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.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Well said,

Well said, Wingless.

---

Again, evolution is a blind natural process, so any implication of a conscious "intention" or "mistake" is simply meaningless. All genes that successfully occupy a large portion of the gene pool of a species did so because those genes were able to be replicated. No one will dispute that a single homosexual individual is less likely to reproduce than a single heterosexual individual, but the conclusions that people often derive from this premise are unsound. It is a very intuitive oversimplification of genetics.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Well

butterbattle wrote:

Well said, Wingless.

---

Again, evolution is a blind natural process, so any implication of a conscious "intention" or "mistake" is simply meaningless. All genes that successfully occupy a large portion of the gene pool of a species did so because those genes were able to be replicated. No one will dispute that a single homosexual individual is less likely to reproduce than a single heterosexual individual, but the conclusions that people often derive from this premise are unsound. It is a very intuitive oversimplification of genetics.

precisely.  it all boils down to if someone accepts teleology or not.  nature has no concept of "supposed to" or "how x should work."  evolution only tries to solve concrete problems posed by the environment affecting the reproductive rate of any given species, and does so imperfectly at that.

i remember a video clip of richard dawkins meeting with a biologist to examine a dissected giraffe, and how they both agreed that if there were any intelligent design behind this animal it would have to be grossly incompetent.  as far as i'm concerned, if one accepts teleology, they basically believe in intelligent design.

take cancer as another example, where the body basically self-destructs out of no apparent necessity.  this flies in the face of any sort of teological conception of nature.

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

    I just finished scanning a few articles about identical twins and the incidence of homosexuality occurring among both twins.  I believe the probability was around 52%  that both twins would exhibit as homosexuals.     For fraternal twins it was about 20'ish.    The overall impression as I perceived it is that it is a blending of genetic traits combined with environmental factors,  the genetic factor being more prevalent for the identical twins, though. 

   There were of course exceptions that were discovered among these studies.  That's the extent of my investigation so far.

Right.

It is indeed a blending, as I already said.

.

So you are backing up what I said.

 

 

    Yes.  I was simply conceding a point.  I think my difference with your pov was that I considered any genetic component to be a decisive / overriding factor.   I have been known to reconsider or update my own views regarding various topics, that's why I am now an atheist and no longer a Christian.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Sandycane wrote:butterbattle

Sandycane wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

If all they're saying is that heterosexuality is more common than homosexuality, then there is absolutely nothing to discuss. This is such an obvious and banal point that I find it ridiculous that this accurately summarizes what has happened here.

I'm not sure about rob and prozac, but Sandy at least contributed to much of the confusion. She now claims that all she meant is that homosexuality is not the "norm," and she never intended any negative connotations, but if you look back in the thread, this isn't consistent with some of what she wrote at all.

Sandycane wrote:
How can a person with a logical mind and respect for scientific facts justify homosexuality?

 

I think things were going relatively well until I said...

Quote:
Why not you being dominated by another man? Because two men together is not 'natural'... just as two women together isn't. Sorry but, that's just the way I see it. Mind you, I'm not saying 'right' or 'wrong'... it's just not the way Nature intended it to be, imo.

...and then there was Bob who wanted to redefine and nit pick.

That is where you are thinking like a theist. Nature, be it the universe OR evolution HAS NO "INTENT"!

Everything is a result of processes, not intent.

Evolution is not about intent. Just like stars are different sizes and planets have different atmospheres, humans are a RANGE as well. Why should sexuality be any different than the rest of nature and the universe?

I am really getting sick of this debate. It is 2011, not 1950. Gays are NOT subhuman or a "mistake" or a "mental illness". They are a ratio in evolution and the behavior exists in other mammals at around the same ratio.

Grow up. Stop acting like a bigoted believer. You sound just like a Christian "it's not natural to be an atheist".

You simply don't like the thought of people of the same sex having sex. SO THE FUCK WHAT. I don't like the thought of fat people naked.

This amounts to you conflating your own personal desires and projecting them on others. JUST LIKE A THEIST

Remember how you are treating gays the next time a Christian equates you to Hitler because you don't believe.

Stick to "it's not my thing" and leave it at that, and no one will jump on you. Keep up this crap and you WILL continue to get what you deserve.

If you are going to insist that Nature has "intent" then you might as well believe in the story of Adam and Eve and believe in God.

 

 

 

 

"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
BobSpence1 wrote:robj101

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Remember, this thread is really about what deserves being regarded as 'abnormal' behaviour, not 'abnormal' births or related anomalies, so your comment about how you regard an abnormal 'egg' is beside the point.

Bob you are probably a good dance partner.

Now being homosexual is just behavior? is it now a purely personal choice? They were not born or made this way by environment or upbringing etc?

It is a behaviour, perhaps more accurately described as a behaviour pattern, as distinct from being a physical attribute.

That has nothing to do it with being a personal choice or not. There will be an element of choice in who to engage with, and how, but the individuals who the person is most attracted to, and the kind of acts which they find most pleasurable, will be strongly influenced by their psychological 'profile' which is not a matter of conscious choice. It is a matter of genetic inheritance, upbringing and personal life experience, as I previously said.

This is entirely consistent with my previous arguments.

When you look at women, do you run some calculations and decide who best fits your current criteria, then crank up the lust and desire mechanism and point it at the one that comes out of the calculations? Or you just find yourself drawn more to some more than others? Don't some just get the juices flowing when you look at them, and some don't? It ain't a conscious choice. It's what works with your particular 'chemistry'. 

There are more attractive and less attractive people, I assume bone structure plays into this as well as a narrow waist and nice hips etc (where women are concerned for me and most guys  probably), ergo subconciously when I look at a woman I am looking for good breeding material. I don't uncociously see good breeding material in other men I suppose, nor do I conciously if I actually think about it.

You can pretend everything we like about people is a concious thought if you like but there is a reason some people are physically attracted to others and it's not all like "hmm I like so n so about that person". It's like an instinctual thing, especially at first glance, the thinking part comes afterwards.

You were saying?

I was saying "which is not a matter of conscious choice." and "It ain't a conscious choice." How do either of those statements suggest I am "pretend(ing) everything we like about people is a concious thought". WTF???

Did make the same mistake robj did, assuming that when I said  it was a 'behaviour pattern', that that implied a conscious choice?

It seems to imply it since you extrapolated that homosexuality could simply be a personal choice and if so it would be going against (as Sandycane suggested) nature.

If however nature does have a hand in it it may not be a concious decison because they were gay at birth or gay from environemental issues and upbringing therefore they might be programmed for homosexuality nulling the "concious" inference I instigated.

Show me where I ever implied that homosexuality "could simply be a personal choice". If I seemed to say anything like that, it was either a typo or me getting my sentence construction stuffed up. In any case, how do you square that with me explicitly stating it wasn't a choice, twice in the one post, right there?

And even a 'personal choice' would not necessarily mean "going against nature", since the evidence is that our 'nature' allows for a range of sexual expression, including homosexuality, within which any 'choice' would not be 'against nature". 

Of course 'nature' is involved, since something like 30-40% seems to be genetic.

