Is America more accepting of gay men than gay women? - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-07-2002, 08:02 AM   #136
Refugee
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,385
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Bubba-
I think he does it because-
a.
-it's 'fahionable' to do so
b.
-it's an easy path.

Diamond

ps-continue Bubba to
fight the good fight.
__________________

__________________
Diamond The U2 Patriot is offline  
Old 03-07-2002, 12:53 PM   #137
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
What I wonder is, why is it okay to make bigoted slurs about Christians?
what I wonder is how you make all of this up

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
__________________

__________________
Salome is offline  
Old 03-07-2002, 01:28 PM   #138
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diamond The U2 Patriot:
Bubba-
I think he does it because-
a.
-it's 'fahionable' to do so
b.
-it's an easy path.
I consider myself a christian
my own brother is a priest
I don't care what's fashionable, I never did

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
__________________
Salome is offline  
Old 03-07-2002, 02:41 PM   #139
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome:
what I wonder is how you make all of this up

I'm not making it up: reverse WHAT YOU SAID, and you get, "I think God feels more love for Christians than for gay people."

THAT wouldn't be tolerated.

So, please don't avoid the issue by saying stuff like "how do you make this up." Please address the actual issue.

You say you're a Christian, and I accept that. Still, why would you insult your fellow Christians like that? And why is it acceptible to do so when it's clearly not acceptible to insult other groups?

Look: in this thread, I have put forth the position that homosexuality is contrary to Scripture and homosexual couples cannot be married by the definition of what marriage is - and THAT'S IT. I supported what I said with actual verses and with what logic I have. I ALSO said repeatedly that I oppose criminalizing homosexuality and support legal equivalence for all adult couples, and that I personally have homosexual and bisexual friends that I don't treat any differently than anyone else.

For that, what do I get? Well, Melon calls me a Pharisee. Anthony says that I'm a prejudiced homophobe who was raised to hate homosexuals, someone who arrogantly supposes God's will without any real basis. And, now, you bring up the specter of "Bible thumpers," "people who smack each other on the head with the Bible."

All because I don't think homosexuality is Biblically permissible.

WHAT THE HELL happened to tolerance for different opinions?

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-07-2002).]
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 03-07-2002, 04:48 PM   #140
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
There's simply no point debating you if you are going to change the rules of the debate as you go along - if you are going to condemn the works that you yourself quote when I happen to use them.
It is not my fault that you lack contextual knowledge to know what goes where. I suggested certain books above, like a Catholic Bible and a college-level genetics text,. and I suggest you look at them, if only for comparison. I read many books I ultimately reject, but I'm better for having read them to, at least, "know my opponent."

Quote:
Thus, I will no longer debate you. You may be right about homosexuality; then again, you may not. But discussing this issue (and any other issue) is a moot point if you're going to cheat.[/B]
I'm "cheating" now? I'll laugh this one off...

I'm ultimately tired of arguing this futher, having stated my position thoroughly, and I'm glad I got you to cave in first. (<-- joke)

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-07-2002, 04:55 PM   #141
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
What I wonder is, why is it okay to make bigoted slurs about Christians?
Honestly? I've seen many bigoted slurs against homosexuals in this forum, and nothing happens to them. Likewise, though, if the slur had been altered to judge race, they would have been kicked out. Ultimately, that is why your argument here does not work.

Also, if you think that comparing homosexuals to "bestiality" isn't considered a slur, then you really need a reality check. That ranks high on the offensive scale to homosexuals, not so different than using the "N" word with black people.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-07-2002, 05:03 PM   #142
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
I'm not making it up: reverse WHAT YOU SAID, and you get, "I think God feels more love for Christians than for gay people."

