Being queer is a sexual disorder

Queer is actually more to do with gender than sexuality in the gay community and has little or nothing to do with crossdressing or switching sexuality. It's usually taken to mean a person who does not fit into the more common idea of male or female, regardless of sexuality, so a transgendered person like a butch lesbian who doesn't consider themselves male or female in the conventional sense of the word, but of a different sex as yet without definition, might describe themselves as queer. A very effeminate gay man might also choose this. It is a word that has been reclaimed by the gay community recently to defuse how negatively it was used...it's a statement of power for some people.

As for the rest of the OP...I'm going to let that soak in it's own ridiculousness. No reply needed.

Would you compare God as a blithering idiot as David Usher has been labeled?

Read Leviticus 20:13

Is this passage utterly rediculous?
Ignorance at it's finest?

Are you appauled?

Regarding
"No conclusive evidence has ever been found for any physiological basis for being sexually deviant; i.e. NOT straight. No "gay" gene has ever been found and most probably there won't be."

The same could be said for many "diseases" that are named by psychiatrists and psychologists, such as:
Bi-polar (formerly manic depression)
ADD, and other "diseases" or "conditions" that have no physiological or biological proof.

Yet they give out medications for a host of these so called abnormalities.

I am no gay basher by any means. I have gay and lesbian friends.

I just don't go to their churches or discuss religion or behavior issues with them.

God loves sinners, just not sin. I walk a path of a sinner as do all of us, yet, I do believe Leviticus 20:13 is not some typo or that the passage of cannonised scripture was included for anything other than intentional.

reply to post by imd12c4funn


Leviticus is crap.

Leviticus also says it's ok to sell your daughter into slavery and that you should not touch a woman or anything she touches while she is on her period.

I'm not saying God is a blithering idiot. God didn't write the bible.

EDIT: Punctuation.

[edit on 3/30/09 by TasteTheMagick]

I think there's no finer oppertunity to post this old chestnut.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have neighbors who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

reply to post by caitlinfae


You described it better then I did. It's been a long time since I read that college human sexuality book. And I didn't keep it when I was done with the class.

Queering isn't a bad word. It's actually sported rather proudly.
At least, that's what I remember.

The word 'queer' was like a cuss word way back when i was a kid.
It's not used that way now.

Seems to me the title of the article was trying to be negative and to use a negative word, but that word isn't negative like it used to be.

reply to post by TasteTheMagick


Indeed. I've never heard "queer" used solely as a term for a "cross dressing sexual deviant". Yes, queer can be an umbrella term to include the above-mentioned, but NOT limited to. And any dictionary will confirm this.

I may want to add:

In scholarly studies the word queer is also used to describe those who practice unconventional sex (e.g. bondage, etc.), therefore even heterosexuals can sometimes be defined as queer.

Source


reply to post by imd12c4funn


TasteTheMagick and Acidtastic already said what I was going to say. Perhaps you should read the whole of Leviticus and then decide to either implement all the ancient laws or "forget" them because they aren't relevant anymore. You can't handpick a couple for the sake of your argument and forget about the rest.

reply to post by TasteTheMagick


In many ways, you are correct. The Roman Catholic Priest abuses is a fine example of this.

If those who train to be spiritual leaders for christians around the world find the passage crap, which is indeed the case it seems by lawsuits and evidence, then this may be one of the most contriversial passages in the Torah and high on the list of examples used in attempts to prove Organised Religion conspiracies; - with the Vatican right on top of the list.

Originally posted by Gaspode
I've never heard "queer" used solely as a term for a "cross dressing sexual deviant".

That's not what I said.

Queering is an act that some people do who are attracted to both sexes.
They take on both roles and sometimes use devices to fulfill those roles.
And those who do this use the word with pride.
I'd google it and give examples, but I'm outta time right now.