Our "nature" allows for us to fly to the moon, it also allows for us to torture one another. You are mixing up "nature" and "human nature" two different things. Nature is a process that basicly works through trial and error The strong live and the weak die, human nature is a set of traits we as humans share in common which can change because we are thinking animals. Homosexuality is not "against nature" in the way you are choosing to put it. However if you consider how nature has set us upto have intercourse homosexuals do go against the grain. It is perfectly natural for them to do so, they are that new tire that blew out I was nudging you towards a personification with earlier.

You see the problem here is that you absolutely refuse to believe there could be a problem with gays. You want them so badly to be just like a hetero..they just like to have sex with the same gender and to your thinking it is exactly the same as having sex with the opposite gender and you can even work it out in your head how it's great and awesome, hell maybe it's even better!

Maybe there are many many gays where you live, maybe you want the option to be gay because such a thing appeals to you deep down, maybe your pcness has driven you to this edge. I don't know, you tell me Bob. I believe when asked we would probably say pretty much the same thing about them. We don't see them causing any harm by being gay, we would likely both be for them having the same rights etc. but where we differ is in that you think they are "normal" and I do not, why is that?

Edit: btw you inferred it could be a personal choice early on ^ way up there.

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
Brian37 wrote:  Remember

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

Remember how you are treating gays the next time a Christian equates you to Hitler because you don't believe

 

I don't think she said anything about *treating* them in any way mr. thought police. "wew wew wew stop, you are not allowed to think bad thoughts about people you have to think what I think"

That's a funny analogy considering the debate on Hitler's "atheism", only a blind fool would actually equate Hitler to atheism and I would hardly bother to seriously argue or consider such a statement unless somehow it really did touch a nerve. Usually a touchy nerve denotes a problem.

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
robj101 wrote: Our "nature"

robj101 wrote:
Our "nature" allows for us to fly to the moon, it also allows for us to torture one another. You are mixing up "nature" and "human nature" two different things.

Wha?...

robj101 wrote:
  Nature is a process that basicly works through trial and error.

Ummm, no.

That's a gross misinterpretation of natural selection.

robj101 wrote:
 The strong live and the weak die

That's not an accurate description at all of evolution by natural selection.

Discounting personal health, life and death is largely due to circumstantial environmental factors, which are 'random' (sic).

robj101 wrote:
 human nature is a set of traits we as humans share in common which can change because we are thinking animals.

Now you are conflating our 'consciousness' thought patterns, with our ability to overcome, or succomb to environmental factors.

robj101 wrote:
Homosexuality is not "against nature" in the way you are choosing to put it.

False dichotomy and a category error.

robj101 wrote:
However if you consider how nature has set us upto have intercourse homosexuals do go against the grain.

You are anthropomorphising 'nature'.

Did nature 'set up' for some humans to have acne?

robj101 wrote:
You see the problem here is that you absolutely refuse to believe there could be a problem with gays.

There is no problem with gays.

There is no problem with humans who are sterile.

There is no problem with humans who do not choose to procreate.

robj101 wrote:
We don't see them causing any harm by being gay, we would likely both be for them having the same rights etc. but where we differ is in that you think they are "normal" and I do not, why is that?

Many of us don't see the point, in focusing on the fact that they're not likely to procreate, when others are not likely to procreate for different reasons.

Are people who are strictly vegan something to concern ourselves with, because they'll upset the ecosystem?...

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


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Our "nature"

robj101 wrote:

Our "nature" allows for us to fly to the moon, it also allows for us to torture one another. You are mixing up "nature" and "human nature" two different things. Nature is a process that basicly works through trial and error The strong live and the weak die, human nature is a set of traits we as humans share in common which can change because we are thinking animals. Homosexuality is not "against nature" in the way you are choosing to put it. However if you consider how nature has set us upto have intercourse homosexuals do go against the grain. It is perfectly natural for them to do so, they are that new tire that blew out I was nudging you towards a personification with earlier.

You see the problem here is that you absolutely refuse to believe there could be a problem with gays. You want them so badly to be just like a hetero..they just like to have sex with the same gender and to your thinking it is exactly the same as having sex with the opposite gender and you can even work it out in your head how it's great and awesome, hell maybe it's even better!

Maybe there are many many gays where you live, maybe you want the option to be gay because such a thing appeals to you deep down, maybe your pcness has driven you to this edge. I don't know, you tell me Bob. I believe when asked we would probably say pretty much the same thing about them. We don't see them causing any harm by being gay, we would likely both be for them having the same rights etc. but where we differ is in that you think they are "normal" and I do not, why is that?

Edit: btw you inferred it could be a personal choice early on ^ way up there.

 

'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
robj101 wrote:Brian37

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Remember how you are treating gays the next time a Christian equates you to Hitler because you don't believe

I don't think she said anything about *treating* them in any way mr. thought police. "wew wew wew stop, you are not allowed to think bad thoughts about people you have to think what I think"

That's a funny analogy considering the debate on Hitler's "atheism", only a blind fool would actually equate Hitler to atheism and I would hardly bother to seriously argue or consider such a statement unless somehow it really did touch a nerve. Usually a touchy nerve denotes a problem.

You are correct, in fact, I said gays should be entitled to the same basic human rights that everyone else is.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:Nature is a process

Quote:
Nature is a process that basicly works through trial and error The strong live and the weak die,

NO, you are only partially correct. It is trial and error AND LUCK. It is not always a matter of the strongest surviving.

Lets say you have a 150lb, 5 foot 9, man who never learned to fight, but buys a gun. Lets say this guy runs into a 250lb guy 6 feet tall, at a bar, and the big guy starts a fight with the smaller guy. The smaller guy shoots the bigger guy and the bigger guy dies. Lets say the smaller guy goes on to get married and have kids. The bigger guy dies never having had kids. Who won in this case?

Evolution is about ADAPTATION and LUCK it is not either or, but a combo and all it requires is that you get to the point of reproduction. Physical health and genetics CAN play a role but it is not the only aspect of evolution.

It is no different than shuffling a deck of cards and having the 5 of clubs ending up on top as a "presentation". Shuffle them again and then the king of hearts ends up on top as a "presentation". Not all of it is genetic what can end up "presenting" can also be as early part of egg development in the uterus.

Bigger and stronger is not everything, it is one aspect and is not a given. You could be muscle bound and if you die before you reproduce you lose, your genes do not move on. And homosexuals CAN and do have sex for the purpose of having offspring. Sex is not the same issue as sexuality. Having a boner does not equal attraction. You can have a biological reflex without the desire.

Some people, and I am not talking about people reading this, just in general, can and often do confuse sex acts with sexuality. Having a boner DOES NOT always equal attraction. It can be a reflex alone to stimuli without the desire. It is why gay person can ejaculate if married to a woman and have kids. It isn't that they are attracted to the woman, but their desire to have offspring can override their personal sexuality.

Many males reading this old enough to remember getting a boner in class for seemingly no reason. Are you attracted to the teacher, another student, are you secretly wanting to jack off in front of everyone? NO. It can be simply a boner and nothing more than your body responding to stimuli.

If homosexuals could not produce kids then how come they DO produce kids?

BECAUSE SEX AND SEXUALITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. It is a common mistake to confuse attraction to body mechanics.

 

 

 

 

 

"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
redneF wrote:robj101 wrote:

redneF wrote:

robj101 wrote:
Our "nature" allows for us to fly to the moon, it also allows for us to torture one another. You are mixing up "nature" and "human nature" two different things.

