Sorry, just couldn’t resist quoting Zarove…sorry “ZAROVE” (he’s too important for any lower case letters to be used) from the Christian Message Board. Concerning gay marriage he writes:

Did you know CuriousGeorge, that 60% of gay men who enter for counsiling and therapy, for reaosns not assosiated ewiththere “Normal, healthy deviation” of ther sexuality, give up Homosexuality?

The reality is Homosexuality is caused by a state of mind, and, to be fair, its an immoral one.

Two people in love sharing in a committed monogomous relationship sounds nice, and initially it seems it shoudlnt matter there genders, in thiz society and its ways, but what causes this love? Is it really the same as a man and woman in love? The answer is no. Men who are gay are gay either out of feelings of worhtlessness and az need of male affermation, or a need to dominate men, though there are other reasons. This is well docuumented in Psycological studies.
Women, likewise, seem to want female affermation, or emotional attatchments.

These relationships arent healthy, in a real sence, and are in fact destuctive. Stucdie have even shown that Homosexuality, even in a commited monogomous rtelationship, shortens lifespan of up tp 30 years on average/.

The fact is that two men cannot truely fall in love, nor can two women. Its a mental illness, dispite the fact that its an accep[ted one.

Guess who I suspect has a mental illness!

1: I dont use my rel;igion like a crutch, thats simpley put a lie. In fact, you are weaker than I and in need of more a critch. You have to pretend to be storng by relying on insults and barbs at other people, to give others the impression of s trength, but your lack of knopwledge of history and lack of understanding of ANYTHING, from claimign the witch trials are purely based on Chrosytain beleifs to claimign seperation pf Church and Sttae was designed to protect the state, you illustrate time and again just how much a crutch your insults and cheap barbs are. you attack and try to tear down others, because you cannot build yourself, or anythign else, up.

Starting off with the classic gambit of incessant whining again I see. Oh, I’m so much weaker than you are because I’m a bad man who tosses out insults and barbs! Well, yeah, when I feel they are deserved I do tend to toss out the occasional zinger or two. I try to keep them at least somewhat humorous and I try not to attack until I’ve been attacked, but I’m guilty as charged in that regard. Can’t handle the heat? Stay out of the fucking kitchen.

As for my knowledge of history, I’ve demonstrated that ably enough by providing relevant quotes from various historical figures and cited from which writings said quotes were taken. This is more than you have done as of yet to support a single one of your claims.

You say that my claim that the various witch trials throughout history were based on Christian beliefs is not true, yet every single official record of various trials I have read concerns witchcraft as associating with Satan and Satan is purely a Christian concept.

The Reformation did not convert the people of Europe to orthodox Christianity through preaching and catechisms alone. It was the 300 year period of witch-hunting from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century, what R.H. Robbins called “the shocking nightmare, the foulest crime and deepest shame of western civilization,“ that ensured the European abandonment of the belief in magic. The Church created the elaborate concept of devil worship and then, used the persecution of it to wipe out dissent, subordinate the individual to authoritarian control, and openly denigrate women.—Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History.

Closer to home you may find it somewhat enlightening to read the official records from the Salem Witch Trials of 1692-1693. I’m assuming you haven’t or you wouldn’t be making such a ridiculous claim.

As for my understanding of the concept of Separation of Church and State I have already provided an authoritative quote on the issue from the man who coined the phrase in the first place. Which is, again, more than you have done to support your claim that the wall was only meant to protect religion from the state and not vice-versa. It would be very nice if you offered some support for your claims, but instead all you do is whine about how wrong I am and all I can do is insult you.

2: Spell checkers often make the mistakes worse. Yrust me on this, I have tried, and because technically I cant read, I cant tell of the spell checker got it right either.

Let’s put it this way: The spell checker can’t do any more harm than you’re doing yourself. If it wasn’t intelligible before the spell check and it isn’t afterwards then we have lost nothing for the effort. Yet if it even corrected a mere 10% of the issues it would increase legibility ten-fold. Or do you not want your replies to be understandable?

Not so, I can take critisism well, But i cannot abide hatred and intolerence. Youi claim rleigion is intolerent, and cant show it.

I can and I have already in this thread. Hell, you’ve shown it in your attitude towards homosexuals. What more proof do I need than your own statements used against you?

You LIE about history or propogate lies.

I do not lie about history and I have provided references to back those statements up. Which, once again, you have failed to do with your claims. If I am lying then provide references which prove it. You have yet to do so and I suspect you’ll continue to avoid doing so. Its so much easier to whine than to argue intelligently.

You say I use religion as a crutch with NO proof and rely on nothign but insult after insult.

I will confess that its an assumption on my part that most people use religion as a crutch, but then what would you call relying on a perceived external power to guide you through life instead of your own reasoning ability? Just as a crutch props up someone who is unable to stand on his own two feet due to some weakness or injury, religion props up those folks who would find life overwhelming without their faith. Not that a crutch is a bad thing if you truly need it, but when you don’t need it then it becomes more of a hindrance than a help.

I am nto sayign you ar eintolerent because you disagree with me, I am sayign you are intolerent because you are.

For someone who likes to toss around the idea of logical fallacies so much you sure do seem to engage in them quite a bit yourself. If you had phrased the above so that it was clear that it’s your opinion that I am intolerant rather than a fact then I would have no problem with it. In your opinion I may very well be intolerant, but opinions and facts are two distinct things. If you wish to establish as fact that I am intolerant then please provide some example to back the claim up.

You are the one who cant stand ctritisism, otherwise you woudl make jokes at my expence.

I have no problems with criticism. Hell, I have no problems with being called names. The name of my website is Stupid Evil Bastard for crying out loud in part because I’ve been called as much from the likes of you many times over the years. If I had a problem with criticism then I wouldn’t have named the website what I have.

I’m assuming you meant to say that if I could handle criticism then I wouldn’t make jokes at your expense. That is an incorrect statement. The proper statement would be: If I

respected you

then I wouldn’t make jokes at your expense. Seeing as I do make jokes at your expense the obvious conclusion one would draw from this should be obvious even to you.

Nopte, in all my posts I have remained respectul and NOT insulted you. You on the other hand have resprted to several cheap shpts, leading me to ask, who uses the crutch?

Remained respectful? No you haven’t. You’ve called me an immoral liar who has no concern for the truth among other choice statements. Granted, you haven’t used any naughty words, but then it doesn’t take naughty words to be disrespectful or to call people names. The tone of your replies alone is pretty insulting to anyone with half a brain. Have I made some cheap shots? Certainly, but it’s a sin you’ve committed yourself so I see no reason to feel remorse over it. What was that golden rule again? Oh yes, “do unto others.� Perhaps you should contemplate that one a bit more.

