Home | Join! | Help | Browse | Forums | NuWorld | NWF | PoPo   
Well Actually....
About me

Age. 36
Gender. Male
Ethnicity. White
Location Maysville, GA
» More info.
The Ten Commandments

My Other Favorite Place On The Net

April 2021

  S  M  T  W  T  F  S
              1  2  3
  4  5  6  7  8  9 10
 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
 25 26 27 28 29 30
Subscribe to my nerdy rants
Subscribe to this to blog if you would like to be emailed whenever it is updated.

Your email

In Response To Comments On Gay marrige.
Sunday. 5.18.08 11:47 pm
Dear MR. Random Junk and party.

I knew before I wrote this that it would be controversial. I knew my idea would be challenged.

For mister raynor. I said I am not a homophobic. I never mistreat gay people or avocate any mistreatment of them. In fact my cousin is Gay. I had a good friend in tech school who was gay. I have no problem with gay people. I even like Ellen Degeneres. But I see that the homosexual lifestyle is not good. Also God loves homosexuals. He made them for goodness sake. He sent his son Jesus to die for thier sin, as well as mine and yours Mr. Raynor. I am not gay. But I have sinned equally with you and everyone else in the world. Homosexuality is a sin like stealing lying murder adultery and fornification, and Idolotry. In fact I said in my blog that heterosexual fornification is just as harmful. In fact being born into the human race condenms you to hell. But through surrender to Jesus christ and turning from sin we can be made clean before God. So in the Bible I am commanded to love everyone as Jesus loves everyone, including sinners like me.

Now Mr. Random Junk.

Like you I have a right to an opinion of what is right or wrong just as you. Before you critisize me please read my article. When I said "what is next people marrying animals" I did by no means intend to say that gay people were like animals. I said that it is a mockery of the family system of America. I intended to mean that gay marrige is not to be equal with a normal marrige.

Also I gave compelling stats that 50% of aids cases are caused by male to male sex. 25% to normal sex and the rest to dirty needles and other causes. My stats did'nt come from Pat Roberts or Billy Graham. My stats came from published public data from government agencies. Now if every man and woman only had sex with thier spouse and did not abuse drugs then the disease would almost be non existient. People die from sex outside of marrige and drug abuse. There are as of 2002-2006 20k+ people going to die from aids in tennesee alone because they had sex outside marrige and abused drugs. Not to mention all the abuse brought on by alchaholism and deaths caused by drunk drivers.

I am quite offended being accused of racsism I hate racisim too. That is somthing I am totally against. I hate racism with a passion. I respect all races of people because God made us all and he decided I would be white and he would be black, and she would be Asian and so on.

I am totally aware of heterosexual abuse in realationships. My mother was abused for 8 years before she married my father. You are right it happens. But I assure you it isn't as high a rate. My case is 32.7% is kinda steep.

Also as I said to raynor. Everyone has sinned I am quite good at it myself I hate to admit. No I don't belive in genetic homosexuality. I believe that it was a chosen life style. Like a drug addiction it is almost impossible to overcome. I do not fault them for wanting to be like other people. Marrige is for a couple who wants children and a pure productive family that advances society. Not for homosexuals wanting to pervert what is good and normal. I belive they have the right to have relations and not be discriminated against for that, but never allow thier marrige to considered equal with a marriged heterosexual.

Clap Clap I am glad to agree with you on movies and television. I hardly consider myself as oppressive and closed minded.

Tell me this. You seem to belive that right and wrong is relative. But you know what isn't a sin. Tell me sir what is a sin?

Yes sir the Bible is old I can't talk you into beliving it's sayings. I wasn't making a judgement call saying homosexuality is sinful. I know many christians refuse to call it that. Despite it being so clearly written in the Bible. I simply stated what is in the Bible. Tell me sir? What do you know of the Bible?

Well now religion isn't needed anymore? We are so comfty and prosperous now. HMM. Well that can change tomorrow.

You say you try to accept all beliefs. Apparently you only accept beliefs that permit you to do anything you like without consequence. You like to stereostype christians as high and mighy. Sinnless and a judgemental attitude. You will reject any and all my beliefs because of my religion. That sir is discrimintory.

