PDA

View Full Version : Common Fault Lines in Maintaining an Evangelical Approach to Homosexuality



RWGR
06-17-2013, 09:34 AM
(an abridged version here,click the link to read the entire piece)

Argument #1: Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality

The problem with this line of thinking is threefold.

First, an evangelical understanding of inspiration does not allow us to prize instructions in the gospel more than instructions elsewhere in Scripture. If we read about homosexuality from the pen of Paul in Romans it has no less than authority or relevance than if we read it from the lips of Jesus in Matthew. All Scripture is breathed out by God, not just the red letters.

Second, it’s hopelessly anachronistic to expect Jesus to directly address all our contemporary concerns. Jesus never said anything explicitly about child abuse, domestic abuse, bestiality, abortion or dozens of other sins

Third, the fact is Jesus spoke about sexual sin often. He warned against lust and infidelity. He confronted the woman at the well. He told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. Likewise, Jesus condemned the sin of porneia (Mark 7:21) which is defined by a leading New Testament lexicon as “unlawful sexual intercourse, prostitution, unchastity, fornication” (BDAG)

Argument #2: We Are Hypocrites Because We Aren’t As Passionate About Divorce.

Wehner contends that we “employ something of a double standard” because we do not show the same fierce opposition to divorce, even though it has been far more devastating to society. I’ve written about this before: comparing evangelical attitudes to homosexuality with evangelical attitudes to divorce is comparing apples and oranges. Admittedly, many evangelicals are complicit in our culture’s lackadaisical attitude toward divorce. Where that’s the case, we ought to condemn the complicity outright. But the analogy with divorce is ultimately misleading. According to the traditional Protestant understanding, which is centuries old, divorce is permissible on certain biblical grounds. This alone makes divorce different from homosexuality. The latter is always wrong in the Bible; the former is sometimes acceptable.

Argument #3: This Is Why Evangelicals Have a Bad Reputation

Arguments like this readily strike a chord with evangelicals. But should they? Bradley Wright, a sociology professor, tackles this question in Christian are Hate-Filled Hypocrites…And Other Lies You’ve Been Told. He argues that (1) negative stereotypes persist for many reasons, often rooted in ignorance or the media, (2) relatively few non-Christians have negative feelings toward “Baptists” even though evangelicals are largely comprised of Baptists, indicating that labeling is the chief culprit, and (3) from 1990-2007 (the best study available at the time) attitudes toward Christians actually improved in the United States. Some people will like us (and most non-Christians probably get along just fine with the evangelicals they know personally). And some people won’t

Argument #4: The Use of Imprecise Language

It’s a subtle thing, but little word choices can make a big difference. And in several places, I found Wehner’s choice of language to be just imprecise enough to be misleading. For example, Wehner contends that Jesus was very concerned about “how a society treats the poor.” This can mean “Jesus loved the poor and admonished the rich who cheated the poor,” which he certainly talked about, but the word “society” (which Jesus never uses!) starts to bring us into the realm of social justice and state-sponsored programs. It’s hard to know what Wehner means. It sounds good and true that Jesus was concerned with “how a society treats the poor” but depending on our definitions Jesus may have actually said very little about the subject.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2013/06/14/common-fault-lines-in-maintaining-an-evangelical-approach-to-homosexuality/

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 04:22 PM
Argument #1: Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality

The problem with this line of thinking is threefold.

First, an evangelical understanding of inspiration does not allow us to prize instructions in the gospel more than instructions elsewhere in Scripture. If we read about homosexuality from the pen of Paul in Romans it has no less than authority or relevance than if we read it from the lips of Jesus in Matthew. All Scripture is breathed out by God, not just the red letters.

Second, it’s hopelessly anachronistic to expect Jesus to directly address all our contemporary concerns. Jesus never said anything explicitly about child abuse, domestic abuse, bestiality, abortion or dozens of other sins

Third, the fact is Jesus spoke about sexual sin often. He warned against lust and infidelity. He confronted the woman at the well. He told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. Likewise, Jesus condemned the sin of porneia (Mark 7:21) which is defined by a leading New Testament lexicon as “unlawful sexual intercourse, prostitution, unchastity, fornication” (BDAG)
Jesus may not have addressed sins like child abuse specifically, but he was quite specific about his position on harming the innocent. that covers pretty much all the examples you just specified and more, but does not cover the act of homosexuality. The bottom line is, if religion and state where separate and gays could marry, there is no rule or teaching that Jesus said I am aware of that forbids this action. And you cannot compare homosexuality to prostitution, they are completely different subjects.


