Print

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

[Truean]

I noticed a number of points where people were mischaracterizing, or even contradicting what Durin has already said in accusations against him, and I simple don't have time at the moment to type up a list of them. So far G-Flex, Max White and Lysabild have avoided this. Okay? Cool. I'm kind of under a time crunch here which sort of came on suddenly but I wanted to get that point out there before things went further. Possibly bad form of me, and I will accept that.

... Not sure where I did/I've really tried to avoid this, but ok.

Not sure what good my being here is gonna do anyhow.

[Leafsnail]

People have not been shown to change their orientation? We have just discussed cultures where homosexual behaviors were accepted and seemed to be more common. There is also this.

I'll say to you again: it is completely irrelevant whether it is a choice.  Homosexuality does not harm anyone.  Even if it is a choice it is not a bad choice.  The only evidence you seem to be providing is that some people are disgusted by homosexuals.

I was raised to be gay friendly and tolerant. Until the last what... four or five years, I would have qualified as a liberal on these issues. It is you who have decided to take it to the next level, liken a specific sexual behavior to things like gender, race, or religion, and then push the issue to the point where people have quite literally been arrested for saying rather innocuous things like, "homosexuality is a sin," in the Christian context.

Firstly, I'm pretty sure people haven't been arrested for saying that in the US since ridiculously homophobic institutions like the WBC are allowed to exist.  Secondly, noone is saying that people should be arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin.  We are saying that they are incorrect in saying homosexuality is a sin.  Conflating one with the other is simply dishonest.

And yet, all around the world, for the vast majority of people, homosexual relations simply are not acceptable TO THEM PERSONALLY. And while all of you are loathe to admit to it, me and everyone else who are not sold out to the idea that homosexuality is the best thing ever, and a civil right, and that there just must be something intrinsically wrong with anyone who disagrees with that attitude, know in our own experience that even to see the behavior is to be at least mildly sickened.

I don't think there's anything "intrisically wrong" with people for thinking it's disgusting.  I just think they need to see past that and not discriminate against those who aren't harming anyone.

Also, you seem to be arguing that your sexuality isn't a choice, and that you (and the "vast majority" of males) are hardwired to find homosexuality disgusting.  Can you clarify your position on whether sexuality is a choice?

So to sum up, it seems clear to me that there is a lot of choice in homosexual behavior. It seems clear that the reason it tends to be frowned upon, not just by Christianity but by most cultures through most of history, is that there is an intrinsic revulsion there for most people. I find that people who deny these facts tend to use sensationalistic arguments and threats and name calling rather than addressing these issues head on, and finally I see it mostly from people with an emphatically anti-Christian mindset.

Ok.  This explains why some people are against homosexuality.

The thing I'm not getting is why you think it's correct to be against homosexuality.  Other than "the majority are against homosexuality so it must be the correct position".

[Lysabild]

I'm waving between reporting for homophobia and hate-speech or letting G-Flex carry the torch, because I do not have the tolerance for discussing with someone not even reading the posts before repeating his hateful circular speech.

... Not sure where I did/I've really tried to avoid this, but ok.

Not sure what good my being here is gonna do anyhow.

What do you mean? You being here is the best and I personally haven't noticed any wrong behaviour from you except apologising for being who you are. Stop doing that.

Edit: Okay, as a last chance, point to a non-abrahamic religion that views Homosexuality in the same way.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm waving between reporting for homophobia and hate-speech or letting G-Flex carry the torch, because I do not have the tolerance for discussing with someone not even reading the posts before repeating his hateful circular speech.

We can't change anyone's mind by reporting them.

[Durin]

Your refusal to answer the first question in any sort of thoughtful manner made me pretty much skip the rest of your post. If you cannot discuss the issue openly, and directly address people's thoughts, then really what is the point?

I did answer the question. I answered it by saying that you could ask the exact same question about being left-handed. Some traits are less common than others, and sometimes it's not clear why. I also gave a potential sociological reason for it.

Persecution complex? People have been arrested, sir. Arrested. Merely for saying the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Gays invade churches in costume to mock the procedures, and people such as yourself name call constantly. No... it's not a complex.

I've never actually heard of these things happening, yet I've heard of many, many, many hate crimes against homosexuals, from actual murder to bullying teenagers to the point of suicide. Can you please back up your claims?

Handedness has almost nothing in common with sexuality. You want to call a specific claim of mine into question, kindly do a little leg work on it. I am not going to spend a whole lot more effort on you until you make a cogent attempt at addressing the rather long and detailed post I already made.

