Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 6:17 AM
22 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,819 Year: 4,856/19,786 Month: 978/873 Week: 334/376 Day: 11/116 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   First Gay marriage, then Polygamy (its happening!)
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 4800 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 46 of 94 (250565)
10-10-2005 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
10-10-2005 6:42 PM


Re: what's the problem
You sound like you're appealing to some standard that exists in nature, but we know that homosexual animals exist in just about every species we've looked at, so its pretty obvious that you're simply referring to the Biblical standard when you say "natural" or "normal."

Biblically, the "sin nature" entered the world through one man as the result of that man replacing the love of God for the love of self. The Bible says that the whole world wast effected by the introduction of sin. So saying that homosexuality appears in many spieces of animals making it perfectly acceptable for humans doesn't get much play from a Biblical perspective.

If anything, the behavior might have first been observed in animals, and humans in their fallen degenerate state simply mimicked the behavior earlier in history as a form of extreme rebellion.

What's unnatural is a gay man having sex with a woman, for instance.

It is perfectly natural for a gay man to have sex with a woman. He is equiped with genitals designed to enter a woman for depositing sperm. This function has no purpose between two men. What is different is an unnatural preference for sexual intimacy with the same sex. I don't know the psychological components that precipitate the behavior, but nobody is born a homosexual. Everybody is born with a sin nature and some express this more freely by living gay. Others practice it by being permiscuious, prideful, lustful, coveteous and the list goes on.

Ah, right, but lesbians are ok. Why do the Christians always pick on the gay men? Everybody loves lesbians, that's my theory.

Ther is no difference with lesbians either. They are not designed to complement each other in a loving harmonious marriage. Because they have a more sensitive nurturing makeup, many people mistake this as a compatibility advantage and that lesbianism is ok. But it doesn't make any difference. Biblically, the female is the "weaker" vessle. Not the "Lesser" vessele. The weaker one. So even in lesbian relationships, they need to have had some psycological catalysts occur in their lives to drive them away from what they were designed for which was to be the mothers of the next generation, and a helper to the man. It is not a secondary role, but just like in a Winston Cup Car, everyone see's the outside of the car but to see the engine, you have to lift the hood. In all families that are running on all 8 cylinders, ther is a very capable and tremendously self sacrificing woman behind the scenes who is the power behind the success. And if the husband is doing is role properly, he is the visible body who also enshrines and protects the engine of the family, the woman/mom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2005 6:42 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2005 10:36 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 4800 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 47 of 94 (250566)
10-10-2005 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
10-10-2005 7:01 PM


Re: what's the problem
Go to France, or many Muslim countries. Be introduced to another male that you have not met before.

Again, you are talking about a civilized form of greeting. If that is the custom, then the contact method is processed through the brain the same as a handshake. But go and grap the same man outside of a greeting, say walk up without the greeting and reach out and clasp him while asking a question, and he will flex, naturally. Have a woman do that, and if she is feminine in her personna, he will not tense up and flex. Interestingly, when women out in the professional world try to adapt an alpha male personna, men react to them as if they were a dude. It isn't natural for physical sexual intimacy between dudes.

As far as muslim countries backing legitimacy for homosexuality based on their greeting customs, you'ld better hope that we win this war over there because muslims will not take the time to establish a dialog with you on homosexuality as they are cutting your arms off.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2005 7:01 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2005 10:43 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Silent H, posted 10-11-2005 5:11 AM Lizard Breath has responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 94 (250568)
10-10-2005 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Lizard Breath
10-10-2005 6:46 PM


Re: what's the problem
Lizard Breath writes:

It's a natural mechanical funtion mixed with a civilized concept of greeting.

You ask others for proof of their position, but you supply no proof of yours.
(edited to add this sentence after seeing another post) BTW: the bible is not proof.

No, its not natural. It has been beat into us (the public) by unfounded religious beliefs for centuries. As Crash said, check out some other countries. I have damn little praise for President Bush, but somewhere he found the sense to hold hands with some Arab leader (I never did get the name but its not really important, but did see the new stories) who visited him rather than snub him.

I am straight and I think that there is something wrong in homosexuals. However, just like someone born with a deformed hand or leg, or born deaf or blind, that status in their life has no real effect on their ability to perform as humans and to be just as moral and ethical as any other human. Indeed, they are generally more ethical and moral that the homophobic idiots of today's religions and government.

She may pull back, but she won't flex on you like the dude will.

But she just might kick your ass or get you thrown in jail for sexual assault.

read yet another and added the below
Message 47

As far as muslim countries backing legitimacy for homosexuality based on their greeting customs, you'ld better hope that we win this war over there because muslims will not take the time to establish a dialog with you on homosexuality as they are cutting your arms off.

