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 Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:08 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
We keep going over old ground.

Otiose, being the word.

We are not talking about consent, the problem is wether homosexuality is normal, not acceptable, between adults, but normal.

The dictionary says it is abnormal, the vast majority of people accept it as abnormal and what occurs even between consenting adults can be abnormal, including hetrosexuals.

Normal, relating to anything is accepted as meaning,
behaving in a manner accepted as normal, using anything in the intended manner, acting in an acceptable manner etc;

I am not bothered about what consenting humans do, that is entirely up to them, but what some do is not normal, it may be acceptable but that does not make it normal,

If it was normal then it would be the practise of most and it is not.

What the problem is, homosexuals think they are looked down on and not accepted in society, which I disagree with, they want to feel normal and equal, which they are as humans, they are normal amongst themselves but in the wide world they are a section who have different and abnormal preference and I cannot see how anyone can dispute the fact.

So a discussion that doesn't go your way serves no purpose? I tend to disagree.

Homosexuality is a normal variation of adult heterosexual desires. All the evidence shows this, and every single scientific and medical body in the world supports this view. Ranting about dictionary definitions you've failed to produce even once is rather silly, and won't help your cause. Neither will subjective semantics to try and dishonestly avoid the fact that your claim was a lie.

Religious homophobic bigotry is vile, and anyone who indulges it should be ashamed. They are also treading a fine line as there are now laws enacted to stop precisely such hate crimes.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:16 pm

boatlady wrote:We keep going over old ground.

And that, right there, may be the problem.

A more fruitful direction might be the consideration of whether or not the category 'normal' has any relevance to what i believe began as a discussion of whether or not secular law should be based on religious belief.

The original post concluded that
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.

Maybe take that as your starting point rather than going round and round debating the meaning of 'normal' - which i don't think has very much bearing on the discussion?

We're not actually debating the definition of normal,that's just an exercise in semantics by Polyglide. I have posted links showing that all the major world health and science bodies have long since agreed there is no evidence to show homosexuality is abnormal. He has no answer to this, but insists on reposting his own subjective opinion and using semantics to try and make it seem credible.

The bottom line here is that the UK are already enacting laws based on scientific truths to protect gay people from prejudice and persecution.

I also posted links to research that showed homosexual behaviour occurred throughout the animal Kingdom, Polyglide's best retort was to suggest supernatural forces were responsible for distorting animal behaviour.

No evidence for this claim of course, but I've come to expect nothing else.

by boatlady Tue Feb 24, 2015 4:42 pm

I'm aware there have been many attempts to focus this discussion and talk about matters that can be objectively demonstrated.
As these attempts seem to have been fruitless, I wondered if people would find it helpful to return to the origins of the thread and consider whether religious faith has any role in formulating laws of human conduct?

Just trying to be helpful ---

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:37 pm

boatlady wrote:I'm aware there have been many attempts to focus this discussion and talk about matters that can be objectively demonstrated.
As these attempts seem to have been fruitless, I wondered if people would find it helpful to return to the origins of the thread and consider whether religious faith has any role in formulating laws of human conduct?

Just trying to be helpful ---

I'm sure it's appreciated, but I think the direction the thread has taken is not entirely unrelated tbh. After all the fight for gay equality is being championed here based on the most current scientific and medical research and opinion of the worlds foremost health organisations including the World Health Organisation. The laws that we enact should rightly be evidence based, and not on subjective beliefs, and certainly not on erroneous attempts to subjectively interpret dictionary definitions. In my opinion it's germane to the thread title.

by boatlady Tue Feb 24, 2015 7:11 pm

Well, then - have at it

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 24, 2015 7:32 pm

boatlady wrote:Well, then - have at it

Thank you, I will keep it clean, and try not to stray too far off topic. Wink

by snowyflake Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:11 am

polyglide wrote:The dictionary says it is abnormal, the vast majority of people accept it as abnormal and what occurs even between consenting adults can be abnormal, including hetrosexuals.

The dictionary does NOT say it is abnormal. The dictionary defines homosexuality as a sexual attraction between members of the same sex. It does NOT say it is abnormal.