I am whining. You know its whining because it disagrees with youy.

If I may borrow a logical fallacy from the Book of Zarove: I’m not saying you are whining because you disagree with me, I am saying you are whining because you are.

See? Your stupid form of logic can be applied against you. Do you not see the hypocrisy of that statement when you turn around and make the same claim against me that you were trying to refute with it? Or do the same rules not apply to you that you’re applying to everyone else? I honestly thought you were smart enough not to make such an obvious mistake. Perhaps I overestimated you.

I use religion as a critch. You know I use religion as a crutch because I am religioys.

I don’t know, I assume and I’ve admitted that assumption already. That assumption is based mainly on your responses to this thread so far which indicate to me that, yes; in my opinion you do use religion as a crutch. I’ve never claimed to

know anything

about you, but I have stated my opinions about you based on your responses to date.

This is nothign but your atemtpo to distory my actual charecter through a filter, to artificially make me seem weaker so you will appear stornger.

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine… I’ve heard steam engines that don’t whine as much as you do.

In reality, you cant defend your position, which is weak and often based on ignorance and bigotry.

Sure I can and I have. Simply scrolling back through this thread will provide you with all the supporting references I’ve made for my position. Clearly you don’t understand what it means to defend your position on an issue because you have yet to provide any supporting references to your position. Instead you just keep repeating “That’s not true! You’re a liar!� as though repeating it over and over again will make it true. For the record that’s the logical fallacy called “argumentum ad nauseam,� but then you already knew that, right?

Which I have illustrated before you try to turn this around. Now stop attackign me personally and try to address the acutal points.

Your illustration has consisted of making claims that I’m not telling the truth or that I am ignorant of history without providing anything to back those claims up. In a court of law your testimony to date would get you laughed out of court. The only person around here who isn’t addressing the points raised is you. At least not beyond repeating phrases like, “That’s not true! That’s not true! You’re an ignorant, bigoted liar!�

Formerly, and I had editors to correct the spelling. False sttaement. I didnt slide, I just mispelled words, and he corrected them. Really not that hard.But the work was never late.Nor infirior.  No spell checker. He corrected the writings for ther final draft.

If your attempts at journalism were half as bad as your attempts at a logical argument then I can understand why you’re a former journalist. And that’s even if we ignore the issue of your spelling. Still, kudos to your editor for having more patience than many in his profession. I’ve known journalists with dyslexia whose editors had a higher standard for submissions than yours apparently did.

This poitn being what? That you can claim I am whinign because I am not agreeign with you? Is this bully mentality your crutch?

The point being that just because someone else is doing something doesn’t mean you have to or even should have to regardless of whether you’re part of the same group/affiliation or not.

Again, I thought the point was obvious and if you had gone back and re-read the response you were whining about I wouldn’t have had to spell it out for you now. Unless I am once again overestimating your intelligence. The fact that you thought my point was that you are “whining� because you’re not “agreeing� with me shows me that you’re not even bothering to consider what’s being said. You’re deliberately ignoring the points raised in favor of whining about me being a supposedly bigoted bully.

Nice rude behaviour. You diotn have to show repsect, you have to pretend to be storng. The more curse words the better. Dotn bother tryign to be logical, just insult peopel and call them weak and claim they are whining that works much faster.No need to think, or be civilised

Whine, whine, whine… Damn man, don’t you ever get tired of it? Was my comment rude? Absolutely. Did I use bad language? Guilty as fucking charged. Don’t bother trying to be logical you say? I’ve already tried being logical with you and you’ve ignored it as I’ve pointed out in the previous paragraph above. And no, I won’t show you any respect until you give me good reason to. You need to

earn my respect

and the quickest way to lose it is to show up and expect me to respect you. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt at first until they give me reason not to. You gave me reason not to give you the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. Am I acting uncivilized? Dude, you have yet to see me get uncivilized on you. Trust me; you’ll know it when it happens. I’m just playing with you right now because I find you mildly amusing. When I’m truly being uncivilized I use

a lot more

cuss words.

Like what? The fact that you disagree with it? The fact that you can misrepresent the hisptry? The fact that you dotn understand it? Exactly what is so bashable? Nothign on this thread other than the tired old “Christainity brings war and bloodshed� routine, which is dismissable when one actually examines the facts. Bashing it is just cheap smear.

I don’t bash things simply because I disagree with it. If I did that then I’d be bashing homosexuality as I don’t agree with it myself. I’ve already mentioned that before, but again it’s another point you’ve ignored for the sake of whining about what a meany I am. I also feel I have a very firm understanding of Christianity having been a former Christian myself and having invested a number of days in the study of both the religious texts and its history.

You claim that the idea that Christianity is responsible for bloodshed and wars is “dismissible� when one examines the facts, OK, please provide us with the facts that show Christianity isn’t responsible for the wars and bloodshed that have been attributed to it. Once again you make a claim that sounds like it should be easy to support by citing references, but you fail to do so. This leads me to believe that you’ve not actually studied the religion’s history in any great detail beyond perhaps reading a few attempts at revisionist history by various apologetics. You make claims like this all the time without ever providing anything to support your assertion like you expect us to just suddenly throw up our arms and say “My gosh! He’s RIGHT! I never THOUGHT of it like that before! How could I ever have been so BLIND?!?�

Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Do you even have a basic understanding of how a proper debate is done? You try to present yourself as engaging in a logical debate that relies on reasoning rather than emotion, but it’s clear to anyone with even a basic understanding of logical arguments that you’re providing nothing of the sort. I suggest you pick up a copy of How to Think Straight: An Introduction to Critical Reasoning and give it a good read if you’d like to live up to the image you’re trying to present.

No, most of what you d is bashing. You misrepresent the beleifs, then attack those. Further, you claim peopel who beleiv eint eh religion use the religion as a crutch, this is not true but honesty osnt nessisary here, is it? Sorry, uoi just bash it. And to no avail.

In your opinion most of what I do here is bashing, I disagree. I do not intentionally misrepresent anyone’s beliefs and I do have the opinion that people who believe in religion are using it as a crutch and I’ve provided my argument as to why as well. You can argue whether or not my reasoning is faulty, but my opinion is my own and not a matter of being true or false. If I were to state outright that its a ‘fact� that religious people are using it as a crutch then it would be a different issue and open to debate, but I’ve only stated my opinion on the matter. It’s clear from your responses, though, that you have a hard time understanding the differences between “fact� and “opinion� and lack the ability to distinguish between the two. Probably another symptom of dyslexia I’m sure.

