They certainly have a choice as to whether or not they act upon their impulses; whether or not they have a choice with regards to having such impulses and inclinations is another matter. Likewise, homosexuals do have a choice with respect to acting upon their desires; they do NOT have a choice with regards to having such desires. The scientific verdict on this matter may not yet be unanimous, but the common-sensical one most certainly is: it is patently absurd to think that a person chooses whomever they are or are not attracted to. But more importantly, what is the relevance of your query? Certainly you can see the substantive difference between the rapist or pedophile acting upon their impulses, and a homosexual acting upon their's, no?
If you agree that paedophiles and rapists get pleasure from their sexual releases, then surely you'll agree that they are sexual act. All I did was remove all detail, from all forms of sexual acts. My point was to see if any sexual act that humans perform of their own free will, are lifestyle choices, or not, if Balerion is to be believed. jan.
Wow. That is some staggeringly incomprehensible gibberish. "Remove all detail"?! Again, incomprehensible. If Balerion is to be believed with regards to what? What is it that Balerion suggested, or that you believe he suggested?
I'm sorry, are you incapable of reviewing my previous posts for the answer you want? Do I really need to hold your hand?
Let's set aside the clusterfuck that is the above sentence, and have a go at this question: Why do I suspect you haven't even read the article you linked to? Though, I wouldn't be surprised if Wikipedia accounted for the sum total of your knowledge on the subject. Considering you seem to think rape is actually about sexual pleasure suggests you probably haven't done much reading at all. And what point did you hope to make by gleaning that answer?
1. Yes. As to the nature of the act (homo, hetero, msterbation, bestial, rape, peodophilia....). What's your problem with that? 2. He suggested (opposite to my suggestion) that homosexuality was not a lifestyle choice (I already explained this to you). jan.
Yes, that would certainly appear reasonable, except for one important thing, when pressed to understand your "feelings" on the matter, you offer up bogus nonsense and irrelevant links to websites that don't support your feelings at all. And, since the vast majority of homophobes refer to the Bible, we can only conclude your feelings are also based on the Bible, even though you adamantly deny that. You can assume we're idiots, but we can see right through that thinly veiled fabrication.
First, keep this in mind: I am not inside your head, I do not know you, and I am not there, i.e. present before you. Consequently, you need to communicate in a clear, intelligible manner--you can't get away with shit like, "You know, that thing." Me: "Oh yes, I know exactly what you are talking about." Neither can you get away with the sort of word salad to which I attempted to respond prior. OK now, I think I might have some idea as to what you are saying here, but still, you seem a tad confused. What is inside your parenthetical above has little to do with the nature of the sex act, but rather with whom the sex is between. (Read your own wikilink, for fuck's sake, hopefully it will clarify things for you.) Kind of a big difference. Anyways, still trying to figure out the relevance with respect to this conversation. You explained nothing to me, you simple spewed incoherent drivel. Regardless, Balerion neither stated nor implied that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, as far as I can see; rather, he emphasized that homosexuality is an orientation--and this is what people are vilified for, not for "choosing a homosexual lifestyle" (as you might put it). Do you have difficulty differentiating between, say, behavior and orientation, or inclination? You certainly give no indication as to understanding a difference. Not to mention you confusion about "sex acts" above. It's kinda funny that you jump on Bells for suggesting that you compared "homosexuality to rapists and paedophiles," when she clearly mean to say that you conflated "homosexuality with rape and paedophilia," when one considers the kind of confusion you elicit above. Seriously?
And all intelligibility. You are provably and completely wrong on everything you say. I've removed the details; I'm sure you understand.
Aside from the fact that it misses the point completely? I'd probably go with grammar. Wait, was that a rhetorical question? That's correct. It is not a lifestyle choice. You don't seem to understand that homosexuality is not a behavior, but an orientation. If you went out tonight and had sex with someone of your own gender (I don't know if you're male or female, so forgive the vagueness) you wouldn't automatically be gay. What makes a person gay (or straight) is which gender they're attracted to. Do you understand this concept, Jan?
