Dewey wrote a book!
-
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.
Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.
Do pedophiles have character issues?
It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).
No, you have your boundary wrong.
The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.
Something is a disorder if something is not alright with it. If something causes pain, for instance. There's no victim in homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality, and it exists in basically all higher species. Just because it is not conducive to procreation does not mean anything. You could also call a woman on contraceptives s "disorder". 99% of all sex is not for procreation. Let them have their fun. It's none of your business.
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.
Behind a bedroom door? Probably, although I thought of the examples of where "rough sex" between two consenting adults ends in injury or death.
But this is not just behind bedroom doors. Homosexuals are a very vocal and active political segment. They want this rule changed, this law enacted, that law repealed. As such, they are trying to mold public policy and laws.
I find that many of the things they are currently pushing, are not good for society.
-
@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
This is one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads ever posted on TNCR.
Indeed it certainly reinforces each posters personal prejudices towards one thing or another. It is also by and large of zero consequence beyond bordering on the absurd.
That's why we are all here.
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
This is one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads ever posted on TNCR.
Indeed it certainly reinforces each posters personal prejudices towards one thing or another. It is also by and large of zero consequence beyond bordering on the absurd.
That's why we are all here.
Well, it’s certainly not for the coffee.
-
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
This is one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads ever posted on TNCR.
Indeed it certainly reinforces each posters personal prejudices towards one thing or another. It is also by and large of zero consequence beyond bordering on the absurd.
That's why we are all here.
Well, it’s certainly not for the coffee.
-
-
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.
Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.
Do pedophiles have character issues?
It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).
No, you have your boundary wrong.
The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.
Something is a disorder if something is not alright with it. If something causes pain, for instance. There's no victim in homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality, and it exists in basically all higher species. Just because it is not conducive to procreation does not mean anything. You could also call a woman on contraceptives s "disorder". 99% of all sex is not for procreation. Let them have their fun. It's none of your business.
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.
Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.
Do pedophiles have character issues?
It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).
No, you have your boundary wrong.
The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.
Something is a disorder if something is not alright with it. If something causes pain, for instance. There's no victim in homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality, and it exists in basically all higher species. Just because it is not conducive to procreation does not mean anything. You could also call a woman on contraceptives s "disorder". 99% of all sex is not for procreation.
I'm talking about sexual attraction. Ok sexual attraction disorder, or sexual attraction impairment, or sexual attraction disease, or whatever you want to call the deviation from the normal sexual attractions of human beings. If being bipolar is a disorder, I think abnormal sexual attractions (e.g., to the same sex) could be considered as such (again there is a spectrum of extremes).
Let them have their fun. It's none of your business.
So you're good with a 40 year old man banging his 63 year old mom? That's within your normal boundary?
Man this gives me deja vu from 2007 debates lol
-
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.
Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.
Do pedophiles have character issues?
It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).
No, you have your boundary wrong.
The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.
Something is a disorder if something is not alright with it. If something causes pain, for instance. There's no victim in homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality, and it exists in basically all higher species. Just because it is not conducive to procreation does not mean anything. You could also call a woman on contraceptives s "disorder". 99% of all sex is not for procreation.
I'm talking about sexual attraction. Ok sexual attraction disorder, or sexual attraction impairment, or sexual attraction disease, or whatever you want to call the deviation from the normal sexual attractions of human beings. If being bipolar is a disorder, I think abnormal sexual attractions (e.g., to the same sex) could be considered as such (again there is a spectrum of extremes).
Let them have their fun. It's none of your business.
So you're good with a 40 year old man banging his 63 year old mom? That's within your normal boundary?
Man this gives me deja vu from 2007 debates lol
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I'm talking about sexual attraction. Ok sexual attraction disorder, or sexual attraction impairment, or sexual attraction disease, or whatever you want to call the deviation from the normal sexual attractions of human beings. If being bipolar is a disorder, I think abnormal sexual attractions (e.g., to the same sex) could be considered as such (again there is a spectrum of extremes).
In what sense is it an "impairment" or a "disease"?
All of this is only based on it being less frequent than heterosexual attraction?
Then you could just as well call red hair an impairment and a disease. Your whole argument is based on it occurring less often ("abnormal").
It's a little concerning that someone your age is still holding such views.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_DSM
Leaving this here without comment, let you folks fight it out.
