First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
The Old Homosexuality/Bisexuality as Choice debate..
33538 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 1/3/12 , edited 7/5/12
I'll chime in my two cents here. I'd imagine most people here will agree with me, but for the minority who don't...

The fact is, homosexuality, as a sexual orientation, is not a choice. Most of the debate seems less about proving homosexuality is a choice more about trying to label homosexuality as a choice just to derogate homosexual individuals. And the label of choice isn't a description, it's propaganda. Because homosexuality manifests itself just as it does. I realize that's a tautological statement, but I think many of us have a vague idea of how sexuality manifests itself. There's no knowledge of if you're going to come out straight or gay or somewhere in between. It just happens. And sure maybe a host of arbitrary decisions led to your sexuality, but they were arbitrary. Arbitrary decisions are not choices. Choice implies you made a decision that wasn't arbitrary. And yet, despite the fact that homosexuality may manifest itself through a domino effect of arbitrary decisions at one hand and simply innate at the other doesn't make it any more or less a "choice." It just happens. To argue that homosexuality is a choice is simply to argue semantics. And people argue those semantics because they want homosexuality to be labeled as a choice.

The other side tries to extend homosexuality beyond sexual orientation and to be actively gay is a choice. Again, it's mincing words. Sure, if you want to get to the itty gritty of it, one does choose to have intimate relations or not. But to simplify something as complicated as one's sexual life to a simple choice of having a relationship or not having a relationship eclipses the issue of sexuality entirely. People have a sex drive, and people will want to have relationships. It's how we are. And to fight against our sex drive takes a sheer force of will. So why should anyone fight against their sex drive? The fact is, you don't choose to have a relationship or not to have a relationship. You choose to satisfy your natural desires or to fight against them. That's the choice. And here's where the word "choice" becomes nothing more than propaganda. If we say that homosexual individuals chose to abide to their natural impulses, we are saying that actively gay members are weak. They chose not to fight. However, heterosexual individuals are not branded in the same way. They are considered neither strong nor weak for abiding to their sexual impulses. The whole idea behind saying homosexual individuals "chose" to have a have a "homosexual lifestyle" (I detest the word lifestyle, but that's an aside) is nothing more than trying to label them as inferior, as if they're inherently weak for not fighting against what others do not need to. The entire point is simply to label homosexual individuals as weak, and isn't to give any insight into how homosexuality manifest itself.

And when it comes down to it, that's the main issue. The idea of arguing whether or not homosexuality is a choice seems like a sugar-coated PC way to argue whether or not homosexual individuals have parity. The entire debate only occasionally tangents on homosexuality manifests itself, but by far and large, actually does nothing to increase our knowledge about the world around us.
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/3/12 , edited 1/4/12

DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



Remember how I tried to spell my opinion out earlier? That was because my first post was put in a wrong way, and was easy to misinterprate. I even said so myself. It was an attempt to clarify my opinion. To correct my own mistake. Yet you just dismiss that, and keep focusing on my poorly written first comment, which I've already admitted to, was poorly written and vague.
Then why can't you just honestly say that "I sorry, and thank you for the clarification"? Just how hard is it for you to be humble and practice humility?


Because I shouldn't have to. You're not the one who clarified things for me. I'm the one who clarified something. So if anything, it's you who should apologize for wrongfully accusing me of lying to my friend and being a bigot, while continuing to focus on the trivial details, even when I tried to explain myself and correct my own mistakes.

I have no problem being humble and practice humility. But I'm really not the one who should be apologizing here.
Posted 1/3/12 , edited 1/3/12
I'm bi and believe it was a choice for me, but perhaps a subconscious one. When I was a kid, the boys on my block acted like they were the spawn of Satan, so I went after the girls. I don't know why I did, why I also became interested in men later, or why most women don't seem to have/act on the same impulse. I just know that was when I first became attracted to women.
Posted 1/4/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



Because I shouldn't have to. You're not the one who clarified things for me. I'm the one who clarified something. So if anything, it's you who should apologize for wrongfully accusing me of lying to my friend and being a bigot, while continuing to focus on the trivial details, even when I tried to explain myself and correct my own mistakes.

I have no problem being humble and practice humility. But I'm really not the one who should be apologizing here.
You didn't even know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual preference in here. You lacked the understanding on the necessary precondition for exercising free-will in here. You overgeneralized religious sexual discrimination as the same as knowledge-based information, when it's actually domestic child abuse due to negligence in here. And all the while you were actually ranting like the religious bigots from the very beginning, who share the same opinion as you did regarding how "homosexuality is a choice". Which BTW all were challenged and then defeated by my arguments. When you didn't present any empirical evidence on how "homosexuality is a choice", what are the necessary preconditions for exercising free-will, and why excommunication due to religious sexual discrimination is a form of domestic child abuse through negligence(those were all my doings, and you're welcome).

