Re: Religion, gay artists and homophobia

by Papaumau Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:55 pm

First topic message reminder :

I have found that the stance against homosexuality - and in many other "biblical sins" - in almost all of the religions of the world is based on writings in their holy books.

As the word that is accepted as the word of their Gods is either said to be spoken directly to the humans that report it, ( and in many of these cases these "conduits" from the Gods are found to simply be schizophrenic ), then the word that is written by the fallible human scribes of old into these holy books is at risk of being seen as the flawed interpretation of what these scribes and prophets said they know and found to be true.

The faithful - as in all of the details surrounding faith - believe in their faith because faith requires no proof and when they act on what they find in their holy books, ( although none of the contents of these books has ever been proven to be right or accurate in fact ), their behaviour, as a result, is based on myth rather than even on secular laws. In other words, because their faith dictates that everything that is in these holy books must be true, what they find there that connects to "sin" must also be true.

I have always felt that as far as the laws of the land that I live in should never be based on religious faith, I can only take the stance that if these laws ARE in any way influenced by religion then they are not laws that can apply to everybody or that can be applied to any kind of secular rules or regulations.

Regards.....

Papaumau.

by trevorw2539 Thu May 03, 2012 5:15 pm

OW quote. Oh Good! We've been let off this time.

STOP PUSHING YOUR LUCK Smile

by polyglide Fri May 04, 2012 12:03 pm

On no you have not,all you have ever done, is reply with answers to which I can refute with logic and those used as standard by the confused.

Go back on the other thread and answer my butterfly quesion, stage by stage.

Without using supposition, just with clear and irrefutable evidence.

I will then concede you have at least won one round but I will not hold my breath.

by oftenwrong Fri May 04, 2012 12:42 pm

I don't think I've ever followed the instructions of someone quite so smug in their righteousness. Pass.

by astra Fri May 04, 2012 1:39 pm

Thank you OW!

by Shirina Fri May 04, 2012 5:32 pm

On no you have not,all you have ever done, is reply with answers to which I can refute with logic and those used as standard by the confused.

You haven't refuted a thing I've said. You haven't even addressed the things I've said. You just keep asking the same questions even after I've answered and debunked them. For instance:

Go back on the other thread and answer my butterfly quesion, stage by stage.

Not only have I responded to this question at least twice, you're now over on this thread asking the same question again.

by polyglide Sat May 05, 2012 11:36 am

You have not answered the butterfly problem at all.

I asked for a step by step stage from nothing to the buterfly all you come up with is that which others have stated on the internet and other places.

Nor have you had a sensible answer to the islend problem, just a load of supposition and conjecture often gleaned from the ideas of others and well known and debunked.

In fact nearly everything you use in replying to a problem is based on the ideas and refuted ones at that, of others.

Just one or two sensible and original answers would make a change.

by oftenwrong Sat May 05, 2012 12:09 pm

When were you appointed arbiter of the discussion content, polyglide? I seem to have missed that.

by Shirina Sat May 05, 2012 4:15 pm

I asked for a step by step stage from nothing to the buterfly all you come up with is that which others have stated on the internet and other places.

For God's sake, Polyglide, I already told you the pragmatic reasons why I cannot do so. And now you're suggesting that I'm supposed to describe to you in detail how a butterfly evolves without even using the internet! Oh how I wish I was that smart, but I'm not. My memory, while good, isn't perfect. I am not a geneticist or a biologist, or a zoologist. I do not have the background or education to sit here and give you a long-winded dissertation on butterfly evolution. How many times do I have to tell you that? If you want to know how it happened, go research it, for crying out loud! Why does the information have to come from ME in order for it to be valid?

Nor have you had a sensible answer to the islend problem, just a load of supposition and conjecture often gleaned from the ideas of others and well known and debunked.

What the hell, Polyglide? Your entire island scenario is hypothetical and not even realistic. Are you seriously going to tell me that I am not allowed to use supposition and conjecture to argue a point that, in and of itself, is supposition and conjecture? You're playing games with me and my patience is starting to wear mighty thin.

As for what others are saying on the internet ... I really don't care. I don't scour the web looking for ways to respond to you. Everything I have said are my own thoughts, thoughts developed independently from anyone else. If they happen to match what others are saying, it's because those who actually use logic will naturally come to the same damned conclusions. How hard is THAT to figure out?

