What I find most disturbing about this sign is that the preacher seemed to have no idea that people would find it offensive. He was totally unprepared for the backlash he received for this sign.
If that’s really the case, then total psychology fail.
Those who already believe it don’t need reminding, and those who don’t believe it (and likely also the rare few who don’t really think about it one way or the other, which is probably his intended audience) will be annoyed at best. And people who have no idea where this line came from (probably a lot of today’s teenagers) will either be confused or think it refers to *straight* kissing and consider it to be retarded.
(Checking further down) Wait, what? Katy Perry? Never heard of her. I was thinking of a song by Jill Sobule from back in the 1980s. I was thinking that one would be somewhat obscure among young people these days. Never mind then.
Yeah, his public reason for taking the sign down was that most of his congregation had never heard the song and didn’t get the reference, so they were just confused.
What I find most disturbing about this sign is that the preacher seemed to have no idea that people would find it offensive. He was totally unprepared for the backlash he received for this sign.
If that’s really the case, then total psychology fail.
Those who already believe it don’t need reminding, and those who don’t believe it (and likely also the rare few who don’t really think about it one way or the other, which is probably his intended audience) will be annoyed at best. And people who have no idea where this line came from (probably a lot of today’s teenagers) will either be confused or think it refers to *straight* kissing and consider it to be retarded.
(Checking further down) Wait, what? Katy Perry? Never heard of her. I was thinking of a song by Jill Sobule from back in the 1980s. I was thinking that one would be somewhat obscure among young people these days. Never mind then.
Yeah, his public reason for taking the sign down was that most of his congregation had never heard the song and didn’t get the reference, so they were just confused.
Well, it sounds like all the “sexually dysfunctional” people agree with themselves.
Isn’t it nice that you all have your own little community, that you can congratulate yourselves on your perversions?
Well, I’m here to kick over your anthill…a pastor is morally responsible for upholding the bible, you should EXPECT him to put something like this on his billboard.
And if you don’t like that the religious community rejects what you do, too damn bad…the religious community has as much right (if not more) than you to their opinions.
You think that your bullying and slapping is going to cure this? The only cure for it is to STOP spreading perversion. Berating or censoring people who object to immorality isn’t going to help one bit.
Tacit posted without comment…well, you all more than made up for it. This is the second time I’ve tried to post opposing viewpoint on his blog…let’s see if the man who once told me “If you have to censor, you’ve lost…” decides to delete my post.
Bullying? Slapping? Aren’t most people here just … laughing?
I mean, sure, if you want to have serious discussion about this, then okay.
I believe that for a multicultural society to prosper, acceptance (or at the very least, tolerance) of people who are not like you is absolutely necessary. We need to be able to stop fighting long enough to build something. Continued demonizing of gay and lesbian members of society will never accomplish anything good, even were such demonizing religiously required, which it’s not.
What I mean to say is that this demonizing isn’t going to eliminate homosexuality, either among society or among the congregants, since homosexuality is, as near as we’re able to determine, biologically determined. Since it won’t be able to accomplish that goal, all it will do is sow discord in society and force an already-oppressed group to feel a little worse about themselves and their neighbors. Furthermore, as I said, such attacks certainly aren’t religiously required … after all, Jesus spoke quite a bit more about the moral bankruptcy of the wealthy, and I doubt that the church would put up a sign reading “I got a raise and a new car … and then I went to hell.”
It’s clear that the particular focus on homosexuality is an artifact of a particular place and time in which many people want to attain wealthy, but few heterosexual people long to be homosexual. This makes homosexuality a ‘safe’ target for moral opprobrium, since he’s unlikely to offend the hopes and desires of most of his congregants by taking an anti-homosexual stand the same way he would if he took an anti-wealth stance.
…and then I went and checked your linvejournal, and I saw that you think Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed, and I realized that you’re a mouth-breathing sub-literate moron, and my arguments have been wasted. Pity.
It’s just as well, because if that’s your best argument it was not only wasted, it was a waste of time. Your best argument tries to support itself with fallacies (homosexuality biological? pfah) and banal observations (easier to pick at the degenerate than those who are earning a living – or better).
But if you are one of those who has their head buried in the sand (Hillary has blood on her hands, and Obozo is ruining this country) AND is a degenerate, then I’m afraid there is no hope for you anyway. Don’t waste your time talking to me.
Just know that there are people out here who look at you as abnormal…and we are the majority.
You really think that Snopes is the last word? Do you think they are immune to the political forces that move through this country?
Does your little mind need that re-assurance that there is a greater power out there, all-knowing, so you turn to SNOPES?
Who is lost?
But far be it from me to reveal any more truth or try to open your head any further…I’m sure you consider yourself to be an “open minded” indivitual already. Well, all that means to me is that it’s collected a lot of nonsense over the years. “An open mind collects a lot garbage.” Things like, “Homosexuality is biology-based”…which when it comes down to it, is merely how you chose to defend a perverted “lifestyle”…it’s what you CHOSE to believe, and you cling to it like you cling to the way Snopes “debunks” and covers up.
Bah, you’re not stupid…you’re just ignorant. You’re like the guy who points to wikipedia when defending unions, and has no idea of the origin of the word “Fasicst”…yet blithely insults whoever he doesn’t like with it.
Do your own research.
Actually, you seem to have missed my point, which is not that Snopes is an ultimate authority, but rather the converse … that it is an extremely rudimentary source which picks only the low-hanging fruit, and debunks only those conspiracy theories which are so laughable as to be near-self-debunking. And yet they did a pretty thorough demolishing of the ‘Clinton death count’ nonsense.
Do you have any evidence for your affirmative claims? I mean, the claim that the First Lady of the United States had someone murdered is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence. Do you have any to offer?
Similarly, I believe that homosexuality is primarily biologically based because that’s what the best science seems to indicate. Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise?
Part of the virtue of having an open mind is examining the evidence for various propositions independently. I would like to give your opinions a fair shot and examine the evidence for yours. Please offer some.
No, your original point was to point out that Snopes has debunked what I said, it and that I am beyond redemption because Snopes debunked it.
If your point was otherwise, you should have elaborated a bit better instead of throwing out another clay pigeon for me. But assuming that you really did mean that, my response remains unchanged…even having clarified your argument to specify that Snopes only debunks the “low-hanging fruit” still seems to imply that you put more faith in Snopes than your own research. My question remains the same, “Who is lost?” You can’t have it both ways…if you wish to defend your premise that Snopes is good enough to refute THIS PARTICULAR arguement, then you throw your lot in with them. I chose not to, and yes, that was my choice. But then, I did the research.
Whether or not you are capable of knowing the truth is up to you, and wether or not you are doing your own adequate research. That exercise is left up to you, the student. I could point you in the right direction, if you really wanted to do the work…but I am a conservative, and I believe and letting you do the work instead of doing it for you. For instance, have you read the OIC report? Did you read the reports of the FBI, or the physician who was attending to Vince Foster? Can you even give me a reason why Hillary would have him murdered? Before you take Snopes at it’s face value, I suggest you look into these things. Make sure you include the word “Whitewater” and “Savings and Loan Scandal” in your search, concentrating on Hillary’s and Vince Foster’s roles in each.
