bob x
Well-Known Member
Yes, it is obvious that I know considerably more than you. Go Google "Night of the Long Knives" and come back when you have a clue what you are talking about.
Changing Sexual Orientation Is Possible, New Research Says
- Thread starter BlaznFattyz
- Start date
If...you knew so much more than I, you wouldn't be in the situation you are in...
now boys...it seriously is sounding like a playground here.
I'm sure the next response will be, "He started it.",
Well we also know it takes two to tango, so instead lets see who can take the high road first.
I'm sure the next response will be, "He started it.",
Well we also know it takes two to tango, so instead lets see who can take the high road first.
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
.... lol 
Anyway.... I think the co-writers are correct, sure their faith/religion is wrong lol but the way they are looking at it, they are following the "laws" of their religion homosexuality is wrong so I will not comit such an act.... I think that takes a strong person....
Anyway.... I think the co-writers are correct, sure their faith/religion is wrong lol but the way they are looking at it, they are following the "laws" of their religion homosexuality is wrong so I will not comit such an act.... I think that takes a strong person....
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Yes, it was my idea to link to someone else's work in the field. I seem to recall that being called a "reference" for "validation."
Now I am confused. All along you have stated rather emphatically that you had *no* choice in the matter, now you say you do.
If you have no choice in how you behave, (as though your likes and dislikes rule you rather than otherwise,) then nobody else does either. If nobody has any choice but to behave how they are "wired," then that would include those that are wired to behave in ways society deems detrimental, erasing any sense of personal responsibility. No saints, no villians. *Everybody just acting out how they are wired, nobody can help themself to do otherwise.* That is the essence of your argument from early on, and that is the same argument alluded to in the reference. The argument is an attempt to nullify responsibility for personal behavior, and it is that attempt to nullify responsibility *specifically* that I have taken issue with. "I can't help it if I'm a _____, I was born this way." I don't buy it, and never have. This is a self-imposed limitation, besides.
Personally, I could care less what your sexual preferences and behavior are. What I have found arguable is the insistance on distancing yourself from the responsibility for your choices. Yes, sexuality *as expressed behavior* is a choice. That is my fundamental point from the beginning, and your denial of that is what began our discourse. I tire of explaning that to you, since you do not listen either.
So yes, homosexuality *is* a lifestyle choice. Finally, here, you offhandedly admit to this, when this is all I was trying to say all along. Thank you for taking responsibility for your choice of behavior, and thank you for the discussion.
Last edited:
bob x
Well-Known Member
"The linkage was entirely your own idea. --
Yes, it was my idea to link to someone else's work in the field. I seem to recall that being called a "reference" for "validation." "
He was working in the field of pedophilia, without any reference to homosexuality, which is the field on this thread. The notion that pedophilia and homosexuality are the same field is strictly your own, and is not "validated" by his work.
"Absolutely not. I have my likes and dislikes; I can choose whether or not to act on them; I cannot choose however to be reborn with a different set of likes and dislikes. I tire of explaining this to you, since you do not listen. --
Now I am confused. All along you have stated rather emphatically that you had *no* choice in the matter, now you say you do."
I DO NOT have a choice about what my likes and dislikes ARE.
I DO have a choice in whether in particular instances I act IN ACCORDANCE with my likes.
This is the same thing I have told you over and over and over and over again. Whether your persistent mischaracterization of what I am saying is a wilful distortion or just an obtuse misunderstanding I do not know, and I am past the point of caring.
"*Everybody just acting out how they are wired, nobody can help themself to do otherwise.* That is the essence of your argument from early on"
NO. That has never been what I was saying. I have repeatedly told you that is not what I am saying, and you just do not listen.
