Thread: God, in terms of sexual authority.

God, in terms of sexual authority.

What other animal other than man has it’s sexual preferences dictated to it by God?
None.

Is interference with our natural inclinations, in terms of natural sexual societal decisions, harmful to each of us?

All families have or will have members with varied sexual inclinations.
Is it right to discriminate against those who deviate naturally from the so called norm?

To interfere in our sexual self development would hinder our natural evolution.

To me, this seems like a major intrusion by God.

It is this kind of thinking that give power to the foolish men of Afghanistan.
Using force of law to keep a woman subjugated is unmanly.

To use the force of hell to force us out of our natural inclinations is un-Godly.

Right?

Does God dictating our sexual mores effect us in evolutionary terms?
Should an alien, God or not, tell man what to do sexually?

Regards
DL

Enjoy.


http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0201/biblesex.html

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1101/biblesex.html

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0204/biblesex3.html

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

God, in terms of sexual authority.

What other animal other than man has it’s sexual preferences dictated to it by God?
None.

what other animal, other than man, has the ability to overcome their nature?

Is interference with our natural inclinations, in terms of natural sexual societal decisions, harmful to each of us?

"if it feels good, do it" certainly doesn't make for an elevated society of humans, if that's what you mean

All families have or will have members with varied sexual inclinations.
Is it right to discriminate against those who deviate naturally from the so called norm?

so if a father wants to have sex with his daughter (perfectly ok for pigs and many other animals btw) no one else should have a problem with that?

To interfere in our sexual self development would hinder our natural evolution.

To me, this seems like a major intrusion by God.

On the contrary, its natural for any body of authority (whether it is government or some other societal peak body or god) to have an interest in dictating sexual norms.

It is this kind of thinking that give power to the foolish men of Afghanistan.

or the intelligent toilet bowl hugging anorexic women of the west after a night on the town?

Using force of law to keep a woman subjugated is unmanly.

sure

but giving the big green light for anything that goes down in the name of sex will also cause a few headaches for women too.

To use the force of hell to force us out of our natural inclinations is un-Godly.

Right?

would you prefer the force of a police warrant?

Does God dictating our sexual mores effect us in evolutionary terms?

sure
we would probably all be grunting like a pig in the mud if it wasn't for god

Should an alien, God or not, tell man what to do sexually?

If an alien came down and demanded that we bonk our brains out, it would be more appeasing?

Sólo nosotros follamos en nombre de Dios

-Mago de Oz

Originally Posted by punarmusiko

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

God, in terms of sexual authority.

What other animal other than man has it’s sexual preferences dictated to it by God?
None.

what other animal, other than man, has the ability to overcome their nature?

All animals can evolve.

Is interference with our natural inclinations, in terms of natural sexual societal decisions, harmful to each of us?

"if it feels good, do it" certainly doesn't make for an elevated society of humans, if that's what you mean

That would be better than discrimination without just cause.

All families have or will have members with varied sexual inclinations.
Is it right to discriminate against those who deviate naturally from the so called norm?

so if a father wants to have sex with his daughter (perfectly ok for pigs and many other animals btw) no one else should have a problem with that?

I speak of sex between consenting adults. Children need and get our protection. I speak here of sex where no victim is created.

To interfere in our sexual self development would hinder our natural evolution.

To me, this seems like a major intrusion by God.

On the contrary, its natural for any body of authority (whether it is government or some other societal peak body or god) to have an interest in dictating sexual norms.

Where there is a victim, yes. Where there is none then they have no more business than God to be in our bedrooms.

It is this kind of thinking that give power to the foolish men of Afghanistan.

or the intelligent toilet bowl hugging anorexic women of the west after a night on the town?

No idea what you speak of here.

Using force of law to keep a woman subjugated is unmanly.

sure

but giving the big green light for anything that goes down in the name of sex will also cause a few headaches for women too.

There are laws to cover victims. We should all prefer a headache over discrimination without cause.

To use the force of hell to force us out of our natural inclinations is un-Godly.

Right?

would you prefer the force of a police warrant?

Would I prefer to be able to state my case to authority instead of an absentee God? Yes.

Does God dictating our sexual mores effect us in evolutionary terms?

sure
we would probably all be grunting like a pig in the mud if it wasn't for god

God's example to man is that cross breading is OK.
Did he not do so with his own mother Mary?
Incest as well seems to be OK according to God.

Should an alien, God or not, tell man what to do sexually?

If an alien came down and demanded that we bonk our brains out, it would be more appeasing?

No idea again of what you mean here.

Your homophobia is showing.

Regards
DL

The Christians here may want to check out a book called Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church by Jack Rogers who is the former Moderator (the highest elected official) in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Rogers was interviewed for his book:

Q: Why did you write this book?

ROGERS: I wrote this book to help heal the church. For decades the church has been divided over whether to ordain and marry people who are LGBT. It seems to me that the debate highlights different methods of Biblical interpretation. In my book, I show that the proper way to interpret the Bible is through the lens of Jesus' redemptive life and ministry. When we interpret the Bible in this way, we see that we are called, by the Bible, to grant equal rights to people who are LGBT. The church won't be healed until it does the right thing - which is to grant equal rights to people who are LGBT.

