Prop 8?

If someone you love - like your own child - is gay, you suddenly become a "liberal" thinker. God moves in mysterious ways.

There's nothing mysterious about that sort of thing.

Despite my making it plain on the ID threads about 10,000 times that I believe that anti-ID derives from emotional self-justifications for throwing off the disciplines of the Christian religion, usually in the sexual field, you obviously have not picked up on it yet.

Spendius wrote:

Despite my making it plain on the ID threads about 10,000 times that I believe that anti-ID derives from emotional self-justifications for throwing off the disciplines of the Christian religion, usually in the sexual field, you obviously have not picked up on it yet.

********************************************************************

You are absolutely correct. Self Hate is endemic in the gay community.

But. all is not lost. Roman Catholic doctrine is clear. There is no problem if two people of the same sex live together for companionship as long as they are celebate. The Roman Catholic Church will not, of course, recognize any kind of marriage between two people of the same sex but there is no hate against them as members of the church as long as they are celebate.

Why do you think that might be?

How about the idea that the wisdom of the world is what the Church read off Nature and incorporated in its doctrines. That those doctrines are not just thought up for no reason. They are entirely in congruence with Darwin's description of evolution.

It might be that a reduction in self-esteem is involved in opposing the wisdom of the world and possibly leading to a weakening of immune systems.

The fact that the traditional and colloquial mode of discourse concerning homosexuality is banned by PC does not alter the general feeling of those who have been exposed to those modes of discourse all their lives.

And the Church is much more concerned with male homosexuality than with the female variety. That issue has become clouded. As has the difference between a degree of informal toleration/understanding and official recognition.

Haven't you heard, they've both been exploring the gay communities and performing road-side psychiatry a la Lucy in Peants, otherwise trolls wouldn't have access to any of that knowledge. Homophobia is endemic under their mossy bridges with their friends, the star-nose moles. They haven't quite figure out how to use the moles.

You are doing your side no favours LW by continually referring to posters who are answering the questions of other posters as "trolls". You imply that the poster being answered is also a troll. Which she isn't.

It demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how to conduct civilised debate. It demonstrates intolerance and it demonstrates a repetitive and unimaginative style which I can hardly imagine any intelligent person seeking to emulate. It constitutes a powerful argument against your own side.

If you were't so dumb and needed cognitive therepy, you'd realize that your post was not visible as we posted at the same time. Go back to your mossy bridge with genoves, the other troll, to kiss and make up (you just ignored him as your friend).

He not-so-cleverly dodged you question as he doesn't have any idea of the answer, but could make one up in his afternoon master bating.

Keep on digging mate.

What? Your grave? Would the dimensions 3 ft. by 6 ft x 4 ft. be close, or would that be a shallow grave.

I have to say, I didn't get that at first, but now I'm wondering- am I a 'star-nosed mole'?
I kinda like that - one of the more creatively descriptive things I've been called on this forum.

No, but seriously Lightwizard, I am interested in what Genovese thought may be contributing factors to any perceived self-hate endemic within the gay community. I find it interesting, if not fascinating and sometimes even educational, to actually read and and then have the opportunity to think about how people who tend to have differing views from mine have arrived at them.
The more I read of him, the more I can't simply disregard him as a 'troll'. His own psyche is starting to become as fascinating to me as any of the subjects he posts on. And I'm not being condescending or facetious.

Spendius - I do not consider a troll at all. Not by a long shot. I've learned a lot on this forum from Spendius. Again, although he sometimes comes to different conclusions than I do and maybe because we seem to have started from such different backgrounds, I often find it interesting to read his thoughts on very, very basic questions such as the one I asked. So I'm glad he answered.

Because I was thinking about it, even moreso after I asked the question this morning, and although when I asked the question, my mindset was that the major source of it is probably extrinsic and imposed upon people who are gay (or who don't or are unable to conform in ANY way that society deems acceptable, as a matter of fact), after more thought, I do have to admit that there might be at least a small component that is innate within the person, precisely for the reason that Spendius mentioned.
Of course, that would necessitate a certain personality type- not all personality types would adopt such responsibility for something that was not of their making or within their control to change. But some would.

Tell me what answers Pope Spendius XXX has offered where he's talked you down on an opinion, enriched your life or otherwise illuminated a subject your were trying to grasp? Can you remember any and where are they?

As to the clone of a clone of a clone of a clone "Genovese" -- does that mean you know he is Italian? Perhaps Sicilian?

I don't know anything about Genovese- not even that he's Italian (despite the fact that his user name seems to point in that direction - I wouldn't assume that to be a fact). I look at Genovese and the thoughts he expresses the same way I look at Pamela Rosa - with a real sort of detached interest and curiosity about what happened in their lives to have led them to the thoughts and conclusions they've seemed to have come to. It's interesting to me.

