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.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote: Btw,

Anonymouse wrote:

 

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)

 

  Oh Christ, so your asking me to subject myself to more condescension and mischaracterizations ?  What would be the point ?   I have bent over backward to indicate that I possess no malice toward anyone who could  possibly be classified as a deviation from the norm ( abnormal ) and went so far as to reveal that due to my own mental health issues that I even place myself in that dreaded category.  Apparently that made little or no impression.

  I am too tired of defending myself from a cartoon version of my personal views.  Find someone else to demonize. 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


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

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

 

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)

 

  Oh Christ, so your asking me to subject myself to more condescension and mischaracterizations ?  What would be the point ?   I have bent over backward to indicate that I possess no malice toward anyone who could  possibly be classified as a deviation from the norm ( abnormal ) and went so far as to reveal that due to my own mental health issues that I even place myself in that dreaded category.  Apparently that made little or no impression.

  I am too tired of defending myself from a cartoon version of my personal views.  Find someone else to demonize. 

I concur.

Now, where did I place  my eyeball avatar.....

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
This will be a fun post, I'm

This will be a fun post, I'm going to say what I think is going on.

Brian, biased already by my last entries in a previous gay thread likes to take what I say and think as negatively as he can about it. He is not objective whatsoever and can't imagine that I might have learned anything like more tolerance from the last thread.

He has taken a statement such as "a squirrel is born the same way a gopher is born." and is using this as a basis for "a squirrel is a gopher." rather than taking it as in "oh they are just both born the same way, as I stated originally. Brian has done this repeatedly and even used my *example* of mental retardation whilst trying to explain this to him and I even said in that same post that he would do so. This prompted my calling him out as a bleeding heart liberal, (which he obviously hates)

Bob worries about why I would use such negative terms, should I say something silly like (and this is another example mind you it means nothing) rainbows sprout from mountaintops so gays are born? What now gays are rainbow mountain tops? Whats the fukin difference if someone wants to take it out of context anyway?

Now an important note he has not used my "rainbow hue'd baby elk born of a squirrel" example, this is simply too outrageous to actually be used, he would have to be a total imbecile to attempt it.

This thread started out normally enough I tried to add some input with my theory that perhaps we should not propogate gay and atheist at the same time, He took this as "gays should not be atheist or gays can be atheist and just stfu" or some such, who cares, it was not my intent. My intent was simply that we should possibly not mix atheism and homosexuality whilst dealing with the religious who are already closed minded enough as it is.

Then I think (hell I don't remember this whole series of events) we got off on gays in general and how they are different "normal" "abnormal" always crops up etc, in good part a misunderstanding goes on when I try to explain how the religious feel about gays, everyone I know is religious so I have a fuking good idea about this.

I think he also mixed up my and Sandys views a bit in all this.

Now he is on this word "lifestyle" I don't know what meaning he is using in this context but I always though of "lifestyle" as a rather generic term for how people live. Apparently lifestyle for him means being "yucky gay" or something. lol

He is trying everything he can arm himself with to make me look like..what I really don't know, lol it's such a mixed bag.

I offered him at least two easy outs in all of this and he chose to not take them, instead he plods on.

He has pushed this out of context word twist game so far now that he can't back out or he will look like an ape, a stupid stupid ape. If he doesn't already to the people who have managed to actually keep up with it and see what he is doing.

 

 

For the record, I have no problem with gay's in general. When he says I want no part of it personally he is correct, I am not gay therefore I have absolutely no interest in partaking in any homosexual activity. I have zero problem with gays doing what they want, I have zero problem with gays having the same rights I have, (though I think marriage is a fuck up in general for anyone) He has completely missed the mark and wishes too, he wants a bad guy to bash, it's fun I guess.

I considered posting some gays kissing on my fb page to show support, but I have some rl friends who are not understanding enough to deal with it so I have refrained, I poke and prod them with posts but I try to not post something that will utterly turn them off and cause them to leave my friend list. Even the ones I have made a bit of progress with would take this too negatively.

What hasn't been understood is that I have an interest in discussing the differences in gays and hetero's because they are different, we really don't know much about the cause of homosexuality and if you want to go as far, perhaps we don't know as much as we would like to know about the cause of heterosexuality. The 'Why wherefore art thous' Why people have a problem with them, the good and bad aspects, the good and bad reactions etc. This is why I mentioned I was interested in GG's idea of creating a "natural vs unnatural" thread. All I get here is spite and hate for even asking and prodding a bit (I'll admit I did some prodding but not enough I think to warrant this blatant bs), that should say something.

What is "normal" with so many different ways to view it, as has been noted in this thread already.

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
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.

 

 

Is it pc to be intolerant of people who are intolerant of people who are intolerant of those people who are intolerant. No it's just stupid lol.

