Utterly stupid shit which strains the principle that consenting adults should be allowed to do what they want.
Crazy things famous Christians say
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Utterly stupid shit which strains the principle that consenting adults should be allowed to do what they want.
I'm asking why the term sexual orientation is narrowly defined as:
"a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual." Especially in light of the multiple meanings of sexuality, whereas gender is only one definition.
Don't worry, I'm not going to press it. I understand what's going on.
I dare say that at some point the uncomfortable misnomer will be exchanged for something else.
jan.
I'm asking why the term sexual orientation is narrowly defined as:
"a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual." Especially in light of the multiple meanings of sexuality, whereas gender is only one definition.
Don't worry, I'm not going to press it. I understand what's going on.
I dare say that at some point the uncomfortable misnomer will be exchanged for something else.
jan.
What's uncomfortable about it? You have a sexual orientation, too.
At any rate, it has been explained to you. You clearly don't want to know the truth.
Cause that's how it's defined.
Why does "superior vena cava" refer to the part of the vena cava nearest your head? Why can't it mean "the best part of the vena cava?" (After all, "superior" often means "better".)
Answer - because it means the part of the vena cava nearest your head, and "inferior" and "superior" have specific meanings when applied to the vena cava.
Well, you can try, but so far it hasn't worked.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Most people.
Because most people do not think 'paedophilia' when they hear the word 'homosexuality' or when discussing homosexuality and homosexuals.
In other words, the question does not remain unanswered for most people, because most people are able to tell the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia and most people are able to recognise how and why homosexuality is not like paedophilia.
Sadly, either by choice or by design, you do not fall into that category. We know this because of the level of intolerance you have by you bringing up paedophilia in discussions about homosexuality or homosexuals. We often see the same reaction in other intolerant individuals.
Sorry, I may have accidently skipped a page.
billvon,
Superior does not mean better, it means higher or above.
I would be because the vein receives blood from the head, and upper parts of the whole body. IOW, the highest part of the body.
I can try what?
jan.
Superior does not mean better, it means higher or above.
I would be because the vein receives blood from the head, and upper parts of the whole body. IOW, the highest part of the body.
I can try what?
jan.
Bells,
I don't know what most people think of when they hear those words, and I don't think you do either.
But the discussion is centered around the term sexual orientation, which includes heterosexuality. The question is, why one thing regarded as an orientation, and other things aren't.
Well I invite you to cite where I equate homosexuality and pedophilia.
You're making a baseless accusation here.
The question is to do with sexual orientation, what it is, and why it excludes pedophilia, and other types os sexual attractions.
The obvious danger being, if a group can campaign for their sexual rights (LGBT), based on the idea that it is a sexual orientation, then what's to stop pedophile groups campaigning for their sexual rights. I use the pedophile because it ranks among the most frightening sexual attractions, orientations, whatever you want to call it.
It has nothing to do with homosexual, or heterosexual behaviors both of which have pedophiles within.
jan.
I don't know what most people think of when they hear those words, and I don't think you do either.
But the discussion is centered around the term sexual orientation, which includes heterosexuality. The question is, why one thing regarded as an orientation, and other things aren't.
Well I invite you to cite where I equate homosexuality and pedophilia.
You're making a baseless accusation here.
The question is to do with sexual orientation, what it is, and why it excludes pedophilia, and other types os sexual attractions.
The obvious danger being, if a group can campaign for their sexual rights (LGBT), based on the idea that it is a sexual orientation, then what's to stop pedophile groups campaigning for their sexual rights. I use the pedophile because it ranks among the most frightening sexual attractions, orientations, whatever you want to call it.
It has nothing to do with homosexual, or heterosexual behaviors both of which have pedophiles within.
jan.
And this question has been answered for you on mutliple occasions. Why are you unsatisfied with the answers?
Merely bringing them up together is an implication of sameness.
This has been answered already.
Uh, wanna try that again in English? What are "sexual rights," and who has ever campaigned for them "based on the idea that it is a sexual orientation?"
I mean, I guess just to take your stupid question at face value, the answer is nothing is preventing pedophiles from campaigning. They've been doing it for years. There are pedophile organizations dedicated to precisely that. Do you see them gaining any traction, socially or legally? The WTF are you talking about?
its your fault you got my attention..