(and I never used the word 'deviant' to describe those with same sex attraction. I don't see it that way at all.)

reply to post by FlyersFan


I wanted to put your whole paragraph into as few as possible words. My apologies for "putting words in your mouth" so to speak. I acknowledge the fact that those aren't your exact words.

...

Oh, and sorry for going further off topic.

reply to post by Gaspode


You're fine. No problem. I'm just being careful. I just dont' want anyone to think that I think that I said homosexuals are 'deviants'.

I've always thought that homosexuality is very closely linked to how established any given society is. Take an Iron age civilisation for instance, strong family units are vital, gender roles would be much more clear cut and there fore levels of homosexuality would be lower.

Compare that to say the Romans of the Greeks, people are living in cities, much more free time to indulge the mind and reflect on ones self so those that would develop gay tendencies are much freer to do so.

Just a personal opinion, of course that doesn't take into account things like religion and specific culture traits.

Maybe there is a disorder where people take considerable time and effort out of there own lives to judge others different to them selves - that's another issue.

Originally posted by reject
They say it is nature. Observed in animals. Animals have been observed mounting another of the same gender. That is a given. But this is to establish dominance not as a consummation of sexuality. Anyway, I'd like to see video of same sex (untrained) animals in the wild giving each other [SNIP] (not just smelling each other which animals do and which some people misconstrue). Animals are known to eat their feces, their young, each other but we don't want to go that low, do we?

It is observed in the animal kingdom, but where is your evidence that this is not a sexual event? I noticed that you assert this as though it is fact but yet offer no background information. Curious.

And I'd like to point out that sexual events in Humans are caused by many differing factors, including aggression, competition, domination, pack mentality, lust, love...

In the effort to move us further away from the view that we are all animals, we somehow just "misplace" the fact that we are driven by the same things.

I know enough about Human psychology to know that Humans act sexually for dominance, aggression and competition (as well as through love and many other factors) just as animals do. The fact that we dress it up as something else doesn't remove these instincts.

Heterosexual men engage in same-sex practices too, and they cover a wide spectrum. The label "gay" is a Human construct designed to label something that is really too diverse to be able to be labeled. The modern idea of "gay" actually relates to a social scene, a lifestyle. There are millions of men who don't subscribe to the "gay" label but also openly accept that their sexual desires are very diverse. Their actions more closely resemble what society would assert as "bisexual", but that's another clan label rather than an adequate description of sexual desires.

Other than these obvious flaws in your argument, this thread is nothing more than another attempt to discredit the facts about male sexuality and support a simplistic religious view.
Human sexuality is natural, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

Homosexual acts are not "socially acceptable" to religious types for many reasons.

But ultimately, no religious person can tell me what I can and cannot do with another consenting male. And no amount of religious propaganda can argue adequately against millions of years of Human evolution, natural instinct, Human emotion or sexual desire. Try as they might, the religious right are fighting a loosing battle against same-sex relationships.

BULLHOOEY!!!

But what do you expect from the Jehovah's Witnesses... a religious group founded by a known con man.

Be that as it may... There is only one sexual perversion and that is brutality... and when you think about it... rape... incest... pedophilia... sex murders... sadism (the real stuff not sex games) and so on are all rooted in brutality.

What happens in the human heart is far more important than what goes on in bed.

Originally posted by Now_Then
I've always thought that homosexuality is very closely linked to how established any given society is. Take an Iron age civilisation for instance, strong family units are vital, gender roles would be much more clear cut and there fore levels of homosexuality would be lower.

Compare that to say the Romans of the Greeks, people are living in cities, much more free time to indulge the mind and reflect on ones self so those that would develop gay tendencies are much freer to do so.

Just a personal opinion, of course that doesn't take into account things like religion and specific culture traits.

Maybe there is a disorder where people take considerable time and effort out of there own lives to judge others different to them selves - that's another issue.

Again, you're working with a modern concept that didn't exist thousands of years ago.

In our modern times even the slightest sexual encounter between two persons of the same gender is described as "gay". But this isn't the case.