Finally, you don't own me an apology, no. When the fact is you should be apologizing to your homosexual friend, for yourself being a pathetic excuse of a secular human being.
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/4/12 , edited 1/4/12

DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



Because I shouldn't have to. You're not the one who clarified things for me. I'm the one who clarified something. So if anything, it's you who should apologize for wrongfully accusing me of lying to my friend and being a bigot, while continuing to focus on the trivial details, even when I tried to explain myself and correct my own mistakes.

I have no problem being humble and practice humility. But I'm really not the one who should be apologizing here.
You didn't even know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual preference in here. You lacked the understanding on the necessary precondition for exercising free-will in here. You overgeneralized religious sexual discrimination as the same as knowledge-based information, when it's actually domestic child abuse due to negligence in here. And all the while you were actually ranting like the religious bigots from the very beginning, who share the same opinion as you did regarding how "homosexuality is a choice". Which BTW all were challenged and then defeated by my arguments. When you didn't present any empirical evidence on how "homosexuality is a choice", what are the necessary preconditions for exercising free-will, and why excommunication due to religious sexual discrimination is a form of domestic child abuse through negligence(those were all my doings, and you're welcome).

Finally, you don't own me an apology, no. When the fact is you should be apologizing to your homosexual friend, for yourself being a pathetic excuse of a secular human being.


AGAIN, just disregard what I said in the beginning. It was poorly written and didn't properly explain what I meant.

The ONLY way I ever meant homosexuality was a choise was in the scenario when having to choose between that, and maybe get disowned by your family, or deciding to live out your homosexuality regardless. It is a scenario that Does happen, and in those cases, the person in that situation WILL have to make a decision. Just like what happened to my friend.
That is the ONLY thing I ever meant.

And I DID agree that it was a form of domestic child abuse, remember? I said I agree with you.
And me being confused about the technical terms in a language where I otherwise never discuss this subject, doesn't change the fact that I have done nothing but support and encourage my friend in a time of need.

And you can say I don't owe you an apology now, but you still wanted me to say I was sorry and thank you for clarifying a non-existing issue, which you never even did. You never clarified anything, because there was nothing that needed to be clarified. The only person who has tried to clarify something in this thread is me, and yet you wanted me to thank you for clarifying something.
Posted 1/4/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

You didn't even know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual preference in here. You lacked the understanding on the necessary precondition for exercising free-will in here. You overgeneralized religious sexual discrimination as the same as knowledge-based information, when it's actually domestic child abuse due to negligence in here. And all the while you were actually ranting like the religious bigots from the very beginning, who share the same opinion as you did regarding how "homosexuality is a choice". Which BTW all were challenged and then defeated by my arguments. When you didn't present any empirical evidence on how "homosexuality is a choice", what are the necessary preconditions for exercising free-will, and why excommunication due to religious sexual discrimination is a form of domestic child abuse through negligence(those were all my doings, and you're welcome).

Finally, you don't own me an apology, no. When the fact is you should be apologizing to your homosexual friend, for yourself being a pathetic excuse of a secular human being.


AGAIN, just disregard what I said in the beginning. It was poorly written and didn't properly explain what I meant.

The ONLY way I ever meant homosexuality was a choise was in the scenario when having to choose between that, and maybe get disowned by your family, or deciding to live out your homosexuality regardless. It is a scenario that Does happen, and in those cases, the person in that situation WILL have to make a decision. Just like what happened to my friend.
That is the ONLY thing I ever meant.


And I DID agree that it was a form of domestic child abuse, remember? I said I agree with you.
And me being confused about the technical terms in a language where I otherwise never discuss this subject, doesn't change the fact that I have done nothing but support and encourage my friend in a time of need.

And you can say I don't owe you an apology now, but you still wanted me to say I was sorry and thank you for clarifying a non-existing issue, which you never even did. You never clarified anything, because there was nothing that needed to be clarified. The only person who has tried to clarify something in this thread is me, and yet you wanted me to thank you for clarifying something.
No, it isn't. When the fact is you're still conforming to the religious excuse of how "homosexuality is a choice" in here, under the gay marriage thread where you, with rainbow highlighting for needless emphasis, claimed that "Futhermore, if they choose to act out their homosexuality, then obviously they choose to not follow God's orders. And if so, then that is for them to decide, not you". The only superficial difference here is that you became a secular bigot instead of a religious one, and different in labeling doesn't change the fact that you're still just a stupid, ignorant, and arrogant bigot. Who's so completely devoted to the meaning of "free-will" through "choice" beyond reasoning, you're still forcefully and stubbornly converting sexual orientation as a matter of choice. That's not the scientific rigor of self-correcting, when you're intentionally ignoring the empirical evidences(which I brought it out because you knew nothing about the reality of homosexuality) of how the sexual orientation called homosexuality isn't a choice.

