Do you think conservatives will ever accept h*mosexuality?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'm fairly sure that no one in this thread has done that, and are arguing on intellectual grounds, not because we really want to have sex with another man...

Joshywaa

There's no point to arguing something on "intellectual grounds" when it's such a simple issue. The reproductive system was designed to work one way, somebody found another way to get pleasure by tinkering around up their butts, and decided that they wanted to pursue that. They get mad when people tell them that it's not natural and point to the design of the reproductive system, to what comes out of the rectum, as well as what they believe to be instructions passed down from their creator.

I've picked my side to argue for, based on which one makes more sense to me, and what feels right from looking at the bigger picture. If you've come to a different conclusion, have fun.

What goes on in the bedroom stays in the bedroom, no?

If only it were that simple.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Test me.

hartsickdiscipl

In what way? The fact you frequently argue about God (and the big questions) shows that. If you truly believed that these things (mainly the nature and logic of God) are truly beyond human comprehension, then you wouldn't argue about them.

Just because someone is sure about their own convictions doesn't mean that they won't debate with others about them. I like to expose others to different viewpoints and lines of reasoning. Besides, how much do you know about my beliefs regarding the nature of God? How do you know that I subscribe to the mainstream depictions of him? Because I don't.

Please read my post thoroughly before responding. That didn't address my points.

The bolded is the really relevant part.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

There's no point to arguing something on "intellectual grounds" when it's such a simple issue. The reproductive system was designed to work one way, somebody found another way to get pleasure by tinkering around up their butts, and decided that they wanted to pursue that. They get mad when people tell them that it's not natural and point to the design of the reproductive system, to what comes out of the rectum, as well as what they believe to be instructions passed down from their creator.

I've picked my side to argue for, based on which one makes more sense to me, and what feels right from looking at the bigger picture. If you've come to a different conclusion, have fun.

GabuEx

No offense, but if you're sufficiently attached to your position that encountering opposition to it causes you to act in this manner, maybe it would be a good idea to ask yourself why that is? :? I mean you've more or less gone in a couple posts from rationally defending your position on the matter to accusing everyone you're talking to of enjoying and partaking in anal sex. That doesn't seem like a normal response.

Act in what manner? I'm just saying what people do. Are you denying this as fact? I'm not getting upset or insulting people.

Actually, I can't go past the 2nd sentence in your post. We can't have a discussion, because I don't believe that.

hartsickdiscipl

This sentence has nothing to do with my argument at all. We have proof that evolution happened. You have no proof that we were created by a God. Even if we were created by a God, that would change absolutely nothing.

No wonder you don't understand anything if you stop reading after one sentence because your faith is so over the top.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You guys will find a way to justify anything you want to do, even when the specifications of the human body clearly indicate the right way. I can't even believe this conversation just happened. Coming down the chimney when you could've gone in the front door doesn't make sense to me. Apparently in your endless quest for certain pleasurable sensations, you're willing to deal with the dirty chimney. Justify it all you want.

hartsickdiscipl

It's unfortunate that this site has the rules and moderation that is does because what I want to say right now would most certainly get me banned from this place. I'll simply say that it's unfortunate that instead of putting up a better argument you choose to assume how the rest of us act and then pass your little moral judgements on us based on your petty unfounded assumptions.

When somebody looks at one detail of the human body (pleasure from manual stimulation of the prostate from inside the poop chute), and chooses to try to justify a lifestyle (even if only on intellectual grounds) based on that.. I'm almost speechless. The "big picture" is the way that the human reproductive and waste systems are designed. Certainly not in such a way that reaching up there doesn't potentially put you in some deep **** (pun intended) before you get to the pleasurable prize you've so sought after.

I'm not saying that you personally do this, I'm just saying that it doesn't make much sense to argue for it, based on everything I see.

Yeah, you did say that I do this. You pretty much accused everyone debating with you right now of doing such.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

In what way? The fact you frequently argue about God (and the big questions) shows that. If you truly believed that these things (mainly the nature and logic of God) are truly beyond human comprehension, then you wouldn't argue about them.

SgtKevali

Just because someone is sure about their own convictions doesn't mean that they won't debate with others about them. I like to expose others to different viewpoints and lines of reasoning. Besides, how much do you know about my beliefs regarding the nature of God? How do you know that I subscribe to the mainstream depictions of him? Because I don't.

Please read my post thoroughly before responding. That didn't address my points.

The bolded is the really relevant part.

