Gay Cure MERGED

.

The greatest offense to God is using His name in vain. That doesn't mean swearing; God could care less about that. Sticks and stones -how petty do you think God is? What 'using his name in vain' means is attributing things to God which God does not represent. Saying something in Gods name which God never said. Using God to represent evil.

The Catholics and the religious right are wrong about gay people and they commit blasphemy when they say that God is against homosexuality, that being gay is a sin. That's not what God has said nor what God represents. Homosexuals are a part of gods plan.

These False Christians are aware that it is easier to motivate people with fear and loathing than it is to teach Gods love. So they teach people to shame GLBT folks. They are uninterested in the spiritual development of themselves and others -so they are unable to teach love. They are self-absorbed. They want people to follow and believe them. They want to be righteous, and to be right. Ironically, they are very, very wrong. I forgive them because they are mentally ill. But I don't know that God forgives them the grief that they cause.

.

 

Has anyone read all of these pages?

 

I would. SINCE its halarius .

 

i wonder if the 700 club well change it to 750 since it sounds more sporty.

 

Thats what i mean. It looks good, its easy to swallow for some, but its pap. Pure, faith based, pap.

 

ah hahahahahahhhahaha

 

agreed.

 

The only problem is if a jewish club goes to a 1000cc then the catholics get piss off and retaliate with 1300 cc harleys

 

Then the Japs who allready have built 1500cc . next thing they go to war .

 

Hmm.... after reading the past 10 pages or so backwards, I have concluded the following:

No one is changing anyone's mind. No one is being convinced. When it comes to religion, politics, and moral issues, people do not change their minds.

 

Agreed. People dont change their minds about issues like these. These issues you have to grow personally to switch to.

 

I just stayed up all fucking night, intrigued by this topic. I had to give up at page 29 however.

Where I left off, Erasmus, you stated the following:-

"I still insist that if this is found to be a cause of hormones or nutrients in the womb or these sorts of factor then its totally ethical for a parent to have this 'corrected' so the baby is born a heterosexual.
Remember - there is no situation where this 'changes who they are' because the baby is born, grows and doesnt know anything other than being heterosexual anyways."

How is this complementary to your view that a foetus is a living human being, with all the rights and priveleges that entails, while still in the womb? Surely, if it is wrong to take the life of a foetus, then it is wrong to change the future sexual orientation of a foetus, when it seems you are not in favour of forcibly changing the sexual orientation of a grown man or woman.

We had this same discussion with one of my teachers in school, whose name I forget. He was always getting us into debates, usually the whole class against him, where he would make a very reasonable argument (I don't think these were his actual opinions) that women should not have political power, or that gays should be "cured". In the case of "curing" gays, he stated all sorts of points including the rectum's inability to properly accomodate a penis, its role in developing rectal incontinence in homosexual men, and the drain on the healthcare system that this leads to. What we learned from these debates is that sometimes they are impossible to win except on moral grounds. It seems obvious to me that homosexuals should not be "cured", and that women should have an equal role in society.

I would draw your attention (and let me state here that I am NO trekkie) to an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation that I saw a few years back. I don't know the episode title or anything, but a quick synopsis of the story went like this:

There's a race of beings that reproduce asexually and have no males or females. In an earlier stage of their evolution, however, they did. Occasionally one is born who is a genetic throwback, with male or female characteristics. Their society does not tolerate this, so they do not openly demonstrate this aspect of their biology/character. We are told that when a male/female is discovered, they are given "treatment" to correct this flaw.
Predictably, one of the crew falls in love with one of these aliens who is female. She gets discovered and treated. I can't describe how sinister this scene is in just a few words: she emerges at the end of the episode and tells him just how happy she is to be cured, and how all that stuff that went on before was just a symptom of her "illness". The viewer feels disgusted, horrified and very sad. Or at least in my opinion, they ought to.

Does that put anything in perspective?

 

It seems to me that, once you strip away the stigma, lies and extraneous crap that people use to justify opinions long after they've formed them, it doesn't actually make that much difference whether homosexuality is cured or not. Society would not collapse either way. Maybe homosexuality would disappear, maybe it would keep coming back. We have no way of knowing because we don't know what it is.

It really is only an issue of personal morality. People are still having kids. The human race isn't under biological threat from homosex at all. All balanced research into homosexuality indicates that it in itself is not psychologically damaging to the individual or those around them.

So really, it's just a question of whether you feel your own ideas about the subject should go global. Personally, I think mine should. I don't doubt that everyone else feels the same.

 

its all ready global since we ow much to the Greeks and Romans who engage homosexualty during theyr begining and peak of theyr empire. and everything today is base on Greek and Romans laws and ideas like Democracy .

