Friday, November 25, 2011

The following was intended as an addendum to the last comment (comment 115 at this writing) of the previous blog post. I feel it is better as a post of its own in order to set a guideline for future posts that focus on really any issue, but specifically on the issue discussed in that previous thread.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One more thing: It seems to me that in a discussion such as this, where the subject is whether or not a particular behavior is truly sinful or not, it is rather presumptuous to insist that one side adhere to the etiquette policies implemented by the other while the issue of sinfulness is yet unresolved between the two sides.

By that I mean that the two sides continue to hold opposing points of view. My position is that homosexual behavior, regardless of the context in which it takes place, is always sinful and forbidden by God, not to mention deviant and abnormal behavior regardless of God's existence. This is a fact and one that is easily established and confirmed by an honest and objective review of all available data.

Those who believe otherwise demand that those like myself adhere to their rules of engagement in discussing the subject, as well as in planning legislation that affects all. Simply on their insistence, we are to regard those who engage in this behavior in a particular manner that is sacrosanct, such as which words we use in reference to them. This is childishly selfish and a true example of one side forcing their morality on the other. It assumes that their position is correct and that mine is not, so therefor, I must act and speak in a manner that meets with their approval, "tolerance" being a one-way street, the direction of which is dictated by them. I must use their definitions, I must abide their standards of morality, I must consider their sensitivities without any reciprocal regard whatsoever.

Note that nowhere in any of my posts or comments do I say anything derogatory about homosexuals in general, much less any specific individuals unless, again, one takes the attitude of those described above, that any opposing viewpoint is by definition derogatory and hateful, ugly bias.

So, henceforth, rather than waste time chastising me for that which is not the least bit criminal, and worse, for shamefully trying to shame others into compliance on such a shameful proposition, I would encourage such people as Dan to take their false piety, hypocritical sense of graciousness and weak and unsupportable interpretations of Scripture elsewhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no problem debating any issue. I have no problem with anyone putting forth an opinion. I have absolutely no problem with anyone disagreeing with me at any time. What I do have a problem with is anyone seeking to dictate terms of engagement here as if theirs is the last word on manners and etiquette. Am I to adjust for every visitor to this blog? Assuming it's even possible, it ain't gonna happen. Indeed, it doesn't happen by those who so insist I do.

53 comments:

Jim said...

My position is that homosexual behavior [is] deviant and abnormal behavior regardless of God's existence. This is a fact and one that is easily established and confirmed by an honest and objective review of all available data.

What is deviant and abnormal behavior? That is "regardless of God's existence," what makes a behavior deviant and abnormal?

Marshall Art said...

As regards "regardless of God's existence": This means that one needn't have belief in God for this to be true. Which it is.

And to question the fact that homosexual attraction is deviant and abnormal is to ignore the obvious: the existence of two opposite but compatible and complimentary genders means that each is meant to join with the other, not with another of its kind, which would be deviant and abnormal. It is natural law and obvious to any honest individual. To be more clear, those who would disagree with this obvious fact are neither honest nor in possession of any rational or logical alternative position. Even if one decides to support a homosexual's decision to indulge his desires, the premise still stands as fact.

Stating my position on this issue was not the point of the post, but was meant to detail the problem I experienced with Dan's arrogant demand that that HIS position on the topic, and thus HIS sense of how to address it MUST be followed by all, including a communal chastisement of any who do not hold with HIS idea of what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate language.

As I said, the issue that was being discussed included whether or not the behavior is sinful. While that issue is yet being discussed, and no final resolution between the two sides has been reached, it is presumptuous to say the least that one side demands the other default to its sense of morality on the issue while the morality of the behavior itself is still up in the air.

Quite frankly, if anything, it is Dan who should default to MY perspective since mine is aligned with thousands of years of Judeo-Christian teaching on the issue. If you had not waded through the many comments of the previous post, he has once again insisted that the legitimate abbreviation of the clinical term for the attraction is somehow akin to using the term "nigger". This is a dishonest and self-serving ploy meant to narrow the terms of engagement in favor of those like himself who support the sinful behavior, as well as a direct insult to an entire race of people. "Homo" is NOT a derogatory term unless I apply the term to a heterosexual. If "homo" is derogatory, then "hetero" is as well, and I use "hetero" as an abbreviation, too.

Even if I was to use the expression "that f**kin' homo" in relation to a particular homosexual, "homo" would not be derogatory anymore than if I had said, "that f**kin' Italian" would make "Italian" derogatory. OR, they are equally so because of the tone and intention behind it. In the previous post's comments, I did not use the term "homo" in such a manner, but only as an abbreviation, as I usually do. Dan, like the idiot Parklife, demands that I accept it can only be an epithet because THEY demand it be so, as all good enablers must, because the activists so demand. I do not hold with activists who seek to legitimize bad behavior.

Jim said...

he has once again insisted that the legitimate abbreviation of the clinical term for the attraction is somehow akin to using the term "nigger".

As well he should. "Homo" is NOT a "legitimate abbreviation". Since I was an adolescent, "homo" was used as a pejorative term for homosexuals. You can insist all you want that it isn't, but you are lying to yourself and the world when you do.

"Homo" is NOT a derogatory term unless I apply the term to a heterosexual.

This is not true. Most dictionaries say that it is most often used as a derogatory term for a homosexual.

If you are too lazy to type homosexual, then use "gay". It's even shorter that "homo".

As to "deviant and abnormal behavior", I would suggest that writing with one's left hand is deviant and abnormal behavior. Regardless of God's existence.

Marshall Art said...

"Since I was an adolescent, "homo" was used as a pejorative term for homosexuals."

Since you were a kid, "homo" was used as an abbreviation for a clinical term that was used as a pejorative. In other words, instead of calling someone a "homosexual", one used the shorter, more convenient abbreviation "homo". They were, in fact, interchangeable. You can insist all you want that it isn't, but you are lying to yourself and the world when you do. The victim of such epithets did not feel any better being called one instead of the other, whether he was a homo or not.

"If you are too lazy to type homosexual, then use "gay". It's even shorter that "homo"."

I've a better idea. Why don't you go pound sand? Did you not read the post? Rather than allow 2% of the population, along with their enablers, dictate new definitions of perfectly good words, I prefer using words by their meaning. "Gay" means happy and it's high time homos learned the difference. "Homo" is a perfectly good term that already means "homosexual". No need to pervert other words to satisfy their perverted demands.

"As to "deviant and abnormal behavior", I would suggest that writing with one's left hand is deviant and abnormal behavior."

What you're suggesting is that you're very stupid or so dishonest that you are not beyond suggesting a stupid analogy in order to defend a perverse lifestyle. Writing with whatever hand one favors for such tasks is not abnormal or deviant since one is still using the hand to do what everybody else uses it for, should communicating by pen be the task in question. However, if Jim has two perfectly good hands yet chooses to write with a pen sticking out of his butt, THAT would be abnormal, and likely deviant as well.

Jim said...

Since you were a kid, "homo" was used as an abbreviation for a clinical term that was used as a pejorative. In other words, instead of calling someone a "homosexual", one used the shorter, more convenient abbreviation "homo".

That's a load of horse shit. Homo is NOT an abbreviation. It is slang, and it is derogatory. I challenge you to provide any source to backup your claim that homo is a term of convenience rather that bigotry.

Rather than allow 2% of the population, along with their enablers, dictate new definitions of perfectly good words, I prefer using words by their meaning.

