Religious arguments and analogies that really bother you

[Kharakov]

Baryons seem a little gay to me, but they had to deal with a lot of peer pressure.

Photons.

Photons put the gay in gauge boson. Who do do think makes rainbows?

Brains?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm new to this thread. Is this post meant to be a joke? If it's serious, that's some of the oddest shit I've read in a while.

No, humbleman's also new to this thread, but continuing to flog a horse he spit on in another thread.

Notice that he doesn't come anywhere near the actual point of my post, but i brought up his hobgoblin so he has to prove his homophobia is rational.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Question is, what is your proof that those other individuals between species have not their brain f*cked up and they just are mental sick.

Don't have any. Don't need any. It was a simple response to mention that it occurs in a LOT of nature. Then the burden would be on YOU to support your claim that it's anti-nature.

Have you talk with the lesbian chicken to know why she rejects roosters?

You know no one has. Of course, you also don't have any interviews to prove it's anti-nature, either. So, where's YOUR evidence for YOUR claim?

Now well, no other species perform abortions, then humans must stop practicing it because it's an abnormal behavior in our species, right?

No one is saying humans can be homosexual BECAUSE other animals are.
We ARE saying your claim that it's unnatural needs a lot more evidence.
Or, you know, ANY evidence.
Any evidence at all...

 

[James Brown]

I miss rhutchin and Self-Mutation.

 

[humbleman]

Don't have any. Don't need any. It was a simple response to mention that it occurs in a LOT of nature. Then the burden would be on YOU to support your claim that it's anti-nature.You know no one has. Of course, you also don't have any interviews to prove it's anti-nature, either. So, where's YOUR evidence for YOUR claim?

Now well, no other species perform abortions, then humans must stop practicing it because it's an abnormal behavior in our species, right?

No one is saying humans can be homosexual BECAUSE other animals are.
We ARE saying your claim that it's unnatural needs a lot more evidence.
Or, you know, ANY evidence.
Any evidence at all...

I'm very respectful and I can say bad words but never directly to a poster in these forums.

I can even mock of the different ideas posted here, but I don't use malicious language when talking about some participant here.

I really don't want to know of whom you were saying the following

" he's virulently anti-gay because his skybuddy says to be. I don't think I'd be happier than I currently am if I had to treat my gay son differently than the other two idiots.
His wife is a stay-at-home wife (and content, as far as he'll tell you), because that's God's plan. I don't think either of us, in my home, would be happier if her options were restricted that way. She'd certainly have fewer friends what with the ones she's met through work.
He tells Christoconservative 'jokes' that are not funny, just recounting things that he, personally, laughs aloud at. 'California hit by wildfires, fuck 'em for having liberal politics, a-hurgh-hurgh-hurgh.'"

You have portrayed a nice description of a person who disagrees with you and might also think like you but from his religious way of view.

My message responding your flowered posting, was to describe why many people are "virulently anti-gay".

It's very simple to understand: the human body has not been formed to have as a natural function the introduction of male organs or objects thru the anus.

Apparently this part is hard to be understood by you.

And I might add that actually it is hard to find a real homophobic.

Homophobic means that an individual will feel afraid of homosexuality and homosexuals.

Actually what most heterosexuals feel about homosexuals is not phobia but disgust.

I guess that this should be posted everywhere, because I have asked this question to others and no, no one said that they were afraid of homosexuals and their life style, but they indeed dislike what they do.

Having that God declared such sexual behavior as "abomination", then the followers of God are found in agreement with what God says.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm very respectful and I can say bad words but never directly to a poster in these forums.

I can even mock of the different ideas posted here, but I don't use malicious language when talking about some participant here.

I really don't want to know of whom you were saying the following

So, you skipped over the bit about 'a coworker down the aisle.'
I mean, i thought i made it clear. Why would you miss that detail?

My message responding your flowered posting, was to describe why many people are "virulently anti-gay".

