“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#674004 Nov 16, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh come on RR, I'll bet when you played doctor with those little girls you traded underwear. I invited this couple over for dinner and a good old California Hot Tub soak a few years ago, and as they were getting naked the husband explained that he and his wife liked to wear each others underwear. Sure enough as he dropped his pants he had on some pastel silky like panties on.
But as usual you are the arch-subjective.
If you made the rules the marching bag-pipes would be outlawed from parades and pant suits on women lawyers would be illegal.
American was founded on the idea of removing God from separating us from our rights and now we have Government stepping in between us and our rights. One evil replaced by another evil.
Do you really want a rule for everything? Well you're going to get it, just wait until parents are arrested for not delivering their children to government doctors to have them vaccinated.
PS. "To Wong Foo, Thanks for everything, Julie Newmar" was on HBO the other night and you can't tell me that Wesley Snipes AKA Noxeema, Patrick Swayze AKA Vida and John Leguizamo AKA Chi Chi, was not a great movie.
That was one of the worst movies ever made. I couldn't even watch the whole thing.

I understand why you like it, though. You've got a craving for hunky men wearing dresses and make up and girlie wigs.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#674005 Nov 16, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you believe you have a say in what two guys want to do with one another?
1 Peter 4:15 KJV, "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters."
In public or private?

For a self imagined enlightened individual you sure seem to miss the importance of a neutral public area.
That Geek 5410

Fairmont, WV

#674006 Nov 16, 2013
Apocalypse666 wrote:
Come on and do it.
Prove there's a god.
Don;t read off scripture or anything like that just prove there's a god.
If you are looking for empirical evidence then I have nothing to offer. Really can't be proven or disproven otherwise there wouldn't be continued arguments on this subject till this day. For one or more reasons either you have faith and believe in his existence or you believe he doesn't

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#674007 Nov 16, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So a supposed gay 2nd grade boy can use either the boy's room or the girl's room to take a tinkle.
That's complete bullshit. We're working on repealing that law and already have over 650,000 signatures against it.
Well, this is what you get when you keep electing people who make Government bigger, stronger and more powerful, and when you deliver your children to the Government to educate them that the Government should make all the rules from cradle to grave.

You are only going to make things worse by passing a new law to change an existing law because that always makes the government bigger and more powerful. And if anything is wrong in the world that is.

It is your support for the Governments war on drugs that has made our Government so powerful that it can pass laws like the one you are complaining about. A Government that didn't insist it brainwash, er I mean "educate" your children would not pass laws like that for its schools. Let us deal with the real problem here RR instead of making up problems to deal with.

And as always the government passes a law, the law has problems so they have to write 5 new ones to try and correct the problems.

When I was in 7th grade my best friend walked into the girls bathroom and took a pee in one of the stalls. When he was in front of the Principal waiting for the police to arrive he explained that he felt like a girl today so he used the girls bathroom.

If those 650,000 people who signed your petition had a brain cell amongst them they would start their own schools and pass a law preventing the government from taking their tax dollars to pay for schools they do not approve of.

I do not want Christ-insanity being taught in the schools but I believe in freedom more and would support you starting your own school knowing full well you would brain wash your kids into believing in invisible sky Santa's.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#674008 Nov 16, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Right- STDs wouldn't exist were it not for homosexuals, huh?
As far as how the AIDS epidemic spread- or at least originated- get a friggin' clue, will ya?
And there are other ways to contract AIDS that have nothing to do with sex.
What makes YOU think it's any of your business what goes on between consenting adults?
Dave, you're a loon. And sounds to me like you might be getting off on your needlessly graphic descriptions.
Nicely said, especially the "loon" part.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#674009 Nov 16, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
To be replaced with homosexual non-Christian butt warming bigots like you.
You don't want equality, you want you and all the other gays to be on top.
Unless you're a bottom.
Ya, I'd guess you're a bottom.
You'd be guessing wrong RR. I have no interested in anal sex of any kind. And you do know that I believe and support and condone freedom, as much freedom as is possible for as many people as is possible.

That hardly makes me a bigot.

You do not see that the efforts of Christians is the first cause; the initiation of force, ie. you started it. And that what freedom lovers are doing is trying to stop you.

