What does your name mean?

[S.H.A.D.E]

your signature is gross

[hawkeye]

My name means hawkeye.

actually i believe in ancient roman times it was derived from the phrase

eye of the hawk...but i could be wrong

Do you know what it means?

You Got the name Eye of the hawk for being an expert Archer usually after winning a championship of for saving fellow comrades in a time of war It then became an honorary title and your children may be referred to as son or daughter of Hawkeye

Ha! No my first name means "hawkeye". Hahahaha!

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

your signature is gross

Homophobic?

[s.xkitten]

i like it, i think its funny

[Hemah]

I notice a lot of strange names on this site. So i figured what the heck why u called that? so what i wanna know and then maybe everyone else can see why u chose to be called monkey'suncle567 or something like that. So i shall do the honors and say me first!

So let's see Scotty...ahh what a good name. Um i got this cause my middle name is scott and some people call me that and then one day we found the song Scotty doesn't know. So it stuck..

Hemah - A most unpleasant angel who appeared in Jewish lore. Ranked as a truly feared angel of wrath. Hemah was said to be made from chains of red and black fire and was, like his equally intemperate brother Af.

Wife's petname for me, she was reading this Angel book and then started calling me it. Her name is Rathiel : Angel of mercy.

[Syzygy]

Syzygy, an alignment of any 3 bodies in space.

(The full moon and new moon in particular.)

[Scotty321]

your signature is gross

Homophobic?

no i think it's gross too...i'm not homophobic..u hederophobic? no plain and simple i think bein gay is gross and wrong

[mandalorian2298]

your signature is gross

Homophobic?

no i think it's gross too...i'm not homophobic..u hederophobic? no plain and simple i think bein gay is gross and wrong

Doesn't this view insult your boyfriends?

[Scotty321]

your signature is gross

Homophobic?

no i think it's gross too...i'm not homophobic..u hederophobic? no plain and simple i think bein gay is gross and wrong

Doesn't this view insult your boyfriends?

........huh? i just said i think it's gross so why would i be gay? so next time before you open your mouth to speak stop and think to yourself and ask if this is really gonna be as smart as you think because clearly i am not gay

[heavycola]

your signature is gross

Homophobic?

no i think it's gross too...i'm not homophobic..u hederophobic? no plain and simple i think bein gay is gross and wrong

Doesn't this view insult your boyfriends?

........huh? i just said i think it's gross so why would i be gay? so next time before you open your mouth to speak stop and think to yourself and ask if this is really gonna be as smart as you think because clearly i am not gay

methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

And i think you'll find that calling homosexuality 'gross and wrong' pretty much counts as homophobia

[Scotty321]

i'm not homophobic...i'm just biblically correct. it's wrong and it's gross because man wasn't made like that. i mean think about it what happens when 2 guys go at it..it looks worng becuase men weren't made to do other men...they were made for women.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

your signature is gross

Homophobic?

no i think it's gross too...i'm not homophobic..u hederophobic? no plain and simple i think bein gay is gross and wrong

No, I am not heterophobic, and I don't see how it is wrong to be against homosexuality.

i'm not homophobic...i'm just biblically correct. it's wrong and it's gross because man wasn't made like that. i mean think about it what happens when 2 guys go at it..it looks worng becuase men weren't made to do other men...they were made for women.

Oh, that's why. If we accept "I believe that God disapproves of homosexuality" as a valid argument, then we also have to accept "I believe that God disapproves of heterosexuality" as a valid counter-argument. Further more, you go on to imply that the point of life is to reproduce. There are dozens of reasons why this argument falls flat on its face, so I'll say them all methodically.

Firstly, it is questionable that the purpose of life is to reproduce. While as a population it is obviously neccessary to our survival, it hardly follows that the only ambition every human has is to reproduce. On the contrary, I know many people (and I'm sure you do) who do not wish to reproduce and have other desires in their lives. Purpose tends to be self-defined and is not so simple as to sum up in one thing.

Also, there is the assertion that homosexuals cannot reproduce. Homosexuality is not linked to infertility in any way. If a gay man copulates with a woman, he is as likely to impregnate her as a heterosexual man is, all other things being equal. With modern techniques, such as surrogate mothering or IVF, it is possible for homosexuals to have children.

The hidden reasoning behind the above argument tends to be that by not reproducing, that couple is not contributing the society and humanity's survival. This is flawed reasoning on several counts; firstly, having more children is very questionable in helping humanity's survival, as overpopulation is a present and very important problem.

