Hystery

No, again, you are not reading and keeping yourself enclosed in your bubble. I QUOTED that, I never claimed I was the author. So indeed, I never said Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, the quote did. And I don't need any bless from your god, thanks, I'd consider it more like a curse than anything considering how enchained your mind is.

First of all, I -never- said "Jesus" never mentioned homosexuality, looks like you are inventing a story by yourself. Hold your horses and learn to read. Second, reality is that homosexuality does exist and is a NORMAL thing, no matter what you think. That's how it is, denying it is being stupid, and retarded. But keep deluding yourself with your outdated religion and book, it's fine. Keep segregating homosexuals and bisexuals, keep saying it's a "birth defect", that they shouldn't exist or whatsoever. Your parents must be proud to have a child so tolerant with people.

I'm bisexual, I made love with both men and women, and it doesn't change the fact that I'm right now in a stable relationship with my boyfriend for more than a year, monogamous and faithful, that we plan to marry and adopt a child. I don't care primarily about my sexual appetite, so your argument is invalid. That's actually incredible that you can give us this kind of argument that comes right from the middle age, looks like you were born in the wrong century. Or that you have a "birth defect", as you stated.

I can't even believe what I'm reading. Are you really serious? A birth defect? Do you know who was talking like that? Some kind of dictator in Germany, seventy years ago. I can't even believe that in the 21th century, some people think like that. You say you want to stick to what you know? Well, here is something: we -ARE- animals. Mamals, breathing, eating, drinking, giving birth and swarming this poor earth like a plague. Denying that is not being religious, it's being stupid. If you were not fighting against nature, you would be naked like Adam and Eve, you'd not use a computer or anything related to science, you would make adultery, incest, and all that stuff animals do. That's natural. But since you seem incredibly stubborn because enclosed to your outdated religion, here is something to read about people using your kind of arguments against homosexuality: "It's a perversion" This is simply a variation, with added bigotry, of the "It's not natural" argument. It implies that being gay is a mental disorder or disability even though there is no evidence to support such a claim. Defining homosexuality as a disability is a classic argument from definitionfallacy. But the definition of disability does not include sexuality or gender. Being LGBTQ+ in no way impairs your ability to function as a human being in and of itself. In addition, drawing a parallel with sexuality and disability is a very troubling false equivocation, especially because it assumes that disabled people also do not deserve respect and empathy. Meanwhile, some fundamentalists claim that homosexuality is a creation of the devil. George Bernard Shaw's Man and Superman has the lovely line, "Chastity is the most unnatural of perversions." "It's against God's law" Before we try to address this issue: Why do the infidels have to pay attention to your God? Then comes the presuppositional argument that everything is contingent on the God of your religion, or double standard of saying that freedom of religion does not apply to those people, or that separation of church and state does not really exist. Conservative Christians claim that God condemns homosexuality, but Jesus actually never brought the subject up, as it was apparently not very high on his list of important things to do or not do. While this argument may be relevant for some religious practitioners, it has no relevance to those people who read Scripture in a more accommodating fashion, or who simply do not believe in God. It is interesting that the strongest religious criticisms of homosexuality (at least in Western countries) usually come from Christians, butJesus Christ himself is not recorded as saying anything whatsoever about homosexuality. Biblical condemnations of homosexuality come from the Old Testament (specifically Leviticus) and later apostles such as St Paul. "Marriage has a traditional, ancient definition" Homophobes might say that marriage is an ancient institution, clearly defined as a union between man and woman. They ignore that Christian and other communities have condoned polygamy, forced marriage[7] and child marriage, and in some cases banned interracial[8]or inter-religious marriage.[9] Many conservatives claim that extra-marital sexual relationships are sinful. So if same-sex marriage is not allowed, all same-sex sexual activities would be sinful, by definition. Homophobes might say that gay marriage would ruin the sanctity of straight marriage, without explaining how this would occur. Some use vague Non sequitur explanations as to why it would devalue their marriage For example, "If we recognize counterfeit money, it devalues the real thing. Therefore, if we recognize SSM, traditional marriage is devalued." Straight people have softened up straight marriage themselves, by allowing divorce, unregistered cohabitation and de-criminalization ofadultery. And many years later, when some gays want to marry, they get the blame for ruining straight marriage. "Homosexuals choose to be that way" Homophobes often claim that those living the "gay lifestyle" have simply chosen to be gay. This could be correct for any given individual making this argument, but only if they are bisexual. Most people are attracted primarily to either men or women, and can exercise very little, if any, choice in the matter. Bisexual people, however, could conceivably choose to act on their attraction to the opposite sex and ignore their similar attraction to the same sex. But this would not make a bisexual person heterosexual. Also curious and rarely discussed is why this should even be relevant; it's not as though societies routinely ban behaviors just because they appear to be choices rather than innate and inflexible preferences, whatever that distinction can be said to mean in an apparentlydeterministic universe. Blind to their own irony, the same people who revile the gays with the non-argument that homosexuality is a "choice" and thus wrong (...implying that it'd be okay if it weren't, as most evidence suggests?) are often very pleased to attempt to inflict a distinctly choice-based religious lifestyle on anyone who'll sit still and listen to their crazy, and none of them ever flips on his gay switch to show us just how easy it is to swap boning preferences. Arguments about children and reproduction Conservatives might shout "Won't somebody think of the children?" and defend the norm of the heterosexual nuclear family. Of course, some children have same-sex parents, and credible research[14] can't seem to find any difference between them and children raised by opposite-sex parents. Ironically, homophobic policies like bans on same-sex marriage diminish the ability of same-sex parents to form stable households, harming their children. So yes, won't somebody think of the children indeed? "Homosexuality is not reproductive" Most sexual encounters in the Western World today are non-reproductive. These include barrier birth control, biochemical birth control,fertility awareness, non-penetrative sex, sex with sterilized people, sex with less fertile people (due to old age or other reasons), and homosexuality. Same-sex couples also commonly do something that is arguably more humanitarian that creating new people: they adopt children. There is also no requirement to make new people anyway, and a growing childfree movement against the entrenched emphasis on family and reproduction, while the world's population is still increasing. Does the planet desperately need more reproductive sex that badly? "Children need a male and a female role model" A child has many opportunities to find role models; such role models don't need to be legal guardians of the child. Children of full-time working parents spend more time awake in daycare and school than with their parents. It should also be noted that, despite insistence that having both a male and female parent is vital for child development, homophobes will typically have less problems with single parents raising children. Amongst others things. Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Homophobia#Rationalizations_of_homophobia

