|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 18, 2020 4:00:18 GMT -8
Let me add my welcome to the welcome you've already graciously received, tuba.
It's nice to see someone pop in and disagree with the prevailing...thoughts...posted here. I do hope you'll stick around tuba but I'm not optimistic about the long term. Some of the boys here get downright ugly when anyone dares challenge their superstitions or has the gall to suggest that maybe the Bible isn't the best guide for modern life. In case you hadn't figured it out yet, you and I are the only representatives of the "gays" here, so be prepared for some ignorance and bigotry, there's plenty of that here.
Keep up the good work.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 18, 2020 6:19:29 GMT -8
But, of course, marrying a sibling, one's progeny or other close relative is illegal in most --if not all -- US states. Such marriages aren't unprecedented in history -- especially in the aristocracy -- though. Indeed, if the Noachian legend is taken at face value, we're all descended from some pretty intense incest. Let that roll around in your head for awhile. As for what homosexuals "demand", you have it wrong. We have never requested nor required the approval, permission or pardon of our detractors and abusers to fulfill our perfectly usual and biologically obtained romantic and sexual imperatives. Our aim has always been to emasculate the relentless American institutional, legal and religious oppression, ridicule and condemnation that endeavors to diminish our enjoyment and protections of all the birthrights of American citizenship. But your approval? Nope. - Again your Noah reference shows a stunning ignorance of Scripture. First, that something is shown in Scripture doesn’t mean God condoned it, but more importantly, if we see something in Scripture that seems to go against God’s divine order, our assumption SHOULD be God made those arrangements. A Third possibility is, we just might not understand what really happened. So, no, I don’t need to let anything roll around in my head for awhile.
- It is not important to me what “you” want me to believe about homosexuals intent. While I accept that no generality is accurate, it is plainly visible what homosexuals demand when the entire community celebrates two of them suing a baker in Colorado for turning them away. Feigned protests of “we just wanna be free” notwithstanding, generally speaking and without any exceptions to my observation, “you” might not be knocking on doors demanding “I” accept your lifestyle choices, but there is still the “demanding” undercurrent. Don’t get me wrong, I neither care nor expect you will agree with me, but fact is not dependent on our agreement.
- Your “imperatives” are not imperatives. There is no biological imperative to f*ck someone (of the same or opposite gender). Sexual intercourse was once commanded by God to populate the earth (although, I’m certain, after the first time, the command was unnecessary). But, newsflash, the earth is populated. People today have sex because they want to, we are nit driven by some uncontrollable primal urge (unless you’re talking about some kind of aberrant psychological disorder... are you saying homosexuality is an aberrant psychological disorder? Because I would agree with that).
In short (I know, too late), your argument doesn’t hold water. |
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 18, 2020 14:15:05 GMT -8
But, of course, marrying a sibling, one's progeny or other close relative is illegal in most --if not all -- US states. Such marriages aren't unprecedented in history -- especially in the aristocracy -- though. Indeed, if the Noachian legend is taken at face value, we're all descended from some pretty intense incest. Let that roll around in your head for awhile. As for what homosexuals "demand", you have it wrong. We have never requested nor required the approval, permission or pardon of our detractors and abusers to fulfill our perfectly usual and biologically obtained romantic and sexual imperatives. Our aim has always been to emasculate the relentless American institutional, legal and religious oppression, ridicule and condemnation that endeavors to diminish our enjoyment and protections of all the birthrights of American citizenship. But your approval? Nope. - Again your Noah reference shows a stunning ignorance of Scripture. First, that something is shown in Scripture doesn’t mean God condoned it, but more importantly, if we see something in Scripture that seems to go against God’s divine order, our assumption SHOULD be God made those arrangements. A Third possibility is, we just might not understand what really happened. So, no, I don’t need to let anything roll around in my head for awhile.
- It is not important to me what “you” want me to believe about homosexuals intent. While I accept that no generality is accurate, it is plainly visible what homosexuals demand when the entire community celebrates two of them suing a baker in Colorado for turning them away. Feigned protests of “we just wanna be free” notwithstanding, generally speaking and without any exceptions to my observation, “you” might not be knocking on doors demanding “I” accept your lifestyle choices, but there is still the “demanding” undercurrent. Don’t get me wrong, I neither care nor expect you will agree with me, but fact is not dependent on our agreement.
- Your “imperatives” are not imperatives. There is no biological imperative to f*ck someone (of the same or opposite gender). Sexual intercourse was once commanded by God to populate the earth (although, I’m certain, after the first time, the command was unnecessary). But, newsflash, the earth is populated. People today have sex because they want to, we are nit driven by some uncontrollable primal urge (unless you’re talking about some kind of aberrant psychological disorder... are you saying homosexuality is an aberrant psychological disorder? Because I would agree with that).
