How about my Chomsky and Zizek?
Remember, first few tries just off my phone.
Sure they do. Many do because of their strict upbringing and their belief that what the bible says is strictly real and not just based on how the writers of the time viewed things their selves.
But you are also right too, Steve. For many, it is based on fear and a lack of understanding so that breeds hatred and intolerance.
Ergo the bible. People didnât know about human evolution and the issues of gender back then - for them, god could not have created homosexuality since it was so âunnaturalâ ergo it was wrong and deemed to be anathema.
Beliefs like that âholdâ ~~ many people ~~ and I would hazard a guess, even many of those who are not Catholics and Christians ~~ feel the same because all they see is The Word of God and not science. They donât like to move away from their comfort zones. I was trying, just the other day, to explain that to a co-worker and she was just not getting it. She could not get it ~~ wouldnât be opened to it ~~so I just ended that conversation.
Perhaps not but it may lead to a bit of an opening where a little glimmer of light may shine through. Moving into atheism for the right reason (questioning dogma, doctrine and beliefs) may just lead one to wonder if homosexuality truly is "anathemaâ to the christian god.
Arc, what is your opinion of homosexuality?
If you want to have a secular diagnosis of it, it is still arguable as being unnatural and wrong, or better yet, a deviation.
Male and female humans are meant to be attracted to each other, because they both have the reproductive organs necessary
for mutual procreation. Itâs the whole yin-yang thing, but from an evolutionary perspective. Itâs not suppose to be yin-yin (female and female), nor yang-yang (male and male). The puzzle pieces donât work that way; itâs suppose to be yin-yang (female and male).
Even when I was an atheist, I did not agree with homosexuality - I saw it as a psychological deviation.
The thing is that we live in a backwards, politically-correct society that constantly promulgates a positive view of homosexuality.
Any negative views on it are vehemently shunned akin to anti-Semitic rhetoric.
Scientists would be more honest about it, if it wasnât for the fact that they would more than likely lose their jobs.
There is a lot of hush-hush on the issue, for that reason.
If homosexuality was just psychological, then why do animals have definite homosexual members of their species? Granted some human homosexuals are not born that way, they are made by their surroundings. Heck I would say anyone that is attracted the same sex person that dresses like the opposite gender is not homosexual.
Animals have psychologies too.
With other animals, itâs the same as humans: deviation.
Deviation in nature is natural. It cannot be considered immoral or unethical as it does no harm and is a natural reaction to natureâs influence. I will never understand the distaste for homosexuals. If that person was heterosexual they would be competition for a mate. You can hang out with them and you are not going to have to worry they want your date. Homosexuality was only forbidden by the Jewish Christian God because of the order to go out and procreate to build up humanity⌠well hell, I think that order has been fulfilled in spades.
Homosexuality may be a deviation, but what about the person him- or herself? I mean, the human being behind the sexual orientation? Can you still not regard them as a fellow human being deserving of respect and dignity, as someone you might get along with like anyone else? What is it exactly about homosexuality that makes it immoral? Donât say: itâs âunnaturalâ because that, in my books, isnât enough to throw it in the âimmoralâ camp.
Why is it automatically expected we donât respect a gay? Homosexuality is 100% certain to be a mental disorder, but as mental disorders go, it is by itself a low ranking one as far as concerns. Offices across the country are full of worst disorders considered functional.
Why is there this expectation it has to be Bible based (The Gib-Arc Fallacy) or that we are being mean or oppressive for merely pointing out the blantantly obvious? Everyone, even ISIS that throws faggots off buildings, gets they are fully human with emotions. The goal is to make society LESS like ISIS, but this liberal mandate to manipulate facts and falsely reorient truth to lies, by shame and cohersion for those willing to speak of truth, is very ISIS like itself. Why liberalism is fast decaying, people canât stomach the lies and oppression it brings. People become resentful, and positive change stagnates because it becomes taboo to admit to problems, so we can diagnose and change them. We shouldnât demonize progress or philosophy.
And Kwikwest, clothing isnât anatomy. If I dressed up in a chicken costume, I would be very worried if you started salvaging and went after me with a knife. Iâm clearly not a chicken. I can tell 99 times out of a 100 if a cross dressing man is a woman or not instantly, something weird sticks out about them (pun intended). It isnât attractive, clothes arenât the woman, they are a accessory to the woman. I can guarantee you my instinctive reaction to being tricked in such a scenario, especially if proceeded by long courtship and making out, would at the very least border on homicidal rage if I encountered a cock down there, or worst, the reason my wife couldnât get pregnant want because of possible sterility on my end, but because she was a he, but didnât feel I needed to know because it would hurt âherâ sense of self, and that I should really just love âherâ for who âsheâ is on the inside. Thatâs the stuff shallow graves in the woods are made of.
