NoSaint Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 i guess , again, depends on how one defines "ignorance" ..in this case the assumption is that anyone who finds homosexuality undesirable is somehow ignorant? depends i suppose. i dont mean to speak for others, but id venture most of us are probably not desiring a homosexual relationship for ourselves. in that sense its not particularly desirable to me. the split seems to be whether or not we think others should be able to land wherever they want on that spectrum without judgement. i desire that people get to go do what the want and not be held back based on who they are attracted to. that, frankly, has little to do with homosexuality and a lot to do with giving your fellow man the common courtesy to pursue their happiness.
VanCity Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 i guess , again, depends on how one defines "ignorance" ..in this case the assumption is that anyone who finds homosexuality undesirable is somehow ignorant? I also broadly used this term earlier and, perhaps, it is not the best chosen one. However, what I find ignorant is the lack of respect for another human based on who they are. The ignorant individuals are those that believe that homosexuality is a choice. I recognize that people are given a choice in regards to whether they act on their preference towards someone of the same sex. People are also given a choice in regards to whether they act on a preference towards someone of the opposite sex. The former is still a homosexual whether they act on it or not and the latter still straight. People are not given a choice. It is not something that is learned. It is something that you are born with. I love women and really cannot see how a man is attracted to another man. But I couldn't care less if they are. depends i suppose. i dont mean to speak for others, but id venture most of us are probably not desiring a homosexual relationship for ourselves. in that sense its not particularly desirable to me. the split seems to be whether or not we think others should be able to land wherever they want on that spectrum without judgement. i desire that people get to go do what the want and not be held back based on who they are attracted to. that, frankly, has little to do with homosexuality and a lot to do with giving your fellow man the common courtesy to pursue their happiness. BINGO!
Jauronimo Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 They don't approve of another human being attracted to another human of the same sex for one reason or another. Apparently it's a lifestyle Clearly its a lifestyle choice. Didn't you read Tim's treatise on homosexuality? Were homosexuality a function of genetics it would have been phased out of the genome because any trait that is deleterious to the fitness of an individual is eventually phased out of the genome. Like albinism, dwarfism, sickle cell and everything else on this quick list of genetic disorders which also don't exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
dwight in philly Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 I also broadly used this term earlier and, perhaps, it is not the best chosen one. However, what I find ignorant is the lack of respect for another human based on who they are. The ignorant individuals are those that believe that homosexuality is a choice. I recognize that people are given a choice in regards to whether they act on their preference towards someone of the same sex. People are also given a choice in regards to whether they act on a preference towards someone of the opposite sex. The former is still a homosexual whether they act on it or not and the latter still straight. People are not given a choice. It is not something that is learned. It is something that you are born with. I love women and really cannot see how a man is attracted to another man. But I couldn't care less if they are. BINGO! well said, there is not a measuring device i am aware of that could measure my indifference on this subject..
White Linen Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Yes I am indeed intolerant of intolerance for intolerance sake. Murder, pedophilia,, the examples you used in your previous post, are things that effect other people. Homosexuality does not effect other people. I definitely agree that Christians interpret the Bible differently and always refrain from any name calling. That said I hate when people use religion in general, but specifically my religion, as a platform to condemn behaviors of others that have no bearing on them. I won't convert you over an internet message board. Your beliefs are your beliefs. I strongly oppose them and will speak up when the situation arises, this happens to be one of those cases as it hits very close to home for me. My Aunt was a god loving woman who sang in the choir every Sunday. During her funeral though my father, who did the eulogy, was not allowed to talk about her being a lesbian or anything to do with people that she loved and cared greatly for simply because they were gay. My interpretation is that we are meant to love one another not judge them based on their sexual orientation or anything else out of their control. Final piece to you is that our beliefs can change. You can change your belief system. Your faith is yours and yours alone nobody can tell you that they are right and you are wrong. I just strongly dislike when people use the name of my faith to preach intolerance. I'm not clinging to hate, it's just that when the topic comes up my opinion is that the act is wrong. I feel an obligation to stand up for what I believe the almighty believes. Obviously our interpretation of his beliefs on this matter differ. I don't pretend to have all the answers and obviously I can't change your mind on a message board either. I think there is room in this discussion to respectfully disagree with homosexuality and not be a hateful person. I agree with you that our beliefs can change. If we're strong enough to look beyond personal involvement, God can reveal. I do sympathize with you on the situation with your late Aunt. I never want to see any person hurting.
