To date, it has not been practical to bill for use due to the overhead and added expense involved.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Every single ISP in Australia bills for usage. It's not infrastructure costs that keep the practice out of America, it's consumer backlash when they try.
To be serious the parent reminds me a bit off criminals offended by other criminals. Rapist saying they despise child rapists. WTF?
This guy vists/b/ a channel filled with the worst of the net and then complains about japan. Right. Take a look at yourselve first kiddo.
Er...when did he say he visits it? His post contained less information about the contents of the 4chan/b/ board than yours did. If you're going to accuse him of being a perverted sicko on the basis of his post along, then you're just as guilty.
According to your "Biblical Christianity," which is based on translations or translations
I assume you meant "translations of translations". The Bible has been translated many times, but not as "translations of translations". When you translate the Bible into a new language, you don't translate the English version, you go back to the original document (that is, the oldest remaining document we have available to us) and translate it from that.
And while I may use a translated Bible, ministers in protestant churches are generally taught the basics of the Biblical languages in Bible College, so they don't have to depend on translations of the documents. Christian knowledge of the Bible is not based on translations of documents that have been lost through the ages - we still have access to documents relatively close (in terms of copy-generations) to the originals.
And two liberal interpretations for that passage are:
The thing about interpretations is that they need to be based on the passage if they want to be taken seriously: yes, the passage is talking about the results of pagan worship, but I'm not sure how you can say "vile affections" isn't a condemnation.
I could interpret the passage to mean that green cows make good dancers, but unless I can point to parts of the passage that support my interpretation, my "interpretation" is meaningless babble.
Right, perhaps I should have said Biblical Christianity. Of course, I can't really see the point in calling a religion Christianity if it doesn't pay attention to the Bible, but it seems every little cult and sect likes to call itself "Christian" and nobody's allowed to challenge them on that.
And of course I assume you follow all the other edicts laid out in Leviticus too? Or, your one of those Christians who picks and chooses? Or follows a misinterpretation/mistranslation of what "knows" means (Sodom/Gomorrah)? Or, perhaps you just don't like fags?
I've got no particular problems with homosexuals. Read some of my other comments in this thread - homosexuality is no worse a sin than heterosexual infidelity, or any other form of what the Bible calls sexual immorality. My problem is people saying that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality - it clearly does, see Romans 1. I'd be saying the same thing if someone was saying Christianity and wife-swapping was compatible.
And of course I assume you follow all the other edicts laid out in Leviticus too? Or, your one of those Christians who picks and chooses?
Which edicts are those? Most of the levitical edicts centre around various sacrifices. When Jesus died, He fulfilled those requirements once and for all (Hebrews 9:23-28). If you're looking at actually understanding the Bible, you've got to take it as a whole. You can't say "look, here in Deuteronomy God commands the Israelites to kill the Hittites, therefore all Christians should be off the middle east butchering natives." Of course, if all your looking for is sound-bites to make Christianity seem stupid, out-of-context quotes are definately your game.
You agree that sexual preference is a matter of how you're born
Well, not exactly; I'd say that environment would have a considerable impact. But at the age we're talking about, it's not really possible to control your social environment to any great extent.
But you seem to have some sort of problem with people acting according to their nature in a way that has no effect on you. Why is it ok for you to act according to your nature, but not for them?
I have no problem with homosexuals going and being homosexuals. I have problems with homosexuals saying "Christianity and homosexuality are compatible". If you take Christianity to be based on the Bible, that is clearly false. If whatever religion you are participating in ignores the Bible, and says homosexuality is a-ok, fine; just don't call it Christianity.
As I mentioned above, I have problems with the claim that sexuality is not a choice, because it inevitable leads to "therefore God made me homosexual, and God forbids homosexuality, therefore it's all God's fault and Christianity is hypocritical and judgemental". As I've mentioned in another thread, I know of no mainstream Christian theology that condemns homosexual attraction instead of the homosexual act. Temptation of any form is not a sin, someone tempted towards homosexuality is not sinning. Giving in to temptation is sinful, in Christian theology.
