A Candid Discussion on Homosexuality

[The Hammer]

Response: Once again, your mental deficiency to be able to find comfort in sex is your problem Not mine or someone else. So the more you speak, the more you make my point, which is you have none.Thanks.

Since you have resorted to not responding, I will leave you to your delusions.

Response: The fact that you continue to fail to tell us in one word what is the difference in the sexual nature of attraction between men and women that makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the opposite, supports the fact that the answer is lust. Otherwise, you would stop ducking and dodging and answer the question directly. Your logic fails as usual.

The fact that you have no basic knowledge of biology, psychology, or gender studies proves you are biased based on archaic laws. But I am leaving because again arguing with you is impossible. Have a wonderful day.

 

[Draka]

The fact that you continue to fail to tell us in one word what is the difference in the sexual nature of attraction between men and women that makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the opposite,

Brain
Brain
Brain
You know...that thing you don't appear to be using during this excuse for a debate.

 

[allfoak]

Brain
Brain
Brain
You know...that thing you don't appear to be using during this excuse for a debate.

 

[Draka]

Pigeons are safe, still knock over pieces and crap on the board and strut around like they won...but safe from zombies.

 

[ChristineES]

Pigeons are safe, still knock over pieces and crap on the board and strut around like they won...but safe from zombies.

I am glad that looks fake. Now back to the topic...

 

[1robin]

Writing in bold does not prove anything. Refrain from yelling please.

I was making a response to everyone in general in a post to a specific person so I (didn't bold anything to start with) used a larger font so others would notice. No one was yelling nor trying to prove anything, and your not Obama's internet police anyway, are you?

 

[The Hammer]

I was making a response to everyone in general in a post to a specific person so I (didn't bold anything to start with) used a larger font so others would notice. No one was yelling nor trying to prove anything, and your not Obama's internet police anyway, are you?

Technically, yes I am part of Obama's internet police, but it's really just a technicality. Sorry, you got butt hurt.

Have a wonderful day XD

 

[gsa]

This thread simply demonstrates the futility of attempting to reason with fundamentalists. They operate entirely on irrational presuppositions and undisclosed political commitments, they are willing to engage in deception to “win” an argument because they believe it might help their cause, and they are immune to elementary logic, reasoning skills and common sense. The most you can hope for is a good demonstration of their irrationality, which this thread does quite well.

Beyond that, I think it illustrates the danger of permitting fundamentalism to run amok the way that we have; in order to control the ill effects of racism we thoroughly stigmatized the expression of racist thought and made public expressions of the same beyond the pale, while allowing racists to hold their own views as a matter of conscience. This is the best response that we can hope to achieve for the kind of fundamentalism and bigotry on display here. A racist can loudly and proudly advocate his views, but he will suffer considerable social shunning as a result, including loss of business and social standing. This is precisely what should happen to individuals who advocate the kind of bizarre and irrational views the fundamentalists in this discussion display.

 

[YmirGF]

This thread simply demonstrates the futility of attempting to reason with fundamentalists. They operate entirely on irrational presuppositions and undisclosed political commitments, they are willing to engage in deception to “win” an argument because they believe it might help their cause, and they are immune to elementary logic, reasoning skills and common sense. The most you can hope for is a good demonstration of their irrationality, which this thread does quite well.

Beyond that, I think it illustrates the danger of permitting fundamentalism to run amok the way that we have; in order to control the ill effects of racism we thoroughly stigmatized the expression of racist thought and made public expressions of the same beyond the pale, while allowing racists to hold their own views as a matter of conscience. This is the best response that we can hope to achieve for the kind of fundamentalism and bigotry on display here. A racist can loudly and proudly advocate his views, but he will suffer considerable social shunning as a result, including loss of business and social standing. This is precisely what should happen to individuals who advocate the kind of bizarre and irrational views the fundamentalists in this discussion display.

