Religion, gay artists and homophobia

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,
                   You got me thinking about sin and so I looked at the relevant site on the computer and the list is endless many of which involve no third party.

                   But I do appreciate it when I have to look at something in different manner.

                                               regards.

Then if you have already found a bunch, you should be able to fill my request above.

Regards
DL

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 I have not the dictionary with me that includes what you want but can assure you, and expect an apology, when I get the details from home but the one concerned was manufactured in America.

          Collin's dictionary, pervert, person who practices sexual perversion.

            I am not accusing anyone of anything, I am stating  facts, I think you are continually asking for facts, well they are some for you to consider, regarding how we treat homosexuals, the fact that the person concerned is homosexual did not hamper in any way his life.  
                                             

Firstly you claimed the dictionary definition of homosexual contained the word pervert. I and several others pointed out this was untrue, yet you repeats the lie. 

Despite being asked to produce the dictionary and being shown the actual dictionary definition you are still repeating this lie.  

I've no idea what you're attempting to claim by your example of a gay man who made a successsuccareer in politics, but as boatlady pointed out your remarks bordered on defamation.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I have been home and the reference regarding, homosexuality, non conformist and homosexuality, abnoramlity is in the Rogers Thesaurus paage 896, this book has a reputation second to none regarding the meaning and explanation of words.

That's not what you claimed. You claimed the dictionary defined homosexuality as a perversion when you were asked to justify calling gay people perverts. 

The dictionary does not support your lie. It's also homophobic to describe gay people in this way. As well as being deeply offensive and a derogation.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I have not the dictionary with me that includes what you want but can assure you, and expect an apology, when I get the details from home but the one concerned was manufactured in America.  Collin's dictionary, pervert, person who practices sexual perversion.

No one disputed the definition of pervert, but as I said you claimed that the dictionary definition of homosexual contained the word pervert, and no amount of requests for you to evidence this have shamed you into retracting this lie. You do this often I'm afraid, and unashamedly refuse to even acknowledge you've lied let alone apologise and retract what was and is a fairly nasty homophobic lie. You haven't said if you have ever told any of the gay people you claim are friends that you think they are perverts, I think we can all see why, and this speaks for itself, as does your histrionics and evasion each time I ask you this.

I owe you no apology, the truth is your behaviour in this thread has been appalling, both towards gay people, and for the many insults and petty ad hominem you have directed at other posters. For shame.

Polyglide wrote:I am not accusing anyone of anything, I am stating  facts, I think you are continually asking for facts, well they are some for you to consider, regarding how we treat homosexuals, the fact that the person concerned is homosexual did not hamper in any way his life.

You have accused gay people of being unnatural, abnormal, perverted and deviants, your own words, so that's another shameful lie. What facts? You made a cowardly insinuation without any actual evidence. The fact you were too scared to name the person shows you know how lose to defamation the remarks were. If they're facts what are you afraid of? How do you know being gay hasn't hampered this persons life? Just because he's been successful in his professional career doesn't mean he hasn't had to suffer all manner of prejudice.

Just because something or someone is not the norm that does not make them or it abnormal, are left handed people abnormal? There is nothing unnatural about being gay, this has been thoroughly researched and the evidence published and presented here, that is a fact, and evidence is what makes things facts. You can type the word fact after your homophobic rants all you want, that doesn't make them facts.

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon, If you read the definition of perverted it includes homosexuality.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pervert

verb
Distort or corrupt the original course, meaning, or state of (something):

Not according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Word definitions are either as anathema to you as a decent dictionary, or you are lying, again.

homosexual
/ˌhɒmə(ʊ)ˈsɛkʃʊəl,ˌhəʊm-/
adjective
adjective: homosexual

1.
sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

•involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex.
"homosexual desire"

noun
noun: homosexual; plural noun: homosexuals
1.
a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

synonyms: gay, lesbian, gay person, lesbigay; rareinvert, homophile, Uranian; informal; queen, friend of Dorothy, dyke, les, lesbo, lezzie, butch, femme; informal; queer, homo, pansy, nancy, bumboy, nelly; informal; poof, poofter, ponce, jessie, woofter, shirtlifter, bender; informal; cupcake, swish, twinkie; informal; wonk; informal; moffie; informal; batty boy, batty man  
antonyms: heterosexual, straight



Here I went on Google and got this definition - why not use it as your working definition and continue the discussion from there?
As PG seems unable to produce his dictionary
I see this definition, while not always what I would call politically correct, at no point uses the word 'perversion' or any derivative therefrom, as part of the definition.

