Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Christians hating gays contradiction

page: 62
17
<< 59  60  61    63 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic
I was once told, buy a mate of mine at a random moment outside the acid techno tent at a festival. "You're the straightest poofter I've ever met"

Lmao maybe it was the Last StanD talking?

I know from experience it will warp your perception! haha... who says 'poofter' anyway?




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol
I'll try to make this as short as possible, here's my line of thought.



That's pretty much it. My questions to those who are Christian and against gays are these...



  1. Do you not believe in a genetic basis?
  2. Do you believe God creates people pre-damned?
  3. Do you feel God gives you the right to judge?
  4. Do you feel God hates gays, or anyone for that matter?


Oh and for the record I'm a straight, semi-Christian (I believe in the positive God in the Bible, don't take it literally, and a strong believer in science).

  • Do you not believe in a genetic basis? - No I don't. It has yet to be proven.
  • Do you believe God creates people pre-damned? No, I do not.
  • Do you feel God gives you the right to judge? Irrelevant.
  • Do you feel God hates gays, or anyone for that matter? No, I don't believe God hates anything or anyone.
    People who think that being Christian means hating science completely baffle me. It doesn't. Creationists are a tiny subset of Christians and hang out in a few limited geographic areas, most but not all in the USA.
    If you weren't American, you would not need to add your disclaimer about being a believer in science.
    Nevertheless, the genetic basis of homosexuality is not science. It's a belief - and is at best unproven, at worst, a self-serving lie.



  • posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:05 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Vicky32
    Nevertheless, the genetic basis of homosexuality is not science. It's a belief - and is at best unproven, at worst,
    a self-serving lie.


    Probably the main reason for homophobia is religious fanaticism; generally the Biblical fanatic will "cherry pick" and "quote mine" their Holy Book for quotes which suit their own personal beliefs & prejudices; certainly the primitive and savage Biblical Law demands execution for male homosexual acts (it does not forbid lesbian relationships however), but Biblical law also demands execution for numerous other offences such as failing to observe the Sabbath (Friday sunset until Saturday Sunset) but I don't hear of many Christians condemning people who work on Friday evenings and Saturday daytimes; not do I hear of Christians condemning others who wear shoes, carry money or who have more than one robe (which were among the edicts of Jesus).

    Executing people for working on the Sabbath is not science; human beings are not genetically programmed to execute others for working on Saturdays; it is simply an irrational belief of ancient religious fanatics.

    On the other hand "erotic desire," including homo-erotic relationships are perfectly natural and exists throughout the human and animal world; on the other hand the desire to execute males for homoerotic relationships is "not" an inbuilt genetic tendency; it is simply a consequence of religious fanaticism.


    Lucifer




    The full article is on: seedmagazine.com...

    Male big horn sheep live in what are often called “homosexual societies.” They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males “effeminate.”

    Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in “penis fencing,” which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.

    As this list of activities suggests, having homosexual sex is the biological equivalent of apple pie: Everybody likes it. At last count, over 450 different vertebrate species could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:34 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Lucifer777

    The full article is on: seedmagazine.com...

    Male big horn sheep live in what are often called “homosexual societies.” They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males “effeminate.”

    Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in “penis fencing,” which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.

    As this list of activities suggests, having homosexual sex is the biological equivalent of apple pie: Everybody likes it. At last count, over 450 different vertebrate species could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia.

    I had to read your post several times, in order to disentangle the content from the snarling and irrelevant bigotry in which it was wrapped.
    So, you're saying basically, that because some animals use same-sex sexual overtures as a social glue, that somehow proves that human same-sex sexual activities are genetically determined?
    That's more than a little odd - and I'd say it counts as 'reaching', and looks more than a little desperate.

    The first point is that humans can choose what they do. They won't be ostracised for not taking part in same sex play, and contrary to what some people would love to believe, neither will they be ostracised for taking part! (Jumping up and down on a parade float simulating gay activity, or swanning into work or class yelling "Look at me, I am so important that I want to get up in your face (as the Americans say), I'm gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!" on the other hand, will probably not meet with a good result).

