Anonymous Drama Funtime
PAW for CLASSIC myUMBC Drama!
posted over 11 years ago
I was requested by a friend to anonymously post the following conversations to myUMBC, to minimize the currently prevalent censorship in the discussion. A few annotations by me will be included in italics for context.
All names were consistently removed for privacy, please let me know if I missed anything. "G-d" was also replaced by "G-to-the-d" because I assume that's how you pronounce it.
OP shared NewsNinja2012's photo.
Sunday at 4:24pm •
•Let me put it this way, too: when G-to-the-d makes hot dogs to start fitting into hot dogs and buns into buns (if you know what I mean), then we can talk.
The New Pope gets it concerning gay marriage!
SHARE and LIKE
1Like • • Share
o3 people like this.
o
Poster #1 But is it your place to legislate that to all people, even those who don't agree?
Sunday at 4:25pm • Like
o
OP No, but it's my place to speak out for what's right. I won't proselytize, but I'll darned well share.
Sunday at 4:25pm • Like
o
Poster #1 So, if we agree that it's not your place to legislate civil marriage, then what is the issue?
Sunday at 4:26pm • Like
o
OP The issue is that we're encouraging g-to-the-dless and unnatural behavior, and even equating it to what G-to-the-d made good.
Sunday at 4:28pm • Like
o
Poster #1 I wouldn't say that we're encouraging it, I think gay people will be gay regardless of any law. The issue it just permitting gay couples the same respect from the government, nothing more.
Sunday at 4:29pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Doesn't it undermine your opinion if you have to censor all opposing viewpoints?
Sunday at 10:03pm • Like
o
OP No. Am I censoring Poster #1 or you? I won't have Blocked Poster #3 threaten me or buy into political "correct"ness.
Sunday at 10:04pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Well, you censored Blocked Poster #3...
Sunday at 10:04pm • Like
o
OP Besides, I didn't come onto to her Facebook wall to make trouble or threaten her. She did the troublemaking and threatening against me.
Sunday at 10:05pm • Like
o
Poster #2 And then deleted the entire conversation...
Sunday at 10:05pm • Like
o
Poster #1 You did kinda demean her girlfriend, people get passionate about that sort of thing.
Sunday at 10:06pm • Like
o
OP My comments as well as hers. Either one of our comments without the context would not have been fair. And Blocked Poster #4 (Non-Preferred Name) is still Blocked Poster #4 (Non-Preferred Name). Unless he can change his DNA and have two sets of X Chromosomes, he's still a man.
Sunday at 10:06pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Aren't you more than just your body?
Sunday at 10:07pm • Like
o
OP Yes. You're also your soul and spirit, and I guarantee you that while Blocked Poster #4 (Non-Preferred Name) might choose to identify as a woman, he will always have the body, spirit, and soul of a man.
Sunday at 10:08pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Doesn't it undermine your opinion if you have to censor strongly opposing viewpoints, while allowing the weak ones?
Sunday at 10:09pm • Like
o
Poster #1 However, Blocked Poster #4 (Preferred Name) would say that she's a woman's spirit trapped in a man's body.
Sunday at 10:10pm • Like
o
OP As I said, I am not censoring you or Poster #1. You strongly have your beliefs. Blocked Poster #3 threatened me and called Blocked Poster #4 (Non-Preferred Name) her "girlfriend". I don't have time for troublemaking or political "correct"ness, and I'm going to kibosh the debate here. By the way, here's Blocked Poster #3's threat: " "if you don't respect my girlfriend like hell I'm going to respect y--"" If I could've reported Blocked Poster #3's threat, I would have. And Blocked Poster #4 (Non-Preferred Name) can say whatever he wants, but then he needs to either change his DNA or take his gender issues up with G-to-the-d.
Sunday at 10:11pm • Like
o
Poster #1 That's not really a threat... And god's not really that responsive these days.
Sunday at 10:12pm • Like
o
OP You and I will have to agree to disagree. And I guarantee you that if I made a threat like that to Blocked Poster #3 or anyone else for any reason, I'd have the police on my tail very quickly.
Sunday at 10:13pm • Like
o
Poster #2 She said she wouldn't respect you because you trash-talked her girlfriend. That's not a threat.
Sunday at 10:15pm • Like
o
OP Read the threat again. She said that if I don't respect Blocked Poster #4 (Non-Preferred Name), she's "like hell...going to respect" me. That is a threat, and I won't tolerate threats.
Sunday at 10:16pm • Like
o
Poster #1 That's not a threat. She's saying that if you won't respect Blocked Poster #4 (Preferred Name), she won't respect you.
Sunday at 10:16pm • Like
o
OP That's not what she said. She's going to "respect" me, whatever that means.
Sunday at 10:17pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Yeah, that's not a threat. A threat is...well, threatening. Like, if she said she hurt you. Physically. Telling you she won't respect you because you don't respect her is not a threat.
Sunday at 10:17pm • Like
o
OP That's not what she said. Had she said that, I wouldn't have blocked her.
Sunday at 10:17pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Do...do you think "respect" is slang for something?
Sunday at 10:18pm • Like
o
Poster #1 That IS what she said, we all saw it.
Sunday at 10:18pm • Like
o
OP Not in this case. "Like Hell, I'm going to respect" in this case means that she's going to beat the living Hell out of me or something.
Sunday at 10:18pm • Like
o
Poster #1 ....not really, I think you're being paranoid. She was saying that if you won't respect Blocked Poster #4 (Preferred Name), she won't respect you.
Sunday at 10:19pm • Like
o
OP For example, if I said, "Like s***, I'll respect you", you could legitimately take that as a euphemistic threat.