Argument #2: We Are Hypocrites Because We Aren’t As Passionate About Divorce.

Wehner contends that we “employ something of a double standard” because we do not show the same fierce opposition to divorce, even though it has been far more devastating to society. I’ve written about this before: comparing evangelical attitudes to homosexuality with evangelical attitudes to divorce is comparing apples and oranges. Admittedly, many evangelicals are complicit in our culture’s lackadaisical attitude toward divorce. Where that’s the case, we ought to condemn the complicity outright. But the analogy with divorce is ultimately misleading. According to the traditional Protestant understanding, which is centuries old, divorce is permissible on certain biblical grounds. This alone makes divorce different from homosexuality. The latter is always wrong in the Bible; the former is sometimes acceptable.
Lets be honest RWGR, a majority of divorce cases are not a result of said permissible grounds. you are now suggesting one sin is greater than another on grounds that one allows it under some circumstances.

RWGR
06-17-2013, 04:26 PM
I am not suggesting anything. I linked to an article.

You don't have to personalize everything, or become so defensive. Sometimes we just link to articles that are of interest to us, and maybe to others as well.

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 04:28 PM
I am not suggesting anything. I linked to an article.

You don't have to personalize everything, or become so defensive. Sometimes we just link to articles that are of interest to us, and maybe to others as well.

mhmmmm
I may have personalized these comments (not all of them) but I do not see how I am being defensive.

RWGR
06-17-2013, 04:29 PM
And you cannot compare homosexuality to prostitution, they are completely different subjects.

Sins of the flesh (sexual sins). They are, in fact, related, in the Christian view.

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 04:31 PM
Right but I am trying to explain that there is no real difference, the act of prostitution, I hold my beliefs about that are not relevant to this topic, but the fact remains it is mostly considered illegal, homosexuality, however, is not.

RWGR
06-17-2013, 04:35 PM
Right but I am trying to explain that there is no real difference, the act of prostitution, I hold my beliefs about that are not relevant to this topic, but the fact remains it is mostly considered illegal, homosexuality, however, is not.

Correct, but the central idea of this thread is the Evangelical response to homosexuality, and as such secular laws are only part of the equation. It is impossible to deal with the issue of the Evangelical response to homosexuality without bringing in Christian / biblical principles into the equation

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 04:39 PM
Yes, however, you are placing homosexuality in the same category of "Sexual sins" only under the invented premise that homosexuality is considered a sin.

RWGR
06-17-2013, 04:43 PM
Yes, however, you are placing homosexuality in the same category of "Sexual sins" only under the invented premise that homosexuality is considered a sin.

Well, yes, because we are talking about the Evangelical approach to homosexuality.

It is very difficult to separate biblical and Christian principles in such a discussion, wouldn't you agree?

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 04:46 PM
I don't see the need to separate the biblical and christian principals here. the Evangelical approach to homosexuality is completely made up.

RWGR
06-17-2013, 04:57 PM
I don't see the need to separate the biblical and christian principals here. the Evangelical approach to homosexuality is completely made up.

I didn't mean separate Christian and Evangelical. I should have typed it "Christian-Evangelical"

As someone who is not an Evangelical, I do have certain issues where we do not agree; but on the whole I feel they are correct in their views with this issue, at least as they are presented by the author of this article.

As for this view "being made up", I suppose that is correct, inasmuch as we can say any view, ever, has been "made up"...made up of intellectual debate, reading, debating, compromising, etc.

As such, the homosexual view on marriage is "made up", too.

So what's your point?

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 05:04 PM
So you make up a sin, throw it in a category then claim it's a sin because it's in said category, completely circular.

RWGR
06-17-2013, 05:19 PM
So you make up a sin, throw it in a category then claim it's a sin because it's in said category, completely circular.

Strawman...here we go


(sigh)

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 05:45 PM
You just pick logical fallacies at random and cry wolf whenever you don't have an argument. How is this a strawman?

RWGR
06-18-2013, 09:20 AM
You just pick logical fallacies at random and cry wolf whenever you don't have an argument. How is this a strawman?

You claim Christians "make up sin"

That, if it were true, would be easy to decimate (which is why you create it). But it's not true, not even close.

dancingqueen
06-18-2013, 09:42 AM
where in the Bible is homosexuality directly forbidden?

