Communist Party USA throws support behind John Kerry

MrChristo

The Zapper
Forum Member
Nov 11, 2001
4,414
5
0
Sexlexia...
ironlock said:
I believe the bible clearly states that it is sinful to have sex with other men, .

I believe the First Commandment states, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."
...But the First Ammendment guarentees freedom of religious belief.

The Second Commandment clearly states, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above"
....But how many churches have you ever entered that have NO likeness' of a crucifix, dove, cross, Saint, or pictures of Jesus himself?? Hey, you probably wear a crucifix on a chain around your neck like all "good" Christians, right?

The Fourth Commandment states, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates."
....Ever worked on Sunday? Played sport?...Unless you're a 7th Day Adventist, chances are that you have.

Sixth Commandment?...Easy one, right? "Thou shalt not kill"
....Yet the President is a former governer of a state that practices Capital Punishment.

Seventh Commandment?...I think you know this one, and let's not get started on former President's, ok?

How you go with your bible quiz, Ironlock?

For pete's sake, I think there are more asian ethnic people in the country than gays. Yet gays are always an issue.

Because last time (at least) I checked, the Preident wasn't trying to change the Contitution to prevent "asian ethnic" people from living their lives as they choose.

homosexuality is a pathological state....it is an activity...in some it become an addiction.....any scientist in pursuit of truth and not political correctness will tell you so....it is a pathological state which can and is being reversed so that former practicioners are now leaing happily married lives raising families

That is quite possibly the worst paragraph I have seen anywhere in my entire life!!
Please tell me you are not a 'real' Doctor! A witch doctor maybe? A pretty ordinary spin doctor, that's for sure.
i) Why are there wild animals that perform homosexual acts? There are clear, documented cases of same-sex animals performing sexual acts and even long term companionship.

ii) Gay 'traits'. While obviously sterio-types like Jack off Will & Grace are absurb, I would suggest the majority of gays (men, at least) have traits that we would associate with homosexuality.....Leading on to...

iii) My mother was a prep teacher, and she has picked (and other teachers also) at least one boy (aged 4 or 5 at the time) to be 'gay'.
Was he attracted by the life-style at 5 years of age? Worried about his partners health plans?

Anyway....what's it going to matter when Kerry wins office and forces you all out to work in the fields? Doctors and lawyers, side by side with shoe shiners and filthy homosexuals, working hand in hand for the greater good! :clap: :142lmao:
 
Last edited:

ELVIS

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 25, 2002
3,620
1
0
memphis
very nice IRON. wtf, here guys. "the pursuit of happiness" should prtect gay marriage ? what about smoking weed ? snorting cocaine ? i am amamazed at the wild ways to interpret the document. the fore fathers wrote the constitution to protect the freedom of religion. not the sanctity of homos. wow. the older i get the more dissapointed i become. the affects of a society that has forgotten God is rampant. i am ashamed i am guilty of this as well. the country of the US will regret the day it finally embraces homosexuality. it may not be evident in the lifetimes of anyone here on this forum today, but it will be. :sadwave:
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,909
133
63
16
L.A.
So we are in trouble as a society because we are that much closer to accepting gays as regular people?

I'll bet these same arguments were made before emancipation, women's suffrage, and civil rights.

"sanctity of homos"? Why am I bothering with this? Good luck with that whole "dissappointed" thing.
 

bjfinste

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 14, 2001
5,462
18
0
AZ
Ironlock strikes me as the type of guy who still gets pissed off when he sees a "nigger" walking down the street with a white girl. On TV, of course, as he obviously doesn't see that in Pierre. That just ain't right, man! Hey, at least you're in a good state for yourself.
 
Last edited:

MrChristo

The Zapper
Forum Member
Nov 11, 2001
4,414
5
0
Sexlexia...
ELVIS said:
the fore fathers wrote the constitution to protect the freedom of religion. ....> the affects of a society that has forgotten God is rampant.

You can't even see the hypocracy as you type a whole two sentences.
Hey, you're posting this on a GAMBLING FORUM ffs!! Surely there's a passage in the Bible somewhere that denounces gambling? :scared ...Hey, it's illegal in 48 (? open for corrections) states, so it's apparently against your fore-fathers' wishes, and no doubt contributing to the decline of your God-less society.