Well, if you're a Catholic you believe you're a cannibal I suppose. And while transubstantiation might be a central Catholic belief, it's not supported anywhere in the Bible.
So you're saying that you had a huge internal debate growing up as to whether you would choose to start liking women or whether you'd start getting hot for hairy man ass?
Nope. I'm just saying that I've never gone out and had sex with a man. No matter what you start feeling at puberty, nothing is forcing you to act on them. People (both homosexual and heterosexual) are able to feel attractions and not act on them. People who say "I can't help it, I was just born this way" (about anything, not just homosexuality) are just copping out. You decide your behaviour, not your genes. So if your going to be homosexual, fine, but at least state out and out that it's your choice to screw men instead of women, and stop hiding behind this "it's not my choice" bullcrap.
Here you're judging that homosexuality is a problem that can be solved by accepting the morals of your church. No thanks. Adhering to the mistranslations of an ancient cult and selectively lording them over those you disagree with (Leviticus) is pretty messed up.
Eh? I said that if a homosexual became a Christian, he would begin to deal with his problems. If he's accepted Christianity, then he would also have accepted (rightly or wrongly) that his homosexuality is a problem, and would start dealing with that.
I have no intention of lording anything over anyone. I have no qualms over other people going out and screwing whoever and whatever they feel like. The only problem I have is when people who do do that then claim they're Christians.
It's a question of degree. People seem far more afraid of computer technology than they are of motor vehicle technology. I don't get annoyed when people ask me technical questions, or ask for technical assistance with computers. It's when they continually ask for assistance with "consumer-grade" problems. How do I send an email? How do I create a new document? How do I save something?
I bet your brother would get rather sick of it if you kept on asking him where the petrol went or how to turn on the indicator.
Deviant behavior like that seen with the many pedophile-priest cases (i'm no expert, mind you) seems to be a direct result of trying to repress their natural sexual urges.
I'm no expert either, but I'd probably agree. I'm a protestant, not a Catholic, and there's nothing particularly scriptural about life-long abstinence. I do think there's a difference between repressing sexuality entirely, and redirecting sexuality into a different channel. I merely brought up the priesthood as an example of people who have repressed their desires (rightly or wrongly) their entire lives (or at least, since they entered the priesthood).
And since you bring it up...do you have "proof" that homosexuality is, in fact, amoral? I suppose it would depend on how you define amoral behavior, and if that definition hinges on causing harm, then it is not amoral. Two people of the same sex making love harms neither you nor I, nor anyone else in any tangible fashion.
I wasn't trying to assert the morality of homosexuality. I was just saying that seeing evidence of it in nature isn't proof one way or the other, which is why I thought you brought up the penguin thing.
But, to answer your question, no proof that will satisfy you. I base my own thoughts on the morality of homosexuality on the Bible. But I'm not out to condemn homosexuals - homosexuality vs. religion is more social politics than theology. From a Christian theological perspective, homosexuality isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. People who go around "fighting" homosexuality are fighting a losing battle. Better to spread the gospel, and let those who are willing come to it. If they are sincere, then they will begin to deal with their problems (including homosexuality) themselves.
But I do still say that homosexuality is a choice. You may be born with certain inclinations - homosexual or heterosexual. But those tendancies don't lock you into your sexuality, any more than having genes that tend towards alchoholism, or cancer, or height, or obesity guarantee any of those traits.
If you've never had an alcoholic drink in your life, you won't have any urge to drink. (at least not the type of "hunger" a reformed alcoholic might feel)
No, not that sort of hunger. More a sort of curiosity/desire I suppose. Which, from what I hear, is what homosexuality generally starts out as. A mixture of sexual desire and curiosity.
Could YOU be able to suppress your (assumedly) heterosexual tendacies if called-upon to do so?
