can sell more books to her extreme right constituents. And as for John and Brad, you are both drunk on religion! “Get a life” and start thinking out of your medieval, Christian, brainwashed box and universe. Start awakening to the realities of the 21st century and its science, art and medicine. Also, from a theological standpoint, start meditating and praying on the incredible nature and diversity of God’s universe. I would also suggest that you start taking some advanced courses in theology because your fundamentalist understanding of scripture and your Christian faith is infantile at best.
God I hate that Kunt………
The Republican party was against black civil rights. They opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Now, they are against gay civil rights. Surprise, surprise.
Thanks for that B-RAD, your incoherent drivel and absence of logic (and punctuation) says everything one needs to know about the intelligence of Coulter’s supporters.
even Desmond Tutu can see the parallels of racism and homophobia unlike some coward hiding behind a a computer! people have been hung etc for being LBg actually
B-RAD, try this advice:-
(1) You should use your fingers to type your messages, not your fists, you get more coherent dribble if you do. Only apes and other animals try to type with their fists.
(2) Find the button on the side of your keyboard, labelled “CAPS LOCK”. See it? Now press it once. You will see one of the pretty lights on the top right go out…. No, no, don’t panic, thats a good thing.
(3) Now, go to a shop, and shop, and buy a kids dictionary. It’ll assist you with the spelling of simple words, like “want” instead of “wanna” (which is not a word). It’ll help if you print out the alphabet on a large sheet and place it on a wall near you, to help you find the word you need.
(4) Sign up for some evening classes at the local community centre, as you’re appallingly educated. Might I suggest reading and writing for beginners is a good start? Really, this is an important one. Go back to school. It’ll help your social standing and make fewer people think you’re the utter fool you look like right now.
As for your stupid comment “DO YOU CARE TO COMMENT ON THAT ON HOW YOU COMPARE SEXUAL ORIENTATION ARGUMENT TO BEING LYNCHED, HANGED, RAPED, STOLEN, BROUGHT, ETC”
This is happening to gay people, daily and world wide. Please, stop typing your nonsense, we’re deeply embarrassed for you. Learn to read newspapers.
Leftists hate it when they lose a minority, one which dares to be truly diverse and break ranks from their client group status, but here you have strong, vocal Republican Party gays (like Conservative Party ones here)
Nice try, but the Republicans are nothing like Britain’s Tories. Even this site’s Tory supporters detest America’s Republican party. The Republicans are a bunch of fanatically religious, bigoted, war-mongering fascists. I may not like the Tories, but they’re a hell of lot better than the bloody Republicans.
Also, I take umbrage at the phrase “unapologetically conservative gays in American politics”. No-one cares about that. What we want are unapologetically gay conservatives in American politics. But those don’t exist. Gay Republicans go out of their way to affirm their allegiance to Christianity and “(the heterosexual version of) the family” first and foremost. There might be a few good eggs in there, but they have to toe the line of a supremely homophobic party.
B-RAD, try this advice:-
Oh god, I lol’d. :D
“The Republican party was against black civil rights. They opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
WRONG – it was Republican votes that got it through (as it was Democrat votes which blocked earlier attempts when Ike was President).
I am not American and have no sympathy for the GOP, but they used to give the impression of being a serious political party. Now they seem to have been taken over by extremist buffoons and illiterates.
Do we really care what this vapid whore has to say? We will get gay marriage. She will suck it up.
Will # 30 “It’ll help if you print out the alphabet on a large sheet and place it on a wall near you, to help you find the word you need”
‘B-RAD’ is an example of the insufferable ignorance held at such high esteem by the kind of supporters Ms. Coulter has.
you said…”Marriage pre-dates Christianity by tens of thousands of years. This includes same-sex marriage in cultures such as that of the Native Americans, too (that’s right: gay marriage pre-dates Christianity!).
That’s a strong statement and I need your help in verifying it.
I checked Google for: ancient history, ancient Egypt, history of marriage and a couple of other sites and can’t see where you got confirmation of the “fact” that allows you to say “Marriage pre-dates Christianity by tens of thousands of years.”
Doing my research, I kept finding a theme that runs through all the worthwhile sites that showed the “institution/foundation” of marriage had a consistent rationality to it, and showed that most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species, a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. Throughout history, the institution of marriage best handled these needs .
Society further agreed that it found that marriage is an institution that’s historically filled with restrictions. From age, to gender, to social status, restrictions are placed on marriage by society for reasons of passing on healthy genes, to keep property concentrated, or (in some historical cases) because of prejudice and fear.
So all in all, with this type of necessary social conduct to keep countries, societies and cultures advancing and progressing toward continued growth it seems that there’d be very little need or demand for promoting homosexual marriage and would be not be tolerated except in a very minor part of human behavior and during certain times in history – but never receiving majority acceptance as being desired social conduct.
So Pumpkin….please enlighten me with your uncovered “facts” that “Marriage pre-dates Christianity by tens of thousands of years”.
Ah, again we are graced with the delightful rantings and stupidity of that old fool, Hank. And again with his “christianity invested everything” nonsense.
Actually, Hank, if you (1) could use a completer more effectively, (2) were even remotely intelligent, (3) anyway educated (to do proper scientific research), and we (4) not blinded by your own narrow and 1930′s world view of your religion, you would see that the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, and that Pumpkin Pie is quite right in saying antiquity recorded same sex unions too.