As for honesty, I’ve been as honest I can be with you and everyone else here. It would seem you equate statements of opinion you disagree with as being the same as lying. The implication being that you think that I know you’re telling the truth and are therefore intentionally lying to everyone when I express an opposing viewpoint. That attitude of “I’m right and you all know I’m right so you must be lying� is common among certain groups of Christians it seems (fundamentalists in particular), but it’s neither a logical argument nor an example of the respect and civility you like to claim you’ve been practicing. If anything, it’s a near-perfect expression of contempt for those people you’re supposedly debating with. Like I said, not all insults involve naughty words.

Thats an excuse? Or am I some sort of divinity myself because I dont stoop tp this level?

Yes, being human is an excuse and you do stoop to a similar level, you just do it without resorting to cussing and you try to disguise it as a logical argument. If anything, my calling you “sad� and “pathetic� is a lot more honest as at least I’m not trying to hide my contempt for you.

Now that I mention it, I just scrolled back through the thread and checked my responses to you to see just what kind of insults I may have directed at you. Let’s see, I’ve called you a whiner, I said you were too lazy to deal with your dyslexia, I’ve implied that you are incapable of recognizing obvious lines of logic in a discussion, I said that you’ve blathered at length without really saying anything, I’ve called you a hypocrite, I’ve said you seem to be completely incapable of recognizing your own hypocrisy and that I found that funny, I’ve asked what the fuck is wrong with you, I’ve stated that you don’t seem to be able to determine a statement of fact from a statement of opinion and that you’d probably blame your dyslexia for it, I’ve called you a dolt, I’ve said you are covering your eyes from the truth, I again implied you were less than intellectually gifted by pointing out another seemingly obvious logical connection you missed, I’ve implied that you have a thick skull and that simple analogies are lost on you, and I’ve suggested that you don’t know what the word “intolerance� means.

Out of all of that the three worst possible insults you could walk away with are 1) I called you stupid in an indirect fashion, 2) I called you a hypocrite (which you have also called me), 3) I called you a “dolt,â€? which is just a direct way of calling you stupid. I’ve yet to call you an ass or a total fucking idiot or anything that I would consider a sincere and major attempt at an insult. For all the fuss you’ve put up about it I’d have to assume you’ve got a very thin skin, that or you’re just trying to avoid addressing the counterpoints raised. I’m inclined to think it’s the latter over the former.

More rude behaviour. Are you sure I am the one thats usign a critch, I shall reask?

Whine, whine, whine…

What queatsion is this then? that I am avoiding?

Originally? The question was in response to the following statement you made: 1: Mulsims do, in fact, try to dictate laws. Just not in the west where they ar ein a Minority. Many antions do follow Muslim Law, and currently in Iraq Muslim leaders want to cease controle.

My question was: “OK, so what’s your point? That because the Muslims try to do it that makes it OK for the Christians and everyone else to do it as well? If all your Christian buddies jumped off a bridge, would you follow them?â€? I’ve already spelled out the point I was trying to make with the question a little further up in this response. Not that I know why I’m bothering to repeat it now as you’re just going to whine some more and ignore the questions. I guess your mouse must be broken that you couldn’t scroll back up and check to see just what the original question was. Or perhaps it was just another form of avoidance. 

The snetence isnt incoherent, you just claim it is to make yourself appear right about this and blame me soem more. Incedentally this sint my job.Its rfecreation.

Good thing it’s “rfecreation� because I’d find it hard to believe anyone would pay for work this poor.

Do you really think �Especially since I already said i woudl be aaisnt any unfair position, if Chrisytain or no.� is a coherent sentence? Perhaps you have to be dyslexic to understand it. I could guess at what it’s supposed to be saying, but then I’d have to assume what you meant and that would just give you more grounds to claim I’m misrepresenting you when the truth is I just can’t understand you. That dyslexia must come in handy for winning arguments: victory through obfuscation.

More profanities. This guy must be tough!

Whine, whine, whine…

That aside. You didnt ask a simple wueastion, nor have I ranted. Stop charecterising me in a false way to support your artificial image of me as weak minded and in need of a critch, its just projecting your own inadequacies.

I’m most certainly not “charecterising� you in a false way as I did ask a simple question and I spelled it out again just above here, but you’re trying to deny a reality that is obvious to everyone else around you. At least those of us whose mice aren’t broken so we can scroll back up and examine the earlier replies.

You also did rant about it. I believe your statements were as follows: �Please say yes.�?Tjis is tolerence to you? I am a Chrisyain. I dont liek you bashign my rleigion. Thereofre I am an idiot who deserves to die. Tht sort of humour is far form prodictive and causes no respect, even fro,m those who wll give you lip service of respect. Ad Homonim puns arent really valid points.Especially since I already said i woudl be aaisnt any unfair position, if Chrisytain or no. You give little reason to respect your veiw, as you want to tyranically impose your seclarianism by deconstricting yout oponant. You didn’t answer the exceedingly simple questions I posed and you ranted over my little barb about hoping you’d join in with fellow Christians jumping off a bridge. Again, I’m providing evidence to back up my claims. Something

you still haven’t done

with a single assertion you’ve made. The funny part is you’re trying to deny your own statements that are recorded right here on the very page you’re trying to deny them on! Do you have problems with short-term memory as well? Surely you’re not stupid enough to think the rest of us wouldn’t bother to back up and re-read the relevant sections of the earlier replies just because it’s been a month since you last posted, right? Again, in all honesty, I thought you were smarter than that so it must be something to do with short-term memory, right?

ActuallY I have presented many calid defences. Here is a list.

Oh, this should be good.

1: The witch trials where nto caused by Chrisyain beleifs, but existed long before Chrisytainity did.Indeed, fewer peopel where killed for witchcraft in Chrisyain Europe than Pagan europe.

Assertions with no supporting references or citations to back them up.

2: The first ammendment does not attemtp to protect the govenrment from religiosu controle based on religious disasters in the past, but rather attemtos to protect the religions by preventign state regulations.

Another assertion with no supporting references or citations to back it up.

3: Chrisyainity des not have a bloody past as peopel say, and usually the only things peopel can cite are the c rusades, the witch hunts, and the Inquesition. witch trials have been covered, cusades are no different than any other land war, and the Inquesition is exactly like the House Unamerican committee, or any number of Societ inqueries,and not unique to Chrsyainity. Nor are the Christain. They are roman Catholic, which is a small part of the faith, not the totality.

Another assertion with no supporting references or citations to back it up.

4: By lashign out and makign rude jestures, you show yourself inadequate. You must therefore project your weaknesses on another to tear them down to feel some measure of releaf from your own failures and shortcomings.