And that's what's so pathetic about yourself claiming to be a secular human being, because you just ended up "supporting and encouraging" your homosexual friend to "deal with it" as her responsibility, now that she has made a "choice". Therefore you condoned her to either facing domestic child abuse, or living in hiding from the real fear for homophobia. When you didn't challenge and confront the very religious institution that you're actually agreeing with.

Finally, I don't need your apology nor gratitude, nor do I really care. When you're so stupid that you weren't aware of my sarcasm, while I already know that you lack decency and manners, on top of reasoning.
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/4/12 , edited 1/4/12

DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

You didn't even know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual preference in here. You lacked the understanding on the necessary precondition for exercising free-will in here. You overgeneralized religious sexual discrimination as the same as knowledge-based information, when it's actually domestic child abuse due to negligence in here. And all the while you were actually ranting like the religious bigots from the very beginning, who share the same opinion as you did regarding how "homosexuality is a choice". Which BTW all were challenged and then defeated by my arguments. When you didn't present any empirical evidence on how "homosexuality is a choice", what are the necessary preconditions for exercising free-will, and why excommunication due to religious sexual discrimination is a form of domestic child abuse through negligence(those were all my doings, and you're welcome).

Finally, you don't own me an apology, no. When the fact is you should be apologizing to your homosexual friend, for yourself being a pathetic excuse of a secular human being.


AGAIN, just disregard what I said in the beginning. It was poorly written and didn't properly explain what I meant.

The ONLY way I ever meant homosexuality was a choise was in the scenario when having to choose between that, and maybe get disowned by your family, or deciding to live out your homosexuality regardless. It is a scenario that Does happen, and in those cases, the person in that situation WILL have to make a decision. Just like what happened to my friend.
That is the ONLY thing I ever meant.


And I DID agree that it was a form of domestic child abuse, remember? I said I agree with you.
And me being confused about the technical terms in a language where I otherwise never discuss this subject, doesn't change the fact that I have done nothing but support and encourage my friend in a time of need.

And you can say I don't owe you an apology now, but you still wanted me to say I was sorry and thank you for clarifying a non-existing issue, which you never even did. You never clarified anything, because there was nothing that needed to be clarified. The only person who has tried to clarify something in this thread is me, and yet you wanted me to thank you for clarifying something.
No, it isn't. When the fact is you're still conforming to the religious excuse of how "homosexuality is a choice" in here, under the gay marriage thread where you, with rainbow highlighting for needless emphasis, claimed that "Futhermore, if they choose to act out their homosexuality, then obviously they choose to not follow God's orders. And if so, then that is for them to decide, not you". The only superficial difference here is that you became a secular bigot instead of a religious one, and different in labeling doesn't change the fact that you're still just a stupid, ignorant, and arrogant bigot. Who's so completely devoted to the meaning of "free-will" through "choice" beyond reasoning, you're still forcefully and stubbornly converting sexual orientation as a matter of choice. That's not the scientific rigor of self-correcting, when you're intentionally ignoring the empirical evidences(which I brought it out because you knew nothing about the reality of homosexuality) of how the sexual orientation called homosexuality isn't a choice.

And that's what's so pathetic about yourself claiming to be a secular human being, because you just ended up "supporting and encouraging" your homosexual friend to "deal with it" as her responsibility, now that she has made a "choice". Therefore you condoned her to either facing domestic child abuse, or living in hiding from the real fear for homophobia. When you didn't challenge and confront the very religious institution that you're actually agreeing with.

Finally, I don't need your apology nor gratitude, nor do I really care. When you're so stupid that you weren't aware of my sarcasm, while I already know that you lack decency and manners, on top of reasoning.


What part of the difference if being openly homosexual and being a closet homosexual don't you understand?
And again, I never said I think homosexual orientation is a choice. Never said it. And never belived it. Only choosing whether or not to act it out. Why don't you understand that?

As for my friend, where did I say I encouraged her to simply "deal with it"? NOWHERE! Again, you're just assuming things.

And how many times do I have to say this: I DON'T AGREE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS!
Get that into your brain! No matter what you belive, I don't. If my words have said otherwise, then it's because I suck miserably at expressing myself.

And talk about being a hypocrite. I'm the one lacking decency and manners? Who's the one that has been doing all the name-calling here?

Posted 1/4/12 , edited 1/4/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:



AGAIN, just disregard what I said in the beginning. It was poorly written and didn't properly explain what I meant.

The ONLY way I ever meant homosexuality was a choise was in the scenario when having to choose between that, and maybe get disowned by your family, or deciding to live out your homosexuality regardless. It is a scenario that Does happen, and in those cases, the person in that situation WILL have to make a decision. Just like what happened to my friend.
That is the ONLY thing I ever meant.


And I DID agree that it was a form of domestic child abuse, remember? I said I agree with you.
And me being confused about the technical terms in a language where I otherwise never discuss this subject, doesn't change the fact that I have done nothing but support and encourage my friend in a time of need.