As far as me judging people and being better and holier. That is a real joke. I am a sinner a evil person who will get into a tent in heaven by God's grace and mercy and the skin of my teeth. I am far from a perfect person. In fact I admit I have done things I think to be sinful and still catch myself doing those things I call sinful. The difference between me and you is I want to please God and feel remorse for the evil things I do. That is our only difference.

Now Dear Chloefoxx

I never said Aids is exclusive to gay couples. Of that 20K Aids I mentioned from the Tennesee Deparment of health. 9.9K was spread by gay contact. 4.5K by heterosexual contact and the rest by dirty needles and other contact.

Yes as I mentioned that I am a christian. I am not judgemental. I am simply am saying that homosexuality is a sin like anything else. A man who commits fornification is no more sinful than a gay man. A man who lied to his boss is just as guilty as a gay person. All sin seperates men from God. I am a sinner. I sin. I get mad and say bad words. I want to flip off people while I am traffic. I have a hard time with lust. I envy people with money and Jaguars. Those things are just as damning as homosexuality. What I am upset about is that legal gay marrige is just another sinful thing the government nows finds as acceptable.

My Saviour Jesus Said to never judge anyone lest you be judged. He also said he with no sin cast the first stone. Also don't offer to remove the sawdust from your brothers eye until you plank is out of yours.

In summary,

Jesus Christ loves gay and straight alike, for he and his father made them both. He said himself he came not to condenm the world but to save it. John 3:16 for God so LOVED the World he gave his only begotton son Jesus Christ. I am a follower of Jesus Christ so I apologize if I sounded judgemental. I try to love and care for everyone I meet straight or not. I am human and make mistakes tho.

God Bless you all.


I thought it was interesting
that the government makes room for gay marriage, but not for polygamy. (Not that I'm lumping them together, oh angry readers.) But then I realized that the polygamy bad is mostly a tax thing.

Haha, gotta love freedom.
» middaymoon on 2008-05-19 07:54:21

Just two quick things and then we'll be through.

1. For future reference, randomjunk is female.
2. You shouldn't assume people get married to have children:
"Marrige is for a couple who wants children and a pure productive family that advances society."
I've had professors, friends and family that got married but made the choice not to have children. They got married because they love each other. Just like gay people get married.

Okay, that's it. Thank you for taking the time to reiterate and explain.
» Chloefoxx on 2008-05-19 12:48:24

If gay/lesbians want to get married, then let them. If God has a problem with it and thinks that it shouldn't be allowed, and it goes against traditional values, etc, then God can deal with it at their time of judgement or whenever.

If 2 people love each other, and are devoted to each other, and they want to get married, then let them. Maybe it could be clarified to be a gay or lesbian marriage, but whatever the case, they should be all be allowed to be married.
» CPKviperpheonix on 2008-05-19 05:36:14

ugh. someone beat me to one of my points again
even though chloe already spoke about "Marrige is for a couple who wants children and a pure productive family that advances society." I am just going to add one thing.
My brother is getting married and neither he nor his future wife wants kids. Should he not get married then? And on the opposite of that, my friend and his sister were both adopted when they were babies. They've gone to the best schools growing up and live in a 1million+ dollar per house neighborhood. And oh yeah, they have two moms. By what you said, they should be able to get married. In fact, they were married the first time it was legalized in SF. They have two children which they saved from possibly going into a bad home and they are a well-off and productive family. Explain that.

Gay people are just like you and me. The only difference is whom they are attracted to. I had a friend growing up and I NEVER knew he was gay. Nobody at all guessed it. He was into sports and was a great student. Every girl I knew had a crush on him. And then guess what? He told us that he was gay. Surprsingly he had no big "G" across his forehead. he was like EVERYONE ELSE.
» D0WNB34T on 2008-05-19 05:57:21

Chloefoxx said it, and I'll say it again to make sure you remember: I'm a girl. Female. Of the fairer sex. Whatever.

"Raynor" is Ranor. There's no 'y'.

I was raised Christian, which is why I hate it. I went to church for more than half of my life, and those people were liberal Christians. Conservative ones are worse, in my opinion.

When I say I try to accept all beliefs I mean I don't try to change opinions. Unlike some people *cough cough* I don't attempt to convert everyone to my own personal beliefs.