parmalee, 1. Here's what I said: To which you replied... Now I can understand if ''remove all detail'' was not clear to you, but for the rest of the sentence, I have no idea why you would label it not only ''gibberish'' but ''staggeringly incomprehensible gibberish? Is the idea that paedophiles and rapists getting pleasure from their pursuits, incomprehensible? Or is it the calling it, a ''sexual act''? I don't know because I'm not inside your fracking head. If something I said is not clear to you, then just ask and I will do my best to clear it up. Or alternatively, you don't have to respond. Well thank fuck for that! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Er.. I think you'll find that you're the one who's confused. I know what I'm saying. How ironic. Did I not explain that the response to Balerion, you decided to query, was about the ''sex act'' as opposed to ''whom the sex is between''? Yet I was accused of equating homosexuals with rapists and pedophiles. Now can you understand what the detail I left out, is? There you go with the fucking insults again. BACK OFF! Then you really are confused... ...hence the reason why I asked the question I asked, but obviously you're not really interested in the reason why. And you're acting as though I am one of the person's who vilify. Again you're just trying to belittle me, and I'm not impressed. If you want to talk about this I'm willing to do so, but if these petty insults continue, I'll have to call it a day. I just don't have the time for it. The reason why I posted that wiki link, was to give a clearer picture, of the context of the discussion, which I asked ''Do rapists and pedophiles have a choice''. He referred to the act (homosexuality and heterosexuality). He was the one who accused me of equating homosexuals with rapists and pedophiles, and it was based on exactly what he said. If I thought ALL homosexuals were the same as rapists and pedophiles, I would have said that. Firstly, I'm not confused. You are. Secondly, Bells didn't seem to disagree with Balerion's accusation of me.. It appears you haven't really done your homework in making a case against me, and all your venting and frustration rapidly dissipates like water vapor. jan.
Yes, a hasty generalization is making a broad statement about a group, such as assuming some group is without sufficient integrity. Hasty generalizations are any assumptions made and extrapolated to a group that cannot be exhaustively demonstrated for the entire group. For example, it is a demonstrable generalization that all darker skinned people have more melanin. It is not demonstrable that all darker skinned people are lacking in some virtue. Your experience does not change the posting guidelines, regardless of how valid you feel it may be. Hasty generalizations are not about the speed at which the generalization was arrived at, but the expedient of extrapolating broad characterizations. Here and in society, both theism and atheism are protected rights of the freedom of thought. It would be a straw man to assume I ever suggested otherwise. How do you control for bias when assessing the intellectual honesty of people you adamantly disagree with? Sample size does not justify hasty generalization, unless it can be demonstrated a innate feature of a group, at which time in becomes an empirical generalization. All of your experience is anecdotal. Yes, their behavior. Can you quote where I supposedly said "gays are wrong" or an equivalent such as "homosexuals are wrong, immoral, etc."? That is rhetorical because I know you cannot. "Homosexuality" (behavior) is not synonymous with "homosexual" (an individual of same-sex orientation). Homosexuality necessarily includes the behavior of same-sex sexual relations, while a homosexual individual may or may not engage in same-sex sexual relations or any sexual relations at all. Again, the behavior can be differentiated from the individual. Again, do "good" excuses pardon harmful behavior? What about the thirteen year old who was bullied for being a virgin and used that as an excuse for raping a seven year old? Where is the line that makes an excuse good enough to overlook harmful behavior? But you are right about one thing. Whether orientation is a choice can be largely immaterial when simply considering the harmful behavior that we do know people can exercise choice over. Society deems rape to be aberrant behavior, largely due to the harm it causes. It is not generally considered bigotry to condemn harmful behavior. Go read up on meta-ethics. What science "suggests" is quite different from what science can demonstrate. I thought you were just going on about how "you don't need to make an explicit statement to be obvious". If I say the moral equivalence would need explaining, it stands to reason that I am saying that from my own understanding. Still too vague for you to infer from? No, I do not think they are morally equivalent. That is why I contrasted non-consensual with consensual. You seem to be the obtuse one here. I did not "lump homosexuals into the same pool as people who willingly and knowingly harm others through rape, pedophilia, or discriminatory behavior". I lump them into the group of people who have a significantly higher rate of high-risk sexual behavior with regard to HIV transmission. Are you saying that is not knowingly harmful? You are no more warranted in characterizing all "religionists" by the history of a subset than you are to similarly characterize all white males by the subset of past slave owners. Felson believes that rape is an aggressive form of sexual coercion and the goal of rape is sexual satisfaction rather than power. Most rapists do not have a preference for rape over consensual sex.[11][12][13][14][15][16] In one study, male rapists evaluated with penile plethysmography demonstrated more arousal to forced sex and less discrimination between forced and consensual sex than non-rapist control subjects, though both groups responded more strongly to consensual sex scenarios.[17] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_sexual_violence#Sexual_gratification Seems like an evasion.
