homosexuality

quote:

---

You are taking it way too seriously.

---

Look, all I am gently telling you is that you are a loose cannon rather frequently, and you frequently debate just as poorly as the Creationists you deplore.I and others have offered advice about how you could be taken more seriously, but you either make excuses, blame others, or ignore the comments.You can choose to take honest critique and learn and grow, or you can continue to do damage to the cause.It's your choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Bonk, bonk, bonk.....

---

​

That's mature.

​

---

​

As mature as you are.

---

Hey John,Ignore the childish behavior.Hey Nos,Grow the &*#% up. You are the only one who thinks your "bonk" comments are funny.Allison

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

You are taking it way too seriously.

---

​

Look, all I am gently telling you is that you are a loose cannon rather frequently, and you frequently debate just as poorly as the Creationists you deplore.

​

I and others have offered advice about how you could be taken more seriously, but you either make excuses, blame others, or ignore the comments.

​

You can choose to take honest critique and learn and grow, or you can continue to do damage to the cause.

​

It's your choice.

​

---

You know, there's a big difference between Creationists and, um, let's call our group, "science-minded people".If a Creationist is debating for the cause, it doesn't matter too much to most other Creationists if the arguments are presented poorly, or if the information is inaccurate, or if anything else which is presented is of poor quality. What matters is that there is another Creationist and they are spouting forth something that sounds kinda good.Even if one Creationist doesn't agree with another, they won't really be seen contradicting each other very much.We have seen this to pretty much be the case on this message board.OTOH, the Science-minded folks analyze and correct each other's arguments all the time, and the grown-up people actually welcome the correction and will generally recognize when they are out of their element or don't know something.In this regard, nos, you are much more like the Creationist in that you tend to disregard all correction and analysis no matter who it comes from.It seems that you would rather feel right than learn the truth.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]Originally posted by schrafinator:Look, all I am gently telling you is that you are a loose cannon rather frequently, and you frequently debate just as poorly as the Creationists you deplore.

quote:

---

Who said that I was debating them?

---

This is a moderated debate board. It's what we do here. If you don't want to debate within the guidelines (I suggest you read them) then you can head to the Free For All.

quote:

---

They don't so why bother.

---

Actually, TB, TC, and several others do a pretty good job of debating in good faith.What we are trying to do here at EvC forum which is different from most of the other on-line discussion boards on this subject is to have a civilized exchange of ideas. We want to raise the level of discourse above the usual abrasive, insulting, flame-happy garbage that one finds on such boards. We have a vision of a better place with more interesting and thoughful discussion. You are not doing a very good job of contributing to this vision.What you do mostly is take thoughtless, often content-less, pot shots at people.This is extremely annoying and simply childish and stupid. It adds nothing to the discussion, actually diminishes it, and is a waste of web space.

quote:

---

I and others have offered advice about how you could be taken more seriously, but you either make excuses, blame others, or ignore the comments.

​

You can choose to take honest critique and learn and grow, or you can continue to do damage to the cause.

​

It's your choice.

---

quote:

---

Blame others?

---

You blame others for your own poor behavior.You did it in this very reply to me; you justified your poor debating with Creationists by saying that Creationists don't debate, so why should you bother?Thus, it's the Creationist's fault that you do not debate well.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[b]Hey John,Ignore the childish behavior.Hey Nos,Grow the &*#% up. You are the only one who thinks your "bonk" comments are funny.Allison[/QUOTE]

quote:

---

They were never meant to be funny.[QUOTE] I don't care how you meant them, you are using them to try to discredit your opponent instead of debating the facts of the matter at hand. This must mean that you don't have a good argument, so even though you certainly do not realize it, every time you resort to that "Bonk" business or it's contentless equivalent, John wins a point.

​

It is the equivalent of saying "So's your Mama." It's just an empty attack.

​

This is poor debate and childish behavior and I, for one, am getting fed up with it.

​

Go to his site and see just how much he demeans women and then come back and defend him.[/B]

---

I went to his site.I don't think he demeans women.I think that the title to the essay you are referring to was chosen to get people to read it. While I do not agree with John about all of his ideas regarding consent laws, I did not think it demeaning towards women. Idealistic and rather naive WRT the status of women (i.e. his scenario would only work if girls and women actually had equal status in our culture, and if female sexuality was celebrated rather than fetishized/oppressed), but not demeaning.The gaming art-style picture is kind of silly and adolescent, but not demeaning.Can you perhaps point me to something at his site that I am missing?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-06-2002]

quote:

---

It's an unpleasant habit that's not only confined to male dogs. Most dogs either outgrow it or give it up once they've been neutered. Some dogs, however, do it all the time. It's not about sex, it's about power. Dogs who hump people's legs are saying "I'm higher on the totem pole than you," explains Jeff Nichol, D.V.M, a veterinarian and newspaper columnist in Albuquerque, New Mexico."