I do not have a problem with the majority of your post, in fact I agree with most of it, except for this part:
its the difference between them responding with a fight and them responding with point/counterpoints.
its the difference between "I mean, I guess just to take your stupid question at face value," and "I mean, I guess just to take your question at face value,)
one opens up the opportunity for the other to get offended and degrade the discussion (although with this topic, it wont take much to degrade it)
lets keep this forum intelligence centered not a site to bash ppl, there are many other forums that welcome bashing of all forms, and you will never change anyones mind by insults.(it actually has the opposite effect, it solidifies their point in their mind)
mine and your goals are the same, to get ppl (both atheist and theist) to think for themselves,
to that end please listen to me when I talk of insults being distracting to the topic.
if your intention is to humiliate them to the point where they shut up...well, how often does that work?
please loose the snarkness.
also if you want to get into a discussion with me concerning my beliefs,(you just may find we agree about a lot of things) start another thread, no I do not frame my responses with an attempt to convert, I frame it with 'this is what/how I believe', whether you believe or not is your choice, I can respect that, can you respect my beliefs regardless of whether you agree with them or not?
I do not have a problem with the majority of your post, in fact I agree with most of it, except for this part:
whether it is or not is irrelevant, if you want your point to be heard, then eliminate any chance of distraction.
its the difference between them responding with a fight and them responding with point/counterpoints.
its the difference between "I mean, I guess just to take your stupid question at face value," and "I mean, I guess just to take your question at face value,)
one opens up the opportunity for the other to get offended and degrade the discussion (although with this topic, it wont take much to degrade it)
lets keep this forum intelligence centered not a site to bash ppl, there are many other forums that welcome bashing of all forms, and you will never change anyones mind by insults.(it actually has the opposite effect, it solidifies their point in their mind)
mine and your goals are the same, to get ppl (both atheist and theist) to think for themselves,
to that end please listen to me when I talk of insults being distracting to the topic.
if your intention is to humiliate them to the point where they shut up...well, how often does that work?
please loose the snarkness.
also if you want to get into a discussion with me concerning my beliefs,(you just may find we agree about a lot of things) start another thread, no I do not frame my responses with an attempt to convert, I frame it with 'this is what/how I believe', whether you believe or not is your choice, I can respect that, can you respect my beliefs regardless of whether you agree with them or not?
Bells
Staff member
Most people are not intolerant, so when they hear about the rights of LGBT and how they lobbied for their equal rights under the law, they do not automatically start thinking about how paedophiles will now start demanding rights, because apparently for you, one automatically leads to the other. Only intolerant people make that jump. As you did in your post.
Why are you still confused about it. It has been explained to you multiple times.
You did it in your post.. When you commented on the dangers of LGBT gaining rights because then there is nothing to apparently stop paedophile groups from campaigning for their "sexual rights" like you believe members of the LGBT community do. In other words, the moment you realise LGBT are campaigning and winning equal rights, your automatic reaction is to equate it to being as dangerous and as perverted as paedophilia, so much so that you are concerned that LGBT gaining rights is dangerous.
"The obvious danger being, if a group can campaign for their sexual rights (LGBT), based on the idea that it is a sexual orientation, then what's to stop pedophile groups campaigning for their sexual rights. I use the pedophile because it ranks among the most frightening sexual attractions, orientations, whatever you want to call it."
Sadly, that accusation is not baseless.
Sexual orientation refers to the sex you are attracted to, not the age.
See, one does not follow from the other. And yet for you it does.
Which is why you are deeply intolerant.
So why do you think that if LGBT are given equal rights to heterosexuals, then paedophiles will start campaigning for their rights? It's like chalk and cheese. Does not even belong in the same league morally or even scientifically.
I couldn't care less what you think, whether your agree, or if I have your attention. As I've said on multiple occasions, you don't register as important to me.
I'm not concerned with Jan's feelings. I've also known Jan for many years, and know that he's a disgusting bigot. I'm not concerned in the least with his feelings.
That's the second-stupidest thing I've read here today. I'm not going to pull punches just because some bigot is looking for an excuse to run from a debate. I would think you'd know this from personal experience.
Yet you sling insults more than most.
How about you worry about yourself, instead of presuming to lecture me about being nice to homophobes?
Pretty well, if you're any measure. Whenever I call you on your shit, you run and hide and I don't hear from you for a while.
The word is "lose." Please take care to proofread your posts.
I don't care what you believe, since you've demonstrated to me your sole purpose here is to defame and mudsling. You aren't interested in the truth, you want reassurance. I've got no time for that.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Lest we stray TOO far from the OP:
Minister’s Invitation to National Prayer Luncheon Revoked because of His Comments on Homosexuality in the Military – February 2010*
An ordained minister and Marine Corps veteran was punished for speaking out on a topic unrelated to his planned comments at the National Prayer Luncheon at Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington, D.C. The minister criticized President Obama’s call to end the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, resulting in his invitation to speak at the National Prayer Luncheon being rescinded. The minister criticized the action as “black-listing” to suppress unwanted viewpoints."