I did read your post thoroughly, and addressed it in a way that I guess you didn't catch. Just because I think that it's foolish to question the physical design of humans created by God (which we can't duplicate) doesn't mean that I think he is totally incomprehensible to humans in every way. That's why I mentioned that my idea of God isn't the same as most mainstream religious depictions of him.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Actually, I can't go past the 2nd sentence in your post. We can't have a discussion, because I don't believe that.

bloodling

This sentence has nothing to do with my argument at all. We have proof that evolution happened. You have no proof that we were created by a God. Even if we were created by a God, that would change absolutely nothing.

No wonder you don't understand anything if you stop reading after one sentence because your faith is so over the top.

I read your whole post. In my view mainstream science doesn't have sufficient proof that humans evolved from apes. That leaves the door open for creation of the human species, by one method or another. Could have been from apes, might have been from dirt. I have a written record from many ancient civilizations that tell very similar creation stories.

Your belief in evolution vs. my belief in intelligent creation (or DNA manipulation) undermines our ability to have a discussion about the natural functions or design of the human body. That's why I had such a short reply in my last post.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Just because someone is sure about their own convictions doesn't mean that they won't debate with others about them. I like to expose others to different viewpoints and lines of reasoning. Besides, how much do you know about my beliefs regarding the nature of God? How do you know that I subscribe to the mainstream depictions of him? Because I don't.

hartsickdiscipl

Please read my post thoroughly before responding. That didn't address my points.

The bolded is the really relevant part.

I did read your post thoroughly, and addressed it in a way that I guess you didn't catch. Just because I think that it's foolish to question the physical design of humans created by God (which we can't duplicate) doesn't mean that I think he is totally incomprehensible to humans in every way. That's why I mentioned that my idea of God isn't the same as most mainstream religious depictions of him.

Then you aren't consistent in the application of this concept. That was my point.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

It's unfortunate that this site has the rules and moderation that is does because what I want to say right now would most certainly get me banned from this place. I'll simply say that it's unfortunate that instead of putting up a better argument you choose to assume how the rest of us act and then pass your little moral judgements on us based on your petty unfounded assumptions.

worlock77

When somebody looks at one detail of the human body (pleasure from manual stimulation of the prostate from inside the poop chute), and chooses to try to justify a lifestyle (even if only on intellectual grounds) based on that.. I'm almost speechless. The "big picture" is the way that the human reproductive and waste systems are designed. Certainly not in such a way that reaching up there doesn't potentially put you in some deep **** (pun intended) before you get to the pleasurable prize you've so sought after.

I'm not saying that you personally do this, I'm just saying that it doesn't make much sense to argue for it, based on everything I see.

Yeah, you did say that I do this. You pretty much accused everyone debating with you right now of doing such.

Are you offended by the notion that I might think you gay?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You guys will find a way to justify anything you want to do, even when the specifications of the human body clearly indicate the right way. I can't even believe this conversation just happened. Coming down the chimney when you could've gone in the front door doesn't make sense to me. Apparently in your endless quest for certain pleasurable sensations, you're willing to deal with the dirty chimney. Justify it all you want.

GabuEx

I'm fairly sure that no one in this thread has done that, and are arguing on intellectual grounds, not because we really want to have sex with another man...

:( Is sad.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Please read my post thoroughly before responding. That didn't address my points.

The bolded is the really relevant part.

SgtKevali

I did read your post thoroughly, and addressed it in a way that I guess you didn't catch. Just because I think that it's foolish to question the physical design of humans created by God (which we can't duplicate) doesn't mean that I think he is totally incomprehensible to humans in every way. That's why I mentioned that my idea of God isn't the same as most mainstream religious depictions of him.

Then you aren't consistent in the application of this concept. That was my point.

I don't follow. What concept (of yours) am I not being consistent with? What preconceived idea of yours am I violating?

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I did read your post thoroughly, and addressed it in a way that I guess you didn't catch. Just because I think that it's foolish to question the physical design of humans created by God (which we can't duplicate) doesn't mean that I think he is totally incomprehensible to humans in every way. That's why I mentioned that my idea of God isn't the same as most mainstream religious depictions of him.

hartsickdiscipl

Then you aren't consistent in the application of this concept. That was my point.

I don't follow. What concept (of yours) am I not being consistent with? What preconceived idea of yours am I violating?

Just read my OP (with relation to your post, of course) in this long chain.

