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.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well there you have it, folks.

 

 

The most cogent point in the entire thread kindly brought to you by human understanding.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4053
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:For the

butterbattle wrote:

For the record, PDW, I didn't see anything from you that might be misinterpreted to mean that "abnormal" is bad. It was mostly Sandy and maybe some rob.

 

  Thank for mentioning that.  Still, it seemed as though some here preferred to deliberately interpret my posts in a sinister way.  Whatever.  I made the points I wanted to make.  I'm done.

 

  Ciao.

 

 

 

 ( ps, rob, Sandy and myself are not monolithic in our views and anyone one of  us will readily admit that.  Nevertheless, I would like to maintain that in whatever terms they express their views on homosexuality I still believe they embrace a live and let live attitude regarding sexual minorities.    What unites the three of us is our distaste for the arrogance of pc group think and it's use of shame in order to enforce conformity )

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

For the record, PDW, I didn't see anything from you that might be misinterpreted to mean that "abnormal" is bad. It was mostly Sandy and maybe some rob.

 

  Thank for mentioning that.  Still, it seemed as though some here preferred to deliberately interpret my posts in a sinister way.  Whatever.  I made the points I wanted to make.  I'm done.

 

  Ciao.

 

 

 

 ( ps, rob, Sandy and myself are not monolithic in our views and anyone one of  us will readily admit that.  Nevertheless, I would like to maintain that in whatever terms they express their views on homosexuality I still believe they embrace a live and let live attitude regarding sexual minorities. )

 

 

First off @Butter,

The progression of the post from the very first comments from rob collectively count.

It went from "don't mix atheism with gayness", to "you liberals want everything legal" to "political correctness" to "maybe they just need help" to "pedophiles happen too" to "lack of self control". None of that indicates objectivity.

He used analogies of sex with chickens. And most recently equated it to mental retardation. So if he is not equating those things to gayness WHY use them as an example?

OF course mental retardation should not be demonized. But it cannot be equated to sexuality as if sexuality is a birth defect or a head injury.

This is merely rob LOOKING FOR A REASON, to mistake "yuck" for being "bad".

When you take rob's history of posts in their totality it is clear that this isn't about evidence, this is about his own personal distaste for gays.

How nice of rob to be concerned with those afflicted gays. How noble of him to want to cure them just like we should help the mentally retarded.

NO go back and read his history. This is not about helping anyone, this is him wanting gays to stay away from him because he might get cooties.

Rob has back peddled at ever turn when called on every argument.

AND all I am getting anyone here to do has NOTHING to do with political correctness. ALL they can honestly do is say "It's not my thing". If everyone would simply accept that, and drop the rest of the demonizing bullshit, I would leave them alone.

There simply is NO evidence that being gay is harmful to society. The harm is what society does to itself by demonizing gays, not the other way around.

Whatever bad an individual may do while holding ANY label is a reflection of THAT individual, not the entire label. There are plenty of heterosexuals who partake in risky behavior. Plenty who beat their spouses, beat their kids, rape women and buy street prostitutes. Where is the self control when these heterosexuals do these things?

So if the homophobes here want to be consistent they also need to demonize heterosexuals as well, treat heterosexuality like mental retardation as well.

Otherwise the problem is not the sexuality of an individual, but their own psychology as individuals that may lead them to abuse others in a variety of ways including sex.

 

 

 

 

 

"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: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I still believe they

Quote:
I still believe they embrace a live and let live attitude regarding sexual minorities.    What unites the three of us is our distaste for the arrogance of pc group think and it's use of shame in order to enforce conformity

You defy yourself by interjecting "PC" into an argument that is supposedly about evidence and then when no one shows any credible evidence as to why gayness is harmful, you pull out "pc" as an ad homin to hide behind the fact you have no evidence.

I have used the word "nigger" and "fagot" and "Tinkerbell" on this website so for anyone to use the bullshit argument of "pc" is absurd.

THIS IS STRICTLY about evidence and all I see you and Sandy and Rob doing is throwing "pc" in as a dodge.

You are fine with "live and let live" as long as those not like you hide what they are.

I am offering you a BETTER way of looking at it. "It's not my thing, and at the same time I will judge the individual, not the label".

If you would look at it that way instead of denying that you are merely mistaking "yuck" with "bad" This would not be an issue and I would accept your argument of "live and let live". I simply cannot buy it when you and others here use "PC" falsely to mask your own insecurities.

Why is it I had no problem with a gay couple who invited an asshole who grabbed my ass? Why is it I didn't blame them for the actions of another? BECAUSE I was judging the individual. And that is what you guys seem to want to ignore.

I find it funny that all of us can agree that atheists AND EVEN THIS THREAD proves that we are individuals, but yet you cant see that the very thing you rightfully accuse theists of, you do to gays.

 

 

 

"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

Brian37 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

For the record, PDW, I didn't see anything from you that might be misinterpreted to mean that "abnormal" is bad. It was mostly Sandy and maybe some rob.

 

  Thank for mentioning that.  Still, it seemed as though some here preferred to deliberately interpret my posts in a sinister way.  Whatever.  I made the points I wanted to make.  I'm done.

 

  Ciao.

 

 

 

 ( ps, rob, Sandy and myself are not monolithic in our views and anyone one of  us will readily admit that.  Nevertheless, I would like to maintain that in whatever terms they express their views on homosexuality I still believe they embrace a live and let live attitude regarding sexual minorities. )

 

 

First off @Butter,

The progression of the post from the very first comments from rob collectively count.

It went from "don't mix atheism with gayness", to "you liberals want everything legal" to "political correctness" to "maybe they just need help" to "pedophiles happen too" to "lack of self control". None of that indicates objectivity.

He used analogies of sex with chickens. And most recently equated it to mental retardation. So if he is not equating those things to gayness WHY use them as an example?

OF course mental retardation should not be demonized. But it cannot be equated to sexuality as if sexuality is a birth defect or a head injury.

This is merely rob LOOKING FOR A REASON, to mistake "yuck" for being "bad".

When you take rob's history of posts in their totality it is clear that this isn't about evidence, this is about his own personal distaste for gays.

How nice of rob to be concerned with those afflicted gays. How noble of him to want to cure them just like we should help the mentally retarded.

NO go back and read his history. This is not about helping anyone, this is him wanting gays to stay away from him because he might get cooties.

Rob has back peddled at ever turn when called on every argument.

AND all I am getting anyone here to do has NOTHING to do with political correctness. ALL they can honestly do is say "It's not my thing". If everyone would simply accept that, and drop the rest of the demonizing bullshit, I would leave them alone.

There simply is NO evidence that being gay is harmful to society. The harm is what society does to itself by demonizing gays, not the other way around.

Whatever bad an individual may do while holding ANY label is a reflection of THAT individual, not the entire label. There are plenty of heterosexuals who partake in risky behavior. Plenty who beat their spouses, beat their kids, rape women and buy street prostitutes. Where is the self control when these heterosexuals do these things?

So if the homophobes here want to be consistent they also need to demonize heterosexuals as well, treat heterosexuality like mental retardation as well.

Otherwise the problem is not the sexuality of an individual, but their own psychology as individuals that may lead them to abuse others in a variety of ways including sex.

 

 

 

 

 

Brian you still misinterpret after my repeated attempts at showing you how making a comparison using two items can have absolutely nothing to do with one another other than the fact that they both exist and both occur or possibly both do something. I assumed you interpret it the way you do because you chose too now I see that you did not, you simply can not wrap your head around this literary concept. Why are you not calling me out for comparing gays to rainbow hue'd baby elk being birthed by squirrels? You are apparently still very selective and a mentally retarded state obviously strikes a nerve wherea's the baby elk thing does not.

That's not my problem if you don't understand, it's yours. My first assesment was that you were not half as smart as you think you are, I was actually just spewing and assumed your ubar liberalness was impeeding the thought process in your mind, now I think that you may have a problem here.

 I made a small point about "mixing gayness with atheism" as you put it because it makes perfect sense. It's a very simple concept as well, it's like putting shit on shit and expecting a religious person to accept it. Keep stacking shit on there and try to force it down their throat rather than hitting them with one thing at a time that may be a small enough dose for them to swallow and have discourse. "oh you are here to discuss atheism and gay rights.. you are the devil".

Imagine yourself being faced with someone who is purposefully displaying all the things you hate about people and asking you to discuss all of it. Now imagine a person approaching you who has only one quality you hate who wants to discuss it, which one will be easier to deal with? Which one might actually get something done? This is a common sense thing yet google gay atheist, it's all over the place, whats being gay have to do with atheism? I'll tell you exactly what religious folks think, they think people are gay therefore choose to "hate" god by being an atheist. More of that good old common sense.

