| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Gay Agenda; Freedom for all? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 30 2006, 11:39 AM (3,849 Views) | |
| John D'Oh | May 31 2006, 11:38 AM Post #51 |
|
MAMIL
|
No, but some people are trying to tell other people to be normal, and that to behave otherwise is a sin against God. I'm sure God can handle it, he's a big boy. Why can't we? God isn't 'normal' now, is he? His family life is certainly a bit unusual. He had to find somebody else's wife to father his child, without any sexual intercourse taking place. In fact, if the stories are to be believed, he never actually spoke to the mother, but used an intermediary throughout for the conception. What kind of rumours would get started if a film star acted in this way? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 31 2006, 11:44 AM Post #52 |
|
No one is telling others to "be normal", people are encouraging others to avoid sinning as much as possible. Being normal isn't better or worse, just be yourself. Don't TRY to be normal, and don't TRY to be not-normal. Just be yourself. God defines many things as being sinful. We should try (at least Christians) to live as Christ-like a life as possible. I'm just as sinful as the next person...sinning every day. But the point is we should try and work on it, and live as good a life as possible, reading and following God's word for guidance, even if it means self-discipline against worldly desires. We are in the world, but not of the world. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 31 2006, 11:55 AM Post #53 |
|
MAMIL
|
No, I'm pretty sure that some people are telling others to be normal. Maybe not you, but there's quite a few about who think that being gay is sending people to hell. Just look at that old testament of yours, and the verses that get quoted from time to time. The words are pretty clear to me. I only got as far as finding that those who get drunk are cursed before I switched to my current belief system. What's up with that? If God didn't want us to get drunk, why did he make beer taste so nice? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 31 2006, 11:57 AM Post #54 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
And it's normal to be born with black hair.
There is no automatic. There are millions chemical stimuli feeding into complex feedback mechanisms which results in phenotypic properties. Without context to something specific it doesn't mean anything to say "unless something intervenes" because everything is intervention, development of sexuality occurs when hormones like testosterone "intervene" on certain cells in the growing fetus. I'm not seeing a coherent definition of what a "default" human being would mean, if we try to define it as something seperated from interaction with the environment then the default human being is blind and deaf. If we define it as the average genotype across every human being and the average environmental interaction (heaven knows what thats going to mean) then the default does not nor ever will exist. We can talk about frequence that is coherent, but seems irrelevent. It's true there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, but then that reasoning applies to numerous other phenotypic properties from hair colour, to eye colour, to IQ, to preferred foods to anything else. Fine there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, so what?
Well if we are born heterosexual and homosexual then there is no choice, so that seems to answer his question then. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 31 2006, 12:03 PM Post #55 |
|
Although there are people out there telling others to "be normal!", there are also people saying "be unique!". Oh well... Also, actually if you read the Bible a little more, you would have seen that God actually said "And thou shalt create an alcoholic drink, and you will call it beer, and it will taste like Heaven. It will make those who drink it want "heaven" more." Unfortunately, so many people liked the taste of heaven, that heaven was over quota in 6 months, so instead of building a wall or increasing the patrol around heaven, God later edited the bible to say that drinking beer is an abomination. But you and I know the Truth, my good friend. Those of us who drink beer and think we're being damned for it, are actually buying our ticket into heaven! Oh, it'll be a good laugh once we get up there.. ...as long as they serve Sam Adams. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 31 2006, 12:04 PM Post #56 |
|
Moonbat, I'll address your post later, I have a few deadlines I need to make... |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 31 2006, 12:09 PM Post #57 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Ok but many of those do not seem to constitute "choice" in the usual sense of the word. It just seems obvious that people don't adopt "lifestyles" and then feel attracted to the appropriate catagory to fit into their intended lifestyle. Hell i like the look of the gay 'lifestyle' i've seen, only one minor detail stops me taking it up: i'm not gay. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | May 31 2006, 01:43 PM Post #58 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
When push comes to shove can we then say that God is not not normal and not not abnormal? |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 31 2006, 01:54 PM Post #59 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Stops you taking it up where?