THAT wouldn't be tolerated.
okay, so we've established that if you reverse what I say then you'd say something that wouldn't be tolerated
I can't say I totally get what you're trying to say with this, but I guess I agree
Quote:
Please address the actual issue.
well, I tried to that just now because you asked so nicely
Quote:
You say you're a Christian, and I accept that. Still, why would you insult your fellow Christians like that?
I'm very glad you accept my christianity
I don't see how I actually insulted anybody though, but I guess I'll find out when I'll read the rest of your post
Quote:
Look: in this thread, I have put forth the position that homosexuality is contrary to Scripture and homosexual couples cannot be married by the definition of what marriage is - and THAT'S IT
what worries me is not so much what you say, but the reason why you say it
if anyone else but Melon was involved in this thread you would have quit a long time ago
don't get me wrong, same goes for Melon
but I don't think personal dislike is a healthy basis for a debate
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
what do I get? Well, Melon calls me a Pharisee. Anthony says that I'm a prejudiced homophobe who was raised to hate homosexuals, someone who arrogantly supposes God's will without any real basis. And, now, you bring up the specter of "Bible thumpers," "people who smack each other on the head with the Bible."
I never intended that post to be solely meant for you
even if you think I did
Quote:
WHAT THE HELL happened to tolerance for different opinions?
that's what I've been wondering around here for some time now

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 03-07-2002).]
__________________
Salome is offline  
Old 03-07-2002, 05:30 PM   #143
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Melon:

Once again, you've said that the Old Testament and Matthew are not to be trusted. BUT, you also suggest that if you look at the very same sources (and take verses out of context AND use the most obscure translations), you'll find that they condone homosexuality and therefore - Praise the Lord! - homosexuality's okay.

Pray tell, what part of the Catholic Bible suggests that you can disregard the Old Testament and Matthew UNLESS you find something you agree with? And tell me, what genetics textbook says you can't assert two completely inconsistent theorems as long as both are contrary to an idea you oppose?

What "contextual knowledge" allows you to be that manipulative and dishonest?

Speaking of dishonest (and taking things out of context), THIS is what I said about bestiality:

Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Again, I think His will is heterosexual monogamy or chastity, and that precludes a whole SLEW of thoughts and behaviors, not just homosexuality: spouse swapping, even consensually; pedophilia which moves the relationship from equal partners to predator and prey; and bestiality, which moves God's plan even out of the realm of the same species. Even if these practices aren't explicitly restricted, they probably still qualify as violations of God's will.
I compared the two only insofar as I believe both are outside of God's will for sexuality; if you noticed, I included wife-swapping in that list, and I implied that bestiality is worse than both in that it moves "even out of the realm of the same species."

Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
That said, perhaps homosexuality and bestiality aren't precisely comparable - they do both seem to be inappropriate expressions of the human desire for sexual pleasure, but as you said, it's not "as if the soul can be shared with an animal in terms emotional and physical."
I emphasized that homosexuality and bestiality were similar in that I believe both are inappropriate expression of sexual desire - and that was the only comparison I was trying to make. I also admitted they were significantly different, a fact you seem happy to ignore.

Now, if you care to stop taking my comments out of context, I'm finished with this discussion.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-07-2002).]
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 03-07-2002, 06:21 PM   #144
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Once again, you've said that the Old Testament and Matthew are not to be trusted. BUT, you also suggest that if you look at the very same sources (and take verses out of context AND use the most obscure translations), you'll find that they condone homosexuality and therefore - Praise the Lord! - homosexuality's okay.
Hmm...I love being taken out of context. So, let's set it straight, once again, to what I actually believe.

The Old Testament and Matthew are not to be trusted blindly. If you know contextual knowledge, then it should be no problem.

Unfortunately, despite your very noble "eggshell" analogy, you seem to take the Bible very black-and-white. That is, all or none. I take the Bible on the basis of which group wrote it and the meaning between the lines. I'm trying not to eat the eggshells essentially, while still enjoying the meal. You call it "picking and choosing." I call it, not to mention the world of literature, as "critical reading." Learn it sometime.

Next, I already stated many arguments back that the pro-gay texts were theory. If you don't remember, go back in the behemoth we call this thread and look it up. I think you are grown up enough to find it, without me quoting it again. And, yet, you bring it up again.

The Bible says nothing at all about modern homosexuality. Period.

And, yet, when Jesus condemns divorce, one of the few things He explicitly condemns, leave it to poorly translated Protestant Bibles to create an exception that shouldn't be there. I just love all the divorces these "good Christian people" have. I get a good laugh when I hear of their marriages are collapsing. Oh boo hoo.

When St. Paul puts celibacy at the level of perfection, while putting marriage for the "weak," how come there aren't any movements for celibacy within "good Christian" circles? In fact, it is the opposite: if you don't get married, there must be something wrong with you.

Yet, they throw boulders at homosexuals for not conforming to unrealistic ideals of "perfection" from asininely obscure passages in the Bible and bringing up subjective ideas of "it disgusts me" as to why they hate it.

