PDA

View Full Version : The Obligatory Sidetracked Gayness Thread.



Water Closet
04-29-2009, 03:55 PM
We're talking about the OP's questions concerning the religious right as they relate to specific issues in the OP. While homosexuality and gay marriage are a small part of much larger questions, let's not get sidetracked into an entertaining but irrelevant discussion of gayness. ;)

Quite right. Especially since our spandex-wearing, bicycle-riding, fellow soccer enthusiast expert is not here right now! :D

linda22003
04-29-2009, 03:57 PM
Quite right. Especially since our spandex-wearing, bicycle-riding, fellow soccer enthusiast expert is not here right now! :D

All of that was fine. It was the lavender oil that put it over the top. He shouldn't have mentioned the lavender oil.

FlaGator
04-29-2009, 03:59 PM
Did you make a conscious choice to be straight, or did you just discover you were attracted to the opposite sex?

But we all make conscious decisions on whether to have sex or not and with whom. Also does a genetic predisposition make actions that some believe to be wrong suddenly right?

linda22003
04-29-2009, 04:01 PM
But we all make conscious decisions on whether to have sex or not and with whom. Also does a genetic predisposition make actions that some believe to be wrong suddenly right?

1. Depends on how late in the evening it is and how much alcohol has been consumed.
2. Does it matter if some believe it to be wrong? I was (gasp) not a virgin when I got married, and some people think that's wrong. Ask me how much I cared about that opinion. :D

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 04:05 PM
1. Depends on how late in the evening it is and how much alcohol has been consumed.
2. Does it matter if some believe it to be wrong? I was (gasp) not a virgin when I got married, and some people think that's wrong. Ask me how much I cared about that opinion. :D

See, in a perfect world, you would need to wear a scarlet "A" for the rest of your life. :D

FlaGator
04-29-2009, 04:07 PM
1. Depends on how late in the evening it is and how much alcohol has been consumed.
2. Does it matter if some believe it to be wrong? I was (gasp) not a virgin when I got married, and some people think that's wrong. Ask me how much I cared about that opinion. :D

And I whole heartedly agree with you on that.

However, the point I was getting around to making was that a genetic predisposition for some characteristic doesn't make it OK to indulge in that characteristic.

linda22003
04-29-2009, 04:07 PM
An "A"? I didn't lose my virginity to Andy. :D

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 04:08 PM
And I whole heartedly agree with you on that.

However, the point I was getting around to making was that a genetic predisposition for some characteristic doesn't make it OK to indulge in that characteristic.

Why not, as long as the behaviour is consensual and does no physical harm?

linda22003
04-29-2009, 04:09 PM
However, the point I was getting around to making was that a genetic predisposition for some characteristic doesn't make it OK to indulge in that characteristic.

There are gays who are conflicted about being gay (usually the religious ones), but other than that, indulgence means they think it IS okay. I think it's okay, too, if that's what they want to do. As I've said here before, I just agree with the Victorian actress who said she didn't care what people did together "as long as they didn't do it in the street and frighten the horses." I think most of society would agree with that, these days. Intolerance to certain groups of people isn't going to make a big comeback. Historically, it never does.

Molon Labe
04-29-2009, 04:27 PM
Why not, as long as the behaviour is consensual and does no physical harm?

I have no problem with what consenting adults do in private. I have trouble with the glorification of it.

Why on earth celebrate it as an "alternative" choice lifestyle. If it's truly genetic predisposition, then why celebrate something on par with having blue eyes.

On sexuality...I guess it begs the question, Is one or the other preferable to society?

hazlnut
04-29-2009, 04:37 PM
However, the point I was getting around to making was that a genetic predisposition for some characteristic doesn't make it OK to indulge in that characteristic.

Why not?

We're not talking about alcoholism here, we're talking about sexual orientation. What I think people keep forgetting is that there is a certain set of rules and principles we have in this country that are supposed to trump/outweigh everything else--The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In our Republic we believe that the will of the majority should not trample the rights of the minority. If a person is born different than the rest of us, and his or her happiness in life comes from sharing it with someone else also born different--then we must not stand in their way or deem them less than equal.

And we have already determined that separate is not equal.

I am not saying that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are a moral code that should be put above the Bible or any code based on religious beliefs--but that it is, in fact, those documents which allow for the many, many interpretations of the Bible and religious beliefs to co-exist in one nation. When one certain belief begins to directly effect a minority class--the over time the system must alight the laws with the principles found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In your church, in your private lives, you can define marriage as anything you want. But at the county registrar's window down at city hall it has to be open and available to any two consenting adults who want the happiness the rest of us enjoy. Again, we've already determined that separate is not equal.

Jfor
04-29-2009, 04:39 PM
You don't get what I was saying. You didn't make a choice to be attracted to certain people; they don't either.

I don't intend to "force" anything on you; just be aware that history and society are moving away from you on this.

I don't agree with that. The fact that they are teaching in school it is ok to be gay and if you don't accept it then you are the evil person is wrong.

People that are born sociopaths are born that way and cannot help help it. Should we punish them for torturing animals and killing people? I mean, it's not their fault they were born that way. Pedophiles are born the way they are so should we make it ok for them to do to children what they do to them? they are born that way.

Jfor
04-29-2009, 04:42 PM
Hazlnut, being a homosexual has nothing to do with civil rights. They are practicing an alternative lifestyle. Should we allow polygamy in this country? it doesn't hurt anybody when all parties are consenting adults. Is it right for us to force our values saying a man is allowed to only have one wife? Or that a woman is only allowed to have one husband?

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 04:48 PM
I don't agree with that. The fact that they are teaching in school it is ok to be gay and if you don't accept it then you are the evil person is wrong.

People that are born sociopaths are born that way and cannot help help it. Should we punish them for torturing animals and killing people? I mean, it's not their fault they were born that way. Pedophiles are born the way they are so should we make it ok for them to do to children what they do to them? they are born that way.

Sigh! The behaviours you describe bring physical harm to others. Being gay just aggravates the hell out of a certain class of people who would impose their morality on others. In that alone, it serves a useful societal function.


"Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra-

wilbur
04-29-2009, 04:49 PM
Hazlnut, being a homosexual has nothing to do with civil rights. They are practicing an alternative lifestyle. Should we allow polygamy in this country? it doesn't hurt anybody when all parties are consenting adults. Is it right for us to force our values saying a man is allowed to only have one wife? Or that a woman is only allowed to have one husband?

oy... deja vu.

Answering statements with questions like this does not substitute for an argument. What if they don't agree polygamy is bad?

But phrasing arguments in the forms of questions, demands more questions be asked in order to draw the point out... so... Why shouldn't we allow polygamy? Some cultures have it, its been practiced through the centuries... what about polygamy makes us, apparently according to some unspoken agreement, think its this horrible thing that we should all agree doesn't belong in modern society, no questions asked?

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 04:49 PM
Hazlnut, being a homosexual has nothing to do with civil rights. They are practicing an alternative lifestyle. Should we allow polygamy in this country? it doesn't hurt anybody when all parties are consenting adults. Is it right for us to force our values saying a man is allowed to only have one wife? Or that a woman is only allowed to have one husband?

