Saturday, September 8, 2007

opening a can of worms

At first I certainly wasn't going to post about this, but as it has generated a modest amount of interest on the Open Forum, I'll bring the topic to the fore and give everyone a go at it.

If you pop back to the open forum 5 post, you will note that the subject of homosexuality has come up, specifically the idea of if it is a choice and whether or not it has consequences.

As it currently stands, I am waiting to hear back from telmeimwrong(you're wrong!) a list of the unfortuante consequences that has only been hinted at but not delineated.


~~~~~~~~~~
Before I am able to properly discuss this with you, telmeimwrong (you're wrong!), I would like to know what you consider to be the "unfortunate consequences of being a homosexual". By not including that information, you have rather left us guessing as to what you "might" mean, which really forces us to build straw men and knock them down.

So let's open with that one and proceed from there.

59 comments:

Telmeimrong said...

Unfortunate consequences, first of all, was Richards comment. I was only questioning Johnny's lack of intellectual honesty in denying their existance.
Admittedly, the consequences that I consider negative are derived from my unwavering belief that homosexuality goes against the natural order and are not good for society.
Some examples of "unfortunate consequences" I would rather call them detrimental, are
1. Gay men and lesbians raising children - I firmly believe that kids need a mom and a dad. However, they can't be stopped from having their own kids, I don't want to see my insurance premium go up to help them "artificially inseminate". That will be another outcome of national healthcare.
2.Government sanctioning of gay adoptions - philosophically speaking, the gov't shouldn't be involved in adoption that endorses this lifestyle.
3.Gov.t mandated rules regarding discrimination of gays by churches. This is virtually inevitable on our current track.

This are just 3 of what I would consider to be detrimental outcomes of the gay lifestyle. Some are theoretical, the insurance one, but I would bet are high on the list of many gay advocates. The adoption topic is still up for debate in most states. Thanks for the forum. I understand that my views in this may be extreme. I also admit that they may be hurtful to gay people, I know saying I'm sorry will fall on deaf ears but I am sorry for hurt feelings. I am not sorry for my belief as I know those who oppose me will also not be sorry for theirs.

Fiery said...

If kids need a mom and a dad, are you equally opposed to single mothers or single fathers raising children on their own?

Do insurance companies currently pay for heteros to be artificially inseminated?

Apparently I'm not current on government regs preventing discrimination against gays by churches. The only way the government would be able to control that is if the churches accept government money. Once done, they're opening the door to being answerable to government policies.

Back on the adoption thing. Does the church you belong to also support the anti-gay adoption policies? And if so, how many children do you remove from the system and provide homes for?

Are children better off left in orphanages than raised by people that love them?

If you are against homosexual adoption, because you disagree with their lifestyle choices, are you also against atheists adopting? Who SHOULD be allowed to adopt, if not adults who pass the checks already in place?

Poodles said...

See what happens when I don't pay enough attention. I miss a whole shit about being gay. Damn!


Sorry Mr. Wrong, but the consequences you listed are consequences of bigotry. They are not consequences of homosexuality. Being gay does not a bad parent make. My best friend and his partner are WAY better parents than I could ever be.

I will agree that I don't think insurance should pay for artificial insemination for anybody gay or straight, but I'm all for population control. I am also pro adoption. I think limiting who can adopt due to sexual orientation should fly in the face of all the pro life assholes who love fetuses but hate children, they talk a good game about adoption, but how many of them have put their finances and homes where their mouths are?

I can think of one unfortunate consequence of being gay, but it was for a homophobe not the gay guy. (This story if for the fans of the hulk).

One evening we (the hulk and myself) were at a movie with our gay couple friends. We were waiting to get into the movie and there was quite a line. The friends were holding hands, and some douche redneck behind them had the stupidity to remark loudly about "them faggots". He didn't realize that my husband (the hulk) and I were with "them faggots". Now mind you, my husband doesn't like stupid assholes as a general rule. So, he stepped around our friends and asked the guy if he would like to repeat what he said out side with him. If he had chosen not to back down and apologize (at the request of the hulk) it would have had very unfortunate consequences for said redneck douche.


Oh and Mr. Wrong I would agree that churches should be allowed to be as bigoted asses as they want to be. But I also think that they should pay taxes too.

Telmeimrong said...

I am not opposed to children being raised in a single parent home. It is not ideal, and kids deserve ideal. While we could talk about the sad state of parenting, that is another topic. Like I stated earlier, these are my examples of detrimental. Johnny denied that there were ANY.
If hate crime laws are passed the next thing will be that it is a crime for a church to deny employment to a gay man. In Canada it is already illegal to say anything negative about gays.
My church opposed gay adoption as far as I know. My wife and I are adoptive parents and working on our next one. Of the ten families in our church, I only know of one other and they have 6 adopted kids. Again, that was not the argument, the arguemnt was that there was no detrimental effect, and I claimed there are obvious one, even if you don't agree.

To poodles,
You might want to get a better understanding of what bigotry is. None of my examples have anything to do with how I feel about gays. It has to do with their effort to normalize their behavior, what they do in their bedroom, just like mine, is private.
I agree with you take on insurance, so someone else sees a possible detrimental consequence.
I don't make comments like the one that you heard and that is unfortunate that gay people have to hear them

Oh, and poodles, I am the church, Biblically speaking, so the church does pay taxes.

Rick said...

Just as a side note here.My brother was gay.Even though I disapproved of his lifestyle I still loved him as a brother and I told him so.He passed away on July 4,2001 from AIDS.I will always cherish the many fond memories of him.

Telmeimrong said...

Rick,
I am sorry to hear that. Two of my aunts are gay and one of my best friends came out to me 2 years ago. So I understand how you felt about his lifestyle. I have never lost anyone though and I wish no one ever had to lose someone they love.

Jacob said...

Oh my god, the gay issue? Is so dated. Seriously, retards, find a new set of people to bitch about.

Fiery said...

Hi Jacob, I didn't know you were still lurking. What a pleasant surprise!!!! :-)

You're right, it is absolutely an issue that is very much a "been there done that", "should no longer be on the table" sort of affair. Unfortuately here in America, issues aren't decided by reason and rational thought. They get muddled with religion and fanaticism, fear of the different, and a general desire to have the government legislate morality, as long as it is the morality that YOU beleive in.

I imagine the fundamentalists wouldn't be so interested in government morality if it was Islamic morals that were being instituted. Women forced to wear burqas, honor killings, stoning adulterers, public lashings, yeah... that's where I want to live.

Fiery said...

Telmeimrong (you're wrong!) the problem you seem to have with homosexuality, all stems from your religious beliefs: namely that homosexuality is a sin against god, something abnormal and morally repugnant to you.

You really believe that homosexuality is something vile and evil don't you. That the person is somehow corrupt for being that way. That being gay, somehow makes the person, what.... a pervert?

Not every heterosexual couple is fit for adoption, nor would every homosexual couple be fit to adopt. If there are kids out there needing a good loving home, why should they be denied a loving family because your bible tells you their preference in life partners is wrong?

Telmeimrong (you're wrong!)said... I do hate your effort to convince my daughter that your actions are normal. I hate the fact that gay people want to adopt, and get married. Sorry son, you won't change my mind there. Dont' tell me that flaunting it in the street doesn't hurt me, I will decide what hurts. This is from an earlier post back on the open comment 5.

I assume by "convincing your daughter it is normal" that you are talking about public school sex education classes, once again, I can't really tell. Too open ended. If that's the case, and you object to the material in the class, that is an issue between you, the school district, and your decision to homeschool your daughter.

Telmeimrong (you're wrong!)said..."my unwavering belief that homosexuality goes against the natural order and are not good for society."

By natural order, you mean god's commands? Because evolutionarily homosexuality makes a great deal of sense: population control, satisfy mating urgers with mismatched male/female ratios, hell you could even argue that it prevents the homosexual tendency from being passed down.

Not good for society- how does homosexuality damage society? The hatred they are met with is absolutely damaging.

I'm trying to imagine a society where people just don't care if you are gay or straight and then why that would be a bad place to live. I guess I've never seen two men kiss before. Maybe if we lived in that kind of society I'd have seen that.

Telmeimrong said...

I believe that homosexual sex is vile, the person is corrupt,and yes pervert. But is they keep it in their closet, then they are free to do whatever they want. Yes the adoption issue is a difficult one, and no I wouldn't want to be the one to have to choose, so I am glad I don't have to. But based on my first statement here, I think it is evident that I won't put a kid in a gay home.