There's many people who have done so, whether due to social pressures, or personal ones. There are also heterosexuals who have (ostensible at least) abstained from sex for life - like Catholic priests, nuns and monks. And yes, cue the pedophile-priest jokes, but you can be sure that's not the behaviour of the majority, or even a significant minority.
To me, it appears that homosexuality is something that has probably existed in nature for thousands of years and will continue to do so.
I don't know why people bring up this sort of thing as "proof" that homosexuality is moral behaviour. I mean, the praying mantis canibalizes it's mate in the process of reproduction, but I'm pretty sure nobody's saying that's a good thing in humans.
Take a straight guy. Put him in a situation were homosexuality is the norm, where there are people he likes and respects living a homosexual life, and, homosexuality will become less repugnant to him. Maybe he'll become homosexual, maybe he won't, but the point is, sexuality is malleable. It's not something set in stone when you're born - or when you hit puberty. I know both people who've had reasonably successful heterosexual relationships go on to homosexuality (post puberty) and homosexuals who have gone on to abandon homosexuality and have heterosexual relationships. One former homosexual I talked to went on to marry and have children. He said that he feels romantically and sexually attracted to his wife, and any homosexual twinges he has are just that - twinges.
People can choose to change their sexuality in either direction. Sometimes life directs you one way, but you can always choose to change.
It's a known fact backed up by every piece of evidence.
Right. So present your evidence. And tell me why and how the things I listed are different from sexuality, instead of just saying that it's so. Make an argument.
To say that it didn't happen is a reasonable call, as no sources from the time make any suggestion that it did. Given the fact that Jesus had quite a few enemies who didn't shy from political murder, I'd say if there was any chance of them getting an accusation of homosexuality to stick, they'd have aired it about. And we probably would have had a source regarding it, even if it was just a refutation - there are other sources around from the time that aren't considered Biblical canon. If your concern is the church fiddling with the record (for which there isn't any record - they just picked which documents they considered to be reliable) then there are some of the documents they rejected still available out there.
Whose talking about attraction? I'm talking about action. It's a choice whether you want to sleep with other men or not. Nobody is forced into homosexuality by anything. It's entirely their choice.
If I felt attraction towards males (which I do not, btw), I'd be immediately expelled or called to repent - for something that I have not done at all. A common question homosexuals ask (at least those I have met on the internet) is "why does God condemn me for being homosexual if he made me that way?"
You wouldn't at the church I attend - although you'd probably encounter some social ostracism. But that's more a social thing than a theological thing. It's more or less inevitable in our society at the moment that churches are going to have a significant number of middle-class conservatives. Those people are motivated by both Christian values, and conservative middle-class values, and while there is some overlap between the two, they are not identical sets.
In theological terms, I don't know of any mainstream Christian denomination that regards desire (of any sort) as a sin. It's giving in, or catering to that desire that's the problem. Even Christ was tempted (ok, not with homosexual sex) so it's hypocritical to say that temptation itself is wrong. Of course, just because the theology says one thing doesn't necessarily mean squat when it comnes to the attitudes of the parishners.
Finally, something I don't understand is that most christians i've met (again, on the internet) judge homosexuals in a much worse way than heterosexuals - even if heterosexuals engage in sex in their teens. And both homosexuality AND fornication are forbidden in the Bible. Double standards, anyone?
Yeah, I see that a lot too. I'm not sure if it's so much double-standards as it is double-tipping. Despite all the politicking going on, homosexuality is still very much against the societal grain, whereas sleeping around is less so.
A homosexual gets hit twice - once by the social prejudice, and once by the Biblical prohibition - whereas heterosexual fornication is shrugged off by society.
People mean different things when they say homosexual. You see to be saying homosexuality is the attraction to members of the sane sex. The definition most often used by churchs is sexual acts between members of the same sex.