Act in what manner? I'm just saying what people do. Are you denying this as fact? I'm not getting upset or insulting people.

hartsickdiscipl

You've ceased rationally arguing in favor of your position and have all but directly said that everyone in opposition to your position is arguing their position simply because they have anal sex. Come on.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Actually, I can't go past the 2nd sentence in your post. We can't have a discussion, because I don't believe that.

hartsickdiscipl

This sentence has nothing to do with my argument at all. We have proof that evolution happened. You have no proof that we were created by a God. Even if we were created by a God, that would change absolutely nothing.

No wonder you don't understand anything if you stop reading after one sentence because your faith is so over the top.

I read your whole post. In my view mainstream science doesn't have sufficient proof that humans evolved from apes. That leaves the door open for creation of the human species, by one method or another. Could have been from apes, might have been from dirt. I have a written record from many ancient civilizations that tell very similar creation stories.

Your belief in evolution vs. my belief in intelligent creation (or DNA manipulation) undermines our ability to have a discussion about the natural functions or design of the human body. That's why I had such a short reply in my last post.

OK, I understand your point (even though I do not agree with it), but I always like to give you the whole picture (like you said you did). As I said, just because we have only one way to reproduce doesn't mean every single person should reproduce. It's their decision. Homosexuality has nothing to do with reproduction.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

When somebody looks at one detail of the human body (pleasure from manual stimulation of the prostate from inside the poop chute), and chooses to try to justify a lifestyle (even if only on intellectual grounds) based on that.. I'm almost speechless. The "big picture" is the way that the human reproductive and waste systems are designed. Certainly not in such a way that reaching up there doesn't potentially put you in some deep **** (pun intended) before you get to the pleasurable prize you've so sought after.

I'm not saying that you personally do this, I'm just saying that it doesn't make much sense to argue for it, based on everything I see.

hartsickdiscipl

Yeah, you did say that I do this. You pretty much accused everyone debating with you right now of doing such.

Are you offended by the notion that I might think you gay?

No, I'm offended by your arrogant, moralizing horsecrap. And further, I'll add that it was largely that kind of judgemental attitude that caused me to turn my back on the Christian church 20 years ago.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Act in what manner? I'm just saying what people do. Are you denying this as fact? I'm not getting upset or insulting people.

GabuEx

You've ceased rationally arguing in favor of your position and have all but directly said that everyone in opposition to your position is arguing their position simply because they have anal sex. Come on.

I'm not sure how much more rational I can be than pointing out the obvious issue with reaching up the butt to produce pleasure, rather than using the method that works with the normal reproductive organs and doesn't potentially involve feces. There are ways of stimulating the prostate externally too, but I don't think that's going to do this conversation any good.

If you took my comments to mean that I think everyone here who is in opposition to my arguments has anal sex, I can assureyou that this wasn't my meaning. When you argue for apoint or practice, you represent those whodo engage in thoseactions.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Act in what manner? I'm just saying what people do. Are you denying this as fact? I'm not getting upset or insulting people.

hartsickdiscipl

You've ceased rationally arguing in favor of your position and have all but directly said that everyone in opposition to your position is arguing their position simply because they have anal sex. Come on.

I'm not sure how much more rational I can be than pointing out the obvious issue with reaching up the butt to produce pleasure, rather than using the method that works with the normal reproductive organs and doesn't potentially involvefeces. There are ways of stimulating the prostate externally too, but I don'tthink that'sgoing to do this conversation any good.

If you took my comments to mean that I think everyone here who is in opposition to my arguments has anal sex, I can assureyou that this wasn't my meaning. When you argue for apoint or practice, you represent those whodo engage in thoseactions.

No dude, just no. If this:

"You guys will find a way to justify anything you want to do, even when the specifications of the human body clearly indicate the right way. I can't even believe this conversation just happened. Coming down the chimney when you could've gone in the front door doesn't make sense to me. Apparently in your endless quest for certain pleasurable sensations, you're willing to deal with the dirty chimney. Justify it all you want."

isn't a flat out accusation then I don't know what is.

If you took my comments to mean that I think everyone here who is in opposition to my arguments has anal sex, I can assureyou that this wasn't my meaning. When you argue for apoint or practice, you represent those whodo engage in thoseactions.

hartsickdiscipl

You guys will find a way to justify anything you want to do, even when the specifications of the human body clearly indicate the right way. I can't even believe this conversation just happened. Coming down the chimney when you could've gone in the front door doesn't make sense to me. Apparently in your endless quest for certain pleasurable sensations, you're willing to deal with the dirty chimney. Justify it all you want.

hartsickdiscipl

You said "you guys" - the only logical interpretation of this is that it includes the people to whom you're talking - and you then said that "you guys will find a way to justify anything you want to do". You then said that "in (our) endless quest for certain pleasurable sensations, (we are) willing to deal with the dirty chimney", and then finally finished with the imperative "justify it all you want", implying that that is what we are doing.