I disagree with any form of pc. You can oppose their opinion not their right to express it. Even westborough baptist can spew their nonsense, they shouldn't be suprised if someone takes it into their own hands however to "snuff" it.

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


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

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Oh Christ, so your asking me to subject myself to more condescension and mischaracterizations ?

 

Uhm, no. I was just asking if one of you guys would like to answer this question : Is it PC to be 'intolerant' of 'intolerant' attitudes??

I guess that's a no then.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
What would be the point ?

I just think it's a good question and I would like an answer.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
  I have bent over backward to indicate that I possess no malice toward anyone who could  possibly be classified as a deviation from the norm ( abnormal ) and went so far as to reveal that due to my own mental health issues that I even place myself in that dreaded category.  Apparently that made little or no impression.

I never accused you of having any hostility towards anyone whatsoever. I've read more of your posts than the ones in this thread, so I already knew that's not your thing.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I am too tired of defending myself from a cartoon version of my personal views.  Find someone else to demonize. 

That'll teach me to ask a question, I guess.

Darn, my demonising plans have been foiled.

 


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

Sandycane wrote:

Now, where did I place  my eyeball avatar.....

Sorry, I don't get it. What's "demonising" about asking a question ?

I answered yours, btw.


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Now, where did I place  my eyeball avatar.....

Sorry, I don't get it. What's "demonising" about asking a question ?

I answered yours, btw.

Answered, rather simple question with a simple answer.

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
Anonymouse wrote:Sandycane

Anonymouse wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Now, where did I place  my eyeball avatar.....

Sorry, I don't get it. What's "demonising" about asking a question ?

I answered yours, btw.

Ask Brian, he's an expert at it..

The 'eyeball avatar' remark means that Athos has left the building... but he'll return when needed.

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


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:BobSpence1

robj101 wrote:

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.

 

 

Is it pc to be intolerant of people who are intolerant of people who are intolerant of those people who are intolerant. No it's just stupid lol.

I disagree with any form of pc. You can oppose their opinion not their right to express it. Even westborough baptist can spew their nonsense, they shouldn't be suprised if someone takes it into their own hands however to "snuff" it.

Okay, just to check if I'm not mischaracterising or demonising you : Is your answer, it's just stupid to be intolerant of intolerant attitudes ?

I'm really doing my best not to step on any toes here, so if I got hold of the wrong end of your stick, pretty please don't explode at me.

 

 

 


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

Anonymouse wrote:

robj101 wrote:

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.

 

 

Is it pc to be intolerant of people who are intolerant of people who are intolerant of those people who are intolerant. No it's just stupid lol.

I disagree with any form of pc. You can oppose their opinion not their right to express it. Even westborough baptist can spew their nonsense, they shouldn't be suprised if someone takes it into their own hands however to "snuff" it.

 

Okay, just to check if I'm not mischaracterising or demonising you : Is your answer, it's just stupid to be intolerant of intolerant attitudes ?

I'm really doing my best not to step on any toes here, so if I got hold of the wrong end of your stick, pretty please don't explode at me.

 

 

 

Yes, but lets define "intolerant" and is there no hope of gaining any tolerance? I always try to be optimistic when it comes to things like this. However if there is evidence that there is no hope or point in discourse then yes perhaps it is fine to be intolerant of intolerance.  I'm fairly intolerant of Islam for it's intolerance actually but how far can you take it?

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


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

Sandycane wrote:
Ask Brian, he's an expert at it..

*sigh* You guys need to shake hands and make up.

Sandycane wrote:
The 'eyeball avatar' remark means that Athos has left the building... but he'll return when needed.

Kay, see you later then.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Yes, but lets

robj101 wrote:

Yes, but lets define "intolerant" and is there no hope of gaining any tolerance? I always try to be optimistic when it comes to things like this. However if there is evidence that there is no hope or point in discourse then yes perhaps it is fine to be intolerant of intolerance.  I'm fairly intolerant of Islam for it's intolerance actually but how far can you take it?

Exactly.

And I can take being "tolerant of intolerance" only so far as well. And that doesn't make me PC.

This is settled, as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks Rob.

 


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Good! I'm glad that's all

Good! I'm glad that's all settled.

Now, can anyone see the Indian man's face in my avatar image?

I took that photo several years ago because I thought it was a pretty spot in the road... then after I had prints made, I saw the face!!!

I call it Spirit of the Cove.

Pretty cool if you ask me.

You may have to squint your eyes a bit to see it.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:This will be a

robj101 wrote:

This will be a fun post, I'm going to say what I think is going on.

Brian, biased already by my last entries in a previous gay thread likes to take what I say and think as negatively as he can about it. He is not objective whatsoever and can't imagine that I might have learned anything like more tolerance from the last thread.

