Re: Bible Sued For Homophobia
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://carnalnation.com/content/27776/10/gay-man-discovers-homophobia-bible-files-lawsuitSomehow I don't see this going very far.
I wonder what will happen if he ever finds out that God cursed Haim for raping Noah?
😕
Originally posted by Ushgarak
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.
The man said he is disgusted by homosexuality. He said he was disgusted by pedophilia. He said he is disgusted by those two equally. If you can't read that for what it says, then you clearly have issues.
No matter what you or BF say in this bloated, ridiculous argument of equating homosexuality and pedophilia, that statement was not a homophobic attack, and was not only OBVIOUSLY not a homophobic attack, but was explained by the original poster in two long topics as not being a homophobic attack, as well as by several posters (myself, dadudemon, Ms. Marvel).
If you cannot see how thinking there was a comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia as opposed to reality which was a comparison between the levels of disgust one gets from those two, then you are just a knee-jerk peasant with a pitchfork looking for "homosexuality" + "anything negative" sentences to bash on.
It was clear to any logical person that he didn't equate the two. It was made clear even to biased people that he didn't equate the two (in dozens of posts by myself and Ms. Marvel, as well as in two very large posts by himself).
Continuing to LOOK for something to bash, continuing to THINK that he equated homosexuality with pedophilia, and to TYPE that he equated homosexuality with pedophilia is trolling.
And as far as I know, trolling is against forum rules.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Would you still like to argue that he is only disgusted by homosexuality, and not homosexuals?
I never argued that he's disgusted only by homosexuality and not by homosexuals. I argued that he didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia.
Are you now saying that you called him "wrong" and "ignorant", because you somehow read into his first post that he is disgusted by homosexuals? Is that why you called him wrong and ignorant?
If I am disgusted by a guy taking it up the chute, or two guys having a swordfight in a third guy's mouth, I'm wrong and ignorant? 😕
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~Just to be clear though, homosexuality is the attraction towards one's own sex, not the extreme pornographic sex between two or more men.
I never argued that he's disgusted only by homosexuality and not by homosexuals. I argued that he didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia.Are you now saying that you called him "wrong" and "ignorant", because you somehow read into his first post that he is disgusted by homosexuals? Is that why you called him wrong and ignorant?
If I am disgusted by a guy taking it up the chute, or two guys having a swordfight in a third guy's mouth, I'm wrong and ignorant? 😕
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
The man said he is disgusted by homosexuality. He said he was disgusted by pedophilia. He said he is disgusted by those two equally. If you can't read that for what it says, then you clearly have issues.No matter what you or BF say in this bloated, ridiculous argument of equating homosexuality and pedophilia, that statement was not a homophobic attack, and was not only OBVIOUSLY not a homophobic attack, but was explained by the original poster in two long topics as not being a homophobic attack, as well as by several posters (myself, dadudemon, Ms. Marvel).
If you cannot see how thinking there was a comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia as opposed to reality which was a comparison between the levels of disgust one gets from those two, then you are just a knee-jerk peasant with a pitchfork looking for "homosexuality" + "anything negative" sentences to bash on.
It was clear to any logical person that he didn't equate the two. It was made clear even to biased people that he didn't equate the two (in dozens of posts by myself and Ms. Marvel, as well as in two very large posts by himself).
Continuing to LOOK for something to bash, continuing to THINK that he equated homosexuality with pedophilia, and to TYPE that he equated homosexuality with pedophilia is trolling.
And as far as I know, trolling is against forum rules.
Aside from the utter wrongess of just about everything you say and the contemptible behaviour of you just trying to mirror what I said, I made the situation here very clear. That is a formal warning to you and you will be banned if you continue to post this way or on this subject.
Warnings will be given to those making any other off-topic posts here also.
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
If I am disgusted by a guy taking it up the chute, or two guys having a swordfight in a third guy's mouth, I'm wrong and ignorant? 😕
Since when was being a homosexual hardcore porn?
I'm fairly certain there are quite a bit of heterosexual people out there who are disgusted by hardcore pornography as well.
Originally posted by Stoic
Yep...... poor Noah woke up with a sore butthole I guess the lesson here is not to drink until you black out, or your son may take advantage of you.
so wrong on so many levels, dude.
well anyway, I wonder what would eventually happen to this case...
what do you guys think? dismisseD?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A deverbal adjective is simply an adjective derived from a noun. It is still an adjective, and still functions a modifier. In the statement in question, it is neither the subject nor the object of the sentence, and is not the thing being compared.
Why would you tell me that when I've already pointed out that it is a deverbal adjective?
And, what you say after that is unrelated to my point.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Would you still like to argue that he is only disgusted by homosexuality, and not homosexuals?
Yup. Sure would. As he clearly clarified. And his comment was in jest. 😐 Not everyone is nice enough to put a smilie after everyone of their jokes, like RJ.