Wha?...

robj101 wrote:
  Nature is a process that basicly works through trial and error.

Ummm, no.

That's a gross misinterpretation of natural selection.

robj101 wrote:
 The strong live and the weak die

That's not an accurate description at all of evolution by natural selection.

Discounting personal health, life and death is largely due to circumstantial environmental factors, which are 'random' (sic).

robj101 wrote:
 human nature is a set of traits we as humans share in common which can change because we are thinking animals.

Now you are conflating our 'consciousness' thought patterns, with our ability to overcome, or succomb to environmental factors.

robj101 wrote:
Homosexuality is not "against nature" in the way you are choosing to put it.

False dichotomy and a category error.

robj101 wrote:
However if you consider how nature has set us upto have intercourse homosexuals do go against the grain.

You are anthropomorphising 'nature'.

Did nature 'set up' for some humans to have acne?

robj101 wrote:
You see the problem here is that you absolutely refuse to believe there could be a problem with gays.

There is no problem with gays.

There is no problem with humans who are sterile.

There is no problem with humans who do not choose to procreate.

robj101 wrote:
We don't see them causing any harm by being gay, we would likely both be for them having the same rights etc. but where we differ is in that you think they are "normal" and I do not, why is that?

Many of us don't see the point, in focusing on the fact that they're not likely to procreate, when others are not likely to procreate for different reasons.

Are people who are strictly vegan something to concern ourselves with, because they'll upset the ecosystem?...

I reeally hate taking the time to inbetween post like this and answer each individual assesment on it's own.

First statement was an example of what human nature can cause, surely you can see that?

How exactly am I "grossly misinterpreting" natural selection, read up on it and get back to me, trial and error merely oversimplifies it and it is a general depiction. I assume most people here are intelligent enough to understand the basics of "natural selection" and "evolution" so I didn;t go into great detail, if you need an explanation on this subject merely ask and it shall be given.

Overcome or succumb or ..go with? dur

I should have said "the process of nature" rather than nature, you got me there.

Yes nature set us up for some humans to potentially have acne. Silly question. excuse me "the process of nature" has given some people more oily skin than others but I don't believe acne was the issue here. Straw

"There is no problem with gays.

There is no problem with humans who are sterile.

There is no problem with humans who do not choose to procreate."

All superficial opinion in the same way I would say there is no problem with people who want to count the leaves on a tree.

The rest is redundant.

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
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Nature

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Nature is a process that basicly works through trial and error The strong live and the weak die,

NO, you are only partially correct. It is trial and error AND LUCK. It is not always a matter of the strongest surviving.

Lets say you have a 150lb, 5 foot 9, man who never learned to fight, but buys a gun. Lets say this guy runs into a 250lb guy 6 feet tall, at a bar, and the big guy starts a fight with the smaller guy. The smaller guy shoots the bigger guy and the bigger guy dies. Lets say the smaller guy goes on to get married and have kids. The bigger guy dies never having had kids. Who won in this case?

Evolution is about ADAPTATION and LUCK it is not either or, but a combo and all it requires is that you get to the point of reproduction. Physical health and genetics CAN play a role but it is not the only aspect of evolution.

It is no different than shuffling a deck of cards and having the 5 of clubs ending up on top as a "presentation". Shuffle them again and then the king of hearts ends up on top as a "presentation". Not all of it is genetic what can end up "presenting" can also be as early part of egg development in the uterus.

Bigger and stronger is not everything, it is one aspect and is not a given. You could be muscle bound and if you die before you reproduce you lose, your genes do not move on. And homosexuals CAN and do have sex for the purpose of having offspring. Sex is not the same issue as sexuality. Having a boner does not equal attraction. You can have a biological reflex without the desire.

Some people, and I am not talking about people reading this, just in general, can and often do confuse sex acts with sexuality. Having a boner DOES NOT always equal attraction. It can be a reflex alone to stimuli without the desire. It is why gay person can ejaculate if married to a woman and have kids. It isn't that they are attracted to the woman, but their desire to have offspring can override their personal sexuality.

Many males reading this old enough to remember getting a boner in class for seemingly no reason. Are you attracted to the teacher, another student, are you secretly wanting to jack off in front of everyone? NO. It can be simply a boner and nothing more than your body responding to stimuli.

If homosexuals could not produce kids then how come they DO produce kids?

BECAUSE SEX AND SEXUALITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. It is a common mistake to confuse attraction to body mechanics.

 

 

 

 

 

Luck, yea and if they are unlucky they die or get pushed to the back.

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
If homosexuality is a

If homosexuality is a 'personal choice' then it is possible to not be so - obviously... and is proven by all of the gays who maintain a 'double-life'.

If it is caused by genetics, then it is also possible to choose to not be homosexual since it is not a physical abnormality like say, being born a hermaphrodite.

Whether any genetic abnormality is 'intended' by nature for a beneficial purpose or, not imo, has yet to be proven.

Also, there are many genetic mutations, caused by the environment which would not be naturally occurring if humans had not had a direct part in causing them.

Take fluoride consumption for example. It effects the body at a cellular level and causes damage to the DNA. Sure, this damage would occur naturally but, not in the magnitude it does now as a result of fluoride being mass distributed and mass consumed by humans.

Consider all of the other hazardous chemicals and toxins produced by humans and introduced into the environment that would not be there had humans not put them there.

Just because a certain behavior or, medical condition exists and can be related to a genetic cause does not make it 'normal' or, part of a natural evaluational process.

Cancer is a perfect example of the body reacting in an abnormal way because of hazardous outside factors that have a negative effect at a cellular level and not as nature intended it to.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
robj101 wrote:Brian37

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Nature is a process that basicly works through trial and error The strong live and the weak die,

NO, you are only partially correct. It is trial and error AND LUCK. It is not always a matter of the strongest surviving.

Lets say you have a 150lb, 5 foot 9, man who never learned to fight, but buys a gun. Lets say this guy runs into a 250lb guy 6 feet tall, at a bar, and the big guy starts a fight with the smaller guy. The smaller guy shoots the bigger guy and the bigger guy dies. Lets say the smaller guy goes on to get married and have kids. The bigger guy dies never having had kids. Who won in this case?

Evolution is about ADAPTATION and LUCK it is not either or, but a combo and all it requires is that you get to the point of reproduction. Physical health and genetics CAN play a role but it is not the only aspect of evolution.

It is no different than shuffling a deck of cards and having the 5 of clubs ending up on top as a "presentation". Shuffle them again and then the king of hearts ends up on top as a "presentation". Not all of it is genetic what can end up "presenting" can also be as early part of egg development in the uterus.

Bigger and stronger is not everything, it is one aspect and is not a given. You could be muscle bound and if you die before you reproduce you lose, your genes do not move on. And homosexuals CAN and do have sex for the purpose of having offspring. Sex is not the same issue as sexuality. Having a boner does not equal attraction. You can have a biological reflex without the desire.

Some people, and I am not talking about people reading this, just in general, can and often do confuse sex acts with sexuality. Having a boner DOES NOT always equal attraction. It can be a reflex alone to stimuli without the desire. It is why gay person can ejaculate if married to a woman and have kids. It isn't that they are attracted to the woman, but their desire to have offspring can override their personal sexuality.

