Talk about "parents" messing with a kid's mind

[mstng86]

i dont give a fuck what you do, who you do it with, who what or if you worship, i'll leave you be and treat you with respect, but i require the same.

god bless.

Fuck yo couch nikka!!

[ELVIS]

i dont give a fuck what you do, who you do it with, who what or if you worship, i'll leave you be and treat you with respect, but i require the same.

god bless.

[mstng86]

You lesbians, fags, homosexuals, atheists, wannabes, rugmunchasaurus, limpristadons, agnostics, queers,etc.

Let me know when to move this bitch to the Theology Forum...

So Catholics can talk about this in here?

Hermione was hotter than Mary...

[Rick Modena]

You lesbians, fags, homosexuals, atheists, wannabes, rugmunchasaurus, limpristadons, agnostics, queers,etc.

Let me know when to move this bitch to the Theology Forum...

[Silverback]

I'm not saying that people don't believe in what the bible says, I'm merely arguing that their belief structure is based on a book similar in composition to Harry Potter. But I will say that Harry Potter is much better written because there are very few if any contradictions in it.

Comparing Hubbard's Dianetics in relation to Scientology as a practice might be a better choice here.

At the time, there was no way to formalize regional government, nor was there a scientific base of answers to many questions of the world. Humanity was in it's infancy. The general works of the bible were great stories of humanity, morality, and general stories of how to live a less selfish life as society as a whole was growing.

Comparing that work of writing to Harry Potter is crazy. Other than the same amount of ignorant people flock to form a cult like following based upon it. But the teachings of right and wrong, as well as fundamental morals is without question one of the greatest things to be put to paper and placed in the hands of the masses at a time in which uncertainty was everywhere.

[Rick Modena]

I'll also add, it's hilarious all the "Christians" that are using their belief as their basis to hate homosexuals. Doesn't the Bible preach love and tolerance? Treating others as they want to be treated?

It's called a double standard, they haz it...

[Big A]

I don't think the genitals a person is born with really keeps them from doing anything, only on who they have (reproductive) sex with. So really what are they asking this kid to decide? Who he wants to have sex with (if only just for fun)? Seems a little early to me. I mean what else would be changed by this boy becoming a girl that he couldn't have done as a boy (or vice-versa in other situations)?

The genitals that we are born with are a direct result of of the chromosomes and hormones that we are born with, and has everything to do with who a person will desire sexually from a physical standpoint. Mentally/emotionally, however, we are sculpted by our environment, and in some cases that mental/emotional change overpowers their physical desires, especially in cases where one's hormones aren't distinctly on the make or female side (effeminite guys and bull dykes).

What these nutjobs are doing is wholly wrong, they aren't giving a kid the chance to choose for himself, thaey are hedging their bets on both the physical side through hormone suppression, and the mental/emotional side with parental influence.

They are in essence trying to make the kid gay, not let him have a choice in the matter, which is wholly immoral (especially at that age), and I agree that it should be illegal.

Anyone remember that bodybuilder kid from a few years back? His parents where hetero, and pumping the kid up ewith steroids is no less a travesty than this scenario. The kid will be just as fucked up later on in life, just without the gay spin.

[racrguy]

I bet you're more right than other Christians would be willing to admit. Yes, that's a huge problem I have with religion. And I know of several other people that feel the same way.


It's the holier than though, or preaching from upon high that drives a lot of people nuts. You want to believe in something, that's fine. But don't preach to me about how I need to be saved, how I'm going to hell, and how I'm not living a Godly life when you were on the barstool next to me last night, last week, etc.

I'm not completely arrogant. I do believe there is something out there that is greater than I am. I do believe that sprituality (not Christianity necessarily) is something more people should have. I do believe in a set of morals. I do believe that you should try to be a good person, regardless of your religious beliefs or lack thereof. But organized religion is something I have major issues with, for many reasons, but that's for another day and time. Classify me as agnostic, as I'm not an atheist.

I don't believe that Christians should spread hate over homosexuality. I do believe this goes against the basis of their very beliefs, and what is written in the Bible.

You aren't agnostic, you are a Deist. There is no such thing as agnosticism alone. Gnostic/agnostic is a claim to knowledge, theist/atheist is a claim to belief.

I noticed though a lot of times you feed the God angle to an extent when it comes to gay/other sort of relationships. It's a TARP!

I believe in God, but I don't even care what the bible says. Things like these are just disgusting to me. Is there anything wrong with it just being disgusting to me?

Some people like to poop on each other. I find that disgusting, maybe you do as well. If you do then you understand what I think of these things. My belief in God does not even play a part until a little later in the thought process.

When people delve into their reasoning behind why they dislike homosexuality and lean towards the religious aspect of it of course I'm going to feed the god angle. If you're going to base your viewpoints around something you'd better be sure your viewpoints are correct.

You're also welcome to your opinion on homosexuality, but don't expect to be taken seriously when you can't give a rational well thought out reason for disliking it.

Whether Jesus existed or not is fecitious when it comes to discussing what is said in the bible and reviewing his teachings.