The Oxford Dictionary

homosexuality
Line breaks: homo|sexu¦al¦ity
Pronunciation: /ˌhɒmə(ʊ)ˌsɛkʃʊəˈalɪti , ˌhəʊmə(ʊ)ˌsɛkʃʊˈalɪti /
Definition of homosexuality in English:
NOUN

[MASS NOUN]

Sexual attraction to people of one’s own sex.

NO where does it say that it is abnormal. It is abnormal in your own head due to your own religious beliefs based on a book written thousands of years ago by a group of misogynists in the desert who did not understand the biology or neurology or psychology of homosexuality. Please familiarise yourself with modern medicine and science and a little dash of your acclaimed Christian compassion and understanding wouldn't go amiss either.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:56 am

snowyflake wrote:
polyglide wrote:The dictionary says it is abnormal, the vast majority of people accept it as abnormal and what occurs even between consenting adults can be abnormal, including hetrosexuals.

The dictionary does NOT say it is abnormal. The dictionary defines homosexuality as a sexual attraction between members of the same sex. It does NOT say it is abnormal.

The Oxford Dictionary

homosexuality
Line breaks: homo|sexu¦al¦ity
Pronunciation: /ˌhɒmə(ʊ)ˌsɛkʃʊəˈalɪti , ˌhəʊmə(ʊ)ˌsɛkʃʊˈalɪti /
Definition of homosexuality in English:
NOUN

[MASS NOUN]

NO where does it say that it is abnormal. It is abnormal in your own head due to your own religious beliefs based on a book written thousands of years ago by a group of misogynists in the desert who did not understand the biology or neurology or psychology of homosexuality. Please familiarise yourself with modern medicine and science and a little dash of your acclaimed Christian compassion and understanding wouldn't go amiss either.
Sexual attraction to people of one’s own sex.

From the first moment he posted his false claim I challenged him to post one dictionary definition that validated his claim. He's not even attempted to answer me. Simply going off into subjective semantics. I also posted the OED and Webster's definition of homosexuality, neither of which mention homosexuality as abnormal.

I have quoted and linked the current stance of all the major world's health and mental health organisations on homosexuality, all of whom have accepted that it is a normal variation of adult heterosexual desire. I posted links and quoted research that showed homosexuality is entirely natural behaviour and occurs throughout the animal Kingdom.

He hasn't even had the courtesy to acknowledge any of this. With the single caveat that he claimed animal behaviour was being distorted by humans under the influence of Satan.

Does anyone think semantics, bigoted homophobia, and Satanic fantasies are what we should base our laws on? Especially when they are either risible nonsense or utterly refuted by the evidence.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:11 am

Polyglide considers homosexuality to be a sin according to the OT. Does he also advocate the death penalty as punishment for homosexuals as stated in the OT? If he doesn't, why not? Can homosexuals be Christians? Surely there are many believers who are also homosexuals. My cousin is a lesbian who is also an ordained minister to the armed forces. She has no trouble with her sexuality and being a Christian. Indeed, she has a partner who she plans to marry in the sight of God. They love each other. They want no one else and would like to solemnise their relationship with marriage.

Now that the law has removed any religious trappings to homosexuality, given them equality in the eyes of the law, allowed them to marry and have equal rights with the protection of the law, how does polyglide think any of this is 'wrong'?

Polyglide doesn't have to 'like' it but he ought to examine his true feelings regarding it rather than hiding his homophobia behind his bible.

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:11 am

Dr. Sheldon,
Rogers Thesaurus:-

Homosexual-nonconformist
Homosexuality-abnormality.

Page, 896.

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:17 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I have to act as the Devil's Advocate because it is the only way to consider all that is involved in homosexuality.

So let us do so.

Homosexuality offers nothing other than self gratification, it offers nothing to the well being of society.

I am not talking about the good some homosexuals do or have done, I am talking about homosexuality.

You talk about Human Rights. well the First Protocol gives the basics of that which it involves and I will go into this on the next post as often when half way through a post in disapears.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:17 am

A thesaurus is not a dictionary. And I've just looked up homosexual in Rogers Thesaurus and it doesn't say what you have posted.