Displaying your ignorance. The use of the word "gay" as connoting showiness and promiscuity dates as early as the 14th century. It started appearing in literature as specifically referring to homosexuals in the 1940s. - Source

So "gay" as a term for homosexuals was not just some word "confiscated" by the homosexual community in San Francisco in the 1970s or, as you claim, a perversion of a word.

Writing with whatever hand one favors for such tasks is not abnormal or deviant since one is still using the hand to do what everybody else uses it for, should communicating by pen be the task in question.

I should have known you were too dense to get this. The point is not what hand one writes with but a question of left-handedness. A small minority of people are left handed. Therefore, I would submit that those who write with their left hands "deviate" from the norm and therefore their behavior is deviant and abnormal. Remember, we're talking "regarless of God's existence.

Marshall Art said...

Actually Jim, your link, even your own interpretation of it, backs me up more than refutes me. For one thing, it shows in the first sentence what the main definition of the word was and then shows its origin in support. It then goes on to say, in not so many words, that the original definition was most widely used. It's attachment to promiscuity is poorly supported, the Chaucer piece not necessarily showing it meaning anything other than the common meaning. But more importantly, it's use by homosexuals is still quite recent, especially in the grand scheme of things and now forced upon an unwilling culture. (BTW, I never claimed when it was first abused by the homosexual community, so I don't know why you suggested Frisco or the '70s) More to the point, the activists did in fact cling to the word and push its use to denote their perversion rather than its actual definition in order to minimize the sinfulness and depravity of their behavior. The use of the word alone didn't do it, but was part of the strategy.

"I challenge you to provide any source to backup your claim that homo is a term of convenience rather that bigotry."

That's easy. I offer myself. That is, my own experiences from childhood and my teen years. But first, it must be understood that it isn't "bigotry" unless by the term you mean a revulsion toward the thought of any perverse and/or depraved desire, attraction or behavior. If you mean that they were discriminated against as were blacks, that is insulting to blacks and not the case at all.

I've never heard anyone use the term as an insult that wouldn't just as easily use the full word if he so felt like it. To those who understand the depravity of the attraction, there is no "nice" word to describe that which is never good or wholesome. What ever word is legitimate or slang is all the same.

But when the activists decide to adopt it as a favored reference to themselves, I reject the use of the word for that purpose. They aren't worthy of the word, which has always been regarded in far nobler manner since its inception more often than not.

As for what is derogatory, the behavior is derogatory, so any word that describes it is as well.

As to left-handedness, you are dense to think that I'm not getting what you're trying to accomplish with the lame left-handed analogy. It just plain doesn't work. Regardless of how many people are left-handed compared to right-handed people, the function of the hand is not altered. The function of the sexual genitalia and the function of sexual desire are. A hand is a hand regardless of which one. Either hand does the same things, performs in the same manner, does what a hand is supposed to do.

What a man is supposed to do is unite with a woman. He is created, either by God or nature, to do that very thing. It is why he is a man while there are also women about. They are meant to unite with and be attracted to each other. THAT is the normal part of the equation, not that there are only 2% of the population that don't conform. Their numbers are a less important aspect of their abnormality and deviancy in the face of their being two genders of human being. This I stated in the earliest part of my response to your first comment.

MY emphasis on the "2%" is generally in regards to their activism.

John B said...

I noticed how quickly this became about hurt feelings, and the attempt to disuade Marshall for using words that hurt feelings.

Growing up, 'homo' was a dergatory insult for kids. But I never heard it used toward an actual homosexual. However, that might be my experience, but it might not be Marshall's.

If Marshall is explicitly stating he equates the term 'homo' with 'hetero' in terms of its abbreviated convenience, and has shown this to be true by using the term hetero, then commenters here should take him at his word. It is not a stretch to say 'homo' is an abbreviation. If however, he was using some other slang term (we all know the list) then he could be called to task for it. But not here.

I never use the term homo because the focus of the topic will quickly erode to that. No matter the subject, the focus will turn to the term, because feeling have been hurt and homosexuals tend to spend a lot of time "outing" who they believe to be bigots. So I don't give them the opportunity.

I use the terms:

Homosexual sexual behavior -- because someone nitpicked about 'homosexual behavior' by saying "like grocery shopping, loving their family..." Basically obfuscating the point.

Same-sex marriage -- because gay marriage is a misnomer, because gays can get married anywhere. one must not be sexually attracted to their spouse.

Same-sex sexual desires -- Again because some homosexual activists say things like "desires like love, companionship..." Another obvious attempt to derail the discussion.

I actually had to write a post on new rules of engagement because people began to insist that I abide by their rules when they visited my blog. I never had a comment policy until people started coming in with a "now that I'm commenting here, things are gonna change" attitude.

Jim said...

So if "homo" is a derogatory term aimed at heterosexual males, why are you using it here as a term for a homosexual?

And I'd love to see your sources demonstrating that "homo" is commonly used in literature, media, or society in general as an "abbreviation" of "homosexual". Not even Fox "News" uses the term "homo", and surely they would if it was simply an "abbreviation" of "homosexual".

because gays can get married anywhere.

Yeah, I think Marshall has claimed that here. But if they can get married anywhere, why don't they get the same legal rights that married heterosexual couples do? If "marriage" is merely a religious or social rite, then there is no need for a license, right? No reason to grant legal benefits derived from that rite.

one must not be sexually attracted to their spouse. Can you clarify this statement?

Marshall Art said...

"So if "homo" is a derogatory term aimed at heterosexual males, why are you using it here as a term for a homosexual?"

Try to pay attention, Jim.

The term is appropriate for homosexuals, since the term means "homosexual". But few heterosexuals are comfortable being referred to or regarded as homosexual, so either term, be it "homo" or "homosexual" would be derogatory if used toward a hetero.

"And I'd love to see your sources demonstrating that "homo" is commonly used in literature, media, or society in general as an "abbreviation" of "homosexual"."

This is ridiculous. Anytime it is used it is used as an abbreviation because IT IS an abbreviation. That it might be used disparagingly is irrelevant to this fact. Assume for a moment that one is truly "bigoted" against homosexuals in the same manner Klansmen are bigoted against blacks. Do you honestly think either word is more or less disparaging than the other to such a person? The whole notion that "homo" is in any way more hurtful to a homosexual is pro-homo propaganda.

"Not even Fox "News" uses the term "homo", and surely they would if it was simply an "abbreviation" of "homosexual"."

As if any news org would want to waste time dealing with the pathetically stupid accusations that would surely follow the use of the term. Get freakin' real.

"But if they can get married anywhere, why don't they get the same legal rights that married heterosexual couples do?"

Because they are not truly married. They are only engaged in something that resembles marriage, which the union of one man and one woman.

Jim said...

The term is appropriate for homosexuals, since the term means "homosexual". But few heterosexuals are comfortable being referred to or regarded as homosexual, so either term, be it "homo" or "homosexual" would be derogatory if used toward a hetero.

Homo is a derogatory slang for homosexual. The only grammatically accepted uses of "homo" is as a prefix or as homo in biology and anthropology. Nobody uses the term "homo" as an abbreviation of a "clinical" term except as a derogatory term. I'd agree to read any link to a grammar or literary reference that will back up your assertion.

Because they are not truly married.

Then contrary to what the Sloop wrote and what I'm pretty sure you have said, gays CANNOT get married anywhere.

John B said...

Not having the "marriage" recognized and endorsed by the government is different than not being able to.