My favorite line, though, had to be from the homophobic minister's son on MTV's "Real World": "I know it is wrong and all, but there's just something about two women kissing that makes it so hot," in referring to the lesbian on the show, yet he also goes on in other parts of the show about how gross he thinks the gay guy is. Nice.

Quote:
Pray tell, what part of the Catholic Bible suggests that you can disregard the Old Testament and Matthew UNLESS you find something you agree with?
Pray tell, do you read anything I write, or do you enjoy taking me out of context for gaffs and follies?

The Catholic Bible contains footnotes on context with verses, along with introductions to all the books. These same footnotes and introductions, if you read them, would state that the Mosaic Law was thrown out for "love one another," according to St. Paul, and that Matthew was written by conflicting Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian authors.

Since I am adamantly against Jewish Christian beliefs, not to mention St. Paul's attempts at "theology," I am not going to believe them. A trained critical reader will be able to pick out which ones are written by whom, a talent I acquired over 13 years of Catholic education.

Not to mention that you are arguing with someone who is wholly against fundamentalism, as reaffirmed by the Catholic Church in 1987, which is my religion, whether you agree with it or not. "Critical reading" is not only encouraged. It is required.

Quote:
And tell me, what genetics textbook says you can't assert two completely inconsistent theorems as long as both are contrary to an idea you oppose?
A nice pseudointellectual question. I was just stating, rightfully, that you have no genetics knowledge outside of the basics, citing:

1) That science cannot even pinpoint the genetic origins of heterosexuality, let alone homosexuality. A nice gaping wide hole for those who insist that it cannot be genetic.

2) That the simple dominant-recessive genetics proposed by Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and what you implicitly cited, has lots of exceptions. For simplicity sake, they don't teach you this in high school.

I was stating that your argument against homosexuality on genetic bases doesn't float, citing the glaring errors in your logic. Try again.

Quote:
What "contextual knowledge" allows you to be that manipulative and dishonest?
"Manipulative" and "dishonest" is in the eye of the beholder, and an argument on the subjective basis of a personal attack will get you laughed at in a forensics competition.

Grow up. I'm going to argue as deep as I am able, and if you cannot handle it, it is your problem, and no one is commanding you to agree with everything I've written.

Quote:
Speaking of dishonest (and taking things out of context), THIS is what I said about bestiality:

I emphasized that homosexuality and bestiality were similar in that I believe both are inappropriate expression of sexual desire - and that was the only comparison I was trying to make. I also admitted they were significantly different, a fact you seem happy to ignore.
And this changes things how? You made the connection between the two, obviously so that you could raise the "disgust" factor to outside readers. You made the connection between the two, not I, and I've seen this argument enough in "Christian" circles to know that you didn't come up with this all innocently on your own. Not only is associating the two not only repugant, it is offensive and bigoted.

Homosexuality has as much in common with bestiality as heterosexuality does.

Oh and if you are wondering what I mean by "Christian," it refers to people or groups who call themselves Christian, but, to me, they are anything but.

I'm not calling you that, but if you wish to take this out of context and lump yourself in that category, be my guest. I've been implicitly called "anti-Christian" enough by you, just because I don't agree with you, that it certainly could be appropriate.

Quote:
Now, if you care to stop taking my comments out of context, I'm finished with this discussion.
Go ahead. No one is forcing you to reply. Good day.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-07-2002, 06:52 PM   #145
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 04:00 AM
*peeks cautiously into the thread*

ummm, so 4 pages and 144 posts later, did we come up with a general conclusion as to if America is more accepting of gay men than gay women?
__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 03-07-2002, 08:06 PM   #146
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 09:00 AM
AchtungBubba;

I am sorry if you felt that I aimed the homophobe comment at you, but if you actually read the structure of it, I addressed homphobes and not you in person. When I did address you in person I asked you a direct question, though I am ready to admit that the questioning and the rant was invariably mixed, and I apologized for that - I admit that I am too personal when it comes to this. I am ready to criticise others for their prejuduices, without the ability to identify my own prejeduices.

