12 Aug 2007, 1:23 pm
12 Aug 2007, 1:24 pm
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Well, we've reached page 80, and have accomplished ostensibly nothing. Congrats all around.
Only because you're too stupid to understand what sexuality actually is.
Actually, you're the one who seems rather abnormal in that department.
No I'm not. Most people would accept that one's sexuality is determined by who they're attracted to, not who they have sex with.
Define "most people". Most people in the U.K.? Most people in the western world? Most people in the northern hemispere? What? And you haven't interacted with many people.
I'm very sure the majority of members here on WP disagree with you.
The majority of WP members also say they have major objections to Christianity. That doesn't make them right.
12 Aug 2007, 1:25 pm
12 Aug 2007, 1:25 pm
Ragtime wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Well, we've reached page 80, and have accomplished ostensibly nothing. Congrats all around.
Only because you're too stupid to understand what sexuality actually is.
Actually, you're the one who seems rather abnormal in that department.
No I'm not. Most people would accept that one's sexuality is determined by who they're attracted to, not who they have sex with.
Define "most people". Most people in the U.K.? Most people in the western world? Most people in the northern hemispere? What? And you haven't interacted with many people.
I'm very sure the majority of members here on WP disagree with you.
The majority of WP members also say they have major objections to Christianity. That doesn't make them right.
Well then you're wrong that I'm abnormal in thinking this. It's you who's 'abnormal.'
12 Aug 2007, 1:31 pm
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
What about touching? I don't know what you define as "romantic".
I wouldn't touch anyone who was just a friend.
What about in a relationship?
I would touch someone if they were my girlfriend. This isn't about me though.
Let me share a little secret with you. There's no such thing as sexual or tactile love. You can love someone with all your heart, and not desire to touch them or have sex with them. Conversely, you can have no real emotions for someone, and touch them or have sex with them just because of mutual physical desire, which is not love. So if you desire to touch your girlfriend, that's not love, that's tactile desire, toward physical and/or emotional pleasure, which MANY people do without having love.
So, being gay has nothing to do with actual love. Gay and straight are physical preferences. People aren't male and female at their very core -- they're simply people. So, when you desire one gender over another, that's a physical desire, apart from the love for someone.
I know that. I love my family but I don't touch them. Similarly there are people I don't love who I would touch. I'm not thick.
I'm amazed you acknowledged this!
Sopho wrote:
Gender is different to sex. I'm physically attracted to females and emotionally attracted to women. So together, that's more than just sex.
Since we don't have genders at our cores, your gender-specific attraction is a bodily thing -- a vehicle if you will, not an identity. It's something you do, not something you are, even if at a very fundamental level. Which is exactly what you defined to be irrelevant.
Therefore, saying "I'm a lesbian" is only loosely accurate. It's saying that's the way you prefer to swing, even if at a very basic internal level -- it's still not at the MOST basic internal level.
12 Aug 2007, 1:38 pm
12 Aug 2007, 1:38 pm
Ragtime wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Well, we've reached page 80, and have accomplished ostensibly nothing. Congrats all around.
Only because you're too stupid to understand what sexuality actually is.
Actually, you're the one who seems rather abnormal in that department.
No I'm not. Most people would accept that one's sexuality is determined by who they're attracted to, not who they have sex with.
Define "most people". Most people in the U.K.? Most people in the western world? Most people in the northern hemispere? What? And you haven't interacted with many people.
How about Professionals, Scientists, Doctors, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Sexologists? I believe most of sexologists or very likely all of them in the world agree with it.
Well, I don't trust the opinions of "sexologists". Sex and moral issues go hand-in-hand, and their "morality" definitions vary widely from the Bible's.
That's why some people are ignorants about sexuality because they reject the information, they don't wanna know.
Around here I have found a few people who dislike gays and I know they are ignorants about a lot of stuff because they don'want to know about it, they reject anything that has to do with it.
12 Aug 2007, 1:42 pm
Ragtime wrote:
[I'm amazed you acknowledged this!
Patronising c**t.
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Gender is different to sex. I'm physically attracted to females and emotionally attracted to women. So together, that's more than just sex.