In any state regardless of the marriage laws, homosexuals can make lifelong commitments to eachother. They can do it in the presence of family and friends, they could secure a religious cerimony for it. They dont need the government for that.

What they want is acceptance by the public.

But I see you are still hung up on Marshall's use of the term 'homo'. Why does that bother you so much? Is it just like I said, you and gay activists are more interested in "outing" bigots than they are at discussing issues?

Marshall has already said he does not mean it in a derogatory manner. You just don't want to let it go. For some reason his use of the abbreviation 'homo' (just as 'hetero' is somehow offensive. Personally, I am not offended when a homosexual refers to my kind as 'hetero'. I know what he means and I dont dwell, especially if he tells me it is for the sake of brevity.

I suggest that if you are offended by 'homo' then you are far too sensitive for interaction on the blogosphere. Your feelings are hurt far too easily.

Marshall Art said...

"Homo is a derogatory slang for homosexual."

If you say so. Here, I will continue to use whatever words I see fit to use, either in full or in a contracted alternative version. If you have a problem with that, seek help immediately. For my part, I feel no more or less offended to be called one than the other. If I am called a "homo", I know that the user means to call me a "homosexual". What's the difference? Homos that insist the word "homo" is "ugly, hurtful, derogatory" slang are only seeking to demonize those of us who understand the sinful and abnormal fact of their insistence on indulging their desires. I understand this, but do not acquiesce to their demands. They, as people in the wrong, like any other perpetrator of sinful or unlawful acts, do not get to dictate such things. Imagine a thief insisting that "thief" is hurtful and derogatory. You wouldn't care what they thought, knowing that they aptly and appropriately fit the word you chose to use.

At the same time, you have no problem should I be referred to as a bigot, without concern for MY feelings on the issue, even though my position is not one of bigotry. But merely because you are among the many enablers of this bad behavior, you push the same foolish agenda tactic of demonizing those of us on this side of the issue by insisting that I comply with YOUR morality in the use of language YOU choose. Sorry. As I said in the post, that shit don't float here. It just stinks.

"Nobody uses the term "homo" as an abbreviation of a "clinical" term except as a derogatory term."

I'm proof that your statement is untrue. If you're referring to anyone else aside from me, you don't know everyone, so the statement is a poor assumption at best. What's more, should it be true, I may be starting a rational and logical trend, so I'll continue with the rational and logical use of the term in the context that I use it.

"I'd agree to read any link to a grammar or literary reference that will back up your assertion."

I don't need one for two reasons:

1. I don't care whether or not other people use the term as I do.

2. The absence of such "back up" has little effect on the truth of what I've said regarding "homo" being an abbreviation. Even as a derogatory term, it is still an abbreviation. This is a fact.

"Then contrary to what the Sloop wrote and what I'm pretty sure you have said, gays CANNOT get married anywhere."

Well, this is very stupid, Jim. They can indeed get married anywhere in any state in the union if they believe that the commitment of each to the other qualifies as "marriage". In one sense, it is impossible because their union does not fit the actual definition of the word, so that even in morally bankrupt states, such a Massachusetts, they are never really married in the true sense of the word.

But even in states that do not provide for their twisted notion of the word, there are both apostate churches that will hold "marriage" ceremonies as well as their own private promises to each other that satisfy that twisted notion.

You know all of this, but are playing games here. You won't find any cracks of consistency here, try as you might.

Marshall Art said...

Good points, John (especially those that echo mine :D ). But Jim isn't sensitive, I don't believe. What I believe is that he is doing just what you say. He's "outing" me as a bigot any way he can, and in this case, by my language choices. What a queer thing to do.

Jim said...

I will continue to use whatever words I see fit to use

I'm sure. And I will continue to recognize the words you use for what you intend as you have admitted that any word you use to refer to gays is by its very nature derogatory.

you are among the many enablers of this bad behavior

Just because I'm not a Sex Nazi doesn't mean I'm an "enabler". I'm a laissez faire kind of guy.

Even as a derogatory term, it is still an abbreviation. This is a fact.

It is not a fact. If you want to put a period behind it, I'll accept that you are ungrammatically using it as an abbreviation even though it is not.

They can indeed get married anywhere in any state in the union if they believe that the commitment of each to the other qualifies as "marriage". In one sense, it is impossible because their union does not fit the actual definition of the word,

Here you have completed contradicted yourself in only 44 words. Either they are married or they are not. Since it is "impossible" for them to "be" married, they cannot "get" married.

You know all of this, but are playing games here.

And YOU know that marriage is a social, legal, and sometimes religious institution. Religious is not required. By its very nature, marriage is social. But in order to have full rights, marriage is a legal institution.

Until gays can get married everywhere and be recognized by the federal government and all states as legally married, then they cannot "get" married.

Marshall Art said...

"...you have admitted that any word you use to refer to gays is by its very nature derogatory."

This is not quite correct. Read my words again, slowly. Have someone help you with the big words. If I want to insult someone, any word I choose to use can be derogatory due to my intent to insult. The word I choose, however, might not by itself be a derogatory word. If I call you a weasel, the word itself isn't derogatory if I'm talking about weasels.

In the same way, to speak of homos, using the word that is by definition proper, or its contracted alternative version, then I am not speaking in a derogatory manner regardless of the words I use, as long as the words are legitimately accurate by definition, which both "homosexual" and it's abbreviated alternative "homo" are.

"Just because I'm not a Sex Nazi doesn't mean I'm an "enabler"."

Your arguments here, as well as your concern for the feelings of those who engage in sinful/abnormal behavior suggest otherwise. As to being a sex nazi, you have not established that I have sought to prevent anyone from engaging in whatever masturbatory exercises that suit them. I just have grasp of morality that you sorely lack. I prefer that people put sex in its proper place. Scripture, something to which your church apparently never refers, speaks to the benefits of this.

But your insistence that homosexuals lack the same rights as do I is further evidence that you are enabling their bad behavior.

"If you want to put a period behind it, I'll accept that you are ungrammatically using it as an abbreviation even though it is not."

I don't much care if you accept my manner or not. You don't have the clout here to dictate such things. That's what this post is about, so thanks for at least touching on the point of it.

"Here you have completed contradicted yourself in only 44 words."

Not even a little bit. They can call themselves whatever they want. That has never been denied them. I know they are not truly married because I understand what the word means. What you need to do is make up your mind about your meaning. Are you speaking of civil marriage, the definition of "marriage" or something else entirely? In any of possible sense, they are not "married" because their union doesn't fit the definition. This is a fact, regardless of homos demanding a change of definition. If some state licenses their union, it is still not "marriage" regardless of what that state says, because their union still does not fit the definition, despite their insistence. So, it is true either way: They can get "married" anywhere at anytime, while at no time are they ever married.

"Until gays can get married everywhere and be recognized by the federal government and all states as legally married, then they cannot "get" married."

They've always been able to get married and be recognized by the federal government and all states as legally married. This has been true since the birth of the nation. And now, thanks to the moral bankruptcy of the people of some states and churches, they can even "marry" members of the same sex.

Dan Trabue said...

John B...

If Marshall is explicitly stating he equates the term 'homo' with 'hetero' in terms of its abbreviated convenience, and has shown this to be true by using the term hetero, then commenters here should take him at his word.

And so, if some fool says, "Well I only meant to say 'NIGGER' in the most positive sense, as an abbreviation for 'negro,' or 'one from Niger,' and no harm was intended..." does that make the use of the term appropriate?

OR, as is the case in the real world, does it remain a vile epithet of the sort that only bigots and idiots would use?