I'll try to state the case without any potentially uncomfortable language...

Think of the most basic sexual act you can do.
If two men were to do this in close proximity, it is deemed as a gay act.
But this act can and is practiced between men (of every modern sexual label) for various reasons including competition, comparison, bonding, and even just for socializing! It happens more than people are willing to accept and more than modern society would ever discuss.
Those involved do not believe it to be a sexual act, it doesn't "make them gay".

Another example is porn. Why is it that the vast majority of heterosexual adult material includes very masculine and attractive MEN, and why is it that male viewers usually focus on the "grand finale"?
If they are all 100% heterosexual men (as asserted though modern social labels) surely the only adult material they would be interested in involves solely women? And they certainly shouldn't be focusing on what the male does at the end should they?

This supports the idea further that male sexuality is far more complex than the three modern labels of gay, bi and hetero would have us all believe. And it is driven by various emotions, fetishes, desires, competition, comparison and male aggression.

It is nowhere near as simple as stating "if you do this you're gay", that's not relevant to Human desire, not matched by Human psychology and certainly not supported by what men do and enjoy sexually.

Give up the modern labels, and look at male sexuality.
We have created these labels in an effort to contain and describe thousands of varying degrees of sexuality.

We would all be far better off if we left the labels behind and just did what we wanted with other consenting adults.

One thing is for sure, if you are a queer male, be glad you have no interest in females, because i am sure glad about it. It is bull that there is equal rights.

The amount of haressment if got over this in my life is so foking unbelievable. Females should be taught in school, that if males are not interested in females, that is it, there are no superwomen that can cure people, and it makes people feel worse.



[edit on 3/30/2009 by andy1033]

No conclusive evidence has ever been found for any physiological basis for being sexually deviant; i.e. NOT straight. No "gay" gene has ever been found and most probably there won't be.

This is the one thing in the OP that makes everything else said come crashing down.

BEING homosexual means only liking those of the same gender in the human race.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again.

You cannot choose your likes and dislikes.

It's as simple as that.

Debunk what I have said. Please, I'm waiting.

Originally posted by andy1033
One thing is for sure, if you are a queer male, be glad you have no interest in females, because i am sure glad about it. It is bull that there is equal rights.
[edit on 3/30/2009 by andy1033]

I'm interested why you think equal rights for women is bull? I think in some cases it's gone too far, for example affirmative action style actions to get token women into jobs. Or the continuing double standard, an example is where you must hold a door open for a woman or be chided by your peers for being unchivalrous , but almost no woman would ever hold a door for a man.

I'm actually not that fussed either way, if they want to be equal, fine. If they want doors opened for them and special treatment, fine. I just wish it would be decided, so that us men would know how to act correctly.

Or the continuing double standard, an example is where you must hold a door open for a woman or be chided by your peers for being unchivalrous , but almost no woman would ever hold a door for a man.

I don't see that as chivalourus, I see it as normal politeness.

I'll hold a door open for a man or a woman. I do many times on a friday and or saturday night when I'm standing in the doorway of a pub. It's just being nice and polite (something that I pride myself on)

Originally posted by Acidtastic

Or the continuing double standard, an example is where you must hold a door open for a woman or be chided by your peers for being unchivalrous , but almost no woman would ever hold a door for a man.

I don't see that as chivalourus, I see it as normal politeness.

I'll hold a door open for a man or a woman. I do many times on a friday and or saturday night when I'm standing in the doorway of a pub. It's just being nice and polite (something that I pride myself on)

I agree on that, at work I'll hold the door for anyone (As long as they have a sec badge!), but most don't, most men only hold doors for women.

You see it a lot with these women who won't get out of a car unless the man jumps out the driver seat, runs to the other side of the car, and opens the door. No man I know does that for other men. I can understand if they are a couple, but I'm not really talking about that.


[edit on 30/3/2009 by RubberBaron]