Might I add it says stone them to death and they don't, so none of them are standing up for the word of God.

The Bible explicitly states the exercise of free will, God wants people to come to him of their own volition because He knows forced obedience just harbors resentment and rebellion.

The Bible also states judge not, for that is God's province. So we should not judge others who exercise their free will, regardless of how repulsive or deranged from nature it is. God will sort it out.

I do not condone homosexuality, but it is not my place to force my beliefs on another who might not believe in God or whatever, etc. The two people involved in the behavior only hurt themselves, imo.

in your little mind, you might think it doesn't count, but guess what: your not the only one on the planet... don't even try to shove your beliefs on me, it won't work... thats the problem with gays like you, your so worried about what others think that you cannot function is society because you have this need to be accepted by everyone... another news flash: not everybody cares what the hell you do... i don't, and never will... so you can keep on with the name calling, like a little baby, or you can accept the fact that not everyone on the planet will agree with your viewpoints and stop attacking people that don't agree with them... and by the way, it's not racist, race has nothing to do with this... so you have any other inept names you wanna call me?

well, one thing people don't seem to understand is that there is no such thing as total freedom... some laws just need to be there, for the good of the people... i don't care if anyone is gay or not, i just don't see the need for all the "advertising" gay people do...


i would like for someone to tell me what the gays cannot get out of common law marriage that others get by being married...

of course other people have funny things they do in their posts. i dont usually capitalize, use punctuation marks, or a period at the end of the last sentence i post. i noticed someone likes to "use" the "quotes" a lot. when try to "read" those posts, i "feel" like i have to "stop and ponder" the quoted words before i "can move on" reading. i guarantee i guarantee i will get hammered for mentioning that one

(bulldog double guarantee - patent pending)

I agree with the OP; a woman who will not have sex outside of marriage isn't a prude—she's principled. A very big difference, and a good one, especially in this day and age.

Hi Sing

Not sure I can right now. The topic kinda popped out at me in the middle of a busy time and the thoughts just found themselves on Mingle.

Basically I'm talking about how different we are and how we got to be so different and do we see others as being different from ourselves and why.

And, some of the stuff we do makes sense to us but doesn't to others and why. it's not necessarily because they are wrong, but different in their thought process.

here's another quicky that is simple.

This morning I found this great scallop potato dish in the frig here and got a little. I kind of snuck it cause figured with it being so good it was probably someones specialty and they were certainly saving it. Later on I was hungry and came to the kitchen hoping to score some of this with some "honey baked ham", perfect right. Well when I got there (mouth watering) I was told that they thew it out cause they didn't like the seasoning. I thought it was heaven, they thought it was hell. I thought it was an incredible waste of food, they saw it as something not worthy of eating. Two complete different programs were going on, totally the opposite from each other. I ended up eating stale salmon that they thought was the greatest thing on the planet. Still though, I didn't throw out the salmon because I didn't like it. To me food is something not to waste. Were they wrong? In their eyes they felt they were doing me a service. Was I wrong? I don't know, I ate my salmon and didn't say anything. Hey, they could have had no food at all.

Are you now objecting to me changing my mind about the message in the OP? Are you objecting to me now giving the author of the OP the benefit of the doubt?

You debated me in order to get me to change my mind.
Well, I did. You won.

OK, you got me there.

If the author of the OP agrees that a woman isn't a prude because she won't have sexual intercourse outside of marriage, then I will drop my objection.

What I wrote is basically the definition of prude. You're trying to make it sound much worse for some reason.

From Wiki:

A prude (Old French prude meaning honourable woman) [1] is a person who is described as (or would describe themselves as) being concerned with decorum or propriety, significantly in excess of normal prevailing community standards. They may be perceived as being more uncomfortable than most with sexuality or nudity.

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com:

One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous.

Merriam-Webster:

a person who is excessively or priggishly attentive to propriety or decorum; especially : a woman who shows or affects extreme modesty

Let's try another approach.

A person is not a prude because that person waits until marriage before participating in sexual intercourse.

So, what does a person have to do in order to be a prude?

I have talked with three men here from different states and none of them are on these forums. So, I guess whatever works for a person. Forums are for friendships yes and longterm especially on a Free site .

Well, we all have profiles, so we can be contacted by people outside the forums and contact non-forumites ourselves. But it seems that most interactions do take place in the forums, at least on this site...

I read the first post and wasn't sure exactly what the OP was asking when he said "what's your program". Then I read through the first page and am still not quite sure. So, I don't know how to answer, as I don't know exactly what's being asked.

There is still something that I haven't figured out.

If a person is called a prude, then is that person being complimented for being virtuous, or is the person being criticize for being virtuous?

Edit: Or is the person simply being acknowledged as being virtuous?

Is that what the author of the OP meant when he used the word prude, or did he mean for the word to say something negative about another person?

Your description of someone sexually reserved is a non-judgmental description. If the OP had said what you said - instead of using the word prude - then this discussion wouldn't have come up.

As far as I can tell, the OP uses the word prude to say something negative about another person. To me, it is callous to use the word in a negative sense even if the word isn't meant to be a slur.

Here is what was said:



That above-quoted statement is a generalization, and I challenged its accuracy.