Originally posted by inimalist
Christians aren't supposed to lie either, or have gay sex high on meththe bible doesn't necessarily get to dictate what is the truth with regards to human behaviour
But that's not what my point was. Earlier, I made some points in my post.
If a person makes enough progress, they won't hate anything. It's very much possible to be aware that it's a sin and that's the end of it....nothing more.
The "hate" portion is only for someone who is spiritually immature and is borderline hypocritical. You're supposed to progress beyond that point. A good person doesn't hate at all. IMO, "hate the sin, not the sinner" is the very first step in a long path towards righteousness/nirvana.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
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.
the issue would be whether or not such compartmentalization is actually loving the sinner and hating the sin, or if it is better explained as ignoring or excusing the sin, which I would argue is a better explanation of the cognitive mechanisms.
Also, with specific examples, like Einstein and the nuke, or de Sade and rape, these represent exemplars from the schema which people have taken the time to "excuse" or "ignore" the sins of, with some degree of rationalization (cognitively following the excuse/ignore dissonance, not the cause of).
So, being disgusted by gay sex would, just based on the fact that all gay people aren't exemplars that have forced some sort of dissonance, cause the generalization to people who fit the "gay" schema. Any person meeting your criteria for "gay" would activate the disgust portion of your brain, and you would be disgusted until you experienced enough of the individual to make them an exemplar of a "non-gay gay", then undergo the dissonance.
also, going from the way disgust/anxiety/phobias/etc work, even if you could compartmentalize, the mere exposure of gay people with the disgust arousal that accompanies the priming of the "gay sex" schema would likely, due to the misattribution error, cause people to label the individual as disgusting, because people are incredibly poor at actually identifying the source of their emotional state.
One may "hate the sin but love the sinner", if one only looks at the expressed statements of people, but it really isn't congruent with how the brain works. Rather, people experience cognitive dissonance about sinners who they get to know, then excuse/ignore the sin.
Originally posted by inimalist
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.
This is my perspective as well. I was trying to explain this to my uberly conservative mother. (That homosexuality/heterosexuality is more like a scale and we all fall along different places on that scale...and that someone can be rolled they "gay" genetic dice, but still end up straight as anyone else, and vice-versa.) On top of that, I don't like the Kinsey scale beyond making an academic point. I'd prefer it be a 10 point scale...and maybe even a situational scale as someone is never homosexual/heterosexual unless they get into a specific situation. You know what I mean?
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
excuse me for being skeptical, but one of the first things they talk about in intro social psych is how poor people are at evaluating themselves. Racists think they are fair, fascists think they are supporting freedom, etc.
Being judgmental, ie, the ability of us to put like things together into cognitive categories, schema, is, to a large degree, what separates humanity from animals. They clearly have some schema, but the mixture of our language, allowing abstract categories and easier communication between neurological regions, makes this an essential part of the human experience. And this is a good thing. it is how we can identify thousands of different looking chairs or objects as something "good-to-sit-on".
this sort of categorization is very basic, and if subject to any cognitive control (which I would put in the unlikely category anyways), it would be incredibly minor. The only real way to change schema classifications is through exposure to enough exemplars that it creates dissonance between the exemplars and the schema. So, to eliminate racism, education is useless, exposure and working with people of other races, the single most powerful way to change people.
so, I would argue that it is impossible to not be judgmental, and what we as a society define as such is rather a set of schema definitions that the mainstream agree with.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
my beliefs about people don't include such appeals to an "end point" or "ultimate desirable". We are a product of our evolution, and our brains reflect that. They aren't becoming more refined with civilization, nor are they moving to a point where they would be perfect, as there is no measure that would even come close to that...
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is my perspective as well. I was trying to explain this to my uberly conservative mother. (That homosexuality/heterosexuality is more like a scale and we all fall along different places on that scale...and that someone can be rolled they "gay" genetic dice, but still end up straight as anyone else, and vice-versa.)
no. Someone born with the gay biology cannot become straight through the environment.
Think of it more like body type. People are born with potentials that they can achieve should they interact with their environment in a particular way, but ultimately limited by their biology. Its like the big 5 personality traits. You can't really affect how Neurotic someone is by conditioning. You can give them behavioural tips to avoid the pitfalls of their personality, but to deliberately change it is... meh...
The best evidence to date for male sexuality is that there is a very strict and persistent quality of "homosexuality", which is very stable during life. This does reflect the way that society defines male sexuality, so I concede there is no absolutely controlled study, but at this point, males are not seen to be able to "choose" their sexuality, even through the most intensive behavioral or environmental conditioning.
Women are found to have a much more fluid sexuality, going through stages of homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality (everyone being different, but the general trend, especially when compared to men), though again, this follows the definition of female sexuality that has existed since feminism/the sexual revolution. However, even though their sexuality is more fluid, it is NOT amenable to conditioning. A woman cannot choose to feel bisexual, nor can she be conditioned to, just that it may be more natural for her to feel that way more often than a man, though this is where the environmental/biological debate is really.