The statistic thing: Like I said before, there are fewer homosexual couples. Therefore, the stats will seem higher. When you look at the actual numbers, not the percentages, it's different.

This marriage issue wouldn't be so big if the government gave the same rights under a different name. If gay people can't get married, they can't visit each other in the hospital for serious things, they can't split property in a divorce, all sorts of things. They'd probably be a lot happier if they could just be "joined in a union" or something and get the rights. In that sense, it's the government's fault. America is the "Land of the Free," not the "Land of the Christians," but that doesn't seem to make a difference.

Whether you mean it or not, there are a lot of implications in your words. "The difference between me and you is I want to please God and feel remorse for the evil things I do. That is our only difference" could've done without the second part. If you'd just said you wanted to please God, I would've been fine. Whatever, worship the god you believe in, that's not my problem. Where did the latter come from though? You think I just go out and do mean things and laugh and feel great? I may not be religious but I still have morals.

Last: You have ads for gay dating at the bottom of your site. I just find that a little funny.
» randomjunk on 2008-05-19 07:15:44

As a Christian, I have read the Bible and puzzled over its many passages. I have noted that there are many rules specified in Leviticus. All of the laws of kosher eating, for example, are specified, the eating of fat from cows and sheep is forbidden as are the consumption of pork, rabbits, and shellfish. Women who give birth must atone for their "sin" of bleeding "uncleanly" by not touching anything sacred for 30-60 days and sacrificing animals to the priests to become clean again. People who handle carcasses must wash themselves; clay pots which touch carcasses must not be used again for food. You can't drink the blood of animals, or eat things like vultures which are scavengers. If people have obvious skin wounds, you can't touch them, and you have to wash the garments that they touch. You're also not allowed to have sexual relations with relatives or the spouses or children of close relatives. These things are all common sense laws, and they contain a large amount of wisdom. If God cares for the people, he doesn't want them to get trichinosis, which you can get from pigs. Things like rabbits and shellfish also commonly have diseases if they aren't handled properly. Women are no longer thought of having sinned by bleeding for a while after birth, but it's still a good idea to wash the things that they touch to avoid infection. Carcasses are vectors for disease, so people should avoid touching them or eating them, especially without washing afterwards. Similarly, wild birds that eat disease-ridden rodents or carcasses also shouldn't be eaten to avoid disease. People should avoid touching people with open skin lesions for the same reason. Sexual relations with close family members result in a lot of familial strife as well as birth defects and harmful genetic mutations. Most of the things that God says in Leviticus are for the express purpose of keeping people healthy and preventing disease, as well as providing channels through which people can cleanse themselves of guilt and right the wrongs they've done each to each other. Not all of the things that God says in Leviticus are still relevant in the present. Pigs still carry the danger of trichinosis, but we can avoid it by preparing them right. The same is true of shellfish. People don't sacrifice rams anymore to atone for sins because rams aren't a common thing for the average sinner to own. Leviticus says that men should refrain from having sex with each other, there might have been a good reason for that back then, probably related to disease or to the fact that men most often had these relationships on the side instead of within the confines of a monogamous homosexual relationship, leading to marital problems or disease (particularly when protection wasn't available) But note that these dietary restrictions are not included in the Ten Commandments, which should transcend time. Fornication is included in the Commandments, probably because it combines the spread of disease with various social and emotional problems, not to mention unwanted pregnancies.

Futhermore, many of the laws of the Bible, such as "An Eye for An Eye, a Tooth for a Tooth" are subsequently repealed by the new covenant of Jesus in the New Testament. Jesus reminds us that we should judge not, lest we be judges. The New Testament repeals the old dietary laws, and binds all believers to Christ. The New Testament reminds us that we can't get rid of our sins through making offerings or sacrifices-- only by repenting and accepting grace. The New Testament does not say anything about homosexuality, but the fact that it repeals many of the laws in Leviticus should make us reconsider them and why they were made and which ones are still consistent with the plan laid out by Jesus. I believe that some laws, like those against incest, are still valid because of all the emotional problems and sickness they can cause. Homosexuality however, was likely not a ban on the feelings or actions themselves, but on consequences like abandonment of wives or children and the threat of disease. Since gays are no longer pressured into marriages, the fear of wife and child abandonment are erased. Disease is present, but gay fornication and straight fornication are equal in this regard (and there are measures to protect against it). Thus I feel given the scriptural context that this law should be re-examined, especially given Jesus' all encompassing love for everyone and the fact that his word supersedes that of the Old Testament laws.