And you can say I don't owe you an apology now, but you still wanted me to say I was sorry and thank you for clarifying a non-existing issue, which you never even did. You never clarified anything, because there was nothing that needed to be clarified. The only person who has tried to clarify something in this thread is me, and yet you wanted me to thank you for clarifying something.
No, it isn't. When the fact is you're still conforming to the religious excuse of how "homosexuality is a choice" in here, under the gay marriage thread where you, with rainbow highlighting for needless emphasis, claimed that "Futhermore, if they choose to act out their homosexuality, then obviously they choose to not follow God's orders. And if so, then that is for them to decide, not you". The only superficial difference here is that you became a secular bigot instead of a religious one, and different in labeling doesn't change the fact that you're still just a stupid, ignorant, and arrogant bigot. Who's so completely devoted to the meaning of "free-will" through "choice" beyond reasoning, you're still forcefully and stubbornly converting sexual orientation as a matter of choice. That's not the scientific rigor of self-correcting, when you're intentionally ignoring the empirical evidences(which I brought it out because you knew nothing about the reality of homosexuality) of how the sexual orientation called homosexuality isn't a choice.

And that's what's so pathetic about yourself claiming to be a secular human being, because you just ended up "supporting and encouraging" your homosexual friend to "deal with it" as her responsibility, now that she has made a "choice". Therefore you condoned her to either facing domestic child abuse, or living in hiding from the real fear for homophobia. When you didn't challenge and confront the very religious institution that you're actually agreeing with.

Finally, I don't need your apology nor gratitude, nor do I really care. When you're so stupid that you weren't aware of my sarcasm, while I already know that you lack decency and manners, on top of reasoning.


What part of the difference if being openly homosexual and being a closet homosexual don't you understand?
And again, I never said I think homosexual orientation is a choice. Never said it. And never belived it. Only choosing whether or not to act it out. Why don't you understand that?

As for my friend, where did I say I encouraged her to simply "deal with it"? NOWHERE! Again, you're just assuming things.

And how many times do I have to say this: I DON'T AGREE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS!
Get that into your brain! No matter what you belive, I don't. If my words have said otherwise, then it's because I suck miserably at expressing myself.

And talk about being a hypocrite. I'm the one lacking decency and manners? Who's the one that has been doing all the name-calling here?
"A hypocrite"? Since that's how you assumed myself as without sufficient justification nor reasoning, I'll once again show you how's done properly: how could you claimed here that you had "never discuss this subject" that's homosexual orientation, while still claimed that you have a friend who you knew she is a homosexual? That's beyond you merely "suck miserably at expressing" yourself, when you literally created a contradiction.

Moreover, while you claimed with such emphasis that you "DON'T AGREE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS" in all caps, you nonetheless ended up with yourself upholding the exact same opinion that the religious institutions still having on homosexual orientation. Something that you claimed "never discuss this subject", even with your homosexual friend. In a world of information technology that leaves far behind the Dark Ages and the Spanish Inquisition in the dust, I simply find your lack of knowledge regarding your friend's own sexuality unbelievable, if not insulting on both her dignity and human intelligence.

Finally, homosexuality isn't an act that oneself simply choose to engage or disengage. Which is why it's a sexual orientation and not a preference. I can understand you just fine, but that doesn't automatically means I agree with you, nor that you were right. When empirical evidences regarding human sexuality as a whole have proven otherwise. And no, you don't "suck miserably at expressing" yourself, when I can still sense your arrogance just fine. Therefore stop giving people with genuine problem with verbal expression a bad name by yourself associating with them, you bigot.
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/5/12 , edited 1/5/12

DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:



AGAIN, just disregard what I said in the beginning. It was poorly written and didn't properly explain what I meant.

The ONLY way I ever meant homosexuality was a choise was in the scenario when having to choose between that, and maybe get disowned by your family, or deciding to live out your homosexuality regardless. It is a scenario that Does happen, and in those cases, the person in that situation WILL have to make a decision. Just like what happened to my friend.
That is the ONLY thing I ever meant.


And I DID agree that it was a form of domestic child abuse, remember? I said I agree with you.
And me being confused about the technical terms in a language where I otherwise never discuss this subject, doesn't change the fact that I have done nothing but support and encourage my friend in a time of need.

And you can say I don't owe you an apology now, but you still wanted me to say I was sorry and thank you for clarifying a non-existing issue, which you never even did. You never clarified anything, because there was nothing that needed to be clarified. The only person who has tried to clarify something in this thread is me, and yet you wanted me to thank you for clarifying something.
No, it isn't. When the fact is you're still conforming to the religious excuse of how "homosexuality is a choice" in here, under the gay marriage thread where you, with rainbow highlighting for needless emphasis, claimed that "Futhermore, if they choose to act out their homosexuality, then obviously they choose to not follow God's orders. And if so, then that is for them to decide, not you". The only superficial difference here is that you became a secular bigot instead of a religious one, and different in labeling doesn't change the fact that you're still just a stupid, ignorant, and arrogant bigot. Who's so completely devoted to the meaning of "free-will" through "choice" beyond reasoning, you're still forcefully and stubbornly converting sexual orientation as a matter of choice. That's not the scientific rigor of self-correcting, when you're intentionally ignoring the empirical evidences(which I brought it out because you knew nothing about the reality of homosexuality) of how the sexual orientation called homosexuality isn't a choice.