Secondly, it implies that the only way to benefit humanity is by having children. Not is this pseudologous if we take it as true, but is also nonsense because it simply isn't true; anyone heterosexual couple can pop out babies, and if those children are not looked after (as quite a few aren't) then the benefit to society is very questionable as well. Raising the child is just as, if not more, important than merely having the child. Homosexuals have, are, and will continue doing this for the foreseeable future.

[mandalorian2298]

i'm not homophobic...i'm just biblically correct. it's wrong and it's gross because man wasn't made like that. i mean think about it what happens when 2 guys go at it..it looks worng becuase men weren't made to do other men...they were made for women.

Ah, but think about what happens when 2 girls go at it . It doesn't seem wrong at all . I think that it was best explained on Seinfield: Woman's body is a work of art, while man's body is a purely functional item.

[Guiscard]

i'm not homophobic...i'm just biblically correct.

You've got me convinced!

[Scotty321]

your signature is gross

Homophobic?

no i think it's gross too...i'm not homophobic..u hederophobic? no plain and simple i think bein gay is gross and wrong

No, I am not heterophobic, and I don't see how it is wrong to be against homosexuality.

i'm not homophobic...i'm just biblically correct. it's wrong and it's gross because man wasn't made like that. i mean think about it what happens when 2 guys go at it..it looks worng becuase men weren't made to do other men...they were made for women.

Oh, that's why. If we accept "I believe that God disapproves of homosexuality" as a valid argument, then we also have to accept "I believe that God disapproves of heterosexuality" as a valid counter-argument. Further more, you go on to imply that the point of life is to reproduce. There are dozens of reasons why this argument falls flat on its face, so I'll say them all methodically.

Firstly, it is questionable that the purpose of life is to reproduce. While as a population it is obviously neccessary to our survival, it hardly follows that the only ambition every human has is to reproduce. On the contrary, I know many people (and I'm sure you do) who do not wish to reproduce and have other desires in their lives. Purpose tends to be self-defined and is not so simple as to sum up in one thing.

Also, there is the assertion that homosexuals cannot reproduce. Homosexuality is not linked to infertility in any way. If a gay man copulates with a woman, he is as likely to impregnate her as a heterosexual man is, all other things being equal. With modern techniques, such as surrogate mothering or IVF, it is possible for homosexuals to have children.

The hidden reasoning behind the above argument tends to be that by not reproducing, that couple is not contributing the society and humanity's survival. This is flawed reasoning on several counts; firstly, having more children is very questionable in helping humanity's survival, as overpopulation is a present and very important problem.

Secondly, it implies that the only way to benefit humanity is by having children. Not is this pseudologous if we take it as true, but is also nonsense because it simply isn't true; anyone heterosexual couple can pop out babies, and if those children are not looked after (as quite a few aren't) then the benefit to society is very questionable as well. Raising the child is just as, if not more, important than merely having the child. Homosexuals have, are, and will continue doing this for the foreseeable future.

mmhm..i implied that the only reason is to reproduce? but why would a christian say that when he know's the only reason any one is alive is to Glorify GOD... so idk where u get your arguments maybe u jsut want to sound smart. and i never said a gay couple couldn't reproduce i know they can with technology but still it's worng. i mean excuse me for beiliving in what is the truth. and u stated that if we accept the " i believe God dissaproves of homosexuality then we must also accept that he dissaproves of hederosexuality." mmhm let's stop and break this down.

First off i don't just believe i know for a fact. It is written down in the bible wich has been proven scientifically and historically to be accurate that God doesn't approve of it. And if we were to go with your statement then that would mean that god doesn't accept anything making us a mistake and god doesn't make mistakes so that clears him out of the picture wich then turns your statement false. either way your wrong. I know homosexuality is a sin. Hate me or think me a radicalist...cause i'm not. That is the truth and it hurts sometimes. And to tell you the truth i don't care if you argue this point i know the truth!

[Koba]

I'd like to start by saying that I havent looked at Philosophy, Ethics or Theology in a while, so I'm a little rusty, so if I make a huge cock up (Not meant as a pun) I'm sorry.

I'll start by pointing out that the Catholic belief in pro-creation isnt strictly correct, or at least not for the whole of Christianity. That was a development brought about by St Thomas Aquinas (I think). Originally, early Christians believed that the apocolypse was going to be very soon, and were encouraged to live a life of absolute celibacy, as Jesus did. However, when the horsemen did not come they realised this wasn't practicle, so brought about a couple of sacriments (This last bit is very generalised, and I must admit I'm not certain how it happened, but i know it did). So promoted Catholic (Eveangelicals may differ) teaching comes from the work of a 12 century biblical scholar on who a man can have sex with. It was Aquinas' work that the pope of the time took. I believe it also links in very strongly with Kantian ethics and real and apparant goods and also St Augustine of Hippo (If anyone wants to point out where i'm very wrong and back it up I'm happy to retract any comments, im doing this off my memory)

So, early Christian teaching condemned any physical relationship, but was changed for the longevity of the faith. This, in my opinion must make you question the popular teaching promoted by the Church.