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | May 31 2006, 02:02 PM Post #60 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
While i appreciate your trying to interpret what Jolly said, Isaac, I'd much prefer to hear form him exactly what he means. He first implied that gay men are not male. Now he states they are biologically male, but.... Now he implies a question as to whether gay men are "psychologically" male (whatever that means), but does not say what he thinks. He implies it, but..... But what? Is he claiming they are somehow female? Or perhaps neither male nor female -- thus Jolly is adding an additional gender to our mix? What is he saying? What does he really think? Let's let him answer, shall we? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 31 2006, 02:04 PM Post #61 |
|
He'll probably answer better than I could, anyway!
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 31 2006, 02:18 PM Post #62 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Rick: He never implied that homosexuals are not male -- you inferred that and everything that you are attributing to his view. Do you think that there is no psychological component to the homosexual inclination? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 31 2006, 02:43 PM Post #63 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
If you notice, I avoid the use of the word "choice" -- not only for the obvious reason that it is a deficient term, but that it misses the deeper questions regarding inclinations and accomodation. I realize that you don't accept my views of anthropology or rational psychology, so I won't try again to explain the question of inclination through a natural law lens. Suffice it to say, if you from your strict physical materialism are not willing to consider the full range of contingent stimuli on a thing that might cause specific reactions, and rather just assume that no one would intentionally "choose" that lifestyle, then you seem to be privileging this area from critical inspection that is opposed to the whole scientific project. Why is it permissable and even encouraged to look at contributory factors to health, intelligence, religious belief, or economic status, but not to sexual orientation? Furthermore, what I don't understand is why you look at the life style favorably, but also ask "And if they did why the hell would they choose it?" |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | May 31 2006, 02:53 PM Post #64 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
You may not see the implication, thumps, but to me it was a very clear implication when he was asked if he chose his heterosexuality and he came back with "I didn't decide anything. I was born male and here I be." SZince he was discussing the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, the question of whether he is claiming that those born homosexual were not born "male" is a valid question. He then clarified his comment that hje accepts them as "biologically male", the clear limitation in his words implying there may be some ways in which they are not male -- and he himself raises the issue of whether they are "psychologically" male. Since it is a fair assumption that there are only two genders -- male and female -- I think it is fair to ask Jolly what he is implying when he raises the issue of being "psychologically male" differentiating it from being biologically male. And this has nothing to do with whether there is a psychological aspect to being homosexual. Jolly is dealing with male/female identity of gay males and is the one who implied the differentiation, not me. Now, if he did not mean to imply there are any gender differences -- biologically, psychologically, or in any other ways between himself andf a gay man, if he believes a gay man is by definition male in all sense of the word, then fine, he should say so. But if what he is saying is that they are not male in all senses of the word, we are getting very close to the arguments that used to be raised as to whether blacks are human in all senses of the word. I just want to understand what Jolly really thinks a homosexual is -- male or female, since there are no other genders available to us. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 31 2006, 05:04 PM Post #65 |
|
MAMIL
|
Why are so many experts on how it feels to be gay, and on whether it is a choice, inclination or compulsion heterosexual? If Kenny wanted to tell me how it feels to be an Englishman, I'd suggest that he should live in England for a little while first, or at the very least start wearing Union Jack underwear. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 31 2006, 05:42 PM Post #66 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
But, you see, you have a choice -- you can choose to be an American! It might take a few years to get through the naturalization process, but it can be done!
|
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 31 2006, 06:06 PM Post #67 |
|
MB:
Yes, statistically, but I'm talking more than statistically. Normal in biology means "functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.", of course you will debate that to the death, so we could go with other definitions. But the point is I'm just saying is the way humans are naturally and normally created at the basic, default, bare level. In the same way, I would say it's normal (or the default if you will) for a male dog to have sex with a female dog. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jun 1 2006, 02:46 AM Post #68 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Well yes i would debate it to death: The statement "Normal is lacking observable abnormality" is circular and hence meaningless. In terms of "deficiency" who decides what constitutes deficient? Is the mild aspergers that seems to enable genius "deficiency"? No? Yes? says who? Is homosexuality "deficiency"? Yes? Says who? Homosexuals? Subjectivity subjectivity subjectivity.
The statement "humans are naturally and normally created at the basic default bare level" doesn't mean anything.