However, I am baffled. How can you say that you love everyone? (You said that you treat and respect your bisexual and gay friends normally, and you echoed Diamond's very nice sentiments about loving everyone) Its a very nice thought, I admit, but do you love your enemy? WHen was the last time either of you, or indeed any of US ever turned the other cheek for the other to strike? When did you ever NOT support the bombing of Afghanistan and the war on Terrorism; don't you love Osama bin Laden? How can you possibly make sweeping comments like saying that you love everybody. I'm sorry, but if you honestly believe that then I believe you are not being honest with yourself.

And I find it even more baffling to understand you when you say that you RESPECT and LOVE (you may not have said love, but you certainly said respect, the love thing was again.. an echo of Diamond's post) your gay friends when you think them to be immoral. Its like saying, 'I respect you and like you, even though I think you will and should burn in hell for all eternity for violating God's law'. You think them to be immoral, so how much do you respect and love immoral people? Again, see the above question, how much respect and love do you have for Osama bin Laden, who no doubt according to God's law should burn in hell for all eternity for his crimes.

I am not saying that you are intolerant, I am calling you HUMAN. I can't say that I love everyone. 'Love your neighbour' it is always said; I HATE my neighbours and I hope their stupid dogs die soon before they wear my ears off. Given that, I certainly don't see how you can truly and properly respect and love people when you think them to be immoral to the core, as anyone else would. And when I make this deduction I aim the question towards you Diamond, as well, who was responsible for the 'loving everyone' comment. I don't believe anyone loves everybody, and I don't think either of you two do.

So, as an honest question, how can you love and respect your gay friends while thinking them to be immoral? How?

And as for your 'ganging up on AchtungBubba' comment, Diamond; I am very much taken aback. This is not dockside bullying, its a forum where people stand up for what they believe in, if no one else chose to support AchtungBubba its because they didn't share his views, not because the world has decided to gang up on him.

And besides, if AchtungBubba and yourself are correct about your comments, then apparently he has God on his side and has therefore nothing to fear.

And sulaswesigirl, I can not vouch for everyone, but I for one said it in my first post and continue to say it; we (the whole world as a global society) are NOT tolerant enough of either, gays or lesbians.

Ant.

[This message has been edited by Anthony (edited 03-07-2002).]
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 03-08-2002, 01:17 AM   #147
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Orignally posted by melon:
Hmm...I love being taken out of context. So, let's set it straight, once again, to what I actually believe.

The Old Testament and Matthew are not to be trusted blindly. If you know contextual knowledge, then it should be no problem.
"If you know contextual knowledge, then it should be no problem."

Quote:
Orignally posted by melon:
*Sigh* Context is lost again. The Gospel of Matthew is the sole gospel of the Church of Jerusalem, which believed that all Christians must follow the Mosaic Law to the letter. We are descendents of the Church of Antioch, led by St. Paul, and his followers only kept this gospel in the canon as a keepsake for historical context.
"His followers only kept this gospel in the canon as a keepsake for historical context."

Quote:
Orignally posted by melon:
STOP QUOTING MATTHEW. "Murder" and "sex with animals" is a violation of "love one another."
"STOP QUOTING MATTHEW."

Quote:
Orignally posted by melon:
Why do you continue to quote from Matthew? How many times must I state that Matthew is written with Jewish Christian bias? How many times must I state that the Church of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Church of Antioch, which was St. Paul's church? How many times are you just going to simply ignore history?
"Why do you continue to quote from Matthew?"

...

Quote:
Orignally posted by melon:
Oh and if you are wondering what I mean by "Christian," it refers to people or groups who call themselves Christian, but, to me, they are anything but.
"it refers to people or groups who call themselves Christian, but, to me, they are anything but."

Quote:
Orignally posted by melon:
Romans 13:8-10 -- "Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law."

St. Paul makes this very clear. He is for the total abolition of the Mosaic Law, as Jesus redeemed us from it, and any purpose of the Mosaic Law is summed up in the last commandment, "Love one another."
"Jesus redeemed us from it, and any purpose of the Mosaic Law is summed up in the last commandment, 'Love one another.'"

Quote:
Orignally posted by melon:
And, yet, when Jesus condemns divorce, one of the few things He explicitly condemns, leave it to poorly translated Protestant Bibles to create an exception that shouldn't be there. I just love all the divorces these "good Christian people" have. I get a good laugh when I hear of their marriages are collapsing. Oh boo hoo.
"I get a good laugh when I hear of their marriages are collapsing. Oh boo hoo."

(Not really a conflicting argument, but worth noting.)

