Jump to content

No same-sex hugs allowed

Edric O

By Edric O
in Politics, Religion, & Philosophy

 Share

Recommended Posts

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

Athanasios: Before Darwin proposed the origin of species through natural selection, the consensus on the interpretation of the Genesis story was that "day" meant 7 literal 24-hour days. This is because other passages of the Bible confirm that they are 24-hour days. Your website ignores passages like this:

Exodus 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. You shall do all of your work in six days. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. On it, you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male slave, nor your female slave, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. This is because the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them in six days, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

(EDIT: A friendly reminder. A literal reading of the above passage does not condemn human slavery. Are we justified in keeping human slaves because the Bible does not prohibit it? My point all along has been that you guys are just interpreting the Bible in a way that's convenient for you. You can't admit it, because, for whatever reason, your worldview needs to think that it's "right." Well, it's not and you're certainly not. I'm comfortable with my interpretation of the Bible being just my interpretation, why aren't you? Why do you have to ram your views down our throats like it's "the truth?" Because it certainly isn't!)

Anyway, back to the debate:

None of these days are of the "indefinite" length period. Indeed, my understanding of the "indefinite" length interpretation is that the day must be modified or named as indefinite, as in, "the Day of Atonement," or "the Day of God's Wrath," or "the Day of Salvation." None of the Genesis days are so-named. Your interpretation is, ah... wrong. But that's okay, in the Israel thread you're also proposing that Greeks are the master race based on a mistaken interpretation of Hebrew.

SandChigger

SandChigger

Posted
Posted

Also remember the "and the morning and the evening" bit. What possible meaning could "morning" or "evening" have unless "day" meant "day". The first half and the second half? (snicker) ::)

(cough cough) Oh, excuse me! (cough) I had a full camel for breakies but it seems this gnat I'm now snacking on has become caught in my throat! (cough cough ACK!)

(I didn't bother looking at the BS links. Have the brain trusts come up with a BS reply to the above yet?)

Lord J

Lord J

Posted
Posted

Interesting film I saw recently: Outrage discusses the predicament of gay Republicans who, because of political ties, cannot live in an open gay relationship, and even engage in anti-gay legislation. Although I disagree with "outing" people in most circumstances (haha, I said.... nevermind....), these are people that are actively working to bring about the same policies as Hitler. That's right, I went there.

Another film that is coming out soon (haha... I said "coming out") is 8: The Mormon Proposition. I have heard that it is available here, but as I am currently on a painfully slow connection, I have not yet attempted to access it. Unless you are hiding under a rock somewhere, or you live overseas, the largest push behind the passage of Proposition 8 in California came from Mormon supporters. Sometimes I love living in Utah. Other times... not so much.

Now. Concerning the current (rapidly dying, it seems to me) discussion, it occurs to me that Paulians (I really like that term, btw, although really it comes down to homophobes that use religion as a "reason" considering that Paul wasn't all that hot about marriage either. In fact, he didn't seem to be very keen on anything but development of the spiritual man) are quick to defend ones right to choice, unless that right to choose applies to women, drug abusers, criminals, gays, non-Christians (actually, non-homophobic Paulians) or (less recently) racial minorities. Our own wonderfully knowledgeable ErasOmnius (kind of appropriate that his name is a combination of the names of two machines that are incapable of "understanding" emotion, though his grasp on logic is hardly tenable) notes that homosexual behavior is, afterall, behavior, and may be changed. That said, is it truly ethical to change behavior (think A Clockwerk Orange) to make gay sex disgusting, or some other contingency-based (punishment, maybe?) approach? Learned experts in the field of behavior analysis (Murray Sidman, for example) would object against such "treatments" as there are other, less happy, problems that typically arise from such procedures. Others would object the such procedures don't work, or are unethical because they impinge on "free will."

Hmm... I clearly need to think these things out more.

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

Athanasios, those repetitions of the same passage have nothing to do with the varying possible interpretations of the Hebrew word "yom." All God was attempting to say there was that He experienced time, itself differently than humans did. And, seriously, just think about your reply logically:

1. If God is saying that a "day" to him is a "thousand years" to us, then that would be true for all days not just the days of Genesis. It would mean that we, as a species, are still technically experiencing--at most--the 10th Sabbath, period. It's completely nonsensical.

