Since the rape was committed upon one of the same gender, the act was (by definition) homosexual.
The act, okay, I guess that is the best way to describe the act. This really is a dispute between the #1 and #2 definition of “homosexual”. While one is more a noun and the other more an adjective and they can refer to very different things, I can see they both can describe something in the real word. Another word is needed…
I can think of a number of slang pejoratives.
Prison rape can be both; starvation for sex of any kind by one with no self discipline (obviously, if the person is a "criminal", he has no self-discipline), and domination of another.
Sure.
So, if I was a person who was tempted to kill someone who pissed me off, and was able to restrain myself, then killed other people under legal situations (during warfare, or in self-defense), would I then be a "murderer"?
Not by the definition of murder, as I understand it. You’d be a killer, and a hothead regardless.
I'm damned tired of seeing the culture degrade in all ways, and hearing the same, lame excuses why it must be so.
I’m sure you are. But a natural, innate orientation or inclination towards
any behavior is not an excuse for that behavior, lame or no. The morality of the behavior should be the question. Instead, it’s an explanation, and those should never be feared. As I’ve said (what, 20 pages ago?), “natural” equals “good” or “something to be promoted” is not an idea I subscribe to.
In fact, the reason we have things like prison, and capitol punishment is because we know we can change the will of criminals and potential criminals who would be inclined to commit crime; otherwise what’s the point of punishment?
Also doesn’t it somewhat degrade the culture to resist using perfectly good words like “orientation” that describe reality just fine, for political concerns?
That's right. Just words will "brand" you. I'm branded on this forum..........for words.
Sure you are. We all are.
And, for the record, I don't batter others (unless in self-defense).
Good. You’re first couple posts here put that in question.
Huh?
I drink lots of coffee. Does that mean that lots of LDS die with each cup?
I've lived with LDS people, and watched them drink coffee (and even BEER!). They didn't die, nor did they even get sick.
Ah, the “Jack-Mormon”, a rare animal around these parts. They are technically LDS but not adherent to all the rules, nor do they feel they should be; I’m sure, you have your own version in your faith.
My father in-law was an LDS bishop, and I’ve several relatives living the “higher law”, and, to them, coffee is evil (not to mention beer!). Are your LDS friends, by such sins trivializing the other LDS morals, such as thou shalt not kill?
You are certainly sinning, even brazenly and publicly, by many people’s measure, but do you think you trivialize murder by doing so, or would it trivialize murder to put it on the same level as, say, eating pork?
I'm not orthodox Jew. I don't think I harm anyone with what I eat. Nor do they harm me when they eat what they will.
My sentiment exactly.
Nor do homosexuals harm me when they engage in homosexual activity, as long as it's in the privacy of their own homes, and they don't make it part of my culture.
If, by homosexual activity in the privacy of their own homes, you mean some sort of sexual activity, then 1. it’s been a part of every culture, even those killing off anyone caught in such a sex act (or often even falsely accused of it, e.g. the Templars), and 2. only the most radical of individuals are trying to make sex public and in your face. It ain’t me or the majority of gays.
But you may actually be asking for something totally different, that gays make public behaviors private. No more going to our office dinners together, no more going to parent teacher’s conference together, no more telling the truth to our neighbors when they eventually ask.
Some may even think anything that indicates “I’m homosexual” tells them something about some imagined private sex act. But they’d be wrong.
I wouldn't know the difference between left and right hand scissors.
I'm ambidextrous.
So you’re bihanded, then. Sicko.
Like I've written; been there. It has been done to me.
Not sure what you mean here. It’s not “don’t do unto others what you’d not want done to you”. The rule isn’t contingent on what’s been done to you, either. Though I do see there is some problems with the original: Even if you enjoyed, say, paper cuts in between your toes while you soaked in lemon juice, it’d not mean you could do that to another morally.
In the end your average man feels the same inclination and orientation towards pairing up and making a family as a lesbian woman. Why he’d want to debase that as a sin when acted upon, when he feels the same and also acts upon it accordingly, is what tells me he has a problem with the golden rule.
I mean, homosexual men, the personalities they are, the souls if you want, aren’t really attracted to their same sex, if you want to be totally exact. They are attracted to a particular sex, regardless of their sex, just like all the heterosexuals out there. If you put that gay man into a body with the sexual anatomy of their opposite sex, they’d still be attracted to men, not women; the difference would be in the world’s blessing.
"Sex that spreads death and disease" isn't the definition of "immoral sex".
Certainly it’s
a definition.
A close, homosexual cousin died of AIDS in the early 1980's before it was even recognized as a disease. We didn't even know what killed him until a few years later.
I didn't kill him. Nor would I. And his death hurt us all, badly.
I am sorry for your loss. That’s horrible.
Of course not. But, by the same token, morality has been examined for at least 3,000 recorded years.
