Holden comes out of the closet

[mpower]

always love a good religion argument, and never get sick of George Carlin's take

 

[thestig]

And you would know ? for a start anyone who has a uneducated opinions that a 6 yo could have and the fact is that saying Christianity, Islam, Judaism are all the same at the end of the day proves this.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all monotheistic religions.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all based on fictions of the highest order.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all worship the same mythical figure. The God of Abraham; Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah, Adonai, El-Shaddai, Christ, Holy Father, Elohim or what ever the **** you want to call him/it/her.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all call for their practitioners to be humble before, and submit to, the will of an imaginary being.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all call for their practitioners to seek out and convert or destroy non believers.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam have all been responsible for unforgivable crimes of the highest order, most of which continue to this very day.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all rely on the indoctrination of young innocent minds in order to ensure their continued survival.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all stand in the way of the truly enlightened future of our species.

These are fairly convincing similarities, against which the mere details of how one should go about the pious business of murder, rape, torture, mutilation and brainwashing of one's fellow human beings is quite inconsequential.

 

[thestig]

This is where you're wrong about me and are just making baseless assumptions. I'm hardly what you'd describe as a religious person. Infact I have very little interest in religion and have only ever stepped into a church to attend a wedding or funeral.

My beliefs stem from the fact that when you look at the basic fundamentals of the human anatomy, even blind freddy can see that nature intended sex to be between a male and a female.
A penis is compatible with a vagina. A penis is not compatible with a penis and a vagina is not compatible with a vagina.
The sole purpose of a rectum is to expel bodily waste. Using it for sexual purposes is a perversion of nature.
Two men cannot produce a child together just as two women cannot produce a child together. The whole puropose of sex as intended by nature is for reproduction, so how the hell can homosexuality be viewed as natural? This is why I view homosexuality as a disorder that people are born with rather than an intent of nature.
Im sorry, but these are cold hard fundamental facts that science and philosophy cannot override.

If scientists and researchers were the be all and end all and had the answers to everything then we would have cures for cancer and aids and humans would be able to live forever. But no, they cannot do that because they do not have the answer to everything and they cannot override nature.
So they have observed homosexual activity in animals.... so ******* what, how does that legitimise anything?

Remember, there are huge agendas at play here. The public has been systematically brainwashed over the last few decades into accepting and believing homosexuality is normal. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't make them right. At the end of the day it is just their opinion.
In the interests of humanity, they would be far better off diverting their time and energy into finding the cause and developing a cure, rather than legitimising it.

You buddy, in the immortal words of Sir James May, are,"A fully rigged, rate A1, ocean going pillock!"

And, for educational purposes, in dire need of a decent pornography collection.

 

[thestig]

 

[zero_tolerance]

Sex for reproduction.

So you've never had sex or masturbated for pleasure?

The main function of sex (as intended by nature) is reproduction. Pleasure is a by-product of sex.

So you've never received, or given (no judgment) a blowjob before? Because im pretty sure that's not what a mouth was intended for.

So you're saying blowjobs are not normal because it's not what a mouth was intended for, but homosexuality is perfectly fine?
Who's the one contradicting themselves?

Let me ask you one thing. If homosexuality is normal and natural as you claim, then why is the human anatomy clearly not designed for it???

Thanks for the biology lesson.

You're welcome.

Im yet to read anything you've stated as fact that science or philosophy hasnt progressed past.

-Chemotherapy
-Radiotheraphy
-Vaccinations
-Bionic Organs
-Aircraft
-Motor Vehicles
-Metalurgy

I could literally make a list a mile long of things that science has done to override nature.

You have taken what I said out of context. What I meant was that science is not the be all and end all to everything and there are still many areas where they simply cannot and never will override nature.

What agenda is there in equality of marriage? Do you think your neighbour might pop his head over the fence and ask you to marry him if it becomes legal in this country? Scared it might stir some feelings inside you you dont want to think about? What POSSIBLE REASON could you have for standing in the way of two peoples happiness that has absolutly no impact on your day to day life?

In a nutshell, I am against it because it sends the wrong message out that homosexuality is normal when in my view it is absolutely not, and what really infuriates me is the way young children's minds are being poisoned with this rubbish.
I also firmly believe that marriage should be strictly between a man and a woman and that children should grow up with a mother and father. Nothing more nothing less.

This is literally how i imagine redacted to look when redacted making these points.

I had to laugh because this is so typical of the PC pro-LGBTI type.
Anyone who doesn't conform to or agree with their views is a neanderthal, caveman, uneducated bigot, etc etc etc. How predictable

Thats not how science works for fucks sake. Science isnt an opinion.