In short (I know, too late), your argument doesn’t hold water. Again your Noah reference shows a stunning ignorance of Scripture. First, that something is shown in Scripture doesn’t mean God condoned it, but more importantly, if we see something in Scripture that seems to go against God’s divine order, our assumption SHOULD be God made those arrangements. A Third possibility is, we just might not understand what really happened. So, no, I don’t need to let anything roll around in my head for awhile. Tuba:Yet you've enumerated your interpretation about the tale's obvious problem, anyway eh? To wit: After Noah's wooden-tub bumped into Mt. Ararat there were only 8 closely-related humans left to repopulate the planet. The "goddidit" gambit takes care of the logic that some real strenuous incest was necessary for you, but not for me. Oh well. It's just a grim myth whose host of other improbable details can only be explained by invoking magical solutions, too. So I'm not surprised you appeal to them. In any case, incest is felonious in most (if not all) American states. Your implication that Gays are plotting to "demand" it be made otherwise, is nonsense. dsf:It is not important to me what “you” want me to believe about homosexuals intent. Tuba:Back at ya'. dsf:While I accept that no generality is accurate, it is plainly visible what homosexuals demand when the entire community celebrates two of them suing a baker in Colorado for turning them away. Feigned protests of “we just wanna be free” notwithstanding, generally speaking and without any exceptions to my observation, “you” might not be knocking on doors demanding “I” accept your lifestyle choices, but there is still the “demanding” undercurrent. Tuba:I can't speak for all homosexuals -- we're not, by any means, a monolithic bunch -- but the "intent" of my spouse, of 33 years, and I was/is to enjoy the equal legal protection and benefits of the American laws which enfranchise marriages and to legally establish spousal-kinship. We also endeavor to emasculate the institutional, religious and social practices that "condone", encourage or wink at ignorant anti-homosexual biases. We're not unlike other unpopular American minorities in that regard. There was never a sinister Gay plot to diminish the legitimacy of either straight marriages or the religion to which you, or others, subscribe., though. dfs: Don’t get me wrong, I neither care nor expect you will agree with me, but fact is not dependent on our agreement. Tuba:Like wise. Nonetheless, you shouldn't be surprised that the animus you are expressing gets push back from Gays. . dfs:Your “imperatives” are not imperatives. There is no biological imperative to f*ck someone (of the same or opposite gender). Tuba:I agree. Nonetheless, the gender of who humans -- Gay, straight or a blend of both-- are romantically and sexually aroused is biologically determined. Whether the deed is actually done is another thing altogether. dfs: Sexual intercourse was once commanded by God to populate the earth (although, I’m certain, after the first time, the command was unnecessary). Tuba:You're appealing to an antecedent-presumed argument. It has no meaning unless you believe that a god populated the planet. I don't. dfs: But, newsflash, the earth is populated. Tuba:Newsflash: the earth is populated by homosexual creatures, too. Indeed, so long as straights keep "populatin'" there will not soon be a shortage of us Gays, either. Cool. dfs:People today have sex because they want to, we are nit driven by some uncontrollable primal urge (unless you’re talking about some kind of aberrant psychological disorder... Tuba:Huh? But two sentences ago you announced "sexual intercourse was commanded by god". That'd make it a pretty primal urge if you believe such a thing, I'd say. In any case, the gender by which a human (or otherwise) is romantically and sexually aroused is determined biologically.
dfs:
are you saying homosexuality is an aberrant psychological disorder? Because I would agree with that).
Tuba:
No.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 18, 2020 23:39:46 GMT -8
No, david and RSM think they can tell gay people what they think. That's never right. Please point out where I wrote anything where I was telling gay people what they think. I specifically wrote about actions of the gay community as a whole, the obvious intent of said actions and its effect on those who supported domestic partnerships for homosexuals (or anyone else) but were turned off by the demand that it be called marriage. . I would never tell a gay person what they think, for I realize that since I can't look at another mans hairy ass & find love, I have no idea whats is going on inside a gay mans brain. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 19, 2020 4:30:28 GMT -8
Right here:
"Instead, fully knowing the traditional aspects of marriage and wanting to take a shot at those they disagree with spiritually, the homosexual community demanded that their domestic partnerships be called marriage as well."
1. The homosexual community doesn't take actions, or for that matter think or have opinions as a group. We are all individuals with different ideas, just like you straight people. There are gay republicans, gay trump supporters, and yes, even gay people that believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.
