I only see people taking shots at inconsistent christianity - the ones that forgot not to judge others. So your best argument here is it is bad because it is a tradition (i,e. some other people said it is). Wonder why people turn away from you droves if that is the best you have? Slavery used to be a tradition like homophobia too you know - it is still wrong, and nothing to do with the love of Jesus.
It is less realistic to have no same-sex relationships. A political statement that has happened in many games. The game didn't force anything on you. If the mild mention that one person was in a same-sex relationship amongst a group of many is that shocking to you, the real workld must be really difficult.
Do you mean somebody with an irrational fear of men? 'Homo' means 'man'.
I'm an atheist, and I know that gays are sick, degenerate perverts, who will do ANYTHING to get their rocks off.
They are also FAR more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals.
Otherwise, please do the maths and explain:
Less than 1% of men are 'gay'.
More than 30% of the victims of paedophiles are BOYS.
Understand the problem now?
I understand the problem. You are spreading patent nonsense because you are mentally ill, with some serious repressed fears or trauma. Please seek help.
Homosexuals are less than 1 percent of the male population. Try to imagine what that's like. 50% of the population are of no interest to you (females), and 99% of the remaining 50%, males, are not interested in you either. You are a freak on the outside of society. Obviously your greatest dream is that there would be MORE gays around, wouldn't it.
Rather like - if a normal (i.e. heterosexual) man lived in a world in which 99.5% of the population were male, he would wish that there were more women around. A LOT more women around. If he could somehow magically turn men into women by CONVINCING them that they were really women, don't you think he'd be putting a huge amount of energy into that endeavour?
That's exactly what gays have been doing for the past fifty years.
None of this 'pro-gay' nonsense is democratic, it's terrorism, pure and simple. If you don't agree with 'the party line', you can be sacked from your job, or even put in prison, in the U.K. and other Zionist controlled countries.
Boycott these sickos and let them go bust. MOST people think homosexuality is vile, but are terrified of saying so. Why don't all the gays go and live in their own country, and stop FORCING their presence onto people who don't want them around? Do you believe in freedom of association or not?
There is no need to play a game if you don't want. Part of this game is about a choice of relationships. The proportion some might say is realistic. They are not that overtly sexual, if you actually took the time to look rather than judge. Neither is anyone forcing you to play it.
Saying effectively "go away and shut up about it" does sound homophobic to me. If you aren't interested, do what you do for other such things (e.g. a sport you don't like) just walk away. I certainly don't enter debates on football - I have little experience to share.
If it is so much more important than adultery, and I rarely see "christians" condemning adultery with the vigour that they go after homosexuals, why didn't Jesus make this clearer? There are words against sodomy in the bible (NLT mistranslates "sodomite" as "homosexual"), but no global commandment against homosexuality - these may be overlapping categories, but are not the same thing. Aren't there more important sins in society, that actively harm non-consenting people?
What I am getting at is that the vigourous argument of the normally loving christian against homoscxuals sounds a tenuous argument to justify preconcieved fears, resulting in alienation and pain for some, to no good benefit.
Can I ask if you would support boycotts of any work of fiction (like this game) that suggest any sin? The Bible itself depicts sins - and not all clearly punished (in the text).
Today I believe Jesus may have added: "Let people have their kind of marriage and they will let you have yours" - the Jesus I read about was a political radical though...
So why doesn't the Bible make it clearer? The arguements are so tenuous. Jesus talked about a woman caught in adultery, and gave us a clear guide on how to act.
Is it not possible that you are twisting a few isolated passages, where there is not a clear instruction, in a way that unnecessarily judges and hurts a minority?
Highly controvertial translations both. Romans 1:26 In KJ "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" In Youngs: "Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;" In Wycliffe:"Therefore God betook them into passions of shame [Therefore God betook them into passions of evil fame, or shame]. For the women of them changed the natural use into that use that is against kind. "
The NLT adds the sense of "with each other" in this verse, which is not in any original.
I would suggest the NLT a politicised translation; a corruption.
It is illogical, harmful to others, and harmful to all society.
(For the christian types) It is not compatible with Jesus' message of christianity, which taught people to "Judge not". Jesus wasn't anti anyone.
There is a problem with being "anti" - of course there is nothing wrong with not judging others and choosing not to take part yourself.
Would you lobby a games comapny because some of the romantic relationships in a game were outside of marriage? Or because some characters were hateful, or demonstrated pride? If not it sounds a lot like irrational bogtry against just one "sin" in particular from a very old book.