No, you did not.
You tried to. Thing is, you focused on a male dick in a male anus.
Anal sex is not limited to homosexual males, and it's not universal in homosexual males, and the threat you pretend it poses is not one that stands up to scrutiny.
It's just you trying to rationalize your homophobia. I don't accept the rationale, so i do not covet this 'happiness' he claims to feel for being washed in the blood of someone who justifies his fears and hatred.

It's very simple to understand: the human body has not been formed to have as a natural function the introduction of male organs or objects thru the anus.

It's also not designed to travel at speeds in excess of 50 mph, but we do it regularly, sometimes obtaining great pleasure from the act.
But even if i, personally, did not enjoy traveling at such speeds, or feel there's some danger in the practice, it's not exactly my place to ban the behavior for my fears or whatever.

Apparently this part is hard to be understood by you.

No, no. I UNDERSTAND your point. I just don't accept it as logical basis for discrimination.

And I might add that actually it is hard to find a real homophobic.

No, not really. But it IS hard to find a homophobe who isn't in denial.

Homophobic means that an individual will feel afraid of homosexuality and homosexuals.

Not necessarily fear. Any aversion will do.

Actually what most heterosexuals feel about homosexuals is not phobia but disgust.

Most? Can you back that up? Once again, i have to ask you to justify your claims with evidence. Any evidence.
Anything at all...
And, 'disgust' would also qualify as homophobia if it's an irrational disgust. If no one's trying to stick you in the ass, what difference does it make to you what OTHER consenting adults do in their bedrooms?
The internet is FULL of disgusting sexual practices. Why single out one particular practice of some homosexuals?

I mean, i notice that every time you talk about homosexuals, you fixate on men fucking in the ass. This really seems to wig you out. It's not the only thing homosexuals do for pleasure, and it's not an act that only homosexual men perform, but YOU can't talk about anything else.

So, yeah, i diagnose it as homophobia. An irrational aversion to something that really poses no threat to you. Or at least, no unique threat that you don't also face from any number of heterosexuals you come into contact with on a daily basis.

I guess that this should be posted everywhere, because I have asked this question to others and no, no one said that they were afraid of homosexuals and their life style, but they indeed dislike what they do.

And if they DO fear homosexuals, but are in denial, as i suggest, what would their responses be? Would they try to rationalize it, saying that medical science supports their attitude, even though it really doesn't? WOuld they pretend that science is starting to see that 'god was right' to abominate it?

 

[humbleman]

And, 'disgust' would also qualify as homophobia if it's an irrational disgust. If no one's trying to stick you in the ass, what difference does it make to you what OTHER consenting adults do in their bedrooms?
The internet is FULL of disgusting sexual practices. Why single out one particular practice of some homosexuals?

I mean, i notice that every time you talk about homosexuals, you fixate on men fucking in the ass. This really seems to wig you out. It's not the only thing homosexuals do for pleasure, and it's not an act that only homosexual men perform, but YOU can't talk about anything else.

So, yeah, i diagnose it as homophobia. An irrational aversion to something that really poses no threat to you. Or at least, no unique threat that you don't also face from any number of heterosexuals you come into contact with on a daily basis.

I guess that this should be posted everywhere, because I have asked this question to others and no, no one said that they were afraid of homosexuals and their life style, but they indeed dislike what they do.

And if they DO fear homosexuals, but are in denial, as i suggest, what would their responses be? Would they try to rationalize it, saying that medical science supports their attitude, even though it really doesn't? WOuld they pretend that science is starting to see that 'god was right' to abominate it?

Your "analysis" of my person is far away but you might shape your talent by watching Criminal Minds and learn how those police agents profile others.

Perhaps this is a good reason to fear of "the spread" of homosexuality.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ire-caused-by-contagion-of-homosexuality.html

Fall of Roman Empire caused by 'contagion of homosexuality'
A prominent Italian historian has claimed that the Roman Empire collapsed because a "contagion of homosexuality and effeminacy" made it easy pickings for barbarian hordes, sparking a furious row.

