the designation of homo and hetero is saying that a particular gender is off limits and not even a consideration.
Jesus was a Normal Homosexual Man
- Thread starter ripleofdeath
- Start date
the designation of homo and hetero is saying that a particular gender is off limits and not even a consideration.
superstring01 said his sexual orientation is not by his choice. Don't you believe him? Sex drive and desisre is in the core of a being and controlled at the core through genes.
earth to earth...
there is no genetic link to orientation. if there is, i'm just not aware of it, so please provide your resource.
straight parents produce gay children and gay parents produce straight children all the time. there is no correlation that i'm aware of.
Which in no way is any sort of reply to ANY of the points I made in my post.
sex drive has nothing to do with orientation, and there is no gay, bi, or straight gene. and i do believe string when he says that, yes.
yes it is.
You aren't going to accept science, are you? You reject scientific evidence.
Does it matter if a woman, or a guy, ugly or hot is licking your genital? Lets see..if you don't have any visual contact, and are not allowed to touch, and someone is sexually stimulating you..what will happen? Will you come?
Er no...
Not being a consideration is not the same as avoidance.
It simply means that it's not even considered.
My point is gays have their genes remove from the human genetic pool because they produce no offspring, if indeed they are gay. This is an evolutionary method of weeding. When you reject evolution and natural selection and instead accept creation then no amount of scientific evidence is going to change your mind.
my vote...yes.
:wallbang:
You mean yes to " does it matter", or you will come one way or the other as long as you don't know who's behind the doing?
So you prefer to remain clueless?
Or would you like to talk about your avoidance issues regarding you and sex with camels?
I presume (yes I'm assuming, silly of me) that you don't have sex with camels.
This appears to be a serious avoidance issue and you may need counselling...
Or would you like to talk about your avoidance issues regarding you and sex with camels?
I presume (yes I'm assuming, silly of me) that you don't have sex with camels.
This appears to be a serious avoidance issue and you may need counselling...
i mean yes i'd come and i wouldn't give a crap who's behind the doing. that's kind of my whole point here...why in the hell would it matter? i don't know!?!?
This and that
Interesting. Were we talking about freedom? Myself, I'm talking about what people do to themselves.
So what, in your experience, was unsatisfactory about having a man rub your penis?
Because God works in mysterious ways?
How about this? Why bother having sexual intercourse at all if you don't intend to reproduce?
I can see why you wouldn't think so.
It can be. Forgive me if I don't find a hyperlink that joins those two concepts visually.
And no, I don't think it's odd to not use a dildo. But I do find it pathetic to reduce, as you have done, other people to sex toys.
Do you understand the basic difference between words and actions? I mean, to the one, you say, "I don't hold hostility towards anyone anymore," but that's clearly bullshit given the extremes to which you will twist rhetoric in order to denigrate homosexuals. They can't have sex. They're substituting assholes for vaginas. They're the equivalent of inanimate objects. They're bigots for not being enamored by your vagina.
Yeah, right. You're not hostile toward anyone.
But you treat her comfort and security with such disdain. Again, you claim one thing but demonstrate another.
Mmm-hmm.
Only by your definition.
Yeah, a gay man doesn't find your pussy attractive. Get over it.
What in God's name does being a vegan have to do with it? Did it ever occur to you that some animals have other uses in the human endeavor than food?
Tell you what: You eat the dog when you're desperate. Have yourself a meal. Really. I'm not sarcastic on that.
Because, meanwhile, I'll take the dog hunting, and it will feed us both. And when I sleep at night, the dog will help keep me warm. And when I wander down the long and lonely road, the dog will listen to what I say, and occasionally even respond. I mean, as pointless as it is, I still might as well point out that this is coming from a "cat" person.
Trust me, it is. You simply picked out a superficial point and ran with it.
Think of it this way: I've fought with lovers before. I've been up to and over the line of domestic violence. Nobody should have to go through that. Absolutely nobody should have to lie sprawled over a bike rack, watching the cops go by, and make a snap decision on whether or not to send the insanely drunk woman who just revealed she's carrying your child to jail for a night for assaulting you. I've been through lies, addiction, and open hostility—for years.
Companionship among humans serves specific psychological needs. But what are those needs? Perhaps I'm being greedy in seeking refuge from the mundane vice of the human endeavor. Perhaps it is unreasonable to seek trust and faith, comfort and security, and deep, abiding love. Perhaps I should lower my standards and simply seek a mate I can tolerate the thought of having children with.
Oh, right. That didn't work out so well.
It's a matter of priorities.
I find that a thin proposition at best; it suggests even more clearly that this is an egocentric outcry on your part. You're just pissed because someone isn't turned on by the thought of your vagina.
The other end of that spectrum is why does egalitarianism stop when it comes to sex? Or, to use simpler language, why be exclusive about it?