Um, what is your objection to consensual, adult polygamy?

Jfor
04-29-2009, 04:52 PM
My point is the fact that since this country was founded homosexuality has been looked down upon. When you start to allow homosexuality, then what are the limits as to what you are not going to allow.

wilbur
04-29-2009, 04:55 PM
Why not?

We're not talking about alcoholism here, we're talking about sexual orientation. What I think people keep forgetting is that there is a certain set of rules and principles we have in this country that are supposed to trump/outweigh everything else--The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In our Republic we believe that the will of the majority should not trample the rights of the minority. If a person is born different than the rest of us, and his or her happiness in life comes from sharing it with someone else also born different--then we must not stand in their way or deem them less than equal.

And we have already determined that separate is not equal.

I am not saying that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are a moral code that should be put above the Bible or any code based on religious beliefs--but that it is, in fact, those documents which allow for the many, many interpretations of the Bible and religious beliefs to co-exist in one nation. When one certain belief begins to directly effect a minority class--the over time the system must alight the laws with the principles found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In your church, in your private lives, you can define marriage as anything you want. But at the county registrar's window down at city hall it has to be open and available to any two consenting adults who want the happiness the rest of us enjoy. Again, we've already determined that separate is not equal.

One can certainly believe that some consensual things are wrong all they like.

However, one must recognize that the reason we submit ourselves to governance, is because by doing so, we facilitate the ability for individuals to actually live according to their nature (ie, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)... and that only permissible restrictions on fulfilling this nature are of acts that otherwise inhibit others, unjustly.

So in a way... government is there to ensure that we are able to act upon our predispositions (even genetic ones) as we see fit.

linda22003
04-29-2009, 04:56 PM
I don't agree with that. The fact that they are teaching in school it is ok to be gay and if you don't accept it then you are the evil person is wrong.

People that are born sociopaths are born that way and cannot help help it. Should we punish them for torturing animals and killing people? I mean, it's not their fault they were born that way. Pedophiles are born the way they are so should we make it ok for them to do to children what they do to them? they are born that way.

I can't really have a rational conversation with someone who equates mutually consensual homosexual relationships with pedophilia or being a sociopath. :(

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 04:57 PM
...
I am not saying that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are a moral code that should be put above the Bible or any code based on religious beliefs--but that it is, in fact, those documents which allow for the many, many interpretations of the Bible and religious beliefs to co-exist in one nation. When one certain belief begins to directly effect a minority class--the over time the system must alight the laws with the principles found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights...

In areas of government, these documents (Constitution, Bill of Rights) should absolutely be put above the Bible or any code based upon religious beliefs.

Molon Labe
04-29-2009, 04:57 PM
And we have already determined that separate is not equal.

And your exactly right. And as I've posted before.....If this marriage thingy were a "religious" problem rather than a Government problem, then this is not a hot topic issue. But no one will seriously entertain that I'm afraid.


I don't agree with that. The fact that they are teaching in school it is ok to be gay and if you don't accept it then you are the evil person is wrong.

People that are born sociopaths are born that way and cannot help help it. Should we punish them for torturing animals and killing people? I mean, it's not their fault they were born that way. Pedophiles are born the way they are so should we make it ok for them to do to children what they do to them? they are born that way.

And that's my concern too. Where do we draw the line with things of this nature. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the group NAMBLA. Who routinely lobby for relaxing standards on the age limits for consensual sex of young boys. I might add they are quite slippery because they use the young boys as mouth pieces for the movement. Society must set limits.

wilbur
04-29-2009, 04:57 PM
My point is the fact that since this country was founded homosexuality has been looked down upon. When you start to allow homosexuality, then what are the limits as to what you are not going to allow.

So, because something has, at one time, been looked down upon, it should always be looked down upon then... seems like a pretty feeble position to me... can't really say that I have been persuaded ;)

edit: can't type today:/

Jfor
04-29-2009, 04:57 PM
I can't really have a rational conversation with someone who equates mutually consensual homosexual relationships with pedophilia or being a sociopath. :(

Why not? It wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was looked at the same way.

linda22003
04-29-2009, 04:59 PM
Why not? It wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was looked at the same way.

And for some of us, apparently, the good old days aren't over. :rolleyes: It was popular to lynch black people in the old days, too. Some things need to die out.

Molon Labe
04-29-2009, 04:59 PM
In areas of government, these documents (Constitution, Bill of Rights) should absolutely be put above the Bible or any code based upon religious beliefs.

Alot of those documents spring directly from Christianity though CW...

It's going to be pretty difficult to seperate them.


Christianity and Western Civilization are unimaginable apart from one another. All culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief. - Russell Kirk

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 04:59 PM
I can't really have a rational conversation with someone who equates mutually consensual homosexual relationships with pedophilia or being a sociopath. :(

Don't worry. It used to happen to me all the time when discussing prostitution. Inevitably, arguments would be put forward comparing a consensual "crime" to murder.

But wait. No one's brought up the "it will lead to people marrying inanimate objects" argument yet! :D

linda22003
04-29-2009, 05:00 PM
But wait. No one's brought up the "it will lead to people marrying inanimate objects" argument yet! :D

Don't be so impatient. Ginger just split this thread off a little bit ago.

Jfor
04-29-2009, 05:01 PM
And for some of us, apparently, the good old days aren't over. :rolleyes: It was popular to lynch black people in the old days, too. Some things need to die out.

Again, the color of one's skin is not something they can choose. Homosexuality is. They choose to be gay.

Gingersnap
04-29-2009, 05:02 PM
I see y'all are living up to my expectations. :p

linda22003
04-29-2009, 05:02 PM
Again, the color of one's skin is not something they can choose. Homosexuality is. They choose to be gay.

We're talking in circles, so there's no point in continuing it. However, welcome to CU!

Jfor
04-29-2009, 05:03 PM
We're talking in circles, so there's no point in continuing it. However, welcome to CU!

That is difference between you and mean. I believe that homosexuality is a behovior that people to choose to participate in. You do not.


Thanks for the welcome.

linda22003
04-29-2009, 05:05 PM
That is difference between you and mean. I believe that homosexuality is a behovior that people to choose to participate in. You do not.


Thanks for the welcome.

Freudian slip on your part, but I think your position is "mean". My heterosexuality is also a behavior I choose to participate in, and people wouldn't necessarily approve of each and every partner I've ever had. That's completely immaterial. I think you and I could both agree that sexual behavior of ANY description could be kept a good deal more private than it is. :p

wilbur
04-29-2009, 05:06 PM
Alot of those documents spring directly from Christianity though CW...

It's going to be pretty difficult to seperate them.

False... the founders were all comprehensively classically educated... their sources and inspiration for the founding documents were drawn from and built upon thousands of years of everything philosophy had to offer... much of which predates Christianity, and even made Christianity what it is today.