Sunday at 10:19pm • Like
o
OP I don't think so.
Sunday at 10:20pm • Like
o
Poster #2 No, no I couldn't. Because I understand what that says, and what it says is, "I not going to respect you, so much so that I have sworn for emphasis". Have you not before heard someone you the phrase "Like hell"?
Sunday at 10:21pm • Like
o
Poster #2 No, no I would not.
Have you never heard someone use the phrase "Like hell" before? It's an idiom that equates to, "No way", as in, "If you don't respect my girlfriend, there's no way I will respect you".
Sunday at 10:23pm • Like
o
Poster #1 For example: "Like hell I will!"
Sunday at 10:24pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Maybe you should reevaluate your beliefs if you fear contrary opinions.
Sunday at 10:27pm • Like
o
OP I'm not reevaluating anything. Active homosexuality is wrong and unnatural.
Sunday at 10:28pm • Like
o
OP If you don't like what I post on my wall, you have the choices of: a) not engaging it, b) respectfully agreeing to disagreeing with it, c) not coming onto my wall in the first place.
Sunday at 10:29pm • Like
o
At this point, Blocked Poster #5 posted the following, which was immediately removed:
Okay, so this has popped up on my newsfeed, and I'm definitely not going to just sit by and watch bigotry unfold before my eyes. First of all, this Blocked Poster #3 person did NOT threaten you in any way. She said absolutely nothing about harming you, nor does she seem to have verbally harassed you. Her point was that, because you can't respect her basic human rights, she has no reason to respect yours. She wasn't saying that she was going to beat you up.
Secondly, if Blocked Poster #4 (Preferred Name) (I'm assuming that is her preferred name) claims that she is a woman, then she is a woman. You need to respect her preferred pronouns and call her what she wishes to be called. Doing otherwise causes mental and emotional trauma and dysphoria. If you refuse to call her by the appropriate pronouns and names, then I might as well call you a "him" or "Geoffrey".
Thirdly, just because you personally believe that homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean that everyone else does. Your personal beliefs shouldn't have negative effects on other people. As they say, "my right to swing my arm stops at your face." This is easily applied to the subject of same-sex marriage. You can disagree with it all you want, but in the end, it has nothing to do with you. Your happiness and their happiness are not mutually exclusive.
I think it's time you stepped into the modern age, grew up, and became a bit more open-minded.
Secondly, if Blocked Poster #4 (Preferred Name) (I'm assuming that is her preferred name) claims that she is a woman, then she is a woman. You need to respect her preferred pronouns and call her what she wishes to be called. Doing otherwise causes mental and emotional trauma and dysphoria. If you refuse to call her by the appropriate pronouns and names, then I might as well call you a "him" or "Geoffrey".
Thirdly, just because you personally believe that homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean that everyone else does. Your personal beliefs shouldn't have negative effects on other people. As they say, "my right to swing my arm stops at your face." This is easily applied to the subject of same-sex marriage. You can disagree with it all you want, but in the end, it has nothing to do with you. Your happiness and their happiness are not mutually exclusive.
I think it's time you stepped into the modern age, grew up, and became a bit more open-minded.
Poster #2 Well, Blocked Poster #5 posted a calm, non-threatening post that was contrary to your beliefs, and now it's gone...
Sunday at 10:29pm • Like
o
OP She called me a bigot. That is unacceptable. How dare she equate sin with skin!
Sunday at 10:30pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Bigotry is not exclusive to race, OP.
Sunday at 10:31pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Well, you can commit bigotry without being a bigot, which is apparently what Blocked Poster #5 believes you were doing. If you really wanted to convince her, you should have put together a well-thought out counterargument explaining your view. If you didn't want to have civil discourse, I'm not sure why you post threads like this...
Sunday at 10:32pm • Like • 1
o
OP I'm not going to have to block you again, am I? Being against active homosexuality is not being a bigot.
Sunday at 10:32pm • Like
o
Poster #1 I'm just saying that bigotry isn't exclusive to race, I'm not saying anything but that.
Sunday at 10:32pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Well, it would probably be a more compelling case if you could explain that to Blocked Poster #5 rather than block her, assuming that's what happened.
Sunday at 10:33pm • Like
o
OP Why don't I believe that? I'm not stupid Poster #1. You think that I'm a bigot because I don't believe that active homosexuality is okay or that same-sex marriage should be allowed.
Sunday at 10:33pm • Like
o
OP She stated outright that I committed bigotry on my wall. How dare she!
Sunday at 10:34pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Well, perhaps she feels that you are, and perhaps a better response than blocking her would be for you to explain your opinion and position on the issue.
Sunday at 10:34pm • Like
o
OP I'd rather block her for both our sakes. I guarantee you that she would've blocked or reported me if I called her a religiously-intolerant proselytizer, for example.
Sunday at 10:35pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Well, what's the point of posting controversial statuses? Now from her perspective you're just some bigot who can't justify your beliefs, whereas you might have been able to change her mind by actually engaging her in discourse.
Sunday at 10:36pm • Like
o
OP And I already said that I'm kiboshing this debate.
Sunday at 10:36pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Actually, I know Blocked Poster #5, and she wouldn't do that. And of course I don't either.
Sunday at 10:36pm • Like
o
Poster #2 So, you don't like having to stand up for your own beliefs? You can preemptively turn comments off, if you don't actually want to defend posts like these.
Sunday at 10:37pm • Like
o
OP I want to. Have I censored you two? Have I called you two names? Have I tried to proselytize you? Blocked Poster #5 tried to censor and proselytize me by calling me a bigot for a Jewish/Christian belief that I have.
