# What is your sexuality?



## Couchie

*What is your sexuality*

From Wikipedia:

Human sexuality is how people experience the erotic and express themselves as sexual beings; the awareness of themselves as males or females; the capacity they have for erotic experiences and responses. Human sexuality can be described as the way someone is sexually attracted to another person of the opposite sex (heterosexuality), to the same sex (homosexuality), to both sexes (bisexuality), or attracted to no sexes in a sexual way (asexuality).


----------



## Lukecash12

As far as what my intentions would be in reference to participating in the physical act, I'm heterosexual. However, it may interest people here to know that I used to be homosexual, and in terms of how I would express myself sexually I might call myself bisexual or even lean more towards homosexuality, as to how I would express myself regardless of the genders of the participants in the act. As of right now, and probably indefinitely, I'm something of a eunuch because I no longer have any interest in dating or sex, nor do I expect to have the interest again.


----------



## Rasa

That's pretty detailed....


----------



## Lukecash12

Rasa said:


> That's pretty detailed....


Pretty detailed OP, so I thought: "What the hell? I'll try and answer the whole OP."


----------



## Ukko

My information is that sexuality is not a slam-dunk, and that the terms 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' suggest a precision that often does not exist.

BTW _Couchie_, your use of the term 'bisexual' is one of my pet annoyances (along with the American pronunciation of 'protein'). 'Bisexual' should be reserved to refer to a congenital physical condition involving organs. The (apparently chemically driven) condition you are concerned with should be labeled 'ambisexual' - well, because of its ambiguity.

[ I have zero hope of convincing Meriam-Webster]


----------



## CountessAdele

I was very  for a long time, I didn't know if I was heterosexual or homosexual. I thought it had to be either or, which it clearly wasn't for me. It was my mom who told me that there was even such a thing as a bisexual or ambisexual (I can be cluless sometimes). Any way she gave me some good advice and support and we told my dad, who, at first, was like . He always says "I don't get it, honey, but whatever makes ya happy."lol

Why limit myself to one gender?


----------



## Manxfeeder

I'm het. I don't know what women find attractive in men. Of course, I guess that means if I were a female, I'd be a lesbian.


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> My information is that sexuality is not a slam-dunk, and that the terms 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' suggest a precision that often does not exist.
> 
> BTW _Couchie_, your use of the term 'bisexual' is one of my pet annoyances (along with the American pronunciation of 'protein'). 'Bisexual' should be reserved to refer to a congenital physical condition involving organs. The (apparently chemically driven) condition you are concerned with should be labeled 'ambisexual' - well, because of its ambiguity.
> 
> [ I have zero hope of convincing Meriam-Webster]


You won't convince Meriam-Webster because the biological term you're looking for is not 'bisexual' but rather 'hermaphrodite.'


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

To call myself "heterosexual" makes me feel abnormal and like a pariah. The term is too scientific and cold. Rather, I prefer to be called a woman who is glad to be a woman.


----------



## Weston

I'm a boring old hetero. Actually I hear it's a spectrum, and I would fall on the side of heterosexuality, but not all the way to the end of that spectrum. I can certainly appreciate the physical beauty of men. Of course I study the human body as an illustrator. It is one of the most complicated amazing structures in the known universe. I may never be really comfortable drawing it. And yes, I can feel the very faintest of yearnings when observing a graceful male figure. Women are God's masterpieces however.


----------



## Ukko

Almaviva said:


> You won't convince Meriam-Webster because the biological term you're looking for is not 'bisexual' but rather 'hermaphrodite.'


In my opinion 'hermaphrodite' is a code word, designed for a genteel use - in a world where the genteel no longer exist. The 'street' word, 'morphadyke', is also a code word, designed to insult. The word 'bisexual', when applied to the condition, is both descriptive and socially neutral.

Down with 'hermaphrodite'
Down with 'morphadyke'
Up with 'bisexual'.

Write to your political representative.


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> To call myself "heterosexual" makes me feel abnormal and like a pariah. The term is too scientific and cold. Rather, I prefer to be called a woman who is glad to be a woman.


? Do you think that because I'm a gay man I'm not glad to be a man? I'm a man who is glad to be a man and glad to be with men!

I think it would be more useful for the OP to separate our fundamental sexuality with our actions and intentions. Particularly with regards to Lukecash's comment, I find it jarring when people say: "I used to be X" - sexuality is not changeable, though our actions and desires may change with time.


----------



## Kieran

I'm a heterosexual male - but I love lesbians!

So that makes me...a normal heterosexual male! :tiphat:


----------



## Ravellian

Ask this question on a normal forum, and you'd get all one-word answers. Ask it on a classical music forum, and everyone gives a mini-essay... 

Heterosexual.


----------



## Klavierspieler

I better say nothing here or I'll probably get banned....


----------



## haydnfan

What is up with all of these personal polls? Half of them even have the results made public. You facebook posting, twittering "flaunt it baby, flaunt it!" 20 sometimes have no concept of privacy. The future is heading towards one where the right to privacy no longer exists because you place no value for it, and it will be all your fault. 

I know, I know who cares right as long as you post anonymously? Well one place on the internet where you reveal to your buds your true identity and then a whole history can be unraveled. Just think about it before you create and/or participate in one more thread like this one.


----------



## beethovenian

A gay is a woman at heart and a lesbian vice versa.
So would lesbians and gays be attracted to each other?
I always wonder how a lesbian dating a gay would be like.

I voted bisexual but i not exactly 50-50 attracted to both sex. I am much more incline towards to fairer sex, but sometimes i find myself fascinated and attracted to certain males and dreams what life would be like with them.


----------



## Polednice

haydnfan said:


> What is up with all of these personal polls? Half of them even have the results made public. You facebook posting, twittering "flaunt it baby, flaunt it!" 20 sometimes have no concept of privacy. The future is heading towards one where the right to privacy no longer exists because you place no value for it, and it will be all your fault.
> 
> I know, I know who cares right as long as you post anonymously? Well one place on the internet where you reveal to your buds your true identity and then a whole history can be unraveled. Just think about it before you create and/or participate in one more thread like this one.


Oh no! I've revealed my sexuality, so now everyone must have my bank details!  If you don't like it, don't post. Some people just like to get to know those they share the forum with. For the record, I hate facebook, and I hate twitter; but whether or not we have pets or fancy guys are not scary taboos or risky bits of information that need to be kept private.



beethovenian said:


> A gay is a woman at heart and a lesbian vice versa.


