Queer people of faith

wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Queer people of faith

As a total faggot, I sometimes wish I was born earlier, before the AIDS epidemic began. Why? Because, at that point in history, being queer also meant you were a skeptic and freethinker, if not a downright atheist. The guy you were fucking wouldn't have to take a condom out of his ass and go to church the next morning.

 

After the AIDS epidemic, we saw lots of gay men running back to faith. This is when the gay-friendly churches were founded, later to be follow by the gay Jewish and gay Muslim help groups.

 

As someone who was president of my university's queer organization, and someone who has been relatively active in the community (ie, sleeps around a a shitload), I will certainly say that queer people of faith outnumber those who are freethinkers. We even have queers who are "waiting for marriage." The only thing I'd say is notable is the high amounts of New Age faiths, such as Wicca.

 

Now, there was a good two years where my religion and my queerness overlapped, and that was because I couldn't think of a rational way to reject my religious beliefs, and my understanding of Islam had always been rather liberal anyway. But, when I did find a way out, oh boy did I jump off that boat.

 

So, honestly, for other queers here, or others with at least some vague familiarity with the community, does the high amount of religious folk these days bother you? Unlike me, not all of them want a way out of faith. Certainly they're not as dogmatic as the straight ones, but still, why do they resign themselves to religious groups, where 90% of the believers find their lifestyle and feelings an abomination, as opposed to a philosophical position that almost anyone who holds it affirms their rights? It's just moronic.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:OMG this is

Sandycane wrote:

OMG this is tooo funny - I just read your signature:

I am really into animal husbandry.

Are you sure you think 'sex with chickens' is nasty?

Ok, might as well let you in on that joke. A few years back I took my cat and dog to the vet. My vet told me my cat had herpes and my dog had a yeast infection. You're still going to laugh even if the vet explains that it is not species transferable. 

I rolled my eyes too going, how the hell am I going to explain this to people without them making a joke of it.

So, I don't remember when I put that in my sig, but probably after I got home with the news. Oh, and if you think you are giving it to me here, it is a running joke at work to this day.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Sandycane

Brian37 wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Thanks for pointing that out Sandy, seriously, that was funny. Duh, my name is Brian, I like shiny objects.

 

No problem.

I wasn't sure what you meant but, I was pretty sure you didn't mean what you said... unless you grew up on a farm.

Okay. So, you think sex with chickens IS nasty. What about people who don't think it's nasty? Do you have the right to say it is nasty (yucky) even though others may not think so?

It is natural strictly in the sense that we do observe and have accounts of humans having sex with animals. But so is cancer. It doesn't mean that it is desirable or socially acceptable. It merely means it happens.

It IS nasty, not just yucky. First off it is not consensual and does cause pain to the animal. Secondly it is not the same species. People who do this have a fetish that is outside a normal range of sexuality.

It is like any crime most humans find nasty. Raping children is part of our human history in that some do it,  but normal parents who are not fucked in the head will react negatively to the harm to the child.

Nature is neither good or bad, it is BOTH good and bad.

Murder is natural, not because people want to be murdered, but only in the sense that it is a recorded and observable event. By murder, I don't mean self defense or mutual combat. I mean something selfish as in murdering your neighbor for their money. Or murdering your spouse in a jealous rage.

Morality is that which is consensual and does no harm. Sex with animals is not consensual and does harm even if not the animal, if it is lucky, can be psychological scaring to other humans who might view it.

 

 

 

Brian

I have to say nature is not good or bad nor is it good and bad, nature just is. We have come up with the concept of good and bad and at it's deep dark heart these two things break down to productive and unproductive. Bad and good have changed. What may have been bad at one time may be good now and vice versa. Nature does not play this game nor does it have a mind too, again, it just is. Productive behavior in society is generally looked upon as "good" helping the homeless, sharing food, etc etc. Bad things or "unproductive" things would of course include killing one another, stealing from each other etc this is not productive to the society as a whole and as society progresses it changes it's mind about some things. blah blah you should know this.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Sandycane

Brian37 wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Thanks for pointing that out Sandy, seriously, that was funny. Duh, my name is Brian, I like shiny objects.

 

No problem.

I wasn't sure what you meant but, I was pretty sure you didn't mean what you said... unless you grew up on a farm.

Okay. So, you think sex with chickens IS nasty. What about people who don't think it's nasty? Do you have the right to say it is nasty (yucky) even though others may not think so?

It is natural strictly in the sense that we do observe and have accounts of humans having sex with animals. But so is cancer. It doesn't mean that it is desirable or socially acceptable. It merely means it happens.

It IS nasty, not just yucky. First off it is not consensual and does cause pain to the animal. Secondly it is not the same species. People who do this have a fetish that is outside a normal range of sexuality.

It is like any crime most humans find nasty. Raping children is part of our human history in that some do it,  but normal parents who are not fucked in the head will react negatively to the harm to the child.

Nature is neither good or bad, it is BOTH good and bad.

Murder is natural, not because people want to be murdered, but only in the sense that it is a recorded and observable event. By murder, I don't mean self defense or mutual combat. I mean something selfish as in murdering your neighbor for their money. Or murdering your spouse in a jealous rage.

Morality is that which is consensual and does no harm. Sex with animals is not consensual and does harm even if not the animal, if it is lucky, can be psychological scaring to other humans who might view it.

Once again, you dodged a simple question and replied with non-related mumbo-jumbo. I did not ask for someones opinion on the moral value of having chicken sex. I asked a simple question that requires either a 'yes' or a 'no' answer. I'll ask it again:

Do you have the right to say it (having sex with a chicken) is nasty (yucky) even though others may not think so (having sex with a chicken is yucky) (even if you've never done it and know no one who has)?

Yes or No, Brian.

One down, one to go. They're a size 11 1/2 for my grandson... I  hope they fit.

