The war on gay kids: "Give 'em a good punch"

[MelodieOctavia]

Wow, I can't believe how liberal you guys are. Blowing something so silly out of proportion. HE WAS SPEAKING METAPHORICALLY.. Guys punch each other, he was telling them to snap them out of their [censored]ry, not to encourage it, to "Man Up". He even came back and said it was just an expression.

Our countries economy is on the verge of another meltdown and this is the "breaking news" we're discussing? Wooooooooooow

Public outcry is usually followed by massive backpedaling.

The "backpedaling" was after the "pubic outcry". That wasn't even backpedaling, like I already stated, he said it was just an expression. People are going out of their ways to misunderstand him and try to twist around his words. He was saying to crush out the gayness and not encourage it, before it manifests, like you would get treated to stop a disease before it gets worse; as an analogy.

Yeah, I worded that wrong, but the message still remains the same.

So what you're saying is mental and emotional abuse for the sake of "crushing the gay out" is okay? If anything that would CAUSE mental instability where there was none.

Nice edit of your original post bro, and I love how you try to twist around words I say like you did with the pastor.

Your post is so unintelligent, there's no way I can respond to it. Proverbs 26:4 "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself."

If you're too simple minded to understand an analogy or a metaphor, then no one could possibly argue with you.

You have nothing in form of rebuttal, so you insult my intelligence. I'm not sure, is your post supposed to be ironic? Because the irony is not lost on me. I won't be responding to any more of your replies, so please, don't bother replying to this one.

 

[Clydefrosch]

the bible forbids women to wear pants.

why dont we talk about that?

 

[mthrnite]

..while we're on Proverbs..

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. Proverbs 23:13-14

If he's speaking metaphorically, and I'll assume he was, I will also assume (growing up religious in North Carolina) that people who believe that being gay is a sin, also have a thing for literal interpretations.
It's a very good thing he did backpedal, but he should have clarified as soon as he said it, not after it trended on twitter or whatever.

Both what he said, and what he meant, were detestable in my opinion, but at least he clarified.

 

[Thesolcity]

..while we're on Proverbs..

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. Proverbs 23:13-14

If he's speaking metaphorically, and I'll assume he was, I will also assume (growing up religious in North Carolina) that people who believe that being gay is a sin, also have a thing for literal interpretations.
It's a very good thing he did backpedal, but he should have clarified as soon as he said it, not after it trended on twitter or whatever.

Both what he said, and what he meant, were detestable in my opinion, but at least he clarified.

When did we get on the subject of random bible verses? People twist things (like religion) to fit their own interpretations. Nothing new here, carry on...

 

[mthrnite]

..while we're on Proverbs..

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. Proverbs 23:13-14

If he's speaking metaphorically, and I'll assume he was, I will also assume (growing up religious in North Carolina) that people who believe that being gay is a sin, also have a thing for literal interpretations.
It's a very good thing he did backpedal, but he should have clarified as soon as he said it, not after it trended on twitter or whatever.

Both what he said, and what he meant, were detestable in my opinion, but at least he clarified.

When did we get on the subject of random bible verses? People twist things (like religion) to fit their own interpretations. Nothing new here, carry on...

This topic is about a preacher who suggested severe punishment for effeminate acting children. Read the first post and listen to the preacher in question, and I think you'll then see why the above verse is very relevant and not random at all.

 

[Thesolcity]

..while we're on Proverbs..

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. Proverbs 23:13-14

If he's speaking metaphorically, and I'll assume he was, I will also assume (growing up religious in North Carolina) that people who believe that being gay is a sin, also have a thing for literal interpretations.
It's a very good thing he did backpedal, but he should have clarified as soon as he said it, not after it trended on twitter or whatever.

Both what he said, and what he meant, were detestable in my opinion, but at least he clarified.

When did we get on the subject of random bible verses? People twist things (like religion) to fit their own interpretations. Nothing new here, carry on...