He has taken a statement such as "a squirrel is born the same way a gopher is born." and is using this as a basis for "a squirrel is a gopher." rather than taking it as in "oh they are just both born the same way, as I stated originally. Brian has done this repeatedly and even used my *example* of mental retardation whilst trying to explain this to him and I even said in that same post that he would do so. This prompted my calling him out as a bleeding heart liberal, (which he obviously hates)

Bob worries about why I would use such negative terms, should I say something silly like (and this is another example mind you it means nothing) rainbows sprout from mountaintops so gays are born? What now gays are rainbow mountain tops? Whats the fukin difference if someone wants to take it out of context anyway?

Now an important note he has not used my "rainbow hue'd baby elk born of a squirrel" example, this is simply too outrageous to actually be used, he would have to be a total imbecile to attempt it.

This thread started out normally enough I tried to add some input with my theory that perhaps we should not propogate gay and atheist at the same time, He took this as "gays should not be atheist or gays can be atheist and just stfu" or some such, who cares, it was not my intent. My intent was simply that we should possibly not mix atheism and homosexuality whilst dealing with the religious who are already closed minded enough as it is.

Then I think (hell I don't remember this whole series of events) we got off on gays in general and how they are different "normal" "abnormal" always crops up etc, in good part a misunderstanding goes on when I try to explain how the religious feel about gays, everyone I know is religious so I have a fuking good idea about this.

I think he also mixed up my and Sandys views a bit in all this.

Now he is on this word "lifestyle" I don't know what meaning he is using in this context but I always though of "lifestyle" as a rather generic term for how people live. Apparently lifestyle for him means being "yucky gay" or something. lol

He is trying everything he can arm himself with to make me look like..what I really don't know, lol it's such a mixed bag.

I offered him at least two easy outs in all of this and he chose to not take them, instead he plods on.

He has pushed this out of context word twist game so far now that he can't back out or he will look like an ape, a stupid stupid ape. If he doesn't already to the people who have managed to actually keep up with it and see what he is doing.

 

 

For the record, I have no problem with gay's in general. When he says I want no part of it personally he is correct, I am not gay therefore I have absolutely no interest in partaking in any homosexual activity. I have zero problem with gays doing what they want, I have zero problem with gays having the same rights I have, (though I think marriage is a fuck up in general for anyone) He has completely missed the mark and wishes too, he wants a bad guy to bash, it's fun I guess.

I considered posting some gays kissing on my fb page to show support, but I have some rl friends who are not understanding enough to deal with it so I have refrained, I poke and prod them with posts but I try to not post something that will utterly turn them off and cause them to leave my friend list. Even the ones I have made a bit of progress with would take this too negatively.

What hasn't been understood is that I have an interest in discussing the differences in gays and hetero's because they are different, we really don't know much about the cause of homosexuality and if you want to go as far, perhaps we don't know as much as we would like to know about the cause of heterosexuality. The 'Why wherefore art thous' Why people have a problem with them, the good and bad aspects, the good and bad reactions etc. This is why I mentioned I was interested in GG's idea of creating a "natural vs unnatural" thread. All I get here is spite and hate for even asking and prodding a bit (I'll admit I did some prodding but not enough I think to warrant this blatant bs), that should say something.

What is "normal" with so many different ways to view it, as has been noted in this thread already.

You are not attracted to men so therefore you dont want to participate in gay sex. DUH!

You don't have a problem with gays "in general"? That implies that you do have some specific problems. Care to talk about the specific problems you do have with gays?

You considered posting two men kissing on your website but did not because fear of losing friends who wouldn't understand. I'd have more respect for you if it were simply "I don't want to". That would make sense if it were just "I am not attracted to men".

You want to support them but you don't out of fear? Once again, if you say you support them how are you supporting them by caving in to the fears of others?

I won't put a picture of a fat woman on my desktop, I am not attracted to fat women. But I most certainly would defend a fat woman's right to wear spandex at a beach if she wants to. I would have NO RIGHT to pass a law banning her from doing that, just because I don't find it attractive.

Review part two.

"I wish gays would be quiet sometimes"

"Don't mix gays with atheists"

"You liberals want everything legal"

"Maybe it is a problem they can treat, like mental retardation"

" abnormal vs normal"

And now "you have an agenda"

What's next? Is gayness caused by Mayans from the past and gays simply cant help it because they caused the third man on the grassy knoll because I deny the existence of big foot?

If I have any agenda at all it is not your personal rights or even your right to say, "I am not into men"

THAT is not my fucking issue. I am not accusing you of being a bad guy, I am accusing you of using bad logic.

I cuss the most on this site. I have said "fuck Jesus" I have used the word "nigger" and "faggot" so drop the PC crap.

CONTEXT is my issue and all I have been saying is YES I GET IT, you are not into men. And no one should force you to have sex with even women you don't find attractive.

My issue has been your word choice in discussing gays and in the same posts using other nasty TRUELY nasty things that have nothing to do with gays. You keep saying those other things have nothing to do with gays, then WHY do you keep putting the two together?

