what logic? that birth defects don't exist or that some could be born without such?
Last edited:
Jesus was a Normal Homosexual Man
- Thread starter ripleofdeath
- Start date
what logic? that birth defects don't exist or that some could be born without such?
What strong evidence?
What makes you think that?
What makes it seem that way?
Which popes said what?
If you are talking about the documentary based on Holy Blood Holy Grail - there is nothing compelling about it at all, in my view.
Give me some specifics, please.
Repression
Actually, the problem is sexual repression.
I admit I'm surprised. That is an admirably clear statement of the problem.
Oh, and the answer is that God works in mysterious ways.
Speaking from experience?
No, seriously, what is your authority for that assertion?
Thank you, though. I haven't had a laugh like that in ... um ... a while.
Sometimes. Maybe they're doing quaaludes again.
Actually, that's not a legitimate question. Why jump through hoops to find ways to disqualify people from even having sex? Why suggest people should jump through hoops to have sexual contact they don't enjoy in order to pursue pleasure and fulfillment?
Can't have sex. Comparing people to inanimate objects. Must be something wrong. Why the hell wouldn't you like it?
That's a lot of hostility you're holding toward homosexuals.
Which is why you dehumanize her, isn't it? Showed you your weakness?
Do I even want to know how you rectified your hypocrisy?
Obviously, you did.
Could have fooled me, given what you said.
Perhaps. But given the nearly amorphous (vaguely pile-shaped) excrement you've given us to work with, I wouldn't be expecting marble or granite.
Okay, you need to explain this leap from not wanting to fuck your pussy to finding you gross.
Are women gross or pointless because they don't have a penis? I mean, come on, let's apply this standard fairly.
If you say so. What a sad view of animals you have, though.
You find the notion offensive.
You ceased making sense a while ago, but the naked contradiction in those two sentences is ... um ... well, back-bacon isn't the most attractive thing in the world, you know.
A woman can potentially have a male friend who will never hit on her, never judge her according to her sexual potential, and thus must necessarily find value in other parts of her person. And this, apparently, pisses her off. I admit, this is a fairly new one to me. At least ... never mind.
See, it would be helpful if you could reconcile some of the contradictions about your argument. I mean, on the one hand, you don't think anyone should be viewed as a sex object. Yet, what, because someone is gay, you're offended that they won't view you as a sex object?
Think about it. For once, your identity isn't assessed starting with your vagina. Or your tits. Or how your ass looks in those jeans. Or whether you look like the type who can swallow or deep throat. Imagine that. Someone's image of you doesn't start with the idea of a cock crammed down your throat or up your ass, or you screaming their name in joyful pleasure while they pound your insides to bruised mush. How is this offensive? How is this upsetting?
Just a question, Lori. Perhaps this will clear things up: Where do you think homosexuality comes from?
____________________
Notes:
Brown, Norman O. Life Against Death. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1959.
Lori 7 said:
Actually, the problem is sexual repression.
If normal adult sexuality is a pattern which has grown out of the infantile delight in the pleasurable activity of all parts of the human body, then what was originally a much wider capacity for pleasure in the body has been narrowed in range, concentrated on one particular (the genital) organ, and subordinated to an aim derived not from the pleasure-principle, but from the reality-principle, namely, propagation .... Then the pattern of normal adult sexuality ... is a tyranny of one component in infantile sexuality, a tyranny which suppresses some of the other components altogether and subordinates the rest to itself .... But the normal adult sexuality can exist only on condition that the discarded pattern of infantile sexuality continues to exist side by side with it, and in conflict with it, in the repressed unconscious.
The discarded elements of infantile sexuality are, judged by the standard of normal adult sexuality, perverse. The adult sexual perversions, like normal adult sexuality, are well-organized tyrannies: they too represent an exaggerated concentration on one of the many erotic potentialities present in the human body, which are all actively explored in infancy. The manner of this tyranny, as well as the close connection between normal and perverted sexuality, is illustrated by the fact that various erotic activities, which are called perversions if they are pursued as substitutes for the normal sexual act, are called legitimate if they are subordinated as preliminaries to the normal sexual aim. Children, on the other hand, explore in indiscriminate and anarchistic fashion all the erotic potentialities of the human body. In Freudian terms, children are polymorphously perverse. But if infantile sexuality, judged by the standard of normal adult sexuality, is perverse, by the same token normal adult sexuality, judged by the standard of infantile sexuality, is an unnatural restriction of the erotic potentialities of the human body.