We are disgusted (not upset, but disgusted, morally repulsed) by the use of the words "nigger" or " homo" because they have been used by bigots to cause harm, to oppress, to denigrate, and because Good People stand up against such slurs.

My dear granny used to refer to that "cute little nigger boy" with only the purest, most loving of intentions. That did not make her use of the well-known slur appropriate.

Ignorance is not an excuse and deliberate ignorance is, well, deliberate ignorance and not morally excusable.

Grow up, little brothers.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

You have taken to using the term "little brother" in your posts directed at us. But nothing could be smaller and more ignorant than speaking of the vile abomination of homosexual behavior with the plight of the black race as if they can be legitimately paralleled. I've met blacks who would prefer being called "nigger" to "homosexual" any day of the week. I know this because I've asked them. And though they would much prefer being called neither, the mere suggestion of homosexuals equating their selfish demands for acceptance of their deviancy to the black's struggle for civil right angers them to no end.

It is clear, to any with any shred of honesty remaining in them, that the legitimate abbreviation of the clinical term for the mental disorder manifested in those known as "homosexual" has been declared a "vile epithet" for the purpose of demonizing those who stand for truth and scientific fact, in an effort to force their twisted morality upon all, whether they like it or not. I am not the least bit concerned that they or their enablers would regard me as a "vile bigot" since the opinions of morally bankrupt people don't hold sway.

"We are disgusted (not upset, but disgusted, morally repulsed) by the use of the words "nigger" or " homo" because they have been used by bigots to cause harm, to oppress, to denigrate, and because Good People stand up against such slurs."

Your concern for homosexuals is a fraud, or you'd be preaching to them the truth. But your corruption is too complete for that. It has also led to your justifying your own use of vile epithets and course language, justifications that could not be weaker, while dismissing my legitimate usage of appropriate language. Note that I don't say "justify" for my own situation as I've nothing for which I need justification.

Worse than ignorance, deliberate or otherwise, is the willful rejection of Scriptural truth and natural fact.

Jim said...

the legitimate abbreviation of the clinical term for the mental disorder

"Homo" is NOT a legitimate abbreviation. It is found nowhere in literature, media or academia as an abbreviation. It is legitimately used ONLY as homo, a genus in biology or as a prefix.

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. The AAP does not recognize it as a mental disorder.

Gays don't care what you "know". I don't care what you "know". Life goes on. Homosexuals exist, live, love, work, have sex and raise families. And they don't give one crap about what you think of them.

It's kind of like Global Warming. Why bother if you can't do anything about it, right?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Rather than point to the psych community's vote to remove it from the list of mental disorders, why not point to the game breaking research that is irrefutable evidence that it didn't belong on the list. If you can find it, you'll find what the homosexual activists themselves have not produced. Otherwise, we'd hear of it always.

""Homo" is NOT a legitimate abbreviation. It is found nowhere in literature, media or academia as an abbreviation."

But it is found here. Get used to it. It's like Global Warming.

"Gays don't care what you "know". I don't care what you "know"."

You all don't care about truth, science or decency, either. But your statement isn't true at all. You damn well care or you wouldn't be here trying to pervert the truth. And they wouldn't be out in the world trying to force their depravity upon the whole of our culture, insisting that we accept their debased behaviors as equal to proper sexual relations, which only takes place between a man and woman married to each other. You damn will care or you wouldn't be trying to make such a fuss over the abbreviated version of the clinically proper term for their disorder.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

why not point to the game breaking research that is irrefutable evidence that it didn't belong on the list.

Or, why not offer ANY evidence that it belonged on the list in the first place, Marshall. There is nothing. Not a thing.

"Homosexuality" does not fit the definition of a mental disorder. It was on the list out of prejudical thinking to begin with, not out of any research.

Just to set the record straight with some, you know, actual facts.

Craig said...

It seems to me that Dan of all people would defer to the fact that Marshall knows himself and knows his intent more accurately than anyone else.

Feodor said...

“… the premise still stands as fact.”

OK, if you’re going to abuse simple semantics like this then you need to stop giving pretending you’re giving science lectures. Which you are clearly not.

Look up the meaning of “premise,” and memorize its use so that you never again confuse it as able to stand for “fact.”

As for your 1950s, not even, presentation of gender as “natural law,” you’re yet to dig into the natrual laws of mitosis and meiosis, the tricks played on natural law by replication and recombination, and the dangers of heterozygous alleles. In the last case, just taking a simple one for you, Marshall, two opposite genders are not “compatible and complimentary” when, say, it comes to one of a thousand instances of disease like sickle cell anemia.

But this is only scratching the surface.

Now, start reading the biology you should have had in school, begin construction your first level of arguments, and then we’ll go upwards from there.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

It seems to me that Dan of all people would defer to the fact that Marshall knows himself and knows his intent more accurately than anyone else.

I have not tried to guess what Marshall's intent is. I've stated that some slurs are slurs regardless of intent.

Do you think it acceptable if a white person refers to a black person as "nigger" but only in the nicest of ways? No, not in the real world, that's not okay.

Same for "homo." Just don't do it. Or be prepared to be considered a jerk.

And WHY will people consider you a jerk?

Because, just as 100 years ago, people might have innocently used the term "nigger" and not realized how oppressive and ugly it was, now there is no excuse. EVERYONE should know how bad that term is. Same for "homo."

Marshall is an adult. He has been told that it is an offensive term in the same sense as "nigger." Why would someone insist on using a term associated with hateful oppression? Reasonable, respectful people don't. It is literally as ugly and hateful as hell, the term itself, and respectful, rational human beings have no sense in using such foul language.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

"Look up the meaning of “premise,” and memorize its use so that you never again confuse it as able to stand for “fact.”

I know what the word means. I also know that the premise I put forth is based on incontrovertible fact. Thus, MY premise stands as fact. Upon what source do I rely? The only one that matters: the Creator of all things. Jesus, who knows a little about science and biology, stated that we were created male and female for a reason.

But if we remove all talk of religion, which as a false priest you are only too willing to do in order to support your false teachings, what other possible reason can there be for two genders of a species to be present if not to come together, each gender with the other? They are complimentary because they are each equipped to join with the other for a unique purpose. They are compatible because this complimentary make-up suits each to be joined with the other.

You like to spew technical terms more to satisfy your overinflated sense of your own intelligence (really, REALLY REALLY overinflated). But not one word of your diatribe diminishes the truth of what I've said regarding the compatible and complimentary nature of the two sexes and how that nature compels us to understand the obvious truth of each being meant for the other. All you've done with your desperate and futile attempts to posture yourself as a superior intelligence is provide examples of how Adam's sin has impacted the integrity of God's creation.

This type of blathering only serves to belie the claim of devotion to Christianity upon which you and Dan (not to mention a few others) insist. You eagerly misinterpret or ignore facts so as to more easily support the unsupportable.

The fact remains: there are two genders for a reason. Each is meant to be attracted to the other. Same sex attraction is abnormal and a disorder.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

""Homosexuality" does not fit the definition of a mental disorder. It was on the list out of prejudical thinking to begin with, not out of any research."

See my comment above. When you can refute Christ's own words, then you make this statement. What research is necessary? The truth is obvious and self-evident by virtue of the fact that there are two genders of human beings. Of COURSE it's disordered to be attracted to the same sex. It is not rational to expect that there should be any research needed to explain the obvious, but only to refute it. There has been no study that refutes the obvious fact that same sex attraction is disordered. No amount of activism within the psychiatric community will change that.

