The Gay Pride (Oxymoron) Parade

[Door]

Well how do you gauge it? How do you know whether two people love each other or not?

When they abhor what is evil and cling to what is good. When it is their life's goal to guide that person into the truth at all costs, and not to compromise it. To do no wrong towards them. To always have the other person's best interest as their agenda.

 

[red77]

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 ..

Then your defintion of love is one of total subjecture, plenty of heterosexual couples wouldn't fit your parameters of what would constitute 'loving each other' never mind homosexual ones....

Everyone is capable of expressing love.

Then, after all this time of asking this question you've ironically answered it yourself, well done! :thumb:

 

[Door]

Then, after all this time of asking this question you've ironically answered it yourself, well done! :thumb:

You are really dense. Everyone can express love. Homosexuals cannot, and do not. Their behavior and/or support of that behavior, proves that they do not love. Do you think the person who raped your sister loved her? There is no difference.

 

[Stripe]

Then your defintion of love is one of total subjecture, plenty of heterosexual couples wouldn't fit your parameters of what would constitute 'loving each other' never mind homosexual ones....

Of course it's subjective! Of course I do not think everyone who has sex loves each other!

Then, after all this time of asking this question you've ironically answered it yourself, well done! :thumb:

:squint:

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

[red77]

You are really dense. Everyone can express love. Homosexuals cannot, and do not. Their behavior and/or support of that behavior, proves that they do not love. Do you think the person who raped your sister loved her? There is no difference.

So....

Everyone can express love? I hate to break this to you Door but "everyone" would include homosexuals, and frankly, saying that there's no difference between what a rapist does to their victim and what two consenting adults get up to is just so moronic I'm not even gonna bother going down that road again.....

 

[Stripe]

Red. You're really stupid and not worth talking to. So I'm going to stop doing so.

Feel free to say something smart anytime you like..

 

[red77]

Of course it's subjective! Of course I do not think everyone who has sex loves each other!

:liberals:

Ya, neither do I, in fact neither I, nor anyone else, has even hinted that two people who have sex automatically love each other, you're obfuscating and I can only presume it's because your own 'fuzzy logic' isn't making any sense even to you.....

:squint:

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

I'm certain that you don't know what you're talking about....

 

[red77]

Red. You're really stupid and not worth talking to. So I'm going to stop doing so.

Feel free to say something smart anytime you like..

You first....

 

[Door]

So....

Everyone can express love? I hate to break this to you Door but "everyone" would include homosexuals, and frankly, saying that there's no difference between what a rapist does to their victim and what two consenting adults get up to is just so moronic I'm not even gonna bother going down that road again.....

I said CAN, dimwit. It is within their ability. They CHOOSE to do otherwise. What is it with your perverts and you inability to understand the meanings of words.

There is NO DIFFERENCE, between what a child molester does, what a rapist does, what a murderer does, what an adulterer does, and what a homo does. They ALL hate their neighbor.

YOU, red77, are a hater. YOU hate people. You HATE your neighbor. You have no interest in the truth. You have no problem with clinging to what is evil, and abhorring what is good. You have no problem with doing wrong to your neighbor. You do not seek anyone's best interst. You are a godless, worthless, insignificant, excuse for a human being.

 

[Stripe]

I said CAN, dimwit. It is within their ability. They CHOOSE to do otherwise. What is it with your perverts and you inability to understand the meanings of words.

There is NO DIFFERENCE, between what a child molester does, what a rapist does, what a murderer does, what an adulterer does, and what a homo does. They ALL hate their neighbor.

YOU, red77, are a hater. YOU hate people. You HATE your neighbor. You have no interest in the truth. You have no problem with clinging to what is evil, and abhorring what is good. You have no problem with doing wrong to your neighbor. You do not seek anyone's best interst. You are a godless, worthless, insignificant, excuse for a human being.

Careful door. You'll hurt the evil moron's feelings.

 

[MaryContrary]

Gay 'love' nearly always finds its root in lust.