But, agree with smurphy that there isn't much point of 'arguing' with someone who used the word 'homo's'.

Was that the 'education levels' you were talking about before you edited you last post, ironlock?
 

MrChristo

The Zapper
Forum Member
Nov 11, 2001
4,414
5
0
Sexlexia...
ELVIS said:
Romans chapter 1.

This is a copy/paste job....Obviously you're going to dismiss it as liberal rubbish, but I thought I'd give it a try anyway.
I found it all very interesting......

Romans 1:26-27:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
Author's Note: All of this refers to idolatrous religious practices that were common in the time of Paul.

Taking anything that Paul said out its context is like trying to drive a car blindfolded. You don't know where you are, where you have been, where you are going, or who you just ran over and killed!

Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said. As 2 Peter 3:16-18 pointed out, we have to be on guard against using Paul's writings in unhealthy and destructive ways.

When I taught a college course in the Book of Romans, I decided to memorize Romans, as Augustine suggested. The effort paid off. Being able to visualize the message of Romans as a whole immediately cleared up a lot of Paul's thought that I had not been able to untangle before by traditional means of study. It helped so much that I continued to memorize the books of the Bible that I taught in college courses.

The theme of the first 3 chapters of Romans is expressed in 1:16: "The gospel is the power of God for spiritual freedom (salvation) for all who believe." Paul showed that all people equally need and can have Jesus in their lives. Paul's gospel is inclusive, as expressed in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Romans 1:26-27 is part of Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals. Read all of Romans 1:18 to 2:4 for the context of the verses.

Romans 1:26-27 contains some words used only here by Paul. Familiar words are used here in unusual ways. The passage is very difficult to translate. The argument is directed against some form of idolatry that would have been known to Paul's readers. To us, 2,000 years later and in a totally different culture, the argument is vague and indirect.

Verse 25 is clearly a denunciation of idol worship, "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."." Paul at no point in his writing dealt with same-sex orientation or the expression of love and affection between two people of the same sex who love each other.

Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, the second largest city in the empire and the crossroads of world trade and culture. Pausanius observed at about the same time as Paul that there were over 1,000 religions in Corinth. The most prominent were the fertility cult of Aphrodite, worship of Apollo, and the Delphi Oracle, which was across the bay from Corinth. Paul's readers would have been aware of the religious climate from which he wrote Romans and would have understood Paul a lot better than we do.

The word "passions" in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 1:3 and does not mean what we mean by "passion" today. Eros is the Greek word for romantic love, but eros is never used even once in the New Testament. "Passions" in 1:26 probably refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.

We do not know the meaning of "burn" in 1:27, because Paul never used this particular word anywhere else, and it's origin is uncertain. The term "against nature" is also strange here, since exactly the same term is used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting "against nature" by including the Gentiles with the Jews in the family of God. "Against nature" was used to speak of something that was not done in the usual way, but did not necessarily mean that something "against nature" was evil, since God also "acted against nature."

One more word needs special attention. "Committing indecent acts" in 1:27 is translated by King James Version as "working that which is unseemly." Phillips goes far beyond the evidence and renders it as "Shameful horrors!" The Greek word is askemosunen and is formed of the word for "outer appearance" plus the negative particle. It speaks of the inner or hidden part or parts of the individual that are not ordinarily seen or known in public. "Indecent" in 1 Corinthians 12:23 referred to the parts of the body that remain hidden but are necessary and receive honor. 1 Corinthians 13:5 used the word to say that love does not behave "indecently."

This word for "indecency" was used to translate Deuteronomy 24:1 into Greek to say that a man could divorce his wife if he "found some indecency in her." The religious teachers argued endlessly about what "some indecency" meant. Some said it was anything that displeased the husband. Others were more strict and said it could only refer to adultery. In Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus commented on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but he did not define the term.

Paul was certainly aware of the variety of ways that the teachers interpreted the word "indecency," and he used it in a variety of ways himself. To read into "indecent acts" a whole world of homosexual ideas is to abandon the realities of objective academic study and to embark on useless and damaging speculation that cannot be supported by the meaning of the word or by Paul's use of it elsewhere.