This all falls under the heading of God being revealed to us in nature. It aligns perfectly with what was said by Jesus. You are left with the burden of trying to fit your prejudice in with the fact of their being two genders.

This is almost funny considering how you lefties like to accuse conservative Christians of being "anti-science".

"
Same for "homo." Just don't do it. Or be prepared to be considered a jerk.

And WHY will people consider you a jerk?"


Because people who are morally corrupt look for ways to demonize those who support moral standards and values that do not include their deviant behaviors. I am not at all moved when such people call me a jerk, except to sadness and pity because of their likely eventual destination.

"Marshall is an adult. He has been told that it is an offensive term in the same sense as "nigger."'

And as an adult, I am aware that there is a stark and distinctive difference between the civil rights struggle of the black race and the selfish determination of morally corrupt people to force their deviancy into cultural acceptance. There is no sense in which racist slurs compares with the use of contracted versions of legitimate and proper terms. Trying to insist that they are equal in any way is ugly as hell and insulting to the entire black race who could not be "non-black" if they wanted to be. But no homosexual must engage in homosexual behavior. Not a one. Not any more than a sexually promiscuous hetero must seek out a new sex partner every week. This person is no more a slave to his immoral desires than is the homosexual. But Dan, activists and other enablers, would have us believe that homosexuals have some special right to indulge themselves and expect our acceptance of it as normal and moral. This is a lie of epic proportions. To indulge this lie and work so hard to defend it belies a claim of Christian.

And to insist that I buy in to this immorality on any level at my own blog is arrogance of the worst kind. I stand against this lie and for God's truth in the matter as clearly and plainly revealed to us in Scripture.

Feodor said...

"I know what the word means. I also know that the premise I put forth is based on incontrovertible fact. Thus, MY premise stands as fact.”

Your demand to not answer logic, I suppose, is an instance of the kind of American exceptionalism you endorse. Take Wiki - surely well within you’re ability to read and accept:

"A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion (or an address). In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true. In logic, an argument requires a set of two declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. This structure of two premises and one conclusion forms the basic argumentative structure.”

Your continued confusion is simply how you stonewall the obvious fact when you’re wrong. In fact, it’s a metaphoric irony how fantastic a stonewaller you really are.
________________

As Christ knew so much about science and biology it is curious then that he got confused between the two creation stories. As Matthew has it, he cites the creation story from Genesis 1 but gives the reason for act that is given in Genesis 2. Apparently he forgot that Genesis 1 has male and female created together in the image and likeness of God "so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Strange.

Unless of course, it’s really Matthew who is writing with intentions of his own. You know, trying to be persuasive, trying to preach the Gospel not recite history.

These, though, would be theological questions which the church has put to itself regarding scripture, the nature of scripture, the intent of scripture, the diversity of scripture, and how text can only sacramentally present God and Christ not reify them.

But then these are religious issues for which children like you are unprepared. Your’e right, better to leave them out. For your sake, really.

Feodor said...

Marshall, you are aware that much of life is generated not by sexual reproduction, right? In fact, the same process that keeps making those cold cells of your heart also replicates fungus. Which makes sense.

Craig said...

"Do you think it acceptable if a white person refers to a black person as "nigger" but only in the nicest of ways? No, not in the real world, that's not okay."

In general no, however, I'm good enough friends with some black folks that I could, under the circumstances use the n word in context that would be perfectly ok.

"I have not tried to guess what Marshall's intent is."

MA has clearly stated his intent in using the term, unless you're prepared to call him a liar, it seems that in fact you are questioning his intent.

"I've stated that some slurs are slurs regardless of intent."

Just because you've stated this, does not make it so.

"Same for "homo." Just don't do it. Or be prepared to be considered a jerk."

Ohhhhh, I live in fear of being considered a jerk. This is just like jr. high.

I would offer a few of possible solutions.

1. Come up with a term that is shorter than homosexual, and is acceptable to all parties.

2. Allow each person to establish and enforce speech codes for their individual blog. While one is a "visitor" one would abide by the standards established by the host.

3. Don't visit or comment on blogs or threads where such vile breaches of civility appear.

4. Accept that Marshall is actually able to comprehend what his own intent and usage of the abbreviation is, and move on.

"He has been told that it is an offensive term in the same sense as "nigger."

Again, just because someone has made this pronouncement does not make it so.

It seems like you are missing the point of the post which is that Marshall is not bound to adopt your speech codes on his blog. Seems like a reasonable premise to me.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

If you feel better by nitpicking my word usage (as in "premise"), I guess that's OK since you fail miserably in addressing the larger points brought out in the conversation. For instance, you still haven't shown that the FACT of why there are two sexes and why it makes homosexual desire a disorder is wrong. Not that you could possibly hope to.

I see also that you're one of those sad and sorry fools who insist Genesis displays two creation stories that contradict each other. All that reading...all that education...it's just so sad.

Dan Trabue said...

just because someone has made this pronouncement does not make it so.

? Similarly, just because you make that pronouncement does not make it so.

In today's world, in polite company, one does not call black folk "niggers," women "whores," or "bitches," or gay folk "homos" or "fags." These are, in fact, offensive terms that have been used by those who'd oppress and hate and demonize and have become SO associated with the bigots, that one can NOT be surprised to be considered a bigot when one uses the language of bigots.

Saying "nuh-uh," does not change these real world conditions.

Craig...

I'm good enough friends with some black folks that I could, under the circumstances use the n word in context that would be perfectly ok.

Yes, one could do so, AMONGST FRIENDS. One could not do so in a mixed company of strangers, as some here do.

One cannot use the language of bigots without being considered a bigot. That is just a reality in the world today.

Pointing out that reality is not guessing what Marshall is or isn't thinking, it's pointing out a reality.

Feodor said...

"you still haven't shown that the FACT of why there are two sexes…”

First, you have yet to acknowledge what you’ve surely forgotten: two sexes is not the universal norm. There are other ways. You’ve stonewalled, and so have FAILED.

Second, dthe reason that there are two sexes is that sexual reproduction was better than aesexual reproduction at creating a wide diversity of genetic traits because it gives a stage (gene recombination) for chance to mix up genes so offspring can be different from either parent.

In other words, there are two sexes because life prefers differences. Which is a scientific way of affirming that homosexuality actually fulfills natural laws. Get that? The diversity which sexual reproduction allows - its natural law of genetic variation - is precisely what affirms homosexuality as a natural result in a minority of cases.

Now this point you’ve not stonewalled from acknowledging. This point you have to be taught. So I wont say FAIL yet. At least not until you now fail to be honest about the obvious (like you stonewall the truth about Gen 1 and 2). FAILED Christian reader.

Jim said...

This is almost funny considering how you lefties like to accuse conservative Christians of being "anti-science".

The Bible is your science text?

I am aware that there is a stark and distinctive difference between the civil rights struggle of the black race and the selfish determination of morally corrupt people to force their deviancy into cultural acceptance.

This is totally irrelevant. This thread has nothing to do with comparing civil rights to homosexuality. A slur is a slur.

There is no sense in which racist slurs compares with the use of contracted versions of legitimate and proper terms.

It is NOT a contracted version of anything.

I get it now. You keep referring to the "legitimate" "proper" or "clinical" term as if that excuses the supposed abbreviation which is actually a slur.

Marshall Art said...