I could not agree more. I have been almost a sole supporter of 1robin in his tireless rants against Islam. He isn't a total putz. That said, fundamentalism of any kind is not a good thing. As we have seen, repeatedly, throughout this thread, fundamentalism seems to atrophy a part of the brain, so that conceptual leaps become quite impossible. My guess that this is because of the religious rules that bind the individual in chains of reason are wound more tightly than is perhaps healthy.

 

[Draka]

I could not agree more. I have been almost a sole supporter of 1robin in his tireless rants against Islam. He isn't a total putz. That said, fundamentalism of any kind is not a good thing. As we have seen, repeatedly, throughout this thread, fundamentalism seems to atrophy a part of the brain, so that conceptual leaps become quite impossible. My guess that this is because of the religious rules that bind the individual in chains of reason are wound more tightly than is perhaps healthy.

auururuau...no tastee braaiinz...auuaarrgh


Sorry, can't help it, this thread is a joke now.

 

[Poeticus]

This thread simply demonstrates the futility of attempting to reason with fundamentalists.

Not just that, but it illustrates how RF becomes tarnished when irrationality is parceled around as if it were logic, unchecked. Heck, the amount of pseudo-logic within this thread and it being showcased as if it were a hallmark of religious rationalism is frightening, not to mention it actually being a form of severe torture since it plagues, rather than commanding honest inquiry and discussion, the mind---robbing it of IQ points that could have been used for intelligent modes of discussion, instead.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

This thread simply demonstrates the futility of attempting to reason with fundamentalists. They operate entirely on irrational presuppositions and undisclosed political commitments, they are willing to engage in deception to “win” an argument because they believe it might help their cause, and they are immune to elementary logic, reasoning skills and common sense. The most you can hope for is a good demonstration of their irrationality, which this thread does quite well.

Beyond that, I think it illustrates the danger of permitting fundamentalism to run amok the way that we have; in order to control the ill effects of racism we thoroughly stigmatized the expression of racist thought and made public expressions of the same beyond the pale, while allowing racists to hold their own views as a matter of conscience. This is the best response that we can hope to achieve for the kind of fundamentalism and bigotry on display here. A racist can loudly and proudly advocate his views, but he will suffer considerable social shunning as a result, including loss of business and social standing. This is precisely what should happen to individuals who advocate the kind of bizarre and irrational views the fundamentalists in this discussion display.

Well, almost, depending on what part of the country you live in.

Down the street from us is a biker bar that caters to whites specifically from the local Aryan Nation chapter. One of the bars in st louis made it explicitly clear they don't want "****ers" after the racial tensions here.

They're doing quite well, even though there's plenty of people attempting to smear their businesses on social media. Enough white supremacists live in this part of the country to patronize their businesses and keep their doors open.

But again, this isn't universally experienced. It's definitely around here, though.

I do agree that shunning this type of thinking publicly and calling it out as bigoted is helpful in keeping queers safe.

 

[YmirGF]

I do agree that shunning this type of thinking publicly and calling it out as bigoted is helpful in keeping queers safe.

To be safe, if what we are being told is true, is for said queers to find themselves a mate from the OPPOSITE sex who feels a need to protect them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Response: People who agree with homosexuality and bisexuality absolutely cannot tell the difference between love and lust. That is why it is considered right by some and a sin or immoral by others. If everyone agreed or knew the difference, then this discussion would never take place nor would there be an issue. That is why I have stressed the question as to everyone as to what makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the opposite. Amazingly, not a single person was able to state in one word the reason other than lust. Not one. That alone supports the fact that it is lust, and society fails to distinguish the difference and live in denial.

It is an issue of nature vs. Nurture. Some emotions and interests are nurtured in us, even when we are young. The problem with homosexuality and bisexuality is that such feelings are nurtured, and they do not realize it.

It's you who apparently cannot tell the difference, or simply refuse to.

The rest of us understand it just fine. Your questions are demeaning and ridiculous.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

To be safe, if what we are being told is true, is for said queers to find themselves a mate from the OPPOSITE sex who feels a need to protect them.

Queer women must find a man who wants to protect them, and queer women must want to be protected by that man?