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Once again,

Sandycane wrote:

Once again, you dodged a simple question and replied with non-related mumbo-jumbo. I did not ask for someones opinion on the moral value of having chicken sex. I asked a simple question that requires either a 'yes' or a 'no' answer. I'll ask it again:

Do you have the right to say it (having sex with a chicken) is nasty (yucky) even though others may not think so (having sex with a chicken is yucky) (even if you've never done it and know no one who has)?

Yes or No, Brian.

This is the thread that never ends.  You don't equate being gay with having sex with an animal.  It's not about yucky factor, that's completely idiotic, it's about doing no harm.  What two consensual adults do, and what some hick does to a chicken are not one and the same. 

Are you being dense on purpose to piss Brian off, or are you just dense?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:BrianI have to

robj101 wrote:

Brian

I have to say nature is not good or bad nor is it good and bad, nature just is. We have come up with the concept of good and bad and at it's deep dark heart these two things break down to productive and unproductive. Bad and good have changed. What may have been bad at one time may be good now and vice versa. Nature does not play this game nor does it have a mind too, again, it just is. Productive behavior in society is generally looked upon as "good" helping the homeless, sharing food, etc etc. Bad things or "unproductive" things would of course include killing one another, stealing from each other etc this is not productive to the society as a whole and as society progresses it changes it's mind about some things. blah blah you should know this.

Of course nature is not good or bad, good and bad are completely relative terms.  Productive and unproductive are relative to what your goals are.  If my goal is to sit around all day and recuperate, watching TV all day is being productive... The point is morality is subjective, nobody is debating that, but it is relative to a frame of reference which we all share.  You can justify killing people as being OK in your POV, but we don't have to agree with you and say it's all good.  Again, if your goal is to become the most prolific serial killer, killing a lot of people is being productive Smiling

I may be mistaken, but I think you're trying to draw a parallel between productive/unproductive, and good/bad.  Which is correct to a certain degree, but if you're trying to segue into gays are not being productive because they do not bare offspring from sexual intercourse... you my friend, have a lot of 'splain to do.

Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Sandycane

Ktulu wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Once again, you dodged a simple question and replied with non-related mumbo-jumbo. I did not ask for someones opinion on the moral value of having chicken sex. I asked a simple question that requires either a 'yes' or a 'no' answer. I'll ask it again:

Do you have the right to say it (having sex with a chicken) is nasty (yucky) even though others may not think so (having sex with a chicken is yucky) (even if you've never done it and know no one who has)?

Yes or No, Brian.

This is the thread that never ends.  You don't equate being gay with having sex with an animal.  It's not about yucky factor, that's completely idiotic, it's about doing no harm.  What two consensual adults do, and what some hick does to a chicken are not one and the same. 

Are you being dense on purpose to piss Brian off, or are you just dense?

As far as I know Brian is the one who has instigated a direct comparison between gays and someone having sex with a chicken. I believe he got this idea back when I was trying to express "nasty stuff" in a comparative way when I was discussing what the religious might think about gays. He is trying to make it seem like someone here actually compared gays to someone having sex with a chicken. 

L

O

L

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:robj101

Ktulu wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Brian

I have to say nature is not good or bad nor is it good and bad, nature just is. We have come up with the concept of good and bad and at it's deep dark heart these two things break down to productive and unproductive. Bad and good have changed. What may have been bad at one time may be good now and vice versa. Nature does not play this game nor does it have a mind too, again, it just is. Productive behavior in society is generally looked upon as "good" helping the homeless, sharing food, etc etc. Bad things or "unproductive" things would of course include killing one another, stealing from each other etc this is not productive to the society as a whole and as society progresses it changes it's mind about some things. blah blah you should know this.

Of course nature is not good or bad, good and bad are completely relative terms.  Productive and unproductive are relative to what your goals are.  If my goal is to sit around all day and recuperate, watching TV all day is being productive... The point is morality is subjective, nobody is debating that, but it is relative to a frame of reference which we all share.  You can justify killing people as being OK in your POV, but we don't have to agree with you and say it's all good.  Again, if your goal is to become the most prolific serial killer, killing a lot of people is being productive Smiling

I may be mistaken, but I think you're trying to draw a parallel between productive/unproductive, and good/bad.  Which is correct to a certain degree, but if you're trying to segue into gays are not being productive because they do not bare offspring from sexual intercourse... you my friend, have a lot of 'splain to do.

Smiling

I didn't correlate it with gays in any way. The whole thing is subjective to society as a whole and the individual btw. I usually speak of it in the societal way however I knew when I hit post I should have pointed out individually this productive and non-productive idea may vary.

 As an easy example someone may want to steal and to them as an individual this could seem productive whereas society in general frowns upon and condones theft, it is unproductive to the whole as we have deemed thus far. Perhaps someday theft might be considered productive .. but I doubt it.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:if you're trying

Ktulu wrote:

if you're trying to segue into gays are not being productive because they do not bare offspring from sexual intercourse... you my friend, have a lot of 'splain to do.

Smiling

It was stated in this thread that homosexuality is a 'problem', and that it in fact causes 'harm'.

Sandycane wrote:
 homosexuality causes harm to the species in regards to survival and procreation.

This is non sequitur.

It causes no harm, in the same way that recreational sex, or abstinence does. Which is to say that it doesn't do any 'harm'.

Sandycane wrote:
homosexuality is a symptom of an overall larger problem with our society. While fertility may at the present time be 'adequate', it is a fact that infertility rates are soaring and the population growth rates in civilized countries is in decline. If this combination continues, survival of the human species is threatened to extinction. 

This insinuates that because some studies show infertility rates on the rise, that homosexuality is a symptom for a larger problem, which is also non sequitur.

Both these quotes are demonstrably false.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
As the first cause (or first

As the first cause (or first faggot) behind this topic, in the last couple of days I have been called upon. I shall do my best.

 

Sandycane wrote:

I have a question... I suppose only the homosexuals here can honestly answer it...