[Lysabild]

I'm waving between reporting for homophobia and hate-speech or letting G-Flex carry the torch, because I do not have the tolerance for discussing with someone not even reading the posts before repeating his hateful circular speech.

We can't change anyone's mind by reporting them.

We aren't changing his mind eitherway when he doesn't reads the posts and even admits to not reading them because he doesn't get the answers he wants.

[Willfor]

I seriously hate time crunches.

Guys, I will willingly admit to my failures in communication if you will stop treating my words as dire messages from the great beyond telling you that you are all evil. You're not. I just saw some problem in communication on some people's parts, and I fucked up trying to deliver this message. This is the last time I will participate in a debate when I don't have time. I still don't have time. If you get nothing else from this post it is that I fucked up, and you guys can go on as if I didn't say anything. Don't get out, come back.

Okay? Okay.

[Frumple]

If homosexuality is not inherently unwholesome to humans, please explain to me why it is that people avoid participating in the behavior? If people are neutral toward it, then why would they nor participate in it in approximately the same frequency as masturbating?

Can you please explain to me why people avoid having physical relationships with people they don't find physically attractive? People are fairly neutral to that, but I don't see such relationships nearly at the same frequency as masturbation.

I couldn't cite the precise socialogical and psychological cause behind that, but the cause of both behaviors are the same.

And yet, all around the world, for the vast majority of people, homosexual relations simply are not acceptable TO THEM PERSONALLY. And while all of you are loathe to admit to it, me and everyone else who are not sold out to the idea that homosexuality is the best thing ever, and a civil right, and that there just must be something intrinsically wrong with anyone who disagrees with that attitude, know in our own experience that even to see the behavior is to be at least mildly sickened.

I've actually said this before, fairly recently in the thread. If it stopped at being mildly sickened, stopped at a lack of personal attraction, stopped before people started stripping freedoms from homosexual individuals and started treated them like second class citizens, there would be basically no issue. If peoples reactions toward homosexuals and homosexual relationships was equivalent to their reactions toward people they didn't find personally attractive and relationships between such people, there wouldn't really be a problem. It doesn't stop there. Thus the problem.

Would you be comfortable in accepting that guided persecution on a social and legal level based strictly on personal dislike is something we should abhor?

I do not feel you are being honest. I also feel most of you are deeply motivated by anger and hatred. I feel that because of the way I am repeatedly treated when having this discussion with people deeply committed to the cause of gay rights.

I'd give you anger, actually, because there tends to be that involved as a motivation. It's understandable that people become angry (To wit, righteous anger) when they see cruelty, intolerance, persecution, etc., over something that does little to no harm (In today's world, homosexual acts are no more medically dangerous than heterosexual ones, when performed with the appropriate considerations). Unfounded -- or, if you'd prefer, insufficiently founded -- persecution does, in fact, piss me off a little. That in this particular case it's done in a way that, to me, perverts the teachings of one of the great people of human history doesn't help.

But the hatred I've seen is only hatred of hatred, not of something else. I've very rarely seen strong support for social and legal persecution of people who are against homosexual rights that even remotely approach the level of support coming from said people for social and legal persecution against homosexuals.

I also see in history, and have made mention of aspects of it to you without any real response from any of you to the contrary, that there is an anti-religious undercurrent in recent western society that has no good basis in fact, has been repeatedly debunked in terms of people, even if they abandon Christianity, typically going back to some neo-pagan or "new age" religious views rather than becoming good atheists as Enlightenment era philosophers thought would happen.

In other words, people experience life spiritually (I think most likely due to the experience of being conscious and of perceiving themselves as making choices) and therefore reject the exclusively materialistic model of reality.

I'll admit sudden curiousity how this applies, actually. There are, in fact, religions that make no issue of homosexuality, so irreligion isn't exactly directly tied to what we're talking about. And, as I actually noted a bit earlier, the general sentiment is not anti-Christian as a whole; it's specifically against the aspects of Christianity that the people in question see as unwholesome.

[Durin]

I'm waving between reporting for homophobia and hate-speech or letting G-Flex carry the torch, because I do not have the tolerance for discussing with someone not even reading the posts before repeating his hateful circular speech.

... Not sure where I did/I've really tried to avoid this, but ok.

Not sure what good my being here is gonna do anyhow.

What do you mean? You being here is the best and I personally haven't noticed any wrong behaviour from you except apologising for being who you are. Stop doing that.

