Omaha Mall Shooting
Pages
| Author | Topic: Omaha Mall Shooting |
|---|---|
|
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 00:33
Profile
quote:Its a nice concept I'll give it that. Its poorly executed however. -------------------- A rock has weight whether you admit it or not Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 00:52
Profile
Homepage
Fun fact: another anagram for "Omaha Mall Shooting" is "A Hooligan Halts Mom". -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 01:25
Profile
It is only natural -- a moral failure separated by impassively watching a man drown by degree rather than kind, but only natural -- to pass a homeless man on the street and, not wanting to part with your money, try to justify your avarice by deciding after the fact he would only use it on drugs. It takes something special to demand stridently of others that they do the same: a self-obsession approaching a Messiah complex. I can't even concieve of the psychiatric burden that must make someone convinced that anyone who needs their help is abusing it. You might think you're some kind of hand-up-not-a-hand-out principled conservative, but when I think of people like you what comes to mind is you giving someone a Heimlich maneuver and billing them for it, because otherwise people are just going to fill their airways with food all day long to take advantage of how wonderful a person you are. You're an idiot, Safey, and what's more, you're an evil idiot. Condescending to you as if you were a small and dim-witted dog would be giving you too much credit; engaging you as if you were a rational creature with a conscience worth the name is an insult to the dignity of mankind. And I don't know what religion it is that you think is so damned important to your day-to-day life, but I've always made a policy of avoiding any serious discussion with Satanists. Whatever I do have to say I say for my own amusement; to do more would be close to criminal. And now, as it happens, I'm bored. Go away, would you? [ Sunday, December 16, 2007 01:28: Message edited by: Najosz Thjsza Kjras ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 01:38
Profile
I never said don't help homeless people, I'm saying don't offer help to people who don't have jobs. What I'm saying is offer that same kind of help to people who do have jobs and can't ends meet. It has been my experience that welfare as is doesn't do that. Also seeing some one welfare who shows up in a new $40,000 dollar truck can make you a bit cynical as whether or not someone needs help. I agree give help to those who need it. I will not argue that homeless people need help. I just think that the government is very lousy at deciding just who needs help. -------------------- A rock has weight whether you admit it or not Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 01:43
Profile
quote:Which is because there is no Left to speak of, but a lot of factions who claim content-leadership over liberalism, just like Clinton has. Just another interesting note from 'over here': the party who dub themselves 'liberals' are what you would call neo-cons. They took over the meaning of the word liberal to non-interference with the free market. Edit: having read your last post now, after I have written mine, leads me to believe I shouldn't have bothered in the first place. I'm sorry. Thanks for your valuable time and thank you very much for sharing your vast and rich experience with welfare, the universe and everything else. Thank you, thank you. [ Sunday, December 16, 2007 01:50: Message edited by: Locmaar ] -------------------- Always be true to yourself - unless you suck Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 01:48
Profile
Homepage
Welfare is broken, but the solution isn't less government. It's better government. Help for the working poor is a decidedly left-friendly position. Or hadn't you noticed that the right believes in tax cuts that do their best to exclude the poor? While I will whole-heartedly acknowledge that the Democrats are a far from ideal party (and far from leftist party), how does that translate into the Republican right being better? —Alorael, who wishes America had something better than a two-party system. It strangles politics. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 01:54
Profile
I never said I full supported the rights. I'll admit I have leanings in that general area but its far from giving them a blank check. I'm disgusted with politics as a whole edit:Locmaar your welcome [ Sunday, December 16, 2007 01:57: Message edited by: Safey ] -------------------- A rock has weight whether you admit it or not Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 01:58
Profile
quote:The Italians have a coalition system where no political party has the majority. So to get the majority they have to make these coaltions. When ever the part who leads the coalitions fail to keep one of their promises they loose support from one of their factions and the coalition breaks up and elections are called for again. Sometimes having 6 elections in one year. Americans aren't the only ones with crappy politcs [ Sunday, December 16, 2007 02:01: Message edited by: Safey ] -------------------- A rock has weight whether you admit it or not Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 01:59
Profile
quote:I have come to realize the hard way that having more parties (5-7) doesn't help a lot. It's not a lack of ideas either. It's a problem of getting your ideas through to the people against a mighty, global marketing machine. If politics is about nothing else but ecconomics, it won't help people who can't participate. But if you try and point that out, you are being laughed at or called a communist. Among other things, that's what strangles politics. -------------------- Always be true to yourself - unless you suck Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 02:06
