Pagan_Patriot
Active Member
Rape isn't a choice for the victim. That question is irrelevant.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Homosexuality and religion
- Thread starter Camatose
- Start date
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
The victim has no choice, but the person that rapes them is definitely gay
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Nope. If the definition of gay is "having sex with men," then the victim of rape has fulfilled that definition, and is, therefore, gay. The definition as thus provided makes no provision for intent -- only sexual contact.
Sorry. I didn't invent the poorly thought-out definition.
Pagan_Patriot
Active Member
Wheres this definition from? And besides, the meaning of words chamge over time like marriage.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
You must be dense... How many times do I have to explain my position to you? It IS in fact possible to be two things. You can be gay AND a pedophile, as any man who rapes a boy is. If someone is Chinese and Japanese are you gonna badger them for hours saying "which one are you"?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Rapists are mentally ill. Perhaps they can't help help their compulsion, which means that they're not willful about the act, but compelled.
Pagan_Patriot
Active Member
How would you know theyre mentally ill?
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
So now it's not a rapist's fault that they're a rapist? You'd defend rape in general in order to say a gay rapist isn't gay?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Gay has to do with sexual orientation -- not act. Some men who have sex with men are not oriented to find men sexually attractive. That's a fact. Therefore, those men are not gay, even though they have sex with men. The impulse isn't sexual, even though the resultant act is. The impulse is violence and control.
Pagan_Patriot
Active Member
No, its our racist societys fault.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No dumber than your definition, I'd say, and quite effective at causing you to think about how dumb such definitions are.
Do you consider the straight as well, since they have sex with the opposite sex as well?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
So... homosexuality is racist?
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
Whatever the impulse, if you feel it towards someone of the same sex, I would consider you gay, in the same way I would still consider a transgender male who feels like a woman to be a man.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
Yes, they are in fact gay AND straight; that's what bisexual means...
Pagan_Patriot
Active Member
Na, I'm just trying to argue like a liberal
Technically thats not what it means, since being gay implies you arent attracted by the opposite sex and straight implies you arent attracted by the same sex
. To be frank I am not sure what this discussion is about other then semantics. I do believe homosexuality is about attraction and not action, though.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
What you would consider isn't the issue. Identities and definitions of others aren't set by you. They're set by the other in question. Those identities and definitions are societally-agreed upon, not individually discerned. In other words, it makes not bit of difference how you identify someone. It matters how that someone identifies her or himself, based upon societally-agreed norms.
Your act of identification is called...
Bigotry.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Well, if you want to start "arguing like a liberal," instead of like a conservative, you need to start arguing with logic.