I can see why someone who is a homosexual by the first definition would want to be a Christian. It's no different from someone who has a tendancy towards alchoholism, or gambling, or heterosexual infidelity. But that's very different from the homosexual who engages in sexual acts with other members of the same sex, and (this is the important part) sees nothing wrong with that and doesn't want to change.
Maybe the situation where I live is different to the US. But over here, most Christians would not have a problem with someone who has homosexual tendancies but doesn't act on them, or someone with a homosexual past who has left it behind being a part of their church.
That's where the choice comes in. You can have homosexual tendancies, just the same as you can have alchoholic tendancies, or a weakness for gambling, etc. The choice is in whether you succumb to that temptation or not. I wouldn't call someone had homosexual tendancies, but didn't have homosexual sex a homosexual, any more than I'd call someone who had an urge to drink, but never did, an alchoholic.
But if you ask someone if they think homosexuals should be allowed in the church, they are probably going to think you're asking "Do you think people who approve of and engage in homosexual sex should be considered faithful Christians?". And the answer to that is easy. The Bible clearly states that homosexual acts are wrong. If your faith is one that adheres to the Bible, then clearly homosexuality is not compatible with your faith.
Of course, arguments over whether or not the Bible is correct in it's claims that homosexual acts are immoral is a whole other can of worms.
In fact *everyone* who knows anything about the subject does accept it as a given.
Wow, another assertion with no argument backing it up.
As for my justification, how about consistency? Nobody thinks other "life choices" are predetermined. We don't say philanthropists were just born that way, nor do we say murderers "have no choice" in the matter. We don't say socialites were born to be socialites, or loners to be loners. We don't say liberals were born to be liberals, nor conservatives that it's just a matter of conservative genes. In every other aspect of life, we consider behaviour to be a product of choice, but when it comes to sexuality it's just something that you were born with, and if you disagree you get accused of being homophobic (as you just did with me).
I understand what the grandparent was trying to say, and I'm sure you do too. He just didn't phrase it well enough for it to endure the sort of nit-picking that so often goes on around here.
The thing that frustrates me is when people want something done, and can't be bothered learning how. The sort of people who say "I know nothing about computers. Can you setup my email program for me?". Now of course, once in a while that's fine. After all, people need a bit of help when they're getting in to something new. But when the same person consistently asks for help, not because they're novices but because it's easier to ask for help than it is to learn to do it your self, that's what gets annoying.
DRM is not like this. DRM basically says everyone is a criminal and you will have to play by a very restrictive set of rules.
You're talking about a particular type of DRM, albeit the only type in real use today. But DRM has the ability to do much more than that. For instance, a corporation locking sensitive documents so they can only be accessed from work to stop those "take-home work" leaks. Or you locking an email so it can only be read by the recipient, not forwarded on to everyone they know. Or to lock a document so that it can be read but not cut-and-pasted. Of course, there's always the analog hole in these sort of cases (people can just read the document and type it in again, word-for-word) but it's much better than what we have now. Of course, the key to all this is that you, the owner of the content gets to decide what controls to put on it.
I would be all for DRM - it has lots of good uses - if we could simply issue a law that said content sold cannot be DRMed. The problem with current DRM is that the person managing the rights is not the owner. They have sold the content to you. You have a right to the content - to watch it, to resell it, even to duplicate it - just not to distribute it. Content vendors should not be able to sell you content, and still retain the control over the content. It should be all, or nothing. Either that, or they can rent it. I'd have no trouble with duplication-prevention DRM on rented content.
Is it generally accepted that MS broke SMB for this purpose
I think it's generally accepted by the sort of people who read slashdot, but it's not like Microsoft have issued a statement about it or anything. Microsoft have had a history of doing the sort of thing with standards (like.doc - although to be fair their competition was doing the same thing), and when the standards change for no obvious reason, people start making assumptions.
Slashdot Mirror
To date, it has not been practical to bill for use due to the overhead and added expense involved.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Every single ISP in Australia bills for usage. It's not infrastructure costs that keep the practice out of America, it's consumer backlash when they try.
