|
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.
|
|
|
Post by samnouns on Jun 16, 2021 21:02:56 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.Woops. Sounds like you may need a bit of a refresher course on gender and sexuality. Provide an example of an extra category they wish to be "assigned" to. When you don't, and you run away, I'll understand. It's what you do.
|
|
|
Post by justin on Jun 16, 2021 23:22:54 GMT -5
Then you are not being consistent. Which renders the point you want to make meaningless, and leaves you exposed as someone with irrational fears. You know, Jesus said that if a man were to merely look at a woman with lust, then it would be better for him to tear his eyes out (see Matthew 5:27-29). Frankly, Jesus doesn't say anything nearly as severe as that regarding homosexuality. Wouldn't you agree that our schools should be even more convicted towards proper marriage, than even that of homosexual attraction? Obviously, there are more school aged children with opposite-sex attraction than same-sex attraction. Considering that the vast majority of our school children are attracted to the opposite sex, why are you focused on the minority and those with same-sex attraction? Look Wale, it's not like I disagree with you regarding sins of the flesh... all I'm saying is that we must be consistent and not one sided. All of this is equally important. And, if you are one of those Catholics who picks and chooses what is important like a person going through a line in a cafeteria, then the inconsistency will be a turn-off to those who would otherwise give an honest, candid look at what the Church has to offer. All of us are sinners. All of us have crosses to bear. What good does it do to pretend that we don't have these crosses and refuse to lend a hand to a fellow cross bearer? We're in this life together.... I feel it is best to help one another to the best of our abilities rather than to tear each other down.
|
|
|
Post by argy on Jun 17, 2021 1:53:51 GMT -5
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.
It is also NATURAL (i.e. part of nature) for people of two sexes to be attracted to one another and to be in love. Biology has designed them for that.
Or more correctly, evolution has given large families with a preponderance of male offspring greater reproductive success than those who don't.
Think about it. If it homosexuality was a reproductive disadvantage to a gene pool, it would have been eradicated by natural selection. But it hasn't. In fact, it has been observed in every species studied.
Rubbish. You obviously have no idea how science is done and you have no idea what the methodology was. Stop pretending like you do.
Explain to me why homosexuality could still exist today if it has been a reproductive evolutionary disadvantage for hundreds of millions of years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 6:16:34 GMT -5
Woops. Sounds like you may need a bit of a refresher course on gender and sexuality. Provide an example of an extra category they wish to be "assigned" to. When you don't, and you run away, I'll understand. It's what you do. Homosexuals are Male and Female and belong to every ethnic and nationality distinctions . they want HOMOSEXUAL to be SEPARATE AND LEGITIMATE category and it is a distinction of ABNORMALITY.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 6:38:24 GMT -5
Then you are not being consistent. Which renders the point you want to make meaningless, and leaves you exposed as someone with irrational fears. 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. You know, Jesus said that if a man were to merely look at a woman with lust, then it would be better for him to tear his eyes out (see Matthew 5:27-29). Frankly, Jesus doesn't say anything nearly as severe as that regarding homosexuality. OH but he does as he is the author of ALL the WORDS of Scripture, HE says:Leviticus 20:13 Revised Standard Version 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. Wouldn't you agree that our schools should be even more convicted towards proper marriage, than even that of homosexual attraction? Obviously, there are more school aged children with opposite-sex attraction than same-sex attraction. Considering that the vast majority of our school children are attracted to the opposite sex, why are you focused on the minority and those with same-sex attraction? Because our LEFTIST soldiers are disproportionately using our schools to advance the homosexual agendaLook Wale, it's not like I disagree with you regarding sins of the flesh... all I'm saying is that we must be consistent and not one sided. All of this is equally important. And, if you are one of those Catholics who picks and chooses what is important like a person going through a line in a cafeteria, then the inconsistency will be a turn-off to those who would otherwise give an honest, candid look at what the Church has to offer. I am not. I also speak to what you describe EXCEPT the HOMOSEXUAL topic is the one being discussed here, therefore, the focus will be on..........HOMOSEXUALS AND HOMOSEXUALITYAll of us are sinners. All of us have crosses to bear. What good does it do to pretend that we don't have these crosses and refuse to lend a hand to a fellow cross bearer? YES but that is no excuse to demur and say we haven't discernment nor a duty to communicate the negatives of certain destructive behaviors. According to you then if I discuss ONE sin I must include every single wrongdoing in an equal light and in the same discussion OR I cannot discuss ANY. That's just silly.We're in this life together.... I feel it is best to help one another to the best of our abilities rather than to tear each other down. What YOU feel is of no importance. If you state you are a member of Christianity then you have an obligation to speak against evils when they arise and homosexuality and its supporters are promoting evil and destructive negative behaviors.Your silence or giving a pass lends tacit support for those activities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 6:44:21 GMT -5
It is also NATURAL (i.e. part of nature) for people of two sexes to be attracted to one another and to be in love. Biology has designed them for that.
Or more correctly, evolution has given large families with a preponderance of male offspring greater reproductive success than those who don't.
Think about it. If it homosexuality was a reproductive disadvantage to a gene pool, it would have been eradicated by natural selection. But it hasn't. In fact, it has been observed in every species studied.
Rubbish. You obviously have no idea how science is done and you have no idea what the methodology was. Stop pretending like you do.