If Paul had intended to condemn homosexuals as the worst of all sinners, he certainly had the language skills to do a clearer job of it than emerges from Romans 1:26-27. The fact is that Paul nowhere condemned or mentioned romantic love and sexual relations between people of the same sex who love each other. Paul never commented on sexual orientation. As in the rest of the Bible, Paul nowhere even hinted that Lesbians and Gay men can or should change their sexual orientation.

SPECIAL NOTE on Romans 1:31, where the King James Version translated the Greek word astorgous as "without natural affection." This is one of the characteristics of people "with a reprobate mind" (KJV of 1:28). The word for "reprobate" is more recently translated as "depraved" or "perverted" in order more neatly to fit the sexualizing of everything possible in the list. The literal meaning of "reprobate" (Greek dokimon) is "to fail to measure up" or "to fail to meet the test" and simply means that the list of things that follows is the result of a mind that has abandoned God. The word astorgous, "without natural affection," is used only here and in 2 Timothy 3:3. It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality or with sex. It is the Greek word for "family love" or "family ties" with the negative prefix. It refers to people who despise and reject their family members. Rather than being directed at homosexuals, it is a term that is directed at people who despise and reject their own homosexual children and brothers and sisters! Modern translators, knowing this, usually render the word as "unloving," and the implication of some sort of "unnatural" or "perverted" affection is removed. Many more translation corrections are needed elsewhere!

The use of Romans 1:26-27 against homosexuals turns out to be a blunt instrument to batter and wound people who were not intended in the original text. Paul clearly taught throughout Romans, Galatians and his other letters that God's freely given and all inclusive love is for every person on earth. Notice what Paul said about judging others in Romans 2:1: "Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."
 

Nosigar

53%
Forum Member
Jul 5, 2000
2,487
9
0
Florida
I'd like to legalize and have state funding for threesomes. Just as long as there's two women involved.
 

Nosigar

53%
Forum Member
Jul 5, 2000
2,487
9
0
Florida
bjfinste said:
Ironlock strikes me as the type of guy who still gets pissed off when he sees a "nigger" walking down the street with a white girl. On TV, of course, as he obviously doesn't see that in Pierre. That just ain't right, man! Hey, at least you're in a good state for yourself.

The PC battle continues. Make suppositions about others and make them look bad and evil. God, I'm tiring of this bs. Brainwashed robots.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
smurphy said:
OK, Dr. Freeze. I know we will absolutely not agree, but I will give you the courtesy of addressing the issiues in question regarding Gay marriages (my opinion - I'm not liberal on many items, but I'll accept the label here I guess).

1) There is more science proving that being homosexual is genetic than there is pathalogical. YES - there are certainly some people who fall into the latter category, and there are also many homosexuals who are pathalogically straight.

2) A relationship between 2 consenting adults is exactly that. Many people (not here of course) feel it's just as valid of a relationship as that among straight people.

3) The argument about polygamy, beastiality, pedohilia, etc is always thrown out there by Fundamentalists. Since when (outside of Mormons a very long time ago) has there been a significant population base that falls into any of these categories. It never has been more than extremely fringe elements (and they are not about to make noise). Homosexuals have always been at or near 10% of any population that we know anything about. AND the overwhelming majority of them have the same desire and ability to have relationships as straight people.

4) In case it helps me explain, I am straight and don't even feel particularly comfortable in gay environments. But I just figure they are as attracted to the same gender as much as I am to the opposite gender. I feel they are basically the equivilant of another race - that's how I base my views.\

-I know this won't convince you. But I've addressed those points. Good discussion!

1. Show me the "science" and this magic gene...is there a gene which makes one prefer sadism as well? is there a gene which makes one like to knit? how about a gene which makes one prefer the color blue as opposed to brown?

2. If this is a "valid" relationship.....just as is marriage....how do you account for the procreation aspect of marriage?

how do you account for the aspect of child-rearing which is best done by a mom and a dad?

how do you have the audacity to further desecrate the family?

since you liberals are always touchy feely....how do you have the audacity to offend the sanctity of my marriage by allowing this affront?

3. 10%??? lmao....try less than 1%....and dont think that you can escape the question by stating "fundamentalists always raise this issue"....well, there is a REASON the question is raised....and you have not addressed it...

speaking of "maintaining relationships"....do you have any idea what the HIV epidemic is doing in the gay population?....do you have any idea what this has cost the US population? do you think their ability to "maintain" relationships has anything to do with this?
 