Q: In the book, you make some intriguing remarks about the relationship between homophobia and patriarchy. What is this relationship all about?

ROGERS: Women, in ancient, patriarchal cultures were assumed to be inferior to men. Thus, men who did not conform to traditional masculine roles were assumed, like women, to be inferior. Homophobia, the irrational contempt for people who are sexually different, is rooted in sexism, the prejudice that women are inferior to men. In our present culture, the people most opposed to homosexuality (like James Dobson at Focus on the Family) also demand male dominance in marriage, the family, and society.

Q: In the book you also talk about the progress toward LGBT equality in other denominations. What is the state of the broader movement for LGBT equality within the American faith community?

ROGERS: Several denominations already have official policies of full LGBT equality including the Metropolitan Community Churches, the United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian Universalist Association. Several other denominations are making good progress including the Episcopal Church, my own Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America which is very close to a breakthrough, and the Methodist Church which has majority support for LGBT equality here in the U.S. but is still lacking the support of their international brothers and sisters. Finally there are the denominations which are dug in or going backwards - such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention - but even within those denominations there are active advocacy groups working for change. Fifty years ago there were no out LGBT clergy or LGBT advocacy groups in any denomination. Now many denominations have out clergy and all denominations have active LGBT advocacy groups. This is really remarkable progress within a relatively short space of time.
22 of 31 reviewers at Amazon.com gave the book 5 stars.

Originally Posted by gottspieler

Sólo nosotros follamos en nombre de Dios

-Mago de Oz

English is good for whatever you said.

Regards
DL

Remarking on the original post. Lots of it is either too ambiguous to answer, I will try my best. Some of the questions would be better asked in other forums and then linked to this main topic.

"God, in terms of sexual authority."
-Even the title is a failed attempt to sound intelligent. You might be able to fool half of them all of the time, but you can only fool all of them half of the time, please remember that in your future dicktations.

"What other animal other than man has it’s sexual preferences dictated to it by God? None."
-There you go again answering your own trick question. I don't know that I've ever been dictated, and even if some people have been, this doesn't mean that all of them have been. What makes you think animals have not? Is scripture the only medium through which God speaks?.

"Is interference with our natural inclinations, in terms of natural sexual societal decisions, harmful to each of us?"
-No more harmful than domesticating wild corn. In fact it can be quite useful if done properly. This is a much bigger topic than religion, this specific question belongs in philosophy, history, health and/or biology. Your natural inclinations change moment to moment and are mostly subject to external forces. Principles on the other hand, whether they come from something you learned or something you were born with, you hold them inside you and they never change.

"All families have or will have members with varied sexual inclinations.
Is it right to discriminate against those who deviate naturally from the so called norm?"
-Discrimination and the so-called-norm in some cases is closely related to "natural sexual societal decisions," IE, what type of people you want around to attract; what type of mate; and/or to set what type of social environment best suited towards making and raising children.

This is a question for philosophy.


"To interfere in our sexual self development would hinder our natural evolution."

-What makes you think it only hinders us? Why wouldn't it help us evolve? -It seems to have helped us evolve thus far. Suggestions can in no way be considered interfering, neither can commandments, individuals decide for themselves.

Also this is a question for biology?


"To me, this seems like a major intrusion by God."
-Well this is God's home. If you want to get technical I believe the common concept amongst religious folk is that it is actually sin intruding on God's property.

"It is this kind of thinking that give power to the foolish men of Afghanistan."
-No it's not, your kind of thinking is more related to that, not that it is at-all the same. It is fascist thinking, connecting unrelated dots, only using data that is helpful for one's argument and ignoring the rest. Trying to play on emotions when your argument is weak. We all do it at times without noticing, but it doesn't help people learn. Are you a politician?

This is is a topic for philosophy, history and psychology."

"Using force of law to keep a woman subjugated is unmanly."
I don't think the western idea of manliness effects them much, but nice try, I respect your simplicity of argument here.

"To use the force of hell to force us out of our natural inclinations is un-Godly.
Right?"
That depends on whether or not God uses hell to force us out of our natural inclinations. Does he? The closest I've heard to that was that sin caused suffering and that when you die whatever your experiencing at the time lasts forever. Whether or not God or anyone/anything is forcing hell upon us is a good subject for debate. I think we are choosing hell, and no not because we couldn't escape our natural inclinations, but because we chose to pay attention to some of our natural inclinations and not others.

"Does God dictating our sexual mores effect us in evolutionary terms?"
I can't answer this but I am curious: Doesn't everything effect our evolution? Does one thing effect everyone the same?

"Should an alien, God or not, tell man what to do sexually?"
Not without good reason.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Remarking on the original post. Lots of it is either too ambiguous to answer, I will try my best. Some of the questions would be better asked in other forums and then linked to this main topic.

"God, in terms of sexual authority."
-Even the title is a failed attempt to sound intelligent. You might be able to fool half of them all of the time, but you can only fool all of them half of the time, please remember that in your future dicktations.