    Second, you've proven nothing by trying to extrapolate from goats and bonobos to human beings. Gay men are not Kinsey's 10% of the population, but actually fewer than 2%, and lesbians are about half that... Lesbians especially, swap back and forth (their sexuality is fluid), but men change as well.
    Having copped abuse for Africa as they say here, for putting links, but google 'Gay by choice' and read the result..
    V.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:54 AM
    link   
    Oh, okay, you've talked me into it...
    Queer By Choice (the first one)

    2nd one

    Vicky



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:04 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Vicky32

    Originally posted by Lucifer777

    The full article is on: seedmagazine.com...

    Male big horn sheep live in what are often called “homosexual societies.” They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males “effeminate.”

    Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in “penis fencing,” which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.

    As this list of activities suggests, having homosexual sex is the biological equivalent of apple pie: Everybody likes it. At last count, over 450 different vertebrate species could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia.

    I had to read your post several times, in order to disentangle the content from the snarling and irrelevant bigotry in which it was wrapped.
    So, you're saying basically, that because some animals use same-sex sexual overtures as a social glue, that somehow proves that human same-sex sexual activities are genetically determined?
    That's more than a little odd - and I'd say it counts as 'reaching', and looks more than a little desperate.


    The first point is that humans can choose what they do.


    Not every "choice" is determned by genetics. For example, religion is both "memetic (see en.wikipedia.org..." and a post code lottery, which is why a religious fanatic in Arkansas is more likely to be a Biblical fanatic than a person in Afganistan.




    A meme: a relatively newly coined term, identifies ideas or beliefs that are transmitted from one person or group of people to another. The concept comes from an analogy: as genes transmit biological information, memes can be said to transmit idea and belief information.
    en.wikipedia.org...


    If you "choose" to stop eating, you will die, since we are genetically programmed to do so. Sexual attraction is not a "choice," If you are a woman who is attracted to males, it is because you are genetically programmed to do so, just as it is with the animal kingdom; but if you find the thought of erotic relationships with females, then one has to also consider the memetic factors in your upbringing, since it is certainly the case that people can be memetically programmed to feel guilty about various perfectly natural acts; this has to do with religious hypnosis and indoctrination.

    What you seem to be suggesting is that gay and bisexual people are naturally attracted attracted to the opposite gender and that they simply choose to deny their natural attraction.




    Gay men are not Kinsey's 10% of the population, but actually fewer than 2%, and lesbians are about half that...


    A few points. First of all, the 10% figure in the Kinsey Report is a misrepresentation of a concusion of the report (see quote below); secondly the two major Kinsey reports which referred to "Sexual Behaviour" in the human male and female contain a well known "misnomer (a false definition);" Kinsey's researchers were not "merely" asking questions about human sexual "behaviour" but also about human erotic desire; such "desires" can be desires which are not necessarily every acted upon. For example in Kinsey's study, 46% of all males questioned had experiences erotic desire for "both" genders. One has to also bear in mind that such studies were carried out in the 1940's and early 50's where there the memetic influences to be sexually conservative (to conserve the traditions of the past) were much greater than they are today. The suggestion that 10% of males are gay, also leads to the implication that 90% of males are totally heterosexual, which is certainly not a conclusion one can reach from the Kinsey studies.




    The reports also state that nearly 46% of the male subjects had "reacted" sexually to persons of both sexes in the course of their adult lives, and 37% had at least one homosexual experience. 11.6% of white males (ages 20–35) were given a rating of 3 (about equal heterosexual and homosexual experience/response) throughout their adult lives. The study also reported that 10% of American males surveyed were "more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55" (in the 5 to 6 range). en.wikipedia.org...





    Lesbians especially, swap back and forth (their sexuality is fluid), but men change as well.
    V.


    That is simply not a true generalisation for "all" lesbians. Human beings are a bisexual species in the sense that they are capable of havng sex with "both" genders, however some bisexual males who "are" attracted to females "choose" to become exclusively gay, but they do not "choose" to be erotically atracted to males, whereas some gay men claim that they are not at all attracted to women at all; similarly with bisexual and lesbian women; thus not everyone is the "same" in terms of erotic attraction.

    Lux

    edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Quotation marks
    edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: quotation marks
    edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: quotation marks



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:07 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Vicky32
    I had to read your post several times, in order to disentangle the content from the snarling and irrelevant bigotry in which it was wrapped.