Coming from this kind of archaic and misogynistic gender role paradigm, that makes me feel distinctly unsafe.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

They operate entirely on irrational presuppositions and undisclosed political commitments, they are willing to engage in deception to “win” an argument because they believe it might help their cause, and they are immune to elementary logic, reasoning skills and common sense.

The more they do the further they go down in my estimation. If I had fundamentalist views of the kind being propagated here I would be embarrassed to share them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Al-Fatihah

If you made everyone unisex, meaning no one can tell the difference between who is male and who is female yet people still had relationships with each other--many of them serious ones--what would those serious non-lustful relationships and marriages be based on? Sex? Well, it can't be that, they can't procreate. Physical attraction? Well, everyone looks the same in that regards, so whose to differentiate how one is physically attracted to another compared to another person having the same feelings; what makes both of your experiences unique? It can't be lust and it can't be sex; so, what is it?

We do not need to have gender to be spiritually in love with each other as human beings. Our gender doesn't define who we are as people, that is the spirit. Spirits don't have gender.

If two spirits (human beings) joined together in holy matrimony without the motive of lust, whose to say they are lusting if you did not know they were two males or two females? Would you just assume they are opposite gender before seeing the couple yourself?

If you can give spiritual proof (not scripture, please, I'm familiar with that), from your own heart and opinion that two spirits or souls cannot join together in marriage because their matrimony is defined by their gender, please let me know.

Because society has made this homosexuality thing into so much lust that you can see, even on tv, the stereotypes that straight people play as "homosexuals." Their supposed to snap their fingers, wear wild clothes, try to look like the opposite sex. Stereotypes. Even more so, the Bible depicts homosexuality by actions. It does not focus on a person's spirit and his or her attraction (spiritual) between that person and another. The Bible focuses on opposite gender because of family.

Here's another thing you probably already heard. If two opposite gender couple can't have children, why should they get into a relationship? How would their love be justified if they cant have children? If we took the Bible out of this, wouldn't their intimacy be seen as lust given their are assumed "broken" to have children?

I mean, it's sad. When someone says my relationship with another person is based on lust, they automatically assume I have sexual relations. To straight, gay, and bisexual people alike, that is not always true.

How should one define a union between two souls? There are different religious answers from good to bad; so, objectively, how?

---

Also, if I'm understanding you correctly. How are some of our feelings nurtured in regards to homosexuality? A straight person isn't raised to be straight. I know my parents didn't raise me to be straight. They definitely did not raise me to be gay. I just so happen be raised in a straight-oriented environment. If there was no such definition as straight and gay and just accept people as people, then I would grow up without being nurtured into attraction one way or another. Biological attraction is just what it is. Gay people aren't aliens. So, seeing them as separate that the rest of the crowd just doesn't make sense.

 

[Poeticus]

The more they do the further they go down in my estimation. If I had fundamentalist views of the kind being propagated here I would be embarrassed to share them.

Agreed, but at least you'd be embarrassed; I, however, would terminate my existence by hanging myself since the holding of such abominable thinking is detrimental and antithesis to existing. Fortunately, my noggin isn't diseased into atrophy by such degenerate thinking; unfortunately, however, many people refuse to excuse themselves when they damn well know that their line of thought is cancerous but are unwilling to retract due to the pixie dust infallibility of their religious convictions.

 

[The Hammer]

Agreed, but at least you'd be embarrassed; I, however, would terminate my existence by hanging myself since the holding of such abominable thinking is detrimental and antithesis to existing. Fortunately, my noggin isn't diseased into atrophy by such degenerate thinking; unfortunately, however, many people refuse to excuse themselves when they damn well know that their line of thought is cancerous but are unwilling to retract due to the pixie dust infallibility of their religious convictions.

This thread, and the behaviors of fundamentalists in general, makes me glad I was able to, over the course of 8 years, change my fundamentalist friends views to a more liberal Christian ideology. He is now much happier (He said so himself, and has thanked me several times). It also goes to show that a lot of fundamentalists I think are really miserable.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It also goes to show that a lot of fundamentalists I think are really miserable.

Yes, I do wonder about that.