"What other animal other than man has it’s sexual preferences dictated to it by God? None."
-There you go again answering your own trick question. I don't know that I've ever been dictated, and even if some people have been, this doesn't mean that all of them have been. What makes you think animals have not? Is scripture the only medium through which God speaks?.

"Is interference with our natural inclinations, in terms of natural sexual societal decisions, harmful to each of us?"
-No more harmful than domesticating wild corn. In fact it can be quite useful if done properly. This is a much bigger topic than religion, this specific question belongs in philosophy, history, health and/or biology. Your natural inclinations change moment to moment and are mostly subject to external forces. Principles on the other hand, whether they come from something you learned or something you were born with, you hold them inside you and they never change.

"All families have or will have members with varied sexual inclinations.
Is it right to discriminate against those who deviate naturally from the so called norm?"
-Discrimination and the so-called-norm in some cases is closely related to "natural sexual societal decisions," IE, what type of people you want around to attract; what type of mate; and/or to set what type of social environment best suited towards making and raising children.

This is a question for philosophy.


"To interfere in our sexual self development would hinder our natural evolution."

-What makes you think it only hinders us? Why wouldn't it help us evolve? -It seems to have helped us evolve thus far. Suggestions can in no way be considered interfering, neither can commandments, individuals decide for themselves.

Also this is a question for biology?


"To me, this seems like a major intrusion by God."
-Well this is God's home. If you want to get technical I believe the common concept amongst religious folk is that it is actually sin intruding on God's property.

"It is this kind of thinking that give power to the foolish men of Afghanistan."
-No it's not, your kind of thinking is more related to that, not that it is at-all the same. It is fascist thinking, connecting unrelated dots, only using data that is helpful for one's argument and ignoring the rest. Trying to play on emotions when your argument is weak. We all do it at times without noticing, but it doesn't help people learn. Are you a politician?

This is is a topic for philosophy, history and psychology."

"Using force of law to keep a woman subjugated is unmanly."
I don't think the western idea of manliness effects them much, but nice try, I respect your simplicity of argument here.

"To use the force of hell to force us out of our natural inclinations is un-Godly.
Right?"
That depends on whether or not God uses hell to force us out of our natural inclinations. Does he? The closest I've heard to that was that sin caused suffering and that when you die whatever your experiencing at the time lasts forever. Whether or not God or anyone/anything is forcing hell upon us is a good subject for debate. I think we are choosing hell, and no not because we couldn't escape our natural inclinations, but because we chose to pay attention to some of our natural inclinations and not others.

"Does God dictating our sexual mores effect us in evolutionary terms?"
I can't answer this but I am curious: Doesn't everything effect our evolution? Does one thing effect everyone the same?

"Should an alien, God or not, tell man what to do sexually?"
Not without good reason.

Your type of thinking does open too many avenues to deal with here. As you say mine does as well.

Let us deal with your last though.

What is the good reason for God telling us to discriminate and denigrate against Gays, without telling us why?

Seems to me that if he did not want us to have Gay natures, then he would not have invented or created it.


Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

God, in terms of sexual authority.

What other animal other than man has it’s sexual preferences dictated to it by God?
None.[

Didn't understand this from the get go. Most animals have a strong dispositions to certain sexual and social behaviors; and it's usually stronger than it is for humans: Wolf morality that tells the lower males not to screw the alpha female, our closest relative, the bonobo, who use brief sexual encounters as a form of greeting even between members of the same sex etc. If you believe in the abrahamic god, than you probably think he had a lot to do with creating these behaviors.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by gottspieler

Sólo nosotros follamos en nombre de Dios

-Mago de Oz

English is good for whatever you said.

Regards
DL

It translates literally as "we only fuck in the name of God"...meaning, we only fuck to please God.

Leviticus 18:22 reads, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Therefore homosexuality is considered a sin by fundamentalist Christians. The above song parodizes such foolishness.

What is fun is that the Bible also says in Exodus:

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labor, and do all the work:
But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work."

How many "good Christians" break this rule? In today's economy many people have two or three jobs and do work on Sunday. Are they all going to burn in hell? We could quote-mine arbitrary religious dogma all day to suit our "purposes" (whatever those purposes are...I don't see how banning gay marriage suits any purpose at all).

I wonder, does posting on a forum count as work?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

God, in terms of sexual authority.

What other animal other than man has it’s sexual preferences dictated to it by God?
None.[

Didn't understand this from the get go. Most animals have a strong dispositions to certain sexual and social behaviors; and it's usually stronger than it is for humans: Wolf morality that tells the lower males not to screw the alpha female, our closest relative, the bonobo, who use brief sexual encounters as a form of greeting even between members of the same sex etc. If you believe in the abrahamic god, than you probably think he had a lot to do with creating these behaviors.

I do not believe in the miracle working super God. His absence speaks volumes.

The God I know is part of nature and does not work against the laws of nature and physics.

Animal sexuality is evolution driven, so is human sexuality.
To be forced to go against our natures and instincts is wrong.

If no victim is created then things should be left to evolve.