A statement of opinion and not a “calid defences� of Christianity as you claimed this list was going to be.

5: Religion is not a critch to the religious, saying this is nothign but slander you use to artificially appear strong which to the descernig shows you to be weak and pathetic.

Another statement of opinion and not a “calid defences� of Christianity as you claimed this list was going to be.

Thats just a sample.

And pretty damned pathetic it is. Allow me to address them in order. On second thought, fuck that. You’ve not bothered to back up a single one of your assertions listed above so I’m not going to waste my time citing references which discredit them. Instead I’ll just take the same approach you do: Zarove, you are obviously incompetent and ignorant of history and you need to stop lying about it with the intentional distortions that you keep claiming as truth and which would be obvious to anyone who examines the basic facts.

Wow, that sounded a lot like one of his statements only without all the spelling and punctuation errors.

But the assumptuion that I dont repsect you because you critisise my faith is not true.

I never made an assumption about whether or not you respect me. In fact I’m completely unconcerned with whether you respect me. That was the point of my rhetorical questions. You’re the one who said, and I quote: �You give little reason to respect your veiw, as you want to tyranically impose your seclarianism by deconstricting yout oponant.� I merely said I didn’t care if you respected me or my viewpoints. I’m not trying to earn your respect.

You claim I use my faith as a cruitch, how so?

I’ve explained that already further up in this response.

You claim that rleigion generates closed minds, how so?

Actually, I’ve never made that claim. Just the same, look up the definition of the word “dogma� and you’ll have all the answer you need to that question.

You claim much about me that you dont know, nor can, based on a predjusice, and then if I call you on it I am whinign and cant take critisism. The reverse appears trie to me.

I haven’t claimed to definitively know anything about you as fact. What I have done is voice my opinions about you based on your responses to date in this thread. I haven’t expressed a single opinion about you that aren’t supported by your own text here in this thread. Neither have I claimed you couldn’t take criticism, that’s a claim you’ve made against me and which you make again here (though at least here you make it clear it’s an opinion for once). In fact you’ve made a number of definitive statements of fact about what you think you know about me and what my intentions are repeatedly throughout this thread. You brought up the psychological concept of projection at one point, claiming I’m projecting my faults onto you, but I’d argue it’s the other way around and I’m willing to bet most folks who’ve read all this would agree with me.

And you do whine, a lot and it appears to me to be your way of avoiding addressing the points raised against you.

Which queatsion was this? I havebnt been here in a whole, and may have simpley overlooked it you know.

Quit being so fucking lazy and scroll back up the damned page and re-read it. I’m not going to repeat yet another question for you just because you’re too dyslexic to work your web browser properly. I’ve done it once already and I’m not going to sit here and repeat something I’ve already written on this thread.

No, I said that the leaders of the APA voted to remove Homosexuality from the journal as a mental illness based on political pressure. The heads of the board arent researchers, nor did they hide the research.

And what is your basis for this claim? Yet another assertion that you fail to back up with any supporting references. Checking the APA website to see who the leaders are provides the following information:

2003 Board of Directors Robert J. Sternberg, PhD, President (1/1/03-12/31/03) Diane F. Halpern, PhD, President-Elect (1/1/03-12/31/03) Philip G. Zimbardo, PhD, Past President (1/1/02-12/31/02) Ronald F. Levant, EdD Rec. Sec. (1/1/01-12/31/03) Gerald P. Koocher, PhD Treasurer (1/1/00-12/31/04) Norman Anderson, PhD Ex. V.P./CEO (1/1/03-)

Hmm, every single one of them a PhD or EdD and according to the biographies at the APA website they all specialize in various fields of psychological research. This would seem to contradict your claim that the “heads of the board aren’t researchers.� In other words it seems to me that you’re talking out of your ass again and are ignorant of what you’re making claims about. Surely you didn’t think I wouldn’t check their own homepage to see if you’re claim was true, did you?

They have.Want soem names?

I would LOVE some names! It would make for such a refreshing change of pace from your usual tactics. But you’ve made such promises before only to ignore my invitation to provide what you’re offering so you’ll pardon me if I have serious doubts that you’ll actually produce said names.

  This is a falsification of what I said. I said that the APA np longer recognised Homosexuality as a mental ilness for political reasons, not that they lied about research.

Actually what you said was: �Most of it comes form the same people who initially said that its not a mental illness, andclaim today its immutable dispite evidence tot he contrary in their own Jorunal.� To me that sounds like you’re accusing the researchers of lying about their own research. If that’s not what you meant then perhaps you should be more exact in your wording. Regardless, you now make the assertion that the APA no longer recognizes homosexuality as a mental illness for political reasons and once again provide nothing in the way of a reference to back up that claim.

Thusfar the APA has not made a firm stand n the cause of Homosexuality, and always claism that researhc is “Onoing.�

Is that so? Here’s what I found in reference to their stand on homosexuality at their website:

For a mental or psychiatric condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it must either regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning. With the exception of homosexuality (and perhaps some of the other sexual deviations when in mild form, such as voyeurism), all of the other mental disorders in DSM-II fulfill either of these two criteria. (While one may argue that the personality disorders are an exception, on reflection it is clear that it is inappropriate to make a diagnosis of a personality disorder merely because of the presence of certain typical personality traits which cause no subjective distress or impairment in social functioning. Clearly homosexuality, per se, does not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder since, as noted above, many homosexuals are quite satisfied with their sexual orientation and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning.

The only way that homosexuality could therefore be considered a psychiatric disorder would be the criteria of failure to function heterosexually, which is considered optimal in our society and by many members of our profession. However, if failure to function optimally in some important area of life as judged by either society or the profession is sufficient to indicate the presence of a psychiatric disorder, then we will have to add to our nomenclature the following conditions: celibacy (failure to function optimally sexually), revolutionary behavior (irrational defiance of social norms), religious fanaticism (dogmatic and rigid adherence to religious doctrine), racism (irrational hatred of certain groups), vegetarianism (unnatural avoidance of carnivorous behavior), and male chauvinism (irrational belief in the inferiority of women).

If homosexuality per se does not meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder, what is it? Descriptively, it is one form of sexual behavior. Our profession need not now agree on its origin, significance, and value for human happiness when we acknowledge that by itself it does not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder. Similarly, by no longer listing it as a psychiatric disorder we are not saying that it is “normal” or as valuable as heterosexuality.

That sounds like a pretty firm stand on the issue if you ask me, but then I’m just an ignorant, crass, rude, lying bigot so what do I know?