---

I say is IS about sex, AND about power.If it were just about power, then why the sexual actions?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Hi again John! Long time no speak. lol
Man you make me laugh...and from your response, I assume you are gay?

---

​

Not before I've had my coffee in the morning.

​

quote:

---

i find you tasteless in your
snide remarks you so often post in responce to my post....yes i did declair that i would accept all nice and not so nice post..so i accept your post also John... but...knowing you from the past, i find you rather hostile to my being..

---

​

Snippy... shall we review the name calling you directed my way last time you were here?

​

quote:

---

but i do remember how i had to enevitably explain myself to alphelion to you..]

---

​

You mean like this:

​

quote:

---

Some people make me laugh but, you make me laugh hysterically until I start crying and I can no longer take your stupidity any more because you have shown yourself the true rear end of a donkey and I am sickened by your lack of real intelligence. You profusely spew from your fingers words of empty reasoning and I really dont care to continue this whatever it is of a conversation in this forum so please let me depart from your blind eyes and numbing conversation you spew out at me.

---

​

quote:

---

..so..come to Jesus now..for your soul may be required of you as you sleep.

---

​

You are just the man to lead me there.

​

By the way, my girlfriend responded to the post you put on my site.

​

Ta ta.... hugs and kisses....

​

---

Wow, if being a good Christian means I have to be a crazy, mean person, I'll be sure to NOT ever convert!LOL!

quote:

---

Originally posted by allen:
John...why do i get the feeling you are a devil worshiper..i get my clue from you placing an X before anity..as in CHRISTianity...are you so afraid of the true power of jesus you cant even spell his name..
you have got a long way to go john..
Please excuse me from these forums, as Jesus has been rejected , and i kick off the dust of your home from my shoes, and leave.
alle

---

Wow, just because this wacko hasn't figured out that the use of X in Xtian is the same as it's use in Xmas, John is accused of worshipping Satan!That is just too rich!We have another certifiable Krazy Kristian(TM) on the board!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]

quote:

---

How else is "so-called" generally used to mean something else, Gene?

---

Hey Schrafinator,are you still clinging to the position that "so-called" is only used in a derogatory sense, and never to introduce new vocabulary?[/QUOTE]Actually, I do not recall saying that it is "always" used in one way or the other, but that in the particular statement by that Mormon president, it was used in such a way as to cast doubt upon the validity of the existence of homosexuality.

quote:

---

Because I recently heard that "derogatory" term used in a documentary on plate tectonics for exactly that purpose -- introducing new vocabularly. Just like the 92-year-old president of the church was introducing the "new" meaning of "gays" and "lesbians".

---

Like I said, I never said that that phrase was "always" or "never" used in any particular way, but that it was clear to me from the context of the statement on homosexuality that it was meant to be rather dismissive.If he doesn't have younger people helping him out on how to appropriately communicate, then that's too bad.

quote:

---

Just for fun I plugged "so-called" into britannica.com to see what results it would give. I got the following quotes and have emboldened the "derogatory" term:

​

"Extracts from John Burnet's Early Greek Philosophy, provided as supplementary material for the Fourth Tetralogy, a study of the so-called middle dialogues of Plato. "

​

"Information on this American novelist whose writing style and subject matter reflect the so-called punk sensibility that emerged in the 1970s. Covers her writings, texts of her work, reviews, and interviews. Includes images."

​

There were a few uses in a derogatory sense as well, but I think this answers your question. All of these were from links to other sites on the Web, provided by Britannica's search engine.

​

Then I plugged "so-called" into Merriam-Webster's online dictionary at Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary.

