Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i think in all honestly they didnt get rid of the urges so much as just oppressed them with guilt.they werent "together" though. theyre complete strangers to one another before joining the church.
So you don't really think it's possible to truly change then(the gays), just mentally scar yourself with guilt?
I know a guy that tried this too, he was (and probbaly still is) miserable.
Originally posted by Robtard
So you don't really think it's possible to truly change then(the gays), just mentally scar yourself with guilt?
i honestly dont know. i think theres different types of homosexuality so it would depend on the type.
I know a guy that tried this too, he was (and probbaly still is) miserable.
yeah im a bit skeptical of changes that drastic.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i would disagree in that while it may not be a choice to become a homosexual it is possible to change yourself afterwords. i know of a couple guys who go to a church i used to go to who were homosexuals but felt that there feelings were "wrong" and so joined the church and over a couple years did various psychiatrist treatments/medication/study and the homosexual feelings began to recede.i dont really see how that would be possible though.
It is possible to suppress feelings, sure, but I do not believe that is 'curing' or permanent.
Can you imagine yourself choosing to be attracted to women only and not having interest in men at all? I know I would find it difficult.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i honestly dont know. i think theres different types of homosexuality so it would depend on the type.yeah im a bit skeptical of changes that drastic.
Now I'm curious(in a non-gay way) as to what exactly you mean there. Because of imagining things like: gay-light, kinda-gay, almost-gay, mostly-gay, uber-gay and Richard-Simmons.
Originally posted by Robtard
Now I'm curious(in a non-gay way) as to what exactly you mean there. Because of imagining things like: gay-light, kinda-gay, almost-gay, mostly-gay, uber-gay and Richard-Simmons.
to be fair, defining the entire spectrum of human sexuality in terms of the gender of the person with whom you do it is very limited.
There are as many types of "gays" as there are "heteros", and I don't just mean being into feet and that stuff. Kinsey scale and all that.
Originally posted by inimalist
to be fair, defining the entire spectrum of human sexuality in terms of the gender of the person with whom you do [b]it is very limited.There are as many types of "gays" as there are "heteros", and I don't just mean being into feet and that stuff. Kinsey scale and all that. [/B]
I know, I'm just curious to his specific view on the matter, not to criticize, just curious. That last part was just for fun, I don't think he thinks that.
I'm aware of the scale, and I do think it's useful. Isn't it considered outdated in the field?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is possible to suppress feelings, sure, but I do not believe that is 'curing' or permanent.
when i said oppress i meant suppress. 😛
Can you imagine yourself choosing to be attracted to women only and not having interest in men at all? I know I would find it difficult.
i agree with you.
Now I'm curious(in a non-gay way) as to what exactly you mean there. Because of imagining things like: gay-light, kinda-gay, almost-gay, mostly-gay, uber-gay and Richard-Simmons.
i think that if someone was gay because, for example, they grew up in an environment where homosexuality was the norm, or more prevalent then hetero activities, then they could be changed. whereas someone who was just straight up born with a gay tendency would be much harder to change. obviously the first scenario is rare, but.. *shrug*
Originally posted by Robtard
I know, I'm just curious to his specific view on the matter, not to criticize, just curious. That last part was just for fun, I don't think he thinks that.I'm aware of the scale, and I do think it's useful. Isn't it considered outdated in the field?
depends on which field
there is a huge emphasis on the biology of sexuality, simply because the "nature" vs "choice" idiocy was so dominant in the culture, and because single genetic answers are the ones that the uneducated masses understand and desire (as then "responsibility" can be 100% determined), focus has shifted to using nature to describe human sexuality, at least with gender preference.
I don't disagree with the importance, but would suggest that nothing in human personality, including the biological aspects, is unaffected by the environment or is entirely stable throughout life. The Kinsey model leaves room for that type of description that the biological explanations lack imho. Human sexuality is far too complex to not be a developmental process, influenced by thousands of factors.
Originally posted by inimalist
can I argue that this is a psychologically untenable position?