By "a gay", I take it you mean a gay man. This is a rather misogynistic way of looking at it, or at least very gender stereotypical. A gay man is a man is a man.


----------



## Couchie

haydnfan said:


> What is up with all of these personal polls? Half of them even have the results made public. You facebook posting, twittering "flaunt it baby, flaunt it!" 20 sometimes have no concept of privacy. The future is heading towards one where the right to privacy no longer exists because you place no value for it, and it will be all your fault.
> 
> I know, I know who cares right as long as you post anonymously? Well one place on the internet where you reveal to your buds your true identity and then a whole history can be unraveled. Just think about it before you create and/or participate in one more thread like this one.


Crap, so much for my '"What is your home address?" thread.

Really, most of these polls are just "small-talk" questions I might discuss with strangers in elevators, although I did to elevate it to "medium talk" with this poll.  As you can see, I purposely left the votes private, people are free to divulge whatever information makes them comfortable, or to not participate.


----------



## Almaviva

haydnfan said:


> What is up with all of these personal polls? Half of them even have the results made public. You facebook posting, twittering "flaunt it baby, flaunt it!" 20 sometimes have no concept of privacy. The future is heading towards one where the right to privacy no longer exists because you place no value for it, and it will be all your fault.
> 
> I know, I know who cares right as long as you post anonymously? Well one place on the internet where you reveal to your buds your true identity and then a whole history can be unraveled. Just think about it before you create and/or participate in one more thread like this one.


Oh my God!!! You mean that someone may one day find out that I'm heterosexual??? Oh the shame!!! How do I delete this information??? I mean, there aren't too many of us out there, right? So once they know this, they'll be able to pinpoint exactly who I am! Then, they'll be able to steal my identity, get my credit card number, break into my home and steal my goldfish??? I'm so scared now!!!! Thank you good sir for protecting me like this. I think I'll be a lot more careful now, lest someone will know this very damaging piece of information, that I'm a guy and I love women!


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Personally I think this is *not an easy subject*...Too personal...I am hetero and I respect other people as I respect every religion...(I am a Jew).

Not very tasteful for me. I won't participate more than I have already done.

Next question would be like..What do you like to do in bed? I won't participate!

Martin...unease


----------



## Polednice

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Personally I think this is *not an easy subject*...Too personal...I am hetero and I respect other people as I respect every religion...(I am a Jew).


If you respect all other sexualities, why are you so uneasy with the question?


----------



## Weston

beethovenian said:


> A gay is a woman at heart and a lesbian vice versa.
> So would lesbians and gays be attracted to each other?
> I always wonder how a lesbian dating a gay would be like.


I wouldn't know about your definitions, but your post reminded me of a friend of mine in the GLBT community* who opines that I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body. 

I think she was just making a joke.

(* I'm not even sure if this label is inoffensive. My apologies if it is not. This is your opportunity to educate me.)


----------



## Amfibius

I'm a boring old hetero, but I am also a gay rights activist. People think it is a bit strange that a straight guy would go around arguing for gay rights, but to me it is no different to white people arguing for an end to apartheid, or males fighting for universal suffrage.


----------



## sabrina

I'm a woman and I love guys, but not all of them. Right now, I am quite limited... to my family. I hate some guys, though :devil:!


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Polednice said:


> If you respect all other sexualities, why are you so uneasy with the question?


I don't think it is something...interesting and I don't like to discuss and moreover I don't want nor like to judge nor discover...etc.
I think this is a forum for music and small talk, nothing else...I feel also unease speaking about politics or religion...these are personal matters...and I also respect every religion and political orientation...Even though I don't like spamers nor terrorists...

How this can turn if we start asking...do you think you have overweight?...or how often do you go to the bathroom?...Do you have a boyfriend/girfriend or worse..are you a pedophile? I knew a guy in another forum who liked making love to men, women and animals! He called himself a trisexual, he was a vet! There are things we like to share...others we don't or we don't need to. I have no problems speaking about some topics with people I really know...Do I have prejudices? Who doesn't?

I consider myself not boring but a healthy heterosexual. I love women( but) I'm married and I intend to stay marrried (I've been married for 34 years and have two sons). I'm pretty sure that among us we have people not so happy about many things...No need to speak about that. I really don't want to know...I am not a psycotherapist and don't want to "become one"...I'm not willing either to solve other people problems...I don't feel that I can. I'm pretty sure you have a lot of other forums where you can discuss about these (very personal) aspects; this one, as far as I know, is not one of them.

Respectful,

Martin


----------



## Couchie

Only one gay person, very disappointed in all of you, very disappointed.


----------



## Aksel

Almaviva said:


> Oh my God!!! You mean that someone may one day find out that I'm heterosexual??? Oh the shame!!! How do I delete this information??? I mean, there aren't too many of us out there, right? So once they know this, they'll be able to pinpoint exactly who I am! Then, they'll be able to steal my identity, get my credit card number, break into my home and steal my goldfish??? I'm so scared now!!!! Thank you good sir for protecting me like this. I think I'll be a lot more careful now, lest someone will know this very damaging piece of information, that I'm a guy and I love women!


What!? Are you straight, Alma? How shocking. One wouldn't think that from your posts.

Oh, and I'm a gay.


----------



## Lukecash12

Couchie said:


> Only one gay person, very disappointed in all of you, very disappointed.


Hey, I did my best. You just caught me at the wrong time


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Hilltroll72 said:


> In my opinion 'hermaphrodite' is a code word, designed for a genteel use - in a world where the genteel no longer exist. The 'street' word, 'morphadyke', is also a code word, designed to insult. The word 'bisexual', when applied to the condition, is both descriptive and socially neutral.
> 
> Down with 'hermaphrodite'
> Down with 'morphadyke'
> Up with 'bisexual'.
> 
> Write to your political representative.


Almaviva is right, in my opinion. Hermaphrodite is the biological term for any organism having both male and female sex organs. it applies to both plants and animals. In plants, there are several variations on the theme, each of which have their own name.

There's no reason why the word "bisexual" couldn't be used instead. It just isn't.


----------



## Yoshi

I don't know...


