Good News On Hiv?

[Evil Goblin]

 

In that case, my apologies. I didn't realise that your opinions were based purely on bigotry.

 

Since when has rational following of facts been bigotry? Or is the term one you use to abuse people when yur own view is shown to be totally wrong and you won't admit it?

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. [Mark Twain]

The facts being pretty clear this cannot be seen as anything other than a cop out trying to save some face. And just which facts do you suggest I have distorted? Mmmm..........thought not.

[Terse]

The facts being pretty clear this cannot be seen as anything other than a cop out trying to save some face. And just which facts do you suggest I have distorted? Mmmm..........thought not.

The 'facts' that you proclaim are, to say the very least, subjective. You appear to believe that if you consider something to be true, then it becomes a 'fact.'

[Evil Goblin]

And what are these facts which you claim are purely subjective?

[Chinahand]

Nothing you say changes the fact that sexual activity is designed for reproduction

 

No Evil Goblin - this clearly shows you are ignorant of biology - nothing in biology is designed for anything. That telelogy is entirely absent and only exists in your imagination.

 

That is the point I was making to you - the evolution of life involves exaptation of past processes.

 

These processes are not there so that a future purpose could develop from them, they are not designed, they are simply processes that exist in nature and are useful for life or neutral or even negative, but not so negative to be filtered out by either random chance, or natural selection.

 

If life finds a way to use those processes then it does - that is not a perversion of those purposes, unless you wish to use that word to describe every biological process you have from blood clotting to sight to conciousness all of which have emerged from prior processes which had little or nothing to do with their current ones.

 

Homosexuality is no more a perversion than using sex for pair bonding is a perversion or the fact your appendix is a good environment for pro-biotics. These are simply changes to a process which existed previoiusly which nature uses in doing what it does.

 

I say again are ants a perversion because they have abandoned sex to slave for their sister's offspring.

 

You seem to want homosexuality to be a pervesity. That has nothing to do with nature, and so I can only see it as coming from your attitude to people.

 

If you think you are not being rude saying LDV is a perversion then get real, you are being grossly offensive, and I reiterate that has nothing to do with nature and biological processes. Where else can it therefore lie - within you and your attitudes.

[somewhatdamaged]

If this is what Christians are like, i'm glad i'm not one

[somewhatdamaged]

 

But you're antagonistic, very rude and now you seem to suggest you're some sort of knight in shining armour, quoting from your book of fairy tales. Do you ride a white horse when you carry your sword? You're just as arrogant as you are deluded.

 

 

It may be worth your reading Matthew 5, pay particular attention to verse 15, and verse 37 might explain why I may appear to you to be arrogant.

 

Please explain why the writings in that old book should be treated as the definitive truth?

[thebees]

Hello Mrs Bees, have you finished sputting yet. That post made me laugh so much it hurt. (I have a damaged rib) It should be up for post of the year. Spit, spat, sput. Pure genius.

 

Alright mate, thanks and get well soon Oh they just make me laugh really, they probably have as much fun posting their utter cods wallop as I do. I do feel ever so slightly superior to them which isn't so good but people have tried and tried to help them but some people are just loons. Talking of which I was reading a book recently about some people who were involved in a DMT experiment, there was one chappy met with botty raping crocs on his journey, imagine that was to happen to you (there is a suggestion that the brain releases DMT when you die and when you are born, thus heaven & hell are 'trips') and there you were waiting for the angels with their harps......good luck spooks lol

[La_Dolce_Vita]

In terms of sexual congress, activities involving people of the same sex deviates from the purpose of sex and so it is deviant sex.

I think Chinahand has answered this. There is no matter of deviance.

 

Personally I find the very thought of the close emotional relationship between man and woman being repeated between two same sex people distasteful, and that is without gong into the mechanics of extending the emotional relationship into a physical one.

But this is simply your own homophobia.

 

Just wanted to set the record straight on that point and maybe for anyone who does hate people because of their sexual orientation to raise the importance of seeing the person, not the sin.

You can't separate homosexuality from the person. Homosexuality is not just sex and that's the same with heterosexuality. A person's sexuality makes them who they are, shapes how they think, who they relate to, etc. You can't separate. You therefore consider them to be distasteful people.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

From the OED - "to pevert - to turn (a person or thing) aside from its proper use or nature". Seems pretty clear that this properly refers to homosexuality. You should stop loading the proper meanings of words with your own emotional baggage (a fault LDV regularly exhibits)

Emotional baggage? A naive assessment. Words carry baggage and unless you weren't aware they carry particular meanings.

Your fault is that you appear stuck trying to use a discourse that doesn't have anything to back it up. You want to maintain the importance of establishing whose 'in' and who's 'out', who is right and who is wrong, but it all remains the act of the powerful trying to create a concept that doesn't conform with how people really are.

 

I am interested though, you do seem to quite hostile to homosexuality. Why are you homophobic?

[jimbms]

Nothing you say changes the fact that sexual activity is designed for reproduction

So what about a couple where one is sterile, are you saying they should not indulge in sex because it is not for reproduction but pleasure only.

 

I am interested though, you do seem to quite hostile to homosexuality. Why are you homophobic?