Profile
quote:This is a rather dim view on Italy's political system. It's not a coalition system, but a system where parties have to form alliacnes, because any parties will hardly ever get the absolute majority of the people's votes. Since you need a majority for successful legislation, parties form coalitions. Since their views often are incompatible, the break apart rather quickly. -------------------- Always be true to yourself - unless you suck Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 02:12
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, any system that could elect Berlusconi has problems, but those problems likely go beyond the electoral system as such. :P [ Sunday, December 16, 2007 02:13: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 02:16
Profile
Seriously. Safey, you must share. No Bogarting allowed. Alternatively, if you are being completely honest about what you have written, and are willing to own it whole-heartedly, seek help. Your perceptions of reality are skewed, and you have resorted to combining anecdotes from vastly separate incidents to provide a nice amalgam which is just a horrible as you think it to be, but just isn't real. But you can't be serious, so I ask you again to share. -------------------- Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted" Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 02:32
Profile
quote:I am serious but I am also tired I find talking about politics weary and depressing. Especially when people call you a black hole of ignorance, pathological liar, deluded, ect. I have been called worse bye people who know me far better. I'm calling it a night. [ Sunday, December 16, 2007 02:34: Message edited by: Safey ] -------------------- A rock has weight whether you admit it or not Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 02:38
Profile
Homepage
quote:If people who know you better think you're even worse than we do, that sounds like pretty good evidence that our assessment of you is on the right track. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 04:10
Profile
Synergy, Are you even trying to understand what I’m saying? Your responses indicate that you’re not. I’m not saying that marriage should be restricted because it’s a moral issue, because I’m not saying that marriage should be restricted! And what is your basis for saying sexuality and marriage is not a moral issue? Did your deity reveal it to you? It sounds like another one of your opinions that you tend to confuse with fact. If it’s your opinion, then it’s relative and is no better than any one else’s. I don’t think marriage is a moral issue just because the Bible says it is. The power of sex to reproduce life, to spread disease, to create connection and emotion – these things make it moral. So if you look all over the world you will find morality and sexuality and marriage connected. Take China’s (a society far more secular than our own) treatment of sex as a moral issue, for example. If your morality is relative, then anything you want can be moral or not. I can make up a code that says it’s “immoral” to take ten steps without skipping, but that whether or not you tell the truth is optional. So lying is not a moral issue, but walking is. You say lying is immoral?! Why are you sticking to the rigid and restrictive bounds of ancient societies and religions that try to control what you say! Modern civilization is built on freedom of speech and is evolving so as to shake itself from the backwards mores of pre-information age people steeped in ignorance. The new age will be built on joy and freedom from duplicity bias and will emerge from the dead cocoon of intolerance with a skip in its step. ----- How little or how much an opposite-sex marriage differs from any other union is irrelevant. They differ. And not in an arbitrary way like race. That’s the point. Whether a person is severely disabled or more like an able-bodied person, they can park in the handicapped spot. No one can say, “Some disabled people walk almost as well as I do,” and consider this justification for parking in handicapped spots. I know many couples don’t have children, but I think just about all marriages are or have been sexual in nature. Whatever the case, the government recognizes them because they think it’s good overall. Let’s go back to the empowerment zone. The government gives you special treatment to set up there and when you get there you open up a whore house/drug house/chop shop and are a menace to the community. But you’re just one of 10,000 people that got the benefits. Most are using them productively. Overall it’s working. And maybe you’ll come around and go legit one day. I don’t think the government can micromanage, but has to have a “big picture” outlook. ----- Thuryl, it was a joke. All opposite-sex pairings are made of two people of the opposite sex and no same-sex pairings are. ----- Distinguishing between races can be very difficult. Race is not the same kind of distinction as sex. I see your legal claim as weak because no individuals are being discriminated against based on sex. In fact, there’s an equity in treatment. You’re still equating individuals and unions, and that just doesn’t work. Alo, If you run a business and call your new secretary up at night and tell her you expect sex everyday and she records it and sues you for sexual harrasment, do you think she’ll win? Let’s say your secretary is your wife and while lying in bed you tell her you expect sex every night and she records it. Will she win? Why? Get the point? Marriage is considered sexual in nature. I