If it was only in public school education that would be bad enough. Unfortunately it is on every TV show, every news program, in every newpaper, Disney and even on main street on trying to convince the majority of americans that it is normal.
By natural order means from God, yes. But anyone who has looked at the human body realizes the simple truth that men and men don't work together. It is not natural, not healthy, physically or emotionally.
I don't think Darwin would have acknowledged gay sex as a population control, but I could be wrong.
Homosexual sex doesn't necessarily damage society, I does damage individuals(I am taking a liberty but I am sure Rick would attest to that). My problem is that the mainstreaming of homosexuality is bad, will continue to get badder, and eventually, when it is "normal" is will be baddest.
Again thank you for the forum to opine.
To open a new can of worms, we don't need population control. We already don't have enough people to cover social security when I retire, we don't have enough American workers to do the jobs the Mexicans will.

Fiery said...

I think what is most puzzling to me about this discussion is that you are highly emotionally involved in this issue and I am not. So it is hard to understand your position when it has such emotionally loaded words as "vile, corrupt, pervert" (yes I realize I initially posed them and you are agreeing with the supposition) nevertheless, you actually FEEL that way about homosexuals, and yet is lacking in words like, "reason for, evidence of, consequences resulting from".

One reasoned argument you present is that "if you look at the human body man on man sex doesn't work." Yet they are "doing it" and it must work or... they wouldn't. Both you and Rick have relatives that are gay. How has being gay harmed them other than the fact that their families despise that particular aspect? Obviously anecdotal evidence isn't statistically relevant, but I'm guessing you are seeing damage to the individuals because of their orientation.

What are these awful things that are going to happen if the "baddest" happens and homosexuality is normalized?

Do you think that it is a contagion that more people will start choosing homosexuality as a viable alternative because it is ok?

Is it that you think that your son or daughter might turn gay if he/she sees a Disney movie one too many times with a gay character in it?

I'm really not sure what you see happening that is going to be so awful, if homosexual couples are treated no differently than heterosexual couples.

Telmeimrong said...

Good questions. I don't know if you read Ricks post, but his brother died of AIDS, so I would say that is a tragedy.
I understand that this is not an emotional issue for you and I can appreciate that.
I do believe that homosexuality is choosen, and that yes, more people will "give it a try". This to me is a personal disaster for them as well as the society as a whole. But then I believe that sex outside marriage is not only a sin, it is physically risky, emotionally damaging, and potentially relationally damaging. I realize I am being utopian in this, but if everyone would wait to have sex until marriage, there would be not STD's, many fewer unwanted babies, and I wouldn't have to watch those ridiculous herpes drug commercials.
Marriage is on the rocks, no thanks to many Christians, Christian pastors, Christian churches,and even my parents. But when gays can get married, the family will fail. It is already on the way down and fast. Kids need a mommy and a daddy to have the best chance to be happy and healthy adults. People that argue with this point are out of tough with reality and have not spent a significant amount of time with kids. I have and can see the personal toll the lack of a family unit has on kids. Yes, I am worried about my kid (and hopefully some more soon) but I am also worried about the kids of this country who aren't that important to too many people. Your kids are extremely luck to have a mommy who will sacrifice for them. I with that you were the norm and not the freak for wanting to know what your kids are being taught. I would almost say I would rather have kids in an atheist home than in a home of gay parents who say they believe in the Bible.
Ok, now I rambled. You are a very interesting person. Even though we seem to disagree on so many things, we agree on some interesting ones as well.

Fiery said...

Rick- my condolences on the loss of your brother. What a tragic loss, I would be devestated if I lost my brother.


Telmeimrong (you're wrong!), I'm not sure I agree with you that homosexuality is chosen.

Does or even CAN a person really CHOOSE what they find sexually attractive?

Awhile back I posted about what an attractive woman (really a full on hottie) Claudia Black is. Yet the idea of a physical relationship with her, doesn't appeal to me at all. The men I am attracted to aren't necessarily in the 100 Sexiest Bachelors or whatever chosen by some big name magazine. Even in highschool, rarely did the teen heart throbs make my ....heart throb. So societal pressure to find these men attractive, didn't really work with me. I'm remember the first guy I had a massive crush on... short curly dark hair, not overly tall, rather stocky build, cowboy rebel. I don't really remember deciding to find him attractive, he just was to me.

I certainly can't imagine deciding, "from now on I will only be attracted to Russian men over 6'4" tall, aryan complexion, with huge bulging thigh muscles".

Good grief, I actually made myself chuckle at that one. *shakes head*

Or, let's say that I am currently attracted to men with x personality, y physical characteristics, and most importantly are enamored of my writing style. But, I have been convinced that that kind of attraction is a bad thing. So.... ***alakazam***... I've chosen to no longer be attracted to that type.

...Shit.... It didn't work. I'm still attracted. What do I do?????

Or, let's try a third scenario. I've been watching too much tv, seen too many movies, and I know that it is no longer smoking that makes a person cool, it's no longer wearing the right clothes, it is smooching the person with the same undercarriage as me. The only way I'll fit in, and be really popular, is if I stick my tongue down some girls throat while trying to cop a feel of something I already have a pair of my own.

*gag* I can barely write that without wanting to barf. I am NOT attracted to girls in a physical sexual sense. I suppose if you paid me enough money I could PRETEND to be but that is it. I just cannot choose to be a lesbian.

Final scenario- My parents want me to be attracted to this nice young man from down the road. He is clean cut, goes to church, does well in school, has good job prospects, comes from a good family and was recently saved.

While his spousal resume is excellent, the attraction just isn't there.

Now obviously there is more to love and relationships than the outer physical attraction. Yet with most relationships that is where it starts. Physical imperfections can be completely irrelevant when the personality behind them outshines them. But initially, there has to have been something about the other, that caught the attention. Whatever that initial spark is, I just don't think we can control it.

It doesn't matter how much I want to be attracted to something, or how much someone might want to convince me that I should be attracted to something, I just won't be. I like what I like and no amount of personality is going to overcome the fact that if you have a pair on top, I'm not interested.


Yes I understand what you mean on stds. If adults would stop having sex with teenagers, stds would be wiped out. If people would only ever have sex with someone the exact same age as them, stds would be wiped out. If people only had sex with those that had medical proof that they were not carrying an infectious disease, stds would be wiped out. Yes highly utopian. The idea of a government enforcing that is horrifying beyond compare.


As for adoption, I have never met a child raised by homosexual parents. I don't have the slightest idea if the child is able to get through life without kids really picking on them because their family unit is atypical. I have no idea if the child has a higher than normal chance of being homosexual because that is what they were raised to view as normal or as an "option". Do you think that homosexual parents would encourage their child to be attracted to a same sex person?

I wonder who would be better adjusted, a child raised in a happy homosexual household or a child raised in an unhappy heterosexual household?

Is homosexuality really a deciding characteristic in raising a happy, well adjusted child?

Rick said...

Thank you telme and Fiery.In my brothers case it wasn't so much his sexual preference that bothered me.He didn't talk to me about it and I left him alone except for the discussion I had with him previously mentioned.What was really tough was when my sister and I found out he had AIDS I had to tell my Father who didn't even know he was gay.We kept his lifestyle a guarded secret up till then.
Bottom line for me is that I tend to agree with telme on some points and Fiery as well.My personal opinion based on my experience and not on Religion,or Bigotry(A Bigot I'm not)is that it is unnatural(Dont think I spelled that right:().Artificial insemination might be ok but good old fashioned SEX between a man and a woman is so much more fun and enjoyable.And I'm like Fiery.I cant imagine being attracted to a male as she couldnt be attracted to a female.I'm kinda partial to women.;)

Johnny said...

Tellmeimwrong (your wrong!)
Firstly I would like to say I appreciate your honesty in your reply posts.
Tolerance has a definition, tellmeimwrong (your wrong!), freedom from bigotry yep those three words are actually written in the dictionary. Bigotry and tolerance are diametrically opposed we are all in trouble when people start making up their own definitions for words dont you think. You don't know what goes on in my bedroom! Making assumptions is a dangerous habit as well. As far as gay marriage....in the christian sense I even wonder why they would want to well I guess if you want to be legally recognised as a couple so you can have the benefits others get for the and their spouses and maybe to declare their love for each other in public but otherwise marriage is ridiculous to me. I am not offended as such but apart from the legal ramifications...oh I guess and the religious ones if you buy into that.....it is totally redundant monogamy is quite possible without a piece of paper.