2. Even if it were true, it would actually disprove your original point--which is that the Bible can be interpreted to gauge the scientific age of the Earth correctly--because all it would mean is that the Genesis days must be multiplied by 1,000. 7,000 + 6,000 = 13,000, or, in other words, blatantly still very far away from the actual age of the planet. Did you even actually think about your reply? What did you originally say? 4.2 billion years? Yeah, dude. This quote about "thousands" actually has nothing to do with what we're talking about, even at full-twist.

I'm actually astonished, athanasios. That was actually a really feeble attempt. The sad part is that I know it wasn't feeble or half-hearted: what you're actually doing is twisting the meaning of one passage to force it to apply to another passage when its context absolutely indicates that would not apply. No, athanasios. Not only are you now wrong, but you're also a pretty solid hypocrite. Kudos to you--you have twisted a passage from the Bible in precisely the same manner as you have accused others of doing. I hope you like it hot!

Disclaimer to Caid: I apologize that my posts might seem harsh, I believe it is clear that what is being espoused by the other side is reprehensible, and their methods are at best incompetent and at worst hypocritical. I pull no more punches.

EDIT: Also, this is to the general forum. My entire point here has been that we all interpret the Bible according to ourselves, and that it cannot be taken at face value. Without even touching upon the notion of how difficult it would be to understand an ancient decontextualized document translated dozens of times, edited thousands, by humans with agendas, there is an even more obvious point that has only just occurred to me.

I challenge you to read the New Testament and tell me that Jesus Christ and/or God does *not* speak in metaphor.

Seriously! The entire New Testament is one goddamn Tolkein riddle after another. Fishers of men? It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? The tenth talent? The seeds scattered on rocks don't grow? Prodigal sons? It's all metaphor. It all needs to be interpreted not at face value. Christ even basically says, "I'm trying not to be clear, because I don't want our descendants to take this literally and kill people for the face value of words!" Well, looks like he might have wanted to try harder!

Dante

Dante

Posted
Posted

Blah blah blah, try again when you have a real argument, slacker racist.

Ah, Lord J, what can I say? Hwi are her ilk have shown themselves to be unappreciative of reason, logic, humanity, history, or even their own religion/s. When all other avenues have been exhausted, the only thing left to do is lower standards and flame the hell out of people. Because hey, it's fun, and if I'm going to keep banging my head against a wall then I might as well enjoy it.

Though Hwi herself has been quiet of late. One wonders if perhaps she's finally gotten the subtle messages we've been sending (note: of course not, she'll be back any time now with a variation on "I was so busy, here's how god hates you!").

Outrage is on my list of things to see, but the Mormon film was news. I already knew about the interference from Utah, but am pleased to see it getting more publicity now. California was manipulated a bit too easily, it seems.

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

"Lots of good stats," what, are you calling me a whore? Are you assuming that because I defend the rights of homosexuals to exist without prejudice or condemnation, I must be sexually promiscuous? It's sad that pointing out this moment of rank, outright bigotry has become so repetitive.

PS: You also ignored like... 50 good points up there. So, not only are you a bigot, but you're also dropping points that eviscerate your barbaric opinions because you have no good answer for them? Concede, rebut or stop posting.

ErasOmnius

ErasOmnius

Posted
Posted

"Lots of good stats," what, are you calling me a whore? Are you assuming that because I defend the rights of homosexuals to exist without prejudice or condemnation, I must be sexually promiscuous? It's sad that pointing out this moment of rank, outright bigotry has become so repetitive.

PS: You also ignored like... 50 good points up there. So, not only are you a bigot, but you're also dropping points that eviscerate your barbaric opinions because you have no good answer for them? Concede, rebut or stop posting.

Wolf:

First of all, I am not sure why you are so hostile to me. I have read many of your posts of the past couple of years, and I don't see a lot of insulting on your part. Your posts on abortion from 2008 are very insightful, and deserve a great deal of respect when reading and contemplating.

