So in your world two he-penguins in a pair bond is equal to a bloodthirsty mass murderer? Dude. What’s the Friday night line-up on Animal Planet look like where you’re at?
And guess what, sunny Jim. Millions of them there homosexuals ARE out of the closet, all over the malls, kindergartens, churches, baseball games, every place you mentioned (with the possible exception of the Boy Scout camps, thanks to asshats like you). And there has been no anarchy! No rain of blood, sulphur, and fire pouring from the heavens, no dogs and cats living together, no mass hysteria! In fact, the only hysteria I ever hear seems to come from morons of your ilk who can’t stand the fact that there are people out there who don’t think or live exactly as you do. Go sit on a stick and rotate.
And just because I’ve always wanted to do this: I, for one, welcome our new gay black mamba overlords.
Let’s start with this: “[N]ot in any way related to pair bonding”? Seriously? I’m just going to assume that was hyperbole and move on…
Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists routinely speak of human pair-bonding and insist it’s a real phenomenon. My guess (and that’s all it is) is that you’re relying too strongly on the pedantic, mid-twentieth century concept that referred exclusively to permanently monogamous mating in birds. The meaning of the term has since been expanded beyond strict and permanent monogamy, and quite appropriately, too, in my view. Human social relationships in no way deny or refute the existence of human pair-bonding (at least in this newly broadened meaning). For one thing, pair-bonding no longer refers exclusively to long-term monogamy: short-duration monogamy is all that’s required, and that occurs in a wide variety of human and primate species.
What’s all this nonsense about a blurb on the back? I find it extremely hard to believe there’s zero indication of what is arguably the fundamental element of the story. I can’t prove otherwise since I haven’t seen the book, but something sounds fishy.
However, even if muldoonthief’s assertion that there’s no such information on the front or back cover is true, why the hell couldn’t he have opened the damn book and read a page or two? Holy Fucking Bob, it’s a tiny little book for FOUR YEAR OLDS! How much effort could it take?
And the information on the book’s contents are everywhere! There’s hundreds of sources for that information!
Admit it. On this issue, he’s a total fucking loser who can’t deal with reality and can’t trouble himself to read 2 pages of a book so simple it’s appropriate for 4-year-olds and so blames the book for his problem and lack of parenting skills! Why are people defending this ignorant, up-tight, reality-denying schmuck?
A reviewer (G. C. Picchetti) on Amazon presents a rebuttal to those like muldoonthief and that moronic shithead Debaser:
And some people think the world is flat, that the Aztecs invented the vacation, and that the moon is made of moldy Roquefort (which is why the moon landing had to be a hoax). Why the hell should we worry about or defend their wholly evil denial of reality?
Might it be, perhaps, because you believe the same?
Oh, and by the way, just in case you believe otherwise, sexual desire is not an “evolutionary construct to promote procreation”. In humans, sexual desire is almost certainly evolution’s way of trying to cement pair-bonding rather than merely encouraging reproduction. If evolution were first and foremost “trying” to encourage human reproduction, it would have simply made us just another mindless rutting mammal.
You must be awfully old and you may well have skewed perceptions even if you’re not. If the “col” part of your username indicates that you were or are in the military, that explains your ridiculously obsolete opinion. In any event, my doctor friends in their 50s and 60s disagree with you.
You’re egregiously exaggerating. For one thing, it’s been more than three decades since the APA reversed itself (and the APA does not represent “the medical community”), but long before that, doctors had serious doubts.
As indicated previously, I’ve done exactly that. And they flatly contradict your opinion.
You use the present tense, “think”. Today and for a long time already, it IS only bible-thumping ignoramuses who “think” that way (if “think” is the right word).
Dammit, that’s his responsibility! If he can’t be troubled to open the effin’ book first, why should we try to “understand” or “sympathise” (weep, weep) with him?
Myself, I think he should eat a candy bar out of some penguin’s ass.
There used to be a religious board that several members from here participated in. It was a more tolerant place than lots of others. Sadly, I went missing from there and, I do believe, the place eventually went defunct. However, in my desire at some point to track it down again, I followed a trail to a couple of sites that were much, much more fundamentalist in nature. If I am correct, I do believe I recall coming across the same Jman as our new guest. And if that assumption is right, his posting definitely falls in line with what I read and is certainly no parody. Those that frequented there, were completely of the extreme literalist interpretations of the bible and thus, anything perceived as liberal, open-minded or humanist (I suppose those would be decent descriptors – beyond that I don’t know) were obvious tools of Satan and his plan to corrupt society and steal souls away from God. Think H4E, et al. Just sayin’.
And they are welcome to stay. In my years at the Dope I’ve seen a lot of Fundamentalist Christians come and go. Most leave rather quickly with very little gained on either end. Once in a while we get someone who actually DOES seem to learn something (and H4E did seem to at least begin to understand the perspective of non Fundamentalists - even if she never changed her own mind, she became more open to the idea that there were other possibilities). I’ve yet to see anyone converted from their Heathen ways to Fundamentalism around here (though I think this board has converted a few abject Heathens into Unitarians).
Wow, it took more than a week for someone to come up with a good insult. I’m relieved. Of course
All I can say is that I’ve seen the book, and you haven’t. Go to a bookstore and look at the cover before you call me a liar about the description on the back, you shithead.
And you’re right. A perfect parent would read every book before their kids got a hold of it. The next time you bring a 6, 4, & 2 year old to the library, and you’re playing checkers with the oldest, while trying to prevent the youngest from pulling every book off the shelves, you see if you can do a thorough reading of the books your 4 year old wants to bring home.
It’s a children’s book at the library. I shouldn’t have to do a fucking web search on every book my kids want to bring home from the library. Do you?