You anomoly example is just silly. I am concerned with what is detrimental to society. The lion example is so flawed, anyone can see it. The act of the lion is getting food, what he eat is not the issue, it is "that" he eats. If what you said is true then the entire human race is an anomoly, we eat terribly. The anomoly with homosexuality is much more obvious. To me, gay sex is wrong, just like sex outside of marriage. And by the way, I am equally intolerant of both. It is outside the norm, but again, if it stays private, then I don't care what goes on.
I would require more rebuttal than the words silly and flawed if I were to even think of conceding a point tellmeimwrong (yourwrong!) oh and other stuff you said would have to make sense too. The act of the lion is getting food, what he eat is not the issue, it is "that" he eats. I think I see what your trying to say but that is a moot point...if you read my original post properly the lion talk was not a correlation to homosexuality but an attempt to deliniate between the words erroneous and anomoly as I said erroneous implies wrongness(which in a sense does tie in with your argument because you think gay is wrong I think gay is part of nature.) In fact you even miss the meaning of the word anomoly it only means not part of the normal behaviour which does not imply wrongness nor erroneous last time I say it! I still cannot see what the difference between being private and being public...do you keep your marriage private do you not show affection to your wife in public? As Fiery pointed out what about single parents thats's outside the norm...what about when one parent has died? Do they need to keep it in private? What would you say if I saw you in public holding your wifes hand/kissing and I came up to you and told you to stop it because you offend me by doing that?
It might be normal for a certain percentage of the species to be phenotypically different. First, gayness, is not a phenotype until they prove it is a genotype. Second, the problem I have is the effort to mainstream the lifestyle. Dude you have to get better at constructive reading...at no point did I ever say that gayness was a phenotype! If you read what I said properly I was drawing a correlation between things that might cause a particular individual to not reproduce...oh shit read it again properly An anomolous percentage of a healthy population wether they be displaying homosexual behaviour or maybe displaying the phenotype of a ressecive congenital disorder that means they are infertile ie cant produce viable offspring in either case..
I have no idea what you mean about "the effort to mainstream the lifestyle"
In the end though tellmeimwrong (your wrong!) behaviour is behaviour and once again I have never once even intimated that I am talking about anthropomorphising animal behaviour the question originally posited was ....is gayness a choice or not? And my response is no it is not it is a normal parrt of animal behaviour there doesn't even need to be a reason I don't even know why I am arguing against this point I mean look what you've typed Why do two penguins have gay sex. NO ONE knows. Maybe they are retarded and don't know the difference, maybe they have a genetic defect. Are you saying homosexuality is genetic now or what? And again biologists and ecologists never try to explain animal behaviour with higher human behaviour(ie self awareness) but understanding general animal behaviour is useful in understanding ourselves because I believe that we are animals not whatever you Christians think we are. Again when I say normal I mean in the terms of a whole populaion you can't deny it because there is homosexual animal behaviour throughout the animal kingdom so although it may be an anomoly on a statistical basis it is still a fact that it occurs.
Hurt what is hurt what should you have to tolerate once again hurt has a definition already mate............
hurt, hurt·ing, hurts v.tr.
1. To cause physical damage or pain to; injure.
2. To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress.
3. To cause physical damage to; harm: The frost hurt the orange crop.
4. To be detrimental to; hinder or impair
The only one of those definitions you can claim to suffer is maybe the second one and again that is your bigotry not being gay shining through oh how doth it shine?
On to unfortunate consequences part (n)
1. Gay men and lesbians raising children - I firmly believe that kids need a mom and a dad. However, they can't be stopped from having their own kids, I don't want to see my insurance premium go up to help them "artificially inseminate". That will be another outcome of national healthcare. I live in a country with a healthcare system and if that is the small price you pay for it then you should do it...oh hang on your right wing conservative well of course you don't believe in helping the less fortunate.That shit about you being the church in a biblical sense so the church does pay taxes is the biggest croc ever!! That I am afraid was insulting. Almost as much as you worrying about your money over other peoples happiness!!
2.Government sanctioning of gay adoptions - philosophically speaking, the gov't shouldn't be involved in adoption that endorses this lifestyle. Philosophically speaking....bigotry!
3.Gov.t mandated rules regarding discrimination of gays by churches. This is virtually inevitable on our current track.
Whilst I do not agree with hate laws I would think that it is discriminatory to deny a person anything the church can offer(whatever that may be?) Remember we are talking generalisations here but I want you, tellmeimwrong (your wrong!) to know that on a smaller level we are talking about human lives...individual human lives think for a minute about your love for god and your worship to him via your church now imagine that being denied you...for whatever reason!Their are ferverent homosexual christians(fuck knows why?) they love god as much as you what sort of crap god who is meant to be omnipotent omniscient omnipresent and omnibenevolent would make or even could make something that was wrong? Free will my ass if god knows what is going to happen and you claim he does there is no free will! How loud would you squeal if you were denied something because of your Christianity oh boy would you and you know what tellmeimwrong (your wrong!) I would have thought that homosexuality was a much more normal state of affairs than christianity which came first the homosexual aimal or the christian? I reckon even NormalBob would like that one.
To poodles,
You might want to get a better understanding of what bigotry is. None of my examples have anything to do with how I feel about gays. It has to do with their effort to normalize their behavior, what they do in their bedroom, just like mine, is private.
I agree with you take on insurance, so someone else sees a possible detrimental consequence.


big·ot·ry (bg-tr)
n.
The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

tellmeimwrong (your wrong!) you have quite clearly stated that you are a bigot all your examples are clearly bigoted if you reread what poodles said I will agree that I don't think insurance should pay for artificial insemination for anybody gay or straight note she doesn't discriminate against gays! what do think about heterosexuals and artificial insemination what if a lovely but unfortunate couple in your church have trouble concieving would you want to stop them from using invitro on insurance so your taxes wouldn't go up? And if you agree how would that be a detrimental effect of being gay anyway wouldn't it be a detrimental effect of a more left wing political system?
I am still not quite sure what this "effort to normalise their behaviour" and your insistence that it is ok as long as they "keep it in the bedroom" is all about. Most homosexuals do keep it in the bedroom I can point you to just as many heterosexual sex clubs as homsexual clubs.
So unfortunately seeing as you will insist on rehashing the intellectual honesty gibe no tellmeimwrong (your wrong!) it doesn't really make the cut...I would be interested to know what sort of scientist you are...apart from a bad one that is!!
Poodles I think I am the latest fan of the Hulk!!
Rick sorry about your brother.
Jacob hahahaha all I can hear is Vicky Pollard when I read your post but yer but no but yer
And Fiery mate you rule!!!

janice said...

My cousin (age 32) died on April 3 1993 from AIDS. He told us he was "sick" in 1991 and had been sick since 1980, that's all, just sick.

Finally, in 1992 he had to tell us how sick he really was, he had AIDS. The hospital at that time made you wear scrubs and a big red stop sign was on his hospital room door. He could no longer hide his illness.

I can still remember the shame in his hollow eyes, nothing was ever going to be the same because of the stigma attached to him.

I (our family) still don't know for sure if he was "gay" or not. He never told us or came out of the closet if he was.

Johnny said...

I am sorry Janice that is terrible.
Isn't it awful that some people have to hide one of the things that define them(whatever the reason for being gay is and you know my thoughts on that) from people who are often closest to them? I find that morally disgusting!

Rick said...

I am also sorry Janice.AIDS is truly a tragedy that touches the lives of many.I have posted a link on my blog to my webpage which gives up to the second info on AIDS and other problems confronting us today.Please take a look at it.It will stun you.It did me.

Fiery said...

Poodles- I remember that picture from your blog of the hulk holding that wee pup and what beautiful eyes he has, I can just see them flashing fire at that "iggorant redneck" who had the fucking NERVE to start razzing on your friends in public.

People like that count on the silent sanction of those around them to support them and their bigotry. I imagine the hulk in action is quite intimidating when he gets his game on.

It's precisely people like that, who stand up and say "knock it off" to the jerks of the world, that are needed so desperately.

Now, if we can get the hulk to talk in an aussie accent, you'll really be set. *snerk* lol

Telmeimrong said...

Johnny,

TOL'ERANCE, n. [L. tolerantia, from tolero, to bear.] The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.

example. I am tolerant of your ignorance of the definition of tolerance.

Bigot, n. (plural big·ots) Somebody who has very strong opinions, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity, and refuses to accept different views

I may have interpreted bigot wrongly in some sense.

I have VERY STRONG OPINIONS of homosexuality, I refuse to accept that it is normal and equal to heterosexualality. I will tolerate gayness, in that I will endure it, I am not going to kill someone for it,yet I don't have to agree or support it, and I will do whatever I can to fight against it.