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.

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.

So was LMOHM making a "sweeping generalization" or just speaking from personal experience, PB?
But besides all that. That's bull. You guys make "sweeping generalizations" about homos ALL THE TIME! Constantly! just about every time you speak on the subject. But when someone else even suggests something contrary to that you toss out "generalization" and "stereotype", as if these same rules don't apply to you.
All this has ever proven to me is that you lot refuse to even entertain another viewpoint on this matter and that you don't care if your position is false or not.

 

[red77]

I said CAN, dimwit. It is within their ability. They CHOOSE to do otherwise. What is it with your perverts and you inability to understand the meanings of words.

I understand them just fine, the same as when I understand other people's twisting of definitions to suit their own case, even by your 'logic' a homosexual wouldn't have the ability to express love, because they'd have to be heterosexual in order to do so....

There is NO DIFFERENCE, between what a child molester does, what a rapist does, what a murderer does, what an adulterer does, and what a homo does. They ALL hate their neighbor.

By your "logic" everyone hates their neighbour if there's no 'difference' between behaviours, everyone who lies, who gossips, slanders, covets, is envious, unloving, unmerciful, greedy, etc etc etc etc etc.....
thankfully most people are capable of recognising that despite human weaknessess, which we all have, is the capability to love,
most people can also recognise that any act that violates and/or takes the life of another is profoundly worse than an act of consent between adults....

YOU, red77, are a hater. YOU hate people. You HATE your neighbor. You have no interest in the truth. You have no problem with clinging to what is evil, and abhorring what is good. You have no problem with doing wrong to your neighbor. You do not seek anyone's best interst. You are a godless, worthless, insignificant, excuse for a human being.

Ya, I guess every time I donate to a charity that helps abused children and try to do my bit to help people out I'm doing it out of hate Door, get a grip and quit pretending you have a monopoly on the truth, if you had then you might actually be able to get your head around the concept of finding a beautiful woman attractive whilst not being sinful, something which you've still yet to address regarding your 'truth' to Plastikbuddha.....

 

[red77]

Careful door. You'll hurt the evil moron's feelings.

Well, he'd have the same chance as you in that regard Stripe...

 

[Stripe]

So was LMOHM making a "sweeping generalization" or just speaking from personal experience, PB?
But besides all that. That's bull. You guys make "sweeping generalizations" about homos ALL THE TIME! Constantly! just about every time you speak on the subject. But when someone else even suggests something contrary to that you toss out "generalization" and "stereotype", as if these same rules don't apply to you.
All this has ever proven to me is that you lot refuse to even entertain another viewpoint on this matter and that you don't care if your position is false or not.

:think:

:thumb:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

So was LMOHM making a "sweeping generalization" or just speaking from personal experience, PB?

Originally Posted by lovemeorhateme
"Gay 'love' nearly always finds its root in lust."
Clearly that is a generalization from personal experience.

But besides all that. That's bull. You guys make "sweeping generalizations" about homos ALL THE TIME! Constantly! just about every time you speak on the subject.

Such as? Things like "they are human beings who have the same rights to express their deisres and affections as any other American citizen?" That's not a generalization from personal experience it's a simple fact of American law.

But when someone else even suggests something contrary to that you toss out "generalization" and "stereotype", as if these same rules don't apply to you.

I "toss out" generalizations and stereotypes because they are valueless and dehumanizing. And generally WRONG.

All this has ever proven to me is that you lot refuse to even entertain another viewpoint on this matter and that you don't care if your position is false or not.

You haven't shown me anything that could falsify my position. My position isn't that all homosexuals have loving, caring relationships or that all gays are paragons of goodness and decency. My position is that gays can live as they please, so long as they abide the laws of our nation. My position is that gays have the same capacity for love and hate, pleasure and pain, and decency and indecency as any other human being. You are insulted because I won't take your "expert" testimony over that of all of the gay people I have known and all the gay people who make their voices heard in this nation. I'm not going to do that. Nobody's personal experience trumps reality, not my own, not LMOHMs, and not yours- and the reality is that gay people are still people, and people are not easily sterotyped. They are complex and varied and individualistic and come in many different varieties.