Regards
DL

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by gottspieler

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by gottspieler

Sólo nosotros follamos en nombre de Dios

-Mago de Oz

English is good for whatever you said.

Regards
DL

It translates literally as "we only fuck in the name of God"...meaning, we only fuck to please God.

Leviticus 18:22 reads, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Therefore homosexuality is considered a sin by fundamentalist Christians. The above song parodizes such foolishness.

What is fun is that the Bible also says in Exodus:

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labor, and do all the work:
But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work."

How many "good Christians" break this rule? In today's economy many people have two or three jobs and do work on Sunday. Are they all going to burn in hell? We could quote-mine arbitrary religious dogma all day to suit our "purposes" (whatever those purposes are...I don't see how banning gay marriage suits any purpose at all).

Thanks and we agree.

Christianity is so fragmented today that it can be said that none follow the Christian God. Look at the various sects. Some have one wife others have as many as you can afford. Strange.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

I wonder, does posting on a forum count as work?

Laws that have no enforcement are not true laws.

Regards
DL

"Your type of thinking does open too many avenues to deal with here. As you say mine does as well." Than if you want to resolve anything rationally maybe we could keep the thread down to one topic at a time and try not to change it whenever someone makes a good point... as you do here

"What is the good reason for God telling us to discriminate and denigrate against Gays, without telling us why?"

I don't know A: If God rationalizes like we do B: if God ever said anything like this and if he did C: maybe he did tell us why.

Homosexuality doesn't make babies, and it doesn't create the spiritual balance of a male-female relationship.

One reason a General doesn't tell his troops the reason behind a strategy is that the troops would then expect an explanation every time an order is given. A goal takes you out of the realm of action and into the realm of thought. Motivation doesn't create action, action creates motivation. Telling someone why will only hinder them because even with a reason, just as many people will contradict the reason that will contradict the order. You are either loyal or not. Anything can be rationalized.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"Your type of thinking does open too many avenues to deal with here. As you say mine does as well." Than if you want to resolve anything rationally maybe we could keep the thread down to one topic at a time and try not to change it whenever someone makes a good point... as you do here

"What is the good reason for God telling us to discriminate and denigrate against Gays, without telling us why?"

I don't know A: If God rationalizes like we do B: if God ever said anything like this and if he did C: maybe he did tell us why.

Homosexuality doesn't make babies, and it doesn't create the spiritual balance of a male-female relationship.

One reason a General doesn't tell his troops the reason behind a strategy is that the troops would then expect an explanation every time an order is given. A goal takes you out of the realm of action and into the realm of thought. Motivation doesn't create action, action creates motivation. Telling someone why will only hinder them because even with a reason, just as many people will contradict the reason that will contradict the order. You are either loyal or not. Anything can be rationalized.

Thought comes before any action or any motivation.

Homosexuals can have children, just not with their partners. Artificial insemination works quite well.
Not all heterosexuals have children so that issue is mute. Unless of course you hate childless heterosexual couples as well as gays.

Gays also can have spiritual balance in their relationship.

Care to try again to justify the unjustifiable?

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Originally Posted by punarmusiko

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

God, in terms of sexual authority.

What other animal other than man has it’s sexual preferences dictated to it by God?
None.

what other animal, other than man, has the ability to overcome their nature?

All animals can evolve.

yes

to the point of overcoming their nature

Is interference with our natural inclinations, in terms of natural sexual societal decisions, harmful to each of us?

"if it feels good, do it" certainly doesn't make for an elevated society of humans, if that's what you mean

That would be better than discrimination without just cause.[/quote]
actually they are both the same

All families have or will have members with varied sexual inclinations.
Is it right to discriminate against those who deviate naturally from the so called norm?

so if a father wants to have sex with his daughter (perfectly ok for pigs and many other animals btw) no one else should have a problem with that?

I speak of sex between consenting adults. Children need and get our protection. I speak here of sex where no victim is created.

in that regard, it becomes a bit difficult to understand how you discuss the sexual divorced from the social act (since all social acts partake of some form of discrimination)

To interfere in our sexual self development would hinder our natural evolution.

To me, this seems like a major intrusion by God.

On the contrary, its natural for any body of authority (whether it is government or some other societal peak body or god) to have an interest in dictating sexual norms.

Where there is a victim, yes. Where there is none then they have no more business than God to be in our bedrooms.

I'm not sure exactly what role you think god assumes in your bedroom

It is this kind of thinking that give power to the foolish men of Afghanistan.

or the intelligent toilet bowl hugging anorexic women of the west after a night on the town?

No idea what you speak of here.

IOW you don't have to look to far to see nice examples of bad intelligence

Using force of law to keep a woman subjugated is unmanly.

sure

but giving the big green light for anything that goes down in the name of sex will also cause a few headaches for women too.

There are laws to cover victims. We should all prefer a headache over discrimination without cause.

once again, not clear on the exact causeless nature of discrimination you are pitting yourself against

To use the force of hell to force us out of our natural inclinations is un-Godly.

Right?

would you prefer the force of a police warrant?

Would I prefer to be able to state my case to authority instead of an absentee God? Yes.[/quote]
hehe

and why is that?