I can't remember everything you asked in your lengthy diatibe that ignored most of my previous comment. I don't have the desire to reread it either.

pain - thinking that my daughter is under attack by a group of anomolous penguins who can't keep their sexual acivity private like I do.
That was right out of the dictionary according to me

I see your point about tolerance and bigotry. It makes sense. However, when using the definitions I read, My point make sense as well.
I know we live in a world where tolerance (your twisted definition) is COOL. I happen to think tolerance, (Daniel Websters) is right, and good. Let me state again. I will put up with, endure, tolerate the gay agenda, I will not agree with it, that is not tolerance. I will try to prevent what I think is bad for people (including people dying of AIDS).

Poodles said...

Fiery said:
"Now, if we can get the hulk to talk in an aussie accent, you'll really be set. *snerk* lol

He can speak samoan, does that count? :D

Mr. Wrong, I still have yet to see anyone present anywhere any sherd of evidence that homosexuality is harmful that doesnt stem from religion.

Prove your god, prove your bible then we can talk about how accurate the bigotry based there in are.

Speaking of things harmful to society, shall we start the list of reasons that religion is harmful to socitey, those can actually be proven...

9/11
The crusades
Mtn. Meadows
The Iraq war
Polygamy

Shall I continue.
I think before banning a made up enemy (homosexuality) let's first go after the real enemies to society... Religions.

Telmeimrong said...

AIDS

Fiery said...

AIDS is not a homosexual disease.

Telmeimrong said...

But isn't it unfortunate consequence of the lifestyle?

Let's all take a breath and remember what this debate began with.

It started when Johnny said He couldn't think of any unfortunate consequenses of being gay.

I then said that was intelletcually dishonest. I then proceeded to name some possible examples. Then, stupid me, I tried to argue them, which had led this discussion away from my initial intent. Which is, and I will repeat myself, It is intellectually dishonest to say you can't see ANY negative or unfortunate consequenses of the gay lifestyle. I never said you had to agree, just that in SOMEONES eyes they could be unfortunate.

Now if we want to debate how stupid you think my arguments are, fine, I make a good punching bag.

Telmeimrong said...

telmeimrong (yourwrong) you should stay on track. You should stick with your original argument. You made a stupid mistake. You tried to convince them of something instead of that something could theroetically exist. telmeimrong (your wrong) thank you self.

Fiery said...

Yeah, I rather think Samoan would do the trick. :-D

Poodles said...

AIDS is an unfortunate consequence of evolution of diseases.
Not being gay. Being gay did not and does not cause AIDS.

Try again.

Oh and Mr. Wrong I would like to congratulate you on adopting, I wish more people would do the same, and I wish more people could do the same.

Telmeimrong said...

Do gay people get AIDS? yes
Do gay people get AIDS because of gay sex? absolutely.

So you are saying that an unfortunate consequence of being gay is that you have gay sex and gay sex MAY lead to increased exposure to HIV which MAY lead to AIDS.

I am confused.

Is being fat an unfortunate consequence of eating a super sized big mac meal 5 times a day?

Fiery said...

Exposure to HIV is a potential unfortunate consequence of having unprotected sex with a non-virgin.

Telmeimrong said...

exactly, do gay people have sex with nonvirgins. yes

Poodles said...

So do straight people. They get AIDS also, and at a much higher rate than the gay community does now. AIDS is obtained through unprotected sex, be it gay or straight.

Try again.

Telmeimrong said...

This is ridiculous. I can't even believe I am going to respond to these last couple of posts. No offense, but you are both off your rockers. Does anyone else agree with fiery and poodles that contracting AIDS is not an unfortunate consequense of being gay. It is an unfortunate consequence for anyone who has sex with an infected person. I mean, seriously. I never claimed that AIDS is exclusive to gays, I simply said that if a gay person gets AIDS, it is unfortunate and it is also because of their lifestyle. I never claimed that it is a higher percentage in gays. I said if one gay person gets AIDS from gay sex, it is unfortunate.
I guess poodles and fiery doesn't think it is unfortunate when a gay person gets AIDS. Maybe I am defining unfortunate wrong.

Fiery said...

Poodles Rule...AIDS is an unfortunate consequence

Fiery...Exposure to HIV is a potential unfortunate consequence

Telmeimwrong (you're wrong!)...It is an unfortunate consequence for anyone

Enough with AIDS already. Everyone agrees it's unfortunate. It sounded like you meant it was exclusive to the gay community.

How about every other fucking point you haven't addressed yet? For instance, oh ANY of my posts starting at 7:32 p.m. and going after.

Telmeimrong said...

If I must...

"the problem you seem to have with homosexuality, all stems from your religious beliefs" ... Correct, I believe ALL sex outside a married man and woman is morally repugnant.

"That the person is somehow corrupt for being that way" ... I believe humanity is corrupt.

"If there are kids out there needing a good loving home, why should they be denied a loving family because your bible tells you their preference in life partners is wrong?" ... I believe that kids are vulnerable and need our protection. Protection from anything that corrupts their body, mind, soul. I would prefer foster care. As I said before this would be an extremely difficult decision for me to make and I am glad I don't have to.

"If that's the case, and you object to the material in the class, that is an issue between you, the school district, and your decision to homeschool your daughter" ... I disagree here because the school district, all school districts, didn't just decide one day to teach homosexuality as normal. It wasn't a spontaneous act. They were lobbied by powerful people, text book makers, NEA, ect. So while I do have an issue with the school district, it does not stop there. There is an obvious gay movement, and it is not driven by compassionate non-gay people.

"By natural order, you mean god's commands?" ... call it what you want, but I can't see an evolutionary mechanism that would support a gay gene. If you believe in evolution, I think you have a much harder time defending homosexuality as normal than I do and abnormal. Common sense is still a powerful argument. Gay genes would have a very hard time being selected in a population. And if common sense indicated that it is not genetic, then choice is the only other posibility.

"population control" ... I think this is very unlikely in humans, when have we needed it? And I would be careful equating animal behavior with humans.

"satisfy mating urgers with mismatched male/female ratios" ... again this would be a choice. Sex here is an urge, there is no mention of preference, just a
satisfaction.

"why that would be a bad place to live" I can't prove that I would be, I am just not willing to take the risk.

I hope this answers your questions.

Richard said...

Wow... I go away for a couple of days and there's too much to read. Sheesh.

I spotted some things that need to be addressed.

As a biologist (for several decades)I would like to correct the assumptions in this statement by Fiery:
"Because evolutionarily homosexuality makes a great deal of sense: population control, satisfy mating urgers [sic]with mismatched male/female ratios, hell you could even argue that it prevents the homosexual tendency from being passed down."

Quite a number of science writers promote these sorts of confusions.

In fact, "Population control" is anathema to evolution. Though many strange things look like it, nothing in nature entails "population control" in the sense meant above.

E.g. High density lemmings do not form herds that reduce their population by running off cliffs into the Arctic Ocean. All that has happened is that they became so numerous that, as the neophyte observer walks to or along the edge, panicking lemmings are driven ahead in a 'wave' that sends them over the edge. Prior to that their primary focus was to survive to reproduce. Under great stress they may exhibit homosexuality (it has been reported) but this is behavioral *distortion* caused by the stress, which alters hormone levels in the extreme. Those who cannot handle the density do not reproduce... that is not population control it is the elimination of the genetically weak.

Self-sacrifice (altruism)and evolution are principled opposites.

Organisms have no means of appraising numbers. They can see two things but have no capacity to formulate the notion "two". They cannot recognize overpopulation they just suffer stress from competition for food and mates. Nor can they respond to male/female ratios.

It is improper to draw behavioral parallels between animals and humans:
"Humans are as different from animals, as animals are from plants."
The fact that many birds wake in the morning in response to sunlight, is completely unrelated to a sunflower turning with the sun. In responding to the sun, both have a nonessential similarity, but their behaviors are utterly different. When drawing parallels one must think in terms of essential characteristics not superficial similarities. This means homosexual behavior must be judged solely on the basis of the main qualities that make humans human...

Human behavior is a function of our conceptual mind, however muddled it may be some can be worse than animals). As I said in my previous comment, human homosexuality is a consequence of profound and subtle understandings that are implicitly drawn as a child grows. I have to ask telmeimrong to reread that comment. His subsequent comments suggest he thoroughly missed the full significance of the arguments made.