Sunday at 10:38pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Okay, despite her harsh language, I hardly think she was trying to censor you... She had a pretty well thought-out argument aside from the ad hominem attacks, and to neglect that makes it look like you're incapable of backing up your opinions.
Sunday at 10:40pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Well, just because WE aren't being censored doesn't mean we can't care about others being silenced. You know what they say, first they came for the Communists, but I was no communist, then they came for the Gypsies, but I was no Gypsie...
Sunday at 10:40pm • Like
o
OP That's enough, Poster #1. And she was the one being a Nazi, by the way. She was persecuting me for my legitimately-held religious and scientific belief that active homosexuality is wrong. By the way, "they" came for the Jews who held for years that active homosexuality was punishable by death.
Sunday at 10:43pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Well, it probably would have seemed a lot more legitimate to her if you could have told her that rather than just blocking her... What you've done is actually antithetical to your beliefs, as now someone who was trying to reach out and possibly communicate you has now written you off.
Sunday at 10:44pm • Like
o
OP As I said, I don't have time for persecutors like her.
Sunday at 10:45pm • Like
o
Poster #1 But couldn't it also be said that she doesn't have time for persecutors like you?
Sunday at 10:45pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Again, why did you bother posting this if you don't have time to actually justify the beliefs behind it?
Sunday at 10:45pm • Like
o
OP Who am I persecuting for holding that active homosexuality i wrong?
Sunday at 10:46pm • Like
o
OP I do, and it's my wall.
Sunday at 10:46pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Well, homosexuals...
Sunday at 10:46pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Homosexuals.
Sunday at 10:46pm • Like
o
OP Not at all.
Sunday at 10:46pm • Like
o
Poster #1 How so?
Sunday at 10:46pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Wait, so you do have the time to justify your beliefs? Why not think of it like that, rather than wasting time on persecutors? Change the persecutor's flawed belief to your superior one!
Sunday at 10:47pm • Like
o
OP Have I called them "homos", "sodomites", etc. once?
Sunday at 10:47pm • Like
o
OP I just don't believe in same-sex marriage.
Sunday at 10:47pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Just because you haven't called someone a name doesn't mean you haven't persecuted them. You ARE kinda denying them a right just because of who they are...
Sunday at 10:48pm • Like
o
Poster #1 And one could say that that is persecution.
Sunday at 10:48pm • Like
o
OP I'm not. I belireve that active homosexuality is a sin.
Sunday at 10:48pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Aren't you advocating they be denied the right to civil marriage and the government benefits therein?
Sunday at 10:49pm • Like
o
OP Am I raiding their homes and dragging them out on the streets? Am I yelling "Sodomite!" every time that I see a homosexual?
Sunday at 10:49pm • Like
o
OP They can marry people of the opposite sex. Who's stopping them?
Sunday at 10:49pm • Like
o
Poster #1 I think your definition of "persecution" may be a tad too narrow...
Sunday at 10:49pm • Like
o
Poster #1 But... that's not who they are! Why should they be forced to marry someone they don't care for?
Sunday at 10:50pm • Like
o
Poster #1 That's... just cruel, OP.
Sunday at 10:50pm • Like
o
OP Then maybe they can choose to be celibate like other homosexuals have done.
Sunday at 10:50pm • Like
o
OP Then, G-to-the-d is cruel, huh, Poster #1?
Sunday at 10:50pm • Like
o
Poster #1 So, because you believe them to be wrong means that they must be forced to comply with your values?
Sunday at 10:51pm • Like
o
Poster #2 So, it's okay to be gay, so long as you never express your mutual love for another person through physical intimacy?
Sunday at 10:53pm • Like
o
OP Hey, Poster #1, am I advocating this? "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. " That's what even Non-Messianic Judaism advocates. I'm not forcing them to do anything. I'm not going into homosexual weddings and stopping the weddings or killing or murdering the brides or grooms.
Sunday at 10:53pm • Like
o
OP I didn't say that. Being homosexual is unnatural and either a thorn in the flesh or a choice.
Sunday at 10:54pm • Like
o
Poster #1 But you are advocating that they be denied their rights because of who they are. Just because you aren't killing them or physically hurting them doesn't mean that you aren't persecuting them.
Sunday at 10:54pm • Like
o
OP So, Non-Messianic Juaism persecutes them, too, huh? By saying that what they're doing is an abomination? G-to-the-d's persecuting them?
Sunday at 10:55pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Yeah, kinda.
Sunday at 10:55pm • Like
o
Poster #1 That could be said.
Sunday at 10:55pm • Like
o
OP Then take it up with G-to-the-d, not me.
Sunday at 10:55pm • Like
o
Poster #1 What do you think of the rest of Leviticus?
Sunday at 10:55pm • Like
o
Poster #1 He doesn't answer much these days.
Sunday at 10:56pm • Like
o
OP Have you tried talking to Him? " And ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall search for Me with all your heart. 14 And I will be found of you, saith the LORD, and I will turn your captivity, and gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you back unto the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive. "
Sunday at 10:57pm • Like
o
OP Whether you talk to G-to-the-d is your choice, but I'm telling you what Tanakh says.
Sunday at 10:57pm • Like
o
Poster #1 But what do you think about the rest of Leviticus?
Sunday at 10:57pm • Like
o
OP As far as Leviticus, the part about sexual morality remains in effect in the New Covenant. See Acts 15.
Sunday at 10:58pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Should it be legal for people to eat shellfish?
Sunday at 11:06pm • Like
o
OP That doesn't apply anymore. See Acts 15 and Romans 14.