You can worry about "cooties" and "yucky" stuff all you like. You seem to have a phobia for such things and you make yourself look so good with this stupid infantile carp.

 

 

 

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
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  (

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
 

 ( ps, rob, Sandy and myself are not monolithic in our views and anyone one of  us will readily admit that.  Nevertheless, I would like to maintain that in whatever terms they express their views on homosexuality I still believe they embrace a live and let live attitude regarding sexual minorities.    What unites the three of us is our distaste for the arrogance of pc group think and it's use of shame in order to enforce conformity )

True.  

I'll admit that of the three of us, I am the least accepting of homosexual behavior.

I do have a 'live and let live' attitude but, there are limits.

If you all believe there is a wide range of acceptable sexual behavior then you must also admit that there is a wide range of acceptance. Just because you embrace homosexuality does not mean that everyone will or, should.

I will tolerate your homosexuality as long as you tolerate my not agreeing with it.

'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
Brian37 wrote:Quote: I still

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I still believe they embrace a live and let live attitude regarding sexual minorities.    What unites the three of us is our distaste for the arrogance of pc group think and it's use of shame in order to enforce conformity

You defy yourself by interjecting "PC" into an argument that is supposedly about evidence and then when no one shows any credible evidence as to why gayness is harmful, you pull out "pc" as an ad homin to hide behind the fact you have no evidence.

I have used the word "nigger" and "fagot" and "Tinkerbell" on this website so for anyone to use the bullshit argument of "pc" is absurd.

THIS IS STRICTLY about evidence and all I see you and Sandy and Rob doing is throwing "pc" in as a dodge.

You are fine with "live and let live" as long as those not like you hide what they are.

I am offering you a BETTER way of looking at it. "It's not my thing, and at the same time I will judge the individual, not the label".

If you would look at it that way instead of denying that you are merely mistaking "yuck" with "bad" This would not be an issue and I would accept your argument of "live and let live". I simply cannot buy it when you and others here use "PC" falsely to mask your own insecurities.

Why is it I had no problem with a gay couple who invited an asshole who grabbed my ass? Why is it I didn't blame them for the actions of another? BECAUSE I was judging the individual. And that is what you guys seem to want to ignore.

I find it funny that all of us can agree that atheists AND EVEN THIS THREAD proves that we are individuals, but yet you cant see that the very thing you rightfully accuse theists of, you do to gays.

 

 

 

Brian,

You continue to destroy any shred of credibility you may have by repeatedly REPEATEDLY repeatedly confusing who is saying what.

Are you a closet homosexual, Brian?

'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
Cat got your tongue, Brian?

Cat got your tongue, Brian?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Brian37

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

For the record, PDW, I didn't see anything from you that might be misinterpreted to mean that "abnormal" is bad. It was mostly Sandy and maybe some rob.

 

  Thank for mentioning that.  Still, it seemed as though some here preferred to deliberately interpret my posts in a sinister way.  Whatever.  I made the points I wanted to make.  I'm done.

 

  Ciao.

 

 

 

 ( ps, rob, Sandy and myself are not monolithic in our views and anyone one of  us will readily admit that.  Nevertheless, I would like to maintain that in whatever terms they express their views on homosexuality I still believe they embrace a live and let live attitude regarding sexual minorities. )

 

 

First off @Butter,

The progression of the post from the very first comments from rob collectively count.

It went from "don't mix atheism with gayness", to "you liberals want everything legal" to "political correctness" to "maybe they just need help" to "pedophiles happen too" to "lack of self control". None of that indicates objectivity.

He used analogies of sex with chickens. And most recently equated it to mental retardation. So if he is not equating those things to gayness WHY use them as an example?

OF course mental retardation should not be demonized. But it cannot be equated to sexuality as if sexuality is a birth defect or a head injury.

This is merely rob LOOKING FOR A REASON, to mistake "yuck" for being "bad".

When you take rob's history of posts in their totality it is clear that this isn't about evidence, this is about his own personal distaste for gays.

How nice of rob to be concerned with those afflicted gays. How noble of him to want to cure them just like we should help the mentally retarded.

NO go back and read his history. This is not about helping anyone, this is him wanting gays to stay away from him because he might get cooties.

Rob has back peddled at ever turn when called on every argument.

AND all I am getting anyone here to do has NOTHING to do with political correctness. ALL they can honestly do is say "It's not my thing". If everyone would simply accept that, and drop the rest of the demonizing bullshit, I would leave them alone.

There simply is NO evidence that being gay is harmful to society. The harm is what society does to itself by demonizing gays, not the other way around.

Whatever bad an individual may do while holding ANY label is a reflection of THAT individual, not the entire label. There are plenty of heterosexuals who partake in risky behavior. Plenty who beat their spouses, beat their kids, rape women and buy street prostitutes. Where is the self control when these heterosexuals do these things?

So if the homophobes here want to be consistent they also need to demonize heterosexuals as well, treat heterosexuality like mental retardation as well.

Otherwise the problem is not the sexuality of an individual, but their own psychology as individuals that may lead them to abuse others in a variety of ways including sex.

 

 

 

 

 

Brian you still misinterpret after my repeated attempts at showing you how making a comparison using two items can have absolutely nothing to do with one another other than the fact that they both exist and both occur or possibly both do something. I assumed you interpret it the way you do because you chose too now I see that you did not, you simply can not wrap your head around this literary concept. Why are you not calling me out for comparing gays to rainbow hue'd baby elk being birthed by squirrels? You are apparently still very selective and a mentally retarded state obviously strikes a nerve wherea's the baby elk thing does not.

That's not my problem if you don't understand, it's yours. My first assesment was that you were not half as smart as you think you are, I was actually just spewing and assumed your ubar liberalness was impeeding the thought process in your mind, now I think that you may have a problem here.

 I made a small point about "mixing gayness with atheism" as you put it because it makes perfect sense. It's a very simple concept as well, it's like putting shit on shit and expecting a religious person to accept it. Keep stacking shit on there and try to force it down their throat rather than hitting them with one thing at a time that may be a small enough dose for them to swallow and have discourse. "oh you are here to discuss atheism and gay rights.. you are the devil".

Imagine yourself being faced with someone who is purposefully displaying all the things you hate about people and asking you to discuss all of it. Now imagine a person approaching you who has only one quality you hate who wants to discuss it, which one will be easier to deal with? Which one might actually get something done? This is a common sense thing yet google gay atheist, it's all over the place, whats being gay have to do with atheism? I'll tell you exactly what religious folks think, they think people are gay therefore choose to "hate" god by being an atheist. More of that good old common sense.

You can worry about "cooties" and "yucky" stuff all you like. You seem to have a phobia for such things and you make yourself look so good with this stupid infantile carp.

 

 

 

AND YOU KEEP ignoring that you wouldn't be opening up yourself for criticism if you didn't falsely make those analogies, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU THINK THEY ARE BEING MISINTERPRETED.

I don't think I am. I think you are in denial.

How is gayness like mental retardation? How is it like pedophilia? How is it a "lack of self control"? You keep saying there is no connection, but use them as comparisons?

I've put a mirror up to your face and you don't like it otherwise you wouldn't fall back on the dodge of "PC" which what you are doing.

Where is your criticism of heterosexuals raping women? Why isn't being straight a problem when men grope women, or try to get them drunk to get down their pants?

A popular sexual motif in Japan in their porn is men on public trains copping feels of "school girls". IN REALITY their men do that. So why is it you are not bitching about Japan's women getting groped in public, by heterosexual men in reality?

That never happens because heterosexuals are never dysfunctional.

Just leave it at "I don't like gay sex" and no one will have a problem with you. But once you start saying "gay sex is a problem" thats where you get yourself in trouble.

ANY SEX is a risk especially without a condom, be it a one night stand, or even within a marriage. People cheat on their spouses all the time and can end up with kids outside a marriage or even pass on a disease to their spouse because of their infidelity.

So pointing out dysfunction IN ANY CONTEXT OF ANY RELATIONSHIP should be your focus, not gayness.

Unhealthy relationships exist in all aspects of society. cherry picking gays and then expounding any dysfunction on the rest of that label is what you are doing.

You have from the start assumed a stupid slippery slope that somehow if gays are open that our society will end up with public orgies on state capital lawns with sperm all over the sidewalk because the sight of two gays kissing offends you.

MISSING THE POINT that dysfunction exists in heterosexual couples as well.

