ForumGarden

LOL I listen to Dr. Laura every day at work just to have something to chat with co-workers about.

She's too much. You're so right. People call worshiping her and she walks all over them. We're suckers for abuse us humans...

Wyrd:-6

It does matter to a lot of folks of varying sexual orientations. They feel that it is a necessary part of their lives and that they have been abused for far too long. I agree with them. Let this end and let's get on with some of the other important things in life.

Shalom

Ted:-6

:-6

Good to hear from you all and Ted and Bez but intolerance has many aspects and not all of them are sexual.

I keep telling my wife she is actually allowing the people living around her to control her life because she instinctively will not do what they do - especially on a Sunday.

After so many years abroad I am surprised at the backsliding of my wife who will not allow me to go to church unless I am dressed exactly as she wants, ie the traditional dark blue serge suit with collar and tie and then the man preaching from the pulpit is often dressed in a chequered, open necked shirt and jeans with the legs slashed.

What is most important?

The MESSAGE or the MESSENGER?

As a child I remember asking why it was alright for my Uncle Jock to come and see us from Aberdeen in a FOUR wheel car but I could not go out on a TWO WHEEL bicycle on a Sunday - I had a rough few hours after that, I can tell you.

No wonder some children from all strata of society grow up with some very odd hang-ups. Grown ups DO HAVE SOME ODD IDEAS!

And who is to blame?

God bless

randall.

randall:-6

I retired some 12 years ago and have only worn a tie three times. T-shirts etc. are quite all right for church. You could try going in the kind of clothing that Jesus wore and I can tell you it did not include a suit and tie. It's what is on the inside that counts not what is on the outside.

Shalom

Ted:-6

How is it possible to advocate homosexuality in any faith other than Hedonism? If Lust is a sin, then the only extremist advocation of sex is purely within a partnership, in the quest to spawn the next generation. Any other use of sex has no other deep moral purpose other than lust, pleasure- and even with test-tube babies, both a male and a female input have to be involved. Unless, of course, you want to ignore the whole concept of cheating on a partner as well...

Singh-Song;652222 wrote: How is it possible to advocate homosexuality in any faith other than Hedonism?I know of no faith which advocates homosexuality. I deplore any faith which persecutes it. Homosexuality is an expression of sexuality between people of the same sex. Just as with heterosexuality it can involve love, lust and athletics in any combination. It's manifest in other species beside ours, it's "natural" behaviour. A faith-based attitude of hostility toward any expression of love - or athleticism, come to that - is to be deplored. A faith-based attitude of hostility toward lust is quite possibly a legitimate stance. Distinguishing these aspects helps clarify the terms of the discussion.

No animal species can pursue purely homosexual sex without commiting self-extinction, the ones you cite are omnisexual- i.e. Hedonistic animal societies, where sex is primarily used for pleasure rather than reproduction. And anyone could use the same argument to condone murder, rape, cannibalism... Arguing that, 'The animals do it, why can't we", just doesn't cut it...

Singh-Song;652245 wrote: anyone could use the same argument to condone murder, rape, cannibalism... Arguing that, 'The animals do it, why can't we", just doesn't cut it...Society penalizes murder and rape because it quite reasonably deplores harm to others. I'm not sure of the UK's legal attitude to cannibalism but I suspect it isn't a crime here. If you ever catch me arguing that "The animals do it, why can't we" you may rightly take me to task, just as you may draw attention to any reference to exclusively homosexual species or societies if I ever misguidedly allude to them.

I agree that there are a few hedonistic animal societies where sex is primarily used for pleasure rather than reproduction, but in every species where it has regular rather than accidental expression, hedonistic or homosexual behaviour is an evolutionary trait improving the survival chance of kin-related genes. They don't just do it for fun, as it were. Humankind is the notable exception in that genetic excellence (broadly speaking, and in societies which disallow eugenics) is no longer related to survival after a child passes the age of, say, a year.

