Hating Christians, what's the root cause (2)

[Soul_Golem]

Wow. I didn't know there was this much crap in the world.

And so you have said nothing else, and maybe that is because there is nothing you can say.

 

[BananaSlug]

Many people think just because it is put in writing it is true, but then I can say anything I want and click the mouse and LOL watch it become real. But, the way I read it makes sense to me in other ways than you seem to be comprehending it.

Does anybody else this the bolded sentence is funny? Does the Bible apply as well?

 

[Soul_Golem]

When discussing homosexuality, someone always focuses on the sex, but when talking about heterosexuality, one always seems to focus on the hetero.

There is a lot more to my relationship that sex.
I also think that heterosexuals don't only have sex, and only intercourse sex, not oral, anal, or masturbation, and that only when they are trying to have babies, and beyond that, don't.

I also don't think that people marry simply for sex. It is a part, and important part, but only a part. You aren't having sex for the other 23 3/4 hours.

Good point, in which I agree with you that it isn't just about sex, but differently. I think that there is a whole psychology in homosexuality. I know because I have known many homosexuals, and my cousin used to be one before I spoke to him many times of things I will not post that are private matters about the intimacy between me and my female partner. You are right it really isn't all just about sex. That is only a fraction of what is going on in the person's mind. Those are thoughts I have learned seem to seek to isolate themselves from the fact that a man is made for a woman and woman is made for a man. Didn't mean to steer this thread is this direction though, and I think it is kind of off direction. I was just responding to a specific post.

 

[Soul_Golem]

Does anybody else this the bolded sentence is funny? Does the Bible apply as well?

Most people try to interpret the Bible, and don't try to play God and say this is this and that is that. Like I have said before, and will likely repeat myself in saying, you should Google for "historical-critical" interpretations of the Bible.

 

[BananaSlug]

If you want some "historical-critical" interpretations of the Bible, let's not forget the historical applications about many of the passages about homosexuality in the New Testament. Most of the passages in Romans and the like by Paul, were speaking to Christians who used to be Pagans (Gentiles). Many of these Pagan cultures had cetain fertility rituals that used an extensive amount of homosexual relations and heterosexual relations. Paul was not speaking in terms of an actual sincere and loving relationship between two consenting members, but rather male prostitutes and "one-night stands" with several people while worshiping their Pagan God.

In regards to the OP, I do not hate Christians per say, I hate modern day Pharisees. These fundamentalists that claim to love Christ so much would be the same to berate and persecute him if he came back today (as He did the first time). The Pharisees were the ones the claimed to uphold all of God's laws and be the most faithful. Christ associated with prostitutes, tax-collectors, Samaritans, lepers, and most of the unfavorable members of that society. The Pharisees claimed he was a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of sinners and thieves. Today's Fundamentalists are exactly the same, modern day Pharisees.

 

[corvus_corax]

Fail.
Let me count the fail.
Perfectly true. Is Ted Haggard gay? Are men in prison gay?
So, calling it a lie would be...ONE! ONE FAIL! HAHAHAHA! *THUNDER! LIGHTNING!*
Also true. It exists in nature. Therefore, it is natural.
Calling this a lie would be TWO! TWO FAILS! HAHAHAHA! *THUNDER! LIGHTNING!*
You got the joke wrong. The joke is that men like to watch straight inappropriate content featuring attractive men with large...members. Therefore, there's a level of implied homoeroticism. The way most "lesbian" inappropriate content looks is designed to appeal to straight men. Actual lesbian sex is way way hotter.
So, saying that this is even a claim is a lie. So...
THREE!!! THREE FAILS!!! HAHAHAHA! *THUNDER! LIGHTNING!*
There is. Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with homosexuality, but gender identity, which is part of the LGBT notion, but more part of the FABGLITTER movement.
So...FOUR!!!! FOUR FAILS!!!! HAHAHAHA! *THUNDER! LIGHTNING!*
Que? No comprendo, senor.
In other words, what has that to do with the price of tea in China? If the teacher is teaching Romeo and Juliet, there will be a distinct lack of gay. If he/she is teaching The Laramie Project, there will be an abundance.
Funny, my public education allows me to comprehend such ideas as "facts" and "unbiased sources" and why calling something "crap" is not a valid argument.
I counted four fails so far, but the thing is, your post is a Ketheric source, so ultimately, there is but ONE!!! ONE FAIL!!! HAHAHAHAHAH!!! *THUNDERRRR!!! LIGHTNING!!!*