This is what Rogers has to say about it: Up until 1986, homosexuality was listed in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), psychiatry's standard reference on the classification of mental illness. People aware of this former categorization may feel that the term homosexual stills carries a negative connotation. And some feel that this word places undue emphasis on sexual activity, or that it sounds overly clinical. In fact, homosexual as an adjective and noun is somewhat dated, except in medical and other formal contexts; the term gay has mostly replaced it. People who still use homosexual are usually unaware that the term may be a sensitive one, although some do use it with intent to cause offense. However, not all members of the gay community object to it. See also gay.

Homosexual - gay

No where does it say abnormal or 'not normal'.

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:24 am

Human Rights.
It says a person should have the right to enjoy his/her
posessions.

Two homosexuals went to a Chrisian families home that did bred and breakfast, they were well aware of the couples belief and yet although there were numerous other alternatives they had to go to this couples home and expect to sleep together in one of their beds.

The couple refused and the pair of nondecripts, not because of their homosexuality, but their behaviour, took them to court and the court said the couple were discriminate.

The million dollar question- where were the coupes human rights?.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:25 am

polyglide wrote:Homosexuality offers nothing other than self gratification, it offers nothing to the well being of society.

Heterosexuality offers nothing other than self gratification, it offers nothing to the well being of society. How does one's sexuality benefit society as a whole? Surely the benefit to society is that people contribute to their communities, are good citizens and try to live a good life. Surely that is achieved by recognising that everyone has rights and responsibilities regardless of their sexuality, their skin colour, their religion, their politics, their age, their gender?

What do you think should happen to homosexuals and homosexuality? What do you think needs to happen to get rid of it? You realise that homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time and occurs in the animal kingdom as well, don't you? Surely, your god has created it as part of nature.

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:32 am

snowyflake,
Then my copy must be out of date but I can assure you that what I have said is correct.

To change the meaning of a word to satify a section of society in no way refutes the obvious.

Homosexuality is abnormal in every respect of the word accepted by the vast majority of people, to attempt to disguise the fact is a none starter.

You could make the same for murder, wife beating and child abuse, just because you think homosexuality does not harm anyone does not alter the FACTS.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:32 am

polyglide wrote:Human Rights.
It says a person should have the right to enjoy his/her
posessions.

Two homosexuals went to a Chrisian families home that did bred and breakfast, they were well aware of the couples belief and yet although there were numerous other alternatives they had to go to this couples home and expect to sleep together in one of their beds.

The couple refused and the pair of nondecripts, not because of their homosexuality, but their behaviour, took them to court and the court said the couple were discriminate.

The million dollar question- where were the coupes human rights?.

First, your facts are wrong. The gay couple did not know of the couples beliefs. They booked the room and arrived and were told at the desk that they couldn't stay in the same room. You must realise as an adult to be told by someone else that you cannot stay in a room that you had booked would be terribly upsetting.

Secondly, the couple owning the bed and breakfast own a public business and must adhere to the law. They CANNOT discriminate against anyone or use their faith as a reason to discriminate. The couple owning the b&b were in the wrong. This couple has NO right to impose their PERSONAL religious beliefs on ANYONE else.

They were rightfully sued and lost their suit. If they cannot handle that society has moved on from bronze age superstitious myth then they shouldn't be in a business that offers accommodation. They cannot pick and choose their customers especially when the customers did not do anything WRONG.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:36 am

polyglide wrote: Rogers Thesaurus:-

Homosexual-nonconformist
Homosexuality-abnormality.

Page, 896.

You claimed and I quote:

" every dictionary you.d ever read defined homosexuality as abnormal and unnatural"

QUOTE ONE.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:38 am

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
Then my copy must be out of date but I can assure you that what I have said is correct.

To change the meaning of a word to satify a section of society in no way refutes the obvious.

Homosexuality is abnormal in every respect of the word accepted by the vast majority of people, to attempt to disguise the fact is a none starter.

