Can I text him?

[Junsui]

mmmm I love cherries

[Tone]

Noted.

^_^

[Bluevetteracer]

No. I said making an ass of one's self. And no. You haven't insulted me in the least. I just found your remark about homsexuality being "wrong in so many ways" utterly anal, your implication that Shh!'s love life is ONLY as "good at it can be" unecessarily hostile, your knee-jerk admonishment to one poster to learn English grammar or write in his "native language" patently ridiculous, and the overall character of your posts to be pompous and pontificating. Nothing personal.

Thanks for the clarification.

I meant no malfeasance in my regards to her "love Life" it was an honorable statement.

My views on homosexuality are based on my moral values, and my Christian beliefs. When I say moral values, it is not that my values are more "Moral" it is the type of operating values I have incorporated in my life. If that seams anal to you, well, it is just one guys opinion, and that is what this forum is all about.

I think it is hypocritical to expect society and people to accept something out of the norm, when the out of the norm crowd has no tolerance for those with a different belief.

I played college ball and the tight end (no pun intended) was gay. I learned this knowledge and kept it to myself. After some time he found out through mutual friends that I knew, and he approached me about it. I told him what my views were and he began to insult me, degrade me and call me a Whacko Christian. At the end of the conversation, I told him that I would never repeat the knowledge, as it was his business and his choice.
I don't think he believed that I would do as I said, but I did.

The point is, is that he was not able to accept my beliefs and my values, and I told him that although I did not agree with him, I respected his privacy and his life. He did not make the same statement to me. So, it goes both ways. It seems if you are not Pro-Gay, then you are a homophobe bigot.

[Vanilla Gilr]

"I played college ball and the tight end (no pun intended) was gay."

LOL...you cannot say something like that and expect no one to respond. I may be close to 44 years old..but no way am I that mature! lol

[whaywardj]

Then, Bluevette, I'd have to say your tight end acquaintance was very tight ended, indeed.

I have problems with any moral system that says an entire class of human beings is either right or wrong for what they are. Or, in other words, presumes to know what God would have any of us be. The issues I have with such systems extend to include Christianity. Perhaps, especially to include Christianity in the case of homosexuality, since Christianity originated in a region of the world where separation of the sexes and intimate physical contact between males were and are still prominent features of the prevailing culture. And I'm Catholic. (Maybe that explains my discontents!)

In my eyes, a certain hypocrisy of denial pervades such moral systems. To the extent a moral system takes offense with one or another state-of-being and proceeds, not only to close its eyes to it, but also endeavors to undercut the legitimacy of its existence by dubbing it in society at large as "wrong" or "a sin," that system is also endeavoring to erase from life selected states-of-being God has granted may exist. (If it were otherwise, these states-of-being wouldn't have come into existence in the first place.) To THAT extent, such a system is utterly IMMORAL, if not outright murderous...as ALL so-called moral systems have been, at one or another time in their genesis.

Furthermore, to the extent such systems justify or explain their intolerance of others on the basis of other's intolerance of them -- or say it's okay for their practitioners to -- they are, by my lights, childish things of painfully UN-Christian character.

At a time and place when survival depends on being the strongest, "an eye for an eye" is an appropriate survival reponse, and exclusionary tactics to defend against any who may be stronger are fitting tools for coping. But at a time and place when the day-to-day affairs of most ordinary people are not at risk from recurring natural calamities or "warring mongrels from the north" descending upon them to wreak murder and havoc, the competitive qualities of ancient survival techniques become archaic, counter-productive and embarrassing.

Particulary so in societies which have the resources and assets to even have time and security enough to ponder such questions. (That would be, predominately, us in Western cultures.) Any moral system which even remotely condones competitiveness and exclusion at the expense of cooperation and inclusion is backward looking. And, as we know from current events, potentially very dangerous.

That we who can afford to cooperate with each other struggle with idea of it while, at the same time, applaud the virtues of the competitive spirit indicates to me that we, on whole, are far, far from anything at all moral in our affairs. Or even spiritual. I'd say we're more preoccupied by greed and covetousness. Assertions from any quarter that one way of being is more right or wrong than any others, and efforts to "gain the advantage" in any circumstance, do nothing but exacerbate the difficulties of that condition.