StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.gp4teens.com/ forum/viewthread.asp?forumid=5&messageid=166206&ds=I+am+a+gay+teen%2E
Remove the space. Scroll down to the post "Creed" made:

1st Corinthians 6:9 "Do you not know that the unrighteuos will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor sodomites" so basicly all those who said that bein gay was ok, u are wrong.That right there basicly says that gays will go to hell.Aaron you werent made that way, so u can stop, bcuz god wouldnt make it where you wouldn't get into heaven.

Grrr... Must... Resist... Urge... To... Kill...

Funny thing about religion, dieities of such mercy and love preaching death and destruction whenever it suits the preacher.

What once was good about the three major religions has been distorted and twisted by those who claim to speak in the name of their god.

*Sigh* Someone needs to teach Creed to read Greek. The oldest manuscripts don't say homosexual. It was a mistranslation in the KJV that somehow has persisted for the last ~300 years.

The Dark wrote:*Sigh* Someone needs to teach Creed to read Greek. The oldest manuscripts don't say homosexual. It was a mistranslation in the KJV that somehow has persisted for the last ~300 years.

I doubt that would do anything. Most of these people have a hatred of homosexuality that stems from something far deeper than a simple mistranslation in their holy texts.

Alex Moon wrote:

The Dark wrote:*Sigh* Someone needs to teach Creed to read Greek. The oldest manuscripts don't say homosexual. It was a mistranslation in the KJV that somehow has persisted for the last ~300 years.

I doubt that would do anything. Most of these people have a hatred of homosexuality that stems from something far deeper than a simple mistranslation in their holy texts.

Probably instinctual. Deep-seated in most life-forms is the desire to reproduce, and homosexuals go exactly opposite to that desire. So, the gay-bashing primitives feel the need to fight against it because of some fear that the human race will die out because of "The Gay".

Dalton wrote:Probably instinctual. Deep-seated in most life-forms is the desire to reproduce, and homosexuals go exactly opposite to that desire. So, the gay-bashing primitives feel the need to fight against it because of some fear that the human race will die out because of "The Gay".

The sad thing is that homosexuals and those who even have outright physically transexual characteristics (hermaphroditism, whether true or partial), probably fulfilled a function in primitive societies of easing the burden of child care, food collection, and tool production, on the reproducing part of society so that the infant mortality rate was reduced.

Obviously, this guy's a nutjob...but what I want to know is why the hell you were at one of these "teen" boards. Are you a masochist, Exonerate?

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
The sad thing is that homosexuals and those who even have outright physically transexual characteristics (hermaphroditism, whether true or partial), probably fulfilled a function in primitive societies of easing the burden of child care, food collection, and tool production, on the reproducing part of society so that the infant mortality rate was reduced.

I'll buy that. Fits in perfectly with the Grandmother Hypothesis, and I really do think that human biparental care was not necessarily originally provided by the biological father (it's a whole thing about hunting and male bonding)

There's also the fact that, IIRC, Corinthians was written during the height of the Roman Empire.
To Iudea (no, that's not a typo), Rome = EVAHL; Romans = well, you get the picture by now

Here's anotherone

Hymn 43 by Jethro Tull

Oh father high in heaven -- smile down upon your son
whose busy with his money games -- his women and his gun.
Oh Jesus save me!
And the unsung Western hero killed an Indian or three
and made his name in Hollywood
to set the white man free.
Oh Jesus save me!
If Jesus saves -- well, He'd better save Himself
from the gory glory seekers who use His name in death.
Oh Jesus save me!
I saw him in the city and on the mountains of the moon --
His cross was rather bloody --
He could hardly roll His stone.
Oh Jesus save me!

I lost my temper when responding to that post

I still can't post in GP4Teens, it seems i am banned or something. Every time i reply to something the post never shows up. God damn fundies can't take the truth.

Gosh, what is that page?

After reading some posts there I had the urge to beat some of those "christian" fundies to death with their bibles...

I think I used to get a magazine from them. . . -ponders-

innerbrat wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
The sad thing is that homosexuals and those who even have outright physically transexual characteristics (hermaphroditism, whether true or partial), probably fulfilled a function in primitive societies of easing the burden of child care, food collection, and tool production, on the reproducing part of society so that the infant mortality rate was reduced.

I'll buy that. Fits in perfectly with the Grandmother Hypothesis, and I really do think that human biparental care was not necessarily originally provided by the biological father (it's a whole thing about hunting and male bonding)

Really? I seem to recall that being raised by your biological parents was the norm for quite a long stretch of human history. I have also noticed that the importance of the biological father in a child's life is being heavily dis-advertized. (Probably not the right word there.)