NOW please pony up with the evidence that gays should be treated like mental retardation. Please pony up with the evidence that gays kiss each other because they lack self control?

Or maybe, for the same reason you like kissing women, they like kissing guys. Maybe they would be just as offended by public straight orgy as you would be a public gay orgy.

AND MAYBE the real issue is what constitutes a healthy relationship.

BOOM, I HAVE A SOLUTION

It is not the sex act, It is the honesty and the consent. THAT is what constitutes a healthy relationship and if gays have a problem with healthy relationships it would be for the same reason heterosexuals would have a problem.

What you assume is that gays can never do what heterosexuals do which is utter bullshit. They can even reproduce because you are too stupid to separate body mechanics from from sexual desires.

THEY ARE just as capable of loyalty. They are capable of raising kids. They are capable of honesty. And they are capable of every success OR failure every other human is subject to.

"its not natural"

YES IT IS, I am sorry that bothers you, but that is your problem, not theirs.

Boo hoo, crybaby.

You want so badly gay sex to be a dysfunction instead of an acceptable range because it is so foreign to you that someone doesn't like the same types of sex acts you do.

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:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

For the record, PDW, I didn't see anything from you that might be misinterpreted to mean that "abnormal" is bad. It was mostly Sandy and maybe some rob.

 

  Thank for mentioning that.  Still, it seemed as though some here preferred to deliberately interpret my posts in a sinister way.  Whatever.  I made the points I wanted to make.  I'm done.

 

  Ciao.

 

 

 

 ( ps, rob, Sandy and myself are not monolithic in our views and anyone one of  us will readily admit that.  Nevertheless, I would like to maintain that in whatever terms they express their views on homosexuality I still believe they embrace a live and let live attitude regarding sexual minorities. )

 

 

First off @Butter,

The progression of the post from the very first comments from rob collectively count.

It went from "don't mix atheism with gayness", to "you liberals want everything legal" to "political correctness" to "maybe they just need help" to "pedophiles happen too" to "lack of self control". None of that indicates objectivity.

He used analogies of sex with chickens. And most recently equated it to mental retardation. So if he is not equating those things to gayness WHY use them as an example?

OF course mental retardation should not be demonized. But it cannot be equated to sexuality as if sexuality is a birth defect or a head injury.

This is merely rob LOOKING FOR A REASON, to mistake "yuck" for being "bad".

When you take rob's history of posts in their totality it is clear that this isn't about evidence, this is about his own personal distaste for gays.

How nice of rob to be concerned with those afflicted gays. How noble of him to want to cure them just like we should help the mentally retarded.

NO go back and read his history. This is not about helping anyone, this is him wanting gays to stay away from him because he might get cooties.

Rob has back peddled at ever turn when called on every argument.

AND all I am getting anyone here to do has NOTHING to do with political correctness. ALL they can honestly do is say "It's not my thing". If everyone would simply accept that, and drop the rest of the demonizing bullshit, I would leave them alone.

There simply is NO evidence that being gay is harmful to society. The harm is what society does to itself by demonizing gays, not the other way around.

Whatever bad an individual may do while holding ANY label is a reflection of THAT individual, not the entire label. There are plenty of heterosexuals who partake in risky behavior. Plenty who beat their spouses, beat their kids, rape women and buy street prostitutes. Where is the self control when these heterosexuals do these things?

So if the homophobes here want to be consistent they also need to demonize heterosexuals as well, treat heterosexuality like mental retardation as well.

Otherwise the problem is not the sexuality of an individual, but their own psychology as individuals that may lead them to abuse others in a variety of ways including sex.

 

 

 

 

 

Brian you still misinterpret after my repeated attempts at showing you how making a comparison using two items can have absolutely nothing to do with one another other than the fact that they both exist and both occur or possibly both do something. I assumed you interpret it the way you do because you chose too now I see that you did not, you simply can not wrap your head around this literary concept. Why are you not calling me out for comparing gays to rainbow hue'd baby elk being birthed by squirrels? You are apparently still very selective and a mentally retarded state obviously strikes a nerve wherea's the baby elk thing does not.

That's not my problem if you don't understand, it's yours. My first assesment was that you were not half as smart as you think you are, I was actually just spewing and assumed your ubar liberalness was impeeding the thought process in your mind, now I think that you may have a problem here.

 I made a small point about "mixing gayness with atheism" as you put it because it makes perfect sense. It's a very simple concept as well, it's like putting shit on shit and expecting a religious person to accept it. Keep stacking shit on there and try to force it down their throat rather than hitting them with one thing at a time that may be a small enough dose for them to swallow and have discourse. "oh you are here to discuss atheism and gay rights.. you are the devil".

Imagine yourself being faced with someone who is purposefully displaying all the things you hate about people and asking you to discuss all of it. Now imagine a person approaching you who has only one quality you hate who wants to discuss it, which one will be easier to deal with? Which one might actually get something done? This is a common sense thing yet google gay atheist, it's all over the place, whats being gay have to do with atheism? I'll tell you exactly what religious folks think, they think people are gay therefore choose to "hate" god by being an atheist. More of that good old common sense.

You can worry about "cooties" and "yucky" stuff all you like. You seem to have a phobia for such things and you make yourself look so good with this stupid infantile carp.

 

 

 

AND YOU KEEP ignoring that you wouldn't be opening up yourself for criticism if you didn't falsely make those analogies, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU THINK THEY ARE BEING MISINTERPRETED.

I don't think I am. I think you are in denial.

How is gayness like mental retardation? How is it like pedophilia? How is it a "lack of self control"? You keep saying there is no connection, but use them as comparisons?

I've put a mirror up to your face and you don't like it otherwise you wouldn't fall back on the dodge of "PC" which what you are doing.

Where is your criticism of heterosexuals raping women? Why isn't being straight a problem when men grope women, or try to get them drunk to get down their pants?

A popular sexual motif in Japan in their porn is men on public trains copping feels of "school girls". IN REALITY their men do that. So why is it you are not bitching about Japan's women getting groped in public, by heterosexual men in reality?

That never happens because heterosexuals are never dysfunctional.

Just leave it at "I don't like gay sex" and no one will have a problem with you. But once you start saying "gay sex is a problem" thats where you get yourself in trouble.

ANY SEX is a risk especially without a condom, be it a one night stand, or even within a marriage. People cheat on their spouses all the time and can end up with kids outside a marriage or even pass on a disease to their spouse because of their infidelity.

So pointing out dysfunction IN ANY CONTEXT OF ANY RELATIONSHIP should be your focus, not gayness.

Unhealthy relationships exist in all aspects of society. cherry picking gays and then expounding any dysfunction on the rest of that label is what you are doing.

You have from the start assumed a stupid slippery slope that somehow if gays are open that our society will end up with public orgies on state capital lawns with sperm all over the sidewalk because the sight of two gays kissing offends you.

MISSING THE POINT that dysfunction exists in heterosexual couples as well.

NOW please pony up with the evidence that gays should be treated like mental retardation. Please pony up with the evidence that gays kiss each other because they lack self control?

Or maybe, for the same reason you like kissing women, they like kissing guys. Maybe they would be just as offended by public straight orgy as you would be a public gay orgy.

AND MAYBE the real issue is what constitutes a healthy relationship.

BOOM, I HAVE A SOLUTION

It is not the sex act, It is the honesty and the consent. THAT is what constitutes a healthy relationship and if gays have a problem with healthy relationships it would be for the same reason heterosexuals would have a problem.

What you assume is that gays can never do what heterosexuals do which is utter bullshit. They can even reproduce because you are too stupid to separate body mechanics from from sexual desires.

THEY ARE just as capable of loyalty. They are capable of raising kids. They are capable of honesty. And they are capable of every success OR failure every other human is subject to.

"its not natural"

YES IT IS, I am sorry that bothers you, but that is your problem, not theirs.

Boo hoo, crybaby.

You want so badly gay sex to be a dysfunction instead of an acceptable range because it is so foreign to you that someone doesn't like the same types of sex acts you do.

GROW UP!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post deleted, I'll be the bigger human here and let you rail against your self.

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
 I have a question... I

 

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.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane

Sandycane wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
 

 ( ps, rob, Sandy and myself are not monolithic in our views and anyone one of  us will readily admit that.  Nevertheless, I would like to maintain that in whatever terms they express their views on homosexuality I still believe they embrace a live and let live attitude regarding sexual minorities.    What unites the three of us is our distaste for the arrogance of pc group think and it's use of shame in order to enforce conformity )

True.  