It is my hope that you can add to your postings of that year, with new writings from 2010, on the Abortion thread.

I most assuredly not calling your lifestyle anything at all. I do not know it, nor have you revealed it to me.

...these are people that are actively working to bring about the same policies as Hitler. That's right, I went there.

I know that you are not talking about me, because I do not advocate trying to change the laws of any nation, state, or municipality.

Our own wonderfully knowledgeable ErasOmnius (kind of appropriate that his name is a combination of the names of two machines that are incapable of "understanding" emotion, though his grasp on logic is hardly tenable) notes that homosexual behavior is, afterall, behavior, and may be changed.

I chose the name because I wanted people to know that there were some aspects of Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson's writings that I liked.

Blah blah blah, try again when you have a real argument, slacker racist ... When all other avenues have been exhausted, the only thing left to do is lower standards and flame the hell out of people. Because hey, it's fun, and if I'm going to keep banging my head against a wall then I might as well enjoy it.

It really bothers you that much, that I am asking that you should think about changing. Do you think that other religious-oriented people of this Forum, who have not come right out and asked you to think about changing -- don't feel that you should at least think about changing?

But because I have the guts to ask...you hate me, don't you?

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

Quick Note to Moderators: Can I respond to why I'm hostile to him and not have it deleted for counting as a personal attack? (1) He asked, and (2) It's actually relevant to the scope of this discussion. Besides, I think you've let worse go?

Anyway, here goes:

Wolf:

First of all, I am not sure why you are so hostile to me. I have read many of your posts of the past couple of years, and I don't see a lot of insulting on your part. Your posts on abortion from 2008 are very insightful, and deserve a great deal of respect when reading and contemplating.

It is my hope that you can add to your postings of that year, with new writings from 2010, on the Abortion thread.

I most assuredly not calling your lifestyle anything at all. I do not know it, nor have you revealed it to me.

That should be a sign to you that I believe I have very strong reasons for opposing your position on this subject. It should be a sign to you that I do not believe that I have made any sort of error, nor that I do not take this seriously. It should be a sign to you that you should make a very serious attempt at considering what I have to say. It boils down to this:

Your position is "wrong." I have put "wrong" in scare-quotes because it is not just factually incorrect, but it is morally, logically, legally, and philosophically wrong. It is wrong as an abomination is "wrong." You have termed homosexuality to be an abominable ugliness: but it is actually your belief thereof that is the true abomination. I have proffered what I believe to be varying, extensive, significant, and valid evidence in advance of these propositions. Many have gone ignored. Few have been rebutted. None have been invalidated. Oh well.

That you cannot understand my hostility is the root of this entire debate. Let me try to make it as simple as possible:

Your beliefs are offensive. Do you get it yet? It's like you walked in here and started talking about "the Jews and their lies" or "the agricultural applications of the Negro slave." I don't care whether it's racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry. I don't care if you think you have a Biblical justification for it (and, besides, I've demonstrated that a lot of real, honest-to-God, not-going-to-Hell Christians don't think you do, either). I don't care if you can't read a statistical data sheet correctly. You have expressed hatred. I find that to be abominable. I find the fact that you don't even recognize it to be hatred even more horrifying. Until you either learn to change that attitude or at the very least stop expressing it in thought, word, and action, you are and you always will be, as Dante put it, "a force for harm in the world."

I'm serious. Look, Hwi has struck out at me far more. On a purely emotional level, I have way more reason to be disgusted with and dislike her. Fundamentally, I actually really don't care. Hwi is really just annoying. Sure, she's annoying to a large degree, but her fundamental sin is actually quite small. (I also have strong reason to suspect that she doesn't actually believe what she's saying--so, it's hard to hate her for that.) You, on the other hand, are coldly and calmly talking about horrible things. You don't even consider that they're horrible, or that they have a tremendously damaging impact on other human beings that you are blind to. You know, I bet you actually are aware of the impact--but use that as the very justification to spout more of those views! That's just... awful. And then you brag about "helping homosexuals!" How can any of us here not recoil in anguish that you're in a position to manipulate lost, confused and vulnerable human beings with what is necessarily the most villainous of speech? A cavalcade of ancient prejudices designed to confuse, subjugate and hurt them further?

