The righteous man doesn’t think or do evil.
The unrighteous man thinks evil but doesn’t do evil.
The wicked man thinks and does evil.
I’m absolutely certain that Jesus didn’t mean to literally pluck out your eye if you see something that tempts you. I think he meant simply to cast sins away from ourselves and avoid tempting situations.
I’m also absolutely certain that thought sins are lesser than actual physical sins. Yes, Jesus said that if you look at a woman and lust after her, you’ve already committed adultery with her in your heart. But that doesn’t mean thought sins are as serious as actual physical sins, IMHO. It just means that we should watch both our thoughts and our actions.
And yes, I’m in a big mess. But my bishop told me there was hope for me, so I’m optimistic that Jesus will eventually save me if I repent of all my sins and do His will.
Spooje
Ignore that one unless you’re so interested you want to start another thread.
It’s a throw-away line based on my religious/philosophical beliefs. I believe everything is ultimately within our control. How relevant that knowledge may be to the average person is questionable, and whether we should try to control some things is a whole different kettle of fish.
Let’s just say for the here and now sexuality is beyond the control of the vast majority of human beings.
You still haven’t answered my questions BTW.
1)Do you see any flaws in my ‘homosexuality is a crime and a mental illness’ argument as presented?
2)Were you implying earlier that mental illness is a disease, did you mean something else entirely, or were you simply confusing disease/illness?
Well, I already know how well this is going to go over with the “take-the-Bible-literally” crowd, but here goes…
Jesus is extremely fond of using Semitic style usages, quite understandably for Someone raised as and speaking to among a Semitic people. So the rest of us who are inclined to use good old Germanic language style and Greco-Roman logical sequences need to take that into account when we read His words. And I thought of dealing with just the passages you speak of, along with the “he who looks on a woman with lust in his heart has committed adultery with her in his heart” line. I decided that was a can of worms best left until later. It looks like “later” is now.
In this, I tend to follow traditional Catholic exegesis. Jesus is speaking hyperbolically: “Let nothing stand between you and God’s will – if anything gets in your way, eliminate it. And to make My point, I’ll take it to an extreme example…” Hear that as preface to what is in Scripture. (Randy, as a literate conservative reader of the Bible, check me on this.)
My understanding of how Roman theologians view the lust vs. desire aspect is this: having a God-given sex drive, which comes into play before, and to foster, the intelligent choice of a lifelong mate, one will inevitably, in accord with God’s will, be attracted to a comely person. This is healthy and right. One should not use her/him as a sex object, however, even in one’s imagination, but rather control one’s impulses until one is prepared to make that lifelong commitment. To desire is not sinful in and of itself – it’s the natural work of the sex drive that is God’s gift to you. To foster that desire intentionally at a person not one’s intended life mate (or not yet), even within one’s own mind, is to lust, which is one of the Seven Primary (“Deadly”) Sins. (And please note that this is (a) an ideal towards which to strive, not a mandate one must keep to from puberty on, and (b) what a Christian should expect of him/herself, not something he or she should use to judge others.) Joel, Tom, or Guin may be able to identify the Roman ethical terms for the impulse vs. premeditated behavior that I’m alluding to here; I don’t myself recall them.
This is where I was going with my advice to Snark Hunter. I feel that God gave him his SSA (or permitted it to happen without SH’s consent, which given omnipotence amounts to the same thing) for a reason. And that in acknowledging his SSA and thanking God for the beauty he can see in the male form, yet restraining himself from acting on it if he feels it to be sinful, he is feeling the desire but refraining from the lust. And not reacting with one’s libido when encountering a person one finds sexually attractive is about as difficult as not thinking about a fox, once one has been explicitly instructed not to think about a fox.
Can you see the distinction I’m drawing? And understand that Jesus, a Jew talking to Jews, was using Jewish word usage and not commanding that which, in our Greco-Roman categoricalization, we would find difficult-to-impossible? His similes implied the doing of what one is able to do, not a mandate to attempt the ridiculous, just as the instruction really means, “whenever the idea of a fox comes into your mind, turn your thoughts to other things.”
There are numerous flaws which I have stated in a previous post:
-Homosexuality isn’t a crime. It has been decriminalized in America and most of Europe.
-The American Psychological Association removed homosexuality as a mental illness in the 1970s.
Your dogged adherance to calling it a mental illness and crime is an insult to gay men and women everywhere. You don’t seem to consider how this affects people.
From the Mirriam Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: dis·ease
Pronunciation: di-'zEz
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English disese, from Middle French desaise, from des- dis- + aise ease
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : TROUBLE
2 : a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning : SICKNESS, MALADY
3 : a harmful development(as in a social institution)
- dis·eased /-'zEzd/ adjective
By this definition, you could only consider homosexuality a disease if you were going to try and claim that homosexuality is an impairment of normal functioning. This would be going on the ad hominem belief that sex was only to occur between a man and a woman and thus was a harmful development to a social institution.
This would be grossly inaccurate and reduces gay men and women to a very narrow definition of what is normal. Normal is a subjective term, and one often used by those who wish to persecute or call others abnormal.
From the Mirriam Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: ill·ness
Pronunciation: 'il-n&s
Function: noun
Date: circa 1500
1 obsolete a : WICKEDNESS b : UNPLEASANTNESS
2 a : an unhealthy condition of body or mind b : SICKNESS 2
This is just a repeat of disease.
It is insulting and demeaning to be called diseased and ill because you are something that many don’t like. Homosexuality occurs in mammals other than human beings.
Are they sick? Are they ill? No. They are operating to their nature.
Why are you so dead set on calling gay men and women sick when there is not corroberating evidence? I have not seen you cite anything to back yourself up.
Unfortunately, this is untrue. On the presumption you were speaking of sexual activity, since the orientation itself would be impossible to criminalize, there are a number of states, Virginia, both Carolinas, and several deep South states being on this list, in which it is still a felony.
I’ve been wading my way back through this, isolating what Gaspode had to say that created so much havoc.
To work, then:
This is, I suppose, true. The applicability of it to the case in point is not so obvious.
Uh, the OP never said “crime” (God’s law or anyone else’s) – it said “sin” And then constructed a less-than-great analogy to a person who is allergic to but enjoys the taste of peanuts. (Quirky sidelight: was the particular foodstuff selected for the wordplay on “penis”?)
A sin is quite distinct from a law, as most people find easy to understand. Sins can be repented of under most religious systems; lawbreaking must be punished, regardless of the contrition of the perpetrator.
Next week, we’ll deal with even tougher words, like “love” and “justice.” :rolleyes:
First, homosexuality can mean an orientation, which is not a crime and generally not considered a sin by those who bother thinking with their brains instead of having gut reactions to anyone different from them. Or it can mean an act. It is quite clear that the first is not a choice, and beyond the control of the person involved. The second is, equally obviously, a choice; any person engages in consensual sex because he or she chooses to (barring the rare obsessive-compulsive, which we’ll get to shortly).
I find several items on the list of equivalencies you suggest to be offensive, as a person who engages in none of them (unless you consider smoking a form of self-mutilation). What constitutes a “mental illness,” to this layman (and I welcome correction by an expert), consists in it being one of two things: a condition in a person’s mentality which causes him or her anguish, or a condition in a person’s mentality which makes it impossible for him or her to function normally in society. Whether some benighted society considers behavior X to be a mental illness is moot; IMHO it must fit one of those two characters if not both to be a mental illness.
And I would debate whether all the items on that list have individually been considered “normal and acceptable behavior” in any stable society. Necrophilia, for example, is one where I cannot think of a possible accepting society.
No, not illegal, sinful. And while the second part might follow from the first, to a compassionate conservative Christian, it is not a logical inference in reality (which, unless we’re playing what-if games here, is what I would think we’re talking about), since the premise is flawed.