 

[Lighthouse]

There is no reason to hating or outlawing homosexuality other than some creed from any random religion that is steeped in procreation. If it's patrons were to turn homosexual there would be no more kiddies to raise in the creed and the faiths continuation would rest solely on converts. It's really no surprise they would write in homosexuality is an abomination. If people would stop to think why an act that harms no one is considered a sin people would see the hypocrisy behind it.

Harms no one? How's that stick working out for you?

 

[MaryContrary]

Originally Posted by lovemeorhateme
"Gay 'love' nearly always finds its root in lust."
Clearly that is a generalization from personal experience.

Still not a "sweeping generalization", nor "valueless and dehumanizing" as you later characterize such things. Sure, it's a generalization. So what? You overreact though, pure and simple. Because it presents a viewpoint you don't like.

Such as? Things like "they are human beings who have the same rights to express their deisres and affections as any other American citizen?" That's not a generalization from personal experience it's a simple fact of American law.

Who even mentioned any of this stuff? We were talking about your reaction to LMOHM's statement.

I "toss out" generalizations and stereotypes because they are valueless and dehumanizing. And generally WRONG.

No, they're not. What a silly thing to say. Heck, you just made a generalization about generalizations. Apparently, you found some value in that one. Are they always dehumanizing, PB?

You haven't shown me anything that could falsify my position. My position isn't that all homosexuals have loving, caring relationships or that all gays are paragons of goodness and decency. My position is that gays can live as they please, so long as they abide the laws of our nation. My position is that gays have the same capacity for love and hate, pleasure and pain, and decency and indecency as any other human being. You are insulted because I won't take your "expert" testimony over that of all of the gay people I have known and all the gay people who make their voices heard in this nation. I'm not going to do that. Nobody's personal experience trumps reality, not my own, not LMOHMs, and not yours- and the reality is that gay people are still people, and people are not easily sterotyped. They are complex and varied and individualistic and come in many different varieties.

Blah, blah, blah. I never mentioned any of this bunk. Heck, I agree with most of it. We're talking about the dichotomy in devaluing personal observation and opinion on a subject when it disagrees with your position while holding out one's own personal observations and opinions as relevant.
In point of fact, PB, when someone who has little or no personal experience on a subject completely dismisses the observations of someone else, who is intimately familiar with it, that's usually a pretty big red flag that you have no objectivity (to put it mildly). And I see this around here constantly on a number of issues, particularly homosexuality. It's as if you lot have (hey, look, I'm making a generalization) accepted what you've been told so fundamentally that even when others object, who know what they're talking about, you don't listen. You judge what they say solely on the basis of whether or not it conforms with what you've been taught. If it does not, you dismiss it and question even the honesty of it.
There's a word for that, you know.

 

[red77]

Still not a "sweeping generalization", nor "valueless and dehumanizing" as you later characterize such things. Sure, it's a generalization. So what? You overreact though, pure and simple. Because it presents a viewpoint you don't like.

Who even mentioned any of this stuff? We were talking about your reaction to LMOHM's statement.

No, they're not. What a silly thing to say. Heck, you just made a generalization about generalizations. Apparently, you found some value in that one. Are they always dehumanizing, PB?

Blah, blah, blah. I never mentioned any of this bunk. Heck, I agree with most of it. We're talking about the dichotomy in devaluing personal observation and opinion on a subject when it disagrees with your position while holding out one's own personal observations and opinions as relevant.
In point of fact, PB, when someone who has little or no personal experience on a subject completely dismisses the observations of someone else, who is intimately familiar with it, that's usually a pretty big red flag that you have no objectivity (to put it mildly). And I see this around here constantly on a number of issues, particularly homosexuality. It's as if you lot have (hey, look, I'm making a generalization) accepted what you've been told so fundamentally that even when others object, who know what they're talking about, you don't listen. You judge what they say solely on the basis of whether or not it conforms with what you've been taught. If it does not, you dismiss it and question even the honesty of it.
There's a word for that, you know.