Jfor
04-29-2009, 05:07 PM
Freudian slip on your part, but I think your position is "mean". My heterosexuality is also a behavior I choose to participate in, and people wouldn't necessarily approve of each and every partner I've ever had. That's completely immaterial. I think you and I could both agree that sexual behavior of ANY description could be kept a good deal more private than it is. :p

I have fat fingers and type way to fast and hit post before proofreading. I don't care if someone is gay, but I don't want it to constantly be thrown in my face day in and day and make me think I am bad because I think it is wrong.

linda22003
04-29-2009, 05:10 PM
I have fat fingers and type way to fast and hit post before proofreading. I don't care if someone is gay, but I don't want it to constantly be thrown in my face day in and day and make me think I am bad because I think it is wrong.

I don't want ANYone's sexuality thrown in my face on a daily basis - not even my husband's, and I'm fairly fond of him.

hazlnut
04-29-2009, 05:12 PM
Again, the color of one's skin is not something they can choose. Homosexuality is. They choose to be gay.

I realize that many people still see a personís sexual orientation as a matter of choice, however for some time now, medical and social science has considered a personís sexual orientation as a hard-wired personality trait (e.g left handed). There are degrees, some left-handed people can be confortable writing with both hands (bisexual) while others, roughly 10%, just canít do it--their brains arenít wired that way. A complex combination of genes and other prenatal factors caused their brains to develop in such a way that they favor their left hand. Back in the 1950s there was a movement in education where elementary school teachers would try to force left handed pupils to write with their right hand.

**I donít want to get into a source quoting contest here--who can site the most sources.** Iím aware there are varying opinions on this, however, the studies, articles that Iíve read and experts that Iíve talked to--this view makes sense to me. Brain development is a function of genetics, not one gene but many, and prenatal nutrition. Current medical and social science does not see homosexuality as a choice--sexual orientation is present at birth--and pediatricians now believe they can identify non-sexual aspects of this hard-wired personality trait early on. Thatís my understanding.

Purely anecdotal evidence: In my own experience, when Iíve heard about an acquaintance or relative coming out as gay, I was never surprised or shocked. In fact, it always seemed to make perfect sense, as if I sort of knew it all along--they were always that way. They were born that way. Therefore, IMO to legislate against them, put them in a separate though somewhat equal category would be a form of discrimination.

Again, I realize that this purely secular scientific point of view is totally contrary to other POVís, and thatís okay. Perhaps, in the future, science will be able to offer more conclusive evidence one way or the other. Until then, I choose to adopt a live and let live attitude.

megimoo
04-29-2009, 05:14 PM
See, in a perfect world, you would need to wear a scarlet "A" for the rest of your life. :DShe does but it's for a different reason !

linda22003
04-29-2009, 05:20 PM
She does but it's for a different reason !

Care to tell us what that means? If you even know?

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 05:20 PM
Again, the color of one's skin is not something they can choose. Homosexuality is. They choose to be gay.

Michael Jackson did!

hazlnut
04-29-2009, 05:54 PM
I can always tell when people in other time zones are driving home from work. Meanwhile, I'm here for another 2 hrs.

Gingersnap
04-29-2009, 05:54 PM
I realize that many people still see a personís sexual orientation as a matter of choice, however for some time now, medical and social science has considered a personís sexual orientation as a hard-wired personality trait (e.g left handed). There are degrees, some left-handed people can be confortable writing with both hands (bisexual) while others, roughly 10%, just canít do it--their brains arenít wired that way. A complex combination of genes and other prenatal factors caused their brains to develop in such a way that they favor their left hand. Back in the 1950s there was a movement in education where elementary school teachers would try to force left handed pupils to write with their right hand.

**I donít want to get into a source quoting contest here--who can site the most sources.** Iím aware there are varying opinions on this, however, the studies, articles that Iíve read and experts that Iíve talked to--this view makes sense to me. Brain development is a function of genetics, not one gene but many, and prenatal nutrition. Current medical and social science does not see homosexuality as a choice--sexual orientation is present at birth--and pediatricians now believe they can identify non-sexual aspects of this hard-wired personality trait early on. Thatís my understanding.

Purely anecdotal evidence: In my own experience, when Iíve heard about an acquaintance or relative coming out as gay, I was never surprised or shocked. In fact, it always seemed to make perfect sense, as if I sort of knew it all along--they were always that way. They were born that way. Therefore, IMO to legislate against them, put them in a separate though somewhat equal category would be a form of discrimination.

Again, I realize that this purely secular scientific point of view is totally contrary to other POVís, and thatís okay. Perhaps, in the future, science will be able to offer more conclusive evidence one way or the other. Until then, I choose to adopt a live and let live attitude.

Prior to the very end of the 19th century there was no debate about gayness because people saw it as just another sexual expression - a creepy and perverted sexual expression but little different from other creepy and perverted sexual expressions. There was a general understanding that under certain circumstances both men and women could engage in same sex behaviors for a very wide variety of reasons.

Your "hard-wired" theory is increasingly coming under attack from newer research that shows that most women and a large number of men can choose same sex behavior under the right circumstances with the right partner (even if for totally wrong reasons). This is backed up anecdotally. I've already discussed the women I knew in college who "went gay" until graduation. Neither men nor women who form same sex relationships in prisons or other segregated institutions consider themselves to be gay when they have better opportunities. Both men and women who perform sexually and emotionally in heterosexual marriages (often for decades) certainly "choose" to dump their spouse at a particular point in time and pursue the gay lifestyle.

Eventually, almost all the markers for what we think of as homosexual expressions will disappear. Men who gossip and are overly interested in show tunes will disappear as will their burly, sloppy sisters. Homosexuality will become a specific sexual act, as it was for so many centuries. There certainly are people who prefer the homosexual act to its heterosexual counterpart but in the near future these people will cease to distinguish themselves as a separate group in other terms.

hazlnut
04-29-2009, 06:44 PM
Prior to the very end of the 19th century there was no debate about gayness because people saw it as just another sexual expression - a creepy and perverted sexual expression but little different from other creepy and perverted sexual expressions. There was a general understanding that under certain circumstances both men and women could engage in same sex behaviors for a very wide variety of reasons.

Actually, prior to the 19th century, homosexuality was accepted and practiced in a number of cultures. The South Pacific, East Asia, Ancient Rome, Greece...

Believing it to be a "perverted sexual expression" is more a European and Western religion tradition.

As for your other points--all very interesting, we'll have to wait and see, though.

Bubba Dawg
04-29-2009, 07:31 PM
Quite right. Especially since our spandex-wearing, bicycle-riding, fellow soccer enthusiast expert is not here right now! :D


Did someone mention ME!!!!:D

OH Boy Oh Boy Oh Boy!!!!

Bubba Dawg
04-29-2009, 07:33 PM
All of that was fine. It was the lavender oil that put it over the top. He shouldn't have mentioned the lavender oil.

Lavender Oil is soothing. And Manly.

Actually, I forgot what I said about lavender oil. Must've been pretty good though. :p:D

Gingersnap
04-29-2009, 08:40 PM
Actually, prior to the 19th century, homosexuality was accepted and practiced in a number of cultures. The South Pacific, East Asia, Ancient Rome, Greece...