The question then becomes, did a fact from prehistory spawn the propaganda campaign of the last 40 years? Or did the propagandists somehow stumble onto a fact which for thousands of years went mostly unreported? Okay, threadjack terminated. Sorry, kids.

EDIT: Sorry, you'll have to pardon me if I'm a little touchy on the subject of the progressive trend to view fathers as, at best, absentee incomes and, more often, unnecessary appendages which take up space in the home better used for the wife's Fling-O-The-Week. (Oh, touchier than I thought! lol) Since I happen to be a father myself (formerly the latter, and lately the former) I tend to take such theories as attacks of a somewhat personal nature. I know that's stupid, but I can't help it.

I'd reccomend telling that kid "Who gives a damn about what the Bible says?". If he says you'll go to hell for that, ask him why the Bible is the word of God, and not some other holy book. If he evades that question, present to him the Mark 16:18 poison challenge.

There is no need to postulate that bisexuality or homosexuality is beneficial from an evolutionary perspective. Evolution, unlike Christianity, is NOT a worldview. It is a scientific theory: nothing more and nothing less. If something is not advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint, that does not make it immoral.

It is disadvantageous from an evolutionary standpoint to find ways of treating genetic disease (as opposed to simply letting the victims die off). Does that mean it's immoral? Of course not. So there is no fucking reason to bring up the "purpose" of sex or imagined evolutionary advantages/justifications in order to refute their bullshit claims about homosexuality being a sin.

Like far too many Biblical "sin", it is victimless, hence not a sin. So the homophobes can just go fuck off.

Raoul Duke, Jr. and Darth Wong Pretty much got what I was thinking but I didn't say it cause I don't have enough prestige to do it and be taken seriously .

Is he saying I have prestige?

Anyway, here's another challenge for the kid -- ask him why the Bible is true. When he says that it's because it's God's Word, ask him how he knows there's a God. When he says it's because the Bible tells him so, laugh in his fucking face.

oh how deliciously evil

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Is he saying I have prestige?

No, that would be Mike, you just said what I was thinking but didn't bother saying cause I thought that people would just ignore the post .

ArmorPierce wrote:

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Is he saying I have prestige?

No, that would be Mike, you just said what I was thinking but didn't bother saying cause I thought that people would just ignore the post .

Dammit, Pierce! You just had to go and ruin a perfectly good delusion, didn't you?!

Oh bloody hell, lost my post.

--threadjack continues, sorry --

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:

innerbrat wrote:I'll buy that. Fits in perfectly with the Grandmother Hypothesis, and I really do think that human biparental care was not necessarily originally provided by the biological father (it's a whole thing about hunting and male bonding)

Really? I seem to recall that being raised by your biological parents was the norm for quite a long stretch of human history. I have also noticed that the importance of the biological father in a child's life is being heavily dis-advertized. (Probably not the right word there.)

The question then becomes, did a fact from prehistory spawn the propaganda campaign of the last 40 years? Or did the propagandists somehow stumble onto a fact which for thousands of years went mostly unreported? Okay, threadjack terminated. Sorry, kids.

EDIT: Sorry, you'll have to pardon me if I'm a little touchy on the subject of the progressive trend to view fathers as, at best, absentee incomes and, more often, unnecessary appendages which take up space in the home better used for the wife's Fling-O-The-Week. (Oh, touchier than I thought! lol) Since I happen to be a father myself (formerly the latter, and lately the former) I tend to take such theories as attacks of a somewhat personal nature. I know that's stupid, but I can't help it.

Raoul,
I had a full post about the Grandmother Hypothesis and the role of hunting as a social, not a nutritional, activity, but my connection was lost.

So briefly - don't read anything into my theories about early human societies implying anything about my views on modern day society.

Biparental care is bloody important, and in today's society it is both parents that fill that role. I didn't want to sound all misandrist, so sorry - I don't support father-of-the-week situations and I'm aware that new partners put chldren from previous partenrs at risk, but I also think that the best parents don't necessarily have to be the biological parents. Studies on child abuse show adopted children are as well looked after as any, and I think that a step-parent (EITHER) can be just as good as a biological one.

Sorry.

Robert Treder wrote:Obviously, this guy's a nutjob...but what I want to know is why the hell you were at one of these "teen" boards. Are you a masochist, Exonerate?

No... In fact, I'm a teen myself. I'm there as part of my obligations to a certain organization I will not mention here...

Exonerate wrote:

Robert Treder wrote:Obviously, this guy's a nutjob...but what I want to know is why the hell you were at one of these "teen" boards. Are you a masochist, Exonerate?

No... In fact, I'm a teen myself. I'm there as part of my obligations to a certain organization I will not mention here...

You've got a fundy gf huh?

*shakes head* The things men will do for pussy...