Well, except for the inevitable language correction, the first sentence has possibilities. But I would like to think that I have made the case that Christianity per se does not necessarily find homosexuality, either orientation or act, sinful, nor does Reform Judaism. And I would look for something more than subjective interpretation of the question.
Now, what in the name of Ed Zotti’s pet chupacabra is the necessity to bring in child molestation every time the morality of homosexuality is debated. I have not noted a propensity in gay people to go out and join NAMBLA. Nobody has opened a thread in MPSIMS urging people to join it.
Further, your last sentence in that section is flawed. (And thanks to Matt_mcl for resurrecting the hundred-year-old vocabulary that enables me to make the distinction. The classic Greeks were as down on people who got their rocks off with prepubescent children, who practiced paedophilia, as we are. What some parts of Greek society in some cities approved of was ephebophelia, the practice of sex between mature man and adolescent boy. And this was done in a context of mentor-and-student, where the man was training the boy in the arts of war, a trade, etc., along with having sex with him. And the boy would, as he matured, move into the mentor role and bring along the next generation. Not exactly anybody’s cup of tea, but hardly a molestation situation.
As noted, there’s a difference between crime and sin, and it has to do with the certitude of punishment regardless of mindset. And the final point is el garbagio – unrepented sin, on the orthodox Jewish and Christian understanding, results in perpetual damnation and torture, not “a stint.”
I’ve already dealt with the Scripture quotes in an earlier post. Feel free to ask if you have any questions.
Just in case you hadn’t noted on the several thousand posts I’ve made on the subject, there is a very wide range of attitudes among those who believe in the God shared by Christians and Jews (the latter usually being offended by being called “Hebrews” by the way, just in case you were keeping track of who all you’ve offended – I do believe you’ve missed left-handed Icelandic midgets, but bjOrn can probably give you pointers on what irks them). And I don’t want to go through the mental exercise of tearing apart the faulty syllogisms involved in this quote.
It’s quite obvious that the books of the Bible, with the single exception of the Ten Commandments as set forth in Exodus (as opposed to Deuteronomy, which also lists them), are the writing of men. Who on traditional accounts were inspired by God to write what He wanted – but the understanding of how that inspiration works varies from person to person. It does not negate the massive collection of intelligent statements that David B. has made on this board that he happened once to cite an erroneous statement made by an authority he trusted. As for your last sentence, the Christian believes that God speaks in his/her heart through the work of the Holy Spirit, the test for the accuracy of this being how well it conforms to the overall meaning of the Bible.
With all due respect, why don’t you leave the interpretation of how we who are live out our faith and interpret our beliefs, especially as regards other people and their rights, to those of us who are. I know Chaim could do a better job of arguing the case you seem to be trying to make without being insulting in the slightest.
Well, the fact that either you are or you’ve got the worst case of internalized homophobia on record, one that makes Snark Hunter the picture of vibrant mental health by comparison. Sheesh!
People who wish to engage in child molestation or bestiality are not pursuing consensual adult sex with someone who is also a consenting adult human being. And in over 50 years of wide-ranging experience in real life and online, I know of exactly one prepubescent child who was IMO capable of giving adult consent to sex (and didn’t): an 11-year-old genius who happened on a pedophile newsgroup and was having the time of his life being the center of their attention. And was in no way interested in having sex with any of them. (Either that, or a very sick individual who was an absolutely perfect actor impersonating such a kid, and as a former “child genius” who has a very good memory of what being 11 was like, I can vouch for the attitudes this kid expressed.)
Wrong. You, Gaspode, asserted the compulsiveness of sexual behavior. The rest of us, having control both of our sexuality and our posting ability, refrained from stressing the stupidity of this. If you have ever suffered from a compulsive disorder, you would fully understand the difference between an urge and a compulsion.
And even the most vehement anti-gay Christian posters would not draw that likeness nor concur in the compulsion, though they might agree with the mental illness part.
Your wish is my command!
You’ve been asked for them, nicely and vehemently, on this thread and elsewhere. Produce them or withdraw the statement. Simple as that.
The point I would see this as making, not speaking for the person who originally said it, is that it provides evidence for examining what precisely the Scriptural proscriptions are speaking of. There’s a huge difference between clandestine effectively-anonymous sex and a committed relationship, and that would hold as true for homosexuals as for heterosexuals.
By equating them to people practicing several varieties of generally despised behavior. By using a twisted set of invalid syllogisms to indict them on the basis of a religious belief that on your own admission you do not subscribe to. In short, by trolling them. Need I point out Rule #1?
On further reading, I find that you finally define compulsion, do draw the distinction between orientation and act, insist that compulsion describes orientation (or “it would be a choice”), then reverse yourself and say that not all homosexuality (apparently the orientation, though you do not make it clear) is compulsive, only some. Which I think effectively negates your entire point, such as it was.
Yes.
But you’re wrong.
In view of this, what in the name of all that’s holy to anyone on this board was the point to all this? And don’t say, “to address the OP”? The OP was an inoffensive inquiry as to whether God was responsible for an existing condition not chosen, the desire to eat peanuts, and by extension homosexuality (presumably the orientation). It did not require the comparison of homosexuality to a variety of other behavior patterns nor the assignment of crime or mental illness status to it, to be addressed. You were either (a) expressing your own personal views, contrary to the post you just made, or (b) trolling with an intent to demonize and provoke the gay and gay-friendly posters. I suggest you make clear which post haste, and deal with the consequences of whichever it was.
And again contradicted yourself. Though I debate the last sentence to a certain extent.
Ahh, bathos, how refreshing, can I give it a go? :rolleyes:
The New Oxford Dictionary of English database
sin1 noun an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law: a sin in the eyes of God | [mass noun] the human capacity for sin.
an act regarded as a serious or regrettable fault, offence, or omission: he committed the unforgivable sin of refusing to give interviews. Verb
Notice sin= transgression of divine law, act of serious offence. I believe this vindicates my statement that the OP assumes homosexuality is a crime. I always try consulting one of these ‘dictionary’ things before I challenge the definitions of others. I know it’s a tougher word than love or justice, but I’m sure we can all do it.
And that Polycarp is one of the primary points of discussion in this thread. An issue that is far from settled, as much as those who have a knee-jerk reaction to ideas that challenge their world beliefs may want to paint it that way.
I’m sure all right-thinking, non-goat felching people agree with me. (Isn’t the use of emotive language great. And it’s so easy even the youngest member of the family can join in.)
I always love it when someone makes statements like ‘it’s quite clear’ when the arguments going on around them, both on this board and in the real world makes it quite clear that it is far from clear to many people.
I’ll quote Pratchett
“Clearly. That’s a wallpaper word. When people say clearly something that means there’s a huge crack in their argument, and they know things aren’t clear at all.”
‘Obviously’ is an awful lot like ‘clearly’ isn’t it. There are many people who would argue this, not finding it at all obvious but I won’t bother here.
And your point would be? If something is offensive it should be censored even if it’s right? What relevance does offensiveness have to a debate if the facts are correct?
Can I have a cite for that, or are you simply saying that your definition is better than mine?
Even if I accept your definition then I would have to conclude that criminal behaviour makes it impossible to function normally in society. Therefore if said society makes behaviour X a crime it becomes mental illness by your own definition.
Then debate away. That’s what GD is for.
I will direct you to The Encyclopaedia Britannica though.
“Sexual deviations and sex offenses are, of course, social definitions rather than natural phenomena. What is normative behaviour in one society may be a deviation or crime in another. One can go through the literature and discover that virtually any sexual act, even child-adult relations or necrophilia, has somewhere at some time been acceptable behaviour”
Same thing, as I’ve proved aboved. Just the justice system that varies, but I though I made that clear very early on.