Originally posted by dadudemon
On top of that, I don't like the Kinsey scale beyond making an academic point. I'd prefer it be a 10 point scale...and maybe even a situational scale as someone is never homosexual/heterosexual unless they get into a specific situation. You know what I mean?
I like the scale simply because it allows for more wiggle room than traditional biological accounts (and its not even that the biologists are so deterministic, it is that society wants the single answer for homosexuality).
I take offense to the idea that my sexuality is best described by the gender of the person I want to ****. I could tell you way more poignant issues than penis or vagina when talking about my sexual preferences.
I see the issue of being at a societal level. We live in a culture inundated with sexual imagery, yet the pop culture understanding of sex never leaves the third grade. I'll dub it the "rap video" phenomenon. Women can't be naked, so we will leave them clothed doing far more dirty things than would be seen with simply showing them naked.
Originally posted by inimalist
no. Someone born with the gay biology cannot become straight through the environment.
I disagree and i think it goes both ways, no pun intended. It isn't becoming straight, to begin with. Sexual orientation doesn't really start to occur until a little before puberty, and, on top of that, sexual orientation can change "from this to that", just as the Kinery scale indicates. The genetics do not set in stone the sexual orientation.
To think that it's 100% "this way" or 100% "that way" based solely on genetics would be a little dim, don't you think?
Originally posted by inimalist
Think of it more like body type. People are born with potentials that they can achieve should they interact with their environment in a particular way, but ultimately limited by their biology. Its like the big 5 personality traits. You can't really affect how Neurotic someone is by conditioning. You can give them behavioural tips to avoid the pitfalls of their personality, but to deliberately change it is... meh...
Hmm.
I am not sure if what you're saying above is in context with my point. I understand what you're what you're saying above, I'm just having difficulty applying it to what I said, prior.
So, you're saying that if someone was rolled the genetic "gay dice", no matter what, they'll be gay?
Now, here's what I'm saying: There are some that are rolled the genetic "gay dice" but turn out heterosexual and do not know that wiser for it.
Did you bridge the gap above? Are you saying that what I said just then isn't true that no matter what, if one is rolled the gay genetic dice, he or she will be gay? (Again, no matter what.)
Bridge the gap between my thinking and yours or just simply answer a definitive yes or no....and that will work for me.
Originally posted by inimalist
The best evidence to date for male sexuality is that there is a very strict and persistent quality of "homosexuality", which is very stable during life. This does reflect the way that society defines male sexuality, so I concede there is no absolutely controlled study, but at this point, males are not seen to be able to "choose" their sexuality, even through the most intensive behavioral or environmental conditioning.
I don't understand where this is coming from. I'm referring to environment and agreeing with this particular portion of your post:
"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."
Meaning, it can't be explained solely on genetics. I was agreeing with that portion of your post and furthering it by saying that there are probably some who end up gay, through "developmental process, influenced by thousands of factors" that were born as hetero as anyone else, as far as biology is concerned. (And vice versa.)
Originally posted by inimalist
Women are found to have a much more fluid sexuality, going through stages of homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality (everyone being different, but the general trend, especially when compared to men), though again, this follows the definition of female sexuality that has existed since feminism/the sexual revolution. However, even though their sexuality is more fluid, it is NOT amenable to conditioning. A woman cannot choose to feel bisexual, nor can she be conditioned to, just that it may be more natural for her to feel that way more often than a man, though this is where the environmental/biological debate is really.
I don't understand where this choice thing came from. I thought we were talking about "developmental process[es], influenced by thousands of factors."
Originally posted by inimalist
I like the scale simply because it allows for more wiggle room than traditional biological accounts (and its not even that the biologists are so deterministic, it is that society wants the [b]single answer for homosexuality).I take offense to the idea that my sexuality is best described by the gender of the person I want to ****. I could tell you way more poignant issues than penis or vagina when talking about my sexual preferences.
I see the issue of being at a societal level. We live in a culture inundated with sexual imagery, yet the pop culture understanding of sex never leaves the third grade. I'll dub it the "rap video" phenomenon. Women can't be naked, so we will leave them clothed doing far more dirty things than would be seen with simply showing them naked. [/B]
Mos Def. The scale does help to make a point that it is, as you once put it, not a 0 or 1 state.
However, how much influence is culture, societal norms, etc. on sexual orientation and how much is biology? We still have to have sex to make babies (for the most part, you pedantic bastards)... It seems that I'm contradicint an earlier point. I am not. My earlier point was an exception to the genetic dice. Not the rule.
There are probably loads of people that would be openly gay, if it weren't for the social stigma around it. I find that shameful of the society I live in.
inimalist, Ushgarak does not like us being off topic in this thread. He's the boss, so I'm more than obliged to comply. Please see the following post:
Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is not the topic of the thread. Cut it the heck out.
Dually noted, sir.