MrChristo

The Zapper
Forum Member
Nov 11, 2001
4,414
5
0
Sexlexia...
I notice how you avoided my 3 points, Dr. F. Can't explain them?..You're right, probably best swept under the carpet then. ;)

Erm...This might surprise you too, as a doctor....But pro-creation??? WTF??? You DO realise that a lot of people who aren't married are able to get pregnant, right?
Not only do a lot of unmarried women have children, I dare say there are quite a few married couples without children as well.

This is some horribly grey territory (much as it all is!), but pro-creation is a TERRIBLE argument for anything!!

What is the 'sanctity of marriage' anyway? Is it sacred because it's performed "in the eyes of God"? What then of couples that don't get married in a church? Just sign the registry? Get married in a garden by a civil celebrant? They don't count?

How does gay-marriage desecrate the family? Will it affect your family? Are you going to try to force a gay man to have a 'normal' family?
Again, you're assume children are involved...and that is another matter COMPLETELY!!

Do you have any idea about the HIV pandemic sweeping Africa and Latin America? Almost exclusively hetro-sexual.

Obviously there are going to be a certain amount of people who are going to want to get married for the financial benefits...Exactly like there are a certain % of hetro couples that get married for the $$.

Hey...you're the doctor/science type.....You make us proud (and yourself a little cash on the side) by finding the gene that causes cancer so we can take a blood sample at birth and know if we'll get cancer.
Why are some people more agressive than others?
Why are some people better 'drinkers' than others?
Why are some people 'smarter' than others? Retain/process information better than others?
One person great at maths but can't spell, another is an English wiz but can't add??

Even your example is a silly one....Why do some people prefer brown than blue?
It's not a conscious thought (which you seem to be advocating that homosexuality is!)...so Doctor, WHY DO THEY??

Just because something is in the mind and can't be isolated into a gene, does not mean that it is not a physical thing, Doctor. Lots of chemicals wizzing about up there you know....Of course you do, you're a doctor.
 
Last edited:

MrChristo

The Zapper
Forum Member
Nov 11, 2001
4,414
5
0
Sexlexia...
Nosigar said:
The PC battle continues. Make suppositions about others and make them look bad and evil. God, I'm tiring of this bs. Brainwashed robots.

Again, we have a beautiful little contridiction within the space of two sentences.

I assume by 'brain washed robots' you mean people that can't think for themselves, that are easily lead and simply obey what they are 'told'.
Certain people on this board might want to remember that next time they blindly say something is 'evil' because god said so. ;)

Do any of us really give a shit about gays, Nosigar?
Given that I'm not, then no, I guess you are right.....Neither am I black or Jewish or Asian or terminally ill or female for that matter, so it's about time we all stopped giving a **** about them also, yeah?
 

Nosigar

53%
Forum Member
Jul 5, 2000
2,487
9
0
Florida
MrChristo said:
I assume by 'brain washed robots' you mean people that can't think for themselves, that are easily lead and simply obey what they are 'told'.
Certain people on this board might want to remember that next time they blindly say something is 'evil' because god said so. ;)

I will totally agree with you on this.
I defend no one in particular who makes blind statements without foundation, regardless of political view.


MrChristo said:
Do any of us really give a shit about gays, Nosigar?
Given that I'm not, then no, I guess you are right.....Neither am I black or Jewish or Asian or terminally ill or female for that matter, so it's about time we all stopped giving a **** about them also, yeah?