I read Crash as refuting the position that recoiling from another man's friendly touch is not natural. Not to legitimitize homosexuality. (the quoted fragment is quiet on legitimization) I don't see where you responded to his position.

This message has been edited by bkelly, 10-10-2005 08:54 PM

This message has been edited by bkelly, 10-10-2005 09:03 PM


Truth fears no question.

bkelly


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-10-2005 6:46 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 94 (250576)
10-10-2005 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Lizard Breath
10-10-2005 5:25 PM


Re: what's the problem
Lizard Breath writes:

Hi Jacen. Sorry I've taken so long to answer back. Events in the Gulf Coast region and in Iraq have been keeping me very busy. I actually damn near got my ass killed down in the Gulf the day that the hurricane hit Texas. It's sometimes safer in the middle east then in the U.S.

Before this gets buried, have you returned? If so, welcome back. I am glad (and hope) you are okay. If not back, is there anything I can send you or your buddies? Give me an address. I have sent some packages through organizations but have absolutely no idea if they made it to anyone. I included notes and my email address but never heard back.


Truth fears no question.

bkelly


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-10-2005 5:25 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 94 (250602)
10-10-2005 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Lizard Breath
10-10-2005 8:24 PM


Re: what's the problem
So saying that homosexuality appears in many spieces of animals making it perfectly acceptable for humans doesn't get much play from a Biblical perspective.

But, supposedly, it wasn't the Biblical perspective from which you were arguing at that point, or to which I was referring. Supposedly, it was the natural perspective from which you were speaking. Or did I misread?

I have no argument against the Biblical perspective. If you believe that the Bible tells you that homosexuality is a sin, I don't really care. I certainly don't accept the Bible as a legitimate authority on moral mattters, but that's not the subject of our discussion.

It is perfectly natural for a gay man to have sex with a woman.

No, it's completely unnatural - i.e., it's against his nature. He's gay, after all. It's as unnatural as you or I betraying our own natures and having sex with men.

This function has no purpose between two men.

The function is pleasure, which is the same function of the vast majority of sexual activities between human beings. An adult should not have to be told this.

I don't know the psychological components that precipitate the behavior, but nobody is born a homosexual.

This is nonsense; it's certainly directly contradicted by the science. I'm certain that you wish this was not so, but the majority, if not all, of homosexual persons are born that way.

It's incontrovertable.

Not the "Lesser" vessele. The weaker one.

Weaker is lesser. Nice of you to try and wave away the inherent sexism of your faith, however.

In all families that are running on all 8 cylinders, ther is a very capable and tremendously self sacrificing woman behind the scenes who is the power behind the success. And if the husband is doing is role properly, he is the visible body who also enshrines and protects the engine of the family, the woman/mom.

That's touching, but it certainly doesn't describe my family, in which the man and the woman hold equal roles; and my family is certainly "running on all cylenders."

And you certainly haven't addressed any of my points about "nature" or what is "natural." It appears that you've defined "natural" as "what straight men do", which means that your conclusion that "homosexuality is unnatural" is a great big useless excercise in circular reasoning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-10-2005 8:24 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Silent H, posted 10-11-2005 5:04 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 94 (250603)
10-10-2005 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Lizard Breath
10-10-2005 8:35 PM


Re: what's the problem
If that is the custom, then the contact method is processed through the brain the same as a handshake.

Which means its natural.

But go and grap the same man outside of a greeting, say walk up without the greeting and reach out and clasp him while asking a question, and he will flex, naturally.

Right. Because you're not being friendly; you're being agrresive and possibly belligerent.

Not because men are equipped with an inherent aversion to touching each other, or being intimate with each other.

Have a woman do that, and if she is feminine in her personna, he will not tense up and flex.

No, he will. People get tense when you seize them and interrogate them intensly, as you describe, regardless of the sex of the interogator.

That's what your subjects are responding to - the agression and belligerency of the gesture, not the physical contact of a man and a man, or a woman and a man.

As far as muslim countries backing legitimacy for homosexuality based on their greeting customs

I don't recall making that argument. Of course Muslim countries are violently oppressive to homosexuals; that's the reason why they don't feel any shame about men kissing each other in greeting. The idea of your average Muslim man being gay is as alien to their culture as the idea of your best friend being a pedophile is to you.

It just doesn't cross your mind, so you don't think twice when your friend takes his 9-year-old daughter down to the beach; homosexuality is so deviant in the Muslim world that it just doesn't cross a man's mind when he's kissing his best friend on the cheek.

you'ld better hope that we win this war over there because muslims will not take the time to establish a dialog with you on homosexuality as they are cutting your arms off.