LDV I do wish you would stop misusing that word, I myself although I do not hate or fear homosexuals do not find it in any way part of my views of sexual activity but there is no way you can class that as homophobic as I do not hate or fear such I just regard it as different, now rotten pixies views I would say are more biggotry than homophobia because he hates anything that does not conform to his views, homosexuality being just one minor part and as such deserves no individual status.

 

Alright mate, thanks and get well soon Oh they just make me laugh really, they probably have as much fun posting their utter cods wallop as I do. I do feel ever so slightly superior to them which isn't so good but people have tried and tried to help them but some people are just loons. Talking of which I was reading a book recently about some people who were involved in a DMT experiment, there was one chappy met with botty raping crocs on his journey, imagine that was to happen to you (there is a suggestion that the brain releases DMT when you die and when you are born, thus heaven & hell are 'trips') and there you were waiting for the angels with their harps......good luck spooks lol

thebees dear you never cease to bring me much amusement to you wonderful and happy outlook on life and everything, please never change.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV I do wish you would stop misusing that word, I myself although I do not hate or fear homosexuals do not find it in any way part of my views of sexual activity but there is no way you can class that as homophobic as I do not hate or fear such I just regard it as different, now rotten pixies views I would say are more biggotry than homophobia because he hates anything that does not conform to his views, homosexuality being just one minor part and as such deserves no individual status.

I have explained a number of times what homophobia is. It isn't simply hatred of gay people. And it certainly doesn't mean a fear of homosexuality.

You seem incapable of learning this point.

 

A person who holds to a view that homosexuality is perverted must hold homophobic views and are therefore homophobic.

[jimbms]

LDV I do wish you would stop misusing that word, I myself although I do not hate or fear homosexuals do not find it in any way part of my views of sexual activity but there is no way you can class that as homophobic as I do not hate or fear such I just regard it as different, now rotten pixies views I would say are more biggotry than homophobia because he hates anything that does not conform to his views, homosexuality being just one minor part and as such deserves no individual status.

I have explained a number of times what homophobia is. It isn't simply hatred of gay people. And it certainly doesn't mean a fear of homosexuality.

You seem incapable of learning this point.

 

A person who holds to a view that homosexuality is perverted must hold homophobic views and are therefore homophobic.

See again you have it mixed up I said a person who hates everythingnot classed as normal is more than homophobic because homophobia cannot be singled one when other things are hated equaly, now I did ask how you can call a person homophobic if that person does not think it perverted nor fears or hates it but just does not see a point of it just the same as you cannot see the point of hetrosexual lifestyles, oh and if you say phobic is not defined in dictionaries as fear of then I suggest a new dictionary, homosexuality cannot have a seperate definition of phobia just for it's self.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I did misunderstand what you meant by this particular type of person, i.e. someone who hates everything that is not normal. That is not the same as someone who hates other people who views are different. In either case, this is not who EvilGoblin appears to be. I have yet to encounter someone who hate everything that is classed as abnormal or hates others who do not agree with the.

 

Maybe it is far simpler for me to identify what is homophobic or not, given that you are largely unaware of it and the words meaning.

I am quite aware of what phobia and phobic is but whatever homo and phobic might mean by themselves, homophobia has never been related to fear. It isn't the same as agoraphobia or arachnophobia. It is like racism. Forget dictionaries, if you can't tell the difference then you need a new brain.

 

Going back to your comments on others just thinking something is 'different' or 'can't see the point in it', I don't really know what you're getting it. You are being very vague so I can't answer. If the assumed difference was one of thinking that homosexuality is something entirely different and weird whereas heterosexuality was 'proper' then that would be a homophobic viewpoint. In themselves however, the two statements are vague.

[jimbms]

no no no ok simple form I accept that homosexuality is a from of sexuality like hetrosexualiy, transexuality etc etc and therefore to the people who each of these concerns this is normal. ie to homosexuals homosexuality is normal, to hetrosexuals hetrosexuality is normal, it is only when this turns to non acceptance or hatred that it becomes homophobia, transphobia, hetrophobia etc, view of not being normal alone cannot be classed as these if acceptance is present, therefore if you view homosexuality as normal it does not make you hetrophobic but if you also includes a hatred and non acceptance of it then it becomes that.

[Evil Goblin]

From the OED - "to pevert - to turn (a person or thing) aside from its proper use or nature". Seems pretty clear that this properly refers to homosexuality. You should stop loading the proper meanings of words with your own emotional baggage (a fault LDV regularly exhibits)

Emotional baggage? A naive assessment. Words carry baggage and unless you weren't aware they carry particular meanings.

Your fault is that you appear stuck trying to use a discourse that doesn't have anything to back it up. You want to maintain the importance of establishing whose 'in' and who's 'out', who is right and who is wrong, but it all remains the act of the powerful trying to create a concept that doesn't conform with how people really are.

 

I am interested though, you do seem to quite hostile to homosexuality. Why are you homophobic?

LDV - I do not consider myself homophobic in that I do not hate or fear homosexuals, neither to I advocate discrimination against them. I simply come to the conclusion that homosexuality is, using the dictionary definitions of the words and not loading them with any emotional attachment, perverted and deviant i.e. the assessment is impersonal. Words carry meaning all right, and unless we adopt common meanings for words we will not communicate effectively. Those meanings are properly those contained in acknowledged authorities e.g. the OED and should not carry subjective undertones.

 

As for your waffle about discourses, what are you on about?