|
Post by Bogus0Pomp on Mar 22, 2021 13:40:23 GMT -5
I want someone to give me one good reason to support an ideology and/or a religion that wants me not only dead, but tortured for eternity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 6:16:35 GMT -5
No but I recognize their abnormality also and do not try to normalize their dysfunction. Homosexuals know this as well deep down.
What is their abnormality? What is their dysfunction? You already know. It is normal and natural for a man and woman to be attracted to each other AND in love. Biology has designed them for that in the first place. Most understand that, some don't. that a man is attracted to a man , or a woman to a woman is then a defect in that.
Please explain in detail. In the process, can you please explain why homosexual has been observed in every species studied, from fruit flies to horses to chimps and humans. those observing have confused "getting off" with legitimizing homosexuality. when a dog humps your leg, is that dog attracted to your leg?
Come over here and I'll give you a big wet kiss. Then we can talk about it.
|
|
|
Post by samnouns on Jun 16, 2021 6:56:18 GMT -5
Hungary's parliament isn't an example of legitimate opposition that crosses many spectrums. It's an example of a legislative body that agrees with your views. Its an example of somewhere people making official their legitimate opposition. That it doesn't align with your absurd thinking doesn't de-legitimize it. You're confusing dysfunction and abnormality with things like prevalence. No Im not actually YOU are. simply becase something exists doesn't make for its normalcyHomosexuality is completely natural, but not as prevalent as heterosexuality. Kind of like how green eyes are natural, but not as prevalent as brown eyes. Really not as mystifying as you'd like it to be. That has been used before and is stupid nonsense. On YOUR basis then pedophilia is completely natural, which also is absurd.Kudos on the Hungarian parliament reference, though. That's a good illustration of a certain type of person who advocates for "limited government." You know, the kind that advocates that the government should stay out of the affairs of individuals, and not interfere with the "liberty" etc. of individuals. Your attempt at blending legitimate functions of government with protecting the deviancy that is homosexuality fails bigHere's the fun part: It's small g stuff when you're getting it, but you want that Big G just sticking it to the groups that you don't like. That State Power to hold down and violate the people you consider deviant and unfit. Interesting stuff. Interesting is that you haven't a clue and yet move forwards on that confused basis dumbnounsThe Hungarian parliament isn't qualified to address, nor authoritative on, the subject of whether or not homosexuality is natural. I didn't say that their actions weren't a legitimate function of governance, no matter how biased. There isn't a link between homosexuality and he sexual predation of children. That's nothing more than a terrible characterization to justify prejudice against homosexuals. I haven't blended anything. You advocate for a small g when the government addresses you, or your interests. But you require that Big G State Power to codify your view and oppress those whom you deem unfit to share in the full benefits of our society. The irony would be hilarious if it weren't for the people who have to suffer through that restricted access and ostricization because of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 9:18:27 GMT -5
The Hungarian parliament isn't qualified to address, nor authoritative on, the subject of whether or not homosexuality is natural. I didn't say that their actions weren't a legitimate function of governance, no matter how biased. It is NOT a bias simply because it contradicts your absurd viewsThere isn't a link between homosexuality and he sexual predation of children. They are both on the same side of the abnormal.That's nothing more than a terrible characterization to justify prejudice against homosexuals. There is no prejudice against homosexuals but a recognition of their abnormality and deviancyI haven't blended anything. You advocate for a small g when the government addresses you, or your interests. But you require that Big G State Power to codify your view and oppress those whom you deem unfit to share in the full benefits of our society. Government is there to stop robbery, killing and is NOT there to codify the abnormal into being normal. The irony would be hilarious if it weren't for the people who have to suffer through that restricted access and ostricization because of it. MANY suffer through different forms of legitimate ostracism.