Believing it to be a "perverted sexual expression" is more a European and Western religion tradition.

Not really. Plenty of cultures considered homosexuality (particularly male homosexuality) to be a degraded and inferior form of sexual expression. That it was wildly popular among some subgroups doesn't mean that the dominant culture thought it was a good idea in general. It's long been tolerated around the world among prisoners, soldiers, servants, the theater, and religious fanatics. None of those groups were usually highly regarded until very recently.

That a sexual object was a degraded male instead of a degraded female was generally not of much concern to people in the past. Both types of sexual expression were considered inferior culturally to heterosexual marriage and its many formal and informal social relationships. You cannot create a meaningful economic or security alliance with the families of whores or abused boys. There was no status payoff in aligning yourself with a disposable sexual partner.

Now, the romance part of marriage and sexual limerence - that's pretty much a Western idea. I don't know that it will last forever, either.

Space Gravy
04-29-2009, 08:45 PM
Did someone mention ME!!!!:D

OH Boy Oh Boy Oh Boy!!!!

I feel a jukebox heavy with Freddie Mercury and Rob Halford coming on!:D

Bubba Dawg
04-29-2009, 08:52 PM
I feel a jukebox heavy with Freddie Mercury and Rob Halford coming on!:D

MISTER Freddy Mercury.....:D

So it is written....so it shall be done.....

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=13950

FlaGator
04-29-2009, 08:54 PM
Why not, as long as the behaviour is consensual and does no physical harm?

You should see some of the medical conditions that exist predominately with gay men.

FlaGator
04-29-2009, 09:05 PM
There are gays who are conflicted about being gay (usually the religious ones), but other than that, indulgence means they think it IS okay. I think it's okay, too, if that's what they want to do. As I've said here before, I just agree with the Victorian actress who said she didn't care what people did together "as long as they didn't do it in the street and frighten the horses." I think most of society would agree with that, these days. Intolerance to certain groups of people isn't going to make a big comeback. Historically, it never does.

Other than a few DUIs and some nights in jail because of drunk and disorderly or public intoxication I thought drinking was a really nifty thing too. Should I be able to make an argument that alcoholism is acceptable because it is genetic. Look, I really don't care what they do but my lack of interest doesn't mean that I accept their behavior as right. What I am addressing here is their argument is that their desires are natural because there seems to be a genetic component to the issue. All I am says is that just because something is genetically induced doesn't make it right. They have a right to do what ever they want in the privacy of the homes, however, no one should be forced to accept that their behavior is natural because it may be genetic and right now the gay and lesbian movement seems to what to legislate accept on all of society.

FlaGator
04-29-2009, 09:06 PM
Why not?

We're not talking about alcoholism here, we're talking about sexual orientation. What I think people keep forgetting is that there is a certain set of rules and principles we have in this country that are supposed to trump/outweigh everything else--The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In our Republic we believe that the will of the majority should not trample the rights of the minority. If a person is born different than the rest of us, and his or her happiness in life comes from sharing it with someone else also born different--then we must not stand in their way or deem them less than equal.

And we have already determined that separate is not equal.

I am not saying that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are a moral code that should be put above the Bible or any code based on religious beliefs--but that it is, in fact, those documents which allow for the many, many interpretations of the Bible and religious beliefs to co-exist in one nation. When one certain belief begins to directly effect a minority class--the over time the system must alight the laws with the principles found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In your church, in your private lives, you can define marriage as anything you want. But at the county registrar's window down at city hall it has to be open and available to any two consenting adults who want the happiness the rest of us enjoy. Again, we've already determined that separate is not equal.

What rights do I have that they don't?

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 09:16 PM
Lavender Oil is soothing. And Manly.

Actually, I forgot what I said about lavender oil. Must've been pretty good though. :p:D

Not me. It must have been that evil guy in the mirror! Hello, my friend.

Bubba Dawg
04-29-2009, 09:18 PM
Not me. It must have been that evil guy in the mirror! Hello, my friend.

Greetings Sir. I'm playing a song in the Jukebox for you soon.....

Gingersnap
04-29-2009, 09:57 PM
What I am addressing here is their argument is that their desires are natural because there seems to be a genetic component to the issue. All I am says is that just because something is genetically induced doesn't make it right. They have a right to do what ever they want in the privacy of the homes, however, no one should be forced to accept that their behavior is natural because it may be genetic and right now the gay and lesbian movement seems to what to legislate accept on all of society.

This is sensible. I have two "genetic" issues on a personal level. Neither is acceptable nor normal. Neither, left untreated, would enhance my life nor the lives of those few who could stand to be around me.

"Natural" is not a code word for "normal" or "desirable". Men who desire to become women are not simply living a different dream, they are in the same boat as men who find women's shoes or women's underwear erotic - erotic apart from the woman - they are fetishists. They need treatment. Men or women who can't form an emotional/sexual relationship with the opposite sex under any circumstances are as crippled as someone who can't be sexual at all.

No one would argue that someone who believed they were a space alien is simply "different". Someone who believed that needs help.

There are any number of human proclivities that perfectly natural to that individual but are destructive either personally or socially.

Molon Labe
04-30-2009, 08:01 AM
False... the founders were all comprehensively classically educated... their sources and inspiration for the founding documents were drawn from and built upon thousands of years of everything philosophy had to offer... much of which predates Christianity, and even made Christianity what it is today.

Constantine's conversion as Emperor happened in the 4th century.....What philosophy are you talking about that predates that? I'm not suggesting it's ONLY Christian religion that has influenced the founders. I have also acknowledged the Greek influence on Western ideals. Is that what you're talking about? You still cannot seperate the two. You know as well as anyone here what "standing on the shoulder of giants" means.

noonwitch
04-30-2009, 08:42 AM
Um, what is your objection to consensual, adult polygamy?


It would be a nightmare for the IRS.

Molon Labe
04-30-2009, 08:50 AM
This is sensible. I have two "genetic" issues on a personal level. Neither is acceptable nor normal. Neither, left untreated, would enhance my life nor the lives of those few who could stand to be around me.

"Natural" is not a code word for "normal" or "desirable". Men who desire to become women are not simply living a different dream, they are in the same boat as men who find women's shoes or women's underwear erotic - erotic apart from the woman - they are fetishists. They need treatment. Men or women who can't form an emotional/sexual relationship with the opposite sex under any circumstances are as crippled as someone who can't be sexual at all.

No one would argue that someone who believed they were a space alien is simply "different". Someone who believed that needs help.

There are any number of human proclivities that perfectly natural to that individual but are destructive either personally or socially.

That is an excellent point. We talked about eating naturally last night at dinner. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's healthy or good for society. Hemlock is Natural.

Water Closet
04-30-2009, 08:58 AM
It would be a nightmare for the IRS.

Yet another argument in favor! :D

Rebel Yell
04-30-2009, 09:50 AM
OK, here it goes................