Since I’ve proved that the premise isn’t flawed I guess this whole paragraph is irrelevant. However I do find the use of emotive terms like “to a compassionate conservative Christian it’s not a logical inference’ to be amusing if somewhat childish. So anyone who makes that logical inference isn’t compassionate and Christian. Not much of a tactic for a reasoned debate is it. Prove your logic, don’t infer it from other standards.
Your whole argument so far has hinged on my use of criminality being irrelevant and the use of emotive language. I’ve proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that my definition is acceptable and not open to correction, so I guess that makes this one irrelevant too.
You may have attempted to make that case. The jury is still out on how well you made it. Others are making excatly the opposite case.
To say that Christianity does not necessarily find homosexuality sinful flies in the face of the accumulated evidence of the doctrines of many if not most of the Christian churches. Whether these doctrines are right is part of the discussion at hand. It is not a settled issue.
OK, I’ve given a dictionary site so I guess it was never subjective huh?
If I didn’t explain it carefully enough the first time, it is because it is a sexual behaviour considered immoral by secular authorities. I actually thought that saying “The assumptions are entirely cultural. Child molestation was considered to be neither a crime nor a disease in ancient Greece and was thought to hurt no-one, yet is considered a crime, and in many cases a mental illness, in our societies.” made that pretty clear to most people.
Did I ever at any stage imply that homosexuals were more likely to be child molesters? Or is that just you making assumptions that anyone who doesn’t vigorously support the current societal view of homosexuality must believe them to be sickos?
And that is exactly what I’m talking about when I say the definitions are cultural. Try doing what you described in Australia today and see if you get charged with child molestation. I thank you for making my point for me so eloquently.
And as my above quote proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that is only your view. It is shared neither by myself not the good people at Oxford. Frankly I trust the Oxford dictionary far more than your own august personage when it comes to the correct usage of the English language.
[/quote]
and it has to do with the certitude of punishment regardless of mindset.
[/quote]
Can I have a cite for that? I can think of several criminal codes where mindset is very instrumental in determining punishment, and several religious ones where it doesn’t, and vice versa.
“el garbagio”. My how witty, how mature.
Three very important points poopy pants
If you had the intelligence to read you would note my reference was to ‘divine’ law, not Jewish or Christain specifically.
Neither I nor anyone else mentioned unrepented sin.
That is not ‘the’ Christian understanding, it probably isn’t even the predominant view. Certainly not held by Jehovah’s Witnesses, nor true for Catholics IIRC.
Why bother, nothing you’ve said so far has stood up to scrutiny.
And despite knowing this you still make sweeping statements about what Christians believe pertaining to damnation and homosexuality. I think we can chalk another one up for wilful dissemination of ignorance, folks.
BTW the number of posts you have made don’t impress me much. Try some logic.
Can I see a cite for where my use of the term Hebrew is in any way incorrect? Or is this just more of the ‘if a certain group finds it offensive don’t say it’ censorship you seem to be espousing?
Again anything that offends anyone should not be stated regardless of accuracy huh? I don’t like censorship Ploycarp, and will do my damnedest to frustrate anyone who attempts to censor me.
Since your aware of them I won’t either.
Again with the ‘quite obvious’. Lay off will you! If it’s obvious then lay out the facts and it will become so to all readers. Your saying it’s obvious won’t make it so.
Umm I believe Spooje and I have already done this to death. What’s your point here.
What the David B reference is I don’t know.
Again you demonstrate that you have been vouchsafed the knowledge of all Christian beliefs. I’ll just quote you: “Just in case you hadn’t noted……, there is a very wide range of attitudes among those who believe in the God shared by Christians and Jews”
You’ve shown no respect to this point Polycarp, with comments like ‘el garbagio’, why start taxing yourself now.
Are what?
Can you please demonstrate where I’ve done otherwise.
If someone is insulted by facts, that is their concern, not mine. If I have done other than present facts and logical argument please point it out.
And this from?
Your point with this waffle would be what? Do you have some reason to question that my comment is very close to what child molesters would say? If so can you please express it rather than running off on a tangent.
I’m just going to direct you to my response when Spooje managed to ask me whether this was the case, rather than stating it as fact. If you can see a flaw in the argument please point it out.
You have control of your sexuality. Are you saying you and ‘the rest of you’ can choose whether to be heterosexual or homosexual? Seems to be excatly what almost everyone, me included, has been denying is possible.
I think you might get a few arguments on this if anyone else can be bothered reading the tripe you’ve written
I can do better than that. I can argue logically using dictionary definitions so that the meanings of my words are clear to any English speaking person capable of using a dictionary. Both urge and compulsion are in the dictionary you know, there’s no need for your subjective judgements to be the arbiter of my definitions.
No, but presumably the logical, impassionate and presumably correct people responsible for the OED are happy to.
Just because someone doesn’t like the connotations of a word or phrase doesn’t make the phrase inapplicable to them. This is the sort of PC nonsense that has given us terms like ‘vertically challenged’.
‘Elsewhere’? Can you please direct me to ‘elsewhere’? Can you please direct me to ‘on this thread’?
Since you’ve asked me here though, will this quote from ‘The Encyclopaedia Britannica’ under the topic heading “Sexual Behavior” suffice?
“Sexual deviations and sex offenses are, of course, social definitions rather than natural phenomena. What is normative behaviour in one society may be a deviation or crime in another. One can go through the literature and discover that virtually any sexual act, even child-adult relations or necrophilia, has somewhere at some time been acceptable behaviour.”
I’m sure I can provide sites for the other deviancies I’ve mentioned if you’d really like them, but I imagine this will keep you quite on this subject.
You don’t seem to be winning anything on the cites and definitions stakes do you.
And that is part of what the OP is asking, but since I agreed with this why is it relevant. Try again.
Can you please show me where I did that? I realise by this that you are finding the concept of a line of reasoning difficult to follow, but could you please find a web site that explains it, and then get back to me on this.
No, I don’t define it, I quote the Oxford dictionary. That defines it.
No the English language did that for me as well. Had you been able to use a dictionary that would have been the only sense you could possibly have made of my posts. It’s becoming increasingly obvious Polycarp that you have an obstinate refusal to accept what is written in plain English at face value. Instead you insist on reading into it the posters intention. Give it up, you’ll just end up looking like a fool as you have here.
Ahh, no, I insist that if all the other posters, bar you, are right, if Spooje is right and if the Oxford dictionary is right then it describes orientation. If any or all of these are wrong then what hope have we got at continuing this discussion.
Can you please post the two mutually exclusive statements here. I’m dieing to see them.
Well since every sentence you uttered is either fundamentally incorrect or a lie I think that puts this one to bed as well.
Can you actually post them then. All the supposed holes you’ve come up with so far have been demonstrated utter nonsense based on a refusal to utilise the English language correctly, incorrect assumptions and emotionalism.
Can I have a cite for that, from a metaphysical standpoint, or is this just more assertion.
Enlightenment of the odd ignoramous. I think I addressed all this in the post you just quoted. The OP posed a hypothetical. I responded. If you have nothing to add shut up. If you have something to add do it with some degree of logic, reasoning and manners.
Oh, sorry. I didn’t realise the truth wasn’t an option on this forum.
Finally got one correct.
Correct. Of course nor did it require the Jewish prohibition against touching a menstruating woman to be addressed. It was. It didn’t require anything to be addressed. You and Hastur however seem to have nominated yourselves defenders of what is acceptable to be addressed.
[quote]
You were either (a) expressing your own personal views, contrary to the post you just made, or (b) trolling with an intent to demonize and provoke the gay and gay-friendly posters.[.quote]
So like Hastur some supernatural power has given you the ability to gaze into men’s souls over the internet and determine their intent. This sort of self-righteous behaviour always makes me smile.
oooooooh. Polycarp gonna come beat me up? Until I see the word ‘Moderator’ under your handle the only thing these sorts of empty threats are going to inspire is long low laugh.