    A bigot is a person who is "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

    A person who obstinately claims that the earth moves around the sun and who criticises the proponents of flat earth theory is not a bigot, since there is evidence to support that position, whereas you appear to be arguing that homo-erotic relationships are purely governed by choice and not by natural erotic desire; there is simply no evidence to support the position that persons involved in same sex relationships are acting "against" their natural desires. It seems to me that it is the "humans are exclusively heterosexual" lobby who are essentialy the bigots.

    Addendum

    The Christians hating gays contradiction,

    I should point out that "Christians hating gays" is not a contradiction since their Biblical Law demands execution for homo-erotic relationshis between men (Lesbians are OK though, no laws forbidding that); however their primitive and savage laws also require execution and indeed even genocide and infanticide for other offences, such as failing to observe the Sabbath (Friday Sunset till Saturday Sunset); however it does seem that Christians merely "cherry pick" and "quote mine" the Bible to extract texts which suit their own personal lifestyle, beliefs and bigotry, and ignore whatever does not suit them.

    Lux

    edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Addendum



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:01 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Lucifer777

    Not every "choice" is determned by genetics. For example, religion is both "memetic (see en.wikipedia.org..." and a post code lottery, which is why a religious fanatic in Arkansas is more likely to be a Biblical fanatic than a person in Afganistan.


    If you are a woman who is attracted to males, it is because you are genetically programmed to do so, just as it is with the animal kingdom; but if you find the thought of erotic relationships with females, then one has to also consider the memetic factors in your upbringing, since it is certainly the case that people can be memetically programmed to feel guilty about various perfectly natural acts; this has to do with religious hypnosis and indoctrination.

    What you seem to be suggesting is that gay and bisexual people are naturally attracted attracted to the opposite gender and that they simply choose to deny their natural attraction.
    ]

    That is simply not a true generalisation for "all" lesbians. Human beings are a bisexual species in the sense that they are capable of havng sex with "both" genders, however some bisexual males who "are" attracted to females "choose" to become exclusively gay, but they do not "choose" to be erotically atracted to males, whereas some gay men claim that they are not at all attracted to women at all; similarly with bisexual and lesbian women; thus not everyone is the "same" in terms of erotic attraction.

    Lux

    edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Quotation marks
    edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: quotation marks
    edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: quotation marks

    First, I know what meme is, thank you very much - and you should be aware that there is controversy as to whether it's a real thing, or just a piece of smart-arsery from Herr Sir Professor Lord Dawkins.
    The term meme when applied to religion is loaded to say the least...
    As for your disagreement about the fluidity of the sexuality of lesbians particularly I suggest you read the second link, the one from Mother Jones, and er - actually read all of it!
    Don't let your prejudices stop you.
    You're talking nonsense if you think that distaste for homosexual activity is caused by " this has to do with religious hypnosis and indoctrination. "
    Vicky.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:09 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Lucifer777

    ... whereas you appear to be arguing that homo-erotic relationships are purely governed by choice and not by natural erotic desire; there is simply no evidence to support the position that persons involved in same sex relationships are acting "against" their natural desires. It seems to me that it is the "humans are exclusively heterosexual" lobby who are essentialy the bigots.



    edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Addendum

    Sigh. As I said, read the links! They express what I want to say better than I can, and being written by gay people, presumably more credibly for you...
    Of course they are not acting against their desires... the question is solely, are those desires innate, or culturally inculcated?
    V.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:34 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Vicky32

    First, I know what meme is, thank you very much - and you should be aware that there is controversy as to whether it's a real thing, or just a piece of smart-arsery from Herr Sir Professor Lord Dawkins.
    The term meme when applied to religion is loaded to say the least...



    It is a statement of the obvious to claim that "religion" is a product of environmental conditioning, religious hypnosis and religious indoctrination and that it is not "genetic;" there is no genetic basis for example for executing people who work on a Saturday (the Sabbath), executing homosexuals, for executing female slaves who are not found to be virgins when they are sold into slavery, or for committing genocide against persons who do not revere the particular tribal deity of the ancient Israelites; all such Biblical edicts have to be ingrained into a child through a process of indoctrination and hypnosis.