But thatâs more than just homosexuality, but also cross dressing, and being a sociopath. Unfortunately, Iâve known people who think thatâs A-OK. We are heading towards cultural permissiveness for that scenario. Not much different from people with STDs knowing about it and still fucking others, keeping them ignorant of the danger. It is a very selfish, short sighted age. We donât do nearly enough to tackle these issues systematically due to the aura of dishonesty the left projects over this.
Write a post for me on Zizek as I want to know what his philosophy is
You tell him, surreptitious! 
Pointing out the passages in the Bible that are often used to support anti-gay sentiments is hardly âmanipulating factsâ or âreorienting truthâ. Trying to hide that fact, however, which is what youâre doing, is.
Erik_
My opinion is âLive and Let Liveâ. If two people are not harming one another or others as a result of their relationship or sexual preference, then what is the problem?
When it comes to issues like AIDS, the heterosexual is right in there with gay people. âTo Do No Harmâ is the mandate for all.
Some will argue forever that it is unnatural because they cannot tolerate someone who lives or thinks differently than they do.
What I consider to be wrong or immoral is an act where a person or people are actually harmed or hurt.
Obviously, I may be wrong, but one way to look at it is this: Homosexuality has been in existence since forever so in a sense, just how unnatural can it be really? lol
My view is that it is part of human evolution. There are those who are born gay. Should they live politically-correct lives simply because some canât see it in any way except their own.
What kind of quality of life can a gay person have if they had to by law only have sex with the opposite sex?
I donât see homosexuality as a sickness to be cured. That is just absurd to me.
What I find to be wrong and unatural is parents beating and killing their children.
You mean just as parents are âmeantâ to love and care for their children? As I think and feel is the norm? âMeantâ is subjective thinking, Erik.
Obviously, again, the ârealityâ is that people will be attracted to whosoever they are attracted to. The human psyche doesnât speak in terms of âmeantâ.
I think your statement is a bit of the Christian view, donât you think? Which is fine but people are also meant to have fun, express their selves and needs sexually. It isnât always about having children.
âNot suppose to beâ? lol Yet it is.
I might say that that is because in certain circles, it is not perceived to be the norm.
But how can we say for sure that it wasnât ALSO meant to be the norm and natural? Do we know everything about human evolution?
Evolution unfolds gradually, does it not?
I donât consider myself to be politically correct, I donât think in those terms for myself, although I do think that we can conduct ourselves more along the lines of being more naturally rational, thinking, caring and less impulsive/compulsive, people.
We might hope for some of that politically correct society to rub off on Donald Trump, no?
I think that sometimes âpolitically correctâ is just the battle cry of those who do not know how to behave and be civilized.
But of course, there are grey areas there.
I think that we need to see a larger picture and have a better scientific and psychological understanding of gays and that might at least lead to a more ânaturalâ view of homosexualityâŚinstead of such an "unnatural view of it.
We need to look more to the âindividualâ him/her -self and less to the label.
Scientists would be more honest about it, if it wasnât for the fact that they would more than likely lose their jobs.
There is a lot of hush-hush on the issue, for that reason.
[/quote]
???
Arc, itâs not a simple matter of intolerance towards different people.
Itâs a matter of honesty, of truth.
I donât hate gays, nor do I knock on their doors to try to fix them. I just point out the obvious during intellectual conversations: that homosexuality is a deviancy akin to bestiality.
An animal and a human could have sex with each other without either one getting hurt. Does that therefore negate the fact that itâs weird and deviant?
âOh, but Erik, the animal canât consent to it, therefore itâs wrong.â
The animalâs consent is through its not running away or biting the other person. If it really didnât want to copulate, it would maul the human.
According to this, do you think people shouldnât be intolerant towards bestiality folk?
Itâs all subjective, right?
lol
Pfffffff
Erik
You mean, a matter of how you perceive the truth? And after having said that, I realize my perspective is also a matter of how I see the truth - but some perceptions are more valid than others, no?
lol Just how much âakinâ are the two? Letâs not forget that in homosexuality two people are STILL engaging in sex within their own âspeciesâ .