Science or agenda driven conspiracy???
http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/

According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II. (The DSM – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – is the APA’s standard classification of their so-called mental disorders, and is used by many mental health workers in the USA and other countries.)

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

The APA claimed that they made the change because new research showed that most homosexual people were content with their sexual orientation, and that as a group, they appeared to be as well-adjusted as heterosexual people. I suggest, however, that these research findings were simply the APA’s face-saver. For centuries, perhaps millennia, homosexual people had clung to their sexual orientation despite the most severe persecution and vilification, including imprisonment and death. Wouldn’t this suggest that they were happy with their orientation? Do we need research to confirm this? And if we do, shouldn’t we also need research to confirm that heterosexual people are happy with their orientation? And if poor adjustment is critical to a diagnosis of mental illness, where was the evidence of this that justified making homosexuality a mental illness in the first place?

Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.

Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.

 

[zero_tolerance]

You buddy, in the immortal words of Sir James May, are,"A fully rigged, rate A1, ocean going pillock!"

And, for educational purposes, in dire need of a decent pornography collection.

The fact that you can contribute nothing towards the discussion other than a lame personal attack only bolsters my argument. Thank you.

 

[Sabbath']

The main function of sex is reproduction. Pleasure is a by-product of sex.

No, if it was a by-product we would only have sex for reproduction. And it being pleasurable would be the byproduct only in those times. The fact that we have things like condoms, and other forms of contraception, again, Science, proves that we have evolved (****, i just opened a whole different can of worms for you didnt i?) to recognise it doesnt have to be simply for reproduction.

Like we dont eat just because we're hungry.
We dont walk just to get somewhere we need to be.
We dont swim just to cross a river

So you're saying blowjobs are not normal because it's not what a mouth was intended for, but homosexuality is perfectly fine?
Who's the one contradicting themselves?

Ummm..Read your point. Then read what i wrote. Your claim was that anal sex wrong because the rectum was only designed for expelling waste. The mouth was only "designed" for the the intake of food, water, oxygen and communication. Yet we've found another use for it. So how is the anus any different? So, please answer my question. (Really didnt think i would have to clear up your point for you)

Let me ask you one thing. If homosexuality is normal and natural as you claim, then why is the human anatomy clearly not designed for it???

****, backtracking over your own points for you AGAIN. Seriously are you going to make me do this every time you try to make a rebuttal? Totally not understand what YOU wrote?

Ok, lets piece this together for you which might make your next comment even more laughable.

What is unnatural about a penis going into a mouth?
Do you stop your partner from giving you a blowjob and shout "Oooooh, that's icky - your mouth was designed for talking and praising the lord!"
Probably not.
Does that fit with, as i posted above the "design" of what a mouth was meant for?

So if you're all well and good to make an exception in that case, what's the difference if Bob would rather stick his cock in Zeke's ass than into Mary's(the virgin....lmao) vagina?

Will Bob and Zeke make a baby? Nope. But neither will you when you're struggling to reach your wifes canines.

And while we're on the subject, lets talk about the clitoris and the female orgasm. Why would they exist if there was no need for pleasure, arousal and a bit of fun as far as exploring your sexuality goes? If Mary wants to Scissor her friend Betsy all night, what's the problem with that? Again, no baby but **** it was probably enjoyable.

So in essence, arent you just being the fun police? Maybe it's jealousy because when two dudes **** both of them cum and you've never made your partner cum before?

You're welcome.

Your lesson sucked, i want a refund.

You have taken what I said out of context. What I meant was that science is not the be all and end all to everything and there are still many areas where they simply cannot and never will override nature.

Is that your go-to when you cant admit you've been beaten "You took me out of context"
And in those areas where it cant, we've either stopped research, or we still are. Instead of claiming it to be witchcraft, wrong or a sin and trying to ignore it.

In a nutshell, I am against it because it sends the wrong message out that homosexuality is normal when in my view it is absolutely not, and what really infuriates me is the way young children's minds are being poisoned with this rubbish.

So because yours and your generation grew up being poisoned into thinking that Homosexuality was a disease that could be cured by electro-shock therapy, and we've moved on from that you feel we should somehow keep those neanderthallic views alive and well?

I also firmly believe that marriage should be strictly between a man and a woman and that children should grow up with a mother and father. Nothing more nothing less.

Look at the divorce rates all over the world, look at the number of single parent households and tell me which is doing more damage to the community. One parent struggling to bring a child up, possibly poisoning the children against the partner for whatever reason. Or the nextdoor neighbours John and Murray who enjoy going out to brunch on a Sunday?

I had to laugh because this is so typical of the PC pro-LGBTI type.