 

[Keith&Co.]

When i was a kid, early high school, A scientist published an idea about why dinosaurs had gone extinct. He suggested that they had evolved such extensive armor that it interfered with their reproduction.

Even then, i knew that things did not evolve in the direction of having fewer babies.

Since then, I've been hesitant to give much credence to any random suggestion by one expert. Tell me when this idea's gone through peer review , JUST in case his facts aren't as strong as his prejudices.

 

[Sarpedon]

Well that's not entirely the case Kieth: Animals do sometimes evolve in the direction of having fewer babies; when the difference in amount of care or available habitat means that by investing more in fewer leads to a net gain in descendants.

But yeah, the idea that more armor=fewer babies is dumb. There were lots of unarmored dinosaurs.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Your "analysis" of my person is far away but you might shape your talent by watching Criminal Minds and learn how those police agents profile others.

well, i'm not prepared to testify to it, but your behavior , and lack of it, does seem consistent with my impression.

 

[humbleman]

Well that's not entirely the case Kieth: Animals do sometimes evolve in the direction of having fewer babies; when the difference in amount of care or available habitat means that by investing more in fewer leads to a net gain in descendants.

But yeah, the idea that more armor=fewer babies is dumb. There were lots of unarmored dinosaurs.

Kieth might be right in this case.

I will write something that is not known by many, I guess you might try to find it online, but is a finding that really can't be explained at all.

In China, with the transformation of the area happening in a remote era and the death of many dinosaurs, the proportion of dinosaur eggs was extremely higher in comparison to the assumed population of adults. When I say "extremely higher" you can't imagine a bird having a few eggs but a bird having tens and perhaps tens of tens of eggs.

 

[humbleman]

Your "analysis" of my person is far away but you might shape your talent by watching Criminal Minds and learn how those police agents profile others.

well, i'm not prepared to testify to it, but your behavior , and lack of it, does seem consistent with my impression.

When I have doubts, I just go straight to the point rather than being around and around making vain hypothesis.

I do the same when someone comes to me and talk about others.

One day with a neighbor of mine, we were talking outside in front of my door, and between trivial conversations, she told me that such and such woman who lived at such and such house was a lesbian.

So I asked her, How do you know? Have you been with her in a date or perhaps sexually involved?

I lost her friendship that afternoon, but I won't play with the integrity of others. Bad reputation usually starts with murmurs from malicious people.

If I ask someone if he/she is gay and he/she says no, that is enough for me regardless of what people say.

 

[Keith&Co.]

When I have doubts, I just go straight to the point rather than being around and around making vain hypothesis.

'Vain hypothesis?' What an interesting term, coming from you.

I was pretty straightforward when I talked about a coworker and you seemed to think I was talking about someone on the forum... You wouldn't know straight if it was nailed down with cable staples.

I do the same when someone comes to me and talk about others.

Like, say, when someone talks about an entire minority as if they were all the same? Suggesting homosexuals are all weak, and that the gender preference can 'spread?' That a lisp supports a diagnosis of a health risk?

Get down off your high horse, humbles. It's a sawhorse.

- - - Updated - - -

Well that's not entirely the case Kieth: Animals do sometimes evolve in the direction of having fewer babies;

Yes, I misspoke. I meant more along the lines of 'evolve in a direction where reproduction is less likely.'

- - - Updated - - -

I will write something that is not known by many, I guess you might try to find it online, but is a finding that really can't be explained at all.

I'm guessing either it can, or you're misrepresenting the find...

Citation?

 

[Kharakov]

This might be the one time in all of history that random claims are backed up by something on the internet.

 

[humbleman]

'Vain hypothesis?' What an interesting term, coming from you.