O gods, Im in love

Hehehe
I mean, you know, with your argument..ahem...
Yeah, that's it.....
Your opposition has no idea how much you rock, Aos Si.
And they will likely misunderstand (and misreprestent?) your statements, ad nauseum

 

[pantless rationalist]

1) Engaging in a homosexual act does not necessarily mean you are gay.

2) Homosexuality is inherit. In that it is basically natural.

3) Heterosexual men like to watch women engage other women, so they have a homosexual disposition.

4) There is a difference between sex and gender. Heh, actually heard that from heterosexuals seeking to be politically correct also.

And your support for any of your claims...?

1) I think Sidhe addressed this sufficiently:

Perfectly true. Is Ted Haggard gay? Are men in prison gay?

To this I would add individuals that have experimented but ultimately chose the opposite gender. If you have engaged in homosexual sex even once does this make you gay?

2)Here is a short overview of three twin studies relevant to the discussion. The most important bit is near the beginning of the Bailey and Pillard study:

According to their data, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual.

3) I've never heard this one before; I'll grant you that it is a bit silly, though.

4) Even IF gender was binary, sex is demonstrably not. Intersexuality is the state of a person whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, or secondary sex organs are not exclusively male or female. For instance, how would you classify an individual who is outwardly male but whose sex chromosomes are XX? Sex and gender cannot be equivalent if there does not exist an equal number of sexes as genders. Since you (I assume) are taking gender to be binary, the existence of more than two sexes silences your argument pretty decisively.

Anyways, I don't actually know or have heard of any teachers (no matter what they think) brave enough to teach two princes marrying each other instead of the princess. I think the homosexuality issues, like most liberal issues, is a distraction.

The real issue is whether or not a private education is going to be better than sending your kid to a public school.

I don't know about you, but as someone who pursues a lot of college, I would never step foot in a public or government funded college. For my kids it will be the same, public education is more interested in collecting tax money than it is about teaching kids how to have skills and pay their bills.

A number of studies of private and public school students' test scores seems to disagree with your suggestion of public school inferiority. When adjusted for wealth, public school students actually performed better than private school students for most categories and ages. At the college level it doesn't matter much whether the university is public or private; you have to look at the individual college. Or course there are the ivy leagues, but MIT and Berkeley are both public.

Out of curiosity, what was/is your field of study? Feel free not to answer if you'd rather not.

 

[Soul_Golem]

And your support for any of your claims...? Out of curiosity, what was/is your field of study? Feel free not to answer if you'd rather not. Or, if I truly got my pants on I wouldn't know, but my head is in my pants...Or, you have been ignored...

My field of study is web development.

What claims do you need to be supported, can't you get out of your house and see it for URself? You are just one indication of my being right, if not solid proof.

 

[pantless rationalist]

What claims do you need to be supported, can't you get out of your house and see it for URself? You are just one indication of my being right, if not solid proof.

These four claims need support:

1) Engaging in a homosexual act does not necessarily mean you are gay.

2) Homosexuality is inherit. In that it is basically natural.

3) Heterosexual men like to watch women engage other women, so they have a homosexual disposition.

4) There is a difference between sex and gender. Heh, actually heard that from heterosexuals seeking to be politically correct also.

Casual observation is never sufficient.

I'm not sure what indication you are talking about, though.

 

[David Brider]

*THUNDERRRR!!! LIGHTNING!!!*

...very very frightening, me!

Galileo, Galileo, Galileo Figaro,

Magnifico-o-o-o-o...