Many males reading this old enough to remember getting a boner in class for seemingly no reason. Are you attracted to the teacher, another student, are you secretly wanting to jack off in front of everyone? NO. It can be simply a boner and nothing more than your body responding to stimuli.

If homosexuals could not produce kids then how come they DO produce kids?

BECAUSE SEX AND SEXUALITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. It is a common mistake to confuse attraction to body mechanics.

 

 

 

 

 

Luck, yea and if they are unlucky they die or get pushed to the back.

Ok, a gay guy and a straight guy are in a car. The gay guy wears his seat belt, the straight guy does not. The car hits a tree, the gay guy suffers limited non threatening injury, the straight guy goes through the windshield and dies.

You keep wanting to make evolution about "majority rules" as if it were a form of government. IT IS NOT.

You have minorities in a population and majorities in a population as a general manifestation, NOT an absolute. Life is a range and a combo, not a fucking script.

LIFE IS NOT A FUCKING SCRIPT, IT IS A RANGE.

 

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
How many heterosexuals DIED

How many heterosexuals DIED as a result of Katrina? How many heterosexuals died as a result of the tsunami in Japan? LUCK is just as much part of evolution as range and genetics. It is not either or. It is not black and white. It is not as simple as you are stupidly trying to make it out to be.

 

"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:How many

Brian37 wrote:

How many heterosexuals DIED as a result of Katrina? How many heterosexuals died as a result of the tsunami in Japan? LUCK is just as much part of evolution as range and genetics. It is not either or. It is not black and white. It is not as simple as you are stupidly trying to make it out to be.

 

I'm not making luck out to be anything Brian, you are assuming. I wouldn't even call it luck I would say "chance" Luck seems to add a superstitious connotation.

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
Brian37 wrote:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Nature is a process that basicly works through trial and error The strong live and the weak die,

NO, you are only partially correct. It is trial and error AND LUCK. It is not always a matter of the strongest surviving.

Lets say you have a 150lb, 5 foot 9, man who never learned to fight, but buys a gun. Lets say this guy runs into a 250lb guy 6 feet tall, at a bar, and the big guy starts a fight with the smaller guy. The smaller guy shoots the bigger guy and the bigger guy dies. Lets say the smaller guy goes on to get married and have kids. The bigger guy dies never having had kids. Who won in this case?

Evolution is about ADAPTATION and LUCK it is not either or, but a combo and all it requires is that you get to the point of reproduction. Physical health and genetics CAN play a role but it is not the only aspect of evolution.

It is no different than shuffling a deck of cards and having the 5 of clubs ending up on top as a "presentation". Shuffle them again and then the king of hearts ends up on top as a "presentation". Not all of it is genetic what can end up "presenting" can also be as early part of egg development in the uterus.

Bigger and stronger is not everything, it is one aspect and is not a given. You could be muscle bound and if you die before you reproduce you lose, your genes do not move on. And homosexuals CAN and do have sex for the purpose of having offspring. Sex is not the same issue as sexuality. Having a boner does not equal attraction. You can have a biological reflex without the desire.

Some people, and I am not talking about people reading this, just in general, can and often do confuse sex acts with sexuality. Having a boner DOES NOT always equal attraction. It can be a reflex alone to stimuli without the desire. It is why gay person can ejaculate if married to a woman and have kids. It isn't that they are attracted to the woman, but their desire to have offspring can override their personal sexuality.

Many males reading this old enough to remember getting a boner in class for seemingly no reason. Are you attracted to the teacher, another student, are you secretly wanting to jack off in front of everyone? NO. It can be simply a boner and nothing more than your body responding to stimuli.

If homosexuals could not produce kids then how come they DO produce kids?

BECAUSE SEX AND SEXUALITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. It is a common mistake to confuse attraction to body mechanics.

 

 

 

 

 

Luck, yea and if they are unlucky they die or get pushed to the back.

Ok, a gay guy and a straight guy are in a car. The gay guy wears his seat belt, the straight guy does not. The car hits a tree, the gay guy suffers limited non threatening injury, the straight guy goes through the windshield and dies.

You keep wanting to make evolution about "majority rules" as if it were a form of government. IT IS NOT.

You have minorities in a population and majorities in a population as a general manifestation, NOT an absolute. Life is a range and a combo, not a fucking script.

LIFE IS NOT A FUCKING SCRIPT, IT IS A RANGE.

 

I never said otherwise brian, you are again assuming. Wtf does evolution have to do with a majority? Here you go arguing from emotion again.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Rob, the only right and

Rob, the only right and moral thing you could say is "It is not my thing". If you would leave it at that no one here would have a problem with you.

But you are continually displaying your ignorance of evolution and most certainly projecting your own personal desires on people who have every right to be upset with your bullshit.

Being gay is not bad and no gay person need put up with this crap. Ultimately this is nothing but YOU projecting your own insecurities on others.

 

 

"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
Going with Brians "luck"

Going with Brians "luck" thing are gays "lucky" or "unlucky" ..lol


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

Brian37 wrote:

Rob, the only right and moral thing you could say is "It is not my thing". If you would leave it at that no one here would have a problem with you.

But you are continually displaying your ignorance of evolution and most certainly projecting your own personal desires on people who have every right to be upset with your bullshit.

Being gay is not bad and no gay person need put up with this crap. Ultimately this is nothing but YOU projecting your own insecurities on others.

 

 

Are you inferring that you have no "insecurities" about people who might not agree with your opinions? Doesn't seem like it.

Rather than bluntly trying to put it off and make me agree, all I ask is that you see and realize everyone does not think the same way you do and it is not always a bad thing.

I'm not trying to force you to agree with me or anyone else, this is a discussion board not a "you will think as I do" board.

edit: your "absolute morality" is a fail btw.

"If you would leave it at that no one here would have a problem with you."  /wielding a gun "nobody move and nobody gets hurt"

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
robj101 wrote:Brian37

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Nature is a process that basicly works through trial and error The strong live and the weak die,

NO, you are only partially correct. It is trial and error AND LUCK. It is not always a matter of the strongest surviving.

Lets say you have a 150lb, 5 foot 9, man who never learned to fight, but buys a gun. Lets say this guy runs into a 250lb guy 6 feet tall, at a bar, and the big guy starts a fight with the smaller guy. The smaller guy shoots the bigger guy and the bigger guy dies. Lets say the smaller guy goes on to get married and have kids. The bigger guy dies never having had kids. Who won in this case?

Evolution is about ADAPTATION and LUCK it is not either or, but a combo and all it requires is that you get to the point of reproduction. Physical health and genetics CAN play a role but it is not the only aspect of evolution.

It is no different than shuffling a deck of cards and having the 5 of clubs ending up on top as a "presentation". Shuffle them again and then the king of hearts ends up on top as a "presentation". Not all of it is genetic what can end up "presenting" can also be as early part of egg development in the uterus.

Bigger and stronger is not everything, it is one aspect and is not a given. You could be muscle bound and if you die before you reproduce you lose, your genes do not move on. And homosexuals CAN and do have sex for the purpose of having offspring. Sex is not the same issue as sexuality. Having a boner does not equal attraction. You can have a biological reflex without the desire.