From my perspective, bestiality IS deviant.
.
That would depend. A human being engaging in sex with an animal might just be hurting himself both emotionally and spiritually. If heâs doing that, how can he find someone to have a life with? Doing it with an animal - is that any kind of quality of life for this poor man? He needs help â which is a far cry from a gay person needing help simply because he is with the same sex. Now, if he was being physically or verbally abused, thatâs a different matter.
Bestiality is to me deviant - gays having sex is not deviant to me. Itâs only to those who donât understand human nature.
I wonât pretend that I donât have my biases. âLive and let liveâ for me doesnât mean that I would enjoy seeing two gay people having sex because I wouldnât enjoy it. I would be uncomfortable seeing it but it doesnât mean that I would take that inalienable right away from them. On the other hand, I wouldnât be the slightest bit uncomfortable seeing two straight people having sex. lol See, we all have our biases.
lol ~~ Iâm not sure how to even answer that one. Animals have emotions but I canât really begin to know how they feel about having sex with humans. They donât have our consciousness or sense of what is right or wrong or creepy maybe.
I think that for me that would depend on the circumstances. I can feel compassion for someone like that if someone is ugly or so much alone, et cetera. But I would still hope that that person could get help.
We often think that we are happy just the way we are and doing the right thing by our self but often weâre so wrong. We canât always be the best judge of what is best for us.
For those men or women who are just plain animalistic and need that kind of an experience and orgasm, well, that is an even greater turnoff and I wouldnât feel much compassion for them - though who knows? Perhaps they require more compassion than the other guy.
Most things are although of course there are things which can be seen objectively in nature and reality.
When it comes to dealing with human beings and psychology, we canât always swim in facts. There are so many grey areas.
All we can do is to discuss to get closer to a more valid subjective viewpoint. lol
heeheehee. Have a nice holiday season, Erik.
Whatâs that?
The act of homosexual sex does harm people though, it is well known that penetration of the anus weakens the muscles to the point of fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse or hemorrhoids. Just because the act is mutually consensual doesnât negate the damage and harm is causes. The anus/rectum are not penetrative organs, they are specifically for alleviation of waste.
I wouldnât even regard the act as sexual intercourse, as the anus/rectum isnât a sexual organ and leads to no procreative pathway. Procreation is the objective of sex and pleasure is the incentive to motivate the act.
The homosexual act itself is a hedonistic abuse of the body, the deviancy is the social twisting of sexuality, in an attempt to normalize such abusive behavior, along with the constant empathizing of it.
Interestingly enough, Ibn Abbas (an uncle of the Prophet Muhammad, born in 619CE) describes several traits related to what the people of Lut (Homoseuxals) used to do. Some of these are: Not covering the private parts in front of people of the same sex; whistling with the fingers; opening the shirt to show the chest; wearing long pants which drag the floor; and homosexual sex (or lesbianism).
Ha kind of like how they are today, exactly even! So this shit has been going on for awhile. Hopefully, God will rain down burning stones from the sky and turn some of the cities upside down, such as L.A, and let it be a punishment for these people, like he did with Sodom.
mannikin
I hadnât considered that, mannikin. It does make sense but I donât suppose that that kind of harm is done in all or many cases, do you?
Or can there be some degree of that in all cases?
Absolutely. People do not take the time to realize just that - and thatâs true in many other circumstances - both the physical and the emotional. People do not like to consider consequences. We canât think things forward and/or delay gratification.
Well, there is that word âinterâ course. 
I understand what youâre saying and I can agree with your perspective in part but at the same time, itâs still relating sexually.
Câmon mannikin. It is one of the objectives of sex, mannikin - not the only one. It doesnât have to be one way or the other.
Not always. Consider the woman who wants children but hates sex. Pleasure is not her motivation. There is always another way of looking at something.
I can go along with your statement. But I think that you can also say the same about heterosexual sex too.
Much supped physical abuse can go on there too or at least strong sex which is beyond the norm, way beyond it- which may be consensual.
I donât get the wearing of long pants which drag the floor. The first one today might land one in jail. Just because two people are gay doesnât mean there is mutual physical attraction there.
I once had a priest tell me that it was God himself who sent Hurricane Katrina to punish the people of New Orleans for their great sinfulness/immorality. Iâm sure that many other â not all â Catholics/Christians âbelievedâ the same.
I had to restrain myself from slapping him and talking to him didnât do much good.