I also learned that the Board of Directors of the APA voted in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders based on the weight of empirical data combined with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States. So, yes, political pressure did play some part in the vote, but it wasn’t the sole reason nor was it the primary reason. Even as such the Board’s decision was supported in 1974 by a vote of the membership! That includes all of the researchers which you implied were not involved in the decision making process. It would appear you’re not only ignorant of whether or not the leaders of the APA are researchers themselves, but of how the voting process within the APA is handled. Surely if the majority of researchers that are members of the APA disagreed with the decision of the Board of Directors they wouldn’t have voted to support the change.

Oops! I did it again! I supported my rebuttal of your claims with references from the very source you were making claims about. I said I wasn’t going to bother anymore, but I guess my desire to expose the truth is just too strong. It’s clear to me that you’ve never even bothered stopping by the APA’s website to see what their stance may or may not have been. Perhaps you should do so before making definitive claims about them.

I blamed the sensationalists on the media for propogatin the Gay Gene myth whenever any researcher finds any potentially promising results in that area, and on their negelct to follow up on those stories when the researhc is later isproven.

My recollection may be faulty, but I seem to recall a number of articles and news items from various sources that have reported both sides over the years. I’m sure a simple Google search would turn up plenty of examples of both. 

Kinda missed my point here. Most researchers are leanign away fromt her Genetic causeation of Homosexuality precisely because the evidence is agaisnt it.I am not sayign a proposition is invalid because they havent commited to it 100%, I am sayign the researhc they have yeilded revelas less and less room for a Gay Gene to even exist. The more research we do the less likely that link becomes.

Yet another assertion with no references to data that would support your claim. This is an ugly habit of yours. You see that bit I quoted up above from the APA website? That’s what a reference which supports an assertion looks like. Your claim may be true, but you don’t provide any references to check out its validity so it remains, at best, questionable. It certainly disagrees with most of what I’ve read on the subject and if it’s a choice between believing your claims and believing my own studies I’m going to go with my personal research every single time. You haven’t proven yourself as being worthy of unquestioning belief in your claims, which is what you seem to expect from others.

  Which doesntreally effec twhat I said which you copletely misconstrued. I will ask again, its a rnning queation in this post. Are you sure I am the one using the crutch?

That whole “crutch� comment really pissed you off, didn’t it? I must’ve hit a really sensitive nerve with that one. Truth can sometimes be painful like that.

Not the way you presented my statement, but my actual statement is this. There is no proof that a Gay Gene exists, and experemental Data is actually opposed to the proposition.

Yet another assertion with no references to data that would support your claim. This time I’ll even make it easy on you and provide a link supporting your claim FOR you. And you say I’m just a big meany who only beats up on you and calls you names. The article in question is from the SFGate.com news website and is titled No Easy Link Between Genes, Behavior - DNA Studies Dash Quest for Easy Answers - Genome’s link to behavior hard to prove. Here’s a snippet from the article that address the issue of a “gay gene.â€?

In retrospect, claims of links between genes and complex human traits have two things in common: They almost always make headlines, but they’re almost never easily verified—“replicated,“ in scientific jargon—by other researchers.

One of the most publicized scientific claims of the last decade—that gays and straights have different brains—illustrates the point.

In 1991, Salk Institute researcher Simon LeVay made international headlines when he reported finding a significant structural difference between the brains of gay and straight men.

Based on LeVay’s analysis of 41 autopsied brains, he reported that a particular brain feature—technically speaking, the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus—tends to be larger in straight males than in gay males.

But now, despite studying twice as many brains as were analyzed by LeVay, a New York neuroanatomist has been unable to either verify or disprove the Salk scientist’s claim.

“I wouldn’t go as far as to say that my study was ‘negative.‘ (Rather), it was inconclusive,“ says Dr. Bill Byne, a neuroanatomist and psychiatrist on the faculty at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York, whose results are scheduled for publication later this year in the journal Hormones and Behavior.

The news drew a stoic reaction from LeVay, who is now a freelance science writer in Southern California.

“Obviously I would have liked a resounding confirmation” LeVay said by phone yesterday. “From what I’ve heard it doesn’t sound like a resounding confirmation, and in that way I’m disappointed. But we’ll just have to wait” for further research.

See how easy that is? I suppose your editor did all of that sort of stuff for you because of your dyslexia or something.

Now, having done your work for you I will proceed to reiterate a point I raised in an earlier reply which you promptly ignored: Even if it turns out that there isn’t a genetic basis for it and it’s purely a matter of choice, what difference does it make? I know a lot of homosexuals who rejected the gene argument from the beginning and have always claimed it was their choice. Are you saying that if someone chooses to be homosexual they aren’t deserving of the same rights and protections as everyone else? How long before you expand that definition to include atheists? Or Muslims?

Name the se soruces. They are probabely all online pro gay sites. Most respected Journals do not feel as storngly as this, and when I say this let me reiterate’ ther eis so far no evidence that it is genetic and some to suggest its not.

Why the fuck should I name my sources when you haven’t bothered to do it once in a single one of your responses? I had to supply a supporting reference for your last claim FOR you because you have so far failed to provide any yourself. Who the fuck do you think you are to demand that I list my sources when you refuse to do the same? Does your hypocrisy know no limits?! You don’t even provide any supporting references for the claims you make within the same paragraph for chrissakes.

This is the part where I finally, directly and intentionally insult you by calling you an arrogant dumbass who couldn’t find his way out of a wet paper bag with a fucking machete and detailed instructions let alone hold anything even remotely resembling an intelligent and logical argument. I’ve heard better arguments from the mouths of retarded children than what you’re putting forth here. I’ve had a grandmother with Alzheimer’s put together sentences with more consistency and coherency than half of the crap you spew out of your keyboard. It’s almost stunning how amazingly clueless and ignorant you can be.

There, I feel better now having gotten that off of my chest.

That was implicit in your argument.

No, that was what you assumed was in my argument. We’ve already established the fact that you’ve put words into my mouth that I’ve never said on more than one occasion.

Actually the Tporah speaks agaisnt incest.

Yet another assertion that… you fucking know the rest by now. Care to cite where in the Torah it says anything against incest and how that applies to the Bible, which I specifically mentioned?

And you cit me on faulty logic.
1: Adam and eve where not nessisarily the only two Humans. Many Torah interpretations that came before Darwin suggest Adam was the first of a kinfd of man, not nessisarily the first man.

I thought the word of God was easily understood and there were no variances or contradictions? If this is so then why is there disagreement on the issue of how many people may or may not have been at the beginning? For that matter, why are you using the Torah to defend Christianity?

Durther, you onfuse the sutuation. God had yet to prohibit Incest.