(Brown, 26-27)
The discarded elements of infantile sexuality are, judged by the standard of normal adult sexuality, perverse. The adult sexual perversions, like normal adult sexuality, are well-organized tyrannies: they too represent an exaggerated concentration on one of the many erotic potentialities present in the human body, which are all actively explored in infancy. The manner of this tyranny, as well as the close connection between normal and perverted sexuality, is illustrated by the fact that various erotic activities, which are called perversions if they are pursued as substitutes for the normal sexual act, are called legitimate if they are subordinated as preliminaries to the normal sexual aim. Children, on the other hand, explore in indiscriminate and anarchistic fashion all the erotic potentialities of the human body. In Freudian terms, children are polymorphously perverse. But if infantile sexuality, judged by the standard of normal adult sexuality, is perverse, by the same token normal adult sexuality, judged by the standard of infantile sexuality, is an unnatural restriction of the erotic potentialities of the human body.
(Brown, 26-27)
I admit I'm surprised. That is an admirably clear statement of the problem.
Oh, and the answer is that God works in mysterious ways.
Speaking from experience?
No, seriously, what is your authority for that assertion?
Thank you, though. I haven't had a laugh like that in ... um ... a while.
Sometimes. Maybe they're doing quaaludes again.
Actually, that's not a legitimate question. Why jump through hoops to find ways to disqualify people from even having sex? Why suggest people should jump through hoops to have sexual contact they don't enjoy in order to pursue pleasure and fulfillment?
Can't have sex. Comparing people to inanimate objects. Must be something wrong. Why the hell wouldn't you like it?
That's a lot of hostility you're holding toward homosexuals.
Which is why you dehumanize her, isn't it? Showed you your weakness?
Do I even want to know how you rectified your hypocrisy?
Obviously, you did.
Could have fooled me, given what you said.
Perhaps. But given the nearly amorphous (vaguely pile-shaped) excrement you've given us to work with, I wouldn't be expecting marble or granite.
Okay, you need to explain this leap from not wanting to fuck your pussy to finding you gross.
Are women gross or pointless because they don't have a penis? I mean, come on, let's apply this standard fairly.
If you say so. What a sad view of animals you have, though.
You find the notion offensive.
You ceased making sense a while ago, but the naked contradiction in those two sentences is ... um ... well, back-bacon isn't the most attractive thing in the world, you know.
A woman can potentially have a male friend who will never hit on her, never judge her according to her sexual potential, and thus must necessarily find value in other parts of her person. And this, apparently, pisses her off. I admit, this is a fairly new one to me. At least ... never mind.
See, it would be helpful if you could reconcile some of the contradictions about your argument. I mean, on the one hand, you don't think anyone should be viewed as a sex object. Yet, what, because someone is gay, you're offended that they won't view you as a sex object?
Think about it. For once, your identity isn't assessed starting with your vagina. Or your tits. Or how your ass looks in those jeans. Or whether you look like the type who can swallow or deep throat. Imagine that. Someone's image of you doesn't start with the idea of a cock crammed down your throat or up your ass, or you screaming their name in joyful pleasure while they pound your insides to bruised mush. How is this offensive? How is this upsetting?
Just a question, Lori. Perhaps this will clear things up: Where do you think homosexuality comes from?
____________________
Notes:
Brown, Norman O. Life Against Death. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1959.
umm tiassa, freud isnt the best person to base an argument on. He has been consistantly discredited in moden psycology, his sample size and demographic was a joke and thats just one problem with his theories. Erikson is a much better source for development theory (assuming i didnt just make an idiot of myself by mixing him up with one of the sociogical theorists
)
)
superstring01
Moderator
Who said you have to coddle anybody? All I said is that you should celebrate human differences the way you attack them. You talk about Logic and Truth, as if you've come to some grand wisdom, which is a total lie. People aren't robots. Emotions are 50% of life. Respecting them is as important as respecting logic and wisdom.
You're dense. Really. Humans are emotional creatures. And SHIT we aren't even talking about reacting to negative feelings and hurting someone. We're talking about the type of "feelings" that make the difference between tea and coffee, blonds or brunettes, dick or pussy. That's it. Nobody's talking about hatred or anger.
Having a preference does not in any way indicate "discrimination". This is where you make the mistake.