...

Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
I was stating that your argument against homosexuality on genetic bases doesn't float, citing the glaring errors in your logic. Try again.
This is, I believe the quote you're referring to:

"The left-handed example is quite different from homosexuality, in ways that I think invalidate the comparison: Left-handedness is an ability, while homosexuality is an expression of desire. Left-handedness is statistically frequent enough to justify the belief that it's one of the many common configurations (black, white, male, female, righty, lefty). I believe left-handedness is genetic; taken to its natural conclusion, it propagates to the next generation. Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a genelogical dead-end. Finally, there is no reasonable moral objection to left-handedness while there is one overriding reason to reject homosexuality: the possibility that God intentionally created the two sexes so that one from one sex would join with one from the other sex."

This was your original reply:

Quote:
Bingo. I was waiting for this argument.

"Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a geneological dead-end."
I remind you, "I was ONLY pointing out the differences between left-handedness and homosexuality."

I said, IF is genetic, etc. I never asserted that it was genetically based (honestly, I don't know). Nor did I implicitly say anything about Gregor Mendel or his theories.

I didn't make any such argument. There aren't any "glaring" logical errors to my argument because I DIDN'T MAKE ANY ARGUMENT.

If you can find proof that I actually assert that homosexuality is based on genetics, PROVIDE THAT PROOF.

...

Quote:
Orignally posted by melon:
And this changes things how? You made the connection between the two, obviously so that you could raise the "disgust" factor to outside readers. You made the connection between the two, not I, and I've seen this argument enough in "Christian" circles to know that you didn't come up with this all innocently on your own. Not only is associating the two not only repugant, it is offensive and bigoted.


You say I said this:

"Speaking of dishonest (and taking things out of context), THIS is what I said about bestiality:

"I emphasized that homosexuality and bestiality were similar in that I believe both are inappropriate expression of sexual desire - and that was the only comparison I was trying to make. I also admitted they were significantly different, a fact you seem happy to ignore."


But you ignored the paragraph I wrote BETWEEN those two:

I compared the two only insofar as I believe both are outside of God's will for sexuality; if you noticed, I included wife-swapping in that list, and I implied that bestiality is worse than both in that it moves "even out of the realm of the same species."

Didn't I just get finished telling you you take me out of context? And yet, you've done it again - conveniently excising the part in which I include heterosexual wife-swapping as a counterexample, AND INCLUDING the part where I criticize you for taking me out of context.

Again, stop doing this, and I might just stop replying.

Finally...

Quote:
Orignally posted by melon:
"Manipulative" and "dishonest" is in the eye of the beholder, and an argument on the subjective basis of a personal attack will get you laughed at in a forensics competition.

Grow up. I'm going to argue as deep as I am able, and if you cannot handle it, it is your problem, and no one is commanding you to agree with everything I've written.
An argument based on a personal attack does go nowhere. Hence, I've provided more than enough damning evidence that proves my point.

You are manipulative, and you are dishonest.

Your arguments are not deep. They are riddled with inconsistencies, half-truths, hypocrisies, and lies. You repeatedly take your opponents out of context and tear down imaginary arguments they didn't even make. You repeatedly take the Bible out of context and change your mind on what can and cannot be cited. And you repeatedly ignore your own past comments if sticking by them proves to be inconvenient.

Deep arguments? Hardly.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-07-2002).]
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 03-08-2002, 01:45 AM   #148
War Child
 
camiloj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 695
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
*peeks cautiously into the thread*

ummm, so 4 pages and 144 posts later, did we come up with a general conclusion as to if America is more accepting of gay men than gay women?
I dont think there is an easy answer to that original question.

Gay men that act like Will from Will and Grace and are woman's "best friend" tend to be accepted more than lesbians with mullets or who are politically active, like Ellen Degeneres.

A gay man that acts like a straight man in all mannerisms (and maybe even likes sports and doesnt talk with a lisp) but has sexual relations with a male and may even domesticate with one is not accepted more than a lesbian with long hair (not a mullet) and lipstick.

A lipstick lesbian ala Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct is many American males fantasy concept. She may even make other straight woman feel a mild attraction. She is the most accepted face of any type of homosexual, be it male or female.

You see, it is my opinion that the majoirity of us Americans love our stereotypes. We love to think we know how everyone acts and what kind of behavior we can expect from the people that we judge on the outside like a book on a day to day basis. We don't like it when things disrupt that.