|
|
|
Post by Bogus0Pomp on Jun 16, 2021 11:24:22 GMT -5
Hungary's parliament isn't an example of legitimate opposition that crosses many spectrums. It's an example of a legislative body that agrees with your views. You're confusing dysfunction and abnormality with things like prevalence. Homosexuality is completely natural, but not as prevalent as heterosexuality. Kind of like how green eyes are natural, but not as prevalent as brown eyes. Really not as mystifying as you'd like it to be. Kudos on the Hungarian parliament reference, though. That's a good illustration of a certain type of person who advocates for "limited government." You know, the kind that advocates that the government should stay out of the affairs of individuals, and not interfere with the "liberty" etc. of individuals. Here's the fun part: It's small g stuff when you're getting it, but you want that Big G just sticking it to the groups that you don't like. That State Power to hold down and violate the people you consider deviant and unfit. Interesting stuff. Nicely said, Samnouns, and 100% spot-on, especially your last paragraph. They are all about keeping the government's nose out of their business, while at the same time lobbying government stick it's nose into the business of any and all groups that they don't like. Hypocrisy seems to be their creed. To the forum's readers, Please do not mistake my lack of a direct reply to forum post # 22251 as as giving acquiescence and/or credence to any point its author believes that they've made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 12:25:21 GMT -5
Hungary's parliament isn't an example of legitimate opposition that crosses many spectrums. It's an example of a legislative body that agrees with your views. You're confusing dysfunction and abnormality with things like prevalence. Homosexuality is completely natural, but not as prevalent as heterosexuality. Kind of like how green eyes are natural, but not as prevalent as brown eyes. Really not as mystifying as you'd like it to be. Kudos on the Hungarian parliament reference, though. That's a good illustration of a certain type of person who advocates for "limited government." You know, the kind that advocates that the government should stay out of the affairs of individuals, and not interfere with the "liberty" etc. of individuals. Here's the fun part: It's small g stuff when you're getting it, but you want that Big G just sticking it to the groups that you don't like. That State Power to hold down and violate the people you consider deviant and unfit. Interesting stuff. Nicely said, Samnouns, and 100% spot-on, especially your last paragraph. They are all about keeping the government's nose out of their business, while at the same time lobbying government stick it's nose into the business of any and all groups that they don't like. Hypocrisy seems to be their creed. To the forum's readers, Please do not mistake my lack of a direct reply to forum post # 22251 as as giving acquiescence and/or credence to any point its author believes that they've made.Government is there to stop robbery, killing and is NOT there to codify the abnormal into being normal
|
|
|
Post by samnouns on Jun 16, 2021 14:53:37 GMT -5
The Hungarian parliament isn't qualified to address, nor authoritative on, the subject of whether or not homosexuality is natural. I didn't say that their actions weren't a legitimate function of governance, no matter how biased. It is NOT a bias simply because it contradicts your absurd viewsThere isn't a link between homosexuality and he sexual predation of children. They are both on the same side of the abnormal.That's nothing more than a terrible characterization to justify prejudice against homosexuals. There is no prejudice against homosexuals but a recognition of their abnormality and deviancyI haven't blended anything. You advocate for a small g when the government addresses you, or your interests. But you require that Big G State Power to codify your view and oppress those whom you deem unfit to share in the full benefits of our society. Government is there to stop robbery, killing and is NOT there to codify the abnormal into being normal. The irony would be hilarious if it weren't for the people who have to suffer through that restricted access and ostricization because of it. MANY suffer through different forms of legitimate ostracism.I didn't say anything was biased because it contradicted my views. I said it's biased because it seeks to suppress a marginalized community. Same-sex attraction is exhibited across as large a taxonomic spectrum. It's not abnormal or deviant. For whatever reason, you feel that homosexual individuals aren't entitled to the same society you are. Government exists for a variety of reasons. For this discussion, it exists to secure the rights of individuals. Including homosexuals. As homosexuality is not abnormal, your objection is meaningless. If you're threatened by the existence of homosexuals, perhaps that's a good place for you to direct your animosity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 15:23:32 GMT -5