I can totally imagine a huge black room with one guy or girl sitting on a chair, enlightened by a single light, with two buttons in front of them, one being "I love tits" and the other "I love shlongs". Would be hilarious.

Ah, I love this argument of "homosexuality is not natural". Allow me to quote an artical article (dat spelling) from the RationalWiki: "It's not natural" This is an inherently weak and uncogent objection. This argument is a blatant rendition of the appeal to nature, as it assumes that what is natural is acceptable or better and what is unnatural is not. What this would entail logically is that adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, and nakedness must be acceptable as they are "natural," while playing checkers, sleeping on a bed, wearing clothes and indeed cooking meat are not "natural" and thus unacceptable. Most homophobic persons typically do not advocate creating laws outlawing things such as sleeping on beds, not to mention that using computers isn't natural either — yet homophobes clearly use computers since their hate sites exist. Moreover, even if it did logically follow that what is natural is good, it turns out that homosexuality occurs in nature; biologists have extensively documented same-sex behavior in over 500 species of animals and observed it in a total of 1,500 species of animals.[3][4]Bonobos, for example, are known for indulging in almost any "perversion" humanity has thought of — and perhaps some we've missed out on. Mammals aren't the only kind of animal that do this either.[5] You can find the entire article here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Homophobia#Rationalizations_of_homophobia It's interesting to read because it reduces to nothingness all the arguments used by people against homosexuality.