And that's what's so pathetic about yourself claiming to be a secular human being, because you just ended up "supporting and encouraging" your homosexual friend to "deal with it" as her responsibility, now that she has made a "choice". Therefore you condoned her to either facing domestic child abuse, or living in hiding from the real fear for homophobia. When you didn't challenge and confront the very religious institution that you're actually agreeing with.

Finally, I don't need your apology nor gratitude, nor do I really care. When you're so stupid that you weren't aware of my sarcasm, while I already know that you lack decency and manners, on top of reasoning.


What part of the difference if being openly homosexual and being a closet homosexual don't you understand?
And again, I never said I think homosexual orientation is a choice. Never said it. And never belived it. Only choosing whether or not to act it out. Why don't you understand that?

As for my friend, where did I say I encouraged her to simply "deal with it"? NOWHERE! Again, you're just assuming things.

And how many times do I have to say this: I DON'T AGREE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS!
Get that into your brain! No matter what you belive, I don't. If my words have said otherwise, then it's because I suck miserably at expressing myself.

And talk about being a hypocrite. I'm the one lacking decency and manners? Who's the one that has been doing all the name-calling here?
"A hypocrite"? Since that's how you assumed myself as without sufficient justification nor reasoning, I'll once again show you how's done properly: how could you claimed here that you had "never discuss this subject" that's homosexual orientation, while still claimed that you have a friend who you knew she is a homosexual? That's beyond you merely "suck miserably at expressing" yourself, when you literally created a contradiction.

Moreover, while you claimed with such emphasis that you "DON'T AGREE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS" in all caps, you nonetheless ended up with yourself upholding the exact same opinion that the religious institutions still having on homosexual orientation. Something that you claimed "never discuss this subject", even with your homosexual friend. In a world of information technology that leaves far behind the Dark Ages and the Spanish Inquisition in the dust, I simply find your lack of knowledge regarding your friend's own sexuality unbelievable, if not insulting on both her dignity and human intelligence.

Finally, homosexuality isn't an act that oneself simply choose to engage or disengage. Which is why it's a sexual orientation and not a preference. I can understand you just fine, but that doesn't automatically means I agree with you, nor that you were right. When empirical evidences regarding human sexuality as a whole have proven otherwise. And no, you don't "suck miserably at expressing" yourself, when I can still sense your arrogance just fine. Therefore stop giving people with genuine problem with verbal expression a bad name by yourself associating with them, you bigot.


No, I said I have never discussed this subject in English. Not that I have never discussed it at all. Did you deliberately ignore that part in an attempt to make a crappy argument against me in order to drive the focus away from your own hypocrisy? Which spans even further beyond name-calling, as you keep saying I'm arrogant, when you have displayed a high degree of arrogance yourself.

And obviously I DO suck at expressing myself (which isn't news, because I also suck at it irl), because you keep not understanding what I'm trying to say.


Posted 1/5/12
I'm not reading all this, but knowing Dom's style of argument, it won't end pretty. Oh wait, never mind that was meant for page one.
Posted 1/5/12 , edited 1/5/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

"A hypocrite"? Since that's how you assumed myself as without sufficient justification nor reasoning, I'll once again show you how's done properly: how could you claimed here that you had "never discuss this subject" that's homosexual orientation, while still claimed that you have a friend who you knew she is a homosexual? That's beyond you merely "suck miserably at expressing" yourself, when you literally created a contradiction.

Moreover, while you claimed with such emphasis that you "DON'T AGREE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS" in all caps, you nonetheless ended up with yourself upholding the exact same opinion that the religious institutions still having on homosexual orientation. Something that you claimed "never discuss this subject", even with your homosexual friend. In a world of information technology that leaves far behind the Dark Ages and the Spanish Inquisition in the dust, I simply find your lack of knowledge regarding your friend's own sexuality unbelievable, if not insulting on both her dignity and human intelligence.

Finally, homosexuality isn't an act that oneself simply choose to engage or disengage. Which is why it's a sexual orientation and not a preference. I can understand you just fine, but that doesn't automatically means I agree with you, nor that you were right. When empirical evidences regarding human sexuality as a whole have proven otherwise. And no, you don't "suck miserably at expressing" yourself, when I can still sense your arrogance just fine. Therefore stop giving people with genuine problem with verbal expression a bad name by yourself associating with them, you bigot.