Spendius has never 'talked me down' on an opinion. That's the point - he's always talked to me as an equal, with respect. He allows me to state my thoughts and he states his own. And I think he's a good thinker - and that he's thought a lot about a lot of things that I haven't thought so much about - so it's interesting to me to read.
That's not to say that I don't believe that I've also thought a lot about things he hasn't and you haven't thought a lot about things that he or I haven't....everyone has had their different thoughts. I like reading some peoples' thoughts on certain things and other peoples' thoughts on other things.
Isn't that the point of the forum?

I find it difficult to reconcile a person feeling that gays should have the freedom to marry, but that I can't have the freedom to read and appreciate the writings of who I want to read and appreciate.
So I could marry another girl - but if I don't think Spendius is a troll- there's something wrong with me?

I've learned a lot from Spendius about many things- vocabulary and literature to name the first two that pop into my head. And me being me - those things mean something to me, whether they mean anything to anyone else or not.

To each his own -- it's not necessary to defend them unless you believe they are unable to defend themselves and there isn't anyone trying to take away your freedom to read anyone's post on this forum. Being "talked down" on an opinion has nothing to do with an equality or freedom, it's changing your mind about an opinion you do not agree with.

Oh- I misunderstood what you meant by being talked down.
Well then I have to admit that though I don't agree with him on his stance concerning birth control and homosexual marriage, after reading what he's written on this thread and others, I do see his point that both birth control and homosexual marriage (and abortion) would seem to be anti-evolutionist, at least in Darwin's model.

And I would have been interested to see how other people would have either refuted that point, or even simply acknowledged or approached it, although as far as I've read - no one has taken that task on.
I have no answer myself, except to say that at this stage in the history of the world, not employing the means that we've developed to curb the growth of the planet's population, would mean suicide of the species instead its survival.

And an interesting question just occurred to me although this isn't the specific thread - how does Spendius reckon NOT using birth control and allowing the population to continue unchecked growth compares (when looked at in terms of environmental hazard and harm to the planet) with me taking a plane ride when I have to go home to visit my family?
(He's often scolded me for that). Would I be more moral if I had not used birth control and produced ten children to squander the earth's resources?

There are no Creationuts or IDiots who can satisfactorily explain any connection with birth control or homosexual marriage having to do with any evolution principals including natural selection. Why not bring up hybrid roses or dog breeding? Just as absurd. He likes to go back to Darwin, ignoring the advances in evolutionary science which has confirmed and expanded on Darwin and although Darwin couldn't be complete with the technology of his day, he is being proven basically right day after day. Mixing it all up with some kind of warped social Darwinism is the Spendi bag and he's too lazy to read any books or go onto the internet to prove his point. He want's us to prove his point for him. Sorry, he's not worth taking the time to do so. He's better off in the pub, clanking together his pints with minds more on his level for as long as he can stay on that bar stool.

But if you actually understand everything he is writing, I'd consider cognitive therapy.

Well, I'm not a 'creationut' or 'IDiot', but I can see how birth control and abortion would impact 'natural' selection. You're limiting the pool by artificial or unnatural means.


But I'm perfectly fine to marry a girl....you just can't see your judgments for your judgments can you?
I guess you decide who gets what freedoms - and if anyone differs from what you believe - they need some sort of therapy.
Again - I just can't reconcile that mindset- and you call these guys judgmental.

I think the only way I can tie birth control to natural selection is "fit."

It normally goes that a creature adapts to it's environment. Humans have become so powerful that we adapt our environment to us. The absence of birth control in a time like ours means probably that a larger % of population with a lesser fit (but augmented by technology) exist.

Raw thoughts, hardly a theory though.

T
K
O

With other countries, especially China and India with the largest populations, there is more demand to eat meat, especially beef. In order to supply the entire population of Earth with just beef, we'd need four planets to raise enough grain to feed the cattle.

Homosexuality has existed since recorded history and that is why it is mentioned in the Old Testament. There's various ways that nature has been the force controlling the population. How about a comet hitting the Earth. That'll work. It's all random.

Of course, we influence evolution by not having children or practicing birth control but there is no proof it is or is not natural selection and so what? It exists. Period.

I guess the Medieval chastity belt was not considered birth control?
Technology has allowed us to adapt our environment to us, sometimes not in a good way (or we wouldn't even be discussing global warming).

Yes, Diest TKO, a lot of writing in this forum are "raw thoughts" but there some that are half-baked ramblings but represented as profound thoughts. Or so we're told.

And I decide who gets freedom? That whole statement is just too absurd to address.