You see, I can tell you these things because I’m feel certain you’ll ignore me. But then, that would be an “open mind” in action, eh? Bah, believe what you want to, you will anyway.
(CONT)
When it comes to the sexual dysfunction known as “homosexuality” I’ve been of the same opinion since the early 80’s, when I was really “researching” whether or not homosexuality is a perversion caused by heredity or by peer pressure…you can ask Tacit (Turtle) about it, we used to round and round. The only documentation I’ve ever seen that even came close to “proving” it as a biologically based is Simon LeVay’s work, and his so-called science was no better than the so-called scientists who worked on the theories surrounding Global Warming. (And that’s another farce…don’t get me started on that lying fraud Al Gore.) Suffice to say, I have done some research, and I am of same opinion as of the APA (American Psychological Association), BEFORE they were pressured to change their stance on it…it’s a sexual dysfunction, as defined back in 1974. (BTW, I can also prove that AIDS (at least last century) WAS primarily a gay disease, afflicting homosexual men to normal people at a ratio of 2-1. I have the statistics from CDC to prove it.) At any rate, I see no reason to adopt any of this PC-influenced re-definition of a disease…kleptomainia was a disease back in ’74, it is still now. Do you know why? No organized theft groups have ever been able to create PACs to pressure politicians or doctors to change the definition. Same with the any other behavior-based diseases, including alcohol. As Clinton destroyed the Armed Forces by turning them into his own little “social proving ground”, public opinion was forced to conclude that maybe homosexuality wasn’t all bad…after all, wasn’t Liberace gay? And Elton John? It became popular, in spite of the reports of morale drop and rejection of all Clinton’s plan signified. People actually elected congressmen and representatives…and look how well that went. Bawney Fwank, the prostitute lover. Lovely. But I digress.
What it really boils down to is that most forgiving, PC-type people want to classify it as a “nature vs nurture” argument (yeah, that old hat) and to me, it’s really irrelevant. Whether you were born that way or whether you chose to ignore common sense (tab A goes to slot B), the only thing which seems to be consistent is that you do it for the sheer pleasure of it…which, in that case, why not just go join the Bobonos? It’s an overused word but it really applies: depravity. It’s the essense ofthe liberal progressive argument: “Why not?” Most people without any sort of moral compass (or common sense) have no answer, but I do. Tragically, it’s like riding a bike…”if you don’t get why I prefer a Harley, you never will”, and that same mindset goes for the stripped threads on a person who’s descended into depravity. “Hell, I’ve already done this nasty stuff…might just as well continue with that nasty stuff.” It’s like drugs, which sane people avoid.
An “open mind” cannot really exist, not as you define it. What you call an “open mind” I call critical thinking. What every other liberal out there wants you to keep…an “open mind”…is their way of telling you to reject all you already knew was true. Critical thinking allows you to put a filter on the nonsense that originates from that crowd daily.
If true, I applaud your ability to think critically. I’m looking forward to hearing your conclusions after you do your own research on who killed Vince Foster. At the very least the angle of the bullet would have had his hand wrenched around at an odd angle, if he really did do it himself…but I’ll let you find that out for yourself.
Let’s just dispense with the “homosexuality is a gay disease” meme. By some standards and viewpoints it could be considered such, but it’s much more accurately described as a “mostly transmitted by men” disease. Among straights, women get it far more often than men do, and among gays, it was rampant among gay men for a time (and is still much more common among gay men than straight men) whereas among lesbians it’s virtually nonexistent. It’s actually rather difficult for women to transmit it due to the fact that the HIV virus can’t survive outside the body for very long, it doesn’t penetrate most bodily tissues easily, and both saliva and urine kill it… not to mention that women don’t normally squirt anything into their partner’s orifices.
Heehee… Thanks to what I’m assuming is a typo, I thought you were about to make a joke about boorish men turning women off on the whole male species, or outgoing men being the only ones appropriately socialized to be able to make passes at the hordes of shy guys out there, or both.
It’s a pity; ‘twould have livened up the thread some. 🙂
Durr… whoopses. I meant “AIDS is a gay disease”. Dunno how that little screwup happened.
“appropriately socialized”…meaning, ambivalent about who they make passes at? That’s laughable…you would be more accurate to describe them as “oversexed” or perhaps “more desperate”.
Game going into overtime.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. It was originally thought that AIDS spread through tears in the anus caused when it was used for purposes other than excretion of feces.
But what you said only proves my point. The result is that more men got it, and primarily they were homosexual men. Meme or not…that’s what happened.
Well, it sounds like all the “sexually dysfunctional” people agree with themselves.
Isn’t it nice that you all have your own little community, that you can congratulate yourselves on your perversions?
Well, I’m here to kick over your anthill…a pastor is morally responsible for upholding the bible, you should EXPECT him to put something like this on his billboard.
And if you don’t like that the religious community rejects what you do, too damn bad…the religious community has as much right (if not more) than you to their opinions.
You think that your bullying and slapping is going to cure this? The only cure for it is to STOP spreading perversion. Berating or censoring people who object to immorality isn’t going to help one bit.
Tacit posted without comment…well, you all more than made up for it. This is the second time I’ve tried to post opposing viewpoint on his blog…let’s see if the man who once told me “If you have to censor, you’ve lost…” decides to delete my post.
Bullying? Slapping? Aren’t most people here just … laughing?
I mean, sure, if you want to have serious discussion about this, then okay.
I believe that for a multicultural society to prosper, acceptance (or at the very least, tolerance) of people who are not like you is absolutely necessary. We need to be able to stop fighting long enough to build something. Continued demonizing of gay and lesbian members of society will never accomplish anything good, even were such demonizing religiously required, which it’s not.
What I mean to say is that this demonizing isn’t going to eliminate homosexuality, either among society or among the congregants, since homosexuality is, as near as we’re able to determine, biologically determined. Since it won’t be able to accomplish that goal, all it will do is sow discord in society and force an already-oppressed group to feel a little worse about themselves and their neighbors. Furthermore, as I said, such attacks certainly aren’t religiously required … after all, Jesus spoke quite a bit more about the moral bankruptcy of the wealthy, and I doubt that the church would put up a sign reading “I got a raise and a new car … and then I went to hell.”
It’s clear that the particular focus on homosexuality is an artifact of a particular place and time in which many people want to attain wealthy, but few heterosexual people long to be homosexual. This makes homosexuality a ‘safe’ target for moral opprobrium, since he’s unlikely to offend the hopes and desires of most of his congregants by taking an anti-homosexual stand the same way he would if he took an anti-wealth stance.
…and then I went and checked your linvejournal, and I saw that you think Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed, and I realized that you’re a mouth-breathing sub-literate moron, and my arguments have been wasted. Pity.
It’s just as well, because if that’s your best argument it was not only wasted, it was a waste of time. Your best argument tries to support itself with fallacies (homosexuality biological? pfah) and banal observations (easier to pick at the degenerate than those who are earning a living – or better).
But if you are one of those who has their head buried in the sand (Hillary has blood on her hands, and Obozo is ruining this country) AND is a degenerate, then I’m afraid there is no hope for you anyway. Don’t waste your time talking to me.
Just know that there are people out here who look at you as abnormal…and we are the majority.
You really think that Snopes is the last word? Do you think they are immune to the political forces that move through this country?