Firstly, marriage is not a christian concept, marriage is recorded in the Codex Hammurabi dating to 1790 BC
Early examples of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China [Hinsch, Bret. (1990)]
Various types of same-sex unions was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome [Lahey, Kathleen A., Kevin Alderson. Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political. Insomniac Press, 2000], and one of the the first recorded mention of the performance of gay marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire [John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995]
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
And, quite frankly, for a mentally challenged bigot with delusions of global conspiracies to say otherwise only proves (again) that you are a narrow minded idiot who needs to feel some semblance of important about your daft religion, and foolishly rants on a GAY site thinking he is doing the work of the “almighty” in persecuting others. Its truly pathetic. But I think you know that already.
Best stick to then “barbarian” conspiracy and “New World Order” theories, Hank, you seem better versed in such schizophrenic lunacy than in reality.
Bravo Will! I’m becoming a huge fan!!!!!!!! Another fantastic rebuke to the fascist dogma we see on this site. Imagine the audacity in thinking that marriage was Christian invention???? Didn’t these people attend school?
Ah, nice one Will. Saved me from having to think up a response myself. Since Hank did direct his post at me, I guess I could add a little something, though, just for politeness’ sake…
Tribal societies have always been less focused on population growth than countrywide societies (which, of course, do everything on a massive scale).
There were many societies which insisted on breeding, no matter which sex you’re interested in. And on the other hand, there were some that allowed their members to choose for themselves. The rationale behind that is that the rarity of homosexuality never made it a problem for such societies.
Therein lies the problem with the “if everyone was gay we wouldn’t exist” mindset. It’s impossible. Ergo, it’s not worth thinking about. Instead, let’s all just enjoy life!
PS: Maybe “tens of thousands” is a bit of an exaggeration. Maybe just a singular ten thousand? Lots of thousands, in any case.
Hey Will….you said…
”Firstly, marriage is not a christian concept, marriage is recorded in the Codex Hammurabi dating to 1790 BC”
MY COMMENT : I never mentioned that marriage is a Christian concept. – but I’ll deal with that another time. Now, I’ll discuss your comments.
YOUR COMMENT: “Early examples of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China [Hinsch, Bret. (1990)]Lasting from the 11th century BC to 771 BC, the Western Zhou Dynasty was established by King Wu.
MY COMMENT: The Zhou emperors paid much attention to etiquette. In sacrificial ceremonies, funerals, wedding ceremonies and other important events, there were strict regulations for the people to abide by. There’s no archaeologically written evidence that they viewed homosexual behavior as anything more than a “blip” on their socially accepted conduct and therefore it didn’t become anything more than an inconsequential and unusual behavior trait by a limited percentage of individuals.
YOUR COMMENT: “Various types of same-sex unions was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome [Lahey, Kathleen A., Kevin Alderson. Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political. Insomniac Press, 2000], and one of the the first recorded mention of the performance of gay marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire [John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995]
MY COMMENT: (From) Judith P. Hallett, Marilyn B. Skinner, Roman Sexualities. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. Pp. 343. ISBN 0-691-01178-8.
To be an ancient Roman male in good standing meant you initiated penetrating acts of sex. Whether you did this with a female or a male, slave or free, wife or prostitute, made little difference. But in Roman society, the only culturally condoned male homosexual relationship was that between a sexually active adult citizen man and a sexually passive male, usually younger, who was a slave, an ex-slave, or a non-citizen.
Also….this Roman behavior was a change for the worse as it differed from the Greek attitude which condoned such behavior in the context of a learning environment whereby the practice of the ancient Greek education of its youth took the approach to instill training in the arts necessary for battle. Since physical fitness was the goal, education took place in a gymnasium (where physical training was in the buff).
Over time the education came to encompass more academic parts, but instruction in how to be a valuable member of the group continued. Often this included having an older male take a younger (post-pubescent, but still un-bearded) one under his wing — with all that entailed –( SO IT LOOKS LIKE THEY “MANUFACTURED” HOMOSEXUALS BY USING MENTORS WHO MIXED SEX WITH EDUCATION). So, it’s difficult to estimate how many of those homosexuals would have been heterosexuals had they not been “indoctrinated and introduced to homosexuality”
There’s in fact evidence all over Greece. Sparta, even with its relatively free women – that younger men were indoctrinated and coerced to unquestioningly accepting homosexual relationships because they were built into the structure of the training all young Spartan men received. (AGAIN A FORM OF PROPAGANDA – SIMILAR TO THINGS HITLER USED).
With homosexuality being “forced on certain segments of men,” there was a time that it became so bad and unacceptable that society took control to the point in which heterosexual unions had to be mandated by law in order to maintain a supply of citizens; simply because of the forced promotion where homosexual bonds were thought conducive to bravery and military valor. (SO IT SEEMS THAT IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE PUT INTO PLACE AND MANDATED, YOU CAN CREATE HOMOSEXUAL IN A GIVEN SOCIETY OR CULTURE)
“IN SUMMARY:… as I said before, “most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species, a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines…and the institution of marriage best handled these needs “ …so unconstrained homosexual marriage, as well as the rising heterosexual divorce rate does not advance stability for our country.
Hank – that is a depressingly wrong assessment of sexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome.
I still don’t get why you do this, by the way :( Why do you come here SO fired up to deprive us of our rights? You talk about ‘stability’ for one’s country. Do you not think that persecuting a blameless minority can lead to INstability? This isn’t a comment about you (I appreciate you’ve said that you personally aren’t racist) but the US is STILL full of shocking amounts of racism (for example, DWB ring any bells?)
To my mind, the people who once picked on black and Hispanic minorities are now somewhat muzzled by the law and public disapproval so they’re turned their attention to gay people. Seeking to discriminate against and denigrate others says NOTHING about the victims and EVERYTHING about the persecutor.
And how can homosexual marriage be ‘unconstrained’? What would happen if federal law allowed gay marriage everywhere in the US? Look to your neighbour to the North to find the answer – NOTHING. In fact, maybe marriage would only be strengthened? After all, interracial marriage did no harm, did it, and exactly the same arguments were advanced against it at the time.