Well you can say anything, it's just that most of it doesn't mean anything. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jun 1 2006, 04:16 AM Post #69 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Ok that's fair enough. My problem with usual concept of "choice" is merely that it does not fit the data, when asked whether people chose their sexuality the overwhelming answer seems to be "no". Further given the numerous accounts of people suffering because of discrimination you would expect that they would simply choose to cease to be homosexual: today i will cease to be attracted to men and be attract to women. Yet that doesn't happen. If it were simply choice why do people like Mel White exist? As far as i can make out there are multiple factors that determine sexual preference spanning genetics and environment, i can believe that sexuality is much more of a continuum than an isolated 'either X or Y or Z' type scenario, and i can believe some degree of plasticity (that is relatively small in most instances), but nothing like the complete plasticity that conscious choice implies- the heterosexuals who go to jail for 15 years can end up engaging in homosexual acts, but when they get out they book themselves in with a female prostitute. The supposedly sucessfully "reorientated" homosexuals who end up having homosexual relationships (even the founders of some of these reorientation clinics!). This seems consistent with Le Vays observation of structural differences in the brain. The genetic evidence, the studies that demonstrate strong correlation between childhood behaviour that deviates from majority gender behaviour and adult homosexuality. (Actually my girlfriend taught a class where she swore one of the 5 year olds would be homosexual - he liked playing with dolls and dressing up as a fairy etc.) Of course that might be because of some crucial experience very very early on, either way the kid didn't choose it.
Well i'm lucky enough to live in an environment where i've never seen real discrimination, my mother told me and both my brothers when were about 12 that if were gay there would be completely fine. (None of us are). I mix in highly educated tolerant circles, i can understand why someone like me or my friends would choose to be homosexual if they could. I can't understand why those suffering persecution or ideological torment would choose it. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 1 2006, 05:36 AM Post #70 |
|
Moonbat, is it natural/normal/default to expect when a male dog is born, that it's going to mate with female dogs? Yes or no. In the same way, when a human is born, the natural/normal/default thing to expect is that he/she will be heterosexual. Another question, is it natural/normal/default to expect when a baby is born, that he/she will have two eyes and two hands? Yes or no. I can't believe you're actually arguing against this. If it's semantics, just say so....but you know what I'm saying here, and I'm not being statistically literal with my terms. When humans are born, it's our natural and default setting to be heterosexual. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jun 1 2006, 06:17 AM Post #71 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
What does natural/normal/default mean? We aren't computer programs, there is no default starting point, you deny normality is mere majority, natural is another meaningless term - homosexuality occurs in nature. It all boils down to your concept of deficiency or defective or not quite right, but those are not objective truths, they are subjective labels. Who decides whether homosexuals are defective or not? You? If we all agree there is no issue, but as this is raised in the context of the ongoing homosexual debate clearly we don't all agree.
What does natural/normal/default mean?
It's not simply semantics it's an underlying point about letting subjective elements slip unnoticed into apparently objective statements. If what you are saying is simply "homosexuals are defective" well ok then say that, don't hide behind muddled definitions of 'normal'. As far as i can make out what you really mean is that you think you know what God intends for human beings: God intends human beings to have two hands, two eyes, and be heterosexuals etc. different hair colours and eye colours are divinely planned diversity, different sexualities are not. Deviations from what you think God wants are thus aberations, homosexuality is thus included in this category. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 1 2006, 06:27 AM Post #72 |
|
I can't explain what normal/natural/default means any more...it's a very simple concept. I used the example of it being "normal/natural/default" for a male dog to mate with a female dog. Secondly, I've said it before (although not in this thread), that yes homosexuality are "defective" when it comes to reproduction. Men are born with penises and women are born with vaginas. From an "animal" perspective, humans survive by naturally (normally, or by default) mating with the female of our species. When the male human isn't attracted to the female human, he is reproductively "defective". Not physically, but psychologically or by way of abnormal sexual orientation. I'm not saying they are bad people because of this, but regarding the ultimate result of attraction - reproduction - they are "defective" in that area. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 1 2006, 06:37 AM Post #73 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Camp W on the grounds of Angola houses most of the "gal-boys". These are men, for whatever reasons, who have decided to act as women. They use make-up, emphasize any feminine traits they may have, they engage in cat-fights over "boy firends". The guards get a chuckle out of the fact that they won't even stand up to urinate. Reckon they're all born that way? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jun 1 2006, 07:15 AM Post #74 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Our Rotti/Border Collie bitch cocks her leg to pee. Reckon she was born that way?
|
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 1 2006, 07:19 AM Post #75 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Yep, cuz I think therein lies the truth. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









5:00 PM Jul 10