The Meaning of Life

[chaz wyman]

Is this touched by a hint of irony?

I don't know what this means, but I often don't agree with you, so it's fun when I do.

I meant only that because you are gay, and I am not, if there's going to be a debate, you would be the more informed party to lead the charge for the opinion we share.

hahaha. No - i'm not gay.
My partner is a lady.
I think you need to read back. Just because I understand desire and love in men-men, does not have to mean I'm gay.
Some of my friends are gay and I've had some good offers, but never had the desire or want to take them up on it.
When I was a teenager the thought was a bit revolting, and I don't think i'd be comfortable seeing explicit gay sex even now, but I know its not a valid claim to say it is unnatural because I'm uncomfortable with it.

What I do know is that when I was a on the brink of teen-hood, one morning I woke up thinking about girls. I did not choose this; I think it is the same for gay people. One morning they wake up thinking about the same sex. Nothing could be more natural to examine those feelings and to acknowledge their homosexuality. Good luck to them.

[Felasco]

hahaha. No - i'm not gay.
My partner is a lady.

Ha. ha! Well now you simply must admit that I've conclusively PROVEN my case that you are the most qualified to be the lead attorney on the case. Admit it, admit it, I was right all along!

Of course you're not gay, you're an alien spacetrooper from the planet Xeon9 here on a mission to make spinach the leading life form on this planet, just like you clearly stated in your post above.

[chaz wyman]

hahaha. No - i'm not gay.
My partner is a lady.

Ha. ha! Well now you simply must admit that I've conclusively PROVEN my case that you are the most qualified to be the lead attorney on the case. Admit it, admit it, I was right all along!

Of course you're not gay, you're an alien spacetrooper from the planet Xeon9 here on a mission to make spinach the leading life form on this planet, just like you clearly stated in your post above.

How did you find my secret?? The Xeonain Empire will crush the spinach eaters of Earth!
Today the broccoli tomorrow the Spinach!!!

[reasonvemotion]

Is it not rather presumptuous to publicly state your opinion CW is gay? Yet you feign shyness in sharing your expert knowledge of "creative positioning" for men and expressed an interest in the resolution of gay marriage in the Catholic Church in a previous post.

Who is the closet gay here?

[chaz wyman]

Is it not rather presumptuous to publicly state your opinion CW is gay? Yet you feign shyness in sharing your expert knowledge of "creative positioning" for men and expressed an interest in the resolution of gay marriage in the Catholic Church in a previous post.

Who is the closet gay here?

BTW...

You earlier stated you view about the scripture's view of homosexuality, but you did not answer my question.

Do you personally hold this view to be true that homosexuality is unacceptable?

[reasonvemotion]

This topic always seems to stir up people faster than any other topic as Felasco has already stated. You have the people who accept it as being no different than any other lifestyle, live and let live attitude and then the people who think homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. If it is natural why the early death rates from Aids?

My answer to your question is I do object to homosexual practices as written in the Scriptures, as I also cannot accept licentious behavior in a person. Obviously you are more libel minded than I am. As you have directly asked me the question, I have answered truthfully, but normally I dont advocate this publicly.

[chaz wyman]

This topic always seems to stir up people faster than any other topic as Felasco has already stated. You have the people who accept it as being no different than any other lifestyle, live and let live attitude and then the people who think homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. If it is natural why the early death rates from Aids?

If is natural breathing -- the why the early death rated from TB?

ANd how about all those heterosexuals, heroine addicts, Haitians, and Haemophiliacs that were also in the high risk groups a the start of the HIV crisis. Is God also punishing them?
The fact is that most AIDS cases are unborn children and babies in Africa. Fuck all to do with homsexuality.


My answer to your question is I do object to homosexual practices as written in the Scriptures, as I also cannot accept licentious behavior in a person. Obviously you are more libel minded than I am. As you have directly asked me the question, I have answered truthfully, but normally I dont advocate this publicly.

None of that has anything to do with you. Gays and not sitting round telling you not to suck cock (and you have sucked cock), so what right have you got to tell them how to behave.
O did not think you were such a moralist tight-arse. then I don't really take you seriously here. I think you are just playing devil's advocate. (or moron's advocate in this case_

[reasonvemotion]

Oh dear

[chaz wyman]

Oh dear

gotcha?

[reasonvemotion]

Gotcha? Nope. To venture further into this is now against my better judgment, but here goes.

Homosexuality is statistically practiced by less than 5% of the population, so how can it be considered the norm. As you believe evolution is how human beings got here, then explain how an inclination toward a particular type of behavior, homosexuality, can survive genetically since it does not produce offspring? Would it make sense, to say, that evolutionarily speaking, that which producess offspring would be the norm. So from an evolution standpoint, homosexuality would be abnormal and it would be a learned behavior.