Does your little mind need that re-assurance that there is a greater power out there, all-knowing, so you turn to SNOPES?
Who is lost?
But far be it from me to reveal any more truth or try to open your head any further…I’m sure you consider yourself to be an “open minded” indivitual already. Well, all that means to me is that it’s collected a lot of nonsense over the years. “An open mind collects a lot garbage.” Things like, “Homosexuality is biology-based”…which when it comes down to it, is merely how you chose to defend a perverted “lifestyle”…it’s what you CHOSE to believe, and you cling to it like you cling to the way Snopes “debunks” and covers up.
Bah, you’re not stupid…you’re just ignorant. You’re like the guy who points to wikipedia when defending unions, and has no idea of the origin of the word “Fasicst”…yet blithely insults whoever he doesn’t like with it.
Actually, you seem to have missed my point, which is not that Snopes is an ultimate authority, but rather the converse … that it is an extremely rudimentary source which picks only the low-hanging fruit, and debunks only those conspiracy theories which are so laughable as to be near-self-debunking. And yet they did a pretty thorough demolishing of the ‘Clinton death count’ nonsense.
Do you have any evidence for your affirmative claims? I mean, the claim that the First Lady of the United States had someone murdered is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence. Do you have any to offer?
Similarly, I believe that homosexuality is primarily biologically based because that’s what the best science seems to indicate. Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise?
Part of the virtue of having an open mind is examining the evidence for various propositions independently. I would like to give your opinions a fair shot and examine the evidence for yours. Please offer some.
No, your original point was to point out that Snopes has debunked what I said, it and that I am beyond redemption because Snopes debunked it.
If your point was otherwise, you should have elaborated a bit better instead of throwing out another clay pigeon for me. But assuming that you really did mean that, my response remains unchanged…even having clarified your argument to specify that Snopes only debunks the “low-hanging fruit” still seems to imply that you put more faith in Snopes than your own research. My question remains the same, “Who is lost?” You can’t have it both ways…if you wish to defend your premise that Snopes is good enough to refute THIS PARTICULAR arguement, then you throw your lot in with them. I chose not to, and yes, that was my choice. But then, I did the research.
Whether or not you are capable of knowing the truth is up to you, and wether or not you are doing your own adequate research. That exercise is left up to you, the student. I could point you in the right direction, if you really wanted to do the work…but I am a conservative, and I believe and letting you do the work instead of doing it for you. For instance, have you read the OIC report? Did you read the reports of the FBI, or the physician who was attending to Vince Foster? Can you even give me a reason why Hillary would have him murdered? Before you take Snopes at it’s face value, I suggest you look into these things. Make sure you include the word “Whitewater” and “Savings and Loan Scandal” in your search, concentrating on Hillary’s and Vince Foster’s roles in each.
You see, I can tell you these things because I’m feel certain you’ll ignore me. But then, that would be an “open mind” in action, eh? Bah, believe what you want to, you will anyway.
When it comes to the sexual dysfunction known as “homosexuality” I’ve been of the same opinion since the early 80’s, when I was really “researching” whether or not homosexuality is a perversion caused by heredity or by peer pressure…you can ask Tacit (Turtle) about it, we used to round and round. The only documentation I’ve ever seen that even came close to “proving” it as a biologically based is Simon LeVay’s work, and his so-called science was no better than the so-called scientists who worked on the theories surrounding Global Warming. (And that’s another farce…don’t get me started on that lying fraud Al Gore.) Suffice to say, I have done some research, and I am of same opinion as of the APA (American Psychological Association), BEFORE they were pressured to change their stance on it…it’s a sexual dysfunction, as defined back in 1974. (BTW, I can also prove that AIDS (at least last century) WAS primarily a gay disease, afflicting homosexual men to normal people at a ratio of 2-1. I have the statistics from CDC to prove it.) At any rate, I see no reason to adopt any of this PC-influenced re-definition of a disease…kleptomainia was a disease back in ’74, it is still now. Do you know why? No organized theft groups have ever been able to create PACs to pressure politicians or doctors to change the definition. Same with the any other behavior-based diseases, including alcohol. As Clinton destroyed the Armed Forces by turning them into his own little “social proving ground”, public opinion was forced to conclude that maybe homosexuality wasn’t all bad…after all, wasn’t Liberace gay? And Elton John? It became popular, in spite of the reports of morale drop and rejection of all Clinton’s plan signified. People actually elected congressmen and representatives…and look how well that went. Bawney Fwank, the prostitute lover. Lovely. But I digress.
What it really boils down to is that most forgiving, PC-type people want to classify it as a “nature vs nurture” argument (yeah, that old hat) and to me, it’s really irrelevant. Whether you were born that way or whether you chose to ignore common sense (tab A goes to slot B), the only thing which seems to be consistent is that you do it for the sheer pleasure of it…which, in that case, why not just go join the Bobonos? It’s an overused word but it really applies: depravity. It’s the essense ofthe liberal progressive argument: “Why not?” Most people without any sort of moral compass (or common sense) have no answer, but I do. Tragically, it’s like riding a bike…”if you don’t get why I prefer a Harley, you never will”, and that same mindset goes for the stripped threads on a person who’s descended into depravity. “Hell, I’ve already done this nasty stuff…might just as well continue with that nasty stuff.” It’s like drugs, which sane people avoid.
An “open mind” cannot really exist, not as you define it. What you call an “open mind” I call critical thinking. What every other liberal out there wants you to keep…an “open mind”…is their way of telling you to reject all you already knew was true. Critical thinking allows you to put a filter on the nonsense that originates from that crowd daily.
If true, I applaud your ability to think critically. I’m looking forward to hearing your conclusions after you do your own research on who killed Vince Foster. At the very least the angle of the bullet would have had his hand wrenched around at an odd angle, if he really did do it himself…but I’ll let you find that out for yourself.
Let’s just dispense with the “homosexuality is a gay disease” meme. By some standards and viewpoints it could be considered such, but it’s much more accurately described as a “mostly transmitted by men” disease. Among straights, women get it far more often than men do, and among gays, it was rampant among gay men for a time (and is still much more common among gay men than straight men) whereas among lesbians it’s virtually nonexistent. It’s actually rather difficult for women to transmit it due to the fact that the HIV virus can’t survive outside the body for very long, it doesn’t penetrate most bodily tissues easily, and both saliva and urine kill it… not to mention that women don’t normally squirt anything into their partner’s orifices.
Heehee… Thanks to what I’m assuming is a typo, I thought you were about to make a joke about boorish men turning women off on the whole male species, or outgoing men being the only ones appropriately socialized to be able to make passes at the hordes of shy guys out there, or both.
It’s a pity; ‘twould have livened up the thread some. 🙂
What amuses me is the part of the article about how Pastor Dave plays this music video over and over again. He probably wanks off to it over and over again, too — and of course that’s his divine sign from God that it’s sinful!
What amuses me is that you project your own ideas and behaviors on to what is supposed to be a Godly man. Tell me, do you do it to make yourself feel better, or do you do it to make him look worse?
It never occured to you that there are people who object to the smearing of a good man, involved in a worthwhile activity to keep children from falling into depravity?