This is what happens when we believe in such a so-called personal God â a bit too impersonal of a God if you ask me.
Careful Arc, the Irish ones slap back. Not like you wouldnât have it coming either.
lol Actually, he was very much Irish - last name of Flaherty.
Oh thatâs just your Catholic perspective.
So what do YOU think of what he said, of his belief?
Have you ever hit a woman, Steve?
Arc
Itâs not that merely just makes sense, itâs a well known fact to the point of surgical repair, now they are trying to normalize it further by trying to establish a ârightâ way of doing it, using lubricants etc in an attempt to ease the pain and damage. âŚfeel free to compare vaginal lubricants in order to justify the act of anal sexâŚp.s the vagina creates itâs own natural lubricant, the anus does not.
If you think you can take what i said and twist it to create a base for rape against women even though she initially agreed and then regretted it later⌠well you keep pushing for that worldâŚ
The word intercourse is not sexual by definition, hence why the word âsexualâ is put before it⌠and no the homosexual act isnât sexual.
The objective of sex is procreation, pleasure is the incentiveâŚbut if you want to create many so called objectives regarding sex, then go for itâŚbut feel free to use man made inventions to delude yourself of these many objectivesâŚ
Pleasure is the incentive which motivates the act of SEX, she may have other motivations for wanting children⌠two different things. If she hates sex then she is retarded, seuxally dysfunctionalâŚagain feel free to use man made invention to bring this diversity and perspectivesâŚ
It can, if itâs anal sex between two heterosexuals, what i said then still appliesâŚbut yeah i donât really care about that rape angle you keep pushingâŚ
According to the Abraham tradition, God has never been personal nor itâs a sky god, or a man in the sky with a long white beard.
mannikin
Are you For or Against the above?
Now where did THAT come from? Rape had not even entered my mind, mannikin. When I spoke of âmany other circumstancesâ, I meant just THAT ~~ many other circumstances and "consequences.
They might have been driving drunk, texting while driving, child abuse, even not studying for a test and griping about it when one gets a low grade, et cetera.
Perhaps it is YOU who is twisting MY words to begin a conversation about rape which I donât feel like discussing today.
Oh, I rather do think that the word âintercourseâ is sexual by its meaning ALSO but it can also mean having a conversation with someone. You need to see past the forest to the trees.
Again, procreation is ONE of the objectives of sex, depending on the individuals. In that case, to my mind, the MAIN incentive is NOT pleasure but rather having a child. But one of the side effects of that IS pleasure or can be.
How can anyone in this day and age think or believe that procreation is the ONLY objective for having sex?!
Thank you. Thatâs one of them - I would say the basic one. Not the only one. Mannikin, would you make all human beings into psychological facades?
.
True- it isnât just one thing or the other with us. She may want children in order to get more alimony or child support from her rich husband. lol More ways to think than just one!
By retarded, did you mean to say ârepressedâ? I donât think Freud would have used the word "retardedâ.
Probably and there is usually a reason for that or more than one. Perhaps her husband is a horrible lover, perhaps her father sexually abused her, perhaps sheâs afraid of human sexual intimacy, perhaps she needs an operation/anatomically, something is wrong which she doesnât realize and sex causes her painâŚabnormal pain.
By âman-made inventionâ do you mean psychology? Do you shun the psychological perspective, mannikin?
Iâm beginning to sense that perhaps this is all a ruse on your part, for instance, reverse psychology, but I may be wrong here.
As I said before, so is the heterosexual act or can be. Wouldnât you agree with that?
What about the deviancy which appears in some of your paintings, mannikin?
I think it IS more an attempt to normalize gay sex, to make it more natural, which it is â evolution and all.
To make it more acceptable. After all, there are many intolerant people out there.
Why do you fight that? Are gays to be anathema to all of us?
Lol. Itâs you who keeps pushing the rape angle. My brain is on âconsensualâ. I wasnât even leaning toward anal sex between heterosexuals.
Well, UNLESS someone is being "physicallyâ or mentally harmed, even though it is consensual, âanything goesâ. One manâs or womanâs meat is anotherâs poison.
The man in the sky with the long beard has been depicted.
As far as I know, the Jewish people in the OT have always believed and seen God as a loving personal godâŚat the very least, a hands-on personal god albeit at times a vengeful one or one who tested oneâs faith, to me in a very cruel way. Vengeful is personal.
But God is a projection of our selves.
The NT makes God an even more loving and personal god.