"It is written down in the bible wich has been proven scientifically and historically to be accurate that God doesn't approve of it." It is only accurate if you take it from a liberal viewpoint. The Bible was written by men, men make errors. And the fact stories such as Adam and Eve exist means you cannot take it in a literal sense. That or it just isnt accurate. I'm pretty certain there is no scientific explanation of water into wine. And there were no walls around the city of Jerricho, so i'm pretty shure Joshua's horn didnt bring it down.
So, to summise (My brownies are cooling on the side of the kitchen as i speak, I hear them calling my name!) To try and use biblical teaching to prove that homosexuality is wrong is sketchy at best, as the Christian stance on these matters has changed over time, and it is also argued that it was an attempt to 'civilise' barbourous nations. And to claim the Bible is 100% factual and scientifically and historically accurate.

So Jesus said the only things you needed to do was to love god with all your heart, mind and body and to love your neighbour. With these being the only teaching's he preached, surely homosexuality is not a sin, as it does not break either. Oh, and I guess I'll end by saying that sig makes me laugh every time.

[DAZMCFC]

f*cking hell i thought this thread was about what your name means now this religous freak is attacking gays and the way they live.

if there is a hole to be poked, let them poke it, it is their life and they can do as they please. if everyone had the same beliefs as you it would be a boring world. you need queers and lesbians and even muslims, otherwise the world would be still and for the fear of repeating myself boring.

sorry, but scotty get of your high horse. the bible is not right on everything. if god was so good why do innocent people keep getting killed, some of them people actually beleive in god.

my grandma when to church all the time she even was a cleaner there. she did not drink or smoke, but still at the age of 97 some low life smackhead mug her, breaking her pelvis and other bones in her body. she never really recovered and died 5 months later. that scum took away from my grandma a letter from the queen that you get when you are 100. but you still say god exist, bollocks.

[vtmarik]

One of my favorite Discordian quotes:

"The Bible contains one admonishment to homosexuals, and 314 admonishments to heterosexuals. That isn't to say that God hates heterosexuals, it's just that they need more supervision."

A majority of pedophiles in this country are heterosexual, even though they usually prey on children of the same sex. Psychologists have surmised that pedophilia is motivated by power not lust.

My theory is that heterosexuals crave power, hence the existence of a large heterosexual BDSM community in this country and the reason most public offices are held by heterosexuals.

Anyhow, let's drop this and get back to the topic at hand, shall we?



And Scotty, this "The Bible has been scientifically and historically proven to be accurate" claim leads me to only one question:

Do you grow your own pot, or do you just have a knack for buying the potent shit?

[mandalorian2298]

mmhm..i implied that the only reason is to reproduce? but why would a christian say that when he know's the only reason any one is alive is to Glorify GOD...

Yeah, poor old God Omnipotent, but so VAIN My theory is that God is acctually very unsure in him (Hey, so would you be, had you created something flawed as the Catholic Church. Half of the jokes Lucifer tells are about Crusades ). That is why he needs to be told that he is Great, Good etc. Cheer up God! You are OK. Bush could have happened to anyone

so idk where u get your arguments maybe u jsut want to sound smart. and i never said a gay couple couldn't reproduce i know they can with technology but still it's worng.

Biology sure changed since I was in school. So, two men can have a child, eh? I guess practice does make perfect

i mean excuse me for beiliving in what is the truth.

You are excused. I choose to blame the enviorment that made you that way.

and u stated that if we accept the " i believe God dissaproves of homosexuality then we must also accept that he dissaproves of hederosexuality." mmhm let's stop and break this down.

Since your last paragraph makes even less sense then the previos ones, breaking it up is a good idea.

First off i don't just believe i know for a fact. It is written down in the bible wich has been proven scientifically and historically to be accurate that God doesn't approve of it.

It has been proven:
a) Scientifically – A team of experts compared the handwriting of the pearson who wrote the Bible. It was identicalt to God's handwriting
b) Historically – It is a well know and documented fact that God hates homsexuality (He used to be a Skinhead in His younger days). When asked why had he created homosexuals in the first place, he responded: "Well, Scotty321 needed a date, and I just couldn't force any girl to sacrifice herself like that. I am not against sacrifice as such (I allowed my son to be nailed to a piece of wood) but forcing a girl to go out with Scotty321 would be taking the thing to far. Let him have sex with homsexualls. 'Couse you all know how I HATE fags. "

And if we were to go with your statement then that would mean that god doesn't accept anything making us a mistake and god doesn't make mistakes so that clears him out of the picture wich then turns your statement false. either way your wrong.