I don't think I can explain it any better. You have convinced me that you are a criminal of the lowest order.

Dante

Dante

Posted
Posted

Damn but I love reading posts like that.

But because I have the guts to ask...you hate me, don't you?

Of course not. You'd like that though, wouldn't you, to be a martyr to your pathetically misguided cause? You are beneath my hatred. To pay you the compliment of hating you, or indeed feeling any emotion towards you beyond vague disgust, would be spending more effort on your feeble existence than you deserve. You are worthy of no more respect or emotional investment than dog shit smeared upon the underside of my shoe. That I continue to pay any attention to you at all is unusual, but I suppose you're such a good punching bag that it's not entirely surprising.

If anyone else thinks that I should change, they have yet to make such bald statements as you. But I turn the question back at you. Do you not think, considering that almost everybody who has posted in this thread has said that they disagree with you in the strongest possible terms, that you might actually be wrong? Hm?

ErasOmnius

ErasOmnius

Posted
Posted

Your beliefs are offensive. Do you get it yet? It's like you walked in here and started talking about "the Jews and their lies" or "the agricultural applications of the Negro slave."

There you go again. Trying to stick me with an ethnic or racial stereo-type.

All I have said is that homosexuality is against the way of Creation, the Universe, of Evolution. Those people who are homosexual, especially male, should ask themselves if they should change.

Have I said that they should be not able to live among us? No.

Have I said that they should be denied rights? No.

Have I said that any-one who has called me horrible names or disgusting things; or asked me to personally commit suicide, be censored in any way? No.

You, on the other hand, are coldly and calmly talking about horrible things. You don't even consider that they're horrible, or that they have a tremendously damaging impact on other human beings that you are blind to.

No, you don't like the stats I have given you. The ones that have been amply provided.

But most of all, you don't like the fact that I don't fit your stereo-type:

I'm not a so-called 'second amendment' lovin', gun-toting, flag-wavin', right winger that you may have so stereo-typed in your mind.

1.  I am volunteering at the Shelter [What? A full-Good News Christian helping at a homeless shelter?]. Let me tell you Wolf, full Book-believing people make up 90% of our volunteer force.

2.  I abhor politics [What? You're not a card-carryin' Ree-publican?]. I know that both parties world-wide [they are divided into a left and right wing, for our entertainment] have hood-winked everyone. Both parties are controlled by the same world-wide oligarchy that controls everything from the world-wide Media to the price of sugar in Mozambique.

...And then you brag about "helping homosexuals!" How can any of us here not recoil in anguish that you're in a position to manipulate lost, confused and vulnerable human beings with what is necessarily the most villainous of speech? A cavalcade of ancient prejudices designed to confuse, subjugate and hurt them further?

Yes, I know some ex-gays and ex-lesbians. They tell me that they were once fully homosexuals, and now they claim to be fully not. They say that the most powerful being in the Universe, in the Book, in all Creation; the Holy Spirit, has completely changed them--and all they had to do was ask. Did they need long-term counseling, yes. These people came freely to us--and now they are happy.

So why would you recoil in anguish? They are happy. One male has gotten married, and has a child of his own. Another female is getting married next month. I have talked to them over the past week. They have encouraged me about posting on this Forum, as the name-calling has gotten fierce. They have said that the 'storm is always fiercest before the dawn'.

I don't think I can explain it any better. You have convinced me that you are a criminal of the lowest order.

I just don't understand you. I may never understand you. I admire a great many of your posts on other topics, and even some on this topic -- but I simply don't understand.

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted
There you go again. Trying to stick me with an ethnic or racial stereo-type.

(1) You can't read. I said like. Have you ever heard of simile? I am not calling you a racist, I am equating your views on homosexuality to racism, because your logic and rhetoric therein is precisely similar. That's a distinction that you've missed in fully 14 pages of debate on this topic.