The "Christian" stand against homosexuality is simply Augustinian neurosis. Some 500 species of animal have been found to commit homosexual acts in approximately 10% of the population. Any suggestion that it is not natural is pure BS. Christian theologian M. Fox.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I am so very tired of wishing that I could explain the broader explanation of homosexuality to those who are so appaled by it. Tired because it is important to me to make people understand. It is not only or simply the act of pursuing sexual activity with someone of the same sex. There are homosexual couples who do not engage in sexual activity at all. It can be simply loving another human being of the same sex. There are so many ways that love manifests itself between people. In human minds that have acknowledged and accepted the reality that love has no boundaries... there is no longer any fear. These enlightened people are now able to live life with no anomosity towards those who have been fortunate enough to have found love with anyone. And free to live their own lives fearlessly knowing that the experience of giving or receiving love is possible around any corner, at any time, with anyone.

What about the rights of heterosexuals? The right to use a public toilet, or a changing room at a sports venue without being oggled by someone of the same sex? The freedom to live our own lives without being the subject of someone's attentions? It almost makes one ask why male and female facilities are segregated at all? I'm not comfortable about potentially having my naked body looked over as a target- I think the right to privacy calls for segregation between the homo- and the hetero-sexual communities in those situations, otherwise we might as well be living in a naturalist community...

Homosexuality is a pain in the arse.

Singh-Song;653131 wrote: What about the rights of heterosexuals? The right to use a public toilet, or a changing room at a sports venue without being oggled by someone of the same sex? The freedom to live our own lives without being the subject of someone's attentions? It almost makes one ask why male and female facilities are segregated at all? I'm not comfortable about potentially having my naked body looked over as a target- I think the right to privacy calls for segregation between the homo- and the hetero-sexual communities in those situations, otherwise we might as well be living in a naturalist community...By all means lobby for such segregation. I expect the reason it's not widely available, in the way male/female segregation is when public genital exposure is likely, is that distinguishing male and female is easier than distinguishing homosexual from heterosexual. Unless one is particularly adept at sniffing out the one from the other in the way a Witchfinder General is when confronted with Satanic manifestation, one is reliant on the honesty of others when they choose which facility to enter. A person "not comfortable about potentially having my naked body looked over as a target" might perhaps be paranoid enough to suspect the gay community of deliberately entering at the wrong door, thereby defeating the rather expensive precaution of erecting four doors in the first place.

I s'pose we could just change the definition of the signs. Instead of the little man-figure or woman-figure indicating which sex you are, we can have it mean which sex you'd like.



Those who like sex with men -- the door with the pants.



Whose who like sex with women -- the door with the skirt.

Singh-Song;653131 wrote: What about the rights of heterosexuals? The right to use a public toilet, or a changing room at a sports venue without being oggled by someone of the same sex? The freedom to live our own lives without being the subject of someone's attentions? It almost makes one ask why male and female facilities are segregated at all? I'm not comfortable about potentially having my naked body looked over as a target- I think the right to privacy calls for segregation between the homo- and the hetero-sexual communities in those situations, otherwise we might as well be living in a naturalist community...


Oh come on. What are you going to do when you're in a public place and a *woman* looks you up and down? Is that also an advance and an unwelcome one at that? This reminds me of being 7 and in the backseat with my cousin yelling "Mom! Karen's touching me! Mom! Make her stop looking at me!"

Looking you over as a target? That makes it sound as if homosexuals are lascivious leches running around looking for victims! The truth is much more benign.

We have enough segregation between gays and straights. What we need is more intelligence and tolerance if not acceptance.

RedGlitter:-6

Right on.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Singh-Song;653131 wrote: What about the rights of heterosexuals? The right to use a public toilet, or a changing room at a sports venue without being oggled by someone of the same sex? The freedom to live our own lives without being the subject of someone's attentions? It almost makes one ask why male and female facilities are segregated at all? I'm not comfortable about potentially having my naked body looked over as a target- I think the right to privacy calls for segregation between the homo- and the hetero-sexual communities in those situations, otherwise we might as well be living in a naturalist community...


Homosexuals are not predators. Nor are thet pedofiles. That it an entirely different group of people.

weeder:-6

Right on.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Those of us that have known homosexuals (male & female) over the years and perhaps even have a close family member or relative that is a homosexual, have a different slant on homosexuality, I'm sure. By known, I mean to work with or have worked or inteacted with them on a regular basis. They don't seek to recruit anyone to their homosexuality nor are they child molestors or predators. The limp wristed, float on air effeminate gay is only one extreme of homosexuality, akin to the beer guzzlin, macho man image presented by one extreme of heterosexuals. Homophobia is not unique to a particular age group.