----------



## Polednice

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I don't think it is something...interesting and I don't like to discuss and moreover I don't want nor like to judge nor discover...etc.
> I think this is a forum for music and small talk, nothing else...I feel also unease speaking about politics or religion...these are personal matters...and I also respect every religion and political orientation...Even though I don't like spamers nor terrorists...
> 
> etc. etc.


I understand your position and I don't want to debate it with you, but I will just say that my own take on this is that I think it is extremely healthy, positive and encouraging to treat sexuality as being as mundane a question as "Do you have any pets?".

It's a way to get to know people a little more personally, and see if we can identify with each other's tastes and experiences, but our sexualities are not being challenged or held up for discussion. The attitude of treating sexuality like a taboo, or some social faux-pas ("never talk about sex, politics, or religion") is precisely what leads to celibate priests abusing children, and teenagers taking their lives.


----------



## Ukko

Fsharpmajor said:


> Almaviva is right, in my opinion. Hermaphrodite is the biological term for any organism having both male and female sex organs. it applies to both plants and animals. In plants, there are several variations on the theme, each of which have their own name.
> 
> There's no reason why the word "bisexual" couldn't be used instead. It just isn't.


Hmm. _Alma_ and _Fsharp_ illustrate a drawback of the rigorous inculcation and constant application of rote knowledge which is part of the formal training they received. It's called _Cultural Conservatism_.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Polednice said:


> sexuality is not changeable, though our actions and desires may change with time.


There actually are cases where people who were once homosexual changed heterosexual. The reason was not a physical change. It was a heart transformation.


----------



## eorrific

I'm attracted to men, and never women (I'm female), but this doesn't happen frequently. Maybe I'm hetero-slightlyasexual?  And to be frank, I've never even experienced such thing as a "date".  Or maybe puberty hasn't really kicked in...

Haven't voted in the poll, by the way.


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> There actually are cases where people who were once homosexual changed heterosexual. The reason was not a physical change. It was a heart transformation.


You need to look a lot more closely at proper research behind cases like those. It's all very fancy to call it a "heart transformation", but every serious scientific outlet that has looked into it has demonstrated that it is a product of psychological torment. It is damaging and disgusting to try to make someone change their sexuality.


----------



## Ukko

Huilunsoittaja said:


> There actually are cases where people who were once homosexual changed heterosexual. The reason was not a physical change. It was a heart transformation.


Nope, not a 'heart' transformation. The victim may (or may not) think so, but what occurs for people near the 'wrong' end of the scale is a return to the closet. People who are 'middling' probably can manage it, with a little self delusion.

I haven't (and probably won't search the Internet for it) heard or read about a Chemical Conversion, but have wondered if various permutations of the Steroid Cocktail have been tried.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Sexuality is, like, a spectrum, maaaan. Don't put me in, like, your little boxes and stuff. Dude...


----------



## Almaviva

Aksel said:


> What!? Are you straight, Alma? How shocking. One wouldn't think that from your posts.
> 
> Oh, and I'm a gay.


Well, I have to admit to the fact that yes, I'm a straight man. Shocking, I know. I'm sure everybody thought that I was a lesbian, in love with Anna Netrebko. And with Kristine Opolais, and Isabel Leonard, and Miah Persson, and Elina Garanca, and a few others, and my wife. Not in this order, though. I'm actually in love with my wife first, although I'm sure people would think that Anna came first.:lol:

It's so sad that polygamy is not accepted... I certainly would love to have a harem. A soprano/mezzo harem. Maybe if I call it a chorus and myself a chorus master, the authorities won't notice?

[Alma, hopeful]


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Am I the only one who always thought Almaviva was a lady?


----------



## Bix

I'm gay and married to a man.


----------



## Almaviva

regressivetransphobe said:


> Am I the only one who always thought Almaviva was a lady?


A lady with a mighty fixation on Anna's boobs?
Like I said, maybe some members thought I was a lesbian...:lol:


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Almaviva said:


> Well, I have to admit to the fact that yes, I'm a straight man. Shocking, I know. I'm sure everybody thought that I was a lesbian, in love with Anna Netrebko. And with Kristine Opolais, and Isabel Leonard, and Miah Persson, and Elina Garanca, and a few others, and my wife. Not in this order, though. I'm actually in love with my wife first, although I'm sure people would think that Anna came first.:lol:
> 
> It's so sad that polygamy is not accepted... I certainly would love to have a harem. A soprano/mezzo harem. Maybe if I call it a chorus and myself a chorus master, the authorities won't notice?
> 
> [Alma, hopeful]


I'm not sure I'd like to have a soprano/mezzo harem...I have people singing all day long at home and I don't enjoy it...They are my sons's customers. Sometimes they sing well...others they suck. Enough voices for now!

Martin, a bit stressed...LOL


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Huilunsoittaja said:


> There actually are cases where people who were once homosexual changed heterosexual. The reason was not a physical change. It was a heart transformation.


Sorry, but these are just cases of repression. I wonder how many men's restroom stalls there are where one of these usually Christian conservative males had a temporary heart change back, so to speak.


----------



## TresPicos

I voted "Heterosexual", although I seldom get that far. 

I meet this nice girl and everything's great and she even likes classical music. Yay! Then, at some point, she praises Stravinsky, and I calmly mention that I'm a Bartok kind of guy. And so, the irreconcilable differences just grow from there, before we even get the chance to hook up.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

I'm a closeted gay.

I'm not really interested in gay marriage, I'm an introveted person and prefer to live alone. My real problem is that I'm not into sports, but sexually attracted to more athletic and tough men. I'm not feminine, just not athletic. 

I'm an intellectual, but sexaully attracted to jocks. And most jocks are straight. It is hard sometimes. 

But I suppose that my sexuality has no connection with my preferences in music 

I wrongly clicked on heterosexual, because I'm using laptop at this moment and it is without a mouse.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Moscow-Mahler said:


> I wrongly clicked on heterosexual, because I'm using laptop at this moment and it is without a mouse.


This means that somebody needs to swap their sexual orientation for a few seconds to make the poll accurate.


----------



## Ukko

TresPicos said:


> I voted "Heterosexual", although I seldom get that far.
> 
> I meet this nice girl and everything's great and she even likes classical music. Yay! Then, at some point, she praises Stravinsky, and I calmly mention that I'm a Bartok kind of guy. And so, the irreconcilable differences just grow from there, before we even get the chance to hook up.