Some people, and I am not talking about people reading this, just in general, can and often do confuse sex acts with sexuality. Having a boner DOES NOT always equal attraction. It can be a reflex alone to stimuli without the desire. It is why gay person can ejaculate if married to a woman and have kids. It isn't that they are attracted to the woman, but their desire to have offspring can override their personal sexuality.

Many males reading this old enough to remember getting a boner in class for seemingly no reason. Are you attracted to the teacher, another student, are you secretly wanting to jack off in front of everyone? NO. It can be simply a boner and nothing more than your body responding to stimuli.

If homosexuals could not produce kids then how come they DO produce kids?

BECAUSE SEX AND SEXUALITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. It is a common mistake to confuse attraction to body mechanics.

 

 

 

 

 

Luck, yea and if they are unlucky they die or get pushed to the back.

Ok, a gay guy and a straight guy are in a car. The gay guy wears his seat belt, the straight guy does not. The car hits a tree, the gay guy suffers limited non threatening injury, the straight guy goes through the windshield and dies.

You keep wanting to make evolution about "majority rules" as if it were a form of government. IT IS NOT.

You have minorities in a population and majorities in a population as a general manifestation, NOT an absolute. Life is a range and a combo, not a fucking script.

LIFE IS NOT A FUCKING SCRIPT, IT IS A RANGE.

 

I never said otherwise brian, you are again assuming. Wtf does evolution have to do with a majority? Here you go arguing from emotion again.

YOU are the one saying heterosexuality is a majority WHICH IT IS, which no one is disputing. You want to make that out to be a utopia and it is not. Evolution is a RANGE, and is not absolutely for a majority, otherwise it would only produce women.

No, not responding with emotion, just calling you out. You want to pretend this isn't about you and that you are being objective, but you wouldn't have talked about law, or tried to dodge your false analogies about fucking chickens.

Evolution DOES manifest in to a majority, but it DOES NOT make that majority an absolute.

And don't be stupid, I am NOT using "luck" in a superstitious sense, if you want to use the word "chance", sure we both know it is the same context.

Thats like a theist treating "theory" like a laymen. "Luck" in this context yes, merely means "chance".

Again, if you want to end this "debate" which there really isn't one, with any sense of dignity, do the right thing and simply say "homosexuality is not my thing". Leave it at that and NO ONE here will have a problem with you.

But if you insist on pretending that you are being objective when you are not, you're damned right I am going to challenge your absurdities.

You are simply in fear of things you do not understand. No different than a theist who fears atheists. I should be shocked that a fellow atheists uses the same bad logic theists use, but unlike you, since I know life is a range and not a script, you are no surprise to me.

 

 

 

 

"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:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Nature is a process that basicly works through trial and error The strong live and the weak die,

NO, you are only partially correct. It is trial and error AND LUCK. It is not always a matter of the strongest surviving.

Lets say you have a 150lb, 5 foot 9, man who never learned to fight, but buys a gun. Lets say this guy runs into a 250lb guy 6 feet tall, at a bar, and the big guy starts a fight with the smaller guy. The smaller guy shoots the bigger guy and the bigger guy dies. Lets say the smaller guy goes on to get married and have kids. The bigger guy dies never having had kids. Who won in this case?

Evolution is about ADAPTATION and LUCK it is not either or, but a combo and all it requires is that you get to the point of reproduction. Physical health and genetics CAN play a role but it is not the only aspect of evolution.

It is no different than shuffling a deck of cards and having the 5 of clubs ending up on top as a "presentation". Shuffle them again and then the king of hearts ends up on top as a "presentation". Not all of it is genetic what can end up "presenting" can also be as early part of egg development in the uterus.

Bigger and stronger is not everything, it is one aspect and is not a given. You could be muscle bound and if you die before you reproduce you lose, your genes do not move on. And homosexuals CAN and do have sex for the purpose of having offspring. Sex is not the same issue as sexuality. Having a boner does not equal attraction. You can have a biological reflex without the desire.

Some people, and I am not talking about people reading this, just in general, can and often do confuse sex acts with sexuality. Having a boner DOES NOT always equal attraction. It can be a reflex alone to stimuli without the desire. It is why gay person can ejaculate if married to a woman and have kids. It isn't that they are attracted to the woman, but their desire to have offspring can override their personal sexuality.

Many males reading this old enough to remember getting a boner in class for seemingly no reason. Are you attracted to the teacher, another student, are you secretly wanting to jack off in front of everyone? NO. It can be simply a boner and nothing more than your body responding to stimuli.

If homosexuals could not produce kids then how come they DO produce kids?

BECAUSE SEX AND SEXUALITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. It is a common mistake to confuse attraction to body mechanics.

 

 

 

 

 

Luck, yea and if they are unlucky they die or get pushed to the back.

Ok, a gay guy and a straight guy are in a car. The gay guy wears his seat belt, the straight guy does not. The car hits a tree, the gay guy suffers limited non threatening injury, the straight guy goes through the windshield and dies.

You keep wanting to make evolution about "majority rules" as if it were a form of government. IT IS NOT.

You have minorities in a population and majorities in a population as a general manifestation, NOT an absolute. Life is a range and a combo, not a fucking script.

LIFE IS NOT A FUCKING SCRIPT, IT IS A RANGE.

 

I never said otherwise brian, you are again assuming. Wtf does evolution have to do with a majority? Here you go arguing from emotion again.

YOU are the one saying heterosexuality is a majority WHICH IT IS, which no one is disputing. You want to make that out to be a utopia and it is not. Evolution is a RANGE, and is not absolutely for a majority, otherwise it would only produce women.

No, not responding with emotion, just calling you out. You want to pretend this isn't about you and that you are being objective, but you wouldn't have talked about law, or tried to dodge your false analogies about fucking chickens.

Evolution DOES manifest in to a majority, but it DOES NOT make that majority an absolute.

And don't be stupid, I am NOT using "luck" in a superstitious sense, if you want to use the word "chance", sure we both know it is the same context.

Thats like a theist treating "theory" like a laymen. "Luck" in this context yes, merely means "chance".

Again, if you want to end this "debate" which there really isn't one, with any sense of dignity, do the right thing and simply say "homosexuality is not my thing". Leave it at that and NO ONE here will have a problem with you.

But if you insist on pretending that you are being objective when you are not, you're damned right I am going to challenge your absurdities.

You are simply in fear of things you do not understand. No different than a theist who fears atheists. I should be shocked that a fellow atheists uses the same bad logic theists use, but unlike you, since I know life is a range and not a script, you are no surprise to me.

 

 

 

 

Evolution has nothing to do with a majority, if hetero's were a minority I would still think homosexuals were not with the program we have. There would only be the bigger question of "why does it seem this way". Perhaps we are wrong in this but perhaps you are wrong as well, morality changes over time to suit society. Perhaps one day there will be few who think as I do and on the flip side maybe there will be fewer who think as you do. It's progress. We abolished slavery and today you think those people who had slaves were terrible people. However at the time slavery was common enough in that era and a lot of people thought it was "normal" "Normal"changes to fit the times.

You want to talk about morality, evolution etc and make it all apply to homosexuality, well to an extent perhaps it does just maybe not quite in the light you enjoy.

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
You seem to have the key to

You seem to have the key to theistic thinking "just believe it, or else"


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ok, a gay guy

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, a gay guy and a straight guy are in a car. The gay guy wears his seat belt, the straight guy does not. The car hits a tree, the gay guy suffers limited non threatening injury, the straight guy goes through the windshield and dies.