The intent of my posts and my personal beliefs have absolutely no bearing on their correctness. They may, as in Spooje’s case, have a bearing on whether you wish to debate a point, but they in no way contribute to their factual or logical content. Therefore they have no relevance to the fight against ignorance. If you want a fight Polycarp go elsewhere. If you want to help the fight against ignorance then start posting some logic and facts. Ad hominem arguments go nowhere with me.
And again you could easily have posted the contradictory sentences, but haven’t.
I know I did. One thing I can tell about you Polycarp is despite membership of a board dedicated to fighting ignorance you have a very small world view. That view encompasses a world where you feel safe and comfortable and anything that threatens to widen that world view strips you of the ability to reason, follow an argument or even post in a civilised manner. Which is a shame. Normally you would have understood the concept of adversarial testing.
You can take this one Spooje. Here we have someone who believes that sexuality is within the control of at least most people. Doesn’t say how he arrived at this conclusion, but hey that’s not surprising.
In summary Polycarp your entire problem with what I posted stems from:
several incorrect assumptions concerning the definition of words, which you couldn’t be bothered checking
An inability to accept what was written in plain English at face value
An overt eagerness to display your ‘liberalism’, probably an overcompensation mechanism. This has led you into a witch hunt. The substance of what was posted has become irrelevent to you, only the posters intents and beliefs. Not only are these things unprovable and only to be taken at face value, they have nothing to do with the elimination of ignorance.
A belief in the censorship of any belief that may be deemed offensive by certain groups, irrespective of whether the facts supporting belief are correct.
An inability to find any flaws in my line of argument.
This isn’t very nice behaviour for a forum dedicated to fighting ignorance. Nor is un-aggravated name calling or the issuing of hollow threats. Using assertion and fact and emotive language aren’t real good either IMHO.
Get a grip Poly, I know you can do better than this.
That is all you have made. You deride or ignore any cite(and it is spelled CITE as in CITATION) that refutes you.
You still persist in mud slinging and name calling in the Great Debates. You show a great deal of personal anger in the fire and brimstone you write. What so personally bothers you that you have to be hostile and ignore the policies of the board in the midst of your postings?
Can you point me towards the cites that refute me Hastur, I must have missed them?
Have you actually read the thread yet?
Do you actually have anything to contribute to the debate?
Look through the thread. I don’t think it is I who have missed reading comprehensively.
You have contributed nothing but ad hominem attacks against gay men and women. You have nothing to stand upon other than your own prejudices, which are painfully obvious.
You ignore everything which refutes you and are abusive to those whom you do pay attention to. You continue to try and attempt to bait me into lowering myself to your level.
You don’t want a debate, you want an argument, which I shall not give you.
Not to hijack,just gimme a second…
Snark: How did I ask you commit a “major” sin?
I didn’t.
Have you heard of anyone changing their sexuality?
Successfully?
You said the reason you won’t have a relationship with a man is becasue of your church; No other reason.
Eventually, maybe you will “see the light” and realize Jesus loves you;which church you are in doesn’t mean anything, just a relationship with God is what matters.
My words are in vain, I know.
Until you can look upon a naked man without being aroused, you will stay gay.
voiding looking won’t solve anything.
Best wishes, your going to need them.
Since I do have “moderator” after my name, perhaps you had better listen to my warning. Indulging in a penchant for name-calling and direct personal insults immediately after I have warned you for the same behavior in this very thread is not a very wise move. Should you wish to post any further insults or question my ruling, do it in the BBQ Pit.
“Here we have someone who believes that sexuality is within the control of at least most people.”
Uhh, did you mean that I(spooje) argued that sexuality is within the control of most people? If so, I must not be expressing myself very well, or you are confusing me with someone else. I have argued the opposite, that an individual’s sexuality is no more a matter of control than one’s blood type. We are what we are in the sexuality spectrum and no amount of shaming, cajoling or threatening(internally or externally) will change that.
As for this:
I do consider mental illness a disease. (what other option is there?) But I was refering to a post of your’s on page one where you made a comparison of homosexual behavior and addiction(which has been recognized as a disease) here:
Maybe you didn’t say, “Snark, go have sex with another man” explicitly, but you certainly implied that there was nothing wrong with that sort of thing.
Yes, I have. But more often, I’ve heard of people who still have SSA throughout their lives, but who have learned to control their actual behavior in a way that God can accept. Click on the link I provided for Evergreen International to see some testimonials.
I know Jesus loves me. I do believe that a relationship with God is very important. I used to hate God, but I’ve felt His loving influence in my life and have realized that I don’t hate Him any more. My personal religious beliefs are that the LDS Church is true, and that you can get farther using that “vehicle” (church) than you can by just having a relationship with God and not belonging to any church. I also believe that the ordinances, covenants and priesthood of the LDS Church are necessary to get one into the highest degree of glory, as you know. So to me it does matter what church I belong to.
Thanks. Voiding looking at porn will certainly help, especially in the long run if not immediately.
I appreciate what you’re trying to do, Rose, I really do. It shows that you care about me. But our definitions of “homosexual” are different. You believe, apparently, that a person is once homosexual, always homosexual, and that perhaps God creates people to be gay. I believe that homosexuality is a combination of genes, environment and early experiences, not the Lord’s doing at all, and that it can be overcome with the Lord’s help.
If you want to talk about this further, please email me. Thanks! I’m glad you still care.
No I don’t mean to imply that you thought sexuality is within anyone’s control. We’re in agreement on that. I simply meant that since you seemed to have a greater interest than I in expressing this that you would perhaps be more willing and better able to argue this one with Polycarp. I thought that you might also be able to draw to his attention that there are people on this thread who do not support his position on consciously controlled sexual preference.
You’ve done the latter admirably and if Polycarp wants to argue the rest he can take it up with you or someone else. The whole point of my argument is that conscious control of motivation is largely irrelevant in the definition of a crime.
I stand corrected on this one. I was applying slightly tighter definition of disease that only encompasses physical, biological dysfunction. By this mental illness could be a symptom of a disease, but not a disease itself.
I notice the commoner (and therefore more correct) definitions define it as anything disrupting or impairing function. Therefore mental illness is a disease, as is being shot. Mae culpa.
I’d also like to apologise to Gaudere, all other posters and especially Polycarp for my insults directed at him.
I’m afraid I was a little on the defensive after Hastur’s rant and Polycarp’s sarcasm and interpreted the following:
as “And the final point is, el garbagio.”. That is, I took it as Polycarp referring to me as el garbagio.
This was obviously completely wrong and my reaction totally unjustified.
I’m sorry.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I’ll try to live up to it; I hope I have done so in my earlier posts in this thread.
A slight correction for you, though:
According to Orthodox Judaism, the five books of Moses were not merely written with divine “inspiration,” but were actually written down by dictation. The other books of the OT were, even according to Orthodox Judaism, divinely inspired through human minds.
snark: genes=created that way.
I only care that someone has their hopes up for naught.
It doesn’t matter who that is, Don’t take it personally, I don’t care if you go have sex with a guy; it’d probably do ya some good.
To clear up a misstatement I made on an earlier page, I had ascribed the inverted pentagram’s use to “Neopagans and Satanists” – I hope no one misinterpreted this as equating the two, but simply as indicating usage by both groups. I am advised by the wise and charming dogsbody that I am in error, that most if not all Neopagan groups use the right-side-up five-pointed star as a symbol and that only Satanists invert it. I regret the error.
Now, Gaspode, I went through your posts in extenso because you had requested detailed refutation of the points you were making. I felt I had done that, although I did feel some strong emotional reactions to some of your assertions.
