The Gay Pride (Oxymoron) Parade

[MrRadish]

That's a rather broad spectrum to be discussing. Why would you ask that?

Because I see no less reason that two men or women should love each other than a man and a woman.

 

[Door]

Because I see no less reason that two men or women should love each other than a man and a woman.

Men should love other men, but homos hate other men, and love themselves.

 

[MrRadish]

You're calling sex a red herring when homos are defined by the fact that they engage in a specific perversion of the act?

Homosexuality refers to being attracted to members of the same sex. From the Compact OED:

Homosexual
• adjective: feeling or involving attraction to people of one’s own sex.

You do not become a homosexual on having sex with somebody of your own gender, you are homosexual if you are attracted to them.

 

[MrRadish]

Men should love other men, but homos hate other men, and love themselves.

Right.

 

[Stripe]

Because I see no less reason that two men or women should love each other than a man and a woman.

I agree.

Now why do you think homos love each other?

 

[Stripe]

Homosexuality refers to being attracted to members of the same sex. From the Compact OED: You do not become a homosexual on having sex with somebody of your own gender, you are homosexual if you are attracted to them.

:squint:

Uh. OK. I don't agree. So how about you just answer the question. How do you know that two men who have sex with each other love each other?

 

[MaryContrary]

Awesome! Hope you've been alright. I've been so busy with work I haven't had much chance to get online.

I'm doing pretty darned good. I was seriously excited to see you around again! But don't cut out on what's important for TOL! Just very glad to see yah! :banana:

God has really been working on me in this area over the last few months, I am now totally and completely changed.

I guessing that really sucked, huh? I kinda know the feeling. :chuckle:
Good for you! :thumb: Keep on truckin'!

Nearly always or always, LMOHM? I know you think your past experience makes you a mouthpiece for all gays everywhere (like some others here) but here's something to think about.

Yes, LMOHM, you have to remember...you aren't allowed to speak from personal experience. Only the assumptions of those who haven't the first clue what they're talking about can be considered. Get with the program, dude.

 

[Stripe]

Yes, LMOHM, you have to remember...you aren't allowed to speak from personal experience. Only the assumptions of those who haven't the first clue what they're talking about can be considered. Get with the program, dude.

:chuckle:

:think:

Waitaminute... PB's not a homo? :shocked:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You're calling sex a red herring when homos are defined by the fact that they engage in a specific perversion of the act?

Homosexuals are NOT defined solely by their actions. A person can be gay or straight and never have sex with anyone at all. :mrt::duh:
It is a red herring in that you are the one confusing sex and love. Sex can be, but is not necessarily, an expression of love. For both hetero and homosexuals.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Yes, LMOHM, you have to remember...you aren't allowed to speak from personal experience. Only the assumptions of those who haven't the first clue what they're talking about can be considered. Get with the program, dude.

No- you aren't allowed to speak AUTHORITATIVELY from personal experience. You can tell us your personal experiences until the cows come home and I have no objections. It's when you start making sweeping generalizations that you begin to be questioned: "Lots of the gays I knew were promiscuous, therefore all gays around the world are". Being an ex-gay doesn't make you the mouthpiece for the gay community.

 

[MrRadish]

:squint:

Uh. OK. I don't agree.

You'd disagree with the dictionary definition of a word. OK. Your loss

So how about you just answer the question. How do you know that two men who have sex with each other love each other?

You don't, in exactly the same way that you don't know that a man and a woman who've had sex love each other. It can be as a result of the fact that they love each other, but it's not proof by any stretch of the imagination. However I - and much of the rest of society, and users of dictionaries - don't think that homosexuality is solely defined by whether or not some has had sex with someone of their own gender; rather that it is defined by whether or not they are romantically/erotically interested in people of their own gender.

 

[kmoney]

I really would like to know where Stripe is going with this. :idunno:

 

[Door]

Stripe... You are correct, don't let the fruits or the root vegetable fool you.

