Batwoman is a lesbian!

[mingez]

IF you look up the word "pagan" you'll see it defines it a a person who has no religious values...no god...one who does not profess Christianity, Jewish, or Muslim faiths.. a person who is hedonistic... a heathen.

Well, actually that isn't quite accurate. The word pagan has several connotations.

Main Entry: pa·gan
Pronunciation: 'pA-g&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, civilian, country dweller, from pagus country district; akin to Latin pangere to fix -- more at PACT
1 : HEATHEN 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=pagan

Definition 1 is: "A follower of a polytheistic religion." Meaning MANY gods. So, godless they aren't. And their gods is just as realistic as any. By this definition, Hindus are pagans, which simply isn't true.

The final definition is a prescribed generalization as the result of many people b-a-s-t-ardizing the word over several generations. Just as people use "Coke" for all sodas, or "Windbreaker" for all Jackets, the word "Pagan" has come to mean anyone who (according to western Christian beliefs and moral code) is of low integrity, and thus devoid of God. It's a very ethnocentric term, but all cultures do it. Gai-Jin, Barbarians, Heathens, Pagans, Infidels, all have a more logical root meaning, but have evolved to mean something more condecsending.

so..my previous remarks stand..., I have no moral duty nor am I inclined whatsoever to make pagans happy.

Exactly! You are correct!!! And neither myself, nor the comicbook industry have any obligations or duty to make conservative Christians happy either. But in fairness, I don't kowtow to pagans either.

That aside, I'd like to think that if you met a hindu or a pagan, that you'd treat them as nicely and respectfully as any other human being.

 

[Laph]

:agree:

 

[mingez]

You referred to a pagan sacrificing a young woman to ensure a good crop harvest. In responding to that example, I consider my "rolling eyes" a mild form of rejection. If you can sit there at your computer and honestly say to yourself that you consider that throwing a young human being off of a cliff to please a pagan god is a decent, valid, action worth honoring, and respecting.....well..I feel bad for you. There is no grey area for me in that case. I know in my heart that is wrong, and no one has to tell me that. I didn't have to read it in a book either.
It's call conscience.
Con meaning "with" and "science" meaning knowledge. Most everyone including you were born with a conscience, which means you have some instilled, inherent, sense of right and wrong.

No need to feel bad for me. Thanks.
I really am amazed at how off the point you are with that. I don't believe in the Chac gods of Mesoamerica any more than I believe in your God.

Point is, THEY believed as fervently as you that their god was real. And they believed whole-heartedly that such sacrificial actions were just and moral. So, in their eyes, they were acting "Moral".

And BTW- ancient parent religions of Christianity (way before Christ) had sacrificial givings to Yahweh, or Jehovah in early Judiasm (the parent religion of Christianity) there are hundreds of accounts and findings of human sacrifice. No group of people is exempt from early dealings with human sacrifice in one form or another.

Look, I'm not saying it's okay to throw a person off of a cliff for any reason. All I'm saying is, ancient Mesoamericans were born with the same "supposed" conscience you believe all humans are endowed with. Aztecs were not a race of uncivilized "BAD" immoral people. They just had a different belief system.

As a matter of fact, the Aztecs were a relatively peaceful people. They chose the "Ball Game" as a means of avoiding war. Sure the losers lost their lives, but it saved countless other lives including women and children. It wasn't until the savage Christian Spaniards (who in the Aztecs eyes were Pagans) arrived that they learned how to commit genocide.

The mesoamericans welcomed the Spaniards with open arms, and didn't see the conquistador's fingers crossed behind his back. Who were the moral people in this exchange? it's all relative.

 

[socal_rob]

Ummmm......A Jew is someone who follows Judaism. Judaism is a religion. Religion is a choice. The Jews in Nazi Germany did have a choice, and many of them actually did choose to either leave or change religions, whereas others chose to hide it. Perhaps a better analogy would have been to say it was a choice to be black in Mississippi in the 1960's.

True. However, a Jew in Nazi Germany who suddenly renounced Judaism wasn't exactly spared the holocaust. Being Jewish is frequently viewed as both a religion and an ethnicity. Many Jews feel that they are ethnically Jews and it's not just their religion. Just as many Jews feel that one who converts to Judaism isn't really a Jew. One could debate this issue for quite some time. However you clearly saw my point.

 

[mingez]

Social Rob, I am so tired of the cry that Homosexuality is something people are born with. I am tired of hearing the same old line about how it could not possibly be a choice because of all the baggage that comes with it. It's a lie. It's bunk. The same arguement could be used to justify any socially deviant behavior. Why would someone be a theif? A pediphile?

Not as tired as I am hearing from the Fundamentalists that Homosexuality is a learned trait. Their is no reason for straights to push for the supposed "Gay Agenda". I am not gay, why would I choose to lie about why gays are gay? I have no incentive there.

