Print

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

[G-Flex]

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.

If you want to leave, then actually leave. Nobody's forcing you to stay.

[Durin]

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?

You asked for one. I gave you one. I have also repeatedly pointed out, and you have repeatedly ignored, that the views toward homosexuality among Greeks and Norse were not universally positive.

What is relevant here is that you and people like you attempted to demonize the Catholic church because a lesbian demanded the sacraments at her mothers funeral and then got enraged when they refused. That is not appropriate.

[Lysabild]

You keep mentioning namecalling, but the things you've been called, a bigot and a troll, is both very justified by your actual behaviour.

You're also not forced to be here, you're arguing your intolerance in a thread for people who discuss to learn and share viewpoints, but you only continue repeating yourself, not answering any of the posts made back to you.

If you want to monologue your hatespeech, Vector's thread is the wrongest place, and this forum a bad audience.

What is relevant here is that you and people like you attempted to demonize the Catholic church because a lesbian demanded the sacraments at her mothers funeral and then got enraged when they refused. That is not appropriate.

Are you kidding me? I basicly said multiple times that it isn't either positive or negative!

[Durin]

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.

While refusing to acknowledge the obvious difference between handedness and sexuality, and very specifically choosing not to answer the question directly.

I know what you did and I know why you did it, and that is why I do not have a lot of concern for your opinion. You clearly are not interested in addressing the hard questions. It is easier for you to demonize those with whom you disagree, make cutesy little snippy remarks, and then posture.

If homosexuality is a behavior that can be chosen, as prison behavior, past cultures, and pretty much all the REAL evidence apart from a handful of opinion polls given for and by pro-gay activist researchers indicates, then what you are doing is pushing a behavior that actually has an intrinsic harm -- that of being inherently noisome to a significant majority -- and pawning it off as a harmless thing and a civil right while demonizing anyone who would just as soon not have the behavior popularized and mainstreamed.

But of course, if YOU say it is harmless and a civil right, then it MUST be true. Obviously anyone disagreeing is a bigot.

[Durin]

You keep mentioning namecalling, but the things you've been called, a bigot and a troll, is both very justified by your actual behaviour.

You're also not forced to be here, you're arguing your intolerance in a thread for people who discuss to learn and share viewpoints, but you only continue repeating yourself, not answering any of the posts made back to you.

If you want to monologue your hatespeech, Vector's thread is the wrongest place, and this forum a bad audience.

What is relevant here is that you and people like you attempted to demonize the Catholic church because a lesbian demanded the sacraments at her mothers funeral and then got enraged when they refused. That is not appropriate.

Are you kidding me? I basicly said multiple times that it isn't either positive or negative!

I have answered posts aimed at me over and over. On your side, you simply ignore my questions and name call. I have done nothing to deserve the tag bigot OR troll, and I did not post the original post here, so responding to it can hardly be off topic.

YOU say it is neither positive or negative, but obviously many disagree, including the very Norse and Greek sources you yourself claim support your cause. They very clearly regard being the receptive partner as negative.

[Durin]

Nazi's

...Seriously?

Probably the second most important breakdown in civilization in the last century after the Soviet Union. Well, or possibly China. Oh, but since the left thinks its cute to make jokes about any mention of it being the end of rational discussion, we cannot reference it.

Yes. Nazi's. Seriously. They are direct descendants of enlightenment philosophy.

[Glowcat]

If homosexuality is a behavior that can be chosen, as prison behavior, past cultures, and pretty much all the REAL evidence apart from a handful of opinion polls given for and by pro-gay activist researchers indicates, then what you are doing is pushing a behavior that actually has an intrinsic harm -- that of being inherently noisome to a significant majority -- and pawning it off as a harmless thing and a civil right while demonizing anyone who would just as soon not have the behavior popularized and mainstreamed.

But of course, if YOU say it is harmless and a civil right, then it MUST be true. Obviously anyone disagreeing is a bigot.

When your disagreement involves you being a bigot, yes. That quote above is pretty much an argument from bigotry. It's harmful because a majority (who aren't that large a majority anymore) try to punish homosexuals who don't hide from sight, so that the bigots can pretend they don't exist? Is that really the direction you want to go for this disagreement?