If that wasn't your meaning, then... what was your meaning? There is literally no other grammatically and linguistically correct way of semantically interpreting what you said.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

This sentence has nothing to do with my argument at all. We have proof that evolution happened. You have no proof that we were created by a God. Even if we were created by a God, that would change absolutely nothing.

No wonder you don't understand anything if you stop reading after one sentence because your faith is so over the top.

bloodling

I read your whole post. In my view mainstream science doesn't have sufficient proof that humans evolved from apes. That leaves the door open for creation of the human species, by one method or another. Could have been from apes, might have been from dirt. I have a written record from many ancient civilizations that tell very similar creation stories.

Your belief in evolution vs. my belief in intelligent creation (or DNA manipulation) undermines our ability to have a discussion about the natural functions or design of the human body. That's why I had such a short reply in my last post.

OK, I understand your point (even though I do not agree with it), but I always like to give you the whole picture (like you said you did). As I said, just because we have only one way to reproduce doesn't mean every single person should reproduce. It's their decision. Homosexuality has nothing to do with reproduction.

It is my feeling that since sexual organs were obviously designed to (or evolved to) allow us to reproduce, we should use them in conjunction with a partner with whom we might actually be able to reproduce. Our bodies are designed with "in" and "out" holes.There is a hole on a certain male appendage that is connected to both the reproductive system, and also to the excretory system. Even though not every person reproduces, I don't think that makes it natural not use them in their obvious intended fashion, and instead put them into an "out" hole. I hold the Bible to be God's word passed down by men.. and it makes it clear that this is not to be done. That's all I need. The hardware tells me what to do, and the manual tells mewhat not to do.

Obviously,you don't think this is enough. And of couse, I can't control otherpeople's lives.But the subject doeswarrant discussion on occasion.

Hartsickdisciple, you make a good argument, but I think there is something fallacious in your argument. For one, you're arguing for a created purpose. This mean you are arguing for God's intention. However, you cannot prove God's intention unless you ask God or refer to one of God's works. Asking God isn't reliable, because prayer cannot be observed through a third party. Using a work of God like the Bible begs the question as to how is that Bible the word of God. The problem I see it is that you're arguing for a created purpose, when you can't prove it. However, I believe that your argument works fine, but only from an adapted purpose. In other words, even if a plane was designed without wings, it would make a better car, no matter what the designer intended his work to be. That is an adapted purpose and I think your argument can only be properly argued as an adapted purpose. I'm not saying I agree with your argument. I think your argument could be flawed and I haven't thought all the way out, but I do believe that the basis of your argument is flawed: that the purpose is God-given, when it should be argued as a product of adaptation.Genetic_Code

I appeciate that you are not trying to jump down my throat or assume things about my faith likesome of the other users here. Thank you.

I believe there is sufficient evidence that higher beings played a role in the creation and development of humans. I believe the Bible to be a sort of manual. I wish everyone saw it this way, but I don't expect them to. I don't feel there is any fallacy behind my thinking on this subject, but of course that would take many more hours of explaining things that very few people here would buy into. So, I'll leave it at that unless someone else attacks my reasoning in such a way that I feel compelled to respond to them.

Even though not every person reproduces, I don't think that makes it natural

I hold the Bible to be God's word passed down by men.. and it makes it clear that this is not to be done.

the manual tells me what not to do.

Obviously, you don't think this is enough. But the subject does warrant discussion on occasion.

hartsickdiscipl

I guess it should be, because it shows "obvious" flaws in the Bible.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

You've ceased rationally arguing in favor of your position and have all but directly said that everyone in opposition to your position is arguing their position simply because they have anal sex. Come on.

worlock77

I'm not sure how much more rational I can be than pointing out the obvious issue with reaching up the butt to produce pleasure, rather than using the method that works with the normal reproductive organs and doesn't potentially involvefeces. There are ways of stimulating the prostate externally too, but I don'tthink that'sgoing to do this conversation any good.

If you took my comments to mean that I think everyone here who is in opposition to my arguments has anal sex, I can assureyou that this wasn't my meaning. When you argue for apoint or practice, you represent those whodo engage in thoseactions.