Does God dictating our sexual mores effect us in evolutionary terms?

sure
we would probably all be grunting like a pig in the mud if it wasn't for god

God's example to man is that cross breading is OK.[/quote]
Actually the first example is that god and mankind are eternally distinct in terms of potency.

If you don't believe me, confront the riotous laughter of the front desk of an artificial insemination clinic when you request to be your own father

Did he not do so with his own mother Mary?

Mary is god's mother?

Incest as well seems to be OK according to God.

Should an alien, God or not, tell man what to do sexually?

If an alien came down and demanded that we bonk our brains out, it would be more appeasing?

No idea again of what you mean here.[/quote]
hehe

I guarantee that over 80% of your anxiety in life will be directly related to the results of sex life

Your homophobia is showing.

golly
didn't see that one come out of left field
/shrug

"Thought comes before any action or any motivation."
Sounds right, but that doesn't make it so. I'll start another thread discussing this in a more scientific forum, I'll PM you the link.

"Homosexuals can have children, just not with their partners. Artificial insemination works quite well." No crap, but to consider that anything like two lovers having a child is somewhat ridiculous. The act of homosexuality, doesn't create children. You can also make babies in test tubes. You can also adopt babies. It is not the same, physically, emotionally or mentally as the full experience of conceiving, carrying and birthing a baby. Unless of course you have a very very powerful and/or delusional imagination. There is not much to compare it to these days, so no wonder it seems relative, but it is not, these are nothing alike.

"Not all heterosexuals have children so that issue is mute. Unless of course you hate childless heterosexual couples as well as gays." You assume I hate gays, why? Is it a love em or hate em sort of thing because I'm pretty sure I'm indifferent. I don't know if there is anything wrong with homosexuality, what I say are observations.

Two same sex partners cannot conceive a baby on their own no matter how hard they try. This is an observation, not a judgment based on hatred.

There is always the love factor too when it comes to artificial insemination. There is the theory that the amount of love and stimulation during intercourse effects the nervous development of a child. I will look for statistics about the children made and raised in different ways. I am more curious than biased please get this before assuming I am looking for evidence to support my case. To me, I have no case. I care about what is right, I would never claim to know what right is, observing the facts helps one understand, and that's what I'm trying to do. So please help me learn by sharing what you know, don't just tell me I'm wrong, that just keeps us both down.

"Gays also can have spiritual balance in their relationship."

OK, we should discuss this in the philosophy and psychology forums. I do not disagree with you, but maybe our understanding of spirituality is different. To me it is nothing more than psychological development. Since women and men are slightly different physically, hormonally and mentally, cooperation necessitates more compromise which requires more maturity, or so it seems. Please share what you think on this since it is my main concern.

"Care to try again to justify the unjustifiable?" I didn't know I was trying to justify anything in the first place. Thanks for the offer, but I don't think so, you seem to assume everyone is against you, would you care to talk about THIS maybe, I'm no psychologist but I think you would find more productive conversations by giving people the benefit of the doubt? Unless of course this isn't for us to learn and is just for you to express yourself, in which case I will be forced to put you on ignore.

"Regards "
Ditto, I hope we can put ego aside and have a fruitful conversation.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"Thought comes before any action or any motivation."
Sounds right, but that doesn't make it so. I'll start another thread discussing this in a more scientific forum, I'll PM you the link.

"Homosexuals can have children, just not with their partners. Artificial insemination works quite well." No crap, but to consider that anything like two lovers having a child is somewhat ridiculous. The act of homosexuality, doesn't create children. You can also make babies in test tubes. You can also adopt babies. It is not the same, physically, emotionally or mentally as the full experience of conceiving, carrying and birthing a baby. Unless of course you have a very very powerful and/or delusional imagination. There is not much to compare it to these days, so no wonder it seems relative, but it is not, these are nothing alike.

"Not all heterosexuals have children so that issue is mute. Unless of course you hate childless heterosexual couples as well as gays." You assume I hate gays, why? Is it a love em or hate em sort of thing because I'm pretty sure I'm indifferent. I don't know if there is anything wrong with homosexuality, what I say are observations.

Two same sex partners cannot conceive a baby on their own no matter how hard they try. This is an observation, not a judgment based on hatred.

There is always the love factor too when it comes to artificial insemination. There is the theory that the amount of love and stimulation during intercourse effects the nervous development of a child. I will look for statistics about the children made and raised in different ways. I am more curious than biased please get this before assuming I am looking for evidence to support my case. To me, I have no case. I care about what is right, I would never claim to know what right is, observing the facts helps one understand, and that's what I'm trying to do. So please help me learn by sharing what you know, don't just tell me I'm wrong, that just keeps us both down.

"Gays also can have spiritual balance in their relationship."

OK, we should discuss this in the philosophy and psychology forums. I do not disagree with you, but maybe our understanding of spirituality is different. To me it is nothing more than psychological development. Since women and men are slightly different physically, hormonally and mentally, cooperation necessitates more compromise which requires more maturity, or so it seems. Please share what you think on this since it is my main concern.