After all, why should you limit yourself to a mate you can tolerate? Or only to people you find sexually attractive? I mean, there are useful and objective answers to such questions, but I don't see any hint of them in your argument.
You tell me. You're the one offended.
The heart of the problem. You know all that shit you said about your lesbian friend? How you love her very much and don't dehumanize her, and all that?
Next time, spare us. And quit lying to her.
When you do some objective research, Lori, you'll find one of two things, depending on your inclination—
—and they both equal the same thing. There are all sorts of theories—some of them actually kind of funny—and a good number of them are working out.
Let's start with something tangible and fairly simple for you to work with. You can include God's will or not. But are you aware there are women walking around on this Earth whose genes describe them as males? That is, they are identifiable as XY, not XX.
This phenomenon occurs because even an XY embyro will develop into a female fetus until a certain infusion of maternal hormones spurs the transformation of the sex organs.
So just think about that. And we can use a stereotype if it helps: Imagine your prissy, effeminate gay man. And then tell me that, of the billions of conceptions and pregnancies, of the nearly infinite variations of circumstance that might affect gestation, and of the complexity of the human body, there is no room for variation. And if it helps, just think of math. Not every equation has a definitive answer; there is such a thing as a data set that covers a range of suitable outcomes. Homosexuals are just part of the human data set.
Homosexuality occurs in nature, Lori. It occurs in humans, primates, and birds at least, and homosexual behavior is observable in other animals including canines. In terms of faith, why the hell would God bother with that? In terms of nature, you're welcome to shout at the Earth and sky and sea that they're wrong, but I don't think it will make much of a difference.
But, yes, the mystery of your strange outlook is becoming more comprehensible. Your inaccurate notions of the nature of homosexuality understandably contribute to your callous treatment of gay people.
Well, guess what? Your pussy is not the whole of who you are. The leap from a woman's vagina being sexually repellant to a gay man to indicting the whole woman as "repulsive, revolting, repellent" is entirely yours and Lori's. In the Midwest thread, no less than five people made the point about separating sex appeal and individual worth, but you two have apparently gone blazing right by that point and now hope to hang people with it.
Indeed, there ain't nothin' wrong with the furrow or the plow.
I'm not sure where to start on this. I mean, there's always Mr. Garrison: "I'm sorry, Wendy, but I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die."
Or there is the more primal: Some people simply find vaginas mythically threatening. After all, you take a virile rod, insert it until it pukes, and then withdraw a flaccid, weak sack of flesh. Some folks just aren't prepared to deal with it.
Some are traumatically scarred by a bad experience.
Some are generally turned off by a string of bad experiences.
Some are simply gay.
To go down the list, the simple answer is that you're expressing an opinion of the whole person.
I would agree.
You know, it occurs to me that there are heterosexual men out there who don't go down on women. They find the practice deviant and extraneous and, yes, repulsive. In fact, I know one of them insofar as, while I'll probably never actually ask him the question, he's the deeply religious sort who washes his dick with rubbing alcohol before putting it in his wife of forty-some years. Now, I won't imagine that the only time he ever had sex they were trying to conceive; their daughter is adopted. But I will suggest that, while his reasons may be unique, his fear of dirty genitalia is not.
I actually got to see this transition happen: A neighbor boy, about eleven, once expressed that oral sex is gross. After all, why put your mouth where someone pees from? (You get it? Your pussy is gross.) Of course, given a year and a half or so to develop and experience the effects of his hormones, where do you think he wants his mouth?
Really, if sex is just about penis and vagina, as some would assert, why does someone want to put their mouth on another's genitalia? Why is the impulse to "put your mouth where pee comes from" so strong?
For some people, the impulse develops in the other direction. In theory—I don't know his specific tastes; he might be a pure top—String would prefer to put his mouth where I pee from than where you pee from. This bears no reflection whatsoever on your worth as a human being. Well, except of course for the fact that you insist it does.
Don't get me wrong: I well understand the impulse to want someone to go down on you. But what makes anyone actually want to go down?
I almost protested this, but in witnessing your explicit transference from an aspect of an individual to the whole character, well, on the one hand I think I get your point, while to the other I think you've argued against yourself. Quite obviously, discussing gays, blacks, women, atheists, Muslims, Christians, and so on, is perfectly permissible at Sciforums. Only those who can't imagine a discussion without overripe bigotry believe discussion of such subjects is somehow forbidden.
You're going to have to fill in the gap on that one.
Nobody has bitterly proposed that discussing women is forbidden at Sciforums. Come now, petulance isn't a good look on anyone. Well, unless of course that's what you're into.
I would generally agree, only dissenting to add specifically that those who are discriminated against for the gender of their sex partner also have a stake in arguing about sex.
What strikes me about the gay Jesus idea is that there is an odd phrase somewhere in one of the Gospels that, if we apply the common homophobia of the Christian heritage, suggests Jesus was gay. For anyone else, it's a thin argument at best. But it's certainly entertaining to watch people freak out about the idea.