No dude, just no. If this:

"You guys will find a way to justify anything you want to do, even when the specifications of the human body clearly indicate the right way. I can't even believe this conversation just happened. Coming down the chimney when you could've gone in the front door doesn't make sense to me. Apparently in your endless quest for certain pleasurable sensations, you're willing to deal with the dirty chimney. Justify it all you want."

isn't a flat out accusation then I don't know what is.

When you argue in support of a cause, you're bound to get hit with some of the flak intended for it's practitioners. And you deserve it.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Even though not every person reproduces, I don't think that makes it natural

I hold the Bible to be God's word passed down by men.. and it makes it clear that this is not to be done.

the manual tells me what not to do.

Obviously, you don't think this is enough. But the subject does warrant discussion on occasion.

bloodling

I guess it should be, because it shows "obvious" flaws in the Bible.

I don't agree one bit.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If you took my comments to mean that I think everyone here who is in opposition to my arguments has anal sex, I can assureyou that this wasn't my meaning. When you argue for apoint or practice, you represent those whodo engage in thoseactions.

GabuEx

You guys will find a way to justify anything you want to do, even when the specifications of the human body clearly indicate the right way. I can't even believe this conversation just happened. Coming down the chimney when you could've gone in the front door doesn't make sense to me. Apparently in your endless quest for certain pleasurable sensations, you're willing to deal with the dirty chimney. Justify it all you want.

hartsickdiscipl

You said "you guys" - the only logical interpretation of this is that it includes the people to whom you're talking - and you then said that "you guys will find a way to justify anything you want to do". You then said that "in (our) endless quest for certain pleasurable sensations, (we are) willing to deal with the dirty chimney", and then finally finished with the imperative "justify it all you want", implying that that is what we are doing.

If that wasn't your meaning, then... what was your meaning? There is literally no other grammatically and linguistically correct way of semantically interpreting what you said.

Just like I told Worlock.. when you argue in support of a cause, you're bound to get hit with some of the flak intended for those who practice the things that you're intellectually supporting. It's part of the job.

Just like I told Worlock.. when you argue in support of a cause, you're bound to get hit with some of the flak intended for those who practice the things that you're intellectually supporting. It's part of the job.

hartsickdiscipl

Oh, come on, really now? You said "you guys", "you", "your", "you're", and "you". In what word is the second-person personal pronoun not directed at the person to whom you're talking? At the very least own up to the fact that your statement accused everyone arguing against your position of enjoying and participating in anal sex. Don't try to claim that "you" doesn't mean "you" now. Accusing someone of enjoying and participating in anal sex is not "flak"; that's libel. :?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Just like I told Worlock.. when you argue in support of a cause, you're bound to get hit with some of the flak intended for those who practice the things that you're intellectually supporting. It's part of the job.

GabuEx

Oh, come on, really now? You said "you guys", "you", "your", "you're", and "you". In what word is the second-person personal pronoun not directed at the person to whom you're talking? At the very least own up to the fact that your statement accused everyone arguing against your position of enjoying and participating in anal sex. Don't try to claim that "you" doesn't mean "you" now. Accusing someone of enjoying and participating in anal sex is not "flak"; that's libel. :?

My comments were directed at the other camp, not at any specific individuals. Your arguments make you a representative of the other camp, since they seemed to be in support of anal sex. It's no different from someone referring to conservatives as "you guys" when someone makes what they feel to be an overtly conservative statement on this board. This sort of thing happens all the time. When you stand in the way of the flak, you're bound to get hit with some that wasn't necessarily targeted at you.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]When you argue in support of a cause, you're bound to get hit with some of the flak intended for it's practitioners. And you deserve it.HAHAITHINKNOT

Either support your argument, or don't. If you can't handle a little bit of heat, don't argue in support of something.

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]When you argue in support of a cause, you're bound to get hit with some of the flak intended for it's practitioners. And you deserve it.hartsickdiscipl

Either support your argument, or don't. If you can't handle a little bit of heat, don't argue in support of something.

You're the one who ceased supporting his argument, opting instead to resort to low-brow cheapshots.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]So first you replace what little vestige of reason was in your posts with supercilious innuendo, and then you act as if somehow we've brought this upon ourselves by not being as bigoted as you. Utterly pathetic.worlock77

Either support your argument, or don't. If you can't handle a little bit of heat, don't argue in support of something.

You're the one who ceased supporting his argument, opting instead to resort to low-brow cheapshots.