"Yes, sexuality *as expressed behavior* is a choice. "
You asserted that if my beloved does not love me back, I could just "choose" to love somebody else, "of either gender". That is just not so. I have great difficulty even becoming physically aroused enough to perform mechanically with a woman (although I am not completely unable to do so, as some are: and that is not something those people "choose" about themselves either; I expect that Quahom would find it very difficult or impossible to be aroused with another male, likewise), and I cannot feel any emotional attachment: that is just not in me, and I can no more do that than I can fly. I could choose to enter a sham-marriage with a woman I could never care for (I know some who have done so; it is a mistake, and I would say a "sin"), but that would not change that my emotional attachments are only elsewhere. My options are to be an active homosexual, or to be a celibate homosexual, but whether I *choose to act on* my likes or not, what I do like and what I don't like is hard-wired in: THAT, I did not choose. Should choose to act in the way that brings joy to me and to my loved one, or in the way that denies joy? In response to this, you then say that to bring joy would be the same as being a pedophile, who brings hurt. It is not the same at all, and I find the comparison profoundly offensive.
I have got to quit this board, at least for a while. I have tried twice (I cannot find an "unjoin" in the control panel; maybe there is no such option unless I ask a manager to ban me) but people keep addressing me. Between you attacking me for positions I have never held, Russia telling me I cannot possibly be me and must be someone else, 17 telling me I must have started out as something else and "decided" to "change" somehow, Quahom insisting that teachers should bully their ****** students and that he reserves the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime (remind me not to go boating again until I am far from Michigan), and Greymare saying she loves it when Quahom gets nasty like that, I am bone-weary of you all.
Yes, it was my idea to link to someone else's work in the field. I seem to recall that being called a "reference" for "validation." "
He was working in the field of pedophilia, without any reference to homosexuality, which is the field on this thread. The notion that pedophilia and homosexuality are the same field is strictly your own, and is not "validated" by his work.
"Absolutely not. I have my likes and dislikes; I can choose whether or not to act on them; I cannot choose however to be reborn with a different set of likes and dislikes. I tire of explaining this to you, since you do not listen. --
Now I am confused. All along you have stated rather emphatically that you had *no* choice in the matter, now you say you do."
I DO NOT have a choice about what my likes and dislikes ARE.
I DO have a choice in whether in particular instances I act IN ACCORDANCE with my likes.
This is the same thing I have told you over and over and over and over again. Whether your persistent mischaracterization of what I am saying is a wilful distortion or just an obtuse misunderstanding I do not know, and I am past the point of caring.
"*Everybody just acting out how they are wired, nobody can help themself to do otherwise.* That is the essence of your argument from early on"
NO. That has never been what I was saying. I have repeatedly told you that is not what I am saying, and you just do not listen.
"Yes, sexuality *as expressed behavior* is a choice. "
You asserted that if my beloved does not love me back, I could just "choose" to love somebody else, "of either gender". That is just not so. I have great difficulty even becoming physically aroused enough to perform mechanically with a woman (although I am not completely unable to do so, as some are: and that is not something those people "choose" about themselves either; I expect that Quahom would find it very difficult or impossible to be aroused with another male, likewise), and I cannot feel any emotional attachment: that is just not in me, and I can no more do that than I can fly. I could choose to enter a sham-marriage with a woman I could never care for (I know some who have done so; it is a mistake, and I would say a "sin"), but that would not change that my emotional attachments are only elsewhere. My options are to be an active homosexual, or to be a celibate homosexual, but whether I *choose to act on* my likes or not, what I do like and what I don't like is hard-wired in: THAT, I did not choose. Should choose to act in the way that brings joy to me and to my loved one, or in the way that denies joy? In response to this, you then say that to bring joy would be the same as being a pedophile, who brings hurt. It is not the same at all, and I find the comparison profoundly offensive.
I have got to quit this board, at least for a while. I have tried twice (I cannot find an "unjoin" in the control panel; maybe there is no such option unless I ask a manager to ban me) but people keep addressing me. Between you attacking me for positions I have never held, Russia telling me I cannot possibly be me and must be someone else, 17 telling me I must have started out as something else and "decided" to "change" somehow, Quahom insisting that teachers should bully their ****** students and that he reserves the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime (remind me not to go boating again until I am far from Michigan), and Greymare saying she loves it when Quahom gets nasty like that, I am bone-weary of you all.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Attacking? Who called whom hateful? Who put words into whose mouth? Who has repeatedly ascribed things the other did not say, and implied things the other had not even suggested? Who is it made a big deal out of a couple of comments (one shouldn't be surprized that someone is shocked at comments made for shock value), and then acts hurt that they have received the attention they came here to get. Who came with an agenda, and is now sulking away because they found their agenda?