Is homosexuality a choice? I believe it is, and it isn't. I believe there are a VERY small percentage of the population who are born with a genetic defect that makes them attracted to the same sex. If it is genetic, then it IS a defect. If it eliminates or impedes natural reproduction, it is a defect. You can't believe in evolution and not think this is a defect. I also believe it is to men like sickle cell is to blacks. I'll get to that in a minute.

Today, MOST homosexuals choose to be that way. It is cool to be gay now. Have you turned on Mtv lately? This is how I know I'm getting old. Mtv is single handedly dumbing down and queering up todays youth. If you're not a jock, you're gay. Don't believe it, watch Next. It is the best example.

My wife had a lot of gay friends when we met. As a matter of fact, I've been to a gay club with her. They play good music and stay open after all the other clubs have closed. She used to go there because she just wanted to dance without some guy rubbing his pecker all over her but all night. She had been hit on by women, but she just told them she was straight and they pretty much left her alone.

She has told me that she don't believe there is such a thing as a true lesbian. She doesn't know of any lesbian who hadn't been with a man. She's known several men who had only been with men, but never woman who's only been with women. One of her best friends, Denise, had been married and had 3 kids before "coming out" funny thing about Denise was every time she'd get good and drunk she'd sleep with a man. Sadly, Denise was killed in a car wreck about 2 years ago. I miss Denise, she was always fun to be around.

Then there's John and Steve. They are both gay, but no one could have real problem with Steve. You can tell Steve is gay, but he doesn't shove it down your throat (no pun intended:D). John is a flaming faggott, evry word coming out of his mouth is about how gay he is. I can't stand that fucker. John wasn't allowed to go anywhere with me. Of course, he's strung out on meth now, so my wife doesn't have anything to do with him either. Thank God.

The average "homophobe" doesn't have a problem with anyone who is gay. They just don't like to be around faggotts. I file this under the same heading as "racists" who don't have a problem with blacks, just don't want to be around - well, you know- that tries to draw attention to how "black" they are. Or people who are "stuck up" that don't have a problem with country folks, but don't want to be around white trash that are loud and obnoxious to prove they are rebels.

If you are gay, be gay. We believe you. You don't have to prove it to us, unless you're that way because it is the cool thing to do nowadays.:rolleyes:

One of my old Navy buddies summed this up the best. He was Mexican, but didn't really hang out with the other Hispanics. When asked by one of them 1. does he speak spanish (they spoke spanish to each other all the time) and 2. why he don't hang out with them. "1. I speak spanish better than you, but I don't need to speak spanish if I'm talking to people who speak English, I speak Spanish to my Mom because she doesn't speak English; and 2. because I don't like y'all, I don't have to hang a Mexican flag from my rear view mirror to prove how Mexican I am."

wilbur
04-30-2009, 12:02 PM
OK, here it goes................

Is homosexuality a choice? I believe it is, and it isn't. I believe there are a VERY small percentage of the population who are born with a genetic defect that makes them attracted to the same sex. If it is genetic, then it IS a defect. If it eliminates or impedes natural reproduction, it is a defect. You can't believe in evolution and not think this is a defect. I also believe it is to men like sickle cell is to blacks. I'll get to that in a minute.


Well, I see what you are trying to say... but evolution doesnt really work according to those terms. The better word would be 'deleterious'.. and whether some gene mutation is deleterious or not depends on the environment it resides in.

Whatever interplay of physiology and/or environment that leads to homosexuality, could also affect the person in ways other than sexual orientation, and could possibly provide advantages in some possible environments.... in such cases, you couldn't call it deleterious.

Its probably more neutral in our part of the world.. but in the mideast or in similar cultures you could call it deleterious... simply because other people are likely to execute you if they find out.

Rebel Yell
04-30-2009, 12:08 PM
Well, I see what you are trying to say... but evolution doesnt really work according to those terms. The better word would be 'deleterious'.. and whether some gene mutation is deleterious or not depends on the environment it resides in.

Whatever interplay of physiology and/or environment that leads to homosexuality, could also affect the person in ways other than sexual orientation, and could possibly provide advantages in some possible environments.... in such cases, you couldn't call it deleterious.

Ok, wrong word, right thought.

Would you call a predisposition that causes a woman to not be able to naturally concieve a defect? What about a man who can't get it up without a little blue pill, not because of age? What about a man who couldn't get aroused enough to impregnante a woman?

If you answer yes to the first two, but no to the last, then the last must be a mental illness.

wilbur
04-30-2009, 12:13 PM
Ok, wrong word, right thought.

Would you call a predisposition that causes a woman to not be able to naturally concieve a defect?


Probably



What about a man who can't get it up without a little blue pill, not because of age?


Probably



What about a man who couldn't get aroused enough to impregnante a woman?


Probably.




If you answer yes to the first two, but no to the last, then the last must be a mental illness.

But none of those necessarily apply to homosexuals... many of whom who have at least tried sex with the opposite gender, and were able to do it. I have several friends with a gay parent;P

Rebel Yell
04-30-2009, 12:26 PM
Probably



Probably



Probably.




But none of those necessarily apply to homosexuals... many of whom who have at least tried sex with the opposite gender, and were able to do it. I have several friends with a gay parent;P

We'll just have to agree to disagree. To me it's either a choice or a defect. Either way, it's really their business. I'm not gonna mistreat anyone who don't ask for it.

FlaGator
04-30-2009, 12:31 PM
But none of those necessarily apply to homosexuals... many of whom who have at least tried sex with the opposite gender, and were able to do it. I have several friends with a gay parent;P

From an evolutionary stand point sex evolved for procreation. That is it's base function. Anthing else is using sex for somthing beyond it's intended purpose. Homosexuals, if they are true to their desires, engage in acts in which offspring are not even possible. So their actions are unnatural in the sense that what they do can not achieve the evolutionary goal of the act of sex. That is an unnatural act.

Molon Labe
04-30-2009, 01:01 PM
From an evolutionary stand point sex evolved for procreation. That is it's base function. Anthing else is using sex for somthing beyond it's intended purpose. Homosexuals, if they are true to their desires, engage in acts in which offspring are not even possible. So their actions are unnatural in the sense that what they do can not achieve the evolutionary goal of the act of sex. That is an unnatural act.

Excellent!!!

hazlnut
04-30-2009, 01:22 PM
From an evolutionary stand point sex evolved for procreation. That is it's base function. Anthing else is using sex for somthing beyond it's intended purpose. Homosexuals, if they are true to their desires, engage in acts in which offspring are not even possible. So their actions are unnatural in the sense that what they do can not achieve the evolutionary goal of the act of sex. That is an unnatural act.

Homosexuality, that is same-sex sexaul orientation, not pederastry or 'experimentation'--exists in many species, not just man.

It is a naturaully occuring event. It may seem 'unnatural' and contrary to your understanding, but it is natural.


Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied. According to Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity -- including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex -- than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept." LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)

FlaGator
04-30-2009, 01:33 PM
Homosexuality, that is same-sex sexaul orientation, not pederastry or 'experimentation'--exists in many species, not just man.

It is a naturaully occuring event. It may seem 'unnatural' and contrary to your understanding, but it is natural.