RWGR
06-18-2013, 10:10 AM
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. - Leviticus 18:22

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. - Leviticus 20:13

Judah did evil in the eyes of the LORD. By the sins they committed they stirred up his jealous anger more than their fathers had done. There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. – 1st Kings 14:22,24

Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as his father David had done. He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made. – 1st Kings 15:11-12

The king stood by the pillar and renewed the covenant in the presence of the LORD – to follow the LORD and keep his commands, regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, thus confirming the words of the covenant written in this book. He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah. – 2 Kings 23:3, 7

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. – 1st Corinthians 6:9-10

Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” - Matthew 19:5-6

dancingqueen
06-18-2013, 10:15 AM
So none of those even mention homosexuality except the Corinthians one. Which as I'm sure you are aware actually has been derived from the original text to say "the effeminate" and according to the St. James dictionary refers to child molestation, grown men having sex with the younger men as was a practice held by many other empires of the time.

dancingqueen
06-18-2013, 10:18 AM
But I suppose if you equate male prostitution as homosexuality, I could see the confusion. Perhaps someone needs to explain to you what homosexuality actually is.

RWGR
06-18-2013, 10:18 AM
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable

Don't have to read too hard between the lines for that one

dancingqueen
06-18-2013, 10:40 AM
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable

Don't have to read too hard between the lines for that one

Not if you have already decided what it means.
It doesn't outright claim to be referring to homosexuality
and I am not trying to be funny, I have slept with men and women, and I can tell you from experience, they are nothing alike.
lying with man as one lies with woman "as one" could mean anything, unless you have a preconceived idea of what you would like it to mean.
The phrase could easily be referring to the act of sleeping with a man at the same time as sleeping with a woman, thus referring to infidelity, or to the practice I referred to previously. And you may call that a reach, but it is only one if you have never considered it before.

RWGR
06-18-2013, 10:46 AM
Not if you have already decided what it means.
It doesn't outright claim to be referring to homosexuality



Okay, you're just being purposely obtuse now.

Please, you're wasting both our time at this point.

dancingqueen
06-18-2013, 10:50 AM
Okay, you're just being purposely obtuse now.

Please, you're wasting both our time at this point.

People have told you for too long what that means, the bottom line is, the Bible does not outright defy homosexuality, and you cannot show me where it does. This seems to upset you.

RWGR
06-18-2013, 02:44 PM
People have told you for too long what that means, the bottom line is, the Bible does not outright defy homosexuality, and you cannot show me where it does. This seems to upset you.

I've shown you very clearly. As I say, you're just being obtuse now, and that's too bad.

What does the following mean to you: "If a man lies with a man"

dancingqueen
06-18-2013, 04:11 PM
I've shown you very clearly. As I say, you're just being obtuse now, and that's too bad.

What does the following mean to you: "If a man lies with a man"

Well it is an incomplete sentence, but something will happen if an adult male lays along side another adult male, or if an adult male speaks untrue things along with another adult male.

RWGR
06-18-2013, 05:33 PM
Well it is an incomplete sentence, but something will happen if an adult male lays along side another adult male, or if an adult male speaks untrue things along with another adult male.

Okay, you don't want to be serious, so let's move on

dancingqueen
06-18-2013, 07:17 PM
Okay, you don't want to be serious, so let's move on

I am being serious.
Typical diversion technique
Whenever you have no rebuttal you divert. Or in this case, whenever you ask a question and don't get the answer you want.

KDawg
06-18-2013, 09:38 PM
People have told you for too long what that means, the bottom line is, the Bible does not outright defy homosexuality, and you cannot show me where it does. This seems to upset you.
DQ, you should really read what the bible says before you definitively try to relate what it says. Cor. 6:9-11,


Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 12:38 AM
DQ, you should really read what the bible says before you definitively try to relate what it says. Cor. 6:9-11,

Read my post that addresses this, it was quite clear.... but you people only read what suits your purposes everything else seems to vanish from memory.

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 12:39 AM
post # 18 to make it easier
One can only bring a horse to water though....
It's up to the horse to decide to drink it.

Bluesky
06-19-2013, 09:42 AM
Isn't it interesting - that a person who doesn't believe the Bible has any moral authority over him still tries to make the Bible say something it doesn't say. Why try to deconstruct something that holds no sway over you?

Bluesky
06-19-2013, 09:43 AM
So none of those even mention homosexuality except the Corinthians one. Which as I'm sure you are aware actually has been derived from the original text to say "the effeminate" and according to the St. James dictionary refers to child molestation, grown men having sex with the younger men as was a practice held by many other empires of the time.

St James dictionary??? Please. Don't do this to yourself.

RWGR
06-19-2013, 10:34 AM
St. James dictionary???