I have absolutely no problem with your using a dictionary to set forth the meaning of your terms. It is your privilege. And I would like to be the last person here to ever advocate censorship of ideas. What I found fault with was in your presentation of them. There’s a long-standing policy here that any idea and any criticism of ideas is valid but persons debating are sacrosanct, that one takes offense against the person behind the idea out in the Pit and not here, if at all. Which to me means respect for the other poster. If a particular idea is likely to cause offense in another poster, one phrases it with great caution and with the caveat that it is not intended to accuse or condemn that person. I felt that your language use was not only in violation of this principle but calculated to cause offense, and called you on it, not as something I am not here, but as a fellow poster who likes the free dialogue we have here and the atmosphere that makes it possible. I tried to adhere to this in my marathon response to your remarks – while I might consider one of your ideas “el garbagio” I would not refer to you by that term. If you have a problem with that, join me in the Pit, and we can deal with it there.
In regards to your syllogisms, while your particular choices of definition are no doubt within the dictionary-sanctioned word usages for the terms, the logical inferences you draw are presupposive of particular meanings that are contrary to standard (as opposed to additional acceptable) usage. E.g., in talking of mental illness, one would use “compulsive” in the sense that clinical psychology does, rather than in the sense in which it equates to “resulting from a desire or urge.” I.e., it would be behavior completely beyond the self-control capacities of the actor performing it. I would hesitate to use “crime” without restrictive adjective modifying it in the sense of “offense against the Divine Law.” And I would find it most useful to take terms like “homosexuality” that encompass a range of meanings and in the absence of using the general term specify precisely what was meant. I would agree that “homosexuality is compulsive” as you try to use the terms: the orientation is not subject to the control of the individual, except perhaps by the sort of major personality self-reconstruction on which Snark Hunter is embarked. But the implications with which you surrounded that make it clear that you are then jumping to the alternate meaning of “compulsion” as a defect in will power as regards a particular behavior, regarded as a mental illness, which means that you, by shifting definitions (probably unintentionally) in midstream, proved your point by circular reasoning. You cannot have “compulsion” hold both meanings in the same logical sequence, and then shift meanings in order to prove your point by adopting the meaning which implies your conclusion when you’ve set up a premiss using the other meaning.
So my sense was that you construct erroneous syllogisms by shifting between alternative definitions of words, and I tried to prove that in depth, noting in passing the occasions in which you had used examples, parallels, and so on that were to my mind calculatedly offensive. You are perfectly welcome to advocate the felching of goats as a moral imperative here, but if you attempt to equate that principle to keeping Torah, you will certainly offend our Jewish co-posters (should that be cop-osters, to match cow-orkers? :)) and in your reiterated equivalence of homosexuality to necrophilia, pederasty, and so on, you were being offensive to our gay cop-osters.
I think that a case can be made on the general concept that biologically the primary purpose of sex is for the progeneration of young, and that homosexuality, as orientation and activity, fails to meet that criterion. However, that would fall short of the idea that sex also serves to “sacramentalize” – be the physical expression of – (romantic/marital) love and to have the bio-behavioral-social function of strengthening and preserving the pair bond. And in this case the idea that a pair bond between two persons of the same sex can be as valid as one between two persons of opposite sexes would tend to defeat any “unnaturalness” arguments there.
You are, of course, correct. Allow me, however, to clarify something: In my experience, even those who find the idea of gay sex repulsive, when presented with the idea of the homosexual orientation, as distinct from its behavioral expression, concur on thought (and prayer, if they are praying people) that the orientation itself is not sinful, as it is something effectively impossible to change. (I heard you, Snark – “effectively” is there to allow wiggle room for preternatural effort while making the basic assertion.)
It was my intent to contrast thought to “gut reaction” in those sincere people who find homosexuality as a behavior offensive to draw the distinction with orientation, not to cast aspersions about people condemning as just using gut reactions – and tarring you, Gaspode, with that inadvertently. Can you see now the line I was drawing, between first “gut reaction” and thought about what an unsought orientation might imply in the same individual, rather than between “people who think things through” and “people who go with gut reactions” as you apparently took me to imply?
We ain’t on Diskworld. And I’ll retract “clear” and “obvious” if you prefer. Instead, how’s this:
Every gay person on this board and every one I have seen reflect on their state in print has asserted vehemently that it was not a choice. If you disagree, the onus is on you to prove they all were in error. And if you don’t find the idea that they can choose whether to commit a particular sex act or not obvious, then you’re implying that they, unlike the rest of us, are compulsive in the clinical sense. And again the onus of proof is on you. I was in the presence of SqrlCub and dcnewsman, two out gays, for extended periods of time at Dopefests. Neither of them seemed to have the slightest problem in restraining themselves from sexually assaulting me – in fact, I didn’t detect the slightest flicker of desire there. This could have a great deal to do with my less-than-attractive physical composition, but on your inference they certainly should have been compulsively moved to ravish me in the middle of RTFirefly’s living room. Clarify your problems with my premises here, if you would; I’ve done you the honor of removing words you found inappropriate – though not insulting – a deed I am surprised you were unwilling to do for others. (No intent to ad hominem there, just the statement that the logical converse not being carried out is surprising to me. If you’d care to clarify why, I’m sure it would be interesting to read.)
Edited down a bit for clarity. I regret my infelicitous phrasing here. The first comma in my post made it unclear. I’d intended to say that "while a CCC might deduce Y from X, the fact of the matter is that due to the invalidity of X, it is not a valid inference. And I can only reiterate that you have not proved the premise, only restated it a number of times, including a tail-chasing attempt at proof that depends, as noted, on the shift of a term from one definition to a second which incorporates in itself the conclusion you draw. And at least three posters have stated to you that they disagree with your premises and/or your logic. So maintaining “it’s been proved; nobody disagrees with me” is the same sort of childishness you misinterpreted my statements as being – “I’ll ignore anybody who disagrees.”
Try this, as simple as I can made it:
Christianity as a whole is composed of numerous denominations with varying claims to represent the “true faith.” Nobody has made a case to do so that would be convincing to an outside observer, say David B.
I enumerated several denominations whose attitude supports my case.
I concur that past doctrines, as well as present belief in many denominations, disagree with the assertion that “Christianity (as we practice it) does not necessarily find homosexuality sinful.”
To make a generic statement about a group entity as a whole requires that every member of the group fit the assertion. If I were to say that “all lawyers are dishonest scumbags,” you would only need produce one lawyer who is an honest scumbag, a dishonest non-scumbag, or an honest non-scumbag to refute me.
Since some Christians, including some denominations as a whole, agree with a specific formulation of my statement, the generic is true in the way I formulated it – if some Y believe X and some do not, then a belief in X is not necessarily a characteristic of Y-dom as a group.
I do concur on the cultural mindset being what makes things normative or prohibited. Though I think you may have had a point in your illustration, the classic usage of pedophilia as the parallel to homosexuality in those who do choose to “demonize homosexuals” made it (a) offensive, as discussed above, and (b) a particularly poor example to make your case with.
And, as noted, the behaviors are not coordinate: classic Greek ephebophilia is not identifiable with pre-pube pedophilia, and the cultural acceptance of the one in one time and place and the cultural repulsion with the other in most if not all times and places are not on all fours with each other.