Do you see the lack of objectivity from those who put homosexuals in the same category as child molestors and rapists? In fact some go so far as to say that homosexuality is worse?!
And it cuts both ways, there's plenty of people who from their own experience know gay people and have told you the opposite of what you've experienced, are you objective enough to recognise that?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Still not a "sweeping generalization", nor "valueless and dehumanizing" as you later characterize such things. Sure, it's a generalization. So what? You overreact though, pure and simple. Because it presents a viewpoint you don't like.

That statement is both sweeping ("nearly always") and dehumanizing ("finds its root in lust"). It is not an overreaction to point out these flaws. It is not a "viewpoint" I don't like, but a sterotype.

Who even mentioned any of this stuff? We were talking about your reaction to LMOHM's statement.

You are the one who brought up stereotypes. saying I throw them around when convenient. And LMOHM's stuff was a response to MY words, not vice versa.

No, they're not. What a silly thing to say. Heck, you just made a generalization about generalizations.

Stereotypes aren't accurate reflections of people. They are mental short-hand for those who can't be bothered with the truth. And a generalization about generalizations is not the same as a generalization about human beings. People are a little more complex.

Apparently, you found some value in that one. Are they always dehumanizing, PB?

When made about people? Usually. It is possible to have a positive stereotype, but even that may backfire.

Blah, blah, blah. I never mentioned any of this bunk. Heck, I agree with most of it. We're talking about the dichotomy in devaluing personal observation and opinion on a subject when it disagrees with your position while holding out one's own personal observations and opinions as relevant.

I'm not devaluing it. I'm not saying your testimony is worthless or LMOHM's. I'm saying it isn't the be-all, end-all last word on homosexual afairs. There are a lot of gays and many of them would disagree vehemently with you, LMOHM, me, and each other on various matters. It seems to me that you feel slighted that I don't value your word above my own, not the opposite BTW.

In point of fact, PB, when someone who has little or no personal experience on a subject completely dismisses the observations of someone else, who is intimately familiar with it, that's usually a pretty big red flag that you have no objectivity (to put it mildly).

I have personal experience in this subject. I am a human being. Love is a human emotion, it doesn't disappear from a person when they turn gay. I don't dismiss your personal experience, I just don't give it the weight you want me to. I am objective- I have no vested interest in the homosexual "agenda", only truth.

And I see this around here constantly on a number of issues, particularly homosexuality. It's as if you lot have (hey, look, I'm making a generalization) accepted what you've been told so fundamentally that even when others object, who know what they're talking about, you don't listen.

You could be describing yourself, you know... I don't accept ANYTHING fundamentally. I question everything.

You judge what they say solely on the basis of whether or not it conforms with what you've been taught. If it does not, you dismiss it and question even the honesty of it.

Talking to the mirror again? Seriously, the irony is rolling off of that sentence like stink off a polecat.

There's a word for that, you know.

Fundamentalism?

 

[MaryContrary]

Do you see the lack of objectivity from those who put homosexuals in the same category as child molestors and rapists?

I recognize that lack of objectivity is why you can't see that the "category" you're talking about is criminal penalty and this doesn't equate how wrong these things are.

In fact some go so far as to say that homosexuality is worse?!

Again, depends on the context. In some contexts, it is worse. In others, not. You're the one insisting stating it is worse in one context then it must apply to all.

And it cuts both ways, there's plenty of people who from their own experience know gay people and have told you the opposite of what you've experienced, are you objective enough to recognise that?

Of course. Which is why I present my own experiences and opinions in contrast. And why I get a little ticked off when they're dismissed as irrelevant despite that fact. Pay attention.