​

There were two results, the derogatory (2) and the one our elderly president used (1):

​

1 : commonly named : popularly so termed

​

2 : falsely or improperly so named

---

Well, you certainly have constructed a pretty good "reasonable doubt" defense. I am not convinced that your version of how he meant the phrase is accurate, but I am also not totally abandoning my version, either.The fact remains that the policy is anti-homosexual, so unless clarification comes from the source, I think that it is not unreasonable to continue the anti-homosexual sentiment through to the interpretation of the use of "so called" in the statement.Since the case can be made either way, I think it is a stalemate unless we can get further clarification.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]She wants to establish that homosexuality is "natural", therefore it is "morally acceptable". Sort of like, if violence is in a person's genes, then it is "morally acceptable" for them to explode in violent episodes, and anything they do in those episodes (up to and including murder) is perfectly fine and morally acceptable, just because it is in their genetic makeup.[/QUOTE]Um no, Gene, that's what YOU wish that I am saying.I am attempting to establish that homosexuality is natural.I am also attempting to establish that the current religious obsession with condemning homosexuality as an immoral abomination has no basis in reason or intelligent thought, or really even that much of a theological basis.The Bible also says that wearing mixed fiber clothing is an abomination, and that crippled people are not allowed to approach the alter in temple.Gene, I believe you wish to condemn homosexuality, even though you have stated that it does no harm to anyone, simply because you are required to believe that it is immoral by your religion.I have no problem with you believing this, but then you decided to try to defend the belif on rational grounds. Sorry, that won't work.

quote:

---

I'm still waiting on a response to her odd use of the term, "so-called".

---

My use of the term is hardly "odd", Gene, for goodness sake. It is perfectly reasonable, especially considering the general anti-homosexual tone of the policy, that "so-called" would be used in a negative sense.It is also one of the main meanings of the phrase.

quote:

---

Originally posted by zipzip:
Guys, given the right amount of effort, a human sexual organ can be stimulated sufficiently with anything from a cucumber, a tree trunk, or a non-human animal. Whether or not the proclivity to do so is genetic is academic though, if God happens to say that such practices are degrading to you as a person and not what he had in mind for you. That is the basis of the Christian prohibition against homosexuality -- God says it isn't good for us.

​

All the way from Leviticus it is clear that homosexuality, among a number of other practices (idol worship, drunkenness, any kind of sexual promiscuity, etc.), was something that the God of the Bible thought was something that hindered us becoming closer to him. It was for our protection and growth that he asked us for obedience in regards to these things. Like a loving parent who doesn't ask us to do something we may not understand at first except out of love and concern for us.

---

So, do you wear mixed-fiber clothing? Do you eat shellfish? Do you consider people who shave thir heads or faces as not following God's laws? What about people with flat noses, men with damaged testicles, or crippled people; they aren't supposed to approach God's altar? Do you think it is an abomination for women to wear men's clothing?These are all forbidden and/or considered abominations in Leviticus, too.Oh, and if you really followed the Bible's teachings on homosexuals, you would put them to death.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by zipzip:
That is the basis of the Christian prohibition against homosexuality -- God says it isn't good for us.

---

​

Have you read Leviticus? I guarantee you that you don't do 90% of what God commands.

​

---

Right.There's an awful lot in there about animal sacrifice, smearing blood around and on people, and burning said bloody animals....and that's the stuff that kind of makes sense to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

I am also attempting to establish that the current religious obsession with condemning homosexuality as an immoral abomination has no basis in reason or intelligent thought

---

​

What if it makes sense in a theological context?

---

Well, then, the people who hold to that particular theology feel a certain way about it.However, there are lots of things that can be "made to" make sense, or not make sense, in a theological context, depending upon one's interpretation of the Theology.I also suppose that it depends upon how comfortable you are with suspending your reason and intelligence in favor of said theology.

The point is, zip, that you pick and choose the rules from the Bible that you follow. What you do or do not follow is rather arbitrary and more culturally-based than religioulsly or theologically-based.It very clearly states in the Bible that homosexuals are to be put to death.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

However, there are lots of things that can be "made to" make sense, or not make sense, in a theological context, depending upon one's interpretation of the Theology.

---

​

I'll agree with that.

​

quote:

---

I also suppose that it depends upon how comfortable you are with suspending your reason and intelligence in favor of said theology.

---

​

Clarify your point. Are you saying that Christian theology should allow homosexuality?

---

Sure, why not, now that we know that homosexual people are not evil, posessed by demons, or whatever.I mean, we don't practice slavery anymore, even though it was considered just fine in the Bible.Christians have generally decided that it is OK to wear mixed fiber clothing, even though it is an "abomination" according to the Bible.I think it is just arbitrary discrimination, male fear, strongly enforced by the culture that gay people are singled out and skapegoated.