To be serious the parent reminds me a bit off criminals offended by other criminals. Rapist saying they despise child rapists. WTF?
/b/ a channel filled with the worst of the net and then complains about japan. Right. Take a look at yourselve first kiddo.
/b/ board than yours did. If you're going to accuse him of being a perverted sicko on the basis of his post along, then you're just as guilty.
This guy vists
Er...when did he say he visits it? His post contained less information about the contents of the 4chan
According to your "Biblical Christianity," which is based on translations or translations
I assume you meant "translations of translations". The Bible has been translated many times, but not as "translations of translations". When you translate the Bible into a new language, you don't translate the English version, you go back to the original document (that is, the oldest remaining document we have available to us) and translate it from that.
And while I may use a translated Bible, ministers in protestant churches are generally taught the basics of the Biblical languages in Bible College, so they don't have to depend on translations of the documents. Christian knowledge of the Bible is not based on translations of documents that have been lost through the ages - we still have access to documents relatively close (in terms of copy-generations) to the originals.
And two liberal interpretations for that passage are:
The thing about interpretations is that they need to be based on the passage if they want to be taken seriously: yes, the passage is talking about the results of pagan worship, but I'm not sure how you can say "vile affections" isn't a condemnation.
I could interpret the passage to mean that green cows make good dancers, but unless I can point to parts of the passage that support my interpretation, my "interpretation" is meaningless babble.
Your kind of Christian maybe.
Right, perhaps I should have said Biblical Christianity. Of course, I can't really see the point in calling a religion Christianity if it doesn't pay attention to the Bible, but it seems every little cult and sect likes to call itself "Christian" and nobody's allowed to challenge them on that.
And of course I assume you follow all the other edicts laid out in Leviticus too? Or, your one of those Christians who picks and chooses? Or follows a misinterpretation/mistranslation of what "knows" means (Sodom/Gomorrah)? Or, perhaps you just don't like fags?
I've got no particular problems with homosexuals. Read some of my other comments in this thread - homosexuality is no worse a sin than heterosexual infidelity, or any other form of what the Bible calls sexual immorality. My problem is people saying that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality - it clearly does, see Romans 1. I'd be saying the same thing if someone was saying Christianity and wife-swapping was compatible.
And of course I assume you follow all the other edicts laid out in Leviticus too? Or, your one of those Christians who picks and chooses?
Which edicts are those? Most of the levitical edicts centre around various sacrifices. When Jesus died, He fulfilled those requirements once and for all (Hebrews 9:23-28). If you're looking at actually understanding the Bible, you've got to take it as a whole. You can't say "look, here in Deuteronomy God commands the Israelites to kill the Hittites, therefore all Christians should be off the middle east butchering natives." Of course, if all your looking for is sound-bites to make Christianity seem stupid, out-of-context quotes are definately your game.
You agree that sexual preference is a matter of how you're born
Well, not exactly; I'd say that environment would have a considerable impact. But at the age we're talking about, it's not really possible to control your social environment to any great extent.
But you seem to have some sort of problem with people acting according to their nature in a way that has no effect on you. Why is it ok for you to act according to your nature, but not for them?
I have no problem with homosexuals going and being homosexuals. I have problems with homosexuals saying "Christianity and homosexuality are compatible". If you take Christianity to be based on the Bible, that is clearly false. If whatever religion you are participating in ignores the Bible, and says homosexuality is a-ok, fine; just don't call it Christianity.
As I mentioned above, I have problems with the claim that sexuality is not a choice, because it inevitable leads to "therefore God made me homosexual, and God forbids homosexuality, therefore it's all God's fault and Christianity is hypocritical and judgemental". As I've mentioned in another thread, I know of no mainstream Christian theology that condemns homosexual attraction instead of the homosexual act. Temptation of any form is not a sin, someone tempted towards homosexuality is not sinning. Giving in to temptation is sinful, in Christian theology.
I know that; the quote still doesn't say the bugs get fixed does it?