But there's also an even better argument, that we must "remember that for a moment in their savior's life, as he hung on a cross for everyone's sin, that Christ was gay".
Not that Jesus necessarily ever took it up the ass or anything, but, to borrow another phrase, see how they run.
____________________
Notes:
McKinley, Brian Elroy. "When Christ was Gay". (n.d.) Elroy.net. November 19, 2009. http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html
Lori 7 said:
Interesting. Were we talking about freedom? Myself, I'm talking about what people do to themselves.
So what, in your experience, was unsatisfactory about having a man rub your penis?
Because God works in mysterious ways?
How about this? Why bother having sexual intercourse at all if you don't intend to reproduce?
I can see why you wouldn't think so.
It can be. Forgive me if I don't find a hyperlink that joins those two concepts visually.
And no, I don't think it's odd to not use a dildo. But I do find it pathetic to reduce, as you have done, other people to sex toys.
Do you understand the basic difference between words and actions? I mean, to the one, you say, "I don't hold hostility towards anyone anymore," but that's clearly bullshit given the extremes to which you will twist rhetoric in order to denigrate homosexuals. They can't have sex. They're substituting assholes for vaginas. They're the equivalent of inanimate objects. They're bigots for not being enamored by your vagina.
Yeah, right. You're not hostile toward anyone.
But you treat her comfort and security with such disdain. Again, you claim one thing but demonstrate another.
Mmm-hmm.
Only by your definition.
Yeah, a gay man doesn't find your pussy attractive. Get over it.
What in God's name does being a vegan have to do with it? Did it ever occur to you that some animals have other uses in the human endeavor than food?
Tell you what: You eat the dog when you're desperate. Have yourself a meal. Really. I'm not sarcastic on that.
Because, meanwhile, I'll take the dog hunting, and it will feed us both. And when I sleep at night, the dog will help keep me warm. And when I wander down the long and lonely road, the dog will listen to what I say, and occasionally even respond. I mean, as pointless as it is, I still might as well point out that this is coming from a "cat" person.
Trust me, it is. You simply picked out a superficial point and ran with it.
Think of it this way: I've fought with lovers before. I've been up to and over the line of domestic violence. Nobody should have to go through that. Absolutely nobody should have to lie sprawled over a bike rack, watching the cops go by, and make a snap decision on whether or not to send the insanely drunk woman who just revealed she's carrying your child to jail for a night for assaulting you. I've been through lies, addiction, and open hostility—for years.
Companionship among humans serves specific psychological needs. But what are those needs? Perhaps I'm being greedy in seeking refuge from the mundane vice of the human endeavor. Perhaps it is unreasonable to seek trust and faith, comfort and security, and deep, abiding love. Perhaps I should lower my standards and simply seek a mate I can tolerate the thought of having children with.
Oh, right. That didn't work out so well.
Where have those days gone?
South with other ways?
I'll just learn to settle on
Slightly lesser things.
(Floater, "Settling")
South with other ways?
I'll just learn to settle on
Slightly lesser things.
(Floater, "Settling")
It's a matter of priorities.
I find that a thin proposition at best; it suggests even more clearly that this is an egocentric outcry on your part. You're just pissed because someone isn't turned on by the thought of your vagina.
The other end of that spectrum is why does egalitarianism stop when it comes to sex? Or, to use simpler language, why be exclusive about it?
After all, why should you limit yourself to a mate you can tolerate? Or only to people you find sexually attractive? I mean, there are useful and objective answers to such questions, but I don't see any hint of them in your argument.
You tell me. You're the one offended.
The heart of the problem. You know all that shit you said about your lesbian friend? How you love her very much and don't dehumanize her, and all that?
Next time, spare us. And quit lying to her.
When you do some objective research, Lori, you'll find one of two things, depending on your inclination—
(1) that homosexuality is a natural outcome of processes genetic, hormonal, and social, or,
(2) that homosexuality is instilled by God.
(2) that homosexuality is instilled by God.
—and they both equal the same thing. There are all sorts of theories—some of them actually kind of funny—and a good number of them are working out.
Let's start with something tangible and fairly simple for you to work with. You can include God's will or not. But are you aware there are women walking around on this Earth whose genes describe them as males? That is, they are identifiable as XY, not XX.
This phenomenon occurs because even an XY embyro will develop into a female fetus until a certain infusion of maternal hormones spurs the transformation of the sex organs.
So just think about that. And we can use a stereotype if it helps: Imagine your prissy, effeminate gay man. And then tell me that, of the billions of conceptions and pregnancies, of the nearly infinite variations of circumstance that might affect gestation, and of the complexity of the human body, there is no room for variation. And if it helps, just think of math. Not every equation has a definitive answer; there is such a thing as a data set that covers a range of suitable outcomes. Homosexuals are just part of the human data set.
