Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by ripleofdeath, Nov 18, 2009.
tiassa the sex guru. what about my weenie?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
How should I know?
I don't know. Is it a kielbasa or a Li'l Smokie?
i'm not equating it at all, but i think it's a pretty good analogy given what we're talking about here. genitalia and bodily fluids...it's relevant. it's an analogy for an inherent physical trait (ie race and/or gender) vs some form of intimacy and physical contact (ie sharing facilities in which bodily fluids might interchange or sex). those white people didn't think they were going to catch some disease or parasite from those black people, they just didn't want any form of intimacy with them because they were undesirables.
sexual orientation is based on a perception. and a perception that is not based in truth.
ok, i'm going to respond to your question with a question because you're talking out both sides of your mouth here...
do you think that it's sound and logical to choose a mate based on one inherent physical trait, or do you think that choice should be based upon something alot deeper than that?
because homosexuals and heterosexuals alike draw the line at one physical trait, barring anything and everything else. any other physical trait and they're all over the board. masculinity vs femininity and they're all over the board. personality, all over the board. responsibility, spirituality, honesty, integrity, or any form of character, they're all over the board. but they draw that line, and slap on a label when it comes to gender. why? because they have an irrational perception or a negative association with a certain sex's genitals? come on! you're the armchair psychologist. you tell me if that makes a lick of sense, because it doesn't to me.
at his age, it's probably a vienna sausage. heh, heh, heh.
j/k john. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
M*W: What about it?
I read the thread.
The original exchange that started the whole thing was:
And Kira and SAM and I..... we also expressed concern about the association of women black asians with dogs..... more than once.....
no but it does point to an issue of racism within the gay community and as this IS a discussion board maybe that is wortthy of discussion? Just because you don't lose sleep over it doesn't mean to say it isn't a 'real' issue. At the same time we might look at the 'double-whammy' faced by black and Asian people from some in their own conmmunities about their homosexuality and the relation if any that bears to religion. Or we could just throw ad homs around....
There are plug ugly features and there are plug ugly people. The two aren't necessarily related if you know what I mean?
Yeah or is it the centuries of soicio-cultural racism that we've been indoctrinated by? That is the question. It's a hard one to answer. But hey!
Smiles: 'You're a plug ugly sexist racist.'
Does that help?
Very few of them do...
I think the implication was 'never'. As I've said I understand that gay people prefer same sex partnerships. I'm that intelligent. I have issues with the use of language in reference to those you don't sleep with. 'Repugnant', 'repulsive', 'sickened', that sort of thing well it smacks of something.....
I'd say at the points words such as repugnant, repulsive and dogs are introduced.
I dare say it's buried with Freud but men love to keep digging it up. Funny that!
Ho Ho Ho. Shame the same doesn't happen with some fellas when they 'grow up'.
See? Now that is funny. Admittedly in a "Be Sharp" fashion. But, still, it's a start.
Because others do....and I'm countering.
Shall I start another thread? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Paranoid I ain't. Realistis I am. Don't bleat about the big, bad boys equating homosexuality with perversion and then use language or perversion to describe women, balcks and Asians. Is it that difficult fellas?
It starts with language....
I'm not lying. I don't like hypocrisy. I'm not saying I'm not guilty of it but I check myself for it regularly. If I have a personal issue with someone; it's personal and not related to their gender, sexual orientation or skin colour. People who are downright nasty in whatever way.... expect to get back what you sow or meet me half way.
The one in question. And life. There are issues within the gay community about racism and sexism.
I never leave reality. I don't mind pushing a few boundaries though.
What? Don't be afraid to spell it out.
Yeah well tell that to the bigots.
Yeah and here you are joinging in!
Moronic fantasy? Devised to be complained about? Oh I get it you think because I have a little problem with string that I've jumped up this complaint? You have made an incorrect assertion.
Demonstrate the rude, childish, pouting (nice sexist word added to the mix)....
Not a stupid construct and not designed to foster pointless, dishonest complaint. A genuine concern.
I have given you my genuine answer.
And btw I wasn't the only one with the issue:
and here is the issue reiterated:
Not very kindly towards disabled people either, eh? But hey like I said women, black people, Asian people, disabled people and dogs open season here at sci and don't ever complain about it. Unless of course you want to be labelled:
Insane, petulant, dishonest, childish and moronic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That wasn't my point, but you're right people don't want their idol's character to be sullied in such a mallicious and derogatory way.
Of course we know things about Jesus, in fact we know the most personal things about him.
This is true even if he is a fictional character.
But why would you consider that he may not have existed?
My statement did not extend to my personal belief system, as there was no need. Another example of pre-conceived ideas, and premature assumptions.
What difference would it make if jesus was homosexual ?
personally i have a bit of a feeling that he might have been bisexual and probably didnt explore that side because of social customs which resulted i the semi monastic type atmosphere that was created around him.
he was not shouted from the roof tops for being a husband and father either which in that day would have been quite uncommon.
they did not exactly have birth control did they.
my heart held honest belief of who or what jesus was/is is one or a combination of 2 things
1. a powerful psychic and prophetic speaker and religious preacher.
2. an alien seeking to make a mark in the social evolution of the human species away from blood lust.
What difference it would make, is immaterial.
Why conclude he his homosexual?
Why not conclude he was celibate, as there is no mention of sexual relations.
It seem quite extreme, especially as he was jewish, by culteral default, often being refered to as 'rabbi'.
What makes you think he was sexually active at all?
If you believe that then you probably think there's a good chance Christian men of the cloth are paedophiles. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oooops sorry...normal paedophiles!
Did Jesus ever blow Gabriel's trumpet?
Originally Posted by Grim_Reaper
How could he be a Human being if he was the Son/Daughter of God he would be a well God not a human being.
now here is the funny thing.
even in todays society sex by the male is considered sin because the male construct taught by their mothers and fathers is in fact rape.
hence rape being the taking of a persons mind(women go mad after repeated rape etc etc...) thus taking of innocence etc etc...
sin is indeed copulation for procreation thus
original sin is having sex!
being born of no sin is to be born while spitting in gods face as god MADE us humans to HAVE to have sex to reproduce... AND god made it enjoyable without pre programming like sadism etc...
Separate names with a comma.