This begs the question of: If it was OK at the beginning then why did God later outlaw it as bad? What changed to make it a bad thing to do? If nothing changed then that implies that God makes arbitrary decisions and will change his mind over time. If that is true then how can you be sure he’ll still honor the promises made in a 2,000 year old book? What if he’s changed his mind again and just hasn’t bothered to tell anyone? Not that you’ll answer any of these questions…

Further, there is alo the survivability law of nature. The Bible speaks agaisnt killing but allows killign in self defence as well. As do Most laws.

Does it now? Care to cite the verses which spell these rules out? As I recall from my Sunday school lessons, Jesus advocated “turning the other cheek.â€? I believe it was Luke 6:29-31—If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. Sounds to me like you’re not supposed to defend yourself nor attempt to regain possessions stolen from you and give whatever you have to whomever asks without expecting to get it back. If you really want to live according to Jesus’ teachings that is. Somehow I suspect you’re not following that advice too closely, but just in case you are then how about loaning me a couple of grand? It’s for a good cause.

Homosexuality is nevera survival option. But on occassion Incest can be, if only a brother and sister survive after aleins wipped put the earth with a death ray for instance. ( Not that the alein death ray thing is goig toi happen. just an outrageous example.)

So then God would suddenly change his mind again and make it OK to engage in incest? How would the brother and sister know? Would God then suspend the laws of genetics that cause systemic defects in heavily inbred people?

All this aside, you are ignorant of much, and attemtpo to pretend to be more knowledgable than I’ typocal.

What was that you said earlier about how I was claiming to know much about you that I couldn’t possibly know? Here you are claiming to know how much I am ignorant of and to know that I am “attemtpo to pretend� that I am more knowledgeable than you are. Dude, your hypocrisy is showing again.

I don’t worry about pretending to be anything. I’ll leave judgments on which of us is the more knowledgeable to third party observers. I’m sure there are many subjects of which I am largely ignorant whereas you are undoubtedly a master of facts and data beyond compare. Subjects such as the nature and uses of belly button lint or the comparative qualities of various grape jams in relation to flavor and texture when applied to varying types of bread. Certainly those are subjects I have devoted little time to and I concede the fact that it’s entirely possible that you are way more knowledgeable in those subjects than I could ever hope to be, which isn’t to say that you are, just that you very well could be as my own knowledge of said subjects is admittedly small. Feel better now? You got me to agree with one of your statements.

Their actiosn where also pubished. This is itsself faulty logic. Only an idiot woudl claim this.

Please cite the relevant passage in which Lott’s daughters were “pubishedâ€? for their actions. According to several of the Bibles I own Genesis 19:30-36 reads as follows: â€?Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. Let’s get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.“ That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I lay with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.“ So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.â€? And that’s where the passage ends with nary a word about either woman being punished for their actions. But perhaps my Bibles are all faulty. Care to support your claim with a reference?

It also mentions King David having an affair wiht a marired woman, that doesnt mean its condoned.The Bible had to record the events as they where after all.

Fair enough, but if it’s OK for various Biblical figures to break the rules and still be considered OK with God then why should it be any different for anyone else? What’s the point in laying down the law if you can break it and not be punished for it? Shouldn’t it be the Ten Guidelines God Would Really Prefer You Followed then?

  So I suppose the law of Moses doesnt count to you?

In all honesty I don’t recall the law of Moses off top of my head. Perhaps if you would bother to cite a reference.

Then rather than asusme you are knowledgable about Christain beleifs, try actually studying the religion you mock.

I have studied it at length and probably more than most Christians. Regardless, you’ll continue to insist you know how much knowledge I may or may not possess about the Bible.

Here are a few verses for you.

Unbelievable! He’s actually going to try and provide supporting references for once! Surely this is the seventh sign and the rapture is nearly upon us!

Leviticus chapter 18
6. None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.

By golly, he’s right on this one folks! Confirmed it in a couple of my own Bibles to boot. Will wonders never cease? He’s not only providing a reference, but it actually supports his viewpoint! The rest of the references check out as well. Very good, Zarove! I’m so very proud of you!

Though this does tend to make me wonder if the reason you’ve never bothered before is because you knew you didn’t have any references which supported your claims. It wouldn’t surprise me.

Thsi seems like Biblical support for an antiIncest stand… But I am an idiot, and you knwo so much more than me’

You are an idiot, but being an idiot isn’t the same thing as not having an education. I’ve known a lot of highly educated people who were still idiots. I’ve also never claimed to know so much more than you in general. On specific things yes, I’m willing to bet I do, but not necessarily in general. Knowledge in and of itself is no guarantee of having the right answers.

see above. The Church advocated an anti-Incest rule long before science made that link… saying the churhc took creidt for somethign after the fact is a lie here. Most natiosn where practicing Incest, egypt, assyria, caanan.But the Israelites where forbidden to do so. Claimignthat thereare no inset laws int he Bible is idiicy.

You are quite correct and I stand humbly corrected. I’ve never had a problem with admitting when I’m wrong about something. That’s one in your favor so far and a whole lot of still-to-be-determined.

for Homosexuality, the lines where drawn for both personal and social protection. I will elaborate.
Homosexuality leads to mental distresses even in otlerent societies, like Norway, as well as health issues. Socially, acceptance of Homosexuality always leads to confusion in soicety over who is sexually interested in who and undermines the family. I will elaboarate further if you woudl like.

Indeed, I find your elaborations to be a refreshing change of tactic. Perhaps you can provide some references to back up the claims you are making. I know you can do it as you’ve just proven as much in the example of the Bible’s stand on incest. You claim that homosexuality leads to mental distress even in tolerant societies such as Norway, what are you basing that claim upon? You claim it causes confusion in society over who is sexually interested in who, how is that a problem and what do you base that claim upon? You claim it undermines the family, in what way and what do you base that claim upon?

what about in nations wher eits accepted and they arent routinely beaten to death and still live 10-40 years less than heterosexuals? False analogy here, tryign to villify the opposition.

Please cite studies that show that homosexuals in tolerant societies have lower life-spans than heterosexuals in the same society. Again a claim without any references. Falling back into old habits again I see.

False analogy. Skydiving isnt a lifestyle that sconsistantly effects quality of life. In fact its not a lifestyle at all. By the way not all Homosexuals who fie young die violently.

The implication in your rebuttal is that homosexuality is a lifestyle that consistently affects quality of life, on what are you basing that assertion? I will concede your point that not all homosexuals who die young do so in a violent manner, though that was never my point anyway.

  Id we banned salt we woudl die, we need a certain leel of sodium to live.