What is it, exactly,  that a man is attracted to in another man or, a woman to another woman? Is it purely because same- sex turns them on or, they are physically attracted to a member of the same sex?

I just don't get it but, I'm trying to.

 

Sandycane wrote:

I think what I have a problem with is the promiscuity, experimentation and bed-hopping that is attached to the whole gay movement. I have the same problem with that type of heterosexual behavior.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Hey Tinkerbell, if you are still reading this, jump in. He wont accept my word for it, and any gays reading this please feel free to jump in.

Do the gays reading this think of their sexuality as a "lifestyle"? Do you think of yourselves as having a problem needing to be fixed?

Now, Rob, when they respond READ and learn and shut your own fucking mouth for a few seconds.

 

 

Tinkerbell reporting for duty.

First, I'm not going into the whole "WHY DO YOU LIKE MEN" thing because that's not interesting and no one really wants to read another thing about me and cock.

Now, ironic since it was brought up quite randomly later in the topic, my initial post was lamenting the death of the gay lifestyle, which included extreme atheism, radical feminism, and all kinds of sex with all kinds of people. The fact is, this stereotype exists, but after the fucking AIDS epidemic it was curtailed severely. The gay lifestyle helped spread the HIV virus, not just due to sexual promiscuity, but drug use and the like. The mirage of the gay lifestyle saw many gay men running back to religion. That's why I made this topic.

Most gay men and women have left the gay lifestyle to the ash heap of history. It was unhealthy and unsustainable. But part of me thought... if we had moderated it back in the 70s, maybe we could've saved ourselves from the AIDS epidemic that destroyed what was only a decade or two of our liberation. We only had ten years of victory and freedom before AIDS hit. And maybe gays could still be in the forefront of feminism and atheism, rather than being traditional Catholics and the like.

Most gays don't follow the gay lifestyle. Even in the 70s, most gay men were still closeted and did not follow the gay lifestyle. The gay lifestyle was short lived, but quickly branded as the supposed "standard" for every gay man by straight society, and many people still view gay men as bedhoppers. Gay men are probably more promiscuous than straight men, but not significantly so. And gay women are another category that deserves special attention, but are less stereotyped and more sexualized, so since there was little of that going on I won't address it. Anyway, present stats on gay sex:

 

- 45% of gay men and women have had 5 or fewer partners (vs. 44% for straights)

- 98% of gay men and women have had 20 or fewer partners (vs. 99% for straights)

- Just 2% of gay men and women have had 23% of the total reported gay sex (the last remnants of the gay lifestyle)

- 25% of heterosexuals claims to have had homosexual sexual encounters

 

SOURCE: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/page/5/

 

What "gay lifestyle" really still exists? We have the same statistics as heterosexuals, and are much cuter too.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

They stand up to the kind of people who would rather just spit in my face and pat themselves on the back for it, rather than talk to me, so no, it doesn't bother me.

What bothers me are the religious gays who preach abstinence and shame. Now that's moronic.

True... I guess I should view it like that instead.

And last but not least, as secular humanists, gay or straight, male or female, it is statistics like this we are fighting against. Stupidity, apparently, discriminates at the tiny margin of 5%:

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Ktulu

robj101 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Once again, you dodged a simple question and replied with non-related mumbo-jumbo. I did not ask for someones opinion on the moral value of having chicken sex. I asked a simple question that requires either a 'yes' or a 'no' answer. I'll ask it again:

Do you have the right to say it (having sex with a chicken) is nasty (yucky) even though others may not think so (having sex with a chicken is yucky) (even if you've never done it and know no one who has)?

Yes or No, Brian.

This is the thread that never ends.  You don't equate being gay with having sex with an animal.  It's not about yucky factor, that's completely idiotic, it's about doing no harm.  What two consensual adults do, and what some hick does to a chicken are not one and the same. 

Are you being dense on purpose to piss Brian off, or are you just dense?

As far as I know Brian is the one who has instigated a direct comparison between gays and someone having sex with a chicken. I believe he got this idea back when I was trying to express "nasty stuff" in a comparative way when I was discussing what the religious might think about gays. He is trying to make it seem like someone here actually compared gays to someone having sex with a chicken. 

L

O

L

Once again, YOU missed my point.

If others are willing to equate gays to that "nasty stuff" AND you wish gays would "stay quiet sometimes" YOU are coddling the insecurities of others. AND you even admitted to such "I wont post that picture of two guys kissing because my friend's wouldn't understand".

If you were merely saying "THomophobes look at it like sex with chickens", you wouldn't have added "gays should be quiet sometimes".

What would have been better to follow that analogy up with would be, "Thats their hang up and gays shouldn't have to put up with that".

That is not what you did. You advocated gays shutting up because someone else might not like them. That makes me think you yourself have your own insecurities you are not facing, or ignoring.

And even from the start I said, when I wasn't sure what you meant I offered you a way to clarify, "IF IF IF IF IF  that is not what you meant".

The bottom line is that gays don't have sex with chickens and anyone that might equate the two are assholes who deserve to be challenged and gays should never have to shut up because of the insecurities of others.

You didn't say anything like that, instead you coddled the insecurities of bigots.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
wingless_sephiroth

wingless_sephiroth wrote:
First, I'm not going into the whole "WHY DO YOU LIKE MEN" thing because that's not interesting and no one really wants to read another thing about me and cock.

You're not gonna shove your gayness down our throaths ?

wingless_sephiroth wrote:
Now, ironic since it was brought up quite randomly later in the topic, my initial post was lamenting the death of the gay lifestyle, which included extreme atheism, radical feminism, and all kinds of sex with all kinds of people. The fact is, this stereotype exists, but after the fucking AIDS epidemic it was curtailed severely. The gay lifestyle helped spread the HIV virus, not just due to sexual promiscuity, but drug use and the like. The mirage of the gay lifestyle saw many gay men running back to religion. That's why I made this topic.

