Proof of human evolution?

[Adjuvant]

Well, when I read remarks like:
Marriage is supposed to be a joyous celebration, not a "bullet point" for your legitimization of sexual deviancy.

It seems you are able to disregard love altogether. All the gays want is to use it as a "bullet point" for [their] legitimization of sexual deviancy.

But my observation still stands firm, so to speak.

Have I misinterpreted the dictionary's definition of "deviancy"?

Also, El Machinae, you're arguing a very spiritual definition of sexual stimulation vs preference. I understand a person "can become aroused when raped" for example, but they don't choose that. They choose what stimulates them.

edit: Now you're both coming very close to begging sexual preference as a choice. That "choice" is argued as a "poor choice".

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

By the way, difference isn't a bad thing. Inequality is.

When I as a sinning, masturbating, having already had sex and being an atheist to boot, while not feeling an inch of shame or hint of repentance wants to get married, no one bats an eye. When I happen to want to be married to a bloke, all hell breaks lose.

Have I misinterpreted the dictionary's definition of "deviancy"?

No, but you have missed my point. Or avoided it. Since I never challenged the word "deviancy".

Do you want me to make my point in different wording, or do you want another go at the original one?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

edit: too fast. added in previous post.

 

[Adjuvant]

I think a better question is, "Why does it always have to come down to homosexuality for you people?".

Because you're wrapped up in it. It's now so ingrained in your identity, you couldn't make an impartial argument if you tried.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think a better question is

I'm sure you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[timtofly]

No, but I think that a tradition of reading the Bible that ends up with "evolution is false, God said so" is much more likely to include a tradition of wanting to discriminate against homosexuals. And I think that neither tradition superior to its opposite. I think that a better understanding of reality could lead to different interpretations of those scriptures, too.

It would seem to me that a better understanding of reality would have nothing to do with interpretation at all. If it is true that God says that homosexuality is wrong, then it is God who discriminates against homosexuality. The interpretation only divides people into two groups. Those who have held to the teaching have discriminated against homosexuality for over 3000 years. What happened in the last 50 years that changes anything that drastically?

Evolution as a concept, is not that modern either. It just never had the epistemology of science to back it up. I think that ancient humans who were in the know, knew what exactly was going on, just like they do today. And every human has always interpreted the evidence via their personal thought processes. What has changed, the evidence or the interpretation?

 

[Adjuvant]

I'm sure you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

I think you try very hard to be right, Ziggy Stardust. I bet you see atheism as ingenious skepticism.

edit: I don't run around pointing fingers and calling people gay who may or may not be gay. You point the fingers. You "decide who is gay". I tell you what I think of your decision.

Further, I can't see a cohesive understanding of "that" from you, either.

another edit: What if half or 3/4 of people who "engage in homosexual acts" are not "gay"? What if you are not gay?

 

[Traitorfish]

Evolution to homosexuality in three pages. Nicely done, CFC.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think you try very hard to be right, Ziggy Stardust.

Of course I try. It's all I can do.

I bet you see atheism as ingenious skepticism.

I would have suspected you'd bet that. You'd lose that bet though.

1. It's pretty damn far from ingenious.
2. It could just as easily be fuelled by either ignorance or apathy.

If you meant me personally, it's true that it's fuelled by the same motivator as Skepticism. It's doubt. And it's a distrust of explanations about issues we don't really understand. I'm quite happy with the answer "I don't know" with regard to issues no one knows the answer to.

Wahey! Edits!

edit: I don't run around pointing fingers and calling people gay who may or may not be gay. You point the fingers. You "decide who is gay". I tell you what I think of your decision.

What?

What if half or 3/4 of people who "engage in homosexual acts" are not "gay"? What if you are not gay?

"What if half or 3/4 of people"? Are you Bilbo Baggins?

To answer your question: Hmmm, what if ....

 

[Akka]

But is that really need-to-know information??

Yeah, elementary education is kinda need-to-know. The idea that general knowledge isn't "needed" because you don't use it to "produce" something in your work is just backward and narrow-minded.

We aren't machines, we aren't limited to some "function" and we benefit (and requires, if we want to be anything more than mindless drones) from learning.

 

[Adjuvant]

What?

It was in response to your "psychological projection" link. You figure it out. I'm tired of arguing right now, and it's not because I feel I'm wrong, but because you're teetering toward "deflection" next and I need a break.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It was in response to your "psychological projection" link. You figure it out. I'm tired of arguing right now, and it's not because I feel I'm wrong, but because you're teetering toward "deflection" next and I need a break.

I'm inclined to post that link again.

You avoid a question from me first with a detour to the term "deviancy" followed up by: "A better question would be" and I am the one who is deflecting?

I have answered every question you asked me. Being on the internet for a while now, I have accepted that this courtesy isn't always returned to me. I simply don't understand what you're saying there. So my response is: "What?"

And I won't interpret ceasing an argument for whatever reason as conceding the argument. I can understand one grows weary when they have to face my relentless reasoning and razor-sharp wit and broken English.

Spoiler :

kdding, of course

Spoiler :

my English is flawless

 

[timtofly]

He was deflecting your accusations onto his ability to correct your assertions related to his misconceptions.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I can't remember so much talk about naughty parts since the Church Lady.


Link to video.

Right, because religion is the root of all prejudice, not that prejudice exists and religion illustrates it. What was I thinking.

Well, if you say so. But as I have stated before, I think the vast majority of religious practitioners in the word show just the opposite. That at least in the more modern countries it is just a fairly small number of religious zealots who continue to have xenophobic attitudes towards homosexuals and who do not accept evolution.

Have I misinterpreted the dictionary's definition of "deviancy"?

Homosexuality long ago escaped the absurd hyperbolic label that it is some sort of "deviant" behavior. Perhaps you didn't hear. Social standards changed in this regard, instead of remaining a relic of the distant past.

 

[timtofly]

At what point in history have homosexuals attempted to normalize themselves?

 

[Traitorfish]

"Homosexuality" only really became a Thing in the late 19th century, and at least some of them started trying to normalise themselves from around that time (Karl Heinrich Ulrichs began campaigning for homosexual rights in the 1870s), so, well, there you go.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

At what point in history have homosexuals attempted to normalize themselves?

If you squint your eyes they are just like normal people.

 

[timtofly]

Then what is all the fuss about?

 

[Adjuvant]

Homosexuality long ago escaped the absurd hyperbolic label that it is some sort of "deviant" behavior. Perhaps you didn't hear. Social standards changed in this regard, instead of remaining a relic of the distant past.

Right, because if everyone starts does something, it's no longer deviant. I simply do not share that idea. "Deviant" sex is anything that doesn't lead to procreation. We're alot like plants in that regard. When you use sex only for the release of endorphins, or solely for pleasure, believe it or not, you're harming yourself, and that harms God. I do it when I use birth control or get a bj. At least I'm intellectually honest enough to admit it. I don't run around bragging about it and justify it, though, I just keep it to myself.

The "read between the lines" wisdom in not only the Bible but other sources states "bad things happen when deviancy becomes the norm". Maybe that's where I differ from you alot. You chuck the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to wisdom for the sake of intellectualism. I work to try to learn from both.

 

[downtown]

When you use sex only for the release of endorphins, or solely for pleasure, believe it or not, you're harming yourself, and that harms God. .

You're going to have a really disappointed wife someday then.