Edit: Okay, as a last chance, point to a non-abrahamic religion that views Homosexuality in the same way.

You mean other than the negative views Greeks and Norse had of the receptive partner?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_zor.htm

I find your knee jerk reaction toward demonizing and attempting to silence anyone who does not agree with you to be exactly the sort of hate based behavior common to the far left.

Nazi's, while often cast as somehow Christian, were anti-religious in their views, very much like the "Cult of Reason" in Revolutionary France, and were also deeply anti-homosexual. In fact, just in general, the anti-religious philosophies of the last century -- national socialism and communism -- have been among the most violent and hateful in history.

[Leafsnail]

Nazi's

...Seriously?

[Descan]

Right, so...

Are we done feeding the troll? Please? Can we get back on some sort of topic?

Anybody? I hate it when a thread gets derailed like this. It's basically turned into a circle-jerk, with this guy as the starring role, and everyone having a go at him. I can just imagine him going, "Yeeees, yes. Let the hate flow through you, it sustains us, yeeeeees."

How about we talk about... I dunno, that elections scandal in Canada? Or, or... Gender roles in television! Or... Anything, SOMETHING relevant?!

Please?

[Lysabild]

You mean other than the negative views Greeks and Norse had of the receptive partner?

Yea, thousand year old cultures that relied heavily on babies being born didn't see it as positive when men showed a perceived weakness and weren't making a strong image of themselves. How does that translate into the actual homosexuality present and the modern world?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_zor.htm

That was one. Hardly the rest or most of the world, huh?

Right, so...

Are we done feeding the troll? Please? Can we get back on some sort of topic?

Anybody? I hate it when a thread gets derailed like this. It's basically turned into a circle-jerk, with this guy as the starring role, and everyone having a go at him. I can just imagine him going, "Yeeees, yes. Let the hate flow through you, it sustains us, yeeeeees."

How about we talk about... I dunno, that elections scandal in Canada? Or, or... Gender roles in television! Or... Anything, SOMETHING relevant?!

Please?

I was just thinking, could we possibly overfeed it and hope it gets food poisoning?

[Durin]

If homosexuality is not inherently unwholesome to humans, please explain to me why it is that people avoid participating in the behavior? If people are neutral toward it, then why would they nor participate in it in approximately the same frequency as masturbating?

Can you please explain to me why people avoid having physical relationships with people they don't find physically attractive? People are fairly neutral to that, but I don't see such relationships nearly at the same frequency as masturbation.

I couldn't cite the precise socialogical and psychological cause behind that, but the cause of both behaviors are the same.

And yet, all around the world, for the vast majority of people, homosexual relations simply are not acceptable TO THEM PERSONALLY. And while all of you are loathe to admit to it, me and everyone else who are not sold out to the idea that homosexuality is the best thing ever, and a civil right, and that there just must be something intrinsically wrong with anyone who disagrees with that attitude, know in our own experience that even to see the behavior is to be at least mildly sickened.

I've actually said this before, fairly recently in the thread. If it stopped at being mildly sickened, stopped at a lack of personal attraction, stopped before people started stripping freedoms from homosexual individuals and started treated them like second class citizens, there would be basically no issue. If peoples reactions toward homosexuals and homosexual relationships was equivalent to their reactions toward people they didn't find personally attractive and relationships between such people, there wouldn't really be a problem. It doesn't stop there. Thus the problem.

Would you be comfortable in accepting that guided persecution on a social and legal level based strictly on personal dislike is something we should abhor?

I do not feel you are being honest. I also feel most of you are deeply motivated by anger and hatred. I feel that because of the way I am repeatedly treated when having this discussion with people deeply committed to the cause of gay rights.

I'd give you anger, actually, because there tends to be that involved as a motivation. It's understandable that people become angry (To wit, righteous anger) when they see cruelty, intolerance, persecution, etc., over something that does little to no harm (In today's world, homosexual acts are no more medically dangerous than heterosexual ones, when performed with the appropriate considerations). Unfounded -- or, if you'd prefer, insufficiently founded -- persecution does, in fact, piss me off a little. That in this particular case it's done in a way that, to me, perverts the teachings of one of the great people of human history doesn't help.

But the hatred I've seen is only hatred of hatred, not of something else. I've very rarely seen strong support for social and legal persecution of people who are against homosexual rights that even remotely approach the level of support coming from said people for social and legal persecution against homosexuals.