Ah right...I forgot you were from the olden days. We do have some other gay folk here, but I think you're the only one who lived through that period.

All I know from that time I gleaned from John Waters anecdotes. He'd probably have an interesting take on all this.

To me, this sounds more like a hippy lifestyle, rather than a typically gay lifestyle, but I missed that era too, so what do I know.

wingless_sephiroth wrote:
Most gay men and women have left the gay lifestyle to the ash heap of history. It was unhealthy and unsustainable. But part of me thought... if we had moderated it back in the 70s, maybe we could've saved ourselves from the AIDS epidemic that destroyed what was only a decade or two of our liberation. We only had ten years of victory and freedom before AIDS hit. And maybe gays could still be in the forefront of feminism and atheism, rather than being traditional Catholics and the like.

Interesting thought. Still, leaving aside the self-hating gays, I rather like some of the religious and conservative homos we have these days. Like I said, they can talk to people I can't even approach, and they do. I think we're going to need them.

wingless_sephiroth wrote:
What "gay lifestyle" really still exists? We have the same statistics as heterosexuals, and are much cuter too.

Excessive cuteness is such a burden. You heterosexual people have no idea.


wingless_sephiroth wrote:

And last but not least, as secular humanists, gay or straight, male or female, it is statistics like this we are fighting against. Stupidity, apparently, discriminates at the tiny margin of 5%:

 

Holy crap.

Now that's fucking depressing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Brian37

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Thanks for pointing that out Sandy, seriously, that was funny. Duh, my name is Brian, I like shiny objects.

 

No problem.

I wasn't sure what you meant but, I was pretty sure you didn't mean what you said... unless you grew up on a farm.

Okay. So, you think sex with chickens IS nasty. What about people who don't think it's nasty? Do you have the right to say it is nasty (yucky) even though others may not think so?

It is natural strictly in the sense that we do observe and have accounts of humans having sex with animals. But so is cancer. It doesn't mean that it is desirable or socially acceptable. It merely means it happens.

It IS nasty, not just yucky. First off it is not consensual and does cause pain to the animal. Secondly it is not the same species. People who do this have a fetish that is outside a normal range of sexuality.

It is like any crime most humans find nasty. Raping children is part of our human history in that some do it,  but normal parents who are not fucked in the head will react negatively to the harm to the child.

Nature is neither good or bad, it is BOTH good and bad.

Murder is natural, not because people want to be murdered, but only in the sense that it is a recorded and observable event. By murder, I don't mean self defense or mutual combat. I mean something selfish as in murdering your neighbor for their money. Or murdering your spouse in a jealous rage.

Morality is that which is consensual and does no harm. Sex with animals is not consensual and does harm even if not the animal, if it is lucky, can be psychological scaring to other humans who might view it.

 

 

 

Brian

I have to say nature is not good or bad nor is it good and bad, nature just is. We have come up with the concept of good and bad and at it's deep dark heart these two things break down to productive and unproductive. Bad and good have changed. What may have been bad at one time may be good now and vice versa. Nature does not play this game nor does it have a mind too, again, it just is. Productive behavior in society is generally looked upon as "good" helping the homeless, sharing food, etc etc. Bad things or "unproductive" things would of course include killing one another, stealing from each other etc this is not productive to the society as a whole and as society progresses it changes it's mind about some things. blah blah you should know this.

Now you are just arguing semantics. DUH, nature, just like the universe, is a thing, not a judgment or something capable of judgment. It just is. DUH,

"good and bad" are our reactions to things we want or don't want affecting us, and yes, what worked at one tome may not work later.

Thats what I mean bey it being both good and bad.

But I do agree it does point out that anthropomorphic language is a cluster fuck for laymen and especially theists because they cant see what you and I know and needlessly attach emotional comic book crap to it.

So maybe I do need to avoid saying "good and bad" or when I do, to a better job at explaining that good and bad are our reactions to simply what is.

See how easy that is, when someone points out an error, you fix it without getting defensive.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Ktulu wrote:if

redneF wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

if you're trying to segue into gays are not being productive because they do not bare offspring from sexual intercourse... you my friend, have a lot of 'splain to do.

Smiling

It was stated in this thread that homosexuality is a 'problem', and that it in fact causes 'harm'.

Sandycane wrote:
 homosexuality causes harm to the species in regards to survival and procreation.

This is non sequitur.

It causes no harm, in the same way that recreational sex, or abstinence does. Which is to say that it doesn't do any 'harm'.

Sandycane wrote:
homosexuality is a symptom of an overall larger problem with our society. While fertility may at the present time be 'adequate', it is a fact that infertility rates are soaring and the population growth rates in civilized countries is in decline. If this combination continues, survival of the human species is threatened to extinction. 

This insinuates that because some studies show infertility rates on the rise, that homosexuality is a symptom for a larger problem, which is also non sequitur.

Both these quotes are demonstrably false.

 

 

I'll admit that what I said here should have been posed as a question, not as a statement of fact...

(Does) homosexuality causes harm to the species in regards to survival and procreation (?)

(Is) homosexuality is a symptom of an overall larger problem with our society (?)

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Sandycane

Ktulu wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Once again, you dodged a simple question and replied with non-related mumbo-jumbo. I did not ask for someones opinion on the moral value of having chicken sex. I asked a simple question that requires either a 'yes' or a 'no' answer. I'll ask it again:

Do you have the right to say it (having sex with a chicken) is nasty (yucky) even though others may not think so (having sex with a chicken is yucky) (even if you've never done it and know no one who has)?

Yes or No, Brian.

This is the thread that never ends.  You don't equate being gay with having sex with an animal.  It's not about yucky factor, that's completely idiotic, it's about doing no harm.  What two consensual adults do, and what some hick does to a chicken are not one and the same. 

Are you being dense on purpose to piss Brian off, or are you just dense?

Good God Almighty. No one is equating gays with chicken sex.