 

My point was more that, because this is so much an issue of personal morality, we have a choice between imposing that morality on the world around us, or recognising it as personal and just sticking to it ourselves. Given how common it seems to be for our moral arbitors to secretly indulge in the very practises they decry, and the recent developments in South Dakota, I'd say there's a strong argument for just making sure you yourself are the best person you can be, and not trying to change the world based on your own whims.

 

At the beginning they are talking about Persian King Xerxe's army that is poised to conquer Europe and on the other side we have the birth of western civilization in the form of city state Athens that has just formed a democracy (this is almost 2500 years ago). The speaker states that this encounter between Greeks and despotic Persians would not have been an ordinary one and it would in effect be a clash of east versus west. The Greek warriors of sparta under leadership of their kind Leonidas are the ones to defend the west's freedom although sparta is not really a birthing ground for saviors of the free world but it is a police state where thousands of slaves live in fear.



Speaker mentions that sparta was really a nightmare society based on a harsh exploitation of the oppressed class. Spartan approach to discipline and training was extremely effective in creating the ancient worlds finest military fighting force. It is tradition and philosophy that has not been lost on toady's US marines. A US army trainer states that the idea was for the Spartan force, as much as for the all western armies, to be aggressive and to day advancing. Fighting Xerxes would transform the dark warriors in the eyes of history. English female speaker (Edith Hall, Durham Univercity) states that either sparta's king must die or sparta itself must fall. In the epic battle between east and west Leonidas and his men will fall down as heroes and their battel will become a legend.



2500 Years ago Greek valleys teamed with Persian invaders, armies whose men and their beasts made Greek rivers dry. Vast fleets shadowed the Greek coast. This is what power looked like to people of the ancient Greece, the largest invasion force hit Europe until the D-day on June 1944 commanded by King Xerxes, the absolute ruler of the Persian empire. Xerxes had so many men that his victory was a forgone conclusion but he did not realize how hard free men would fight for their way of life and he had never seen the damage that fabled warriors of sparta could inflict even on the mightiest of foes.



At the narrow strip of land that the Greeks call Thermopile, Xerxes would be though a lesson in Spartan discipline and terror against all the adds king Leonidas and his hard men of Greece would embark on a killing spree that would immortalize the Spartans as histories ultimate warriors and in a story of valor, treachery and extreme self-sacrifice help determine the future of western civilization as we know it.

(Scene of Persians throwing a sea of spears at Spartan heroes who are holding up their shields which have a sign that resembles a V shape and who are dressed in red, and we all know that was the color of Ares, God of war)



This is Thermopile, the scene in one of the most glorified slaughters in history, many thousands died here. The smell of death and decay still hangs in the air as sulfurous hotsprings pour their stench down the mountainside giving the battlefield its name Thermo-pile (the hot gates, the gates of fire). A Solitary figure surveys the battlefield, one of the greatest heroes of antiquity, Leonidas, here Leonidas took on a might of the Persian empire with just a tiny Greek (Spartan) defense force and stopped it in its tracks.

Legend says that Leonidas's trouble against king Xerxes resulted in victory for freedom over slavery. Speaker assures us that the event is real, even though it is so old (2500 years ago) that it feels almost mythological, for the historical evidence is there. Almost all we know about the battle and Spartans themselves comes from one man, Herodotus, the first Greek historian, his account of the Spartans fight against the overwhelming adds reverberated down through the ages. Over time historians and artists turned Leonidas and his men into mythical figures and their inspiring battle at the Thermopile into an epic fight for the entire western world.



English female speaker (Edith Hall, Durham University) states that in the western imagination the story of Thermopile is the most important example of heroic self-sacrifice for a country, the simple message is the it is better to be dead than UN-free. The Spartan battle at Thermopile has been cherished in the West for centuries and it still inspires men to fight for their freedom. Army trainer states that Spartans inspired him since he was a kid and that he was told that this meant the ultimate warrior and the one of the reasons he joined marine core was to be that same person and he thinks that him and most marines feel kinship to the Spartans and the Spartan way of life.

(Main Speaker continues) But Sparta was far from glorious, Leonidas came from a secretive and violent society, totally at adds with the rest of Greece, their presence at one of the key battles for freedom has intrigued western scholars for centuries.

For 2500 years people have been arguing about them, never agreeing as to who they were, what they did, why they did it. Spartans have left a wonderful mythical paper-trail that nobody has really succeeded in sorting out. (Peter Green, University of Texas)

(Showing the images of Lakonian valley in Peloponisos of where ancient Sparta would have been).



Today very little remains of Sparta, the most isolated and secretive city states in ancient Greece, but in Leonidas's time this valley was home to the most feared warriors in the Mediterranean.

2500 years ago Greece was not a single nation. Sparta was the most fiercely independent of the 1500 feuding city states. Each state was an autonomous realm but they shared the common language and culture. Sparta excelled at the Olympic games where city states met every four years.

