Silenced on the Day of Silence

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by nycflasher
1. I didn't put words in his mouth, try backing up your rash statements for once.

Actually, yes. You got on him for a definition of homosexuality when he made no such statement. Get off your high horse. -and proof of anything is not needed if you would open your eyes and read, and do something with your brain other than use it to remember attacks and subconcious emotion. Try independent thought. I went into this on another thread with you. All you do is look for statements you can understand in less than 5 seconds. You never look into the information, and turn around and call people names.

When you first came to this board, you thought I had a fantastic idea about how to educate and help people in poor neighborhoods. Now you have abandoned any intellectual capacity you appeared to have and continue to be nothing but a flamer.

It is people like you who make me hate even posting here when there is no intellectual debate or discussion left, just a bunch of flaming idiots with nothing but racism on their minds.

2. I don't think your logic is much better than his, so as an "interpreter" of what he said, your are not helping.

Try understanding logic in general.

3. All you have given me is opinions an usnsupported facts.

I guess your right. I assume people to be smart enough to think without needing a caption and step by step tutorial on how to think after each statement.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
But you didn't address the discrepancy of how one group is to be celebrated and the other is to be driven from public view.

Son, I've already won the silly word game, but I'll play again. Okay. You accept Webster's definition of "perversion" as "a deviation from usual behavior...". That definition does not, in and of iteslf make "perversion" a bad thing. Wearing a ring in your bellybutton is a perversion, since it is still an unusual behavior. The wearing of plaid pants with striped shirts is a perversion. Using a dictionary as a highchair fits the definition. I wonder if oral or anal sex between heterosexuals is a perversion. I think that it is being done quite often.

---------------------------------

"But you didn't address the discrepancy of how one group is to be celebrated and the other is to be driven from public view."

I disagree with your assertion. Christians have the right to speak in public as do atheists and agnostics. We all have a right to communicate. I don't see that one group is being any more celebrated and the other is being driven from public view. Even if such is the case, there is no crime in being unpopular.

I went to San Antonio a few weeks ago. I saw a skinny black man in front of the Alamo screaming at the top of his lungs and waving his Bible. He was putting on a religious sermon right there on a public sidewalk. It was quite a site.

 

[acludem]

Schools often have such dates on their calendar, not necessarily as advertisement, but as information. Clearly if only 30 students in this entire high school participated then it wasn't mandatory or expected. Many school calendars have dates like Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and Easter Sunday on the calendar, too.

acludem

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by acludem
Schools often have such dates on their calendar, not necessarily as advertisement, but as information. Clearly if only 30 students in this entire high school participated then it wasn't mandatory or expected. Many school calendars have dates like Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and Easter Sunday on the calendar, too.

acludem

And some people say Christians don't have their day. LOL. How about school calendars having "Atheist" day or "Agnostic" day?

 

[acludem]

Because if they did, President Bush would call for a constitutional amendment banning it.

acludem

 

[Big D]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Oh, brother. What's your point? I'm 6'5" and can do a 360 dunk, so perhaps you're talking to the wrong person!

WOW, Watch out Shaq, here come the flasher.

Give me a break, blacks dominate sports, there will never be another white heavyweight boxing champ again, never.

Black males are only 6% of the U.S population, but are 87% of the NBA, do you know why?

Let's start with the biological differences in sports, which is something almost everyone observes. Jon Entine's recent book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, addresses the old cliché that "white men can't jump" (and the new one that Oriental men jump even less well). Entine shows that in sports, Black men and women have a genetic advantage. Compared to Whites, Blacks have narrower hips, wider shoulders, less body fat, and more muscle.

Blacks also have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than whites or Orientals. This translates into more explosive energy, which gives Blacks the edge in sports like boxing, basketball, football, and sprinting.

Why is it taboo to say that Blacks are on average better at sports? Because the next question is, "Why do Whites and East Asians have wider hips than Blacks, and so make poorer runners?" The answer is that they give birth to larger brained babies. During evolution, as the head size of newborns increased, women had to have a wider pelvis. The hormones that give Blacks the edge in sports also make them more masculine in general. They are physically more active in school, and this can get them into trouble and even lead to their being diagnosed as hyperactive.

 

[AtlantaWalter]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Leviticus 18:22, 20:33
Deuteronomy 20:17
Romans 1:26-32
1Timothy 1:9-10
Jude 7

You just slandered my faith, myself and Christ once again. These verses are completely indisputable..".

Not to change the subject, but how can you claim something as indisputable when you only have one source it is quoted from?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by AtlantaWalter
Not to change the subject, but how can you claim something as indisputable when you only have one source it is quoted from?

Actually those are five separate books written by three different sources. You are under the false impression that the Bible is just a book written chapter after chapter. its not. Its a complilation of many books written over a period of thousands of years. Its a record of Prophets hundreds of years apart.