Gay gangsters, skaters, and hip hoppers just freak us out, as does the all american jock that watches football with his buddies but has a secret boyfriend. We dont want to think that those things exist because it upsets our concept of the reality.

We dont like the mullet lesbian that watches Raiders games and has a kid and lover for 10 years. It threatens us. They dont look like we think they should, they dont live like we think they should.

It's all about stereotypes and perception when it comes to who is accepted more or less.

When it comes to acceptance, we are still light years behind. When a gay or lesbian couple cannot still adopt in Florida, when sodomy laws in Kansas, Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma only target same sex couples, when two people who love each other cannot get the EXACT SAME legal contract as MARRIAGE(except in Vermont), there is still a long way from real acceptance.

What we have right now is generalized acceptance. I see alot of changes in the younger generations(high school seniors), they seem to be more truly accepting, and maybe in 20-30 years when they are old enough to hold public offices and change laws, we will see some true acceptance in black and white, not just talk.

Anyway, this is my long winded opinion on the original question (there is no easy answer), it is just that, my opinion with just a few facts a couple of paragraphs above. So, it may be strong, it may be biased, but it is after all, just an opinion.

I aint even gonna touch the Melon/Bubba stuff, been there done that. It's like RECYCLE YOUR MIND, LOL!

[This message has been edited by U2LA (edited 03-07-2002).]
__________________
camiloj is offline  
Old 03-08-2002, 02:13 AM   #149
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Anthony,

Thanks for your reply; I guess I took your comments out of context. Sorry about that.

To be honest, I don't love everyone, though I know I should and I do try. You mention Osama bin Ladin, and I honestly don't know whether I hate him more or are just baffled by his hatred of us and his belief that he could attack us so brazenly without a military response. Either way, I probably do hate him, and that IS something that God and I need to work on.

But the reason I've been in constant support of the war, even after the shock of 9/11 has begun to fade, is that I honestly think it's the smart, right thing to do: it's a matter of logic, not emotion. If we do not root out our enemies and deprive them of the opportunity, they will attack us again, with as much deadly force as they can muster, be it conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear. The enemy made one thing clear enough on 9/11: it's us or them.

But, that's a politcal decision and VERY different from how I treat my friends.

Here's a brief example of how I treat my friends: A couple years ago, one of my good friends lost her virginity, and this caused a HUGE rift between her and her mother (both Christians, her mother thought her a failure and disappointment for committing such a sin).

She came to me, and I mentioned her that I thought that sex before marriage is wrong, but that it wouldn't affect our friendship - the morality of the subject was almost an afterthought, something barely mentioned: "I do think it's wrong, but that doesn't matter; I'll always be here for you." She REALLY needed friends then, people to remind her that she was loved regardless of what she did, and I would have been DEAD WRONG to not be her friend in a time of need. She has since gotten married to the same guy and patched things up with her mom, and rather than resent that "justice" wasn't done, I'm glad that her actions didn't lead to disaster.

I suppose, what it comes down to is remembering that we're ALL sinners. Even Christians, who have been saved from their sin, aren't perfect in staying away from their old life of sin. I have anger issues, some friends gamble on sporting events, some (many, actually) have had sex before marriage, and a couple are homosexual. We're ALL guilty of something; I'm grateful my friends don't hold my faults against me, and I don't hold theirs against them.

(And the ONLY reason this discussion kept going was because I felt like I had to defend my position; honestly, the immorality of homosexuality is not something that deeply influences my existence.)

And in terms of fearing that some may not be saved, that's not something that pushes me away from others but creates more concern for them.

Anyway, a very legitimate question, and I hope I answered it to your satisfaction.
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 03-08-2002, 07:16 PM   #150
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Bubba, face it. You know nothing about half the stuff I'm talking about. This isn't some little simple argument, so if you don't understand something, go to the library and look it up. I don't have time to teach you stuff you should have learned and retained in school, but likely went through one ear and out the other.

Your quote:

"I believe left-handedness is genetic; taken to its natural conclusion, it propagates to the next generation. Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a genelogical dead-end. Finally, there is no reasonable moral objection to left-handedness while there is one overriding reason to reject homosexuality: the possibility that God intentionally created the two sexes so that one from one sex would join with one from the other sex."

