The fun of frustrated homophobes.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, because I reject that presupposition that our desires are innate, and cannot be changed.



That's not implied by the statement. Suppose one said, for all human beings, part of our essence is our desires, then you'd have everything across the board.

You always find new ways to express your ignorance about sexuality and sex orientation.


To say that sexual orientation is innate and cannot be changed, does NOT follow then, that this is the central, sole part of our identification.

Identification is multi-faceted: religion, gender, race, ethnicity, political affiliation/ideology, sex orientation, occupation/job, education level, nationality, primary spoken language, family background, health condition, and so on.

[Dinner]

Attack the message not the poster, Mr. Fun.

[/Ming]

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ah, we are all sinners.

speak for yourself

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Am I the only one who read the article, agreed with most of it, but came away with an utterly different conclusion than what the author actually intended? It seems to me that most of his points are valid and that should be a good thing. A quick summary:

- Homosexuals have made great strides in being accepted in society
- Today you can find homosexuals in all the same jobs straight people occupy
- A civil union bill has a good chance of passing in NZ parliament
- This may open the doors for full-blown gay marriage

I guess you have to be like Ben and hate all of this to your core to have a problem with it.

Nope, you're not alone. I had much the same reaction. I noted the author's hostility, but smiled at the trends he was describing.

-Arrian

[Barinthus]

IIRC what Kinsey actually said that out of the entire population about 5% is true homosexuals (no desire at all for the opposite sex) and 5% is true heterosexuals (no homoerotic thoughts or desires at all) and the rest are in between. Kind of like the Bell Curve.

For most of us I suspect it's more of the issue of sexual preference rather than sexual orientation except for those 5% at both ends of the spectrum.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Attack the message not the poster, Mr. Fun.

[/Ming]

I stated that he made an ignorant statement, which is true. So in essence, I did attack the message, not the messenger.


Thus, you are PWNED.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ah, we are all sinners.

What're yours?

[Agathon]

Every time people have gay sex, God tears off a piece of Ben Kenobi's soul as punishment for his failure to stop these acts of foul buggery.

[Japher]

Next thing you know, NZ will be allowing Australians to marry their livestock!

[Kropotkin]

There's nothing wrong with the love between a man and his sheep. I'm a bit upset over your reactionary views on this japher, I was expecting more from you!

[Theben]

/me gives Japher the coveted Skimski Award for telling the same basic joke for the 3rd time in a 2 page thread

[Japher]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank everyone who has made this possible, and god who did nothing about it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Theben
* Theben gives Japher the coveted Skimski Award for telling the same basic joke for the 3rd time in a 2 page thread

[Ben Kenobi]

Which has exactly what meaning for your argument?

That if a person desires to change, they can.

Furthermore why would it be relevant, if it is a personal condition or a personal choice? Are you attempting to imply a right or wrong choice in the individual context?

At this point? All I'm saying is that if a person is not happy with this aspect of their life they can change this. Whether one ought to change this part is an entirely different question.

Again the obsession with sex. Would you say the same of the desire for love? Also, wrt the the desire for sex, is it not reasonable to say that there are limits to that which remain unaffected by acceptance of homosexuality, i.e., allowing sex between men is not a slippery slope to allowing sex between adults and children, for example?

Not really an obsession per se, but the topic of this thread. It can apply to other inclinations as well.

Would I say the same for love? That's a good question. I do believe that the desire for love, in the sense of agape is part of our essence.

As for children, there are those who argue that there is nothing wrong with their behaviour, that they are helping, rather than hurting these children, hence they ought to be allowed to do what they will with them, without consent.

This is really the heart of the conversation I had with Jon. What is the problem here? Is it so much with the gay people, or with our sexuality in general. Really, the problem is with everything, and not just the one thing. What is the proper expression of our sexuality? What are the consequences for those who deviate from this path?

This is why I argue that to approve the one, will lead to the question, as to why should there be any restrictions on sexuality at all?

Ergo?

It is not part of their nature.

That's ridiculous, since the only thing that would change is the properties of the objects existence (allowing thus for individual subjectivity). I take it you're an essentialist though.

Properties. They are not the essence in itself. Our properties change alongside our proportions though our essence does not.

[MrFun]

damn it -- he came back