dust1n
Zindīq
Ok I just want to make sure. I have a tendency to like try to separate facts from my own personal beliefs.
You have much greater patience than I do.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ok I just want to make sure. I have a tendency to like try to separate facts from my own personal beliefs.
I see no difference.
How does this disqualify him from humane treatment?
You have hetero organs between your legs. Their purpose is hetero reproduction.
Sorry to play the "science" card, but it's the quickest way to clear up your confusion. If you're born hetero, gay can be nothing else but behavioral.
Of course I'm ignoring them. They're usually driven politically, not scientifically.
That actually doesn't matter to me. On a fundamental level, ANY science that must redefine fundamentals of nature just to survive is not a science. From a scientific point of view, such a science is dysfunctional.
More like, you thought it best to pretend you never said those things rather than reply. Definitely a wise strategic choice.I didn't avoid your post, I found it unworthy of comment.
Um, no... You can't just make something up and claim "biology says this". We are a species which reproduces sexually (i.e. heterosexually), but this does not make us "a heterosexual species" per se- clearly, a species with a substantial homosexual subset is not "a heterosexual species".Biology defines us as a heterosexual species.
Um, no... Talk about a doozy of a non-sequitur.Homosexuals who have hetero reproductive organs must deny their natural condition to declare themselves homosexual.
That is not "the extreme of this position" (i.e. homosexuality), but something else entirely. You're just trying to throw a bunch of ***** at the wall, hoping some will stick.Psychology defines the extreme of this position as a disorder, "gender identity disorder".
As I said, only if "homosexuality" and "unnatural" mean something different to you than they do in ordinary English. Homosexuality is pretty rampant in the animal kingdom- and something which occurs in nature, without the intervention of human beings is, by definition, natural. Oopsies, eh?My claim that homosexuality is unnatural has the backing of accepted science.
Pst. I'd like to actually play... I can't even get a response... I really must have been blocked in that 3 minute window between his first response to me and original asking of two questions.
No.
You were demeaning them when you posted their behavior here without giving them a chance to speak for themselves, asking me to judge them.
When my appeals for decency and morality to gays so often fall on deaf ears, as they are with you, how should I judge you?
Frogs can change sex.No doubt the paramecium can't be defined as asexual, either, can it?
Where would human hermaphrodites be places (born with both sexes)?This is where the dysfunction takes place. Science has never defined homo sapiens as anything other than hetero.
Frogs can change sex.
There are many (70 or more) species of animals that engage in homosexual acts. I think doves have been recorded having necrophilic behaviors too.
Where would human hermaphrodites be places (born with both sexes)?
We could always try the "Caramel in the Bellybutton" game for giggles.
FYI, classification is a systematic grouping of objects into categories on the basis of their eligibility. Classification is a human operation. Not an innate characteristic of anything.Your classification as a heterosexual happens at birth. No amount of desires, attitudes or environment can change the presence of sex organs, ovaries or gender-related hormones.
You mean that my preference for Beefeater Gin over Gordon's Gin was determined at birth, and that the change in my preference for brunettes from blondes was determined at birth? Wow! it appears I have absolutely no free choice in what I like at all. I like what I like because I have to like what I like. So much for free will. :bonk:You're preferences are therefore also determined at birth.
Sorry, but GID only arises when a person experience significant dysphoria (discontent/emotional distress) with the sex they were born with, which is often abetted by social factors. Simply recognizing that one is of a different gender than their sex does not amount to gender identity disorder.To be homosexual, you must have strong environmental influences contrary to your nature. This is probably the central reason why, when a person feels that they were born with the wrong gender, psychologists refer to it as a disorder (gender identity disorder).
But that's the point, isn't it?
He did nothing more than state a personal preference. What right does anyone have to call him out?
What kind of nation are we if hetero people face retribution for simply coming out of the closet and claiming to be hetero?
Your classification as a heterosexual happens at birth. No amount of desires, attitudes or environment can change the presence of sex organs, ovaries or gender-related hormones.
You're preferences are therefore also determined at birth. To be homosexual, you must have strong environmental influences contrary to your nature. This is probably the central reason why, when a person feels that they were born with the wrong gender, psychologists refer to it as a disorder (gender identity disorder).
What point is that?But that's the point, isn't it?
You would do good to go read the interview and find out what was and was not said by Phil before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.He did nothing more than state a personal preference. What right does anyone have to call him out?
What kind of nation are we if hetero people face retribution for simply coming out of the closet and claiming to be hetero?
Well the responses got real quiet real quick lol.
in all reality, what is there left to say? we said everything already and then repeated it ad nauseam...it has lost it's entertainment value
I think she meant the responses from our friend Clarity. Although that isn't especially surprising either- what could he have left to say, that wouldn't just dig him in deeper than he is already?
I think she meant the responses from our friend Clarity. Although that isn't especially surprising either- what could he have left to say, that wouldn't just dig him in deeper than he is already?