PaperClipsYaaaar

Seriously, that wasn't even funny. I'd say jsut like everyone else. Tell them in a good place and time. There is no good place and time. His parents will have a negative reaction, no matter what the conditions are. Chatting about it on the internet, on multiple websites, is just delaying the inevitable and will make it even more difficult for him to work up the courage.

1) You want black people to leave America. 2) You think most black people are violent. If I were writing an observation of Hitler's racism, I would not write bad things about the Jews. Similarly, if I were writing an observation of white racism, I would not write bad things about the blacks. Unless, of course, I myself am a racist and choose to use the word "observation" as an excuse to express my hate.

The OP quoted a news story about James Watson being racist. The OP's name is not James Watson. The OP is not racist. Shut the [bleep] up means shut the [bleep] up. Reading a lil' off, or what? How about yours? Check the post right above you. You had more than enough time to read it, but apparently ignored it. Good job. And I'm not about to be silenced by some random idiot. Sorry, I missed the post where you admitted you're wrong. Anyway, addressing that post: Racism is not relative. You and James Watson are both racists.

The OP quoted a news story about James Watson being racist. The OP's name is not James Watson. The OP is not racist. Shut the [bleep] up means shut the [bleep] up. Reading a lil' off, or what?

How long are you gonna keep this up? The irony is unbearable.

Chop it up and make chunky baby soup.

That is called "irony," Mr. Christian.

jazzy jeff

Of course neither is perfect. They're arguing about which one is better. You obviously can't think that they are both equally good.

no

Then stop posting.

And that's why those people should not have access to guns.

From wikipedia:

I think we should just call everybody heshe because that would be funny.

Spiderman is about a guy who can ejaculate a semen of such consistency (from his hands!) that he is able to use it to swing from buildings. Spiderman is about me.

They live in the nude.

You said you already knew what it meant. Now I know you're lying. I know what it means TO ME. But you have to post what it means TO YOU. It is a nickname. The numbers were the last 6 digits of my OLD phone number. The ctp is a nickname. Happy? lolthxctp Ok but the public needs to know what ctp means please tell the public

Because that's what they thought homosexuality was (in general). Just because we've changed the definition to become more broad doesn't mean that they change their stance on this new definition. You can't expect them to condemn something that has only been defined since after the Bible has been written. It's like saying the genetic modification of a babies' cosmetic features prior to birth isn't immoral according to the Bible because it doesn't specifically mention it. There are other principles and passages not explicitly stating it that you can derive other the moral rule from. The definition has not become more broad. The definition has been changed completely. In my previous post, I showed that Paul assumed homosexuality was a willful preference of sexual pleasure, a choice made during life, as if we are all capable of bisexuality and some of us follow the right path of penetrating vaginas while others eventually decide to deviate by penetrating butts. Yes, there are principles and passages stating that one should not hurt one's fellow man from which you can derive that harming a baby is wrong. However, there are no principles and passages, other than Leviticus, that would lead you to believe that a man cannot love another man. From the top of the article, there are two meanings: Those two meanings also apply to the term "heterosexuality." I assume that we are using the latter meaning, as we are not sex researchers discussing sexual acts and whatnot.

is you...is you gay?

You said you already knew what it meant. Now I know you're lying. I know what it means TO ME. But you have to post what it means TO YOU.

Paul is condemning both having and acting on homosexual desires as a sinful choice, much like a person who chooses to have sex with underage girls rather than grown women even though he can be aroused by both. So how is this not equal to a passage in the Bible that condemns homosexuality? What is homosexuality besides having homosexual desires? I don't understand how you can say that this isn't a Biblical passage condemning homosexuality. It's a passage condemning homosexuality for the specific reason that it is nothing more than a willful preference of sexual pleasure. Since this view of homosexuality has long since been revoked, as homosexuality is neither willful nor purely sexual, this passage belongs with numerous other outdated customs and laws of the bible. The only passage that condemns homosexuality in general terms is Leviticus (although I suspect Moses would have revealed the same outdated reasoning as Paul if he had written a lengthier passage).

Put yourself in their place. It's not like they grew up in a society where transgenders were accepted (or even known). How hard is it for them? They did grow up in a society where transgenders were known and accepted by some. Their religion is holding them back by about 5 decades.

Paul is condemning both having and acting on homosexual desires as a sinful choice, much like a person who chooses to have sex with underage girls rather than grown women even though he can be aroused by both.

Note that Paul also condemns men being "inflamed with lust for one another" - this isn't an action, it is an attitude, or way of being. Inflamed with lust after they abandoned heterosexual sex. The "lust" part signifies that this passage is purely sexual. The "after" part signifies voluntary choice.

Romans Ch.1 (I know it's offtopic, but just wanted to point out the inconsistency in your thought.) Paul assumed that homosexuality was a conscious deviation from heterosexuality, in the same way that a heterosexual couple who practice oral sex can also have vaginal sex but choose not to, or a fat man who continues to gorge himself and chooses not to lose weight. In the two millenniums since Paul wrote his letters, science has shown that homosexuality is related to modifications in genetics and psychology, which means that homosexuals are not inherently hetero and are not able to have sex with women. Unlike the fat man who is inherently healthy and must make the choice to lose weight. Paul criticized homosexuality because he thought it was a willful sin that could be self-corrected at any time. Since his criticism was specifically in that context, and that context has since been disproved, his criticism is no longer valid. Edit: That was kind of wordy. The basic idea is that Paul only considered the sexual aspect of homosexuality. Namely, the actual act of anal sex. He believed that men who have sex in the butt with other men could easily switch back to having sex with vaginas, in the same way that one could easily switch from oral to vaginal. He did not consider that homosexuality could be more than a just a preference for a particular orifice.