You appear to conflate autism with arrogance. Clue is this bit: "hidden insight in my post". No it is a minor footnote to the argument at best. If you have delusions that you have insights hidden from others, it is time to take a trip to the doctor.
The incest laws I can understand - and the polygamy laws just make it easier to argue against marriage in the first place. But why deny Fred marrying Shaggy while allowing Fred to marry Daphne? What's the basis of that denial?
Bigotry and unreasoned hatred. Glad I could answer that for you:)
So you would ban hetro marriage for infertile people, or women past child bearing age? Otherwise I suspect you are being inconsistent, and trying to cover up prejudice? No marriage wasn't created for making babies - it was created for maintaing control of land for the upper classes. Did you kknow marriage wasn't a religious sacrement in Christianity before the 1700s? Have a look at the history of marriage - it is relatively recent that the poor in society took it up. And yes there is a history male unions prior to christianity (albeit in a minority of cultures).
How would letting same sex couples turn anything over - are you misreading it and assuming someone wants it to be compulsory? Seriously two men marrying will not hurt you or impact on your life. Get some charity in your soul and stop hating please.
If you judge others without understanding that transliteration from a different language produces multiple spellings (it wasn't an English town), then I'll not be reading your posts again. A couple of seconds research on google should have made this clear.
Jesus the man would have supported gay marriage, as he supported the oppressed and outsiders, such as samaritans and the woman caught in adultery. Trying to actively oppose people from marrying how they chose (where no-one is harmed), is anti-christian. Please understand how to love how Jesus did, without judging or trying to take happiness from others.
Camera recognition in my local station still regularly needs manual intervention. By a human. No I don't have a particularly non-standard car, and the attendant can see I am a real car to start the pump. In this system the attendant doesn't know if the cross customer is legal or not in a failure case.
Or the database could fail later. Data corrupts. Stop assuming the system can work perfectly. Real systems don't. Real systems engineers consider the failure cases too.
Slashdot Mirror
I only see people taking shots at inconsistent christianity - the ones that forgot not to judge others. So your best argument here is it is bad because it is a tradition (i,e. some other people said it is). Wonder why people turn away from you droves if that is the best you have? Slavery used to be a tradition like homophobia too you know - it is still wrong, and nothing to do with the love of Jesus.
There is zero point to foreplay, oral sex, and baseball too - none of these make babies, lets ban them,
Baseball doesn't make babies. Ban baseball.
It is less realistic to have no same-sex relationships. A political statement that has happened in many games. The game didn't force anything on you. If the mild mention that one person was in a same-sex relationship amongst a group of many is that shocking to you, the real workld must be really difficult.
Oh no! Not a 'homophobe'! What is that, exactly?
Do you mean somebody with an irrational fear of men? 'Homo' means 'man'.
I'm an atheist, and I know that gays are sick, degenerate perverts, who will do ANYTHING to get their rocks off.
They are also FAR more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals.
Otherwise, please do the maths and explain:
Less than 1% of men are 'gay'.
More than 30% of the victims of paedophiles are BOYS.
Understand the problem now?
I understand the problem. You are spreading patent nonsense because you are mentally ill, with some serious repressed fears or trauma. Please seek help.
Anybody care to explain why it isn't?
Homosexuals are less than 1 percent of the male population. Try to imagine what that's like. 50% of the population are of no interest to you (females), and 99% of the remaining 50%, males, are not interested in you either. You are a freak on the outside of society. Obviously your greatest dream is that there would be MORE gays around, wouldn't it.
Rather like - if a normal (i.e. heterosexual) man lived in a world in which 99.5% of the population were male, he would wish that there were more women around. A LOT more women around. If he could somehow magically turn men into women by CONVINCING them that they were really women, don't you think he'd be putting a huge amount of energy into that endeavour?
That's exactly what gays have been doing for the past fifty years.
None of this 'pro-gay' nonsense is democratic, it's terrorism, pure and simple. If you don't agree with 'the party line', you can be sacked from your job, or even put in prison, in the U.K. and other Zionist controlled countries.
Boycott these sickos and let them go bust. MOST people think homosexuality is vile, but are terrified of saying so. Why don't all the gays go and live in their own country, and stop FORCING their presence onto people who don't want them around? Do you believe in freedom of association or not?
Get help. You are ill.
There is no need to play a game if you don't want. Part of this game is about a choice of relationships. The proportion some might say is realistic. They are not that overtly sexual, if you actually took the time to look rather than judge. Neither is anyone forcing you to play it.
Saying effectively "go away and shut up about it" does sound homophobic to me. If you aren't interested, do what you do for other such things (e.g. a sport you don't like) just walk away. I certainly don't enter debates on football - I have little experience to share.