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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
I dislike pc, I'm not afraid

I dislike pc, I'm not afraid of it.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
If anyone actually cares

If anyone actually cares enough they can peruse all these posts and make their own decision Brian. I'm really not caring anymore, what was this thread originally about again?

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian, I think the

Brian, I think the proverbial horse has been raped to death.  I think they all made their stances clear...  I have no issue with what Rob and PDW are saying, they're just saying they don't want to be PC and want to say whatever they want.  Sandy is just a theist in all this in my opinion.  She has some illusion of an objective sexual frame of reference, and guess what, it's hers.  Yup... she has all the answers and all the scientific data that contradicts her... well it's just wrong ok.  Oh, and she thinks gays are yucky... CHECK MATE ATHEISTS!  

Meh, the whole thing is moot anyways.  People will always be uncomfortable around what they don't understand.  I'm not surprised by people's ignorance anymore, I've just expected better from someone claiming to think rationally...

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Now, can

Sandycane wrote:

Now, can anyone see the Indian man's face in my avatar image?

I took that photo several years ago because I thought it was a pretty spot in the road... then after I had prints made, I saw the face!!!

I call it Spirit of the Cove.

Pretty cool if you ask me.  

It looks gay, if you ask me...

 

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

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

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Sandycane

redneF wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Now, can anyone see the Indian man's face in my avatar image?

I took that photo several years ago because I thought it was a pretty spot in the road... then after I had prints made, I saw the face!!!

I call it Spirit of the Cove.

Pretty cool if you ask me.  

It looks gay, if you ask me...

 

LOL Smiling

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yah it's definitely gay

redneF wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Now, can anyone see the Indian man's face in my avatar image?

I took that photo several years ago because I thought it was a pretty spot in the road... then after I had prints made, I saw the face!!!

I call it Spirit of the Cove.

Pretty cool if you ask me.  

It looks gay, if you ask me...

 

 

the afternoon, the woods, the turning leaves, the lake and the hugsy cross-stitch knitted jumper...

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


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:It looks gay,

redneF wrote:

It looks gay, if you ask me...

 

Compared to robj101's new avatar, which I LOVE LOVE LOVE! I agree. Pdw's new one is great, too.

I need to find a better one or, just go back to my Horus eyeball.

PS: Now, supposedly, I'm a closet theist. Maybe you shouldn't be talking to me - bad for your reputation.

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:redneF

Sandycane wrote:

redneF wrote:

It looks gay, if you ask me...

 

Compared to robj101's new avatar, which I LOVE LOVE LOVE! I agree. Pdw's new one is great, too.

The faggot who started this thread has got them all beat...

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

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

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


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

redneF wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

redneF wrote:

It looks gay, if you ask me...

 

Compared to robj101's new avatar, which I LOVE LOVE LOVE! I agree. Pdw's new one is great, too.

The faggot who started this thread has got them all beat...

Yea looks like it's beating it's self... over and over ..

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:redneF

robj101 wrote:

redneF wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

redneF wrote:

It looks gay, if you ask me...

 

Compared to robj101's new avatar, which I LOVE LOVE LOVE! I agree. Pdw's new one is great, too.

The faggot who started this thread has got them all beat...

Yea looks like it's beating it's self... over and over ..

The one bunny is trying to fix 'stoopid'...

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

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

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:People will always be

Quote:
People will always be uncomfortable around what they don't understand.

BINGO!

AND THAT IS NORMAL, but being aware of it also helps you deal with it without treating the other like they have a third eye.

But again, Rob and others falsely pull the PC card when I simply challenged Rob after the OP made his original post when he said "I think they should be quiet sometimes"

Funny how some say "I want to say what I want, but others shouldn't say what they want"

And he still completely misses my point. THIS ISN'T EVEN THE ISSUE. Tinkerbell in the op had every right to say "I am a faggot" and Rob had every right to say "I wish they would be quiet sometimes".

Free speech and political correctness ARE NOT THE ISSUE.

My issue is Rob's history,

It was his analogies where he uses OTHER really nasty stuff he doesn't like WHILE talking about gays. It shouldn't matter if he says, "I'm not comparing the two, I'm just saying"

WHY would you do that if you didn't mean it as some sort of comparison? Wouldn't it be easier to find something to compare gays to that you don't like, but isn't nasty to others, like broccoli, instead of "fucking chickens".

Rob doesn't like men, quite normal FOR HIM as an individual. Rob is also uncomfortable around gays, ALSO normal. I would be uncomfortable around a bunch of jocks or redneck bikers.

What is not provable, is the claim that gayness is abnormal. The only honest thing that can be said is that it is a minority of a larger population, AND a historical evolutionary ratio that has always existed.

But any claims that gays are abnormal is absurd and unprovable.  And them liking other men, or women liking other women, or men liking women, or women and men going both ways IS PART OF EVOLUTIONS RANGE as far as sex goes.