When are people going to learn?
(Answer: In this world, never).
Exactly.
And we keep on examining.
To my mind (don’t want to get into it with the people here who are relativists), throughout history the boarder between moral and immoral has been something we’ve been continually discovering and mapping, as we would a coastline. You can’t just say, for example, you shouldn’t kill. In some instances it’s the right thing to do; sometimes it may be even your duty. But, also like a coastline, that boarder is fractal, where each simple scenario of a moral killing may have an infinite set of sub-scenarios in which it is or is not. We’ll simply never stop examining morality.
He has already given us the moral compass to recognize evil. We just need to recognize and admit it.
Many others have told me that same thing. They also try to recognize and admit what they find by the compass He gave them, but it’s not always what the other guy is getting.
Personally, if God is up there, I think He made homosexuals to test and see who paid attention to Jesus and who paid attention to the imperfect humans surrounding him.
) In case you can’t tell, just jesting, not posing a serious theological theory of the origins of homosexuality)
You're right. I'm not sure. Just like you're not sure about what I write.
We're reading each other's words through our own glasses.
Yes, trouble is, it’s a private subject, and neither of us wants to clear it up by making it public. So we’ll just agree to
both be ignorant
,
BINGO. Any aspect of sex that the state doesn't have a stake in should be out-of-bounds for the state.
Fine. What about parenting? What about agreements between parents? What about people using welfare because they are technically an unmarried parent with no income or assets, when their partner makes 6 figures?
I fully support lifelong partners obtaining SSA survivorship benefits under certain circumstances, as well as health benefits (even from private health insurance carriers, although I respect their objections under the current health crisis situation), even though both will result in an increase in the overall contributions to the entire population.
1st half of that sentence: I’m sorry I keep forgetting that. Thank you.
2nd half of that sentence: Any evidence for that? I’ve posted 3 separate studies for 3 separate US governmental organization that show a saving to tax payers upon SSM being allowed; one was from the congressional budget office. Simply put, taxes aren’t the full story, you have to look at stuff like welfare too. For example again, I, personally could just keep 5K of our money if I had SSM in my state, or my partner can now take over 5K in welfare (though, because I’m a stubborn prude, I’m not taking the welfare). You tell me, even if it were just 5K, even trade, is it most efficient to run that through the hands of the government or just to keep it in the citizen’s hand?
What's not surprising is that my sins are not even known by you.
Nope.
I'm not making an issue of them. I keep them in my closet. In private.
Me too.
That's where they belong, unless they harm others.
Sure.
We are all human. The longer you live, the more you sin. If you're unlucky, you live long and sin extensively.
Well, I’ve not got a death wish and don’t consider those I love unlucky for living, even considering the sins we’ll all accumulate. I’d prefer to live long enough to see grandkids, but, after that, I’ll give up the ghost without much a fight.
It's not easy to live with, unless you keep your mouth shut. Even then, you have to live with yourself.
Sure, guilt is like no other tormentor and I’d either absolutely hate or love to know the person free of it.
It's best to keep it in the closet rather than infect the rest of the world, particularly your children, with it.
Agreed.
That was easy.
-----
Aside, let me explain one big reasons I have a problem with you lumping what isn’t immoral with what is (Yes, I know we disagree about what is, but let me explain). This is admittedly anecdotal (if anyone has a reference to data, I’d love to see it), but of the gay kids and adults I know that fare best, are most responsible with sex, and are the ones I’d trust as greatly moral and respectable individuals, most all are either from homes with a religion where homosexuality is not a sin, like the Episcopals, or from nonreligious, agnostic, or atheists homes, where it’s not immoral. The gays that I trust the least (because of bad experiences), are most promiscuous, into drugs, and so on seem most often to be from homes with religions that really promote strict morality but also treat homosexuality as a sin.
Of course, this is just a trend I’ve noticed. Exceptions are prevalent and I’d not want to tarnish a gay person who grew up, say, LDS, and bucked it.
Though it maybe counterintuitive at first, I think it’s pretty clear how this could happen. Many of those kids ruining their lives and who are greatly untrustworthy think about their homosexuality the way you’ve, Huntster, typed about it here. Homosexuality is there right along with lying, stealing, cheating, promiscuity, alcoholism, even murder. If they’re gay--and they directly know they are innately no matter what anyone says--and they ever want any sort of physical intimacy and life log companionship they’d find natural, they may as well also sleep around and abuse alcohol. They’re out of their social bounds and the price of celibacy or unnatural sex, to get back in, is ridiculous to them and not asked of their heterosexual peers. They get angry and through the baby out with the bathwater, and their parents gave then a reason to do it.
But the other set of parents/families did not; their kids have families that don’t expect any less of them for being gay or having sex. They don't just raise great straight kids into adults, they raise great gay kids too.
Is my concern here clear? I kind of rambled again.
.