No, I said I have never discussed this subject in English. Not that I have never discussed it at all. Did you deliberately ignore that part in an attempt to make a crappy argument against me in order to drive the focus away from your own hypocrisy? Which spans even further beyond name-calling, as you keep saying I'm arrogant, when you have displayed a high degree of arrogance yourself.

And obviously I DO suck at expressing myself (which isn't news, because I also suck at it irl), because you keep not understanding what I'm trying to say.
The nature of your native language is irrelevant, when that doesn't change the fact how you ended up agreeing with the religious excuse and clarification for their homosexual discrimination, of how "homosexuality is a choice". Therefore either you're simply dumb or pretends to be dumb, the fact still remains that you're only doing it for protecting and defending your own ego. You bigot.

Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance(citation)
BTW, the reason why I'm different from yourself "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices", is simply due to the fact that I established my claims with irrefutable evidences which are your own "opinions and prejudices". Especially considering how you're accommodating religious bigotry over homosexuals here at the gay marriage thread with your political double-speak, when you claimed "It was never my intention to talk to you like God does not exist. And if I did, and have offended you, I apologize".

Finally, when more than 80% of Norwegians are Lutherans, a variety of the Protestant faith, it's no surprise to me as to how you got assimilated by Christian ideology, mannerism, and even behaviorism.
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/5/12 , edited 1/5/12

DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

"A hypocrite"? Since that's how you assumed myself as without sufficient justification nor reasoning, I'll once again show you how's done properly: how could you claimed here that you had "never discuss this subject" that's homosexual orientation, while still claimed that you have a friend who you knew she is a homosexual? That's beyond you merely "suck miserably at expressing" yourself, when you literally created a contradiction.

Moreover, while you claimed with such emphasis that you "DON'T AGREE WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS" in all caps, you nonetheless ended up with yourself upholding the exact same opinion that the religious institutions still having on homosexual orientation. Something that you claimed "never discuss this subject", even with your homosexual friend. In a world of information technology that leaves far behind the Dark Ages and the Spanish Inquisition in the dust, I simply find your lack of knowledge regarding your friend's own sexuality unbelievable, if not insulting on both her dignity and human intelligence.

Finally, homosexuality isn't an act that oneself simply choose to engage or disengage. Which is why it's a sexual orientation and not a preference. I can understand you just fine, but that doesn't automatically means I agree with you, nor that you were right. When empirical evidences regarding human sexuality as a whole have proven otherwise. And no, you don't "suck miserably at expressing" yourself, when I can still sense your arrogance just fine. Therefore stop giving people with genuine problem with verbal expression a bad name by yourself associating with them, you bigot.


No, I said I have never discussed this subject in English. Not that I have never discussed it at all. Did you deliberately ignore that part in an attempt to make a crappy argument against me in order to drive the focus away from your own hypocrisy? Which spans even further beyond name-calling, as you keep saying I'm arrogant, when you have displayed a high degree of arrogance yourself.

And obviously I DO suck at expressing myself (which isn't news, because I also suck at it irl), because you keep not understanding what I'm trying to say.
The nature of your native language is irrelevant, when that doesn't change the fact how you ended up agreeing with the religious excuse and clarification for their homosexual discrimination, of how "homosexuality is a choice". Therefore either you're simply dumb or pretends to be dumb, the fact still remains that you're only doing it for protecting and defending your own ego. You bigot.

Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance(citation)
BTW, the reason why I'm different from yourself "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices", is simply due to the fact that I established my claims with irrefutable evidences which are your own "opinions and prejudices". Especially considering how you're accommodating religious bigotry over homosexuals here at the gay marriage thread with your political double-speak, when you claimed "It was never my intention to talk to you like God does not exist. And if I did, and have offended you, I apologize".

Finally, when more than 80% of Norwegians are Lutherans, a variety of the Protestant faith, it's no surprise to me as to how you got assimilated by Christian ideology, mannerism, and even behaviorism.


Yet again, you accuse me of being a bigot. No matter how many times I tell you that you're wrong, you dismiss it and keep insisting that you basicly know me better than I know myself. And yet you accuse ME of wanting to protect my own ego... Are you really that blind to your own hypocrisy? In fact, let's add that to the list. Third case of hypocrisy made by the accuser of hypocrisy.

As for apologize for that I might have offended him... That's this little thing called being polite. Which is obviously a foreign concept for you. And shouldn't you, who think you're so skilled at exposing other people's psyche, been able to understand such a simple thing as that? Further proof that you're not as smart as you like to think you are.

As for my country being 80 percent Lutherans, it is only the case because you're automatically registered as a member if the church when you are born. That is why those numbers are so high. A national study was made on this subject not long ago, however, and if I remember correctly, it placed us as the forth most secular country in the world.

Edit: Ah yes. Here we have the results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe It was for Europe, and not the entire world, but still.
You may eat your words now.