remember reading or hearing of cases in which men allegedly raped their wives and were acquitted on this basis. It really seems you all have a logic that is out of touch with reality and social norms. Not that I claim to have my finger on the pulse of society, but come on… quote:You say marriage isn’t about anything even though the law discusses it in relation to sex and children. I don’t get your logic. You saying that you think the laws are antiquated illustrate that this is a matter of opinion and feelings, not logic and fact. quote:I strongly disagree since sex is by definition descriptive of individuals not groups. What sex is Ford Motor Company? It doesn’t make sense to ask that question, does it? How then does it make sense to compare discrimination against individuals to differentiation between the nature of groups? The latter is what is done in regard to marriage, not the former. ----- quote:Sorry, but no. That’s not my position. Salmon mentioned my argument being repetitive. This is the reason why. You all don’t even understand the words I’m writing, let alone seeing my perspective. For the zillionth time: Those that feel that unions that are not opposite-sex pairs should be recognized by the government as legal marriage have no basis in law or logic that those who feel that they should not be recognized don’t have. Because of this, the former group often resorts to false resoning, as you all are demonstrating. I AM IN NEITHER OF THESE GROUPS. So, the things you feel I’m not addressing are not being addressed because they are invalid. I don’t have an opinion on what the government should or should not recognize. quote:Not only is this question relevant, but I had to think to answer. Here’s why: It has a subtle logical flaw and it stirs up emotion because I’m American and nothing gets to us like race. My sense of justice processes the answer to this question immediately, but it does so while I'm reasoning that it should give a different answer and creates a false conflict. This is great equivocation (but I fully believe you did it unintentionally). I’m going to show you… Statement 1 & 2 are cool. But, if school districts don’t have races, then what do you mean when you say in 3, “ school districts that are predominantly white”? It sounds as if you’re saying the school districts can have a race so that one could discriminate on that basis. So a “predominantly white” district is a misnomer in this context even though we get the implied meaning which is ”school districts that are comprised of more white individuals than non-white.” So what they are really doing is favoring individuals on the basis of race. Non-white individuals would be discriminated against just because they’re not white. It's just individual discrimination that your wording makes appear differently. Restricting recognition of marriage to opposite sex pairs is not like this. Since everyone has a sex, they are free to pair with anyone of the opposite sex. The government doesn’t treat a homosexual that does or does not want this any differently than it treats a heterosexual that doesn’t. It's saying, "Anybody, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation that pairs this way will be recognized." ----- quote:Salmon, if my arguments are repetitive and I’m addressing all of the points raised, what does that say to the argument from the other side? It’s non-repetitive? I think not. Are we talking about gay discrimination, as in beating gays or refusing them housing? Or are we talking gay marriage? The former has a much stronger parallel. It’s not a sameness, but there is more to that position. The latter has almost no relation. The problem is not that the weak parallel is missed by me, but that the differences are missed by you. Similarities 1. A minority group is involved. 2. The minority group desires different treatment than they are currently getting. Differences 1. Homosexuals are not treated unequally (in relation to who they can marry). 2. They want something different from equality. 3. Homosexual relationships are not illegal. Jim Crow laws actually made certain actions illegal. 4. There is an objective difference between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions. This is not an arbitrary distinction as in the case of Jim Crow discrimination. ----- quote:I wonder how “bisexual” is defined. ----- I probably won't respond again on this issue unless someone raises a good point. Assume you're getting the last word if you respond. Thank you all for your time, thoughts, and the overall graciousness in your posts, even though I believe differently than you. I found this exercise worthwhile. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 04:21
Profile
Homepage
quote:Except that you've already admitted that you can't even define who belongs to one sex and who belongs to the other, except by resorting to arbitrary legalism. So actually, no, they don't -- a pairing could consist of two members of opposite sexes by one definition of "sex" and two members of the same sex by another equally valid definition of "sex". quote:Whether or not you'd win in a court, I'd argue that both cases constitute sexual harassment. Marrying someone doesn't give you an automatic right to "expect" sex from them. I know you feel otherwise, and I feel sorry for your wife. quote:Bravo: you've just torpedoed your own argument. After those cases (which occurred back in the 1980s), laws were changed to remove the exception for marriage in rape laws, in order to reflect current community standards. Now who's the one who's out of touch? Regarding racial discrimination vs. sexual discrimination: let's suppose that the government, in an effort to reduce the incidence of skin cancer, passed a law requiring all white people to use sunscreen, but not placing the same requirement on black people (since their skin tone naturally protects them from ultraviolet radiation). Would you consider this law to be unfair and discriminatory? Regarding your "individuals vs. partnerships" argument: individuals are being discriminated against. A woman is allowed to do something that I'm not: namely, marry a man. That's sexual discrimination, and if you want to justify it you're going to have to do better than claim it isn't discrimination. [ Sunday, December 16, 2007 04:37: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 8030