I think you're a liar. If you were friends with any gay person, they'd probably end it quickly because of your overt hatred.
How many times do I need to say this until you get it. Gay people don't HATE female bodies. There is nothing about the female body that we don't find to be any less beautiful than the male body. It's equally awe inspiring as the next body. The only difference is one does not give us a hard-on and one does.
Until now, you've failed to answer my question, should gay people force themselves to have sex with a gender they are not attracted to? What about the totally involuntary part where he may not get erect (if you know men, you'll know that this part is usually not up to the guy, unless he's popping Viagra)? Should he "not discriminate" and force himself to have sex with women despite being disgusted by the concept? See, being disgusted by the idea of an act, doesn't mean that he hates those who does. My best friend is straight, but he gets a little grossed out when I talk about screwing a guy. It isn't that he's a homophobe, it's just that he really doesn't like the idea of having sex with a guy, despite his enjoyment of gay bars (which I hate) and the fact that his best friend is gay.
Duh. That's why you see the photography, modeling, design and other "artsy" industries dominated by gay men. Most of the female models you see are dressed, made-up, photographed and trained by queeny men. If they couldn't see the innate beauty of women, then the industry would collapse.
Yes, it is. It's a shame you people like you reduce it down to factors that aren't really even factors and reject the fact that human beings have individual tastes, none of which are "discriminatory" in the contemporary sense, when in reality, all it comes down to is preferences that aren't even choices to the individual.
~String
See how ingrained the 'women are only useful as as sexual objects' is? See how ingrained the 'women are repulsive, revolting, repellent' is? Now I'm not saying that it is right to be homophobic. Actually I'll come out here and state categorically I don't believe it is acceptable at all. But looky here - once again we have a few men equating women with grossness, repulsivenes, revulsion. And a few gay men (admittedly elsewhere) equating black and brown men with the same! And an apparently not gay woman doing the same in regards to gay men.
GUYS!!!!!!! Listen to yourselves!
GALSSSS!!!! Listen to yourselves!
We have spent years plowing the furrow. There ain't nothing wrong with the furrow and there aint nothing wrong with the plough!!!!
Us womenfolk understand that the pussy dont turn a gay man on but hell our pussy is not gross in and of itself!! And neither is your dicky fellars. OK?
But what happens when I say:
'I find a gay man gross but hey I'm just expressing a preference.' (I don't!).
'I find a black man gross but hey I'm just expressing a preference!' (I don't!)
'I find women gross but hey i'm just expressing a preference!' (I don't!)
I find men gross but hey I'm just expressing a preference!' (I don't!)
I find you gross but hey I'm just expressing a preference!' (I don't!)
Such words are loaded and frankly ignorant whomever they are applied to! Sorry no excuses.
Tiassa it's the same theme as "People here who have a problem with - homosexuals, women, black people, athiests, muslims, christians..."
That it sounds too, too horribly familiar!! And that twenty million 'wrongs' do not make a 'right'.
You know Tiassa what surprises me about both homosexuals and heterosexuals is that they find it difficult to recognise old patterns and make connections. So let me take your list and reword it:
So let's make a short list here: people who think that "discussing" women and sex is somehow verboten by Sciforums or other similar standards.
- People who compare consensual sex to raping animals.
- People who think people not getting/getting married somehow wrecks their own union.
- Men
- Biblically religious people who like to ignore Jesus. LOL!
- People who assert that those who want sexual satisfaction should have to submit themselves to being raped.
My point is that those who are hung up about sex generally but particularly sex outside heterosexual marriage (argh argh argh run for the hills the world is ending!!) have no historical perspective upon what marriage actually is, why it was invented (and it was as surely as the internal combustion engine) and for whose convenience marriage as a 'thing' is. But that's a whole other thread.
On topic:
Was Jesus a homosexual? Er have we answered the 'Was Jesus ever?' question yet?
I mean they've found the tombs and bodies of the Egyptian pharoahs.... just sayin'
(fallacy!)This is the crux of the matter and on it you are wrong. A preference is a discrimination.
For a start you can't speak for all gay people.
But let me tell you if you use words such as gross and repulsive in relation to a particulat gender or 'race' then you are entering dangerous territory if you care whether or not people will find you sexist or racist. Just as a heterosexual would if they used similar terms in relation to homosexuals.