Sunday at 11:06pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.
Sunday at 11:08pm • Like
o
Poster #2 You mean that verse?
Sunday at 11:09pm • Like
o
OP If you are going to take Scripture out of context on purpose, I will not debate with you.
Sunday at 11:09pm • Like
o
Poster #1 We're both not very familiar with the new testement, you're going to have to either explain what you mean or bare with us.
Sunday at 11:11pm • Like
o
Poster #2 It's not out of context. You said to look up that section, and I found that in that section. It's about not judging people over things they do differently than you.
Sunday at 11:11pm • Like
o
OP To you, I'll give the benefit of the doubt. I know that Poster #2 cherrypicked that verse.
Sunday at 11:12pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Well, could it not be said that you are cherry-picking the verse that supports oppressing homosexuals?
Sunday at 11:12pm • Like
o
Poster #2 It was in the thing you wanted me to look at. Perhaps you should provide your own.
Sunday at 11:13pm • Like
o
OP I'm not oppressing anyone. Poster #1, please just try to talk to G-to-the-d and take the issue about same-sex marriage up with Him.
Sunday at 11:13pm • Like
o
OP You know what that chapter was about.
Sunday at 11:14pm • Like
o
Poster #1 He doesn't respond as reliably as you do.
Sunday at 11:14pm • Like
o
Poster #1 What was it about?
Sunday at 11:14pm • Like
o
OP Give Him a chance to, and He will.
Sunday at 11:14pm • Like
o
OP Poster #2 provided the link.
Sunday at 11:15pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Right, and it seems to support his reading of the text.
Sunday at 11:15pm • Like
o
OP Read the whole chapter, please.
Sunday at 11:17pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but it seems to say, "God is the only person who gets to judge people, so tolerate others, and let Him decide who's good and bad".
That's what I got.
Sunday at 11:18pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Yeah: "19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification."
Sunday at 11:18pm • Like
o
OP Please read the chapter in context.
Sunday at 11:19pm • Like
o
Poster #6 Not to derail this fascinating scriptural debate or anything, but to answer OP's original question, a man's hot dog can totally fit into another man's bun. If she wishes to call me crude, I submit that she asked a crude question and got a crude answer. And I also submit that she is operating under a very narrow definition of sex, one that is causing teenagers to contract STDs because they think that sex is only sex is it is p-in-v. As for Poster #1 and Poster #2, I am sorry if this seems disrespectful to their contributions. I just wished to make a point that I felt they missed.
Sunday at 11:19pm • Like • 1
o
Poster #1 "10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]?" seems nice.
Sunday at 11:19pm • Like
o
OP Please just read the chapter in context. And Poster #6, I wasn't talking about "buns" in that sense.
Sunday at 11:20pm • Like
o
Poster #1 I'm reading the chapter, that's where I'm finding all these verses.
Sunday at 11:21pm • Like
o
OP And what's the chapter about?
Sunday at 11:21pm • Like
o
Poster #6 OP, I am well aware. At the same time, it totally fits.
Sunday at 11:21pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Seems to be about accepting your fellow man to me.
Sunday at 11:22pm • Like
o
OP In terms of what, Poster #1?
Sunday at 11:22pm • Like
o
OP And Poster #6, how's anal sex working out? Well? Anal cancer and rectal destruction have happened that way.
Sunday at 11:22pm • Like
o
Poster #1 There is no medical evidence of that.
Sunday at 11:23pm • Like
o
OP "In fact, anal sex carries with it a much greater risk of passing on sexually transmitted diseases than vaginal sex. Because the anus isn’t made to be penetrated, the chances of a small tear occurring are much higher, and that little opening is like a welcome mat to diseases. Condoms offer protection, but condoms are more likely to break or come off during anal sex, so this form of sex is definitely riskier unless both parties are absolutely disease free." (http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-have-safe-anal-sex.html)
How to Have Safe Anal Sex - For Dummies
The anus has a lot of nerve endings, so anal sex can be pleasurable to both the ...See More
Sunday at 11:24pm • Like
o
Poster #6 OP, can we see a legitimate scientific article written by a real scientist backing up this assertion?
Sunday at 11:24pm • Like
o
Anal Cancer
The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is the premier society for col...See More
Sunday at 11:25pm • Like
o
OP Why do I have to do your homework for you? Or if you think that I'm that much of a liar, maybe you shouldn't be friends with me. See, I don't have time to be persecuted for holding a legitimate religious and scientific belief.
Sunday at 11:26pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Now, what that site doesn't mention is that rectal cancer is caused in 95% of cases by HPV, so in this case instead of getting cervical cancer, you get rectal cancer. Happens to straight people too.
Sunday at 11:27pm • Like
o
Poster #1 cdc.gov/hpv/cancer.html
Sunday at 11:27pm • Like
o
OP By HPV patients who penetrate the anal area.
Sunday at 11:27pm • Like
o
Poster #6 So...some of the 1-2% of people who get anal cancer have had anal sex?
Sunday at 11:28pm • Like
o
OP I'm not saying that heterosexual promiscuity is right, either, by the way.
Sunday at 11:28pm • Like
o
Poster #1 But that doesn't mean that anal sex causes cancer, it means that SEX with HPV causes cancer.
Sunday at 11:28pm • Like
o
OP Did I say all of them, Poster #6?
Sunday at 11:28pm • Like
o
Poster #1 ANY sex with HPV.
Sunday at 11:28pm • Like
o
Poster #1 With ANY hole.
Sunday at 11:28pm • Like
o
OP The point is that anal sex is riskier than regular sex.