Glad to hear from you….your comments/questions are always well thought-out and logical and welcomed.
First, I am not all fanatically opposed to giving civil rights to same-sex marriages in whatever secular coverage our legal/government/politicians are working to give them…(which I see strongly being advanced in our country, but with changes having great influence in certain parts of our society.)
My argument is how the homosexual activists want to discount/abolish the normal meaning of the institution of marriage as recorded through eons of religious meaning and acceptance. At the same time, I do realize the gross injustices that were carried out in the “name of religion,” – but which when open-mindedly examined in depth, were not anything acceptable by what Jesus Christ and His Apostles proclaimed and followed. Most of early “Christian belief/behavior” was anything but Christian.
My deepest concern/question is the activists’ homosexual demand to have their same-sex unions called “marriage” as if that particular word has some sort magical meaning of equality that’ll change society’s view of “homosexual marriage”.
To me, I see that as the earliest attack on what has had a religious throughout worthwhile progress in every civilized society. Next on their agenda will be to make the Holy Bible outlawed or stripped of certain parts of its teachings upholding many important segments of Christian principles regarding adultery, fornication, etc. (There are deep and significant implications/changes that an unconstrained homosexual movement will do to our country and society – not going to deal with that issue here)
Also Iris….I still hold that historically “ everyone viewed heterosexual relationships/marriages as the natural/proper conduct to have stability and social understanding and that the family unit gave everyone a predictable goal for continuing mankind’s progress.”
Also as I read history, and I mentioned earlier, there have been times where homosexuality was being “forced on certain segments of men, and mostly through “leading teachers/educators who were either pedophiles or homosexuals or some sort of combination and took on young boys to form their minds and fighting abilities, etc. — widely historically accepted in the ancient Greeks and Romans.
As I said before, history shows where they actually “manufactured a class of homosexuals”… and that it continued so strongly and got so bad and unacceptable that society actually took control to the point in which heterosexual unions had to be mandated by law in order to maintain a supply of citizens” and this problem was created simply because of the forced promotion where homosexual bonds were thought conducive to bravery and military valor and were promoted out of proportion of letting the natural heterosexual urges have their place – placing the heterosexual/homosexual imbalance as a significant threat to their society/culture which became evident even in ancient times.
(This poses the question that necessitates greater examination of: how/where/when homosexuals can be made homosexuals, given certain “ingredients” and not simply the statement that homosexuals are “born that way”
Iris if some of this doesn’t read well, I’m in a hurry and Sunday
will be a wild day….but I look forward to your reply.
Hi Hank – I’ve got a busy Sunday too, preparing for work tomorrow, so excuse the brevity of this and any clumsiness of tone.
You said: “My argument is how the homosexual activists want to discount/abolish the normal meaning of the institution of marriage as recorded through eons of religious meaning and acceptance.”
Thank you for explaining your concern about gay marriage. Please let me reassure you – no gay person wants to harm marriage in any way whatsoever. The fact that we wish to marry too is not some kind of trick to destroy marriage. The reasons gay people want to marry are the same reasons that straight people wish to – love and committment to another adult. Indeed, the very fact that so many LGBT people want to marry shows that they VALUE marriage and treat the idea with respect.
You, as a Christian, have your own ideal of marriage, probably incorporating things like celibacy prior to marriage, faithfulness to one’s partner, respect for one’s spouse, etc, etc.But I would point out that many, many straight marriages breach your ideal – they’re not Christian marriages; the woman is not a virgin when she marries; one or both of the happy couple have been married before and are, therefore, committing adultery according to the Bible; the behaviour of the couple during their marriage is far short of what you, yourself, would aim for. These marriages are all around you. But would they devalue the marriage of a good, honest, traditional Christian? No, of course not.
In fact, if you could divide all marriages in the world into two piles of ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ according to your own judgement, you’d find that many gay marriages would be in the ‘Good’ pile. Gay people can and do practise values that you hold dear. The judgement about whether a marriage is ‘good’ or not isn’t dependent on the couple’s sexuality any more than it is on their race.
Gay marriages already happen around the world. Have they damaged straight marriages? No. Eleanor Roosevelt said something like “No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent”, and I’d add to that “No-one can make your marriage bad except yourself”.
Forgive me for not getting into a discussion about Ancioent Greek and Roman sexuality. I know it’d be FAR too long and I wouldn’t be able to stop :D But I will say that homosexuality was seen as normal. No-one aimed to ‘turn anyone else gay’ because that wasn’t and isn’t possible. Straight men took part in gay sex for various reasons, but having gay sex doesn’t make you gay. Being gay is an identification of your innate sexuality not your behaviour, in the same way as a Christian who chooses to remain a virgin before marriage still knows if they’re straight or not. Finally, I think you were alluding to rape or non-consensual intercourse? The majority of victims of that then, as now, were women. Remember that there was no such thing as rape within marriage at one time.
You said: “Next on their agenda will be to make the Holy Bible outlawed or stripped of certain parts of its teachings upholding many important segments of Christian principles regarding adultery, fornication, etc.”
Hank – PLEASE! – no, it WON’T! Firstly, there are many gay Christians, so they believe in the Bible and wouldn’t harm it, and the ones who don’t believe in it, simply don’t care or think about it. I don’t mean that in a disrespectful way.
If I got married to my girlfriend, ‘next on my agenda’ would be to make a nice home, earn enough money, get a good work/life balance so we could spend plenty of time together. Just completely NORMAL things. There is NO war between Christians and LGBT people – NONE. You’re intelligent enough to see through the propaganda that tried to persuade you that there is, I’m sure, Hank. Most gay people believe in live and let live. We’ve been the victims of persecution far too long to want to turn around and victimise others. Why would we?