I do agree with Telmeimrong that something is wrong with homosexuals, but as human beings their sexuality is not their defining characteristic. Do not mentally file their character under "homosexual", judge and file them for "intelligence", "humor", "business-like" etc. Get mindless faith out of the equation and look at the *character* of the individuals involved. Failure to do so truly IS bigotry/prejudice.

There is no reason why a lesbian couple cannot provide a profoundly positive and intelligent environment for a child to grow up as a heterosexual, so long as they (in their intelligence) do not act to distort that development.

Unfortunately the noisy gays, shouting their sexual equivalence to heteros, are the last people I would trust with such a precious responsibility as child rearing. They are not properly rational/intelligent from the outset. The same is true of a lot (I'd say all)of seriously religious families.

The noisy gays are insecure in their person and their sexuality, they need the sanction of everyone but themselves to feel complete, and are so busy rationalizing their sexuality they *are* defining themselves by their sexuality. A pox on them... they distort everyone's view of what homosexuality itself is, much as porn distorts heterosexuality.

There are so many confusions, some the fault of gays themselves, some the fault of religious views, that I can appreciate why telmeimwrong feels as he does, I think he has come by his views honestly, but they're wrong :-).

Richard said...

Contrary to Jacob, I would have to say the topic is not tired because it is so poorly understood that it saddens me. There are too many understandings that must still be acquired by a sufficient majority of the population. Religion and public leftist education will not help... as I am sure one godlessmomathome will agree.

Richard said...

"AIDS is not a homosexual disease."

Sadly, that is a myth promoted by the noisy, activist gays and their sympathizers. A fantastic study by Michael Fumento, presented in his book The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" provides so much data to prove the point that the mind reels. 96% of AIDS virus transmission is via anal intercourse which often tears tissues. Even AIDS stricken prostitutes do not pass the virus via normal intercourse to healthy Johns with no open wounds. Early studies failed to ask men who said they were heterosexual if they engaged in anal intercourse, especially with men. Many men who called themselves heterosexual when first surveyed, were later found to be "sampling from both sides of the buffet table" (to quote Fiery), particularly in Africa.

AIDS is not a homosexual thing it is an anal intercourse thing. It could readily be stopped by condom use... a legitimate parallel can be found in the British Navy 200 years ago just as the British Navy gained a great deal of its Naval strength by having healthy sailors. They did this in two major ways. One was the elimination of scurvy by carrying limes and other citrus fruit (for the Vitamin C, lack of which IS scurvy) The other was their elimination of ship wide dysentery (and related awful illnesses). The sailors normally pooped through the rope rigging of the bowsprit (that spar sticking out of the bow, or "head" of the ship). Of course, the ropes were routinely covered with amoeba and bacteria laden feces, yet the men had to hold onto the rigging with their hands. They would then return their work, handling the rest of the ship's rigging. The British Navy required that sailors wash their hands with lye soap, before returning to work. Bingo, the men lived, performed better and fought better (can you imagine handling a ship, fighting with knives and the short range pistols of the time, while feverish with dysentery and struggling with near explosive diarrhea?!!). No more British ghost ships, where all the crew had died of dysentery.

The equivalent solution against AIDS is abstention from anal intercourse (and oral sex if gum disease or other tissue damage is present) &/or the use of condoms. They are the equivalent of the wash bucket and lye soap.

The insistence that
i) a cure should be found for those who contract AIDS,
ii) coupled with the insistence that homosexual anal intercourse is acceptable behavior regardless of its being the main reason AIDS is transmitted,
rather than massively promoting appropriate preventative measures, has led to the deaths of millions.

AIDS transmission is a failure of reason, especially among activists and 'authorities'.

Johnny said...

you are a fool tellmeimwrong (your wrong!) are you trying to tell me now that your not a bigot when you have already said and clearly you are? you try to be smart with the correct definition when it is only a tiny part of its meaning..........
the disposition to be patient and fair towards those whose opinions or practices differ from ones own; freedom from bigotry............... is the definition we are talking about! Definition number 1 in the maquarie dictionary.
example. I am tolerant of your ignorance of the definition of tolerance. no your not if you were you wouldn't be trying to pull me up on it so you don't even understand the word in your own sense of the meaning. Here I will say I am intolerant and a bigot.....of bigots like you. You say you are tolerant of gays but you are clearly not! You want the church(read you) to be able to dicriminate against homosexuals you stated that by bemoaning the fact that it may be passed as a law that you cant discriminate against them.....do you think discrimination is part of the defenition of tolerance? Don't try to be something your not.

Bigot, n. (plural big·ots) Somebody who has very strong opinions, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity, and refuses to accept different views

I may have interpreted bigot wrongly in some sense.

I have VERY STRONG OPINIONS of homosexuality, I refuse to accept that it is normal and equal to heterosexualality. I will tolerate gayness, in that I will endure it, I am not going to kill someone for it,yet I don't have to agree or support it, and I will do whatever I can to fight against it.

You poor confused fool! you haven't interpreted it incorrectly at all you say you tolerate gayness and you say you are intolerant of gayness in the same fucking sentence....you dick tolerance is not the simple act of enduring!!! I will do whatever I can to fight against it is exactly what you said how arsehole, is that being tolerant?

I can't remember everything you asked in your lengthy diatibe that ignored most of my previous comment. I don't have the desire to reread it either.
Holy shit now your just being an asshole...by the way there is an r in diatribe........ignored most of your previous comment!!!!! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!! I went through and answered your reply point by point but seeing as you cant be bothered to read it again...it wouldn't matter anyway seeing as you don't even understand the language properly you rude jerk!

pain - thinking that my daughter is under attack by a group of anomolous penguins who can't keep their sexual acivity private like I do.
That was right out of the dictionary according to me

Your not the only one who has children jerk...I have a daughter too she is 11. How is it that you keep your sexual life private and I know your heterosexual? That is right out of the dictionary according to you! I am starting to find you really hard to believe in any sense of the word tellmeimwrong (you are so fucking wrong it's not funny anymore!)
Let me state again. I will put up with, endure, tolerate the gay agenda, I will not agree with it, that is not tolerance. I will try to prevent what I think is bad for people (including people dying of AIDS).
listen mate are you tolerant or not???? Not!!! Don't try and be something you are not! you will never be able to defend yourself against me whilst you are a bigot....by the way aids is not a gay disease if it were only gay people would get aids are you trying to tell me that the only people ever to have contracted aids are homosexual? so yes there you go tellmeimwrong (I think we have established you're wrong!) aids is a detrimental effect of having gay sex as well as heterosexual sex it is comunicable via vaginal sex! heterosexuals have anal sex too anyway..Richard is right in the sense that it is predominantly spread via anal sex. You do realise you don't have to have anal sex if your gay don't you just like you don't have to have vaginal sex if you are hetero.
I see your point about tolerance and bigotry. It makes sense. However, when using the definitions I read, My point make sense as well. your defenitions are wrong or incomplete!
Poodles said......Mr. Wrong, I still have yet to see anyone present anywhere any sherd of evidence that homosexuality is harmful that doesnt stem from religion.

Prove your god, prove your bible then we can talk about how accurate the bigotry based there in are.

Speaking of things harmful to society, shall we start the list of reasons that religion is harmful to socitey, those can actually be proven...

9/11
The crusades
Mtn. Meadows
The Iraq war
Polygamy

Shall I continue.
I think before banning a made up enemy (homosexuality) let's first go after the real enemies to society... Religions.

read that a few times tellmeimwrong (oh shit are you wrong!)

I will repeat myself, It is intellectually dishonest to say you can't see ANY negative or unfortunate consequenses of the gay lifestyle. I never said you had to agree, just that in SOMEONES eyes they could be unfortunate. in someones eyes then yes I can see that bigots would say that there are unfortunate consequences sure. Intellectually I say and will keep saying there are no real unfortunate consequences of being gay. The negativity is all yours.
Do gay people get AIDS? yes
Do gay people get AIDS because of gay sex? absolutely.

So you are saying that an unfortunate consequence of being gay is that you have gay sex and gay sex MAY lead to increased exposure to HIV which MAY lead to AIDS.
there you go made a bit of sense with that one.
Do straight people get aids?yes
Do straight people get aids because of heterosexual sex. Absolutely
So you are saying that an unfortunate consequence of being heterosexual is that you have heterosexual sex and heterosexual sex MAY lead to increased exposure to HIV which MAY lead to AIDS.