However, I also believe that it isn't right for the court to decide things that were already decided by the people (legislating from the executive branch, if you will). The people of California should have been given time to ruminate over the facts and then been presented with the choice again- as many times as anyone wanted to put it on the ballot. I think we would have eventually (and probably reasonably quickly) seen a change of heart that would be stronger and more influential than a judgement handed down from a split bench of justices.
» Zanzibar on 2008-05-19 11:35:18

I understand your convictions and I laud your adherence to them, but I'm afraid we have to disagree on the whole "homosexuality is a choice" issue. Like I WANT to be an outcast. Like I WANT to be "abnormal" in the eyes of the "moral majority." Like I WANT to intentionally choose a lifestyle that makes my personal life a living hell. Like I WANT to be stripped down to a bunch of stereotypes, many of which are negative, and many of which are downright frivolous. Like I WANT to carry around a secret in my real life and choose who I want to reveal it to. (I shouldn't have to, but I do because I know that there's a segment of the population out there who don't approve of it, who write it off as a "sin.")

And that's another thing. I take grave offense at that. You said:

"Homosexuality is a sin like stealing lying murder adultery and fornification, and Idolotry." [sic]

Well, fine. The "love the sinner, not the sin" bullshit is getting tired. How can you even do that? Who you are is a sum of all of your experiences, all of your likes and dislikes, all of your deepest convictions and superficial frivolities, and if you're in the mindset to condemn homosexuality as a sin on par with "stealing, lying, murder, adultery, fornication, and idolatry"--which, by the way, are among the most serious, most mortal sins in the Christian religion--then how can you honestly say that you can love a gay person unconditionally? By lumping homosexuality with the gravest sins according to Christianity, how is that not at all making a judgment?

While I certainly don't harbor the hatred for Christianity that randomjunk seems to have--even though perhaps you might expect me to do so when the religion condemns who I am and what I feel attraction for--I believe she has a valid point regarding the legality of gay marriage. Look--if whatever church doesn't want gay people to be joined under their god(s), then that's their prerogative. But legally, gay people should be afforded the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as straight people, especially when some of those rights are afforded to ones who are MARRIED. How can a nation that DENIES LEGAL RIGHTS TO CERTAIN CITIZENS seriously call itself the "Land of the Free"? How can a nation that TREATS CERTAIN PEOPLE LIKE SECOND CLASS CITIZENS stand on its soapbox and proclaim that "all men are created equal" without being hypocritical in any way? I'd like to think that, as a nation, we've come a long way from outright bigotry, to "separate but equal," to where we are today, but we haven't come quite far enough--not until TRUE EQUALITY exists, not until all are ALL are treated EQUALLY under the same laws.

I guess what I'm trying to say (quite laboriously) is this: Whatever personal beliefs you have on the issue are your deal. When you put those beliefs to paper (or, to blog), you have to be prepared for the backlash. As you stated, you were. But so are we. And don't expect us to back down easily. But regardless of those beliefs, the LAW is something entirely different. Aristotle said, "The law is reason, free from passion." But how are we supposed to believe that the law is at all reasonable when it--based on the passions of others which are in turn ignited by personal religious convictions--denies people legal rights, as well as the right to partake in the ultimate celebration of love and devotion to another person and have it validated by the government?
» ranor on 2008-05-19 11:38:32

Sorry, you do not have permission to comment.

If you are a member, try logging in again or accessing this page here.

jacyhenry's Weblog Site • NuTang.com

NuTang is the first web site to implement PPGY Technology. This page was generated in 0.560seconds.

  Send to a friend on AIM | Set as Homepage | Bookmark Home | NuTang Collage | Terms of Service & Privacy Policy | Link to Us | Monthly Top 10s
All content Copyright 2003-2047 NuTang.com and respective members. Contact us at NuTang[AT]gmail.com.