Again, I would have no problems with anyone here if they would just say "It's not my thing". Once you start making assertions about what is bad or what is not normal, intellectually, you back it up, which no one has here, OR simply accept that it merely amounts to "yuck" to you, the individual, but may not be to others.

 

 

 

 

 

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


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

wingless_sephiroth wrote:
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?

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

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

 

 

wingless_sephiroth wrote:
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.

I asked my boyfriend again why he doesn't just let it go. His answer comes down to him thinking he can change current religious thinking from the inside.

Yeah, good luck with that, sweetheart.


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

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
People will always be uncomfortable around what they don't understand.

BINGO!

AND THAT IS NORMAL, but being aware of it also helps you deal with it without treating the other like they have a third eye.

But again, Rob and others falsely pull the PC card when I simply challenged Rob after the OP made his original post when he said "I think they should be quiet sometimes"

Funny how some say "I want to say what I want, but others shouldn't say what they want"

And he still completely misses my point. THIS ISN'T EVEN THE ISSUE. Tinkerbell in the op had every right to say "I am a faggot" and Rob had every right to say "I wish they would be quiet sometimes".

Free speech and political correctness ARE NOT THE ISSUE.

My issue is Rob's history,

It was his analogies where he uses OTHER really nasty stuff he doesn't like WHILE talking about gays. It shouldn't matter if he says, "I'm not comparing the two, I'm just saying"

WHY would you do that if you didn't mean it as some sort of comparison? Wouldn't it be easier to find something to compare gays to that you don't like, but isn't nasty to others, like broccoli, instead of "fucking chickens".

Rob doesn't like men, quite normal FOR HIM as an individual. Rob is also uncomfortable around gays, ALSO normal. I would be uncomfortable around a bunch of jocks or redneck bikers.

What is not provable, is the claim that gayness is abnormal. The only honest thing that can be said is that it is a minority of a larger population, AND a historical evolutionary ratio that has always existed.

But any claims that gays are abnormal is absurd and unprovable.  And them liking other men, or women liking other women, or men liking women, or women and men going both ways IS PART OF EVOLUTIONS RANGE as far as sex goes.

Again, I would have no problems with anyone here if they would just say "It's not my thing". Once you start making assertions about what is bad or what is not normal, intellectually, you back it up, which no one has here, OR simply accept that it merely amounts to "yuck" to you, the individual, but may not be to others.

 

 

Rather easy to say it's not my thing because I am not gay. That's not actually saying anything.

You don't think rainbow hue'd baby elk are cute?

Now mental retardation is "really nasty stuff?" what the fuck Brian.

Claiming I am uncomfortable around gays based on a year old thread are we? My "history" lol. If I wanted to go back to look at threads over a year old would I find that Brian has not budged or changed his mind on anything? Would that be a good thing?

"fucking chickens" was a ridiculous example of which I have a hard time believing anyone would take seriously. You see anything I compare it to you can apparently twist and call it a direct comparison...wait I think I said I wasn't going to try to explain this to you again ... Now explain to us how exactly how homosexuality could be like "fucking chickens" that should be interesting.

What have redneck bikers and jocks done to deserve your ire and fear?

I'm calling you a hypocrite and an asshole for calling metally retarded people "really nasty stuff"

The only thing you have going is that you want me to say that I find gays to be "yucky" I really don't unless they are obnoxiously gay. I don't like an obnoxiously hetero asshole either though so does this make me afraid of hetero's ?

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
As far as what this thread

As far as what this thread was originally about: church membership is way down, way way down. You will find churches being more "accepting" of things. new age churches in particular and they have as strong a draw on gays as they would anyone. Sometimes I (ok a lot of times) see people going to church and having a community, getting together with other people etc etc. That's the one good thing about it and I don't see why gays wouldn't like it as anyone else would. As far as them thinking of aids as some punishment from "god" lol. They are people and people think of stupid shit, I think it's in a lot of people's nature to want to believe this carp in the first place then you throw this wacky fear shit in the mix and then "omg I must repent!" Maybe it's a guilt trip kind of thing. I want to know if a religious gay thinks "god" made them that way or if they think they are going "against" god or maybe even that everything is just okie dokie.

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


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

Sandycane wrote:

PS: Now, supposedly, I'm a closet theist. Maybe you shouldn't be talking to me - bad for your reputation.

Quite the opposite, actually. Talking to theists is part of what we're supposed to do here.


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

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
People will always be uncomfortable around what they don't understand.

BINGO!

AND THAT IS NORMAL, but being aware of it also helps you deal with it without treating the other like they have a third eye.

And somehow this doesn't apply to you, Brian? Obviously you don't understand what robj101, pdw and I have been saying and obviously, it makes you uncomfortable - to the point of lashing out at us and making up all kinds of ridiculous nonsense, confusing who said what and 'quoting' things that we never said.

