Under this framework, 'gay' (homosexual) is not a legitimate category. Just because someone desires to do stuff with the same sex, does not make you anything but 'someone who desires that'. Well, people have all sorts of sinful desires, Christians believe.
tell them what they're doing isn't considered sex!...
I made an argument, and you don't seem to have a counterpoint.
because we say so. even if they don't get turned on by the opposite sex. we can fix them and make them normal! that'll work!
It worked for millennia, and there is no reason why it should not 'work' now. I don't care what "turns" someone on, nor do I care about people's happiness.
Before you bring out all the 'isms' against me, I am bisexual. Unfortunately, the spread of acceptance of homosexuality seems to be correlated with the absolute destruction of society. So yeah, I'd rather that it not be pushed in everyone's faces, particularly the faces of children the activists seem to be most interested in grooming.
but big ups for admitting your bi in a very hateful place for gays.
You lost? I'm the founder of this place.
it hasn't worked. so many in the closet gays back then, so many were miserable going into loveless relationships, fake happy families. and some of them couldn't take it and ended themselves.
Great, but it seems that suicides are much higher now than in the past. It seems that sowing gender confusion among children (and I'm not saying you support this) does not do much for lowering suicides, quite the contrary. What were they doing right that people now don't?
i think having moderate family views. and not pushing for this actual degeneracy could work! and without the anti gay stuff. HELL! have you even heard of gays against groomers?
Yeah, big fan. I'm also happy that nearly all of the "conservative gays" got behind the Parents' Rights Bill in Florida.
you could've been straight, gay, pansexual...
No one is 'pansexual', because that is not a thing.
i judge people by their actions and not some irrelevant trait they may or may not have.
And so do I. This does not prevent me from seeing that things are going very much in the wrong direction. There are many good gay people, like Glenn Greenwald, and David Starkey, and Dave Rubin, but that does not require one to approve of homosexuality.
and judging by you... you seem like an awful gay person and and awful straight person to boot!
All this because I explained Thomistic ideas to you? I bet you can't even tell me why exactly I'm suddenly 'awful'.
i did, you just don't consider it to be sex because you base your logic off of homophobic laws.
What laws? I explained why a good argument can be made why it's not sex, and you did not dispute, let alone refute, the arguments.
just between you and me i hate homosexuality, it's so weird. like for me i'm bi and hate it. would prefer to only have attractions to women. but what can you do? but just because i don't like it, doesn't mean i have to well, hate it. like yeah i said hate it but my reasoning for that is... guy on guy is gross. the idea of that while somewhat hot, is a big turn off for me. lesbians are hot! but they don't want me because i'm a man. that's pretty much my reasoning.
You're more straight than I am, because I find lesbians to be extraordinarily boring. And being bisexual is the best of both worlds. I can have women if I want, and I can have men if I want. What's there not to like?
See, the problem is not that any individual is a homosexual. The problem is the mainstreaming and glorification of the matter, and all the nefarious stuff that gets smuggled into the mainstream under the rubric.
now for what christains think about gay people... it's fucking awful. beating them, killing them, comparing them to child fuckers
I've never heard of "Christians" killing homosexuals in the modern era. Certanly not approved by any institution.
nothing you can lob at a gay person, you can't also apply to straight people. what i'm saying is. being gay is an inaction that doesn't warrant alot of hate. or discrimination. at this point, you, and the christain community look like the actual degenerates and reprobates you often time excuse gay people of being.
And yet things worked very well when Christianity was the norm, and don't at all work well now, now that adherence to the rainbow cult is the norm.
now, forcing someone to screw someone because that's what they think you should do... makes them sound like assholes yeah? you wouldn't fuck a tranny. most people on this site! wouldn't fuck a tranny. hell! the vast majority of straight people wouldn't fuck a tranny. so why are a bunch of asshole dictating to you how you should live your life?
Historically, no one has been forced to 'fuck' anyone without consent (marriage was considered consent for sex). The most orthodox traditionalists will not argue that homosexuals should be 'forced' to have sex with women, but that they should not be allowed to have sex with men. That is very different from the former.
either you, or someone mentioning anti sodomy laws or whatever, it really doesn't matter. my point being is. sex is sex. make of it whatever you want. say i didn't refute it. say because i can't compare a 1 to 1 ratio it's not sex so haha your right and i'm wrong, i really don't care, because your classification doesn't really mean shit. because if something has to exist based off of your believes. than it sounds like you are living in lala land buddy.
You can argue about the definition of 'sex'. It's not at all obvious that oral sex should be considered sex, for example.
of what? this c/ community? or, the whole website?
The KiA2 subreddit.
which is why i would opt for a middle ground that doesn't involve taking away rights and privileges away from people just because they're gay.
That would be ideal, I'm just not sure that it is feasible, or that it would solve the issues. The 'slippery slope' alleged fallacy was mocked all the way to the moon, and yet it's the undefeated champion. I myself mocked the religious right for their dire predictions, but I had no idea that they would, if anything, undersell the bad consequences that were to follow.
i think it means. you don't have a sexual attraction to someone, but your emotionally attracted to them... so basically A sexual.
No, that's another BS label - demisexual I think they call it.
cool it doesn't exist because you don't believe in it.