Homosexuality occurs in nature, Lori. It occurs in humans, primates, and birds at least, and homosexual behavior is observable in other animals including canines. In terms of faith, why the hell would God bother with that? In terms of nature, you're welcome to shout at the Earth and sky and sea that they're wrong, but I don't think it will make much of a difference.
But, yes, the mystery of your strange outlook is becoming more comprehensible. Your inaccurate notions of the nature of homosexuality understandably contribute to your callous treatment of gay people.
• • •
Sniffy said:
Well, guess what? Your pussy is not the whole of who you are. The leap from a woman's vagina being sexually repellant to a gay man to indicting the whole woman as "repulsive, revolting, repellent" is entirely yours and Lori's. In the Midwest thread, no less than five people made the point about separating sex appeal and individual worth, but you two have apparently gone blazing right by that point and now hope to hang people with it.
Indeed, there ain't nothin' wrong with the furrow or the plow.
I'm not sure where to start on this. I mean, there's always Mr. Garrison: "I'm sorry, Wendy, but I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die."
Or there is the more primal: Some people simply find vaginas mythically threatening. After all, you take a virile rod, insert it until it pukes, and then withdraw a flaccid, weak sack of flesh. Some folks just aren't prepared to deal with it.
Some are traumatically scarred by a bad experience.
Some are generally turned off by a string of bad experiences.
Some are simply gay.
To go down the list, the simple answer is that you're expressing an opinion of the whole person.
I would agree.
You know, it occurs to me that there are heterosexual men out there who don't go down on women. They find the practice deviant and extraneous and, yes, repulsive. In fact, I know one of them insofar as, while I'll probably never actually ask him the question, he's the deeply religious sort who washes his dick with rubbing alcohol before putting it in his wife of forty-some years. Now, I won't imagine that the only time he ever had sex they were trying to conceive; their daughter is adopted. But I will suggest that, while his reasons may be unique, his fear of dirty genitalia is not.
I actually got to see this transition happen: A neighbor boy, about eleven, once expressed that oral sex is gross. After all, why put your mouth where someone pees from? (You get it? Your pussy is gross.) Of course, given a year and a half or so to develop and experience the effects of his hormones, where do you think he wants his mouth?
Really, if sex is just about penis and vagina, as some would assert, why does someone want to put their mouth on another's genitalia? Why is the impulse to "put your mouth where pee comes from" so strong?
For some people, the impulse develops in the other direction. In theory—I don't know his specific tastes; he might be a pure top—String would prefer to put his mouth where I pee from than where you pee from. This bears no reflection whatsoever on your worth as a human being. Well, except of course for the fact that you insist it does.
Don't get me wrong: I well understand the impulse to want someone to go down on you. But what makes anyone actually want to go down?
I almost protested this, but in witnessing your explicit transference from an aspect of an individual to the whole character, well, on the one hand I think I get your point, while to the other I think you've argued against yourself. Quite obviously, discussing gays, blacks, women, atheists, Muslims, Christians, and so on, is perfectly permissible at Sciforums. Only those who can't imagine a discussion without overripe bigotry believe discussion of such subjects is somehow forbidden.
You're going to have to fill in the gap on that one.
Nobody has bitterly proposed that discussing women is forbidden at Sciforums. Come now, petulance isn't a good look on anyone. Well, unless of course that's what you're into.
I would generally agree, only dissenting to add specifically that those who are discriminated against for the gender of their sex partner also have a stake in arguing about sex.
What strikes me about the gay Jesus idea is that there is an odd phrase somewhere in one of the Gospels that, if we apply the common homophobia of the Christian heritage, suggests Jesus was gay. For anyone else, it's a thin argument at best. But it's certainly entertaining to watch people freak out about the idea.
But there's also an even better argument, that we must "remember that for a moment in their savior's life, as he hung on a cross for everyone's sin, that Christ was gay".
Not that Jesus necessarily ever took it up the ass or anything, but, to borrow another phrase, see how they run.
____________________
Notes:
McKinley, Brian Elroy. "When Christ was Gay". (n.d.) Elroy.net. November 19, 2009. http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html
then why discussing a psychological issue within a religious section?
ie... gender is born, homosexual preferences is of choice (the mind)
(exceptions: hemorphradite which is a biological 'abnormality')
but don't give me or any that hoot about 'god made them gay' or that it is natural to like same sex intercorps
gay people do in fact produce offspring.
Not when living the life of a gay.
I'll give a good example of evolution weeding genes from the human genetic pool and you think about this one.
Jesus and the apostle Paul were celibate. They produced no offspring and thus their genes were removed from the human genetic pool. Celibacy eliminates genes and prevents their genes from having a chance to survive.
I.Q relates directly to the offsprings parents.