My question is simple,

Do you have the right to say it (having sex with a chicken) is nasty (yucky) even though others may not think so (having sex with a chicken is yucky) (even if you've never done it and know no one who has)?

It has nothing to do with whether chicken sex is yucky or, non-yucky but ONLY to do with whether or not someone has the right to exress their opinion.

Maybe if I reword it:

I think gay sex is yucky. A gay person does not think so. Do I have the right to express my opinion?

Absolutely no different than:

Brian thinks eating broccoli is yucky. I do not. Does Brian have the right to express his dislike for broccoli?

 

I don't know how to be more clear about this.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
wingless_sephiroth wrote:And

wingless_sephiroth wrote:

And last but not least, as secular humanists, gay or straight, male or female, it is statistics like this we are fighting against. Stupidity, apparently, discriminates at the tiny margin of 5%:

 

 

So, now you post a graphic that shows, of the people asked this question, more women think the Earth is larger than the Sun?

The source of the poll is OKCupid and if you ask me, anyone who frequents an online dating service is stupid anyway.

Polls are meaningless, if you don't consider the source. Duh.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Ooh, look what I found!A map

Ooh, look what I found!

A map from OKCupid showing the location of gays

and a map showing the location of arsenic in ground water

So what.

Does that prove that homosexuality is caused by arsenic?

Of course not (but, the comparrison is interesting    ).

Just as a poll from an online dating service does not prove that most women believe that the Earth is larger than the Sun. Duh..

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Just as a

Sandycane wrote:

Just as a poll from an online dating service does not prove that most women believe that the Earth is larger than the Sun. Duh..

Uhm....I'm not much good at math, but a little over 10% isn't "most", no matter how you look at it.

Anyway, he never meant to "prove" anything with that, I think. The only thing anyone could possibly get from that is that gay and straight folk (those frequenting that site) have about the same percentage of stupid people. But that's just me.

If you really think he's trying to prove something there, maybe we can just ask him, before we eagerly reach for the wrong end of the stick once again.

 

Okay ?

 

 


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Okay ?

Anonymouse wrote:

Okay ?

'kay.

Let's get back to my question:

Quote:

Good God Almighty. No one is equating gays with chicken sex.

 

My question is simple,

Do you have the right to say it (having sex with a chicken) is nasty (yucky) even though others may not think so (having sex with a chicken is yucky) (even if you've never done it and know no one who has)?

It has nothing to do with whether chicken sex is yucky or, non-yucky but ONLY to do with whether or not someone has the right to exress their opinion.

Maybe if I reword it:

I think gay sex is yucky. A gay person does not think so. Do I have the right to express my opinion?

Absolutely no different than:

Brian thinks eating broccoli is yucky. I do not. Does Brian have the right to express his dislike for broccoli?

 

I don't know how to be more clear about this.  

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Anonymouse

Sandycane wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Okay ?

'kay.

Let's get back to my question:Good God Almighty. No one is equating gays with chicken sex.

 

Quote:

My question is simple,

Do you have the right to say it (having sex with a chicken) is nasty (yucky) even though others may not think so (having sex with a chicken is yucky) (even if you've never done it and know no one who has)?

It has nothing to do with whether chicken sex is yucky or, non-yucky but ONLY to do with whether or not someone has the right to exress their opinion.

Maybe if I reword it:

I think gay sex is yucky. A gay person does not think so. Do I have the right to express my opinion?

Absolutely no different than:

Brian thinks eating broccoli is yucky. I do not. Does Brian have the right to express his dislike for broccoli?

 

I don't know how to be more clear about this.  

 

 

Since this seems to be about semantics, and english is my fourth language, I'd probably better keep out of this to avoid further confusion.

Still, I guess I'd add that there are plenty of straight people who don't think gay sex is yucky, but you already knew that. And if there's some sort of connection between your idea of sex between two adult, consenting humans and sex with chickens or eating any kind of vegetable, I'm not really getting it.

 

Okay, so you think gay sex is yucky. Message received.

It would take too many questions for me to even come close to figure out what you mean by that, so I'll limit myself to one :

 

So how about gay romance ? Is that yucky too ?

(btw, I guess I should remind you that I very much appreciate that you want to talk about this. Usually when people tell me that, in their opinion, gay sex is yucky, they also want to kick my face in. So I'm grateful for the chance to discuss this in a civil manner. Believe it or not, I'm interested in your opinion )


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Ooh, look

Sandycane wrote:

Ooh, look what I found!

A map from OKCupid showing the location of gays

and a map showing the location of arsenic in ground water

So what.

Does that prove that homosexuality is caused by arsenic?

Of course not (but, the comparrison is interesting    ).

Just as a poll from an online dating service does not prove that most women believe that the Earth is larger than the Sun. Duh..

 

<I removed the maps only in the interest of saving space.>

The graph for stupidity is not what bother me.

It was the idea that I am in the 1% of the heterosexual population that -------

I didn't think I was all that unusual for a 60s relic.

 

edit:  Maybe it is just that 60s relics didn't answer that poll.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Thanks for pointing that out Sandy, seriously, that was funny. Duh, my name is Brian, I like shiny objects.

 

No problem.

I wasn't sure what you meant but, I was pretty sure you didn't mean what you said... unless you grew up on a farm.

Okay. So, you think sex with chickens IS nasty. What about people who don't think it's nasty? Do you have the right to say it is nasty (yucky) even though others may not think so?

It is natural strictly in the sense that we do observe and have accounts of humans having sex with animals. But so is cancer. It doesn't mean that it is desirable or socially acceptable. It merely means it happens.

It IS nasty, not just yucky. First off it is not consensual and does cause pain to the animal. Secondly it is not the same species. People who do this have a fetish that is outside a normal range of sexuality.

It is like any crime most humans find nasty. Raping children is part of our human history in that some do it,  but normal parents who are not fucked in the head will react negatively to the harm to the child.

