hmmm, beefy, if a man doing a chick in the pooper ISN'T gay for either involved party, but a chick doing a man in the pooper IS? Why is that?
According to your idea of what is natural, neither act is "natural" (Not the supposed purpose of the orifice) and both acts involve a member of each sex. Could you explain your views on that a bit better?
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
It kind of strikes me as a kind of "nyaaah nyaaah!" rebuttal.
That's what you get from defensive liberals like veneficus. At least RH is logically arguing whatever case he's arguing.
TJ, I think the fact that if a man is being penetrated, it's sort of a simulation of a homosexual act. A woman being penetrated, regardless of orifice, isn't.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Then what is the difference between abnormal and unnatural?
The prime difference is degree of condemnation. There is a drive for (some) Christians to call homosexuality evil, or sinful, or morally wrong. If the term "unnatural" is used, then the implication is that the gay person has actively cultivated that condition, has become gay through their own choices. The end result is that gay people are blamed for being sinful. It's a really nasty two-step that first creates a problem (i.e. being gay is wrong) and then places unfair blame.
Abnormal has a similar flaw, in that it presupposes a "normal" sexuality (when really the field of sexuality is diverse and complex). This issue is incredibly minor, though, and is only a problem for insecure or combative activists that are looking to start an argument. If you are faced with one of these people and want to get away, the word "different" might be best.
There is also the question of nature and nurture tied up in this whole thing. If homosexuality is an expression of genetic code, then it can't be "unnatural." So using "unnatural" frames the discussion in a way that many gay people won't accept. (Neither of my friends who are gay accept the idea that it is a choice, or influenced by nurture at all.) So using "unnatural" is likely to bring the discussion to a full stop. ("Abnormal" may do the same, but it is not quite so explicitly offensive.)
Edit: The "case that I am arguing" is twofold. Firstly, using the term "unnatural" is likely to shut down any sort of discussion, because it is likely to be considered offensive and inaccurate. Secondly, homosexual behavior is in fact found in nature. This further discredits the use of "unnatural" as a descriptor and provides evidence for a genetic component in determining sexual orientation.
Originally posted by Zampanó
The prime difference is degree of condemnation. There is a drive for (some) Christians to call homosexuality evil, or sinful, or morally wrong. If the term "unnatural" is used, then the implication is that the gay person has actively cultivated that condition, has become gay through their own choices. The end result is that gay people are blamed for being sinful. It's a really nasty two-step that first creates a problem (i.e. being gay is wrong) and then places unfair blame.
Abnormal has a similar flaw, in that it presupposes a "normal" sexuality (when really the field of sexuality is diverse and complex). This issue is incredibly minor, though, and is only a problem for insecure or combative activists that are looking to start an argument. If you are faced with one of these people and want to get away, the word "different" might be best.
There is also the question of nature and nurture tied up in this whole thing. If homosexuality is an expression of genetic code, then it can't be "unnatural." So using "unnatural" frames the discussion in a way that many gay people won't accept. (Neither of my friends who are gay accept the idea that it is a choice, or influenced by nurture at all.) So using "unnatural" is likely to bring the discussion to a full stop. ("Abnormal" may do the same, but it is not quite so explicitly offensive.) [/B]Glad that you added this because I just addressed it, otherwise I might have forgotten. Something being biological doesn't make it natural, hence anomalies/mutations/etc.
hmm, i have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is something that you are born with. I have changed my view on that over the last 3 or 4 years of going to IU and meeting a large number of gay people. makes a big difference. Now the difficult thing for me, someone who believes the bible, is to understand why the bible condemns it.
I haven't gotten my mind wrapped around it yet.
Originally posted by truejediI do not oppose homosexuality because of its biblical consequences. I'm not a religious nut. I believe it DOES have to do with the "natural" argument in a way and people are supposed to overcome their urges. I saw a Jewish film called "Tremble Before God" where homosexual religious Jews speak up about their experiences. It was really sad actually I felt bad for them. Most of them did not engage in homosexuality activity because of their belief in God and as a result, seemed alienated from the world.
hmm, i have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is something that you are born with. I have changed my view on that over the last 3 or 4 years of going to IU and meeting a large number of gay people. makes a big difference. Now the difficult thing for me, someone who believes the bible, is to understand why the bible condemns it.I haven't gotten my mind wrapped around it yet.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
What if homosexuality was a choice? You presume that it isn't, and that it is a complete biological phenomenon. Also, I'm still failing to see a difference. The nature argument could work because the rebuttal to (well this happens in nature so that's stupid) could be evolutionary anomalies. Could you not argue that since most of the species on this planet do NOT engage in homosexual activity, that this is merely an anomaly, like the anteater?I completely agree. In today's retardededly political correct society, it's best not to get into it in the first place.