During a session of posting comments, a glitch caused a shutdown of my computer. Once restored, the comments I published had not yet appeared. There were two, one by feo, which I am posting "manually" here, though his stupidity isn't worth the effort, and one by Jim, which seems lost in the ether. There was an attempt to post a comment by Parkie, but since it was the usual crap, I deleted it.

-----------------------------------

Feodor has left a new comment on your post "Taking the Baton---Kinda":

It’s amusing to read as the Simp cites the Masoretic text as evidence that some sins from Leviticus were carried along by the NT while others were not.

I doubt Simp can read Hebrew. I’m sure he’s got massive accordances and paperback commentators lined up on his desk which lend him his assurance - but only the ones which guarantee the outcome he wishes.

The Simp’s point is, to quote, "Short version: There were different Hebrew words translated as abomination. They were used differently in the individual verses and were used very differently in broader contexts.”

One can just as well substitute the English word, “God” for “abomination and Simp’s point would be just as correct. And yet he does not feel the need to differentiate the various words for God in English. He’s happy to blend it all together.

Because that would not guarantee the point he wants to make.

Neil is a stupid Christian’s idea of a smart Christian.

Marshall Art said...

feodope said"

"First, you have yet to acknowledge what you’ve surely forgotten: two sexes is not the universal norm."

It is not relevant to my point. I'm well aware of some creatures in nature that do not have two genders. If I was speaking of every creature on earth, your statement might be impressive to low IQ people. But as I was speaking about human beings, and clearly so, your self-satisfying blather becomes an even greater waste of your time.

"Second, dthe reason that there are two sexes is that sexual reproduction was better than aesexual reproduction at creating a wide diversity of genetic traits because it gives a stage (gene recombination) for chance to mix up genes so offspring can be different from either parent."

Oh really? And when was this choice decided upon, and by whom? Who decided it was the better road? Who decided that it even mattered? You project what isn't there. Since you're a false Christian as well as a false priest, you dismiss Christ's own words regarding the subject. If God created all things, even if He did it in a manner that matches science worshipers like yourself, then intention regarding how things work or how things were meant to work, are uniquely His and His alone. You attempt to take Him out of the mix in order to justify depravity as a natural and worthy occurrence.

"In other words, there are two sexes because life prefers differences. Which is a scientific way of affirming that homosexuality actually fulfills natural laws. Get that?"

Extremely cheap and pathetic rationalization. Life "prefers"? Life "acts" according to or at the pleasure of Almighty God. It does not "act" at all in the any sense suggesting intention or purpose. It acts as it was designed to act in order to negotiate a cursed creation.

"The diversity which sexual reproduction allows - its natural law of genetic variation - is precisely what affirms homosexuality as a natural result in a minority of cases."

Then it affirms every behavior known to man including your own pride and arrogance, as well as the more sadistic leanings of the worst despots and murderers of history. YOU, boy, are an idiot of epic proportions. Homosexuality is a mistake of nature.

When you can come up with something that actually makes your case, rather than covers up your enabling of sinfulness, maybe you could possibly demonstrate I've failed anywhere. As it is, you fail.

Feodor said...

Marshall, I thought you wanted me to address facts and not belief. You said, "For instance, you still haven't shown that the FACT of why there are two sexes…”


So, I proceeded on the facts of sexual reproduction.

If you want to say that God establishes these facts, then, by faith, we’re on the same page.

"If God created all things, even if He did it in a manner that matches science worshipers like yourself, then intention regarding how things work or how things were meant to work, are uniquely His and His alone."

Fine, God established the facts of sexual reproduction that includes various processes among which are those we call meiosis, genetic replication, genetic recombination, and which produce what we call genetic variations among offspring resulting in traits they have that the parents did not. We theorize that it is this divinely strange creation of trait difference which give - over thousands of years - some in all succeeding generations an advantage for survival.

What God calls these things established by creation, no one knows. So you’re going to have go along with me - and the whole world - on this.

So, as God intended - as you desire it to be said first - sexual reproduction does the great work of spawning variations among offspring. It’s a natural process. Thus, male and female can produce red headed, blue eyed, twins. Or not. A gay son. Or not. The process of gene recombination often switches whole strings of gene pairs. So it is. So it is meant to be.

Your own appeal to natural laws gives you the answer you do not want. Tough. Suck it up.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

Nothing in anything you've said explains why there are two genders of human beings. You are simply using all sorts of technical terms and processes and saying those are the reasons out of your own preference for them to be so. But the technicalities of reproduction are not explanations for why there are two genders, no matter how you'd like to insist that they are. Neither would "the whole world" be justified in so using them.

That there are two genders for reproduction is explained by God. That there being two genders means that each is meant to join with the other for that purpose, that each is designed to to, is without question and the only rationally logical conclusion. Any desire not in line with this FACT is abnormal and an example of the imperfections of a fallen world.

Feodor said...

You’re stonewalling because you can’t engage with any of the facts which tell us that homosexuality can easily be the offspring of sexual reproduction.

More fundamentally, you’re confusing two different things. I answered rather more legitimate questions about how sexual reproduction could possibly result in homosexuality.

You confuse this with a different, highly inferential suggestion that has no logical connection to the above when you ask, “why are there two genders”?

My answer? If you haven’t noticed Marshall, gay men and women come in two genders only. So… again, laughably… you FAIL to notice the simple. Gay folks fulfill natural law by coming in two genders.

How determined are you to be stupid?

Marshall Art said...

"How determined are you to be stupid?"

Far less determined than you are, apparently. There's only two genders into which one can be born. So what? That a given individual is homosexual doesn't enter into the "why" regarding there being two genders. That a given individual has homosexual desires is a defect of reproduction (if indeed the condition is set during the process).

You sad people like to insist that it is normal simply because it happens. You play with these words, like "normal", in order to justify either the desires you have or the desires of others, like some twisted version of "holier than thou".

"You’re stonewalling because you can’t engage with any of the facts which tell us that homosexuality can easily be the offspring of sexual reproduction."

No, I'm not. The point is irrelevant. And there are no such "facts" to begin with. There are only theories. Only enablers and activists regard them as facts. Honest people know they are not. You put them up to contradict the most obvious and self-evident fact, that if there are two sexes, that each is meant to be attracted to the other for purposes of procreation is the reason for there being two genders.

"I answered rather more legitimate questions about how sexual reproduction could possibly result in homosexuality."

No one asked what you regard as "more legitimate question". They are not legitimate here in the context of this discussion no matter how much you would like them to be. Bringing up irrelevant crap to posture yourself as knowledgeable and intelligent has no place here.

Feodor said...

"There's only two genders into which one can be born. So what?”

Exactly. So stop thinking that talking about two genders means anything relevant. Unless you want to stonewall.

"That a given individual is homosexual doesn't enter into the "why" regarding there being two genders.”

Exactly. So stop thinking that talking about two genders says anything relevant about homosexuality.

"That a given individual has homosexual desires is a defect of reproduction…”

Now this is where you cannot see the answer which you blindly provided: it is in the nature of sexual reproduction to produce incredible variation over time. This is natural law. As God created it.

Homosexuality is one variation produced by sexual reproduction.

Punto e final, stupido. You FAIL so incredibly because your stone walled heart cannot admit to it. And by doing so make it even more clear.

Feodor said...

You’re the one who appealed to natural law. You cannot now claim that science is only theory. Natural law is as well. And according to our theories of natural law, genetic variation breeds diversity into life.

As a christian, it’s easy for me to say that that makes sense. God is a prodigal creator and lover. Diversity accords with God’s nature.