The answer is in that quote:
The testers investigate the failures, log any bugs and then move on to their other duties as testers.
It doesn't say anyone actaully fixes the bugs they log, does it?
Well, if you're a Catholic you believe you're a cannibal I suppose. And while transubstantiation might be a central Catholic belief, it's not supported anywhere in the Bible.
So you're saying that you had a huge internal debate growing up as to whether you would choose to start liking women or whether you'd start getting hot for hairy man ass?
Nope. I'm just saying that I've never gone out and had sex with a man. No matter what you start feeling at puberty, nothing is forcing you to act on them. People (both homosexual and heterosexual) are able to feel attractions and not act on them. People who say "I can't help it, I was just born this way" (about anything, not just homosexuality) are just copping out. You decide your behaviour, not your genes. So if your going to be homosexual, fine, but at least state out and out that it's your choice to screw men instead of women, and stop hiding behind this "it's not my choice" bullcrap.
Liar. Liar
Here you're judging that homosexuality is a problem that can be solved by accepting the morals of your church. No thanks. Adhering to the mistranslations of an ancient cult and selectively lording them over those you disagree with (Leviticus) is pretty messed up.
Eh? I said that if a homosexual became a Christian, he would begin to deal with his problems. If he's accepted Christianity, then he would also have accepted (rightly or wrongly) that his homosexuality is a problem, and would start dealing with that.
I have no intention of lording anything over anyone. I have no qualms over other people going out and screwing whoever and whatever they feel like. The only problem I have is when people who do do that then claim they're Christians.
It's a question of degree. People seem far more afraid of computer technology than they are of motor vehicle technology. I don't get annoyed when people ask me technical questions, or ask for technical assistance with computers. It's when they continually ask for assistance with "consumer-grade" problems. How do I send an email? How do I create a new document? How do I save something?
I bet your brother would get rather sick of it if you kept on asking him where the petrol went or how to turn on the indicator.
Deviant behavior like that seen with the many pedophile-priest cases (i'm no expert, mind you) seems to be a direct result of trying to repress their natural sexual urges.
I'm no expert either, but I'd probably agree. I'm a protestant, not a Catholic, and there's nothing particularly scriptural about life-long abstinence. I do think there's a difference between repressing sexuality entirely, and redirecting sexuality into a different channel. I merely brought up the priesthood as an example of people who have repressed their desires (rightly or wrongly) their entire lives (or at least, since they entered the priesthood).
And since you bring it up...do you have "proof" that homosexuality is, in fact, amoral? I suppose it would depend on how you define amoral behavior, and if that definition hinges on causing harm, then it is not amoral. Two people of the same sex making love harms neither you nor I, nor anyone else in any tangible fashion.
I wasn't trying to assert the morality of homosexuality. I was just saying that seeing evidence of it in nature isn't proof one way or the other, which is why I thought you brought up the penguin thing.
But, to answer your question, no proof that will satisfy you. I base my own thoughts on the morality of homosexuality on the Bible. But I'm not out to condemn homosexuals - homosexuality vs. religion is more social politics than theology. From a Christian theological perspective, homosexuality isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. People who go around "fighting" homosexuality are fighting a losing battle. Better to spread the gospel, and let those who are willing come to it. If they are sincere, then they will begin to deal with their problems (including homosexuality) themselves.
But I do still say that homosexuality is a choice. You may be born with certain inclinations - homosexual or heterosexual. But those tendancies don't lock you into your sexuality, any more than having genes that tend towards alchoholism, or cancer, or height, or obesity guarantee any of those traits.
If you've never had an alcoholic drink in your life, you won't have any urge to drink. (at least not the type of "hunger" a reformed alcoholic might feel)
No, not that sort of hunger. More a sort of curiosity/desire I suppose. Which, from what I hear, is what homosexuality generally starts out as. A mixture of sexual desire and curiosity.