Though I think minds were different in 1982, as well as the investigation methods. Maybe officers wouldn't have believed her, or she could have been threatened or who knows. The psychological aspect is to be taken in consideration as well, some people try to ignore and forget what happened, closing their mind by themselves. You'd be surprise of what the human mind can do after a psychological shock. I agree nonetheless that if you are victim of such a barbaric act you should report it immediately, but circumstances were different before.

Do as we did today in Europe, with thousands, millions of people manifesting in the streets (between 1.5 and 1.7 million people just in Paris' streets) to show that we are not scared, that we stand our ground and we will fight for our freedom, that's the best way to fight terrorism.

Considering all men have a different size of ding ding dong, and all women a different size of bumpers, I think we can say that no one was born equal.

The last news are reporting the two authors of the massacre to be in a small city north east of the capital, and have taken hostages after some shooting. EDIT: A second hostage situation occured in Paris, both of them seemingly related since all the hostage takers know each other.

Well we abolished death sentence in France and Europe.

First of all, I highly doubt that if we actually had the same gun control as in the US, it would have solved everything, that free taunt was really -not- needed, especially on such a tragic event. That said, immigration is an easy target for the right and extreme-right wing parties of the country, and will only lead to make people lead to fight each other. Divide and conquer tactic, if people are too busy fighting each other they'll never rebel against the corrupted governments and politics. The problem is that we actually let people leave the country to actually go in training camps in Syria or in Northern Africa and then come back. They are obviously a threat, but well, our intelligence services aren't very efficient on this.

Well, all depends where you live. I live in the south of the country, and nothing happened there so I'm not afraid at all to go outside or to the nearest biggest cities. Also, I think that no one should be scared, that's what those barbaric people want. To tie people up with fear and threats. We must stand up together and remain firm on our positions.

Just noticed it and I really appreciate it, that's awesome.

Here is a manifestation of support in Marseille, a few kilometers away from where I live.

And that's where I step in, the french guy, baguette du fromage. I've heard of that when it happened, and it's pretty harsh. Our government raised the terrorist threat level to "terrorist attack", probably the highest level in our anti-terrorist plan. A lot of manifestations are occuring or going to occur all over the country to support the liberty of speech and the family of the victims of this horrible attack. EDIT: I've also just learned that the actual religious leaders in France will gather to condemn those acts and make sure to step up to claim the muslim religion is not part of anything in this, as well as the whole political class, saying that people should not "give away to the temptation of the amalgam".

The analogy you just did is laughable. Comparing two novels just because they are novels is dumb, it's like comparing a Ferrari and an electric car just because they are cars, when they totally have different purposes. There's a difference between a fantastic novel involving giant reptiles (which is against all scientific results of our era so far) that is made only to entertain people and a novel like 1984 which shows that permanent surveillance on people can quickly turn into an oppressive strength and dictatorship, making the reader think and take a few steps back to ponder on the morale coming from the book. No need to make comparisons between stuff that aren't comparable.

I can see that almost no one around here read about 1984 from George Orwell. If you think surveillance is so good, you should read the book.

Well, that's half a stereotype to be honest. I've been a volunteer for a caritative association taking care of homeless people in the nearest city for a moment, and the fact that homeless people drink alcohol is true. However, they do not do it to get drunk, but to actually feel warm during the night and winter. Alcohol inihibits the sensation of cold, making it easier to get through the cold nights and tough winters. They fight the weather to the best they can. Sadly most people think "They get drunk because they are waste", which couldn't be more wrong. At least for the high majority of homeless people.

Haha yes, this video is like right in the feels.

I've watched this video tonight, and I felt my faith in humanity getting restored, so I felt like I should share. Maybe some of you have watched it already, but oh well. It was really touching, and it shots down the stereotypes people have about homeless people. Try not to tear up!