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)

That does not change the fact that it is unnatural in that it runs counter to the evolutionary goal of sex. What evolutionary goal or benefit does homosexuality secure for animals or humans who practice it? Of what long term practical use does homosexuality provide for the species?

wilbur
04-30-2009, 01:40 PM
From an evolutionary stand point sex evolved for procreation. That is it's base function. Anthing else is using sex for somthing beyond it's intended purpose.


Sorry, it is wrong to anthropomorphize evolution this way. To speak of intent and 'evolutionary goals' is gibberish.

A very significant aspect of the momentum by which evolution is propelled is the use of structures or behaviors in a different context than the one in which they arose ... in other words, 'using things beyond their intended purpose' makes evolution move.

But intent is meaningless... sex was no more intended to do what it does, than a hurricane is intended to hit florida. It just so happens that sex is useful, for a number of things, most notably procreation.. but thats not all.



Homosexuals, if they are true to their desires, engage in acts in which offspring are not even possible. So their actions are unnatural in the sense that what they do can not achieve the evolutionary goal of the act of sex. That is an unnatural act.

By your definition of natural, we would have to say that penguins are unnatural because they use their wings to swim.

Molon Labe
04-30-2009, 01:55 PM
That does not change the fact that it is unnatural in that it runs counter to the evolutionary goal of sex. What evolutionary goal or benefit does homosexuality secure for animals or humans who practice it? Of what long term practical use does homosexuality provide for the species?

Please....don't confound them with the actual logic of the act itself. So many like attacking the religiosity of the subject.



Sorry, it is wrong to anthropomorphize evolution this way. To speak of intent and 'evolutionary goals' is gibberish..

Not a fair assessment. He did not do that. The sexual act has a purpose. Whether you're human or porpoise is not relevant.

marinejcksn
04-30-2009, 02:37 PM
I've got no issue with it, what people do in their bedroom is nobody else's business as long as it's consentual.

Side note: Do you personally think that it's a conscious choice or a predisposition? I have religious friends who spout that gay people aren't born that way but merely make a choice to be gay and I don't know if I believe that. I tend to think of things logically, and from a logical standpoint try to wrap your noodle around this one:

With all the beautiful women out there (and this planet has MILLIONS of them), why the hell would any man CHOOSE to have sex with guys? Guys bodies are disgusting; I should know, I own one. :p

wilbur
04-30-2009, 02:40 PM
Not a fair assessment. He did not do that. The sexual act has a purpose. Whether you're human or porpoise is not relevant.

Now you are doing it too. ;)

How is 'nature' materially maligned, hurt, or otherwise offended by humans using sex for things other than what you claim its purpose is?

Molon Labe
04-30-2009, 03:20 PM
Now you are doing it too. ;)

How is 'nature' materially maligned, hurt, or otherwise offended by humans using sex for things other than what you claim its purpose is?

I don't have a poll, or a study, readily available, but to show you I'm not just basing this on uneducated beliefs.... My wife happens to be a therapist. She has experienced childrens confusion over lifestyle issues who have a gay parent or parents. So ultimately, it does malign someone in someway. So once again, it's a bit different from what a porpoise does out of instinct and...yes...pleasure, from what human beings do.
I've always been of the belief that the gay lifestyle itself presents all sorts of gender confusion problems for children....this only confirms it for me.

As I said before. I personally don't care what two people do in their bedroom. I don't want it celebrated as something unique and just "another way", when it clearly isn't.

hazlnut
04-30-2009, 04:55 PM
That does not change the fact that it is unnatural in that it runs counter to the evolutionary goal of sex. What evolutionary goal or benefit does homosexuality secure for animals or humans who practice it? Of what long term practical use does homosexuality provide for the species?

Well, God must have a purpose for them, or He wouldn't continue to create them.

I believe He's teaching us to be more tolerant and less fearful of that which we find strange or different.

linda22003
04-30-2009, 05:14 PM
She doesn't know of any lesbian who hadn't been with a man. She's known several men who had only been with men, but never woman who's only been with women.

Obviously, being with some men turns women sharply in the other direction. :p

linda22003
04-30-2009, 05:16 PM
From an evolutionary stand point sex evolved for procreation. That is it's base function. Anthing else is using sex for somthing beyond it's intended purpose.

That's me all over - leave the basics and just take the extras. :D

linda22003
04-30-2009, 05:20 PM
I have religious friends who spout that gay people aren't born that way but merely make a choice to be gay and I don't know if I believe that.

All I know is that I talked about it once with a close friend, a man who very much would have liked to marry and have children, but who just wasn't "into" women. He'd been with the same man for over twenty years. He said no, he wouldn't CHOOSE to be without a family of his own, he wouldn't CHOOSE to have people hate him for what he was. He thought the question was ludicrous. I think he would really have preferred to be straight; he was very traditional in many ways. That answered the question, for me.

linda22003
04-30-2009, 05:21 PM
Guys bodies are disgusting; I should know, I own one. :p

You should be darn grateful we don't all agree with you. ;):D

FlaGator
04-30-2009, 05:56 PM
Sorry, it is wrong to anthropomorphize evolution this way. To speak of intent and 'evolutionary goals' is gibberish.

A very significant aspect of the momentum by which evolution is propelled is the use of structures or behaviors in a different context than the one in which they arose ... in other words, 'using things beyond their intended purpose' makes evolution move.

But intent is meaningless... sex was no more intended to do what it does, than a hurricane is intended to hit florida. It just so happens that sex is useful, for a number of things, most notably procreation.. but thats not all.



By your definition of natural, we would have to say that penguins are unnatural because they use their wings to swim.

Don't even go there. You can't refute the logic of it so you dismiss the entire premise. This is one of your standard tactics when you are unable to come up with a successful argument. If you can't defeat the logic of my position then keep your psycho-babble to yourself because I see it for what it is. Refusal to accept a valid point because it demonstrates your who argument as wrong.

FlaGator
04-30-2009, 06:02 PM
Well, God must have a purpose for them, or He wouldn't continue to create them.

I believe He's teaching us to be more tolerant and less fearful of that which we find strange or different.

If you don't know the purpose then why did you bother making the argument? Perhaps their is no purpose? Perhaps it is simply a genetic mutation common to some species that is not viable for future generations?

We are to be tolerant of homosexuals and all sinners, but we are also to recognize what the Bibles labels as a sin. We all sin but God expects us to repent of our sins and to fight against are sinful nature. We are not to accept our sins as "natural" and expect God to approve of them.

FlaGator
04-30-2009, 06:07 PM
Now you are doing it too. ;)

How is 'nature' materially maligned, hurt, or otherwise offended by humans using sex for things other than what you claim its purpose is?

Did I imply that nature was maligned? No I did not. I simply stated what the actual purpose of sex was with no comment to what it is used for other than that. I stated that those uses where other than its evolutionary design. Where did I comment on the good or bad of those other uses?