Since we don't have genders at our cores, your gender-specific attraction is a bodily thing -- a vehicle if you will, not an identity. It's something you do, not something you are, even if at a very fundamental level. Which is exactly what you defined to be irrelevant.
Therefore, saying "I'm a lesbian" is only loosely accurate. It's saying that's the way you prefer to swing, even if at a very basic internal level -- it's still not at the MOST basic internal level.I don't do gender. And I'm not a lesbian. I am attracted to women on an emotional level and to females on a physical level.
12 Aug 2007, 1:44 pm
12 Aug 2007, 1:47 pm
12 Aug 2007, 1:49 pm
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Well, we've reached page 80, and have accomplished ostensibly nothing. Congrats all around.
Only because you're too stupid to understand what sexuality actually is.
Actually, you're the one who seems rather abnormal in that department.
No I'm not. Most people would accept that one's sexuality is determined by who they're attracted to, not who they have sex with.
Define "most people". Most people in the U.K.? Most people in the western world? Most people in the northern hemispere? What? And you haven't interacted with many people.
I'm very sure the majority of members here on WP disagree with you.
The majority of WP members also say they have major objections to Christianity. That doesn't make them right.
Well then you're wrong that I'm abnormal in thinking this. It's you who's 'abnormal.'
No, I didn't say you're abnormal in thinking this, I said you're abnormal in your personal sexuality as you've defined it on WP.
12 Aug 2007, 1:49 pm
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Actually, you have mentioned that you DO care that the Bible damns gays. And that complaint of yours is precisely why I addressed the fact that the Bible DOES NOT DAMN all gays as modern society defines them. YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THAT.
I was accused by you and others of being anti-gay because I'm a Christian. Well, I'm here to tell you that the Bible DOES NOT speak against all gays as you and modern society define gays. So, you're wrong; I'm not anti-gay in the sense and scope you claim.
I was accused by you and others of being anti-gay because I'm a Christian. Well, I'm here to tell you that the Bible DOES NOT speak against all gays as you and modern society define gays. So, you're wrong; I'm not anti-gay in the sense and scope you claim.
But you expect them to just live a straight life. If they are gay, why can't they be with the person/people they want to be with? You are anti-gay relationships.
Because the Bible says so.
12 Aug 2007, 1:50 pm
12 Aug 2007, 1:50 pm
greenblue wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Actually, you have mentioned that you DO care that the Bible damns gays. And that complaint of yours is precisely why I addressed the fact that the Bible DOES NOT DAMN all gays as modern society defines them. YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THAT.
I was accused by you and others of being anti-gay because I'm a Christian. Well, I'm here to tell you that the Bible DOES NOT speak against all gays as you and modern society define gays. So, you're wrong; I'm not anti-gay in the sense and scope you claim.
I was accused by you and others of being anti-gay because I'm a Christian. Well, I'm here to tell you that the Bible DOES NOT speak against all gays as you and modern society define gays. So, you're wrong; I'm not anti-gay in the sense and scope you claim.
But you expect them to just live a straight life. If they are gay, why can't they be with the person/people they want to be with? You are anti-gay relationships.
Because the Bible says so.
And the Koran...
12 Aug 2007, 1:50 pm
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Well, we've reached page 80, and have accomplished ostensibly nothing. Congrats all around.
Only because you're too stupid to understand what sexuality actually is.
Actually, you're the one who seems rather abnormal in that department.
No I'm not. Most people would accept that one's sexuality is determined by who they're attracted to, not who they have sex with.
Define "most people". Most people in the U.K.? Most people in the western world? Most people in the northern hemispere? What? And you haven't interacted with many people.
How about Professionals, Scientists, Doctors, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Sexologists? I believe most of sexologists or very likely all of them in the world agree with it.
Well, I don't trust the opinions of "sexologists". Sex and moral issues go hand-in-hand, and their "morality" definitions vary widely from the Bible's.
That's why some people are ignorants about sexuality because they reject the information, they don't wanna know.
The Bible has plenty to say on sexuality, specifically morals, but not only. I'll take God's Word over sexologists, thank you very much.
12 Aug 2007, 1:52 pm
Ragtime wrote:
I'll take God's Word over sexologists, thank you very much.
If it's a choice between the two, then I'll take the sexologists; at least they exist.