Anyone who doesn't conform to or agree with their views is a neanderthal, caveman, uneducated bigot, etc etc etc. How predictable

If the shoe fits buddy. And it's not about conforming. You dont have to have the same views, but your views have so little backing in logic, reason or sensibility that i can only assume that you're down a few steps on the IQ ladder.

Science or agenda driven conspiracy???

******* Major League Baseball ey??? They'll get you everytime.

 

[thestig]

The fact that you can contribute nothing towards the discussion other than a lame personal attack only bolsters my argument. Thank you.

Your "argument" is so weak and pathetic that it didn't really warrant a response at all. The "personal attack" was merely for my own amusement.

However, seeing as you press, I'll spoon feed you.

I am mystified that you believe that anything unnatural exists. Unless of course what you mean by the use of the word "unnatural" is something against that which god intended. I say this because nature doesn't intend to do anything. Nature is not conscious. You said in an earlier post that you were not religious, but here you are implying the existence of a grand plan and an all powerful creator. Please make up your mind and stop contradicting yourself. Man is not above, or separate to nature, he is part of it. Therefore anything he does is by definition natural.

You want more?

Then allow me to quote Yuval Noah Harari, as he will undoubtedly put it better than I could in the time I will allow myself to waste pandering to the likes of you;

How can we distinguish what is biologically determined from what people merely try to justify through biological myths? A good rule of thumb is ‘Biology enables, culture forbids.’ Biology is willing to tolerate a very wide spectrum of possibilities. It’s culture that obliges people to realise some possibilities while forbidding others. Biology enables women to have children – some cultures oblige women to realise this possibility. Biology enables men to enjoy sex with one another – some cultures forbid them to realise this possibility. Culture tends to argue that it forbids only that which is unnatural. But from a biological perspective, nothing is unnatural. Whatever is possible is by definition also natural. A truly unnatural behaviour, one that goes against the laws of nature, simply cannot exist, so it would need no prohibition. No culture has ever bothered to forbid men to photosynthesise, women to run faster than the speed of light, or negatively charged electrons to be attracted to each other.

In truth, our concepts ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ are taken not from biology, but from Christian theology. The theological meaning of ‘natural’ is ‘in accordance with the intentions of the God who created nature’. Christian theologians argued that God created the human body, intending each limb and organ to serve a particular purpose. If we use our limbs and organs for the purpose envisioned by God, then it is a natural activity. To use them differently than God intends is unnatural. But evolution has no purpose. Organs have not evolved with a purpose, and the way they are used is in constant flux. There is not a single organ in the human body that only does the job its prototype did when it first appeared hundreds of millions of years ago. Organs evolve to perform a particular function, but once they exist, they can be adapted for other usages as well. Mouths, for example, appeared because the earliest multicellular organisms needed a way to take nutrients into their bodies. We still use our mouths for that purpose, but we also use them to kiss, speak and, if we are Rambo, to pull the pins out of hand grenades. Are any of these uses unnatural simply because our worm-like ancestors 600 million years ago didn’t do those things with their mouths?”

Similarly, wings didn’t suddenly appear in all their aerodynamic glory. They developed from organs that served another purpose. According to one theory, insect wings evolved millions of years ago from body protrusions on flightless bugs. Bugs with bumps had a larger surface area than those without bumps, and this enabled them to absorb more sunlight and thus stay warmer. In a slow evolutionary process, these solar heaters grew larger. The same structure that was good for maximum sunlight absorption – lots of surface area, little weight – also, by coincidence, gave the insects a bit of a lift when they skipped and jumped. Those with bigger protrusions could skip and jump farther. Some insects started using the things to glide, and from there it was a small step to wings that could actually propel the bug through the air. Next time a mosquito buzzes in your ear, accuse her of unnatural behaviour. If she were well behaved and content with what God gave her, she’d use her wings only as solar panels.

The same sort of multitasking applies to our sexual organs and behaviour. Sex first evolved for procreation and courtship rituals as a way of sizing up the fitness of a potential mate. But many animals now put both to use for a multitude of social purposes that have little to do with creating little copies of themselves. Chimpanzees, for example, use sex to cement political alliances, establish intimacy and defuse tensions. Is that unnatural?

― From Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

<SARCASM>I eagerly await your insightful and well researched response.</SARCASM>

 

[thestig]

I had to laugh because this is so typical of the PC pro-LGBTI type.
Anyone who doesn't conform to or agree with their views is a neanderthal, caveman, uneducated bigot, etc etc etc. How predictable

And this is you when educated open minded people present you with facts:

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!


Zero Input leads to Zero Tolerance.........

Now **** off and let the adults talk amongst themselves for a while.