Granted, it was a serious flub. Apparently, members of his congregation had not descended as far as he was concerned they had, but nobody can argue or deny that his intentions were good.
Does it make you feel better to dismiss me as a troll, without having to examine what I say? How typical…and how sad.
Yes, you are a troll. Bullshit about projections when you DO NOT EVEN KNOW ME, bullshit about behaviors when you do not know what my behaviors are, and bullshit about “making myself feel better” when I feel just fine ALL make you a troll.
And no, I don’t believe his intentions were good. His intentions were to hate monger against one select segment of our society. And in my eyes, THAT is a sin.
Ok, so it’s ok for other people to make “Bullshit projections” about me, by speculating about my motives…which you have done…but if I do it back, I’m a troll? You pointed out (in caps, thank you Captain Obvious) that I didn’t know you…well, you don’t know me, either. But you went right ahead and made the accusation of “troll”, called my facts “bullshit” and then called a Man of God a “Hate Monger”…when you don’t know him either.
Hypocrit, much? Liberal progressive, obviously. Probably a Democrat, too. You can dish it out, but you can’t take it.
That man’s intentions were of the highest order, and what you call “hate mongering” I call spreading of information about a “segment of society” which is getting special considerations and a lot of attention for something which is nothing but a perversion and a mental disease…a sexual dysfunction.
If you think that teaching children how avoid becoming mentally warped (perverted) is a sin, then you obviously don’t have any clue what the word “sin” means.
Then again, probably you think you do. After all, why would it be beyond liberal-progressives to redefine words, when they’ve been trying to re-write history for decades?
That, and re-defining what constitutes a mental illness, which they think they’ve gotten away with. But I’m here to tell you…you are still a minority, and decent people everywhere are still trying to get rid of your corruption. By law, where necessary, we are rolling back the indulgence of perversions, and the illegal enforcement of mandates which were never approved by We The People.
So sure, this effort starts with the moral man…the Godly Man…the pastor, the priest, the minister. And your effort to silence the people who begin the effort will fail. We will take back this country.
Bah…are you still reading?!? Are you crazy?
STOP FEEDING THE TROLL. (Not that it matters.)
What amuses me is the part of the article about how Pastor Dave plays this music video over and over again. He probably wanks off to it over and over again, too — and of course that’s his divine sign from God that it’s sinful!
“appropriately socialized”…meaning, ambivalent about who they make passes at? That’s laughable…you would be more accurate to describe them as “oversexed” or perhaps “more desperate”.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. It was originally thought that AIDS spread through tears in the anus caused when it was used for purposes other than excretion of feces.
But what you said only proves my point. The result is that more men got it, and primarily they were homosexual men. Meme or not…that’s what happened.
What amuses me is that you project your own ideas and behaviors on to what is supposed to be a Godly man. Tell me, do you do it to make yourself feel better, or do you do it to make him look worse?
It never occured to you that there are people who object to the smearing of a good man, involved in a worthwhile activity to keep children from falling into depravity?
Granted, it was a serious flub. Apparently, members of his congregation had not descended as far as he was concerned they had, but nobody can argue or deny that his intentions were good.
Does it make you feel better to dismiss me as a troll, without having to examine what I say? How typical…and how sad.
Yes, you are a troll. Bullshit about projections when you DO NOT EVEN KNOW ME, bullshit about behaviors when you do not know what my behaviors are, and bullshit about “making myself feel better” when I feel just fine ALL make you a troll.
And no, I don’t believe his intentions were good. His intentions were to hate monger against one select segment of our society. And in my eyes, THAT is a sin.
Ok, so it’s ok for other people to make “Bullshit projections” about me, by speculating about my motives…which you have done…but if I do it back, I’m a troll? You pointed out (in caps, thank you Captain Obvious) that I didn’t know you…well, you don’t know me, either. But you went right ahead and made the accusation of “troll”, called my facts “bullshit” and then called a Man of God a “Hate Monger”…when you don’t know him either.
Hypocrit, much? Liberal progressive, obviously. Probably a Democrat, too. You can dish it out, but you can’t take it.
That man’s intentions were of the highest order, and what you call “hate mongering” I call spreading of information about a “segment of society” which is getting special considerations and a lot of attention for something which is nothing but a perversion and a mental disease…a sexual dysfunction.
If you think that teaching children how avoid becoming mentally warped (perverted) is a sin, then you obviously don’t have any clue what the word “sin” means.
Then again, probably you think you do. After all, why would it be beyond liberal-progressives to redefine words, when they’ve been trying to re-write history for decades?
That, and re-defining what constitutes a mental illness, which they think they’ve gotten away with. But I’m here to tell you…you are still a minority, and decent people everywhere are still trying to get rid of your corruption. By law, where necessary, we are rolling back the indulgence of perversions, and the illegal enforcement of mandates which were never approved by We The People.
So sure, this effort starts with the moral man…the Godly Man…the pastor, the priest, the minister. And your effort to silence the people who begin the effort will fail. We will take back this country.
wot for girl kissing *grin*
“It beats the hell out of playing cards” – Jubal Harshaw
wot for girl kissing *grin*
What I find most disturbing about this sign is that the preacher seemed to have no idea that people would find it offensive. He was totally unprepared for the backlash he received for this sign.
http://2lesbosgoinatit.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/i-kissed-a-girl-i-liked-it-then-went-to-hell-church-apparently-not-inviting-to-lesbians/
“He thought the message on the church sign would be a loving way to remind teenagers that the Bible denounces homosexuality.”
If that’s really the case, then total psychology fail.
Those who already believe it don’t need reminding, and those who don’t believe it (and likely also the rare few who don’t really think about it one way or the other, which is probably his intended audience) will be annoyed at best. And people who have no idea where this line came from (probably a lot of today’s teenagers) will either be confused or think it refers to *straight* kissing and consider it to be retarded.
(Checking further down) Wait, what? Katy Perry? Never heard of her. I was thinking of a song by Jill Sobule from back in the 1980s. I was thinking that one would be somewhat obscure among young people these days. Never mind then.
Yeah, his public reason for taking the sign down was that most of his congregation had never heard the song and didn’t get the reference, so they were just confused.
“He beats me because he loves me.”
Well, I say that in perfect seriousness, but we all know the usual context for that…
What I find most disturbing about this sign is that the preacher seemed to have no idea that people would find it offensive. He was totally unprepared for the backlash he received for this sign.
http://2lesbosgoinatit.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/i-kissed-a-girl-i-liked-it-then-went-to-hell-church-apparently-not-inviting-to-lesbians/
“He thought the message on the church sign would be a loving way to remind teenagers that the Bible denounces homosexuality.”
Oh, did you happen to see the response?
Vandalism. Nice.
An appropriate response, if you don’t like what someone says, you vandalize their property.
Typical. “ACT OUT”? Needs to be turned over someone’s knees and made to behave.
hey, I didn’t say I supported it, I’m just reporting it 🙂
Oh, did you happen to see the response?
Sorry that you went to hell, Pastor David. Next time, try kissing guys.
(Yes, I’ve heard the over-played song by Katy Perry. I’m being intentionally dense.)
Hee. Apparently I type too slow — you beat me to it!
Sorry that you went to hell, Pastor David. Next time, try kissing guys.