"Care to try again to justify the unjustifiable?" I didn't know I was trying to justify anything in the first place. Thanks for the offer, but I don't think so, you seem to assume everyone is against you, would you care to talk about THIS maybe, I'm no psychologist but I think you would find more productive conversations by giving people the benefit of the doubt? Unless of course this isn't for us to learn and is just for you to express yourself, in which case I will be forced to put you on ignore.

"Regards "
Ditto, I hope we can put ego aside and have a fruitful conversation.

If we put our ego's asside, here is what the conversation would look like-----------------------------

Regards
DL

So with ego, we have a very active conversation that goes nowhere

without ego, we have a boring conversation that goes somewhere

maybe we can find a balance...

should I assume are you ignoring the italicized question that I asked you?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

So with ego, we have a very active conversation that goes nowhere

without ego, we have a boring conversation that goes somewhere

maybe we can find a balance...

should I assume are you ignoring the italicized question that I asked you?

Both men and women are part of or participate in evolution.
We sometime cooperate, we sometimes compete.

Good relationships find a happy medium depending on the strengths of each individual.

The divorce rates say that few of us find just the right balance.

Regards
DL

competition doesn't hinder evolution

My mother is against homosexuality, and she has a valid point which sort of reflects in my above statement. Although I am not against homosexuality, I am not a supporter of it either and I will explain why after.

She says that gays can't compromise with the needs of the opposite sex. I don't agree with it completely, but I can imagine SOME individuals who don't want to compromise so they take the path of least resistance. Some gays, just as some straights, are only in relationships for sex, they are not necissarily atracted phisicaly, mentally or emotionally to their partners, they are using them and putting on a fake face.

Gays have a reputation for being easy. I don't know if this is right or wrong, though all the gays I know fit this description.

The reason I am not openly supportive of homosexuality is because of political reasons. These days everything is politics, you are either for something or against it, it seems. Although I am not against it, I am not for it, because SOME people are not born with sexuality, some people are indifferent towards sex, I am one of them, and to support sexuality, in any form, only supports that you have to have sex in order to be human.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

competition doesn't hinder evolution

My mother is against homosexuality, and she has a valid point which sort of reflects in my above statement. Although I am not against homosexuality, I am not a supporter of it either and I will explain why after.

She says that gays can't compromise with the needs of the opposite sex. I don't agree with it completely, but I can imagine SOME individuals who don't want to compromise so they take the path of least resistance. Some gays, just as some straights, are only in relationships for sex, they are not necissarily atracted phisicaly, mentally or emotionally to their partners, they are using them and putting on a fake face.

Gays have a reputation for being easy. I don't know if this is right or wrong, though all the gays I know fit this description.

The reason I am not openly supportive of homosexuality is because of political reasons. These days everything is politics, you are either for something or against it, it seems. Although I am not against it, I am not for it, because SOME people are not born with sexuality, some people are indifferent towards sex, I am one of them, and to support sexuality, in any form, only supports that you have to have sex in order to be human.

Wow, I do not know what to say. Almost.

To be against someone, you need to provide a reason. That reason should be that they are creating a victim. If there is no victim then possibly all behavior should be supported regardless of what it is.

If you vote against someone for no reason then if the same happens to you then it is because others think the same way you do.

Different does not equate with wrong. To discriminate or denigrate without reason or just cause is just plain wrong.

Regards
DL

"To be against someone, you need to provide a reason. That reason should be that they are creating a victim. If there is no victim then possibly all behavior should be supported regardless of what it is. "

Not quite. I see the logic, but not all things are logical, in fact very little is when it comes to politics and behavior. You don't need to provide a reason, and even if you do provide a reason, who is to say that is the real reason? There could be more than one reason some of which you are not even aware of.

Being afraid of the high dive might be justified by saying it is too high, it is irrational, or it is pointless. Though none of these things are true.

Hating gays might be justified by saying gay sex is dusgusting, or it is against god. Both of which are subjective, and you as much as anyone should understand that these reasons are not real reasons.

Hating those that hate gays can be justified by saying everyone should be able to do what they want... but this is hypocritical and thus not a real reason.

The real reasons are simply because you choose to, the reasons are also because you choose to justify it. They are not necessary, although they are useful if you are playing politician.



In reality everyone is a victim, we must either carefully define the word in a legal sense if you want it to be the "one law to rule them all" because in the sense that it exists today, if it was enforced as you suggest, you look at the wrong person the wrong way and all of a sudden your getting sued.

Maybe you didn't suggest that, but you did suggest, supporting everything that does not victimize, which leads me to assume that you are against, IE, punish, those who do victimize.

What if someone has turrets? What if an accident happens? What if someone doesn't know better? What if someone is torn between two codes of laws?

What do you mean by victim?

Those in the nation who are working towards something, are they victimized by those in the nation who are working against it?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"To be against someone, you need to provide a reason. That reason should be that they are creating a victim. If there is no victim then possibly all behavior should be supported regardless of what it is. "

Not quite. I see the logic, but not all things are logical, in fact very little is when it comes to politics and behavior. You don't need to provide a reason, and even if you do provide a reason, who is to say that is the real reason? There could be more than one reason some of which you are not even aware of.