[Felasco]

Homosexuality is statistically practiced by less than 5% of the population, so how can it be considered the norm.

We could quibble over the percentage. We should probably take in to account that many gays will pay a penalty in their lives if they report their preference honestly. But anyway, whatever the number, it's surely not the majority. Agreed.

Which raises the question...

So what?

As you believe evolution is how human beings got here, then explain how an inclination toward a particular type of behavior, homosexuality, can survive genetically since it does not produce offspring?

Um, I would explain it by reporting that it has survived for thousands of years.

Would it make sense, to say, that evolutionarily speaking, that which producess offspring would be the norm.

That which produces offspring is the norm, agreed. But uh oh, my straight sex has not produced any offspring, and time's up for me. Am I an abomination now too?

White people are the norm (not for much longer) in North America. Right handed people are the norm. People with brown hair are the norm. People who think philosophy forums are silly are the norm.

What does "the norm" have to do with anything?

So from an evolution standpoint, homosexuality would be abnormal and it would be a learned behavior.

Homosexuality is a minority experience. That's the objective evidence based way to say it.

Your use of the word "abnormal" seems to be an attempt to stretch the fact of "minority" all the way to an imaginary "immoral". Perhaps that's good theology in your tradition, but it's not a strong argument on a philosophy forum.

[Felasco]

This topic always seems to stir up people faster than any other topic as Felasco has already stated.

Some of find the use of the Christian religion, which is explicitly supposed to be about love, as a vehicle for discrimination, bigotry and a thinly veiled hatred against a long victimized minority group to be a rather offensive and logically incoherent form of mental illness.

To see how that works, imagine that the rest of us got together and passed some laws prohibiting people of your religion from marrying each other. If that were to happen, would the people of your religion get stirred up?

[reasonvemotion]

Homosexuality is statistically practiced by less than 5% of the population, so how can it be considered the norm.

Felasco:

We could quibble over the percentage. We should probably take in to account that many gays will pay a penalty in their lives if they report their preference honestly. But anyway, whatever the number, it's surely not the majority. Agreed.
So what?

I don't believe it is quibbling on my part, I have given you a statistical fact. You are the one quibbling and assuming.

As you believe evolution is how human beings got here, then explain how an inclination toward a particular type of behavior, homosexuality, can survive genetically since it does not produce offspring?

Felasco:

Um, I would explain it by reporting that it has survived for thousands of years.

Due to the fact that the majority are male and female couplings, and if it were not so, the human race would be extinct by now.


Would it make sense, to say, that evolutionarily speaking, that which producess offspring would be the norm.

Felasco:

That which produces offspring is the norm, agreed

But uh oh, my straight sex has not produced any offspring, and time's up for me. Am I an abomination now too?

This debate is not about individuals who, for medical reasons, are unable to have babies, or the pros and cons of individuals having or not having children. It is about same sex couples.

Felasco:

White people are the norm (not for much longer) in North America. Right handed people are the norm. People with brown hair are the norm. People who think philosophy forums are silly are the norm.

What does "the norm" have to do with anything?

I am just continuing the line of argument first presented by C.W. who used the word "norms". I am happy to dispense with that word.

C.W. wrote

Unless you are denying those norms which I quoted, I think this post of yours has very little of interest.

So from an evolution standpoint, homosexuality would be abnormal and it would be a learned behavior.

Felasco:

Homosexuality is a minority experience. That's the objective evidence based way to say it.

If that makes you happy, I can agree with that correction. It doesnt change the numbers.

Felasco:

Your use of the word "abnormal" seems to be an attempt to stretch the fact of "minority" all the way to an imaginary "immoral". Perhaps that's good theology in your tradition, but it's not a strong argument on a philosophy forum.

Assuming again, what I do not say. You have a strong tendency to err on the side of assumptions. That is a serious error on a philosophy forum.

Felasco:

Some of find the use of the Christian religion, which is explicitly supposed to be about love, as a vehicle for discrimination, bigotry and a thinly veiled hatred against a long victimized minority group to be a rather offensive and logically incoherent form of mental illness.

To see how that works, imagine that the rest of us got together and passed some laws prohibiting people of your religion from marrying each other. If that were to happen, would the people of your religion get stirred up?

As I have stated previously, I do not have a religion.

"People did not get together" to make the law regarding same sex marriage, undesirable. It was written in the Scriptures. Nowhere in the bible does it condem the homosexual, only the sexual practices. If you wish to view this from a practical health stance, unprotected receptive anal sex is considered the sex act most likely to result in HIV transmission. You can argue it is practised by both sexes. Indeed it is, but I argue that is the reason why male and female were created with a unique and beautiful design. To complement each other sexually and spiritually.