I've stated my case. I don't think any of your arguments have done anything to undermine it on logical or moral grounds. Don't stand in front of a target unless you don't mind getting hit.

My comments were directed at the other camp, not at any specific individuals. Your arguments make you a representative of the other camp, since they seemed to be in support of anal sex. It's no different from someone referring to conservatives as "you guys" when someone makes what they feel to be an overtly conservative statement on this board. This sort of thing happens all the time. When you stand in the way of the flak, you're bound to get hit with some that wasn't necessarily targeted at you.

hartsickdiscipl

Really? Really? What "camp" is this, exactly? "You guys" necessarily implies that the one towards whom you're talking is included of the group of which you speak. And that group you have laid out is those who enjoy anal sex. And not only that, but you also clearly implied that the only reason anyone would oppose your position is because they enjoy anal sex. So, again, your statement is not "flak". It's a libelous factual inaccuracy.

Why are you not willing to at least own up to what you said? Everyone saw what you said, and everyone knows what it meant. At least extend the common courtesy and decency of acknowledging basic reality. You know, disagreement I'm perfectly fine with, but this isn't disagreement at this point. This is you accusing people of an obviously false matter of fact and then trying to say after the fact that that isn't what you said. That is, quite simply, fundamental dishonesty. And that I'm less inclined to be fine with. Would Jesus have been OK with this?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

My comments were directed at the other camp, not at any specific individuals. Your arguments make you a representative of the other camp, since they seemed to be in support of anal sex. It's no different from someone referring to conservatives as "you guys" when someone makes what they feel to be an overtly conservative statement on this board. This sort of thing happens all the time. When you stand in the way of the flak, you're bound to get hit with some that wasn't necessarily targeted at you.

GabuEx

Really? Really? What "camp" is this, exactly? "You guys" necessarily implies that the one towards whom you're talking is included of the group of which you speak. And that group you have laid out is those who enjoy anal sex. And not only that, but you also clearly implied that the only reason anyone would oppose your position is because they enjoy anal sex. So, again, our statement is not "flak". It's a libelous factual inaccuracy.

Why are you not willing to at least own up to what you said? Everyone saw what you said, and everyone knows what it meant. At least extend the common courtesy and decency of acknowledging basic reality. You know, disagreement I'm perfectly fine with, but this isn't disagreement at this point. This is you accusing people of an obviously false matter of fact and then trying to say after the fact that that isn't what you said. And that I'm less inclined to be fine with.

No, I know what you and the others who were arguing with me thought that I meant by my comments. A reference to my opposition in this matter as "you guys" was meant to target anyone who supports homosexual anal sex, OR who practices it. If you don't believe me, and/or aren't familiar with this use for the type of verbiage that I employed, I'm sorry. The fact is, I don't view those who practice anal sex and those who would support it in this argument as separate. So yeah, "You guys."

The fact is, I don't view those who practice anal sex and those who would support it in this argument as separate.hartsickdiscipl

No, I know what you and the others who were arguing with me thought that I meant by my comments. A reference to my opposition in this matter as "you guys" was meant to target anyone who supports homosexual anal sex, OR who practices it. If you don't believe me, and/or aren't familiar with this use for the type of verbiage that I employed, I'm sorry. The fact is, I don't view those who practice anal sex and those who would support it in this argument as separate. So yeah, "You guys."

hartsickdiscipl

Oh, come on.

Here's your statement again:

You guys will find a way to justify anything you want to do, even when the specifications of the human body clearly indicate the right way. I can't even believe this conversation just happened. Coming down the chimney when you could've gone in the front door doesn't make sense to me. Apparently in your endless quest for certain pleasurable sensations, you're willing to deal with the dirty chimney. Justify it all you want.

hartsickdiscipl

You describe what we "want to do" that we "will find a way to justify", and you mention our "endless quest for pleasurable sensations" and that we "are willing to deal with the dirty chimney". And now you're telling me that this clearly was not intended to refer to those who enjoy anal sex and that we just think that. Well, in that case, please tell me what our "endless question for pleasurable sensations" is, and what this "dirty chimney" is that we're willing to deal with. Please tell me what it is we "want to do" that we "will find a way to justify". Please tell me those things, if indeed "you guys" is not the group of those who enjoy anal sex.

Whatever happened to letting your "yes" be "yes" and your "no", "no"? I am giving you the opportunity to save face here and exercise some basic common decency in terms of being honest about what you said. You appear not to want to take it.