Sunday at 11:29pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Eh, with proper preparation, anything is possible...
Sunday at 11:29pm • Like
o
OP Preparation doesn't always equal prevention, nor does it reduce risk ratios.
Sunday at 11:30pm • Like
o
Poster #6 No, I'm just saying that if only 1-2% of people get anal cancer and only some of them have had anal sex, then that doesn't really prove that anal sex is a major cause of cancer. And what do you say to the fact that STD rates are incredibly low in the lesbian community and that one of the biggest risk of getting an STD from lesbian sex comes from any heterosexual sex one of the two women might have had?
Sunday at 11:30pm • Like
o
Sunday at 11:30pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Reread your last post, and let me know when you've determined why Poster #6 isn't responding with graphic details about how anal sex functions.
Sunday at 11:31pm • Like • 1
o
OP From Avert, a pro-homosexuality website. I don't think so. I'm quoting from the nonpartisan FASCRS. "Anal sex – People participating in anal sex, both men and women, are at increased risk [for anal cancer]."
Sunday at 11:32pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Because of HPV... They get increased rectal cancer rates in exchange for decreased cervical cancer rates....
Sunday at 11:32pm • Like
o
OP I know how it functions, even though I've never had sex. Am I really that dumb? And I'm not saying that Poster #6 has ever had it, either.
Sunday at 11:33pm • Like
o
Poster #1 It's a Common Cause between both cancers.THAT is the cause, not the type of the act.
Sunday at 11:33pm • Like
o
OP And HPV often comes from promiscuity on someone's part, anyway.
Sunday at 11:33pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Actually, it can also spread like the common cold.
Sunday at 11:34pm • Like
o
OP I didn't say that it's always primary. It's sadly, like AIDS, often secondarily spread or even tertiarily spread.
Sunday at 11:35pm • Like
o
Poster #6 This website makes similar points.http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/personal/glbt/STDWomen.aspx Also, if straight people having anal sex are just as at risk as gay people having anal sex, does that mean that God just hates anal sex?
Sunday at 11:35pm • Like
o
OP I would say "Yes". G-to-the-d create the anal area for things to come out of, not for things to go in for the most part.
Sunday at 11:36pm • Like
o
Poster #6 And men pee through the same hole through which they ejaculate.
Sunday at 11:36pm • Like
o
OP And did I create it that way? No. So, ask G-to-the-d about it.
Sunday at 11:36pm • Like
o
Poster #2 What about oral sex?
Sunday at 11:38pm • Like
o
OP I would assume the same thing.
Sunday at 11:38pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Based on what?
Sunday at 11:39pm • Like
o
OP For example,http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/bulgarians/oral-sex.html.
Risks of Oral Sex
Various levels of risk have been associated with oral sex from the time sexual b...See More
Sunday at 11:39pm • Like
o
Poster #6 Actually, the risk of STDs is lower with oral sex. It's in the articles I posted.
Sunday at 11:40pm • Like
o
Poster #1 March 1991....
Sunday at 11:40pm • Like
o
OP And that's when the AIDs epidemic was still going on. Long story short, vaginas were made to handle penises. Mouths and butts were not.
Sunday at 11:41pm • Like
o
Poster #1 But we had such a poorer understanding of STIs then, especially AIDs and HPV.
Sunday at 11:42pm • Like
o
OP That doesn't mean that the risks have become any less. Look; I'm not G-to-the-d. I didn't design sex and marriage. Ask Him, not me.
Sunday at 11:43pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Again, he doesn't respond as quickly as you do.
Sunday at 11:44pm • Like
o
OP Give Him a chance to respond.
Sunday at 11:44pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Handjobs?
Sunday at 11:45pm • Like
o
Poster #2 I mean, hands are safe and gender neutral.
Sunday at 11:46pm • Like
o
OP That one, we can actually agree on. Unless the hand is cut open or something.
Sunday at 11:47pm • Like
o
Poster #6 'Tis true. And OP, if we can't use the facts about the human body and its strange design to argue about the rightness of certain types of sex, why can you?
Sunday at 11:47pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Does that mean that hand jobs are more right than actual sex? Can gay people have gay hand jobs?
Sunday at 11:48pm • Like
o
OP I did use facts. I also stated that I'm not G-to-the-d, so your issues with G-to-the-d should be taken up with Him?
Sunday at 11:48pm • Like
o
Poster #1 You speak for the trees, for the trees can not speak, so to speak...
Sunday at 11:48pm • Like
o
OP Any kind of homosexual sex is wrong. Anal and oral heterosexual sex are just riskier. Again, I'm not G-to-the-d; I didn't make it that way.
Sunday at 11:49pm • Like
o
OP As I said, you need to try speaking to G-to-the-d.
Sunday at 11:49pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Heavy petting?
Sunday at 11:51pm • Like
o
Poster #6 I don't have issues with God. I just disagree with you, so I'm speaking to you.
Sunday at 11:51pm • Like
o
OP You do. I didn't write that homosexuality is wrong. G-to-the-d did.
Sunday at 11:52pm • Like
o
Poster #2 Yeah, but share his view, don't you?
Sunday at 11:52pm • Like
o
OP Yes, I do; or else I wouldn't be a Christian.
Sunday at 11:53pm • Like
o
Poster #2 So, therefore, it's your view as well. Which is why were talking to you.
Sunday at 11:55pm • Like
o
OP And who am I to oppose G-to-the-d if He says something?
Sunday at 11:55pm • Like
o
Poster #6 Then why are you opposing God when He tells you to let Him do the judging?
Sunday at 11:56pm • Like
o
OP "Proverbs 31:9
Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor and needy."