Big Turk Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Bally's is practically a Power Lifting gym compared to the Planet Fitness-type places. Look, I've got no issue when a place caters to the non-meat-head/pump-and-tone crowd; totally fine. Where I draw the line is an official edict sent down from corporate that outlaws basic weight lifting staples like squats and deadlifts simply because some members might get intimidated by the big meanies that want to get stronger...and to make it worse, the same outfit turns around and serves pizza, bagels, and donuts to their members as "rewards" for showing up. Sorry...rant over. Those no deadlift signs planet fitness has out are downright comical
BillsRUs Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Clearly its a lifestyle choice. Didn't you read Tim's treatise on homosexuality? Were homosexuality a function of genetics it would have been phased out of the genome because any trait that is deleterious to the fitness of an individual is eventually phased out of the genome. Like albinism, dwarfism, sickle cell and everything else on this quick list of genetic disorders which also don't exist. http://en.wikipedia....netic_disorders well done.
thebandit27 Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 I'm not clinging to hate, it's just that when the topic comes up my opinion is that the act is wrong. I feel an obligation to stand up for what I believe the almighty believes. Obviously our interpretation of his beliefs on this matter differ. I don't pretend to have all the answers and obviously I can't change your mind on a message board either. I think there is room in this discussion to respectfully disagree with homosexuality and not be a hateful person. I agree with you that our beliefs can change. If we're strong enough to look beyond personal involvement, God can reveal. I do sympathize with you on the situation with your late Aunt. I never want to see any person hurting. The Almighty believes that we should love each other...that message is patently clear
Jerry Jabber Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Whether he's gay or straight, it shouldn't matter, just as long as the guy produces on the football field and stays out of trouble. Some people are acting as if he's Bruce Cuskeeoski from San Francisco University (from 3:29-3:49): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L6IeH6KeaY
H2o Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 The Almighty believes that we should love each other...that message is patently clear True my friend. I don't care about his sexual orientation. I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I don't have to answer for his life either. I do think this will affect his draft stock, but It's not like he is Jadeveon Clowney and projected to go top 5. We're talking about a mid to late round prospect here who may have just caused his name being called to be more 6th or 7th than 4th or 5th Round.
Kirby Jackson Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Clearly its a lifestyle choice. Didn't you read Tim's treatise on homosexuality? Were homosexuality a function of genetics it would have been phased out of the genome because any trait that is deleterious to the fitness of an individual is eventually phased out of the genome. Like albinism, dwarfism, sickle cell and everything else on this quick list of genetic disorders which also don't exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders You are killing me right now. Every post is spot on and hilarious. Well done!!
NoSaint Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 I think there is room in this discussion to respectfully disagree with homosexuality and not be a hateful person. i guess, ive never understood what there is to agree or disagree with. ive never felt like i "agree with homosexuality" so the idea that someone "disagrees" with it just seems strange to me.
dubs Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Clearly its a lifestyle choice. Didn't you read Tim's treatise on homosexuality? Were homosexuality a function of genetics it would have been phased out of the genome because any trait that is deleterious to the fitness of an individual is eventually phased out of the genome. Like albinism, dwarfism, sickle cell and everything else on this quick list of genetic disorders which also don't exist. http://en.wikipedia....netic_disorders I didn't get the sense that Tim was saying it was a choice. He as simply offering an alternative view of the topic. It seemed to me he just wanted to have a discussion about it. Frankly I am rather surprised at how quickly it turns into attacking Tim. I was looking forward to reading that discussion between some members, but it never really materialized. Was just Tim offering some contra-points and everyone else attacking him.
thebandit27 Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 You are killing me right now. Every post is spot on and hilarious. Well done!! He has a knack for that...makes him one of my favorite posters...his work in the Shoutbox in particular is Grade A material.
Pondslider Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 I love the idea that God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent and yet humans think that they have the authority to speak for this being or could even for a second fathom what such a being really wants or believes. Let alone knowing for a FACT that this all powerful all knowing being gets a case of the ickies whenever gay people touch each other. If there is something out there resembling the christian version of god I doubt anyone in this thread has the first clue what it really wants.
section122 Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 I'm not clinging to hate, it's just that when the topic comes up my opinion is that the act is wrong. I feel an obligation to stand up for what I believe the almighty believes. Obviously our interpretation of his beliefs on this matter differ. I don't pretend to have all the answers and obviously I can't change your mind on a message board either. I think there is room in this discussion to respectfully disagree with homosexuality and not be a hateful person. I agree with you that our beliefs can change. If we're strong enough to look beyond personal involvement, God can reveal. I do sympathize with you on the situation with your late Aunt. I never want to see any person hurting. As do I and yes they clearly do. I hope I have not come off as hateful as that is most definitely not my intention. As I stated earlier there is a marked difference between the god presented in the old testament (where leviticus lies) and the god portrayed in the new testament. The god in the old testament was responsible for the exile from eden, the flood and noah's arc, and soddom and gomorrah. The new testament god is one that gave us his only son to wash away all of our sins. The one who said I give you one commandment above all else, love one another as I have loved you. The new testament god is much more how I like to picture him, compassionate, forgiving, and kind. I do not view a vengeful and spiteful being as one that I would follow. One that is compassionate to the point of sacrificing his son for me? That is the guy I can follow. To each their own though. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with homosexuality. Where I have a problem is the condemnation that some bring due to their disagreeing with it. I didn't get the sense that Tim was saying it was a choice. He as simply offering an alternative view of the topic. It seemed to me he just wanted to have a discussion about it. Frankly I am rather surprised at how quickly it turns into attacking Tim. I was looking forward to reading that discussion between some members, but it never really materialized. Was just Tim offering some contra-points and everyone else attacking him. I answered his questions but received no response. Some of his points were soft at best but I still tried to give him a fair shake to have a conversation.