*erm, sorry, got a bit distracted there...*

 

[pantless rationalist]

You obviously don't care that I am talking about real conversations with real gay people. So, I what am supposed to do for crying out loud, link you to some site to feed your feeble mind. I probably know more gay people than you have ever met in a dream.

But personal experience is subjective, and appealing to your own authority is a pretty weak argument.

To focus the discussion, let's choose one specific claim, then: homosexuality is neither inherent nor natural. If this is your stance, how do you address the correlation between genetics and homosexuality evident in the Baily & Pillard and similar twin studies? What about the correlation between fraternal birth order and homosexuality? These studies indicate that there exists a genetic factor to homosexuality. What would be your response to this quantitative evidence?

As a side note, the "feeble mind" bit was uncalled for. Let's keep a civil discourse here.

 

[Soul_Golem]

But personal experience is subjective, and appealing to your own authority is a pretty weak argument.

To focus the discussion, let's choose one specific claim, then: homosexuality is neither inherent nor natural. If this is your stance, how do you address the correlation between genetics and homosexuality evident in the Baily & Pillard and similar twin studies? What about the correlation between fraternal birth order and homosexuality? These studies indicate that there exists a genetic factor to homosexuality. What would be your response to this quantitative evidence?

As a side note, the "feeble mind" bit was uncalled for. Let's keep a civil discourse here.

Of course, don't take it personally, this is just a forum. Sorry, just talking my tongue...

I hate to tell you this, but those studies are not but propaganda. I will check it out though, since you are so nice, but you shouldn't believe everything you read. I've got to be honest, I wonder if that is really only what.

 

[Soul_Golem]

But personal experience is subjective, and appealing to your own authority is a pretty weak argument.

To focus the discussion, let's choose one specific claim, then: homosexuality is neither inherent nor natural. If this is your stance, how do you address the correlation between genetics and homosexuality evident in the Baily & Pillard and similar twin studies? What about the correlation between fraternal birth order and homosexuality? These studies indicate that there exists a genetic factor to homosexuality. What would be your response to this quantitative evidence?

As a side note, the "feeble mind" bit was uncalled for. Let's keep a civil discourse here.

Personal experience gets me a job, but it makes a weak argument?

The focus of the discussion is not homosexuality. In fact, I would rather I had not posted the response that got us here. How do I address what studies? I read the whole dang thing and it is just some scientists acting like they even have a job, not like the scientists who invented the technology to go to space and do the first moon walk or the scientists that invent military technology to keep us safe. If I had my way, those so-called scientists would have a lot to prove to stay on the payroll. What have they contributed to science other than that they think people are gay?

BTW, I feel like I am picking on people here, so I don't really feel like discussing it further.

 

[sidhe]

You are a failure when it comes to defending what you think, because I still fail to see what you are really all about except the gripe that I don't agree with you. Get used to it.

Nope.

Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a sidhe of wealth and taste...

...but more importantly, my field of study is a little thing called Information Science. Which means that you can't simply do the "Oh, I've talked to gay people" bit here, because something like that has no value as a source unless you have video/audio recording of the conversation.

Now, address what I said, which was - minus the Sesame Street jokes:

1. Is any man who participates in a same-sex sex act gay? (or woman, for that matter) If your answer is yes (which is what I think it is), prove such using peer-reviewed sources.

2. Demonstrate that something that occurs in nature is not natural. Again, peer-reviewed sources.

3. Demonstrate that pr0n lesbianism has a thing to do with RL lesbianism, and that watching such would demonstrate any homosexual disposition. No peer-review needed for this. Since I've never heard this claimed by anyone seriously, I want to see some proof that someone actually made this claim.

As an aside, my big sister loves '70s gay inappropriate content. She says the mustaches are cute.

4. Demonstrate that:

a) Gender and sex are the same thing, utilizing peer-reviewed articles.

b) That has anything to do with homosexuality.

Failing that, your post remains an object of ridicule. And, if I counted all the objects of ridicule on this forum, I wouldn't have time to ridicule them.