This is a reference to the theories of Gregor Mendel. I apologize if my arguments are too smart for you, but too bad. He is the founder and father of genetic theory, so when you think of simple dominant/recessive genetics that are passed on generationally, that is Mendel's theories.

However, there are major exceptions to Mendel's dominant/recessive theories, most notably what causes "dwarfism" (again, I don't remember the scientific name). You rejected homosexuality on the basis of genetic argument, and I refuted it on the same basis.

Assuming that homosexuality is passed in the same context as "dwarfism," just for argument's sake, you, Bubba, could contain the dominant "gay gene," but be totally straight. You could give this dominant gene to your children, who end up straight. Your children could pass this on to all their children, and one ends up gay. There is no rhyme or reason as to why some people with the dominant gene express it, whereas others don't.

Another genetic possibility is in somatic mutations, whereas, during the routine creation of eggs and sperm, the gene for sexuality is changed making people gay. These somatic mutations always occur--each person has an average of eight mutations--but it is totally random as to which genes will be changed.

Hence, my argument comparing left-handedness and homosexuality is, potentially, correct, as these facts of genetic blow holes in your arguments on it.

You referred to genetics in the context of his simple theories that everyone from junior high to high school students learn. I argue at a very precise level. If you would like me to put any of my arguments to a sixth grade level, request it and I will do it so that you may understand.

You don't assert that homosexuality is based on genetics, but you make it sound impossible. My discussions on genetics were to show that perfect XX / XY males and females that the Christian Coalition trumpets as the only creatures of God's creation (hence, the only "natural" humans) is incorrect. Hence, the belief that because God just created "men" (XY) and "women" (XX) that that is all that God intended for relationships. Science alone debunks that theory.

As for your quotes on bestiality, let me remind you your first little quote:

"And if one subscribes to the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, it falls under the same category as incest, pedophilia, and bestiality."

And this little doozy:

"If we're going to extend the definition to include homosexual couplings, there's no reason to NOT further extend it by including greater numbers, other species, or inanimate objects. If two men can be married, then why not five men, three women, a sheep, and a coffee table?"

You may think of that as a little innocent comment that you don't think should offend anyone, but you wrote it exactly to stir up nasty sentiments, because you know that everyone thinks of incest, pedophilia, and bestiality as repugnant (yes, even gay people do), not to mention stating that "people" are equivalent to inanimate objects. Hence, I'm telling you now, just so you don't get physically attacked someday: if you put "homosexuality" and "bestiality" in the same sentence again, you will greatly offend gay people, just like stating the "N" word around black people.

I am "manipulative" and "dishonest"? If I may throw some name calling around, since you chose to throw the first punch, you are an imbecile. If I misinterpret your arguments, it is because they are literally stupid and incoherent. You do not know what you are talking about half of the time, and I spend half of my time correcting you on science and history, "facts" that you easily should have learned in school--or should have researched ahead of time, before trying to delve into this argument. If you can't play with the big players in this forum, then don't even start arguing with them.

You are guilty of exactly what you are accusing me of--filled with consistent falsehoods you claim as "truth." I argue on "theory," which is all you can argue this topic on, and there are multiple theories. That may be why you mistake it as "inconsistencies." I call it honesty: there are no facts on homosexuality here to speak of, neither on my side, nor your side. I am more here to inform on the various theories, rather than do an elementary argument that has a "winner" and a "loser."

"Ignoring past comments?" What are you doing with your "bestiality" comments? I explained to you the meaning of my comments, just as you explained your "bestiality" comments. And you've taken tons of my arguments out of context. You just completely ignore any of my explanations, and I doubt even if you read all of my arguments. After explaining the dubiousness of the so-called "pro-divorce" passage in Matthew, you used it again as "evidence." Poor arguing, Bubba.

"Deep arguments" they are indeed, especially when stacked up to your sloppy ones I could have likely picked up from a Christian Coalition web site. Nothing you've stated, from beginning to end, is anything new to me, but you are good at writing pseudointellectual psychobabble arguments that look intelligent, but are filled with falsehoods passed off as "truth." At least I'm admitting mine are "theories," and I'm well-versed in several theories. You should work for the Catholic Church...they always need writers like that up in the Vatican.

If you want to stop arguing, then stop arguing. I will continue to correct your Limbaugh-esque manipulation of my arguments as long as I have to.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com