You could make the same for murder, wife beating and child abuse, just because you think homosexuality does not harm anyone does not alter the FACTS.

Your posts are beyond offensive, polyglide. Homosexuality is not a crime whereas murder, wife beating and child abuse are. To suggest that homosexuality is in the same league as murder, wife beating or child abuse shows your ignorance. Your refusal to accept that the law and definition has changed is YOUR problem.

BTW, you don't speak for the majority of people and to suggest that you do is hubris of the highest magnitude. You have been shown the correct definition and your definition is wrong. Get over it.

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:40 am

snowyflake,
All the actions of humans since Adam, has been as a result of humans not conforming to what they were advised.

You miss the point entirely, I already pointed out that some homosexuals give good service, we are not talking about that at all.

Hetrosexuals continue the human race, the intention of God, by the means he gave, he did not avise the misuse of them.

There is actually hope, there are methods being developed that can illiminate any gene from future generations and if there is a gene that provides the homosexual factor then, perhaps in the future there will be no debate neccesary.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:43 am

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I have to act as the Devil's Advocate because it is the only way to consider all that is involved in homosexuality.

So let us do so.

Homosexuality offers nothing other than self gratification, it offers nothing to the well being of society.

I am not talking about the good some homosexuals do or have done, I am talking about homosexuality.

You talk about Human Rights. well the First Protocol gives the basics of that which it involves and I will go into this on the next post as often when half way through a post in disapears.

Another demonstrably false claim. Homosexuality is who a person is, not what they do. Persecuting or criminalising people for who they are does great harm to both victim and the society they live in.

Homosexuality is both normal and natural, and I have offered empirical evidence for this that is the position of all the world's major health and mental organisations. All you've offered is semantics and blind belief. They do no harm to anyone and deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:45 am

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
All the actions of humans since Adam, has been as a result of humans not conforming to what they were advised.

You miss the point entirely, I already pointed out that some homosexuals give good service, we are not talking about that at all.

Hetrosexuals continue the human race, the intention of God, by the means he gave, he did not avise the misuse of them.

There is actually hope, there are methods being developed that can illiminate any gene from future generations and if there is a gene that provides the homosexual factor then, perhaps in the future there will be no debate neccesary.

WOW!! You are suggesting EUGENICS ffs! Are you kidding me??

You might want to rethink that utterly ridiculous and ignorant statement.

You, polyglide are a homophobe. Stop using your religion to hide behind that fact. If you weren't a Christian you would still be a homophobe.

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:45 am

snowyflake,
What I have said may be crimes but you miss the point entirely.

If there are genes that make a person homosexual, then there may be the same for all other activities carried out by man.

So in my opinion, if consideration is given to one on those grounds, all others should have the same consideration.

Please do not say what I think, I just put over the points you are obviously not wanting to consider.

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:47 am

snowyflake,
Please elaberate on your last post.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:50 am

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
What I have said may be crimes but you miss the point entirely.

If there are genes that make a person homosexual, then there may be the same for all other activities carried out by man.

So in my opinion, if consideration is given to one on those grounds, all others should have the same consideration.

Please do not say what I think, I just put over the points you are obviously not wanting to consider.

I'm not missing anything and unlike you I consider all sides to a situation. However, also unlike you, I don't use a religious belief to hide behind to support personal bigotry. I support my thinking with facts, science, evidence. You are a homophobe and use your religion to support your homophobia. There is nothing Christian or loving or non judgemental in any of your posts. As a Christian, your job as a Christian is to love others. It is NOT your job to judge or discriminate.

Either you are a Christian or you are a homophobe. You cannot be both.

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:02 am

snowyflake,
I have already pointed out that unless I take the Devils Advocate stance, you nor any of those who think homosexuality is normal , would raise the issues that determine the truth.

I have no problem with homosexuals, I think it is wrong, on the grounds I have very clearly stated, I think avoiding tax is wrong etc;

I can think and not agree with many things, that does not mean anything more than I do not agree with them.

I feel telepthy is not one of your strong points.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:10 am

polyglide, you do have a problem with homosexuals or you wouldn't write the nonsense you write and you wouldn't use your religion as an excuse for your bigotry.