P.S – I know I said I wouldn’t start on it, but your description of life in Sparta is way, way off. Sparta was a military machine and everything was organised to perfect that machine. Your speculation about the extent of paedophilia is just that – speculation. The relationship was more that of father and son, pupil and tutor. No doubt there were some paedophiles in Sparta, just as there are now in modern societies, but there’s nothing to show that this was encouraged in any way. Nor was there any aim to ‘turn boys gay’. The aim was to make them perfect soldiers with a loyalty to their second family – the Spartan army. Most soldiers left the army and married women.
You talk about young male lovers, but neglect to mention that girls were married at a similar age at that time, usually in arranged marriages and often to much older men.
“(SO IT SEEMS THAT IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE PUT INTO PLACE AND MANDATED, YOU CAN CREATE HOMOSEXUAL IN A GIVEN SOCIETY OR CULTURE)”
Your should try turning off your CAPS LOCK, to doesn’t lend to any more an effective argument Hank, and this statement just shows your lack of willingness to see the reality of an area you seem to enjoy thoroughly immersing yourself into (i.e homosexuality). But no doubt its really all about convincing yourself, and off you go, no skin off my nose.
Iris is correct, you’re understanding of Greco-Roman cultural history is truly lacking, as is your ability to research outside your narrow mental scope. I give you the references, you have me useless opinionated nonsense in return. Its what I have come to expect from you.
“There are deep and significant implications/changes that an unconstrained homosexual movement will do to our country and society – not going to deal with that issue here”
Ah, yes, we know why too, don’t we? The “New World Order”. Please, do amuse me again on this, it really gives me a good giggle.
Here’s something for you to read Hank: “A CLINICAL ANALYSIS OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT PHOBIA” – Ivor E. Tower, M.D. – Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Basically This study conclusively demonstrates that unfounded fear of conspiracies is a recognizable mental illness, closely related to paranoid schizophrenia. Anti-Government Phobia (AGP) differs from most mental illnesses, however, in that it is highly infectious and has an acute onset. Symptoms include extreme suspiciousness, conspiracy-mongering, delusional thought patterns, staunch “us against them” mentality, withdrawal from reality, and often religious fanaticism.
Remind you of anyone Hank, someone in the mirror perhaps? But of course, I am just part of the conspiracy, aren’t I, Hank?
Its all too much, I’m off for a latte while I plan the death of religion… I find caffeine brings on all the symptoms of alertness in such endeavours, don’t you?
Oh, and one more thing Hank…. its people like you that are the cause of innocent people like this taking their own lives in your own country:-
Uneducated people like you and your intolerance and archaic dogma is responsible for this kind tragedy, and your and your kind should be so deeply ashamed of yourselves, and are a disgrace to human decency.
Its no wonder the US is crumbling as a society, and its not due to any fictitious “new” world order, is the very real and sad OLD world order of fools like you Hank, and the Fred Phelps brigade, that cause so much of this misery. Maybe you can write a letter to the parents of these tragic people and tell them how their child is in hell and deserved to be persecuted by the likes of you? They’d love to hear that I’m sure. – “truth” is truth after all, eh, Hank.
Go now and have a think of how your actions and words couldn’t be further from the teachings of the god you purport to believe in, and then we can discuss the enormous fallacy of you calling yourself a “christian”.
Iris….you said “P.S – I know I said I wouldn’t start on it, but your description of life in Sparta is way, way off. Sparta was a military machine and everything was organized to perfect that machine.”
Iris….I have to ask, because we apparently don’t have an authentic “daily diary,” so to speak, of the intimate details of a typical Spartan boy’s training (years ususally from 7-20) so we can only make assumptions and guesses as to what went on throughout those 13 years of only being with other boys.
This is what is generally written and agreed about the subject: “Spartan boys had to complete a very tough program of education which molded them into good soldiers. This program called the agog, began at age seven when boys would leave their family to be brought up in barracks with other boys. Throughout their adolescent and teenage years, Spartan boys were required to become proficient in all manner of military activities. They were taught boxing, swimming, wrestling, javelin-throwing, and discus-throwing. They were trained to harden themselves to the elements. At the age of 18, Spartan boys had to go out into the world and steal their food. Getting caught would result in harsh punishment, including flogging, which was usually a practice reserved only for slaves. The concept was that a soldier must learn stealth and cunning.”
Iris…My question/concern is: These boys had the same sexual urges that boys today have. Also, they ran around in the gymnasium nude, probably took communal baths after their workouts. At night, when the urge was strong, they probably masturbated either alone or together. Did some of the older boys (late teens) who were more aggressive and desired to have homosexual sex force themselves on the younger (under 10) boys? It would not seem improbable
If you use some of the findings about our present prison system, you’ll see that homosexual sex is not uncommon – especially if one is confined to prison for 13 years or more.
So Iris, I don’t believe that young boys being together for 13 years away from their parents and away from females, lived a sexless life. But using common sense, I have to believe there was all sorts of sexual behavior going on – and how much was homosexual is something we’ll probably never know as fact.
Also, the culture at that time was very libertine. I quote from “The Daily Life Of The Ancient Greeks” which show it certainly did not hinder the accentuation on the importance of sex organs.
“They were remarkably unabashed about the depiction of male genitals in art, images of which, both erect and unerect, were ubiquitous. Statues of naked youths in the guise of Apollo were everywhere…Giant penises were borne aloft by Athenian virgins in Dionysia processions…in the performance of comic plays actors wore oversize penises to draw attention to their sexual organs.” etc.
This really wasn’t a topic spending much time on, so now I’ll drop the subject and go on to today’s more relevant discussion on the marriage topic in my next comment.
