Overstaged

Neo-nazis are not religious people, to be considered a religion it needs to have metaphysical beliefs, which doesn´t happen, and their "doctrine" seem to be plausible from the evolutionist point of view. I ignore any text in Bible with references to a supposed "white supremacy", and if some idiot want to use texts out of context and change its original meaning its only his problem. Religion is not "entirely destructive and wholly negative", its human beings who do that, and by the way you think the holocaust, 9/11, World Wars 1 & 2 were all about people´s religions... yeah, certainly it has nothing to do with money and power, it´s all because people´s religion. I don´t expect you to recognise millions of good things done by christians everywhere, it´s obviously something not interesting enough to appear on newspapers, but there are actually thousands, if not millions of organizations who work a lot to help other human beings, and people who dedicate their entire lives without receiving 1 cent for it. For every example of misuse of religion in history there are 100 of people who had their lives changed for better.... people who stop drinking, taking drugs, gave up on suicide thoughts, people who find new reasons to live. Then if they just give up on it because of the arguments of people who only see negativity on christianity, the very same people who convinced them will be the 1st ones to turn their back on them and ignore their problems... they get back to "reality" of being nothing more then one more evolved animal counting its days to invevitable death, in a world that is completely indiferent to them and their irrelevant problems.

There really is scientifical evidence for homossexuality in animals, but I guess the absence of any natural lubrificant is a big dificulty for their species...

Oh well, just because I´m not wanting to have sex to another men at this moment and have noted a simple fact that most heterossexuals aren´t, it makes me a homophobic? My "phobia" for homossexuals isn´t 1/10th of the phobia you demonstrate for anything that is remotely linked to religion or faith, and as for being "abnormal" it depens on how you define this word. Homossexuality is a characteristic that is only present in a minority in human and animal species and I´m not being homophobic by recognising a fact that is easily perceived in nature.

Because in this forum it seems that all evils of the world are being credited to a simple book... And in my opinion this is in the same fanatism level of those who call anyone who puts any doubt to it as heretical demoniac creatures. Look to the supposed higly evolved non-judeo-christian civilizations like Romans and Greeks were far from flawless and they had their own massacres. And look how the 2 biggest disasters on our history were not Bible-christian related at all, and still today there are some people who heired the convictions of 20th century nazis and still are professed atheist, and they hate homossexuals more then any so-called christian in this world. It is a very simplistic view to put all the guilty to one single book. And I think I have the right to defend my point of view after all, and so far all my posts have been just proportional to the questions I´ve replied. I don´t see any fanatism here, and where have I used one single verse of this book to justify any of my opinions, or have I demonstrated any hate or disguise for homossexuals and non-believers?

But I´ve been hearing this story of westlife being forgotten since 2000...

Iberic countries were the rulers those days... they were like America today. The history of the world has always been this way and one day America will fall and another giant will rise, if maagzines are anything to go buy it must be China but let´s hope not in this generation.

Then if we would follow the habits of ancient romans and greeks, paedophilia would be something naturally acepted, and woman wouldn´t be considered "citizens". The prashe you mentioned from the philosopher just shows how men used to consider their wives, and by the way the habits of one person cannot be generalized to the whole population. Remember greeks and romans ALSO had their religion, and it also required adoration to Gods, had their myths and prejudices, and included sacrificing animals and stuff. In Acient Greece a children could be sacrificed if born with misformation or some "defect". It was common back then parents just leave their babies when it was born female cause it was almost considered a disgrace.

Well, if a book was supposed to mention things that existed before men, even if this book had a million pages, the history of mankind would just appear in the last few verses... It would make an exremely pointless reading. Dinosaurs are not the only important thing on Earth´s past, and why didn´t the book mentions black holes and other galaxies? Because it´s completely irrelevant for its purpouse. And again nobody said it was a book "written" by God as all parts of it had an human author, each part could have been "inspired" for its purpouse.

Why would someone experiment something which he never felt atracted for? I think it´s kinda crazy... I will never experiment sex with dogs, cows, or tables. People feel atraction, they don´t ask for it. When you are on your puberty you just start feeling excited when you see a Pussycat Dolls video or a woman in a magazine, but sometimes it happens that people feel atracted by someone of the same sex. Usually, people never asked or chosed to feel that, it just happens naturally, and to some people it never will.

Sorry but this is just wishful thinking... There is no evidence or proof that homosseuxality had been norm in any earthly civilization. It might have been fully acepted and considered normal in some places, but was never a norm. Remember not a single human being have been born from an homossexual relationship. That must mean that humans must have a natural tendence for the opposite sex... And then again the "animal" argument remais unchanged, the vast majority of the animals only have sex with a partner of the opposite sex.

Maybe because the existence of a 50 feet tall reptile 70 million years ago is completely irrelevant for the life of anyone who is not a paleonthologist and interest in that matter... And because 90% of the dinosaur species had "normal" sizes like dogs, cats, and today´s animals, and only the few giant ones became famous. And also there were other types of animals which were big.