Being afraid of the high dive might be justified by saying it is too high, it is irrational, or it is pointless. Though none of these things are true.

Hating gays might be justified by saying gay sex is dusgusting, or it is against god. Both of which are subjective, and you as much as anyone should understand that these reasons are not real reasons.

Hating those that hate gays can be justified by saying everyone should be able to do what they want... but this is hypocritical and thus not a real reason.

The real reasons are simply because you choose to, the reasons are also because you choose to justify it. They are not necessary, although they are useful if you are playing politician.



In reality everyone is a victim, we must either carefully define the word in a legal sense if you want it to be the "one law to rule them all" because in the sense that it exists today, if it was enforced as you suggest, you look at the wrong person the wrong way and all of a sudden your getting sued.

Maybe you didn't suggest that, but you did suggest, supporting everything that does not victimize, which leads me to assume that you are against, IE, punish, those who do victimize.

What if someone has turrets? What if an accident happens? What if someone doesn't know better? What if someone is torn between two codes of laws?

What do you mean by victim?

Those in the nation who are working towards something, are they victimized by those in the nation who are working against it?

Main Entry: vic·tim
Pronunciation: \ˈvik-təm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin victima; perhaps akin to Old High German wīh holy
Date: 15th century
1: a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a religious rite
2: one that is acted on and usu. adversely affected by a force or agent <the schools are victims of the social system>: as a (1): one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions <a victim of cancer> <a victim of the auto crash> <a murder victim> (2): one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment <a frequent victim of political attacks> b: one that is tricked or duped <a con man's victim>
— vic·tim·hood \-ˌhu̇d\ noun

A victim is also one that is discriminated or denigrated without cause. Gays are victims of many.
Homophobes create victims. Consenting Gays do not.

Regards
DL

"A victim is also one that is discriminated or denigrated without cause."
So if you have a cause it is different than if you do not? I don't believe this is what you mean, because if it is then if I have a reason for hating homosexuality, whether that reason is valid or not, so long as it is my personal cause, my hatred is justified, and no victims are made by my discrimination and/or denigration. Please explain because this surely is not what you mean.


"Gays are victims of many." Many are victims of many. There is a lot of hatred in this world. Rather than fighting the symptoms, why not fight the cause?

"Homophobes create victims. Consenting Gays do not."
This is subjective. Not all homophobes are the same, some truly are afraid. Not all Gays are as nice as you are making them out to be.

If this was the case I am sure naturally everyone would be supportive of Gays and everyone would hate Homophobes. It seems most people are in fact indifferent.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"A victim is also one that is discriminated or denigrated without cause."
So if you have a cause it is different than if you do not? I don't believe this is what you mean, because if it is then if I have a reason for hating homosexuality, whether that reason is valid or not, so long as it is my personal cause, my hatred is justified, and no victims are made by my discrimination and/or denigration. Please explain because this surely is not what you mean.


"Gays are victims of many." Many are victims of many. There is a lot of hatred in this world. Rather than fighting the symptoms, why not fight the cause?

"Homophobes create victims. Consenting Gays do not."
This is subjective. Not all homophobes are the same, some truly are afraid. Not all Gays are as nice as you are making them out to be.

If this was the case I am sure naturally everyone would be supportive of Gays and everyone would hate Homophobes. It seems most people are in fact indifferent.

Why would you hate Gays?

Regards
DL

Are you talking about A: individuals that happen to be gay or B: everyone that considers themselves gay C: everyone that someone considers gay?

either way, I wouldn't unless they as individuals did something that I hate

for example if someone was stupid, I wouldn't be like "oh it's OK, your just gay" I would say "Your stupid"

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Are you talking about A: individuals that happen to be gay or B: everyone that considers themselves gay C: everyone that someone considers gay?

either way, I wouldn't unless they as individuals did something that I hate

So would you vote yes or no, to gay mariage?

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

competition doesn't hinder evolution

My mother is against homosexuality, and she has a valid point which sort of reflects in my above statement. Although I am not against homosexuality, I am not a supporter of it either and I will explain why after.

She says that gays can't compromise with the needs of the opposite sex. I don't agree with it completely, but I can imagine SOME individuals who don't want to compromise so they take the path of least resistance. Some gays, just as some straights, are only in relationships for sex, they are not necissarily atracted phisicaly, mentally or emotionally to their partners, they are using them and putting on a fake face.

This is such complete nonsense.

Gays have a reputation for being easy. I don't know if this is right or wrong, though all the gays I know fit this description.

Where do you know them from, TV?

The reason I am not openly supportive of homosexuality is because of political reasons. These days everything is politics, you are either for something or against it, it seems. Although I am not against it, I am not for it, because SOME people are not born with sexuality, some people are indifferent towards sex, I am one of them, and to support sexuality, in any form, only supports that you have to have sex in order to be human.

Or it could just be an expression of support for consenting behavior that causes no harm.

Where do you know them from, TV?

He is referring to .. what are they called again? Bug catchers and what is the other term? I cant remember.. Im not part of the gay community.