Oh, and by the way ... if the arguments I posit are so "well known and debunked," why can't you debunk them here? Or are your assertions just a bunch of smoke and mirrors? I'm thinking it's the latter.

In fact nearly everything you use in replying to a problem is based on the ideas and refuted ones at that, of others.

Then refute them, Polyglide! If it's so easy, than DO SO! Stop lollygagging around and start debating.

by sickchip Sun May 06, 2012 11:49 am

lollygagging - what that?

by polyglide Tue May 08, 2012 3:54 pm

I cannot debunk that which is not there, you admit you cannot answer my quesion and ask me to look elsewhere. So how can I debunk nothing.

The reason I pose anything is because I know there is no realistic answer and for other people to consider.

The island poser proves beyond doubt that man is an entirely different species to any other and that brings one to consider how and why and is intended to be so.

The butterfly poser proves beyond doubt that you would have to believe in magic , the impossible and be bordering on insanity to think the butterfly could have come about by evolution.

Do not forget that if it can be proven that there is anti matter then every scientific view will have to be changed and reviewed as it has had to be over all the years.

by oftenwrong Tue May 08, 2012 5:43 pm

polyglide wrote:I cannot debunk that which is not there, you admit you cannot answer my quesion and ask me to look elsewhere. So how can I debunk nothing....

The island poser proves beyond doubt that man is an entirely different species to any other and that brings one to consider how and why and is intended to be so.....

"proving beyond doubt" presumably discards consideration of the fact that the higher primates (Gorillas etc.) share 97% of their DNA with Humans.

by Shirina Tue May 08, 2012 11:20 pm

I cannot debunk that which is not there, you admit you cannot answer my quesion and ask me to look elsewhere. So how can I debunk nothing.

I admit that I cannot answer your question. I am NOT admitting that there is no answer. You refuse to do any kind of research on the topic and expect everyone else to waste their time doing it for you ... just so you can ultimately say, "I have my faith, so what science says is irrelevant."

I'm not playing that game. If you're looking for a sucker, go somewhere else.

The island poser proves beyond doubt that man is an entirely different species to any other and that brings one to consider how and why and is intended to be so.

Of course you're quite wrong on this point. Other than animals whose natural habitat is an island environment, they would all end up dead eventually. Let's put a lion by itself on this island and see what happens. Would a lion be able to find fresh water? No. Would a lion figure out how to make fire? No. Would a lion figure out how to spear fish with a sharp stick? No. Since lions don't eat fish to begin with, they would be in a world of hurt. You can substitute any animal in this scenario and they would eventually die of starvation or because they are completely out of their element. Notice how humans are the only animal that lives everywhere - from the most inhospitable deserts to the freezing arctic wastes ... and MOST of them do so without any modern technology.

The butterfly poser proves beyond doubt that you would have to believe in magic

Even if that assertion were true, I would ask: How much do you know about magic? What makes you think that magic requires a magician for it to occur? Other than in fantasy novels, where is it written that magic must have a source? After all, it's magic. We can say whatever we want to about it and no one could claim to be correct.

by Shirina Tue May 08, 2012 11:22 pm

lollygagging - what that?

lollygagging present participle of lol·ly·gag (Verb)
Verb:
Spend time aimlessly; idle: "lollygagging in the sun".
Dawdle: "we're just lollygagging along".

by Adele Carlyon Tue May 08, 2012 11:28 pm

I've never heard that word before. But I may just decide to tell my 13 yr old to get up off his lollygagging bottom in the morning, and get to school! lol

by Shirina Wed May 09, 2012 1:32 am

It's a fun word ... it's even more fun to say. LOL!

by trevorw2539 Wed May 09, 2012 9:45 am

Lollygagging. 'To stick a solid iced fruit stick in a childs mouth to shut it up'. Well, that's my interpretation anyway. And it works cheers

by oftenwrong Wed May 09, 2012 10:04 am

not forgetting its British cousin, ligging

lig [lɪg] Brit slang
n
(esp in the entertainment industry and the media) a function at which free entertainment and refreshments are available
vb ligs, ligging, ligged
(intr) to attend such a function in order to take advantage of free entertainment and refreshments; freeloading

by polyglide Tue May 15, 2012 3:54 pm

Are you sure you can read with any understanding?