I know it is hard for you to comprehend, but I do love you as a brother. If I didn't, I wouldn't have even bothered with this discussion. Brothers scrap. Brothers fuss. Brothers spar.
Brothers disagree.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't stand beside you and stick up for you when things got really tough. Would you have balls enough to do the same for the next guy or gal?
bob x
Well-Known Member
You did.
No, one shouldn't. You intended to give offense, and you succeeded.
No, I did not come here to "get attention". I found people saying utterly false things about me and my kind, and attempted to explain how things really are. No-one will hear. Fine, I should have known better.
My brothers accept me as I am. You are nothing like my brothers.
Things ARE really tough. And you stand against me.
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Hey, juantoo. I don't think Bob is talking about "wired behaviours" here. He's talking about "wired feelings." I take it he means he can choose his behaviour, but not his feelings.
Since when was life all about following rules and being obedient to laws? What about things like drugs and depression? These things can really send life out of control. If we didn't recognise the phenomena of drugs and depression, we'd be judgmental and condemn damaged people, people who are powerless to change the course of their lives.
Now take someone who has feelings that go against the principles of a society. Can you blame the individual? Can you condemn? Can we ever blame anyone?
Have you ever got into trouble with authorities and/or professional superiors and felt wronged, misjudged and misunderstood?
I take it you've always done the right thing, never gone through depression, never been misjudged, criticised and condemned for something you did. Never lied and betrayed anyone and then got told off for it? Never had low points? Emotional valleys? Felt emotionally paralysed?
It would be a "lifestyle choice" if you could choose your own (or be master of) destiny, how your coffee was made, what house you could live in, etc.
Because I'm a man and have a masculine personality, I can't think like a woman. I don't know what women want because I am not feminine. Could homosexuality be like that? What I mean is, masculinity is not a lifestyle choice. Masculinity is a kind of personality. Boys will be boys. Men will be men. I didn't choose to be a man. I was born that way.
Is homosexuality not just another kind of personality?
This phenomenon Bob brings up might seem weird, but let's consider the conflict between men and women in society as an example.
There feminists and masculinists, who are political activists for the fairness in society's treatment of men and women. Then there are man-haters and woman-haters who actually want to inflict emotional damage on the opposite sex.
Take for example, men who are "woman haters," or women who are "man haters." Of course, a man who is a woman hater wouldn't go around killing and beating up women when he sees them. A woman who is a man hater doesn't do around killing and beating up men when she sees them. But what each has is a deep contempt for the other.
A woman-hating man may say, women bitch and complain, and are vain and selfish (just an example, I don't actually believe that
) they're stupid and men are supposed to control them and order them around. A man-hating woman may say that men are dirty, their irresponsible, arrogant, have a lust for power, are aggressive and their behaviour is absolute nonsense. They're trash and need to be taught a lesson.These are the extreme cases. Then there are feminists and masculinists who may say, for example that women are getting less pay that we have a male-dominated government and that society is patriarchal or that men are being discriminated against in domestic violence cases and issues to do with getting custody of and access to kids, that society favours women. Some of these activists may go further and actually demean men and women. And so the gender wars go on and on.
Could Bob just be talking here of a similar kind of phenomenon being raged against homosexuals, which is another kind of personality?
What I'm talking about here is personality and personal identity, not behaviour.
Is it a sin to be homosexual? To talk like one, dress like one, think line one, feel like one, live and die like one, love like one? Is it wrong to express homosexuality?
Would you condemn, say, a man who thinks and behaves like a woman, or a woman who thinks and behaves like a man? Is it wrong to have and express a misplaced personality?
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Thanks for your response Salty!
The argument that we are slaves to our genetics divorces us from the responsibility for our behaviors. "I can't help if I'm a serial killer, I was born this way." "I can't help if I'm a superhero stud, I was born this way." The simple fact is that people use this self-limiting rationale to defeat self and wallow in their own self-pity, rather than realizing they are more (much more!) than the collection of their genetics, and that they do have the option, the possibility, of rising above their base animal nature. That is what religion is about.