Homosexuality, then, produced by the natural laws of reproduction participate in God’s bounty.

Mark said...

Homosexuality is not normal. No one is born that way. It is a choice.

Deviancy is anything that deviates from the norm. Anything that is abnormal is deviancy.

Since anywhere between 2 to 3 per cent of the entire world's population is homosexual, the remaining 97-98 per cent are considered normal, and the 2-3 per cent are considered abnormal, or deviant.

People (including my wife)who are left handed are born left handed. Homosexuals are not born homosexual. They choose their deviant lifestyle. Regardless of their stated reasons, or justifications, they still chose to be homosexual.

If Art says his use of the abbreviation, homo, is not derogatory, that is his belief, and since it is his belief, why do you question his intent? Do you know his mind?

Dan, and Jim, no one questions that you both believe homosexuals are normal. We only question why you believe thus, considering that particular belief defies logic and common sense tells us that it is abnormal and deviant.

Feodor said...

"Deviancy is anything that deviates from the norm. Anything that is abnormal is deviancy.”

Red hair; blue eyes; runs incredibly fast; can’t swim; double jointed thumb; can roll her tongue; can’t do math in his head; sings off key; can’t say clear “s”s; can’t distinguish brown from green; blonde; prefers fat women; prefers bone thin women; prefers short men; prefers men; prefers women.

So many deviant people.

Marshall Art said...

I would say it this way: Deviancy is what deviates from intended norms. In this case, it is obvious to any honest person that each gender is intended to join with one of the other as a result of logical attraction each has for the other. This is the way it is supposed to be by virtue of the fact that there are only two genders, each compatible and complimentary with the other. Male to female, female to male. For a male to be attracted to a male, or a female to a female, is deviant behavior, as it makes no logical sense given the gender situation. From a nature/biological standpoint, to say nothing of the theological standpoint (which aligns with each other like man and woman), such attraction is a deviancy.

None of these (and the very thought that feodor would try this really stupid angle)....

"Red hair; blue eyes; runs incredibly fast; can’t swim; double jointed thumb; can roll her tongue; can’t do math in his head; sings off key; can’t say clear “s”s; can’t distinguish brown from green; blonde; prefers fat women; prefers bone thin women; prefers short men; prefers men; prefers women."

...are anything like the deviancy of a man desiring to mate with a man. Of the list above, each are examples of degrees of ability. One might say that the vocal chords of one person do not allow for melodious talents, but as the purpose of the vocal chords are for speech, singing ability (or lack thereof) does not indicate "defect" or "deviancy". As to the various women preferences, THEY'RE WOMEN! and men who prefer one type over another is merely paradigm, which, in my opinion, explains homos.

Liars and deceivers like feodor can try all the wordplay they want, seek to project their opinions of biology to express some notion that nature "prefers" variety, and the failure is still so complete. There are two genders for a reason. That reason is that each is to come together with the other.

Now, feo and Jim, and others I won't mention at this time, in their weak faith (I say "faith" for lack of a better term), dismiss the words of Christ recorded in Scripture who affirmed the reason why God created man and woman. Is the Bible my science book? No. But those who actually believe in God/Jesus have to acknowledge that He might know better than faux geniuses like feodor, or even actual scientists who aren't such arrogant jerks. Thus, if there is any stonewalling at play, it is by feodor, as he laboriously proves his lack of faith and intelligence by trying to make facts say what he wants about why there are two genders, rather than simply being honest and admitting that the reason is as Jesus, if not I, stated.

Feodor said...

"logical attraction”

More abuse of the English language.

Marshall Art said...

You wish. Face it. Your arguments are cheap rationalizations that don't come close to refuting the obvious truth: that men are designed by God and His creation to desire and join with women, and women with men. It is logical that they do as they are so designed to do so. Homosexuals are unfortunate examples of those with design flaws or, and more precisely, a "glitch in their systems" that leads to a belief that they are immutably fixed in their "orientation".

What's really amazing is that you would suggest that homosexuality is just another product of God's love of diversity. What a crock of liberal bile. This line of reasoning must then give equal respect to those who have a attraction to animals or prepubescent children or multiple partners or those who are lazy or gluttonous, or a host of other desires and urges that even a false christian like yourself would find abhorrent, or at least demanding of restraint. All of these things are "natural" to those who possess such desires. All such people would insist that they be left alone to live as they choose were they able to so convince the rest of society. All such people would whine that they are oppressed and abused by a culture that expects them to rise above their warped desires and live as mature and responsible people.

And each of these people would bristle at being referred to by terms used to indicate their personal bad behaviors. Society generally pays their laments much heed and rightly refers to them by the appropriate terms, or by variations or "slang" versions of those words.

But "homo"!!!! Heaven forbid that anyone dare speak such words that by definition are appropriately applied. An "ugly, vile and hatefully hellish" word "used to oppress"? Oh, please! What a sad ploy by those who cannot defend this indefensibly selfish carnal preference. I was born this way. I was born unable to feel moved by the demands of those who insist I accept their sinful and abnormal behavior. Show some tolerance!

Jim said...

Heaven forbid that anyone dare speak such words that by definition are appropriately applied.

So I guess it would be similarly OK if I called someone a "retard", which is an abbreviation of a perfectly acceptable clinical term.

Right?

Marshall Art said...

Ah! Again with the apples and oranges, eh Jim? What's more, it's a retarded thing to suggest. Let's actually give some serious and honest thought to this, shall we?

Years ago, those with any mental retardation were called idiots or worse. The term "mental retardation" was meant to describe whatever defect that resulted in extremely slowed or "retarded" learning abilities. Such people could be referred to as "mentally retarded", "retarded" or "retard", all meaning the same thing. Any of those terms would be used toward a "normal" person who made a mistake or did something stupid, or, were simply not quite the smartest of the group. But it was also used disparagingly against those who were truly retarded so that now, the term is considered a slur.

Here's the distinction for those who wish to use this situation in defense of homosexuality: Those with any form of mental retardation are truly born that way and are innocent and defenseless people who cannot change their situation. They may not even know they are being insulted. So while the term still applies, its misuse has led to alternatives, such as "mentally handicapped", "mentally challenged" and now, "special needs". In time, I have little doubt that these newer and preferred terms will also be abused in the same manner as the originals.

Homos, on the other hand, are completely capable of controlling their twisted sexual desires, but instead choose to indulge and pretend there is no sinfulness and abnormality attached to the practice. While laments of oppression are greatly overblown, what harassment they've received is because of the sinfulness and deviancy of the behavior, not because like blacks, women or "special needs" people, they have no choice but to so indulge themselves.

I don't approve of or endorse any bullying or abuse of homosexuals. But that does not mean that I feel they are entitled to the respect they demand as if they are actually only engaging in morally benign behavior. They are not. What they do is their own business, but they are willfully sinning and their attractions are abnormal. Of this there is no doubt, but only the cheap rationalizations and complicit enabling as we've seen in this thread.

Homosexuals are not parallel to blacks, women or people with disabilities.

Jim said...

A slur is a slur.

Or are you saying that some slurs are OK depending on the object of the slur?

What they do is their own business, but they are willfully sinning and their attractions are abnormal.

No contradiction here!

Marshall Art said...