No, he was italo-spanish. Place of birth not totally known.

how are we supposed to when young girls´ first toy is a barbie? what will be the expectations of a kid, if at the age of 14 the kid as not had sex with 5 partners it´s already considered an idiot among its friends. All we do is complain but what type of alternative entertainment is there? How many parents will lead their kids to learn classical music instead of watching Pussycat Dolls videos? This society sucks and it´s not wonder each day more people retire to take part in one of these weirdo communities that have minimal contact with the outside world. The quality of music channels is appaling... I was watching the other day a channel with traslations of the song and they played Akon - Justin Timberlake and Pussycat Dolls in a row. When technology evolves enough, there will come a day you turn your tv on and put in on MTV there will be a hand coming out of the TV ready to masturbate you. [/grandma_mode]

I think in USA there are many people who don´t speak english and this has not been a problem for them. Spanish is almost becoming a 2nd language in their country because of the amount of migrants.

This is not how it´s supposed to sound... It just happens that you can´t "force" people to like each other. In a perfect world people would love each other. But legislation cannot penetrate such personal feelings. Tolerance is the minimum that must be required but there is not way to force people to like or love something. I don´t know about the legislation of your country, but I think this is something that can easily be resolved in a contract or testament. And in case of one of the members having children (obviously "outside the marriage") then I don´t think the other partner should inherit the stuff. Oh well, you can´t take a few cases and make that a norm. Humans have not adultered their sexuality. Homossexuality exists in the animal kingdom but it´s still a minority, not a rule. I believe 90% of straight people never had any fantasy or interest on having a sexual relation with someone of the same sex. this lacks scientifical proof... Again, I doubt that heterossexual people ever feel atracted by someone of the same sex. The norm... in an exceptional case. Because on the outside world there are human beings of the opposite sex available, which makes the option for someone of the same sex considerably less interesting. When you see dogs doing it in the streets, 99% of the cases it´s a male/female couple - and I don´t thing they have been influenced by religion or moral values. Then if it was just a matter of choice, why would someone chose to be gay when that is surely going to cause a lot of social inconveniences... Then if everyone was supposed to be bissexual, and humans became heteros because they altered their nature, then homossexuality would be an equal alteration. I don´t think many gay people feel atracted by woman all the time. Why the predisposition to like men when you are supposed to be "bi"?

And all the other millions of species... After all these species didn´t even have names and didn´t even have a taxonomic classification (which was invented in modern biology), how and why would they be mentioned...

But if they had scientifical evidence there wouldn´t be anything special at sayng this... Acording to some scientists it can... or at least matter can come from something that is not material. And its scientifically wrong to say something existed BEFORE the big bang because acording to this theory the dimension known as time was "created" in this event, so there can´t be a "before". As my knowledge about all this stuff is obviously small I just googled it and found: http://www.tomcoyner.com/before_the_big_bang_there_was__.htm it´s a transcription on an article from the New York times.

I believe it must 0,5% of the total then... Well, the Bible does not mention dinosaurs as it doesn´t mention trilobites and all other zillions of animals and vegetals species that have been extinct before men surfaced in Earth, otherwise it would be a much longer book then it already is and it would be a book about paleonthology. It´s not because dinosaurs got "famous" from paleonthology that they are supposed to be more important then 2 million species who existed before. For the record, there were some things that MAN didn´t knew 2 or 4 thousand years ago and were mentioned there... for example, the fact that on primitive earth there was only 1 continent and 1 ocean, and a division ocurred later. And also the fact the universe had a beginning, largely acepted since the big bang theory, but considered a fairitale prior to that for scientists who thought it had always existed.

How are we going up, I don´t see new posts here since ages!

^it must be over that already in shipments... if new singles were played and promoted on radios/MTV the album would go much further.

Well, it proves my point that people are not homophobic because of the Bible... Otherwise we wouldn´t see homophobic female preachers in USA, since women would never be allowed to "preach" in a literal interpretation of the Bible... People just take what is convenient to them and use it, and pretend not to see the part that affects themselves. This particular verse is taken from a letter of Paul... and the letter itself doesn´t claim to be 100% divine word... IMO it´s a mistake to take everything that´s written there as God´s word and apply it today, but people should read it with a pinch of salt considering it was written by a jewish men in the 1st century, you cannot blame him for having certain prejudices. Philosophers like Aristotle had an even worst opinion towards women, and that didn´t keep him from having the status of one of the genius of humanity. So you can´t expect a religious person from the 1st century to be free from any prejudice. Things have changed a lot since them... These days most work requires intelligent instead of physical strenght, so woman are finally having the same chances as man in society. Bak in the day, work was something for men only... Women should stay at home and take care of the children. It was a different society. You can´t blame people from having these thoughts. How would you expect a jewish or greek woman in the 1st century would work and "lead" a family when she had 10 kids on her house to raise and work required physical strenght? It´s only natural the society had a division of tasks and men (who, because of nature, don´t get pregnant and are physically stronger then women) would have the exterior work and the authority to defend the family. What most people don´t see is the oposite side, cause Paul also said the men, if necessary, should literally die for their women... So this put woman´s life above men´s life, and men should use his strenght and autority to DEFEND his family, not just to be arbitrary with his decisions like some current fundamentalists want to be... Again, this was the 1st century. The idea of someone working in 2007 is much different from that time... Work at that time was taking wood in the forest... Work today is stand in the front of a computer. Families at that time had 10 kids, now they have 2 if much... It´s natural women start to have a bigger liberty to go out and work, and consequently lead a family. They also won´t need to defend their houses from foreigner soldiers or wild animals anymore. Remember one of the barriers christinity found in greece and the roman empire was the fact its teachings were considered too "feminist" (cause in rome and greece, women didn´t have the status of a citizen, while in the Bible they were put in equality to men in front of God). It´s easy to criticize something that was written 2000 years ago when you did not live at that particular place and moment in history.