I said the island would have everything for every animal put on to survive.and enough of them to procreate

You admit you have no answer and that is because there is none, I do not have to do any research as the answer is plain the animals would prosper and the humans would die in a very short time.

by astra Tue May 15, 2012 7:04 pm

It's an island

In the air will be birds - food. Sparrows and goldfinches are eaten in Malta
It's an Island surrounded by water which will have fish yum yum
The animals are ther for the slaying!
A life of fishing and trapping sounds OK to me!

by Shirina Tue May 15, 2012 7:49 pm

I do not have to do any research

And therein lies the problem of religious belief. No more needs to be said.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:40 pm

polyglide wrote:

Most people I find have an open mind regarding most things and are willing to consider the opinions of others

Homosexuality is a perversion choose how you try to explain it

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Hmm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are I am afraid going towards dictatorship in what we can express and what we cannot regarding feelings and opinions etc; It is surely the right of everyone to be able to express an opinion on anything even if that opinion is not shared by others, it may upset some but that should not deny the right to do so. If both sides are able to have their say then what is the problem ?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I'm glad you feel that way, as you clearly won't object to me voicing my pinion that your opinion is vile repulsive bigoted homophobia, based on puerile ancient ignorance and superstition.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:49 pm

polyglide wrote: I asked for a step by step stage from nothing to the buterfly all you come up with is that which others have stated on the internet and other places.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Ah, it's the god of the gaps polemic, not very original, but since you were unwise enough to lift the lid of this particular can of worms I have a question for you. I'd like a step by step stage from nothing to God? Knock yourself out, but be warned if you attempt such puerile nonsense as "gawd as always been ear" or "cause it is and I say so" without evidence, then be prepared for your post to be derided, heartily.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:52 pm

polyglide wrote:You tread a very thin line when you say this that and the other cause problems to outsiders and do not include the actions of homosexuals I will not persue this angle but believe me I could on very sound grounds.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Puerile bigoted homophobic nonsense, based on ancient superstitions in sky fairies, between 1% to 3% of every human society that has ever existed has been and is gay, get over it, or join in perhaps? Is that it? Methinks the lady doeth protest too much.....

by Greatest I am Thu Dec 18, 2014 5:44 pm

Should people marry? It seems that God would forbid it.

Christian scriptures say that in heaven, there is no marriage.

When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
http://biblehub.com/mark/12-25.htm

As above so below, on earth as it is in heaven, indicates that when God returns to reclaim dominion from Satan, marriage will be abolished.

Why then do most religion of the Abrahamic root advocate marriage at all. Especially the polygamy. God does not favor marriage. If no two souls are to marry in heaven, then the law on earth should be that no two people marry.

We should emulate Jesus in all things and remember that as a Jew, he was almost forced by tradition to marry yet never did even though Gnostic Christian scriptures show him as loving Mary Magdalen more than his male disciples. Even kissing her on the (unknown parts). That is why I suggest that Jesus married Mary. Marriage was expected of all Rabbis.

This modern Gnostic Christian thinks marriage is the way to go, with a single mate, be that a mate of the same gender or not. Love is what is important. Not gender. That aside, I think that free choice should reign in this issue.

Do you think we should abolish marriage and move closer to God’s heavenly law?

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:10 pm

No one is forced to marry, as me for me I want to be married and don't believe in God. It would be hypocritical then to deny this right to others. Nor do I see any advantage in basing our morals on bronze age superstition.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:25 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Things may become clearer when we experience The Second Coming.

Indeed, though you'd think an omniscient omnipotent deity could have wrapped it all up clearly enough in one visit. I guess I just have unrealistic expectations of omniscient and omnipotence.

by Greatest I am Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:36 pm

No one is forced to marry, as me for me I want to be married and don't believe in God. It would be hypocritical then to deny this right to others. Nor do I see any advantage in basing our morals on bronze age superstition.

I agree. We should bury--- he shall rule over you, --- in some misogynist's butt.