I certainly sympathize. It's not easy, being a Bartókian. However, that condition is but one of the _many_ irreconcilable differences my female acquaintances have managed to come up with.


----------



## graaf

regressivetransphobe said:


> Am I the only one who always thought Almaviva was a lady?


I also thought so for a while. 


Huilunsoittaja said:


> There actually are cases where people who were once homosexual changed heterosexual. The reason was not a physical change. It was a heart transformation.


So sweet, indeed... By the way, can it happen other way 'round (from homo- to hetero-), you know - also as a _heart transformation_?

PS
Hetero here.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

graaf said:


> By the way, can it happen other way 'round (from homo- to hetero-), you know - also as a _heart transformation_?


No.

Because Jesus says so.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Hilltroll72 said:


> Nope, not a 'heart' transformation. The victim may (or may not) think so, but what occurs for people near the 'wrong' end of the scale is a return to the closet. People who are 'middling' probably can manage it, with a little self delusion.
> 
> I haven't (and probably won't search the Internet for it) heard or read about a Chemical Conversion, but have wondered if various permutations of the Steroid Cocktail have been tried.


I'm truly sorry you don't believe in the idea that there's a soul, and that it's only chemicals that affect our actions.

*There are cases of homosexuals becoming Christians and giving up their ways. Just like for people who were past alcoholics, it's a continual temptation the rest of their lives, but their faith cannot fail them if their faith is true.*


----------



## Nix

beethovenian said:


> A gay is a woman at heart and a lesbian vice versa.


No, thats a transexual. Kind of. And I'm certainly not a woman at heart... half my friends are straight males. I'm the type of person that makes straight guys feel comfortable and 'cool' that they can interact with a gay person so easily.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I'm truly sorry you don't believe in the idea that there's a soul, and that it's only chemicals that affect our actions.
> 
> *There are cases of homosexuals becoming Christians and giving up their ways. Just like for people who were past alcoholics, it's a continual temptation the rest of their lives, but their faith cannot fail them if their faith is true.*


If the Abrahamic God was truly loving, he would accept homosexuals even if they didn't "convert".

Also, I'm curious what you think about instances of homosexuality occurring in nature.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
One old source among many.

I don't mean to derail, but please consider whether your attitudes toward alternative sexualities are your own, or someone else's that you were conditioned with.


----------



## Nix

Huilunsoittaja said:


> *There are cases of homosexuals becoming Christians and giving up their ways. Just like for people who were past alcoholics, it's a continual temptation the rest of their lives, but their faith cannot fail them if their faith is true.*


Not a very good analogy. From what I understand alcoholics don't have any more trouble saying 'no' to a drink then the next guy, they just have trouble saying 'no' to 10 drinks. For recovering alcoholics it's not a matter of continual temptation, it's merely a matter of not putting yourself in a situation were you'd be prone to accept a drink (like in a bout of depression). I'm not an alcoholic myself, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. And homosexuality isn't all about sex. A gay guy can go his entire life never having done stuff with a guy, and even having a wife- but if he likes guys, still makes him gay. So enough with this 'temptation' stuff. You can't tempt someone to be something they already are.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Huilunsoittaja said:


> *There are cases of homosexuals becoming Christians and giving up their ways. Just like for people who were past alcoholics, it's a continual temptation the rest of their lives, but their faith cannot fail them if their faith is true.*


In my opinion. religious faith is the least defensible and the most abused concept in the entire history of the human race.


----------



## Air

I think sexuality is a matter that we still have far too little knowledge to make any conclusions on yet. There seems to be a lot of speculation, here and there, but no confirmed answers. But it's hard to be biased, in a world where hatred and misunderstanding are so ingrained into the way we think.

Regarding 'conversion', if sexuality is really on a spectrum, I wonder if there are cases where a bisexual woman or man are able to lean more towards one or another sex (say, if they get married to one or the other). I think that would be a lot more practical place to start research than to start directly at 'complete conversion', if it can even be called that.

(For the record, I'm heterosexual and pretty average in terms of my sex life, so I don't really have an essay or anything spectacular to share. Sorry about that.)


----------



## clavichorder

I suppose I'll share. I would classify myself as straight but being 19, I'm in general just very horny and I find close interpersonal compatibility within both genders. There is also an interesting piece of my relationship history, I've never been in a relationship with a girl before, but I have with a guy. This is a very complicated story. The friendship deteriorated after the relationship broke up, very slowly and painfully. 

This piece of information aside, I'm quite secure about my sexuality.


----------



## Ukko

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I'm truly sorry you don't believe in the idea that there's a soul, and that it's only chemicals that affect our actions.
> 
> *There are cases of homosexuals becoming Christians and giving up their ways. Just like for people who were past alcoholics, it's a continual temptation the rest of their lives, but their faith cannot fail them if their faith is true.*


I don't believe 'there is a soul'? Where in hell do you get that idea?

I don't doubt that some homosexuals can "give up their ways", be they Christians or otherwise. They are still homosexuals. The term would be 'non-practicing'. Catholic priests don't miraculously shed their sexual orientation; they (in theory at least) don't practice it.

Glad to be of assistance.


----------



## TresPicos

Huilunsoittaja said:


> There are cases of homosexuals becoming _Christians _and giving up their ways. Just like for people who were past alcoholics, it's a continual temptation the rest of their lives, but their faith _cannot _fail them if their faith is true.


There are of course also cases of Christians giving up their ways when they become aware that their blind faith has turned them into inhumane perverts, obsessing with what other grown-ups do in bed.


----------



## Ukko

Ah Jeez. Civility is deteriorating rapidly (including in my last post). Has the thread run its course?


----------



## Klavierspieler

Air said:


> But it's hard to be biased, in a world where hatred and misunderstanding are so ingrained into the way we think.


I think you mean 'hard _not_ to be biased'.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Hilltroll72 said:


> Ah Jeez. Civility is deteriorating rapidly (including in my last post). Has the thread run its course?


I agree. Someone needs to post a silly cat picture before the thread gets locked.


----------



## graaf

Hilltroll72 said:


> Ah Jeez. Civility is deteriorating rapidly (including in my last post). Has the thread run its course?


Well, you've got sex and religion in a single thread - and we know that religion alone is enough for a flame war. Which is really silly, because the very words "because it says so in a Bible" are a conversation stopper, and yet religion debates go on forever... When faith is more important than the evidence, let alone an _argument_, what is there to _argue_ about?


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Air said:


> Regarding 'conversion', if sexuality is really on a spectrum, I wonder if there are cases where a bisexual woman or man are able to lean more towards one or another sex (say, if they get married to one or the other). I think that would be a lot more practical place to start research than to start directly at 'complete conversion', if it can even be called that.


Agreed, and anyway I can't think of any rational reason why you would want to attempt to change another person's sexual orientation. The best analogy that I can think of, in biological terms, is trying to convert a left-hander into a right-hander. You might be able to do it with people who are innately somewhat ambidextrous, but you would fail with many others.

What's the point of even trying, though? There's nothing unethical about being left-handed. Even at the age of six, I knew that, and I refused to go to school until the teacher stopped trying to force me to write with the "wrong" hand. The teacher did not care what I thought, and did not believe what I said about which hand felt natural for me to write with.

Homosexuality may be sinful in the *Biblical* sense, but who cares? It doesn't hurt anybody. It's a normal variation.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Well, they used to say left handedness is wicked.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Fsharpmajor said:


> In my opinion. religious faith is the least defensible and the most abused concept in the entire history of the human race.


Well, in the interest of continuing the thread, I will say that communism is the least defensible and the most abused *atheist* concept in the entire history of the human race. I don't know what the attitude to homosexuality was like under Stalin--probably not too good. And the Quakers, a Christian denomination in this country, have requested permission from the government to bless civil partnerships (basically, gay marriage), along with some Jewish organizations. This permission was expected to be granted, once it passed through both houses, but I don't know if it did indeed happen. Anyway, my remark was probably hasty and thoughtless


----------



## regressivetransphobe

It's almost like people from both sides of the political/spiritual spectrum want to control others, hmmm how about that


----------



## Ukko

regressivetransphobe said:


> Well, they used to say left handedness is wicked.


Yeah, _sinister_ is in the left handedness 'official' term somewhere.


----------



## clavichorder

regressivetransphobe said:


> It's almost like people from both sides of the political/spiritual spectrum want to control others, hmmm how about that


And people in the middle ground like to smirk at them all, because we are so conceded and afraid of conflict.


----------



## clavichorder

I find personal anecdotes much more interesting than these debates. Carry on sharing...


----------



## CountessAdele

Klavierspieler said:


> I agree. Someone needs to post a silly cat picture before the thread gets locked.


----------



## Rasa

Weird how religion got poured into a simple question about sexuality... those christians and their crazy beliefs!


----------



## Almaviva

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I'm not sure I'd like to have a soprano/mezzo harem...I have people singing all day long at home and I don't enjoy it...They are my sons's customers. Sometimes they sing well...others they suck. Enough voices for now!
> 
> Martin, a bit stressed...LOL


Hey, I'd only accept as concubines sopranos and mezzos who not only look good, but also sing beautifully!


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

> don't know what the attitude to homosexuality was like under Stalin--probably not too good


Stalin returned the imprisonement of gays (there were no anti-gay laws in 1920s, there was and anti-gay act in Tsar' Russia, but it was only formal). But one of the bloodiest men from Stalin's clique - Nikolay Ezhov, a chief of NKVD (later it was KGB) was bisexual. His wife prefered to have sex with famous Soviet writers, including Isaac Babel, who was a friend of many NKVD workers, but was also killed in late 1930s.

Next chief of NKVD - Beria prefered women. One of them asked him to give a flat in Moscow for her mother. He gave. Then she asked him to give her some money to make golden teeth. He answered: "No, it is too much". Maybe, it's an anecdote.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Hilltroll72 said:


> Yeah, _sinister_ is in the left handedness 'official' term somewhere.


And "dexterous" is the more positive right-hand term. Thankfully I don't belong to any visible minority, apart from having red hair, but even *that* gets you taunts (*from adults!*), in England. It's because red hair is more prevalent in Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But I don't feel particularly inclined to dye my hair another colour just to fit in, and anyway it would be impractical to do it over my entire body, not to mention living a lie.


----------



## graaf

Fsharpmajor said:


> Well, in the interest of continuing the thread, I will say that communism is the least defensible and the most abused *atheist* concept in the entire history of the human race. I don't know what the attitude to homosexuality was like under Stalin--probably not too good. And the Quakers, a Christian denomination in this country, have requested permission from the government to bless civil partnerships (basically, gay marriage), along with some Jewish organizations. This permission was expected to be granted, once it passed through both houses, but I don't know if it did indeed happen. Anyway, my remark was probably hasty and thoughtless


I don't see anything theistic about democracy, either. It didn't ban religion like communism did (which makes it anti-theistic), but democracy has nothing to do with God, which makes it quite atheistic in my book.

But the real question is: is the anti-theistic part of communism what made it so bad? Or was it anti-capitalistic organization of economy what made countries a mess? Or there's maybe something to do with efectively abandoning the separation of powers and giving all power to a single body (communist party) ruled by a tiny elite around single man (Stalin/Lenin)? And abandoning religion hardly makes a difference if you just substitute one cult with another - cult of Jesus was simply substituted with cult of Stalin (or Tito in our case).


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Almaviva said:


> Hey, I'd only accept as concubines sopranos and mezzos who not only look good, but also sing beautifully!


I'm fine with polygamy so long as the ladies also have the right to keep as many husbands as they would like.

The science fiction writer Robert Heinlein discusses stuff like this in his novels; some of them are _Stranger in a Strange Land_, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, _I Will Fear No Evil_, _Time Enough to Love_, and _Friday_.


----------



## jurianbai

Fsharpmajor said:


> Well, in the interest of continuing the thread, I will say that communism is the least defensible and the most abused *atheist* concept in the entire history of the human race. .......


no worry , as I see the threads about religion in TC, I will say that, Jesus, Bible and it's Christian concept will be the next most abused.

and I quite amused when my regular not to say favorite forum get a locked thread in almost every week, lately.


----------



## Ukko

graaf said:


> I don't see anything theistic about democracy, either. It didn't ban religion like communism did (which makes it anti-theistic), but democracy has nothing to do with God, which makes it quite atheistic in my book.
> [...]


Technically, atheistic = anti-theistic. A government (state) that is completely secular and ignores religion would be non-theistic. The US government recognizes 'established' religions and gives them favored treatment regarding taxation at least; it's sort of a mongrel arrangement.


----------



## Philip

Huilunsoittaja said:


> *There are cases of homosexuals becoming Christians and giving up their ways. Just like for people who were past alcoholics, it's a continual temptation the rest of their lives, but their faith cannot fail them if their faith is true.*


----------



## Ukko

Fsharpmajor said:


> I'm fine with polygamy so long as the ladies also have the right to keep as many husbands as they would like.
> 
> The science fiction writer Robert Heinlein discusses stuff like this in his novels; some of them are _Stranger in a Strange Land_, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, _I Will Fear No Evil_, _Time Enough to Love_, and _Friday_.


I think most of those - except for TMIAHM - are _late_ Heinlein. He kind of slipped anchor there.


----------



## violadude

Philip said:


>


LOL I love how uncomfortable the pastor was.


----------



## Almaviva

Fsharpmajor said:


> I'm fine with polygamy so long as the ladies also have the right to keep as many husbands as they would like.
> 
> The science fiction writer Robert Heinlein discusses stuff like this in his novels; some of them are _Stranger in a Strange Land_, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, _I Will Fear No Evil_, _Time Enough to Love_, and _Friday_.


Yes, I've read and love his novels.
My defense of polygamy here is tongue-in-cheek, though.


----------



## graaf

Hilltroll72 said:


> Technically, atheistic = anti-theistic. A government (state) that is completely secular and ignores religion would be non-theistic. The US government recognizes 'established' religions and gives them favored treatment regarding taxation at least; it's sort of a mongrel arrangement.


I'm not sure that you know what secularism means. But I'm sure that "ignoring religion" is not being "completely secular" - ignoring that something exists is more like being ignorant.

As with secularism, dictionary also helps with "atheistic = anti-theistic" issue.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Hilltroll72 said:


> I think most of those - except for TMIAHM - are _late_ Heinlein. He kind of slipped anchor there.


Well, I admit that _Starship Troopers_ was not exactly liberal. You needed to serve in the military to get the right to vote, and if you failed in your duties, you got forty licks. What I liked about it is that it was never made quite clear exactly who or what the enemy was.


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> *There are cases of homosexuals becoming Christians and giving up their ways. Just like for people who were past alcoholics, it's a continual temptation the rest of their lives, but their faith cannot fail them if their faith is true.*


For someone who I would have otherwise considered a genuinely empathetic person, all I can do is hope that, one day, you will realise how naive and spiteful this way of thinking is. I know you yourself are not spiteful - you are saying and believing these things because you feel you are supposed to in accordance with your religious beliefs (yet not all religious people would go as far as you).

And yet, while you talk rather idealistically and sentimentally of concepts like souls and the transformation of hearts, you completely undermine love. That's what sexuality is - a manifestation of one of humanity's most fundamental and profound feelings. It is cruel to reduce another person's sense of love to a "temptation"; it is blinkard, even wilfully ignorant, to not see the beauty in a man loving a man or a woman loving a woman, just as a man can love a woman.

What you fail to remember when you condemn the physical act of two people of the same sex being together is that they do so out of the same motivations of care, affection, romance, and adoration as any devoted straight couple. Who are you to deny the reality, potency, and beauty of that?


----------



## Ukko

graaf said:


> I'm not sure that you know what secularism means. But I'm sure that "ignoring religion" is not being "completely secular" - ignoring that something exists is more like being ignorant.
> 
> As with secularism, dictionary also helps with "atheistic = anti-theistic" issue.


Have it your way, _Graaf_ I will try to remember that you are uneducatable.


----------



## graaf

Hilltroll72 said:


> Have it your way, _Graaf_ I will try to remember that you are uneducatable.


You ment ineducable? Or uneducated? Kind of ironic to see that right after you recommend a dictionary to someone.

But I must listen to (moderator) Alma's latest advice, so it's best for me to leave the thread.

Have a nice debate guys...


----------



## Sid James

Regarding left-handedness & extending f sharp major's comparison of it to non-heteros. My father was left handed as a child, but forced to write in the "right" way, with his right hand. Forced meant abuse and whipping from his teachers at school. Left handed was a bad bad thing, apparently. The result - he ended up writing with his right hand as an adult, but his writing was atrocious, worse than a doctor's. The moral of this story is that it's not useful to try to change people from what they are naturally, & also it's better to not judge people & let them do what they want to do since they were born.

BTW - I didn't know before this thread that certain members of this forum were non-hetero, in whatever of it's forms. At the end of the day it doesn't matter, it doesn't change how I will "talk" to them, address them on this forum. It's academic, it's not of concern to me much at all, esp. in an online context...


----------



## Almaviva

Moderator Alma is quite perplex.
I'm sick and tired of locking threads.
I like most people here.
You're all a bunch of interesting and smart people.
You're also unruly (like most intelligent folks are) and you consistently go beyond or around the Terms of Service's prohibition of personal attacks.
I feel that I just can't win.
If I'm too lenient, I'm accused of being such.
If I'm too strict, I'm accused of being such.
I do profoundly believe in the value of moderation, because I've seen the mess that prevails in sites that are not moderated.
But being the guy who is always locking threads is not fun.

I confess to a great deal of frustration.

WHY IN THE HELL HIGHLY EDUCATED, SOPHISTICATED, INTERESTING, SMART PEOPLE LIKE YOU ALL CAN'T REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL ATTACKS?????:scold:

Is it that difficult?

Come on, it's the Internet, folks!

Why do you all (OK, not all, some of you) take everything so seriously? These are just OPINIONS!

It's a hobby, for Pete's sake! It's supposed to be FUN!

This thread has material that is already grounds for several penalties and for being locked.

But instead, I'm trying something radically different.

I'm appealing to your intelligence.

GET A GRIP ON YOURSELVES, DAMMIT!!!!

DISCUSS IDEAS, NOT THE PERSON ISSUING THE IDEA!!!

IS IT THAT DIFFICULT???

[Alma, fed up]


----------



## regressivetransphobe

^ A little anarchy once in a while is healthy, it bleeds bad blood.



graaf said:


> But the real question is: is the anti-theistic part of communism what made it so bad?


Nah. Statism.


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> ...
> What you fail to remember when you condemn the physical act of two people of the same sex being together is that they do so out of the same motivations of care, affection, romance, and adoration as any devoted straight couple. Who are you to deny the reality, potency, and beauty of that?