Because you see reality backwards you do not see what the first cause is. A law is passed against homosexuals and you do not consider that an attack or an affront. Then when gay people want to have the law removed you scream foul. And then you have some stupid biblical reason to justify your discrimination.

The initiation of force is the start, or beginning, of the use of physical and/or legal coercion, violence, or restraint. This is to be distinguished from retaliatory force and violence. It can be understood as the difference between two or more individuals getting into a fist-fight: whoever "threw the first punch" is the initiator of force, or aggressor, while the person attacked — the victim — is using non-initiatory or retaliatory force if they fight back. Moral opposition to initiation of force is complementary with the non-aggression principle which supports force only in self-defense.

There are two main types of force-initiation: direct physical and legal. The initiation of legal force is the use of government or legal proceedings to indirectly coerce a non-aggressor. Direct physical force includes all kinds of physical violence and coercion; most ethical theorists extend it to include economic features, however, they disagree on what constitutes force in this respect. Progressives and left-liberals believe that exploitation and alienation constitute the use of force, while classical liberals (including libertarians), capitalists, and many Western conservatives insist that only acts of aggression, fraud, theft, trespassing, and vandalism are. Mutualists hold that enforcement of intellectual property rights and title for vacant, unimproved land constitute aggression since they view both as illegitimate property claims. Theocratic and moralistic religious extremists may believe it is possible for humans to initiate force against God(s) by sinning, and that it is thus mandated that other humans act on behalf of God(s) by using retaliatory force against the transgressor. To an impartial observer, the 'sinner' would be seen as being a non-aggressor that was physically attacked, and the 'punishers' would be the force-initiators.

Many theorists extend the definition to also cover all acts of deception, lying, misrepresentation, and verbal threats, but not all agree that this is indeed initiation of force in every case, or at all, as none of these things, in and of themselves, actually cause physical harm to a person. However, the near-automatic emotional reactions can lead to severe psychological harm, hence many in the general population perceive certain verbal insults and taunts as initiatory blows which warrant immediate physical retaliation. The highly subjective and arbitrary basis of what can constitute such responses as justifiable, along with the fact that again, no actual physical contact occurs, leaves most ethicists to concur that it is still only the person who throws the first punch who is in fact the force-initiator and that it is ultimately under the control of the target of such insults and taunts as to whether or not they are actually harmed; at any rate, it is their responsibility to control their physical reactions that directly (physically) affect others.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#674010 Nov 16, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, this is what you get when you keep electing people who make Government bigger, stronger and more powerful, and when you deliver your children to the Government to educate them that the Government should make all the rules from cradle to grave.
You are only going to make things worse by passing a new law to change an existing law because that always makes the government bigger and more powerful. And if anything is wrong in the world that is.
It is your support for the Governments war on drugs that has made our Government so powerful that it can pass laws like the one you are complaining about. A Government that didn't insist it brainwash, er I mean "educate" your children would not pass laws like that for its schools. Let us deal with the real problem here RR instead of making up problems to deal with.
And as always the government passes a law, the law has problems so they have to write 5 new ones to try and correct the problems.
When I was in 7th grade my best friend walked into the girls bathroom and took a pee in one of the stalls. When he was in front of the Principal waiting for the police to arrive he explained that he felt like a girl today so he used the girls bathroom.
If those 650,000 people who signed your petition had a brain cell amongst them they would start their own schools and pass a law preventing the government from taking their tax dollars to pay for schools they do not approve of.
I do not want Christ-insanity being taught in the schools but I believe in freedom more and would support you starting your own school knowing full well you would brain wash your kids into believing in invisible sky Santa's.
I don't give a shit if a boy "feels" like a girl, he's still a boy and should use the boy's bathroom.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#674011 Nov 16, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd be guessing wrong RR. I have no interested in anal sex of any kind. And you do know that I believe and support and condone freedom, as much freedom as is possible for as many people as is possible.
That hardly makes me a bigot.
You do not see that the efforts of Christians is the first cause; the initiation of force, ie. you started it. And that what freedom lovers are doing is trying to stop you.
Because you see reality backwards you do not see what the first cause is. A law is passed against homosexuals and you do not consider that an attack or an affront. Then when gay people want to have the law removed you scream foul. And then you have some stupid biblical reason to justify your discrimination.
The initiation of force is the start, or beginning, of the use of physical and/or legal coercion, violence, or restraint. This is to be distinguished from retaliatory force and violence. It can be understood as the difference between two or more individuals getting into a fist-fight: whoever "threw the first punch" is the initiator of force, or aggressor, while the person attacked — the victim — is using non-initiatory or retaliatory force if they fight back. Moral opposition to initiation of force is complementary with the non-aggression principle which supports force only in self-defense.
There are two main types of force-initiation: direct physical and legal. The initiation of legal force is the use of government or legal proceedings to indirectly coerce a non-aggressor. Direct physical force includes all kinds of physical violence and coercion; most ethical theorists extend it to include economic features, however, they disagree on what constitutes force in this respect. Progressives and left-liberals believe that exploitation and alienation constitute the use of force, while classical liberals (including libertarians), capitalists, and many Western conservatives insist that only acts of aggression, fraud, theft, trespassing, and vandalism are. Mutualists hold that enforcement of intellectual property rights and title for vacant, unimproved land constitute aggression since they view both as illegitimate property claims. Theocratic and moralistic religious extremists may believe it is possible for humans to initiate force against God(s) by sinning, and that it is thus mandated that other humans act on behalf of God(s) by using retaliatory force against the transgressor. To an impartial observer, the 'sinner' would be seen as being a non-aggressor that was physically attacked, and the 'punishers' would be the force-initiators.
Many theorists extend the definition to also cover all acts of deception, lying, misrepresentation, and verbal threats, but not all agree that this is indeed initiation of force in every case, or at all, as none of these things, in and of themselves, actually cause physical harm to a person. However, the near-automatic emotional reactions can lead to severe psychological harm, hence many in the general population perceive certain verbal insults and taunts as initiatory blows which warrant immediate physical retaliation. The highly subjective and arbitrary basis of what can constitute such responses as justifiable, along with the fact that again, no actual physical contact occurs, leaves most ethicists to concur that it is still only the person who throws the first punch who is in fact the force-initiator and that it is ultimately under the control of the target of such insults and taunts as to whether or not they are actually harmed; at any rate, it is their responsibility to control their physical reactions that directly (physically) affect others.
It's hilarious how you try to pass off these walls of text as your own words.