This topic is about a preacher who suggested severe punishment for effeminate acting children. Read the first post and listen to the preacher in question, and I think you'll then see why the above verse is very relevant and not random at all.

Got me there. Sorry.

 

[Pleng]

I think I'll raise my sons on Professor Layton games so they will grow up to be perfect English gentlemen. Then I'll have no need to worry about them ever being gay.

hahahaaaa man do you need some history lessons!

wait...

I'm just going to point them to Jesus

...oh never mind, then

 

[Deleted-188346]

what are you talking about, conseption is only granted by GOD

And I was so sure that all those anatomists and physiologists were onto something...well, that solves that. I'll go tell them to get other jobs and scrap all existing research and knowledge about the human reproductive system and cycle.

Also, I'll have to contact all the dictionary publishers and make them correct the word "conception". They appeared to have made an error.

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. Proverbs 23:13-14

Wow. That would be a hell of a passage to quote to recovering victims of parental abuse.

 

[exosquad]

this man, everyone who agrees with him, everybody that applauded, wrong. all wrong. incorrect. socially unacceptable. WRONG. no devils advocate, no seeing it from his side, no metaphor BS. NO. He's a man that sad those words and meant them that way and hes wrong.

NEVER punch a child. and im not anti spanking, but punching is messed up. punch the word byitself implies violence. this isnt any type of discipline. this is JUST abuse.
And this is the view of people who are religious? close to god? people agree with this man?
homosexuality isnt made from sissys, and tom girls. but NOBODY has the right to beat a sissy or tom girl just because that jackass said its okay. i had thought we as a society had progressed, but this... its just wrong. abusing your children, hating gays(or even just fem guys/butch girls), pro marriage (but not anti divorce).... are somehow all hand in hand.
W T F

 

[koimayeul]

When the first original couple of human beings are male and female it leave no place to being born homosexual, just saying.

Hahahahahahahaha.
Ah thank you I needed that after work. Go take a 9th grade science class and come back to debate this on a scientific level, you'll be ready by then.
You might get away with 7th grade.

I don't get your comment about science grade maybe am i being too french? Science = Human interpretation to me so i can't argue so much anyway. Though, there is no debate to have about facts. They just are. From an evolutive perspective there could have been one single entity to divide into all other life forms, there is still only two viable gender left and tied to each other by nature. From my creationist understanding and belief, our first parents are one male and one female, each born with the natural instinct of mating with each other in order to survive, there is no alternate way with no science involved. Every birth beyond them share the same natural instinct within their genes. No homosexual gene possible hence not a forced nature upon one's birth.

Hold on, i'm not saying is it right or wrong, it is just not natural. Sexual union is only possible through sexual organs intercourse, male penis within female vagina. No debate about fact. It is sad and i feel sad for people in love with a person from the same gender for this one reason alone. No. Sexual. Union. Possible. For the sake of a healthy, fulfilling relationship. Rubbing the stuff, bum sex for gays and double dong for lesbians are derogatory form of union. This is my point about it, and i leave it at that. FACTS.

About the religion involved.. It is human to try and twist every single aspect of what we go through (and scriptures in this very case) to feel righteous and "whatever make you sleep at night". A person freedom equals his/her responsibility, nothing less, nothing more. Keep God out of this. Wake up!

Now the best turn this discussion could take even more is from Lily

Geez. why do people get so anal when people Say they believe homosexually is a choice?

Because it's not a choice and saying it's a choice implies that it can be changed.

If you can choose/change your gender then why not sexual orientation?

Because you can never change your gender. Despite what people think, you are born male or female and your body will always be genetically male or female. You can change the outside of your body all you want, but you will always be what you were born.
The same goes for sexuality, genetics plays a huge role in human sexuality.

Also did you choose to be straight?

Saying "it's not a choice" as if that's a cold, hard, stone fact that isn't up for debate is not going to make anyone interested in hearing your side of the issue. There are many different beliefs, opinions, science and pseudo-science floating around. Rather than say "it's not a choice", or flippantly ask when someone decided to be straight, why not ask why they feel sexuality is a choice?