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 07:53
Profile
Homepage
I believe that the main conflict with unemployed homeless people is that employers require a place of residence. quote:That was uncalled for. We don't need these boards cluttered with cruel, condescending and irrational comments. :rolleyes: -------------------- A Bile Crux Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 08:37
Profile
Homepage
quote:Yes, agreed completely! This is what I was getting at with the example: it's false to suggest that you can prejudge a group on the basis of its composition without also prejudging its members. quote:Except you can't pair that way regardless of sex. That's like saying "Anybody, regardless of race, that is in an all-white school district will be given funding." Let me give another example to make the link between your marriage example and my school district example a bit clearer: [1] Individuals have races. [2] Marriages do not, so you can't discriminate between marriages based on the race of the marriage. [3] Therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable to pass a law recognizing only marriages that include both a black person and a white person. Do you agree with that statement as well? If you substitute "gender" for "race" and "a man and a woman" for "a black person and a white person" this is your exact logic. ----- Here is a condensed repost of something I posted before that you missed. It's a very clear and very relevant question. You may well have an intelligent way to address it, but if you don't, it leaves a pretty gaping hole in your argument. So I'm still looking for an answer: quote:How exactly is "for whatever reasons" a logical argument? I'd like to know what exactly those reasons are. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central "Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said. Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 09:49
Profile
Homepage
quote:Yeah, Stillness is right on this one. Synergy's responses have reflected little to no understanding of what Stillness has actually said. Just wanted to note that. quote:I don't think you actually understand why racial discrimination is wrong. It's not because race is arbitrary. Race isn't entirely arbitrary. Arbitrary is like sign conventions in physics: electrons flow down a wire, and physicists define current as flowing one way, and engineers define it as flowing the other way. They're still describing the same current, but one has a sign convention in one direction and the other has a sign convention in another. That's completely arbitrary. In appearance, at the very least (and here I'm not getting into genetic arguments, but they could be made), people of different races are genuinely different. They're not exactly the same (not like the current in the wire). If they were exactly the same, racial discrimination wouldn't even be possible (because how would you ever tell the difference, in order to discriminate?). Racial discrimination is not wrong because race is arbitrary; it's not. Racial discrimination is wrong because race is almost entirely irrelevant to any sort of decision. Interracial marriage is different from non-interracial marriage: after all, the participants are of different races! But we know that interracial marriages do not differ from non-interracial marriages in any way that is significant to marriage, so we do not discriminate in that regard. Likewise, same-sex marriages differ, but they do not differ in any important way. Relevance is the important factor. So I suppose you're right in one respect: how much they differ doesn't matter. In what way they differ matters quite a bit, though: one marriage can be exceedingly different from another and still be a marriage, but marriage between a human and a plant is just not possible because the plant can't consent. Consent is important for marriage. Unless one can argue that the way that same-sex marriage differs from opposite-sex marriage is important for marriage, then the two should be equal under the law. quote:Sure, but gay people can have sex. Unless you can make a reasonable argument that the kind of sex matters — and the Lawrence v. Texas decision goes against that notion — then gay marriage should be on equal footing. quote:Yes. But same-sex marriage can be good in the very same ways that opposite-sex marriage can be. (The discussion that followed about the empowerment zone doesn't really make sense.) [ Sunday, December 16, 2007 11:04: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 10:54
Profile
Homepage
I agree that sex is a moral issue. I agree that marriage usually includes sex. But... Sex occurs outside of marriage. It is not in any way regulated.Sex is not necessarily part of marriage, c.f. intramarital rape laws.Children occur outside of marriage. Their birth is not in any way regulated.Children are not necessarily part of marriage.Finally, I simply cannot understand how you do not see the sex discrimination in restricting marriage. Marriage does not have a sex, but its two participants do. An individual of one sex may marry some people but not others purely based on their sexes. That's pretty obviously limitation, and therefore discrimination, and it is explicitly based on sex. —Alorael, who realizes he is not going to get through and that he is not going to get a response. He's just frustrated that he apparently cannot convey an incredibly basic and simple point. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 11:08
