Jim Henderson wrote:
>> All in all, specially the inacurate "visions" of native continental
>> america, it's a very american thing.
> 
> Mormonism started in America, but it's hardly an American thing any 
> more.  Some Mormons serve missions in Israel, in fact.  I've got 

	I believe roughly half of Mormons are not in the US. They're very
successful at proselytizing.



-- 
"Apple I" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	Isn't it the same in the US? For the government to recognize a
> marriage, it has to be registered. Isn't the use of religious figures
> just a cultural move that has no legal significance?

I think the confusion is that most people whose religion lets them marry 
others also go through the paperwork that makes them capable of doing the 
civil part of the work too. I.e., you can step up before a clerk 
(essentially) and say "Marry us" and there's some paperwork. The religious 
leader fills out the same paperwork and has already obtained a license to do 
civil marriages as well.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try hard.
>> No, I'm sorry.   It's YAWEH doing it.   Obviously.
> 
> Are you sure?  I always thought the one in charge for getting obstacles in front
> of you was Satan.

Actually, isn't the entire Jewish faith based on Abraham overcoming a giant 
obstacle put in front of him by God? Namely being asked to sacrifice his son?

And who was it that hardened Pharoh's heart again?

> I don't know my role, let alone yours or anyone else.  But I'm trying my best at
> not looking like a third rate actor.


By the way, here's a completely serious question that isn't intended to 
imply anything at all. I honestly am curious at your answer, without 
prejudgement.

You seem to be someone who thinks being gay is wrong without being rabidly 
homophobic, so I'm wondering how you'd feel...

If you were talking to a strange man, like at a bus stop or a restaurant or 
something, and you realized he's gay and hitting on you. How would you feel? 
What do you think would be your visceral reaction? (If it has already 
happened, what *was* your reaction?)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.
> I have nothing against you praying to me for help, certainly.

My sincere apologies. By the time I wrote that, I'd forgotten I'd (jokingly) 
asked you to pray for me. My snide response to your sincere offer to do so 
was completely inappropriate. Please forgive me.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> >> In any case, what difference does "trying hard" make? Does a gay person who
> >> "tries hard" to be straight and fail please God?
> >
> > No, failures please Satan.
>
> So, when God makes you gay, and you try to be straight but fail, this
> displeases God?  Yet it's Satan putting obstacles in your way?

God doesn't make gay people.  He makes man and woman and gives them free will,
including the will to act twisted.

> I thought
> Jesus said to love your neighbors and all that stuff?

Love is not sex, despite what the porn industry says.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Nemesis, simple reality, "gay" exists in all species over a certain
> level of complexity, including deer, dogs, cats, and penguins, etc.
> Every time someone mentions "denying nature" I know they have a weak
> grasp of the science of sexual selection, and are just "assuming" that
> there is some magic part of human (or other animals) natures that are
> somehow devoid of errors, flaws, deviation, or genetic influence.

Obstacles to overcome.  Don't take that literally.  Not all diseases or flaws
can be overcome in a physical sense.  I take that to mean to not let such
obstacles come in your way to happiness (God).  To get around them if not
possible to overcome them.

> Point is, nature doesn't produce "all male" or "all female" in anything
> much more complex than a moth, and I am not even sure those wouldn't
> exhibit some of the same sort of unstable trait drift (to maintain
> different behavior models for males and females) and population
> controls, which generates homosexual behavior in mammals. You simply
> can't use the same blueprint for 99% of the entire animal, which
> included 99% of what makes it "act" like such an animal, in the most
> general sense, they expect the other 1%, which has to define body form,
> differences in physical function, etc., to also "perfectly" designate
> psychological differences between sexes (despite its total inability to
> get the first part right and "always" get the shape right either).

All these percentages and statistics are pretty amusing.  Unfortunately, you're
not referring to just an animal or a simple pile of molecules, but a man, given
a spirit and free will.

> And, with all due respect, Hermaphrodites have *tended* to have people
> choose "for them"

I know.  It doesn't change that they were given choice.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> >> All in all, specially the inacurate "visions" of native continental
> >> america, it's a very american thing.
> >
> > Mormonism started in America, but it's hardly an American thing any
> > more.  Some Mormons serve missions in Israel, in fact.  I've got
>
>  I believe roughly half of Mormons are not in the US. They're very
> successful at proselytizing.