Any man today who does not call himself a feminist is not a man who seeks justice.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:53 am

Papaumau wrote:I have always felt that as far as the laws of the land that I live in should never be based on religious faith, Regards.....

Papaumau.

Given the number of ludicrous claims in the same biblical books that are ignored, the credulous that call on a bronze age attitude of bigotry and intolerance towards gay men and women are quite clearly fuelling an in built prejudice. A prejudice made all the more irrational by the fact they feel they can interpret subjectively and cherry pick what to accept elsewhere.

Though the point is obviously well made that a message from an omniscient and omnipotent deity would've not need to be subjectively edited today's remove nefarious bigotry, but a text that was entirely human in origin and originating solely in the superstitious and ignorant minds of bronze age people would be expected to. How any intelligentsia person rationalises the obvious irony of this I really don't know, but it speaks volumes about the ability and propensity of humans for self delusion that so many do.

by polyglide Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:34 pm

DR. Sheldon,
You say that homosexuality does not cause problems, are you realy so silly.

Many religins condemn it out of hand and we have seen the actions of those who think they should be killed and indeed are doing so in the horrific manner.

No one in their right mind would condone such actions and yet this kind of action is based on false religions.

If a person is homosexual and cannot help it then there must be allowances made for this in any civilised society.

What you cannot do is change peoples minds by bringing in laws.

You can only do so by educating those who do not understand the implications.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:47 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
You say that homosexuality does not cause problems, are you realy so silly.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You really have a pathological propensity for lying don't you, I said gay adults having consensual sex harms no one, is it your inability to understand basic English, or are you really this duplicitous?

Many religins condemn it out of hand and we have seen the actions of those who think they should be killed and indeed are doing so in the horrific manner.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So some bigoted religious nutjob takes it into their head to kill someone and you're blaming the sexuality of the victim, and you're calling me silly? That's a new level of stupidity.

No one in their right mind would condone such actions and yet this kind of action is based on false religions.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:That's another logical fallacy called the "no true Scotsman fallacy". It's odd that you seem ignorant of these well known logical fallacies you keep using, what with your "expertise" in debating'?

If a person is homosexual and cannot help it then there must be allowances made for this in any civilised society.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Cannot help it? What on earth are you talking about, did you wake up one morning and think I've decided to be heterosexual? This is the problem with religious superstition and bigotry it rots your brain. And no, civilised societies don't make allowances for gay people, that's bigoted homophobes who think gay people require special treatment. A civilised society would afford gay men and women the same rights as heterosexual men and women.

What you cannot do is change peoples minds by bringing in laws.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Care to show the post where I made any such claim? Of course not, as it's another of those straw men polemics you love to make up. Laws are enacted to protect our rights, education is what changes people's attitudes.

You can only do so by educating those who do not understand the implications.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Exactly as I have said, more than once, the problem is religions are busy indoctrinating children with homophobic bigotry and it's not easy to counteract, but our society is changing gradually. Your attitude towards gay people represent an ever decreasing minority, and will soon be consigned to history with any luck.

by polyglide Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:06 am

Dr. Sheldon,
You have no idea how I feel about homosexuallity, I am not homophobic, nor do I think it is normal, I feel it should be treated as any other activity that does need special consideration.

You can argue till dooms day {not far off} but homosexuality is not like hetrosexuality.

If all men were homosexuals and all woman lesbians and practised only their preferences then the result would indicate what is and what is not normal.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:00 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
You have no idea how I feel about homosexuallity, I am not homophobic, nor do I think it is normal, I feel it should be treated as any other activity that does need special consideration.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I know exactly how you feel about it unless you've lied in your posts where you described gay people as perverts, and likened homosexuality to paedophilia. We all read the posts.

You can argue till dooms day {not far off} but homosexuality is not like hetrosexuality.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I never once argued that it was, your grasp of English is execrable.

If all men were homosexuals and all woman lesbians and practised only their preferences then the result would indicate what is and what is not normal.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:It seems you're determined to repeat the lie that I've claimed homosexuality is the norm. I never said it, you're either incapable of understanding basic sentences or are pathologically dishonest. Is that what you meant by expert debating skills, that you simply made up lies as you pleased?

One more time then...

