Jesus was a Normal Homosexual Man

[John99]

tiassa the sex guru. what about my weenie?

 

[Tiassa]

How should I know?

I don't know. Is it a kielbasa or a Li'l Smokie?

 

[Lori_7]

Are you seriously equating having sex with someone to using a public restroom?

i'm not equating it at all, but i think it's a pretty good analogy given what we're talking about here. genitalia and bodily fluids...it's relevant. it's an analogy for an inherent physical trait (ie race and/or gender) vs some form of intimacy and physical contact (ie sharing facilities in which bodily fluids might interchange or sex). those white people didn't think they were going to catch some disease or parasite from those black people, they just didn't want any form of intimacy with them because they were undesirables.

And?

Don't get me wrong here; it's a start. But where are you going with that?

sexual orientation is based on a perception. and a perception that is not based in truth.

You're still missing the point.

So I'll try the same question with you as I asked Sniffy:

How, exactly—at least, as you see it—did we go from vaginal fluid to the whole of someone's character and worth?​

And yes, I am very much interested in your genuine answer to that question.

ok, i'm going to respond to your question with a question because you're talking out both sides of your mouth here...

do you think that it's sound and logical to choose a mate based on one inherent physical trait, or do you think that choice should be based upon something alot deeper than that?

because homosexuals and heterosexuals alike draw the line at one physical trait, barring anything and everything else. any other physical trait and they're all over the board. masculinity vs femininity and they're all over the board. personality, all over the board. responsibility, spirituality, honesty, integrity, or any form of character, they're all over the board. but they draw that line, and slap on a label when it comes to gender. why? because they have an irrational perception or a negative association with a certain sex's genitals? come on! you're the armchair psychologist. you tell me if that makes a lick of sense, because it doesn't to me.

 

[Lori_7]

I don't know. Is it a kielbasa or a Li'l Smokie?

at his age, it's probably a vienna sausage. heh, heh, heh.

j/k john.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

tiassa the sex guru. what about my weenie?

*************
M*W: What about it?

 

[sniffy]

Try the contextual analysis, madam. Watch where the reassignment takes place.

I read the thread.

The original exchange that started the whole thing was:

And who focused that point to skin color alone?

And Kira and SAM and I..... we also expressed concern about the association of women black asians with dogs..... more than once.....

Now, I can't protect people from their own poor expression, especially given how many people there are who cannot be saved from their own poor perception; however, even I disdain MZ3's further statements on the issue. While you might be worried that he doesn't like women, blacks, Asians, or dogs, my concern was the comparison of human beings to pets, wild animals, and beasts of burden. I might be able to care less if black people don't get him up, but it's not something I've spent a lot of time thinking about.

no but it does point to an issue of racism within the gay community and as this IS a discussion board maybe that is wortthy of discussion? Just because you don't lose sleep over it doesn't mean to say it isn't a 'real' issue. At the same time we might look at the 'double-whammy' faced by black and Asian people from some in their own conmmunities about their homosexuality and the relation if any that bears to religion. Or we could just throw ad homs around....

However, I can also understand why some people aren't attracted to certain ethnicities. And it's not just skin color. Among blacks, I find Nigerian features attractive; some find Nubian features hot.

There are plug ugly features and there are plug ugly people. The two aren't necessarily related if you know what I mean?

It's entirely possible that various factors associated with the lineage are the source of the turn-off. Is it skin color or bone structure? Does the texture of a person's hair feel weird?

Yeah or is it the centuries of soicio-cultural racism that we've been indoctrinated by? That is the question. It's a hard one to answer. But hey!

And there are cultural factors, too. You know, when you're close to someone and share a bond of genuine trust, you can say all sorts of things to one another. And you know the phrase, "Say it with a smile"? I mean, most people do.

Smiles: 'You're a plug ugly sexist racist.'

Does that help?

To use String as a theoretic example: his lack of attraction to black men is emotional. It could be something as simple as the tone of one's voice when the lover calls him a dirty little bitch. The problem there, of course, is that not all black people sound like gangsta thugs.