[Frumple]

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... noted yourself, actually, that there are cases where people will engage in homosexual relationships because they're aroused. And, while yes, relationships between people who don't find each other physically attractive do happen, it's definitely not a primary or common occurrence. If it helps you understand the connection, though, replace "not physically attractive" with "grievously physically disfigured." Natural revulsion is not sufficient for the acts and positions the argument you're defending tend to support.

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.

Do you genuinely think that denying people rights such as visiting a partner in the hospital or the ability to adopt (this is, of course, not an inclusive list) is not a systematic stripping of rights? Their homosexuality has no demonstrable impact on the rights I mentioned, and yet there is consistent opposition to homosexuals having such rights.

The rest of the issue with this issue in question is that the anti-homosexual proponents tend to favor and suggest considerably worse infringements than ones such as those.

I'll ask again, 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?

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....?

So... do you simply disagree with my statement that people can and do dislike aspects of Christianity without discarding the whole thing? It's a pretty simple point: Most of the people arguing against the position you're representing are not anti-Christian. They disagree with a specific aspect of dogma, but that's all there is to it.

[Lysabild]

I have answered posts aimed at me over and over. On your side, you simply ignore my questions and name call. I have done nothing to deserve the tag bigot OR troll, and I did not post the original post here, so responding to it can hardly be off topic.

YOU say it is neither positive or negative, but obviously many disagree, including the very Norse and Greek sources you yourself claim support your cause. They very clearly regard being the receptive partner as negative.

You keep equating Homosexual sex with Homosexuality, if you can't grasp the difference between love, sex and pressure to conform you are wasting every ones time.

It wasn't negative being with a guy, it was negative for a needed man, a soldier and field worker, to try and take a feminine role in their society.

If you get blindfolded and get a blowjob from a guy, it'll feel the same to you as if it was a girl, your body is omnisexual, it doesn't give a shit, hence it's all in your mind. Some guys can have sex with men, then go home to their wives and children and be good parents!

I should know, I've been with such fathers!

[Durin]

I have answered posts aimed at me over and over. On your side, you simply ignore my questions and name call. I have done nothing to deserve the tag bigot OR troll, and I did not post the original post here, so responding to it can hardly be off topic.

YOU say it is neither positive or negative, but obviously many disagree, including the very Norse and Greek sources you yourself claim support your cause. They very clearly regard being the receptive partner as negative.

You keep equating Homosexual sex with Homosexuality, if you can't grasp the difference between love, sex and pressure to conform you are wasting every ones time.

It wasn't negative being with a guy, it was negative for a needed man, a soldier and field worker, to try and take a feminine role in their society.

If you get blindfolded and get a blowjob from a guy, it'll feel the same to you as if it was a girl, your body is omnisexual, it doesn't give a shit, hence it's all in your mind. Some guys can have sex with men, then go home to their wives and children and be good parents!

I should know, I've been with such fathers!

Why do you say I do not grasp the difference? I do. You on the other hand are demanding respect for the assertion that there is no choice involved, whereas it seems clear that there is. Have you never had to change your attitude toward something in order to change the way you feel about it? Do none of you ever have to train yourselves to anything other than a momentary impulse.

I am not the one denying anything, nor do I misunderstand. You are making assertions you cannot back.

[Lysabild]

I am not the one denying anything, nor do I misunderstand. You are making assertions you cannot back.

Then why do you keep connecting them, when they are totally different things?

[Durin]

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... noted yourself, actually, that there are cases where people will engage in homosexual relationships because they're aroused. And, while yes, relationships between people who don't find each other physically attractive do happen, it's definitely not a primary or common occurrence. If it helps you understand the connection, though, replace "not physically attractive" with "grievously physically disfigured." Natural revulsion is not sufficient for the acts and positions the argument you're defending tend to support.

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.