BTW I'm a full blown athiest, I don't believe there is any sort of supernatural being who created everything. But it does not discount that the book, the bible was written and that people do follow its teachings.

I'm not saying that people don't believe in what the bible says, I'm merely arguing that their belief structure is based on a book similar in composition to Harry Potter. But I will say that Harry Potter is much better written because there are very few if any contradictions in it.

This is one reason why I don't get into religious arguments. If the person I am arguing with doesn't accept the basis for my belief then arguing the belief itself is pointless and probably just contributed to them feeling more "oppressed" or unloved by that belief system. I will debate to a point, and explain the few things I can, but arguing generally goes nowhere.

If you are born with a penis your are male, I would say that is the very definition. I guess I just feel bad for the kid though, it seem like this whole situation would induce more doubt into his life than anything else.

I don't think the genitals a person is born with really keeps them from doing anything, only on who they have (reproductive) sex with. So really what are they asking this kid to decide? Who he wants to have sex with (if only just for fun)? Seems a little early to me. I mean what else would be changed by this boy becoming a girl that he couldn't have done as a boy (or vice-versa in other situations)?

Let's just call it what it is, the basis for your belief was written by uneducated people more than 1500 years ago. And people that come to you to discuss your religion shouldn't feel oppressed by what you say, they came looking for it. It's when people of your religion try to legislate what the bible says, be it the "morals" of the bible, or creation, or that there is any validity within its bindings without a single shred of evidence, or when you proselytize unprovoked is when they feel oppressed. If people want to have that discussion with you, then they'll seek you out or bring up the topic in your presence.

Yeah but it's such a pain in the ass to be a gay male. At least that's what Racrguy told me

So, advocating peoples rights automatically makes you a member of that particular group. Good conclusion, sparky.

[Silverback]

Yeah but it's such a pain in the ass to be a gay male. At least that's what Racrguy told me

ELVIS said it's super easy to be a gay male today

[titsorgtfo]

holy balls that kid wont get any.

lolololol

[Wicked98Snake]

This is one reason why I don't get into religious arguments. If the person I am arguing with doesn't accept the basis for my belief then arguing the belief itself is pointless and probably just contributed to them feeling more "oppressed" or unloved by that belief system. I will debate to a point, and explain the few things I can, but arguing generally goes nowhere.

If you are born with a penis your are male, I would say that is the very definition. I guess I just feel bad for the kid though, it seem like this whole situation would induce more doubt into his life than anything else.

I don't think the genitals a person is born with really keeps them from doing anything, only on who they have (reproductive) sex with. So really are they asking this kid, at 12, to decide who he wants to have sex with? Seems a little early to me. I mean what else would be changed by this boy becoming a girl that he couldn't have done as a boy (or vice-versa in other situations)?

Yeah but it's such a pain in the ass to be a gay male. At least that's what Racrguy told me

[slow06]

A lot of the discussion here is based on the assumption that 1) Jesus existed 2) he was the son of god, and was divine and 3) the bible is the inerrant word of god. All three of those are still up for discussion. One that I've tried to have many times, only to find those that say all three of those things are true are saying so without any evidence.

This is one reason why I don't get into religious arguments. If the person I am arguing with doesn't accept the basis for my belief then arguing the belief itself is pointless and probably just contributed to them feeling more "oppressed" or unloved by that belief system. I will debate to a point, and explain the few things I can, but arguing generally goes nowhere.

If you are born with a penis your are male, I would say that is the very definition. I guess I just feel bad for the kid though, it seem like this whole situation would induce more doubt into his life than anything else.

I don't think the genitals a person is born with really keeps them from doing anything, only on who they have (reproductive) sex with. So really what are they asking this kid to decide? Who he wants to have sex with (if only just for fun)? Seems a little early to me. I mean what else would be changed by this boy becoming a girl that he couldn't have done as a boy (or vice-versa in other situations)?

[Denny]

This is a very wrong situation but making a blanket statement about all same sex parents is ridiculous. When you read about child abuse in a traditional family you don't say "This must be because they are straight". These women are doing this not because they are gay, but because they are psycho. Plain and simple. They are bat shit crazy like many many abusive straight parents.

Cheers,
RC

If the were just psycos and into Satanic worship, they'd probably have him/her/it dressing up as some demonic dark lord. If they were psyco and were Sci-Fi geeks, they'd have him believing he was Buck Rogers.

Point is, their obsession with being lesbos and married totally influenced him/her/it to be a she-thing and probably encourage more flame every day.

So, I partially agree with you. Psyco-lesbos.

[Silverback]

A lot of the discussion here is based on the assumption that 1) Jesus existed 2) he was the son of god, and was divine and 3) the bible is the inerrant word of god. All three of those are still up for discussion. One that I've tried to have many times, only to find those that say all three of those things are true are saying so without any evidence.

Whether Jesus existed or not is fecitious when it comes to discussing what is said in the bible and reviewing his teachings.

BTW I'm a full blown athiest, I don't believe there is any sort of supernatural being who created everything. But it does not discount that the book, the bible was written and that people do follow its teachings.