Nobody should be forced to have sex with anyone they don't want to have sex with. But it cannot be denied that society has 'looked down upon' sex between the same gender and inter-racial sex.
'Turned off' or 'not turned on' would be more appropriate. 'Disgusted' at the thought of being raped or forced to have sex with a child or a horse is a more appropriate application of the word 'disgusted'. Come on!
does he ever say he thinks gay men are 'disgusting' or 'gross'?
Hmm so women are still subjected and held to the standards of men......
Wake up ladies!!
Sometimes we need to get beyond these superficial 'preferences' and have a good look at what's going on beneath...because some preferences are ingrained by culture and social conditioning. Such things as marriage, for instance.
Last edited:
Sexuality is inherent. This is most likely to be true and we are waiting for the final evidence that is not based purely on the anecdotal. Certainly, other mammals exhibit a range of sexual behaviours.
Some tastes are certainly inherent; others are most likely cultural and or societal.
For instance how does one know one likes cake, or not, or sausage for that matter unless one has tasted it? One might suck it and see; so to speak...
Can one develop a 'taste' for classical music without ever having been exposed to it? Or Country and Western. Or Chinese Opera? Or African Drumming?
You see you need to be careful when associating sexual orientation with 'taste' because as some tastes may demonstrably change over a life-time; some people might expect sexual orientation to change too. They've even tried that one.
Hmm....
If I developed a 'taste' for sleeping with 5 years olds for instance. What would that make me? If I had that 'taste' from birth what would it say about me and my tastes?
If I developed a taste for raping women what would that say about me? If I had that 'taste' from birth what would that say about me and my 'taste'.
If I developed a 'taste for beating up brown skinned people what would that say about me? If I had that taste from birth what would that say about me and my 'taste'?
Or my society? Or my culture?
So I would associate my sexuality with inherence rather than 'taste'.
I f you do, I can't fathom why
If we're going to take abstinence as an equivalent of homosexual until proven otherwise, it proves an easy task.
:shrug:
Have a look at this article it brings up some interesting veiws. And besides it is on the internet so therefore IT has to be true...........
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
i like the way you think Lori and your right on the spot of where i wanted this discussion to be.
very intuitive of you
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
before i go through and get side tracked with other peoples opinions i just want to say this.
in my opinion if i were to believe in a god then i would believe in that god creating homosexuality to define the every nature of true love between two souls devoid of materialism being the thing that is used to define true love.
thus...
true love is devoid of gender and sexual orientation and is something most higher level intellects seek toward in some form.
true love comes only with true acceptance.
true acceptance only comes by not judging someone based on things like homo hetro or bi sexual orientations.
the circle is complete and all roads lead to Rome.
however... keep in mind that most churches preach materialism and bastardise true love and preach hate.
only a church that preaches love is a true church.
any organization that preaches hate goes against all tenants of all religions as far as have found in my personal study to date.
thus collective definition of church is a place of preaching true love.
anything that preaches materialism or hate is a cult.
thus to summarise
those churches that preach anti gay and any other form of material sexuality are in fact preaching hate and are there by self defining as a cult of materialistic hate.
those that protest against sex are materialists and as far from spiritual as you can get short of out right violence.
your thoughts ?
in my opinion it makes perfect sense that the messenger of god would be homosexual in a world where male sexuality is defined as rape and the women defined as the victim.
in my opinion if i were to believe in a god then i would believe in that god creating homosexuality to define the every nature of true love between two souls devoid of materialism being the thing that is used to define true love.
thus...
true love is devoid of gender and sexual orientation and is something most higher level intellects seek toward in some form.
true love comes only with true acceptance.
true acceptance only comes by not judging someone based on things like homo hetro or bi sexual orientations.
the circle is complete and all roads lead to Rome.
however... keep in mind that most churches preach materialism and bastardise true love and preach hate.
only a church that preaches love is a true church.
any organization that preaches hate goes against all tenants of all religions as far as have found in my personal study to date.
thus collective definition of church is a place of preaching true love.
anything that preaches materialism or hate is a cult.
thus to summarise
those churches that preach anti gay and any other form of material sexuality are in fact preaching hate and are there by self defining as a cult of materialistic hate.
those that protest against sex are materialists and as far from spiritual as you can get short of out right violence.
your thoughts ?
in my opinion it makes perfect sense that the messenger of god would be homosexual in a world where male sexuality is defined as rape and the women defined as the victim.