Ah, so, it's a war against Islam, is it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-10-2005 8:35 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 94 (250604)
10-10-2005 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Lizard Breath
10-10-2005 6:46 PM


Re: what's the problem
You call that proof? That's your problem, LB, you have no idea what even the simplest words mean.

Get out a dictionary and look up the word 'proof'. Then provide some.


"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss.,
Sept. 20, 2005.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-10-2005 6:46 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 53 of 94 (250609)
10-10-2005 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Lizard Breath
10-10-2005 5:25 PM


Re: what's the problem
Do you practice always avoiding the question? Read my post that you replied to again and try to give your answer again. If you try to avoid the question again, I will assume that you have a reading comprehension score of a 10 year old and will thereafter treat you like one.

ABE

I don't mean to bring this thread off topic like this. I originally intended it to be a single straight forward question post by me and a single straight forward answer post by you. However, you have demonstrated that either you can't read other people's posts and understanding them properly or you're just avoiding the issue and hope that everyone would forget. Either way, you are causing me to be responsible for hijacking holme's thread. So, please try to be a little more straight forward next time, ok?

This message has been edited by Jacen, 10-10-2005 11:48 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-10-2005 5:25 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 54 of 94 (250652)
10-11-2005 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
10-10-2005 10:36 PM


Re: what's the problem
As hilariously ridiculous as LB's posts have been, and everyone has already hit the relevant points, I should make some corrections...

This is nonsense; it's certainly directly contradicted by the science. I'm certain that you wish this was not so, but the majority, if not all, of homosexual persons are born that way. It's incontrovertable.

This is not true at all. This was discussed in another thread. There is currently no knowledge on where and when people "become" homosexual and so whether people are born homosexual.

Indeed there is some suggestion that you cannot make such an ascription of predestiny for everyone. Real life events can condition people to be, or at least to conduct and enjoy, homosexual acts.

The real point would be that there is evidence that our sexual preference is beyond our direct control, we can't simply choose to have some other preference on a whim, and it can form very early within our development.

Weaker is lesser.

Weaker is not lesser, unless the only attribute you judge quality of people is physical. There is no sexism in noting that the female gender is in general weaker than males. That's reality. Of course Xianity is sexist, but that's another story.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2005 10:36 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2005 6:13 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 55 of 94 (250656)
10-11-2005 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Lizard Breath
10-10-2005 8:35 PM


Re: what's the problem
you'ld better hope that we win this war over there because muslims will not take the time to establish a dialog with you on homosexuality as they are cutting your arms off.

Because why exactly? So that we can have enough time to establish dialogue with a Xian before they bash our brains out with a baseball bat? Or throw you in a prison to be murdered? Or is it just that they need to have their brains rewired?

Really, I love fundie Xians and Jews. Like I said to CS in his Islam bashing thread, its like having a Klansman trying to convince you that Nazis are bad guys we must fight together.

Hey, check a mirror, you are both a threat.

This message has been edited by holmes, 10-11-2005 05:12 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-10-2005 8:35 PM Lizard Breath has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-11-2005 3:35 PM Silent H has responded

    
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 4800 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 56 of 94 (250855)
10-11-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Silent H
10-11-2005 5:11 AM


Re: what's the problem
Hey, check a mirror, you are both a threat.

I am neither a Nazi or a member of the Klan. I see Jews as people charged by God with the responsibility to be an example to the rest of the world of what a relationship with the Creator looks like.

I am not a believer in races. All I see is people with different levels of melenin expresses in their outer skin layers. At a point long ago, dark skin was more favorable in certain regions and so the software human swithed on the already formed ability to produce more melenin. In other regions, the lack of sunlite ment that lighter skin was better to allow enough vitamin D to be produced. The reason that some people have maintained their darker skin away from the hotter regions for so long is a function of our high standard of living with no enviormental pressure for the software human to adapt.

I reject Darwin's pioneering work that divided the human population into seperate spieces with whites on top and polynesians, blacks and aboriginees on the bottom of the group as far as development.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Silent H, posted 10-11-2005 5:11 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Silent H, posted 10-11-2005 4:26 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 57 of 94 (250868)
10-11-2005 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Lizard Breath
10-11-2005 3:35 PM


Re: what's the problem
I am neither a Nazi or a member of the Klan.

It was an analogy lizard brain.

It was to point out that you say things like this...

I am not a believer in races. All I see is people with different levels of melenin expresses in their outer skin layers.

and this...

I reject Darwin's pioneering work that divided the human population into seperate spieces with whites on top and polynesians, blacks and aboriginees on the bottom of the group as far as development.

only to then say something like this...

I see Jews as people charged by God with the responsibility to be an example to the rest of the world of what a relationship with the Creator looks like.

and not realize there is hypocrisy inherently wedged into your position.

