The Gay Pride (Oxymoron) Parade

[Door]

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'.

This doesn't change anything, except your insistence to change the meanings of words.

Anyone (whatever you want to call them) who desires someone of the same sex, does not deserve to be executed.

Anyone (whatever you want to call them) who actually lies wth someone of the same sex does.

Feel better?

 

[MrRadish]

This doesn't change anything, except your insistence to change the meanings of words.

Except that I'm the one with pretty much every dictionary you could care to look at on my side, but we'll leave this little detail alone; I understand you want to retain some vestige of dignity by the end of the debate.

Anyone (whatever you want to call them) who desires someone of the same sex, does not deserve to be executed.

Anyone (whatever you want to call them) who actually lies wth someone of the same sex does.

Feel better?

Yes. Thank you That's much better expressed, in my opinion. Naturally, I disagree with you, but it makes things much clearer when the distinction is made. Going back to Stripe's original point that started this whole argument, I think the difference between asking "How do you know that those who desire the same sex love each other" and "How do you know that people who are sexually active with members of the same sex love each other" is enormous, and thus it's very important to make it clear which one we mean, and communicate in the same language. Call me a bluff old traditionalist but I was banking on people using Modern English, as defined by the dictionary. Sorry if this expectation was unrealistic.

 

[Door]

Except that I'm the one with pretty much every dictionary you could care to look at on my side, but we'll leave this little detail alone; I understand you want to retain some vestige of dignity by the end of the debate.

No, I just came to the conclusion, that you are far too stupid to converse with on a level of logical reasoning, so I chose to go at this another route.

Yes. Thank you That's much better expressed, in my opinion. Naturally, I disagree with you, but it makes things much clearer when the distinction is made. Going back to Stripe's original point that started this whole argument, I think the difference between asking "How do you know that those who desire the same sex love each other" and "How do you know that people who are sexually active with members of the same sex love each other" is enormous, and thus it's very important to make it clear which one we mean, and communicate in the same language. Call me a bluff old traditionalist but I was banking on people using Modern English, as defined by the dictionary. Sorry if this expectation was unrealistic.

Your understanding of love is just as corrupt as your understanding of other terms. People who have sex with members of the same sex never love each other. It is a contradiction of terms. Love does no wrong to it's neighbor.

 

[Stripe]

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

Not really. I disagree with your insistence that two men having sex does not define them as homos....

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.

I think your picking nits in order to avoid answering a simple question ..

 

[red77]

You think being affectionate means love?

Why do you think homos love each other?

Affection is one characteristic of love, EIOAC did an ample explanation of what love comprises of, would you agree? Because otherwise we're just getting into a conversation of what love itself actually is if you don't....

I think 'homos' are just as capable of showing said love the same as heterosexuals, why do you presumably think they can't?

 

[red77]

The points that were "ignored" were mine. He made no points, and neither have you.

What I pointed out in my first post is indisputable, except by someone who has zero sense of decency or respect for anyone but himself.

PB merely pointed out that physical attraction is often a first step in a relationship, it's also completely natural to be attracted to someone physically attractive, how you leap from such a statement to rants about decency and respect is a complete anathema, by itself physical attraction is very rarely enough to sustain a healthy relationship which was also stated...

 

[Frank Ernest]

How is Gay Pride an oxymoron anyway?

Whether you like gays or not, you can't deny the fact that some of them are proud of so being.

The annual Gay Pride parade in Louisville has become the Kentuckiana Pride parade. Wonder why the word "gay" disappeared.

 

[red77]

You're a moron. Who cares what you think? :yawn:

I proved PB to be the pervert he is.

:think:

If you 'prooved' it then perhaps you can quote just where, exactly, PB advoacted treating women as solely things? Is being honest enough to admit to finding a beautiful woman attractive on par with perversity now?

 

[Stripe]

Affection is one characteristic of love, EIOAC did an ample explanation of what love comprises of, would you agree? Because otherwise we're just getting into a conversation of what love itself actually is if you don't....

Not really. I'm still trying to get an answer out of people as to how they know homos love each other. What part of what they do shows that their expressions are motivated by love?

I think we should agree that the term homo refers to men who have sex with each other.

I think 'homos' are just as capable of showing said love the same as heterosexuals, why do you presumably think they can't?

I haven't said anything about this.

 

[Door]

I think we should agree that the term homo refers to men who have sex with each other.

That depends on whether or not any new dictionaries were published in the last 24 hours, according to Mr. Radish.