Exact copy:
http://www.xklsv.org/viewwiki.php...

Exact copy:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiation_of_...

But that one starts with "this page has some issues"

Nerd.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#674012 Nov 16, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is how thick it is spread and the ease of washing your hands.
You seem to think it is OK for a small group to add more than their share in the pursuit of self gratification.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>No, I'm not "for" people spreading fecal matter about. I think that everyone should take reasonable precautions when it comes to stuff like that. If someone is literally leaving poop all over the place, that's not cool, but hands are dirtier than asses, and it would take a concerted effort to leave an appreciable amount of fecal matter on a seat. I think that all this venom against "nudists" comes from a place other than a simple concern for public health.
Do you get up in arms when you see an attractive lady wearing a thong on the beach?
Timmy takes a trip to San Francisco and meets up with the Rev Alan, who shows him around the area, including the gay bars he danced in.

It is late afternoon and they are standing at a trolley stop in the Castro District. The trolley approaches and those waiting start to queue up with Timmy and Alan in the front. Then a twinkie comes trotting up all nude except for his high heels, a clutch bag, and a feathered boa and gets in front. The trolley stops and he is the first to step on it, with Timmy and Alan right behind. They are cool with this.

However, the twinkie stumbles on his heels and starts to fall forward, and with the strong sunlight coming over his shoulder, Timmy can't help but notice the young man's reddened butthole and glistening substance in that area as he falls forward. Nor the deafening sound of a prodigious wet one being cut loose, with associated droplets glistening in the sun. That he then senses lands on his face. He flinches a bit, but recovers quickly, maintaining his highly developed savoir fairety. Him and Alan exchange knowing and worldly grins. Ah, the freedom of San Francisco. Such a cool thing. The twinkie glances back, knows they are homophobes from Timmy's flinch, and proceeds with a smirk on his face.