I didn't say anything was biased because it contradicted my views. I said it's biased because it seeks to suppress a marginalized community. YOU see it that way and the action contradicts YOUR views....duuuh!Same-sex attraction is exhibited across as large a taxonomic spectrum. It's not abnormal or deviant. For whatever reason, you feel that homosexual individuals aren't entitled to the same society you are. It is normal and natural for a man and woman to be attracted to each other AND in love. Biology has designed them for that in the first place. Most understand that, some don't. Each gender is biologically programmed for survival and procreation and to be attracted to the opposite sex for those purposes. A homosexual, male or female , is then by definition defective biologically as something is defective in the wiring of that person. A homosexual is acting against that biologically programmed attraction to the opposite sex. Government exists for a variety of reasons. For this discussion, it exists to secure the rights of individuals. Including homosexuals. As homosexuality is not abnormal, your objection is meaningless. Homosexuals want to be granted Extra rights solely based on who they make love to. It exists but not as a normal condition, much like one who is born with a defective arm, leg or other defects and disorders. If you're threatened by the existence of homosexuals, perhaps that's a good place for you to direct your animosity. Not threatened, just disgusted that MANY like yourself are attempting to force YOUR distorted take on the subject onto the entire population
|
|
|
Post by samnouns on Jun 16, 2021 16:05:55 GMT -5
Gender and sexuality are different things. Perhaps clearing up your confusion on those topics would alleviate some of your more pointed views on the subject of homosexuality.
Genders are not programmed for survival and/or procreation. Although procreation is necessary for the transmission of genes. Thankfully, humans experience life as more than gene dispensers. Do you have children? If so, when you held them in your arms for the first time, did you think "Now I have dispensed my genes!" Or, did you experience something else besides caring about an abtract gene menagerie?
Do you laud sperm and egg donors as the greatest, most charitable humans on the planet? Or, are you intentionally attempting to restrict categories to fit your prejudice against homosexual individuals because they somehow intrude on your experience? Certainly, they're not intruding on your gene transmission, are they?
By "extra," you mean "equal." That's the bias in action. What can homosexuals do that you can't? Get married?
|
|
|
Post by Bogus0Pomp on Jun 16, 2021 16:33:34 GMT -5
To the readers of this forum, Don't mind me. I'm, for a short while, giving Wale what he apparently asked for in forum post #22351, to 'troll his every word.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 19:14:16 GMT -5
To the readers of this forum, Don't mind me. I'm, for a short while, giving Wale what he apparently asked for in forum post #22351, to 'troll his every word.' Buggerpumped cannot contend with differing views that contradict his confused ideas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 19:17:53 GMT -5
Gender and sexuality are different things. THEY are connected as sexuality is a function of one's gender. Perhaps clearing up your confusion on those topics would alleviate some of your more pointed views on the subject of homosexuality. I just cleared them up so YOU can understandGenders are not programmed for survival and/or procreation. Yes they are as their sexuality is assigned through gender. Although procreation is necessary for the transmission of genes. Thankfully, humans experience life as more than gene dispensers. Do you have children? If so, when you held them in your arms for the first time, did you think "Now I have dispensed my genes!" Or, did you experience something else besides caring about an abtract gene menagerie? Do you laud sperm and egg donors as the greatest, most charitable humans on the planet? Or, are you intentionally attempting to restrict categories to fit your prejudice against homosexual individuals because they somehow intrude on your experience? Certainly, they're not intruding on your gene transmission, are they? By "extra," you mean "equal." That's the bias in action. What can homosexuals do that you can't? Get married? No they want EXTRA rights. they want to be considered a separate category based on who they have sex with.