Profile
Homepage
Originally by Stillness: quote:I disagree with this statement. Heterosexuals have a romantic and sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have a romantic and sexual attraction to members of the same sex. So when opposite-sex marriage is legal but same-sex marriage is not, heterosexuals can marry a person they are romantically and sexually attracted to but homosexuals cannot marry a person they are romantically and sexually attracted to. So, yes, it's technically true that marriage is equal in the sense that a heterosexual man and a homosexual man can both marry a woman. But it's very unequal in the sense that if the both men entered an opposite-sex marriage, the heterosexual man's marriage is far more likely to end up producing romantic and sexual expression that is fulfilling than the homosexual man's marriage. --- quote:Here's an example of current unequal treatment that opposite-sex couples can avoid but same-sex couples cannot. quote:This couple would probably be in a government-recognized marriage if they could. The only reason they can't do that is because they are a same-sex couple instead of an opposite-sex couple. --- quote:To be honest, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Discrimination is okay as long as it doesn't make anything illegal? It's not discrimination unless it makes something illegal? --- quote:I disagree with this too, on two points. 1. I find no "objective differences" that would favor one kind of union over another. From my perspective, they're exactly the same except for the sex of those involved. And restricting one but allowing the other for that reason seems arbitrary to me. 2. Hindsight is 20/20. We find no "objective differences" between blacks and whites that would merit discrimination of any sort today, but in the era of Jim Crow laws people genuinely believed that whites were a superior race and blacks were an inferior race, and they plenty of "evidence" to support this theory, so segregation and other forms of discrimination weren't prejudicial or arbitrary but rather justifiable. Today we know that the "evidence" was bunk and have trouble understanding why anyone could have possibly believed it. But back then, it made perfect sense that seperate races existed, there were natural differences between them, and that these differences made discrimination acceptable. Dikiyoba. -------------------- Episode 4: Spiderweb Reloaded Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 11:58
Profile
Thanks for responding for me, Diki. Stillness, every time you state that you see no connection between forgone discriminatory laws and present day laws that we say discriminate, you reinforce my point that you may be incapable of seeing the difference. It is there, and it is real. -------------------- Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted" Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 12:31
Profile
To the extent that what goes on in the bedroom has been deemed private and therefore not subject to regulation by the government, I think this pretty much undercuts the "boys have a penis and girls have a vagina" rationale for permitting only hetero-marriage. EDIT: Salmon, I think he's still trying to make the distinction on the basis of describing homosexuality as a way of acting/behaving versus a state of being, like race, i.e. a person can control his homosexual acts, but can't control his race. [ Sunday, December 16, 2007 15:00: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 14:47
Profile
quote:Oh, so kinda like religion then. What a curious way to look at it. -------------------- Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted" Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Sunday, December 16 2007 15:09
Profile
I can imagine the whole thing would be very troubling to people who are fairly evangelical yet nevertheless intelligent. Because if homosexuality is something more that just the way someone decides to act (i.e., a decision derrived from the individual - not from God - which could therefore qualify as a sin) but is actually something inherent to a person, then that would mean that God made someone that way - and yet there're all those rigid prohibitions in the Bible allegedly *against* homosexuality. Oh noes! Just what is this God trying to do? Or maybe there really is a fly in the ointment, and now they need to deal with all these unsettling questions. I think homosexuality is an inherent characteristic in a person; perhaps repressible, like other personality traits, but ever present. If that's the case, then it wouldn't be that individual's choice to "sin." For people who believe in God, this leaves two alternatives: either God is cruel for creating a person with inherent sin, or people are misinterpreting God (the likely answer). Of course, the easiest thing to do is to avoid this uncomfortable consideration and just assume that since one isn't gay and can't understand what it means to be gay, then those people who are just aren't controlling themselves enough ("I mean, it's so disgusting, right?"), and so are in fact choosing to sin. That, or God is "testing" their souls or some crap. Best not to question, though! That upsets the apple cart of comfort. [ Sunday, December 16, 2007 15:22: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |