New member answers questions (countryboy)

[Curious]

and now they have light up ones and slippers and mini ones all sorts of things that are matching. I'm glad I don't have young kids anymore ;) The Chihuahuas are happy with just the original ones ;)

here is a chihuahualess one ;)

[formergothardite]

My oldest daughter just said, "she got her dog a pillow pet and you won't get me one. Dogs get treated better than me." She wants all of those things that they have info-commercials for. The pillowpet, the light up pillow pet, the light up blanket, the slippers that are animals. I'm waiting for them to go on sale and then I might buy her one. But I really don't think she would use it that much.

[longskirtlotsakids]

STOMP STOMP STOMP, STOMPEES! Yes. I concur. All that fuzzy crap that is irresistable to youbg girls that they advertisr ad nauseum on Saturday morning...I hate the lot!

[formergothardite]

I don't think Stompees work like they show on TV and if they did all the stomping around would get on my last nerve. Plus my dogs would either be scared of them or try to attack them.

Dream Lites, she wants that too. She would sleep so much better if I would buy one for her.

[Caribou]

Curious, your babies are adorable and it's wonderful that they love their moose pillow pet.

But... What I love about this picture is that they have a BIZZY BEE!! ("Best In Show" is an all-time favourite movie in the Caribou household!)

[Bethella]

This is a deer not a moose, but you can get the idea of just how nasty it can get.32Kja9_dXVw

[Curious]

My oldest daughter just said, "she got her dog a pillow pet and you won't get me one. Dogs get treated better than me." She wants all of those things that they have info-commercials for. The pillowpet, the light up pillow pet, the light up blanket, the slippers that are animals. I'm waiting for them to go on sale and then I might buy her one. But I really don't think she would use it that much.

lol sorry :( If you have a 5 below store, they had a bunch of the mini pillow pets at the one here just recently for $5.

I have to say the pillow pets are worth the $20, IMO. The original one we have has been washed a ton of times and it is still in great shape. If it can hold up to the dogs dragging it around by the antlers and scratching it to make it comfortable and various bodily fluid accidents, I'm sure it can survive a human child ;)

My dogs are absolutely treated like children, though.

[Curious]

Curious, your babies are adorable and it's wonderful that they love their moose pillow pet.

But... What I love about this picture is that they have a BIZZY BEE!! ("Best In Show" is an all-time favourite movie in the Caribou household!)

LOL yes they do. They have the squirrel one, as well. I got the bee because the squirrel was my older dogs and I wasn't sure how she was going to feel about sharing. It turns out she only cares about sharing her clothes. Even if they are too small for her now, hand me downs are NOT allowed. She corners the puppy, throws her to the ground and pulls the clothes off of her, if I try to put hand me downs on her. If I put new clothes on her, it's fine.

The clothes have all been laundered and in storage for over a year, but it doesn't matter. She knows exactly which ones were her's and sharing it NOT happening.

[lilith]

lol sorry :( If you have a 5 below store, they had a bunch of the mini pillow pets at the one here just recently for $5.

I have to say the pillow pets are worth the $20, IMO. The original one we have has been washed a ton of times and it is still in great shape. If it can hold up to the dogs dragging it around by the antlers and scratching it to make it comfortable and various bodily fluid accidents, I'm sure it can survive a human child ;)

My dogs are absolutely treated like children, though.

Our Kmart has generic pillow pets for $10, which are pretty good.

I'm waiting for the slippers to come out here in the panda for my daughter, only a few of the animals are available as slippers here.

And I agree, at $20 they are good value. My daughter's is a branded one, and its been washed heaps of times (being a nearly totally white panda), dragged to sleepovers and played with and it's kept it's shape and its fuzziness really well.

[Curious]

Our Kmart has generic pillow pets for $10, which are pretty good.

I'm waiting for the slippers to come out here in the panda for my daughter, only a few of the animals are available as slippers here.

And I agree, at $20 they are good value. My daughter's is a branded one, and its been washed heaps of times (being a nearly totally white panda), dragged to sleepovers and played with and it's kept it's shape and its fuzziness really well.

Oh I'll have to check Kmart. One of the Papillons likes the moose beds, but the Chis rarely let him lay on them. He is a traitory traitor though so I'm not sure he's worth a $20 one ;)

The mini ones were really cute. I thought about getting one for the baby, but I wasn't sure if she'd fit on it once she is full grown. In hindsight, it probably would have still been worth it though because they are light weight enough that it could have been used as a toy if it was too small to sleep on once she was full grown. I might go back and get one afterall. She would get $5 use out of it.

I was just looking at our old moose and the new one and the old one looks a little more "well loved," but overall it's pretty hard to tell which is which. It's kept it's shape, "loft" and all that kind of stuff. I bet in a few weeks, I won't be able to tell them apart. It gets use *every* day, too. It gets washed once a week or once every 2 weeks max.

In case you didn't know, lilith, they have hats now too! The panda one is adorable. They had it at the mall when we were there getting the new moose.

[lilith]

Oh I'll have to check Kmart. One of the Papillons likes the moose beds, but the Chis rarely let him lay on them. He is a traitory traitor though so I'm not sure he's worth a $20 one ;)

The mini ones were really cute. I thought about getting one for the baby, but I wasn't sure if she'd fit on it once she is full grown. In hindsight, it probably would have still been worth it though because they are light weight enough that it could have been used as a toy if it was too small to sleep on once she was full grown. I might go back and get one afterall. She would get $5 use out of it.

I was just looking at our old moose and the new one and the old one looks a little more "well loved," but overall it's pretty hard to tell which is which. It's kept it's shape, "loft" and all that kind of stuff. I bet in a few weeks, I won't be able to tell them apart. It gets use *every* day, too. It gets washed once a week or once every 2 weeks max.

In case you didn't know, lilith, they have hats now too! The panda one is adorable. They had it at the mall when we were there getting the new moose.

Oooh, I may have to get on an American site. My daughter's birthday is coming up. Her nickname is Bear, thus the panda pillow pet, and she'd love some accessories.

[CountryBoy]

Ok folks I am back, I'll do my best to answer all the questions asked, but, I cannot guarantee that I won't miss some.

First I'll deal with sodomy. You all say that I am exclusive because I believe sodomy is wrong, I am. Here is the catch though, you are also exclusive, because you do not accept my belief that sodomy is wrong. This is what I am getting

at: by my religion I cannot accept sodomy, and by your religion, you cannot accept that I don't accept sodomy, so, we are both exclusive. Both in our own mind are 100% right, yet opposite to each other. Therefore, the only hope for us both to no longer to be exclusive is for one of us to accept what the other believes. You are accusing me of forcing my religion on the world, yet at the same time, you are forcing yours on me and are now guilty of the same accusation. You cannot accept what I believe and what you believe at the same time, and neither can I, so, I'll counter ask the question: Why do you think it is okay to force your beliefs on me?

Now why do I think sodomy is wrong? I could come at this from a Biblical perspective, but you do not believe the Bible so that would be a waste of words. Let me prove to you that sodomy is wrong with evolution. Evolution demands survival of the fittest, and reproduction of the strongest for the species to survive. What purpose does two men having sex serve in that? If all men became homos the human race would end right? If all roosters become homos chickens would go extinct in no time. Just in terms of natural survival, sodomy is stupid, lock to gay men in a room for eternity and you wont have any kids. From the perspective of looking for the fittest, would you consider sodomites very fit when they are doing something that does absolutely nothing to reproduce? When you decide you are gay, you just deselected yourself, you are no longer helping in the chain of survival. I am going to now look at it from my perspective as a farm boy, whenever an animal starts to show behavior such as a rooster that mates rooster, we must cull that animal out so our herd survives, it wouldn't make sense to let them go on and let the herd die off would it? I am not equating people with animals, they are very different to me, I am just trying to illustrate that in farming and in nature, sodomy is an aberration, why should it be any different with us humans? I do not hate sodomites, I pity them, they need help. Oh I know, I hate them because I think what they are doing is wrong. Since when was saying an action is wrong, hatred? Tell me. Whenever did condemning an action, become hatred?

Now about God's Country Boy. I do not know him personally, have had some contact via the internet, mainly through our blogs. As I said before, if you have any issues with him, talk to him, he would be happy to answer any of your concerns. If you don't like commenting on blogs, that is fine, just don't expect me to answer your questions about someone else, especially when you can easily ask that person if you really wanted to. I will make this comment on his being armed and dangerous. That was the point of writing it that way, it is a joke, based on how the lib media talks of gun owners and country "rednecks", carrying a gun suddenly makes you armed and dangerous to them.

Do I think a man standing such a pose is modest? First off, you wont find me in that pose, (well maybe not any for that matter) 'cause I hate cameras :). Anyway, no I do not think that is a problem. Let me delve into modesty a bit more. When I dress I do not dress to not defraud the world, only brothers and sisters in Christ. Somebody from the world is going to lust cause they want to, a Christian is presumably trying not to, and I'll do my best to help them in their endeavor. I assume that formergothardite, you have been to all the seminars, so you will likely remember this; I remember Gothard saying that, he had talked to so many young people who told him, whenever they saw somebody they saw them naked. When you have not guarded your eyes at all, and look to lust, long enough, you will get like that, and no matter what somebody wears, you will still see them naked. Believe me, I know how this works, I've been there. That is why I do not try to dress for the world, only for my brothers and sisters in Christ. Why should I dress to keep you from stumbling when you want to lust anyway?

For a quick aside about the male modesty article I linked to, that article was written mainly for Christians, and if I'd been thinking straight, I wouldn't have used it, 'cause it doesn't apply here anyway.

Am I going to court?

Yes, why not? Let me define courting and dating as I see it:

Courtship: Two young people getting to know each other under parental guidance with set standards both parties agree on, the final goal being marriage.

Dating: In which two young people get to know each other, with or without any standards, and usually no parental guidance.

Why do I choose courtship?

Main reason is parental guidance, they are wiser than I right? They've been around a while and know a thing or two more than I. Lest there be any confusion, the final decision about marriage is with me but, I have chosen to lean heavily on my parents counsel because I know that they want the best for me, and they would never do anything to hurt me.

Would I use contraception in my marriage?

No. Period. Why should I? Children are a wonderful blessing are they not? Why would you want to limit a blessing?

So there you have it folks, if I have missed anything let me know.

[samurai_sarah]

Ok folks I am back, I'll do my best to answer all the questions asked, but, I cannot guarantee that I won't miss some.

First I'll deal with sodomy. You all say that I am exclusive because I believe sodomy is wrong, I am. Here is the catch though, you are also exclusive, because you do not accept my belief that sodomy is wrong. This is what I am getting at: by my religion I cannot accept sodomy, and by your religion, you cannot accept that I don't accept sodomy, so, we are both exclusive. Both in our own mind are 100% right, yet opposite to each other. Therefore, the only hope for us both to no longer to be exclusive is for one of us to accept what the other believes. (snip)

There are only so many hours in any day, so I'll answer to the snipped.

Your words, my substitutions:

First I'll deal with interracial marriage. You all say that I am exclusive because I believe interracial marriage is wrong, I am. Here is the catch though, you are also exclusive, because you do not accept my belief that interracial marriage is wrong. This is what I am getting at: by my religion I cannot accept interracial marriage, and by your religion, you cannot accept that I don't accept interracial marriage, so, we are both exclusive. Both in our own mind are 100% right, yet opposite to each other. Therefore, the only hope for us both to no longer to be exclusive is for one of us to accept what the other believes.

:?

See what I'm trying to get at? (Unless you're also racist)

edited for clarity

[Megan]

I don't have the patience to go through your comments just yet.

You missed every question regarding the KJV.

[Megan]

Do I think a man standing such a pose is modest? First off, you wont find me in that pose, (well maybe not any for that matter) 'cause I hate cameras :). Anyway, no I do not think that is a problem. Let me delve into modesty a bit more. When I dress I do not dress to not defraud the world, only brothers and sisters in Christ. Somebody from the world is going to lust cause they want to, a Christian is presumably trying not to, and I'll do my best to help them in their endeavor. I assume that formergothardite, you have been to all the seminars, so you will likely remember this; I remember Gothard saying that, he had talked to so many young people who told him, whenever they saw somebody they saw them naked. When you have not guarded your eyes at all, and look to lust, long enough, you will get like that, and no matter what somebody wears, you will still see them naked. Believe me, I know how this works, I've been there. That is why I do not try to dress for the world, only for my brothers and sisters in Christ. Why should I dress to keep you from stumbling when you want to lust anyway?

For a quick aside about the male modesty article I linked to, that article was written mainly for Christians, and if I'd been thinking straight, I wouldn't have used it, 'cause it doesn't apply here anyway.

Actually, I will address this now because it is so obviously ridiculous.

If some wonderful young Melanie Wilkes-type Sister-in-Christ is perusing through the blogs of various young Christians and happens to come across a picture in which a man's ass is the primary focus (see above), could this not defraud her? You are either implying that women aren't visual creatures (we are, Christian or not) or can 100% control their attraction (we can't, Christian or not).

And, honestly, what happened to being shining beacons of Christian decency, a city on a hill, etc etc? Are you not supposed to be a Christian to everyone, not just those you like and agree with? It is ok for you to lead or encourage people to sin if they don't meet your standards?

[lilith]

Re homosexuality as a natural occurrence and evolutionary tool.

Note, as I said earlier, homosexuality is not sodomy. There are heterosexual and bisexual people who enjoy sodomy and homosexuals who don't. Sodomy is a sex act, not a sexuality.

Anyway, historically homosexual activity has made sense for certain groups. The Greek army, for example, didn't allow their young recruits to marry because they could not stay in one place to support a family, so they encouraged homosexual activity as a healthy sexual outlet. Greek philosophers even went so far as to say that homosexual love between soldiers bonded the army as a man would die to protect his lover, and held that homosexual love was more pure than heterosexual, as heterosexual marriages were often economic arrangements.

Many other social groups have found that homosexuality, especially in young men who are unable to support a wife or in times where there was a scarcity of fertile women, helped social cohesion. Homosexual men would add resources to a group without adding children to use those resources. They would help support their nieces and nephews. Similarly, homosexual women would be available to provide child care as they didn't have children if their own.

The 10% or so of the population that are homosexual make perfect evolutionary sense, especially if the evidence pointing towards increased likelihood of a male child being gay the more male children his mother has had before him ends up being true. If a family has ten boys it give the extended family an advantage if one of those boys doesn't marry and give his resources to his own family but shares them with his brother's families who share his genes.

[ShesCrafty]

by my religion I cannot accept sodomy, and by your religion, you cannot accept that I don't accept sodomy, so, we are both exclusive.

Your post was long, so I'm just going to address the above quote for now.

1. Sodomy =\= homosexuality. Many heterosexual couples engage in sodomy. You should learn to use the correct terms if you want to be taken seriously.

2. I'm not religious. At all. I've never been to any type of religious service ever. So it's not my "religion", it's by morality, humanity, and compassion for my fellow human beings that makes your homophobia disgusting to me. NOT religion.

3. I encourage you to go to the Snark forum and read the thread on the man who was beaten and burned to death in Mississippi. Authorities believe it is because he was gay. While I don't mean to imply you would ever do anything violent, just realize that your beliefs on homosexuality are the same as the person who perpetrated this horrible crime. Something to think about.

[BlondeAgent007]

Ok folks I am back, I'll do my best to answer all the questions asked, but, I cannot guarantee that I won't miss some.

I am going to now look at it from my perspective as a farm boy, whenever an animal starts to show behavior such as a rooster that mates rooster, we must cull that animal out so our herd survives, it wouldn't make sense to let them go on and let the herd die off would it?

The rooster is not going to turn the other roosters gay. People don't turn gay, they are born gay.

Men can avoid prostate cancer from getting regular prostate massages. The massage is also the only way for a male to have a double orgasm. The only way to do this is through the anus. Only way. It is healthy and very pleasurable. To try to claim it is not natural is a little absurd.

Sodomy =/= homosexuality, like many have said.

ETA I also wonder if this means you think we should kill all teh gayz?

[Guest Anonymous]

Ok folks I am back, I'll do my best to answer all the questions asked, but, I cannot guarantee that I won't miss some.

First I'll deal with sodomy. You all say that I am exclusive because I believe sodomy is wrong, I am. Here is the catch though, you are also exclusive, because you do not accept my belief that sodomy is wrong. This is what I am getting

at: by my religion I cannot accept sodomy, and by your religion, you cannot accept that I don't accept sodomy, so, we are both exclusive. Both in our own mind are 100% right, yet opposite to each other. Therefore, the only hope for us both to no longer to be exclusive is for one of us to accept what the other believes. You are accusing me of forcing my religion on the world, yet at the same time, you are forcing yours on me and are now guilty of the same accusation. You cannot accept what I believe and what you believe at the same time, and neither can I, so, I'll counter ask the question: Why do you think it is okay to force your beliefs on me?

The whole "it is intolerant to care about intolerance" thing is bullshit. Having an opinion about someone else's opinions is not the same as being prejudiced against someone because of a facet of their identity. Fun example: there is a difference between disagreeing with Mike's politics and hating Mike because he's black.

Now why do I think sodomy is wrong? I could come at this from a Biblical perspective, but you do not believe the Bible so that would be a waste of words. Let me prove to you that sodomy is wrong with evolution. Evolution demands survival of the fittest, and reproduction of the strongest for the species to survive. What purpose does two men having sex serve in that? If all men became homos the human race would end right? If all roosters become homos chickens would go extinct in no time. Just in terms of natural survival, sodomy is stupid, lock to gay men in a room for eternity and you wont have any kids. From the perspective of looking for the fittest, would you consider sodomites very fit when they are doing something that does absolutely nothing to reproduce? When you decide you are gay, you just deselected yourself, you are no longer helping in the chain of survival. I am going to now look at it from my perspective as a farm boy, whenever an animal starts to show behavior such as a rooster that mates rooster, we must cull that animal out so our herd survives, it wouldn't make sense to let them go on and let the herd die off would it? I am not equating people with animals, they are very different to me, I am just trying to illustrate that in farming and in nature, sodomy is an aberration, why should it be any different with us humans? I do not hate sodomites, I pity them, they need help. Oh I know, I hate them because I think what they are doing is wrong. Since when was saying an action is wrong, hatred? Tell me. Whenever did condemning an action, become hatred?

Evolution is not a conscious programme of eugenics, it is not about individuals choosing to be optimum breeders (i.e. selecting or de-selecting themselves). Evolution is just a thing that happens. Pretty much by definition, you don't need to police it. If something really is completely unsustainable it will just go away. There is no need to ban things, or discriminate against people, just to keep evolution going.

You seem to be assuming that there's this hurtling train: homosexuality exists now, everyone becomes gay, gay people can't reproduce, we all go extinct. That is just... not a thing.

Also, whether or not something has a perceivable evolutionary benefit does not assign it a moral value. Something does not become "wrong" just because it does not provide an obvious evolutionary edge. (I mean this generally, and I am not agreeing that homosexuality is detrimental to species' survival).

Would I use contraception in my marriage?

No. Period. Why should I? Children are a wonderful blessing are they not? Why would you want to limit a blessing?

Children are not blessings, they're human beings. Why 'limit a blessing?' Can you see the difference between raising twelve kids in poverty because you're stretching your resources further than they should go, and raising four kids that you can afford to look after?

Edits: wording.

[Guest Anonymous]

Actually, I will address this now because it is so obviously ridiculous.

If some wonderful young Melanie Wilkes-type Sister-in-Christ is perusing through the blogs of various young Christians and happens to come across a picture in which a man's ass is the primary focus (see above), could this not defraud her? You are either implying that women aren't visual creatures (we are, Christian or not) or can 100% control their attraction (we can't, Christian or not).

And, honestly, what happened to being shining beacons of Christian decency, a city on a hill, etc etc? Are you not supposed to be a Christian to everyone, not just those you like and agree with? It is ok for you to lead or encourage people to sin if they don't meet your standards?

This too.

It really sounds as if CountryBoy is saying that we godless women are willing ourselves to lust, and that this is somehow against our feminine nature .:roll: Christian women feel lust too, y'know.

[formergothardite]

You all say that I am exclusive because I believe sodomy is wrong, I am. Here is the catch though, you are also exclusive, because you do not accept my belief that sodomy is wrong. This is what I am getting

at: by my religion I cannot accept sodomy, and by your religion, you cannot accept that I don't accept sodomy, so, we are both exclusive. Both in our own mind are 100% right, yet opposite to each other. Therefore, the only hope for us both to no longer to be exclusive is for one of us to accept what the other believes. You are accusing me of forcing my religion on the world, yet at the same time, you are forcing yours on me and are now guilty of the same accusation. You cannot accept what I believe and what you believe at the same time, and neither can I, so, I'll counter ask the question: Why do you think it is okay to force your beliefs on me?

I have no problem accepting that your beliefs is that sodomy(by the way I have had that, does that mean that my marriage is no longer valid?) is against your religion. In fact I would do absolutely nothing to stop you from believing and teaching that in your church. I do not believe you should have to be gay, I do not believe that your church should have to support and perform gay marriages. Therefore I am not forcing my beliefs on you. I do not want to change your beliefs at all, I just want to know why they are forced on the rest of us.

So then we are back to the fact that you say your beliefs must be forced on people who are gay.

Let me spell this out in an easy way for you:

Church A believes that being gay is a sin.

Church B believes that being gay is not a sin.

Church A would not marry a gay couple.

Church B would marry gay couples and have many in their congregation whose religious beliefs dictate that they get married.

Church B would not force Church A to marry gay couples

Church A WOULD force Church B to not be able to marry gay couples even though it is acceptable part of their religion.

Therefore church A is forcing their religious beliefs on Church B and Church B is not forcing their religious beliefs on Church A.

You are church A, you are forcing your religious beliefs onto other churchs.

[formergothardite]

Now why do I think sodomy is wrong? I could come at this from a Biblical perspective, but you do not believe the Bible so that would be a waste of words. Let me prove to you that sodomy is wrong with evolution. Evolution demands survival of the fittest, and reproduction of the strongest for the species to survive. What purpose does two men having sex serve in that? If all men became homos the human race would end right? If all roosters become homos chickens would go extinct in no time. Just in terms of natural survival, sodomy is stupid, lock to gay men in a room for eternity and you wont have any kids. From the perspective of looking for the fittest, would you consider sodomites very fit when they are doing something that does absolutely nothing to reproduce? When you decide you are gay, you just deselected yourself, you are no longer helping in the chain of survival. I am going to now look at it from my perspective as a farm boy, whenever an animal starts to show behavior such as a rooster that mates rooster, we must cull that animal out so our herd survives, it wouldn't make sense to let them go on and let the herd die off would it? I am not equating people with animals, they are very different to me, I am just trying to illustrate that in farming and in nature, sodomy is an aberration, why should it be any different with us humans? I do not hate sodomites, I pity them, they need help. Oh I know, I hate them because I think what they are doing is wrong. Since when was saying an action is wrong, hatred? Tell me. Whenever did condemning an action, become hatred?

So basically your argument comes down to "they can't have babies". Well there are plenty of straight people who can't have babies. Should they not be allowed to ge married since they are not able to have children? They aren't helping in the chain of survival. In terms of natural survival, people who are unable to have children are just stupid, lock all the infertile people in a room for eternity and there would be no children. Obviously, as a farm boy, you wouldn't keep animals that couldn't have babies would you? The herd would die off, wouldn't it? So according to this argument, straight people who are unable to have children are wrong and should not be treated equally to straight people who can have children.

When did condemning an action become hatred, I don't know, like back when white people condemned the action of black people being treated with equalty. They were just condemning an action, right? Their religious beliefs said that black people couldn't mingle with white people as equals, that wasn't hatred, was, it Country Boy? They moved beyond just condemning the action in their own lives and went to denying a group equality based on their beliefs and that is hatred. Which is exactly what you are doing.

I'm assuming you are a member of the coalition that made this video:

http://www.towleroad.com/2013/03/the-ul ... video.html

[formergothardite]

Actually, I will address this now because it is so obviously ridiculous.

If some wonderful young Melanie Wilkes-type Sister-in-Christ is perusing through the blogs of various young Christians and happens to come across a picture in which a man's ass is the primary focus (see above), could this not defraud her? You are either implying that women aren't visual creatures (we are, Christian or not) or can 100% control their attraction (we can't, Christian or not).

And, honestly, what happened to being shining beacons of Christian decency, a city on a hill, etc etc? Are you not supposed to be a Christian to everyone, not just those you like and agree with? It is ok for you to lead or encourage people to sin if they don't meet your standards?

Exactly. As someone who was raised fundie and was extremely sheltered(didn't even really know what sex was till I had it) that picture would have caused me to lust as a teen. In fact, pictures a lot like that were used in some Christian resources did cause me to lust. I felt ashamed, like there was something wrong with me because we were taught that only guys reacted this way. So it isn't even like I could speak up and say " Hey, brothers in Christ, these pictures are a stumbling block." like a guy could. If a guy had complained then the pictures would have been gotten rid of, but if it had been me, I would have gotten the reaction that you gave, that there was something wrong with me, that I hadn't been guarding my heart, when instead I have journals filled with begging God to take these thoughts away. So you are wrong, it isn't just the worldly women who never guarded their hearts who would be led to lust over that sort of picture, it is the sisters in Christ who will keep it quiet because guys like you think that they only lust after "yer muscles."