 

[zero_tolerance]

Your "argument" is so weak and pathetic that it didn't really warrant a response at all. The "personal attack" was merely for my own amusement.

However, seeing as you press, I'll spoon feed you.

I am mystified that you believe that anything unnatural exists. Unless of course what you mean by the use of the word "unnatural" is something against that which god intended. I say this because nature doesn't intend to do anything. Nature is not conscious. You said in an earlier post that you were not religious, but here you are implying the existence of a grand plan and an all powerful creator. Please make up your mind and stop contradicting yourself. Man is not above, or separate to nature, he is part of it. Therefore anything he does is by definition natural.

You want more?

Then allow me to quote Yuval Noah Harari, as he will undoubtedly put it better than I could in the time I will allow myself to waste pandering to the likes of you;

How can we distinguish what is biologically determined from what people merely try to justify through biological myths? A good rule of thumb is ‘Biology enables, culture forbids.’ Biology is willing to tolerate a very wide spectrum of possibilities. It’s culture that obliges people to realise some possibilities while forbidding others. Biology enables women to have children – some cultures oblige women to realise this possibility. Biology enables men to enjoy sex with one another – some cultures forbid them to realise this possibility. Culture tends to argue that it forbids only that which is unnatural. But from a biological perspective, nothing is unnatural. Whatever is possible is by definition also natural. A truly unnatural behaviour, one that goes against the laws of nature, simply cannot exist, so it would need no prohibition. No culture has ever bothered to forbid men to photosynthesise, women to run faster than the speed of light, or negatively charged electrons to be attracted to each other.

In truth, our concepts ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ are taken not from biology, but from Christian theology. The theological meaning of ‘natural’ is ‘in accordance with the intentions of the God who created nature’. Christian theologians argued that God created the human body, intending each limb and organ to serve a particular purpose. If we use our limbs and organs for the purpose envisioned by God, then it is a natural activity. To use them differently than God intends is unnatural. But evolution has no purpose. Organs have not evolved with a purpose, and the way they are used is in constant flux. There is not a single organ in the human body that only does the job its prototype did when it first appeared hundreds of millions of years ago. Organs evolve to perform a particular function, but once they exist, they can be adapted for other usages as well. Mouths, for example, appeared because the earliest multicellular organisms needed a way to take nutrients into their bodies. We still use our mouths for that purpose, but we also use them to kiss, speak and, if we are Rambo, to pull the pins out of hand grenades. Are any of these uses unnatural simply because our worm-like ancestors 600 million years ago didn’t do those things with their mouths?”

Similarly, wings didn’t suddenly appear in all their aerodynamic glory. They developed from organs that served another purpose. According to one theory, insect wings evolved millions of years ago from body protrusions on flightless bugs. Bugs with bumps had a larger surface area than those without bumps, and this enabled them to absorb more sunlight and thus stay warmer. In a slow evolutionary process, these solar heaters grew larger. The same structure that was good for maximum sunlight absorption – lots of surface area, little weight – also, by coincidence, gave the insects a bit of a lift when they skipped and jumped. Those with bigger protrusions could skip and jump farther. Some insects started using the things to glide, and from there it was a small step to wings that could actually propel the bug through the air. Next time a mosquito buzzes in your ear, accuse her of unnatural behaviour. If she were well behaved and content with what God gave her, she’d use her wings only as solar panels.

The same sort of multitasking applies to our sexual organs and behaviour. Sex first evolved for procreation and courtship rituals as a way of sizing up the fitness of a potential mate. But many animals now put both to use for a multitude of social purposes that have little to do with creating little copies of themselves. Chimpanzees, for example, use sex to cement political alliances, establish intimacy and defuse tensions. Is that unnatural?

― From Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

<SARCASM>I eagerly await your insightful and well researched response.</SARCASM>

HAHAHAHA. Is that the best you can come up with? Really?

That article proves jack ****.

But from a biological perspective, nothing is unnatural. Whatever is possible is by definition also natural.

So if something is physically possible it is considered to be natural?

Going by your logic I take it that you consider paedophilia to be perfectly natural and normal behaviour?


Of course it isn't, it is a mental disorder which causes an abnormal sexual attraction to children, in exactly the same way homosexuality is a mental disorder which causes an abnormal sexual attraction to the same sex.

As per the article I provided in my above post
http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.

Homosexuality is only considered normal because of the unrelenting push by activists and their subsequent systematic brainwashing and conditioning of the public over the last few decades into accepting homosexuality as normal behaviour.
Unlike you, I refuse to be brainwashed.

Anyway, I've got better things to do than waste my time arguing with the likes of you