Skipping down a ways…
I’ve addressed (1) above. If you have a problem with how I use the words you bring into the debate, it’s your problem and not mine. (2) I’ve been accused of this before, by people who are convinced that “if it says so in the Bible, it’s gotta be right” – and never mind that word usage has changed, context has changed, and so on. I can read your statements quite well, thanks. (3) I’m not in the slightest interested in proving myself “liberal” – I have a great deal of interest in doing the right thing. Nor am I looking for a “witch hunt” – you’re welcome to take any controversial stand you like, and I’ll support your right to do so. However, in this particular case, you are attempting to make a case regarding the views of a belief system, one that I hold and you by your own assertion do not, regarding a social concern on which I have numerous times expressed my views, and to attempt to prove that people of my belief system actually hold views opposite to mine. In view of your disgust at my inquiring into your motives, posted immediately adjacent to your analysis of what mine must be, I’ll refrain from taking any view as to why you might be doing this. But given the fact that you have brought mine into this, I insist at this point that you state precisely why you are taking the stance you are in this thread. Because this place welcomes anything-goes debate on ideas and prohibits trollery, where someone takes a controversial stance for the explicit purpose of angering others, and because you have questioned my motivations here, I believe that I in particular have a right to know yours and you have a right to express your own, on the “court martial” theory that a person impugned with a condemned behavior has a right to redeem his or her own good name. So my insistence is not some kind of uppity attitude but a combination of the expectation that sauce for the 'Carp is sauce for the Gaspode as well, and my desire that somebody accused of trollery, including through innuendo and slanted language by me (for which I apologize) needs to have the right to make clear exactly what his motives were. (4) Addressed. Censorship is not at issue. Poster courtesy is. (5) I can only refer you to Abe Lincoln’s riddle:
Reiterating that nobody’s found flaws in your logic, when people keep pointing out the ones they have, doesn’t make the flaws go away.
So is the alcoholic whose genes pre-select him to be susceptible to alcoholism “created that way” as well? Does God want him to be a drunk? How about the person whose genes give him/her a lethal disease? A crippling disability? A mental illness?
Feel free to have strong emotional reactions, I have no problem with that. The trouble is that you and Hastur have accused and are accusing me of making ‘assertions’ that cause this when in fact I have been arguing a point and have never made any assertions that any of this is true, merely logically consistent within the limits defined by the OP and the OED.
It’s more than a privilege. The only way that anything can ever be decided in a factual way is if everyone knows what is actually meant by all participants. The only practical way I can see of achieving this is if we all agree we are speaking common English unless otherwise defined. A dictionary is the only way that we can clarify/substantiate common English definitions.
The alternatives are either to define every single word as we use it, or to simply rely on our own personal definitions of words. The former is impractical. The latter has two associated problems. Firstly every person who is unwilling to concede a point will simply say ‘but that’s not what I said’ and there will be no way of countering this. This hardly serves the cause of fighting ignorance. Secondly we will have people forever claiming ‘your analogy/conclusions are wrong because your definition doesn’t fit mine’, as you did with your definition of ‘Sin’. Again this hardly advances a debate or serves the cause of combating ignorance.
If there is a problem of presentation pertaining to facts or logic then point it out so that we can debate it. Saying things like ‘you’re homophobic’ with no justification beyond personal feeling is not a debate. If the presentation problem is that it does not meet your (I concede usually high) standards of tact and diplomacy, that is unfortunate. It does not however have any bearing on the validity of the argument.
I agree entirely. I have apologised for having done otherwise and will do so again. I’m sorry.
No, I have to disagree Polycarp. That to me is censorship pure and simple. If I have to preface every statement pertaining to the evolution of man with ‘I don’t wish to offend Christians but’ then my thoughts have been censored and Bowdlerised. If I have to preface every comment pertaining to war atrocities with ‘I realise that many cultures find the torture and enslavement of captives to be neither unacceptable nor unethical and I do not intend to condemn or accuse those persons’ then my thoughts have been censored and bowdlerised. Often in Great Debates the intent of a statement is to condemn, as evidenced in the ‘Inherently cruel race’ thread and almost all the political threads. For a forum that is, I hope, dedicated to establishing, at least at times, the moral and ethical legitimacy of beliefs and actions I cannot see how we can at times fail to be condemning. Under these circumstances a caveat that we intend no condemnation is clearly hypocritical.
That however is a topic for another debate. If you can show me somewhere in the boards’ guidelines where something to this effect is stated I will be obliged to follow it. Until then our only recourse will be to either open another GD thread, or agree to disagree.
And if you can point out somewhere where this might even possibly be so where my comments are not very, very clearly prefaced with ‘hypothetically’ or ‘within the constraints imposed by the OP’ then I might even be interested in discussing this.
Tried but apparently failed.
I think that you would have to agree that
“either you are or you’ve got the worst case of internalized homophobia on record, one that makes Snark Hunter the picture of vibrant mental health by comparison. “
or
“You were either (a) expressing your own personal views, contrary to the post you just made, or (b) trolling with an intent to demonize and provoke the gay and gay-friendly posters. I suggest you make clear which post haste, and deal with the consequences of whichever it was.
are likely to cause offence and are neither phrased with obvious caution nor accompanied by
a caveat. This is particularly interesting since you have no facts to back up your assertions, nor do you have any way of ascertaining the facts pertaining to my motivations sexuality or attitudes towards homosexuals. However this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
[/quote]
In regards to your syllogisms, while your particular choices of definition are no doubt within the dictionary-sanctioned word usages for the terms, the logical inferences you draw are presupposive of particular meanings that are contrary to standard (as opposed to additional acceptable) usage. [ E.g., in talking of mental illness, one would use “compulsive” in the sense that clinical psychology does, rather than in the sense in which it equates to “resulting from a desire or urge.” I.e., it would be behavior completely beyond the self-control capacities of the actor performing it.
[/quote]
Do you actually have a cite to back this up. ie do you have a reference from a respectable source that one must use ‘compulsive’ in a clinical sense in a religious debate? If, as I strongly suspect, you don’t this is just like your definition of sin in that it is personal opinion. How you choose to define standard usage is irrelevant. My comment was factually correct according to the Oxford dictionary. You may be able to find another definition and that is fine, but you are then just arguing semantics. My argument remains correct and my inferences definitely not pre-suppositive. The only pre-supposition appears to be yours that only clinical definitions will suffice.
Again what you choose to do is your business. You took issue with what I said and I had hoped that you would be able to provide a reasoned argument as to why based upon more than what you would do. My usage of the word ‘crime’ in this argument is perfectly correct according to the Oxford dictionary.
Added to this of course you ignore the fact that in more than one place I have made exactly that preface.
Consider these:
In fact looking through I have made this point in every single post.
And again this is fine, but homosexuality is already defined by the OED quite adequately. If you wish to further refine it then great, but since it was never defined by anyone in this thread I am quite justified to use it as the OED defines it. Again you argue semantics based on personal or alternative definitions without in any way demonstrating that my usage was erroneously any ones standards but yours.
Again I have to draw your attention to the fact that this is not how I use the terms, it is how the Oxford dictionary uses the terms.
Which seems to be in direct contradiction to
And
You seem a little confused over what you do believe on this topic. Even Spooje seems to have read your comments to mean that you believe sexuality is something people have control over., but it’s totally irrelevant to the argument anyway.
Makes it clear to you perhaps, but I have held to one meaning and one meaning only of compulsion: that of the Oxford dictionary. I have never said anything that a compulsion involves a defect. You are putting words into my mouth. Again you use ‘makes it clear’ when something is far from clear.
And again you put words in my mouth. I will state right here and now that I accept the Oxford dictionary as my final source of definitions in this instance. If you can demonstrate that any of my sentences fail to make sense when used with the stated definition please do so. Until then your assertion that I swapped definitions is just that: an assertion
I never swapped definitions. I accept only one definition here, the one posted, and it holds that meaning throughout the post. Allow me to state my definitions and argument again so there can be no doubt that I did not change definitions.
Compulsive:
resulting from or relating to an irresistible urge, especially one that is against one’s conscious wishes: compulsive eating.
Resist :
try to prevent by action or argument
My comment was that ‘homosexual desires are compulsive’. By substituting in the Oxford definitions the sentence becomes.
‘Homosexual desires result from an urge that cannot be prevented by action or argument’
Since you yourself have stated that “orientation is not subject to the control of the individual” I can’t quite see how you can argue this I this.