Perhaps they did choose to be straight.

Nobody is ever going to get anywhere presenting their opinions and beliefs as fact.

Surely a discussion would be more interesting...

This is beyond me to deny it as a choice. Think about it, why are you with your partner over every other person.. ? Why stay with him/her over ALL the others? If not by choice i feel sorry for you and even more for him/her. And if you can find another reason than a genuine need and lust for love, or you are not loyal to him/her anyway, well.. This would be just wrong as a relationship.

Denying the possibility to CHANGE, neglecting the power of human WILL.. That makes me sick. Freedom = Responsibility, let me say it again. Hopefully no more bible bashing, when Muslims and many other countries and religions would not allow homosexual people to breath, you have it easy with us open minded and tolerant Christians. Leave God out of your responsabilities when it comes to personal decisions. Because your decisions may very well be the only thing you really can claim as your own..

 

[BlueStar]

As I mentioned, Christians aren't bound by the Old Testament.

Cool, you don't have to follow the Ten Commandments then.

 

[Deleted-188346]

Science = Human pretention to me so i can't argue so much anyway.

That's it, this conversation has become too hilarious for me.
You've topped it koimayeul. Science being "human pretention" (being posted on a forum, on a computer, which is a product of science) is just too hilariously stupid to be serious.
You're a hell of a comedian, I gotta say.

 

[Depravo]

Hold on, i'm not saying is it right or wrong, it is just not natural.

Yet you typed this message on a computer. Presumably you also live in some kind of house and eat your food cooked. You wear clothes, talk to people hundreds of miles away on a handheld device and regularly travel in some kind of motorised vehicle. None of these things are natural.

If there are any sound arguments against homosexuality, it being 'not natural' is not one of them.

 

[koimayeul]

Science = Human pretention to me so i can't argue so much anyway.

That's it, this conversation has become too hilarious for me.
You've topped it koimayeul. Science being "human pretention" (being posted on a forum, on a computer, which is a product of science) is just too hilariously stupid to be serious.
You're a hell of a comedian, I gotta say.

Way to belittle my take on it quoting 2 words?

Edit: Or maybe something was lost in translation as im french.. ? By human pretention i mean human interpretation.

 

[koimayeul]

Hold on, i'm not saying is it right or wrong, it is just not natural.

Yet you typed this message on a computer. Presumably you also live in some kind house and eat your food cooked. You wear clothes, talk to people hundreds of miles away on a handheld device and regularly travel in some kind of motorised vehicle. None of these things are natural.

If there are any sound arguments against homosexuality, it being 'not natural' is not one of them.

So we learned and learn science over time and efforts, i don't see the tie with homosexuality? Also i'm not arguing against homosexuality as i'm totally okay with it. I am not favorable to it though i am not neutral. The way i feel is compassionate for homosexual people for the reasons i explained in my long post above. Not judging or condemning people for their choices as long as they stand for it. About it being not natural, no sexual union possible with the other sexual organ missing that is not me making it so, sorry!

 

[Deleted-188346]

Hold on, i'm not saying is it right or wrong, it is just not natural.

How isn't homosexuality natural? It's exactly the same as a man and a woman, but no woman, or no man. The emotions are the same. The physical act is only superficially different from the heterosexual act of sex. And the gender difference is, again, rather superficial.

So how isn't it natural?

Sexual union is only possible through sexual organs intercourse, male penis within female vagina. No debate about fact.

Indeed, naturally creating children (sexual union) is only naturally achievable through heterosexual intercourse.
So what?
If you have a problem with that inability, then by that logic, a man should not mate with an infertile woman or vice versa.

It is sad and i feel sad for people in love with a person from the same gender for this one reason alone. No. Sexual. Union. Possible. For the sake of a healthy, fulfilling relationship. Rubbing the stuff, bum sex for gays and double dong for lesbians are derogatory form of union. This is my point about it, and i leave it at that. FACTS.