Is this a joke... where's the punchline?

I see no luck or chance involved in this example. The reason the straight guy died is because he wasn't smart enough to be wearing his seat belt. It's all about the choices we make and the consequences that result. The end.

Quote:
You keep wanting to make evolution about "majority rules" as if it were a form of government. IT IS NOT.

You have minorities in a population and majorities in a population as a general manifestation, NOT an absolute. Life is a range and a combo, not a fucking script.

LIFE IS NOT A FUCKING SCRIPT, IT IS A RANGE.

 

Okay, a gay guy and a straight guy walk into a bar, where there is also a fertile woman of child-bearing age, sexual preference not determined. They are the only three people on the planet. Who's the lucky guy now?

'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
robj101 wrote:edit: your

robj101 wrote:

edit: your "absolute morality" is a fail btw.

"If you would leave it at that no one here would have a problem with you."  /wielding a gun "nobody move and nobody gets hurt"

Absolutely! If Brian were a theist, we three would be sent straight to hell for our non-belief.

 

'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
He wants me and you probably

He wants me and you probably (Sandycane) to simply "admit" that we just have a problem with it based on "insecurity" (lol)

What he should have said was "we should agree to disagree" That might have ended it but he thinks he is the right and we are the wrong. This is not exactly a right or wrong conversation unless he wants to make it out as such and in this case he is making it black and white with no grey area. I have always enjoyed grey area.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
robj101 wrote:BobSpence1

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Remember, this thread is really about what deserves being regarded as 'abnormal' behaviour, not 'abnormal' births or related anomalies, so your comment about how you regard an abnormal 'egg' is beside the point.

Bob you are probably a good dance partner.

Now being homosexual is just behavior? is it now a purely personal choice? They were not born or made this way by environment or upbringing etc?

It is a behaviour, perhaps more accurately described as a behaviour pattern, as distinct from being a physical attribute.

That has nothing to do it with being a personal choice or not. There will be an element of choice in who to engage with, and how, but the individuals who the person is most attracted to, and the kind of acts which they find most pleasurable, will be strongly influenced by their psychological 'profile' which is not a matter of conscious choice. It is a matter of genetic inheritance, upbringing and personal life experience, as I previously said.

This is entirely consistent with my previous arguments.

When you look at women, do you run some calculations and decide who best fits your current criteria, then crank up the lust and desire mechanism and point it at the one that comes out of the calculations? Or you just find yourself drawn more to some more than others? Don't some just get the juices flowing when you look at them, and some don't? It ain't a conscious choice. It's what works with your particular 'chemistry'. 

There are more attractive and less attractive people, I assume bone structure plays into this as well as a narrow waist and nice hips etc (where women are concerned for me and most guys  probably), ergo subconciously when I look at a woman I am looking for good breeding material. I don't uncociously see good breeding material in other men I suppose, nor do I conciously if I actually think about it.

You can pretend everything we like about people is a concious thought if you like but there is a reason some people are physically attracted to others and it's not all like "hmm I like so n so about that person". It's like an instinctual thing, especially at first glance, the thinking part comes afterwards.

You were saying?

I was saying "which is not a matter of conscious choice." and "It ain't a conscious choice." How do either of those statements suggest I am "pretend(ing) everything we like about people is a concious thought". WTF???

Did make the same mistake robj did, assuming that when I said  it was a 'behaviour pattern', that that implied a conscious choice?

It seems to imply it since you extrapolated that homosexuality could simply be a personal choice and if so it would be going against (as Sandycane suggested) nature.

If however nature does have a hand in it it may not be a concious decison because they were gay at birth or gay from environemental issues and upbringing therefore they might be programmed for homosexuality nulling the "concious" inference I instigated.

Show me where I ever implied that homosexuality "could simply be a personal choice". If I seemed to say anything like that, it was either a typo or me getting my sentence construction stuffed up. In any case, how do you square that with me explicitly stating it wasn't a choice, twice in the one post, right there?

And even a 'personal choice' would not necessarily mean "going against nature", since the evidence is that our 'nature' allows for a range of sexual expression, including homosexuality, within which any 'choice' would not be 'against nature". 

Of course 'nature' is involved, since something like 30-40% seems to be genetic.

Our "nature" allows for us to fly to the moon, it also allows for us to torture one another. You are mixing up "nature" and "human nature" two different things. Nature is a process that basicly works through trial and error The strong live and the weak die, human nature is a set of traits we as humans share in common which can change because we are thinking animals. Homosexuality is not "against nature" in the way you are choosing to put it. However if you consider how nature has set us upto have intercourse homosexuals do go against the grain. It is perfectly natural for them to do so, they are that new tire that blew out I was nudging you towards a personification with earlier.

You see the problem here is that you with gayabsolutely refuse to believe there could be a problem s. You want them so badly to be just like a hetero..they just like to have sex with the same gender and to your thinking it is exactly the same as having sex with the opposite gender and you can even work it out in your head how it's great and awesome, hell maybe it's even better!

Maybe there are many many gays where you live, maybe you want the option to be gay because such a thing appeals to you deep down, maybe your pcness has driven you to this edge. I don't know, you tell me Bob. I believe when asked we would probably say pretty much the same thing about them. We don't see them causing any harm by being gay, we would likely both be for them having the same rights etc. but where we differ is in that you think they are "normal" and I do not, why is that?

Edit: btw you inferred it could be a personal choice early on ^ way up there.

You want them to have rights, but early in the thread you talked bitched falsely accusing me of being a "liberal" wanting to legalize everything merely because I value human rights? Not to mention pretending not to equate gays to fucking chickens falsely claiming that wasn't what you were doing.

You "Yea they have rights, I just don't want it in my face"

Me,

No, they have rights and as long as they are not forcing you to do anything it doesn't matter if it is "in your face". Fat women have the right to wear tight cloths, doesn't matter what I think or wish or what I am attracted to.

Bob is right and you are flat out wrong. This isn't about normal, vs abnormal. This is YOU pretending to be objective while masking your own insecurities falsely claiming that you are not projecting yourself on others.

Being gay is as normal as being heterosexual. PERIOD. Get the fuck over yourself.

Here is how morality works, CONSENT! Gays are not a threat to you. You won't magically turn gay by watching two men kiss. I won't magically become a lesbian and I LIKE watching to hot women go at it. I am NOT attracted to butch lesbians. So that I an be attracted to lipstick lesbians makes me "abnormal"? Or does that only apply to gay men?

I must be "abnormal" myself then because I am not strictly into male female sex and wouldn't mind having a threesome with two women.

You are so full of shit with your feigned objectivity which is glaringly exposed by your prior posts.

The only problem gays have are people like you.

"Mommy mommy, I don't want them in my sight, I don't want cooties" This is all you are doing, I don't care how much of a skunk of an argument you are trying to make. YOU are the one with the problem, not them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
robj101 wrote:Going with

robj101 wrote:

Going with Brians "luck" thing are gays "lucky" or "unlucky" ..lol

Now you are just being obtuse.

You glossed over or ignored the part that I said that evolution is a COMBO, "chance" for your sake because you too stupid understand I was using "luck" in the same way is ONE aspect of evolution, not the only aspect.

