With friends like these, who needs enemies?

I think it's to distinguish a behavior/crime that was a one-off versus one that is likely to happen again. I.e. killing someone for sleeping with your wife vs. killing someone for being black. There's a lot more people potentially at risk for the second one.

Though that's my unsubstantiated opinion. :B

Saleha wrote:

to me, the biggest "sin" is doing bad unto others. Telling gays they should get pseudo-corrective therapy which only serves to make them loathe themselves, and prohibiting them to prove their love to each other or to visit their partner in hospitals or make decisions for them if they are too sick to do so themselves - THAT is a sin in my eyes.

I'm not religious and never have been, and the whole concept of "sin" is dubious to me, but I'll go with it for the sake of the argument. "Don't do bad unto others" is the one rule that all rules boil down to, and the only one I can respect. Ten commandents, fuck, they all boil down to "don't hurt others" and "stroke my ego", and I'm not down with worshipping a being that's all MEMEME.
Essentially I'm saying I agree with Saleha; out of a gay guy in love and a homophobe screaming at him, it's the latter who's breaking the rule.

Howithurts wrote:

Maybe I'm being stupid, but I'm not quite sure what the point of the thread is. Is it for discussing homosexual lifestyles? I had trouble understanding exactly what Korora was saying.

From a thread in the Closet:

Korora wrote:

I have in mind a thread about people on your side of a debate that you cannot abide--they're making the rest of your side look bad, and your opponents often tar your whole side with the same wide brush. I don't know where to put it; this board lacks a separate forum for controversial topics.

Eudyptula albosignata

I think this was supposed to be about "why the hell are you in my camp, you're not helping" (there was a brief mention of Glenn Beck et al in the OP).
What confuses me is that this person has been around forever, and not just since this incarnation of the board, and I don't understand how the collective response was not expected.



...and we don't have room for controversial topics here. Yeah.

grmblfjx wrote:

What confuses me is that this person has been around forever, and not just since this incarnation of the board, and I don't understand how the collective response was not expected.

Hope springs eternal?

Spotts1701 wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

What confuses me is that this person has been around forever, and not just since this incarnation of the board, and I don't understand how the collective response was not expected.

Hope springs eternal?

As does stupidity and insanity.

Spotts1701 wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

What confuses me is that this person has been around forever, and not just since this incarnation of the board, and I don't understand how the collective response was not expected.

Hope springs eternal?

No, that would imply that Korora saw the possibility and was hoping against it. I'm not getting that vibe at all.

I have a question that hopefully someone could answer for me: For those who truely believe that one chooses their sexual orintation (no matter if you think homosexual = bad or not) how and why do people choose it?

bleachedblackcat wrote:

I have a question that hopefully someone could answer for me: For those who truely believe that one chooses their sexual orintation (no matter if you think homosexual = bad or not) how and why do people choose it?

While I know that sexual orientation is something a person is born with, I also know that experimentation is a normal part of the human experience. That may be part of where the idea that a person chooses their sexual orientation comes from. In the thinking of some people, if a person can try having sex with a person of the opposite sex, and try having sex with a person of the same sex, and come to their own conclusions over which one they like better, then it must therefore follow that a person is choosing whether they're straight or gay. This is a logical fallacy, but there it is.

Under the right circumstances, a straight person might enjoy sex with a person of the same sex, while a gay person might enjoy sex with a person of the opposite sex. While I was studying theater arts in college, I met a lesbian who told me that when she had decided to have a child, instead of going the artificial insemination route, she chose to have sex with her partner's brother so that both she and her partner would have a biological connection to the child. She said that while she wasn't sexually attracted to the man who fathered her child, he made an effort to make it good for her, so it actually was kind of enjoyable. She was still a lesbian--sex with a man didn't change her orientation--but it wasn't as bad as she'd expected, either.

I know this is dead but...

Korora wrote:

That does not mean we must wink at sin.

Yeah, well, I do it anyway.
Hi, sin!

Seriously, people talk like that?

So...basically Korora is complaining that their dumb-as-fuck opinion is shared by other dumb fucks? How is this thread three pages long?

Because we like to all start squaking at once like a flock of chickens. Hell, we had a pro-life/creationist thread once that made it to 83 pages.

Quijotesca wrote:

I know this is dead but...

Korora wrote:

That does not mean we must wink at sin.

Yeah, well, I do it anyway.
Hi, sin!

Seriously, people talk like that?

Sadly, yes. Fundamentalist Christians are giving to spouting such phrases in an attempt, I think, to sound Biblical and learned.

And anyway, how can you wink at an abstract concept? You'd have to wink at the person you thought was sinning, which might give them the wrong idea.

grmblfjx wrote:

Because we like to all start squaking at once like a flock of chickens. Hell, we had a pro-life/creationist thread once that made it to 83 pages.

I'll have you know I don't sound like a mere chicken.

I sound like a right cock.

How appropriate.

Rabid Badger wrote:

Quijotesca wrote:

I know this is dead but...

Korora wrote:

That does not mean we must wink at sin.

Yeah, well, I do it anyway.
Hi, sin!

Seriously, people talk like that?

Sadly, yes. Fundamentalist Christians are giving to spouting such phrases in an attempt, I think, to sound Biblical and learned.

And anyway, how can you wink at an abstract concept? You'd have to wink at the person you thought was sinning, which might give them the wrong idea.

Hi, there, sin. Haven't seen you around lately. (Okay, I have, but just go along with it, okay?) You got somethin' planned for tonight? 'Cause I'm ready for anything.

New York voted to legalize same-sex marriage.


*cue Korora having an aneurysm*

Miss Misery wrote:

New York voted to legalize same-sex marriage.


*cue Korora having an aneurysm*

Lady Anne wrote:

Miss Misery wrote:

New York voted to legalize same-sex marriage.


*cue Korora having an aneurysm*

Hot stock pick of the day: KY

Braigwen wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Miss Misery wrote:

New York voted to legalize same-sex marriage.


*cue Korora having an aneurysm*

Hot stock pick of the day: KY

Braigwen, have I told you how awesome you are?

Braigwen wrote:

Hot stock pick of the day: KY

For buying or selling?

Sutremaine wrote:

Braigwen wrote:

Hot stock pick of the day: KY

For buying or selling?

Whether going in or out, it's a choice you will feel good about.

lololol

Braigwen wrote:

Sutremaine wrote:

Braigwen wrote:

Hot stock pick of the day: KY

For buying or selling?

Whether going in or out, it's a choice you will feel good about.

Nicely done.

TheHermit wrote:

Braigwen wrote:

Sutremaine wrote:

Braigwen wrote:

Hot stock pick of the day: KY

For buying or selling?

Whether going in or out, it's a choice you will feel good about.

Nicely done.

You just need a good feel for the right time to plunge a cheeky phrase into an otherwise monotonous back and forth discussion.