    As for your disagreement about the fluidity of the sexuality of lesbians particularly I suggest you read the second link, the one from Mother Jones, and er - actually read all of it!


    Yes I did read it however, firstly one cannot make generalisations about the entire human race, based on the claims of "some" people, and secondly the view that sexuality is "fluid" is anyway supported by studies of human behaviour and erotic desire such as the Kinsey report.

    There are two major "generalisations:"

    1: All human beings are heterosexual and deviations from heterosexuality are "unnatural" and also "sinful."
    2: Human beings are a bisexual species, though some tend to be exclusively homosexual, while others tend to be exclusively heterosexual.

    The 46% of males in the Kinsey Studies who admitted to homo-erotic attraction did not all act upon such attracton, however this does mean that they are psychologically heterosexual.

    With regards to sexul fluidity, this is simply an observation of human erotic nature; some people go through heterosexual periods, homosexual periods and bisexual periods in their life, whereas others tend to stick with one of the three options.


    Don't let your prejudices stop you.


    A prejudice can be defined as "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts". The fact is, that human beings are a bisexual species, and that even in clutres where homosexuality is an executionable or punishable offence, they still have homo-erotic relationships, and have done so throughout human history.



    You're talking nonsense if you think that distaste for homosexual activity is caused by " this has to do with religious hypnosis and indoctrination. "


    It is possible that "some" forms of homophobia may be just cultural rather than religious, however it does seem to me that the main source of homophobia is religious fanaticism.

    I also think that possibly those persons who are the most insecure about their own sexuality are often the most verbally homophobic; it is as if they have to "prove" that they are not gay or bisexual. An example of this would be Ted Haggard, the former head of the far right "National Association of Evangelicals" who admitted having sex with a male prostitute.

    Lux



    Addendum



    Originally posted by Vicky32

    Sigh. As I said, read the links! They express what I want to say better than I can, and being written by gay people, presumably more credibly for you...


    Yes human sexuality is often fluid; people can change their gender preferences throughout their lives, but that evidence is more of an argument that we are innately bisexual than heterosexual.


    Of course they are not acting against their desires... the question is solely, are those desires innate, or culturally inculcated?


    The 46% of males in the Kinsey Report who claimed to have experienced same sex attraction, did not live in a culture where homo-erotic relationships were acceptible; they lived in the US in the 1940's where people were rather under cultural pressures to be heterosexual.

    With regards to homo-erotic attraction being "culturally inculcated (implanted / subjected to indoctrination)" it seems to me that it is homophobia which is culturally inculcated; further animals who have same sex relationships are not subjected ro religious or cultural indoctrination. The desire for erotic experiences is not a product of inculcation; we naturally seek out erotic pleasure and if that is unnatural, and there is a designer (i.e., a god), perhaps you should take your complaints up with Her.


    Originally posted by Vicky32

    ... just a piece of smart-arsery from Herr Sir Professor Lord Dawkins.


    Dawkins is not a "Sir." A "Sir" is a person who has received a "knighthood" from Jesus' representative on earth to all Anglicans (i.e., Elizabeth Windsor) and who is bound by a military oath (a "knight" is a soldier) to defend her. I cannot conceive of Jesus' representative on earth knighting Richard Dawkins and I doubt if he would be so immoral as to accept such an ingolorious and insulting title.

    Lux
    edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Addendum & spelling



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:40 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Lucifer777
     

    "Christians" who want to push anti-gay stuff have to blind themselves to evidence that homosexuality can have a genetic cause, because believing god both created men homosexual and hates them for being homosexual doesn't make their bloodthirsty, genocidal god sound too good.

    Inevitably, the frustration that comes from arguing an unprovable religious position against rational posters who keep presenting evidence instead of bible quotes gets them down.

    Those arguing against science and common sense always end up pathetically descending to childish insults such as "Herr Sir Professor Lord Dawkins". One has to wonder why someone would even bring Dawkins up in a thread on homosexuality. There's never been any suggestion that Dawkins is homosexual. Nor does he even present himself as an advocate for homosexuals.