I just explained it to you. Not sure why you're resistant to logic. It doesn't fulfill the final cause of sex, and can therefore be argued to not be sex.
with sexuality, you have physical proof. so you can't really much make that argument, because you have to literally tell people who can't change how they feel to... change how they feel to conform to your wants/desires.
The issue is that with all the glorification of homosexuality, and the recruitment/grooming, vastly larger numbers of people now claim to be bisexual or homosexual. So it's clear that people are changing due to incentives.
sex should be classified as 2 consulting adults, getting each other off! because, their are 2 variations of what you classified as sex. what if a man uses a condom, or a woman uses plan b? does it still "technically" count as sex? what if a man intentionally mutilates himself? (vasectomy) would that be counted as sex? or a woman getting her tubes tied?
By that logic, mutual masturbation or even cybersex would be counted as sex proper, which seems absurd to me.
like come on man, stop trying to draw a line between hetero sex, and gay sex, their both the same. except 1 produces life...
Only one, as you say, fulfills the final cause of sex, which is to produce life. And you can cite condoms, but the fact is that sex between a man and a woman can in principle create life. 'Sex' between two men never can.
And note that I never even argued for this position. I just said that a good case can be made for it, and I still do.
waste your time only counting sex if it produces life. but wanna know what else produces life... rape!
Eh yeah, rape that can produce life is unquestionably sex.
why in gods sweet name, would anyone choose to be gay... for "incentives" sure! faking being gay. but if what your saying is, people are becoming gay... because, "incentives" than guess what genius! THEY WERE ALREADY GAY THAN! you, FUCKING! idiot!
Yeah, I don't believe that. When you see that 20-30% of young people suddenly identify as a rainbow cultist, way up from before, there is certainly social contagion going on there.
Under this framework, 'gay' (homosexual) is not a legitimate category. Just because someone desires to do stuff with the same sex, does not make you anything but 'someone who desires that'. Well, people have all sorts of sinful desires, Christians believe.
I made an argument, and you don't seem to have a counterpoint.
It worked for millennia, and there is no reason why it should not 'work' now. I don't care what "turns" someone on, nor do I care about people's happiness.
Before you bring out all the 'isms' against me, I am bisexual. Unfortunately, the spread of acceptance of homosexuality seems to be correlated with the absolute destruction of society. So yeah, I'd rather that it not be pushed in everyone's faces, particularly the faces of children the activists seem to be most interested in grooming.
You lost? I'm the founder of this place.
Great, but it seems that suicides are much higher now than in the past. It seems that sowing gender confusion among children (and I'm not saying you support this) does not do much for lowering suicides, quite the contrary. What were they doing right that people now don't?
Yeah, big fan. I'm also happy that nearly all of the "conservative gays" got behind the Parents' Rights Bill in Florida.
No one is 'pansexual', because that is not a thing.
And so do I. This does not prevent me from seeing that things are going very much in the wrong direction. There are many good gay people, like Glenn Greenwald, and David Starkey, and Dave Rubin, but that does not require one to approve of homosexuality.
All this because I explained Thomistic ideas to you? I bet you can't even tell me why exactly I'm suddenly 'awful'.
What laws? I explained why a good argument can be made why it's not sex, and you did not dispute, let alone refute, the arguments.
You're more straight than I am, because I find lesbians to be extraordinarily boring. And being bisexual is the best of both worlds. I can have women if I want, and I can have men if I want. What's there not to like?
See, the problem is not that any individual is a homosexual. The problem is the mainstreaming and glorification of the matter, and all the nefarious stuff that gets smuggled into the mainstream under the rubric.
I've never heard of "Christians" killing homosexuals in the modern era. Certanly not approved by any institution.
And yet things worked very well when Christianity was the norm, and don't at all work well now, now that adherence to the rainbow cult is the norm.
Historically, no one has been forced to 'fuck' anyone without consent (marriage was considered consent for sex). The most orthodox traditionalists will not argue that homosexuals should be 'forced' to have sex with women, but that they should not be allowed to have sex with men. That is very different from the former.
You can argue about the definition of 'sex'. It's not at all obvious that oral sex should be considered sex, for example.
The KiA2 subreddit.
That would be ideal, I'm just not sure that it is feasible, or that it would solve the issues. The 'slippery slope' alleged fallacy was mocked all the way to the moon, and yet it's the undefeated champion. I myself mocked the religious right for their dire predictions, but I had no idea that they would, if anything, undersell the bad consequences that were to follow.
No, that's another BS label - demisexual I think they call it.
I just explained it to you. Not sure why you're resistant to logic. It doesn't fulfill the final cause of sex, and can therefore be argued to not be sex.
The issue is that with all the glorification of homosexuality, and the recruitment/grooming, vastly larger numbers of people now claim to be bisexual or homosexual. So it's clear that people are changing due to incentives.
By that logic, mutual masturbation or even cybersex would be counted as sex proper, which seems absurd to me.
Only one, as you say, fulfills the final cause of sex, which is to produce life. And you can cite condoms, but the fact is that sex between a man and a woman can in principle create life. 'Sex' between two men never can.
And note that I never even argued for this position. I just said that a good case can be made for it, and I still do.
Eh yeah, rape that can produce life is unquestionably sex.
Yeah, I don't believe that. When you see that 20-30% of young people suddenly identify as a rainbow cultist, way up from before, there is certainly social contagion going on there.