Explain to me why homosexuality could still exist today if it has been a reproductive evolutionary disadvantage for hundreds of millions of years. Are you really THIS stupid? Birth defects continue to occur and will from the beginning until the end of time, therefore, the defect of homosexuality as a percentage contrasted to the normal will arise as a percentage
|
|
|
Post by Bogus0Pomp on Jun 17, 2021 11:24:05 GMT -5
... 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. Actually, Wale, it is rather the opposite. That is what we want is to NOT be considered a separate category, singled out to be denied various basic rights, e.g. equal protection under the law, vis a' vis legal recognition of our marriages. As yet, you have not enumerated any of those "EXTRA" right that you claim that we want.
|
|
|
Post by argy on Jun 17, 2021 12:59:02 GMT -5
Explain to me why homosexuality could still exist today if it has been a reproductive evolutionary disadvantage for hundreds of millions of years.Are you really THIS stupid? Birth defects continue to occur and will from the beginning until the end of time,
You don't get it. In the order of one in ten people is homosexual. That's not a small percentage. If it is harmful, it's a huge burden for a population to carry. No birth defect comes close to being that ubiquitous. If homosexuality is a birth defect then so is red hair.
I don't know what that means. Please explain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 13:26:03 GMT -5
... 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. Actually, Wale, it is rather the opposite. That is what we want is to NOT be considered a separate category, singled out to be denied various basic rights, e.g. equal protection under the law, vis a' vis legal recognition of our marriages. As yet, you have not enumerated any of those "EXTRA" right that you claim that we want.
You want EXTRA rights to be considered and granted simply because you are homosexuals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 13:43:50 GMT -5
You don't get it. In the order of one in ten people is homosexual. That's not a small percentage. If it is harmful, it's a huge burden for a population to carry. No birth defect comes close to being that ubiquitous. If homosexuality is a birth defect then so is red hair.
I don't know what that means. Please explain.
There are going to be many afflicted with the birth defect of homosexuality from the beginning of time until the end.
|
|
|
Post by Bogus0Pomp on Jun 17, 2021 14:22:26 GMT -5
Wale, you keep saying that, but you never say EXACTLY WHAT those "EXTRA" rights are. Perhaps, if you told use exactly what those special rights are, then we'd BOTH know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 15:09:13 GMT -5
Wale, you keep saying that, but you never say EXACTLY WHAT those "EXTRA" rights are. Perhaps, if you told use exactly what those special rights are, then we'd BOTH know.
The Constitution does NOT recognize the abhorrent behavior of homosexuality as a legally protected distinction and never has. When it was adopted and ratified, homosexuality NEVER was even a consideration. Homosexuals have always wanted their dysfunctional lifestyle to be validated as normal so they made a push for things like SAME SEX marriage as a clandestine validation of homosexuality. If homosexuals can marry then they are equal all around by law and by society. Only in the really recent past has it occurred incorrectly to a segment of the population to consider homosexuals and rights for homosexuals as normal, whereas in the past it was properly considered outside the realm of normal. SO, the "rights" of the constitution only apply to normal characteristics and people. Not abnormalcy like homosexuality. Many assert that homosexuals deserve an extra classification equal to race, ethnicity, gender etc.Homosexuals fit ALL the existing categories. No one is preventing them from doing what two consenting adults can do; however, they want to use institutions and traditions to have society legitimize their lifestyle and behavior and by using these traditions, a de facto acceptance by society, who still for the most part sees their behavior as out of the norm.
|
|
|
Post by argy on Jun 17, 2021 17:37:01 GMT -5
You don't get it. In the order of one in ten people is homosexual. That's not a small percentage. If it is harmful, it's a huge burden for a population to carry. No birth defect comes close to being that ubiquitous. If homosexuality is a birth defect then so is red hair.
I don't know what that means. Please explain.
There are going to be many afflicted with the birth defect of homosexuality from the beginning of time until the end.
And red hair, too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 17:38:09 GMT -5
There are going to be many afflicted with the birth defect of homosexuality from the beginning of time until the end.
And red hair, too.
But those with red hair are not pushing society to grant separate recognition or grant extra rights for having red hair!
|
|
|
Post by argy on Jun 17, 2021 17:58:40 GMT -5
Wale, you keep saying that, but you never say EXACTLY WHAT those "EXTRA" rights are. Perhaps, if you told use exactly what those special rights are, then we'd BOTH know.
The Constitution does NOT recognize the abhorrent behavior of homosexuality as a legally protected distinction and never has. When it was adopted and ratified, homosexuality NEVER was even a consideration.
What legal treatments are homosexuals requesting that are not afforded to heterosexuals?
I can't see any, myself, but maybe you know something I don't. Can you name one or two so I can get the gist of what you're talking about?
That sounds like you think equality is oppressing you. Is there something dysfunctional about loving a man? If so, what does your wife think?
By the way, the push for same sex marriage is hardly "clandestine", it's right out there in public view.
Ah, now you're getting it! That's a good thing.
The same can be said of slavery, no? And women - who only managed to earn the right to vote in the last hundred years. The simple fact is that your society has evolved beyond the narrow views that were prevalent at the time your constitution was written.
Are you saying your constitution distinguishes against the handicapped - people with birth defects, the blind, the deaf, people with mongolism or red hair?
What classification are you talking about? And who is asserting it?
So you agree that laws against homosexuality should be repealed? It should not be illegal? They should be treated equally?
Should they have the right to vote? Work in the police force, fight for your country in the armed services?
If you think society as a whole thinks homosexuality is a an abomination then you need your social radar recalibrated. It is quite clear that society's attitude to homosexuality has changed spectacularly quickly - it's been less than a generation. If they haven't done so already, every civilised country is moving towards giving homosexuals equal rights to heterosexuals.
I think that's your problem. You look like an old man shouting at clouds. The world has passed you by and you don't know it yet.
Things have changed. Get over it. Move on.
|
|