I was pretty straightforward when I talked about a coworker and you seemed to think I was talking about someone on the forum... You wouldn't know straight if it was nailed down with cable staples. Like, say, when someone talks about an entire minority as if they were all the same? Suggesting homosexuals are all weak, and that the gender preference can 'spread?' That a lisp supports a diagnosis of a health risk?

Get down off your high horse, humbles. It's a sawhorse.

- - - Updated - - -

Well that's not entirely the case Kieth: Animals do sometimes evolve in the direction of having fewer babies;

Yes, I misspoke. I meant more along the lines of 'evolve in a direction where reproduction is less likely.'

- - - Updated - - -

I will write something that is not known by many, I guess you might try to find it online, but is a finding that really can't be explained at all.

I'm guessing either it can, or you're misrepresenting the find...

Citation?

With that regular attitude of yours, better to leave it where it is and start anew.

As my grandpa said all the time to exacting people... do you want to learn?... do it at home!. Lol

 

[humbleman]

Something that disturbs from evangelicals is their preaching that the only necessary thing for salvation is "faith" alone.

Abraham was a man of faith, but before that, Abraham did learn the commandments, laws and statutes of God thanks to Melchizedek the High Priest in those days. This is to say, Abraham knew what was the topic, and with this knowledge he acted (obeyed) and expected (faith).

There are two aspects involved in a contract, one is to obey the correspondent part of the agreement, and the another part is having "faith" that the other party will also fulfill his part of the agreement.

Obedience and faith.

 

[Keith&Co.]

With that regular attitude of yours, better to leave it where it is and start anew.

So, that's a no, you can't cite any of your claims.
And put the blame on your failure on me. AND assign homework.

By Ki, what an unexpected turn!
But look! I made my save against apologist bullshit!

....I do wonder what you meant to say by 'regular attitude,' though.

 

[funinspace]

So, you skipped over the bit about 'a coworker down the aisle.'
I mean, i thought i made it clear. Why would you miss that detail? No, you did not.
You tried to. Thing is, you focused on a male dick in a male anus.
Anal sex is not limited to homosexual males, and it's not universal in homosexual males, and the threat you pretend it poses is not one that stands up to scrutiny.
It's just you trying to rationalize your homophobia. I don't accept the rationale, so i do not covet this 'happiness' he claims to feel for being washed in the blood of someone who justifies his fears and hatred.

It's very simple to understand: the human body has not been formed to have as a natural function the introduction of male organs or objects thru the anus.

It's also not designed to travel at speeds in excess of 50 mph, but we do it regularly, sometimes obtaining great pleasure from the act.
But even if i, personally, did not enjoy traveling at such speeds, or feel there's some danger in the practice, it's not exactly my place to ban the behavior for my fears or whatever.

Apparently this part is hard to be understood by you.

No, no. I UNDERSTAND your point. I just don't accept it as logical basis for discrimination.

And I might add that actually it is hard to find a real homophobic.

No, not really. But it IS hard to find a homophobe who isn't in denial.

Homophobic means that an individual will feel afraid of homosexuality and homosexuals.

Not necessarily fear. Any aversion will do.

Actually what most heterosexuals feel about homosexuals is not phobia but disgust.

Most? Can you back that up? Once again, i have to ask you to justify your claims with evidence. Any evidence.
Anything at all...

It is possible that Mr. Humble intended to mean that for those that are heterosexual and think homosexuality is a bigly sin, that ‘most of them’ are merely disgusted and not phobic. But as Mr. Humble has demonstrated over and over again, being forthright is not a trait he practices very often…

And, 'disgust' would also qualify as homophobia if it's an irrational disgust. If no one's trying to stick you in the ass, what difference does it make to you what OTHER consenting adults do in their bedrooms?
The internet is FULL of disgusting sexual practices. Why single out one particular practice of some homosexuals?

Almost seems like a fixation

I mean, i notice that every time you talk about homosexuals, you fixate on men fucking in the ass. This really seems to wig you out. It's not the only thing homosexuals do for pleasure, and it's not an act that only homosexual men perform, but YOU can't talk about anything else.