Very few of them do...

Generally speaking, of course, there is also the problem of saying or implying never. However, in terms of Sciforums, I'm long unsettled by a strange but widespread phenomenon by which people retreat into insanely exacting standards in order to keep an argument alive.

I think the implication was 'never'. As I've said I understand that gay people prefer same sex partnerships. I'm that intelligent. I have issues with the use of language in reference to those you don't sleep with. 'Repugnant', 'repulsive', 'sickened', that sort of thing well it smacks of something.....

The end result is that in order to satisfy every inquiry by one's opposition, one must write in a way that utterly stunts communication. Perhaps it would have behooved MZ3—or anyone else of similar mind—to raise the issue of aesthetics beyond mere skin color (oh, that's right, he did), but the fact remains that it was Lori who reduced the issue as such.

Issues.

You might suggest that I need to read the thread and your comments again, but I would suggest that you need to acquire a grasp of context.

I've grasped.

For instance, it's becoming more and more clear to me how Lori blew the chorizo thing. Look at the exchange between Crunchy Cat and MZ3. And then look at Lori's entry and ask yourself at what point we went from vaginal lubrication nauseating someone to condemning the whole person based on genitalia.

I'd say at the points words such as repugnant, repulsive and dogs are introduced.

It's buried in Freud somewhere. It'll take a while to dig up.

I dare say it's buried with Freud but men love to keep digging it up. Funny that!

As you're an honest person, Sniffy, I'm sure you can explain how you came to that one.

Mucky vaginas.....

Try again. That was almost funny.

:shrug:

Well, at least something starts you thinking.

Ho Ho Ho. Shame the same doesn't happen with some fellas when they 'grow up'.



See? Now that is funny. Admittedly in a "Be Sharp" fashion. But, still, it's a start.

Then why are you taking up the argument?

Because others do....and I'm countering.

Context, m'lady. Context.

Shall I start another thread?

Paranoia will destroy ya.

Paranoid I ain't. Realistis I am. Don't bleat about the big, bad boys equating homosexuality with perversion and then use language or perversion to describe women, balcks and Asians. Is it that difficult fellas?

It starts with language....

No, dear, you don't. At least not in this issue. Quit lying.

I'm not lying. I don't like hypocrisy. I'm not saying I'm not guilty of it but I check myself for it regularly. If I have a personal issue with someone; it's personal and not related to their gender, sexual orientation or skin colour. People who are downright nasty in whatever way.... expect to get back what you sow or meet me half way.

I would ask you to demonstrate that assertion based on the relevant threads.

The one in question. And life. There are issues within the gay community about racism and sexism.

Yep. Let me know when your return flight to reality arrives.

I never leave reality. I don't mind pushing a few boundaries though.

Oh, get the fuck over yourself. I'm damn sure you're smarter than that.

WTF?

Um ... Sniffy?

What? Don't be afraid to spell it out.

Well, sometimes it would be nice to encounter a new bigotry, or at least some innovation on classic bigotry. Otherwise it gets ... stale. Overripe. Moldy.

Yeah well tell that to the bigots.

And inventing them, it seems.

WTF?

Yeah. It's kind of disturbing, isn't it?

Yeah and here you are joinging in!

Generally speaking, we prefer that people's criticisms be grounded in reality, not some moronic fantasy devised specifically to complain about.

Moronic fantasy? Devised to be complained about? Oh I get it you think because I have a little problem with string that I've jumped up this complaint? You have made an incorrect assertion.

I just don't think the rude, childish, pouting caprice helps your argument.

Demonstrate the rude, childish, pouting (nice sexist word added to the mix)....

As far as I know. But, again, it's one of those things we prefer to reflect reality, and not some stupid construct designed specifically to foster pointless, dishonest complaint.

Not a stupid construct and not designed to foster pointless, dishonest complaint. A genuine concern.

How, exactly—at least, as you see it—did we go from vaginal fluid to the whole of someone's character and worth?​

I am very much interested in your genuine answer to that question.