The irrationality... it hurts my head. :(

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Really? Really? What "camp" is this, exactly? "You guys" necessarily implies that the one towards whom you're talking is included of the group of which you speak. And that group you have laid out is those who enjoy anal sex. And not only that, but you also clearly implied that the only reason anyone would oppose your position is because they enjoy anal sex. So, again, our statement is not "flak". It's a libelous factual inaccuracy.

Why are you not willing to at least own up to what you said? Everyone saw what you said, and everyone knows what it meant. At least extend the common courtesy and decency of acknowledging basic reality. You know, disagreement I'm perfectly fine with, but this isn't disagreement at this point. This is you accusing people of an obviously false matter of fact and then trying to say after the fact that that isn't what you said. And that I'm less inclined to be fine with.

dreDREb13

No, I know what you and the others who were arguing with me thought that I meant by my comments. A reference to my opposition in this matter as "you guys" was meant to target anyone who supports homosexual anal sex, OR who practices it. If you don't believe me, and/or aren't familiar with this use for the type of verbiage that I employed, I'm sorry. The fact is, I don't view those who practice anal sex and those who would support it in this argument as separate. So yeah, "You guys."

No, because Muslim extremists actually go against the fundamental principles of Islam. Completely different situation. Also, there is a big difference between referring to a group of people and their supporters together in a casual OT conversation, and using it for prosecution.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

No, I know what you and the others who were arguing with me thought that I meant by my comments. A reference to my opposition in this matter as "you guys" was meant to target anyone who supports homosexual anal sex, OR who practices it. If you don't believe me, and/or aren't familiar with this use for the type of verbiage that I employed, I'm sorry. The fact is, I don't view those who practice anal sex and those who would support it in this argument as separate. So yeah, "You guys."

GabuEx

Oh, come on.

Here's your statement again:

You guys will find a way to justify anything you want to do, even when the specifications of the human body clearly indicate the right way. I can't even believe this conversation just happened. Coming down the chimney when you could've gone in the front door doesn't make sense to me. Apparently in your endless quest for certain pleasurable sensations, you're willing to deal with the dirty chimney. Justify it all you want.

hartsickdiscipl

You describe what we "want to do" that we "will find a way to justify", and you mention our "endless quest for pleasurable sensations" and that we "are willing to deal with the dirty chimney". And now you're telling me that this clearly was not intended to refer to those who enjoy anal sex and that we just think that. Well, in that case, please tell me what our "endless question for pleasurable sensations" is, and what this "dirty chimney" is that we're willing to deal with. Please tell me what it is we "want to do" that we "will find a way to justify". Please tell me those things, if indeed "you guys" is not the group of those who enjoy anal sex.

Whatever happened to letting your "yes" be "yes" and your "no", "no"? I am giving you the opportunity to save face here and exercise some basic common decency in terms of being honest about what you said. You appear not to want to take it.

By asking me to describe what "endless quest for pleasurable sensations" I was referring to, you're ignoring the basic point that I was making. Perhaps there is no endless quest for you personally, but for the cause that your argument supports, there certainly is. It's not about you, it's about the group that you represent by defending what they do in this debate. Not everything I said applies to everyone, of course. You're fighting for people who do these things, you're wearing their team colors, therefore, you are a target. Deal with it.

As far as "saving face" goes, what a joke. Please, get over yourself Gabu. You always try to assume the superior position in an argument on this forum, even when you should be backpedaling.

I don't expect much support here from any other users, since this forum (and especially this thread) is full of liberals who openly support homosexual rights. Of course they would attack me and support your arguments here Gabu. I'm fighting one member of the wolfpack, while surrounded by many others who are ready to pounce.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Oh, come on.

Here's your statement again:

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You guys will find a way to justify anything you want to do, even when the specifications of the human body clearly indicate the right way. I can't even believe this conversation just happened. Coming down the chimney when you could've gone in the front door doesn't make sense to me. Apparently in your endless quest for certain pleasurable sensations, you're willing to deal with the dirty chimney. Justify it all you want.

hartsickdiscipl

You describe what we "want to do" that we "will find a way to justify", and you mention our "endless quest for pleasurable sensations" and that we "are willing to deal with the dirty chimney". And now you're telling me that this clearly was not intended to refer to those who enjoy anal sex and that we just think that. Well, in that case, please tell me what our "endless question for pleasurable sensations" is, and what this "dirty chimney" is that we're willing to deal with. Please tell me what it is we "want to do" that we "will find a way to justify". Please tell me those things, if indeed "you guys" is not the group of those who enjoy anal sex.