At Sparta, more than any other Greek State, feared the power of Greek Gods. Kind Leonidas himself believed that he was a direct descendant of Zeus (may his name be eternally praised) but above all Spartans were an expert warriors useful at the land where city states were often at each others throats.

(Josiah Ober, Princeton university) Every time you faced a Spartan army you faced a mass of identically and perfectly trained Spartans. You were not even confronting mortal men but were confronting this eternal notion of unbeatable Sparta.

(Main speaker) Leonidas was a master of his own realm and feared in many more but his supremacy was about to be challenged. Several years before Thermopile a messenger is said to have arrived from the East, he wanted that Sparta give up her freedom and submit to his master across the sea. He demanded traditional tokens of surrender, earth and water. Such presumption didn't go down well in sparta where surrender was unthinkable.

Herodotus reports uncompromising Spartan response 'At Sparta he was pushed into the well and told if he wanted earth and water for his king to get them down there.' The unfortunate messenger came from a land Leonidas barely knew. Even in his wildest dreams his kingdom of Sparta would never be as powerful as the Persian Empire.



Persia was the largest empire the western world had ever seen. From its center in modern day Iran it stretched from India to Egypt, Greece was just a tiny speck on its west horizon.

(Maria Brosius, Newcastle university) Persia was a world empire, it included 28 nations, it had all the resources it ever wanted, it had all the money it ever wanted, and controlled something that nobody before them ever controlled.



(Main Speaker) The Persians looked like they could take on a world but it would be some years before they realized that they would have to get pass the Spartans first.

In Sparta Persia would find a military machine like no other, closed to the outside world, Sparta's people though they were the chosen super-race and with extreme laws and ideals they planned to stay that way.

At birth all babies were examined to check that they can form to the Spartan ideal, even prince Leonidas would have been tested.

(Victor Davis Hanson, California Sate Univercity) You failed a physical test that is you were born into a family and had an obvious glaring defect whether that was being lame or blind or deaf you would have been killed, exposed.

(Main speaker) Exposure was common across ancient Greece but Spartans took it to extreme.

(Paul Cartledge, University of Cambridge) Children were exposed not only because they were deformed but also because parents could not bring them up and the though was they would be picked up, they would be brought up. In Sparta they took the view that deformed infants (even ones showing some signs of weakness) were to be hurled down a kazum (cliff) not far from Sparta and literally killed.

In Sparta a healthy boy like Leonidas would have been allowed to live and so begin his life long duty to the state. At the age of 7 a boy would have been removed from his family and though the Spartan ways. Living together in barracks the boys learn comradeship and deprived of all conforts they were molded through extreme hardship.

A person from a very early age would have to learn how to hunt, would go barefooted, would have to learn to survive on its own in the wilds.

The were deliberately given not enough to eat and also they were encouraged to steal to augment their media rations and they were whipped if they were caught, not because stealing was a crime but because they were clumsy thief's.

And the eyes of Sparta were everyone weeding out the weak and lazy. When Leonidas would have hit puberty a Spartan mentor would have taken him under his wing.

(Paul Cartridge, U. of Cambridge) Spartan girls were given some sort of formal education and they had some sort of exercise, allegedly naked, in front of the boys. The aim being for them to be, when they married and they married late by Greek standards, educated, brought up in such ways to be able to survive the riges of childbirth. Ideally they gave birth to boys because Sparta was a fundamentally a military society so the whole system is geared to producing largest number physically fittest fighting males.

(Peter Green, U.of Texas) One of the things that always amazes me is that they ever manage to produce children because they were encouraged to go into sort of military homosexual relationships until they were allowed to marry.

(Anton Powel, University of Wales, Swansea) The Spartans may wel be fighting next to their boyfriends. Homosexuality was though to bind men to their peers. It was your job with your shield and your own spear to guard your lover , that was part of the cement that kept the Spartan battle line together. Homosexuality was very common in Sparta and it was positivly looked on - provided it didnt stop men breeding.

(Main Speaker) The Spartan population was perilously small so there were laws designed to spice up the sex lives of married couples.

(Anton Powel, University of Wales, Swansea) A Spartan man wasnt allowed to see his wife in daylight for the first ten years or so of their marriage. A man was encouraged to see his wife as a splendid sex object. Emotional development is something we did not want because families were a source of peculiarity. Spartans wanted to produce similars, they wanted them wheeling on a battlefield , one mind like a flook of birds.

(Main Speaker) At age 20, Leonidas would have joined Spartan ranks. His duty -- to fight for Sparta until he was sixty or dead. He would have be given Sparta's trademark, red cloak, the only uniform in Greece designed to hide blood -- whether that of his own of that of one of his victims. Leonidas would have also been required to grow his hair into long locks.