ETA: Gothard lies and tells half-truths on a regular basis(think of the story about how Russian leaders said that ATI students had bright eyes because of the way they were living for God. Never happened) so forgive me for not believing that "many" young people told Gothard that they viewed all people as naked. Keep in mind this story is coming from a guy who has admitted to innappropriate behaviour with his staff and has been recently accused of sexually harrassing young teen girls who "work" for him.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Ok folks I am back, I'll do my best to answer all the questions asked, but, I cannot guarantee that I won't miss some.

First I'll deal with sodomy. You all say that I am exclusive because I believe sodomy is wrong, I am. Here is the catch though, you are also exclusive, because you do not accept my belief that sodomy is wrong. This is what I am getting

at: by my religion I cannot accept sodomy, and by your religion, you cannot accept that I don't accept sodomy, so, we are both exclusive. Both in our own mind are 100% right, yet opposite to each other. Therefore, the only hope for us both to no longer to be exclusive is for one of us to accept what the other believes. You are accusing me of forcing my religion on the world, yet at the same time, you are forcing yours on me and are now guilty of the same accusation. You cannot accept what I believe and what you believe at the same time, and neither can I, so, I'll counter ask the question: Why do you think it is okay to force your beliefs on me?

Yes, you have every right to believe that being gay is wrong, even though I do not agree. The people trying to ban gay marriage are forcing their religion on the world because there are many people who dont follow your beliefs but want gay people to be allowed to marry, and many gay people who want to marry. But if gay marriage was legal, your church would still be allowed to say no and not allow gay couples to get married there, just as I couldnt get married in your church, even if I was marrying a man, because I am an atheist. But I would be allowed to get married in other places though, cause Christianity doesnt own the term marriage.

Now why do I think sodomy is wrong? I could come at this from a Biblical perspective, but you do not believe the Bible so that would be a waste of words. Let me prove to you that sodomy is wrong with evolution. Evolution demands survival of the fittest, and reproduction of the strongest for the species to survive. What purpose does two men having sex serve in that? If all men became homos the human race would end right? If all roosters become homos chickens would go extinct in no time. Just in terms of natural survival, sodomy is stupid, lock to gay men in a room for eternity and you wont have any kids. From the perspective of looking for the fittest, would you consider sodomites very fit when they are doing something that does absolutely nothing to reproduce? When you decide you are gay, you just deselected yourself, you are no longer helping in the chain of survival. I am going to now look at it from my perspective as a farm boy, whenever an animal starts to show behavior such as a rooster that mates rooster, we must cull that animal out so our herd survives, it wouldn't make sense to let them go on and let the herd die off would it? I am not equating people with animals, they are very different to me, I am just trying to illustrate that in farming and in nature, sodomy is an aberration, why should it be any different with us humans? I do not hate sodomites, I pity them, they need help. Oh I know, I hate them because I think what they are doing is wrong. Since when was saying an action is wrong, hatred? Tell me. Whenever did condemning an action, become hatred?

So are you saying we should kill people who are gay, asexual or infertile, or bisexual and wanting to marry someone of the opposite sex or just not planning to have kids?

There are 7 billion people in the world, but less than 10% are gay, think theres about 1% asexual people, and I dont know how many people in the world are childfree or infertile, but there are way more people who choose to have children than people who dont or cant. Humanity is in no danger of going extinct, and legalising gay marriage will not suddenly make people decide that they want to be gay, because sexuality isnt a choice. If gay marriage was legal, the same amount of people would be gay as there was before.

Because homosexuality is found in nature, and something that has continued to exist for all of this time, it makes sense that there is some form of evolutionary benefit to it, like caring for abandoned children. Gay people can adopt children that dont have homes, which is better than them staying in orphanages all their life. This happens in nature too, like the story of the two gay penguins who adopted an abandoned egg. This gives the child a better chance of life, so it makes sense.

[longskirtlotsakids]

Hey um, countryboy? Try this. When discussing anything that has to do with human rights and civil discourse do not, do not,DO NOT use livestock management for any metaphor. I've roped and processed my share of cattle and mnged breeding herds. How we treat animals is a shitty, shitty way to reflect on how human civilization should be run.

Also, blowjobs are sodomy. Yeah, I bet men are just *lining* up to have that outlawed...