Please - Some Impartial Advice Needed

My apologies if I misunderstood, Rat, but it looked to me like Nator was specifically pointing at the same subject - it appears, solely by your wording, that you disapprove of male homosexuality more than female, and your explanation seemed to directly link that with your sexual arousal.Nator said: To which you replied: This seems to tell me that you aren't so anti-homosexuality if the act is sexually arousing to you. Again, if I misunderstand, my apologies - just the way it looks by your response. And if I misunderstood again, then again my apologies. Adding the comment "sex is great, but true love is better" to the end of a comment where you called lesbians either man-hating femi-nazis or just "experimenting" and therefore not really lesbians really seemed to be a comment on homosexual relationships. I can only respond to what I see you post Rat, and I have to say, it really, really looked like that was exactly what you were saying. If I misunderstood...well, you get the picture.However, much as I may dislike some of your takes on the issue (or at least my understanding of your feelings, as you seem to feel we're having a miscommunication), I applaud your support of gay marriage. It's certainly the mature position. Lets not drag this into a flamewar, shall we? I don't feel like a suspension today.And you've said many times that you believe homosexuality to be a sin. Sin, by definition, sends one to Hell without belief and absolution in Christ, according to Christian dogma. Therefore you are, in fact, saying that the act of homosexual sex is evil and will send homosexuals to Hell. The fact that they would be subject to the same absolution and forgiveness is irrelevant - you still place it as "sin," in the same bucket as murder, theft, and adultery. Wile certainly tamer (and far more sane) than saying "fags burn in Hell," it's still a form of gay-bashing and bigotry - even if it IS founded on Biblical principles. The concept of "hate the sin and not the sinner," when the "sin" in question is part of a person's basic personality (ie, gender orientation), is contradictory, as has been stated before.You can't be "pro-gay" and then tell them you don't approve of them having sex. I fixed it for you.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

quote:

---

I don't care what you think, I've already explained where I am coming from. Accept it, or live in a lie.

---

Methinks the rat protests too much.Your actual behavior gave you away, rat. I can't really know, of course, but based upon your comments here on this board, for years, it is pretty clear that it's gay males that you are concerned about, and you don't really even think about your daughter being gay, or about lesbians at all. Looking at the male fantasy porn version of lesbians is actually pleasurable to you, in fact. So it makes perfect sense that you would be kind of obsessed with gay male sexuality as a negative, and not really get completely upset and icked out at the idea of two women having sex. The ick factor you feel about gay males just overrides everything, it seems.

quote:

---

Sexually they do, and that is what I was talking about. Stop confusing love with sex.

---

Lesbians don't "sexually hate men" either. I don't "sexually hate women", and gay men don't "sexually hate women" either. It is simply a non-issue.OTOH, it seems as though you are projecting your "sexual hate of men" on to everytbody else. As in, you have such an irrational overreaction to gay male sexuality that you hate gay males, and you think everybody else feels like that about the group they don't want to have sex with, too.Other people aren't like that.

quote:

---

You have set a record for contradicting yourself this thread, and setting double standards.

---

Show me where or retract.What I've noticed that you often do in debate is that when I point out that you are repeatedly using a specific fallacy or are making a specific error in your argument, you then start to accuse me of doing the same thing, except that you never point out the specific fallacy or error. You just sort of tack it on to an argument as a sort of "I know you are but what am I" kind of response. Of course, without the explanation of the problem, it is just an empty, meaningless accusation. Everybody else sees this, though. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Hell, I even cram my sexuality down other people's throats

---

Aren't there laws against doing that in public?

Riverrat,No one likes to have their view misrepresented. And while its understandable that we all can get frustrated from time to time, I'll please ask you to refrain from using ad hominem and gratuitous expletives.EvC is supposed to be a breath of fresh air where we can get away from the usual poor manners of other forums.Lets not degrade into those habits.Thank you for your cooperation.