Again the PC crap and making assumptions about others. I cannot make anybody give a fuk about anyone. There is no law for it or against it, at least in most democracies. We cannot make people not racist or racist. It's a personal responsability. The problem with liberal extremists is that either they don't believe in personal responsability and therefore don't believe in the capacity of others, or they believe in legislating a specific "feeling of responsability". It is not a hate crime to dislike asians or blacks ot others. It IS pretty damn stupid to do so. What is a hate crime in this country is to physically punish or abuse a person of different ethnicity because of that ethnicity (as far as I know).
If you want to "awaken" people to the plight of others and entice their sympathy I suggest you try less bemeaning methods and understand that no one is obligated to follow our way of thinking regardless of how smart we think we are.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,909
133
63
16
L.A.
... understand that no one is obligated to follow our way of thinking regardless of how smart we think we are.
This is exactly what a gay marriage ban ammendment would do though. It forces ALL of society to endorse only 1 type of relationship. It limits the full "pusuit of happiness" of LAW ABIDING CONSENTUAL ADULTS. being gay is not against the law. Should it be? Incest, Polygamy, pedophilia are (and presumable always will be) against the law. There is nothing to indicate otherwise. This is the clear difference. Perhaps your biblical beliefs lump all of them together as GODLESS, but our society is inclusive and reasonable.

I'm with Christo on everything. Thanks for not making me type a ton - just read his view and that pretty much is mine.

I GUESS THAT MAKES ME A ROBOT! :142lmao:

It's funny, I'm as free-thinking as possible. But because I have 1 view that happens be in line with some other "extremist" group, that makes me a mindless robot of them? I don't get it. I'm certainly not part of a Liberal agenda out to tear down the family and let all the terrorists in. I think for myself.

My folks were were very straight and and had a very bad marriage. I grew up with essentially one parent. I came out straight and hard-working and law-abidiing. How could I possibly be so condescending as to judge what works best for someone else's family? There's no cookie cutter anser.
 

Chanman

:-?PipeSmokin'
Forum Member
bjfinste said:
Ironlock strikes me as the type of guy who still gets pissed off when he sees a "nigger" walking down the street with a white girl. On TV, of course, as he obviously doesn't see that in Pierre. That just ain't right, man! Hey, at least you're in a good state for yourself.
:nono:
kkk.jpg
 

Nosigar

53%
Forum Member
Jul 5, 2000
2,487
9
0
Florida
smurphy said:
This is exactly what a gay marriage ban ammendment would do though. It forces ALL of society to endorse only 1 type of relationship. It limits the full "pusuit of happiness" of LAW ABIDING CONSENTUAL ADULTS. being gay is not against the law. Should it be? Incest, Polygamy, pedophilia are (and presumable always will be) against the law. There is nothing to indicate otherwise. This is the clear difference. Perhaps your biblical beliefs lump all of them together as GODLESS, but our society is inclusive and reasonable.

I GUESS THAT MAKES ME A ROBOT! :142lmao:

Nobody is denying gays the pursuit of happiness nor banning their existence. All this is is just political lobbying, taking advantage of brainwashed robots to endorse a specific agenda. Period. :)
Marriage (in a legal sense) was created to protect and nurture the social nucleus (not nu-ke-leous :) ). Be it right or wrong, the intention was clear. The social nucleus consists of a man, woman and children (which come from a basic primal instinct of reproduction). And that is the reason marriage exists legally in the modern and not so modern world. Everybody understands that.
  • Marriage is not necessarry for reproduction.
Of course not. Marriage exists to nurture and protect a social culture.

Do I care what God or Religion says about gayness? Hell, I care very little about what any religion created by man has to say about many things. It's another from of control, as most of you libbies will agree with :142lmao:.
So it's not about religion and it's not about social structure. So what the hell is gay marriage about? And why the heck is it a political issue? There is where you will find the answer. "Political Issue".
Let me tell you, all of my "gay" acquaintances are opposed to gay marriage being made into law. They all support civil unions to protect one anothers assetts in the event of death, etc. AND THAT is why i say "who gives a chit about gays! It's not derogatory, it's simply a fact that only a small group of agenda driven lobbyists and their brainwashed robots follow. :talk:
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Maybe the Mormons had it right to start with. And why is there fewer whore houses. Are we saying those founding fathers and the cowboys had it all wrong.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,909
133
63
16
L.A.
I guess I basically agree with you, Nosigar. By your definition, I don't give a crap about gays either. The legal Civil Union definition is fine with me. The gay groups should probably be pragmatic and settle for this as much as possible.

It only became an issue with me with the proposed Constitutional Ammendment. This cuts everything black and white and forces us to choose between "extremes". Bush the divider yet again. Why do you think even many Repubs voted against this? They knew it was wreckless and divicive. The Ammendment would be discriminatory, IMO, and same with the majority of Congress.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top