Christians, on the other hand, do have an agenda. If gays ARE born gay it would be the fault of none-other than God himself.

Repeatedly? Try to support that ridiculous claim with real evidence and you will find it to be false.

That same logic can be used in the other direction as well:
Try to support the ridiculous claim that gays are not born gay with real evidence and you will find it to be false.

And actually science has produced such evidence in the animal world. Mice don't watch Will and Grace, don't buy comic books, (or any other medium the "The gay agenda" has someone commandeered) and yet somehow Jerry is still doing Mickey.
I've brought this up before and know that doing so this time will only bring up the claim that their is no correlation between humans and animals. It's a fruitless endeavor to provide evidence, because it'll simply be rebutted as "unreliable" or "academic voodoo". Regardless, it's still more evidence than the opposition has come up with.

 

[Laph]

Ok it's been a while since we had a good debate. I'm bored today and felt like gettin you stirred up a bit....

Well I think it worked we are having a very nice debate. I hope everyone relize what is most important. we are all here for. :driving-g so we all should after a long day sit back togeather and :drunk:

Just my 2cents

 

[socal_rob]

Social Rob, I am so tired of the cry that Homosexuality is something people are born with. I am tired of hearing the same old line about how it could not possibly be a choice because of all the baggage that comes with it. It's a lie. It's bunk. The same arguement could be used to justify any socially deviant behavior. Why would someone be a theif? A pediphile?

So, if gays make a choice to be gay, you made a choice to be straight, right? You actually considered being gay and then rejected it, right?

Science doesn't lie. There is no reputable scientist on earth who will argue that homosexuality is a choice. They might argue about whether or not one's upbringing comes into play, one's childhood experiences, etc. But they will not argue that gay people choose homosexuality on a whim. Nor will they argue that it's a lack of Jesus in gay people's lives.

There are countless scientific studies linking homosexuality and genetics. And while there is no smoking gun, so to speak, evidence continues to indicate that homosexuality is genetically determined. For example, a recent study in Sweden showed that the hypothalamus gland (the portion of the brain that regulates sexuality) reacted exactly the same in gay men and straight women when exposed to male pheromones. A heterosexual man's hypothalamus was only stimulated by female pheromones. Tell me that's not biological in nature.

Then why, might I ask, have so many people turned from homosexuality to live life the way it was meant to be lived? Were they put under a spell? As you say - "brainwashed"? No. They removed themselves from a life of lies and discovered the truth.

Total crap. The "Ex-Gay" movement is a crime. When I lived in DC, the leader of Exodus, one of the poster children of the ex-gay movement, was found, surprise, surprise, in a gay bar looking for sex. The only thing the ex-gay movement does is further ruin lives. The self-loathing these gay people feel is amplified. And then they force themselves to marry someone of the opposite sex, have children (who are the TRUE victims in all of this), and live miserable lives. There is not one single shred of scientific evidence that conversion therapy works. In fact, every reputable medical organization in this country rejects it. Anyone who believes this stuff is just looking for another excuse to justify his bigotry and hatred.

That is a pretty arrogant statement. I have been a Christian for nearly ten years, but my views were very similar 20 years ago. The only difference is now I am more sympathetic to it and do not ridicule them. My head and concience are quite clear, and as for being educated - I am fully prepared to diligently debate this topic with complete confidence (and so is 90XJay).

Anyone who believes that conversion therapy works isn't educated on the issues. Sorry.

This (and the last of your statements I quoted) is a clear indication of your misconceptions of Christianity. They are also very stereotypical when you speak of venom and hatred. The God I serve is a loving God, not one that insites hatred.

No, sadly, it is many Christians who seem to have a misconception. They preach love and acceptance, but are the first to condemn and divide. If so many good Christians are so loving, why do they throw their gay kids onto the street? Or submit them to the dehumanizing experiences of conversion therapy?

Look, yes, plain and simple - I view homosexuality as wrong. That is a fact, therefore I will not submit to the lies and deception that are attempted by those who want to justify or promote it.

Just as the rest of world won't submit to the lies and deception used by those seeking to demonize it. Trouble is, there can only be one truth and right now science - PROVABLE FACT, not mythology and superstition - is on the side of homosexuality being biologically determined. Show me a single stitch of evidence (not some pastor's sermon, but EVIDENCE, something real and provable) that homosexuality is a choice. I'm sure I can round up a good 20 scientific studies in no time at all that demonstrate a biological component to homosexuality. Can you even produce a single shred of evidence that homosexuality is a choice?

This does not mean I hate anyone. It doesn't mean I wouldn't sit next to you on a train. It means I disagree. If you are a homosexual that is your bit, but do not expect me to lie to my children about it, nor allow it to be openly publicized in my home via a television, radio, newspaper, or comic book. And don't expect me to support it in any way.