Will….in my past two posts I used CAPS perhaps 40 times in 3 different places while I posted perhaps 500+ words and your reference that “You should try turning off your CAPS LOCK, to doesn’t lend to any more an effective argument.
That’s a rather juvenile attempt to criticize the content of my comments – you can do better than that Will. The availability of CAPS, “ ”, ( ), !! plus… bold…italics…etc….are there for the purpose of emphasizing something and if not overused, are effective, so don’t knock my proper usage when making a point!!!!! (It takes the place of using a louder voice when talking with someone in person)
Will… you also said “Oh, and one more thing Hank…. its people like you that are the cause of innocent people like this taking their own lives in your own country:-
Uneducated people like you and your intolerance and archaic dogma is responsible for this kind tragedy, and your and your kind should be so deeply ashamed of yourselves, and are a disgrace to human decency”
MY COMMENT: I deeply feel sorry for that youngster…it’s so bad that he couldn’t have turned to someone(preferably a “True Christian” ) who could have guided him through his agony.
Do you have any idea of the spiritual/religious background of those 2 people who posted that on the Internet? I would guarantee that they have no idea of the true meaning of a Christian – a “true follower of Jesus Christ” — not simply a person who calls him/herself a Christian (which I doubt those 2 fall in that category)..
The trouble with most unbelieving people is that they have no idea of who Jesus Christ is and what He offers you. Whatever you think of me, I don’t hate homosexuals, Those 2 individuals are sinners, but just like everyone else who hasn’t accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior they have evil intentions without realized it and really are God-haters. I know that you can’t conceive what that truly means because you only deal with “Christians-in-name only ” and you’ll always be deceived and unhappy.
You asked about “commenting on “The “New World Order”. Please, do amuse me again on this, it really gives me a good giggle.”
I’ll ammuse you with it all soon Will. Sleep well.
“That’s a rather juvenile attempt to criticize the content of my comments”
Juvenile? HA! Yes, of course, Hank… giving you reference and proving you wrong is “juvenile!. I gave you references. You gave nothing but biased and puerile opinions, which are worthless. This is typical of your behaviour. You’re proven wrong so many times in here, not able to keep up intellectually with the rest of us. When this is pointed out tot you, you always posture like a demented 3 year old. This is also typical behaviour for you.
Did you read the paper Is it you on a plausible reason for your obvious fear and paranoia? Did I not say there was a mental condition with you before? I think we have established that you are not scholar, just someone in need of medical help.
“I deeply feel sorry for that youngster…it’s so bad that he couldn’t have turned to someone(preferably a “True Christian” ) who could have guided him through his agony.”
And here you prove my point. Thank you. You are quite simply degenerate, Hank. Its exactly people like you these young men encountered in their too short lives, and it people like you that made them took their own lives ultimately. You are a disgusting individual, and those like you have blood on their hands. I am ashamed for you. Really, I am.
Ergo, you are not a christian, as per my point. You have proved this more then beautifully, thank you Hank. Amazing, isn’t it, how well you model your life and opinions in total contrast to the teachings of Jesus?
…. now run along before the new world order lizard people get you. I’m sure they’re monitoring our transmissions right now, becuase people with acute mental health issue like you are high on their list of priorities. Don’t forget your tin foil hat, or they’ll steal your thoughts.
A friend pointed me to this thread, and asked if I’d like to comment here, so I do apologise in advance if I sound a little parochial, this is my first time on Pink News chat rooms.
I’ve been reading his thread with some interest, and I have to say, unfortunately I agree Will.
I am quite annoyed to see the likes of Hank’s remarks which are so typical of so-called Christians who twist the true meaning of the teachings of Christ for their own execrable aims. Its really saddens me that is is not only typical, but becoming so common.
To expect someone to change their sexuality to appease the bigotry of someone else is unbelievably cruel, very unjust, and not at all Christian. Not at all Christian in any way, no matter what quotes from the bible you use.
No man can change their sexuality, its just not possible, and no man should HAVE to anyway. Those who tell you otherwise are liars and charlatans, and will answer for their sins in their own time.
I consider myself a good Christian. And I am gay. I am a sinner, yes, but NOT becuase I am gay, and NOT becuase I love my partner.
I am happy with my life, and made peace with those hateful people like you Hank a long time ago, and I thank Jesus for being such a loving relationship with my partner every day. I chose not to follow the path of the brutal version of Christianity that Hank supports and preaches here, so Will, take note here, there are many of us who ARE true Christians, some like Hank only call themselves Christian and are anything but in their actions.
Hank my friend, you are one such example of someone who has lost the way. You may not see this, or agree, but its true. The Word is there, you just have not heard it yet. Or you have heard its corrupted form, from those who desire power and control over their fellow man, not to spread love and compassion. When you get to my age Hank, you can chose one of two paths:- love or bitterness. I’m assuming you’re younger then me and have some way to go yet, hopefully to lose that implacable and self-righteous attitude towards others, before its too late to repent.
To you Hank I think its time you had a long look at your own convictions and make some effort to open your mind and heart to embrace the true message of Jesus. Stop using His name for your own prejudice towards gay people.
Gay people do not need to chnage.
Remember what Jesus himself said, “Beware of these teachers of religious law! For they love to parade in flowing robes and to have everyone bow to them as they walk in the marketplaces. And how they love the seats of honour in the synagogues and at banquets. But they shamelessly cheat widows out of their property, and then, to cover up the kind of people they really are, they make long prayers in public. Because of this, their punishment will be the greater.”
You are one of these people Hank right now. You are responsible, and so are those like you, for driving these innocent and young lives to their death with your persecution and intolerance. Its so sad what happened here to these children, and yes, they are only children. It truly upsets me that people like you Hank can cause so much suffering to others.