Why? It makes sense to me. All it requires is the ability to separate a person into the many pieces that make up who they are. People are not defined by their sex life. I happen to find the entire sexual act (of whatever sort) disgusting and uncomfortable beyond pretty much anything but when I decide if a person disgusts me or not the presence of genitals or an active sex life don't come into play at all.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why? It makes sense to me. All it requires is the ability to separate a person into the many pieces that make up who they are. People are not defined by their sex life. I happen to find the entire sexual act (of whatever sort) disgusting and uncomfortable beyond pretty much anything but when I decide if a person disgusts me or not the presence of genitals or an active sex life don't come into play at all.
qft.
thank you for explaining clearly what i could not. >.<
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm well aware of the religious stance, but imo:
But...
They are NOT supposed to do that. They can't. All of us are supposed to despise sin and realize that we all sin. We should loath the fact that we sin. At the same time, we are not to judge another for their sins.
However, and I've talked about this before, is it not judging by not letting yoru child be watched by a pedophile? Isn't that judging? If he or she says they are no longer pedos and they've repented and turend away....isn't it judging if you don't let them watch your kids? AHA! I have no idea how God sorts out these types of deals.....someone might say, "the Holy Ghost will give you the answer on what to do" or "the Holy Ghost will tell you if the person has really turned away." I dunno...I guess it would be judging. But to an outsider/atheist, they would think, "so, lemme get this straight, you're going to let that admitted pervert watch your kids because I voice in your head said it was okay? You're retarded!"
😐
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why? It makes sense to me. All it requires is the ability to separate a person into the many pieces that make up who they are. People are not defined by their sex life. I happen to find the entire sexual act (of whatever sort) disgusting and uncomfortable beyond pretty much anything but when I decide if a person disgusts me or not the presence of genitals or an active sex life don't come into play at all.
fair enough, I'm too tired to argue with as much detail as it would need
though, I don't think just being disgusted by sexual acts is the issue. The issue is hating homosexuality.
the idea of hate the sin love the sinner is almost exactly what cognitive dissonance prevents the brain from doing. Otherwise, schema generalizations.
Obviously getting to know individuals from schema groups would make them exemplars of "gays I know who aren't typically gay", but I would argue that more excusing the sin than loving the sinner, just given how cognitive dissonance works.
Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough, I'm too tired to argue with as much detail as it would needthough, I don't think just being disgusted by sexual acts is the issue. The issue is hating homosexuality.
the idea of hate the sin love the sinner is almost exactly what cognitive dissonance prevents the brain from doing. Otherwise, schema generalizations.
Obviously getting to know individuals from schema groups would make them exemplars of "gays I know who aren't typically gay", but I would argue that more excusing the sin than loving the sinner, just given how cognitive dissonance works.
Well yes, a person who obsesses about it probably wouldn't be able to compartmentalize like that. I'm simply saying that the basic concept isn't impossible. Obviously the more intense your feeling are about something the harder it is to store it away, disgust is admittedly a long way from hate.
There are a lot of shades of gray:
Oppenheimer, brilliant but invented the nuke.
Lovecraft, created a new genera of fiction but a frothing racist.
Doc Savage, awesome action adventure hero but he lobotomized people.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Also, the title of this thread is incorrect. It isn't Bible that is sued, but the publishers.
Yes, but that sounds mundane and boring. The article is posted right below.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But...They are NOT supposed to do that. They can't. All of us are supposed to despise sin and realize that we all sin. We should loath the fact that we sin. At the same time, we are not to judge another for their sins.
Supposed to do and actually doing. "They can't", yet they do.
Find me one Christian who follows the teachings of Christ, thoroughly. Edit: Or even mostly.
Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough, I'm too tired to argue with as much detail as it would needthough, I don't think just being disgusted by sexual acts is the issue. The issue is hating homosexuality.
the idea of hate the sin love the sinner is almost exactly what cognitive dissonance prevents the brain from doing. Otherwise, schema generalizations.