Sunday at 11:57pm • Like
o
OP G-to-the-d tells us to judge. Matthew 7:1-3 tells us not to be hypocrites. And Paul judged the young man at Corinth.
Sunday at 11:57pm • Like
o
Poster #1 "And plead the cause of the poor and needy.""
Sunday at 11:57pm • Like
o
Poster #1 It looks like, to me, he's telling you to judge people that don't help their fellow man.
Sunday at 11:58pm • Like
o
OP And how are you helping your fellow man by encouraging men and women to engage in homosexual sin?
Sunday at 11:58pm • Like
o
Poster #6 Romans 14: 13: "Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean."
Sunday at 11:59pm • Like
o
OP It's talking about food, holidays, etc..
Sunday at 11:59pm • Like
o
Poster #1 Who's encouraging them? How about just minding one's own business and letting people be.
Sunday at 11:59pm • Like
o
OP By supporting homosexual marriage, you're encouraging them.
Yesterday at 12:00am • Like
o
Poster #2 If you call it a sin, you've already judged it, which is missing the first point about not judging it?
Yesterday at 12:01am • Like
o
OP We are to judge sin and people, including ourselves. We're not to be hypocrites about it.
Yesterday at 12:01am • Like
o
Poster #1 I dunno, I think gay people are going to be gay regardless of whether or not they can marry.
Yesterday at 12:02am • Like
o
OP Then they were given a thorn in the flesh and ought to remain celibate, just as alcoholics shouldn't drink.
Yesterday at 12:02am • Like
o
Poster #6 I'm not saying that anyone has to get married if they don't want to or that anyone has to have sex if they don't want to. I'm neither encouraging nor discouraging either practice because, as Poster #1 said, it's their own choice, and I'm not going to go and tell them to stop having sex because that's just rude and nosy. Also, what Poster #1 said.
Yesterday at 12:02am • Like
o
Poster #2 Eh, a thorn in the flesh is worth two in the bush.
Yesterday at 12:03am • Like
o
Poster #1 So we get to have sex and stuff, but not them?
Yesterday at 12:03am • Like
o
Poster #1 We get to marry people we love, but not them?
Yesterday at 12:03am • Like
o
Poster #1 What makes us so special?
Yesterday at 12:03am • Like
o
OP Take it up with G-to-the-d. Debate over. I'm kiboshing it.
Yesterday at 12:03am • Like
o
Poster #6 Random tangent then. I really hate the Westboro Baptist Church. And it's not just because of the whole protesting at funerals thing and the whole God hates fags things. It's because they've given homophobes a free pass to claim that they're not homophobia, even when they tell homosexuals to go be straight or go be lonely for the rest of their lives, even when they describe homosexuality as a mental illness or as an addiction, and even when they go on and on about how homosexual sex is unclean and unnatural.
Yesterday at 12:05am • Like • 1
o
OP Westboro is an example of Isaiah 29:13-14.
Yesterday at 12:06am • Like
o
Poster #6 Thanks for a scripture quote to use against them.
Yesterday at 12:07am • Like
o
OP You're welcome.
Yesterday at 12:08am • Like
o
OP Westboro is just as bad as, maybe even worse than, active homosexuals who defy G-to-the-d knowingly.
Yesterday at 12:09am • Like
o
Poster #1 Well, they're certainly worse....
Yesterday at 12:09am • Like • 1
o
Poster #6 I know, seeing as they go out and cause harm to others.
Yesterday at 12:10am • Like
o
OP That we can agree on, because they do profess G-to-the-d. To most active homosexuals' credits, they don't.
Yesterday at 12:10am • Like
o
Poster #1 And are... well, objectively bad.
Yesterday at 12:10am • Like
o
Poster #6 So...gay people are sinning less if they're atheists?
23 hours ago • Like
o
OP Westboro? Yeah. As I said, Isaiah 29:13-14 applies to them.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #1 I know several religious gay people.
23 hours ago • Like
o
OP And they're going to have to answer to G-to-the-d as to why they engage in homosexual activity when they know the truth and profess to believe it.
23 hours ago • Like
o
OP As I said, debate over.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #2 I suppose that people who irrationally hate and attack other people are in fact worse than couples in a committed relationship. That's probably true.
23 hours ago • Like • 1
o
Poster #6 I agree, Poster #2.
23 hours ago • Like • 1
o
OP As I said, debate over.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #2 Sorry, mine hadn't updated, so I didn't catch that. Darn Facebook!
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #6 Indeed.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #7 I'm sure Epic Meal Time has probably done something like stuffing a hotdog inside another hotdog
23 hours ago • Like • 2
o
Poster #1 BACON BACON BACONSee Translation
23 hours ago • Like • 1
o
Poster #7 And you can totally open a bun and stuff another bun in it...
23 hours ago • Like • 2
o
OP Okay. And I imagine that Epic Meal Time has done quite a few interesting food combinations.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #7 A bird in a bird in a bird in a bird in a pig
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #1 Mostly bacon/bacon/alcohol stuff.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #6 And gay bacon strips, but that was the dessert episode.
23 hours ago • Like • 1
o
OP I can imagine.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #7 I don't see what the problem is, this is totally doable...
23 hours ago • Like • 1
o
Poster #6 Totally doable.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #1 We have the technology.