 

[Delmar]

Affection is one characteristic of love, EIOAC did an ample explanation of what love comprises of, would you agree? Because otherwise we're just getting into a conversation of what love itself actually is if you don't....

I think 'homos' are just as capable of showing said love the same as heterosexuals, why do you presumably think they can't?

How can anyone who rejects the God of creation, to the point of having sex with another man, love anything but his own perversion. You are just nasty and you should go away!

 

[Stripe]

That depends on whether or not any new dictionaries were published in the last 24 hours, according to Mr. Radish.

Every definition he provided mentioned sex. I don't understand why he is so hung up about the fact that homos like being perverts... :chuckle:

 

[MrRadish]

Every definition he provided mentioned sex. I don't understand why he is so hung up about the fact that homos like being perverts... :chuckle:

The definitions I gave mentioned 'sexual attraction', which is different to sex. You and I are sexually attracted to women (well I would assume you are; if you're not then your insistence that there's no such thing as sexual orientation makes a lot more sense). You don't have to have had sex with a woman to know this. In the same way, a homosexual doesn't have to have had sex with another homosexual to know they're attracted to their own gender.

Anyway, I don't think this debate is going to go anywhere seeing as you don't seem prepared to accept any definition of a word but your own little meaning that you made up. So let's move on.

Had you actually read the thread you'd notice that I did answer your question about how we know homosexuals love each other. the answer being that we don't, but only to the same extent we don't know that a heterosexual couple love each other. Love seem manifests in various ways such as mutual affection and concern, all of which is evidence - though not proof - of love. Like I said though, you might as well ask how we know men and women love each other. You can't know for certain what other people are feeling; I don't see why the question is relevant.

 

[Door]

Anyway, I don't think this debate is going to go anywhere seeing as you don't seem prepared to accept any definition of a word but your own little meaning that you made up. So let's move on.

You are the dumbest person alive. :rotfl:

The only person who accepts "made-up" meanings is YOU.

What a completely self-absorbed retard, you are. :loser:

 

[red77]

How can anyone who rejects the God of creation, to the point of having sex with another man, love anything but his own perversion. You are just nasty and you should go away!

How can someone who gossips and lies love anything else but their own sin? Does that mean a person who gossips isn't capable of love as well? how exactly am I being 'nasty' for simply recognising that homosexual people are human beings like the rest of us? they have to eat, sleep, work and do everything else the 'normal' people do and undoubtedly have emotions and feelings as well....

 

[Door]

btw, dimwit, "Love" is not a feeling.

More proof that your worship of dictionaries has let you down. :loser:

 

[red77]

Not really. I'm still trying to get an answer out of people as to how they know homos love each other. What part of what they do shows that their expressions are motivated by love?

I think we should agree that the term homo refers to men who have sex with each other.

Well, what part of what heterosexual people do shows that their expressions are motivated by love in your opinion?

I haven't said anything about this.

You did seem to be implying that they can't....

 

[Stripe]

The definitions I gave mentioned 'sexual attraction', which is different to sex. You and I are sexually attracted to women (well I would assume you are; if you're not then your insistence that there's no such thing as sexual orientation makes a lot more sense). You don't have to have had sex with a woman to know this. In the same way, a homosexual doesn't have to have had sex with another homosexual to know they're attracted to their own gender.

Anyway, I don't think this debate is going to go anywhere seeing as you don't seem prepared to accept any definition of a word but your own little meaning that you made up. So let's move on.

Had you actually read the thread you'd notice that I did answer your question about how we know homosexuals love each other. the answer being that we don't, but only to the same extent we don't know that a heterosexual couple love each other. Love seem manifests in various ways such as mutual affection and concern, all of which is evidence - though not proof - of love. Like I said though, you might as well ask how we know men and women love each other. You can't know for certain what other people are feeling; I don't see why the question is relevant.

So you cannot tell if two people love each other. That's really sad, Radish.

 

[Stripe]

Well, what part of what heterosexual people do shows that their expressions are motivated by love in your opinion?

Heterosexual people? You mean married couples? If they remain faithful to God and to each other, raise good children and are a good example for the world then I would say they love each other. But then again you're only looking for another line of discussion so you can avoid answering the question ..

You did seem to be implying that they can't....

Everyone is capable of expressing love.

 

[red77]

So you cannot tell if two people love each other. That's really sad, Radish.

Well how do you gauge it? How do you know whether two people love each other or not? how they hold hands? how they talk to each other? If you saw two strangers being (not sexually) intimate would you presume to know whether or not they loved each other?