A homo is defined by their behavior, not their desire. You don't call someone who wants to steal a thief, you call someone who has stolen a thief. A person who has the desires is perverted, just as those who define both the desires and the behavior as acceptable, are perverts.

 

[MrRadish]

I don't believe this.

I actually quote the dictionary as to the definition of homosexuality, and you flat out deny it. Make up your own word for someone who's committed an homosexual act, but for goodness' sake don't hijack existing words because you don't like what they actually mean.

Look:

# A person who prefers emotional and sexual relations with the member of the same gender.
www.ifsha.org/glossary.htm

# A person that is emotionally and/or physically attracted to persons of the same sex. Describes a persons sexual orientation.
www.alexandra.st/

# Of or relating to persons who experience a sexual attraction toward, and responsiveness to, members of their own sex.
www.state.mi.us/msp/cjic/ucr/ucr_m.htm

# a man whose sexual preference is to men
www.gay-rehab.com/drug-treatment-definitions.html

# One whose sexual attraction and desire is for people of the same sex.
www.thehardnessfactor.com/exclusives/glossary.html

# A person whose sexual attraction is to people of the same sex. A homosexual man may be called gay; a homosexual woman may be called lesbian or gay.
www.negativeorpositive.com/negative/terminology.html

# A person who is attracted to individuals of the same gender.
www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/sexual-health-glossary

# A person who is sexually attracted primarily to members of her or his own gender.
www.sexualcounselling.com/Glossary/Glossaryh.htm

# someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex
# sexually attracted to members of your own sex
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior or attraction between people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual

# A person who is attracted solely or primarily to others of the same sex; Sexually attracted solely or primarily to other members of the same sex; Pertaining to homosexuality, as a relationship, an attraction, a desire, etc; Intended for or used by homosexuals, as a nightclub, a bar, etc
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homosexual

# A person who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex.
www.thebody.com/content/art33046.html

And I quoted the Oxford English Dictionary earlier on. Stripe and Door, homosexual do not have to have had sex. It is possible to be a virgin and a homosexual. That is what the word means, and I have shown this to you. What is your problem?

 

[Door]

I don't believe this.

I actually quote the dictionary as to the definition of homosexuality, and you flat out deny it. Make up your own word for someone who's committed an homosexual act, but for goodness' sake don't hijack existing words because you don't like what they actually mean.

Look:


And I quoted the Oxford English Dictionary earlier on. Stripe and Door, homosexual do not have to have had sex. It is possible to be a virgin and a homosexual. That is what the word means, and I have shown this to you. What is your problem?

The word "homosexual" was coined in 1868. The behavior has been around a great deal longer. Dictionaries only tell you what men write in them. Call it what ever you want. God determined long before that what we now call homosexuality is derived from the act, not a desire. You can also look up bogus definitions of love in your dictionary. Dictionaries change as individuals give words new meaning. Surely you were aware of that.

 

[MrRadish]

The word "homosexual" was coined in 1868. The behavior has been around a great deal longer. Dictionaries only tell you what men write in them. Call it what ever you want.

Language is made by man. Of course dictionaries contain what men write in them; they also are the authority on what a word means at a given time. The English word 'Homosexual' currently means 'one who is attracted to members of their own gender'. Whether or not that is what you want it to mean, that is the connotation of the word.

God determined long before that what we now call homosexuality is derived from the act, not a desire.

No, He merely said that the act was a sin. That's entirely different. The two have nothing to do with each other.

You can also look up bogus definitions of love in your dictionary. Dictionaries change as individuals give words new meaning. Surely you were aware of that.

Of course they do. And the current meaning of homosexuality is the attraction and not the act.

As I say, I find it perplexing that you even think you have a leg to stand on here. It'd be like me going about saying that the Empire State Building was a bungalow, then getting aggressively confrontational when challenged, to the point I said the dictionary was lying when it calls a bungalow "a small, one-storey home built in a turn of the century style, often with a prominent front verandah". It's simply nonsensical.

