Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 24, 2014, 07:02:59 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
| | |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
| | | |-+  Candidates and Religion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print
Author Topic: Candidates and Religion  (Read 15522 times)
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35385
United States
View Profile
« Reply #75 on: December 31, 2003, 03:46:09 pm »
Ignore

religion is an issue and ties in with a lot of issues of faith and morality.

A few quick examples-- prayer in school; abortion; displaying 10 commandments, etc etc


Shouldnt the election be on the issues rather then religion

Agreed.
Who do you agree with, Salty?
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #76 on: December 31, 2003, 03:50:39 pm »
Ignore

Amen!  well said.  No where is ther seperation of church and state int eh Const.  It was first referenced in an obscure letter by Jefferson and latched onto by the courts.

Again are you sure you are dem?  that is a very GOP position.  


Quote
I firmly agree with the statements regarding the spread of secularism/humanism. They are trying to suppress the Religious doctrine of others and also, Could you tell me where in the Constitution does it say "Separation of Church and State?"  I argue that it doesn't even exist. What the Founding Fathers were inferring was that we were not going to be like England where there is a State Anlican Church, headed by the Monarch. That's what it meant, "no state sanctioned religion." It also did not mean that people didn't have to follow a Religion, or Anti-Religious. The Founding Fathers should have expressed themselves more clearly. However, the language of the day and lifestyles change. But GOD'S WORD shall never perish.
Quote
Yes, I am a DEM. Remember though, a Conservative Democrat, swinging only slightly left on the spectrum toward the center. There is no mention of separation of Church and State. The Constitution has been misinterpreted from the beginning, or at least since the deaths of the Founding Fathers, when they could no longer be called upon to inerpret what they really meant on this or that.

Right on brother (Christopher Micheal)!  I knew that I liked you from the begining, your one of the good ones.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2003, 04:00:14 pm by supersoulty »Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #77 on: December 31, 2003, 03:54:41 pm »
Ignore

religion is an issue and ties in with a lot of issues of faith and morality.

A few quick examples-- prayer in school; abortion; displaying 10 commandments, etc etc


Shouldnt the election be on the issues rather then religion

Agreed.
Who do you agree with, Salty?

Sorry.  Jravnsbo, of course.  And it's Soulty.  Please, don't call me Salty, I hate it when people do that.  No harm done, just saying is all.
Logged

Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35385
United States
View Profile
« Reply #78 on: December 31, 2003, 04:21:53 pm »
Ignore

Is soulty supposed to mean "soul" instead of "salt"?  Just wondering.

Maybe I should make a thread for everyone explaining te logic behind their usernames, because it gets mighty annoying after a while.......
Logged
PD
pd
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 649


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: January 01, 2004, 11:46:07 pm »
Ignore

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.
If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote
Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.
-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote
How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?
-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?
What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.
Logged

Bush/Cheney '04
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3809


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: January 02, 2004, 02:23:49 am »
Ignore

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.
If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote
Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.
-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote
How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?
-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?
What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.
Oh ... please tell me you are joking.  Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26762


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #81 on: January 02, 2004, 08:46:09 am »
Ignore

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.
If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote
Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.
-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote
How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?
-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?
What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.
Oh ... please tell me you are joking.  Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?
He has to be joking. Even if you see certain points coming from nutcases (which is hard in this case), every sane person can tell the maniacs from those with odd views. There is a marked difference.

Btw, is their anyone else who find it hard to believe that weirdos can practice computers? It is unscientific, I know, but I can't imagine someone who is basically nuts and have a twisted view of the world being modern enough to  master the internet. Like sects and stuff.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
PD
pd
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 649


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: January 07, 2004, 02:50:19 pm »
Ignore

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.
If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote
Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.
-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote
How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?
-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?
What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.
Oh ... please tell me you are joking.  Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?
Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.
Logged

Bush/Cheney '04
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26762


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #83 on: January 07, 2004, 03:25:39 pm »
Ignore

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.
If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote
Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.
-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote
How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?
-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?
What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.
Oh ... please tell me you are joking.  Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?
Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.

You believe that feminists want to "kill their children", "become lesbians" and "destroy capitalism"? The last one is especially weird, since it is completely off topic. Do you also believe that "secular humanists" are a threat to society? That every society that has allowed homosexuality has gone down in flames is also rubbish. My country does, as many other European countries, and we're not going down in flames at all. I doubt any country has since biblical times.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3809


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: January 07, 2004, 05:32:07 pm »
Ignore

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.
If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote
Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.
-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote
How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?
-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?
What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.
Oh ... please tell me you are joking.  Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?
Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.
It certainly could be?  Geez, if he said the Green Party candidates were actually a veiled reference to being space invaders bent on intergalactic domination would you consider that as possibly being true?!?!