(2) It's "stereotype." One word.

All I have said is that homosexuality is against the way of Creation, the Universe, of Evolution. Those people who are homosexual, especially male, should ask themselves if they should change.

Yep. That's really messed up, man. How about this, I'll ask Dante to ask himself if he should change if you're willing to ask yourself to change being white and/or male? Or, better yet, if you're willing to ask yourself whether your views on homosexuality really are nothing better than hate speech?

Have I said that they should be not able to live among us? No.

No, because even though you display a startling ineptitude with English and a fair amount of bemusement with most logical constructions, you're not that dumb. (And in that you have compromised on your views... for the better.) But, here's where your bigotry betrays you: no one here accused of making that argument. I certainly didn't. But... funny your mind went there, though!

Have I said that they should be denied rights? No.

Not yet. Hey, ErasOmnius, what do you think of the holding of Lawrence v. Texas? And while you're at it, do you think gays should be allowed to marry? Otherwise, see above.

Have I said that any-one who has called me horrible names or disgusting things; or asked me to personally commit suicide, be censored in any way? No.

(1) I have called you no name that is not objectively verifiable. In other words, I have called you no name that you have not done something to deserve. As for the seppuku remark... well, it was an attempt at getting you to realize that the position you're arguing for is fundamentally dishonorable. But, well, you can barely speak English... what was I thinking making a reference to bushido?

(2) "Anyone." One word.

No, you don't like the stats I have given you. The ones that have been amply provided.

Uh... I responded to your stats. They were wrong. I consulted Wikipedia, which led me to six different journals of internal medicine and immunology and corrected you. You didn't accept the correction. That's not my problem, in fact, that's actually yours.

But most of all, you don't like the fact that I don't fit your stereo-type:

I'm not a so-called 'second amendment' lovin', gun-toting, flag-wavin', right winger that you may have so stereo-typed in your mind.

(1) I actually haven't formed any stereotype of you whatsoever. You have no comments that you can point to, at all, that might suggest that I think of you as a "second amendment lovin', gut-toting, flag-wavin', right-winger." Can you back up this allegation? No. In fact, I think what you're really doing is responding to your stereotype you have of me (that's a little hypocritical no?), which is, in fact, wrong, and leads me to...

(2) Wow, for someone who has claimed to have read my posts, you really have no idea who I am, do you? The Old Timers will love this: guys, look, here's someone lashing out at me because he thinks I'm a bleeding heart liberal! ErasOmnius, I'd tell you what my views were right now, just to smack you down about your blatant assumption and widespread ignorance about everything in the world, but I'm going to let you talk to other people and figure it out for yourself. Here's a hint: if you really were a gun-totin', flag-wavin,' right-winger, I probably would have liked you more. Know why? Because you can love guns and love America and not hate a single person. They don't go hand in hand, and you prove just how ignorant you are by assuming that they do.

1.  I am volunteering at the Shelter [What? A full-Good News Christian helping at a homeless shelter?]. Let me tell you Wolf, full Book-believing people make up 90% of our volunteer force.

(1) Yeah, beacuse you're a homophobe, I think that's messed up. But hey, it's volunteerism, and they can't be choosy. Tell you what, though, next time you're in an interview for a job, tell the guy how you feel about gays and tell him that you post those views on the Internet. See what happens.

(2) Your use of "full Book-believing people" is really funny. First, you know you're way beyond the pale when you need fully three qualifications for someone to meet your standard of "believer." Is this another roundabout way of calling me a false Christian while simultaneously complaining about name-calling? Second, I bet you way less than 90% of the people have the same views of the Bible as you do.

(3) You know, more and more, I think religion doesn't matter at all to this debate. I don't think it matters for a bunch of reason, but mainly, it was because of something that you, Hwi, and Athanasios did. Or rather, what you didn't do. You didn't say, "Hey man, I have no problem with gay people, and I don't think it's wrong, but that's what the Bible says. I don't like it, and I'm not going to push the issue, but that's what I think the book says." No, what you did say was, "Homosexuality is an abomination, it is unnatural, it is against Creation, especially if it is between males, and anyone who lets you believe it isn't is going to Hell with you." See? You tried to rationalize something bad the book said. If you really wanted to escape my scathing excoriation, you would have taken the first route--which is basically what Edric did. Don't see him getting his ass handed to him, do you? And better yet, in trying to rationalize it, you revealed your deeper prejudices!