But one term refers to gay men who go out and sleep with people who HAVE AIDS in an attempt to get Aids. And they bareback the sex in order to do so.
The other group of people he is talking about are the people who are gay who try to give AIDS or another STD to unsuspecting individuals.
They both have terms in the gay community and are DESPISED in the gay community as well. Don't just look at a minor group of people and lump them in with the rest of the gay community.

Originally Posted by verzen

Where do you know them from, TV?

He is referring to .. what are they called again? Bug catchers and what is the other term? I cant remember.. Im not part of the gay community.

But one term refers to gay men who go out and sleep with people who HAVE AIDS in an attempt to get Aids. And they bareback the sex in order to do so.
The other group of people he is talking about are the people who are gay who try to give AIDS or another STD to unsuspecting individuals.
They both have terms in the gay community and are DESPISED in the gay community as well. Don't just look at a minor group of people and lump them in with the rest of the gay community.

"Gifting" isn't what he was talking about, and yes they are despised by the gay community. Most gay people are horrified when they hear about that practice, it's very very uncommon. Those who aren't really into the club scene don't usually know about it either, I've only heard about it second hand from a friend who is into gender studies.

As to the second, that would be a criminal offense, and it's not like straight people can't do that. In fact, I know of a court case where a man deliberately infected a woman with HIV.

Though it's a relatively small sample the Vermont civil unions, which amount to nearly the same thing as marraige are showing themselves to be much more stable than traditional marraiges.

Even if they didn't I wouldn't put much significance into gay marriage divorce statistics until a decade or so has passed. Partners that have been together for several years prior to getting the union, as well as those who just jumped at the chance of finally getting one could skew the stats.

It seems I've dug myself a hole here, but let me assure you, AGAIN that I am not anti-gay. I won't go into detail about my GSA days but in a crowd of immature homosexuals I tried to bring an relatively objective light to the struggle. I was labeled as gay just for being in cahoots with them, though I was not in cahoots with them I just wanted to help them develop better tactics to fight for themselves. I don't care who wins, to me it's not a compitition. Force breeds resistance and this is why I won't vote either way. I don't know what is right, and niether do you. Just because something is accepted and seems harmless and perfectly natural, doesn't make it so, but just because something seems wrong, also doesn't make it so. Whether or not there is a such thing as right and wrong is a different subject, but no matter what we come to, it doesn't make it so. There is absolute reality, and there is subjective reality, and I quite simply don't care about your fight though I would like to learn what I can from it.

i will not vote either way because i do not vote, because i do not know what is right and do not share the democratic belief that a million idiots are smarter than one.

My observations of the very few homosexuals I know do not reflect on my opinion about all gays.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Even if they didn't I wouldn't put much significance into gay marriage divorce statistics until a decade or so has passed. Partners that have been together for several years prior to getting the union, as well as those who just jumped at the chance of finally getting one could skew the stats.

No doubt. But this has been going on for nearly ten years starting in Vermont, and among the thousands of gay marriages. According to a couple studies now (one by UCLA last year) they are breaking up at below or equal to the traditional union rate. If nothing else, it's a strong argument that those that want to be recognized and choice to commit to each other aren't inherently unstable and somehow dangerous to society.

sorry but what is good for society is not my rule of thumb

human sacrifice was once good for society

slavery was once good for society

I am not relating homosexuality to either of these. I am just saying that societies needs are based on the type of people that exist in that society, there is no social fountain of youth, except maybe tolerance, but not enforced tolerance, which is very different in cause and effect.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

sorry but what is good for society is not my rule of thumb

human sacrifice was once good for society

slavery was once good for society

I am not relating homosexuality to either of these. I am just saying that societies needs are based on the type of people that exist in that society, there is no social fountain of youth, except maybe tolerance, but not enforced tolerance, which is very different in cause and effect.

Nothing like a homophobe who will not admit to being a homophobe.

Back to sleep boy. try to come back as a man.

Regards
DL

Aw shucks you caught me

I guess that makes me a hederaphobe too then, I'm afraid of everyone equally, hehehe. You really have no idea who your talking to, but what can you do. :?

Your attitude is why I do not openly support homosexuality because it, like all struggles,requires an Us or Them mindset, which is tyranny no matter how you cut it, the victims are free thinkers who would rather observe than judge.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Your attitude is why I do not openly support homosexuality because it, like all struggles,requires an Us or Them mindset, which is tyranny no matter how you cut it, the victims are free thinkers who would rather observe than judge.

Absolutely. Whatever happens you wouldn't want to get involved, or make a decision. That would be ...... hmmm.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Your attitude is why I do not openly support homosexuality because it, like all struggles,requires an Us or Them mindset, which is tyranny no matter how you cut it, the victims are free thinkers who would rather observe than judge.

Then continue to discriminate without cause. I hope none of your children or grand children end up Gay. Statistics say some will.

Regards
DL

jesus loved lepers. why wouldn't he love gays?

Originally Posted by dejawolf

jesus loved lepers. why wouldn't he love gays?

Lepers are natural. Gays are not.

Just kidding.

Regards
DL