Does the environment affect ones sexuality?

[Ripper]

So really, we're demonizing HHR and Damian not so much because they must be bigots, but rather because they've failed to keep up with the changing opinions of the current prevailing "normal". That bothers me just a bit.

If someone says that they disapprove of homosexuality because of their religious beliefs, I don't have a problem with that. I'll disagree with them, but that's fine by me in a free society.

The problem comes when a truckload of additional bullshit is delivered in order to provide specious reasons to criticize gay activity, outside of the straightforward religious objection. This nonsense is being presented as fact, and that's going to invite argument. To be honest, I find the refutation of this stuff to be a bit pointless, since no-one who isn't awaiting the mothership could fail to see through it.

 

[Pladio]

Give me a direct quote where i say all gay people lisp and are flamboyant. But then again this is expected, atheist tactics and all.

What the **** does this have to do with atheism ?

 

[Damian]

It is just a tactic i see atheists use a lot when i argue with them. Try to bully me into accepting i said something i didnt.

Christian tactics are a little different. They bombard you with tons of bullshit that you dont have the time nor the patience to deal with.

 

[dteowner]

If someone says that they disapprove of homosexuality because of their religious beliefs, I don't have a problem with that. I'll disagree with them, but that's fine by me in a free society.

The problem comes when a truckload of additional bullshit is delivered in order to provide specious reasons to criticize gay activity, outside of the straightforward religious objection. This nonsense is being presented as fact, and that's going to invite argument. To be honest, I find the refutation of this stuff to be a bit pointless, since no-one who isn't awaiting the mothership could fail to see through it.

I can't say I disagree at all. My point is that I find the "moral absolutes" being tossed around by both sides of the debate to be shaky at best. I actually give the religious types a bit of a pass on the moral absolute front since that's kinda the basis for their whole mode of thinking, but it's still a bunch of hooey and condemning people based on these flawed absolutes troubles me.

As Mike pointed out, my previous attempt to explain while I was at work was rushed and garbled. I'll take another stab at it. 50 years ago, it was accepted social behavior to call someone a nigger. Today, a guy can get away with murder if the investigating cop might have used the word at some point in his life. Today's racist pariah was yesterday's average joe. 30 years ago, gay behavior was socially unacceptable and that portion of society was largely considered a hotbed of disease. Today, a person that doesn't embrace homosexuality is a hateful small minded bigot.

Social norms are a function of the times and anything but constant. Therefore, I get concerned when we get in a rush to condemn people for not blindly accepting them. Right now, we're calling HHR and Damian all sorts of nasty names because they aren't buying into the current social embrace of homosexuality. Go back a few decades and they'd be the normal ones and the nasty names would be heaped on the self-righteous majority running around here.

Who's to say which shoe will have fallen 30 years from now? Since the theory is that we're always headed toward greater enlightened tolerance, does that mean that in a few decades we'll be calling anyone that looks askance at beastiality a hateful bigot closeted in archaic thinking? It's not a crazy extrapolation of the trends we're so busy celebrating here. Embracing proponents of behavior that was formeriy taboo?

 

[Thrasher]

Give me a direct quote where i say all gay people lisp and are flamboyant. But then again this is expected, atheist tactics and all.

Pladio already covered it. And, you don't know my religious beliefs...

 

[Damian]

He tried but failed. So why dont you find another quote since this whole thread is apparently full of them. I'd be surprised if you arent atheist since you are using their tactics.

 

[Pladio]

It is just a tactic i see atheists use a lot when i argue with them. Try to bully me into accepting i said something i didnt.

Christian tactics are a little different. They bombard you with tons of bullshit that you dont have the time nor the patience to deal with.

You need to see that your grouping of people together in one big blob is the reason people assume that your "They" and "[insert Group of people here]" are exactly why you keep coming against the argument of not "all" people are like that.

You keep generalising and then ask people not to look at it like a generalisation.

So because you've atheists use this tactic a lot, it automatically means Thrasher's an atheist?

 

[DArtagnan]

Both sides are acting quite dense in this thread.

You're essentially just calling each other names over and over.

Maybe it's time to leave it alone?

 

[Damian]

You need to see that your grouping of people together in one big blob is the reason people assume that your "They" and "[insert Group of people here]" are exactly why you keep coming against the argument of not "all" people are like that.

You keep generalising and then ask people not to look at it like a generalisation.

So because you've atheists use this tactic a lot, it automatically means Thrasher's an atheist?

How do i keep generalising? You are seeing generalisations where there are not. That is because you have already made up yoru mind that i am some kind of bigot or something.

As fro thrasher no. You are making too many assumptions with what i wrote even when it contradicts what you are saying.

 

[Pladio]

How do i keep generalising? You are seeing generalisations where there are not. That is because you have already made up yoru mind that i am some kind of bigot or something.

As fro thrasher no. You are making too many assumptions with what i wrote even when it contradicts what you are saying.

If that's what you want to think, that's ok. But as you can see, I'm not the only one who thinks you are generalising. Might be worth looking at your posts again.

Anyway, I'm not sure what the point is of this, so I'm going to stop unless you have anymore questions with regards to the subject itself.

 

[Damian]

The only real generalisation i made is the one regarding tv represenations of gay people.