In fairness to you, you believe in no sex before marriage either so there you go I can see what your saying I have always been able to see what your saying its just that you are wrong

Is being fat an unfortunate consequence of eating a super sized big mac meal 5 times a day? Which neatly brings us back to the reason for this.......Fuck yea it will cause us to be fat but tellmeimwrong (you bet your wrong!) you can choose not to eat shit you cannot choose weather your are gay or hetero!!

I believe humanity is corrupt.You are corrupt? Your daughter is corrupt? Your wife is corrupt? Or aren't you part of humanity...you religious types are just pure crazy!! Why would god make humanity corrupt?? You are ridiculous!!

Poodles said...

Johnny,
I think the problem we are facing is that once someone is indoctrinated by the lies of religion then unless they are willing to open their eyes, do some intellectual searching it is hard to get them to see the error of their ways. It is very hard to get peoples heads out of the "goddit" or "godhatesit" clouds unless they are willing to clear their minds from the fog of religion. Most people aren't worth the effort if you ask me.

I'll reiterate it one more time.
Gay did not cause or create AIDS. Therefore, AIDS is not an unfortuante consequence of being gay, it is an unfortunate consequence of unprotected intercourse. For anybody, gay, straight, bi, wtf ever you are.

And the myth that children need a mother and father is a consequece of religious indoctrination that leads to bigotry. It isn't a consequence of being gay either.

I was raise by a single mom for many, many of my years, she didn't marry my dad (adopted) until I was 10. I turned out much better than my drug addicted, pregnant at 15, turning tricks by 21 cousin who was raised by both her MOTHER and FATHER. I also turned out better than my two best friends growing up, one who had drug problems, one who was pregnant at 17, both raised by good mormon parents.

So, until someone leaves their pretend sky daddy out of the argument, and actually injects some facts into their bigotry, I'm done. You just can't argue with stupid.

Johnny said...

Poodles mate I hear ya but you gotta admit that it is hard to see what some people say some times and not comment...But I totally agree that most people like tellmeimwrong (wrong wrong wrong!) are virtually impossible to get through to because of the fog of sky faries. I don't really have much more to say to him anyway and he doesn't read what I write properly anyway!
Richard said "Humans are as different from animals, as animals are from plants."
You are not seriously saying that humans aren't animals are you? Whilst animals aren't plants although they come from plants....Humans definitely are animals....Human behaviour is animal behaviour.Are you saying that studying primate social behaviour for instance we can draw no conclusions whatsoever about humans?

Richard said...

Johnny, I am glad you picked up on my, perhaps startling, point, by saying:

"Richard said "Humans are as different from animals, as animals are from plants."
You are not seriously saying that humans aren't animals are you? Whilst animals aren't plants although they come from plants....Humans definitely are animals....Human behavior is animal behavior.Are you saying that studying primate social behavior for instance we can draw no conclusions whatsoever about humans?


Of course we are animals, but only physiologically.

It is not our physiology that sets us apart, it is our minds. Understanding our minds properly is essential to understanding homosexuality and a wide variety of other human activities.

You criticized telmeimwrong for failing to think because his arguments reflect indoctrination from SkyDaddy (hat tip to Poodles), and I would agree. However, tossing out religion hardly indicates one's thinking is remotely reasonable.

I think it is absolutely demonstrable that certain elements of our brains (that integrate with our bodies) are unique, that is distinguish us entirely from all other organisms on Earth, and enable us to not live (behaviorally) as animals.

To start with animals: not even the most well trained ape can grasp language at the level of a two year old. Their ability to use it is limited to that of an even younger child. Studies that suggest apes can hand-sign their own sentences, from a tiny vocabulary of hard-come-by words, have been substantially debunked. The apes are unwittingly cued by their trainers (not instructors). Just as embarrassing, their researcher-trainers' lack of knowledge about conceptual thought leads them to wrongly conclude the aped signings (purposeful pun) indicate conceptual thought. In fact the apes are demonstrating predictable, superior skills of association and memory. Yet they cannot reach the aforementioned two-year old upper limit, and are certainly not conceptual.
It is concept formation that separates us from animals, just as the mobility, (with nervous system and senses) separates animals from plants. Plants have a great many metabolic similarities to animals, particularly with respect to cellular functions. Their processes of respiration are identical, enzymes and proteins are remarkably similar, and on and on. But those similarities do not make animals plants. What separates us from animals is not something you can see by dissection, but you can certainly see it right here on this blog.

To understand what I mean by "conceptual ability" requires understanding a sophisticated process. For example, a child can see two or more dogs, grasp that they differ from all other objects known, grasp that they have certain commonalities, and then group them into a single mental unit... a concept. The mind can do this, even though the commonalities may differ within a certain range and proportion (e.g. Fox Terriers vs. St. Bernards). The information that the *child* easily uses to do this is subsumed under a single word, ‘dog’. In those steps he has enabled himself to recognize all dogs that ever were, are, and ever will be. He has reduced billions of units of a certain kind to one concept labeled with one word! (In fact, a lot of kids talk about animals as something different from humans... it just makes sense to them.) They will go on to add more information about dogs to the concept, especially those who become vets, dog trainers or biologists.

That process, that I have terrifically simplified, is wildly beyond what any other animal can do. Children conceptualize at the pace of adult geniuses until they are six or seven, at which point the concepts they form become much more abstract and difficult. For example more abstract understandings might be grasping that dogs join with cats etc. as Carnivores. Soon they can move up, or get more specific at intermediate levels of abstraction, to recognize Mammals as a special group sharing characteristics that can be found in all dogs, cats, bats, cows, elephants, whales and platypuses (a group which lays eggs!).

Now imagine doing this with concepts that are about humans, working with such abstract ideas as parenting, society, rights, economics, religion, politics, art and so on!

Essential to our conceptual faculty is our unique form of choice (volition) which allows us to use those concepts to make and act on decisions. Animals choose by automatic genetic predisposition, tailored by a certain amount of learning by association. In contrast, humans have evolved to eliminate all but reflexes as automatic behaviors. This makes us more flexible for dealing with the world than any other organism, except we have to learn a lot before we can manage on our own. How our mind functions physiologically to provide concepts and volition is not understood, but it is clear that both are there. Anyone who argues against it is asking us to volitionally deny volition, or is using concepts to deny concepts!

Human conceptual thought has put us in space and on the moon, created highly mechanized agriculture, nuclear medicine, airplanes, money, property, intellectual property and so on. Now, the human world is as much a habitat for us as is the rainforest for an ape. Such is the enormity of our difference from animals.

So, to return to the main subject, homosexuality is due to a long and implicit (not consciously examined and put into words) process of different ideas they add to their subconscious mind, which integrate into a deeply held, nearly impossible to examine, understanding, by which they then conclude they are homosexual.

Note also that, homosexuality cannot be genetic... babies must learn to walk, to judge distance, to make appropriate noises and to control their bathroom urges, etc.. Why would an organism that has been shedding genetic predispositions over millions of years of evolution somehow have genes that say, "I, Bob, must find a Steve for sexual romance? DNA simply cannot code for such a thing. It is nonsense.

Protium said...

It's obvious what the unfortunate consequences of being a homosexual are...
It's dealing with deluded fucks like Telmeimrong!

Telmeimrong said...

Johnny,

Yes I want my church to be able to discriminate against gays. I believe any private organization should be about to pick who they feel is best able to fulfil the job requirement. If a church chooses to hire a gay, that is their business, if they choose to NOT hire because they are gay, then fine as well.

"you dick tolerance is not the simple act of enduring!!! I will do whatever I can to fight against it is exactly what you said how arsehole, is that being tolerant?"

Actually, yes that is the EXACT meaning of tolerance. I gave you the exact definition.
TOL'ERANCE, n. [L. tolerantia, from tolero, to bear.] The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.

Now if you want to make up your own definition, go for it.

I am being an ahole? I said I could respond to your diatRibe and I am the ahole? You are the boss. You get to define words so I guess you get to define ahole too.

Speak about whatever you want. I guess that diverting the argument to religion may gain you some points. I have been arguing at length that you are either A. a liar B. stupid C. in denial.
There are POTENTIAL negatives to being gay. Even fiery agreed with that. Poodles is in your camp, i guess.

I never said aids is a gay disease, that is very clear. I never said anything about aids except the simple fact that it is an unfortunate consequence of being gay. Even if that were the only concievable example, that is all I need to validate my initial point. That you are either A. intellectually dishonest (liar) B. stupid C. Denialist. Since you are the boss, you pick.

Bossman, All of your examples of religion gone amok are also examples of groups of people committing the act in the name of their religion. What I am talking about is the Gay movement hijacking a personal thing, like forcing their belief that it is normal on everyone who disagrees.