Quote:
But again, Rob and others falsely pull the PC card when I simply challenged Rob after the OP made his original post when he said "I think they should be quiet sometimes"

Funny how some say "I want to say what I want, but others shouldn't say what they want"

And he still completely misses my point. THIS ISN'T EVEN THE ISSUE. Tinkerbell in the op had every right to say "I am a faggot" and Rob had every right to say "I wish they would be quiet sometimes".

Free speech and political correctness ARE NOT THE ISSUE.

But this is exactly the point! You are advocating the right of gays to say whatever they want but, deny the three of us the right to do the same, knucklehead. Robj did not say he wanted gays to be silenced. What he said was that, when dealing with a theist, it is difficult enough to try to explain homosexuality and to combine that with also being an atheist in the same sentence would compound the problem of communicating... to which I agree 100%. If you want to convince me that gay sex is okay and not yucky, it would be wise to not use a gay porn star as an example.

Quote:
My issue is Rob's history,

It was his analogies where he uses OTHER really nasty stuff he doesn't like WHILE talking about gays. It shouldn't matter if he says, "I'm not comparing the two, I'm just saying"

'Really nasty stuff'? So, you feel that people with physical and mental disabilities are nasty? Your language betrays you, Brian. I have seen you refer to Black people as 'niggers', call gay people 'faggots' and 'Tinkerbell', people who ride motorcycles 'redneck bikers' people who are good at sports, 'jocks' and insult overweight women. Seems to me, you are the only judgemental bigot here, Brian.

Quote:
WHY would you do that if you didn't mean it as some sort of comparison? Wouldn't it be easier to find something to compare gays to that you don't like, but isn't nasty to others, like broccoli, instead of "fucking chickens".

Rob doesn't like men, quite normal FOR HIM as an individual. Rob is also uncomfortable around gays, ALSO normal. I would be uncomfortable around a bunch of jocks or redneck bikers.

So, you don't like sports, motorcycles, Black people, gays and overweight women? ... and, you think people with disabilities are nasty. Who do you like? See how that works, Brian? Probably not. Btw, there are people who find broccoli nasty... should they not be allowed to say so?

Quote:
What is not provable, is the claim that gayness is abnormal. The only honest thing that can be said is that it is a minority of a larger population, AND a historical evolutionary ratio that has always existed.
And you just defined 'abnormal', agreeing with what the three of us have been saying all along.

Quote:
But any claims that gays are abnormal is absurd and unprovable.  And them liking other men, or women liking other women, or men liking women, or women and men going both ways IS PART OF EVOLUTIONS RANGE as far as sex goes.
Sheesh.

Quote:
Again, I would have no problems with anyone here if they would just say "It's not my thing". Once you start making assertions about what is bad or what is not normal, intellectually, you back it up, which no one has here, OR simply accept that it merely amounts to "yuck" to you, the individual, but may not be to others.
Your ears are tuned to a special frequency that only you can hear, Brian. I did say that I thought gay sex was yucky but, I wasn't the first one to use that word. Someone (possibly Bob), way back in the thread said something like, 'So, you think gay sex is yucky.'... and I thought that was a fairly good way to describe it, and agreed.

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


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I want to know

robj101 wrote:

I want to know if a religious gay thinks "god" made them that way or if they think they are going "against" god or maybe even that everything is just okie dokie.

Hang on, I'll go ask...

 

Basically, he thinks god made him that way, and everything is gonna be okie dokie.

Seems he even has biblical "evidence" for this.

 

Oh great, now he wants to read scripture to me. Thanks a lot.


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

Anonymouse wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I want to know if a religious gay thinks "god" made them that way or if they think they are going "against" god or maybe even that everything is just okie dokie.

Hang on, I'll go ask...

 

Basically, he thinks god made him that way, and everything is gonna be okie dokie.

Seems he even has biblical "evidence" for this.

 

Oh great, now he wants to read scripture to me. Thanks a lot.

What church is he a member of? I think this makes all the difference in the world since there is a wide range of Christians - from the ultra-conservative fundamentalist southern baptists to the liberal Unitarians. Certainly he's not a member of Sarah Palin's church, is he?

 

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


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

Sandycane wrote:
What church is he a member of? I think this makes all the difference in the world since there is a wide range of Christians - from the ultra-conservative fundamentalist southern baptists to the liberal Unitarians.

He's a catholic. The ultra-conservative kind, which makes his open gayness all the more baffling.

 

Sandycane wrote:
Certainly he's not a member of Sarah Palin's church, is he?

I'm from Europe. Even our ultra-conservative right wing neo-nazis think Sarah Palin is a comedy character from a tv show.

She has a church now ?


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Sandycane wrote:
What church is he a member of? I think this makes all the difference in the world since there is a wide range of Christians - from the ultra-conservative fundamentalist southern baptists to the liberal Unitarians.