23 hours ago • Like • 1
o
OP It was an illustration.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #8 For the sake of the buns example, I don't think that God made buns and hotdogs. I'm pretty sure humans did. And while you can't stuff a hotdog inside of a hotdog, for the sake of the argument, hotdogs may not be the best example because they don't have an orifice (unless you count the small seam on the ends of the casing). However, human males do
23 hours ago • Like • 1
o
Poster #7 If God did make hotdogs, it was a practical joke. Hotdogs are frankenmeat
23 hours ago • Like • 2
o
OP I should've used a better example, like locks and keys. Now, debate over.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #1 What if you laterally slice two hot dogs, then they fit together like a puzzle!
23 hours ago • Like • 2
o
Poster #7 THERE YA GO!
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #1 Or you could chop up the hot dogs into slices, and them reassemble them into a single hot dog with a strade of pasta! And then you cook it and eat tasty hot dogs and pasta.
23 hours ago • Like • 1
o
Poster #6 Aw! That just sounds like a heart attack on a plate.
23 hours ago • Like • 1
o
Poster #7 You're making me hungry, Poster #1
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #7 I got it, you can drill a hole through a really big sausage, like a kielbasa or something, and then thread a bunch of those little cocktail wieners through the middle!
23 hours ago • Like • 1
o
Poster #6 I'm loving these food ideas.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #1 Now THAT sounds tasty.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #6 Or take a really big sausage (say, sweet Italian), drill a hole in it, and then put another still big but slightly smaller sausage (spicy Italian or something else good for flavor contrast) through the hole.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #7 THEN drill a hole in the spicy Italian and put an even thinner one in THAT, and repeat! Like hotdog turducken
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #7 Hotdogception
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #6 And then combine with the combined buns!
23 hours ago • Like • 1
o
Poster #1 We'll need a bun of great magnitude to support this massive wiener.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #7 It's hotdogs all the way down
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #1 Perhaps... even a bun within another bun.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #6 Yes!
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #6 I hope that God made our bun strong enough to handle this!
23 hours ago • Like • 2
o
Poster #1 Wait... is that a gay loophole? What if two gay men and two gay women get together and start having straight sex, but in the dark they get "confused"?
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #6 Hm....let's wait for God to tell us.
23 hours ago • Like
o
OP Unintentional sin is different. Again, take it up with G-to-the-d and debate over.
23 hours ago • Like
o
OP Then seek Him out. Geez.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #7 Would this bun be big enough?http://fullhousereviewed.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/picture-62.png
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #6 *nods sagely* I think so.
23 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #1 Come on, look at that thing! It's already sagging under its own weight. It certainly doesn't have the structural integrity for our mega-dog.
23 hours ago • Like • 1
o
... conversation derails at this point. The next day, this thread arises:
Censored names are consistent. OP shared a link to their blog, which took the post by Blocked Poster #5, attributed it to her full name, and explained why it was persecution/against her first amendment rights/hypocritical, etc. If you're really interested in reading the article, it's probably not that hard to find.
OP shared a link.
4 hours ago near Baltimore •
•
The OP Factor: This Persecution, Misunderstanding of Judaism, and Hypocrisy Is Astounding...
theOPfactor.blogspot.com
1Like • • Share
o
Poster #6 OP, I clicked on this link because I was interested in seeing what incident you were addressing in your blog. When I opened the page, I was shocked to find that you had used the full name of woman whose comment on your wall you were addressing. By ...See More
2 hours ago • Like • 2
o
OP She did it on a public status. If she didn't want it made public, she should not have posted it on a public status, let alone the public status of a non friend who she was looking to persecute. Besides, I needed to respond. She is technically under the Old Covenant, which advocates the death penalty for homosexuality. So, she's also being a hypocrite by advocating the opposite of what the Old Covenant indicates.
2 hours ago • Edited • Like
o
Poster #6 OP, there's a difference between posting something on facebook willingly and having someone post your name on a blog. There is also a massive difference between facebook and a blog.
2 hours ago • Like
o
OP As I said, she said something in a pubic forum; she needs to take responsibility for it. I don't have to be stepped on. I originally took the enabling step of just blocking her and removing her comment. I originally failed to hold her accountable for her persecution and hypocrisy.
2 hours ago • Like
o
OP Besides, I'm giving her a chance to respond. I'm being pretty nice here and saying, "Wait a minute: it's the Covenant that you're under that advocates worse than what I'm advocating."
2 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #6 OP, you made your initial comment public, thereby choosing to make your initial opinion known publicly, albeit on facebook. When this woman posted her opinions on your comment, something that you enabled her to do by making it public, she was also ...See More
2 hours ago • Like • 1
o
Poster #6 Make your opinions public if you must, but take her full name out of it. Find a way to send her your responses if you want, but find a way that doesn't put out her private information without her consent.
2 hours ago • Like
o
OP You're darn right that I did. I'm not hiding anything. And if she has a problem with it, she can deal with me. To call me a demode, childish, close-minded bigot on my own wall when I hold a legitimate religious and scientific belief, and put her name b...See More
2 hours ago • Like • 1
o
Poster #6 OP, she was hardly violating your First Amendment Rights. She didn't take away your right to say what you feel. She just responded by saying what she feels. And again, if you wish to call her out, do it through the appropriate channels or get over ...See More
2 hours ago • Like • 2
o
OP She was, too. She called me a bigot, etc. for posting my legitimately-held beliefs on my own wall. And I won't get over it since her form of Judaism advocates something worse than mine does.
2 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #6 Then find a more appropriate way to respond to her that is not a security risk and make your opinions known through that channel. And OP, under the First Amendment, she is allowed to call you a bigot if she believes that you are just as you are all...See More
2 hours ago • Like
o
OP She put her name out there. I'm also allowed to call her out for perverting the First Amendment to violate my rights. Read Amendment Nine. I could have reported or even sued her for violating both my First and Ninth Amendment rights.