2.  I abhor politics [What? You're not a card-carryin' Ree-publican?]. I know that both parties world-wide [they are divided into a left and right wing, for our entertainment] have hood-winked everyone. Both parties are controlled by the same world-wide oligarchy that controls everything from the world-wide Media to the price of sugar in Mozambique.

(1) Read point (2) from above. You lose 5 points for poor organization. We had this conversation on this forum a long time ago, but if by "world-wide oligarchy" you mean "the rich?" Yeah, that's true, but it's not something to worry about. Oh, and guess what? It's not a reason for you to think that homosexuality is "unnatural," either. Oh, oh my, what's that? A list of no fewer than 30 species with documented cases of homosexuality in nature? Stone me and call me an apostate!

(2) "Worldwide." One word.

Yes, I know some ex-gays and ex-lesbians. They tell me that they were once fully homosexuals, and now they claim to be fully not. They say that the most powerful being in the Universe, in the Book, in all Creation; the Holy Spirit, has completely changed them--and all they had to do was ask. Did they need long-term counseling, yes. These people came freely to us--and now they are happy.

Telling this to me is like telling me about that one time where you convinced a child soldier to step on a landmine for a pack of bubblegum. Describing brainwashing to me is bad enough, not recognizing that it's brainwashing? Way, way worse.

So why would you recoil in anguish? They are happy. One male has gotten married, and has a child of his own. Another female is getting married next month. I have talked to them over the past week. They have encouraged me about posting on this Forum, as the name-calling has gotten fierce. They have said that the 'storm is always fiercest before the dawn'.

(1) If they're truly happy, then they weren't gay in the first place. If they're truly gay, then they're not truly happy right now. They can post here is much as they want, but let me tell you right now: I don't want to tell a man that either a self-righteous, predatory, spiritual opportunist has brainwashed him into rejecting who he really is for a moment or two of warm fuzzies and a name-drop on a Dune forum or that he was never really gay in the first place, and is probably still confused now. I don't want to do it. But I will. Also, FYI, human sexuality is actually a spectrum. Still biologically pre-determined and completely inoffensive to God, though.

(2) Yeah, but it's always calmest before the storm. Man, if you're going to drop a proverb, could you at least make it mean something?

I just don't understand you. I may never understand you. I admire a great many of your posts on other topics, and even some on this topic -- but I simply don't understand.

Look, Dante just asked you: practically everyone here has been revolted by what you've had to say. Think there might be something to that? You seem to think I'm a pretty intelligent guy, and I am telling you here in as many ways as I can think of that what you're saying is messed up. Think I might be on to something?

You dare to ask homosexuals to "change" who they are, but you don't have the goddamn common courtesy to stop and ask yourself if maybe you're wrong? You're fine telling someone who they can and can't love, but you don't have the heart to stop and seriously consider that maybe you don't have the right answer? That's pathetic, man. That's low, and that's cowardly. I'd like back to Hari-kiri, but you'd probably mistake that for an actual request to kill yourself.

Oh. Hari-kiri. See? Some words do have a hyphen.

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted
Alas! 60 years ago homosexuals would be lynched. Now we, the intolerant Christians, gave them freedom and they want to f*** us above!

Sorry I missed this. I wanted to point out that Athanasios said this before he deletes it/it was deleted. I don't think I even have to say anything...

...I mean, it starts out really offensive, and then just becomes incoherent. Then, what, you're saying homosexuals have "freedom" now? You're saying the Christians gave them freedom? There are a million things wrong with this. The most glaring, of course, is the fact that you were allowed to say it.

Yep. Pretty sure now. You're scum.

Dante

Dante

Posted
Posted
Alas! 60 years ago homosexuals would be lynched. Now we, the intolerant Christians, gave them freedom and they want to f*** us above!

No, it's still there. What does "f*** us [from?] above" even mean? From behind would make sense, but from above sounds like some sort of clumsy attempt at squeezing in a gay overclass complaint.

Dante

Dante

Posted
Posted

Oh, now we're supposed to be thankful that you fought and continue to fight tooth and nail in opposition to every piece of pro-homosexual legislation ever passed? That's a new, and entirely ridiculous position.

Dragoon Knight

Dragoon Knight

Posted
Posted

First of all, athanasios: you were doing so well.  You had jumped ship, swam off into the distance... but no.  Now you're back, piling your own supremacist, hate-filled crap on top of the midden heap that ErasOmnius is building.  The only reason I can think that Hwi is not responding is that she has been buried in this pile.  I wonder just how far she is willing to go along with the rantings of a fear-filled, homophobic idiot.  How much objective wrong he needs to vomit before even she says "Hey now, take it easy."

Of course, we are talking about Hwi, here.  I'd still put my money on her surpassing ErasOmnius somehow.  But you, athanasios.  I thought you had learned.

Do us all a favour and take your impossibly shit warblings and disappear again, you imbecilic, putty-minded little oik.

Now, onwards and... well, onwards at least.

Dragoon, boring.

Go and get a degree in History [a minor], like I did, or quote from a major historical book or journal. If you want to say that the Book means other things than what I say, at least quote a passage or two. Don't just spout out what you've read on the Internet, or heard Amy Winehouse sing about. If you want to stick up for your bestest friend, you'll have to read a little first.

Haha, yes ErasOmnius.  You fully addressed and rebuked all of my points.  Truly, the way you defend your ridiculous position is without equal.

You suggest I get a degree in History?  I suggest you go and buy a rent boy for the night and let it all out.

Quotes?  Oh we all know how well you deal with those.  Here, I'll try my best to simulate the sound they make as they sail right over your stupid head.

Vrrrrrrrooooooooaaaaaaaaammmmm...

As for "what I've read on the internet or heard Amy Winehouse sing about"... what?  Do you think that my views are borne from reading web pages?  If I thought you worth the respect, I would tell you just how I formed my views; the event that would change my childish aversion to homosexuality into an adult perspective of understanding, respect and realising that we are all the same.  But as it stands, you're a woeful waste of air, and not worthy of anyone's respect, let alone anyone on this forum.

Oh, by the by... was the Amy Winehouse thing a dig at me being from the UK?  Go on - tell me that you think we all listen to her. :)

But I can see that I've struck a nerve, here.  You're a satanic whisperer; someone who targets the weak, all in the guise of trying to "help" them.  You tell these people not of love and acceptance, but of hate and hellfire.  You lie to them, admonishing them for who they are, and you doggedly persist in "counseling" them in denying that existence.  Sinner, racist, homophobe; you are all of these and more.  I repeat, you are the closest thing to a demon that I've encountered.  Hwi's more of a witch.

Now, here are a few points for you.

- Dante doesn't need "sticking up for"; he's doing a fine job of tearing you a new one by himself.  As is Wolf.  As am I.

- But you're damn right I'm sticking up for something.  Several things.  Common sense.  Tolerance, if not full acceptance.  But most of all, defending against your misguided notion that you're still somehow "right".

Let me lay another harsh truth upon you, ErasOmnius.  There is no dawn.  The martyr syndrome that you, Hwi and other idiots like you seem to contract whenever you are confronted by overwhelming evidence against you is pitiable.  You can't back up your own views with anything more than blind, unjustified hate or misquoted interpretations of the Bible.  Neither can you rebuke any of the points put against you.  You cannot win this argument, and there will be no respite.  This storm will only grow and grow, approaching one of two outcomes; this thread will get locked, or you will storm off claiming that "there is no getting through to us" and that "you remain right".  Perhaps you'll throw in a classic "I'll pray for you" as well.