 

[Door]

You are not a very intelligent person, Mr Radish, so I'll try not to go over your head.

It does not make any difference what someone calls the Empire State Building, it only matters what it is. You can call it a Radish if you want. Naming anything and then defining it does not equate with truth. Truth is that which agrees with God's view of things, not man. If God calles the Empire State Building a "Turd", then that is what it is. Man would be wrong for calling it anything else.

You are attempting to define a homosexual based on majority opinion. That is meaningless. The same people who want to define homos, also want to define heterosexuls, when no such being exists. God calls us male and female. That's it. Males who sleep with males are worthy of death. If you do not want to call them homos, I could care less. Call them craconians if you want, it doesn't matter, but craconians are craconians based on what they do, not what they desire. No one is born a murderer, thief, child molester, or rapist. They are those things because they choose to do those things. Same with homos. I don't care if every dictionary on the planet decides to say a thief is someone who covets other peoples property, they are not theives unless they steal it. Until then, they are just covetous.

 

[MrRadish]

You are not a very intelligent person, Mr Radish, so I'll try not to go over your head.

:yawn:

It does not make any difference what someone calls the Empire State Building, it only matters what it is. You can call it a Radish if you want. Naming anything and then defining it does not equate with truth. Truth is that which agrees with God's view of things, not man. If God calles the Empire State Building a "Turd", then that is what it is. Man would be wrong for calling it anything else.

Your argument falls down, of course, in that God never uses the English word 'homosexual' in the Bible. Being that it's not written in English (understand?). God says nothing about what the word 'homosexual' should mean. He simply tells men not to "lie with mankind as with womankind".

You are attempting to define a homosexual based on majority opinion. That is meaningless. The same people who want to define homos, also want to define heterosexuls, when no such being exists. God calls us male and female. That's it. Males who sleep with males are worthy of death. If you do not want to call them homos, I could care less. Call them craconians if you want, it doesn't matter, but craconians are craconians based on what they do, not what they desire.

:bang:
No, they're not. The word 'homosexual' refers to one who 'desires' their own gender. You've just made up the word 'craconian', use that to refer to men who have actually slept with each other if you will, but my point remains that that is something completely different to the actual meaning of the word 'homosexual'.

No one is born a murderer, thief, child molester, or rapist. They are those things because they choose to do those things. Same with homos.

If you desire food then you are considered hungry. You don't choose to be hungry and yet you are hungry without having to have performed a specific act.

I don't care if every dictionary on the planet decides to say a thief is someone who covets other peoples property, they are not theives unless they steal it. Until then, they are just covetous.

If the meaning of the word 'thief' changes to mean 'somebody who covets' then that's what the word 'thief' would mean. That wouldn't make all coveters instantly become what we currently define as 'thieves'. Say the word for 'somebody who has committed the act of theft' changed to - to use your word - 'craconian'. Why then, people would be commanded not to be craconians. Craconianism would be the illegal act, not theft. What's the matter with that?

Whether you like it or not, the meaning of words has been changing throughout history. Did you know, for example, that the word 'child' used to specifically refer to girls, hence The Winter's Tale: "A boy or a child, I wonder?"? The Bible was not written in English, nor did God write a dictionary. You can't play the 'Truth (tm)' card when it comes to semantics.

 

[Door]

The word 'homosexual' refers to one who 'desires' their own gender.

Okay, since you are in the word definition changing business, what would you like to call today those who lie with someone of the same sex?

 

[MrRadish]

Okay, since you are in the word definition changing business, what would you like to call today those who lie with someone of the same sex?

There are a few options. "Someone who has sex with their own gender" would be an obvious one. "Sexually active homosexual/bisexual" could be another. As far as I know there isn't currently a single word for it in the same way there isn't a direct antonym for 'virgin', other than 'not a virgin'.