Posted 1/5/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

The nature of your native language is irrelevant, when that doesn't change the fact how you ended up agreeing with the religious excuse and clarification for their homosexual discrimination, of how "homosexuality is a choice". Therefore either you're simply dumb or pretends to be dumb, the fact still remains that you're only doing it for protecting and defending your own ego. You bigot.

Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance(citation)
BTW, the reason why I'm different from yourself "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices", is simply due to the fact that I established my claims with irrefutable evidences which are your own "opinions and prejudices". Especially considering how you're accommodating religious bigotry over homosexuals here at the gay marriage thread with your political double-speak, when you claimed "It was never my intention to talk to you like God does not exist. And if I did, and have offended you, I apologize".

Finally, when more than 80% of Norwegians are Lutherans, a variety of the Protestant faith, it's no surprise to me as to how you got assimilated by Christian ideology, mannerism, and even behaviorism.


Yet again, you accuse me of being a bigot. No matter how many times I tell you that you're wrong, you dismiss it and keep insisting that you basicly know me better than I know myself. And yet you accuse ME of wanting to protect my own ego... Are you really that blind to your own hypocrisy? In fact, let's add that to the list. Third case of hypocrisy made by the accuser of hypocrisy.

As for apologize for that I might have offended him... That's this little thing called being polite. Which is obviously a foreign concept for you. And shouldn't you, who think you're so skilled at exposing other people's psyche, been able to understand such a simple thing as that? Further proof that you're not as smart as you like to think you are.

As for my country being 80 percent Lutherans, it is only the case because you're automatically registered as a member if the church when you are born. That is why those numbers are so high. A national study was made on this subject not long ago, however, and if I remember correctly, it placed us as the forth most secular country in the world.

Edit: Ah yes. Here we have the results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe It was for Europe, and not the entire world, but still.
You may eat your words now.
The fact that you used political doublespeak in order for yourself to appear to be "polite" is the irrefutable evidence that you indeed do have an ego, gain from the social process called the looking glass self.

We hear and read doublespeak every day, but what, exactly, is doublespeak? Webster's dictionary defines doublespeak with these words: evasive, ambiguous, high-flown language intended to deceive or confuse.

In his bestselling book Doublespeak, William Lutz notes that doublespeak is not an accident or a "slip of the tongue." Instead, it is a deliberate, calculated misuse of language.(citation)
What's really evasive of yourself is the following claim here, "However, what is the case is that God can not be undeniably proven. So even if he does exist, there is no way to prove it absolutely, which in turn means that there will be people that does not belive in him, as is the case in today's society". You didn't declare your own view on the existence of a Christian God, and with the apologetic attitude from your last sentence you're acting out the role of a victim. Clever, deceptive, and yet all useless to my observation.

Moreover, you overgeneralized politeness being the same as humbleness and humility. Which I can assure you that with trained eyes, and a decent dictionary, they're fundamentally different traits in and of themselves.

polite
1a : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of advanced culture b : marked by refined cultural interests and pursuits especially in arts and belles lettres
2a : showing or characterized by correct social usage b : marked by an appearance of consideration, tact, deference, or courtesy c : marked by a lack of roughness or crudities <polite literature>(citation)

humble
1: not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive
2: reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission <a humble apology>
3a : ranking low in a hierarchy or scale : insignificant, unpretentious b : not costly or luxurious <a humble contraption>(citation)

humility
: the quality or state of being humble(citation)
You weren't being humble, when you've been arrogantly asserting that you "tried to explain myself and correct my own mistakes" here, but in fact you still stubbornly argued here how "homosexuality is a choice", without any empirical evidence to prove your weak and faulty hypothesis. All the while you downplayed and belittled your mistake on homosexual orientation as "a non-existing issue". That's your "deliberate, calculated misuse of language", not yourself "suck miserably at expressing". All the while you're still arrogantly asserting here that how I "keep not understanding" at what you "try to say". BTW, there's nothing impolite of myself exposing your psyche, using the advanced scientific rigors.

Finally, according to your own source, based on how the majority of Norwegians either 1)"believe there's a God"(32%), and 2)"I believe there's some sort of spirit or life force"(47%). The overall ideology, mannerism, and even behaviorism for the population of Norway is still theistic(79%). When secularism and secularization mean merely the separation of the church from the states/government/legislation.
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/6/12 , edited 1/6/12

DomFortress

The fact that you used political doublespeak in order for yourself to appear to be "polite" is the irrefutable evidence that you indeed do have an ego, gain from the social process called the looking glass self.

We hear and read doublespeak every day, but what, exactly, is doublespeak? Webster's dictionary defines doublespeak with these words: evasive, ambiguous, high-flown language intended to deceive or confuse.
In his bestselling book Doublespeak, William Lutz notes that doublespeak is not an accident or a "slip of the tongue." Instead, it is a deliberate, calculated misuse of language.(citation)


Well duh. Of course I have an ego. Everyone has an ego to some extent.
However, unlike you, I'm not constantly stroking mine.

