Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:T-Shirt Wars in School"

Latest revision as of 06:15, April 28, 2008

Isn't that kinda like protesting people for being black?--Elamdri 21:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No. Being black is not morally wrong.Bohdan

It was 50 years ago.--Elamdri 23:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Just as an interesting question, Bohdan... when the scientists identify a genetic reason for homosexuality, will your views change? Will other conservative groups change their views? How would these views change? --Hojimachong^talk 23:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

my views are based on the Word of God. They will never changeBohdan

Can God's word change?--Staple^{Your comments are welcomed!} 23:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Why would God create a gay person, Bohdan? --Hojimachong^talk 23:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

have the scientists identified a genetic reason? The reason is obvious. Romans 1:27Bohdan

It's kind of scary you can quote bible verses...--Elamdri 23:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I am sorry that my knowledge of the Bible frightens you.Bohdan

I think that if you were gay, Bohdan, you're views would be different. --Hojimachong^talk 23:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I am deeply offended by your statement. But it doesnt make sense. If i was a Nazi, i would likely view them differently, but that doesnt make it right. Their are many disgusting things that i were, i would sympathize. If i was in the kkk i would view them differentlyBohdan

Sorry if I offended you. So now you are equating homosexuals to nazis and the KKK? --Hojimachong^talk 23:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Alas, perhaps i confuse you. I am trying to show the flaw in you above statement. But homosexuality is wrong. The Bible is quite clear.Bohdan

Ah yes, the "because the Bible said so" argument. --Hojimachong^talk 23:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Therein lies the problemBohdan

The problem is, Biblical literalism cannot be swayed by science, logic, or reason. So the debate is pointless if neither side will budge. --Hojimachong^talk 23:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Then i guess we should stop. Shall we call it a draw?Bohdan

Well, the problem is really whether or not societal norms trump the Bible, and their will always be two camps in that argument. And each camp broils down to thinking something very unpleasant will happen to the other after they die.--Elamdri 23:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The difference is that, because of homophobia, something very unpleasant happens on earth in the meantime :-P -AmesG_yo! 23:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

• Bohdan, you still haven't answered my question. Can the Word of God change?--Staple^{Your comments are welcomed!} 23:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

sorry i was unaware it was intended for me. can you explane it more?Bohdan

Staple, would you care to define "Word of God"?

It's like this, Bohdan; Christianity implicitly supports a flat earth. However, when this was proven wrong, most Christians abandoned that view, even though it says so in the Bible. So, could God's word change? I say yes. What about you? --Hojimachong^talk 23:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I will need chapter and verse for your claim firstBohdanHere is my position [1]. I think I do not need to say anymore.Bohdan

Revelation 7:1 is just one of the many verses in the bible.--Staple^{Your comments are welcomed!} 00:03, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

• This is what you stated: my views are based on the Word of God. They will never change. Because Hoji was talking about when scientist prove a genetic link will your mind change. And that is the response you gave.

The Word of God is really not for me to define since it is up to Bohdan who stated it first and Conservapedia to define.--Staple^{Your comments are welcomed!} 23:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I have heard of some scientist linking homosexuality to smell.--Staple^{Your comments are welcomed!} 23:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Well that was the point I was trying to make actually. But he did bring up the wrong objection, because 50 years ago being black was a sign of moral inferiority. I believe that it's only a matter of time before true homosexuality is genetically identified. However, I think that we'll always have the issue of latent homosexual curiosity, which is where I think most of the debate stems from anyway. I believe religious conservatives believe that all homosexuals are merely those who gave into curiosity. However, I think homosexual curiosity is an aspect of every human being, but being truly homosexual is also a separate condition of humanity.--Elamdri 23:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

But there is no "gay gene." The homosexual activists claim that a heterosexual can become a homosexual (of which there are examples), but a homosexual cannot become a heterosexual (of which there are examples).

The homosexual movement is really a belief system more than anything else. A big part of the movement, for example, is about censorship of opposition to it.--Aschlafly 23:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Yknow, it's interesting, I know a pair of fraternal sisters at my college, and one is gay and the other is straight. It's quite weird really. I would think though that if sexuality was more a social response, they would both be either gay or straight.--Elamdri 23:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Really? I totally just believe you, without citations or anything. Well, actually, I don't. links pl0x? --Hojimachong^talk 23:35, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality is genetic? The liberal unholy grail. The truth is that much of what is homosexual sex - namely anal sex - causes disease. [2][3][4][5] That is what we know now and it is not some liberal pie in the sky unholy Grail to seek like homosexuality is supposedly genetic. Conservative 23:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Nobody's denying that it causes disease. The AIDS epidemic in Africa is due almost exclusively to straight sex/rape. But that doesn't mean that straight sex is bad, does it? Just because something could be dangerous doesn't mean it always is.--Hojimachong^talk 23:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

All I know is, somewhere in history, down the line, someone had sex with a monkey. And that had to have been an akward morning...--Elamdri 23:41, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

• If God's word _can't_ change, then all you called "Christians" are actually just a bunch of heretical Jews. What's with this "New" Testament? The Torah wasn't GOOD enough for you?  :) Or do you mean "can it change NOW"? --Gulik2 00:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Religious text will ALWAYS be open for interpretation, and those that hold to a poor interpretation will die out and fall to the wayside of history. It's not like we haven't seen it happen many times before.--Elamdri 00:09, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but that's not my point--the New Testament was VERY different in theme and nature than the Old Testament. Different enough to become a completely different religion. (I've heard the old/new split described as "what happened when God got religion".:) --Gulik2 00:30, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I always grew up with the understanding that the New Testament was supposed to replace/trump the Old Testament.--Elamdri 00:56, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

So, that's a vote for "yes, God can change His mind", then? --Gulik2 01:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

To Muslims, God changed his mind as recently as 632AD. And to Mormons, as recently as the 19th century. --Hojimachong^talk 01:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Freedom of speech

Look, that person that wore the shirt that was anti-homosexuality has a right to express their views. I don't agree with that at all, and (well, I actually can't say that here, for fear of being blocked). But I will say this to Bohdan, is there a genetic cause? Why are there homosexuals? And, why is it illigal (and farther more, a hate crime) to put homosexuals to death for their "abominable deed"? --Rocky

The following (shaded) discussion was moved from talk:Main Page.