Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lysabild]

Durin, please read up on the Etoro and the Sambia of New Guinea, the Atanda of Australia, the Keraki of New Guinea, The Greek, Norse and modern Latin America upon sexuality.

Once you have done that, I'll promise not just to roll my eyes at you.

If you have read the Greek and Norse, you know exactly the pederast practices I spoke of earlier and should agree there is choice and social pressure involved here. Why the snide tone then?

I read it, and spending a lot of time studying the Norse I can tell you that it's utter bullocks you're letting out. You have no evidence at all to back up your claims, except that you believe that people were pressured into doing what felt natural in their culture.

Edit: Just to even drive this even more to the point, all the cultures I mentioned are wildly different but regard homosexuality as natural in their culture.

[Durin]

Durin, please read up on the Etoro and the Sambia of New Guinea, the Atanda of Australia, the Keraki of New Guinea, The Greek, Norse and modern Latin America upon sexuality.

Once you have done that, I'll promise not just to roll my eyes at you.

If you have read the Greek and Norse, you know exactly the pederast practices I spoke of earlier and should agree there is choice and social pressure involved here. Why the snide tone then?

I read it, and spending a lot of time studying the Norse I can tell you that it's utter bullocks you're letting out. You have no evidence at all to back up your claims, except that you believe that people were pressured into doing what felt natural in their culture.

So you are saying it was a free choice.... My point exactly.

[Truean]

I'd like to apologize for ever posting that funeral link. My intentions weren't bad, but I should've seen this coming and for some reason didn't. Seeing as this has been the result, meh.

Seems, it is ill advised for me to go to funerals.... [sigh]

I don't think anyone expected the sort of outward homophobia being displayed by Durin here.

O dude, this is nothing. I've seen far worse, hence the jadedness on my part. I recognized stuff was blowing up and that's why I tried not to piss him off, but it seems that didn't work.

Damnit girl, you're not on the wrong here

Well someone just earned a hug. [hug] Thank you.

As for the choice thing, I tried to be straight and male forever, but yeah that... that didn't work. I'd really have hated to end up married to some girl trying to convince the both of us I'm straight. That'd be really unfair to her.

[Lysabild]

Durin, please read up on the Etoro and the Sambia of New Guinea, the Atanda of Australia, the Keraki of New Guinea, The Greek, Norse and modern Latin America upon sexuality.

Once you have done that, I'll promise not just to roll my eyes at you.

If you have read the Greek and Norse, you know exactly the pederast practices I spoke of earlier and should agree there is choice and social pressure involved here. Why the snide tone then?

I read it, and spending a lot of time studying the Norse I can tell you that it's utter bullocks you're letting out. You have no evidence at all to back up your claims, except that you believe that people were pressured into doing what felt natural in their culture.

So you are saying it was a free choice.... My point exactly.

How the fuck did you get that out of my post?

[Max White]

2. So you mean to imply that there is no way the priest could have known she was gay unless she was opening flaunting her sexuality on the day of the funeral?

Waiting for reply... Also singing 'Mr Cellophane' right now.

[G-Flex]

Because you know most people are internally viscerally disturbed by the idea. That's all I have said, and for that I am called "homophobe" and worse.

No, you've said more than that. You called it "unwholesome", said that we are hard-wired to be both heterosexual and perturbed by homosexuality, and also that there's some kind of weird conspiracy on part of the APA and other people/organizations to normalize homosexuality as a plot against Christians.

Also: I'm not "internally viscerally disturbed" by the idea of homosexuality or homosexuality relationships, nor are... basically any of my friends, really.

Also, there have been plenty of other things in history that were culturally normative, even amongst most cultures, but that are now considered harmful. I mentioned racism and sexism as two examples.

History shows us that this is not always the case though. So where is your argument? Do we not have a right to decide for ourselves what our values are going to be? Or do we have to ask you for permission? Or does the scientific community now have to sign off on any and all laws?

I'm not saying any of those things. Of course you have a right to decide your own beliefs, and nobody here is trying to step on religious freedom either. The scientific community doesn't have to sign off on any laws, but at least in the US, laws are not supposed to discriminate on the basis of religion or reflect or cater to any religious establishment, no matter how popular.

What is it I have said that is so hateful? Nothing other than the truth.

Implying (or rather, directly stating) that someone's sexual orientation, which is a big part of who they are as individuals and cause of much social strife in our society, is something that is under their direct control, and is unwholesome, and that they should change, and that what they are is something humans are hard-wired to detest on some level, is hateful, and is nowhere near the undisputed truth.

I repeat, "The Cult of Reason". Enlightenment scholars thought religion was on its way out 200 years ago. It has gone nowhere.

I'd say there's truth to it, considering that social norms, laws, and government are far more secular post-Enlightenment. Where do you think the American ideal of "not respecting any establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" comes from? And according to polls, more people are irreligious these days.