Sodium that can be adequately supplied by any number of other foods. Most people’s diets in this day and age are diverse enough that using salt as a supplement is unnecessary. Chloride is also essential to life, but I don’t see you shaking chloride onto your french fries. My point stands.

  You know, we did get rid of smoking. By th way your analogy is still false.

Did we? Someone should tell my brother. I was just over to his place and both he and his wife and several of his friends were still lighting up cigarettes. My analogy still stands.

Actually thi si a lie. There are no imperical studies that show a link to driving cars and a lowered life expectancyu. If you hrow in accedents, I can just as easily fa;l down the stairs. This tactisc is simpely dishonest.

Accidents aren’t the only way that cars affect life expectancy, or have you forgotten pollution?

You are deperate arent you?

I’m only desperate to have you actually back up your claims with references. Beyond that, no, I feel no sense of desperation.

Actually the above things you listed dont lower life expectancy on a consistant pattern. The majority of homoexuals DO die young and NOT as the result of beign beaten to death. everyone uses salt, otherwise we die. Cars themselves dont lowrr life expectancy, this si a lie. Diet supplements thet are already debating poutlawing.

For example, it would be nice if you cited supporting references for the claims you made above. The claim that the “majority� of homosexuals “do die young.� Hell, backup your claim that “everyone uses salt,� which I know is a lie (as you like to put it) because I know many people who don’t use salt at all and avoid foods that have had salt added to them. Yet they still manage to get enough sodium from the foods they do eat that their bodies continue to function without issue. I’ve already mentioned how cars impact life expectancy beyond the mere threat of automobile accidents and that is not a lie. As for diet supplements, some have been outlawed and some are up for consideration for being outlawed, but as a whole there is no consideration being done for outlawing

all diet supplements

. Are you kidding? That’s a multi-billion dollar a year industry that isn’t going away anytime soon. The government has a hard enough time banning the dangerous supplements let alone ALL of them. What a ludicrous claim to make.

  Data comign soon.(Been a whole since I needed the names of the spacific articles.)

I won’t be holding my breath in anticipation.

I will b bak wihthat after new years sometime. But its impressive data, if you cae to rad it.

Well I’ve read all the nonsense you’ve posted so far. Having the chance to read something that might actually verify your claim would be a nice change of pace.

Tjhats an assumption based on your own predjudices, the stress rates remain the same or go up in natiosn where its an acepted practice.

I admitted quite clearly that I was speculating. And you’re still making claims without backing them up.

Not realy, this is just your assumptioin. Again, I will cite evidence for you.

Don’t speak authoritatively until you can back it up.

Another flase analogy. Ther eis a differenc ebetween a high stress job and a high stress lifestyle.

There is a difference, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t make for a good analogy. You’re not familiar with the actual definition for the word “analogy� are you?

Yes it is. It really depends on factrs you didnt take into acocunt. I mean you said skydiving lowrrs life expectancu. It doesnt unless the chute dont open.That doesnt happen most fo ghe time. Homosexuality’s stress level is constant and prevaids all aspect of their life, and yet prodices no viable end.Unlike air traffic controlers who at least get to leave work every now and again.

You haven’t provided any supporting evidence for your supposed facts so there’s not much to take into account. Yes, air traffic controllers get to leave work every now and again, but do you really think their stress disappears as soon as they walk out that door? You’ve not read up on the studies done concerning air traffic controllers and how the stress of the job is consistent and pervasive in their lives. I’m not going to waste time citing sources anymore as you’re not bothering and I’ve been at this too long already. I suggest you try checking out the NATCA website if you’re curious.

  Actually all of the above is valid, you just like pretending its not. Then again you make a lot of assumotiosn and then present those as facts. No matte rhwat I say, no matter fi the case is iron clad, you will still disagree that its valid, because its agaisnt your worldveiw which you use as a crutch to prevent you from colliding with a harsher reality.

How can you be so fucking clueless? You haven’t presented anything CLOSE to an ironclad case on ANYTHING. You’re the fucking idiot that keeps making assumptions and presenting them as facts whereas I’ve wasted my time citing references and outside sources that backup my viewpoints. I disagree with the validity of your statements because you’ve provided NOTHING to back them up other than your claim that they’re facts. Well buddy, your word alone isn’t going to convince me. Put up or shut the fuck up.

I’m not even going to bother addressing the rest of your reply at this point because there’s no fucking point to doing so. You’ve been undisputedly right about one fucking thing and it’s the one thing you bothered to backup with citations. Your arrogance is amazing, your tactics are puerile and your logic is non-existent. Journalist my ass, you couldn’t write a decent enough essay on how to chew fucking bubblegum to get hired as a journalist beyond perhaps your high school newspaper. Fucking DB put up a better argument than you have. Your reliance on the logical fallacy of argumentum ad nauseam is near-legendary at this point.

But the thing I can’t believe most of all is that I bothered to even try to hold a discussion with you for this long as it’s apparent that not even a diamond-tipped industrial drill could penetrate that astoundingly thick skull of yours. I suppose it’s a testament to my sense of optimism that I thought you might be capable of something approaching a reasoned debate given enough time, but it’s clear you are impervious to reality regardless of how hard it hits you in the face.

If ignorance is bliss then you must be multi-orgasmic at this point…

“1: I am not Shel. So drop that line.“

Hi, my name is ZAROVE3. In the past, on Outlaw Star.Net, I went by other all cap-names that spelled just as bad as I did and often shared the same logic or backed myself up.
Thus SHEL = ZAROVE.

“2: No matter how often peopel form OLS claim me to be stupid, and evil, and other things, Nothign will be served by it aside fom further pain inflicted, which i your goal.“

I’m not saying (nor anyone else on OLS.Net) that you’re stupid, evil and ‘other things’, you’re the one who keeps proving you are those things.
And you still haven’t changed over five years on the net, have you?
Of course you still won’t listen to what anyone says and still be an ass online, I bet.

“3: Edotors and assistance staff helped out my articles to-gather.“

..........
.....
..
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oh my God (Uh-oh, I’m using God’s name in vain!).
That’s too funny!
You should go into comedy, Zarove.
Just keep telling those half-assed stories Zarove, I don’t think these people are believing you anymore.

Yes, that whole Journalist thing was a story told to OLS.Net members by Zarove. There are other ones, but I brought that one up due to his spelling.

“4: Nothing I have said in any way is affressed by you, only another cheap shot, which is how you tend to work. I mean relaly you actively use Google searhc engines to gind my last posts, and then post where I have posted just to harrass me, come off it.
As tot he cheap shot at a spellign error, you can shove it.“

Just letting the people be informed that they should not take anything you say (or should that be everything you say online and offline?) at face value.
You have never had anything to bring to the table and stop using crutches. You keep using them here and people will get sick and tired of you here like they did on many other boards.