Could YOU be able to suppress your (assumedly) heterosexual tendacies if called-upon to do so?
There's many people who have done so, whether due to social pressures, or personal ones. There are also heterosexuals who have (ostensible at least) abstained from sex for life - like Catholic priests, nuns and monks. And yes, cue the pedophile-priest jokes, but you can be sure that's not the behaviour of the majority, or even a significant minority.
To me, it appears that homosexuality is something that has probably existed in nature for thousands of years and will continue to do so.
I don't know why people bring up this sort of thing as "proof" that homosexuality is moral behaviour. I mean, the praying mantis canibalizes it's mate in the process of reproduction, but I'm pretty sure nobody's saying that's a good thing in humans.
Take a straight guy. Put him in a situation were homosexuality is the norm, where there are people he likes and respects living a homosexual life, and, homosexuality will become less repugnant to him. Maybe he'll become homosexual, maybe he won't, but the point is, sexuality is malleable. It's not something set in stone when you're born - or when you hit puberty. I know both people who've had reasonably successful heterosexual relationships go on to homosexuality (post puberty) and homosexuals who have gone on to abandon homosexuality and have heterosexual relationships. One former homosexual I talked to went on to marry and have children. He said that he feels romantically and sexually attracted to his wife, and any homosexual twinges he has are just that - twinges.
People can choose to change their sexuality in either direction. Sometimes life directs you one way, but you can always choose to change.
It's a known fact backed up by every piece of evidence.
Right. So present your evidence. And tell me why and how the things I listed are different from sexuality, instead of just saying that it's so. Make an argument.
To say that it didn't happen is a reasonable call, as no sources from the time make any suggestion that it did. Given the fact that Jesus had quite a few enemies who didn't shy from political murder, I'd say if there was any chance of them getting an accusation of homosexuality to stick, they'd have aired it about. And we probably would have had a source regarding it, even if it was just a refutation - there are other sources around from the time that aren't considered Biblical canon. If your concern is the church fiddling with the record (for which there isn't any record - they just picked which documents they considered to be reliable) then there are some of the documents they rejected still available out there.
Whose talking about attraction? I'm talking about action. It's a choice whether you want to sleep with other men or not. Nobody is forced into homosexuality by anything. It's entirely their choice.
If I felt attraction towards males (which I do not, btw), I'd be immediately expelled or called to repent - for something that I have not done at all. A common question homosexuals ask (at least those I have met on the internet) is "why does God condemn me for being homosexual if he made me that way?"
You wouldn't at the church I attend - although you'd probably encounter some social ostracism. But that's more a social thing than a theological thing. It's more or less inevitable in our society at the moment that churches are going to have a significant number of middle-class conservatives. Those people are motivated by both Christian values, and conservative middle-class values, and while there is some overlap between the two, they are not identical sets.
In theological terms, I don't know of any mainstream Christian denomination that regards desire (of any sort) as a sin. It's giving in, or catering to that desire that's the problem. Even Christ was tempted (ok, not with homosexual sex) so it's hypocritical to say that temptation itself is wrong. Of course, just because the theology says one thing doesn't necessarily mean squat when it comnes to the attitudes of the parishners.
Finally, something I don't understand is that most christians i've met (again, on the internet) judge homosexuals in a much worse way than heterosexuals - even if heterosexuals engage in sex in their teens. And both homosexuality AND fornication are forbidden in the Bible. Double standards, anyone?
Yeah, I see that a lot too. I'm not sure if it's so much double-standards as it is double-tipping. Despite all the politicking going on, homosexuality is still very much against the societal grain, whereas sleeping around is less so.
A homosexual gets hit twice - once by the social prejudice, and once by the Biblical prohibition - whereas heterosexual fornication is shrugged off by society.
People mean different things when they say homosexual. You see to be saying homosexuality is the attraction to members of the sane sex. The definition most often used by churchs is sexual acts between members of the same sex.