How about you stop being such a coward and face up to the hard facts here?  Admit that you are afraid of homosexuality; that it intimidates you, and you use your faith as an excuse, as a shield to hide behind to try and excuse your hateful views and opinions.  Guess what, you moron?  That shit won't cut it here.  We won't relent and we won't let it slide.  You are not a martyr, and there is no divine purpose to your actions.  You are not a disciple of God being tested.  You are nothing - nothing.  If there is a hell, it will be you who burns, and not I.

Lord J

Lord J

Posted
Posted
I know that you are not talking about me, because I do not advocate trying to change the laws of any nation, state, or municipality.

I chose the name because I wanted people to know that there were some aspects of Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson's writings that I liked.

It really bothers you that much, that I am asking that you should think about changing. Do you think that other religious-oriented people of this Forum, who have not come right out and asked you to think about changing -- don't feel that you should at least think about changing?

But because I have the guts to ask...you hate me, don't you?

Here's my problem with your assertion of nonpolitical agenda: the Christian right love your perspective and your "results", and while you may not run for political office, or even vote, I seriously doubt you would say anything if one of your more political fans decided to come down to your job for a photo. See, if you had read Dune with any depth whatsoever, you would see that Frank's perspective is that everything is political. Essentially, my argument is that the mere fact that your views exist makes them political, regardless of any nonpolitical posturing on your part.

Yes, there are things about the prequels I liked as well. The fact that BH and KJA are writing with a level of appreciation for Frank Herbert's work that is similar to the level of appreciation that your average 16-year-old rich Valley girl has for the delicate economic, sociological, and political implications of a $1 bill annoy me to no small end. But the "House" prequels were a fun read.

And here is my perspective on your request for Dante to "change". I will overlook my immediate revulsion and wish to exclaim in all caps, asking about assumptions and referencing you as various types of offal. Instead, I will simply ask this question: have you ever entertained the idea of having sex with another man? Come on, if it's as simple a change as you seem to think, then you should have no problem with the idea of it. I'm not even asking you to experiment physically, just.... entertain the notion. Now, as a heterosexual man, (a 5, and really something approaching a 6 on Kinsey's scale [thanks Wolf!]) I don't feel any sense of attraction to the thought experiment of sex with another man. Even the idea of a threesome with my wife and another man feels unpleasant. Now on the other cheek ( ;) ), sexual ideation of women has always attracted me. You see, I am simply not attracted to men, and I am attracted to women. An attempt to "convert" me to homosexuality would almost certainly fail, not because I am "choosing" who to be attracted to, but because my body knows. I could probably enjoy sex with a man, but never nearly as much as I would sex with a woman.

Now, granted, there is the possibility that you are a bisexual, or even closer to a 1 or 2 on Kinsey's scale, but are self-hating and afraid, supporting "treatments" that mean your own long-term unhappiness just so that you are not denied by your "family" and "friends" who tell you that homosexuality is a dirty, vile, evil sin. But let's just say that you are a misguided hatero that honestly believes this tripe because that's all you know, and all your friends feel the same. How about it? Do you honestly think you could live the gay lifestyle (as you've described it) when there are so many beautiful, sexy, intelligent, outspoken and incredible women out there? Would you really pass up frequent, hot, incredible sex with a woman for sex with a man?

So here's my question in a nutshell: Do you think you could be changed, conditioned into exclusive homosexuality, and be happy?

Finally, although I realize that the question is directed at Dante and not me, no, I don't hate you. I hate your behavior, your attitude, and what those two things mean for a person who loves freedom and equality as much as I do.

SandChigger

SandChigger

Posted
Posted

Nice attempt, but ultimately doomed, I fear. :(

I think the problem, as you touched on in your earlier post, is that these Paulians

Lord J

Lord J

Posted
Posted
Nice attempt, but ultimately doomed, I fear. :(

I think the problem, as you touched on in your earlier post, is that these Paulians

Caid Ivik

Caid Ivik

Posted
Posted

I don't know, if the rhetorical strategy of first giving an argument, and then commenting it by yourself that the other debateer won't accept it anyway because he's a fanatic, can be ever succesful. Either give the argument or flame him for being a fanatic, but really, ask yourself, what can you gain by it?  :)

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.