---

Thou shalt not have any other Mods before Me

Sen. John Kerry says that he is personally against abortion, but believes that the choice should remain personal to the woman.Does that mean that Kerry is against abortion?If we are going by your rationale, then Kerry is no different from Rat here.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it it difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

There are 2 ways I interpreted this message. (1) You have a sick mind or (2) you quote-mined me.I said I was shoving it into people's faces everytime I say "this is my wife blah blah blah..."

---

Disclaimer:Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]

NJ, there is a clear difference.I am also personally against abortion. I believe human life begins at the moment when the egg is fertilized. However, I don't go around telling people it's a sin or they're going to hell because it's only MY PERSONAL OPINION.None of us would have a problem with rat if he simply says he's against homosexuality and that's the end of that. He is going beyond it. He's telling people every chance he gets that homosexuality is a sin, comparing it to other sins like stealing and such. For me personally, I fear that his approach is very harmful to young people because (like you) they already have an immatured and uninformed hatred of gay people. I can't tell you the hell we put gay people through in high school everytime we even suspected they were gay. And those same kids who do the hating in school would go to church on sunday and have their hate reinforced with riverrat's very outspoken opinion on how disgusting homosexuality is and how sinful it is.I think abortion is unfair to human life, but I keep my mouth shut. Why? Because I realize it is only an opinion. I think anyone caught doing drugs should be encouraged not to have any kids. Again, I keep my mouth shut on that thing because it's only an opinion. So, you see, many of us have unhealthy and unproductive opinions on other people's business. The difference is we realize how unhealthy and unproductive our opinions are, so we don't corrupt young minds with our opinions.The other thing that bothers us is the "hate the sin, love the sinner" bullshit.Let's look at an example. I've been playing music all my life. I listen to classical music every chance I get. I do performance everytime I have a chance. I even define myself as a musician. So, it's clearly a part of my life and a very significant part of what defines me as me.Now, let's look at it this way. Suppose people start telling me that playing music is a sin and comparing that to stealing. Suppose they repeat night and day to "hate the sin, love the sinner". What kind of bullshit statement is that? They are obviously hating a very big part of my life. They are hating a very significant thing that defines who I am. They might as well say that they hate me.So, none of us would have a problem if riverrat just comes out and says "I hate homosexuals" and we'd leave it at that. What bothers us, or me at least, is he's trying to have both the cake and the pie. In the one hand, he's very obviously implying that he hates homosexuals by saying he pretty much hates a major thing that defines who they are. On the other, he's saying he loves them, I guess to either appear good in public.

---

Disclaimer:Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]

Yes, yes it does mean that Kerry is against abortion. He even says that he is personally against abortion. Not complicated.Like Rat, he has made the mature observation that it would be wrong for him to force that view on other people - thus, Kerry supports a woman's right to choose even if he doesn't like it, and Rat supports gay marriage even if he views homosexuality as a sin.The issue here, however, is that sexual orientation is a basic trait of a person, much like their race or eye color. The point is that the "hate the sin, love the sinner" mantra is self-contradictory if the sin, as in this case, is part of the person's very existence. With the exception of that last point, this is entirely true, and I applaud both of them for trying to separate their personal opinions and bias from what they believe should be forced onto others through legislation.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

[qs=RiverRat]Stop with your bullshit... You fucking moron.[/qz]In 'my day' that earned at least a week. You pandering to your own NJ??*shakes head*( )