Timmy and Alan get on the trolley. The rest of the people kind of hang back for the next one.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#674013 Nov 16, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>So since you admit homosexuality has been around as long as mankind has, why were you whining about the destruction of the human species?
And please- don't refer me to what went on in times in which much of what took place most of us consider to have been barbaric.
There are a few things that can destroy the human species, thermal nuclear war, an asteroid, a Super Nova perhaps, but gay sex is not one of them.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#674014 Nov 16, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>
And please- don't refer me to what went on in times in which much of what took place most of us consider to have been barbaric.
It is interesting to me that Christians do not consider preventing women from voting, owning slaves and abusing children to be barbaric. They are all traditional Christian Family Values and to a reasonable normal person, barbaric.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#674015 Nov 16, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
It is interesting to me that Christians do not consider preventing women from voting, owning slaves and abusing children to be barbaric. They are all traditional Christian Family Values and to a reasonable normal person, barbaric.
Huh....

To what Christians are you referring?

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#674016 Nov 16, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The ban was introduced by gay city officials.
Adam and Stevie get the urge and find a nice public restroom to satisfy themselves. Oops! Stevie forgot his purse and all of those sanitary wipes and such things he should be using. Oh, well. Stevie has not been eating right. It is hot and sweaty and his little love hole has been expanded. They wander around sitting on benches, riding buses and subways.
OCB and a bunch of kids with their parents get on the benches, buses, and subways after Adam and Stevie.
Don't forget the boys that make a living displaying their wares for sale.
Notice the reactions to those city officials trying to protect the public health?
Dave, most all of us know men who have sex with men and we know the story you are telling is divorced from reality.

I have walked into a public bathroom and seen two males startled when I have walked in, and I didn't like it.

The problem is that there are not many places for straight guys to satisfy their gay sex desires. Because of people with bigoted beliefs like yourself curious and horny guys do not want to be openly friendly with homosexuals out of fear of how you and your fellow bigots will look disapprovingly at them. So you and your beliefs create a situation where some father is going to enter a bathroom with his two young children and see something the father is ill equipped to explain to his children.

You may have identified a problem, a real problem this time, but you fail to see how you caused the problem.

It is not the responsibility of the Government to protect us. They may take lots of your tax dollars and then CLAIM they are protecting you but that is all smoke and mirrors. It is your responsibility to protect yourself. If you are too lazy to do that, like way too many people are, well then, suffer.

If America was a normal society you would not be afraid to have gay friends and introduce them to your other friends, then your gay friends could go into your bathroom with your straight friends and do the dirty deeds in private. They could lock the door and tie up your bathroom for hours.

The other thing that is wrong with singling out gay people is the false sense of security you have being around heterosexual couples doing exactly the same thing you are complaining about.

Do you never watch the Jerry Springer show on TV?

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#674017 Nov 16, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> I wasn't aware that you believed Jesus existed.
To me Jesus was the representative figure and sum of the pain that all persecuted Christians endured. Whether or not this totem had a singular physical existence, is not really known. But it seems likely there was a person who lost the pin the tail on the donkey.
To me Jesus is a myth, one of many, one copied one right after another.

Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) c. 563 BCE

--born on December 25
--born of the Virgin Maya (“the Queen of Heaven”)
-- announced by a star and attended by wise men presenting costly gifts.
--at his birth Brahma angels sang hymns.
--tempted by Mara, the Evil One, while fasting, but overcame the temptation, putting the Evil One to flight.
--taught in temple at age 12 and was able to match the wise religious scholars in their understanding.
-- He healed the sick; fed 500 from a small basket of cakes.
--walked on water.
--Buddha's disciple wanted to hear his lord preach so he started to cross a stream – he doubted and started to sink but he built up his faith and continued to walk across the water.
--came to fulfill the law and preached the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness.
--He obliged followers to live in poverty and to renounce the world.
--In his final years, Buddha was said to have 'crushed a serpent's head' and to have been transfigured on a mount ...'
--It was Buddha, not Christ, who first said:'If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also'