"people like you"
Really? Claiming to know me?
If it is so much more important than adultery, and I rarely see "christians" condemning adultery with the vigour that they go after homosexuals, why didn't Jesus make this clearer? There are words against sodomy in the bible (NLT mistranslates "sodomite" as "homosexual"), but no global commandment against homosexuality - these may be overlapping categories, but are not the same thing. Aren't there more important sins in society, that actively harm non-consenting people?
What I am getting at is that the vigourous argument of the normally loving christian against homoscxuals sounds a tenuous argument to justify preconcieved fears, resulting in alienation and pain for some, to no good benefit.
Can I ask if you would support boycotts of any work of fiction (like this game) that suggest any sin? The Bible itself depicts sins - and not all clearly punished (in the text).
Today I believe Jesus may have added: "Let people have their kind of marriage and they will let you have yours" - the Jesus I read about was a political radical though ...
So why doesn't the Bible make it clearer? The arguements are so tenuous. Jesus talked about a woman caught in adultery, and gave us a clear guide on how to act.
Is it not possible that you are twisting a few isolated passages, where there is not a clear instruction, in a way that unnecessarily judges and hurts a minority?
It is a suggestion of it. It is not a commandment not to be gay. Remember the commandments Jesus gave you. They aren't difficult.
Highly controvertial translations both.
Romans 1:26
In KJ "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"
In Youngs: "Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;"
In Wycliffe:"Therefore God betook them into passions of shame [Therefore God betook them into passions of evil fame, or shame]. For the women of them changed the natural use into that use that is against kind. "
The NLT adds the sense of "with each other" in this verse, which is not in any original.
I would suggest the NLT a politicised translation; a corruption.
Not all religions posit the existence of god. Who is illogical now?
It is illogical, harmful to others, and harmful to all society.
(For the christian types) It is not compatible with Jesus' message of christianity, which taught people to "Judge not". Jesus wasn't anti anyone.
There is a problem with being "anti" - of course there is nothing wrong with not judging others and choosing not to take part yourself.
Would you lobby a games comapny because some of the romantic relationships in a game were outside of marriage? Or because some characters were hateful, or demonstrated pride? If not it sounds a lot like irrational bogtry against just one "sin" in particular from a very old book.
You appear to conflate autism with arrogance. Clue is this bit: "hidden insight in my post". No it is a minor footnote to the argument at best. If you have delusions that you have insights hidden from others, it is time to take a trip to the doctor.
Because there's no basis for such a law.
The incest laws I can understand - and the polygamy laws just make it easier to argue against marriage in the first place. But why deny Fred marrying Shaggy while allowing Fred to marry Daphne? What's the basis of that denial?
Bigotry and unreasoned hatred. Glad I could answer that for you :)
So you would ban hetro marriage for infertile people, or women past child bearing age? Otherwise I suspect you are being inconsistent, and trying to cover up prejudice? No marriage wasn't created for making babies - it was created for maintaing control of land for the upper classes. Did you kknow marriage wasn't a religious sacrement in Christianity before the 1700s? Have a look at the history of marriage - it is relatively recent that the poor in society took it up. And yes there is a history male unions prior to christianity (albeit in a minority of cultures).
How would letting same sex couples turn anything over - are you misreading it and assuming someone wants it to be compulsory? Seriously two men marrying will not hurt you or impact on your life. Get some charity in your soul and stop hating please.
If you judge others without understanding that transliteration from a different language produces multiple spellings (it wasn't an English town), then I'll not be reading your posts again. A couple of seconds research on google should have made this clear.
Jesus the man would have supported gay marriage, as he supported the oppressed and outsiders, such as samaritans and the woman caught in adultery. Trying to actively oppose people from marrying how they chose (where no-one is harmed), is anti-christian. Please understand how to love how Jesus did, without judging or trying to take happiness from others.
It makes you a bigot - and not a christian. Christians don't judge others.
Jesus commanded you to "Judge Not" - if you don't understand that you have no place in calling yourself a christian.
Braille?
I can prove otherwise. Just did my MOT last week. Seriously learn some critical thinking.
Camera recognition in my local station still regularly needs manual intervention. By a human. No I don't have a particularly non-standard car, and the attendant can see I am a real car to start the pump. In this system the attendant doesn't know if the cross customer is legal or not in a failure case.
Poor timing to ask about Police abuse in the UK. Several case already this year.
The objection is that an automated system will punish the innocent (through failures).
Or the database could fail later. Data corrupts. Stop assuming the system can work perfectly. Real systems don't. Real systems engineers consider the failure cases too.