Moses, Paul, Jude. Three witnesses to establish God's Word on the matter. But if you look at the even bigger picture every prophet I know of has warned of the dangerous of sexual activity outside marriage. To say they are the same source despite having lived in different generations and different places is pretty interesting. But then i guess in a way you are right. They all did come from the same Source. God.

 

[AtlantaWalter]

That's what I though, no reliable source. Not that I disagree with your point on gay marriages, I have just never believed in a book of fairy tales to substantiate a point.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Son, I've already won the silly word game, but I'll play again. Okay. You accept Webster's definition of "perversion" as "a deviation from usual behavior...". That definition does not, in and of iteslf make "perversion" a bad thing. Wearing a ring in your bellybutton is a perversion, since it is still an unusual behavior. The wearing of plaid pants with striped shirts is a perversion. Using a dictionary as a highchair fits the definition. I wonder if oral or anal sex between heterosexuals is a perversion. I think that it is being done quite often.

---------------------------------

"But you didn't address the discrepancy of how one group is to be celebrated and the other is to be driven from public view."

I disagree with your assertion. Christians have the right to speak in public as do atheists and agnostics. We all have a right to communicate. I don't see that one group is being any more celebrated and the other is being driven from public view. Even if such is the case, there is no crime in being unpopular.

I went to San Antonio a few weeks ago. I saw a skinny black man in front of the Alamo screaming at the top of his lungs and waving his Bible. He was putting on a religious sermon right there on a public sidewalk. It was quite a site.

Matty. First of all. learn to format your posts properly. Secondly, It was not me calling them perverts it was someone else. So pay closer attention. Thirdly, I am not one of those that bashes gays on a bibilical basis. If you think I am you obviously haven't read my posts. I've done multiple posts on how homosexuality is caused by intrauterine hormones levels and could therefore not be a sin. And fourthly, if you don't notice how the elite media and liberals celebrate homosexuality and deride christianity, then you're just not paying attention.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Son, I've already won the silly word game, but I'll play again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daddy, you're such a cunning linguist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
Okay. You accept Webster's definition of "perversion" as "a deviation from usual behavior...". That definition does not, in and of iteslf make "perversion" a bad thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's because your definition is false. "A deviation from usual behavior" is how Webster defines, "deviance." That definition does not, in and of itself, make deviation a bad thing. However, the word at issue here, as I'm sure you're aware, is "perversion." According to Webster: Perverse-1: turned away from that which is right and good: corrupt. 2: osbtinate in opposing what is reasonable or accepted. How adroitly you avoided the negative connotation inherent in the word, "perversion."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
I disagree with your assertion. Christians have the right to speak in public as do atheists and agnostics. We all have a right to communicate. I don't see that one group is being any more celebrated and the other is being driven from public view. Even if such is the case, there is no crime in being unpopular.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but what the hell thread have you been reading? This kid got suspended for expressing Bible views on a school-endorsed day of celebration for perversion-to wit, homosexuality.

 

[Hobbit]

Ok, this thread has offended me more than any other, but I will try to avoid resorting to flaming the hell out of everyone except with this smilie:

Ok, now down to business.

Clearly this kid was raised to be homophobic and that is sad. Of course he's in the Boy Scouts which is a virulently homophobic organization, so I don't know why I'm surprised this kid would believe this.

So he's a homophobic because he belives homosexuality is a sin? Where did you get your warped sense of definitions. Many things are sins. Lying, stealing, lust, gluttony, and coveting are all sins that nearly everyone has committed at one time or another. This doesn't mean they're going straight to hell, it just means they need to stop their behavior and get right with God. This is a purely benevolent belief, as it shows care for others' souls. Homophobics don't have such cares and think homosexuals aren't humans and deserve to be beaten up and killed.

Also, if you slander the Boy Scouts again, duck. The only reason anybody thinks the Boy Scouts are homophobic is because they don't allow openly gay boys in. This is a perfectly rational decision with a nice, secular, non-religious, or as you would call it, "homophobic," reason. It's the same reason they don't allow girls in. Now, listen real close, 'cause I'm only gonna say it once. WHEN YOU HAVE HORMONAL TEENAGERS WHO ARE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO EACH OTHER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DARK WOODS WITH ONLY 10 LEADERS PER KID, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE SEX. Imagine the public outcry if Joe and Susan had sex on a campout. Now imagine the outcry if Joe and Steve had sex on a campout. The Boy Scouts would quickly crumble, especially since they're a spiritual (not Christian, as they sponsor no specific religion) organization that relies largely on churches and other religious institutions for support.

That's what I though, no reliable source. Not that I disagree with your point on gay marriages, I have just never believed in a book of fairy tales to substantiate a point.