In a recent discussion with my golfing peer group, all in their 60's and 70's, it was almost equally divided (20 of us) as to their views on homosexuals. Those of us that know homosexuals on a personal basis were more liberal in their attitude, and that should be no surprise.

Our recent meeting of the Anglican Synod of British Columbia voted in favour of same sex blessings. We have several churches that have no problem with their homosexual members, male or female.

Personally I think it is time to get over it, accept it, and get on with life. There is enough antagonism in the world without adding any more. There is way more than enough hatred to go around. It is time to grow up as human beings and display the love spoken of in the great commandment, "agape".

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted...

Way to go!!

:-6

Red

I heard the greatest quote in a movie yesterday. I want to print it on a t shirt.. " God made all of us... and God doesnt make mistakes" That about sums it up.

God gave humanity free will too- it doesn't mean every choice that comes to mind is the right one...

Singh-Song;657124 wrote: God gave humanity free will too- it doesn't mean every choice that comes to mind is the right one...
Truer words were never written.

From where does the idea or concept of "right and wrong" come?

Shalom

Ted:-6

An interesting research area has just come to my attention. The "epigenome project" may indeed have more to say about the basis of homosexuality.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/co ... :int=0&-C=

DNA Is Not Destiny | Genetics | DISCOVER Magazine

http://www.topix.com/news/gay/2007/08/s ... -sexuality

Study of gay brothers may find clues about sexuality - Topix

While the question of whether homosexuality is a choice remains a hot topic for pundits, scientists are largely in agreement that sexual orientation is at least partially determined by biology.

Studies that compare identical and fraternal twins for the frequency of a particular behavioral trait have consistently suggested there are both genetic and environmental causes of homosexuality. Identical twins, who share 100 percent of their genes, show a higher chance of both being gay compared with fraternal twins, who typically share the same family environment but only half their genetic code.

Researchers have also found physical traits that correlate with homosexuality, from the relative size of certain brain areas associated with sexual behavior to seemingly irrelevant characteristics like hair whorl direction and finger-length ratios.

Inspired by the accumulating circumstantial evidence of genetic factors, researchers in the early '90s began trying to narrow down the wide expanse of DNA to a few promising regions. By comparing the genetic codes of gay brothers, who also share 50 percent of their genes, a 'linkage study' tries to detect areas that show up in both men at a frequency higher than chance, suggesting one or more genes in that region might be linked to sexual orientation. From the second site listed above.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Singh-Song;657124 wrote: God gave humanity free will too- it doesn't mean every choice that comes to mind is the right one...


It also doesn't mean that those who like to condemn the lifestyle others choose have the right of it. Perhaps your choice to condemn one of god's creatures because of the life they lead is the wrong one. :-3

People who believe they have the moral authority to speak on behalf of god may in fact be delusional.

posted by singh song.

What about the rights of heterosexuals? The right to use a public toilet, or a changing room at a sports venue without being oggled by someone of the same sex? The freedom to live our own lives without being the subject of someone's attentions? It almost makes one ask why male and female facilities are segregated at all? I'm not comfortable about potentially having my naked body looked over as a target- I think the right to privacy calls for segregation between the homo- and the hetero-sexual communities in those situations, otherwise we might as well be living in a naturalist community...


I have to wonder what has happened to you that you are so convinced you are a target for homosexual attention? Don't go to public toilets where homosexuals are known to frequent and I would suggest if you carry on as if everybody in a changing room in a sports venue is a homosexual at best they will think you very strange and probably a homosexual trying to find others of a similar disposition but you may also find the less tolerant heterosexual male of a Neanderthal disposition giving you a good spanking in a way that is not intended to give you sexual gratification.

Does anyone know why I cannot get past pg 22? When I click on 23 it always comes back to 22.

Now I have the answer. 23 kept showing up but there was nothing on 23. ????

Shalom

Ted:-6