I don’t, but I’m well aware that I need to be prepared when they bring home Bible Stories or Veggie Tales books (we aren’t Christian) or “Heather Has Two Mommies” or - in our house - books that have negative stereotypes about adoption, race or not belonging. It takes me about two seconds in a bookstore to find a collection of books that have messages in them that I’m going to have to do a little explaining about. In some cases, we don’t let our kids buy them (now that they are in grade school they are responsible for their own library checkout).
My kid checked out a picture book about the Titanic tragedy and another one on the Hindenberg in Kindergarten. Not my favorite of the “library books he’s taken home” since I wasn’t quite ready to explain why so many people died so senselessly to a six year old. But I did. This year we went on a cruise - I really could have done without the now eight year old with Titanic knowledge.
I’ll go out on a limb and say that I’ve always considered those who are voluntarily “non-sexual” (ie no masturbation, no nookie of any kind) to be a bit perverted. It just ain’t natural!!!
I get a surprising amount of…satisfaction?..seeing religious weirdos appealing to a scientific theory they don’t understand/believe (evolution) in order to support their bigoted beliefs. It just tickles me pink!
Well, you’re refuting an argument here that no one has actually made. Very few people would say that, “Anything is okay if its for love.” Generally, it’s “Anything is okay as long as it’s between two consenting adults.” “Okay” in this context meaning, “Why the hell is it any of your business?” Me being gay doesn’t hurt you in anyway, so why are you so hell-bent on treating me like shit because of it?
Er… what?
Probably, although “confused” would be a close runner-up. However, it is worth noting that being broad minded and tolerant doesn’t preclude one from finding something offensive. It just means we won’t try to legally persecute you or physically attack you for holding your offensive opinion. Contrary to popular opinion, this does not mean that we have to be nice to you when you insult us, nor does it mean we can’t seek to protect ourselves from you by passing legislation protecting our rights, or by opposing legislation you’ve proposed that would limit our rights.
$20 says that whatever follows this will be neither sensical, moral, nor scientific…
And boy, did that wager ever pay off!
First of all, “sex perverts” can have children just like anyone else. This is true both in the strictly accurate sense of the term (foot fetishists, bondage afficianados, and other kinks that are commonly found among otherwise whitebread heterosexuals), the broader pejorative sense (rapists, child molesters, and other perpetrators of predatory sexual acts, who are also just as likely to be heterosexual. More likely, in the case of pedophiles), or the narrow pejorative sense you clearly intended (homosexuals). Since it’s clear you’re talking about teh gheys, let’s focus on them.
Gays do not recruit. The entire concept is laughable, and it is not supported by any sort of science, your use of all caps not withstanding. Sexual orientation is not a mutable characteristic. If you are born liking only girls, no force on Earth can make you start liking guys. In spite of their best efforts, the “ex-gay” ministries have proved this quite conclusively. Their failure rate is in the upper nintieth percentile, and they’ve got entire facilities, trained staff, and complicated regimines dedicated to altering people’s orientation. If that approach is so ineffective, what the hell can gays do that would work better?
Gays do, however, have children. On this board are many posters who are gay, and have their own biological children, or who are themselves the biological children of gay parents. More and more gays are adopting, just like the penguins in this story. However, from the language you used, you seem to view this as some sort of blasphemy or idolatry. This is a very strange statement to make. There are a lot of people who are heterosexual, and yet are infertile for a variety of medical reasons. Are these people seeking “someone other than themselves and their Creator” to reproduce, as well? Or is it possible to believe in the Christian God and still dedicate themselves to the upbringing and well being of a child they did not personally conceive? I’m not a Christian myself, but from everything I’ve heard and read about the religion, that seems like the sort of thing Jesus would steadfastly approve of.
Yes, and in the case of “GRIDS,” the vast majority of those people are heterosexual. Which is one of the big reasons we stopped calling it GRIDS and started calling it AIDS. But I suspect you have some other, subtler point in referring to the disease by a term that hasn’t been in vogue for more than twenty years.
Okay, God made homosexuals, and God made rattlesnakes. You seem to be arguing that God doesn’t want homosexuals to act like homosexuals. So, by extension, does that mean that God doesn’t want rattlesnakes to act like rattlesnakes? Is a rattlesnake committing a mortal sin when it eats a mouse? Of course not. A rattlesnake is not “evil.” It’s an animal acting in accordance with its nature. God doesn’t hate the rattlesnake for being a rattlesnake, and does not expect a rattlesnake to be other than a rattlesnake. It’s men who hate the snake, and wish it to be something else. Similarly, God does not hate homosexuals, and does not wish them to stop being homosexuals. Once again, that hatred is man’s alone.
What, you mean the jellyfish? No, I’m fine with leaving the jellyfish in their natural enviroment. Just as I’m fine with leaving the homosexual human in his natural enviroment, which happens to be the shopping malls, restaurants, church pews, and every other place in our society one finds heterosexuals. Why, where would you rather put homosexuals?
Well, now we’re off on a tangent. From gay rights to school prayer to creationism. Guess I shouldn’t be that surprised. These views do seem to be part of a package deal. Well, what the heck. Let’s run with it.
Who says we can’t learn about the “Maker of the sexes?” There’s no end to the avenues available to you to learn about him, no matter which version of him you consider to be authentic. I just don’t see why my tax dollars should go towards teaching what you think God wants us to do. You’ve already got the church to do that for you. Why do you need the schools to do the same thing? It’s got nothing to do with being afraid of what he might say about me. If that were my concern, I’d want him to be taught in the classrooms. Since I’m reasonably sure that I live my life in such a way as to be largely free of divine criticism, fear of his reproach is generally not a factor in forming my opinion on social policy.
As for your little anti-evolution blast there at the end… I’ll let that one slide. I don’t have the energy or the inclination to try to explain why you’re wrong about that, as well.