Oh ho ho. How funny and clever you are to call the one book I hold above all others as a "collection of fairy tales." You should be drop kicked to Mars for that. You might as well walk up to NewGuy or Thomas Jefferson and call the Constitution "fancy toilet paper." Maybe next you can wipe your ass with the American Flag and then burn it on the front steps of the White House. Oh, I know what would be really clever, you could dress up like OBL, pile up the Constitution, "Common Sense," the Declaration of Independance, the American Flag, and the protrait of George Washington saved during the 1812 White House fire all on the front lawn of the White House, or on the steps of the capitol, then piss all over them. Yeah, that would be really clever.

Anyway, until you can come up with a way to express your opinions other than utter blasphemy, STFU.

Now, to all the rest of you morons who can't straighten out your labels, snap to attention and listen up, 'cause I'm only gonna say this once.

A Christian is someone who fully believes in the teachings of Christ and accpets him as their personal savior. Christ, along with many prophets he quoted, said that homosexuality was wrong, therefore Christians believe it is wrong. However, anyone who fully accepts the teachings of Christ will not think less of a person for that, since "all have sinned." We have a view. We think homosexuals are people, but we also think they are wrong, much in the same way that pro-abortion people are wrong. We have first ammendment protection to express this view. Believing your view is more valid or righteous doesn't make it so. Get used to it.

A homophobe is someone who has an irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals. Disagreeing with homosexuality does not make one a homophobe. Thinking homophobes are less than human does. I hold homsexuality on the same level as lying, stealing, lust, etc. It doesn't mean I hate or fear them, rationally or irrationally, it just means that I think they're wrong, much in the same way I'd think a friend who lied to get out of taking a test is wrong.

The Boy Scouts are not homophobic. See above.

While it is fine to stick national days of recognition on any school calender, it is downright amoral and fascist to prohibit all opposing viewpoints from being expressed on that day.

Now, if you people can get past your blasphemy, name-calling, blanket judging, and broad-based assumption, then maybe you could see why we conservatives get so pissed off when you start spouting your NY Times, rhetorical bullsh*t.

Now, until somebody can present an argument from the other side that doesn't say that all who oppose homosexuality are homophobes, that all Christians are bigots, that the Bible is pure fiction, or that liberal views deserve more attention, I'm out. This will be my ONLY contribution to this argument. Why, might you ask? Well, I see this argument like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. Now, excuse me while I go fume for a while and take out my aggressions on 3D rendered monsters and enemy soldiers.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by Hobbit
Christ, along with many prophets he quoted, said that homosexuality was wrong, therefore Christians believe it is wrong.

I didn't think Jesus ever discussed homosexuality. I thought it was in the Old Testament, and then in some of the other parts of the New Testament, but not in the Gospels. Please tell me if I am wrong.

 

[Hobbit]

Ok, I stand corrected. Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality specifically, but Jesus always encouraged people to obey the laws of the old testament, which included laws against homosexuality (it was a capital statute, too). Though many of the specific Jewish laws were negated, the number of times it is mentioned in the epistles and in Revelation, added to the fact that God rained fire on two cities, one of which "sodomy" is named after, provides a compelling case that those who follow the teachings of Christ should be opposed to homosexuality.

I mean, how much more clear does it get than "I rained fire down on two cities for doing that and turned a woman into a pillar of salt just for looking towards the cities while I did."

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by musicman

Originally posted by mattskramer
Son, I've already won the silly word game, but I'll play again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daddy, you're such a cunning linguist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
Okay. You accept Webster's definition of "perversion" as "a deviation from usual behavior...". That definition does not, in and of iteslf make "perversion" a bad thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's because your definition is false. "A deviation from usual behavior" is how Webster defines, "deviance." That definition does not, in and of itself, make deviation a bad thing. However, the word at issue here, as I'm sure you're aware, is "perversion." According to Webster: Perverse-1: turned away from that which is right and good: corrupt. 2: osbtinate in opposing what is reasonable or accepted. How adroitly you avoided the negative connotation inherent in the word, "perversion."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
I disagree with your assertion. Christians have the right to speak in public as do atheists and agnostics. We all have a right to communicate. I don't see that one group is being any more celebrated and the other is being driven from public view. Even if such is the case, there is no crime in being unpopular.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but what the hell thread have you been reading? This kid got suspended for expressing Bible views on a school-endorsed day of celebration for perversion-to wit, homosexuality.

Okay. The application of "Perverse", as being turned away from that which is right and good: corrupt or obstinate in opposing what is reasonable or accepted, being applied to homosexuals is debatable too.

----------------

"This kid got suspended for expressing Bible views on a school-endorsed day of celebration for perversion-to wit, homosexuality."

