I’d like
to make a small but significant point about the relationship between homosexuality
and heterosexuality. Homosexuality is parasitic on heterosexuality. Every
homosexual is the product of a heterosexual union–no heterosexual was ever the
product of a homosexual union. So these are fundamentally asymmetrical.
And even
if we qualify that by reference to modern reproductive technologies, these are
also parasitic on heterosexuality.
I think this website has an unusual fixation on homosexuality. There is no such parasitic relationship between homosexuality and heterosexuality unless you want to make the same claim about those who remain chaste all of their lives.
ReplyDeleteTo judge by all the comments you've been leaving, I think *you* have an unusual fixation on homosexuality.
DeleteI've been blogging continuously for 9 years. You won't find an unusual fixation on homosexuality.
Right now, with Obama's reelection, homosexual activists feel the wind at their back. This is their moment. Their best chance to push through their agenda.
That's why we're responding now.
And as a matter of fact, straight singles owe their existence to heterosexual couples, not vice versa. So your comparison backfires.
Curt Day said:
DeleteI think this website has an unusual fixation on homosexuality.
1. You have a short attention span, or perhaps a failing memory. For example, you just debated us over in Alan's post about Obamacare. Obamacare isn't about homosexuality. It's about healthcare.
2. Besides, you have a jaundiced eye when it comes to this topic, especially given how little you've offered in the way of facts and argumentation on the topic but how much in the way of emoting and finger-wagging.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteJust because your website here discusses other subjects doesn't mean that you are not paying an inordinate amount of attention to homosexuality.
And your personal judgments are nothing more than personal judgments. In fact, your personal judgments are more filled with emotion than mine are. So my first statement on this thread stands.
Curt Day,
DeletePart of the reason why we cover a topic like homosexuality so much is because opponents like you keep bringing it up and keep making unreasonable comments that warrant a response. As I told you in an earlier thread, the amount of attention that an issue like homosexuality receives from us is partially a result of how much attention the media, Hollywood, politicians, and other sources give it. The factors determining how much attention we give a topic are largely out of our hands. When a nation is at a turning point on an issue like homosexuality, and when the media, politicians, and so many other sources are giving the topic so much attention, it makes sense for us to cover it more than we would have, say, forty years ago.
What Steve has done today on homosexual issues, by putting up a series of posts addressing the subject from a variety of angles, is the same approach he's taken toward other topics over the years. If he's thinking about some issue, or is reading a book about it, for example, he'll put up a series of posts about that topic while it's on his mind. The vast majority of posts Steve has written over the years haven't been about homosexuality. The same is true for the rest of us on the Triablogue staff.
By the way, why is it acceptable for such a large percentage of your posts here to be about homosexuality? We've addressed a lot of other topics since you started posting here, yet you've commented far more about homosexuality than about other topics. Why is your "inordinate amount of attention to homosexuality" acceptable, but ours isn't?
DeleteCurt Day said:
DeleteJust because your website here discusses other subjects doesn't mean that you are not paying an inordinate amount of attention to homosexuality.
1. Steve and Jason have already offered perfectly good explanations in response to your complaint.
2. Since "paying an inordinate amount of attention to homosexuality" (emphasis mine) assumes a quantitative estimation, why don't you figure out how many posts are on Triablogue, how many posts we've done on homosexuality, and then divide the one over the other to see the percentage of posts we've done on the topic.
And your personal judgments are nothing more than personal judgments. In fact, your personal judgments are more filled with emotion than mine are. So my first statement on this thread stands.
What I've said is based entirely on your very own words. People simply have to look at all the comments you've left here over the past few days and see how emotive they've been (among other problems).
Steve,
ReplyDeleteHave you counted the number of posts this site has made on the subject in the past few days? Along with that, you include some detailed descriptions that, if you have kids visiting the site, should not be displayed.
Curt,
DeleteHave you counted the number of comments you've made here on the subject in the past few days?
So you believe in supporting homosexual marriage as long as folks don't know what they're supporting.
If you're worried about kids, why aren't you worried about public sex-ed curricula that delve into the mechanics of homosexual activity?
You act like you just fell off the turnip truck. You support homosexual marriage in the abstract, but turn a blind eye to the lurid details.
So, Curt, you're concerned with what kids might see online. But how many homosexual parents would be opposed to their kids watching pornography? Like their teenagers? If you want anecdotes, Curt, a lot of the homosexuals I know have encouraged others including adolescents to watch gay porn.
DeleteThanks to people like Curt, even gradeschoolers are being subjected to homosexual propaganda:
Deletehttp://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/new-sex-ed-standards-for-suggested-for-elementary-schools/
"Thanks to people like Curt, even gradeschoolers are being subjected to homosexual propaganda"
DeleteYeah, maybe public school is a bad idea.
Yeah, maybe public school is a bad idea.
DeleteLOL
Yeah, maybe.
Hey, Scott, nice to see you here. Steve and Rho are old friends of mine, and have spent lots of time trying to keep me out of Hell. Maybe they will do the same for you.
DeleteWas teaching my Sunday school Class (grade-schoolers) that homosexual advocates were "anarchists" but I like "parasites" better :)
ReplyDeleteMatthew 23- Words you may not say in Canada March 24/13
In Matthew 23 Jesus says some ‘nasty words’- words you may not say in Canada anymore.
On February 27 (less than a month ago) the Supreme Court of Canada ruled (http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do )
on various words that you may not say in Canada anymore (BTW, as of last Wednesday our Canadian MP’s ruled that any guy can now legally enter a girls washroom as well- he just has to say that he has ‘girly feelings’.). And the man who said those ‘nasty words’ was fined $7,500 plus enormous court costs… for committing a “hate crime”.
Now those words include a word that came from The Bible. A word found in the old King James Version. A word found in Deuteronomy 23:17 (and very strongly implied in many other places). The offending word in this case was “Sodomite”.
A word that defines a ‘people group’ that engage in a particular type of sex (ask your father about Leviticus 18:22). A word that defines a ‘people group’ that are anarchists to the traditional family structure. A ‘people group’ intent on perverting traditional marriage.