Nature is neither good or bad, it is BOTH good and bad.

Murder is natural, not because people want to be murdered, but only in the sense that it is a recorded and observable event. By murder, I don't mean self defense or mutual combat. I mean something selfish as in murdering your neighbor for their money. Or murdering your spouse in a jealous rage.

Morality is that which is consensual and does no harm. Sex with animals is not consensual and does harm even if not the animal, if it is lucky, can be psychological scaring to other humans who might view it.

 

 

 

Brian

I have to say nature is not good or bad nor is it good and bad, nature just is. We have come up with the concept of good and bad and at it's deep dark heart these two things break down to productive and unproductive. Bad and good have changed. What may have been bad at one time may be good now and vice versa. Nature does not play this game nor does it have a mind too, again, it just is. Productive behavior in society is generally looked upon as "good" helping the homeless, sharing food, etc etc. Bad things or "unproductive" things would of course include killing one another, stealing from each other etc this is not productive to the society as a whole and as society progresses it changes it's mind about some things. blah blah you should know this.

Now you are just arguing semantics. DUH, nature, just like the universe, is a thing, not a judgment or something capable of judgment. It just is. DUH,

"good and bad" are our reactions to things we want or don't want affecting us, and yes, what worked at one tome may not work later.

Thats what I mean bey it being both good and bad.

But I do agree it does point out that anthropomorphic language is a cluster fuck for laymen and especially theists because they cant see what you and I know and needlessly attach emotional comic book crap to it.

So maybe I do need to avoid saying "good and bad" or when I do, to a better job at explaining that good and bad are our reactions to simply what is.

See how easy that is, when someone points out an error, you fix it without getting defensive.

 

 

Sarcasm, cynicism and being a general smart ass doesn't always denote a defensive stance.

 

"But I do agree it does point out that anthropomorphic language is a cluster fuck for laymen and especially theists because they cant see what you and I know and needlessly attach emotional comic book crap to it." This can be applied in more than one way obviously.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Before I reply to you on the

Before I reply to you on the above, I've got to tell you what my (87) year old mother just said when I mentioned what we were talking about.

She said, 'Sex is sex, they don't do anything different than what opposite sex partners do.' and that 'The reason men are queer is because they always have their dick in their hand - 3-4 times a day when they go to the bathroom and sex is always on their mind (in their hand??? ).' Then she said she 'could be a lesbian because women are cleaner then men, their bodies are more attractive then men' and men are generally dirty and disgusting.

I am a product of my environment.

 

Okay, now to Anonymouse...

 

 

Quote:
Since this seems to be about semantics, and english is my fourth language, I'd probably better keep out of this to avoid further confusion.

Still, I guess I'd add that there are plenty of straight people who don't think gay sex is yucky, but you already knew that. And if there's some sort of connection between your idea of sex between two adult, consenting humans and sex with chickens or eating any kind of vegetable, I'm not really getting it.

You're not getting it because there is no connection between chicken sex, vegetables and gays.

 

Quote:
Okay, so you think gay sex is yucky. Message received.
Good. Now, answer me this, since you know that I think gay sex is yucky: Do I have the right to say it is yucky? Simple question, yes or, no. Because that is the issue here; one's right to express their opinion on any given subject whether it be chicken sex, vegetables or, gays.

Quote:
It would take too many questions for me to even come close to figure out what you mean by that, so I'll limit myself to one :

So how about gay romance ? Is that yucky too ?

If you mean huggy-kissy-smoochie stuff, yes that is also yucky to me. However, let me make it clear (again) that I feel what two people do together is their own business and if they don't think it's yucky more power to them. How I feel about it is my personal opinion and should make no difference to them at all.

Quote:
(btw, I guess I should remind you that I very much appreciate that you want to talk about this. Usually when people tell me that, in their opinion, gay sex is yucky, they also want to kick my face in. So I'm grateful for the chance to discuss this in a civil manner. Believe it or not, I'm interested in your opinion )

Thank you for saying that.   I am interested in your opinion too.

I just want to make it clear that, even though I feel that gay sex is yucky, I have no inclination to stop anyone from doing what makes them happy. I also want people to acknowledge the fact that I have a right to express my opinions on the subject. I don't have to agree with you to be tolerant of you. (gee, where did I see that before, pdw? )

The problem with some of the others here is that they are not willing to tolerate my views simply because I do not agree with theirs.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandy,you said somewhere

Sandy,

you said somewhere that

Quote:

If Blake were here, I'm sure he would strongly object to Bob's comment also. 'Harm' is a wishy-washy term, what is harm to one is, pleasure to another.

New Oxford American Dictionary wrote:

'harm':

physical injury, esp. that which is deliberately inflicted : it's fine as long as no one is inflicting harm on anyone else.
• material damage : it's unlikely to do much harm to the engine.
• actual or potential ill effect or danger : I can't see any harm in it.

That is the sort of thing that I was referring to when I used the word. 'Wishy-washy'?? Are you now going to bring in sado-masochism, because that is the standard context in which someone finds pleasure in 'harm'.

Is English your third language??

To complete the record, I would also included 'distress', and I think in may have mentioned it somewhere, which the same dictionary says refers to "extreme anxiety, sorrow, or pain".

===============

Also for the record, it looks like Brian was the first to mention 'yucky', in post #157:

Quote:

It boils down to data. Other than "I find gays yucky" what do people have? Nothing.

I used it in #217:

Quote:

Morals should be based on minimizing harm to others, not on personal 'yuck' reactions.

robj conceded 'I used to think it was "yucky" '.

OK. That helps explain some of his reactions, why he tends to think of pretty 'yucky' examples to illustrate his points around gay activities, even if he no longer consciously thinks of them in such terms.

========

Sandy, its ok to say you think gay sex is 'yucky'. What I and some others find a bit problematic is when you say it in a context which can make it at least sound like you are blurring the line between your preferences and an implication you think others 'should' share that opinion.