    Perhaps it's an attempt by the poster to derail yet another unwinnable topic by getting the thread onto the totally unrelated track of atheism.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:31 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Kailassa
    reply to post by Lucifer777
     

    "Christians" who want to push anti-gay stuff have to blind themselves to evidence that homosexuality can have a genetic cause, because believing god both created men homosexual and hates them for being homosexual doesn't make their bloodthirsty, genocidal god sound too good.


    The primitive and savage Bronze Age anthropomorphic (human projection) age tribal deity of the ancient Israelites did not only want to kill males who had homo-erotic relationships, but also numerous other categories of persons for numerous offences, such as women who were not found to be virgins when they were sold into slavery and persons who committed adultery. The Bible comes out of a polyamous slave society, and does not contain a single statement promoting monogamy; a man could have as many sex slaves as he could afford to buy; adultery was simply a violation of his private property (i.e., his slaves who followed their own heart and desire). Modern Biblical fanatics conveniently overlook the many executionable offences and simply "cherry pick" and "quote mine" texts which suit their own personal bigotry; however they usually reject the suggestion that persons who work on the Sabbath (Friday evening / Saturday daytime) should be executed.


    Those arguing against science and common sense always end up pathetically descending to childish insults such as "Herr Sir Professor Lord Dawkins". One has to wonder why someone would even bring Dawkins up in a thread on homosexuality. There's never been any suggestion that Dawkins is homosexual. Nor does he even present himself as an advocate for homosexuals.


    Richard Dawkins is of course openly anti-homophobic, however the issue of whether homosexuality and bisexuality is natural or unnatural has nothing to do with either atheism, deism or theism in terms of philosophical positions; it is only an issue for persons who embrace a certain "type" of theism such as Biblical or Islamic fanaticism.


    Perhaps it's an attempt by the poster to derail yet another unwinnable topic by getting the thread onto the totally unrelated track of atheism


    Well the view that homo-erotic relationships are "sinful" is entirely dependent on the choice of deity, since some ancient diety myths describe gods having incestuous and homo-erotic affairs; whereas probably most of the theists here have chosen the particular tribal deity of the ancient Israelites as their choice of god among the numerous ancient deities, and thus since their god is genocidally homophobic, it is a natural consequence that such religious fanatics are similarly homophobic.

    Lux



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:07 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Toelint
    I just GOTTA ask this...

    If america isn't a Christian nation, as the secularists claim, then who is to blame for ANY antigay laws on the books? And who is to blame for the downright heiness antigay laws on the books in, say, India which is Hindi? Nevermind the fact that most of Africa considers gayness worthy of lenghy prison sentences, life sentences, or death.

    Also, what about nations which BOAST of being Christian, like say, Switzerland and Sweden, which all but ignore gayness altogether, not to mention half the nations of South America, which openly embrace Catholicism....and DO allow marriage or civil ceremonies for gays?

    I guess my point is this. Stop bashing the Christians because somebody is of the opinion gays aren't getting a fair shake HERE. Personally, I defy them to find a NON-Christian country where they'll fair better.

    It's inaccurate to say India is Hindu - actually, there are 300+ religions in India, and none of them dominate. Sweden is one of the most secular countries in the world...
    Nevertheless, I agree with you.
    V.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:20 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Lucifer777

    Yes I did read it however, firstly one cannot make generalisations about the entire human race, based on the claims of "some" people, and secondly the view that sexuality is "fluid" is anyway supported by studies of human behaviour and erotic desire such as the Kinsey report.

    There are two major "generalisations:"

    1: All human beings are heterosexual and deviations from heterosexuality are "unnatural" and also "sinful."
    2: Human beings are a bisexual species, though some tend to be exclusively homosexual, while others tend to be exclusively heterosexual.

    The 46% of males in the Kinsey Studies who admitted to homo-erotic attraction did not all act upon such attracton, however this does mean that they are psychologically heterosexual.

    With regards to sexul fluidity, this is simply an observation of human erotic nature; some people go through heterosexual periods, homosexual periods and bisexual periods in their life, whereas others tend to stick with one of the three options.





    Lux



    Addendum



    Originally posted by Vicky32

    Sigh. As I said, read the links! They express what I want to say better than I can, and being written by gay people, presumably more credibly for you...


    Yes human sexuality is often fluid; people can change their gender preferences throughout their lives, but that evidence is more of an argument that we are innately bisexual than heterosexual.