I did not at any stage change definitions. I only need the one definition in the one sentence, coupled with your own quote, to prove this assertion wrong.
Unfortunately you have failed to prove anything of the sort. As I have demonstrated above, your ‘proof’ seems to consist of assertion, based largely on alternative definitions, that, while they may be correct in themselves, fail to call my definitions into question… Arguing semantics will not in any way demonstrate my arguments to be incorrect as posted. Added to this on one occasion you asserted that I had changed definition when in fact I had not
And that is all it is: your opinion. If someone finds something offensive that is unfortunate and worthy of discussion in IMHO or the Pit. If someone finds something to be illogical or based on incorrect facts or argument that is appropriate to this forum.
Added to this all the parrallels that you found offensive were quite clearly prefaced with ‘within the constraints of the OP, ‘hypothetically’ and similar. If Darwin were prevented from discussing his theory of natural selection because some Christians of the day found it offensive where would the world be today? You really can’t afford to be offended by hypotheticals.
I never equated homosexuality to necrophilia or any other practice except within the hypothetical constraints of the OP. Do you really believe I should not express even hypothetical opinions because they may cause offence?
2)I was not being offensive, that is subjective personal opinion on your part. I was persuing a line of argument. They were feeling offended. You really should be more careful to place responsibility for peoples emotions where they belong. I know from other threads that you are capable of far more than subjective emotive statements like that one.
That requires me to accept an awful lot of assumptions made on your part doesn’t it?
Fortunately for you I do.
What the relevance of this is I don’t know. You seem to be assuming that since I have hypothesised that homosexuality can be treated as a crime under the OP then it must be ‘unnatural’. This seems to be still more evidence of your making assumptions based on your politico-religious beliefs and superimposing those on me.
Unnaturalness has nothing to do with whether something is either a crime or a disease.
I never argued for or against this, what is it’s relevance?
Thank you for clarifying that at least.
I can, and now that I do I have to ask where I at any staged argued either for or against this and what relevance it has if I didn’t. You seem to be posting an awful lot of irrelevant material that goes no way to addressing my argument but instead casts aspersions on any person that dares condemn homosexuality.
No, we ain’t, and we ain’t in the 19th century discussing hounds, yet you quote Abraham Lincloln. An obviously true observation about human beings remains true anywhere and any time.
Do if you wish, don’t if you don’t. Using these terms and emotive and prejudicial language doesn’t say much for the strength of your arguments though.
Where have I ever said that it was a choice when I was not talking metaphysically? Come on, show me just one instance? In fact, when I concluded a post with “Let’s just say for the here and now sexuality is beyond the control of the vast majority of human beings.” Your response was “In a pig’s eye”. What the hell are you on about Polycarp. Your opinion seems to change every post.
You seem to be again making an assumption about what I believe based on your preconceptions of what ‘people like me’ believe, rather than anything I’ve ever said. This is sad because I know you can do a lot better than this on issues where you aren’t so emotionally involved.
This is the first time I’ve ever known you to resort to a strawman. What gives?
Notice that I have stated quite clearly
“ that sexual desires are compulsive, not taking part in sexual acts. Since a desire is a mental/emotional thing…… I must be talking about mental/emotional behaviour. “
Given how easy it is to provide examples that contradict both your assumptions about my beliefs this is laughable.
Another straw man. Try saying ‘on what I inferred’ rather than ‘on your inference’. It places the blame for this misunderstanding where it belongs. I stated quite clearly that “sexual desires are compulsive, not taking part in sexual acts. Since a desire is a mental/emotional thing …… I must be talking about mental/emotional behaviour”. If you can infer what you have posted from that then there is little hope for you. For crying out loud this was posted alongside a definition of ‘compulsive’
This is getting silly Polycarp. You are actually reduced to making assumptions about my arguments that are directly contradictory to what I have posted. Is this the extent of you rational objection to my ‘homosexuality was a crime under Judaeo/Christian law’ statement?
I have above, but to recap, you have attempted a very poor strawman argument based on “you don’t find the idea that they can choose whether to commit a particular sex act or not obvious”
“on your inference they certainly should have been compulsively moved to ravish me in the middle of RTFirefly’s living room.”
I can not make it any clearer that this is not what I believe, yet you have broached the subject again. I can see only two reasons why you might do this. One is to attempt to lampoon my argument, the other is because “sexual desires are compulsive, not taking part in sexual acts.” Does not clearly express to you that I do find the idea that they can choose whether to commit a particular sex act or not obvious.
You have done me no honour and I found no words that you have used inappropriate. Use them as you will. It’s just that the use of emotive and prejudicial behaviour is not a valid debating tactic and I will remind you of it whenever you do so.
Removal of words that are inappropriate is acceptable and expected, yet you don’t believe in censorship Polycarp?. I think that if you started the practice “of removing words you found inappropriate though not insulting” from the works of others you could justifiably be called a censor.
It’s interesting how our words betray us isn’t it?
As I said, I object to censorship in any form and will do my best to frustrate those who attempt to censor me.
I just did. It’s my basic personal and philosophical objection to being censored, self-censorship is particularly abhorrent to me.
Yet failed to demonstrate why, except by:
Using alternative definitions and stating that they are better than the ones the Oxford dictionary used, and should therefore be applied.
Accusing me of changing definitions, which cannot be the case since the statement stands even when only one definition is substituted into the original sentence.
Making straw man arguments based on ignoring the fact that I have said “sexual desires are compulsive, not taking part in sexual acts”
Stating a thing does not make it so.
Except I have never said nobody disagrees with me! This is yet another strawman. Obviously people disagree with me. I have said that nobody seems to be able to demonstrate any flaws in my logic. The flaws that you have attempted to display have all been based on the precepts given above.
Polycarp I agree with all the points that led up to this, I just reject your conclusion. I agree that Christians per se do not find homosexuality sinful. I agree that Christendom per se does not find homosexuality sinful. To say as you did that Christianity does not is implying a knowledge of what constitutes Christianity that you can’t have. Let me put it this way, if you said to a member of a sect that believed homosexuality is sinful that “Christianity does not find homosexuality sinful” you would be implying he was not a Christian. This is not logical or based in fact. It is pure assertion.
However this is irrelevant to the argument you find so offensive. The OP states quite clearly that
“homosexuals…. must make the choice to be straight if they want to avoid God’s wrath.” as a vital part of the hypothesis. This, by your own admission. Therefore within the consatrints of the OP homosexuality is a sin and hence a crime. Whether it should be a secular crime, whether it is just to call it a crime, whether all Jews and Christians consider it a crime is all part of the debate. My argument was that homosexuality can be likened to a crime under the OP.
I may have made it clear that if someone chooses to feel offended at something that is factual or logical, particularly when it is posed quite clearly as being within hypotthetical constraints I don’t give a rats tit. This is not a logical argument, Polycarp, it is a personal argument and an attack on my pathetic ability to use tact and diplomacy. In addition to this I don’t care that something has inherited a bad name from narrow minded bigots. If it’s true, it’s true. This is a classic witch-hunt mentality: “I know it’s true, but don’t say it cause it’ll get you into trouble”. Go read a biography on Copernicus to see a classic example of this mentality at work. This isn’t the Spanish Inquisition thankfully, and we can say what we like here and it will stand provided that we can back it up. It’s astounding to me that you repeatedly say that you oppose censorship and then make comment like ‘ you may have had a point, but the classic usage by those who do demonize homosexuals made it offensive and a poor example.” No mention of it being a poor example on logical or factual grounds, just emotional and that it will get me into trouble. This is medieval thinking at its worst.