I’m guessing Will is not a Christian and has little regard for us (but we all follow our own paths in life) but he is absolutely right on one thing:- neither are you, Hank.
God bless you all, and I wish you a pleasant day.
Having real trouble posting here today – numerous attempts have failed
“Gay people do not need to chnage. You do.”
Terry, thank you for your post. This simple line is probably the most insightful I’ve seen in a while in here – normally its Iris who tends to get me really thinking :)
While it might seem to the contrary sometimes, I have the height of respect for faiths, but people like Hank only reaffirms what Mohandas Gandhi said once about “christians” like him – “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Its just a pity the true christians like yourself seem so hidden and, what seems to me at least, to be more silent than the “fire and brimstone” nutters, like this pitiful Hank individual. But then again, as you have eloquently put it, a true Christian would never condemn and persecute like Hank does, or force people to intrinsically change who they are to suit their own ridiculously narrow world view. If Jesus didn’t condem, Hank certainly hasn’t the right to do so, and him calling himself a “christian” is just hypocrisy.
But then again, Terry, Hank is in a different league, even for a religious extremist:- he believes in global conspiracies, elaborate self persecutions scenarios, “new world order” conspiracy theories, and creationism – in short, all the symptoms of a paranoid schizophrenic with the IQ of a tomato. He needs more then your christian salvation, he needs a doctor.
Either way, it was a pleasure to read your post, so thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Hey Will….you said…
”And here you prove my point. Thank you. You are quite simply degenerate, Hank. Its exactly people like you these young men encountered in their too short lives, and it people like you that made them took their own lives ultimately. You are a disgusting individual, and those like you have blood on their hands. I am ashamed for you. Really, I am
MY COMMENT: When you fully understand the following, we can discuss topics on an intellectual level:
I John 2….15-16
“Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in hin.
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.”
The Bible says that the heart is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9). Yeshua went even further than the physical and spoke of the spirit of God’s Law when He said that if you even hate your brother you have committed murder (Matthew 5:21-22). Yeshua also said that if you even look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery in your heart (Matthew 5:21-28).
Can you truly understand the depth of the meaning of the above regarding murder and adultery?
I doubt it because you’re driven by the lust of the flesh and cannot see there is a much greater meaning to life. Your life is emotionally driven – no eternal meaning to it – when you die, you go back to the dust you came from….right? Such a meaningless life you have.
Hank, I keep trying to post but I think my internet connections dodgy. Will do asap
Hey Terry….happy to see you on this board…hope we can continue our disagreements/comments, etc. regarding a variety of interesting topics.
You said…”I am quite annoyed to see the likes of Hank’s remarks which are so typical of so-called Christians who twist the true meaning of the teachings of Christ for their own execrable aims. Its really saddens me that is is not only typical, but becoming so common.”
Yes Terry, and I get annoyed when I see people (unsaved or so-called Christians) only talking about God’s love (which IS an important aspect of God)…and that’s as far as they go with their self-examination. They make God as some sort of anthropomorphic creation that seems to give satisfaction to any of their human needs/desires/behavior, etc. But how about looking at “sin?”
Any treatment of Christian doctrine is incomplete if the biblical statement concerning sin is omitted (to justify questionable behavior). Modern philosophy and (too many religions ) deny or downplay the existence of sin – but any such denial is part of a false philosophy/religion.
But today’s deceived mankind continues to refuse… or to admit the existence of sin. The Bible declares sin’s existence and the human heart displays it. Sin is not a myth, it is not a figment of the mind; sin is a fact and to deny that and simply promote God’s “love” is blasphemy and will lead a person to eternal destruction.
Along with denying sin, there’s no fear of God. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. (Psalm 33:8)
I know that whatever God does, it shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, and nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before Him. (Ecclesiastes 3:14)
Without the true fear of God, one is left knowing nothing (as in 1 Timothy 6:4), because the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). A person does not even begin to have knowledge if they do not fear God, as it is written, “fools hate knowledge” (Proverbs 1:22). Without the true fear of God, a person is a fool, because the true fear of God is also the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10). A person does not even begin to have wisdom if they do not fear God, as it is written, “fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7). The sad reality of all of this is, such is the miserable state of mankind. They are fools (Psalm 14:1-3).
So Terry, when you say, “Hank my friend, you are one such example of someone who has lost the way. You may not see this, or agree, but its true. The Word is there, you just have not heard it yet. Or you have heard its corrupted form, from those who desire power and control over their fellow man, not to spread love and compassion. When you get to my age Hank, you can chose one of two paths:- love or bitterness. I’m assuming you’re younger then me and have some way to go yet, hopefully to lose that implacable and self-righteous attitude towards others, before its too late to repent.
MY COMMENT: I would like to hear your opinion as to where I “lost the way”…or”heard its corrupted form…..” Please Terry…I’d truly like to hear more about this from your view.
We’ll discuss other parts of your post later.
“When you fully understand the following, we can discuss topics on an intellectual level”
LOL! Back to quotes again? How dull. When you get a better understanding of science and what christianity really is, not to mention seek help for your diseased ‘new world order’ state of mind, then we can discuss topics on an intellectual level.
You are sad, sad little man, Hank. And your typical anger driven rant because you’ve been shown up to be a hateful little bigot with all the intellect of a 4 year old, is nothing but predictable….. Even the real christians think you’re a freak.
Hey Will….you said “Even the real christians think you’re a freak”
Please tell me what you think a “real Christian” is — that’s
if you actually know what you’re talking about, which I doubt
A real Christian is what you are not, stupid.
Seems Terry thinks that too.
Quit simple really.