Whatever happened to letting your "yes" be "yes" and your "no", "no"? I am giving you the opportunity to save face here and exercise some basic common decency in terms of being honest about what you said. You appear not to want to take it.

By asking me to describe what "endless quest for pleasurable sensations" I was referring to, you're ignoring the basic point that I was making. Perhaps there is no endless quest for you personally, but for the cause that your argument supports, there certainly is. It's not about you, it's about the group that you represent by defending what they do in this debate. Not everything I said applies to everyone, of course. You're fighting for people who do these things, you're wearing their team colors, therefore, you are a target. Deal with it.

As far as "saving face" goes, what a joke. Please, get over yourself Gabu. You always try to assume the superior position in an argument on this forum, even when you should be backpedaling.

I don't expect much support here from any other users, since this forum (and especially this thread) is full of liberals who openly support homosexual rights. Of course they would attack me and support your arguments here Gabu. I'm fighting one member of the wolfpack, while surrounded by many others who are ready to pounce.

Are "people who do these things" your enemy, or something :o

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

You describe what we "want to do" that we "will find a way to justify", and you mention our "endless quest for pleasurable sensations" and that we "are willing to deal with the dirty chimney". And now you're telling me that this clearly was not intended to refer to those who enjoy anal sex and that we just think that. Well, in that case, please tell me what our "endless question for pleasurable sensations" is, and what this "dirty chimney" is that we're willing to deal with. Please tell me what it is we "want to do" that we "will find a way to justify". Please tell me those things, if indeed "you guys" is not the group of those who enjoy anal sex.

Whatever happened to letting your "yes" be "yes" and your "no", "no"? I am giving you the opportunity to save face here and exercise some basic common decency in terms of being honest about what you said. You appear not to want to take it.

Joshywaa

By asking me to describe what "endless quest for pleasurable sensations" I was referring to, you're ignoring the basic point that I was making. Perhaps there is no endless quest for you personally, but for the cause that your argument supports, there certainly is. It's not about you, it's about the group that you represent by defending what they do in this debate. Not everything I said applies to everyone, of course. You're fighting for people who do these things, you're wearing their team colors, therefore, you are a target. Deal with it.

As far as "saving face" goes, what a joke. Please, get over yourself Gabu. You always try to assume the superior position in an argument on this forum, even when you should be backpedaling.

I don't expect much support here from any other users, since this forum (and especially this thread) is full of liberals who openly support homosexual rights. Of course they would attack me and support your arguments here Gabu. I'm fighting one member of the wolfpack, while surrounded by many others who are ready to pounce.

Are "people who do these things" your enemy, or something :o

LOL.. they're the opposition in this debate. In that sense, yeah.. I guess you could say that.

Are "people who do these things" your enemy, or something :o

Joshywaa

Let me just tell you that having seen a lot of his other posts, what he's doing right now is pretty standard behaviour for him and it's not very surprising that he's resorted to it yet again.

[QUOTE="Joshywaa"]

Are "people who do these things" your enemy, or something :o

hartsickdiscipl

LOL.. they're the opposition in this debate. In that sense, yeah.. I guess you could say that.

Everyone is an enemy of the Christ!

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="Joshywaa"]

Are "people who do these things" your enemy, or something :o

hartsickdiscipl

Let me just tell you that having seen a lot of his other posts, what he's doing right now is pretty standard behaviour for him and it's not very surprising that he's resorted to it yet again.

Typical liberal conceit.

See? He's just proven my point. :lol:

By asking me to describe what "endless quest for pleasurable sensations" I was referring to, you're ignoring the basic point that I was making. Perhaps there is no endless quest for you personally, but for the cause that your argument supports, there certainly is. It's not about you, it's about the group that you represent by defending what they do in this debate. Not everything I said applies to everyone, of course. You're fighting for people who do these things, you're wearing their team colors, therefore, you are a target. Deal with it.

hartsickdiscipl

We're arguing against the idea that humans are intelligently designed; therefore it's open season on us as you disagree, and you can say that we all enjoy anal sex because we're a "target", a fact which you seem to have made up on the spot here and now in order to absolve yourself of all responsibility of anything you say to us.

...

*sigh*

You know what, fine. If you want that to be your official story, go ahead. I'm not going to protest any further, and will leave you to it. At this point, I think no one here can say that I didn't try. All I will say in parting is that I can think of almost nothing that is less Christ-like than the modus operandithat you have affirmed today.