I'll admit that of the three of us, I am the least accepting of homosexual behavior.

I do have a 'live and let live' attitude but, there are limits.

If you all believe there is a wide range of acceptable sexual behavior then you must also admit that there is a wide range of acceptance. Just because you embrace homosexuality does not mean that everyone will or, should.

I will tolerate your homosexuality as long as you tolerate my not agreeing with it.

No no no no no,

ONCE AGAIN, you are making an argument WITHOUT understanding what you are doing to them, AND TO YOURSELF.

To be rational in rightfully being tolerant, all you have to do is say "that is not my thing" and leave it at that. No one is asking you to have sex with someone of the same sex.

GAYS should and have every right to do, be open and honest about themselves, just like heterosexuals have.

They are not going to recruit you or your kids or rape you or molest your kids. Giving them the opportunity to have love and relationships will not harm you.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT to say, " I don't want to do that myself"

You do not have the right to say, "You cant do that because I don't like it"

I promise you the gay and lesbian community WILL NOT chase you down with clubs and torches and force you to have sex with them. I PROMISE!

But them wanting to get married and share economic costs and raise kids, WILL NOT HARM YOU. Dysfunction is a RATIO in life and any dysfunction you see gays having you want to throw it all out missing the point that dysfunction exists in heterosexuals as well. And since heterosexuals outnumber gays to be consent you would have to condemn heterosexuals MORE because they have a bigger population.

This is the same stupid argument that theists make in condemning atheists. "He's an alcoholic because he's an atheist. Missing the point that believers can be alcoholics too and outnumber atheists. Just like men manipulate women for sex, pimp women out for money, buy street prostitutes, get women drunk to get down their pants, beat their wives, cheat on their wives.

So if sexuality is the cause of dysfunction then since heterosexuals outnumber gays by RATIO they are causing far more problems, just like Christians are going to represent a higher ratio in prisons because they outnumber atheists.

I am only tolerant in the constitutional right for you to make such a bad argument. But just as you have the right to make bad arguments I have the right to challenge them.You need to stop making this about PC bullshit. I am merely offering you a better way of looking at life than "they shouldn't do that because I am uncomfortable being aware of it".

EVEN OUTSIDE THE ISSUE OF SEXUALITY

I do find lots of things in life, that when I see it I say, "Why do they do that, why do they like that?" I am NOT condemning you for that at all, THAT IS NORMAL.

What is wrong is your reaction to those NORMAL feelings.

What I don't do which is what you do is say, "Because I don't like it, no one should do it ever".

ALL HARM to others, even outside of sex, like robbery, or assault is caused by a selfish need to have power and control over others, SEX is merely one manifestation that is the OUTCOME not the cause and by ratio heterosexuals are going to represent a LARGER portion of dysfunction by proxy of number.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Brian37

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I still believe they embrace a live and let live attitude regarding sexual minorities.    What unites the three of us is our distaste for the arrogance of pc group think and it's use of shame in order to enforce conformity

You defy yourself by interjecting "PC" into an argument that is supposedly about evidence and then when no one shows any credible evidence as to why gayness is harmful, you pull out "pc" as an ad homin to hide behind the fact you have no evidence.

I have used the word "nigger" and "fagot" and "Tinkerbell" on this website so for anyone to use the bullshit argument of "pc" is absurd.

THIS IS STRICTLY about evidence and all I see you and Sandy and Rob doing is throwing "pc" in as a dodge.

You are fine with "live and let live" as long as those not like you hide what they are.

I am offering you a BETTER way of looking at it. "It's not my thing, and at the same time I will judge the individual, not the label".

If you would look at it that way instead of denying that you are merely mistaking "yuck" with "bad" This would not be an issue and I would accept your argument of "live and let live". I simply cannot buy it when you and others here use "PC" falsely to mask your own insecurities.

Why is it I had no problem with a gay couple who invited an asshole who grabbed my ass? Why is it I didn't blame them for the actions of another? BECAUSE I was judging the individual. And that is what you guys seem to want to ignore.

I find it funny that all of us can agree that atheists AND EVEN THIS THREAD proves that we are individuals, but yet you cant see that the very thing you rightfully accuse theists of, you do to gays.

 

 

 

Brian,

You continue to destroy any shred of credibility you may have by repeatedly REPEATEDLY repeatedly confusing who is saying what.

Are you a closet homosexual, Brian?

The last bastion of the desperate.

No, but if I was gay I wouldn't be the least bit ashamed of it, which maybe you want gays to be.

Should gays be ashamed of themselves?

If not, then what is your fucking problem with them other than " I don't like 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


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
I think I can understand a

I think I can understand a homosexual relationship that is developed over time and entails a monogamous relationship. I suppose I can see two men meeting each other, hitting it off, getting to know each other better and making a decision to be a couple. Hard as it is for me to imagine, I can understand them wanting to express their love in an intimate way. I can also see them having similar problems with their relationship that heterosexual couples do and possibly breaking it off and moving on.

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.

Traditionally, sex was not an option until after the commitment of marriage was made. Sex was not what the relationship was based on as it appears to be with homosexuals.

There have been and still are many reasons heterosexuals get married (commit to each other, if you prefer) besides the sex aspect of it but, it just seems to me that with homosexuals, sex is the driving force.

'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
Brian37 wrote:Sandycane

Brian37 wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Brian,

You continue to destroy any shred of credibility you may have by repeatedly REPEATEDLY repeatedly confusing who is saying what.

Are you a closet homosexual, Brian?

The last bastion of the desperate.

No, but if I was gay I wouldn't be the least bit ashamed of it, which maybe you want gays to be.

Should gays be ashamed of themselves?

If not, then what is your fucking problem with them other than " I don't like it"?

I asked you that question to see how you would react to it. I don't give a hoot if you are or, aren't gay.

...and again, you are misrepresenting what I say. I never said this:

Quote:
What I don't do which is what you do is say, "Because I don't like it, no one should do it ever".

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:I think I

Sandycane wrote:

I think I can understand a homosexual relationship that is developed over time and entails a monogamous relationship. I suppose I can see two men meeting each other, hitting it off, getting to know each other better and making a decision to be a couple. Hard as it is for me to imagine, I can understand them wanting to express their love in an intimate way. I can also see them having similar problems with their relationship that heterosexual couples do and possibly breaking it off and moving on.

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.

Traditionally, sex was not an option until after the commitment of marriage was made. Sex was not what the relationship was based on as it appears to be with homosexuals.

There have been and still are many reasons heterosexuals get married (commit to each other, if you prefer) besides the sex aspect of it but, it just seems to me that with homosexuals, sex is the driving force.

THANK YOU SANDY, gebus kristos on a cracker, was that so hard? You are ALMOST there.

SEX is also the driving force in heterosexuals OTHERWISE you and I wouldn't exist. You simply take dysfunction in SOME gays and assume that they will all act like that, which is not the case anymore than all men will rape women just because some men do.

Seriously, I simply think you have not been exposed to gays as much as I have. No different than what we say to theists who don't have that much contact with atheists.

NONE of my theists friends or family including my own mother understand why I don't believe, but they will be the first to defend me as an individual.

Just give gays that same thing. If a lesbian tries to kiss you AFTER you have told them you are not gay, that would be no different to me than if a straight guy kept hitting on a woman AFTER she told him she was not interested. That unwanted attention is what we should fight not the persons sexuality.

I will ALWAYS defend your right to say "I am not into that". There are lots of things I am not into.

What I won't defend is "If I don't want to do that, no one can ever, even if I am not being directly harmed by 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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Brian37

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Brian,

You continue to destroy any shred of credibility you may have by repeatedly REPEATEDLY repeatedly confusing who is saying what.

Are you a closet homosexual, Brian?

The last bastion of the desperate.

No, but if I was gay I wouldn't be the least bit ashamed of it, which maybe you want gays to be.

Should gays be ashamed of themselves?

If not, then what is your fucking problem with them other than " I don't like it"?

I asked you that question to see how you would react to it. I don't give a hoot if you are or, aren't gay.

...and again, you are misrepresenting what I say. I never said this:

Quote:
What I don't do which is what you do is say, "Because I don't like it, no one should do it ever".

Yes you do care otherwise why ask me if I am gay in the form ad homin?

IF YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT THAT PEOPLE ARE GAY THEN WHY HAVE YOU SPENT WEEKS BITCHING ABOUT IT?

You do give a shit, you just are to much of a coward to admit that it bothers you.

Prove to me right here right now in you next post do it right now.