There are ten thousand verses in the Bible about love, charity, decency, kindness, and tolerance. You pick one of the four or five most offensive sexual practices in the history of the world and choose to take offense at teachings that no one is requiring your to follow. That is hate.

I take offense at teachings that cause offense. There are plenty of things in the Bible, and about Christianity, that I have no problems with at all. I don't hate Christians, either. I disagree with their beliefs and consider some of the beliefs of some Christians to be harmful, just as I'd consider widespread racist or sexist beliefs to be harmful. That doesn't mean I hate anyone.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You keep saying, "People can't control their sexuality."

Why?

Because.....it's true? You don't even have to take our words for it. Did you choose to be attracted to whichever sex you are attracted to? Did you choose to like anything you like? I fucking love bacon, but I didn't choose to like bacon. Nor did I choose to hate lettuce with a passion (and my life would be easier if I didn't, what with all the stuff that it's on, but I just plain cannot stomach it and don't know how anyone else can).

History shows us that this is not always the case though. So where is your argument? Do we not have a right to decide for ourselves what our values are going to be? Or do we have to ask you for permission? Or does the scientific community now have to sign off on any and all laws?

Given that science is, in it's basic form, trying to objectively discern what is true about the physical universe, I would greatly support having laws that are in line with reality.

I repeat, "The Cult of Reason". Enlightenment scholars thought religion was on its way out 200 years ago. It has gone nowhere. That's called being debunked.

Have you seen what's happened to European society in the last 200 years? Religion is on it's way out in Europe if there aren't some serious trend reversals in the next few decades.

Christianity is on its way out? Doesn't the Bible itself say that?

....Not really?

After Christianity had been taught across the whole world.
Has it not been taught across the whole world?

Nope. 33% of the human population follows some form of Christianity, which is subdivided into Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, a lot of mutually unaffiliated Protestant sects, and some minor sects that don't fall into any of the above. That's not even a majority, and it's barely a plurality.

There are ten thousand verses in the Bible about love, charity, decency, kindness, and tolerance.

And just as many about hate, war, death, vengeance, and intolerance.

You pick one of the four or five most offensive sexual practices in the history of the world and choose to take offense at teachings that no one is requiring your to follow. That is hate.

Slavery was more than acceptable for most of human history, now it's almost gone from the world entirely, and accepted by almost no one. The argument from history is silly on it's face.

People wouldn't care anywhere near as much about how negatively some Christians react towards homosexuality if they didn't try to deprive homosexuals of their human rights and civil liberties, which are afforded to all people by their very nature. Trying to distance an entire group within our society and depriving them of their rights is far more hate than criticizing Christianity is.

[Durin]

2. So you mean to imply that there is no way the priest could have known she was gay unless she was opening flaunting her sexuality on the day of the funeral?

Waiting for reply... Also singing 'Mr Cellophane' right now.

I've answered this twice that I can count. I said straight up I doubt she was openly snogging her lesbian friend. I am saying that the Catholic position is known, that her mother is not likely to have been ignorant of it, and by extension her daughter should have been. She was obviously openly lesbian or else the Priest would not know about it. She therefore should not have pressed the issue. Instead, she chose to flaunt her sexuality as the predominant issue, forcing the Priest into a bad situation, which led to this issue.

She purposefully pushed and then she (and all of you) suddenly find HER to be the victim. It's like bringing a stripper to someone's baby shower. Sure, there's nothing wrong with strippers per se, but at a BABY SHOWER?

Predictable that this causes an issue.

[Lysabild]

She purposefully pushed and then she (and all of you) suddenly find HER to be the victim. It's like bringing a stripper to someone's baby shower. Sure, there's nothing wrong with strippers per se, but at a BABY SHOWER?

I don't see the connection between baby showers and naked people dancing and discrimination.

Predictable that this causes an issue.

Yes, you have indeed found out now that we do not accept bigotry on this forum.

[Durin]

Durin, please read up on the Etoro and the Sambia of New Guinea, the Atanda of Australia, the Keraki of New Guinea, The Greek, Norse and modern Latin America upon sexuality.

Once you have done that, I'll promise not just to roll my eyes at you.

If you have read the Greek and Norse, you know exactly the pederast practices I spoke of earlier and should agree there is choice and social pressure involved here. Why the snide tone then?

I read it, and spending a lot of time studying the Norse I can tell you that it's utter bullocks you're letting out. You have no evidence at all to back up your claims, except that you believe that people were pressured into doing what felt natural in their culture.

So you are saying it was a free choice.... My point exactly.

How the fuck did you get that out of my post?

Because you said different cultures have different attitudes toward homosexuality. Norse and Greek in particular had a certain acceptance to being the one "on top", and Greek was accepting of pederasty in some instances. Certainly no one was FORCING these people to participate.