..well.. Hank – regarding your comment #46. You’ve gone off on another track there. Your initial post regarding Ancient Greek and Sparta, to which I responded, said:
“There’s in fact evidence all over Greece. Sparta, even with its relatively free women – that younger men were indoctrinated and coerced to unquestioningly accepting homosexual relationships because they were built into the structure of the training all young Spartan men received. (AGAIN A FORM OF PROPAGANDA – SIMILAR TO THINGS HITLER USED).” Yes?
That’s absolutely untrue. Ancient Greece did NOT manufacture a sinister culture to ‘turn youths gay’, which is what you’re saying above (QUOTE “…to manufacture a class of homosexuals”).
Nor was there any plot to ‘turn youths gay’. The only aim of Sparta was to build the ‘perfect army’ by using training and discipline.
Will, I am really delighted to hear that you do not tar us all with the same brush, I apologise if my last letter seemed a somewhat harsh judgement in this matter. Although I do sympathise with your convictions that the Christians who promote tolerance and compassion seem somewhat “quieter”, for want of a better term, than aggressive elements masquerading under the banner of Christianity, the likes of Hank for example. Perhaps the media coverage is more favourable to those with the placard messages of hate as more newsworthy? But do keep in mind we ARE here, and we will not let the Word of the Lord be corrupted by those who seek to twist His message for their own shallow and selfish means.
On a side note, I was a GP in York for over forty one years before we retired 6 years ago to Leppington. While this hardly qualifies as a diagnosis, if what you say about the Hank is accurate, I would suggest Psychotic Depression as the cause of those symptoms and behaviours, not schizophrenia, a condition often misdiagnosed as such. But perhaps you are a person from a medical or scientific background, and I mean only to offer an opinion, and hardly a professional observation that would withstand scrutiny.
And to Hank, I thank you for your reply. However, I will not engage in a futile discussion with someone who seems to think the measure of Christianity is the ability to trade quotes the bible. I believe this is simply a ruse to cover your lack of compassion for your fellow man, and to vindicate you in some way for your persecutions of others.
It’s a very thin ruse, I might add.
What does comes across clearly to me is your pride and arrogance, and lack of understanding of the Gospel of Jesus. The bible outside the Gospels is full of contradictions, such as the age of the earth, acceptance of slavery, validation of incest, and so on. I trust you are aware of these contradictions if you are in any way a scholar of the bible. These are stories to guide us, not to be taken literally, and certainly not to be used to defend actions contrary to those teachings of our Lord. To quote the bible literally to me is quite frankly absurd after your earlier statements.
A Christian follows the word and teachings of Jesus, the CONTEXT of His message. It’s clear to me you have turned your back on Him by taking His name in vain for your unjust actions. It also seems that some people on this internet site are apparently more than familiar with your apocryphal version of Christian belief.
But since its apparent you enamour yourself with biblical quotes, I will indulge you in these to reflect upon:- “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits” [Matthew 7:15,16], and this one you should take great wisdom from Hank, it relates very much so to you personally:- “And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” [Matthew 15:9]
Ask yourself Hank, what have you done lately to change your hatred towards gay people? Ask yourself, would Jesus condone your actions here? Ask yourself, what is wrong or missing with your life that you feel a need to persecute?
In these questions, you can find salvation.
However, I think I have spoken enough and taken up enough of all your time, and I do apologise for the lengthily response. I do not normally engage in such discussions with people of extreme and immovable convictions, even less so on internet web sites, as ultimately they have no resolution other than to frustrate.
So forgive me if I bow out of this conversation, I believe I have said my piece, and can say no more. It has obviously fallen the deaf ears of Hank, but I do believe Will there is hope for you my friend, I trust and hope you will have an open heart and mind the next time you meet a real Christian. You never know, you might even learn something from us, as I’m sure we have much to learn from you.
I thank you all for your time none the less, and I hope your day is a most pleasant one.
Terry, your words are a pleasure and a relief to read. Thank you so much for posting here.
Terry, I say this with all honesty, I totally share Iris’s sentiments here. I really enjoyed your posts, they are insightful and wise, and I am sorry to see you leave so soon. This site really needs more people of faith like you, not the demented hate-mongers like Hank. I suppose we become blinded to the fact there are real christians out there especially when we are forced to listen to the endless babbling of nonsense in here from the likes of Hank and Skinner (another so-called Christian who frequents this site to promote the “I’m right because God tells me I am, you’re wrong” kind of christianity). Alas, Hank is a waste of time and effort, and your words have indeed fallen on deaf ears as you put it.
Oh, and thanks for the tip on the Psychotic Depression…. I never heard of that before, you’ve opened my eyes on something new and I’ve been reading up on this condition all morning… and I have to admit your professional expertise/opinion was far more accurate then my clumsy guess. You paying attention here, Hank?
Iris, great to see you again…. hope you get that posting problem sorted, need someone of your impressive educated abilities on history to show up Hank’s severe lack of! :)
Thanks, Will :D It’s just this page, I think :( OK elsewhere.
Hey Iris, Terry…I’d like to reply to you soon, but at the moment, I cannot let this one go by itself (It’s beyond belief to think it might come from a somewhat intelligent person like Will.
FIRST….Will stated…”Even the real christians think you’re a freak”
SECOND…I asked Will….”Please tell me what you think a “real Christian” is — that’s if you actually know what you’re talking about, which I doubt”
THIRD…Will’s reply…. “a real Christian is what you are not, stupid”
MY REPLY: If that is not one of the most childish, absurd, irrational answers to my question, I don’t believe anything more ludicrous can exist.
Can anyone justify his asinine answer to my legitimate question?
Unbelievable Will….you sound like an imbecile with that answer!!!!
“Unbelievable Will….you sound like an imbecile with that answer!!!!”