I think you misunderstood me.Nator said to Rat that even though he is personally against homosexual unions, but would not interfere with them in anyway, its still him not liking homosexuality.So I'm asking if that same rationale applies to Sen. Kerry when it comes to abortion. I seem to understand him fine. And I disagree with his position. By "not getting involved," you are basically condoning the action you claim to be against. At the same time, it doesn't always have to be all or none. For instance, I think everyone should come to God. Does that mean that I want theocracy that forces people to worship in vain, much like a Taliban regime? Absolutely not. Isn't he entitled to his opinion just like you reserve the right for that to piss you off? Afterall, isn't that what right and wrong boils down to in a relativistic outlook? Taz, you seem to think that opposing something somehow equal hatred... I'm not a pagan, friend. I can oppose something and not hate a thing. If you viewed it in the same terms as you see any other behavior of ill repute, you might better understand why he sees it as he does. Then why not keep your mouth shut when Rat expresses his opinion? I happen to feel the unproductive and unhealthy stance would be allowing impressionable youth to engage in destructive behavior simply because it might hurt their feelings.You know, my son sometimes tries to touch the stove. I impress upon him the notion that it is dangerous because I care for his well being. Its the same with anything else, including this topic. I would be an enemy of that person if I didn't tell them my honset opinion on the matter.That said, there is certainly productive ways of handling it. Thus far, has anyone that disagrees with homosexuality bashed Taylor over the head and called him all sorts of derogatory names? Certainly not. I think you're overly sensitive. If you want to survive in this world I think you are going to have to develop some thicker skin. There are all sorts of things that people don't like about me, and I about them. Does that mean my parents hate my everlovin' guts because I broke something of theirs when I was a child? Becasue breaking that object was wrong, and I broke it, must it mean that they hate.I hope not.Why must everything be so extreme with you? Why must I have to hate a homosexual simply because I don't agree with homosexuality? Does that mean that hate all murderers because they have murdered?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Then take it up with Nator.I wonder, though, if you'd have the same outlook when it comes to murder."I'm personaly against murder, but damn it, we shouldn't stop people from doing it if they want to!" Then what's the problem you have with Rat? Please substantiate your claim? Obviously, those that oppose it believe that it isn't an inherit disposition. No one could be blamed for the color of their skin. But people do choose whom they sleep with.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

quote:

---

Stop with your bullshit... You fucking moron.

---

NJ writes:
Thank you for your cooperation. Not a chance my friend. If I was pandering to my own, I probably would have said nothing at all.I should also add that I've never suspended anyone, as of yet, because I always give a warning first. So far the warnings have always been heeded.But you're really pushing it. Since you are challenging my authority, I think I'm gonna suspend you So, where have you been man? The forum just wasn't the same.

---

Thou shalt not have any other Mods before Me

In-the-thick-of-it-then reasons? EvC being rendered Evc by the powers that be. It must be the most difficult thing on earth to try to maintain the balance and Percy has done an exceptional job in broad lines. But EvC became Evc for all that. Percy isn't God.Other than that? You just move on. Schraf is Schraf, Larni is Larni, Phat is Phat. Faith is Faith (xxx). Ringo? Jar? Percy?As much as iano is iano. Fresh fields is fun. But if it boils down to intellectualism then EvC is the best.

Take what up with Nator? What are you talking about? Murder causes objective harm to another. Murder is not a basic property of a person like eye color or sexual orientation or race. This is a strawman. Homosexuality is a basic trait, part of what defines an individual, and it causes no objective harm to anyone on its own. The "hate the sin, not the sinner" dogma is perfectly fine in the case of actions like murder or theft. It only becomes self-contradictory when the "sin" is part of what makes the "sinner" who they are - like race or sexual orientation. My only issue is the "hate the sin, not the sinner" attitude with regards to homosexuality. Rat claims to not be prejudiced against gays, yet believes homosexual sex is a sin. This is a contradiction in terms, though I, again, applaud his ability to seperate his own bias from what should be forced on others through legislation in his support of gay marriage. No one chooses to be gay or straight. At no point in your life did you wake up and say "I think I'm going to find women attractive, and not men, from now on." It may not be strictly genetic (the research Ive seen points to a wide variety of factors, most significantly hormone balances in the womb), but it is certainly not a choice. This means it's a basic attribute of personhood. But not who to be attracted to. And suggesting that homosexuals simply never have sex, or force themselves into heterosexual relationships (which tends to cause all manner of psychological issues and problems for the resulting family when the truth comes out) is patently ridiculous. Homosexuality harms no one, and those who believe it is a sin can make that choice for themselves, not anyone else.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Well, obviously most people on EvC don't see eye to eye. But the Administrators, though we disagree when we are our alter ego's, do a pretty good job of coming to a consensus on what is or isn't acceptable.And I will second that Percy does an outstanding job of being impartial when impartiality is paramount in an Admin status.