This comes across when you attempt to give objective justification, such as when you responded to my 'definition' of 'bad' with

Quote:

I said homosexuality causes harm to the species in regards to survival and procreation.

Which is factually and objectively incorrect. At worst, it may not help reproduction, although 'gay' individuals can assist in child-rearing with less risk of being seen as a potential challenge to the male parent for sexual access to the female.

There is also evidence that it can be a positive for social bonding, and that 'gay' inclination can be associated with other attributes that contribute in other ways.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: robj

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

robj conceded 'I used to think it was "yucky" '.

 

Not to mention when I compared it "nasty things" (as Brian quaintly put it) I was actually describing homosexuality from a religious persons view back when I was demonstrating why atheism and homosexuality should be two separate topics.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:BobSpence1

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

robj conceded 'I used to think it was "yucky" '.

 

Not to mention when I compared it "nasty things" (as Brian quaintly put it) I was actually describing homosexuality from a religious persons view back when I was demonstrating why atheism and homosexuality should be two separate topics.

I personally will refer to homosexuality when attacking religion, because I regard it as a prime example of the disconnect between religious 'morality' and a decent, rational approach to morality, involving empathy and considerations of actual or potential harm arising from some action, including issues of consent.

I can see what your concern is, but I have always been uncomfortable with a 'strategic' approach to such discussions, rather than honestly putting forth my views.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Before I

Sandycane wrote:

Before I reply to you on the above, I've got to tell you what my (87) year old mother just said when I mentioned what we were talking about.

She said, 'Sex is sex, they don't do anything different than what opposite sex partners do.'

That's exactly how I would put it. Which is why I don't see what anyone's reason could be for finding same-sex sex yucky.

That's what I want to know : The reason why people hold that opinion. 

 

Sandycane wrote:
Good. Now, answer me this, since you know that I think gay sex is yucky: Do I have the right to say it is yucky? Simple question, yes or, no. Because that is the issue here; one's right to express their opinion on any given subject whether it be chicken sex, vegetables or, gays

Huh ?? That's seriously the issue here ? I guess I should have read the whole thread before jumping in.

Yes, of course you have the right to say whatever you like. I just don't think that particular opinion of yours makes any sense.

But you do, so I hope you can tell me why.

 

Sandycane wrote:
  If you mean huggy-kissy-smoochie stuff,

No sorry, I should have been more clear. There are other ways that you can sense deep affection between two guys who are in love.

I guess what I'm trying to find out is simply this : What exactly is the yucky part for you ? Is it the love, is it the sex, or is it both ?

I'll rephrase that : Do you find gay love yucky ? The fact that I love him so much that I would die for him, is that yucky ? (It's corny, sure, but it's true. But is it yucky ? )

 

Sandycane wrote:
I just want to make it clear that, even though I feel that gay sex is yucky, I have no inclination to stop anyone from doing what makes them happy. I also want people to acknowledge the fact that I have a right to express my opinions on the subject. I don't have to agree with you to be tolerant of you. (gee, where did I see that before, pdw? )

The problem with some of the others here is that they are not willing to tolerate my views simply because I do not agree with theirs.

Well, if it helps, I've seen quite a few threads here were people argue for weeks, only to realise in the end, they never really disagreed in the first place.


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Sandy, its

BobSpence1 wrote:

Sandy, its ok to say you think gay sex is 'yucky'. What I and some others find a bit problematic is when you say it in a context which can make it at least sound like you are blurring the line between your preferences and an implication you think others 'should' share that opinion.

This comes across when you attempt to give objective justification, such as when you responded to my 'definition' of 'bad' with

Quote:

I said homosexuality causes harm to the species in regards to survival and procreation.

Which is factually and objectively incorrect. At worst, it may not help reproduction, although 'gay' individuals can assist in child-rearing with less risk of being seen as a potential challenge to the male parent for sexual access to the female.

There is also evidence that it can be a positive for social bonding, and that 'gay' inclination can be associated with other attributes that contribute in other ways.

Glad you cleared that up: Brian is officially responsible for introducing the 'Y' word. Thank you, Brian.

Yes, I see your point. I have admitted earlier that there were instances when I should have posed a question instead of stating a 'fact'. I will try to be aware of that in the future.

Quote:
'Sandy, its ok to say you think gay sex is 'yucky'
Thank you, Bob. Now, if Brian will be as gracious I will be a happy camper.

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:That's

Anonymouse wrote:

That's exactly how I would put it. Which is why I don't see what anyone's reason could be for finding same-sex sex yucky.

Mom's been saying a lot of strange things lately, though.  Truth is, as far back as I can remember, she has said that 'men are dirty' and 'sex is disgusting'... and I've done my part to prove her wrong. Not all men are 'dirty' and not all sex is 'disgusting'. I have found through personal experience that sex without love is unsatisfying and at this point in my life I can easily do without sex, and will, until the 'right' man comes along and I fall in love again.  To me, sex without love is like wanting fillet Mignon and being served a burger instead.

Quote:
That's what I want to know : The reason why people hold that opinion. 
Why do I find gay sex yucky? Good question. Can't say as I have a reasonable answer. The way I was brought up? The society I was raised in? Books I've read? Movies I've watched? Music I've listened to? Family structures I was a part of and witnessed outside of my home?

Gayness was never a part of my life and other than what I read and see outside of my personal life, it still has no part in my life. I don't personally know any gay people and I can't say as I've ever formally met any.

I suppose the reason it seems yucky to me is that it is completely foreign to my life as I know it. Probably no different than the way some react to people in foreign countries dining on dogs or grubs.   I would call those delicacies yucky, too.  ... and NO, Brian, I am not comparing gay people to dead dogs or grubs.

 ...

Quote:
Yes, of course you have the right to say whatever you like. I just don't think that particular opinion of yours makes any sense.

But you do, so I hope you can tell me why.

Hopefully, I've explained it.