Say this:

"It is ok to be gay"

"Gays should be allowed to get married"

Otherwise you are proving my point that this goes way beyond mere likes and dislikes and you don't want them having the same rights you have.

I think you need to read Sandy's response. I think she is coming damned close to realizing her mistake.

Sandy, that took tons of guts to admit, kudos to you and that is really all I have been trying to get you to understand. DONT take what society magnifies and media distorts and make blanket statements. You don't want that done to atheists, gays are no different.

I have had a gay guy try to get me drunk to get into my pants, that is no different than a guy trying to get a woman drunk to get down their pants. What I don't do is assume all gays will do that because of one asshole. Anymore than we should assume all straight guys will get a woman drunk to have sex with them. Dysfunction exists in all aspects of society and even outside the issue of sex.

Dysfunction CAN lead to sexual aggression without consent. But dysfunction also leads to drug addiction and spouse abuse and assault and robbery. SEX is not the cause of dysfunction it is only ONE of many outcomes that can present itself BECAUSE of dysfunction.

 

 

 

 

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
why the fuck is this still

why the fuck is this still going on?  i have never seen so much text wasted and nothing get anywhere.  this is like a Fonzie or mind over matter thread, except the sad part is, there aren't any theists here.

homosexuality is not normal.

homosexuality is not abnormal.

these qualifications do not exist objectively.  jesus christ, we might as well argue which are tougher: uruk-hai or half-orcs.  at least that argument would be fucking interesting.

there is no one on this thread who is going to "bother" homosexuals, and in fact, the only people here who are admittedly not totally heterosexual seem to have rolled their eyes and given up on this tangled mind-fuck days ago.

there are several people here who are just being petulant and putting themselves on the cross.  one pitiful crucifixion was enough for world history, thank you.

but if you must continue, when quoting previous posts, can you please edit them down to the portions you're addressing?  that way those of us who have some shred of faith that we might find something interesting don't have to hunt for new content among mountains of old posts that have been replicated two or three times?  it's like opening a fucking matroshka doll sometimes.

and i really don't think caps are necessary.  ever.  i doubt anyone bothering to post on internet forums is legally blind.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote: I have a

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.

Sandy, wow, thanks for the honest question, you are already there without realizing it.

Think about a person you have been attracted to. Do you really think you are making that choice? Or you simply say to yourself, "I like that".

But also think about beyond that initial physical attraction, the emotional bonding you feel with the opposite sex. It is the same thing, the only difference is where those physical reactions and emotional reactions are aimed at.

Pets are another example. Some people love cats and some people love dogs but the love is the same.

Ever hear someone say "I cant stand cats". I have, but I also point out that just because you might not want a cat, the person who does have a cat is perfectly capable of loving their cat. And at the same time you can also point out dog owners who abuse the shit out of their dogs.

I am proud of you Sandy. I am not sure if this will stick, but it damned sure is an improvement from what you have been doing. If you are not there yet, you seem to be damned close, or already there without realizing it. I hope you make that final push.

It is ok to not like something, really, no one will fault you for that. But it is not ok to condemn others merely and solely based on you not liking something.

 

"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
Yea it's pretty much a can

Yea it's pretty much a can of stupid.

If I "admit that I have a problem with gays or their lifestyle" I would be lying, I don't. I think I would have to cam myself kissing a guy to convince some people here of the fact. They don't get the difference here and it's probably best to drop it.

It's apparently impossible to believe the last "gay" thread actually made me think but this one is going nowhere but insultville, pop 2.

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:Prove to me

Brian37 wrote:

Prove to me right here right now in you next post do it right now.

Say this:

"It is ok to be gay"

"Gays should be allowed to get married"

Listen Brian, I'm not Howdy Doody and you don't have your hand shoved up my ass so, don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Count your blessings and stfu (edited to lower case    ).

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:why the fuck is

iwbiek wrote:

why the fuck is this still going on?  i have never seen so much text wasted and nothing get anywhere.  this is like a Fonzie or mind over matter thread, except the sad part is, there aren't any theists here.

homosexuality is not normal.

homosexuality is not abnormal.

these qualifications do not exist objectively.  jesus christ, we might as well argue which are tougher: uruk-hai or half-orcs.  at least that argument would be fucking interesting.

there is no one on this thread who is going to "bother" homosexuals, and in fact, the only people here who are admittedly not totally heterosexual seem to have rolled their eyes and given up on this tangled mind-fuck days ago.

there are several people here who are just being petulant and putting themselves on the cross.  one pitiful crucifixion was enough for world history, thank you.

but if you must continue, when quoting previous posts, can you please edit them down to the portions you're addressing?  that way those of us who have some shred of faith that we might find something interesting don't have to hunt for new content among mountains of old posts that have been replicated two or three times?  it's like opening a fucking matroshka doll sometimes.

and i really don't think caps are necessary.  ever.  i doubt anyone bothering to post on internet forums is legally blind.

Quote:

homosexuality is not normal.

homosexuality is not abnormal.

Why the fuck should we care either way? Is this your argument?

Because the meme that homosexuality is not normal has been debunked by the fact that it exists as even outside the human species, just like the flat earth claim has been debunked.

The problem with allowing this horrible meme to exist is that gays are demonized and suffer as a result of bad claims.

I am attempting to correct historys error by making the blame on ALL dysfunction, not sexuality. Just like the sun does not rotate around the earth.

I am correcting the simple error that " I don't like that" should always mean "bad". No, likes and dislikes should NEVER be conflated as being bad which is what the majority has done, most recently with gays, but also with blacks and women. BASED ON THE SAME BAD USE OF LOGIC.

Gays are being used as scapegoats for the insecurities of the majority when it is clear that dysfunction exists even in heterosexual relationships and dysfunction exists EVEN without sex being involved. DRUG ADDICTION is a form of dysfunction.

I am simply not going to allow bad logic to be used to harm other people.

"yuck" does not mean "bad".

A true test of what we should all consider bad is HARM, nothing more, nothing less. Sexual preference BY ITSELF is not harmful.

 

 

 

 

"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: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Yea it's

robj101 wrote:

Yea it's pretty much a can of stupid.

If I "admit that I have a problem with gays or their lifestyle" I would be lying, I don't. I think I would have to cam myself kissing a guy to convince some people here of the fact. They don't get the difference here and it's probably best to drop it.

It's apparently impossible to believe the last "gay" thread actually made me think but this one is going nowhere but insultville, pop 2.

Is that seriously what you think I am trying to get you to do? Kiss a guy to prove you are not a bigot?

Now you know why I have been calling you childish. NO ONE wants you to do anything you don't want to do.

Being gay is not a lifestyle anymore than being black is.

My saying that they should have the right to get married and should not have to hide what they are is not a demand for you to have gay sex. How the fuck you are jumping that gap is silly.

You are just pissed that I am telling you that your hang ups are yours, not theirs and they should not have to bow to your insecurities.

The only thing that deserves insults is your bad logic you use to defend your own paranoia.

You admit that you have a problem with gays.

I AM GIVING YOU A WAY TO ADMIT THAT WITHOUT CONDEMING YOU.

The way you are doing it now deserves every condemnation and insult and ridicule.

"yuck" does not make you bad for feeling "yuck" when you think about gays. Your mistake is treating "yuck" the same as "bad".  And that is all I have been trying to get you to realize.

Just say "yuck". Thats ok, that is normal. But don't go around claiming there is something wrong with what they do when you have no fucking evidence that it causes you any harm.

This is the same stupid logic that leads people to say "If everyone were atheists we'd all end up worshiping Stalin".

 

"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


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

Sandycane wrote:

I think I can understand a homosexual relationship that is developed over time and entails a monogamous relationship. I suppose I can see two men meeting each other, hitting it off, getting to know each other better and making a decision to be a couple. Hard as it is for me to imagine, I can understand them wanting to express their love in an intimate way. I can also see them having similar problems with their relationship that heterosexual couples do and possibly breaking it off and moving on.

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.

Traditionally, sex was not an option until after the commitment of marriage was made. Sex was not what the relationship was based on as it appears to be with homosexuals.

There have been and still are many reasons heterosexuals get married (commit to each other, if you prefer) besides the sex aspect of it but, it just seems to me that with homosexuals, sex is the driving force.