But I don’t think anything written will convince anyone out of their own convictions.
-
Diversity in a biological context rather than its woke meaning is important for natural survival. If everyone was the same the entire species would be much more likely to get wiped out by some type of event. People describing anybody who doesn’t fit the norm as being in some way inferior, which the term impairment implies, kind of misses the point, as well as being a bit silly, and obviously pretty offensive to anybody who doesn’t fit within their definition of ‘normal’. Every characteristic has a spectrum.
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature. Unless of course God made them like that, which creates a whole different bunch of questions.
I was only joking
-
Diversity in a biological context rather than its woke meaning is important for natural survival. If everyone was the same the entire species would be much more likely to get wiped out by some type of event. People describing anybody who doesn’t fit the norm as being in some way inferior, which the term impairment implies, kind of misses the point, as well as being a bit silly, and obviously pretty offensive to anybody who doesn’t fit within their definition of ‘normal’. Every characteristic has a spectrum.
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature. Unless of course God made them like that, which creates a whole different bunch of questions.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.
Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.
Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.
-
Diversity in a biological context rather than its woke meaning is important for natural survival. If everyone was the same the entire species would be much more likely to get wiped out by some type of event. People describing anybody who doesn’t fit the norm as being in some way inferior, which the term impairment implies, kind of misses the point, as well as being a bit silly, and obviously pretty offensive to anybody who doesn’t fit within their definition of ‘normal’. Every characteristic has a spectrum.
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature. Unless of course God made them like that, which creates a whole different bunch of questions.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
it occurs so frequently in nature
Interesting read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Diversity in a biological context rather than its woke meaning is important for natural survival. If everyone was the same the entire species would be much more likely to get wiped out by some type of event. People describing anybody who doesn’t fit the norm as being in some way inferior, which the term impairment implies, kind of misses the point, as well as being a bit silly, and obviously pretty offensive to anybody who doesn’t fit within their definition of ‘normal’. Every characteristic has a spectrum.
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature. Unless of course God made them like that, which creates a whole different bunch of questions.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
People describing anybody who doesn’t fit the norm as being in some way inferior, which the term impairment implies, kind of misses the point, as well as being a bit silly, and obviously pretty offensive to anybody who doesn’t fit within their definition of ‘normal’. Every characteristic has a spectrum.
I'd be more impressed with this even-handed and measured approach to tolerance if it was universally applied, and not just to the wokes' greatest hits.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
People describing anybody who doesn’t fit the norm as being in some way inferior, which the term impairment implies, kind of misses the point, as well as being a bit silly, and obviously pretty offensive to anybody who doesn’t fit within their definition of ‘normal’. Every characteristic has a spectrum.
I'd be more impressed with this even-handed and measured approach to tolerance if it was universally applied, and not just to the wokes' greatest hits.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
People describing anybody who doesn’t fit the norm as being in some way inferior, which the term impairment implies, kind of misses the point, as well as being a bit silly, and obviously pretty offensive to anybody who doesn’t fit within their definition of ‘normal’. Every characteristic has a spectrum.
I'd be more impressed with this even-handed and measured approach to tolerance if it was universally applied, and not just to the wokes' greatest hits.
Or even just the flavor of the day, regardless of political orientation at the time.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.
Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.
Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.
Then, are they homosexual or bisexual?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
it occurs so frequently in nature
Interesting read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
@George-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
it occurs so frequently in nature
Interesting read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
In essence, it's down to sheep and humans.
-
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.
Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.
Then, are they homosexual or bisexual?
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.
Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.
Then, are they homosexual or bisexual?
Review my "cat person petted a dog" comment a few posts prior and think: if a cat person petted a dog, is the cat person still a cat person?
-
-
I couldn't care less what people do with consenting adults. But if you want to claim oppressed minority status after choosing those bedroom behaviors as a middle aged adult, I might be skeptical. Especially if you're blatantly excited about all the rhetorical benefits thereof, in your lifestyle as a professional virtue leader. He gets to carry the banner of the world's most popular religion and all the virtue behind it, alongside the banner of contemporary social justice. He's maximized his virtue signaling position on a number of fronts, almost as if that's the algorithm he's following. It's amazing that some of you don't even think twice about it. It's all so completely on the nose for a narcissist who wants to be considered a shining beacon of goodness in this world.