But really? How bizarre. And there was me thinking I’m the one with the formal university education, and you’re the dumb one with the acute mental health disorder.
LOL!!! Oh, beautiful. I love when you get all ratteled, Hank, it emans someone hit a nerve, and now you frothing like a hobo with a bottle of whiskey. Ha!
Seems to me that the erudite and eloquent Terry has shown you up for what you are, and now your p!sssed as hell, with YET ANOTHER tantrum. Phew! And what a tantrum! Brava! Predictable, really. Did Terry get under your skin? Have a little psychotic episode there, did we? Best not get too upset, the lizard people will read your thoughts and the barbarian-homosexual-galactic-invasion-world takeover-jews-muslims-and-stuff new world order or whatever will find you.
Do you know what line I liked best, Hank?
Its this one:
“And to Hank, I thank you for your reply. However, I will not engage in a futile discussion with someone who seems to think the measure of Christianity is the ability to trade quotes the bible. I believe this is simply a ruse to cover your lack of compassion for your fellow man, and to vindicate you in some way for your persecutions of others. It’s a very thin ruse, I might add.”
Beautifully put, don’t you think?
Will…you still won’t/can’t tell me what a “real Christian is.”
You’re simply evading it by referring to Terry’s comment, which
is filled with erroneous/misguided information that I’ll reply
to him soon.
Also, I’d like to know more about Terry’s education in psychopathology and which “schools of psychiatry” he believes is the most effective/productive for treating psychological disorders:
Sigmund Freud, Carl Rogers, Aaron Beck, Joseph Wolpe, or perhaps he has a different mentors from dozens of those available — because they all have different theories and approaches in their from of treatment.
Iris…check out: http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa072099.htm
I don’t want to post the article, but I’d like to hear your
reply. If you have a different opposing site, let me see it.
I hope Terry replies to my next post, as he left many accustions that need clarification and rebuttal…but only if he’ll continue
the discussion otherwise I won’t waste my time pointing out his
Hank, I don’t think Terry gives a fcuk what you think of his qualifications, what’s important here is that YOU have none. Ergo, you are in no place to challenge his. People with degrees really don’t take much stock in barely literate people like you who tremble in fear of imaginary conspiracies and boogie-men becuase you were too poor, or to stupid, to get your mental health issues checked out by a doctor.
You only think Terry is erroneous simply becuase he showed you up to be the intransigent idiot you really are. Does that upset you Hank? It certainly seems to.
Honestly, no one really care what you think Hank, we just like proving you wrong all the time… the way a cat sharpens his claws on a dull piece of wood.
What’s worse is that not only are you always bordering on insanity about everything you say, you’re usually quite boring. Its the limitation of cutting and pasting from a poor stock of misinformed conspiracy sites.
He’s all yours Iris…. play nice with old crazy Hankie here, or else he’ll end up shooting up 17 children in a MacDonald’s some day becuase the islamic-homo-lizard-men people told him to do it.
Will…you’re a paranoid ranting pseudo-intellectual who never
answers my questions but resorts to name-calling.
I believe you’re the one with the psychological/distored emotional problem and are truly disturbed when I ask for evidence/facts –not just opinions from faux-experts like Terry who probably are frustrated amateurs trying to impress people like you.
Hank – I promise I’m not ignoring you. i STILL can’t post more than a line or two – SO aggravating
Sat here for AGES yesterday trying to post my original post in full. Wouldn’t be so bad if I could split but 90% of time, even short posts don’t ‘take’ :(
It’s DEF a fault with this page. Done normal length posts elsewhere. SO frustrating and impossible to debate with you like this :(
Basically, my problem with your posts is the idea of a gay conspiracy and making people gay – not true and not possible.
Yes, I’ve already explained that Anc Gk had different attitude to homosexuality (seen as more normal). Not a bad thing. If you’re suggesting that the prevalence of male genitals in Art was an attempt to ‘turn youths gay’ then you’re completely wrong. I’ve seen hundreds (literally) of depictions of naked men of Ancient Greece and spent hours wandering amongst the Ancient Greek statues of naked young men in the British Museum and it’s certainly not turned me straight! :D
(Oh, this is hard work posting :( ) Also, you prove my point made in earlier discussions:- the proscriptions against ‘gay sex’ in the Bible were aimed at straight men and were an attempt to combat the ‘threat’ of Gk culture and non-Xtian things.
- What we’d quite rightly consider paedophilia, was not uncommon in many ancient societies eg min age for marriage for girl in Anc Rome was 12 years. Diff cultures, diff time, diff ideas.
Ancient Greece did NOT ‘manufacture homosexuals’
Hey Iris….so sorry with your posting problems….sometimes
modern technology is more a pain-in-the-butt than it’s worth.
Iris, when you say….”If you’re suggesting that the prevalence of male genitals in Art was an attempt to ‘turn youths gay’ then you’re completely wrong.”
No…what I’ve tried to say that with all the openness toward sexual behavior….partly showing the penis in all forms of art,
entertainment, etc. it seems to me that the “moral fiber” of a
society is strongly determined by how it treats sex.
If there are no strong restrictions, rules, expectations, etc. it’s easy for people to live an unrestained sexual life, where marriage, loyality. fidelity, trust, etc. are not considered worthwhile. I think that when sex overrules love, society
begins to lose the positive qualities of the family unit and soon
afterwards, other parts of society beome tainted and weaker and
begins its downward trend — as can be seen in the decline and
destruction of great civilizations throughout history. Not to say
it was all due to sex, but one can see its contributions to the overall trend. The sex drive is powerful and it has to be considered in the overall structure of a society — whether it
grows or falls.
Yes, they had a diff attitude to nudity but doesn’t mean they had no morals
Who invited her?