    Of course they are not acting against their desires... the question is solely, are those desires innate, or culturally inculcated?


    The 46% of males in the Kinsey Report who claimed to have experienced same sex attraction, did not live in a culture where homo-erotic relationships were acceptible; they lived in the US in the 1940's where people were rather under cultural pressures to be heterosexual.

    With regards to homo-erotic attraction being "culturally inculcated (implanted / subjected to indoctrination)" it seems to me that it is homophobia which is culturally inculcated; further animals who have same sex relationships are not subjected ro religious or cultural indoctrination. The desire for erotic experiences is not a product of inculcation; we naturally seek out erotic pleasure and if that is unnatural, and there is a designer (i.e., a god), perhaps you should take your complaints up with Her.


    Originally posted by Vicky32

    ... just a piece of smart-arsery from Herr Sir Professor Lord Dawkins.


    Dawkins is not a "Sir." A "Sir" is a person who has received a "knighthood" from Jesus' representative on earth to all Anglicans (i.e., Elizabeth Windsor) and who is bound by a military oath (a "knight" is a soldier) to defend her. I cannot conceive of Jesus' representative on earth knighting Richard Dawkins and I doubt if he would be so immoral as to accept such an ingolorious and insulting title.

    Lux
    edit on 9-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Addendum & spelling

    As to the titles I gave Dawkins, I was having a laugh, and commenting on his arrogant assumption of quasi-godhood! Can't you take a joke?
    The 'some people' you denigrate in the Mother Jones article, who commented on the fluidity of female sexuality, were in fact psychologists, one in particular, the woman who'd studied female sexuality extensively. As for the rest, bored already - all you do is repeat yourself endlessly. You seem to actually be agreeing with me/the links, about the fluidity of sexuality - so what's the problem?
    V,



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:24 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Kailassa


    Those arguing against science and common sense always end up pathetically descending to childish insults such as "Herr Sir Professor Lord Dawkins". One has to wonder why someone would even bring Dawkins up in a thread on homosexuality. There's never been any suggestion that Dawkins is homosexual. Nor does he even present himself as an advocate for homosexuals.

    Perhaps it's an attempt by the poster to derail yet another unwinnable topic by getting the thread onto the totally unrelated track of atheism.




    Er, Kailassa, Dawkins invented memes, you know?

    V.



    posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:28 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Toelint
    . Stop bashing the Christians because somebody is of the opinion gays aren't getting a fair shake HERE. Personally, I defy them to find a NON-Christian country where they'll fair better.


    There are no "Christian nations" that I know of; there are only nations where Christianity is the most popular religion; attitudes towards, and the rights of non heterosexuals have not improved "because" of Biblical fanatics, but rather in spite of them.

    In the UK for example where our monarchist head of state is also the head of the Anglican church, and Jesus' representative on earth to all Anglicans, homosexuality was a criminal offence until only very recently (until 1967); the improvement of attidues towards non heterosexuals has a great deal to do with the campaigning of gay rights activists, feminists, academics, humanists, socialists and the politcal left in general, and it has always been the Biblical fanatics who have resisted such progressive changes in both attitudes and rights, since their psychopathic deity demands execution for homo-erotic relationships (only between men, but there is no prohibition on women) and for numerous other offences which the Christians mostly conveniently ignore, since many of such Biblical crimes apply to them also..

    Lux



    posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 07:07 PM
    link   
     


    off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


     



    posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 12:35 PM
    link   
    Flawed logic. God also created Satan.

    Good Created Eve, who disobeyed Him&her.

    Whats to say Gay people arent also created by Him&Her but also disobeying orders?



    posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 12:37 PM
    link   
    I will just put this here, and know that personally I believe in everyone's right to live how they please, whatever the case may be...so long as you do not harm another.

    However, it always baffled me why people who are clearly laid out as sinners in the bible, choose to become Christian. It would seem to me that you would make your own religion, or philosophy...not choose a religion that so clearly puts a blight upon your life choices.



    posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 12:40 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Parabol
     


    I know plenty of non-Christians who dislike gays and their constant in your face pushing. So kaboom!






    top topics



     
    17
    << 59  60  61    63 >>

    log in

    join