1. Homosexuality is not unnatural as you claimed. There is a great deal of research which validates this and shows that many other species exhibit homosexual behaviour.
2. I do not and never have claimed being gay is the norm, but then neither is being left handed the norm so just what point you're making is anyone's guess.
3. Your homophobic prejudice are posted here for all to see, so your denials are beyond silly.

Gay people deserve the same rights as straight people, it's that simple

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 10, 2015 7:13 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
You have no idea how I feel about homosexuallity, I am not homophobic, nor do I think it is normal, I feel it should be treated as any other activity that does need special consideration.

You can argue till dooms day {not far off} but homosexuality is not like hetrosexuality.

If all men were homosexuals and all woman lesbians and practised only their preferences then the result would indicate what is and what is not normal.

It's heterosexuality, not 'hetrosexuality' (sic), and doomsday is one word. Homosexuality is no more a 'preference' than heterosexuality is, this is a simple enough premise. Just try and grasp that you never decided to prefer the opposite sex that's just who you are, and it's the same for gay people. Bronze age bigotry is based on ignorance and fear of the unknown, it's the reason humans created religions and deities in the first place. This is the 21st century and there's no excuse for indulging such bigoted nonsense any more.

by polyglide Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:05 pm

DR. Sheldon.
Thank you for the English lesson.

I just wish I could do the same for you in your lack of English and the manner in which words are used.

Of course homosexuality is a preference, anyone has the choice regarding anything they do.

Even were you a homosexual, there would be no need for you to practice it. etc;

by polyglide Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:09 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
According to every dictionary I know, homosexuality is a perversion, just as a farmer is a farmer etc.

It is purely a definition and you put what relevance you want to it.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:33 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon.
Thank you for the English lesson.

I just wish I could do the same for you in your lack of English and the manner in which words are used.

Of course homosexuality is a preference, anyone has the choice regarding anything they do.

Even were you a homosexual, there would be no need for you to practice it. etc;

So you're claiming that heterosexuality is your "preference"? That's bizarre, but personally I had no choice in the matter, are you sure you're not in sort of denial here?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:43 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
According to every dictionary I know, homosexuality is a perversion, just as a farmer is a farmer etc. It is purely a definition and you put what relevance you want to it.

Nonsense, that's your prejudiced view, and I couldn't find a single dictionary that gave that definition, perhaps you would care to link one for us as I am fairly sure you're simply lying.

Oxford English dictionary:

Definition of homosexual in English:
ADJECTIVE
1 Sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.

Or Webster's:

homosexuality
1. the quality or state of being homosexual
2 erotic activity with another of the same sex

Or Dictionary.com

noun
1. sexual desire or behaviour directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.

by polyglide Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:40 am

DR.Sheldon,
Read the definition of perversion.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:42 pm

polyglide wrote:DR.Sheldon,
Read the definition of perversion.

I already know how perversion is defined, and if you think you'll wriggle out of your lie that easily think again.

Now for everyone to see name a single dictionary that defines homosexuality as a perversion, just one will do. As I have already shown that the OED and Websters don't mention perversion in their definitions. It should be easy as you claimed that "all the dictionaries you knew did this", but please....

take your time.....

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Walter Scott

by polyglide Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:12 am

DR. Sheldon,
You cannot grasp the fact that perversion relates to many things, including homosexuals.

Perversion of justice, a criminal offence etc;

Anyone indulging in the above are perverts.

It is just a name, the emphasis one puts on it is up to them.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 14, 2015 10:03 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
You cannot grasp the fact that perversion relates to many things, including homosexuals. Perversion of justice, a criminal offence etc; Anyone indulging in the above are perverts. It is just a name, the emphasis one puts on it is up to them.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Who cares about that irrelevant BS, you claimed:

Polyglide wrote:by polyglide on Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:09 pm
Dr. Sheldon,
According to every dictionary I know, homosexuality is a perversion, just as a farmer is a farmer etc.It is purely a definition and you put what relevance you want to it.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Now I showed the OED and Webster's dictionaries neither of which mentioned perversion in their definitions of homosexuality. I also asked you to show just one dictionary that backed up your BS claim, and quelle surprise, you can't.

The bottom line here is that you're a bare faced liar Polyglide, and you used the word perversion because it suits your own rebelliously fuelled bigoted homophobia.

by Sponsored content