What do you mean by 'agree' with homosexuality? Homosexuals exist. They are a fact. Like heterosexuals are a fact. You realise that a heterosexual can be just as detrimental to society. Are heterosexuals who choose NOT to have children in the same league as homosexuals?

Avoiding paying your taxes is a crime. Being homosexual is not a crime.

Telepathy doesn't exist and I don't know what you mean by your last non sequitur sentence.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:16 am

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
All the actions of humans since Adam, has been as a result of humans not conforming to what they were advised.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:This is being dismissed in the same fashion it's been offered, without evidence. (See Hitchen's razor).

You miss the point entirely, I already pointed out that some homosexuals give good service, we are not talking about that at all.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So when you offer derisory generalisations without evidence it's ok, but when it's refuted with evidence Snowyflake is "missing your point". Quelle surprise.

Hetrosexuals continue the human race, the intention of God, by the means he gave, he did not avise the misuse of them.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:That's your belief. The entire point of the thread is to highlight that our society should not base it's laws on subjective beliefs. Your sexual hangups should not be used to persecute others.

There is actually hope, there are methods being developed that can illiminate any gene from future generations and if there is a gene that provides the homosexual factor then, perhaps in the future there will be no debate neccesary.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Jesus wept that's beyond offensive. Having repeatedly plumbed the depths of homophobic bigotry you're now advocating forced eugenics. Words fail me. At least this outburst shows two things. Firstly your pretence of tolerance towards gay men and women is completely exposed. Secondly no half decent person will now disagree with the suggestion in the thread title that religious beliefs should play no part in the law making process of our country.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:20 am

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
What I have said may be crimes but you miss the point entirely.

If there are genes that make a person homosexual, then there may be the same for all other activities carried out by man.

So in my opinion, if consideration is given to one on those grounds, all others should have the same consideration.

Please do not say what I think, I just put over the points you are obviously not wanting to consider.

This asinine attempt to make an analogous comparison between being gay and heinous immoral behaviour has been dismantled multiple times.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS CONSENSUAL AND SO DOES NO HARM.

Geddit?

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:29 am

snowyflake,
I once wanted to go into a part of land that had a poster saying, no entrance without consent.

I said to my friend do you give me your consent, I will give you mine and in we went.

Consent does not change anything.

Of course it does harm.

Just consider if everyone was homosexual.

If it was normal then everyone could be homosexual and the human race would still survive.

I have yet to see a definition that says it is normal as normal is accepted by the vast majority of the human race.

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:35 am

snowyflake,
I have to go as my dinner will be on the way.

On Saturday, my wife and I will be going to a 60th wedding anniversary dinner.

No doubt there will be one or two homosexuals there and I will no doubt have a good laugh with them and in no way feel anything different between them and anyone else there.

As far as I am concerned, it is the person and not there sexual preferences that count but I still feel it is abnormal.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:56 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
I have to go as my dinner will be on the way.

On Saturday, my wife and I will be going to a 60th wedding anniversary dinner.

No doubt there will be one or two homosexuals there and I will no doubt have a good laugh with them and in no way feel anything different between them and anyone else there.

As far as I am concerned, it is the person and not there sexual preferences that count but I still feel it is abnormal.

Tell them you think they're abnormal unnatural perverts, see if they still want to have a laugh with you after that.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:48 pm

I think the bloody mindedness of the religious bigot is the hardest thing to deal with. No amount of common sense or rationality penetrates the brick wall in front of a bigot's brain.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:14 pm

snowyflake wrote:I think the bloody mindedness of the religious bigot is the hardest thing to deal with. No amount of common sense or rationality penetrates the brick wall in front of a bigot's brain.

To be fair that's the nature of delusional beliefs. The problem is that the idea has existed for some time that religious beliefs ought to be respected. Personally I think the idiocy of blind faith ought to be discouraged as much as possible, and no beliefs should ever be respected if they involve prejudice against, or persecution of, anyone.