2 hours ago • Like
o
OP The problem is that I thought that removing and blocking her comment would help. It doesn't, and it actually allows her to escape being called out for her hypocrisy. The Covenant that she's under actually calls for the death of homosexuals instead of what she's advocating, and she has the chutzpah to oppose my views on same-sex marriage!
2 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #6 1) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for ...See More
2 hours ago • Like
o
Poster #6 Btw, by asking you to take her name down, I am asking you to not use your right to free speech to infringe on her right to privacy. As I remember, your right to free speech ends when it infringes on someone else's rights or safety.
2 hours ago • Like • 1
o
OP She tried to make it so that I couldn't be trying to shame me and call me a bigot, etc. for holding and expressing my beliefs. She did violate my First and Ninth Amendment Rights. Also, Non-Messianic Judaism says that homosexuals ought to die--it's Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Since when is pointing out facts Anti Semitism?
2 hours ago • Like
o
OP Also, you're violating my rights further by asking me not to put my beliefs out or use her name when she herself used it publicly. You'd better be careful, or I will report you for bullying and harassment. I don't need this crap from you.
2 hours ago • Like
o
OP And she put her name behind her public comment. So, she violated her own rights.
about an hour ago • Like
o
Poster #1 You are violating Blocked Poster #5's rights by posting her information publicly. That could be construed as harassment.
about an hour ago • Like
o
Poster #6 Okay....when she posted that on your wall, you had two choices: agree with and change your views of your own free choice or disagree with her and stick to your guns. Both were perfectly legitimate choices and make either would not have infringed your f...See More
about an hour ago • Like
o
OP She also harassed me on my own wall first. Get over yourselves really fast, or Facebook will be hearing about your harassment of me. Got it?
about an hour ago • Like
o
Poster #1 We aren't harassing you, OP. Have we threatened you or said mean things to you?
about an hour ago • Like
o
Poster #1 Have we posted your information in a public forum?
about an hour ago • Like
o
OP She posted her own name, and I'm holding her to account for her persecution behind which she put her name.
about an hour ago • Like
o
OP Besides, I have nothing to hide.
about an hour ago • Like
o
Poster #1 But Facebook is not public, it is private between friends.
about an hour ago • Like
o
OP Or really? What does the icon by my status mean? And she was not my friend.
about an hour ago • Like
o
Poster #1 Well, it extends to friends of friends. It's certainly not public.
about an hour ago • Like
o
OP It's "Public". Read it again.
about an hour ago • Like
o
Poster #1 But Facebook ITSELF is not public.
about an hour ago • Like
o
OP Then why is it an IPO and why are my statuses public?
about an hour ago • Like
o
Poster #1 Just because Facebook is publicly traded doesn't mean all the information on it is public. Not to mention that your blog is covered by a different privacy policy, and Blocked Poster #5 never agreed to allow you to mention her on another location.
about an hour ago • Like
o
OP She came onto my wall and put her name behind her public persecution, then proceeded to be a coward and block me.
about an hour ago • Like
o
OP Besides, I'm done with enabling abusers and persecutors.
about an hour ago • Like
o
Poster #1 You did block her and delete her stuff first, though. And that action is not an agreement to allow you to post her private information.
about an hour ago • Like
o
OP And that was stupid of me, considering that she publicly persecuted me and defied Yehovah and the Covenant which she claims to be under.
about an hour ago • Like
o
Poster #1 Well, I wouldn't say that it rose to the level of persecution. It was certainly strongly worded.
about an hour ago • Like
o
OP It did. She called me a bigot, childish, etc. in other words. Yehovah even said to put homosexuals to death, and I didn't advocate that. Yet, the Covenant which she is under makes me less than righteous for even allowing homosexuals to live. She persecutes me and is a hypocrite, she gets stood up to and called out.
about an hour ago • Like
o
Poster #1 But then doesn't the same thing apply to you? Do you not stand up to be called out?
about an hour ago • Like
o
OP Firstly, I'm under the New Covenant. Secondly, if I'm doing wrong, I ought to be shamed and rebuked. Thirdly, if I'm a bigot, then so's the very Yehovah who said "NO!" to same-sex marriage.
about an hour ago • Like • 1
o
Poster #7 Hey guys, forgive me for butting in, but I hate to see friends argue like this...I love discussing different beliefs, and I love that I have friends like you with whom I CAN discuss them! Let's not ruin that. We all have a right to our beliefs, but also our own safety. Peace, y'all!
about an hour ago • Like • 3
o
OP I don't mind that people have different beliefs, either; I just want people to be consistent with theirs and not persecute me publicly for holding mine especially when they don't even hold their own.
about an hour ago • Like • 1
o
Poster #9 I thingk? "Hey guys, forgive me for butting in, but I hate to see friends argue like this"
Really? I LOVE IT!
30 minutes ago • Like
o
OP If possible, though, one should live at shalom with everyone.
29 minutes ago • Like
o
Poster #6 Then please, for the sake of peace, remove everyone's full names from your blog, including the full name of your own sister, who has not done anything to offend you, and we will be able to live in Shalom.
23 minutes ago • Like
o
OP I didn't say false shalom, and please read Ezekiel 33.
23 minutes ago • Like
o
Poster #6 We can end this argument peacefully.
23 minutes ago • Like
o
OP Again, I didn't say false shalom; nor did I say that shalom is always possible.
22 minutes ago • Like
Preemptive apologies for anyone whose personal information I forgot to remove, and I know this is awful formatting but I suspect some of the blocked posters who frequent these forums might want to actually share their opinion.
