Bet you didn't see THIS coming....

[Peter Thomas]

Just so I can have the 200th post, I'm curious to see what people see differently in me. I'm still the same person, I've just trusted you people enough (and accepted it within myself enough) to let you all know. It seems as though some people have suddenly changed their opinions of me. Not anything that's been explicitly said, just interpretation....

[Andail]

It would be interesting to see the demographics of people from either side of this debate. Which countries/areas do most people who consider homosexuality a sin/crime/shame come from?

PS:
As it comes to you, Peter, I didn't react whatsoever after your announcement. Even if I had known you better before, I would still not care about your sexual preferences.

[Nacho]

After all this stuff I've realised that there's something that has changed on you that I don't like Peter... 

Spoiler

Wasn't you who had Vegeta in your avatar? I liked Vegeta, why have you changed it???

[close]

[Peter Thomas]

Farlander - that's IT! This friendship is OVER!

Spoiler

No, really - it IS!

[close]

Vagita USED to be cool, but then yellow spiky thing on green icy looking surface became cooler.

[SSH]

Really, even if someone thinks your homosexuality is a sin from a Christian standpoint, I can't see why that should make a difference to how they treat you. I mean "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god". So, since we're all sinners, it's hardly news that Peter is one. I'm one too. Great! The whole point about Jesus's mesage being "Good News" is that you're forgiven, not that you're perfect and church leaders are often the first to forget this. Get a t-shirt made for when you hang out with dogmatic christians: "Judge not, yet ye be judged yourselves"

Try this out on them. See if they think these peopel would be good Christians:

1. A couple who had recently made a ofrtune on the property market and wanted to give some to the church
2. A guy who decides that he doesn't think much of Peter's New Testament teachings
3. A guy who did miracles as part of his own ministry but wanted to get involved with more mainstream Christianity, learning and contribute his wealth towards it
4. A guy who is on record as denying his faith when it suited his purposes, and then was all for it again a couple of days later
5. Leader of a cult who went into churches and trashed them, claimed he could do miracles and showed little respect for many establish church leaders and once described St Peter as "Satan"

Spoiler

1. Ananias and Sapphira
2. Paul
3. Simon Magus
4. Peter
5. Jesus

[close]

[Khris]

I think if Jesus stepped back down on earth to see what became of his ideas, he'd slit his wrists right on the spot. Especially if he went to the USA first.

The real dangerous people aren't Christians, though, or gays or terrorists or vegetarians, but simply DUMB people.

Somebody once said: The seed of evil grows best on dumb soil.
How damn right he is.

Anyways, good luck to you, Peter. I don't think different of you now, but of some other people who posted here.

[Peter Thomas]

I think if Jesus stepped back down on earth to see what became of his ideas, he'd slit his wrists right on the spot. Especially if he went to the USA first.

As deeply blasphemous and offensive as I could find that, I nearly wet myself laughing.

In fact..... oh....

*grabs clean underwear*

[Paper Carnival]

To clear things up: I don't hate gays, lesbians or whatever. I know some gays and I have a friend who's bisexual, yet I treat her like I would treat anyone.

I can't really convince you that homosexuality is wrong, it's just my oppinion. The purpose of sex is obviously to have children (even though the vast majority of life does it for fun).

Like what many guys said, nobody is perfect. Christians sin too, some less some more. I have no right to tell everyone "you are going to hell cause you do this and this" when I sin DAILY, like every human walking on this earth.

[Nacho]

Nah, the purpose of sex is having fun...

Never seen a porn movie, Guybrush?  :

[Paper Carnival]

Dude the only reason sex exists in nature is for having children. If nature made sex unpleasent, nobody would have children :. Just think of that

[SpacePirateCaine]

If nature made sex unpleasent, nobody would have children

I beg to differ on that point, actually - Humans are one of the few living creatures that have an enjoyable sexual experience. For many animals it's painful (Koalas, Lions, etc), or feels like nothing much at all (for the creatures whose nervous systems or reproductive organs are less developed, like insects). The natural instinct to reproduce is the reason most living creatures have sex and give birth (Which, I am told, is far from a pleasant experience while it's happening). That's why most animals go into heat - their biological makeup, along with certain environmental factors, tells them 'you're ready to go, so get to it quick'. Only certain mammals, such as primates, have sex because 'it feels good'. The rest are just doing it because they're biologically predisposed to doing so.