Aren't I good to you?

Thanks Boatlady, of course I already posted the OED definition, and Merriam-Webster, and a link for each of them. They never contained the word pervert either, as everyone said they would not.

Since this fact is now unavoidable for anyone reading this thread you'd think Polyglide would admit he was wrong to claim the dictionary definition of homosexual contained the word pervert, but so far he seems determined to keep making his silly claim even when it's been proved wrong more than once.

I've also dealt quite extensively with the other accusations he made, there is no evidence that being gay is unnatural, research has shown that it occurs throughout the animal kingdom. All the worlds medical, scientific and mental health organisations, including the World Health Organisation now recognise homosexuality as a natural normal variation of adult human sexual desires.

Greatest I am,
It is a sin to tell a lie.

Think the wrong things.

Not do unto others as you would want them to do to you.

Think ill of others.

None of which along with many others, I am sure you are aware of has no direct effect on anyone else and no one gets directly hurt.

regards.

Dr, Sheldon,
The meaning of a word is that which the majority of people accept it as.

I have given you both the Book and the page relevant to homosexuality.

To compare animal behaviour with human behaviour just shows the depths to which you have arrived.

Homosexuality to a homosexual is normal to the homosexual, it is not normal sexual behaviour, just look up what the actual meaning of normal is and then consider if homosexuality conforms to the correct usage of a matter.

PG your comments on this topic are unacceptable and verge on homophobia.
You have not, as far as I can see, offered any justification for your stance apart from  your own prejudice.

I am seriously considering closing this thread unless you can engage a bit more appropriately with the topic.

As I understand your position - homosexuality is a human behaviour that you personally do not approve of. I believe you base your disapproval on biblical authority, although I'm not aware that you have cited any actual biblical texts, or any respected theological or ethical thinking in support of your opinion. So far, your objection to homosexuality remains based in your own personal prejudice and at this point I would only seek to remind you that the law of the land, by which we are all bound at risk of legal sanctions, does not support your opinions - once again, I would urge you to be extremely careful about how you proceed in this debate.


As to your assertion that
The meaning of a word is that which the majority of people accept it as. - you are wrong - the meaning of a word in this context is the meaning assigned to it in legal statute, and you misuse the words 'perversion' and 'abnormal' at your peril.

boatlady,
You are correct in thinking I think homosexuality is wrong, I also think may other things are wrong and many of my friends indulge in them, I do not hold it against them I just do not agree with them, so do not say anything other than the above, because you would be wrong.

I could take you to task regarding what people accept regarding words and in particular homosexuality, there are millions of people who would never accept what you suggest.

If you look up the meaning of abnormal and relate it to homosexuality and that which homosexuality involves, then please explain where homosexuality resides.

Then look up perversion and do exactly the same.

What I cannot understand is why you cannot call a spade a spade, as far as I am concerned there are many types of perversion
all of which are based on the same method of calculation as with abnormality if you and as I do place certain stigma to some then that is personal thing and as far as I am cocerned homosexuality is not one of them.

PG I have provided (as has Sheldon) a generally accepted definition for the term homosexual.

If you will insist on defining homosexuality as a perversion I am afraid I will have to start deleting your posts. This is not acceptable - 'perversion' is on the whole a negative term used to castigate groups or individuals - homosexuality is a value free descriptive term used to categorise a range of social and sexual behaviours - I might as well say, because only a minority of English people have black skin that black skin is abnormal and a perversion - this you will agree would be racist and offensive - in a similar way, your insistence on describing people attracted to their own sex as 'abnormal' or 'perverted' is homophobic and offensive.
I can't make it any clearer.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                The meaning of a word is that which the majority of people accept it as.

Nonsense, do you really think you can bullshit like this and we'll simply not know? What is it you think dictionaries are for? You made a claim that was a demonstrable lie, you are not going to get anyone with any intelligence to swallow that lie. The dictionary defines homosexuality and that definition does not contain the word pervert.

Polyglide wrote:I have given you both the Book and the page relevant  to homosexuality.

You quoted a thesaurus and are using semantics to try and obfuscate, your claim was that the dictionary definition of homosexuality had pervert in it, it was and is a risible lie. What's more it's homophobic bigotry.