I can see why someone who is a homosexual by the first definition would want to be a Christian. It's no different from someone who has a tendancy towards alchoholism, or gambling, or heterosexual infidelity. But that's very different from the homosexual who engages in sexual acts with other members of the same sex, and (this is the important part) sees nothing wrong with that and doesn't want to change.
Maybe the situation where I live is different to the US. But over here, most Christians would not have a problem with someone who has homosexual tendancies but doesn't act on them, or someone with a homosexual past who has left it behind being a part of their church.
That's where the choice comes in. You can have homosexual tendancies, just the same as you can have alchoholic tendancies, or a weakness for gambling, etc. The choice is in whether you succumb to that temptation or not. I wouldn't call someone had homosexual tendancies, but didn't have homosexual sex a homosexual, any more than I'd call someone who had an urge to drink, but never did, an alchoholic.
But if you ask someone if they think homosexuals should be allowed in the church, they are probably going to think you're asking "Do you think people who approve of and engage in homosexual sex should be considered faithful Christians?". And the answer to that is easy. The Bible clearly states that homosexual acts are wrong. If your faith is one that adheres to the Bible, then clearly homosexuality is not compatible with your faith.
Of course, arguments over whether or not the Bible is correct in it's claims that homosexual acts are immoral is a whole other can of worms.
In fact *everyone* who knows anything about the subject does accept it as a given.
Wow, another assertion with no argument backing it up.
As for my justification, how about consistency? Nobody thinks other "life choices" are predetermined. We don't say philanthropists were just born that way, nor do we say murderers "have no choice" in the matter. We don't say socialites were born to be socialites, or loners to be loners. We don't say liberals were born to be liberals, nor conservatives that it's just a matter of conservative genes. In every other aspect of life, we consider behaviour to be a product of choice, but when it comes to sexuality it's just something that you were born with, and if you disagree you get accused of being homophobic (as you just did with me).
I understand what the grandparent was trying to say, and I'm sure you do too. He just didn't phrase it well enough for it to endure the sort of nit-picking that so often goes on around here.
The thing that frustrates me is when people want something done, and can't be bothered learning how. The sort of people who say "I know nothing about computers. Can you setup my email program for me?". Now of course, once in a while that's fine. After all, people need a bit of help when they're getting in to something new. But when the same person consistently asks for help, not because they're novices but because it's easier to ask for help than it is to learn to do it your self, that's what gets annoying.
DRM is not like this. DRM basically says everyone is a criminal and you will have to play by a very restrictive set of rules.
You're talking about a particular type of DRM, albeit the only type in real use today. But DRM has the ability to do much more than that. For instance, a corporation locking sensitive documents so they can only be accessed from work to stop those "take-home work" leaks. Or you locking an email so it can only be read by the recipient, not forwarded on to everyone they know. Or to lock a document so that it can be read but not cut-and-pasted. Of course, there's always the analog hole in these sort of cases (people can just read the document and type it in again, word-for-word) but it's much better than what we have now. Of course, the key to all this is that you, the owner of the content gets to decide what controls to put on it.
I would be all for DRM - it has lots of good uses - if we could simply issue a law that said content sold cannot be DRMed. The problem with current DRM is that the person managing the rights is not the owner. They have sold the content to you. You have a right to the content - to watch it, to resell it, even to duplicate it - just not to distribute it. Content vendors should not be able to sell you content, and still retain the control over the content. It should be all, or nothing. Either that, or they can rent it. I'd have no trouble with duplication-prevention DRM on rented content.
Religion is chosen. Homosexuality is not.
That's a nice assertion. Any argument to back it up? Not everyone accepts that as a given.
Is it generally accepted that MS broke SMB for this purpose
.doc - although to be fair their competition was doing the same thing), and when the standards change for no obvious reason, people start making assumptions.
I think it's generally accepted by the sort of people who read slashdot, but it's not like Microsoft have issued a statement about it or anything. Microsoft have had a history of doing the sort of thing with standards (like
CRIA me a river.