I also see in history, and have made mention of aspects of it to you without any real response from any of you to the contrary, that there is an anti-religious undercurrent in recent western society that has no good basis in fact, has been repeatedly debunked in terms of people, even if they abandon Christianity, typically going back to some neo-pagan or "new age" religious views rather than becoming good atheists as Enlightenment era philosophers thought would happen.

In other words, people experience life spiritually (I think most likely due to the experience of being conscious and of perceiving themselves as making choices) and therefore reject the exclusively materialistic model of reality.

I'll admit sudden curiousity how this applies, actually. There are, in fact, religions that make no issue of homosexuality, so irreligion isn't exactly directly tied to what we're talking about. And, as I actually noted a bit earlier, the general sentiment is not anti-Christian as a whole; it's specifically against the aspects of Christianity that the people in question see as unwholesome.

People actually often do have sex with people they do not find physically attractive for a variety of reasons. One of the less savory but common reasons is that they are aroused and simply want to be with another person rather than masturbating. So I will ask yet again, if it is not relatively intrinsically repulsive, why do more people (not just in the west, but all over the world) not participate?

You speak of gays being denied rights, but there is no history of gays marrying or participating in religions that do not condone homosexuality, so the rights you say are being systematically stripped are not at all clear.

Arrests of Christians for this have so far been restricted to European countries, yes, and there has been backlash against it. But the tone and content of the anti-Christian left when discussing this issue is clearly one of trying to accuse anyone who disagrees of being hate motivated, whereas the real motivations appear to be based on concerns about freedom of religion and also a rush to judge gay marriage as a positive thing while simply turning our backs on decades of research that seems to indicate what we actually need is stricter laws re-establishing heterosexual marriage as an enforceable set of RESPONSIBILITIES instead of just a sort of social gathering and group of legal benefits (putting the marriage tax penalty aside).

I have made mention of enlightenment era philosophy, have repeatedly mentioned the French Revolution in terms of the "Cult of Reason". Do I have to also bring up Communism, Marx stating the family was actually the result of capitalism? These things are not secrets. The fact that people who attack Christians and  Christianity, constantly accuse people of hate, side with philosophies with demonstrated, well documented antipithay towards Christ, can then suddenly not be able to acknowledge that history, is just one more in a long list of evidence that there is something pretty openly subversive going on here. The lockstep adherence to very questionable arguments that are nevertheless identical....?

It's not as if propaganda is a new thing.

I read a book by one of the psychologists perhaps most involved in getting homosexuality removed from the lists of psychological problems. He pretty much openly admits the entire thing, both declaring homosexuality a sickness and then removing it from the list, was political. He states it was simply the right thing to do. You might be interested in reading his book.

Homosexuality and American Psychiatry – The Politics of Diagnosis by Ronald Bayer

He is very supportive of the gay cause, but does not follow this method of trying to pretend there is no underlying political or social agenda. Perhaps gay rights supporters would do well to stop denying the openly documented truth and instead focus on what is and is not actually true about homosexuality. There might even be ways for everyone to be more or less happy and safe -- compromise... Worse things have happened.

But calling people names and playing dumb when well documented social and political movements are referenced really is not cutting it. It at best makes you seem to be uninformed and a tool of people who have an agenda you yourself are simply ignorant of.

[G-Flex]

Handedness has almost nothing in common with sexuality. You want to call a specific claim of mine into question, kindly do a little leg work on it. I am not going to spend a whole lot more effort on you until you make a cogent attempt at addressing the rather long and detailed post I already made.

My point was that I don't know exactly what causes homosexuality to have the population statistics that it does, and gave another example of an innocuous thing that happens to have skewed statistics even though there's no good "reason" for it. Homosexuality being relatively uncommon does not mean it's "inherently unwholesome". I was calling your logic into question. You were implying that people avoid it because it's inherently unwholesome, and I criticized the premise by giving an example of something else that is relatively uncommon but isn't in any way unwholesome.

To reiterate, since you seem to have some trouble seeing people's points here: You are implying that the only possible reason for homosexuality being relatively uncommon is that it's "inherently unwholesome". I provided an example of a trait which is not inherently unwholesome, but is also relatively uncommon, to dispute your logic. That is all.

[Durin]

If you don't want to talk to me, just don't talk. I actually asked to be left out of this hours ago. Don't now pretend that I am here craving your abuse. You vacillate back and forth between acting as if you have real concern and then falling back into base insult slinging.