Polyglide wrote:To compare animal behaviour with human behaviour just shows the depths to which you have arrived.

Except I didn't compare them, I pointed out that homosexuality is evidenced throughout the animal kingdom, thus to describe it as unnatural is as stupid as it is dishonest. I'm happy for everyone to decide who and sunk to what depths in this thread, but you are the one making bigoted homophobic remarks, and have been warned repeatedly, and even banned for it.

Polyglide wrote:Homosexuality to a homosexual is normal to the homosexual, it is not normal sexual behaviour, just look up what the actual meaning of normal is and then consider if homosexuality conforms to the correct usage of a matter.

All the worlds medical, scientific and mental health organisations, including the World Health Organisation now recognise homosexuality as a natural normal variation of adult human sexual desires. Religious bigotry doesn't trump scientific facts.

If you insist your homophobic, pejorative and subjective descriptions properly define gay people why are so afraid to tell the gay people you know how you feel about them? Such a dishonest hypocritical action can only be mean one thing, and that is that you know full well how they'd react to anyone describing them is those appalling terms.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,  The meaning of a word is that which the majority of people accept it as.

I have yet to see you offer any evidence that the majority of people share your bigoted and subjective desire to ignore the dictionary on the definition of the word homosexual, care to offer some? Otherwise I might think you're simply making up another stupid lie, and lets face it hardly a post goes by where you don't make up something that is either demonstrably wrong, or so laughably stupid it hardly requires response. Much like this one which is of course both, as several posters including myself and boatlady have proved unequivocally that you're wrong, and the repetition of the claim can only be mendacious.

Perhaps it's another of those nefarious demonic plots you seem to think are real?

by polyglide Yesterday at 1:18 pm
If you look up the meaning of abnormal and relate it to homosexuality and that which homosexuality involves, then please explain where homosexuality resides.

Then look up perversion and do exactly the same.

I've looked both these words up in the Oxford English Dictionary, and neither definition mentions being gay in any way. So another bigoted lie you've made up I'm afraid. As always I'm completely at a loss as to why you make up lies that you must know will be so easily exposed?

Dr, Sheldon,
I have replied to this through boatlady.

If you want your reply to be read by anyone else but me, you will have to also post it on the public forum

Polyglide, if you want to discuss the topic do so. There seems little point in telling everyone you've  "run to teacher". 

Have you told the gay people you claim are your friends that you think they are unnatural abnormal perverted deviants? 

It's a yes or no answer to be fair.

Dr, Shedlon,
It is not a yes or no answer.

Do you call the butcher a butcher every time you go for a joint, [not the smoking kind] ? do you call a person suffering an affliction a cripple or a handicapped person abnormal?,
the latter who I have dealt with for many years I call by their name, however, they also belong in the catorgaries as stated.

I name is to denote and nothing more.

It is most definitely a yes or no question, and I never said every time you've met them.  You're now lying again and twisting what I've said. 

I'd have no qualms calling a butcher a butcher, and that's an asinine comparison. Handicapped is not a pejorative term, so again whilst I'd not go out of my way to offend I'd not be a hypocrit as you are being by calling gay people offensive bigoted names like abnormal  unnatural perverted deviants, while pretending to be their friends. 

That's shameful. It's also very unchristian by any benchmark. 

Now I ask again have you told any of the gay people you call friends what you really think of them? 

I think we all know the answer by now, and the dishonest hypocrisy that motivates it.

Dr, Sheldon,
You obviously cannot understand plain English, so I will attempt to give you a explanation of your silly observations that evn a child could undetstand.

You obviuosly do not understand the dictionaries explantion of words and it would take to long for me to attempt to teach you as I have to go and see my Gay frind Mike.

I have already explained matters above but you are so dense as to not understand the implications, please get someone, in particular someone around five years old to explain matters.

What complete and utter drivel. Have you told the gay people you are pretending to be friends with that you think they're unnatural abnormal perverted deviants? 

No more dishonest waffle thank you. Despite your arrogant bs everyone is acutely aware of which poster is semi literate.

Either have the integrity to answer or slither away.

Polyglide wrote:[size=48]  [size=48]You obviuosly [/size]do not understand the dictionaries explantion of words and it would take to long for me to attempt to teach you[/size]

I've quoted the dictionary, as has boatlady. You have not, because even your execrable thought process can't fail to see your bigoted prejudiced remarks were a lie. The dictionary definition of homosexual contains none of the words you claimed. 