DrDawkinstein Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) Brilliant! I guess my question to anyone objecting to Sam's lifestyle for religious reasons is if Jesus Christ, the foundation of the Christian faith, were alive today, would he be condemning people who are gay? I could be wrong, but did he not preach love and tolerance? I never met the guy (Jesus) so I can't really speak for him, but my money would be on Jesus accepting and loving gay people. The only parts of the Bible that refer to homosexuality happen to be in the same parts that condone, and give the rules for, rape and slavery. So maybe we can agree there are some parts that the people who wrote it a couple millenia ago got a little wrong? Edited February 10, 2014 by DrDareustein
thebandit27 Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Brilliant! I guess my question to anyone objecting to Sam's lifestyle for religious reasons is if Jesus Christ, the foundation of the Christian faith, were alive today, would he be condemning people who are gay? I could be wrong, but did he not preach love and tolerance? Again--pretty clear: love each other.
D521646 Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Juronimo – Clearly its a lifestyle choice. Didn't you read Tim's treatise on homosexuality? Were homosexuality a function of genetics it would have been phased out of the genome because any trait that is deleterious to the fitness of an individual is eventually phased out of the genome. Like albinism, dwarfism, sickle cell and everything else on this quick list of genetic disorders which also don't exist. http://en.wikipedia....netic_disorders Wow, twice in one thread. You seem to have a knack for the strawman; either that or you can’t comprehend what you’re reading? Judging by your comprehension of what I said, you clearly have no clue how genes work. Once more, but this time real slow like.. Ready? See if homosexuals were solely responsible for passing along the homosexual gene, it would have been long gone from our genome many eons ago. That my good man is a scientific fact, and not in dispute by anyone. What I did say is that, like albinism, dwarfism, and sickle-cell, if there is a gene or series of genes responsible for the expression of homosexuality it would be passed on by heterosexuals. Which means that although two perfectly functioning heterosexuals where at least one of them had the gene, but did not themselves express it, still possessed the gene, and as such through mating the gene itself reared its ugly head in their offspring because neither parent had dominant alleles that would have repressed the evolutionarily negative consequence of producing a purely homosexual human being. That would be a recessive gene, see also: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_recessive_gene#slide=3&article=What_is_a_dominant_gene_and_what_is_a_recessive_gene Are you clear now? Tim-
Jauronimo Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 I didn't get the sense that Tim was saying it was a choice. He as simply offering an alternative view of the topic. It seemed to me he just wanted to have a discussion about it. Frankly I am rather surprised at how quickly it turns into attacking Tim. I was looking forward to reading that discussion between some members, but it never really materialized. Was just Tim offering some contra-points and everyone else attacking him. Tim has been very clear on his position that homosexuality is a choice. He was more measured in his delivery this time around, but the message was there down to the same examples pulled from Tim's peculiar brand of science. I've already been through this process with Tim and he isn't interested in a discussion. In a darker corner of the internet, you might find a website where Tim drops the pretense about having an honest and open discussion and lets his real feelings regarding homosexuality be known. Juronimo – Wow, twice in one thread. You seem to have a knack for the strawman; either that or you can’t comprehend what you’re reading? Judging by your comprehension of what I said, you clearly have no clue how genes work. Once more, but this time real slow like.. Ready? See if homosexuals were solely responsible for passing along the homosexual gene, it would have been long gone from our genome many eons ago. That my good man is a scientific fact, and not in dispute by anyone. What I did say is that, like albinism, dwarfism, and sickle-cell, if there is a gene or series of genes responsible for the expression of homosexuality it would be passed on by heterosexuals. Which means that although two perfectly functioning heterosexuals where at least one of them had the gene, but did not themselves express it, still possessed the gene, and as such through mating the gene itself reared its ugly head in their offspring because neither parent had dominant alleles that would have repressed the evolutionarily negative consequence of producing a purely homosexual human being. That would be a recessive gene, see also: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_recessive_gene#slide=3&article=What_is_a_dominant_gene_and_what_is_a_recessive_gene Are you clear now? Tim- I was clear on genetics before. Why don't you post your diatribe again since I can't reference the original?
Recommended Posts