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#674018 Nov 16, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave, most all of us know men who have sex with men and we know the story you are telling is divorced from reality.
I have walked into a public bathroom and seen two males startled when I have walked in, and I didn't like it.
The problem is that there are not many places for straight guys to satisfy their gay sex desires. Because of people with bigoted beliefs like yourself curious and horny guys do not want to be openly friendly with homosexuals out of fear of how you and your fellow bigots will look disapprovingly at them. So you and your beliefs create a situation where some father is going to enter a bathroom with his two young children and see something the father is ill equipped to explain to his children.
You may have identified a problem, a real problem this time, but you fail to see how you caused the problem.
It is not the responsibility of the Government to protect us. They may take lots of your tax dollars and then CLAIM they are protecting you but that is all smoke and mirrors. It is your responsibility to protect yourself. If you are too lazy to do that, like way too many people are, well then, suffer.
If America was a normal society you would not be afraid to have gay friends and introduce them to your other friends, then your gay friends could go into your bathroom with your straight friends and do the dirty deeds in private. They could lock the door and tie up your bathroom for hours.
The other thing that is wrong with singling out gay people is the false sense of security you have being around heterosexual couples doing exactly the same thing you are complaining about.
Do you never watch the Jerry Springer show on TV?
You do a wondrous job of illustrating your reality.

You also believe Jerry Springer was real, too, huh?

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#674019 Nov 16, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanf rancisco/judge-considers-san-f ranciscos-public-nudity-ban/Co ntent?oid=2319802
Besides harassing gay people Dave, do you have a solution for people who do not want to wear clothes?

We are all born naked just like we are all born Atheists. Wearing clothes and believing in God are all personality traits learned from all the idiots one grew up with.

We are all forced to see church buildings on city streets, we are all forced to see those little crosses around people's necks, it is difficult for me to get upset if someone wants to walk down the public street with out his clothing.

Because Atheists do not like religion you do not tear down your churches but because you do not like nudity you want the nudists to be forced to wear clothing.

I am opposed to the use of force. Although if I saw you naked I imagine I might change my opposition and advocate you wearing clothes.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#674020 Nov 16, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:

The problem is that there are not many places for straight guys to satisfy their gay sex desires.
Where do you practice yours?

Oh, and straight guys do not have gay sex.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#674021 Nov 16, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Right- and straight people NEVER have sex in public places, huh, Dave?
And huh??? After they have sex they go bare-assed onto benches, buses and subways?
Wha??
Don't bother responding.....you've got some weird issue/fascination going.....I dunno- but something's definitely off with you.
That is exactly what I was thinking.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#674022 Nov 16, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey- I agree- public nudity is NOT a good thing and for many reasons.
Could you share some of those reasons?

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#674023 Nov 16, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Messed up stuff.
To a real and true Christian it is reality, just as the following is reality to a Christian:

Punishment of children is one thing; child abuse is another. And, unfortunately, many biblical verses can be easily used to justify the former by means of the latter:
Prov. 23:13-14 ("Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell"),
Prov. 22:15 RSV ("Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him"),
Prov. 20:30 RSV ("Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts"),
Prov. 13:24 RSV ("He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him"),
Prov. 19:19 ("Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying"),
Prov. 29:15 ("Thy rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother"),
Prov. 26:3 ("A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back <children are often foolish>"), and
Deut. 21:18-21 ("If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city...and they shall say to the elders of his city,'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from the midst").

And, then, there are those verses which demean and degrade children by looking upon them as little more than beings to be punished for the misdeeds of others:
Ex. 20:5 ("I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"),
Lev. 26:22 ("I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children...."),
Hosea 13:16 ("Samaria shall become desolate: for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up"), and
Isa. 13:16-18 ("Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.... Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the first of the womb; their eyes will not pity children").

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gay snapchat names 11 min Karl Broughton 162
Couch Potato Alert 12 min yon 5
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 14 min lil whispers 605,260
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 48 min UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 4,815
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr RiccardoFire 96,839
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr truth 560,127
Psoriasis: the Monster of skin disorders 1 hr Doctor REALITY 1
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr onemale 265,370
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 hr Clearwater 175,773
More from around the web