Just as I wouldn't lie to my kids about the biological roots of homosexuality. And, of course, I would arm them with facts, not superstition and myth.

You have made your choice. I have made mine. I don't expect you to carry a Bible and I don't expect you to accept Christ if it is not your belief SO DON'T EXPECT ME TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE HOMESEXUAL AGENDA.

The only choice I have made is to base my life on logic and truth.

Please have the decency to not make insults or stereotypes about Christians, because they only make you look ignorant.

Get it?

Anyone who reads your post can see your level of disdain for gay people. You might believe that you don't hate anyone, but that's not how it looks from here. As for Christians, I have no problem with true loving Christians. I only have a problem with the ones who lovingly mask their bigotry and hatred.

Get it?

 

[socal_rob]

Christians, on the other hand, do have an agenda. If gays ARE born gay it would be the fault of none-other than God himself.

BINGO!

 

[socal_rob]

And actually science has produced such evidence in the animal world.

Science has also produced such evidence in the human world too. In another post I mentioned a recent Swedish study of the brain. Researchers at UCLA have found several genes that are indicated in sexual orientation. There are a number of studies that suggest lesbians receive higher levels of testosterone in utero as well. And on and on and on...

Sure, none of these studies proves without a doubt that gay people are born gay. But it's way more evidence than the right wing bigots can produce to "prove" that gay people make a choice.

 

[JeepMonkey]

Well I think it worked we are having a very nice debate. I hope everyone relize what is most important. we are all here for. :driving-g so we all should after a long day sit back togeather and :drunk:

Just my 2cents

Yes, I'm afraid I've stirred it up too much now. I think this topic has been beat to death and I would like to motion that it be put on the shelve...at least until DC puts out an issue with Batwoman and Wonderwoman gettin it on!

 

[90Xjay]

Being "gay" is not natural, the part's don't fit without complications. Two gays cannot produce offspring naturally.
The male and female bodies were designed to come together to reproduce. The designer did not intend it to be any other way.
I don't see evolution coming to the rescue either.

If in the 1950s, before any help watsoever from technology, every human on earth was truly gay, the human popluation would be on the brink of extintion now.

 

[90Xjay]

Ummmm......A Jew is someone who follows Judaism. Judaism is a religion. Religion is a choice. The Jews in Nazi Germany did have a choice, and many of them actually did choose to either leave or change religions, whereas others chose to hide it. Perhaps a better analogy would have been to say it was a choice to be black in Mississippi in the 1960's.

So if I decide to follow Judaism, does that make me a biological "Jew". Will I develop olive skin and shrink from 6-7 to 5-10??

 

[socal_rob]

Being "gay" is not natural, the part's don't fit without complications. Two gays cannot produce offspring naturally.
The male and female bodies were designed to come together to reproduce.

Being gay is natural. Homosexuality occurs in virtually every species on earth. That makes it natural. However, I think what you're trying to say is that it is abnormal - and I will agree with that. Heterosexuality is definitely the norm, and homosexuality falls outside the norm. But just because it is abnormal doesn't mean it is bad.

The designer did not intend it to be any other way.
I don't see evolution coming to the rescue either.

Well, considering there's no evidence to the support the claim that a "designer" created humanity - and plenty to support evolution - it's hard to take such a statement seriously. Humans existed long before Christ walked the earth, long before Buddah, etc. And homosexuality existed right along with them.

And what of the millions of heterosexual people on this planet who were born without the ability to reproduce? Where do they fit in? You're suggesting that the ability to reproduce makes one "natural." So, are sterile heterosexuals just as unnatural in your eyes as gay people? What's the difference, coming from that perspective? Does the "designer" keep screwing up and producing sterile individuals? Or how do you explain this?

This has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with genetics and biology. Perhaps homosexuality is a biological defect (as is sterility), but again, that doesn't make it bad, nor is it reason to discriminate against and ridicule a group of people.

 

[90Xjay]

....
Well, considering there's no evidence to the support the claim that a "designer" created humanity - and plenty to support evolution - it's hard to take such a statement seriously....

Ohh, your one of the "intellectuals" who "believe" on faith because you or nobody else ever witnessed any of these events, that 20 Billion years ago, there was a big bang(something from nothing, real scientific) and 4.6 billion years ago the earth formed a hard rocky crust and it rained on the rocks for millions of years and the rain formed seas and pools and life formed in the water and sloowwly, everything else from potatos to german shepards to you, formed from that first life form.

Its impossible for me to take your explaination seriously.

Creationism is my religion, on faith, evolution is your religious belief system.

 

[90Xjay]

And what of the millions of heterosexual people on this planet who were born without the ability to reproduce? Where do they fit in? You're suggesting that the ability to reproduce makes one "natural." So, are sterile heterosexuals just as unnatural in your eyes as gay people? What's the difference, coming from that perspective? Does the "designer" keep screwing up and producing sterile individuals? Or how do you explain this?