I need a nap

RWGR
06-19-2013, 10:38 AM
I am being serious.
Typical diversion technique
Whenever you have no rebuttal you divert.

I am indeed diverting, because you are impossible to discuss things with. Even the most ardent anti-Christian would admit "If a man lies with a man" is pretty straightforward in its meaning. But you can't even admit that. To be honest, it's boring.

Did you work in the Clinton Administration during the Lewinsky scandal? I have a sneaky suspicion you're the one that told him to say "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 12:31 PM
Isn't it interesting - that a person who doesn't believe the Bible has any moral authority over him still tries to make the Bible say something it doesn't say. Why try to deconstruct something that holds no sway over you?

The Bible doesn't hold authority over me, but it does others. and despite what you religious people think, I am quite concerned about others and their well being despite not relying on the Bible for my morals and values.

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 12:33 PM
I am indeed diverting, because you are impossible to discuss things with. Even the most ardent anti-Christian would admit "If a man lies with a man" is pretty straightforward in its meaning. But you can't even admit that. To be honest, it's boring.

Did you work in the Clinton Administration during the Lewinsky scandal? I have a sneaky suspicion you're the one that told him to say "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"

Words have meanings RWGR, and when you are talking about guidelines about how other people choose to live their lives it is important to determine the meaning of those words.

RWGR
06-19-2013, 12:41 PM
Words have meanings RWGR, and when you are talking about guidelines about how other people choose to live their lives it is important to determine the meaning of those words.

Obfuscate, obfuscate, ob...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 12:44 PM
Obfuscate, obfuscate, ob...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Translation:
your points make me uncomfortable and I got nothing

The bottom line is that nowhere in the Bible does it expressly forbid homosexuality. And that bothers you.

RWGR
06-19-2013, 12:47 PM
Translation:
your points make me uncomfortable and I got nothing

The bottom line is that nowhere in the Bible does it expressly forbid homosexuality. And that bothers you.

It forbids it quite a few times. You go to such verbal acrobatics to deny as much it is funny, if not tedious at times.

As for being uncomfortable, not at all. I am quite comfortable in what the Bible says on the issue. Furthermore, I am really comfortable in knowing if males slept with only males starting tomorrow we would be decimated as a race in about one hundred years. Just that fact alone shows homosexuality is highly-disordered, and totally against nature.

as for the "translation", good job; you're following the master, and the greatest form of flattery is imitation.

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 03:30 PM
It forbids it quite a few times. You go to such verbal acrobatics to deny as much it is funny, if not tedious at times.

As for being uncomfortable, not at all. I am quite comfortable in what the Bible says on the issue. Furthermore, I am really comfortable in knowing if males slept with only males starting tomorrow we would be decimated as a race in about one hundred years. Just that fact alone shows homosexuality is highly-disordered, and totally against nature.

as for the "translation", good job; you're following the master, and the greatest form of flattery is imitation.

Strawman, no one is saying everyone should be homosexual.
You cannot show where the Bible expressly forbids the action so you build these strawmen to defeat so you can "win"

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 03:33 PM
P.S homosexual acts =/= exclusively homosexual.
There's pansexual, homo/heteroflexible and the commonly understood bisexuals.
Where do these identities fit in the grand scheme of things?

RWGR
06-19-2013, 05:37 PM
Strawman, no one is saying everyone should be homosexual.
You cannot show where the Bible expressly forbids the action so you build these strawmen to defeat so you can "win"

Son, I realize you want to be like me, but ease up on the copying. If I copyrighted my online self you'd be in jail! :)

I didn't say anyone said everyone should be a homosexual ,just pointing out how un-natural it is.

And, the Bible is very clear in what it says on the issue. Sorry it doesn't jive with your values.

RWGR
06-19-2013, 05:39 PM
P.S homosexual acts =/= exclusively homosexual.
There's pansexual, homo/heteroflexible and the commonly understood bisexuals.
Where do these identities fit in the grand scheme of things?

If the pen** isn't entering the va****, it's un-natural, if one just takes into account the utility of the act.

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 05:46 PM
Fact of the matter is, you cannot show where the Bible explicitly says homosexuality is wrong. I accept your white flag :)

RWGR
06-19-2013, 06:39 PM
Fact of the matter is, you cannot show where the Bible explicitly says homosexuality is wrong. I accept your white flag :)

I've showed it quite clearly, as anyone reading this thread would attest.

What has yet to happen, is you showing how homosexuals are having their rights infringed. The fact you had to resort to Soonet's version of "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" shows you cannot prove any such thing.