What you are suggesting is what I have taken issue with here; without consequence of free-will, there is no responsibility for actions (behaviours). Nobody should be in any prison for anything because, hey, they were simply doing what their genetics made them do. I can't help it if I tortured, killed and mutilated 52 people, cut them up and buried them in my crawl space; I was born this way.
Don't let the emotional cloud hide the real point being discussed. I don't care what Bob's (or anybody's) life choices are, as long as two points of reality are honestly considered: be responsible for the behavior and consequences (you're gonna be like it or not), and don't infringe upon my ability to do the same for myself. "I was made this way" is an attempt to bypass personal responsibility for actions. Denying me the right to form my own informed decisions is to be guilty of denying me my civil rights.
This is not the first (and I'll guarantee not the last) time that some politically motivated segment has sought to invent a "truth" to suit their agenda. Some people think they own reality, and take offense when others don't view the world through their eyes. I know what we call that where I come from...
Actually, I am the one who has been saying all along that our behaviors are chosen. The point I have struggled to make all along is that we are responsible for our behaviors, which means by free-will we choose how to behave.
The argument that we are slaves to our genetics divorces us from the responsibility for our behaviors. "I can't help if I'm a serial killer, I was born this way." "I can't help if I'm a superhero stud, I was born this way." The simple fact is that people use this self-limiting rationale to defeat self and wallow in their own self-pity, rather than realizing they are more (much more!) than the collection of their genetics, and that they do have the option, the possibility, of rising above their base animal nature. That is what religion is about.
Since Hammurabi, and probably even before. Certainly from the beginning of civilization.
What about basic psychology? What applies to one applies to all, unless evidence for special case can be made. I'm sorry but, protests to the contrary, homosexuals are not a special case. They are governed by the same basic psychological rules that all "generally healthy" adult humans are. They are not immature children, they are not wards or dependents, they are not mentally challenged or damaged. Therefore no special case rules apply: they are responsible for their behavior. The "carte blanche" of "I was born this way" simply does not apply.
First off, and I want to be very clear, *I am not condemning anyone.* I could care less as long as it does not encroach on me and mine. I do reserve the right to make my own decisions in such matters, and here I am presenting the logic behind my reasoning. Take it or leave it, but do not refuse me my own pursuit of wisdom. Having said this, our prisons are full of condemned people, people condemned by society, a society that collectively includes people like you, me and Bob. Condemned people like murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. whose behavior society deems to be destructive.
What you are suggesting is what I have taken issue with here; without consequence of free-will, there is no responsibility for actions (behaviours). Nobody should be in any prison for anything because, hey, they were simply doing what their genetics made them do. I can't help it if I tortured, killed and mutilated 52 people, cut them up and buried them in my crawl space; I was born this way.
Yes I have, and I paid my debt to society, and continue to pay long after my time was served, by attitudes levelled at me by people like Bob who can't seem to let bygones be bygones. I learned that I am responsible for my actions, regardless of my internal preferences and desires. I may want to take something from you because I like it (and my genes made me to like it), but if I do I will have to be responsible and pay the social penalty for that action. Funny, but both Buddhist/ Hindu - Karma and Christian/ Jewish/ Islamic - Judgement all say the same thing in this regard; you reap what you sow, you receive the consequences of your behaviour.
I am responsible for my choices; right or wrong, left or right, up or down, diet or caffeine free. I have no cop out excuse of "I was made this way." And I expect grown "healthy, intelligent" mature adults to be held to the same standard.
I *am* the master of my fate and the captain of my soul. I *do* have a say in how my coffee is made; either I make it myself or I choose to take the risk of drinking the coffee someone else has made. I *do* have a choice in where to live, what clothes to wear, what car to drive (or whether to drive), etc. The alternative is to wallow in my own self-pity and be a victim to circumstances.
Yeah, by thought I can't add an inch to my stature and all that. We are not talking about eye color or hair color (notwithstanding bleach bottles), we are talking about behaviour.
Is greed(y) not just another kind of personality? Is selfish not just another kind of personality? Is generous not just another kind of personality? Is flambouyant not just another kind of personality? The point all along has been about responsibility for actions (behaviors). Regardless of personality.
