TPFKA@W wrote:
My husband's nephew has a husband now and I have become a good bit more vocal in standing up for gays in general.
LOL!! One of my very good mate's sons, who I'm godfather to, came out last year. His dad, who I love to bits despite his being a Saffer, went from being a hard right wing Saffer to being so pro-gay rights I'm expecting to see him parade in next year's Mardi Grass in a pink tutu.
Were it always so easy to convert parents. My BIL is not a happy camper. He is career military, not sure if that is why this is so difficult for him or not. Husband's other siblings seem perfectly cool with it. I write "seems" because I am not sure how deep the approval goes. Husband and I decided nephew would get the unconditional approval and love from us he deserves.
BTW while I lean (very) right winged on some topics I have always been gay friendly. I paused very briefly on the gay marriage issue until I saw the movie, "A Single Man" with Colin Firth. After that I really knew it was wrong to dictate to people how they would be allowed to celebrate their lives together.
Google tells me that it is a term referring to a person of South African ancestry derived from the way Londoners pronounce 'South African' ('Saff Efrican'); originally somewhat derogatory but now beginning to be embraced by those to whom it refers in much the same manner the term "redneck" is a label worn with pride in some parts of America. It is still suggested that one refrain from using the term when in conversation with black South Africans or any South African over the age of 35 or so.
Another school of thought is that it is derived from the three-letter abbreviation for South Africa (SAF) used by the IOC and other agencies. -"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
kmccune wrote:Ask a silly question get a totally irrelevant reply ,theres a lot of things I want to do ,but do not engage in . As a species we are called "sapient man " and supposedly we can chose our behavior( there are those who would argue that point ) .
For example, are you suggesting that each "normal" person has a free-will choice either to shoplift or not to shoplift? "Normal" of course covers a wide range of differences between individuals but assumes here a common experience regarding shoplifting.
A person who is not "normal" - who is outside the range - would be a person with kleptomania; a defect of some kind that impels them to act without choice.
One is heterosexual or homosexual even when one is not actually engaged in sex. Neither one chooses to have desire or romantic attraction for one gender over the other ; you are born that way.
It is equally normal for a homosexual to shape his or her life around that feature of their identity as it is for a heterosexual. It is abnormal to suggest that either one should deny who they are and live as celibates and the attempt to do so is apt to lead to actual perversions such as the Catholic Priesthood exhibit.
The comparison with kleptomania is shockingly bigoted. We only have a negative association with kleptomania because the behavior it elicits is socially harmful otherwise it would be like the compulsion to chew toothpicks which many people seem to enjoy without being insulted for it. There may be some who wrestle with their toothpick-chewing compulsion as a moral fault but it has passed unnoticed so far.
rubato, you know very well that I did not compare homosexuality to kleptomania.
I asked if the poster was suggesting that people freely choose their acts unless they have some genetic predisposition or mental compulsion that obviates free choice in particular instances. Kleptomania may be an example of that as could alcoholism and many other things that people feel unable to avoid controlling.
But please carry on making false accusations as you are very good at it. Perhaps you can't help doing so.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Stop being a jackass. Your examples are all of pathology:
I asked if the poster was suggesting that people freely choose their acts unless they have some genetic predisposition or mental compulsion that obviates free choice in particular instances. Kleptomania may be an example of that as could alcoholism and many other things that people feel unable to avoid controlling.
Homosexuality is not a pathology.
Homosexuals are homosexuals because (in my world view) their genetics makes them that way. In your world view, your god made them that way. They are homosexuals when they are making breakfast, when they are getting dressed, when they are kissing their sweethearts goodbye in the morning. When they are doing all of the things that you and I do. Focussing on 'homosexual behavior' is bullshit and calling it pathological is ignorant bigotry. .
Google tells me that it is a term referring to a person of South African ancestry derived from the way Londoners pronounce 'South African' ('Saff Efrican'); originally somewhat derogatory but now beginning to be embraced by those to whom it refers in much the same manner the term "redneck" is a label worn with pride in some parts of America. It is still suggested that one refrain from using the term when in conversation with black South Africans or any South African over the age of 35 or so.
Another school of thought is that it is derived from the three-letter abbreviation for South Africa (SAF) used by the IOC and other agencies. -"BB"-
Nailed it.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
rubato wrote:Stop being a jackass. Your examples are all of pathology..... Homosexuality is not a pathology.
Homosexuals are homosexuals because (in my world view) their genetics makes them that way. In your world view, your god made them that way. They are homosexuals when they are making breakfast, when they are getting dressed, when they are kissing their sweethearts goodbye in the morning. When they are doing all of the things that you and I do. Focussing on 'homosexual behavior' is bullshit and calling it pathological is ignorant bigotry. .
yrs,
rubato
I neither stated nor implied that homosexuality is a pathology. I was asking if that was kmmcune's view. He seems to have replied that it was not, if I follow his subsequent post correctly.
Don't attempt to explain my world view when you don't understand the first thing about it. "My God" did not make people "that way". As you should know (and probably do but prefer to pretend ignorance so you can make facile remarks), Christian belief is that man fell from grace and all our problems stem from disobedience to God and our own corruption. God made Adam in his own image (which we don't take anthropologically). Adam then "made" his children in his own image - that is, corrupted. All of us. Equally. Unlike you, I don't consider myself better than anyone else - mostly I believe I am worse.
Probably you will be happy to agree with that last sentiment
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Couldn't be no worse a Human Being ,then I am at times ,it gets hard to reach out sometimes ,but the rewards are great and some Folks are simply incorrigible (but ,9 times out of 10 ,I would still help them )
The people here seem to be an intelligent lot and I feel we can discuss things without to much passion getting involved ,so I plan to keep reading and posting from time to time .