Pat Robertson is nuts!  Not for his religious beliefs ... but because he makes ridiculous statements like "feminism = witchcraft".
Logged
PD
pd
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 649


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: January 07, 2004, 06:37:37 pm »
Ignore

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.
If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote
Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.
-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote
How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?
-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?
What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.
Oh ... please tell me you are joking.  Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?
Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.

You believe that feminists want to "kill their children", "become lesbians" and "destroy capitalism"? The last one is especially weird, since it is completely off topic. Do you also believe that "secular humanists" are a threat to society? That every society that has allowed homosexuality has gone down in flames is also rubbish. My country does, as many other European countries, and we're not going down in flames at all. I doubt any country has since biblical times.

Yep. I do. And he said, "has gone down in flames.", not is going down in flames. Your time will come.
Logged

Bush/Cheney '04
PD
pd
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 649


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: January 07, 2004, 06:38:44 pm »
Ignore

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.
If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote
Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.
-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote
How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?
-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?
What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.
Oh ... please tell me you are joking.  Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?
Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.
It certainly could be?  Geez, if he said the Green Party candidates were actually a veiled reference to being space invaders bent on intergalactic domination would you consider that as possibly being true?!?!

Pat Robertson is nuts!  Not for his religious beliefs ... but because he makes ridiculous statements like "feminism = witchcraft".
No, I wouldn't. I don't believe in aliens.
Logged

Bush/Cheney '04
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26762


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #87 on: January 08, 2004, 09:59:57 am »
Ignore

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.
If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

Quote
Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening.
-Pat Robertson

Or

Quote
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
-Pat Robertson

Or...

Quote
How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?
-Yep, Pat Robertson.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?
What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.
Oh ... please tell me you are joking.  Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?
Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.

You believe that feminists want to "kill their children", "become lesbians" and "destroy capitalism"? The last one is especially weird, since it is completely off topic. Do you also believe that "secular humanists" are a threat to society? That every society that has allowed homosexuality has gone down in flames is also rubbish. My country does, as many other European countries, and we're not going down in flames at all. I doubt any country has since biblical times.

Yep. I do. And he said, "has gone down in flames.", not is going down in flames. Your time will come.

Then I guess your nuts too, no offense, but believing that is just plain insane.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3809


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: January 08, 2004, 12:25:42 pm »
Ignore

And on another note, Robertson is wrong regarding his "every society which has embraced homosexuality .... has gone down in flames."

First off, the ancient Greeks accepted homosexuality and I wouldn't exactly say they "went down in flames".

Secondly, most of Europe today accepts homosexuality.  Oddly enough, they haven't gone down in flames.  This leads to someone saying "but they will".  To this I make the ridiculous statement, every society which has accepted the consumption of shellfish has gone down in flames and those which haven't yet, will.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26762


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #89 on: January 08, 2004, 01:46:47 pm »
Ignore

And on another note, Robertson is wrong regarding his "every society which has embraced homosexuality .... has gone down in flames."

First off, the ancient Greeks accepted homosexuality and I wouldn't exactly say they "went down in flames".

Secondly, most of Europe today accepts homosexuality.  Oddly enough, they haven't gone down in flames.  This leads to someone saying "but they will".  To this I make the ridiculous statement, every society which has accepted the consumption of shellfish has gone down in flames and those which haven't yet, will.

Damn! I was just about to bring up the Greeks, adn then I had to log off... Sad

Now you look like the smart one... Sad

Btw, the Greek, I believe, actually viewed homosexuality (or perhaps bisexuality) as more refined than heterosexuality, it was a thing for the upper class. The hero of heroes, Achilles, was homosexual, and only joined battle after his lover, Patroklos, had been killed by Hector, during the Troyan war.

Now I got something in, lol... Wink
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56201
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #90 on: January 08, 2004, 03:02:24 pm »
Ignore

Robertson is the nutter that says that God is a Republican isn't he?

BTW Pat... Orlando is still standing...
Logged

Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15783


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: January 08, 2004, 05:00:38 pm »
Ignore

Robertson is about as Christian as Creed, actually less so.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines