How is that hyperbolas or conjecture taken out of context. Insult? Narrow minded is an insult? I even provided a definition. It fits your argument to a T. Hell, it fits damn near everything you ever post on this forum.
In reverse, it also fits every argument YOU post. You could use the same definition to pigeonhole everyone who has an opinion.
You, Chizad, do not get to determine what is or isn't.
Again, the definition:
Your inability to empathize even in the most basic way with a homosexual person covers the first definition. Your constant implications that homosexuals are weak minded even more strongly solidifies this. Not receptive to new ideas. Before this thread existed, it's been rehashed a million times that that is your M.O. You still think Chizik is a blathering idiot, and Jacobs made the worst hire in college football history. Extremely conservative? Check. Morally self-righteous? Can you be any more morally self-righteous than you have been in this thread? With your Bible verses, and your constant tirades about how homosexuality is an immoral sin.Is this not what 90% of this thread has contained? Not about the issue itself. How being a homosexual makes you less able to serve in the military. You know that's a futile battle. So your rail on why you oppose the homosexual lifestyle on principle.
You're the one that brought up the idea that homosexuals wish to be cured. You really want me to find a fucking study to refute that? Since you're the one that doesn't know a single homosexual, I'm sure you're the authority on what the homosexual community thinks. The idea that you are calling this statement hyperbole is beyond belief.
One Bible verse and a simple statement that I believe in God makes me self-righteous? Again, this is the kind of hyperbole and hysteria that epitomizes the inability to have legitimate discussion in today's society.
The expression of my opinion constitutes "railing" and "tirades." But the posts of those who happen to agree with you -- many of which were extremely lengthy and convoluted -- are neither railing nor tirade? Your tooth-chipping, insult-laden rant was not a "tirade" considering that it went completely against the essentially calm and rational discussion that was taking place between ADULTS who understand that there are two sides to every issue and who were calmly and rationally exploring both sides?
When was the last time I criticized Chizik or Jacobs even (except as it pertains to Lebo)? I still think the hire was bad, but I told you that would never change. Everybody on earth thought the hire was bad except Jacobs and Chizik and a bunch of Bama fans. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. Do I think Chizik is the long-term answer? Not really. We don't have nearly enough evidence yet to make that decision. It's early yet. But I haven't said anything negative in a while. Your own signature, in fact, shows that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in the coming year considering the task he faces where many of you are toting around grandiose and unrealistic expectations. YOUR mind is set in terms of what you think I believe and YOU miss the changes, subtle as they may be.
So it's only narrow minded, self-righteous and a tirade if it doesn't agree with YOUR (also narrow) view. I'm with you so far.
If most homosexuals wish to be cured, then what are you bitching about? Are they parading around in your face about how you should accept their homosexuality or begging for medical attention? This claim is purely asinine. Go ahead. Ask a homosexual if they wish to be cured. A genuine homosexual. I will pay you $10,000 if they reply "Golly, that'd be great if I could finally get rid of my gayness!"
Can't speak for all, but there are certainly some. Otherwise there wouldn't be outreach programs that attempt to help "cure" them or find ways to suppress. The suicide rate for teens who consider themselves to be gay or are conflicted about that issue is (from what I've read) about four times the rate for non-gay. If there were no issue, you'd think this wouldn't be the case.
If there WERE a means to reverse it and make their sexual urges "normal" ( by my definition ) you have no idea whatsoever how many might accept that option. You're taking the opinion of the militant few who claim to speak for the "gay community" and applying it universally. In comparison that's like saying Al Sharpton speaks for all blacks.
As I've said hundreds (probably thousands) of times in this thread, I don't care what they do so long as they don't make a public issue out of it. It's the demand that their lifestyle be accepted as normal or natural that disturbs me.
Okay, so if YOU make up a statement that you claim speaks for all gays -- and do so without any basis in fact -- that's reasonable. If I use statistical information to make a reasonable assumption (higher suicide rates = emotional conflict = maybe some don't want to be what they think they are) then it's "purely asinine."
Okay, I see what you're doing there, too.
Oh, so it must have been someone else who said:You are clearly suggesting that homosexuals are not able to think for themselves and consent to treatment in the same way as mongoloids and children.
You went on to say: Play "I never said that" all you want, but it's littered throughout this entire thread.
You get caught up in semantics. I suppose I should have said you've never "gotten to know a gay person."
You're still hung up on that?
A) The context was whether homosexuality was a genetic defect. Mongoloidism was used as a comparison because it is. Could just as easily have chosen harelip or something else genetic.
B) Something is wrong with people who are mongoloid, the asinine characterization of all mongoloids as happy little people aside. So back to context. Something is also wrong with homosexuals (in my opinion). If you can change that orientation by changing the genetic makeup, I'd support that just as I'd support a genetic solution to mongoloidism or any other issue. It's a logical stretch -- and one used merely to add hyperbole -- to suggest that in making this statement, I've said homosexuals are mongoloid.
C) If homosexuality is not genetic and is a choice then yes, I do question the cognitive abilities of someone who would make that choice. It goes against everything I know and understand. It is unnatural and perverse (in my book). But you can't get from C to A without making connections that don't exist anywhere but in your mind.
You've made the claim here several times that "I don't know anybody who's gay." I've said several times that I have a cousin who is gay. My uncle's daughter. My favorite uncle and the guy I was named after.
In case you were unable to comprehend, since saying that I've had TW churlishly claim that "she doubts my cousin misses being around me." Fuck her. Not her place to say. None of you know what our relationship is or was like. But that's another story. So I've got family members who are gay. I've had co-workers who are gay. I probably have at least one gay employee. I prefer not to socialize with them if their sexual choice is going to be part of the dynamic. Because I find it offensive, I will choose not to be in situations where it becomes an issue. Free speech, remember? I have that right. It's why my cousin doesn't bring her "other" to family functions. She understands that it would be awkward.
For TW or anybody to comment on my relationship with my family really shows their true colors.
So here, we have the fact that you don't even know what you're talking about, you're making broad assumptions without any basis in reality and you're making puzzling logical leaps and bounds by playing fast and loose with what was said.
And somehow that makes me crazy?
Yeah. Whatever.
When you make irrational arguments like this, Chizad, it only entrenches me. You're not interested in healthy debate no matter what you think. You're not interested in it at all. You, like far too many, don't have the capacity for it. There are times I don't. This wasn't one of them. I found the points made by Vandy Vol to be extremely thought provoking. Not enough to change my opinion, but it takes a lot. I thoroughly enjoyed that discussion because he forced me to defend my thinking -- and did so with intelligence, a lack of hyperbole and without resorting to character or personal insults. Maybe you missed it, but he didn't get any of that back, either. Hmmm. Best discussion I've had on this board, IMO.
338 Replies
65553 Views