Who is this unnamed minister who was disinvited from the National Prayer Luncheon? He wasn’t just a minister who had criticized “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal. He was none other than the Family Research Council’s own president Tony Perkins. This attempt to gloss over Perkins’ identity to make him seem like an innocent bystander to a vast anti-Christian agenda highlights a key strategy in the Religious Right’s persecution narrative. Like David and Jason Benham, who lost a TV contract with HGTV after Right Wing Watch reported on their vocal and public anti-gay, anti-choice activism (and who are also featured in FRC’s report), Tony Perkins is not just a private citizen who holds anti-gay views. He’s the leader of a major organization that opposed the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” with misleading claims and demeaning rhetoric. You can agree or disagree with Perkins being disinvited from the prayer luncheon. But FRC would like us to believe that disagreement with Tony Perkins is the very same thing as hostility to religion. -
See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...persecution-tony-perkins#sthash.POL5i3qQ.dpuf
Minister’s Invitation to National Prayer Luncheon Revoked because of His Comments on Homosexuality in the Military – February 2010*
An ordained minister and Marine Corps veteran was punished for speaking out on a topic unrelated to his planned comments at the National Prayer Luncheon at Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington, D.C. The minister criticized President Obama’s call to end the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, resulting in his invitation to speak at the National Prayer Luncheon being rescinded. The minister criticized the action as “black-listing” to suppress unwanted viewpoints."
Who is this unnamed minister who was disinvited from the National Prayer Luncheon? He wasn’t just a minister who had criticized “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal. He was none other than the Family Research Council’s own president Tony Perkins. This attempt to gloss over Perkins’ identity to make him seem like an innocent bystander to a vast anti-Christian agenda highlights a key strategy in the Religious Right’s persecution narrative. Like David and Jason Benham, who lost a TV contract with HGTV after Right Wing Watch reported on their vocal and public anti-gay, anti-choice activism (and who are also featured in FRC’s report), Tony Perkins is not just a private citizen who holds anti-gay views. He’s the leader of a major organization that opposed the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” with misleading claims and demeaning rhetoric. You can agree or disagree with Perkins being disinvited from the prayer luncheon. But FRC would like us to believe that disagreement with Tony Perkins is the very same thing as hostility to religion. -
See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...persecution-tony-perkins#sthash.POL5i3qQ.dpuf
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Balerion only HAS to resort to snarky condescending retorts because he has no logical argument to counter the posts he is attacking. It's a lack of confidence on his part. As if bullying is needed to make up for the convincingness of his points. If he was more sure of his argument, he'd never have to resort to such overpersonalized rudeness. Psychoanalytically speaking, it's as if every disagreeing poster is cast in the role of some hated relative he had. As if he "knows" more about the poster than he really DOES know..
Last edited:
And sexual orientation does not mean "whether someone is attracted to children or not" - it means what SEX the person is attracted to.
Now that that's out of the way . . . .
You can try "exchanging" words, but it isn't working.
You conflate (not equate, conflate) them here:
You are trying to conflate LGBT rights with pedophile rights. Shame on you.
if a group can campaign for their sexual rights (LGBT), based on the idea that it is a sexual orientation, then what's to stop pedophile groups campaigning for their sexual rights. I use the pedophile because it ranks among the most frightening sexual attractions, orientations, whatever you want to call it.
There is no conflation in what I said at all. I explained why I used pedophilia as opposed to other orientations.
jan.
Conflation is the attempt to bring two dissimilar things closer together so they share some characteristics. That's what you tried to do above, and that's why you are intentionally misunderstanding the term "sexual orientation."
To answer your question directly -
Pedophile groups cannot campaign for their sexual rights by claiming that they have a sexual orientation towards children because that's not a sexual orientation. This is the same reason they can't campaign for their sexual rights by claiming that it is their Third Amendment right to sleep with children.
billvon,
Firstly I don't misunderstand the term ''sexual orientation'', I'm asking why it is narrowed down to homo/hetero/bi-sexual.
Secondly show where I conflate the two things.
To answer your question directly -
That's not what they're saying. They and a growing number of professionals agree that it is a sexual orientation
I don't know what you're talking about here.
jan.
Firstly I don't misunderstand the term ''sexual orientation'', I'm asking why it is narrowed down to homo/hetero/bi-sexual.
Secondly show where I conflate the two things.
To answer your question directly -
That's not what they're saying. They and a growing number of professionals agree that it is a sexual orientation
I don't know what you're talking about here.
jan.