The fact that Polyglide doesn't think he's prejudiced against gay people is not that surprising to be honest. Both because I've seen enough of this kind of bigotry to know they always deny it, and because the beliefs they're based on require a substantial amount of self delusion in the first place.

by Greatest I am Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:41 pm

Papaumau wrote: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 agree. To have a judge or God that cannot be questioned is dumber than dumb.

Regards
DL

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 4:16 pm

Greatest I am,

Then you have never read the Old Testament.

There are numerous references to events that have been proven to have taken place.

My whole faith is based on the promise made by Jesus.
I do not understand much of the Old Testament, as it was written at a time when I do not realise the relevance of many of the writings, as the times were entirely different, the laws were different and the meaning of words in relationship to many matters were different.

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 4:23 pm

snowyflake,
You say there is no such thing as telepathy but do nothing but indulge in it.

You say I am this or that and the only way you could be sure is if you could read my mind.

You could of course attempt to base it on how I approach matters but this would be and is pure conjecture.

I have, just minutes ago, read, that a man has possibly commited suicide.

He had been caught having sex with a letter box in a department store.

Possibly, because the cause of death has yet to be verified.

No doubt the judge will ask if the letterbox had given it's consent.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 25, 2015 4:44 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
You say there is no such thing as telepathy but do nothing but indulge in it.

You say I am this or that and the only way you could be sure is if you could read my mind.

You could of course attempt to base it on how I approach matters but this would be and is pure conjecture.

I have, just minutes ago, read, that a man has possibly commited suicide.

He had been caught having sex with a letter box in a department store.

Possibly, because the cause of death has yet to be verified.

No doubt the judge will ask if the letterbox had given it's consent.

Are you accusing me of reading your mind? Sorry, I have many talents but mind reading isn't one of them besides I can't read anything that small without my glasses.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 25, 2015 4:48 pm

I base my conclusions on the evidence of your posts. Your posts are homophobic. You actually believe that homosexuality is a 'choice' or a 'lifestyle' and you base that notion on your belief in what the bible says about it. The bible is over 2000 years old. It has been proven wrong. Genesis is a catastrophe of errors in the origin of the universe and order of creation. Colossally wrong! If it's wrong in the very first chapter of a supposedly infallible, unerring text how much of the rest of it is wrong.

This is basic logic. The word of god is meant to be infallible. It's been found to be fallible on many levels and therefore untrustworthy and clearly the work of humans not of an omnipotent god.

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 4:51 pm

snowflake,
The whole problem is, snowyflake, you cannot understand anything, I assume you are refering to your talents when refering to small, in that case be my guest, the first thing I will agree with you.

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:07 pm

snowyflake,
How many times must I point out, I have no interest in the Old Testament, the writings were by men and women of that time, for that time, other than the prophercies, many of which have been verified.

If I think homosexuality is abnormal and that is homophobic, then you are right, , If I feel the world would be better if there was no homosexuals, I do, and that is homophobic, then I hold my hands up.

That does not mean anything other than, I feel if everyone had a man, woman, relationship, as everything indicates that that is the intention and why both were created differently then it would be better.

Just as if everyone obeyed the law, it would better.

As I have stated previously, the only thing homosexuality offers to society is self gratification, if what it involves is more so, the acts involved and not the person, then please give a full explanation.

I have given mine regarding hetrosexuality.

by Norm Deplume Wed Feb 25, 2015 6:42 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
Homosexuality is abnormal in every respect of the word accepted by the vast majority of people, to attempt to disguise the fact is a none starter.

If you ask any lexicographer, you will discover that dictionaries are descriptive and record the meanings of words as they are understood by the majority of the users of the language.

I suggest you get a recent dictionary.

My copy of Chambers Thesaurus shows a large number of (mostly pejorative) synonyms for homosexual but abnormal does not figure among them. I can't find my copy of Roget's Thesaurus but I doubt very much that it does either.

[Actually it just occurred to me that your Rogers Thesaurus might not be a misprint - it could be from Viz and supposedly by Roger Mellie. It hardly needs emphasising that this would not be an authoritative source.]

by Sponsored content