What is your definition of "sexual union" anyway? The ability to naturally produce children does not always equal a "healthy, fulfilling relationship".
How is anal sex, or use of dildos (they are not explicitly "double dongs", by the way) a derogatory form of union?
Why are you claiming your homophobic opinion as facts?

So we learned and learn science over time and efforts, i don't see the tie with homosexuality? Also i'm not arguing against homosexuality as i'm totally okay with it. I am not favorable to it though i am not neutral. The way i feel is compassionate for homosexual people for the reasons i explained in my long post above. Not judging or condemning people for their choices as long as they stand for it.

Edit: Or maybe something was lost in translation as im french ? By human pretention i mean human interpretation.

He's saying that technology (and any product of science) is just as unnatural as homosexuality. Yet, you use technology willingly, which makes your argument somewhat hypocritical.

 

[koimayeul]

snip

Well i have my share of flaws but i am no hypocrite. Sexual union as sexual intercourse, insertion of a male's penis into a female's vagina as nature is built and intended, leaving procreation aside. A woman's vagina nerves are meant to meet with a man's penis nerves to "have sex", as far the natural order of things go. Hands, oral sex, anal sex are no sexual organs. Sexual interaction is irrelevent in this logic as it is "foreplay" and deviant from natural purpose of things, to the main act of uniting both sex together, only possible through each other of distinct opposite/complementary gender. Emotions and everything involved in homosexual relationship have the same value to me as every other relationship. I am no "homophobic" enemy to get down so chill out.. Seesh

 

[BasedKiliK]

Beating a child for any reason that's just as ridiculous as this is unnacceptable PERIOD. Gay or not.

 

[FAST6191]

koimayeul - science is a process/method* not a body of knowledge, a common and fairly forgiveable mistake but a mistake none the less. Certainly a lot of knowledge about what has gone before/the current state of things is beyond useful to operate science to generate new knowledge in the modern world though.

*make an observation, form a hypothesis, fairly test said hypothesis repeatedly and if it turns out to hold you have yourself a theory and if that theory gets enough supporting evidence it becomes a scientific law. This being said said law and indeed said theory could be utterly negated by any one new theory/experiment although when it gets to be called a law most of the time it will not be or will it will be considered a simplistic model in need of improvement when it comes to different scales*.

*laws of motion- utterly useless when you get very fast or very small but they still are a useful approximation for a large chunk of existence.

Equally if I may use the personification of nature she is a cruel mistress and anything that does not aid the continuation (note not necessarily reproduction) of the species tends to get wiped out very fast yet various non reproductive types of sexuality* have been around for thousands of years and exists elsewhere in nature. Whether this plays into recessive and combination genetics and indeed society as a whole (tools and opposable thumbs were good but speech and society which is not entirely predicated upon breeding (see models that run along the lines of survival is not necessarily those that reproduce but those that are more likely to have grandchildren) was equally useful in the rise of humanity as arguably the dominant life form on the planet) I guess we can debate later.

*sex itself is in many ways a waste of what at least was until incredibly recently (in terms of existence of life on earth) very valuable energy which every viable animal again until recently (see brown fat in humans) has done everything it can to conserve and as such it has been posited that the drive for it came about to override the drive to conserve energy.

Re others and "wow this thread did not get locked" I for one am not surprised it has stayed open (we have a fairly good lot around here) and although we have had better threads they have usually started from a better point than the extremely ill considered offhand remarks of an ignorant that society has unfortunately given something of a position of power/respect/authority.

There are other points I probably would like to address in the thread but others have done a fair line in it and I probably need to be doing something to earn a crust.

 

[notmeanymore]

As I mentioned, Christians aren't bound by the Old Testament.

Cool, you don't have to follow the Ten Commandments then.

Except for the ones repeated in the New Testament. Which is all but the fourth.

Beating a child for any reason that's just as ridiculous as this is unnacceptable PERIOD. Gay or not.

Completely serious question: When is an acceptable time to beat a child?