As for using political double speak in order to decieve or confuse... sure, that might be a possibility...
Or I was simply just being polite.
Because also unlike you, I don't have an agenda to try and decieve or confuse the ones I talk to.


DomFortress
What's really evasive of yourself is the following claim here, "However, what is the case is that God can not be undeniably proven. So even if he does exist, there is no way to prove it absolutely, which in turn means that there will be people that does not belive in him, as is the case in today's society". You didn't declare your own view on the existence of a Christian God, and with the apologetic attitude from your last sentence you're acting out the role of a victim. Clever, deceptive, and yet all useless to my observation.

All the while you downplayed and belittled your mistake on homosexual orientation as "a non-existing issue". That's your "deliberate, calculated misuse of language", not yourself "suck miserably at expressing".


Well then since you are so observant, I find it puzzling that you didn't read what he wrote further up, where he says quote: "After reading what you posted, I could say that your a humanist. Humanism's goal: everyone be happy and get along.
Thus, there was no NEED for me to declare my point of view on the existence of God, because he had already figured that out for himself.
And even IF that statement would confuse him, he would most likely point it out in a response, in wich I would clarify.

Again, you're assuming that my agenda is to be decieving. Not so strange, since that seem to be such a natural thing for you to do.
But all that does is prove even more how sad and pathetic you really are.

Furthermore, my intention in writing in such a non-specific manner, besides being humble, was to alienate him as little as possible.
You see, here's a little secret: When you're trying to express your opinion and point of view to someone, alienating them, insulting them and belittleing them does NOT help you prove your points.
I know this must come as a massive shock to you, but that's how it is.

But thanks for teaching me some theory on deception. Might come in handy some day...


DomFortress
Moreover, you overgeneralized politeness being the same as humbleness and humility. Which I can assure you that with trained eyes, and a decent dictionary, they're fundamentally different traits in and of themselves.

polite
1a : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of advanced culture b : marked by refined cultural interests and pursuits especially in arts and belles lettres
2a : showing or characterized by correct social usage b : marked by an appearance of consideration, tact, deference, or courtesy c : marked by a lack of roughness or crudities <polite literature>(citation)

humble
1: not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive


If I understand that correctly, it was indeed the case that I used the wrong term.
But again, you can't fault me for my lack of english knowledge. And you certainly cannot use it as an argument against me.



DomFortress
You weren't being humble, when you've been arrogantly asserting that you "tried to explain myself and correct my own mistakes" here, but in fact you still stubbornly argued here how "homosexuality is a choice", without any empirical evidence to prove your weak and faulty hypothesis.


Nowhere in this thread have I intended to claim anything other than that the issue of homosexuality might be a touchy and difficult subject in a devout religious home. If you belive anything else, you have either misunderstood, or you're just plain and simply stupid.
Take your pick.



DomFortress
Finally, according to your own source, based on how the majority of Norwegians either 1)"believe there's a God"(32%), and 2)"I believe there's some sort of spirit or life force"(47%). The overall ideology, mannerism, and even behaviorism for the population of Norway is still theistic(79%). When secularism and secularization mean merely the separation of the church from the states/government/legislation.


Here is another example of your lack of social understanding. While I am willing to excuse that to some degree with the detail on that page being slightly vague (here's one that is more accurate:http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1709-norway-flourishes-as-secular-nation ), it still showcases ignorance toward human behavior.

As you can see in the study from 2006, the discoveries found that quote::

29 percent believe in a god or deity; 23 percent believe in a higher power without being certain of what; 26 percent don't believe in God or higher powers; 22 percent have doubts.


What this shows is that while only 26 percent are decided atheists, only 29 percent belive in a god or deity. Note that it is not a specific god or deity, just a god or deity.
That means that at LEAST over 71% of the population are not specific belivers of the christian god, and thus does not conform to the overall ideology, mannerism and behaviorism of the theistic religions, since people who are undecided of the topic never live their lives as if they were religious. If one is uncertain, they live according to no one religion.



DomFortress
You weren't being humble, when you've been arrogantly asserting...


DomFortress
All the while you're still arrogantly asserting here that how I "keep not understanding" at what you "try to say". BTW, there's nothing impolite of myself exposing your psyche, using the advanced scientific rigors.


DomFortress
...is the irrefutable evidence...


Man, you just love to keep piling up on your hypocrisies, don't you?
11266 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / England
Offline
Posted 1/8/12
Gay people can be gay if they want to, it's none of your business.

Many people who are bisexual are simply bi-curious, going through that awkward stage of puberty. For Ppople who're actually bisexual, that's their business, not yours.

And that's that really. We're all human at the end of the day, it's like comparing milk chocolate to dark chocolate - at the end of the day, it's still chocolate, and you're still going to put on weight.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.