So to repeat, listening to you is LIKE listening to a Klansman try to convince someone that the Nazis are bad and we should fight them together. You are BOTH a threat. And if you can't figure out who the Nazi is to your Klan, just look back to your post.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-11-2005 3:35 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 94 (250915)
10-11-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Silent H
10-11-2005 5:04 AM


Re: what's the problem
There is currently no knowledge on where and when people "become" homosexual and so whether people are born homosexual.

If there's no indication that there's a time when a gay person "becomes" gay, then its pretty obvious to me that the reasonable conclusion is that they were born that way.

I was born straight, in so much as an infant can be said to have a sexual preference. We don't balk at this construction for straight people, so I don't see a reason to deny it for gay people.

Your corrections are noted but I don't find them compelling. And not that you intended to, of course, but your corrections don't support the opposite view - that people are caused to become gay by some quirk of their upbringing. Were that true, there would be no gay people - our society has, for many many generations, done all it could do to prevent homosexuality in people. Yet, there have been gay people for as long as there have been people.

Real life events can condition people to be, or at least to conduct and enjoy, homosexual acts.

Like what people?

Weaker is not lesser, unless the only attribute you judge quality of people is physical.

It's not clear to me how you so drastically misinterpreted the context of this element of the conversation between LB and me to conclude that we were discussing physical strength. LB's comments alone should have been enough to indicate that it was spiritual or moral weakness to which LB was referring.

There is no sexism in noting that the female gender is in general weaker than males.

Morally weaker? Spiritually weaker? I would definately describe those as sexist positions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Silent H, posted 10-11-2005 5:04 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by nwr, posted 10-11-2005 7:28 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 10-12-2005 4:25 AM crashfrog has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 59 of 94 (250954)
10-11-2005 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
10-11-2005 6:13 PM


Re: what's the problem
If there's no indication that there's a time when a gay person "becomes" gay, then its pretty obvious to me that the reasonable conclusion is that they were born that way.

That's not at all obvious to me.

To illustrate, let's paraphrase. There is no indication that there's a time when an English speaking person becomes English speaking. Yet we know that being English speaking is environmental, not genetic.

Were that true, there would be no gay people - our society has, for many many generations, done all it could do to prevent homosexuality in people.

That's also far from obvious.

Society has done all it can to discourage people from choosing to be gay. But that's a different issue. Already holmes has agreed that it is not a matter of choice. We simply don't know what environmental circumstances might encourage or discourage homosexuality. And if we don't know, then we likely haven't done anything to prevent it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2005 6:13 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2005 8:13 PM nwr has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 94 (250965)
10-11-2005 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by nwr
10-11-2005 7:28 PM


Re: what's the problem
There is no indication that there's a time when an English speaking person becomes English speaking.

Sure there is - their first word. My first word was "hot." I had touched a stove and burned myself. (Not a bright kid, really.)

But here's the thing. While you have to have spoken English at some point to be considered a speaker of English, we regularly ascribe sexual preferences to persons who have never had sex; to persons who are not even sufficiently physically developed to be capable of sexual intercourse. A significant number of gay persons report knowing that they were gay, or at least different, long before they had anything approaching sexual desires or feelings.

Now, there's no known convergencies in the environmental histories of gay persons at that early age that would explain why they're gay. There's a significant weight of evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, in males at least.

And I'm supposed to take seriously the idea that "we don't know that people are born gay"? C'mon, already. There's more than enough data for us to come to a tentative conclusion. Unless you're already ideologically committed to the idea that our sexual preferences are entirely a matter of choice, not heredity.

That's also far from obvious.

Then I guess you don't read the papers, or something? Seems to me to be pretty obvious indeed that, were there a way to avoid having a gay child, we'd have figured it out during the 2000 years where we were hating gay people and disowning gay children.

Already holmes has agreed that it is not a matter of choice. We simply don't know what environmental circumstances might encourage or discourage homosexuality.

The idea that all gay people were born in environments that are substantially different than straight people is a myth. You know what? You can raise two kids in exactly the same way, and one will turn out straight and the other gay. There are plenty of gay people who were raised exactly the same way as straight people, and do you know what? They turned out gay anyway.

The only reason to conclude that environment and not heredity is responsible is out of a prior ideological committment to deny a hereditary basis to sexual orientation. There's absolutely no evidence that there's a certain type of environment that will result in a gay child. On the other hand, there's a lot of evidence that there's a hereditary component to sexuality, so much so that this is the overwhelming consensus view of science.

But, hey, you tell me who you're going to believe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nwr, posted 10-11-2005 7:28 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by nwr, posted 10-11-2005 9:31 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019