I think the writer Oscar Wilde put that thought very eloquently when he was in court, defending charges against him related to his homosexual activities (illegal at that time). I saw this scene in the film about his life with actor Stephen Fry in the main role. I think this is what I believe, although I'm not homosexual. I am not concerned with what happens between two people in privacy of their own home, between four walls. Nor am I concerned about affection shown in public. Yesterday I saw two girls walking together, one with her arm around the other's hips. I guess they were lesbians. For a moment I thought it odd, as I rarely see this with European women (Asian girls do a similar thing all the time, hold hands while walking, but it's not about a romantic relationship in their case, it's just about friendship). Then I just thought it's not odd, it' okay, it's natural. In any case, it's none of my business...


----------



## Almaviva

regressivetransphobe said:


> ^ A little anarchy once in a while is healthy, it bleeds bad blood.


True. That's why I'm not locking this one, and not issuing penalties; at least, not for now.
Because, see, most of these members who misbehave from time to time especially in threads that have to do with religion, politics, and sexuality, are nice people and valuable members. They're not trolls, they're not rude, and most likely they wouldn't say the same things if they were face to face in real life to their opponents, out of sheer human decency.
So at times I think, "what the heck, let the kids have fun. They like to get at each others' throats, so be it." (When I say 'kids' I know I'm being a bit condescending, but I'm older than the vast majority of the members here, so I do think of some of you as kids).
But we can't consistently and permanently have this _laissez-faire_ attitude, lest the site deteriorates into one of those nasty places that are so prevalent out there in the vast Internets.
Sometimes I just pick a tantrum, like I did above.
I hope it works.


----------



## Polednice

I can understand your difficulty in moderating, Alma.

For example, while I can see perfectly clearly that if one member calls another member stupid, then that is against the terms of service, would demeaning a person's sexuality for any reason, though deeply offensive, be the right _kind_ of offence to permit me to report the post?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Polednice said:


> For someone who I would have otherwise considered a genuinely empathetic person, all I can do is hope that, one day, you will realise how naive and spiteful this way of thinking is. I know you yourself are not spiteful - you are saying and believing these things because you feel you are supposed to in accordance with your religious beliefs *(yet not all religious people would go as far as you).*
> 
> And yet, while you talk rather idealistically and sentimentally of concepts like souls and the transformation of hearts, you completely undermine love. That's what sexuality is - a manifestation of one of humanity's most fundamental and profound feelings. It is cruel to reduce another person's sense of love to a "temptation"; it is blinkard, even wilfully ignorant, to not see the beauty in a man loving a man or a woman loving a woman, just as a man can love a woman.
> 
> What you fail to remember when you condemn the physical act of two people of the same sex being together is that they do so out of the same motivations of care, affection, romance, and adoration as any devoted straight couple. Who are you to deny the reality, potency, and beauty of that?


I like the way you restrained yourself in that post from using derisive words.

The way I see it, a lot of people here have tons of misconceptions of God and Christians in general. When the Bible says God is loving, it also says he is Holy. He is just equally as he is merciful.

There also seems to be a misconception that love is somehow impervious to corruption. Can't someone love to an evil point? Can't someone love something (or someone) so much that it becomes an idol, and thus replace the One True God? Polednice, I got something radical to tell you: a male and female couple who reject God are equally guilty of sinful lust as 2 men or 2 women who have the same intentions. So, it's not even the kind of relationship itself that ultimately defeats them, but the fact they are idolizing each other above God.

Two guys and two girls don't have to have sex together to have true unity. Spiritual unity goes deeper than sex. I have several really close friends who are Christians, whom I've had really deep serious conversations, and I don't ever think of taking it to some "deeper level" than that, because there won't be until death. God gave sex to the human race to be a symbol of his relationship to his beloved people. In marriage, the man and the woman represent Christ and the church respectively. That's directly from the Bible. If you think I'm spiteful, well, countless times have Christians been called spiteful just because they cannot accept the actions of individuals. But I don't hate those _people _who do those actions and I never will.

But to the rest of you who believe Christianity is a myth and there's no absolute standard for morality, where is this conversation going to go? Until people view it from my perspective, it's going no where, so I will end it here for me.


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> ...For example, while I can see perfectly clearly that if one member calls another member stupid, then that is against the terms of service, would demeaning a person's sexuality for any reason, though deeply offensive, be the right _kind_ of offence to permit me to report the post?


I got a similar thing last week, though not about personal issues, it was about my musical taste (or lack thereof, concerned to the "offending" member). I'm sick of indirect bullying and belittling here. It made me very bitter, I almost left TC. If there would have been a deregister button, I probably would have done that. This kind of thing happened at another forum, where I was poo-pooed for liking Andre Rieu, among other things. I made peace there with the offenders, but the taste in my mouth remained sour, so I left that forum permanently (deregistered there, pushed the button). Lucky there is no such button here, otherwise I would not have come back at all, probably...


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Polednice, I got something radical to tell you: a male and female couple who reject God are equally guilty of sinful lust as 2 men or 2 women who have the same intentions.


Oh dear, looks like I'm guilty of being doubly sinful then!



Huilunsoittaja said:


> But to the rest of you who believe Christianity is a myth and there's no absolute standard for morality, where is this conversation going to go? Until people view it from my perspective, it's going no where, so I will end it here for me.


I'm going to leave the religious discussion as well and hope that this thread can be taken in a different direction. For now, I shall just return to loving the most adorable man I know in every way that I can with this, my one and only life. :tiphat:


----------



## Almaviva

Polednice said:


> I can understand your difficulty in moderating, Alma.
> 
> For example, while I can see perfectly clearly that if one member calls another member stupid, then that is against the terms of service, would demeaning a person's sexuality for any reason, though deeply offensive, be the right _kind_ of offence to permit me to report the post?


To this, I'll quote wise guy Chi_townPhilly's incredibly insightful comment:

"if you're here to save our souls, free us from superstitious ignorance, or save the world from your perception of the dark side of world politics, you might consider the possibility that *your activity is taking place in the WRONG internet forum!*"


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Huilunsoittaja said:


> a male and female couple who reject God are equally guilty of sinful lust as 2 men or 2 women who have the same intentions. So, it's not even the kind of relationship itself that ultimately defeats them, but the fact they are idolizing each other above God.