Well, but the hardest part of the Bible against homossexuals is in the old testament ages before the Catholic Church... Blame the jews.

I find your post very pertinent, because I always thought to myself that if homossexuality is something natural just because homossexuals didn´t chose their sexuality, then I think paedophilia is too, because I doubt someone ever chosen to feel atracted by little children, am I wrong? (Please don´t stone me, I´m not comparing in any way homossexuals to paedophilians). Most homossexuals refure to have their sexuality labeled as a disease or a misformation. I don´t want to sound like a George Bush elector, but if you are born with a tendence to feel atracted by someone of the same sex you are in the same situation as someone who is born with an impossibility to have children, for example. And I´d rather be considered a person with a disease then a person with imorality... We may have our natural instincts and some are just different from the majority. People expect to become an adult person with sexual atraction for other adult human being of the opposite sex, but a minority will end up feeling atracted by someone of the same sex, and why not someone underaged or someone DEAD? Or an animal? In the end, your tendencies cannot be judged as moral or imoral, but your attitudes, what you make out of it... A man cannot be condemned for feeling atracted by a 5 year old girl, yet he CAN be condemned for abusing this girl and hurting her to satisfy his desires. Then, in the end it´s up for everyone´s choices to follow or not follow your "inner voice" acording to your moral sources, as long as it doesn´t cause damage to others. It doesn´t matter if homossexuality is natural or not, as long as it´s something done among adult persons with free consent, without causing damage to anyone then it should be tolerated, but I guess it´s too much to ask for everyone to feel comfortable with it or even happy. Parents will never be fully happy when they discover they have a gay son, and a gay couple will always cause more commotion in public places then an hetero couple. Throwing stones will not help, and tryng to force a minority culture into the main public either... We are all human beings and we should just tolerate each other and leave in peace.

I think u are using religion for expiation of all problems of society... I don´t believe GWB is really a fundamentalist christian, he just uses the speech directed for his electors. I think every president in USA history has officialy been a "christian", and isn´t it a big coincidence that in GWB biography he was "born again" just when he started his public and politic life? And became a methodist just because that´s one of the most politically influent denomination in USA? All this anti-gay stuff, "Gob bless America" and all sorts of redneck christian ideas is just obrigatory for anyone who wants to be a president in USA. But on the other hand, what´s the problem if Mr. Blair sent his kids to a religious school? A president or a PM is a human being and has the right to develop his family under a religion... Please don´t forget that a democracy should be driven by the people and the ideas of the predominant religion will always influence politics, because democracy is exactly what this is supposed to be. I don´t get this whole gay marriage stuff, sorry... As far as I know in most western countries, including USA and UK, people are not forbidden to have sexual relations and share their life with a partner of the same sex, is it? What difference it makes to have a civil marriage then? This is the only thing I struggle to understand... I think a gay couple has all the rights to walk in the streets, live together and have their private life but what is so important about having an official marriage? I think the discrimination towards gay people have always existed and I don´t credit it exclusively to religion... I have known several atheist and non-religious people who are extremely homophobic. What happens is that people have their own ideas, and they just use religious ideology when it coincides with it... You hardly see Bible fundamentalists condemning richness, do you? And i can mention loads of other typical habits from today´s christians that would be an equal aberration to Bible concepts. The repugnancy people have for homossexuality is something natural and has always existed in the human race. We should learn to be tolerant however with people´s lifestyles as long as it doesn´t cause damage to other people. I always thought about an homossexual relation as something not natural... To use a part of the digestive system to have a sexual relation is a type of violence to your own body and if you talk with a doctor I think he will NOT recommend it. But adult people can do whatever their want with their bodies and it´s only their problem to deal with the biological inconveniences it will cause.

These type countries are supposed to be nothing more then slaves to the "civilized" world forever. It makes me sick of the ignorance of these people who don´t see by acting like animals they are doing nothing more then contribute for their countries continue as a bunch of sheep to be sacrificed for the rich nations. Don´t blame Rastafari, even in Jamaica less then 2% of the population are practicing this religion... Blame the ignorance and lack of education which makes people ignorant and imparcial, cause I´m sure the 95% of these homophobics have taken part in other types of imoral sex attititudes, even with kids or their own children, and a big part of them must have already killed or stolen someone... the population of this countries with undeveloped education system is bound to be exterminated by AIDS.