I would say no, it is not harmful, because it is a blatant lie, though a common one people desperate to prove that 'homosexuality is wrong' tend to cling to. Having sex with someone of the same gender of yourself imparts absolutely zero increased risk of sexually transmitted disease than does having sex with someone of the opposite gender. What DOES increase that risk is being stupid about it... sleeping around, for example. Even then, you can be smart about it - after all, there are tests to screen for such diseases. I knew a kid in college who prided himself on hooking up with as many women as he could... but he did it in a rather interesting fashion. He made it clear, up front and without any pretense, that the hookup wasn't to be any kind of romantic relationship and that it was purely to satisfy the carnal needs on both sides. He also made it clear that unless the woman could prove she was on birth control of some form, he would be using a condom. Finally, he had himself tested every three months to prove that he carried no strange diseases, and he would not sleep with someone who couldn't provide some kind of medical history or evidence that they themselves were uninfected. It was a strange situation, and when he told me about this I had to pick my jaw up off the floor. Now, granted, I don't believe in casual sex (or pre-marital sex for that matter) but that's MY opinion and I wasn't going to hold that against him. I had to give him credit though - he took proactive measures to make sure that his actions did not result in him or anyone else becoming ill. Now, tell me... why would that suddenly change if he had been hooking up with random guys instead of girls, hm? It's much the same bullshit as the "disarm America" crowd uses... blame the tool, not the user. In this case, you are blaming the action (gay sex) and not the participants... if they aren't smart about who they hook up with, that's their fault. After all, as Ron White says... "Ya can't fix stupid"
That is a process, it does not tell us anything about your homophobia. But, most likely, it is a biblical reason like most other theists. LOL. Sorry, but that is a bogus reason because both homosexuals and heterosexuals transmit HIV, and we certainly don't see you chastising heterosexual behavior.
Being a theist and being a person of faith can mean two different things, at least to me. I do not believe faith and science to be mutually exclusive.
It's the belief in myth which leads to the conclusion that it's fallacy. Nutters are the ones who take it further and try to impose their agendas on normal people--normal in the sense that they can candidly separate reality from mythology.
Fixed, with supporting documentation in case Syne would like to use this for race bigotry in some other thread, perhaps on a different forum: You seem to be the obtuse one here. I did not "lump homosexuals Black Americans into the same pool as people who willingly and knowingly harm others through rape, pedophilia, or discriminatory behavior". I lump them into the group of people who have a significantly higher rate of high-risk sexual behavior with regard to HIV transmission. Are you saying that is not knowingly harmful? From: http://kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/black-americans-and-hiv-aids/ Black Americans have been disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS since the epidemic’s beginning, and that disparity has deepened over time. Blacks account for more new HIV infections, people estimated to be living with HIV disease, and HIV-related deaths than any other racial/ethnic group in the U.S. There's your ammo, go get 'em Syne. On top of that, imagine those homosexual black Americans. I wonder what the statistical correlation is there? OMG...
Yeah and not to mention black homosexuals living in African countries that were subjugated under Christian missionaries, such as Uganda or Kenya, and which includes (Uganda) the elevation of sodomy to a capital offense*. I'm sure the victims over there would take umbrage at this nonsense. *reduced now to life sentences after the world recoiled in horror. So it goes arguing with fundamentalists.
A subset??? Wars among the various religious communities have been common for centuries. "Mere" persecution of a religious community out of power by the religious community in power goes back even farther, to the treatment of the Jews by the Egyptians. The Biblical tale of actual slavery is an exaggeration--they were merely gastarbeiters--but they were treated considerably worse than the Turkish gastarbeiters in modern Germany. The Reformation was a century of warfare between various sects of Christianity. The Sunni and Shiite Muslims go for each other's throats with depressing regularity, and the Hindus would like to be rid of all of them--as would the "peace-loving" Buddhists in southeast Asia. Sure, there are a few genuine pacifist sects. There's the Quakers, then there's the... well anyway we've got one genuine pacifist sect. I'd say that peace-loving religionists are the subset.