If anyone has gotten "unlucky" you have because you are suffering the same stupid utopia delusion theists have about invisible friends by using the same flawed logic to falsely call homosexuality "abnormal".

You went from " I don't want it in my face" to "I wasn't saying what you thought I said" to "abnormal" to downplay and mask your own pathetic insecurities.

Gays are normal, get the fuck over it.

BOO HOO, people do things I don't like seeing.....BOO HOO!

Would you like some whine with that cheese?

 

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
robj101 wrote:You seem to

robj101 wrote:

You seem to have the key to theistic thinking "just believe it, or else"

Who the fuck is asking to simply believe that homosexuality is normal, IT IS DIPSHIT!

The scientific community and psychological community, NOT THE CRACKPOTS, NOT anyone with any fucking agenda. FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS have constantly and repeatedly said that homosexuality is not a illness or birth defect. It is merely a presentation of a RANGE of evolution.

I am not going to put up with you anymore on this issue.

The bottom line is that YOU find gay sex yucky. SO THE FUCK WHAT! Get the fuck over it.

I like lipstick lesbians. I am normal too, as part of a RANGE.

 

THE ONLY THING THAT IS "ABNORMAL" even outside the issue of sex, IS DOING HARM, doing something to someone else through force or manipulation. Robbery is "abnormal" because it causes harm. It does no one any harm to give someone money. It does someone harm to stick a gun in their face.

NO ONE IS STICKING A GUN TO YOUR FACE. Not liking something simply means you don't like something. Gays being in your presence or even kissing in front of you IS NOT DOING YOU ANY FUCKING HARM. That is merely YOU responding to something you don't like.

The psychology field has long since left you behind on this issue.

Now, just leave it at "homosexuality is not my thing" and drop it. Otherwise me and others here will continue to make you look like the petty insecure fool you are acting like.

 

 

"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:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Going with Brians "luck" thing are gays "lucky" or "unlucky" ..lol

Now you are just being obtuse.

You glossed over or ignored the part that I said that evolution is a COMBO, "chance" for your sake because you too stupid understand I was using "luck" in the same way is ONE aspect of evolution, not the only aspect.

If anyone has gotten "unlucky" you have because you are suffering the same stupid utopia delusion theists have about invisible friends by using the same flawed logic to falsely call homosexuality "abnormal".

You went from " I don't want it in my face" to "I wasn't saying what you thought I said" to "abnormal" to downplay and mask your own pathetic insecurities.

Gays are normal, get the fuck over it.

BOO HOO, people do things I don't like seeing.....BOO HOO!

Would you like some whine with that cheese?

 

More of the same drivel from emotion. Get over yourself, this argument will never end, you are obviously providing the "whine".

As far as your grand idea of claiming I am using theistic logic you need to look in the fukin mirror. "You too stupid to understand" your own insecurities in that everyone is not as much a fuking liberal drone as yourself. One day perhaps other things will be socially acceptable thanks to people such as yourself before we turn into a conglomerate of stupid. Oh wait we already are.

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
Brian37 wrote:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

You seem to have the key to theistic thinking "just believe it, or else"

Who the fuck is asking to simply believe that homosexuality is normal, IT IS DIPSHIT!

__

Now, just leave it at "homosexuality is not my thing" and drop it. Otherwise me and others here will continue to make you look like the petty insecure fool you are acting like.

 

 

It just is!

Now believe what I say or else or I and the other gods shall smite thee!

lmao

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
If nothing else you can be

If nothing else you can be quite entertaining Brian. I'll give you that hah!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
robj101 wrote:Brian37

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

You seem to have the key to theistic thinking "just believe it, or else"

Who the fuck is asking to simply believe that homosexuality is normal, IT IS DIPSHIT!

__

Now, just leave it at "homosexuality is not my thing" and drop it. Otherwise me and others here will continue to make you look like the petty insecure fool you are acting like.

 

 

It just is!

Now believe what I say or else or I and the other gods shall smite thee!

lmao

No, this is what YOU are doing. YOU are just as delusional as a theist, you simply have switched a god with "gays bad" without one lick of credible evidence that it is.

"God is and that's it"

"Gays bad and thats it."

Now since we have called you on your petty insecurities you try to mimic me.

Pathetic.

You are just a crybaby who cant stand that people do things you find yucky. I called you on it and exposed you and this is all you can do. Childish.

Grow up.

 

 

 

"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:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

You seem to have the key to theistic thinking "just believe it, or else"

Who the fuck is asking to simply believe that homosexuality is normal, IT IS DIPSHIT!

__

Now, just leave it at "homosexuality is not my thing" and drop it. Otherwise me and others here will continue to make you look like the petty insecure fool you are acting like.

 

 

 

It just is!

Now believe what I say or else or I and the other gods shall smite thee!

lmao

No, this is what YOU are doing. YOU are just as delusional as a theist, you simply have switched a god with "gays bad" without one lick of credible evidence that it is.

"God is and that's it"

"Gays bad and thats it."

Now since we have called you on your petty insecurities you try to mimic me.

Pathetic.

You are just a crybaby who cant stand that people do things you find yucky. I called you on it and exposed you and this is all you can do. Childish.

Grow up.

 

 

 

I don't think I ever said it was "yucky" or anything else. You are assuming again. The closest I have been to said stance would have been that I don't think it's "normal".

What made you presume it is "yucky"? Could it be you are prejudiced against someone who might not agree with your assesment based on the idea that it can only be .."yucky" to someone who disagree's?

You are just a cry baby who can't deal with the reality that everyone does not think as you.

 

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
Btw your theism states that

Btw your theism states that you know gays are good and wonderful and everyone else should believe that, I might be suprised if you don't go door to door thumping this dogma.

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
I'm done replying say what

I'm done replying say what you like and be done with it. This has turned into a childish mess of nanny nanny boo boo.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
robj101 wrote:If nothing

robj101 wrote:

If nothing else you can be quite entertaining Brian. I'll give you that hah!

Well, you are not. I find it sad that humans cant see past differences and LOOK for something wrong so they can justify their own positions.

If gays have any problems it is because of ignorant people like you.

You went from "I don't want it in my face"

To "you liberals want everything legal"

To, "Political correctness"

And when none of that worked you tried "Maybe if it is a scientific problem we can help them" which is your last bastion when the truth of it all was the first attitude you displayed "I don't want it in my face" was your true feelings having nothing to do with science.

Which merely amounts to "I find it yucky"

Again, boo and fucking hoo.

Gayness is not a disease or an illness or birth defect anymore than liking or not liking broccoli is a disease or illness or birth defect.

GET OVER IT!

Keep acting like an insecure child and I will keep treating you like one.

 

 

 

 

"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: GET OVER

Brian37 wrote:

 

GET OVER IT!

Keep acting like an insecure child and I will keep treating you like one.

 

Likewise.

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
What exactly would I have to

What exactly would I have to do to prove that I can deal with gay people just fine? Theres a gay dude working at walgreens I thought about asking if he wanted to go play some disc golf. You are so narrow minded and think if someone doesn't think like you do then gays are "yucky". I think it's some sort of condition or "conditioning" and not necessarily a good one or a productive one. Doesn't mean I can't deal with people "being gay" any more than I can't deal with someone being "mentally retarded" because mentally retarded people are normal too.