Glad that you added this because I just addressed it, otherwise I might have forgotten. Something being biological doesn't make it natural, hence anomalies/mutations/etc.
😂 anteater 😂
Okay, I'm suddenly short on time so I'll keep this succinct.
[list=1][*]I've offered some evidence (and I'm sure there's more) that orientation is at least partially genetic, and the anecdotal evidence/common sense arguments that I've put up suggest to me that orientation is not a conscious choice. (Did you ever sit down and decide to be straight?)
So that's why I put very little stock into the idea that it is a choice.
[*]We are still using "natural" differently. For me, if something exists in nature, it is natural. So a genetic quirk that causes someone to be albino is natural, even though it is an abnormality. The same applies to homosexuality. There is a difference, sure. But diversity is the way that life has survived so long. So I don't think that differences/mutations/anomalies are unnatural. If anything, diversity is the most natural thing![/list]
Sorry if this missed anything, I'm also trying to do lunch and get dressed while typing this and it isn't working. I'll respond to anything more tomorrow afternoon.
Originally posted by Zampanó
😂 anteater 😂
Okay, I'm suddenly short on time so I'll keep this succinct.
[list=1][*]I've offered some evidence (and I'm sure there's more) that orientation is at least partially genetic, and the anecdotal evidence/common sense arguments that I've put up suggest to me that orientation is not a conscious choice. (Did you ever sit down and decide to be straight?)
So that's why I put very little stock into the idea that it is a choice.
[*]We are still using "natural" differently. For me, if something exists in nature, it is natural. So a genetic quirk that causes someone to be albino is natural, even though it is an abnormality. The same applies to homosexuality. There is a difference, sure. But diversity is the way that life has survived so long. So I don't think that differences/mutations/anomalies are unnatural. If anything, diversity is the most natural thing![/list]
Sorry if this missed anything, I'm also trying to do lunch and get dressed while typing this and it isn't working. I'll respond to anything more tomorrow afternoon. [/B]
No problem, we've had quite a long discussion without any namecalling or bitching, this is a record.
Residence Evil Blaxican, it did seem kind of nyah nyah for me to make that sweeping statement but his unfair generalization of gay as abnormal or unnatural just rung out as an absolute personal hatred or disgust. I don't feel bad making assumptions about a person who has a clear agenda against people whose only crime against him is maybe practicing certain acts in private. The question comes up why is he so absolute in his condemnation? And why is he attempting to claim anal penetration is gay regardless of context but other "abnormal" and "unnatural" acts don't fulfill the same category? How can that be a justification? And does this mean when you get a prostate exam one or both parties are gay? Really.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Nai, freebasing this Absinthe is definitely better than having it chilled.
Yeah. You need the right Absinthe for the "put the stuff on ice and drink it" trick. Don't recall the name of the stuff I used for that experiment, though. It definitely had a rather low amount of alcohol (about 50 % I think). There are other things you can do with that stuff, though. This may be helpful. 😉
Residence Evil Blaxican, it did seem kind of nyah nyah for me to make that sweeping statement but his unfair generalization of gay as abnormal or unnatural just rung out as an absolute personal hatred or disgust. I don't feel bad making assumptions about a person who has a clear agenda against people whose only crime against him is maybe practicing certain acts in private
Originally posted by Borbarad
Yeah. You need the right Absinthe for the "put the stuff on ice and drink it" trick. Don't recall the name of the stuff I used for that experiment, though. It definitely had a rather low amount of alcohol (about 50 % I think). There are other things you can do with that stuff, though. This may be helpful. 😉
Yea, I freebased (burn method) all 3 bottles yesterday. I had to do 1 part water 1 part absinthe for the bottle with the least amount of alcohol, 2 and 1 for the second, and 3-4 and 1 for the 180 proof. We had a pretty weird drunk last night. I'm not sure if you've ever smoked weed (I have a few times to know), but that's the high we got from it. No real hallucinations but a NICE high/drunk. The carmelized sugar made it go down easier.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/22/ears-obama-israel-lobby-conference/
Lol, way to wise up, Barack.
Originally posted by Lucius
I find Evan Piel's death disrespectful to the author of Coruscant Nights, who was told his work was more than just published fan fiction, and is now regulated to just that, since the entirety of his premise is now completely ruined. No simple ret-con can fix this.
Where did you find that load of garbage? Wait, don't tell me. It from TFN isn't it.