Don't let the emotional cloud hide the real point being discussed. I don't care what Bob's (or anybody's) life choices are, as long as two points of reality are honestly considered: be responsible for the behavior and consequences (you're gonna be like it or not), and don't infringe upon my ability to do the same for myself. "I was made this way" is an attempt to bypass personal responsibility for actions. Denying me the right to form my own informed decisions is to be guilty of denying me my civil rights.
That is not my call to make, *for Bob.* For me, it is my right and duty to decide, and I have decided it is an unwise choice. What Bob and others here seem to overlook is that I am not condemning anybody, I am disagreeing. I am voicing my opinion. That is my right, as much as it is theirs. If they live a life in a manner I would not, it does not mean I hate, it means I disagree. That is also my right, just as it is theirs.
I do *not* condemn anybody. I *do* make a considered choice in how I will live my life. My choices apparently do not agree with everybody else. Guess what? I don't care! Life would be far too boring if everybody agreed on everything. Besides, the masses have been mistaken before...
This is not the first (and I'll guarantee not the last) time that some politically motivated segment has sought to invent a "truth" to suit their agenda. Some people think they own reality, and take offense when others don't view the world through their eyes. I know what we call that where I come from...
Last edited:
bob x
Well-Known Member
"Actually, I am the one who has been saying all along that our behaviors are chosen. "
Nobody here disagrees with that, especially not me, as I have emphasized to you repeatedly. You are insisting on arguing against a rigid determinism that is not the position of anyone here on this board. If you really need a determinist to whale on, then try to straighten out NicOfTime at:
http://groups.msn.com/MeaningofLife...LastModified=4675647040295863037&all_topics=1
That's the only determinist of that kind that I've met.
What I object to (and despite Salty's efforts, you still do not seem to be able to grasp the distinction) is your further inference that our basic feelings, and likes and dislikes, are also "chosen", for example:
"Is it a sin to be homosexual? To talk like one, dress like one, think line one, feel like one, live and die like one, love like one? Is it wrong to express homosexuality? --
That is not my call to make, *for Bob.* For me, it is my right and duty to decide, and I have decided it is an unwise choice. "
No, you don't have any "right" or "duty" or even the POSSIBILITY to decide whether to BE homosexual. If you are not turned out by males, then you just aren't. That is like hair color and eye color, part of how you were born. Now of course, what you COULD decide is that you will sleep with a male anyway (assuming you are even able to get it up), and that, to be sure, would be an unwise decision on your part, something that could not possibly work for you emotionally, and could emotionally hurt the other guy if he was in fact homosexual and developed an attachment to you that you have no possibility of reciprocating.
"What Bob and others here seem to overlook is that I am not condemning anybody"
What you have done is to spread the rhetoric that gays just "decide" to be gay, and could just as easily "decide" to be aroused by women instead; and that is why there is nothing wrong with treating us as a kind of criminal; and you specifically suggest child molesters as the proper analogy for us. In this way you lend moral support to those who do condemn us, and do take violent actions against us, all the while disclaiming any responsibility for the consequences.
"Yes I have, and I paid my debt to society, and continue to pay long after my time was served, by attitudes levelled at me by people like Bob who can't seem to let bygones be bygones. "
Now where the hell is THIS coming from??? I have never dredged up your past, for the simple reason that I never until a couple minutes ago knew that you had any such past. And I have been perfectly willing to let you be "bygone"; I would rather have just stopped talking to you at all.
Now I've been going through serious medical problems of late (which will require tons of money to deal with, which I don't have) and among my symptoms have been frequent anger spasms: has anyone here noticed? If this has made me difficult to deal with, I'm sorry. But I have certainly not been in the mood to put up with your breezy notions about how it is not just our behaviors, but our basic feelings, which are "chosen", when I get such graphic reminders of the limitations there are on our degree of control. Yes, regardless of my anger level I must find the self-control to decide not to smash anything or hit anybody; but no, this is not a situation that I would have "chosen", anymore than I chose my sexuality.