Now throw down your tantrum about some correlation between retarded people and gays because you want for me to be "directly" correlating them, lets hear it, el oh el.

"Retarded gays omg they are taking over the world hold me I'm so scared!"

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
robj101 wrote:Btw your

robj101 wrote:

Btw your theism states that you know gays are good and wonderful and everyone else should believe that, I might be suprised if you don't go door to door thumping this dogma.

Once again you completely miss the point.

NO ONE, REGARDLESS OF LABEL, BE IT POLITICAL, NATIONAL, RACE OR SEXUALITY OR RELIGION, is automatically good or bad.

The only one being dogmatic here is you, not me.

I am STRICTLY talking about their sexuality, not them as individuals human beings.

You keep mistaking "yucky" as "bad". I keep giving you the rational way out of the corner you painted yourself in and you are STILL stupidly making the label the issue.

If I was being dogmatic I would pass laws physically forcing you to have gay sex. Since all I am doing is simply saying "you find it yucky" that can hardly be called dogmatic.

You are the one treating someone different than you as being bad.

There are 7 billion people on this planet and they display a RANGE, not an absolute.

YOU you simply find gay sex yucky. Boo hoo, crybaby.

 

 

 

 

"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
Post number 1877 was

Post number 1877 was actually an offering of an out for both of us, if you agree with it. I had made another one earlier saying we should agree to disagree and hoped you would be clever enough to accept it. But if you wish to continue swapping insults I suppose we can. I won't mind working my creative juices a bit if you insist in treading onward.

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
Brian37 wrote:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Btw your theism states that you know gays are good and wonderful and everyone else should believe that, I might be suprised if you don't go door to door thumping this dogma.

Once again you completely miss the point.

NO ONE, REGARDLESS OF LABEL, BE IT POLITICAL, NATIONAL, RACE OR SEXUALITY OR RELIGION, is automatically good or bad.

The only one being dogmatic here is you, not me.

I am STRICTLY talking about their sexuality, not them as individuals human beings.

You keep mistaking "yucky" as "bad". I keep giving you the rational way out of the corner you painted yourself in and you are STILL stupidly making the label the issue.

If I was being dogmatic I would pass laws physically forcing you to have gay sex. Since all I am doing is simply saying "you find it yucky" that can hardly be called dogmatic.

You are the one treating someone different than you as being bad.

There are 7 billion people on this planet and they display a RANGE, not an absolute.

YOU you simply find gay sex yucky. Boo hoo, crybaby.

 

 

 

 

This "range" as you like to put it is rather large. There are people who lack self control which causes them to attempt sex with children, we call them pedophiles. There are people who hate simply because they like to. This range extends rather far on either side and you fail to recognize I myself as well as yourself are in this "range" you speak of.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
robj101 wrote:I'm done

robj101 wrote:

I'm done replying say what you like and be done with it. This has turned into a childish mess of nanny nanny boo boo.

Run and hide coward.

"Gays bad" "maybe we should consider they have a problem"

Yep, when you have nothing just like a theist, you run from your own words.

You don't like being called a child, then stop acting like one.

 

"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:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Btw your theism states that you know gays are good and wonderful and everyone else should believe that, I might be suprised if you don't go door to door thumping this dogma.

Once again you completely miss the point.

NO ONE, REGARDLESS OF LABEL, BE IT POLITICAL, NATIONAL, RACE OR SEXUALITY OR RELIGION, is automatically good or bad.

The only one being dogmatic here is you, not me.

I am STRICTLY talking about their sexuality, not them as individuals human beings.

You keep mistaking "yucky" as "bad". I keep giving you the rational way out of the corner you painted yourself in and you are STILL stupidly making the label the issue.

If I was being dogmatic I would pass laws physically forcing you to have gay sex. Since all I am doing is simply saying "you find it yucky" that can hardly be called dogmatic.

You are the one treating someone different than you as being bad.

There are 7 billion people on this planet and they display a RANGE, not an absolute.

YOU you simply find gay sex yucky. Boo hoo, crybaby.

 

 

 

 

Someone doesn't agree with my mode of thought BOO HOO. Infantile shit.

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
Brian37 wrote:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I'm done replying say what you like and be done with it. This has turned into a childish mess of nanny nanny boo boo.

Run and hide coward.

"Gays bad" "maybe we should consider they have a problem"

Yep, when you have nothing just like a theist, you run from your own words.

You don't like being called a child, then stop acting like one.

 

In order to "stop acting like a child" I have to "fess up" and "admit" that I find gay sex to be "yucky.

The only problem with that is children lie, BOO HOO.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
robj101 wrote:What exactly

robj101 wrote:

What exactly would I have to do to prove that I can deal with gay people just fine? Theres a gay dude working at walgreens I thought about asking if he wanted to go play some disc golf. You are so narrow minded and think if someone doesn't think like you do then gays are "yucky". I think it's some sort of condition or "conditioning" and not necessarily a good one or a productive one. Doesn't mean I can't deal with people "being gay" any more than I can't deal with someone being "mentally retarded" because mentally retarded people are normal too.

Now throw down your tantrum about some correlation between retarded people and gays because you want for me to be "directly" correlating them, lets hear it, el oh el.

"Retarded gays omg they are taking over the world hold me I'm so scared!"

Cool, you have a token gay friend, how cute. How about telling him to his face he has a problem and then listen to his response.

I can see it now:

"Hey gay friend, don't take this the wrong way, but even though I like you, you are in the same boat as the mentally retarded, I know I know, you cant help it, lets go play a couple holes".

How does it feel to be pawned jackass. How noble of you to take pitty on the afflicted. You are such a humanitarian.

 

 

"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
Spoiled child on top of that

Spoiled child on top of that Brian. "I want it, I want it now!!" /tantrum


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
robj101 wrote:Post number

robj101 wrote:

Post number 1877 was actually an offering of an out for both of us, if you agree with it. I had made another one earlier saying we should agree to disagree and hoped you would be clever enough to accept it. But if you wish to continue swapping insults I suppose we can. I won't mind working my creative juices a bit if you insist in treading onward.

I'm sorry, what was I thinking. You were merely just trying to tell gays that they are like the mentally retarded, I am sure they wouldn't find that insulting. After all, you're just trying to help them.

I am going to submit your name for the Nobel Peace prize, you deserve it.

 

"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:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Post number 1877 was actually an offering of an out for both of us, if you agree with it. I had made another one earlier saying we should agree to disagree and hoped you would be clever enough to accept it. But if you wish to continue swapping insults I suppose we can. I won't mind working my creative juices a bit if you insist in treading onward.

I'm sorry, what was I thinking. You were merely just trying to tell gays that they are like the mentally retarded, I am sure they wouldn't find that insulting. After all, you're just trying to help them.

I am going to submit your name for the Nobel Peace prize, you deserve it.

 

lol I told ya so, you couldn't resist. That's some good shit! I love when I am proven to be "correct" as do we all probably ...

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
robj101 wrote:Spoiled child

robj101 wrote:

Spoiled child on top of that Brian. "I want it, I want it now!!" /tantrum

No, this has nothing to do with what I want. I am just putting you at the kiddy table with the bib you need to wear.

Gays are in the same category as the mentally retarded. Fine, try to tell your golf buddy you are merely trying to help him and use that argument, see how far you get.

 

 

"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