Desiring to be a victim, and actually being one, are two very distinct things...a lesson I fear you're learning the hard way (no pun intended)

KDawg
06-19-2013, 06:54 PM
P.S homosexual acts =/= exclusively homosexual.
There's pansexual, homo/heteroflexible and the commonly understood bisexuals.
Where do these identities fit in the grand scheme of things?
Andrew Dice Clay said it best,


And bisexuals, there is no such thing. Let me clear that up right now. You either suck d.ick or you do not suck d.ick. What do these guys do? Get up in the morning and flip a coin to decide? 'Heads, I want hairpie. Tails, balls across the nose.

RWGR
06-19-2013, 07:05 PM
Andrew Dice Clay said it best,

Little Boy Blue...he needed the money ...WHOA!

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 09:22 PM
Andrew Dice Clay said it best,

Andrew Dice Clay... yah, there's an intellectual.
If this is how we are going to discuss anything, count me out.... you keep your hick ideas to yourself and the other hicks....
Unless you would be so kind as to show any evidence that one cannot like both genders...

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 09:25 PM
I've showed it quite clearly, as anyone reading this thread would attest.

What has yet to happen, is you showing how homosexuals are having their rights infringed. The fact you had to resort to Soonet's version of "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" shows you cannot prove any such thing.

Desiring to be a victim, and actually being one, are two very distinct things...a lesson I fear you're learning the hard way (no pun intended)

the verse you are referring to is vague at best. It did not say "men who have relations with men...." it adds the "as with woman" what does that part mean? Why is it added? It could have simply said "men who lie with men" but it goes on to add the extra part.

RWGR
06-20-2013, 10:06 AM
"as with a woman" is the key part, it can mean nothing but sexual intercoruse

dancingqueen
06-20-2013, 11:14 AM
explain how that means sexual intercourse?
Gay men don't have sex with women, so if they where laying with a woman, it would not be sexual in nature.

RWGR
06-20-2013, 11:19 AM
explain how that means sexual intercourse?
Gay men don't have sex with women, so if they where laying with a woman, it would not be sexual in nature.

If a man lays with a man as he lays with a woman.

means

If a man has sex with a man as he does with a woman

Bluesky
06-20-2013, 11:41 AM
RWGR, here is one way the gay apologist will explain the Levitical passage.
In that culture (they say) a male was always dominant with women (in their sexual relationship and in every other way). Thus, when bedding another man, one should not treat that man like one would a woman. Don't 'treat' him like you would treat her.

So the phrase "as with a woman" is qualified to mean, that when lying with a man, one should do so with respect. Otherwise, you receive the death penalty. Right.

Which is of course, a ridiculous interpretation. Historically, grammatically, culturally and in every other possible way, DQ is wrong. And he knows it

Oh and by the way, there are plenty of examples in the Old Testament where a woman was the dominant agressive one, or at least treated as an equal.

dancingqueen
06-20-2013, 11:47 AM
Well Blue, you are very wrong in claiming what I think.

dancingqueen
06-20-2013, 11:48 AM
If a man lays with a man as he lays with a woman.

means

If a man has sex with a man as he does with a woman

newsflash... gay men don't have sex with women, you see "gay" in this context means.... ah nevermind.....

RWGR
06-20-2013, 12:06 PM
newsflash... gay men don't have sex with women, you see "gay" in this context means.... ah nevermind.....

This is not about a gay man sleeping with a woman, it is about two men sleeping together (having sex)

You can see it, it's just you're too angry right now to admit defeat.

Bluesky
06-20-2013, 12:45 PM
Well Blue, you are very wrong in claiming what I think.

I was not claiming anything about what you think.

However, would you be so kind as to give me your studied opinion on the correct interpretation of the Leviticus passage?

Secondly, how do you deal with Genesis 19, and what was the sin of Sodom for which the entire place was judged and destroyed?

Bluesky
06-20-2013, 06:25 PM
<crickets>

KDawg
06-20-2013, 07:12 PM
Andrew Dice Clay... yah, there's an intellectual.
If this is how we are going to discuss anything, count me out.... you keep your hick ideas to yourself and the other hicks....
Unless you would be so kind as to show any evidence that one cannot like both genders...
I don't give any credence to what your pointy-headed sociology/psychology professors tell you...there are only two genders. What the hell is pan-sexual or heteroflexible?