Hence your idiotic and hilarious attempt to link several words together via a Thesaurus.  As stupid as it is dishonest.  

Aren't Christians supposed to be honest? 

Even for a faux christian like you this level of nasty vindictive bigotry, hypocrisy,  and dishonesty you're posting is quite startling.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have never ever said anything untoward regarding homosexuality, I have only expressed that I do not agree with it as a Christian, as I also disagree with many other things on the same basis.

However, some of your own failings are beyond a joke, you do not know the difference between a lie and a difference of opinion, you indicate that man is the same as an animal, dictionary definition of man, having the attributes of man rather than animals, indicating a difference, I know some men and woman behave worse than animils but they are not the same as being an animal, although the dictionary gives a clear definition of a subject you deny it.

Your last post is a clear indication of someone who has been found wanting and is resorting to childish behaviour.

boatlady,
I have taken Ivan's advice and will not comment on this further, I leave all with an open mind to decide who is right based on the actual facts.

Polyglide by polyglide Today at 12:54 pm wrote:
Dr, Sheldon,
I have never ever said anything untoward regarding homosexuality, 

That's your opinion, but if you think describing gay people as abnormal unnatural perverted deviants isn't untoward then I'm happy to let that speak for itself.  Needles to say I vehemently disagree and find such prejudices remarks deeply offensive.

Polyglide wrote:However, some of your own failings are beyond a joke, you do not know the difference between a lie and a difference of opinion, you indicate that man is the same as an animal,

I certainly do know the difference, and that is another shameful lie from you as I have not said that at all. Part of the animal kingdom is what I said. Though perhaps your execrable inability to grasp simple sentences is at fault. Though you certainly repeatedly lied that I had claimed homosexuality was caused by a gene. 

You have yet to show one post of mine doing so, and I have no hope you'll ever even acknowledge this lie let alone withdraw it and apologise. 

Again for shame.

Polyglide wrote:although the dictionary gives a clear definition of a subject you deny it.

Another bare faced lie, show one example of me deviating from a dictionary definition. You simply can't read even the most simple sentence without leaping to the most ludicrous misrepresentations, as you've done here again by talking my perfectly correct sentence that humans are part of the animal kingdom as the idiotic misrepresentation that humans are the same as animals. 

If you can't read then ask people to explain it to you as this is an incredible and asinine distortion of a very simple sentence.

Dr, Sheldon,
Are you for real or just being purposely stupid.

Humans are part of the animal kingdom????? then by that utterance they must be animals.

Or do you mean they just live in the same place, which makes no difference to anything, just read the meanings of Kingdom.

Either way you refered to humans because animals behave in a similar manner.

I have no intention of going back to the post where you said genes were responsible for certain matters because scientists had found a gene that was responsible, as another poster pointed out it was silly.

I have given numerous indications of your inability to accept dictionary definitions and have no intention of repeating them., you have even called the most accepted means of defining a word rubbish because it does not fall into your small world of science, [ the activity responsible for the potential destruction of mankind]

Jesus wept. I'm off to the pub. This is like trying teach a chimpanzee to speak Japanese.  

Life's too short.  Polyglide revel in stupidity and ignorance all you want. I'm out for now.

Dr, Shedlon,
Thank the Lord for that, perhaps someone with a little intelligence who understands the meaning of words will join the debate

Jesus wept. I'm off to the pub. This is like trying teach a chimpanzee to speak Japanese.  

Life's too short.  Polyglide revel in stupidity and ignorance all you want. I'm out for now.

Someone explain in simple sentences that humans are part of the family of great apes. Though why they'd bother I really don't know as polyglide clearly would rather pretend the fields of biology and evolution don't really exist. 

Gorillas chimpanzees orangutans gibbons  and humans are all closely related. Who doesn't know this ffs?

More astonishingly who makes strident arrogant claims on a topic they're that ignorant of. Dear dear me. Chimpanzees contain 97% of our DNA, they live in social groups with hierarchies and exhibit strong altruism and empathy and have an astonishing diversity of communication and are able to learn to use tools.

Polyglide wrote:I have no intention of going back to the post where you said genes were responsible for certain matters because scientists had found a gene that was responsible, as another poster pointed out it was silly.

I was the one who pointed out it was silly you cretin.

Topic locked