It is a very good example. I cannot think of a less offensive example of sexual behaviour that is considered illegal by current secular authorities, that has an illegal status taht would probably be supported by most if not all people on this board and yet is commonly known to be legal and socially acceptable in other societies. All these criteria were necessary fro my argument, so if you can think of a better illustratin Polycarp please enlighten me. If you can’t I think that saying it was apoor example is based on nothing more than an unwillingness on your part to accept anything that may offend some minorities.
This may be true enough, but this does not detract from the fact that being able to say ‘I feel a deep seated desire’ has not prevented certain sexual acts being branded a crime by secular authorities. Nor does it contradict my point that homosexuality, paedophilia and necrophilia mongst other practices have been legal in various societies, which was my primary point.
[quote]
several incorrect assumptions concerning the definition of words, which you couldn’t be bothered checking
An inability to accept what was written in plain English at face value
An overt eagerness to display your ‘liberalism’, probably an overcompensation mechanism. This has led you into a witch hunt. The substance of what was posted has become irrelevent to you, only the posters intents and beliefs. Not only are these things unprovable and only to be taken at face value, they have nothing to do with the elimination of ignorance.
A belief in the censorship of any belief that may be deemed offensive by certain groups, irrespective of whether the facts supporting belief are correct.
An inability to find any flaws in my line of argument.
No, it’s a problem for this debate if will not accept dictionary definitions of words like ‘sin’. Half of your last post hinged on sin and crime not being interchangeable in relation to the OP. You brought the word ‘sin’ into the debate, check who used it first. I was quite happy to use crime. You have still based your arguments on this even in this post with your insistence that a more clinical definition of a word is needed.
Another straw man posted in direct contradiction to my saying that:
IANA Christian or Jew
and
“I don’t believe that it (The Bible) is (a perfect translation of the word of God). I think a lot of people added their own views to that book, falsely claiming divine inspiration.”
What the hell made you think I was referring to the Bible? What I refer to is the sentences I wrote. When I can state
“sexual desires are compulsive, not taking part in sexual acts.”
and you follow with
“you don’t find the idea that they can choose whether to commit a particular sex act or not obvious” then you display an inability to accept what is written in plain English at face value.
Similarly with:
“Let’s just say for the here and now sexuality is beyond the control of the vast majority of human beings.”
Being followed by
“Every gay person on this board …… has asserted vehemently that it was not a choice. If you disagree, the onus is on you to prove they all were in error”
My stance is quite clear and in plain English, yet you imply that I disagree.
You will not or can not accept what is written in plain English accept
Can you show me where exactly I even alluded to what people of your faith might or might not believe?
This is exactly what I mean by your suffering from a desire to prove how liberal you are due to an overcompensation problem. You want to prove that anyone who doesn’t support your liberal views on homosexuality, even hypothetically, is not one of your people. And now you desire to do this so strongly that you are yet again refusing to accept what is written in plain English, and asserting I am making an “attempt to prove that people of my belief system actually hold views opposite to mine.”
Well you stated the case strongly enough, now back it up. Show me one place where I stated anything about what Christians believe (I assume you’re a Christian)?
Sorry, I displayed no disgust, merely pointed out it’s irrelevancy.
It’s what is called juxtapositioning for effect. It makes it obvious how irrelevant either of our beliefs is.
Go ahead, it will still go no way towards demonstrating any flaws in my argument.
Ooooh, more empty threats. Like I said before, if you don’t have ‘moderator’ under your name you’re in no position to insist anything. Try asking nicely.
As I look back I notice that I have adressed this 4 times already. Go read one of those.
I questioned your motives after you questioned mine for dramatic effect nothing more. I question them again above because it adresses your argument. You have no right to anything. Try asking nicely.
You started on the personal aspersions, not I. You know the expression about not going into kitchens?
This is not a court martial
Attempt to redeem your good name at any time.
I have no interest in discussing my personal beliefs in a debate. If I choose to mention them I will. If not then you will have to live in ignorance of them.
If you are admitting to impugning me then you admit to doing do with no evidence, for you cannot know my motivations. If this is the case then follow the rules of polite society rather than that of court martial and apologise rather then attempting to use the fact to force me to declare my intentions.
That’s a matter of opinion!
this is a little rich. You start making assertions about my motivations with neither information nor justification, ignore every single post I’ve made explaining my beliefs and motivations, accuse me of being a troll then use the fact that I responded in kind to force me to do as you wish. The dignified thing to do would be to accept that my retaliation was justified.
But presumably no right to silence or privacy. This is the most corrupted and convoluted ethical argument I’ve ever seen Polycarp. I accept the apology however.
Courtesy is not an issue. I was discourteous to no-person prior to Hastur’s rant. Censorship is exactly what you expect me to do, as I explained above.
You still refuse to accept that this is valid and hypothetical line of argument despite having no logical or factual objections nonetheless.
Let’s run through it again shall we.
In relation to the OP:
The OP assumes that homosexuality is a sin by your own admission. (Uh, the OP never said “crime” (God’s law or anyone else’s) – it said “sin” )
A sin is a “crime (The New Oxford Dictionary of English database sin an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law)
Homosexuality is therefore a crime according to the OP, and can justifiably compared to other crimes with some validity.
Homosexuality is not within the control of most people by your own admission. (Every gay person on this board and every one I have seen reflect on their state in print has asserted vehemently that it was not a choice.)
By your own definition a mental disorder is “one of two things: a condition in a person’s mentality which causes him or her anguish, or a condition in a person’s mentality which makes it impossible for him or her to function normally in society”
Being a criminal makes it impossible for a person to function normally in society. I imagine it also causes a fair degree of anguish.
Homosexuality is a crime.
Therefore homosexuality meets your own definition of being a mental illness.
What exactly do you find erroneous in this logic?
I won’t even go into your objection to using paedophilia as an illustration, since you’ve already conceded above that I had a valid point with that one, but that you objected on purely subjective emotional grounds.
And yet, you chose to ignore when I defined disease and illness from the Mirriam Webster Dictionary and refuted your claims of mental illness and disease.
You pay attention to that which supports you and ignore anything that doesn’t. You don’t even defend when proven wrong. You simply ignore and then move on to restate your seemingly narrow views.
Do you have any idea the psychological impact and damage on people like Snark Hunter, who already has issues with his sexuality seeing someone assert that he is mentally ill because you don’t agree with him? Do you care? Does it matter to you that you putting forth this line of debate, even though it has been refuted again and again comes off as hostile and intolerant?
Calling a population of people mentally ill and diseased is justification for a perception of homophobia. For someone who is as focused on courtesy and politeness as you, I would think you would be able to see how gay men and women would feel demonized by your statements.
Your thoughts have not been censored. They have on the other hand been remarked on because the board has policies and standards. There are also policies and standards when you are in public or at work. I doubt with the line of ‘reasoning’ you’ve applied whether your co-workers or boss would be too enthused with you after hearing your views. They might censor you as well. The ‘censorship’ on this board is far less than you will find in the real world.
I’ve already define disease. Homosexuality is not a disease for the points I’ve outlined previously.
An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality. See Synonyms at offense.
An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It’s a crime to squander our country’s natural resources.
Homosexuality is legal in most states in America. It is also legal in Canada. It is also legal in many places in the world. So, that it is a crime in that context is subjective dependant on where you live.
Morality is also subjective and is dependant on the belief and education of the individual. One can not claim an offense against morality unless one is sure that everyone will agree that it is an offense against morality.
Subjectivity removes this from a true definition of crime and leaves it to a legal interpretation which is based on the subjective morals of those who are in power in an area.
You don’t use logic, nor do you support your claims, Gaspode. You give us a great deal of ad hominem beliefs which you attempt to pass off as fact, and then get into semantic battles with people over terminology. Your argument is tissue paper, yet you attempt to get it wet and stick it to everyone in a papier mache effect to try and immobilize debate.
Either provide cites, or stand down. You thus far have no leg to stand on.