 ...

Quote:
No sorry, I should have been more clear. There are other ways that you can sense deep affection between two guys who are in love.

I guess what I'm trying to find out is simply this : What exactly is the yucky part for you ? Is it the love, is it the sex, or is it both ?

I'll rephrase that : Do you find gay love yucky ? The fact that I love him so much that I would die for him, is that yucky ? (It's corny, sure, but it's true. But is it yucky ? )

To be honest, I'd have to say both love and sex. brotherly love, love between sisters, the love between a father and son, between a mother and daughter, between best friends and such is normal to me. Romantic love and show of affection between a man and a woman is normal to me.

Obviously, two men and two women can love each other the way a man and a woman can and that's great but, that concept is completely alien to me.

 ...

Quote:
Well, if it helps, I've seen quite a few threads here were people argue for weeks, only to realise in the end, they never really disagreed in the first place.

Could happen here, too.

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Sandycane wrote: To me, sex

Sandycane wrote:
 To me, sex without love is like wanting fillet Mignon and being served a burger instead.

 

Actually filet mignon can make a tasty low fat burger. You have to use something to make up for the fat, I usually use one egg per pound of meat. Just grind the filet, mix with an egg and whatever spices your heart desires. Cook on the grill, I wouldn't recommend cooking it past medium-rare and you have one hell of a burger, with virtually no fat. Works well with wooing the ladies, not sure about gay men- never tried it.   

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sandycane wrote:
 To me, sex without love is like wanting fillet Mignon and being served a burger instead.

 

Actually filet mignon can make a tasty low fat burger. You have to use something to make up for the fat, I usually use one egg per pound of meat. Just grind the filet, mix with an egg and whatever spices your heart desires. Cook on the grill, I wouldn't recommend cooking it past medium-rare and you have one hell of a burger, with virtually no fat. Works well with wooing the ladies, not sure about gay men- never tried it.   

 

Correction: To me, sex without love is like wanting fillet Mignon and being served ground chuck.

Quote:
Works well with wooing the ladies, not sure about gay men- never tried it.  
I hate to cook anymore... sounds like you would make a great house-husband.

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:robj101

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

robj conceded 'I used to think it was "yucky" '.

 

Not to mention when I compared it "nasty things" (as Brian quaintly put it) I was actually describing homosexuality from a religious persons view back when I was demonstrating why atheism and homosexuality should be two separate topics.

I personally will refer to homosexuality when attacking religion, because I regard it as a prime example of the disconnect between religious 'morality' and a decent, rational approach to morality, involving empathy and considerations of actual or potential harm arising from some action, including issues of consent.

I can see what your concern is, but I have always been uncomfortable with a 'strategic' approach to such discussions, rather than honestly putting forth my views.

If your way bears fruit then I don't have a problem at all with it. Actually you can talk about gays and atheism all day if you want, I was just trying to be helpful as I would really like to see these two issues move forward. Anything to make it easier is "good" in my book. This is just my opinion and I'm glad you can at least see it even if you don't appreciate it.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Mom's been

Sandycane wrote:
Mom's been saying a lot of strange things lately, though.

Actually, that first thing she said seemed like plain common sense to me.

Sandycane wrote:
To me, sex without love is like wanting fillet Mignon and being served a burger instead.

That's my take on it too. If I was in it for the sex, I could do a lot better.

Sandycane wrote:
Why do I find gay sex yucky? Good question. Can't say as I have a reasonable answer.

Well, admiting you don't have a reasonable answer..., that's a pretty good answer in itself. Shockingly honest too.

Sorry, I've been talking too much to a certain theist here, so I'm not used to honesty anymore.

Sandycane wrote:
The way I was brought up? The society I was raised in? Books I've read? Movies I've watched? Music I've listened to? Family structures I was a part of and witnessed outside of my home?

Gayness was never a part of my life and other than what I read and see outside of my personal life, it still has no part in my life. I don't personally know any gay people and I can't say as I've ever formally met any.

Why, hello there. I'm Casper. Nice to meet you.

Sandycane wrote:
I suppose the reason it seems yucky to me is that it is completely foreign to my life as I know it. Probably no different than the way some react to people in foreign countries dining on dogs or grubs.   I would call those delicacies yucky, too.  ... and NO, Brian, I am not comparing gay people to dead dogs or grubs.

So then it's not unreasonable to assume, even though you might not be able to imagine it right now, that your opinion could change ? And all it would take would be a positive experience ?

Sandycane wrote:
Could happen here, too.

Just did, I think.

Damn, now we're all out of conflict. I'll go watch some TV then. Thanks for the chat.


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
wingless_sephiroth

wingless_sephiroth wrote:

That's true, but they go nine years further than theism all the way to organized religions which have massacred them for thousands of years. And, I mean, on the topic of gay Muslims, there are entire works of literature out there defending that identity. What the fuck, man.

You know what's really weird? In Iran, being gay is punishable by death - unless you have a sex change operation, and the government provides sex change operations for gay men free of charge. So in fundamentalist Islamic Iran it's actually easier for a guy to get a sex change operation than it is in the "liberal" West. Go figure..

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Why, hello

Anonymouse wrote:

Why, hello there. I'm Casper. Nice to meet you.

Hello Casper, my name is sandy. Nice to meet you, too.

Quote:
So then it's not unreasonable to assume, even though you might not be able to imagine it right now, that your opinion could change ? And all it would take would be a positive experience ?
I don't see why not. When i was little, I used to think green peas were yucky.  I hated the way they popped and turned to mush in my mouth. Now i like them. The one thing predictable about me is that i can be very unpredictable.

Quote:
Just did, I think.

Damn, now we're all out of conflict. I'll go watch some TV then. Thanks for the chat.

Thank you, too.

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Thank you,

Sandycane wrote:
Thank you, Bob. Now, if Brian will be as gracious I will be a happy camper.

I'm not going to hold my breath for that one

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)