RWGR
06-20-2013, 08:35 PM
pointy-headed sociology/psychology professors

And therein lies the reason DQ can't move past a certain point: higher education ruined the poor boy.

official soonet pu$$ycat
06-20-2013, 08:57 PM
I don't give any credence to what your pointy-headed sociology/psychology professors tell you...there are only two genders. What the hell is pan-sexual or heteroflexible?

I hate when people use sociology and psychology professors as sources. They see what they want to see and then they "prove" it. We have all these sociologists coming up with ways to protects kids and they are doing the complete opposite.

Bluesky
06-21-2013, 10:22 AM
And therein lies the reason DQ can't move past a certain point: higher education ruined the poor boy.

He should not have let his schooling get in the way of his education.

Bluesky
06-21-2013, 10:23 AM
The life of the academy is novelty. To publish, you need to discover something new. And if you want tenure, you must publish.

dancingqueen
06-21-2013, 11:27 AM
I don't give any credence to what your pointy-headed sociology/psychology professors tell you...there are only two genders. What the hell is pan-sexual or heteroflexible?

There is this invention... it's called a dictionary. it's this book, and it has words in them.... And it tells you what they mean
I know things like using this fabled book called the "dictionary" is foreign to some but just cause you don't understand it does not mean it comes from university or college.

dancingqueen
06-21-2013, 11:30 AM
He should not have let his schooling get in the way of his education.

Sorry, we weren't all raised in the time when you could just walk into a place and say "I want a job" and get a livable wage.

dancingqueen
06-21-2013, 11:31 AM
I hate when people use sociology and psychology professors as sources. They see what they want to see and then they "prove" it. We have all these sociologists coming up with ways to protects kids and they are doing the complete opposite.

Translation:
I hate it when people use "evidence" and "research" as proof.

RWGR
06-21-2013, 12:07 PM
Translation:


Sometimes, I feel like a proud papa :)

official soonet pu$$ycat
06-21-2013, 01:00 PM
Translation:
I hate it when people use "evidence" and "research" as proof.


Here lets take a look at a study to see how much evidence and proof they have.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/06/12/peds.2012-3801.abstract


Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Sibling aggression is common but often dismissed as benign. We examine whether being a victim of various forms of sibling aggression is associated with children’s and adolescents’ mental health distress. We also contrast the consequences of sibling versus peer aggression for children’s and adolescents’ mental health.


METHODS: We analyzed a national probability sample (n = 3599) that included telephone interviews about past year victimizations conducted with youth aged 10 to 17 or an adult caregiver concerning children aged 0 to 9.


RESULTS: Children ages 0 to 9 and youth ages 10 to 17 who experienced sibling aggression in the past year (ie, psychological, property, mild or severe physical assault), reported greater mental health distress. Children ages 0 to 9 showed greater mental health distress than did youth aged 10 to 17 in the case of mild physical assault, but they did not differ for the other types of sibling aggression. Comparison of sibling versus peer aggression generally showed that sibling and peer aggression independently and uniquely predicted worsened mental health.



Now there is a method with evidence and proof. Just like every study, no natural setting so they can pretty much get any result they want.

dancingqueen
06-21-2013, 03:55 PM
What do you mean no "natural settings" and how does that mean they get whatever result they want?

The Left Sock
06-23-2013, 05:39 PM
People should really take a course, or add least read a book on Experimental Design, before floundering around, trying to poke holes in social science.

It's a science, people. With rules, measures, checks and balances. Some science is good, some is bunk, but unless you have some background in understanding the differences, you're just throwing darts at a board, while blindfolded.

KDawg
06-23-2013, 05:44 PM
There is this invention... it's called a dictionary. it's this book, and it has words in them.... And it tells you what they mean
I know things like using this fabled book called the "dictionary" is foreign to some but just cause you don't understand it does not mean it comes from university or college.
Dictionary?

Any intelligent twelve-year-old can put together a technical definition written by a pointy-headed sociology teacher. That doesn't make the the bi's, pan's and flexibles genders.

dancingqueen
06-23-2013, 11:33 PM
Dictionary?

Any intelligent twelve-year-old can put together a technical definition written by a pointy-headed sociology teacher. That doesn't make the the bi's, pan's and flexibles genders.

Huh?

dancingqueen
06-25-2013, 02:57 AM
Dictionary?

Any intelligent twelve-year-old can put together a technical definition written by a pointy-headed sociology teacher. That doesn't make the the bi's, pan's and flexibles genders.

Are you suggesting dictionaries are unimportant books? or that bisexuals pansexuals and flexible genders don't exist?