So, different societal attitudes create different behaviors. You seem to also hint that these were more or less positive attitudes, but that turns out not to be entirely true.

Oh, I've read....

[Truean]

2. So you mean to imply that there is no way the priest could have known she was gay unless she was opening flaunting her sexuality on the day of the funeral?

Waiting for reply... Also singing 'Mr Cellophane' right now.

I've answered this twice that I can count. I said straight up I doubt she was openly snogging her lesbian friend. I am saying that the Catholic position is known, that her mother is not likely to have been ignorant of it, and by extension her daughter should have been. She was obviously openly lesbian or else the Priest would not know about it. She therefore should not have pressed the issue. Instead, she chose to flaunt her sexuality as the predominant issue, forcing the Priest into a bad situation, which led to this issue.

She purposefully pushed and then she (and all of you) suddenly find HER to be the victim. It's like bringing a stripper to someone's baby shower. Sure, there's nothing wrong with strippers per se, but at a BABY SHOWER?

Predictable that this causes an issue.

I don't see the connection between baby showers and naked people dancing and discrimination.

I'm pretty sure he's saying something like:

A.) Bringing a gay person to church (or to get the sacrament?)

is like

B.) bringing a stripper to a baby shower: the act would be wholly inappropriate and offensive.

A is B; they are the same or similar? Something along those lines?

[Durin]

Speaking of objective science concerning the very core of what is subjective seems to me to be pretty amazingly ignorant. There is no scientific model concerning human will. Therefore whatever science can be brought to bear on this is haphazard at best. Most of it is based on polls, which is flatly ridiculous on its face. You do not establish scientific, reproducible models with polls.

[Max White]

I've answered this twice that I can count. I said straight up I doubt she was openly snogging her lesbian friend. I am saying that the Catholic position is known, that her mother is not likely to have been ignorant of it, and by extension her daughter should have been. She was obviously openly lesbian or else the Priest would not know about it. She therefore should not have pressed the issue. Instead, she chose to flaunt her sexuality as the predominant issue, forcing the Priest into a bad situation, which led to this issue.

She purposefully pushed and then she (and all of you) suddenly find HER to be the victim. It's like bringing a stripper to someone's baby shower. Sure, there's nothing wrong with strippers per se, but at a BABY SHOWER?

Predictable that this causes an issue.

So by being openly lesbian, that is 'flaunting her sexuality'?
If I were to play along with your metaphor, it is like bringing a stripper to a baby shower, and then you object on the grounds that she is a stripper and they do not belong at baby showers, despite the fact that she is keeping her cloths on and acting like everybody else there. Strippers are people too, and when they are not on task they are just like everybody else, thus I don't see the problem. In the same way, just because the girl in question was a lesbian, does not mean she is 'flaunting her sexuality' at every turn.

[Durin]

I've answered this twice that I can count. I said straight up I doubt she was openly snogging her lesbian friend. I am saying that the Catholic position is known, that her mother is not likely to have been ignorant of it, and by extension her daughter should have been. She was obviously openly lesbian or else the Priest would not know about it. She therefore should not have pressed the issue. Instead, she chose to flaunt her sexuality as the predominant issue, forcing the Priest into a bad situation, which led to this issue.

She purposefully pushed and then she (and all of you) suddenly find HER to be the victim. It's like bringing a stripper to someone's baby shower. Sure, there's nothing wrong with strippers per se, but at a BABY SHOWER?

Predictable that this causes an issue.

So by being openly lesbian, that is 'flaunting her sexuality'?
If I were to play along with your metaphor, it is like bringing a stripper to a baby shower, and then you object on the grounds that she is a stripper and they do not belong at baby showers, despite the fact that she is keeping her cloths on and acting like everybody else there. Strippers are people too, and when they are not on task they are just like everybody else, thus I don't see the problem. In the same way, just because the girl in question was a lesbian, does not mean she is 'flaunting her sexuality' at every turn.

Fourth try.

Being openly lesbian, going to church, and insisting on taking a sacrament you do not qualify for under the tenets of the faith, is inappropriate. To then turn around and make a spectacle of the issue is flaunting your sexuality and using the death of your own mother to make a political or social point.

[Leafsnail]

Christianity as actually practiced is extremely complex, with a variety of sects, doctrines, dogmas, rules, and theological beliefs and backgrounds.

Ah, but his is the only TRUE form of Christianity.  I don't think you've understood that.

You keep saying, "People can't control their sexuality."

Y'know what, let's say that people CAN control their sexuality, against all evidence to the contrary.  What does that change?  There is still absolutely no harm in homosexuality to anyone and this is the issue you have to address.

I mean, the fact that something is a choice doesn't mean that choosing against the status quo is evil or bad.  If the majority of people drink beer and I choose to drink wine that does not mean that I have done anything bad.  Even if other people think that drinking wine is disgusting (hey, plenty of people think that being black is disgusting).