2. Your statement above is not relegated to the actions of Gay people, you also speculate wrongly on their motives.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 19, 2020 7:19:35 GMT -8
Tuba:Yet you've enumerated your interpretation about the tale's obvious problem, anyway eh? To wit: After Noah's wooden-tub bumped into Mt. Ararat there were only 8 closely-related humans left to repopulate the planet. The "goddidit" gambit takes care of the logic that some real strenuous incest was necessary for you, but not for me. Oh well. It's just a grim myth whose host of other improbable details can only be explained by invoking magical solutions, too. So I'm not surprised you appeal to them. In any case, incest is felonious in most (if not all) American states. Your implication that Gays are plotting to "demand" it be made otherwise, is nonsense. AS I SAID, “...A Third possibility is, we just might not understand what really happened. So, no, I don’t need to let anything roll around in my head for awhile.” also, included in those 8 people were SPOUSES of Noah’s sons, if, in fact there WERE only 8 people... so, again, you don’t know what you are talking about and, in this case, are trying to mold Scripture to fit your agenda.Tuba:I can't speak for all homosexuals -- we're not, by any means, a monolithic bunch -- but the "intent" of my spouse, of 33 years, and I was/is to enjoy the equal legal protection and benefits of the American laws which enfranchise marriages and to legally establish spousal-kinship. We also endeavor to emasculate the institutional, religious and social practices that "condone", encourage or wink at ignorant anti-homosexual biases. We're not unlike other unpopular American minorities in that regard. There was never a sinister Gay plot to diminish the legitimacy of either straight marriages or the religion to which you, or others, subscribe., though. irrelevant what you and your partner want. When any of us put “you” in quotes like that, it is to stipulate we are not talking about you, specifically and it also saves us from having to spell out “I’m using an editorial ‘you,’ here” every time. Your protestations are also irrelevant since you, specifically, are trying to defend your personal position (note, this sentence is one you will want to manipulate into something for which it is not intended) and feigning ignorance of a national attempt to shift our culture to condone aberrant behavior.Tuba:Like wise. Nonetheless, you shouldn't be surprised that the animus you are expressing gets push back from Gays. . no animus. However, I also have no control how you interpret the written word. Since I express opinion(s) contrary to your lifestyle choices, your alternatives are to listen for understanding or dismiss it as animus. You’ve obviously made your choice.Tuba:I agree. Nonetheless, the gender of who humans -- Gay, straight or a blend of both-- are romantically and sexually aroused is biologically determined. Whether the deed is actually done is another thing altogether. that is, also, not scientific fact. You said “perfectly usual [an attempt to establish a cultural norm, which you just claimed you don’t do?] and biologically obtained...” arousal and romance are, at best, only partly influenced by biology.Tuba:You're appealing to an antecedent-presumed argument. It has no meaning unless you believe that a god populated the planet. I don't. ah, I suspected as much: You use Scripture when it suits you, but reject thise parts you don’t want to hear. Got it.Tuba:Newsflash: the earth is populated by homosexual creatures, too. Indeed, so long as straights keep "populatin'" there will not soon be a shortage of us Gays, either. Cool. of course, that wasn’t the point to which you responded. It was nit even a clever attempt to move the goalpostsTuba:Huh? But two sentences ago you announced "sexual intercourse was commanded by god". That'd make it a pretty primal urge if you believe such a thing, I'd say. In any case, the gender by which a human (or otherwise) is romantically and sexually aroused is determined biologically.
OHHHHH, another obvious attempt to manipulate my words to fit your argument... FOILED again! Darn that nasty ol’ context, right? What I said was, “sexual intercourse was commanded by God [here’s the part you left out]to populate the earth. It is still not a biological mandate (a point with which YOU AGREED, above). I can understand how you can be confused, though. But surely Vile-boy told you this would happen... maybe you should have listened.
[/b][/quote] |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 19, 2020 23:49:47 GMT -8
Right here: "Instead, fully knowing the traditional aspects of marriage and wanting to take a shot at those they disagree with spiritually, the homosexual community demanded that their domestic partnerships be called marriage as well."1. The homosexual community doesn't take actions, or for that matter think or have opinions as a group. We are all individuals with different ideas, just like you straight people. There are gay republicans, gay trump supporters, and yes, even gay people that believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. 2. Your statement above is not relegated to the actions of Gay people, you also speculate wrongly on their motives. Yet there is indeed a homosexual community, meaning the vocal majority of a group, which you may or may not have decided to be a part of. The gay community even joined other communities to form a super group, the LGBT etc community, kind of like those cartoon robots that join together to make one super robot. There is a straight community, a black community, you name it, there is a community for it. Of course we are all individuals, but to pretend there is not communities is just disingenuous. Despite your denials, the actions of the gay community belied their intent. That doesn't mean it was your intent, it means it was the communities intent. if you want to distance yourself from the community, have at it. |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Feb 20, 2020 2:47:26 GMT -8
Utah senators unanimously pass bill to decriminalize polygamy
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 20, 2020 4:11:17 GMT -8
Oh those crazy Mormons.  |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Feb 20, 2020 8:42:43 GMT -8
Good article from The Federalist showing how the same arguments used to legitimize same-sex marriage are being used to support polyamory and polygamy. It also includes some solid sociological evidence (which common sense would already understand) of the negative consequences for children in such situations.
|
|