(Yes, I’ve heard the over-played song by Katy Perry. I’m being intentionally dense.)
Perhaps Pastor Dave should try kissing a boy next time?
Perhaps Pastor Dave should try kissing a boy next time?
Hee. Apparently I type too slow — you beat me to it!
The subtext I get is you may as well go the whole hog into hawt lezzonian sexing ’cause Zombie Jebus will toast your soul for just a kiss…
In for a peck, in for a pounding?
The subtext I get is you may as well go the whole hog into hawt lezzonian sexing ’cause Zombie Jebus will toast your soul for just a kiss…
In for a peck, in for a pounding?
… and it was worth it …
… and it was worth it …
If that’s really the case, then total psychology fail.
Those who already believe it don’t need reminding, and those who don’t believe it (and likely also the rare few who don’t really think about it one way or the other, which is probably his intended audience) will be annoyed at best. And people who have no idea where this line came from (probably a lot of today’s teenagers) will either be confused or think it refers to *straight* kissing and consider it to be retarded.
(Checking further down) Wait, what? Katy Perry? Never heard of her. I was thinking of a song by Jill Sobule from back in the 1980s. I was thinking that one would be somewhat obscure among young people these days. Never mind then.
Yeah, his public reason for taking the sign down was that most of his congregation had never heard the song and didn’t get the reference, so they were just confused.
Excellent!
Excellent!
At first I read the second line on the sign as “fondling and feeling his sheep”!
fnord!
At first I read the second line on the sign as “fondling and feeling his sheep”!
What I find even funnier is that apparently a lot of people didn’t get the reference to the song, and contacted the church in angry confusion.
What I find even funnier is that apparently a lot of people didn’t get the reference to the song, and contacted the church in angry confusion.
But – Columbus’s biggest lesbian bar appears to be named Wall Street. Oh well, small difference…
But – Columbus’s biggest lesbian bar appears to be named Wall Street. Oh well, small difference…
I didn’t even make it past “Finding and feeding his sheep”…
Funny stuff.
I didn’t even make it past “Finding and feeding his sheep”…
Funny stuff.
He’s going to hell for those awful letters. The E in WENT is upside down, and those Ks are just ugly.
He’s going to hell for those awful letters. The E in WENT is upside down, and those Ks are just ugly.
Vandalism. Nice.
An appropriate response, if you don’t like what someone says, you vandalize their property.
Typical. “ACT OUT”? Needs to be turned over someone’s knees and made to behave.
hey, I didn’t say I supported it, I’m just reporting it 🙂
Well, it sounds like all the “sexually dysfunctional” people agree with themselves.
Isn’t it nice that you all have your own little community, that you can congratulate yourselves on your perversions?
Well, I’m here to kick over your anthill…a pastor is morally responsible for upholding the bible, you should EXPECT him to put something like this on his billboard.
And if you don’t like that the religious community rejects what you do, too damn bad…the religious community has as much right (if not more) than you to their opinions.
You think that your bullying and slapping is going to cure this? The only cure for it is to STOP spreading perversion. Berating or censoring people who object to immorality isn’t going to help one bit.
Tacit posted without comment…well, you all more than made up for it. This is the second time I’ve tried to post opposing viewpoint on his blog…let’s see if the man who once told me “If you have to censor, you’ve lost…” decides to delete my post.
Bullying? Slapping? Aren’t most people here just … laughing?
I mean, sure, if you want to have serious discussion about this, then okay.
I believe that for a multicultural society to prosper, acceptance (or at the very least, tolerance) of people who are not like you is absolutely necessary. We need to be able to stop fighting long enough to build something. Continued demonizing of gay and lesbian members of society will never accomplish anything good, even were such demonizing religiously required, which it’s not.
What I mean to say is that this demonizing isn’t going to eliminate homosexuality, either among society or among the congregants, since homosexuality is, as near as we’re able to determine, biologically determined. Since it won’t be able to accomplish that goal, all it will do is sow discord in society and force an already-oppressed group to feel a little worse about themselves and their neighbors. Furthermore, as I said, such attacks certainly aren’t religiously required … after all, Jesus spoke quite a bit more about the moral bankruptcy of the wealthy, and I doubt that the church would put up a sign reading “I got a raise and a new car … and then I went to hell.”
It’s clear that the particular focus on homosexuality is an artifact of a particular place and time in which many people want to attain wealthy, but few heterosexual people long to be homosexual. This makes homosexuality a ‘safe’ target for moral opprobrium, since he’s unlikely to offend the hopes and desires of most of his congregants by taking an anti-homosexual stand the same way he would if he took an anti-wealth stance.
…and then I went and checked your linvejournal, and I saw that you think Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed, and I realized that you’re a mouth-breathing sub-literate moron, and my arguments have been wasted. Pity.
Elegant. “Mouth-breathing sub-literate moron”.
It’s just as well, because if that’s your best argument it was not only wasted, it was a waste of time. Your best argument tries to support itself with fallacies (homosexuality biological? pfah) and banal observations (easier to pick at the degenerate than those who are earning a living – or better).
But if you are one of those who has their head buried in the sand (Hillary has blood on her hands, and Obozo is ruining this country) AND is a degenerate, then I’m afraid there is no hope for you anyway. Don’t waste your time talking to me.
Just know that there are people out here who look at you as abnormal…and we are the majority.
Man, if you believe stuff that Snopes has debunked, you’re lost to reason.
You really think that Snopes is the last word? Do you think they are immune to the political forces that move through this country?
Does your little mind need that re-assurance that there is a greater power out there, all-knowing, so you turn to SNOPES?
Who is lost?
But far be it from me to reveal any more truth or try to open your head any further…I’m sure you consider yourself to be an “open minded” indivitual already. Well, all that means to me is that it’s collected a lot of nonsense over the years. “An open mind collects a lot garbage.” Things like, “Homosexuality is biology-based”…which when it comes down to it, is merely how you chose to defend a perverted “lifestyle”…it’s what you CHOSE to believe, and you cling to it like you cling to the way Snopes “debunks” and covers up.
Bah, you’re not stupid…you’re just ignorant. You’re like the guy who points to wikipedia when defending unions, and has no idea of the origin of the word “Fasicst”…yet blithely insults whoever he doesn’t like with it.
Do your own research.
Actually, you seem to have missed my point, which is not that Snopes is an ultimate authority, but rather the converse … that it is an extremely rudimentary source which picks only the low-hanging fruit, and debunks only those conspiracy theories which are so laughable as to be near-self-debunking. And yet they did a pretty thorough demolishing of the ‘Clinton death count’ nonsense.
Do you have any evidence for your affirmative claims? I mean, the claim that the First Lady of the United States had someone murdered is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence. Do you have any to offer?
Similarly, I believe that homosexuality is primarily biologically based because that’s what the best science seems to indicate. Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise?
Part of the virtue of having an open mind is examining the evidence for various propositions independently. I would like to give your opinions a fair shot and examine the evidence for yours. Please offer some.
No, your original point was to point out that Snopes has debunked what I said, it and that I am beyond redemption because Snopes debunked it.