 

In the Lesbian community, Portland OR became known as a "safe" place for homosexual women.  There appears to be not as many homosexual men.  At least, that is just my impression from what I see at the grocery store.  I haven't found anything that splits the stats out by gender:

Quote:

According to Gary Gates's analysis of the 2006 American Community Survey, the City of Portland ranks seventh in the country in terms of glbtq population, with 8.8% of adult residents identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual; the Portland metropolitan area ranks fourth among metropolitan areas, with 6.1% of the population identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

 

And, as I found elsewhere, Portland is not San Francisco.  That is, there isn't as large of a population and the Portland group is not as flamboyant (obvious? not sure of the word I want here).  There is no one particular enclave and the gay hang outs are not all in one part of town.  In part, that is because of the laid back attitude of most Portlanders.

When I see a gay couple-men or women, in their 60s or 70s, obviously monogamous for most of their lives, sharing the grocery chores, I don't get the feeling that they are together for the sex. 

And I don't know about how traditional it was for sex to wait until marriage.  I think that is a modern phenomenon.  There are plenty of stories of people in the Western US having to wait for the next itinerant preacher to come though town to get married, but by the time he made it, they already had 1/2 dozen kids.

 

-- 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.


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

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Yea it's pretty much a can of stupid.

If I "admit that I have a problem with gays or their lifestyle" I would be lying, I don't. I think I would have to cam myself kissing a guy to convince some people here of the fact. They don't get the difference here and it's probably best to drop it.

It's apparently impossible to believe the last "gay" thread actually made me think but this one is going nowhere but insultville, pop 2.

Is that seriously what you think I am trying to get you to do? Kiss a guy to prove you are not a bigot?

Now you know why I have been calling you childish. NO ONE wants you to do anything you don't want to do.

Being gay is not a lifestyle anymore than being black is.

My saying that they should have the right to get married and should not have to hide what they are is not a demand for you to have gay sex. How the fuck you are jumping that gap is silly.

You are just pissed that I am telling you that your hang ups are yours, not theirs and they should not have to bow to your insecurities.

The only thing that deserves insults is your bad logic you use to defend your own paranoia.

You admit that you have a problem with gays.

I AM GIVING YOU A WAY TO ADMIT THAT WITHOUT CONDEMING YOU.

The way you are doing it now deserves every condemnation and insult and ridicule.

"yuck" does not make you bad for feeling "yuck" when you think about gays. Your mistake is treating "yuck" the same as "bad".  And that is all I have been trying to get you to realize.

Just say "yuck". Thats ok, that is normal. But don't go around claiming there is something wrong with what they do when you have no fucking evidence that it causes you any harm.

This is the same stupid logic that leads people to say "If everyone were atheists we'd all end up worshiping Stalin".

 

Paranoia? Where do you pull this stuff from?

You are just raving now, get back when you want to actually talk like you might have some rationale.

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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote: Things

greek goddess wrote:

 Things are getting ugly here, with names and red herrings being flung about, and I think I'd like to steer the conversation back to the topic of "normal or not," while avoiding any implications of morality for the time being. 

As I understand it, the two sides are as follows:

Sandy, robj, and PDW are arguing that homosexuality is "abnormal" in the sense that it is a statistical minority. I would say this is correct. Why we are arguing over this makes no sense to me. 

On the other hand, Bob is arguing that homosexuality is "normal" because it is something that occurs with some regularity among the human population, and various other animal populations as well. This is also a valid point. However, I am not sure of the usefulness of this position, because then almost anything could be said to be "normal" as long as it occurs in some percentage of the human population. For instance, I have bipolar depression, and that would be "normal" because it can be demonstrated that some people have bipolar depression. Same could be said for Down's syndrome, homosexuality, Klinefelter's syndrome, fear of heights... 

Now Bob, I apologize if I have misread your position, and if I have, please feel free to correct my assumptions. However, while I agree with you on technicality, I will reiterate my above statement that putting this issue in these terms is just not useful or helpful. There are many "options" that are outside the realm of possibility for the human experience at this point in time (i.e., having blue skin), so I can understand that those things would be "abnormal." But it does us little good when looking only at the actual possibilities or options available. And so I would argue in favor of the position that in order to meaningfully distinguish between options, we must designate "normal" or "abnormal." 

Later on I will talk about "natural" vs. "unnatural," but I'd like to do that in a separate post. Tell me what you guys think so far... Am I understanding the argument correctly?

By the statistical definition of 'normal', anything that occurs often enough is indeed 'normal'.

It is a separate issue whether something represents a problem of some kind or not. That is what we should be discussing.

Due to the connotations attached to the word 'normal', and the different ways people here use the word, I won't use it.

I tried 'unusual' instead, but apparently some still see that as having negative connotations.

When considering options, I would say we need to consider the potential consequences of acting on, or choosing, each one. Eating too much high carbohydrate or sweet food will lead to potential health problems, so we need to exercise some self-control there. Taking part in extreme physical activities, like throwing yourself of a cliff with only an elastic cord or a parachute to stop you getting killed is not what most 'normal' people would do, it is risky, but some people find it exhilarating.

Approaching another person with the idea of possibly persuading them to have sex with you risks a very negative reaction, but some people regularly will do that, because they have strong desires/urges to have sex, and find it very enjoyable. When deciding whether to risk it, they should consider the likelihood of rejection, or of offending the other person, the overall context, etc. This apples regardless of the kind of act involved, or the gender of the participants.

These are the sort of things which should be taken into account when choosing options.

There is also the risk of STD's to be taken into account, and whether to use protection of some kind, when choosing to try and have sex with someone.

I don't see anyone making conscious choices as to what sex 'works' best for them, what kind of people arouse them sexually. If they have sufficient self-control, they should be able to choose whether to attempt to act on those feelings, that attraction they feel.

I agree that the issue is, or was supposed to be about, is homosexuality some kind of pathology, like depression, or lack of self-control. Or a conscious choice of some kind. I don't see that it is any of those things.

It is also statistically abnormal to be extremely skilled intellectually or physically. But that is not an 'option'. 

Just what do mean when you say we "should designate what options are 'normal' or 'abnormal'"? Are you concerned about social disapproval? That may be relevant if it is public, or likely to become known beyond the immediate participants, it is true.

I would say what we should consider are the risks and potential benefits of each optional course of action.

Depression is a problem you may develop, but what has that to do with 'choices'? No one chooses to become depressed, although some forms may be a result of certain life choices.

Sexual attraction to others of the same sex is not intrinsically a problem, AFAICS.

IOW people with such inclinations appear to be just as likely to be 'normal' in other areas of life and health, not directly associated with sexual activity, as those he bend the other way - and that is not simply my opinion, it seems to be a simple fact, based on many surveys and studies.

I hope you can clarify how you see this, because I don't see the discussions with the others, especially Sandy and robj, going anywhere useful.

I find 'natural' vs 'unnatural' to be also loaded with problems as well, but I would be also be interested in how you see those ideas applicable here.

To repeat, I see the issues being about consequences and potential physical or emotional harm, risk/benefit assessment, not about normal/abnormal, natural/unnatural.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Brian37

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Yea it's pretty much a can of stupid.

If I "admit that I have a problem with gays or their lifestyle" I would be lying, I don't. I think I would have to cam myself kissing a guy to convince some people here of the fact. They don't get the difference here and it's probably best to drop it.

It's apparently impossible to believe the last "gay" thread actually made me think but this one is going nowhere but insultville, pop 2.

Is that seriously what you think I am trying to get you to do? Kiss a guy to prove you are not a bigot?

Now you know why I have been calling you childish. NO ONE wants you to do anything you don't want to do.

Being gay is not a lifestyle anymore than being black is.

My saying that they should have the right to get married and should not have to hide what they are is not a demand for you to have gay sex. How the fuck you are jumping that gap is silly.

You are just pissed that I am telling you that your hang ups are yours, not theirs and they should not have to bow to your insecurities.

The only thing that deserves insults is your bad logic you use to defend your own paranoia.

You admit that you have a problem with gays.

I AM GIVING YOU A WAY TO ADMIT THAT WITHOUT CONDEMING YOU.

The way you are doing it now deserves every condemnation and insult and ridicule.

"yuck" does not make you bad for feeling "yuck" when you think about gays. Your mistake is treating "yuck" the same as "bad".  And that is all I have been trying to get you to realize.

Just say "yuck". Thats ok, that is normal. But don't go around claiming there is something wrong with what they do when you have no fucking evidence that it causes you any harm.

This is the same stupid logic that leads people to say "If everyone were atheists we'd all end up worshiping Stalin".

 

Paranoia? Where do you pull this stuff from?

You are just raving now, get back when you want to actually talk like you might have some rationale.

Why would you call homosexuality a lifestyle if you were not being paranoid?

Is your heterosexuality a lifestyle? Or is it simply something that you cant control. And by control I don't mean physical activity, I mean you cant help what you feel, even if you don't act on what you feel?