Okay. I didn't read the original message wrong which this thread evolved. Hmmm. I guess it would have been okay for him to have worn a shirt saying "I hate all teachers." or "All left-handed people will burn in hell". Though the shirt did not technically break the rules, I still think that is was inappropriate. The school didn't permanently silence him. I'm sure that he will be free to speak his opinion on the appropriate occasion. (Writing, Debate, etc.) The day was not an occasion for debate.

If you think that the school was being unfair to Christians, I think that it holds Christmas and Easter as Holidays yet has no Atheist Holiday or Homosexual Holiday. It seems to me that this is discrimination in the other direction. I wonder if it is legal for me to shout racial slurs at the top of my lungs in a dark alley in Harlem at 3 in the morning.

Okay even if I am totally wrong on this issue and the school was wrong, I think that the simple solution is to privatize schools and return school tax money back to the taxpayers. In that way, parents can support the schools of their choice.

This reminds me of when our local public library way going to, for one day, put books sympathetic to homosexuality on a special display rack. The public created such an outcry that the library declined to do it. Yet, near the end of each year, it puts up pro-Christian displays in the form of books and decorations.

Some people don't want their tax money going to anything remotely sympathetic to homosexuality. Yet some people don't want their tax money going to anything remotely sympathetic to Christianity. This is another reason why I think that libraries should be privatized. Let the free market place and private interest decide.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by Hobbit
Ok, I stand corrected. Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality specifically, but Jesus always encouraged people to obey the laws of the old testament, which included laws against homosexuality (it was a capital statute, too). Though many of the specific Jewish laws were negated, the number of times it is mentioned in the epistles and in Revelation, added to the fact that God rained fire on two cities, one of which "sodomy" is named after, provides a compelling case that those who follow the teachings of Christ should be opposed to homosexuality.

I mean, how much more clear does it get than "I rained fire down on two cities for doing that and turned a woman into a pillar of salt just for looking towards the cities while I did."

I didn't think Jesus said anything about it. Thanks for confirming.

You'll get no argument from me that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I have read it. I know that it is in there. I just don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God (although my disbelief is of the respectful kind - no fairy tale comments from me). Thanks again.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Reilly
I didn't think Jesus ever discussed homosexuality. I thought it was in the Old Testament, and then in some of the other parts of the New Testament, but not in the Gospels. Please tell me if I am wrong.

I dunno, i think his statements on not lusting pretty much encompass all sexual immorality dont you/

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
I dunno, i think his statements on not lusting pretty much encompass all sexual immorality dont you/

I am not sure what statements you are referring to, but lusting can apply to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. I don't think a statement about lusting would necessarily be a stance against homosexuality. I think Hobbit is right - the closest Jesus came to specifically proscribing homosexuality is his statement that the Old Testament laws should be obeyed.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Though the shirt did not technically break the rules, I still think that is was inappropriate. The school didn't permanently silence him. I'm sure that he will be free to speak his opinion on the appropriate occasion. (Writing, Debate, etc.) The day was not an occasion for debate.

It has been a long time since I read the cases, but I believe that normal Free Speech rights do not fully apply in schools. Schools are allowed to prohibit speech that is likely to cause a disturbance to the learing process in the schools. I still think that under this criteria, the shirt was probably okay, but I guess it is a judgement call. I would have to know more about the school, the students and the community.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Okay. The application of "Perverse", as being turned away from that which is right and good: corrupt or obstinate in opposing what is reasonable or accepted, being applied to homosexuals is debatable too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. So you'll admit that your original definition of "perversion" was false, if not misleading. And if you don't think the term applies to homosexuality, I honestly don't know what to tell you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE:
Okay. I didn't read the original message wrong which this thread evolved. Hmmm. I guess it would have been okay for him to have worn a shirt saying "I hate all teachers." or "All left-handed people will burn in hell".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. What does that have to do with the price of tires?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
Though the shirt did not technically break the rules, I still think that is was inappropriate. The school didn't permanently silence him. I'm sure that he will be free to speak his opinion on the appropriate occasion. (Writing, Debate, etc.) The day was not an occasion for debate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inappropriate; not the occassion for debate. Of course- what was I thinking? This day was set aside for reverent meditation on the horrible injustices suffered by sexual perverts. How insensitive of that kid. What was he thinking?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE:
If you think that the school was being unfair to Christians, I think that it holds Christmas and Easter as Holidays yet has no Atheist Holiday or Homosexual Holiday. It seems to me that this is discrimination in the other direction. I wonder if it is legal for me to shout racial slurs at the top of my lungs in a dark alley in Harlem at 3 in the morning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, don't count the secular humanists out. They've already boiled Easter down to "Spring Break." Can "Winter Soltice" be far behind? When secular humanists say " No religion in the public arena", what they really mean is no religion but theirs.

As to shouting racial slurs in Harlem: Please see TIRE PRICES-earlier in this post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You appear to have edited since I started this post. Let me end it here & read what you've got.