In particular, I have not liked your smarmy way of patting yourself on the back for how kind and loving you are to me, as a substitute for actually BEING kind or loving. I do recall that when I was on this board three to four years back, you and I had friendly exchanges (presumably because the topic of sexuality never came up), but this time around, you have not said a single kind or loving word to me-- which is fine, you don't "owe" it to me to act as a friend, but it is irritating to hear you CLAIM to be kind to me, when you haven't been.
Nobody here disagrees with that, especially not me, as I have emphasized to you repeatedly. You are insisting on arguing against a rigid determinism that is not the position of anyone here on this board. If you really need a determinist to whale on, then try to straighten out NicOfTime at:
http://groups.msn.com/MeaningofLife...LastModified=4675647040295863037&all_topics=1
That's the only determinist of that kind that I've met.
What I object to (and despite Salty's efforts, you still do not seem to be able to grasp the distinction) is your further inference that our basic feelings, and likes and dislikes, are also "chosen", for example:
"Is it a sin to be homosexual? To talk like one, dress like one, think line one, feel like one, live and die like one, love like one? Is it wrong to express homosexuality? --
That is not my call to make, *for Bob.* For me, it is my right and duty to decide, and I have decided it is an unwise choice. "
No, you don't have any "right" or "duty" or even the POSSIBILITY to decide whether to BE homosexual. If you are not turned out by males, then you just aren't. That is like hair color and eye color, part of how you were born. Now of course, what you COULD decide is that you will sleep with a male anyway (assuming you are even able to get it up), and that, to be sure, would be an unwise decision on your part, something that could not possibly work for you emotionally, and could emotionally hurt the other guy if he was in fact homosexual and developed an attachment to you that you have no possibility of reciprocating.
"What Bob and others here seem to overlook is that I am not condemning anybody"
What you have done is to spread the rhetoric that gays just "decide" to be gay, and could just as easily "decide" to be aroused by women instead; and that is why there is nothing wrong with treating us as a kind of criminal; and you specifically suggest child molesters as the proper analogy for us. In this way you lend moral support to those who do condemn us, and do take violent actions against us, all the while disclaiming any responsibility for the consequences.
"Yes I have, and I paid my debt to society, and continue to pay long after my time was served, by attitudes levelled at me by people like Bob who can't seem to let bygones be bygones. "
Now where the hell is THIS coming from??? I have never dredged up your past, for the simple reason that I never until a couple minutes ago knew that you had any such past. And I have been perfectly willing to let you be "bygone"; I would rather have just stopped talking to you at all.
Now I've been going through serious medical problems of late (which will require tons of money to deal with, which I don't have) and among my symptoms have been frequent anger spasms: has anyone here noticed? If this has made me difficult to deal with, I'm sorry. But I have certainly not been in the mood to put up with your breezy notions about how it is not just our behaviors, but our basic feelings, which are "chosen", when I get such graphic reminders of the limitations there are on our degree of control. Yes, regardless of my anger level I must find the self-control to decide not to smash anything or hit anybody; but no, this is not a situation that I would have "chosen", anymore than I chose my sexuality.
In particular, I have not liked your smarmy way of patting yourself on the back for how kind and loving you are to me, as a substitute for actually BEING kind or loving. I do recall that when I was on this board three to four years back, you and I had friendly exchanges (presumably because the topic of sexuality never came up), but this time around, you have not said a single kind or loving word to me-- which is fine, you don't "owe" it to me to act as a friend, but it is irritating to hear you CLAIM to be kind to me, when you haven't been.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I'm sorry to hear of your health issues.
We will simply have to agree to disagree.
Gators and Wolverines play Jan 1st I think it is. Go Gators!
We will simply have to agree to disagree.
Gators and Wolverines play Jan 1st I think it is. Go Gators!
Hey, Bob, I'm sincerely sorry you've got heavy things to deal with at present, and I'm sincerely sorry that I wasn't aware of how this thread was unfolding because it looks as though you've been taking something of a beating for no reason.
I'd just like to say that I always value your presence and posts wherever I see them, and that it really is a pleasure to have your company on CR.
Now that this thread has been flagged for my attention I'm going to keep an eye on things and see that they calm down a little - discussion of an individual topic shouldn't mean the questioning of the individuals discussing the topic.