Do you genuinely think that denying people rights such as visiting a partner in the hospital or the ability to adopt (this is, of course, not an inclusive list) is not a systematic stripping of rights? Their homosexuality has no demonstrable impact on the rights I mentioned, and yet there is consistent opposition to homosexuals having such rights.

The rest of the issue with this issue in question is that the anti-homosexual proponents tend to favor and suggest considerably worse infringements than ones such as those.

I'll ask again, 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?

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....?

So... do you simply disagree with my statement that people can and do dislike aspects of Christianity without discarding the whole thing? It's a pretty simple point: Most of the people arguing against the position you're representing are not anti-Christian. They disagree with a specific aspect of dogma, but that's all there is to it.

Visiting a partner in a hospital is something of a pet peeve of mine where this subject is concerned. I have no idea why hospitals do this sort of thing, but my personal experience with hospitals is that they tend to be staffed by harried, pushy people with a certain sense of entitlement when it comes to enforcing their rules. That particular issue is one that I have a lot of sympathy for, but it does not excuse the wholesale demonization of Christians I saw in this thread earlier.

Again, to be very specific, what we are talking about here is an openly gay woman demanding to partake of a religious sacrament that she did not qualify for under the tenets of the religion. Upon being refused, she made a public spectacle of the issue. People argued it was reasonable that she did not know, or her mother did not know, that she could not partake of communion, but I answered that her mother at the very least should have known, and in any event the normal thing to do would be to simply not partake in the sacrament and move on with the ceremony. The Bishop over the church involved said that the priest should not have publicly condemned her, and even that was not accepted by people posting about the issue here.

So bottom line, churches have to do whatever any non-Christian demands of them or risk being characterized as bigoted. I think perhaps in this case some folks outside the church are the ones being belligerent, demanding, and self righteous here.

[Blargityblarg]

You are making assertions you cannot back.

a behavior that actually has an intrinsic harm -- that of being inherently noisome to a significant majority

Does anybody else see a problem here?

[Durin]

I am not the one denying anything, nor do I misunderstand. You are making assertions you cannot back.

Then why do you keep connecting them, when they are totally different things?

They can be totally separate, or they can be related. You are demanding that they be permanently separated, but I do not agree that that is necessarily the case. Completely separating them is necessary for your viewpoint that it is a civil rights issue. Making it a civil rights issue is the path toward creating a permanent schism between the church and state that eventually leads to the state destroying all churches and substituting medical mandates for freedom of conscience.

[G-Flex]

While refusing to acknowledge the obvious difference between handedness and sexuality, and very specifically choosing not to answer the question directly.

I did answer it directly: I don't know the exact causes for variation in sexual orientation. That is my answer to your question. It is a direct answer. I do not know exactly why homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality. As far as why people seem to intentionally avoid it, I attribute that to negative social attitudes toward homosexuality; people avoid that which is stigmatized.

In addition to this very direct answer, I also stated reasoning why you can't assume that an inherent repulsion toward homosexuality is the reason why so many people avoid it or aren't homosexual.

I know what you did and I know why you did it, and that is why I do not have a lot of concern for your opinion. You clearly are not interested in addressing the hard questions. It is easier for you to demonize those with whom you disagree, make cutesy little snippy remarks, and then posture.

I did address the "hard question", and I"m not trying to demonize you.

If homosexuality is a behavior that can be chosen, as prison behavior, past cultures, and pretty much all the REAL evidence apart from a handful of opinion polls given for and by pro-gay activist researchers indicates

I already explained why a culture or situation influencing sexual orientation does not necessitate that sexual orientation is a choice. Things can influence a person's cognition, preferences, and behavior in ways that are not under their direct control. "Situation X causes Individual Y to develop a preference for Behavior Z" does not imply "Situation X causes Individual Y to choose to enjoy Behavior Z".

then what you are doing is pushing a behavior that actually has an intrinsic harm -- that of being inherently noisome to a significant majority

How is bothering the majority "intrinsic harm"? At one point, interracial marriage was bothersome to the majority of people in the US. Does that mean interracial marriage had "intrinsic harm"? The fact that it depends on what the majority thinks means it clearly isn't intrinsic at all!