Of course some slurs are OK. If the object of the slur is a routine perpetrator of bad behavior, a slur, slang or proper description makes no difference. Would not giving undo concern to the feelings of such a person serve to mitigate the offense of their bad behavior? I would think so. I don't care what the criminal thinks of the term I use to describe him (such as thief, murderer) whether that term is the technical term or some slang alternative. I don't much care how offended a lazy person would be if his laziness is chronic and detrimental to those around him. All these people would lament that they are being treated poorly to be called what they are, or by a term that describes how they are.

Also, some slurs and slang terms are positive, though few would regard them as slurs. If I'm a cool dude, I'm not a sharp dresser with low body temperature. I'm someone held in rather high regard. Is that better than being called a "nice guy" or a "fine gentleman" or "a fellow we regard highly"? No. It's all the same.

If I use slurs and slang to demean, it really doesn't matter what words I use, does it? It's the intent to demean or cause emotional distress that is the issue.

It seems to me that while it is not outside the realm of justified expectation to consider the feelings of others when speaking, it is equally within that same realm to assume the speaker means no offense unless it is overtly obvious. In the case of this topic, I use a term for convenience based on MY standards of right and wrong which are based on clearly revealed tenets of Scripture regarding proper human behavior. There has never been any rational and justifiable reason to suspect that I wish ill upon homosexuals. So enablers and activists who come here and pretend I am a hater or bigot because the sinners demand I be regarded as such need to prove that they are so justified. Good luck with that, as no pro-homo argument holds water.

"What they do is their own business, but they are willfully sinning and their attractions are abnormal."

"No contradiction here!"


What is this supposed to mean? It makes no sense.

Jim said...

If I use slurs and slang to demean, it really doesn't matter what words I use, does it? It's the intent to demean or cause emotional distress that is the issue.

And after all these posts, you admit that you intend your use of "homo" to be a slur. Your intent is to demean.

Also, some slurs and slang terms are positive, though few would regard them as slurs. If I'm a cool dude, I'm not a sharp dresser with low body temperature. I'm someone held in rather high regard. Is that better than being called a "nice guy" or a "fine gentleman" or "a fellow we regard highly"? No. It's all the same.

What a ridiculous paragraph! A "slur" is ALWAYS negative (unless you are drunk, and still...) To suggest that "cool dude" is a slur is simply idiotic.

I use a term for convenience based on MY standards of right and wrong which are based on clearly revealed tenets of Scripture regarding proper human behavior.

Really!? Interesting juxtaposition of convenience and Scripture. Here again, you are admitting that "homo" is a slur because you mean to demean homosexuals as justified by Scripture.

This is really rich! Keep going.

What is this supposed to mean? It makes no sense.

It means, if "what they do is their own business", why do you care?

Marshall Art said...

"And after all these posts, you admit that you intend your use of "homo" to be a slur. Your intent is to demean."

Are you that desperate, Jim, that you'd lie outright like this? How sad for you. I made no such admission as any honest person can easily see without even trying. I have not used the term in any blog posting as anything more than what I've insisted all along, that it is a mere contraction or abbreviation of the clinical term for someone who has an abnormal sexual attraction to another of the same gender.

It's really simple, Jim. I don't need to demean them. They've demeaned themselves by engaging in their perversions and promoting cultural acceptance of it. How could I do worse by calling them a name? How could I possibly demean them more than they've demeaned themselves?

"What a ridiculous paragraph!"

What a ridiculous objection! I'm trying to make a point. YOU'RE trying to find fault in any way you can so as to dismiss the underlying premise of this post. I'll make it more simple for you, Jim. I don't care that homosexuals, "transgendered", animal lovers or pedophiles think about the words I choose to use in speaking about them. I don't feel moved at their lamentations that the words I might use hurt their feelings. To me, any word I use should hurt their feelings if they have any shred of decency left within them, and indeed, I believe it's that shred, that tiny, ignored shred of morality that nags at them when ANY word is used. When they, or any of you, can finally demonstrate why I should not regard them as the sinners they are, as the deviants they are, I will reconsider. Thus far, no one has been able to defend their behavior as either morally benign or psychologically normal.

Now, I don't expect such to come from YOU, Jim, as you seem to think that the clearly revealed Will of God as found in Scripture is somehow demeaning to homosexuals. Too bad. Thieves and liars have the same issue.

"It means, if "what they do is their own business", why do you care?"

Oh, that's an easy one, Jim. Unlike people like yourself, those who really try to be serious followers of Christian teaching care about people, even morally corrupted people and/or more so, psychologically confused people. What's more, there are hormonal kids who are vulnerable to the lies that the activists and their enablers promote that lead too many kids to believe they are without the ability to overcome their deviant urges. As if that isn't enough, other children are adopted by these pathetic people and they are corrupted as well, and unlike the lies told by the activists, many do not do well in such homes. None do as well as they would with both a mother and a father. Homosexuals don't live as long as normal people on average. They suffer from STDs more than normal people on average. They suffer from mental illnesses more than normal people on average. They kill themselves more than normal people on average.

The real question is not why do I care. It's why don't YOU?

Jim said...

it is a mere contraction or abbreviation of the clinical term for someone who has an abnormal sexual attraction to another of the same gender.

See. There you go again, smoothly trying to "cover" the slur by attempting to connect it to "the clinical term". Yes, "homosexual" is a clinical term. "Homo is neither an abbreviation or a clinical term. And I'm not sure clinicians would characterize homosexual attraction as abnormal. They would simply say it is attraction to another of the same sex.

The real question is not why do I care. It's why don't YOU?

Because I don't go around judging my friends and co-workers for their personal lives. They don't bother me. They don't bother my children. They don't threaten my marriage.

I can't imagine being in meetings at work and thinking how vile, perverted, disgusting, sinful, and self-demeaning several of them are. Believe it or not, even though I work in San Francisco, not a single one of my gay co-workers has committed "homosexual behavior" at work.

Marshall Art said...

"Homo is neither an abbreviation or a clinical term."

From Dictionary.com

ab·bre·vi·a·tion

noun
1.
a shortened or contracted form of a word or phrase, used to represent the whole, as Dr. for Doctor, U.S. for United States, lb. for pound.


Seems pretty clear to me. If it is also used as a slur by some people, or more to the point, said by those people represented by the word and its contracted form to be a horrible thing to say about them, that's neither here nor there. Here at this blog, and by people not unduly influenced by people who choose to engage in deviant sexual behavior, it is a mere abbreviation, a contraction, an alternative option to the full term.

"And I'm not sure clinicians would characterize homosexual attraction as abnormal. They would simply say it is attraction to another of the same sex."

Either you're not sure or you are. I am totally sure that there are people within the psychological community that do not share your corrupted perspective. Of course it is an attraction to another of the same gender. Duh. That's what makes it abnormal.

"Because I don't go around judging my friends and co-workers for their personal lives."

Good for you, Jimmy-boy. I don't either. But as a Christian who doesn't pretend God's intention for human sexuality is meaningless, I support His intention and have no trouble expressing it should the subject arise. As for my family and friends, I also care deeply about them so that I will speak in confidence to them regarding ANY bad behavior in which they openly engage because their souls are more important than our relationship. So sad you don't care enough about your family and friends to risk for the sake of their souls.

"They don't bother me. They don't bother my children. They don't threaten my marriage."

Yeah, I get it. You're not your brother's keeper. Fuck 'im. What does it matter to you how he spends eternity?

"Believe it or not, even though I work in San Francisco, not a single one of my gay co-workers has committed "homosexual behavior" at work."

Do you spend your workday monitoring your co-workers' actions or doing your own job? And why would you bring up whether or not they get it on on the premises during working hours, anyway? Are you hopeful?