|
|
|
Post by justin on Jun 16, 2021 19:29:18 GMT -5
Adultery is as well, shouldn't my opinion on one be equally dispensed as the other? I make it known that both are sins. A divorced person who remarries is as guilty of sins of the flesh as a person who acts on same sex attraction. As a Catholic, do you give an equal voice to these two sins? Jesus himself talked about the difficulty of marriage to the point where the Apostles were asking him if it wasn't better to not get married (see Matthew 19:10). I think this is a difficult topic and needs to be addressed in a manner that points to a greater happiness, a greater joy and promise. I find it unproductive to reduce it to how we use our genitals. We are children of God, we are loved. Let's begin there. No, lets begin with what Scripture ( God's INSPIRED word) tells us:
Leviticus 18:22 ESV You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Romans 1:26-27 ESV For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 7:2 ESV But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
1 Timothy 1:10 ESV The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
(just a few for a start)
I'm not clear as to your point here. Certainly you don't think I'm ignoring those passages, are you? My point it simple, adultery is very sinful too, and if you're pouring your condemnation out on homosexuals, do you pour equal condemnation on heterosexuals who are not in a proper marriage? You do realize that adultery is mentioned in the Ten Commandments (see the sixth and ninth commandments). Jesus also elevated the importance of marriage in the Gospels. Here's the thing, we were given a free will for a reason... you can't force someone to love you. It has to be a choice, freely given. The promise of the kerygma is not something that can be imposed, it has to be proposed and accepted. If our manner is one of imposition, we are not very good heralds of the good news. Wouldn't you agree?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 20:08:45 GMT -5
I'm not clear as to your point here. scripture is God's word thru the Spirit in print. Certainly you don't think I'm ignoring those passages, are you? Let's say you have minimized the sentiments behind them My point it simple, adultery is very sinful too, and if you're pouring your condemnation out on homosexuals, do you pour equal condemnation on heterosexuals who are not in a proper marriage? I am only presenting what Scripture says, I didn't write them You do realize that adultery is mentioned in the Ten Commandments (see the sixth and ninth commandments). Jesus also elevated the importance of marriage in the Gospels. YES but as the AUTHOR of ALL Scripture, Jesus is making a very important point multiple times.Here's the thing, we were given a free will for a reason... you can't force someone to love you. It has to be a choice, freely given. What has that to do with the sin of homosexuality?The promise of the kerygma is not something that can be imposed, it has to be proposed and accepted. If our manner is one of imposition, we are not very good heralds of the good news. Wouldn't you agree? Our manner should be one of not cowering when presenting the words of Scripture.
|
|
|
Post by justin on Jun 16, 2021 20:17:19 GMT -5
I'm not clear as to your point here. scripture is God's word thru the Spirit in print. Certainly you don't think I'm ignoring those passages, are you? Let's say you have minimized the sentiments behind them My point it simple, adultery is very sinful too, and if you're pouring your condemnation out on homosexuals, do you pour equal condemnation on heterosexuals who are not in a proper marriage? I am only presenting what Scripture says, I didn't write them You do realize that adultery is mentioned in the Ten Commandments (see the sixth and ninth commandments). Jesus also elevated the importance of marriage in the Gospels. YES but as the AUTHOR of ALL Scripture, Jesus is making a very important point multiple times.Here's the thing, we were given a free will for a reason... you can't force someone to love you. It has to be a choice, freely given. What has that to do with the sin of homosexuality?The promise of the kerygma is not something that can be imposed, it has to be proposed and accepted. If our manner is one of imposition, we are not very good heralds of the good news. Wouldn't you agree? Our manner should be one of not cowering when presenting the words of Scripture.Do you cower when condemning those who remarry after divorce? Or an unmarried couple having sex? Those parties are behaving just as sinfully as any same sex couple committing sins of the flesh. Is your vocal condemnation equal across all those offenses against God?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 20:26:04 GMT -5
Do you cower when condemning those who remarry after divorce? Or an unmarried couple having sex? Those parties are behaving just as sinfully as any same sex couple committing sins of the flesh. Not reallyIs your vocal condemnation equal across all those offenses against God? You don't have those people choosing to badger my children in school by brainwashing them into not recognizing the abnormality of homosexuality, so NO. IF they were as vocal as those supporters and advocates for normalizing deviancy , I would be yes.
|
|