I’m also concerned about other people online that you often harass. The more they know about you, the less likely they won’t be upset over you or won’t even talk to you.

Two, I would like to quote myself five years ago that you still haven’t disproved about yourself.
“Zarove: Whine, whine, whine….“

That is so cool that Scotland’s a Pagan country! I love Scotland, and I love Pagans, so this is really neat. Dammit, why do other countries get to be so cool while the U.S. is so puritanical?

I reckon Christianity is much better than paganism. Paganism SUCKS! Chrisianity is the truth, not some stuff that was made up!

Dasher: ChrisTianity is the truth, not some stuff that was made up!

It’s all made up sweetheart - just like your fellow reindeers, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donder and Blitzen.
And please don’t sign up under the Ozzie flag.
I don’t want others to think we’ve got fuckwits in Australia too.
I keep telling them they’re all in the USA. 

For the purists - I forgot about Rudolf the red-nosed Reindeer; he was added to the line-up 117 years later by Robert L May in 1939. 

That has to be one of the most unintentionally funny comments a drive-by’er has made in a long time.

Chrisianity is the truth, not some stuff that was made up!

According to whom is it the truth? By what standard is it absolute?

Wow, thx for quoting Zarove so much in your replies. I couldnot read his ramblings in one go
Glad that others have the patience to do the work for me….

Why can we not all get along i mean i personally belive all gods exist and have power only over there folowers so let us not fight over whos god is bigger

sorry for any misspeled words im only 14

Hey I have done more reading on this thread and some history…really just to double check and i would like to point out to ZAROVE…if he has the mentall cupacity to understand me that christianty is responsable for many wars and alot of blood shed…The Crusades for example were a series of religious battles for control of the Holly Land… also the witch trails wich i had famially burned in that so i think i would know the truth about it…and as for blood on pagan hands all depends how you difien what a pagan is…like norse greek or egyptian…well lets look at them all
1. the Egyptians they only shed as much blood as any country really wars,exicutions ect
2. the greeks the did all that stuff to but they also sacrificed live stock nothing more that i know of
3. norse(im also adding germanic brittish and gaulic for this one) were a peoples shrouded in mistery but when you look at what we do know is that they were a waring peoples it probabley had nothing to do with religion seeing as they were fighting each other on the terms of sacrifice if it happend (wich it probabley did based on other relegious belifes) it was most likely restricted to livestock and if humans they were probably willing (none of that Aztec sacrifice fanatism)

now sacrifice its self was not an evil it was a thing antcient did to insure the gods heard what the wished.

unless im mistaken the jews sacrificed live stock as well now the reason christians didnt from what i see was because jesus was there sacfrifice he did it so his people wouldnt have to…

now if i had to pick bettween christians and pagans i would pick pagans… i have personally been persecuted by many christians and it has made me bitter and cold towards them im trying to work on it though…

im only 15 so sorry for misspeled words
yeah im not 14 im 15 misstyped that above

please boot Zarove hes getting on my nerves i mean he actually is claiming that pagans killed more witches than christians im mean fuck the witches were pagan…
its sadenns me that i,m smarter than someone probabley 3 times my age

Well, if nothing else, at least you’re accommodating David. Though it sounds like you might be a Neil Gaiman fan. Read American Gods recently?

Or Terry Pratchett’s Small Gods?

I read that Zarove i gues said hes a journalist for a Tennessee newspaper…..

...well im from Tennessee and im not aware of anything he has done and i dont think i would need his name to tell if he writes for it i’ll just look if a can see alot of bullshit coming from one journalist.

no i havent read those but i am religiously searching right now and looking at all sorts of biliefs and im a bit of a history buff…

sorry i didn’t reply sooner i was reading the thread some more

oh and i was ither asleep or gone today my days and nights are all fucked up

oh and i would like to point out the simularities of norse pagan and christianity

first
the sacrifice of odin a norse god that sacrificed himself for the runes
and of course we all know jesus
they both were resurected

second the norse pagan hel was a place for the dead that did not go to valhala
and of course the christian hell
remember norse hel one l.

oh and one more thing if you guys want laugh type in “harry potter lures kids to witchcraft”
there are a lot of crazy sites my favorite is “thecrossroads” or something like that

it is a big reminder of christianitys cult beginings…and its a good laugh

ok ive been meaning to say something that i gues everyone else over looked the comment that pagans treated wemon worse than christians is a tottal lie the pagans belived in goddeses as well as gods and in pagan sociaty (or atleast the germanic helenic egyptian and britsh) there were as many queens in power as kings for instance queen Boudica(yea i probabley misspeld that) a celtic quen lead a pretty sucsesfull rebelion against the roman empire the romans were trying to countroll brittian and because of this queens revolt although short lived inspired the celts to hold there land this rebelious attitud made the romans leave becaus the “the need for military ocupation was to costy”

also note worthy that no none pagans were ever able to lead sucsessfull campian untill the saxones turned christian wich they had already invaded before that time

one more note worthy thing is the down fall of the romans began after they accepted christianty…
...just saying

and ive don some thinking and came to the conclusion that you guys are as bad as christians all both of you do is bash and its not doing my nerves any good so this is my last entry

so this is my last entry

Don’t let the door slam into your butt on the way out…

hextuple-dipping, david?

As a Scots Pagan, I dislike seeing these sorts of vitriolic debates.  Whilst we see proselytising as profoundly offensive and rude, we also acknowledge that other people may experience divinity in different ways, and for this reason, we are very tolerant of other religions.

I personally disagree with a lot of Christian views, but not all.  I like the promotion of peace and harmony, as well as the promotion of a stable familiar environment.  However, at the same time, I feel these are promoted in the wrong way (denouncing homosexuality/sex before marriage) and think many values of the religion are outdated and based upon an either perverted or confused interpretation of the bible. I acknowledge there are many different Christianities but believe that anyone who truly understands their religion, understands that the stories are purely metaphorical.

As a Pagan, I believe that the divine is manifested in Nature and that deity takes many forms of Nature.  I don’t see the need for a middle-man to cause a storm or flood.  Nature can give life and take life, which is why, irrespective of your own beliefs, I believe it should be respected.

Slàinte mhor a h-uile là a chi ‘s nach fhaic.  (Great health to you every day that I see you and every day that I don’t) =)

Kya.

I personally disagree with a lot of Christian views, but not all.  I like the promotion of peace and harmony, as well as the promotion of a stable familiar environment.

Some Christians do promote these things but they are hardly unique to Christianity.  They are simply human values to which Christianity (when convenient) lays claim.