If your point was otherwise, you should have elaborated a bit better instead of throwing out another clay pigeon for me. But assuming that you really did mean that, my response remains unchanged…even having clarified your argument to specify that Snopes only debunks the “low-hanging fruit” still seems to imply that you put more faith in Snopes than your own research. My question remains the same, “Who is lost?” You can’t have it both ways…if you wish to defend your premise that Snopes is good enough to refute THIS PARTICULAR arguement, then you throw your lot in with them. I chose not to, and yes, that was my choice. But then, I did the research.
Whether or not you are capable of knowing the truth is up to you, and wether or not you are doing your own adequate research. That exercise is left up to you, the student. I could point you in the right direction, if you really wanted to do the work…but I am a conservative, and I believe and letting you do the work instead of doing it for you. For instance, have you read the OIC report? Did you read the reports of the FBI, or the physician who was attending to Vince Foster? Can you even give me a reason why Hillary would have him murdered? Before you take Snopes at it’s face value, I suggest you look into these things. Make sure you include the word “Whitewater” and “Savings and Loan Scandal” in your search, concentrating on Hillary’s and Vince Foster’s roles in each.
You see, I can tell you these things because I’m feel certain you’ll ignore me. But then, that would be an “open mind” in action, eh? Bah, believe what you want to, you will anyway.
(CONT)
When it comes to the sexual dysfunction known as “homosexuality” I’ve been of the same opinion since the early 80’s, when I was really “researching” whether or not homosexuality is a perversion caused by heredity or by peer pressure…you can ask Tacit (Turtle) about it, we used to round and round. The only documentation I’ve ever seen that even came close to “proving” it as a biologically based is Simon LeVay’s work, and his so-called science was no better than the so-called scientists who worked on the theories surrounding Global Warming. (And that’s another farce…don’t get me started on that lying fraud Al Gore.) Suffice to say, I have done some research, and I am of same opinion as of the APA (American Psychological Association), BEFORE they were pressured to change their stance on it…it’s a sexual dysfunction, as defined back in 1974. (BTW, I can also prove that AIDS (at least last century) WAS primarily a gay disease, afflicting homosexual men to normal people at a ratio of 2-1. I have the statistics from CDC to prove it.) At any rate, I see no reason to adopt any of this PC-influenced re-definition of a disease…kleptomainia was a disease back in ’74, it is still now. Do you know why? No organized theft groups have ever been able to create PACs to pressure politicians or doctors to change the definition. Same with the any other behavior-based diseases, including alcohol. As Clinton destroyed the Armed Forces by turning them into his own little “social proving ground”, public opinion was forced to conclude that maybe homosexuality wasn’t all bad…after all, wasn’t Liberace gay? And Elton John? It became popular, in spite of the reports of morale drop and rejection of all Clinton’s plan signified. People actually elected congressmen and representatives…and look how well that went. Bawney Fwank, the prostitute lover. Lovely. But I digress.
What it really boils down to is that most forgiving, PC-type people want to classify it as a “nature vs nurture” argument (yeah, that old hat) and to me, it’s really irrelevant. Whether you were born that way or whether you chose to ignore common sense (tab A goes to slot B), the only thing which seems to be consistent is that you do it for the sheer pleasure of it…which, in that case, why not just go join the Bobonos? It’s an overused word but it really applies: depravity. It’s the essense ofthe liberal progressive argument: “Why not?” Most people without any sort of moral compass (or common sense) have no answer, but I do. Tragically, it’s like riding a bike…”if you don’t get why I prefer a Harley, you never will”, and that same mindset goes for the stripped threads on a person who’s descended into depravity. “Hell, I’ve already done this nasty stuff…might just as well continue with that nasty stuff.” It’s like drugs, which sane people avoid.
An “open mind” cannot really exist, not as you define it. What you call an “open mind” I call critical thinking. What every other liberal out there wants you to keep…an “open mind”…is their way of telling you to reject all you already knew was true. Critical thinking allows you to put a filter on the nonsense that originates from that crowd daily.
If true, I applaud your ability to think critically. I’m looking forward to hearing your conclusions after you do your own research on who killed Vince Foster. At the very least the angle of the bullet would have had his hand wrenched around at an odd angle, if he really did do it himself…but I’ll let you find that out for yourself.
Let’s just dispense with the “homosexuality is a gay disease” meme. By some standards and viewpoints it could be considered such, but it’s much more accurately described as a “mostly transmitted by men” disease. Among straights, women get it far more often than men do, and among gays, it was rampant among gay men for a time (and is still much more common among gay men than straight men) whereas among lesbians it’s virtually nonexistent. It’s actually rather difficult for women to transmit it due to the fact that the HIV virus can’t survive outside the body for very long, it doesn’t penetrate most bodily tissues easily, and both saliva and urine kill it… not to mention that women don’t normally squirt anything into their partner’s orifices.
Heehee… Thanks to what I’m assuming is a typo, I thought you were about to make a joke about boorish men turning women off on the whole male species, or outgoing men being the only ones appropriately socialized to be able to make passes at the hordes of shy guys out there, or both.
It’s a pity; ‘twould have livened up the thread some. 🙂
Durr… whoopses. I meant “AIDS is a gay disease”. Dunno how that little screwup happened.
“appropriately socialized”…meaning, ambivalent about who they make passes at? That’s laughable…you would be more accurate to describe them as “oversexed” or perhaps “more desperate”.
Game going into overtime.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. It was originally thought that AIDS spread through tears in the anus caused when it was used for purposes other than excretion of feces.
But what you said only proves my point. The result is that more men got it, and primarily they were homosexual men. Meme or not…that’s what happened.
Well, it sounds like all the “sexually dysfunctional” people agree with themselves.
Isn’t it nice that you all have your own little community, that you can congratulate yourselves on your perversions?
Well, I’m here to kick over your anthill…a pastor is morally responsible for upholding the bible, you should EXPECT him to put something like this on his billboard.
And if you don’t like that the religious community rejects what you do, too damn bad…the religious community has as much right (if not more) than you to their opinions.
You think that your bullying and slapping is going to cure this? The only cure for it is to STOP spreading perversion. Berating or censoring people who object to immorality isn’t going to help one bit.
Tacit posted without comment…well, you all more than made up for it. This is the second time I’ve tried to post opposing viewpoint on his blog…let’s see if the man who once told me “If you have to censor, you’ve lost…” decides to delete my post.
Bullying? Slapping? Aren’t most people here just … laughing?
I mean, sure, if you want to have serious discussion about this, then okay.
I believe that for a multicultural society to prosper, acceptance (or at the very least, tolerance) of people who are not like you is absolutely necessary. We need to be able to stop fighting long enough to build something. Continued demonizing of gay and lesbian members of society will never accomplish anything good, even were such demonizing religiously required, which it’s not.
What I mean to say is that this demonizing isn’t going to eliminate homosexuality, either among society or among the congregants, since homosexuality is, as near as we’re able to determine, biologically determined. Since it won’t be able to accomplish that goal, all it will do is sow discord in society and force an already-oppressed group to feel a little worse about themselves and their neighbors. Furthermore, as I said, such attacks certainly aren’t religiously required … after all, Jesus spoke quite a bit more about the moral bankruptcy of the wealthy, and I doubt that the church would put up a sign reading “I got a raise and a new car … and then I went to hell.”
It’s clear that the particular focus on homosexuality is an artifact of a particular place and time in which many people want to attain wealthy, but few heterosexual people long to be homosexual. This makes homosexuality a ‘safe’ target for moral opprobrium, since he’s unlikely to offend the hopes and desires of most of his congregants by taking an anti-homosexual stand the same way he would if he took an anti-wealth stance.
…and then I went and checked your linvejournal, and I saw that you think Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed, and I realized that you’re a mouth-breathing sub-literate moron, and my arguments have been wasted. Pity.
Elegant. “Mouth-breathing sub-literate moron”.
It’s just as well, because if that’s your best argument it was not only wasted, it was a waste of time. Your best argument tries to support itself with fallacies (homosexuality biological? pfah) and banal observations (easier to pick at the degenerate than those who are earning a living – or better).
But if you are one of those who has their head buried in the sand (Hillary has blood on her hands, and Obozo is ruining this country) AND is a degenerate, then I’m afraid there is no hope for you anyway. Don’t waste your time talking to me.
Just know that there are people out here who look at you as abnormal…and we are the majority.
Man, if you believe stuff that Snopes has debunked, you’re lost to reason.
You really think that Snopes is the last word? Do you think they are immune to the political forces that move through this country?
Does your little mind need that re-assurance that there is a greater power out there, all-knowing, so you turn to SNOPES?
Who is lost?
But far be it from me to reveal any more truth or try to open your head any further…I’m sure you consider yourself to be an “open minded” indivitual already. Well, all that means to me is that it’s collected a lot of nonsense over the years. “An open mind collects a lot garbage.” Things like, “Homosexuality is biology-based”…which when it comes down to it, is merely how you chose to defend a perverted “lifestyle”…it’s what you CHOSE to believe, and you cling to it like you cling to the way Snopes “debunks” and covers up.
Bah, you’re not stupid…you’re just ignorant. You’re like the guy who points to wikipedia when defending unions, and has no idea of the origin of the word “Fasicst”…yet blithely insults whoever he doesn’t like with it.
Do your own research.
Actually, you seem to have missed my point, which is not that Snopes is an ultimate authority, but rather the converse … that it is an extremely rudimentary source which picks only the low-hanging fruit, and debunks only those conspiracy theories which are so laughable as to be near-self-debunking. And yet they did a pretty thorough demolishing of the ‘Clinton death count’ nonsense.
Do you have any evidence for your affirmative claims? I mean, the claim that the First Lady of the United States had someone murdered is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence. Do you have any to offer?
Similarly, I believe that homosexuality is primarily biologically based because that’s what the best science seems to indicate. Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise?
Part of the virtue of having an open mind is examining the evidence for various propositions independently. I would like to give your opinions a fair shot and examine the evidence for yours. Please offer some.
No, your original point was to point out that Snopes has debunked what I said, it and that I am beyond redemption because Snopes debunked it.
If your point was otherwise, you should have elaborated a bit better instead of throwing out another clay pigeon for me. But assuming that you really did mean that, my response remains unchanged…even having clarified your argument to specify that Snopes only debunks the “low-hanging fruit” still seems to imply that you put more faith in Snopes than your own research. My question remains the same, “Who is lost?” You can’t have it both ways…if you wish to defend your premise that Snopes is good enough to refute THIS PARTICULAR arguement, then you throw your lot in with them. I chose not to, and yes, that was my choice. But then, I did the research.
Whether or not you are capable of knowing the truth is up to you, and wether or not you are doing your own adequate research. That exercise is left up to you, the student. I could point you in the right direction, if you really wanted to do the work…but I am a conservative, and I believe and letting you do the work instead of doing it for you. For instance, have you read the OIC report? Did you read the reports of the FBI, or the physician who was attending to Vince Foster? Can you even give me a reason why Hillary would have him murdered? Before you take Snopes at it’s face value, I suggest you look into these things. Make sure you include the word “Whitewater” and “Savings and Loan Scandal” in your search, concentrating on Hillary’s and Vince Foster’s roles in each.
You see, I can tell you these things because I’m feel certain you’ll ignore me. But then, that would be an “open mind” in action, eh? Bah, believe what you want to, you will anyway.
(CONT)
When it comes to the sexual dysfunction known as “homosexuality” I’ve been of the same opinion since the early 80’s, when I was really “researching” whether or not homosexuality is a perversion caused by heredity or by peer pressure…you can ask Tacit (Turtle) about it, we used to round and round. The only documentation I’ve ever seen that even came close to “proving” it as a biologically based is Simon LeVay’s work, and his so-called science was no better than the so-called scientists who worked on the theories surrounding Global Warming. (And that’s another farce…don’t get me started on that lying fraud Al Gore.) Suffice to say, I have done some research, and I am of same opinion as of the APA (American Psychological Association), BEFORE they were pressured to change their stance on it…it’s a sexual dysfunction, as defined back in 1974. (BTW, I can also prove that AIDS (at least last century) WAS primarily a gay disease, afflicting homosexual men to normal people at a ratio of 2-1. I have the statistics from CDC to prove it.) At any rate, I see no reason to adopt any of this PC-influenced re-definition of a disease…kleptomainia was a disease back in ’74, it is still now. Do you know why? No organized theft groups have ever been able to create PACs to pressure politicians or doctors to change the definition. Same with the any other behavior-based diseases, including alcohol. As Clinton destroyed the Armed Forces by turning them into his own little “social proving ground”, public opinion was forced to conclude that maybe homosexuality wasn’t all bad…after all, wasn’t Liberace gay? And Elton John? It became popular, in spite of the reports of morale drop and rejection of all Clinton’s plan signified. People actually elected congressmen and representatives…and look how well that went. Bawney Fwank, the prostitute lover. Lovely. But I digress.
What it really boils down to is that most forgiving, PC-type people want to classify it as a “nature vs nurture” argument (yeah, that old hat) and to me, it’s really irrelevant. Whether you were born that way or whether you chose to ignore common sense (tab A goes to slot B), the only thing which seems to be consistent is that you do it for the sheer pleasure of it…which, in that case, why not just go join the Bobonos? It’s an overused word but it really applies: depravity. It’s the essense ofthe liberal progressive argument: “Why not?” Most people without any sort of moral compass (or common sense) have no answer, but I do. Tragically, it’s like riding a bike…”if you don’t get why I prefer a Harley, you never will”, and that same mindset goes for the stripped threads on a person who’s descended into depravity. “Hell, I’ve already done this nasty stuff…might just as well continue with that nasty stuff.” It’s like drugs, which sane people avoid.
An “open mind” cannot really exist, not as you define it. What you call an “open mind” I call critical thinking. What every other liberal out there wants you to keep…an “open mind”…is their way of telling you to reject all you already knew was true. Critical thinking allows you to put a filter on the nonsense that originates from that crowd daily.
If true, I applaud your ability to think critically. I’m looking forward to hearing your conclusions after you do your own research on who killed Vince Foster. At the very least the angle of the bullet would have had his hand wrenched around at an odd angle, if he really did do it himself…but I’ll let you find that out for yourself.