KDawg
06-25-2013, 06:54 PM
or that bisexuals pansexuals and flexible genders don't exist?
Bingo.

dancingqueen
06-25-2013, 07:16 PM
Bingo.

any evidence to support this?
Otherwise, just stop talking now because there is no point in having an intellectual conversation with someone who refuses to use intellect.

KDawg
06-25-2013, 07:55 PM
any evidence to support this?
Otherwise, just stop talking now because there is no point in having an intellectual conversation with someone who refuses to use intellect.
I asked this in a previous post...

What is a pan-sexual? What is a hetero-flexible?

dancingqueen
06-25-2013, 08:20 PM
I asked this in a previous post...

What is a pan-sexual? What is a hetero-flexible?

A pan sexual is someone who is sexually attracted to one's personality, or sexual energy. They do not differentiate between genders and often hold the belief that gender is not dichotomous.
hetero-flexible refers to someone who is primarily heterosexual, yet are flexible. often flexibility comes from personality likeness or opportunity.

RWGR
06-26-2013, 11:40 AM
A pan sexual is someone who is sexually attracted to one's personality, or sexual energy. They do not differentiate between genders and often hold the belief that gender is not dichotomous.
hetero-flexible refers to someone who is primarily heterosexual, yet are flexible. often flexibility comes from personality likeness or opportunity.

Translation: "Pan-Sexual" and "Hetero-Flexible" are terms created by today's version of the inhabitants of yesterday's Sodom and Gomorrah

dancingqueen
06-26-2013, 07:06 PM
I am not well versed, can you explain to me how that makes these people or their feelings any less valid?

KDawg
06-26-2013, 07:54 PM
I am not well versed, can you explain to me how that makes these people or their feelings any less valid?It doesn't make their feelings less valid. But feelings don't warrant a change to the definition of gender.

dancingqueen
06-26-2013, 10:28 PM
"A pan sexual is someone who will have sex with either gender. A hetero-flexible is someone who will have sex with either gender."

Whatever happened to bi-sexual?

Pan sexual and hetero-flexible aren't anything but made up b.s.

It's not complicated, you either like having sex with women, men, or both, and you're either straight, gay, or bisexual.

...Unless you're a hermaphrodite, then you're just really unlucky.

These people tend not to believe in the dichotomous nature of gender.
Pansexuals also do not find attraction based off of gender, rather a personality. That is, it is not their ***** or ****** that attracts them or the chromosomes they have, but the personality.

RWGR
06-27-2013, 10:04 AM
I am not well versed, can you explain to me how that makes these people or their feelings any less valid?

No one said their feelings are less valid.What is invalid is the game of creative semantics to try and normalize sins and bad behavior today.

poorly-raised kids aren't bad kids, they simply have ADHD (not saying ADHD isn't real, but the designation is abused greatly)

An alcoholic isn't really an alcoholic,he is a Weekend Warrior

Wanting to stick you p**** everywhere but where it belongs isn't disordered sexuality, it's pan-sexual


and on and on and on ...

dancingqueen
06-27-2013, 11:36 AM
Ahh you feel we should revert to the good ol' days... when people believed in witches and that rainbows are God's apologies.... When diabetes was a death sentence and plagues where commonplace.... Yes, life was so much better back then, and scientific research was so far superior to what it is these days....
Oh, someone has cancer? lets have a bloodletting ritual to suck the evil spirit out and have a sacrifice to thank the Gods. Oh, it didn't work? Well it was just the will of God.... Such sound science.

The Voice
06-27-2013, 11:51 AM
Wanting to stick you p**** everywhere

Now we're talking Weekend Warrior.

RWGR
06-27-2013, 05:22 PM
Ahh you feel we should revert to the good ol' days... when people believed in witches and that rainbows are God's apologies.... When diabetes was a death sentence and plagues where commonplace.... Yes, life was so much better back then, and scientific research was so far superior to what it is these days....
Oh, someone has cancer? lets have a bloodletting ritual to suck the evil spirit out and have a sacrifice to thank the Gods. Oh, it didn't work? Well it was just the will of God.... Such sound science.

DQ, you've really lost it. Surprisingly, (or maybe not so) you were a better debater before you got that piece of paper that said 'you have a higher education'.

Before then you brought up good points; now, you just create strawman after strawman if the pointy-headed theories you subscribe to are found wanting.

Very sad, my friend.

RWGR
06-27-2013, 05:23 PM
Now we're talking Weekend Warrior.

Admitting your problem is the first step. Well done!

dancingqueen
06-27-2013, 08:24 PM
DQ, you've really lost it. Surprisingly, (or maybe not so) you were a better debater before you got that piece of paper that said 'you have a higher education'.