Well, it is a bigly abomination (only) in the OT, except when the ladies do it, then its sexy. But the funny thing is, so are about 400 other thingies called an abomination, like this cool one:

Ezekiel 18:10-13, where all that trade in interest are committing an abomination. I would think that would anyone who has any CDs or bonds, including in their IRA/401k.
“Then he may [g]have a violent son who sheds blood and who does any of these things to a brother 11 (though he himself did not do any of these things), that is, he even eats at the mountain shrines, and defiles his neighbor’s wife, 12 oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore a pledge, but lifts up his eyes to the idols and commits abomination, 13 he lends money on interest and takes increase; will he live? He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.

I wanda...I wonder, about this penis-male-ass fixation….

 

[humbleman]

So, you skipped over the bit about 'a coworker down the aisle.'
I mean, i thought i made it clear. Why would you miss that detail? No, you did not.
You tried to. Thing is, you focused on a male dick in a male anus.
Anal sex is not limited to homosexual males, and it's not universal in homosexual males, and the threat you pretend it poses is not one that stands up to scrutiny.
It's just you trying to rationalize your homophobia. I don't accept the rationale, so i do not covet this 'happiness' he claims to feel for being washed in the blood of someone who justifies his fears and hatred. It's also not designed to travel at speeds in excess of 50 mph, but we do it regularly, sometimes obtaining great pleasure from the act.
But even if i, personally, did not enjoy traveling at such speeds, or feel there's some danger in the practice, it's not exactly my place to ban the behavior for my fears or whatever. No, no. I UNDERSTAND your point. I just don't accept it as logical basis for discrimination.

And I might add that actually it is hard to find a real homophobic.

No, not really. But it IS hard to find a homophobe who isn't in denial.

Homophobic means that an individual will feel afraid of homosexuality and homosexuals.

Not necessarily fear. Any aversion will do.

Actually what most heterosexuals feel about homosexuals is not phobia but disgust.

Most? Can you back that up? Once again, i have to ask you to justify your claims with evidence. Any evidence.
Anything at all...

It is possible that Mr. Humble intended to mean that for those that are heterosexual and think homosexuality is a bigly sin, that ‘most of them’ are merely disgusted and not phobic. But as Mr. Humble has demonstrated over and over again, being forthright is not a trait he practices very often…

And, 'disgust' would also qualify as homophobia if it's an irrational disgust. If no one's trying to stick you in the ass, what difference does it make to you what OTHER consenting adults do in their bedrooms?
The internet is FULL of disgusting sexual practices. Why single out one particular practice of some homosexuals?

Almost seems like a fixation

I mean, i notice that every time you talk about homosexuals, you fixate on men fucking in the ass. This really seems to wig you out. It's not the only thing homosexuals do for pleasure, and it's not an act that only homosexual men perform, but YOU can't talk about anything else.

Well, it is a bigly abomination (only) in the OT, except when the ladies do it, then its sexy. But the funny thing is, so are about 400 other thingies called an abomination, like this cool one:

Ezekiel 18:10-13, where all that trade in interest are committing an abomination. I would think that would anyone who has any CDs or bonds, including in their IRA/401k.
“Then he may [g]have a violent son who sheds blood and who does any of these things to a brother 11 (though he himself did not do any of these things), that is, he even eats at the mountain shrines, and defiles his neighbor’s wife, 12 oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore a pledge, but lifts up his eyes to the idols and commits abomination, 13 he lends money on interest and takes increase; will he live? He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.

I wanda...I wonder, about this penis-male-ass fixation….

...but lifts up his eyes to the idols and commits abomination

Oh, I see, idolatry is the abomination.

 

[Keith&Co.]

...but lifts up his eyes to the idols and commits abomination

Oh, I see, idolatry is the abomination.

Any chance you could indicate what part of the above post this is meant as a response to?