I pointed out, however, that homosexuality was counter to the base reason for homosexuality and you where unable to show me how this statement was wrong? Instead you used your standard diversionary tactic to redefine the argument because you don't have answers for it. :rolleyes:

MrsSmith
04-30-2009, 10:43 PM
If you don't know the purpose then why did you bother making the argument? Perhaps their is no purpose? Perhaps it is simply a genetic mutation common to some species that is not viable for future generations?

We are to be tolerant of homosexuals and all sinners, but we are also to recognize what the Bibles labels as a sin. We all sin but God expects us to repent of our sins and to fight against are sinful nature. We are not to accept our sins as "natural" and expect God to approve of them.

Perhaps God, if He did "make" some people homosexual, made them that way for a specific purpose...Paul makes it clear that a sexless life is best for worshipping, so IF people were actually made to be homosexual, then it's quite likely they were "made" for a truly celibate "priesthood."

However, modern psychology has determined that the experiences and ideas that go into a person's choice of "mate" are literally in the millions...therefore, it is far more likely to be a matter of environment, not genetics.

hazlnut
04-30-2009, 11:07 PM
If you don't know the purpose then why did you bother making the argument? Perhaps their is no purpose? Perhaps it is simply a genetic mutation common to some species that is not viable for future generations?

We are to be tolerant of homosexuals and all sinners, but we are also to recognize what the Bibles labels as a sin. We all sin but God expects us to repent of our sins and to fight against are sinful nature. We are not to accept our sins as "natural" and expect God to approve of them.

Aw--there it is. Genetic Mutation. Homosexuals are mutants?

They are X-Men!:eek::eek:

Who are you or I to say they are sinners? Perhaps the NIV bible tries to makes that case.:rolleyes: The bible has it's place in guiding our hearts, but God gave us brains to think and reason with. When I use both, I have come to the view I have on this issue.

In all seriousness, FlaGator:

I have no doubt that you could counter any argument about what I believe the bible really says about this issue. We could go back and forth about historical context and correct translation--you probably know more than I will ever know. I respect you for that. However, in searching my heart and using my head--I've come to the conclusion that the Bible's core message of love and tolerance trumps any interpretation of any individual passage.

Agree to disagree?

wilbur
05-01-2009, 01:37 AM
Don't even go there. You can't refute the logic of it so you dismiss the entire premise. This is one of your standard tactics when you are unable to come up with a successful argument. If you can't defeat the logic of my position then keep your psycho-babble to yourself because I see it for what it is. Refusal to accept a valid point because it demonstrates your who argument as wrong


Dismissing a premise is a valid way to attack an argument. See the difference between a sound and a valid argument as to why. And if we call the following a premise, it is immediately dismissible because it is non-sensical (and I did directly address the whole of your claims.. not just the premise).

"From an evolutionary stand point sex evolved for procreation.... Anthing else is using sex for somthing beyond it's intended purpose."

It might make more sense if you just came out and said "designed by God" instead of "evolutionary purpose". Simply wrapping theistic driven convictions in a scientific window dressing doesn't fool anyone;) Nature does not have intent, evolution does not have goals. It is impossible to act in defiance of a non-existent intent, or to thwart the goals of something that has none. So, since evolution has no intents, no goals, one cannot act 'unnaturally' against them. The only things that have purpose or intent are the sentient beings that have arisen from natural forces.

You could have used 'original use' instead of 'intended purpose', and it would make sense.. but then the problem with your conclusion becomes clear. There's nothing inherently bad or wrong by making use of something outside the context in which it was originally useful. For that label of 'unnatural' to stick, you had to anthropomorphize nature by giving it a will, with designs that can be defied. But the problem is that there isnt and there arent. This is what happens when one tries to make theism look like science.

On top of it all, the very motion of evolution is to use existing parts beyond their current capacity. So, just because something is used beyond its 'original use' wouldn't imply anything 'unnatural' at all, in the 'evolutionary sense'... it simply means its evolving.

Goldwater
05-01-2009, 06:12 AM
Wilbur and Flagator remind me of that episode of Spiderman where Captain America and the Red Skull get trapped in that alternate dimension to fight for all eternity.

I'll let you decide which one is the nazi. :p

FlaGator
05-01-2009, 08:57 AM
Dismissing a premise is a valid way to attack an argument. See the difference between a sound and a valid argument as to why. And if we call the following a premise, it is immediately dismissible because it is non-sensical (and I did directly address the whole of your claims.. not just the premise).

"From an evolutionary stand point sex evolved for procreation.... Anthing else is using sex for somthing beyond it's intended purpose."

It might make more sense if you just came out and said "designed by God" instead of "evolutionary purpose". Simply wrapping theistic driven convictions in a scientific window dressing doesn't fool anyone;) Nature does not have intent, evolution does not have goals. It is impossible to act in defiance of a non-existent intent, or to thwart the goals of something that has none. So, since evolution has no intents, no goals, one cannot act 'unnaturally' against them. The only things that have purpose or intent are the sentient beings that have arisen from natural forces.

You could have used 'original use' instead of 'intended purpose', and it would make sense.. but then the problem with your conclusion becomes clear. There's nothing inherently bad or wrong by making use of something outside the context in which it was originally useful. For that label of 'unnatural' to stick, you had to anthropomorphize nature by giving it a will, with designs that can be defied. But the problem is that there isnt and there arent. This is what happens when one tries to make theism look like science.

On top of it all, the very motion of evolution is to use existing parts beyond their current capacity. So, just because something is used beyond its 'original use' wouldn't imply anything 'unnatural' at all, in the 'evolutionary sense'... it simply means its evolving.

Allow me to rephrase that. Stop with the strawmen. Put them back in the barn and simply deal with the logic of my position. It should require and simple answer not much larger than the premise. I did not bring religion or beliefs in to this, other did. Now using logic and without rewriting my rhetoric, just refute the logic of


From an evolutionary stand point sex evolved for procreation. That is it's base function. Anthing else is using sex for somthing beyond it's intended purpose. Homosexuals, if they are true to their desires, engage in acts in which offspring are not even possible. So their actions are unnatural in the sense that what they do can not achieve the evolutionary goal of the act of sex. That is an unnatural act.


In all your chatting you still have not shown where the above statement is untrue. That is all you have to do. Show me where the sex act has some evolutionary benefit that exists outside procreation?

FlaGator
05-01-2009, 09:01 AM
Aw--there it is. Genetic Mutation. Homosexuals are mutants?

They are X-Men!:eek::eek:

Who are you or I to say they are sinners? Perhaps the NIV bible tries to makes that case.:rolleyes: The bible has it's place in guiding our hearts, but God gave us brains to think and reason with. When I use both, I have come to the view I have on this issue.

In all seriousness, FlaGator:

I have no doubt that you could counter any argument about what I believe the bible really says about this issue. We could go back and forth about historical context and correct translation--you probably know more than I will ever know. I respect you for that. However, in searching my heart and using my head--I've come to the conclusion that the Bible's core message of love and tolerance trumps any interpretation of any individual passage.

Agree to disagree?