Obviously getting to know individuals from schema groups would make them exemplars of "gays I know who aren't typically gay", but I would argue that more excusing the sin than loving the sinner, just given how cognitive dissonance works.
I was wondering when you would bring up cognitive dissonance, which nicely addresses my post.
The resolution: the person has to be aware that all are sinners and all fall short of the glory of God. Meaning, no one is perfect. cognitive dissonance comes into play, imo (again, I'm an idiot) when people are overly judgemental, even if they try not to be. Is it possible to be really not-judgemental and then that compensate for cognitive dissonance? At least, on a sliding scale...I don't mean completely overcome that aversion or negative feeling.
IMO, that's the ultimate goal of most positive religions: overcoming that judgemental state enough to where things like cognitive dissonance doesn't play a part. You rarely judge...even rarely judging yourself. I think this is what approaches eastern nirvana. At peace with yourself and others. However, I'm sure you'll say that's impossible. I agree. We aren't meant for perfection while in this plane.
Originally posted by Robtard
Supposed to do and actually doing. "They can't", yet they do.Find me one Christian who follows the teachings of Christ, thoroughly. Edit: Or even mostly.
Dude, don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I find Christians to be thoroughly hypocritical. I strongly dislike Christian hypocrisy and ignorance. It is loathsome. However, is it possible for someone to think it's a sin to do something, but still not hate someone for doing it? I think so. I do it all the time with everyone around. I just don't actively think about it. However, i readily admit to weaknesss, etc. (I think even "not actively thinking about it" was covered in cognitive dissonance studies, though...so that really shoots to shit my point, doesn't it?) Anyway, there's a million and one things one can do that's a sin...even not doing something in a situation can be considered a sin, depending on the situation. So, how can someone function when they are aware of what's sin and what isn't so thoroughly? Simple, don't obsess over it...don't even think about it, really, unless someone asks for help or advice. I think that's they way God intended it.
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
This thread has devolved into something insane.My bottom line is: Anyone who twisted this:
into:
"homosexuality = pedophilia" is retarded, and should be castrated so as to ensure that their stupidity does not make it into the next generation.
Leave your PC biased glasses at home and learn how to read.
You can cry 'learn to read' all you want but you are wasting your time. Honestly, if you canot see how such a comparison is an attack, then you have real issues.
No matter what any of you say in this bloated, ridiculous argument of half-meanings, sophistry and semantics that you have dragged it into, that statement was a homophobic attack and it was definitely, especially in its context, a moral judgment putting homosexuality on a similar level to pedophilia. If you cannot see hwo comparing it to child abuse immediately makes it a moral issue (as I said before, think about WHY someone gets disgusted by pedophilia), you are a fool. Every single one of you trying to argue against that is either being willfully obstructive or plain delusional. Even if tattoo did not mean it to sound as bad as it did, which considering his later ****** flame that destroys all of his moral credibility I doubt, the fact is that it DID sound that bad and hence is a legitimate target.
Regardless, as both myself and BF have said as globals, such comments are unacceptable, and people who make or defend the from now on will be warned. That is not up for any argument. Take any issues about that to PM.
Get this back on topic.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Here's a reword:"wow. The conversation went from a person suing a bible publisher to a debate about Tats and Scars comments on homosexuality.
I guess religion and homosexuality debates are bound to come up some time. haha. "
Capisce?
I understand what she was saying, I don't get the phrase "I disagree with homosexuality".
What is the person disagreeing with, it could be any number of things, really. Partly because homosexuality isn't postulating anything.
It seems like a euphemism people use when they don't want to say more offensive or ignorant things.
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~All of you get off your goddamn high horses, and stop being such imbeciles. If he said he finds 2 girls 1 cup as disgusting as pedophilia, no one would've said one single word.
That misses out a rather important fact. That homosexuality is an attribute of a minority of people that they most likely had nothing to choose about. I don't know any group of people that by birth identifies itself as 2 girls one cuppers. It would be more like saying he thinks being jewish or being black disgust him as much as pedophilia.
Which would be similarly frowned upon, perhaps more at least where I live.