Same thing.

"you can choose not to eat s__t you cannot choose weather your are gay or hetero!!"
Wrong, there are numerous cases of people choosing to NOT BE GAY. Again, you choose, A B or C.

" 'I believe humanity is corrupt.' You are corrupt? Your daughter is corrupt? Your wife is corrupt? Or aren't you part of humanity...you religious types are just pure crazy!! Why would god make humanity corrupt?? You are ridiculous!!"

Yes, I am corrupt, my wife, my daughter. I don't believe God made us corrupt. I guess you have never heard of the story of Adam and Eve. or is this another multiple choice?

Poodles
intercourse is insertion of penis into vagina. you said "Therefore, AIDS is not an unfortuante consequence of being gay, it is an unfortunate consequence of unprotected intercourse." I wouldn't say that too loud.

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

Fiery and others,

Thankyou for an hour or so of entertainment.

Mr Wrong is set in his ways and believes in the story of Adam and Eve, why bother arguing with him?

Johnny said...

ha ha ha ha that is hilarious tellmeimwrong (holy shit are you wrong!).
"you dick tolerance is not the simple act of enduring!!! I will do whatever I can to fight against it is exactly what you said how arsehole, is that being tolerant?"

Actually, yes that is the EXACT meaning of tolerance. I gave you the exact definition.
TOL'ERANCE, n. [L. tolerantia, from tolero, to bear.] The power or capacity of enduring; or
the act of enduring.

tellmeimwrong (ha ha you are wrong!) if you want to be simpleton(or maybe it is intellectual dishonesty?hahahaha) about it then there is nothing I can do! You, are intolerant according to the first definition of tolerance, which I have previously stated, in the maquarie dictionary.
I can't remember everything you asked in your lengthy diatibe that ignored most of my previous comment. I don't have the desire to reread it either. this is what you, yes you,originally said! This is how I replied....
Holy shit now your just being an asshole...by the way there is an r in diatribe........ignored most of your previous comment!!!!! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!! I
went through and answered your reply point by point but seeing as you cant be bothered to read it again...it wouldn't matter anyway seeing as you don't even understand the language properly you rude jerk!

and now you, yes you, have typed this???!!!!
I am being an ahole? I said I could respond to your diatRibe and I am the ahole? You are the boss. You get to define words so I guess you get to define ahole too. Firstly tellmeimwrong (you're way wrong!) it's just a lower case r not an upper case one in the middle of diatribe!Ahole has an rse or ss between the a and the h or will sky dad bring a pox on you if you write the whole word?. Where actually did you say you could respond???....This just makes no sense at all!! It is English we are speaking tellmeimwrong (wrong wrong wrong!)isn't it?
Speak about whatever you want. I guess that diverting the argument to religion may gain
you some points. I have been arguing at length that you are either A. a liar B. stupid C.in denial.
There are POTENTIAL negatives to being gay. Even fiery agreed with that. Poodles is in your camp, i guess.
In exactly the same way there are potential negatives in being alive and they are the same whether you are gay or not!!...So yes you want me to say it There are potential negatives from being gay dude there are potential negatives from being a Christian
there are potential negatives from being not a Christian. When it comes to sexual orientation there is no one specific thing that homosexuals suffer that heterosexuals don't. We are talking about specific negatives that derive exclusively from being gay. Remember also POTENTIAL doesn't mean ACTUAL. Oh and Fiery is spelt with a capital F.
I am shaking my head as I type tellmeimwrong (got the point yet...your wrong!) Diverting the
argument to religion and your the one who talks about intellectual honesty...I tell ya get a load of this guy ....so you are not a bigot because you are tolerant that is you put up with homosexuality without saying or doing anything because that's what tolerance is right? Oh no hang on you've already said you will fight your hardest agianst it quote and I will do whatever I can to fight against it. And now this has got nothing to do with religion??????....I'll take b thank you tellmeimwrong (your wrong!) for thinking you might be nearly on the same page....shit your not even in the same library!!!!!!
I never said aids is a gay disease, that is very clear. I never said anything about aids
except the simple fact that it is an unfortunate consequence of being gay. Even if that were
the only concievable example, that is all I need to validate my initial point. That you are
either A. intellectually dishonest (liar) B. stupid C. Denialist. Since you are the boss,
you pick.

b thank you
Validate your point...intellectual dishonesty...tellmeimwrong (your wrong!) once again there is no affliction that exclusively affects gay people except for bigotry from people like you. As I think Richard said gayness is not a persons defining characteristic.
Yes, I am corrupt, my wife, my daughter. I don't believe God made us corrupt. I guess you have never heard of the story of Adam and Eve. or is this another multiple choice?
b thank you.
Is that the one about Adam and Eve Thompson who live over on high street? Because surely we
are not talking about religion here I thought you had established that we weren't earlier tellmeimwrong (brimming over with wrongability!)
"you can choose not to eat s__t you cannot choose weather your are gay or hetero!!"Wrong, there are numerous cases of people choosing to NOT BE GAY. Again, you choose, A B or C. b thank you
and hoorah we are back where we started...What's the bet that those people if they were really gay didn't choose not to be gay they chose to say they were not gay!Once again gay sex does not make a homosexual. I haven't had sex in 10 years does that make me not a heterosexual anymore? It might make me a little strange but I still fancy women. Actually hang on I might choose to be gay from now on..........nup not going to work!
Bossman Johnny....shit tellmeimwrong (you are wrong!) I kinda like that.....Bossman Johnny.... Gee you learn your lessons quick though not surprising being a good Christian!

Johnny said...

Richard
I have been thinking a lot about your posts especially the last two and I would like to say to you Richard I really enjoyed reading that last one. Damn straight I thought your post was startling about behaviour and animals and the difference between other animals and humans...I completed both biology and zoology at university however that was over 10 years ago and I am not a scientist. I have not heard what you said put in those terms before... I think my question still is about how you think it is wrong to be gay and my concern is that someone like tellmeimwrong (your wrong!) would see you as an ally and I know you have both came to a similar conclusion for diametrically opposing reasons and therefore your response to your belief is completely different.. I was trying to think of how to see your point about gay being a choice from what you have said and I conceed your points make very good sense to me but it seems to me you are often talking about subconcious desisions.
So, to return to the main subject, homosexuality is due to a long and implicit (not consciously examined and put into words) process of different ideas they add to their subconscious mind, which integrate into a deeply held, nearly impossible to examine, understanding, by which they then conclude they are homosexual. I don't see subconscious choices as actual choices.
I think it is that my use of the word choice is that we can consciously say...yep I think I might be gay from lets say tomorrow...tellmeimwrong (wrong!) says there are many examples of people choosing not to be gay but what I think happens is people choose to say they are not gay while at a more basic level they would still prefer to be with someone of the same sex which in my book makes them gay...I was trying to equivelate this with something that to me might seem more of a choice and at first I thought that my atheism is it kind of the same?...Initially it seems that I have chosen to be atheist, I can't ever remember choosing over time I just don't believe(there is obviously more to it than that my need for real evidence but )but now I could not, not be one!It is not a choice for me. I suppose it might be a little different ...if the sky daddy landed on Earth in front of me I would have no other choice but to believe (somehow I just don't think that is going to happen). Is there something that dramatic as to change a persons sexual orientation? The notion of "scared" straight just doesn't gel in my mind I can't see it happening. I,like Fiery *waves*, find the notion of having sex with a person of the same sex somewhat unappealing...a sexual act does not make a homosexual however. I am talking about core preferences. Could we be "scared" Gay? Human conceptual thought has put us in space and on the moon, created highly mechanized
agriculture, nuclear medicine, airplanes, money, property, intellectual property and so on. Now, the human world is as much a habitat for us as is the rainforest for an ape. Such is the enormity of our difference from animals.
thank you for being so concise Richard that actually puts it into perspective for me. I like being introduced to a knew way of thinking like that I am going to think a lot more about this.

Telmeimrong said...

"What's the bet that those people if they were really gay didn't choose not to be gay they chose to say they were not gay!"

I don't know, what is the bet. I said you are the boss. I guess you are now going to tell me you know what is going on inside their head. Well, since you know what is going on inside a penguins head (and all other GAY animals) you must know this as well.

If you want to mince words, fine. There are no consequences that ONLY gay people have. Wait, no, there is.
What other group has the potential of suffering from the guilt of having sex with their own gender. HMMMMM. Can't think of any.

Telmeimrong said...

"I was trying to equivelate this with something that to me might seem more of a choice"

What is equivelate it is not in the marquis of queensburry dictionary?