I haven't had sex for years. I have had sex before. None of the sex I had with woman was a "lifestyle", nor has my attraction to women changed simply because I don't have sex now.

CJ mentioned something about old gay couples. And I have met them too. They are not in it just for sex anymore than a married couple at 70 is.

My mom doesn't have sex anymore? Does that make her abstaining a "lifestyle" now while when she was married to a man it wasn't a "lifestyle"?

You are being paranoid "I have the right"

YES YOU DO, only in the context that no one should force you to have sex with men. Other than that, get over yourself.

You are also not wrong in saying "I find gay sex yucky"

But calling it a lifestyle is a dodge and a double standard because your heterosexuality is not, to you a "lifestyle".

If we go by your stupid "lifestyle" standard then my mom's who is 75 has gone from being natural because she was married to being an abnormal "lifestyle" because she doesn't have sex anymore.

You just cant stand that gays want the same rights you have.

BOO HOO

 

 

"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
Lifestyle is fairly generic

Lifestyle is fairly generic term. It means how someone lives. You have a lifestyle I have a lifestyle we all have a lifestyle. I see no real "paranoia" in pointing out something so obvious.

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: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Sandycane wrote: I

cj wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

I think I can understand a homosexual relationship that is developed over time and entails a monogamous relationship. I suppose I can see two men meeting each other, hitting it off, getting to know each other better and making a decision to be a couple. Hard as it is for me to imagine, I can understand them wanting to express their love in an intimate way. I can also see them having similar problems with their relationship that heterosexual couples do and possibly breaking it off and moving on.

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.

Traditionally, sex was not an option until after the commitment of marriage was made. Sex was not what the relationship was based on as it appears to be with homosexuals.

There have been and still are many reasons heterosexuals get married (commit to each other, if you prefer) besides the sex aspect of it but, it just seems to me that with homosexuals, sex is the driving force.

 

In the Lesbian community, Portland OR became known as a "safe" place for homosexual women.  There appears to be not as many homosexual men.  At least, that is just my impression from what I see at the grocery store.  I haven't found anything that splits the stats out by gender:

Quote:

 

According to Gary Gates's analysis of the 2006 American Community Survey, the City of Portland ranks seventh in the country in terms of glbtq population, with 8.8% of adult residents identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual; the Portland metropolitan area ranks fourth among metropolitan areas, with 6.1% of the population identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

 

And, as I found elsewhere, Portland is not San Francisco.  That is, there isn't as large of a population and the Portland group is not as flamboyant (obvious? not sure of the word I want here).  There is no one particular enclave and the gay hang outs are not all in one part of town.  In part, that is because of the laid back attitude of most Portlanders.

When I see a gay couple-men or women, in their 60s or 70s, obviously monogamous for most of their lives, sharing the grocery chores, I don't get the feeling that they are together for the sex. 

And I don't know about how traditional it was for sex to wait until marriage.  I think that is a modern phenomenon.  There are plenty of stories of people in the Western US having to wait for the next itinerant preacher to come though town to get married, but by the time he made it, they already had 1/2 dozen kids.

 

Producing kids you cant afford is ok because heterosexuals did it. Beating your kid is ok because hetrosexuals do it. Cheating on your spouse is ok because heterosexuals do it.

So it makes perfect sense to me to bug gays who don't do that. Because if one gay does it they must all do it. Just like if one man rapes a woman all men will rape women. And all atheists love Stalin because Stalin was an atheist.

Why does religion succeed in producing offspring? Not because it is good for the species, but because it creates more gang members.

We should always condemn gays, even if they are not dysfunctional. Even if they adopt kids they can afford and don't beat them. Even if they are loyal to their partner.

Because heterosexuality is natural and not a lifestyle even when the man beats his wife.

Rob, I only want you to see how absurd you are being. Thats all.

You are suffering, from bad logic, not gays.

 

 

"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: You just

Brian37 wrote:

 

You just cant stand that gays want the same rights you have.

BOO HOO

 

 

 

How many fucking times do I have to say I'm for gay rights? I could probably quote myself several times here.

I'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rights

Do I need to make a page of this to get it through your fuking thick skull? I don't have this "paranoia" this "yucky" whatever shit. I used to think it was "yucky" but I have been over that for a while.

 

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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:By the

BobSpence1 wrote:

By the statistical definition of 'normal', anything that occurs often enough is indeed 'normal'.

It is a separate issue whether something represents a problem of some kind or not. That is what we should be discussing.

Due to the connotations attached to the word 'normal', and the different ways people here use the word, I won't use it.

I tried 'unusual' instead, but apparently some still see that as having negative connotations.

 

"Less frequent" would perhaps be a mathematically correct term.  This has nothing to do with PC, folks.  This would be the proper mathematical term for those data points that fall out of a particular portion of the normal curve.  And "normal curve" is a term that has to do with mathematics and statistics, not with the common usage of "normal" or "abnormal".  Language is so vague, even when we try to tighten it up.

-- 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.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Lifestyle is

robj101 wrote:

Lifestyle is fairly generic term. It means how someone lives. You have a lifestyle I have a lifestyle we all have a lifestyle. I see no real "paranoia" in pointing out something so obvious.

And it is a shallow hollow thought, and not even a standard.

I don't have sex, is that a "lifestyle"?

No it is not. I am still attracted to women even though I don't act on it.

You are setting up a double standard. If homosexuality is a "lifestyle" then so is heterosexuality.

You not going to get away with demonizing gays with something that is not even a standard.

"lifestyle" is a bullshit marketing tool, it is not a judgment or a standard.

I have seen many abusive heterosexuals cheat and beat  and try to take advantage of women and I only see that as abusive, not a "lifestyle".

You have simply fallen for a characterization of gays and lumped them all together because of your own insecurities.

Lets review.

First attempt,

"Dont mix gays with atheists"

Second attempt:

"You liberals want everything legal'

Third attempt

"Maybe it is problem they cant help" (you are right, they cant help it, but why does it need help?) The only problem I see is you, not them.

Now

"Lifestyle"

You are failing every single time to justify your position.

Let me correct you.

Gays cannot help their sexuality anymore than you can help yours. But their gayness is not a problem nor is it abnormal anymore than your heterosexuality is a "lifestyle" or abnormal.

This simply amounts to you finding it yucky.

BOO HOO.

 

 

"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: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:BobSpence1 wrote:By

cj wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

By the statistical definition of 'normal', anything that occurs often enough is indeed 'normal'.

It is a separate issue whether something represents a problem of some kind or not. That is what we should be discussing.

Due to the connotations attached to the word 'normal', and the different ways people here use the word, I won't use it.

I tried 'unusual' instead, but apparently some still see that as having negative connotations.

 

"Less frequent" would perhaps be a mathematically correct term.  This has nothing to do with PC, folks.  This would be the proper mathematical term for those data points that fall out of a particular portion of the normal curve.  And "normal curve" is a term that has to do with mathematics and statistics, not with the common usage of "normal" or "abnormal".  Language is so vague, even when we try to tighten it up.

Gays are less frequent, yes. But that does not make gay sex abnormal, it is perfectly normal, it simply a minority.

Rob is going beyond any scientific argument against gay sex by calling it a "lifestyle" and saying "you liberals want everything legal". He is using nothing but emotional appeal based on his own reaction to the "yuck" he feels.

I have given him a way to accept the "yuck"  as a normal part of life without being a dick to other people who dont conform to his standards.

"lifestyle" is not an argument, it is a dodge.

Hetrosexuals do lots of risky things and abusive things he simply ignores that.

I am not going to allow him to get away with that bad use of logic.

It merely seems to me that he extrapolates one extreme characterization to anyone who shares the same label as all being bad apples. If he is to be consistent than when one straight guy rapes a women then all heterosexuals will rape too.

If he is willing to accept that all it amounts to is "yuck" I am far more than ready to drop this.

 

 

 

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Is it PC to be 'intolerant'

Is it PC to be 'intolerant' of 'intolerant' attitudes??

If we value the concept of allowing people to express their opinions, regardless of whether we agree with them, the one thing we can justify actively opposing is the idea that people should not be so free to express such opinions.

 

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Brian37

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

You just cant stand that gays want the same rights you have.

BOO HOO

 

 

 

How many fucking times do I have to say I'm for gay rights? I could probably quote myself several times here.

I'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rights

Do I need to make a page of this to get it through your fuking thick skull? I don't have this "paranoia" this "yucky" whatever shit. I used to think it was "yucky" but I have been over that for a while.