 

[sidhe]

Personal experience gets me a job, but it makes a weak argument?

Personal experience is different than work experience.

Lets say that you apply for a job, and lie about your work experience. After you start the job, it'll be really obvious that you don't know what you're doing. Your work experience is quantifiable and verifiable, because your previous employers can be contacted easily and must maintain records of what you did. It's not your personal experience, really, that gets you a job - it's your previous employers' records that get you the job.

Personal experience, within a serious discussion, has no merit because it is unverifiable. I could claim - repeatedly - that I know tons of straight people who think that homosexuals eat live rattlesnakes. It's utterly worthless, because no one can prove that I don't, but I can't prove that I do, either. While your claims are (slightly) less ridiculous, they're still unverifiable. Thus, the importance of using good sources.

 

[sidhe]

You obviously don't care that I am talking about real conversations with real gay people. So, what am supposed to do for crying out loud, link you to some site to feed your feeble mind? I probably know more gay people than you have ever met in a dream.

Not some site: some peer-reviewed article that supports your position. You're still arguing from unverifiable experience.

Let me reference my sources for my rebuttals to your four claims:

1) Logic. If your claim is true, then additional claims must also be true. If X, therefore Y. If not Y, then not X.

2) Common sense. If something occurs in nature, it is natural.

3) Ron White, "You Can't Fix Stupid." He makes that very joke.

4) Wikipedia, the worst best source of quick information.

But the real thing is this: You made the claims, you have to prove that they're true. The rest of us can sit around, play tiddlywinks, and drink mead, but it's no one's job to prove that you're wrong. You have to prove that you're right.

 

[sidhe]

So, is this what you do for a living, post on forums to say nothing with the most words? I wouldn't call that information science, I would call that being a bum. At least I have an excuse for being on the forum all night, I am between contracts. But, you I got to worry about, you don't back up anything you say, and I'd hate to see you try, and you seem to be there in the morning when I don't even sleep for the night. I think that makes you the least reliable of all...and definitely you are not a resource.

But, ah like I said, I am bigger than you, so I feel like I am picking on your puny little arguments. Like I said, you disagree with me, you are just going to have to get used to it. You certainly aren't trying to change my mind because that takes tact and intelligence. Me and my friends are sitting here drinking beer laughing at your very name, what the heck is "sidhe" is it some kind of illness? We would surely like to know. Any time you want to play with the big boys you go ahead and try, like returning to punishment some dogs know no better.

Ad hom. Again, not an argument.

And I just got up for work. I need to do my final for C&C before I leave.

Bragging about your intelligence when you don't even use proper grammar does not bode well.

And as far as what a "sidhe" is, it's a hill. Literally. It's a hill. No one uses it to talk about the hill, but rather the legend of what lives under it. If you took five seconds to do some research, you'd have a couple dictionaries in front of you.

Hold on now...why am I feeding a troll? True, trolls may be grouped with the sidhe these days, but they lack the elegance.

 

[Soul_Golem]

Not some site: some peer-reviewed article that supports your position. You're still arguing from unverifiable experience.

Let me reference my sources for my rebuttals to your four claims:

1) Logic. If your claim is true, then additional claims must also be true. If X, therefore Y. If not Y, then not X.

2) Common sense. If something occurs in nature, it is natural.

3) Ron White, "You Can't Fix Stupid." He makes that very joke.

4) Wikipedia, the worst best source of quick information.

But the real thing is this: You made the claims, you have to prove that they're true. The rest of us can sit around, play tiddlywinks, and drink mead, but it's no one's job to prove that you're wrong. You have to prove that you're right.

Yes, well what I see is someone who plays the card of wanting more "sources" when they are right in his face.

 

[sidhe]

*plonk*

For those who would care, I just aced my Cataloging and Classification final. Cutter Tables still suck.

 

[Soul_Golem]

*plonk*

For those who would care, I just aced my Cataloging and Classification final. Cutter Tables still suck.

Well, we all still have the heart to congratulate! Good job!