We will agree to disagree. I will add on a side note that you can not accept one position from the Bible because it agrees with your feelings and another because it stands counter to your beliefs. Your heart and head could be wrong on any issue because we are imperfect beings so we have to trust a truth outside ourselves for guidance. That is the purpose of the written Word.

FlaGator
05-01-2009, 09:03 AM
Wilbur and Flagator remind me of that episode of Spiderman where Captain America and the Red Skull get trapped in that alternate dimension to fight for all eternity.

I'll let you decide which one is the nazi. :p

You are assuming that Wibur and I don't find some mutual benefit to this. It isn't as masochistic as it might seem from an observers point of view.

Rebel Yell
05-01-2009, 09:09 AM
I'll just repeat the most important part of my earlier post, and leave it at that..........


The average "homophobe" doesn't have a problem with anyone who is gay. They just don't like to be around faggotts. I file this under the same heading as "racists" who don't have a problem with blacks, just don't want to be around - well, you know- that tries to draw attention to how "black" they are. Or people who are "stuck up" that don't have a problem with country folks, but don't want to be around white trash that are loud and obnoxious to prove they are rebels.

If you are gay, be gay. We believe you. You don't have to prove it to us, unless you're that way because it is the cool thing to do nowadays.

hazlnut
05-01-2009, 01:17 PM
Your heart and head could be wrong on any issue because we are imperfect beings so we have to trust a truth outside ourselves for guidance. That is the purpose of the written Word.

I agree 100%.

I would add, when reading the written Word, one must consider the literal, the figurative, and the historical context as reference points when following the path to the Truth.

noonwitch
05-01-2009, 01:29 PM
No one would argue that someone who believed they were a space alien is simply "different".



No, that person is considered special.

wilbur
05-02-2009, 10:37 AM
From an evolutionary stand point sex evolved for procreation. That is it's base function. Anthing else is using sex for somthing beyond it's intended purpose. Homosexuals, if they are true to their desires, engage in acts in which offspring are not even possible. So their actions are unnatural in the sense that what they do can not achieve the evolutionary goal of the act of sex. That is an unnatural act.

...

In all your chatting you still have not shown where the above statement is untrue. That is all you have to do. Show me where the sex act has some evolutionary benefit that exists outside procreation?

I did show you where your statements were untrue, so I am not sure what exactly isnt registering here...

At this point, you need to try and show that nature and evolution has intent or purpose. Until you do you cannot claim that same-sex sexual relations violate this intent, and are therefore, "unnatural".

Not to mention, what about contraception, natural planning, the pull out method, masturbation, foreplay with no sex, oral sex etc, achieving orgasm in a way that cannot lead to pregnancy..... or just plain old sex without intent to have kids? These things are all equally 'unnatural' according to what you are claiming.

And no, you didn't explicitly mention theism, but whether you realize it or not, all you are doing is reframing Christian sexual morality in terms of nature... that there are things which are permitted and forbidden according to some external will. You just used the terms 'nature' and 'evolution' instead of 'god' and 'design'

Rockntractor
05-02-2009, 11:16 AM
I did show you where your statements were untrue, so I am not sure what exactly isnt registering here...

At this point, you need to try and show that nature and evolution has intent or purpose. Until you do you cannot claim that same-sex sexual relations violate this intent, and are therefore, "unnatural".

Not to mention, what about contraception, natural planning, the pull out method, masturbation, foreplay with no sex, oral sex etc, achieving orgasm in a way that cannot lead to pregnancy..... or just plain old sex without intent to have kids? These things are all equally 'unnatural' according to what you are claiming.

And no, you didn't explicitly mention theism, but whether you realize it or not, all you are doing is reframing Christian sexual morality in terms of nature... that there are things which are permitted and forbidden according to some external will. You just used the terms 'nature' and 'evolution' instead of 'god' and 'design'

If you think intestinal sex is so normal try having it with mrs wilber some night as a surprize. You would probably be posting on a medical forum from then on.

djones520
05-02-2009, 11:38 AM
If you think intestinal sex is so normal try having it with mrs wilber some night as a surprize. You would probably be posting on a medical forum from then on.

Is it any differant from oral sex?

Rockntractor
05-02-2009, 11:46 AM
Is it any differant from oral sex?
Don't want to go there. literally don't want to go there.

djones520
05-02-2009, 11:49 AM
Don't want to go there. literally don't want to go there.

Why not? Oral sex isn't "natural" either.

Rockntractor
05-02-2009, 11:51 AM
:eek::eek::eek::eek:

linda22003
05-02-2009, 12:28 PM
If you think intestinal sex is so normal try having it with mrs wilber some night as a surprize. You would probably be posting on a medical forum from then on.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e184/Cob450/SurpriseButtsecks.jpg

linda22003
05-02-2009, 12:29 PM
Just a tip for the gentlemen here.... it's best not to have it be a total surprise.

Rockntractor
05-02-2009, 12:37 PM
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f270/meshaq2000/Dead_piggy_bricks_clothes.jpg

Water Closet
05-02-2009, 01:10 PM
Why not? Oral sex isn't "natural" either.

One assumes it doesn't progress the "natural" function of sex, that is to procreate. And therefore obviously must be a SIN!!! :D

Rockntractor
05-02-2009, 01:25 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/satan.jpg

linda22003
05-02-2009, 01:27 PM
That's two pictures in a row I haven't understood. Can you really go to hell for playing checkers?

Water Closet
05-02-2009, 01:29 PM
That's two pictures in a row I haven't understood. Can you really go to hell for playing checkers?

Nah! Good people play checkers. That's a chess board. You know, like those commie Ruskies play! :D

linda22003
05-02-2009, 01:30 PM
Can you really go to hell for playing chess?

Rockntractor
05-02-2009, 01:32 PM
Nah! Good people play checkers. That's a chess board. You know, like those commie Ruskies play! :D
The pig is building a wall between him and the previous comment. And when you go to hell the only entertainment is checkers on an asbestes board.

linda22003
05-02-2009, 02:18 PM
The pig is building a wall between him and the previous comment. And when you go to hell the only entertainment is checkers on an asbestes board.

I didn't get that at all. Since a pig is your avatar, I assumed it was your wife's response to buttsecks! :p

Rockntractor
05-02-2009, 02:23 PM
I didn't get that at all. Since a pig is your avatar, I assumed it was your wife's response to buttsecks! :p
That'll work too. Although my wifes response to buttsecks would probably involve a 12 ga shotgun.

wilbur
05-02-2009, 03:56 PM
If you think intestinal sex is so normal try having it with mrs wilber some night as a surprize. You would probably be posting on a medical forum from then on.

I didn't mention "intestinal" sex... Freud works in mysterious ways...

asdf2231
05-02-2009, 05:57 PM
Cool!

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l307/asdf2231/Motivational/satanpizza.jpg

THAT'S going to come in handy in the future! :)

SarasotaRepub
05-02-2009, 08:54 PM
Wilbur and Flagator remind me of that episode of Spiderman where Captain America and the Red Skull get trapped in that alternate dimension to fight for all eternity.

I'll let you decide which one is the nazi. :p


LOL!!!! I loved that one!!! :D