“It beats the hell out of playing cards” – Jubal Harshaw
Let’s just dispense with the “homosexuality is a gay disease” meme. By some standards and viewpoints it could be considered such, but it’s much more accurately described as a “mostly transmitted by men” disease. Among straights, women get it far more often than men do, and among gays, it was rampant among gay men for a time (and is still much more common among gay men than straight men) whereas among lesbians it’s virtually nonexistent. It’s actually rather difficult for women to transmit it due to the fact that the HIV virus can’t survive outside the body for very long, it doesn’t penetrate most bodily tissues easily, and both saliva and urine kill it… not to mention that women don’t normally squirt anything into their partner’s orifices.
Heehee… Thanks to what I’m assuming is a typo, I thought you were about to make a joke about boorish men turning women off on the whole male species, or outgoing men being the only ones appropriately socialized to be able to make passes at the hordes of shy guys out there, or both.
It’s a pity; ‘twould have livened up the thread some. 🙂
Durr… whoopses. I meant “AIDS is a gay disease”. Dunno how that little screwup happened.
“I don’t like to commit myself about heaven and hell – you see, I have friends in both places” – Mark Twain
“I don’t like to commit myself about heaven and hell – you see, I have friends in both places” – Mark Twain
I assume this was followed with the sign:
“I ate Lobster and I liked it. Then I went to hell”
I assume this was followed with the sign:
“I ate Lobster and I liked it. Then I went to hell”
“He beats me because he loves me.”
Well, I say that in perfect seriousness, but we all know the usual context for that…
What amuses me is the part of the article about how Pastor Dave plays this music video over and over again. He probably wanks off to it over and over again, too — and of course that’s his divine sign from God that it’s sinful!
What amuses me is that you project your own ideas and behaviors on to what is supposed to be a Godly man. Tell me, do you do it to make yourself feel better, or do you do it to make him look worse?
I don’t think anyone could make him look worse. As for the rest of what you said, do you really get off on being an internet troll?
A troll? So you think I just came here to troll?
It never occured to you that there are people who object to the smearing of a good man, involved in a worthwhile activity to keep children from falling into depravity?
Granted, it was a serious flub. Apparently, members of his congregation had not descended as far as he was concerned they had, but nobody can argue or deny that his intentions were good.
Does it make you feel better to dismiss me as a troll, without having to examine what I say? How typical…and how sad.
Yes, you are a troll. Bullshit about projections when you DO NOT EVEN KNOW ME, bullshit about behaviors when you do not know what my behaviors are, and bullshit about “making myself feel better” when I feel just fine ALL make you a troll.
And no, I don’t believe his intentions were good. His intentions were to hate monger against one select segment of our society. And in my eyes, THAT is a sin.
Ok, so it’s ok for other people to make “Bullshit projections” about me, by speculating about my motives…which you have done…but if I do it back, I’m a troll? You pointed out (in caps, thank you Captain Obvious) that I didn’t know you…well, you don’t know me, either. But you went right ahead and made the accusation of “troll”, called my facts “bullshit” and then called a Man of God a “Hate Monger”…when you don’t know him either.
Hypocrit, much? Liberal progressive, obviously. Probably a Democrat, too. You can dish it out, but you can’t take it.
That man’s intentions were of the highest order, and what you call “hate mongering” I call spreading of information about a “segment of society” which is getting special considerations and a lot of attention for something which is nothing but a perversion and a mental disease…a sexual dysfunction.
If you think that teaching children how avoid becoming mentally warped (perverted) is a sin, then you obviously don’t have any clue what the word “sin” means.
Then again, probably you think you do. After all, why would it be beyond liberal-progressives to redefine words, when they’ve been trying to re-write history for decades?
That, and re-defining what constitutes a mental illness, which they think they’ve gotten away with. But I’m here to tell you…you are still a minority, and decent people everywhere are still trying to get rid of your corruption. By law, where necessary, we are rolling back the indulgence of perversions, and the illegal enforcement of mandates which were never approved by We The People.
So sure, this effort starts with the moral man…the Godly Man…the pastor, the priest, the minister. And your effort to silence the people who begin the effort will fail. We will take back this country.
Bah…are you still reading?!? Are you crazy?
STOP FEEDING THE TROLL. (Not that it matters.)
What amuses me is the part of the article about how Pastor Dave plays this music video over and over again. He probably wanks off to it over and over again, too — and of course that’s his divine sign from God that it’s sinful!
“appropriately socialized”…meaning, ambivalent about who they make passes at? That’s laughable…you would be more accurate to describe them as “oversexed” or perhaps “more desperate”.
Game going into overtime.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. It was originally thought that AIDS spread through tears in the anus caused when it was used for purposes other than excretion of feces.
But what you said only proves my point. The result is that more men got it, and primarily they were homosexual men. Meme or not…that’s what happened.
What amuses me is that you project your own ideas and behaviors on to what is supposed to be a Godly man. Tell me, do you do it to make yourself feel better, or do you do it to make him look worse?
fnord!
I don’t think anyone could make him look worse. As for the rest of what you said, do you really get off on being an internet troll?
A troll? So you think I just came here to troll?
It never occured to you that there are people who object to the smearing of a good man, involved in a worthwhile activity to keep children from falling into depravity?
Granted, it was a serious flub. Apparently, members of his congregation had not descended as far as he was concerned they had, but nobody can argue or deny that his intentions were good.
Does it make you feel better to dismiss me as a troll, without having to examine what I say? How typical…and how sad.
Yes, you are a troll. Bullshit about projections when you DO NOT EVEN KNOW ME, bullshit about behaviors when you do not know what my behaviors are, and bullshit about “making myself feel better” when I feel just fine ALL make you a troll.
And no, I don’t believe his intentions were good. His intentions were to hate monger against one select segment of our society. And in my eyes, THAT is a sin.
Ok, so it’s ok for other people to make “Bullshit projections” about me, by speculating about my motives…which you have done…but if I do it back, I’m a troll? You pointed out (in caps, thank you Captain Obvious) that I didn’t know you…well, you don’t know me, either. But you went right ahead and made the accusation of “troll”, called my facts “bullshit” and then called a Man of God a “Hate Monger”…when you don’t know him either.
Hypocrit, much? Liberal progressive, obviously. Probably a Democrat, too. You can dish it out, but you can’t take it.
That man’s intentions were of the highest order, and what you call “hate mongering” I call spreading of information about a “segment of society” which is getting special considerations and a lot of attention for something which is nothing but a perversion and a mental disease…a sexual dysfunction.
If you think that teaching children how avoid becoming mentally warped (perverted) is a sin, then you obviously don’t have any clue what the word “sin” means.
Then again, probably you think you do. After all, why would it be beyond liberal-progressives to redefine words, when they’ve been trying to re-write history for decades?
That, and re-defining what constitutes a mental illness, which they think they’ve gotten away with. But I’m here to tell you…you are still a minority, and decent people everywhere are still trying to get rid of your corruption. By law, where necessary, we are rolling back the indulgence of perversions, and the illegal enforcement of mandates which were never approved by We The People.
So sure, this effort starts with the moral man…the Godly Man…the pastor, the priest, the minister. And your effort to silence the people who begin the effort will fail. We will take back this country.
Bah…are you still reading?!? Are you crazy?
STOP FEEDING THE TROLL. (Not that it matters.)
I have nothing to add besides “holy crap, I live right near there”.
I have nothing to add besides “holy crap, I live right near there”.