My guess is that even if sex sucked for humans, like it does for much of the rest of the animal kingdom, we'd still go on doing it (though probably a lot less), because the greatest urge for most humans is to 'leave their mark' - through progeny, usually.

[DGMacphee]

If nature made sex unpleasent, nobody would have children :. Just think of that

Wow! So nature just woke up one day and decided to make sex pleasant. That was sure kind of nature. It's just a shame nature didn't make my flu vaccines pleasant. My doctor keeps telling me they'll do me good in the end, but I think he's lying cause they hurt like buggery. Score one for my doctor, score one less for nature.

As yes, nature made sex pleasant so we'd keep doing it and have children. Interesting view. A purpose for everything in life. I guess that means the only reason nature created hurricanes and tornados was to keep the human population down and maybe some extreme kite flying.

"Dude, check out the gusts I'm getting! NATURE IS AWESOME! Whoops, that cyclone just killed me! NATURE IS BOGUS!"

I'm glad that a 16 year-old can explain the great mysteries of nature with such simple explanations, cause these questions have been bugging scientists and philosphers for centuries. Come next Nobel prize time, I'm nominating Guybrush Peepwood for science!

[Nacho]

So... Sterile people wouldn't have sex because they'll never have a child? Interesting...

*Edit* I think I've had like *mgphundred* sexual relations and, as far as I remember, in none of those I was looking for a baby, but... well... it is pretty obvious that you know what are you talking about... dude...

And... don't know... maybe we should ask ourselves the meaning of the Restaurants, because, whereas the objective of eating is to be nourished (And that could be archieved with pills and non cooked meat) they're making it better... Damn sinners!



Do you see now that things can be took out of its primitive context and improved?

P.S. If we count the sexual acts I had alone, the *mgphundred* cyfer reaches *mgphthousends*  And in none of that was I looking for a baby...

[jetlag]

I though the meaning of life was 42.

[SSH]

GuyPeep! You mean that vasectomies are heresies! I better cancel my appointment...

[YOke]

Actually there is a species of monkey who share the similarity with humans that both males and females enjoy sex. In their society sex is used to strengthen bonds and relieve tension as well as for procreation.
If you want me to spell it out for you, this means that sex has other functions in nature than procreation, and that it is not something humans invented to spite God.
The world would improve a lot if we stopped trying to be better than animals all the time.

[SpacePirateCaine]

I suppose I should clear up, for the sake of posterity, that my only real point in my previous post is that 'Bad sex doesn't necessitate the lack of reproduction'. I'm personally on the 'pro sex for the sake of sex' side of the fence as it were, but thought that I'd clear up the whole misconception that things that don't enjoy sex avoid it.

[DGMacphee]

I like to think of things as one step further than "sex for the sake of sex" to the point of "sometimes nature just does crazy things which no one can explain". And I think the problem for a lot of people, whether from a scientific, religious, or any analytical background, is that they need explainations for everything.

Sometimes there are no explainations and we should just enjoy our lives without needing to rationalise/analyse/moralise all the time.

[SpacePirateCaine]

Sounds like a pretty sound philosophy to me. I tend to overanalyze things like many others, I suppose.

Anyway, I didn't really intend to join in on this particular topic, I seem to have gone somewhat off topic as it is. I'm going to step back and let the people who want to debate do so.

[Paper Carnival]

Okay, that post was half joking. I don't give a dime if lions like having sex or not and I was talking more about humans, my bad I didn't know that fact though. But if most species do not find it enjoyable then all it does is prove my point.

So what if I'm 16, does that take away from me the right to express my opinion? I try to get in a conversation and all I get is Christian haters telling me not to be hateful, rude people telling me to be smarter. I'd nominate DG for the "respect thy neighbor" prize if there was such thing.

But anyways, if you all believe the sole purpose of sex is to have fun, then all I can say to you guys is "have fun"