[Felasco]

I don't believe it is quibbling on my part, I have given you a statistical fact.

We'll only know what the real number is when there's no price to paid for coming out of the closet. Your number isn't a fact, it's an assertion.

As you believe evolution is how human beings got here, then explain how an inclination toward a particular type of behavior, homosexuality, can survive genetically since it does not produce offspring?

Are you asking how a form of sexuality that has been reported in every time and place for thousands of years can survive?

Due to the fact that the majority are male and female couplings, and if it were not so, the human race would be extinct by now.

We don't need a majority of couples to be straight and produce children, we just need some. I don't know the percentage of couples who have children, do you?

Would it make sense, to say, that evolutionarily speaking, that which producess offspring would be the norm.

Again, what does the norm have to do with anything?

This debate is not about individuals who, for medical reasons, are unable to have babies, or the pros and cons of individuals having or not having children. It is about same sex couples.

You've brought children in to the conversation, so I'm asking you to explain why you are against some sexuality that doesn't produce children, but not other sexuality that also doesn't produce children.

If that makes you happy, I can agree with that correction. It doesnt change the numbers.

Again, what do the numbers have to do with anything? If only six people on earth were gay, is that a good reason to oppress them??

"People" did not band together to make the law regarding same sex marriage, undesirable. It was written in the Scriptures.

Wait, I thought you said you don't have a religion? Do you or don't you?

Nowhere in the bible does it condemn the homosexual, only the sexual practices.

To which I would ask, who cares?

If you wish to view this from a practical health stance, unprotected receptive anal sex is considered the sex act most likely to result in HIV transmission. You can argue it is practised by both sexes. Indeed it is, but I argue that is the reason why male and female were created with a unique and beautiful design. To complement each other sexually and spiritually.

Are you aware that using that unique and beautiful design, straight people pass tons of diseases back and forth?

So far, you've put nothing on the table but the Bible, and a claim that you don't have a religion, which would seem to make that book irrelevant.

[reasonvemotion]

We'll only know what the real number is when there's no price to paid for coming out of the closet. Your number isn't a fact, it's an assertion.

Price to be paid for coming out? LOL

In the U S of A, homosexuality is one of the most powerful groups, that have successfully passed "special gay rights" legislation, which is unprecedented for groups of minority. If one objects, that person or persons are labelled homophobic or as you put it homo-haters.

Are you asking how a form of sexuality that has been reported in every time and place for thousands of years can survive?

I am proposing that homosexuality is not genetic, it is learned behavior.

We don't need a majority of couples to be straight and produce children, we just need some. I don't know the percentage of couples who have children, do you?

To which I will borrow your reply. I would ask, who cares?

Again, what does the norm have to do with anything?

Just picked up the word during the course of this debate.

You've brought children in to the conversation, so I'm asking you to explain why you are against some sexuality that doesn't produce children, but not other sexuality that also doesn't produce children.

that is not the issue.

Again, what do the numbers have to do with anything? If only six people on earth were gay, is that a good reason to oppress them??

It is the practice of homosexuality I condem. Not "them" as you so eloquently put it.

Your concern for homosexuals is touching Felasco, but not reciprocated.

An editorial in Steam, a magazine for homosexuals, quotes a man who has been HIV positive since the early years of the epidemic: "I'm so sick and tired of these Negatives whining about how difficult it is to stay safe. Why don't they just get over it and get Positive." According to Scott O'Hara, Steam's HIV-positive editor: "One of my primary goals is the maximization of pleasure, and just as I believe that gay men have more fun, so too, do I believe that Positives have learned to have much more fun than Negatives. I'm delighted to be Positive. . .The Negative world is defined by fear, ours by pleasure."

Wait, I thought you said you don't have a religion? Do you or don't you?

Do I or don't I? Cool your jets, Felasco. LOL


No I do not have any affiliation with any religion, be it Catholicism, Baptist, there are many more, their names escape me.

Nowhere in the bible does it condemn the homosexual, only the sexual practices.

To which I would ask, who cares?

OK, well that is insightful, since the discussion is about the Scriptures and homosexuality. Why are you here?

Are you aware that using that unique and beautiful design, straight people pass tons of diseases back and forth?

I can be more specific than that.

The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected heterosexual intercourse is 1 in 715,000. The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected homosexual intercourse is 1 in 165.

So far, you've put nothing on the table but the Bible,

I thought that was the topic. What have you contributed to counteract my stance. Nothing of note.

and a claim that you don't have a religion, which would seem to make that book irrelevant.

According to the philologist Max Müller, the root of the English word "religion", the Latin religio, was originally used to mean only "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, which is all that is needed when reading the Scriptures.