He's a catholic. The ultra-conservative kind, which makes his open gayness all the more baffling.

 

Sandycane wrote:
Certainly he's not a member of Sarah Palin's church, is he?

I'm from Europe. Even our ultra-conservative right wing neo-nazis think Sarah Palin is a comedy character from a tv show.

She has a church now ?

No, what I meant to say was 'a member of the church Sarah Palin goes to.'

I'm curious, what is the Catholic church's stand on homosexuality?

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


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:I'm curious,

Sandycane wrote:

I'm curious, what is the Catholic church's stand on homosexuality?

You're allowed to be one, you're just not allowed to "practice". Oh, and you're still going to hell.

Also, when people beat the crap out of you for being gay, they're simply expressing their religious freedom, so deal with it.

Makes total sense, doesn't it ?


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

I'm curious, what is the Catholic church's stand on homosexuality?

You're allowed to be one, you're just not allowed to "practice". Oh, and you're still going to hell.

Also, when people beat the crap out of you for being gay, they're simply expressing their religious freedom, so deal with it.

Makes total sense, doesn't it ?

No, it doesn't, not to me anyway.

Why does he want to be a member of an organization that believes such things? Does he hope to change the religion?

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


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

Anonymouse wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I want to know if a religious gay thinks "god" made them that way or if they think they are going "against" god or maybe even that everything is just okie dokie.

Hang on, I'll go ask...

 

Basically, he thinks god made him that way, and everything is gonna be okie dokie.

Seems he even has biblical "evidence" for this.

 

Oh great, now he wants to read scripture to me. Thanks a lot.

Strange stuff. They can believe a god did something he is clearly "against" and it's fine. I did read somewhere in the bible a man laying with another man is an "abomination" how does he get past that?

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


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:No, it

Sandycane wrote:
No, it doesn't, not to me anyway.

That's good to know.

Sandycane wrote:
Why does he want to be a member of an organization that believes such things? Does he hope to change the religion?

He's simply hoping his interpretation will one day be the dominant one. But mostly it's a family/community thing.

He will never turn his back on people he loves/cares for, simply because they don't share his opinion.

That's one of the reasons why I love him.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Brian37

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
People will always be uncomfortable around what they don't understand.

BINGO!

AND THAT IS NORMAL, but being aware of it also helps you deal with it without treating the other like they have a third eye.

And somehow this doesn't apply to you, Brian? Obviously you don't understand what robj101, pdw and I have been saying and obviously, it makes you uncomfortable - to the point of lashing out at us and making up all kinds of ridiculous nonsense, confusing who said what and 'quoting' things that we never said.

Quote:
But again, Rob and others falsely pull the PC card when I simply challenged Rob after the OP made his original post when he said "I think they should be quiet sometimes"

Funny how some say "I want to say what I want, but others shouldn't say what they want"

And he still completely misses my point. THIS ISN'T EVEN THE ISSUE. Tinkerbell in the op had every right to say "I am a faggot" and Rob had every right to say "I wish they would be quiet sometimes".

Free speech and political correctness ARE NOT THE ISSUE.

But this is exactly the point! You are advocating the right of gays to say whatever they want but, deny the three of us the right to do the same, knucklehead. Robj did not say he wanted gays to be silenced. What he said was that, when dealing with a theist, it is difficult enough to try to explain homosexuality and to combine that with also being an atheist in the same sentence would compound the problem of communicating... to which I agree 100%. If you want to convince me that gay sex is okay and not yucky, it would be wise to not use a gay porn star as an example.

Quote:
My issue is Rob's history,

It was his analogies where he uses OTHER really nasty stuff he doesn't like WHILE talking about gays. It shouldn't matter if he says, "I'm not comparing the two, I'm just saying"

'Really nasty stuff'? So, you feel that people with physical and mental disabilities are nasty? Your language betrays you, Brian. I have seen you refer to Black people as 'niggers', call gay people 'faggots' and 'Tinkerbell', people who ride motorcycles 'redneck bikers' people who are good at sports, 'jocks' and insult overweight women. Seems to me, you are the only judgemental bigot here, Brian.

Quote:
WHY would you do that if you didn't mean it as some sort of comparison? Wouldn't it be easier to find something to compare gays to that you don't like, but isn't nasty to others, like broccoli, instead of "fucking chickens".

Rob doesn't like men, quite normal FOR HIM as an individual. Rob is also uncomfortable around gays, ALSO normal. I would be uncomfortable around a bunch of jocks or redneck bikers.

So, you don't like sports, motorcycles, Black people, gays and overweight women? ... and, you think people with disabilities are nasty. Who do you like? See how that works, Brian? Probably not. Btw, there are people who find broccoli nasty... should they not be allowed to say so?

Quote:
What is not provable, is the claim that gayness is abnormal. The only honest thing that can be said is that it is a minority of a larger population, AND a historical evolutionary ratio that has always existed.
And you just defined 'abnormal', agreeing with what the three of us have been saying all along.