Do you actually need to have it explained that the better model for the human race to thrive and continue is to have 6 billion people with a million who can't reproduce verses an entire planet of "natural" gay people who can't reproduce?

My point was and still is that if homosexuality were perfectly natural and normal and everyone on the planet was gay then the human race would die out in a 100 years... not good.

 

[90Xjay]

This has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with genetics and biology. Perhaps homosexuality is a biological defect (as is sterility), but again, that doesn't make it bad, nor is it reason to discriminate against and ridicule a group of people.

This statement suggest to me that you are accusing me or somebody else here.

As for discrimination you discriminate every day, what pants to put on, where to eat lunch, what bar to go to that night.. so don't pull that one on me. Discrimintating is an ability to take in information and make descisions so I won't let you get by with throwing that out here unchallenged.

I see nobody ridiculing anyone here.

 

[socal_rob]

Do you actually need to have it explained that the better model for the human race to thrive and continue is to have 6 billion people with a million who can't reproduce verses an entire planet of "natural" gay people who can't reproduce?

My point was and still is that if homosexuality were perfectly natural and normal and everyone on the planet was gay then the human race would die out in a 100 years... not good.

I think we're talking about two different things. I agree 100% that if all people were homosexual, the human race would die out (taking artificial insemination, etc. out of the equation). But you didn't answer my question. If the ability to reproduce in a heterosexual relationship is "natural" (your word), then what's the difference between a sterile heterosexual and a homosexual? Neither can reproduce. Why does society react sympathetically towards one while vilifying the other?

As for your word choice, I take issue with it. Homosexuality is natural. It occurs in nature. Therefore it is natural. Is it normal? That depends on how you define normal. In terms of sexuality, I would agree that heterosexuality is normal. Therefore homosexuality is abnormal. However, why does that make it bad? That's my point.

 

[socal_rob]

This statement suggest to me that you are accusing me or somebody else here.

As for discrimination you discriminate every day, what pants to put on, where to eat lunch, what bar to go to that night.. so don't pull that one on me. Discrimintating is an ability to take in information and make descisions so I won't let you get by with throwing that out here unchallenged.

I see nobody ridiculing anyone here.

I didn't mean to imply that you personally are ridiculing anyone. My apologies if it came across that way.

Yes, one discriminates every day in the choices one makes. But you can't reasonably compare the way one discriminates between two pairs of pants and the way society discriminates against gay people. Come on, seriously.

 

[90Xjay]

Boy, ok.... here we go.. again......


In order to reproduce a healthy male and female human must join together. When both are healthy and normal, offspring is produced. When one or both are infertile, but still try to reproduce they are following normal behavior to reproduce, just without the desired results.

When a homosexual engages in whatever act(s) they do, there is, never has been, and never will be any hope of natual reproduction. The two male bodys can't reproduce because the parts aren't there. It wasn't designed for reproduction with another male. Is it really that hard to understand?? So when one male puts a organ into an orfice that was designed for expelling human waste what is the purpose other than pleasure?

I hate to be so graphic but jeezz some folks need alot of expaination.

This reminds me of the post a few months back about the two men and the horse... was the purpose of that to produce a man-horse offspring?


No--- it was to satisify some sexual deviance... it's time to get real about this. It's not that hard to figure out folks......

 

[socal_rob]

Ohh, your one of the "intellectuals" who "believe" on faith because you or nobody else ever witnessed any of these events, that 20 Billion years ago, there was a big bang(something from nothing, real scientific) and 4.6 billion years ago the earth formed a hard rocky crust and it rained on the rocks for millions of years and the rain formed seas and pools and life formed in the water and sloowwly, everything else from potatos to german shepards to you, formed from that first life form.

Its impossible for me to take your explaination seriously.

Creationism is my religion, on faith, evolution is your religious belief system.

There is much evidence for my explanation. There is very little for yours. Evolution is not my "religious belief system." Personally I view the planet as a giant recycling plant and we - like every other living thing - gets recycled and reused over and over again.

Evolution simply explains how we got here and there is plenty of evidence to back it up. Creationism is impossible. Two people (Adam and Eve) could not have populated the planet. It is biologically impossible. The human race would have died out after several generations due to all sorts of conditions related to inbreeding. No different than if the whole world was gay. Scary, scary...

No one has all of the answers and I doubt we ever will fully understand how we got here. However, there's no argument over how old the planet is. It can be proved. There's also no argument over evolution. It can be proved. Perhaps we can't trace it back every step of the way from human to amoeba, but we have plenty of evidence that it happened.

And yes, I would consider myself an "intellectual" (quotes or no quotes). Far better than the alternative.