Fiery said...

Telmeimwrong (you're wrong!)...meet google, google...meet telmeimwrong(you're wrong!)

equivelate or the alternate spelling equivalate means to compare usually with a metaphor.

Johnny said...

What's the bet that those people if they were really gay didn't choose not to be gay they chose to say they were not gay!"

I don't know, what is the bet. I said you are the boss. I guess you are now going to tell me you know what is going on inside their head. Well, since you know what is going on inside a penguins head (and all other GAY animals) you must know this as well.

If you want to mince words, fine. There are no consequences that ONLY gay people have. Wait, no, there is.
What other group has the potential of suffering from the guilt of having sex with their own gender. HMMMMM. Can't think of any.

"I was trying to equivelate this with something that to me might seem more of a choice"

What is equivelate it is not in the marquis of queensburry dictionary?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hey bigot you do know we are doing this in public don't you what a douche! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Aren't you embarrassed dude I will state one more time for the record this is English we are speaking...Speak it much? If I were you I would quit while your still at the starting line, try reading what you have written before you have the gall to post what you just have. If you insist on the french spelling of marquess (and I have no qualms with that it is usual in America) ie marquis it is Queensbury not Queensburry but really being a Scottish peerage it should be Marquess of Queensberry ..Aw shit I just knew you were deserving of my contempt!hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaahaha
What other group has the potential of suffering from the guilt of having sex with their own gender. HMMMMM. Can't think of any. What a fucking git you are!

That's Bossman Johnny to you by the way bigot!

Johnny said...

Thats why Sean F.C.D!

Telmeimrong said...

I still can't find
equivelate
the word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Webster

Fiery said...

Try the unabridged websters dictionary.

Telmeimrong said...

tap tap tap

Richard said...

Can we stop arguing about equivelate, or equivalate. Fiery is correct: according to the Oxford E.D. it is from the French equivale and is largely an obsolete word in English. It means "to provide an equivalence for". Equivalate is a vernacular inflection of that word. I think it is better to use "equate"

Richard said...

Johnny,

I think I'll title this:

THE RIGHT CONCLUSION FOR THE WRONG REASON
IS THE WRONG CONCLUSION


You wrote:
"I think my question still is about how you think it is wrong to be gay and my concern is that someone like tellmeimwrong (your wrong!) would see you as an ally and I know you have both came to a similar conclusion for diametrically opposing reasons and therefore your response to your belief is completely different.
...
"I don't see subconscious choices as actual choices.
...
"I was trying to equivelate this with something that to me might seem more of a choice and at first I thought that my atheism is it kind of the same?..Initially it seems that I have chosen to be atheist..."

First, I was not really speaking of “subconscious choices”. To be clearer, the individual makes conscious choices, often in emotional reaction to his experiences, to draw various conclusions about people in his life. S/He may hold special admiration for certain people of the same sex, they may be uncomfortable now and then with people of the opposite sex. Repeat this enough and a ‘sense’ of what s/he feels most comfortable with and admires becomes associated with their experience. Over time this forms a deep seated judgment that is embedded in their psyche.

To oversimplify, think of a child who has one or more bad experiences with a dog, mistakenly generalizes it to all dogs, and spends a lifetime of discomfort with dogs. Plenty of dogs are absolutely marvellous companions, but they cannot bring themselves around to feeling comfortable with them, let alone having one as a companion. The child drew some faulty conclusions and accepted them by choice. Though they would never be able to tell you they had chosen to be afraid of all dogs.

That is an example of a wrong conclusion drawn from the wrong reasons.

An example of a right conclusion for the wrong reasons, is the biblical commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” It came from God. But, thinks the crusader, those infidels reject God and all he stands for, so surely the commandment does not apply here. If I kill him I will be doing God a favour (and save his sacred land of Jerusalem, too). Or consider the good Judeo-Christian who accepts the commandment to the fullest, when a murderer enters his home. He refuses to defend himself or his family, and they die. That is nuts! Indeed, imagine further that the good J-C witnesses the death of all but his hiding child. The murderer demands to know where the child is, and the good J-C, remembering the commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” believes he must reveal his child’s hiding place. It’s absolutely insane!

I cannot stress this strongly enough: the right conclusions for the wrong reasons ARE the wrong conclusions, because the mind drawing them acts on the basis of the reasons behind them

Thus telmeimwrong holds a faulty basis for ‘seeing’ homosexuality as wrong. It is that kind of understanding that leads to the confusions you very roughly raved at. Telmeimwrong has accepted many of his beliefs in much the same intellectual manner that homosexuals became homosexual. Step by step choices that led him to *perhaps* think (obviously I cannot speak for him), “well I don’t really believe in the loaves and fishes thing, but there must be something greater than I that made and rules the universe. He has as much to unravel as homosexuals would. I believe his job is easier, than that of homosexuals, as I was once a committed altar boy and have undone the indoctrination myself.

(BTW, don’t sweat his small stuff, respond to his insanity by talking to the rest of us about the irrationality of his most salient points… your blood pressure will thank you for it  and your thinking and writing will be clearer.)

Now, if I may be so bold, your atheism may be honestly come by, in that you did not accept such nonsense as three loaves and five small fishes feeding thousands, or of men walking on water. However if you accept atheism by the wrong reasons you are susceptible to the same kinds of errors in thought and debate as he is, but on the other side of the fence.

Embracing atheism (not agnosticism, the craven middle position) must not end there. One is left with one lonely negative: there is no God. You (and all atheists) must replace the irrational moral code of death (altruism) that is found in the Bible (Koran, Torah etc.) with a rational life affirming code. You have no answers as to how to live morally, how to think through such moral issues as we are presently discussing, or moral conflicts in your own life with the people around you. You have no basis that says, “This makes sense and I must therefore act on it! By what standards will you judge yourself and your life on your deathbed? To formulate those standards of morality, a proper way of knowing Truth must be understood and performed intellectually, unwaveringly.

If atheism is adopted for the wrong reasons then, as you fear, it is no better than another religion. When you said, “I was trying to equivelate this with something that to me might seem more of a choice and at first I thought that my atheism is it kind of the same”, you revealed a very sensitive and intelligent concern about your own thinking. THAT is the first step in intellectual honesty: “how do I know”?

Richard said...

Dear Sean the Blogonaut,

You wrote:
"Mr Wrong is set in his ways and believes in the story of Adam and Eve, why bother arguing with him?"

Well, I think there is at least one good reason. One can use the points he raises, and especially those provided by others, to present a better argument for the more rational participants. It may not change telmeimwrong but it can still achieve a shift in a better direction among the rest.

Secondly, in a proper debate between two people, both sides can be wrong and get nowhere. But if both sides are honest (such as Johnny), the side that is wrong can only gain. He must analyze the contradiction the debate has brought to light. He must examine it in every aspect available to him. If he has self-respect and pride he will ask questions when he is stuck, but only after he has thought and thought and thought to answer them for himself.

Telmeimrong said...

Richard,
Three thing for you consideration.

God said don't bear false witness.
I decide to pay my taxes
Is that wrong? (since it was formed for the wrong reason)

"But if both sides are honest (such as Johnny)" are you saying that I am not honest?

You said "You have no answers as to how to live morally, how to think through such moral issues as we are presently discussing, or moral conflicts in your own life with the people around you. You have no basis that says, “This makes sense and I must therefore act on it! By what standards will you judge yourself and your life on your deathbed? To formulate those standards of morality, a proper way of knowing Truth must be understood and performed intellectually, unwaveringly."
Expound on this. To me, it flies in the face of reason. What is truth then? What is the proper WAY of knowing it?

Richard said...

A Little Boy Lost
(William Blake)

Nought loves another as itself,
Nor venerates another so,
Nor is it possible to thought
A greater than itself to know.

"And, father, how can I love you
Or any of my brothers more?
I love you like the little bird
That picks up crumbs around the door."

The Priest sat by and heard the child;
In trembling zeal he seized his hair,
He led him by his little coat,
And all admired the priestly care.

And standing on the altar high,
"Lo, what a fiend is here!' said he:
"One who sets reason up for judge
Of our most holy mystery."

The weeping child could not be heard,
The weeping parents wept in vain:
They stripped him to his little shirt,
And bound him in an iron chain,

And burned him in a holy place
Where many had been burned before;
The weeping parents wept in vain.
Are such things done on Albion's shore?

[Albion means white, and is an ancient name for Britain. It refers to the white chalk cliffs of Dover, on England's south coast.]