Quote:
But any claims that gays are abnormal is absurd and unprovable.  And them liking other men, or women liking other women, or men liking women, or women and men going both ways IS PART OF EVOLUTIONS RANGE as far as sex goes.
Sheesh.

Quote:
Again, I would have no problems with anyone here if they would just say "It's not my thing". Once you start making assertions about what is bad or what is not normal, intellectually, you back it up, which no one has here, OR simply accept that it merely amounts to "yuck" to you, the individual, but may not be to others.
Your ears are tuned to a special frequency that only you can hear, Brian. I did say that I thought gay sex was yucky but, I wasn't the first one to use that word. Someone (possibly Bob), way back in the thread said something like, 'So, you think gay sex is yucky.'... and I thought that was a fairly good way to describe it, and agreed.

Bob probably was the first to say "use yuck instead of bad", but both of us were ticked off with Rob's initial analogies. Then he back peddled to other analogies to try to get away from his initial one.

You know damned well I wasn't equating mental retardation to being nasty. That was part of a slew of unrelated things Rob was equating to gays. Mental retardation is a medical condition caused by birth defects and head injury. Gayness is not a birth defect, NEITHER are nasty, but the are also not related.

AND I am equally offended by mental retardation being lumped in with "sex with chickens" because that too is not nasty.

And you know damned well I don't hate blacks. The context of "nigger" was talking about the history of this thread in the context of false arguments of PC when the OP himself called himself a "fagot" and even he knows why I called him Tinkerbell and why I used the word "fagot".

Context.

NOW you've said you think "yuck" is better and you agree with us. Good, just leave it at that and say "It's not my thing". The rest of the "analogies" or "descriptions" or "arguments" as to why gayness happen and how one reacts to it were way off the charts and completely inaccurate.

 

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


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Strange stuff.

robj101 wrote:

Strange stuff. They can believe a god did something he is clearly "against" and it's fine. I did read somewhere in the bible a man laying with another man is an "abomination" how does he get past that?

Simple. He's in a gay relationship himself, so he can't deny there's more to it (a lot more) than just "laying with a man". That verse simply doesn't apply to our relationship.

And then there are those other verses... : http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

 


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

Brian37 wrote:

AND I am equally offended by mental retardation being lumped in with "sex with chickens" because that too is not nasty.

Oh, so now you are saying that "sex with chickens" is not nasty and is acceptable and normal behavior?  You're one sick mo' fo', Brian!

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Brian37

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

AND I am equally offended by mental retardation being lumped in with "sex with chickens" because that too is not nasty.

Oh, so now you are saying that "sex with chickens" is not nasty and is acceptable and normal behavior?  You're one sick mo' fo', Brian!

Let me reword my sentence.

I am equally offended by mental retardation being lumped in with "sex with chickens" because mental retardation IS NOT nasty like "sex with chickens".

You knew what I meant silly. Jeebus kristos on a cracker.

 

"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: 15768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for pointing that out

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

 

"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
Brian37 wrote:Thanks for

Brian37 wrote:

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

 

No problem.

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

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

'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
OMG this is tooo funny - I

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

I am really into animal husbandry.

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

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


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

Sandycane wrote:

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

I am really into animal husbandry.

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

el oh el

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: You know

Brian37 wrote:

 

You know damned well I wasn't equating mental retardation to being nasty. That was part of a slew of unrelated things Rob was equating to gays. Mental retardation is a medical condition caused by birth defects and head injury. Gayness is not a birth defect, NEITHER are nasty, but the are also not related.

 

 

Bullshit, you said it homeslice. What works for the goose works for the gander buddy.

And as far as comparative terms and stressing things wtf is broccoli going to stress, that is just stupid. "he was born and did something like a piece of broccoli" lmao.

Fuck! is a good stressing term. Bad words, they work. You don't like my sarcastic attitude that's to fukin bad, mirror a few people on the forum and don't respond to my posts.

 

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: 15768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Brian37

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

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

 

No problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

"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
Brian37 wrote:Bob probably

Brian37 wrote:

Bob probably was the first to say "use yuck instead of bad", but both of us were ticked off with Rob's initial analogies. Then he back peddled to other analogies to try to get away from his initial one.

Nope. Wrong... and again you are putting the wrong words in someone else's mouth.

This is what Bob said back on page 5 post #217 and as far as I can tell this is the first time the 'yuck' word is mentioned:

Quote:

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

He was not saying 'use yuck instead of bad'. Not at all. He said 'morals should be based on minimizing harm to others, and not on personal 'yuck' reactions. This was his opinion, it is not a fact written on stone tablets.

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

 

'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:It is natural

Brian37 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Boy oh boy, where is Blake when you need him?

I'll let robj take over for now...I've got a pair of slippers to finish before Friday. I'll be back.

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