In the meantime, Bob, if anything else around here needs my attention or anything I can help with, feel free to let me know.
I'd just like to say that I always value your presence and posts wherever I see them, and that it really is a pleasure to have your company on CR.
Now that this thread has been flagged for my attention I'm going to keep an eye on things and see that they calm down a little - discussion of an individual topic shouldn't mean the questioning of the individuals discussing the topic.
In the meantime, Bob, if anything else around here needs my attention or anything I can help with, feel free to let me know.
This is a great quote and can be applied more widely than in the intended context.
dailogue is the best
New member
hi to every body,
this subject is so crucial and needs a lot of study and analysis.the brethren here are talking about whther to accept those who have abnormal sexual tendencies rather than discussing if these tendencies cant be fixed and havent a bad effect on their health and on the society at large.
i would like to share my views with you, if its possible
1)we do understand that some people have different sexual tendencies. we v to discuss it not to put sentences on it.is it an illness? is it a violation in one nature caused by certain way of upbringing or by experiencing certain bad sexual abuse?or is it just a way of making more sexual enjoyment?all these questions need certain, definite answers.
if that sexual tendency is aresult of phsychological or physical reasons, i think science now has`many ways of curing this problem.if a man wants to become a woman, he needs just an operation that ll fullfill his desire. if that happen, why dont we help those to fix their desires.
2)science hes proved that lesbianism and homosexuality have a very dangerous effect on both the life of people and society at large. u can go and surf in the internet about this. so here we arent dealing with amatter of personal freedom.
3)what is freedom, by the way? can you tell me? is it to do whatever you want without counting for the consequences?is it leaving for one s pleasure?is this freedom?at sometimes,it seems yes, but i hold a different view. in my opinion, freedom is to get free from your ego and desires.how many people are ruined bc the follow their ego.they take drugs,make unlumitted number of sxual relations,steal,use violence,kill.....they are simply slaves to their own ego.the real meaning of freedom is to get free frm your instincts and whims.
4)you are talking about love. what does love mean? does it mean to let my child burns his finger with fire just because he likes fire, and its warmth.it is true that Jesus asked us to offer unconditional love.bt which kind of love does he mean?it ia that kind of love that give us power and patience to show others and help them towards the right path.love is that noble emotion that gather all humanity. to love them as they are is nt always the right way of showing love. i cant say that you love your friend while you are watching him taking drugs, and u advise him not...i can say that u love you sister while u r watching her mistreating ur parents and u dont advise her....love is to care and give directions and help and that was the message of all prophete....wa have to know what love and freedom mean.....
sorry for writing so long....thank you for your time for those who read my reply.
lots of love
this subject is so crucial and needs a lot of study and analysis.the brethren here are talking about whther to accept those who have abnormal sexual tendencies rather than discussing if these tendencies cant be fixed and havent a bad effect on their health and on the society at large.
i would like to share my views with you, if its possible
1)we do understand that some people have different sexual tendencies. we v to discuss it not to put sentences on it.is it an illness? is it a violation in one nature caused by certain way of upbringing or by experiencing certain bad sexual abuse?or is it just a way of making more sexual enjoyment?all these questions need certain, definite answers.
if that sexual tendency is aresult of phsychological or physical reasons, i think science now has`many ways of curing this problem.if a man wants to become a woman, he needs just an operation that ll fullfill his desire. if that happen, why dont we help those to fix their desires.
2)science hes proved that lesbianism and homosexuality have a very dangerous effect on both the life of people and society at large. u can go and surf in the internet about this. so here we arent dealing with amatter of personal freedom.
3)what is freedom, by the way? can you tell me? is it to do whatever you want without counting for the consequences?is it leaving for one s pleasure?is this freedom?at sometimes,it seems yes, but i hold a different view. in my opinion, freedom is to get free from your ego and desires.how many people are ruined bc the follow their ego.they take drugs,make unlumitted number of sxual relations,steal,use violence,kill.....they are simply slaves to their own ego.the real meaning of freedom is to get free frm your instincts and whims.