Before then you brought up good points; now, you just create strawman after strawman if the pointy-headed theories you subscribe to are found wanting.

Very sad, my friend.

You over react to make a point, I will respond in kind.

RWGR
06-28-2013, 09:56 AM
You over react to make a point, I will respond in kind.

The...what???

dancingqueen
06-29-2013, 03:18 PM
They're either gay, straight or bisexual. Trying to cloud the sexual orientation with variables doesn't change it.

The absurdity of your argument is tantamount to this:

Person 1: Do you prefer to eat fish or steak?

Person 2: Well you see, it's not that I prefer to eat steak, it's that I'm simply more attracted to the nuances of its taste and texture.

Person 1: So you prefer to eat steak.

Person 2: No, you're presenting a false dichotomy, it's not that I prefer to eat steak, it's just that steak's characteristics are more appealing to me.


You're trying to change what someone is, by pretending that the reason, is the thing they are.

"I'm not gay, I'm just attracted to men because of their personality. I'm a homopersonalitysexual"

There's 2 genders, 3 sexual orientations, and then a bunch of genetic mutants.

Are you suggesting someone ca only be intimately attracted to someone based off of what is between their legs?

dancingqueen
06-29-2013, 07:59 PM
You over simplify things, If that is what you must do that's fine.
But out of curiosity, what do you call people that are Asexual?
They probably don't exist right?

dancingqueen
06-30-2013, 06:47 PM
These terms are used by means of identification, they are not a state of being
That clearly implies we are all born with our sexuality and that ones sexuality is unchanging and stasis. This is not true.
And by "going wrong" do you mean simply, that something different happened? Can you support this? Scientists have found that one's sexual orientation cannot be traced back to biological development alone, that would tell me the same for people that are asexual.

dancingqueen
07-01-2013, 01:13 AM
Nope, how one identifies themselves or are identified by others is very important as you are pointing out now.
I was not born gay, and I was not always gay, me being gay is based off of a series of events and choices I have made. I do not regret these choices, and I most certainly have no one to "blame" but myself. Interesting choice of words though... "blame"
I would be interested in you substantiating that claim of hormonal imbalance... I mean science has already addressed this topic, so why don't you fall back on magic to explain.

dancingqueen
07-01-2013, 01:31 PM
The only reason to identify groups of people as "something" is to stereotype them.



Agreed, you were not always gay, you were asexual until your hormones kicked in, then you became gay. Interesting that you say your being gay is because of your choices...



I like how you say "Well science says..." as if science is some allknowing best friend of your's that never requires you cite anything in particular... "Well, I mean, my good friend Science has already addressed this topic..." If you don't know that science has established that hormonal imbalances impact sex drive, then you need to stop quoting your best friend Science.

Source (http://www.womentowomen.com/sexualityandfertility/menopause-sexdrive-libido.aspx)


Source (http://www.zrtlab.com/patients/male-hormones)


Seriously man, there's a million studies linking hormonal imbalance (Testosterone, Estrogen, Cortisol, Epinephrine) to diminished sex drive... Quit pretending you know everything, and quit pretending that you can just say "Well science says" as if that's some sort of rebuttal. It's not.

I am quite aware of the relationship between hormones and sex drive, I never made any claim otherwise.
I never said being gay was purely a choice.
yes, creating identities is made to stereotype people, we do it all the time If you think we are not all stereotyped to some degree you are a fool.
You are making an identity yourself, because you called yourself "blunt" now you are extenuating that characteristic to try and appear like a "no-nonsense" expert on the topic.

dancingqueen
07-01-2013, 11:51 PM
You must have redefined what 'asexual' means, because you clearly don't seem to know. I give explanations of my opinion on both commonly accepted definitions, and you're still clueless.



You're intellectually lazy to the point that even Soundbear sounds smarter than you.

Would you like to take this opportunity to pretend you've been trolling this whole time, and that you're not actually that stupid?

So not worth my time....

dancingqueen
07-03-2013, 04:04 PM
You just destroyed this thread with your unwillingness to discuss the topic and your eager desire to show off how "blunt" you can be, because being blunt means you have to insult people....

dancingqueen
07-05-2013, 07:32 PM
The thread is still here for anyone who wants to discuss anything mentioned. Just because the thread was destroyed for you,

*crickets*

dancingqueen
07-05-2013, 07:52 PM
Guess no one cares about panheteroflexiblebentoversexuals.

No one wants to discuss this anymore because you killed it, congrats.