Sooo:
1. God doesn't accept anything to create a mistake for us.
2. God doesn't make mistake wich, for some reason, "clears Him out of the picture".
--------------------------------------
3. Wich turns the Jessies statement false.

Scotty, please don't try to use logice. You are not compatible with it.

I know homosexuality is a sin. Hate me or think me a radicalist...cause i'm not. That is the truth and it hurts sometimes. And to tell you the truth i don't care if you argue this point i know the truth!

Nobody is trying to argue this or anything else you say, Scotty. Just relax...
NURSE! BRING THE SEDATIVES!!!

[Grognard5000]

Hmmm...lets get back on track.

Grognard..look below

[Heimdall]

Heimdall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimdall

Heimdall is the guardian of the gods who will blow the Gjallarhorn if danger approaches Asgard. His senses are so acute that he can hear the grass grow and he can see to the end of the world; he also requires no sleep at all. He is moreover the guardian of the Bifrost Bridge.

I got this name when i was playing Battlefield 1942, as my specialty was guarding bridges with mines and explosives.

[Wisse]

my name XD

[Adge]

Adge - short for Adrian, which I always thought was kind of girly and not right for a big hairy arsed coal miner

[Jamie]

My name is Jamie, and I got to the site early enough in its existence that the name was available, so I just went with that.

[S.H.A.D.E]

your signature is gross

Homophobic?

no i think it's gross too...i'm not homophobic..u hederophobic? no plain and simple i think bein gay is gross and wrong

No, I am not heterophobic, and I don't see how it is wrong to be against homosexuality.

i'm not homophobic...i'm just biblically correct. it's wrong and it's gross because man wasn't made like that. i mean think about it what happens when 2 guys go at it..it looks worng becuase men weren't made to do other men...they were made for women.

Oh, that's why. If we accept "I believe that God disapproves of homosexuality" as a valid argument, then we also have to accept "I believe that God disapproves of heterosexuality" as a valid counter-argument. Further more, you go on to imply that the point of life is to reproduce. There are dozens of reasons why this argument falls flat on its face, so I'll say them all methodically.

Firstly, it is questionable that the purpose of life is to reproduce. While as a population it is obviously neccessary to our survival, it hardly follows that the only ambition every human has is to reproduce. On the contrary, I know many people (and I'm sure you do) who do not wish to reproduce and have other desires in their lives. Purpose tends to be self-defined and is not so simple as to sum up in one thing.

Also, there is the assertion that homosexuals cannot reproduce. Homosexuality is not linked to infertility in any way. If a gay man copulates with a woman, he is as likely to impregnate her as a heterosexual man is, all other things being equal. With modern techniques, such as surrogate mothering or IVF, it is possible for homosexuals to have children.

The hidden reasoning behind the above argument tends to be that by not reproducing, that couple is not contributing the society and humanity's survival. This is flawed reasoning on several counts; firstly, having more children is very questionable in helping humanity's survival, as overpopulation is a present and very important problem.

Secondly, it implies that the only way to benefit humanity is by having children. Not is this pseudologous if we take it as true, but is also nonsense because it simply isn't true; anyone heterosexual couple can pop out babies, and if those children are not looked after (as quite a few aren't) then the benefit to society is very questionable as well. Raising the child is just as, if not more, important than merely having the child. Homosexuals have, are, and will continue doing this for the foreseeable future.

mmhm..i implied that the only reason is to reproduce? but why would a christian say that when he know's the only reason any one is alive is to Glorify GOD... so idk where u get your arguments maybe u jsut want to sound smart. and i never said a gay couple couldn't reproduce i know they can with technology but still it's worng. i mean excuse me for beiliving in what is the truth. and u stated that if we accept the " i believe God dissaproves of homosexuality then we must also accept that he dissaproves of hederosexuality." mmhm let's stop and break this down.

First off i don't just believe i know for a fact. It is written down in the bible wich has been proven scientifically and historically to be accurate that God doesn't approve of it. And if we were to go with your statement then that would mean that god doesn't accept anything making us a mistake and god doesn't make mistakes so that clears him out of the picture wich then turns your statement false. either way your wrong. I know homosexuality is a sin. Hate me or think me a radicalist...cause i'm not. That is the truth and it hurts sometimes. And to tell you the truth i don't care if you argue this point i know the truth!

I agree the bible says it is wrong that is enough for me now lets go back to the real subject OK I started this so let me end it if you have a problem with this pm me