 

Then what the fuck was all that shit about "don't mix gays and atheists" and "you liberals want to legalize everything" and "lifestyle" and "it's like mental retardation".

I think you just say that because you don't want to look like a dick.

I think you are fine with house niggers. "Just not around me"

Would you ask a gay couple to stay inside their house while you try to sell yours? Would you dissown your child if they came out to you?

IF NOT I simply do not understand all your conflicting bullshit that seems to defy your own words.

Being gay is not a lifestyle. So if you truly are for gay rights then stop calling it that.

Seriously, find your golf buddy and tell him his homosexuality is a "lifestyle" or tell him that it is like mental retardation, a problem he can fix, and then open your fucking ears and listen to his response.

I am really confused.

People who defend gay rights and gays themselves do not call it a lifestyle. They do not see themselves as needing any help or a problem that they have.

So put your money where your mouth is and stop calling gayness things it is not.

 

 

 

"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: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
rob, we can cut the crap

rob, we can cut the crap right here right now.

It all boils down to treating others as individuals and judging them, not on their labels, but on their individual actions.

You have tried to justify very badly that there is something wrong with gays and at the same time say you are for gay rights. They are not sick they do not have a birth defect, they do not need help. PERIOD.

You are the only one with any real problem here.

So if you say you are for their rights then stop saying that they have a problem.

 

 

 

"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: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Gay atheists are not

Quote:
Gay atheists are not the best example of an atheist and sometimes I wish they would be quiet.

Your words, not mine.

WHY should they be quiet?

Is it the "flamers" you object to? Or all gays merely for saying they are gay?

The guy that grabbed my ass would not be a good example of gays even if he was not an atheist. The gay couple at that same party would be a great representation of COUPLES of any sexuality, and even the single gays and lesbians there were great representation of nice individuals.

I have seen plenty of asshole men who don't take no for an answer with women. I've seen plenty off asshole men who beat their girlfriends or wives who are not a good representation of heterosexuals.

What you are not going to get away with is saying they should be quiet.

I find it hard to believe you are for gay rights while at the same time suggesting they be quiet.

 

"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: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Is it PC to

BobSpence1 wrote:

Is it PC to be 'intolerant' of 'intolerant' attitudes??

If we value the concept of allowing people to express their opinions, regardless of whether we agree with them, the one thing we can justify actively opposing is the idea that people should not be so free to express such opinions.

 

 

Rob is fine with gays as long as he doesn't have to deal with 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: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hey Tinkerbell, if you are

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.

 

"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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Rob is fine

Brian37 wrote:

Rob is fine with gays as long as he doesn't have to deal with them.

From what I've read.  This is how I understand this thread so far (skipped a few posts here and there).

PDW=agrees with pretty much everything the majority of us are saying, just doesn't like the whole politically correct thingy.

Rob=  agrees with pretty much everything the majority of us are saying, hates the PC thing, and likes to piss Brian off.

Sandy= just thinks gays are yucky and homosexuals are just straight people that like to have anal sex with other people, to perpetuate the debauchery.  

Brian = hates anyone that's not 100% politically correct for some reason or other.

As long as these individuals realize that gay people do not have a choice in being gay.  And they simply aren't 100% with the gay thing for personal reason/perception, I have no problem with any such POV.

( the above was already stated by butterbattle )

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


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

Ktulu wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Rob is fine with gays as long as he doesn't have to deal with them.

From what I've read.  This is how I understand this thread so far (skipped a few posts here and there).

PDW=agrees with pretty much everything the majority of us are saying, just doesn't like the whole politically correct thingy.

Rob=  agrees with pretty much everything the majority of us are saying, hates the PC thing, and likes to piss Brian off.

Sandy= just thinks gays are yucky and homosexuals are just straight people that like to have anal sex with other people, to perpetuate the debauchery.  

Brian = hates anyone that's not 100% politically correct for some reason or other.

As long as these individuals realize that gay people do not have a choice in being gay.  And they simply aren't 100% with the gay thing for personal reason/perception, I have no problem with any such POV.

( the above was already stated by butterbattle )

Fair assessment... I won't nit pick with the technicalities.

...and what was the point of this thread anyway? Oh yeah, why are there so many gay christians. Did we ever solve that dilemma?

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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Why the fuck

Brian37 wrote:

Why the fuck should we care either way? Is this your argument?

no, brian, my argument is you cannot ram a square peg into a round hole.  neither you nor your interlocutors have come up with any new arguments since the beginning of this thread, you all just keep pushing the same points back and forth with increasing degrees of irony and profanity.

at this point, it's clear that no one on this particular thread is going to change their minds about anything.  this thread is a fucking abortion.  it does no good to anyone on any level--morally, intellectually, dialectically, any level.

i know you want to change the world one post at a time, but you have to pick your battles.  you're wasting your time on this thread. 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


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

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.

It's called falling in love.

Any other questions ?

 

Sandycane wrote:
I will tolerate your homosexuality as long as you tolerate my not agreeing with it.

I should tolerate your intolerance ? And if I don't I'm PC ?

Okay, so is it all brands of intolerance I should tolerate, if I don't want to be called PC, or just your brand ?

Cuz I don't get this either, and I really want to.

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Is it PC to

BobSpence1 wrote:

Is it PC to be 'intolerant' of 'intolerant' attitudes??

Been wondering the same thing for a loooong time.


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

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Lifestyle is fairly generic term. It means how someone lives. You have a lifestyle I have a lifestyle we all have a lifestyle. I see no real "paranoia" in pointing out something so obvious.

And it is a shallow hollow thought, and not even a standard.

I don't have sex, is that a "lifestyle"?

No it is not. I am still attracted to women even though I don't act on it.

You are setting up a double standard. If homosexuality is a "lifestyle" then so is heterosexuality.

You not going to get away with demonizing gays with something that is not even a standard.

"lifestyle" is a bullshit marketing tool, it is not a judgment or a standard.

I have seen many abusive heterosexuals cheat and beat  and try to take advantage of women and I only see that as abusive, not a "lifestyle".

You have simply fallen for a characterization of gays and lumped them all together because of your own insecurities.

Lets review.

First attempt,

"Dont mix gays with atheists"

Second attempt:

"You liberals want everything legal'

Third attempt

"Maybe it is problem they cant help" (you are right, they cant help it, but why does it need help?) The only problem I see is you, not them.

Now

"Lifestyle"

You are failing every single time to justify your position.

Let me correct you.

Gays cannot help their sexuality anymore than you can help yours. But their gayness is not a problem nor is it abnormal anymore than your heterosexuality is a "lifestyle" or abnormal.

This simply amounts to you finding it yucky.

BOO HOO.

 

 

I wish I had the audacity to pull this kind of complete bullshit out of my ass.

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:

 

You just cant stand that gays want the same rights you have.

BOO HOO

 

 

 

How many fucking times do I have to say I'm for gay rights? I could probably quote myself several times here.

I'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rightsI'm for gay rights

Do I need to make a page of this to get it through your fuking thick skull? I don't have this "paranoia" this "yucky" whatever shit. I used to think it was "yucky" but I have been over that for a while.

 

Then what the fuck was all that shit about "don't mix gays and atheists" and "you liberals want to legalize everything" and "lifestyle" and "it's like mental retardation".

I think you just say that because you don't want to look like a dick.

 

 

 

 

Thats you being a complete ass and you look like a dick.

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:Hey

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.

 

I'm going home from work now, it's part of my "lifestyle" I will probably shower and eat something then walk my dogs you know because I do that and it's part of my "lifestyle".

 

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 would like to know why

 I would like to know why no one else is calling Brian out for twisting what I say to suit his own "agenda"

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
robj101 wrote: I would like

robj101 wrote:

 I would like to know why no one else is calling Brian out for twisting what I say to suit his own "agenda"

 

Well, in threads like this, people tend to skip posts where things get too heated. It gets a bit boring.

 

Btw, could one of the three musketeers please have a go at Bob's question ? I don't think it was rethorical. (If it was, it's not for me)


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:robj101

Anonymouse wrote:

robj101 wrote:

 I would like to know why no one else is calling Brian out for twisting what I say to suit his own "agenda"

 

Well, in threads like this, people tend to skip posts where things get too heated. It gets a bit boring.

 

Btw, could one of the three musketeers please have a go at Bob's question ? I don't think it was rethorical. (If it was, it's not for me)

Ya, it gets to where I skip most of the stuff that's over a few lines long, or have a lot of CAPS in the response... boring.  (you all know who you are)

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