No problem:  most Christians are not in the Middle-East or Rome either.  It's
still a very middle-eastern religion, just as mormonism is very
north-american...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> God doesn't make gay people.  He makes man and woman and gives them free will,
> including the will to act twisted.

So you think gay people choose to be gay? And persecuted? And treated as 
sub-human?

Why do you think people choose that?

>> I thought
>> Jesus said to love your neighbors and all that stuff?
> 
> Love is not sex, despite what the porn industry says.

So you have no problems with gay men marrying, adopting children, and loving 
each other, and sleeping together, as long as they don't have sex?

That's ... unusual.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Nemesis, simple reality, "gay" exists in all species over a certain
>> level of complexity, including deer, dogs, cats, and penguins, etc.
>> Every time someone mentions "denying nature" I know they have a weak
>> grasp of the science of sexual selection, and are just "assuming" that
>> there is some magic part of human (or other animals) natures that are
>> somehow devoid of errors, flaws, deviation, or genetic influence.
> 
> Obstacles to overcome.  Don't take that literally.  Not all diseases or flaws
> can be overcome in a physical sense.  I take that to mean to not let such
> obstacles come in your way to happiness (God).  To get around them if not
> possible to overcome them.
> 
In my experience your "way" leads to some of the most unhappy fracking 
people I ever met, and they seem to think its their mission in life to 
make everyone else unhappy too. Also, isn't it odd that, its its just an 
obstacle, the only people claiming to be able to "cure" gayness are the 
same ones that lie about everything else in their faith and lives, but 
that all the "legitimate" studies indicate that you can't make someone 
not be gay?

>> Point is, nature doesn't produce "all male" or "all female" in anything
>> much more complex than a moth, and I am not even sure those wouldn't
>> exhibit some of the same sort of unstable trait drift (to maintain
>> different behavior models for males and females) and population
>> controls, which generates homosexual behavior in mammals. You simply
>> can't use the same blueprint for 99% of the entire animal, which
>> included 99% of what makes it "act" like such an animal, in the most
>> general sense, they expect the other 1%, which has to define body form,
>> differences in physical function, etc., to also "perfectly" designate
>> psychological differences between sexes (despite its total inability to
>> get the first part right and "always" get the shape right either).
> 
> All these percentages and statistics are pretty amusing.  Unfortunately, you're
> not referring to just an animal or a simple pile of molecules, but a man, given
> a spirit and free will.
> 
Snort.. There is nothing that makes man so much more special than 
anything else that they can "successfully" change their own natures on 
such a level, any more than they can imagine themselves into being an 
Elf. That you think there is just shows how little you "do" understand 
about human psychology and physiology, and how, instead, deeply 
dependent you are on made up myths, written by people that also thought 
Rabbits chewed cud.

>> And, with all due respect, Hermaphrodites have *tended* to have people
>> choose "for them"
> 
> I know.  It doesn't change that they were given choice.

How is someone else choosing "for" you a choice? And, more to the point, 
if the choice is then wrong? Show me some study done on real people, not 
imaginary ones, which implies that these people "adjust" 100%, and 
completely, to what ever "sex" someone chose for them? Or, again, that 
any program whose "data" isn't made up bullshit, or disproven by people 
continuing their behaviors, even while claiming to be cured, that shows 
that sexual orientation "is" something you can choose. Points if you can 
find one that I can't refute in 24 hours with a google search, and 
without having to resort to talking to people in the actual field of 
biology. Its not something you can choose, any more than you can "pick" 
whether or not you are allergic to certain foods, or choose to not be 
color blind.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > nemesis wrote:
> >> I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.
> > I have nothing against you praying to me for help, certainly.
>
> My sincere apologies. By the time I wrote that, I'd forgotten I'd (jokingly)
> asked you to pray for me. My snide response to your sincere offer to do so
> was completely inappropriate. Please forgive me.

No problem.  In the end, fighting for the right not to be offended -- or any
rights, really -- eventually leads from many offenses from both sides.  At
least, no deaths here...

I have to apologise too, for requiring you to take into account, for the sake of
arguments, beings and forces that may very well be nothing but poetic license.

I consider you all my friends, even though not knowing you personally.  I always
wish well to people closer to my heart.

Post a reply to this message