Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Calling all Homo's

Shocking new evidence has shown that being gay may be …………………………… wait for it …………………………………………………… biological. Actually this story doesn’t relate the direct evidence but rather the fact that popular public opinion is catching up to the evidence that being gay is not a choice. It’s good that more people are starting to realize that sexual orientation is not a choice. Before you know it we would have people trying to cure other “biological curses”

Of course not all Christians are complete scumbags, some are just seriously sad misguided souls.

Check out this Video

Alan Chambers an apparent former homosexual was cured of his homosexuality and for a small contribution can help you overcome this horrible lifestyle. His ministry Exodus International will help you change to the god appointed lifestyle of straight living. It would seem that killing all of the first born of a particular nation is no big deal but taking a dick in the back door is something we really need to focus on.

I was raised with the mentality that gay people are sick. It only took me finding out that my friend Casey was gay and already knowing that he was not sick, for me to begin to understand this heavily Christian influenced moral abstraction. Why is it ok for Christians to hate everyone but no one is allowed to hate Christians.

16 comments:

tina said...

Have you heard of the "gay bomb" the U.S. was trying to invent? Drop it on the enemy and they would become gay....lol! A gay friend of mine said bush should drop it here in the U.S., people would get along better.

angelsdepart said...

Yea, I heard about the gay bomb. It was pretty stupid. The whole mentality of it was if we turned them gay then they wouldn't be able to fight because they would be "sissy girly men." The public is so horrified of gay people. It makes no sense to me. If we had gay people that were randomly going around and fucking people in the ass while they were at the grocery store or the ATM then I guess it would make sense. Why should I care what anybody does in thier own bedroom. If I believe that you are going to hell for your sins, shouldn't that be enough for me? Why do I still have to get involved in the way you have chosen to live?

Naomi said...

You said:

to understand this heavily Christian influenced moral abstraction

to which I reply: Like all things religious, it's "xian-influenced moral DIStraction!"

And, again, like all things religous, it stems from Orwellian-language and perverting the meanings of words, such as "truth", "love", "justice", and "ethics".

Well, not ethics, so much - they don't have any, do they? In their zeal to maintain supremacy, "anything goes" - any lie is permitted IF it protects religion from exposure.

angelsdepart said...

Good point Naomi!

Frank Walton said...

It's interesting that you're comparing homosexuality to race. Last I read homosexuals were never considered 3/5s of a human being like blacks were at one time. Screw your head on straight will you?

angelsdepart said...

Sexual orientation, like race, is something that one does not choose. If you were born black it would be unfair of a religion to ask you to change, right? Homosexuals may not have been considered 3/5s of a human being but to this day they are attacked for living in a manner that effects no one but themselves.

Frank Walton said...

It doesn't effect no one?! Yeah right, you don't think the overt promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals can be dangerous. And I cannot believe you think that sexual orientation is like race. You know nothing of my racial background, angelsdepart, except to use it for your convoluted ideas. There are some ex-homosexuals on record who have changed the orientation from gay to straight. So much for it being a choice!

angelsdepart said...

Dangerous to who Frank? You? Have you been put in danger by the homosexual lifestyle? Do homosexuals stare at your ass and lick thier lips while you are getting money out of the ATM? Alan Chambers mentions in his video that even though he does not practice homosexual acts anymore he still has strong urges and thinks about it often. Sexual orientation is biological and impossible to change! I think you meant to say "So much for it being biological" at the end of your last sentence. Saying so much for it being a choice doesn't really make sense. You think that it is a choice right? Just want to be clear!

Frank Walton said...

First off, you haven't even begun to address the fact that there are homosexuals who are now heterosexual. But anyway...

Alan Chambers mentions in his video that even though he does not practice homosexual acts anymore he still has strong urges and thinks about it often. Sexual orientation is biological and impossible to change!

You just made the genetic fallacy: just because someone has an inclination toward something doesn't mean they are that person. If I have an inclination to steal something does that make me a thief all of a sudden even if I'm not acting on that impulse?

Yes, I meant "biological" - my bad.

Still, I can't believe you have the audacity to compare my skin color (and also Asians!) to homosexual orientation. That's a false analogy.

Daddy Cool said...

Angel,

Is the fact that you're an agnostic biological?

angelsdepart said...

Frank

Your skin color is every just as bit biological as your sexual orientation. Do you remember "deciding" that you liked girls? Of course not, you just always have. Just because you don't enderstand something doesn't mean you have to try to destroy it. My personal beliefs on the other hand are leared and therefore not biological Daddy Frank Cool. Here is a study on the biological componant of homosexuality

http://www.narth.com/docs/bioresearch.html

I do see how you are getting mixed up though. That religious indoctrination tends to cloud logic with emotion!

Daddy Cool said...

So, you say that sexual orientation is not a choice but you say that being an agnostic is a choice? How do you know that? And if I don't understand something, please, tell me and enlighten me. Or are you too scared to answer straight-forward questions?

Daddy Cool said...

Oh, and another thing, remember in Frank's debate you can't just give out links and say "see, this is my evidence against you. look it up." And that's exactly what you did here. What you have to do is actually make your own explanation. Not somebody else's. Do you always enjoy letting somebody else do your homework for you? Or do you actually make an effort to think for yourself?

angelsdepart said...

I can give out a link to you because I am not debating you, (or am I Frank) Whatever. I am ready to go Frank.

angelsdepart said...

I know because I have studied the evidence. Have you? BTW the Bible is not evidence. Click the above link

Shawn Wilkinson said...

Daddy cool wrote: "So, you say that sexual orientation is not a choice but you say that being an agnostic is a choice?"

Nice use of the equivocation fallacy, or in more simpler terms your obvious abuse of the ambiguity involved with the word "being". To be gay is not the equivalent as to be agnostic. One is a sexual preference while the other is a position concerning the existence of god/the divine/providence.

Frank wrote: "There are some ex-homosexuals on record who have changed the orientation from gay to straight. So much for it being [biological]!"

I'm sure angel would respond in tandem if you also would respond on the issue of all the ex-heterosexuals on record who changed their orientations from straight to bisexual/gay. Until then, I see your point as nothing but a biased data mine.

Frank wrote: "It's interesting that you're comparing homosexuality to race. Last I read homosexuals were never considered 3/5s of a human being like blacks were at one time."

Angel is comparing the viewpoint of the question of origin of sexual orientation with the question of origin of skin color. But on a side tangent, it is ironic that the sectarian reasons to maintain segregation and anti-interracial marriage laws are equivalent in form and function as the sectarian reasons to maintain anti-gay legislation.

Secondly, are you that daft to think that the three-fifths compromise located in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution counted every non-white person as 3/5's a person? You may need to brush up on your own Constitutional history, because all versions I've read states "slaves", not "blacks", until the section was superseded by the 14th amendment.

To Angel,

I agree with your post and subsequent comments.