I have given you my genuine answer.

And btw I wasn't the only one with the issue:


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97470&page=5

String, after reading the whole thread (oh noes, please return my precious 10 minutes >.<), I don't think Lori's problem is that gay men don't want to have sex with women, it is that gay men here find women to be repulsive/repugnant (post #13, post #24). It is as if women are sh!t or something like that. Just my two cents!

and here is the issue reiterated:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97470&page=6

It has to do with biology. I, for one, am not attracted to black men. That does not, in any way, mean that I am racist.

Ok... would you have sex with a horse? A dog? A gazelle? Or how bout this.... a midget? Or maybe someone 8 foot tall? Maybe someone who has no arms or legs. Or someone who stinks? No???? Why not? Because you don't find them sexually attractive.

Not very kindly towards disabled people either, eh? But hey like I said women, black people, Asian people, disabled people and dogs open season here at sci and don't ever complain about it. Unless of course you want to be labelled:

Insane, petulant, dishonest, childish and moronic.

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

in other words, Jan, Christians don't want their idol's character to be sullied in any way,...

That wasn't my point, but you're right people don't want their idol's character to be sullied in such a mallicious and derogatory way.

...despite the fact you or anybody else knew anything about him, if he even existed, of course.

Of course we know things about Jesus, in fact we know the most personal things about him.
This is true even if he is a fictional character.
But why would you consider that he may not have existed?

Your statement demonstrates only your gullibility, selfishness and patronage.

My statement did not extend to my personal belief system, as there was no need. Another example of pre-conceived ideas, and premature assumptions.

jan.

 

[ripleofdeath]

What difference would it make if jesus was homosexual ?

personally i have a bit of a feeling that he might have been bisexual and probably didnt explore that side because of social customs which resulted i the semi monastic type atmosphere that was created around him.
he was not shouted from the roof tops for being a husband and father either which in that day would have been quite uncommon.

they did not exactly have birth control did they.

my heart held honest belief of who or what jesus was/is is one or a combination of 2 things
1. a powerful psychic and prophetic speaker and religious preacher.
2. an alien seeking to make a mark in the social evolution of the human species away from blood lust.

 

[Jan Ardena]

ripleofdeath,

What difference would it make if jesus was homosexual ?

What difference it would make, is immaterial.
Why conclude he his homosexual?
Why not conclude he was celibate, as there is no mention of sexual relations.
It seem quite extreme, especially as he was jewish, by culteral default, often being refered to as 'rabbi'.

personally i have a bit of a feeling that he might have been bisexual and probably didnt explore that side because of social customs which resulted i the semi monastic type atmosphere that was created around him.

What makes you think he was sexually active at all?

my heart held honest belief of who or what jesus was/is is one or a combination of 2 things
1. a powerful psychic and prophetic speaker and religious preacher.
2. an alien seeking to make a mark in the social evolution of the human species away from blood lust.

[/QUOTE]

Interesting.

jan.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

esus was a Normal Homosexual Man

If you believe that then you probably think there's a good chance Christian men of the cloth are paedophiles. Oooops sorry...normal paedophiles!

Did Jesus ever blow Gabriel's trumpet?

 

[ripleofdeath]

Originally Posted by Grim_Reaper
How could he be a Human being if he was the Son/Daughter of God he would be a well God not a human being.

he was god in human form. immanuel means "god with us". the difference that's made between jesus and other humans, is that he was born without sin. when we are reborn through him, we will be without sin as well and a communion with god and each other will be restored. we will all be as one, even in all our individuality.

====
now here is the funny thing.
even in todays society sex by the male is considered sin because the male construct taught by their mothers and fathers is in fact rape.
hence rape being the taking of a persons mind(women go mad after repeated rape etc etc...) thus taking of innocence etc etc...
sin is indeed copulation for procreation thus
original sin is having sex!

soo...
being born of no sin is to be born while spitting in gods face as god MADE us humans to HAVE to have sex to reproduce... AND god made it enjoyable without pre programming like sadism etc...