(Anton Powel, University of Wales, Swansea) Sparta's hair is meant to intimidate, it was long, it bristled, these were Spartan dreadlocks. They were for the enemy to dread. When someone looked at a Spartiate they were meant to draw a message about Spartan society. This man is terrifying. Look at the size of him, the length of his hair, blood red cover of his cloak, look at the rest of them there too. They are calling attention to themselves -- masters of the universe

 

Anton Powel, University of Wales, Swansea) The Spartans may wel be fighting next to their boyfriends. Homosexuality was though to bind men to their peers. It was your job with your shield and your own spear to guard your lover , that was part of the cement that kept the Spartan battle line together. Homosexuality was very common in Sparta and it was positivly looked on - provided it didnt stop men breeding

 

Peter Green, U.of Texas) One of the things that always amazes me is that they ever manage to produce children because they were encouraged to go into sort of military homosexual relationships until they were allowed to marry.

(Anton Powel, University of Wales, Swansea) The Spartans may wel be fighting next to their boyfriends. Homosexuality was though to bind men to their peers. It was your job with your shield and your own spear to guard your lover , that was part of the cement that kept the Spartan battle line together. Homosexuality was very common in Sparta and it was positivly looked on - provided it didnt stop men breeding

 

The History Channel wasn't Lying. The Ancient Greeks did have a Homosexual Element
--

Here are some quotes from Robert Morkot's Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece, a book that I obtained from National Vanguard Books:

From page 44:
"Much literature, particularly the philosophical, emphasises the educational aspect of the relationship between an older man and a youth. The younger was to see in the older a model to be emulated, the older would admire the younger for his beauty which was identified with his physical strenghth as a young warrior. It was supposed to be a question of love of character, rather than physical attraction. Despite the tendency in much Greek literature to emphasise an ideal chaste relationship (and to censure consummation), literary anecdotes and paintings (of a quite expicit nature) on pottery rather suggest that the ideal remained, in many cases, just that. However, Greek society generally did not tolerate the same relationship between two adult men or the continuance of a relationship beyond a youth's maturity (he then assumed the elder role to a younger man) It should also be noted that while the practice was widespread and generally similar, the manners and customs of one city state might offfend the propriety of another. In Athens, where the official emphasis was on a chaste relationship, jokes could be make about the outrageous moral laxity of the Spartans. The Thebans were particularly noted for their indulgence in homosexuality, to the extent that a Theban hero, Laios, was supposed to have invented the practice. It was in the Theban "Sacred Band" that homosexuality was deliberately used to great military effect: lovers were placed side by side in battle brecause it was believed that this would encourage them to greater feats of valour." (emphasis mine)

From page 109:
"Homosexuality, which was a universal practice in all Greek states (normally involving an older man and a adolescent boy), was institutionalized in the armies of Sparta and Thebes, Greeces's two most formidable military states. In Thebes it was reputedly and intentional element in the compopsition of the "Sacred Band," it being believed that, placed side by side, lovers were ashamed to be disgraced in each other's presence, and that they would stand their ground to protect each other"


There you have it. The History Channel wasn't lying to you after all. For the record, my motive for making this post was because I recall someone posting that the History Channel was lying about homosexuality in Greece,

 

"Historical Revisionism" is a good thing, people, if history is being made to conform with the facts.

In this case, it isn't even "revisionism" since the attitudes towards "homosexuality" in ancient Greece are well known, and not disputed by any serious historians.

Remember, "homosexuality" is a modern concept. In the ancient world, there were only homosexual acts, and no such thing as a "homosexual identity". Someone who submitted to homosexual acts was considered unmanly and debased, but no such shame was imputed to the man who maintained the dominant male sexual role, regardless whether he penetrated - to be blunt - his wife, a female prostitute, a boy, etc.

Maintaining his role as a male (penetrator, not penetrated) was what was important; it was of considerably less impotance whether he preferred women or boys, provided he had a family and children and maintained his role within the polis (city state). Classical society only got into real trouble when men and women stopped having children, but that was many, many centuries after homosexuality was a well documented part of Greek and Roman society.

You could still see something of this "classical" attitude in Japan, where (for instance) it didn't matter, socially, that the writer Mishima was a homosexual, as long as he marrried and had children. Husband and Wife weren't expected to have a romantic attachment; the family was for producing children and managing property. It didn't matter if the husband sought romantic attachment elsewhere (the wife, of course, was allowed no such liberties).

None of this is "revisionism" or some kind of Jew-inspired calumny. I defy you to find a historian specializing in ancient Greek history who would deny the role of these homosexual acts in ancient Greek society; at most he will quibble over what Greek attitudes were, but will be unable to deny the vast differences to modern attitudes. Usually if the subject embarrasses, it is ignored by historians.

I'm surprised anyone who has done any reading in ancient history would find this controversial or debateable. I suspect that far too many here are suffering from a bad case of historical illiteracy, which can be rectified by hitting the books.