4)you are talking about love. what does love mean? does it mean to let my child burns his finger with fire just because he likes fire, and its warmth.it is true that Jesus asked us to offer unconditional love.bt which kind of love does he mean?it ia that kind of love that give us power and patience to show others and help them towards the right path.love is that noble emotion that gather all humanity. to love them as they are is nt always the right way of showing love. i cant say that you love your friend while you are watching him taking drugs, and u advise him not...i can say that u love you sister while u r watching her mistreating ur parents and u dont advise her....love is to care and give directions and help and that was the message of all prophete....wa have to know what love and freedom mean.....
sorry for writing so long....thank you for your time for those who read my reply.
lots of love
mens_sana
Well-Known Member
Thank you for sharing your views — views which you share with a number of people who have no understanding of sexual orientation and whose constant oh-so-well-meaning, patronizing platitudes do nothing but reiterate an invincible ignorance.
Not really, you're just kidding yourself.
Got to say, this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on CR. Science has never made any such claim so far as I'm aware.
There is a whole portfolio of accusations that can be made against religious belief on how adversely they have affected human history. The apologists might claim it is not religion itself that has been adverse, as much as ignorance and intolerance which dwells within religious belief. I think the question of sexual intolerance is easily among the worst of these.
While Christianity is defined by a leader who lived with prostitutes, tax collectors, and lepers - the basest people of society as perceived then - those who follow in His name instead seem to spend more time in condemnation of such people, than embracing them.
It kind of makes a lot of Christian's stand closer to the very Pharisee's who criticised their inspiration, rather than inpsired by Him.
I can't believe I've ever read of a single example of where a war was fought for homosexuality, where a people were enslaved because of homosexuality, or where genocide has ever been committed in the name of homosexuality.
Yet somehow some people still see homosexuality as a larger threat than prejudice and intolerance. Personally, I wouldn't agree.
2c.
bob x
Well-Known Member
Go Wolverines!
On THAT subject, at least, we will definitely have to agree to disagree...
On the other, I would like to at least make one last effort to clarify what I have been saying, since I am no longer even sure whether we DO disagree on anything or not. To take a non-emotionally-charged example, you say you have a choice to make coffee yourself, or trust others to make it-- and of course you always have the choice not to drink coffee at all. Now, some people do not react to caffeine at all; some react to it badly. Everyone, regardless of their particular biochemistry, has a choice to make coffee or not, to drink it or not; but it hardly the same choice for people with different biochemistry. What you and they do NOT have any choice about is this: you cannot "decide" that you are going to be non-responsive to caffeine, if you are caffeine-responsive, or that you are not going to be allergic to caffeine, if you are.
Pathless
Fiercely Interdependent
Thanks for responding to this claim, Brian, in such a well-articulated way. That part of the post jumped out at me and crawled under my skin, and I appreciate that you have expressed very concisely and intelligently a view similar to what I would have posted.
This entire thread has left me with a sort of "why bother?" attitude towards it, although LGBT issues are really close to home for me. I appreciate you stepping in here and clarifying some CR community standards as well as pointing out some of the worst hypocrisies and smug attitudes of some who believe Christianity must necessarily be homophobic.
Peace,
Pathless
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
Yes, thank you. I bailed out a while ago after becoming too tired to contribute any more and also having nothing new to say, since I said it all up front in my first one or two posts to this thread.
To the best of my knowledge as an anthropologist, I concur that there are no legitimate scientific claims that homosexuality is damaging to society. In fact, there were societies that survived for much longer than many modern nation-states in which homosexuality was the norm.
Whether or not someone thinks homosexual actions are sinful, I really can't stand the horrible ignorance and false science that people promote about human sexuality (or any other topic, for that matter). There is plenty of room for debate in the realm of real, verifiable information without branching off into pseudoscience and falsity.
To the best of my knowledge as an anthropologist, I concur that there are no legitimate scientific claims that homosexuality is damaging to society. In fact, there were societies that survived for much longer than many modern nation-states in which homosexuality was the norm.
Whether or not someone thinks homosexual actions are sinful, I really can't stand the horrible ignorance and false science that people promote about human sexuality (or any other topic, for that matter). There is plenty of room for debate in the realm of real, verifiable information without branching off into pseudoscience and falsity.