I'll write you from hell and let you know about the weather from time to time.


----------



## Philip

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I like the way you restrained yourself in that post from using derisive words.
> 
> The way I see it, a lot of people here have tons of misconceptions of God and Christians in general. When the Bible says God is loving, it also says he is Holy. He is just equally as he is merciful.
> 
> There also seems to be a misconception that love is somehow impervious to corruption. Can't someone love to an evil point? Can't someone love something (or someone) so much that it becomes an idol, and thus replace the One True God? Polednice, I got something radical to tell you: a male and female couple who reject God are equally guilty of sinful lust as 2 men or 2 women who have the same intentions. So, it's not even the kind of relationship itself that ultimately defeats them, but the fact they are idolizing each other above God.
> 
> Two guys and two girls don't have to have sex together to have true unity. Spiritual unity goes deeper than sex. I have several really close friends who are Christians, whom I've had really deep serious conversations, and I don't ever think of taking it to some "deeper level" than that, because there won't be until death. God gave sex to the human race to be a symbol of his relationship to his beloved people. In marriage, the man and the woman represent Christ and the church respectively. That's directly from the Bible. If you think I'm spiteful, well, countless times have Christians been called spiteful just because they cannot accept the actions of individuals. But I don't hate those _people _who do those actions and I never will.
> 
> But to the rest of you who believe Christianity is a myth and there's no absolute standard for morality, where is this conversation going to go? Until people view it from my perspective, it's going no where, so I will end it here for me.


----------



## Lukecash12

*Shakes head* Bandwagon jumping and Christian lynching is becoming popular recently. Are we done here, now that Ali G is Inda House?


----------



## Couchie

Lukecash12 said:


> *Shakes head* Bandwagon jumping and Christian lynching is becoming popular recently. Are we done here, now that Ali G is Inda House?


Christians can look forward to not being "lynched" when they stop offering so insistently their necks.


----------



## TresPicos

Huilunsoittaja said:


> If you think I'm spiteful, well, countless times have Christians been called spiteful just because they cannot accept the actions of individuals. But I don't hate those _people _who do those actions and I never will.


I don't think the people you bash care whether you do it out of hate or out of love. They suffer because you bash them. Period. Leave them alone.



> But to the rest of you who believe Christianity is a myth and there's no absolute standard for morality, where is this conversation going to go? Until people view it from my perspective, it's going no where, so I will end it here for me.


Oh, I think "Live and let live" would count as an absolute standard for morality. It sure beats "Love thy neighbor" which always seems to turn into "Change thy neighbor", "Condemn thy neighbor" or even "Hate thy neighbor". How about some "Respect thy neighbor" or "Leave thy neighbor alone and take a look at thyself"?


----------



## Lukecash12

Couchie said:


> Christians can look forward to not being "lynched" when they stop offering so insistently their necks.


So basically, you are showing contempt for the mod's goals here, and are blaming bad behavior on people because their position just can't be taken seriously by you? Christians ought to look forward to not being lynched when they aren't lynching anyone (according to the rules and spirit of this forum), and are entitled to defend themselves and point out just who they are, when they feel that they have been or may be illustrated as something they are not; especially if they do so politely.

Let's take a moment to notice something right here:

I, as a Christian, and most of my fellow Christians that I have seen posting on this site, do not normally ascribe behavior and viewpoints to other people that belong to different worldviews, that they would resent and disagree with. Individuals such as yourself don't seem to have any problem with pretending that we are something we aren't, and those of your camp here apparently aren't willing to get past the most rudimentary steps of dialectical logic that Aristotle laid out thousands of years ago (this one may not apply to you overtly), in order to cut the demagogue crap and offer something of themselves that is a worthy contribution.

So, why is it that Christians are being vilified according to straw man arguments, joked at and derisively mocked (even to the point of claimed professional fraud), and this is not immediately recognized and universally stood against as something that is decidedly not in the spirit of the forums and a violation of the rules here?


----------



## Couchie

Lukecash12 said:


> So basically, you are showing contempt for the mod's goals here, and are blaming bad behavior on people because their position just can't be taken seriously by you? Christians ought to look forward to not being lynched when they aren't lynching anyone, and are entitled to defend themselves and point out just who they are, when they feel that they have been or may be illustrated as something they are not.


When I see campaigns on behalf of Christians to restrict their _own_ sexual privileges in alignment with the Bible (ie. no sex before marriage, divorce only under specific, misogynistic, conditions), I'll start taking them seriously.


----------



## Lukecash12

Couchie said:


> When I see campaigns on behalf of Christians to restrict their _own_ sexual privileges in alignment with the Bible (ie. no sex before marriage, divorce only under specific, misogynistic, conditions), I'll start taking them seriously.


You are required by this site's rules and by the admonishment of the mods here to be respectful of everyone else. That you don't use a respectful tone with people who use a respectful tone with you, is a basic violation of the social contract here, and is just plain hubris to anyone with the slightest sense of genteel.

You may either comply with the express wishes of the people running this site, or not. This determines the actual respect you are afforded and that you deserve, while you are posting here, as far as I am concerned. You *do not* have freedom of speech here, because this site is actually considered private property.


----------



## Couchie

Lukecash12 said:


> I, as a Christian, and most of my fellow Christians that I have seen posting on this site, do not normally ascribe behavior and viewpoints to other people that belong to different worldviews, that they would resent and disagree with. Individuals such as yourself don't seem to have any problem with pretending that we are something we aren't, and those of your camp here apparently aren't willing to get past the most rudimentary steps of dialectical logic that Aristotle laid out thousands of years ago (this one may not apply to you overtly), in order to cut the demagogue crap and offer something of themselves that is a worthy contribution.
> 
> So, why is it that Christians are being vilified according to straw man arguments, joked at and derisively mocked (even to the point of claimed professional fraud), and this is not immediately recognized and universally stood against as something that is decidedly not in the spirit of the forums and a violation of the rules here?


Big words from somebody who adheres to a religion whose infallible text states plain as day that (so far) four members of this forum should be put to death.


----------



## Couchie

Lukecash12 said:


> You are required by this site's rules and by the admonishment of the mods here to be respectful of everyone else. That you don't use a respectful tone with people who use a respectful tone with you, is a basic violation of the social contract here, and is just plain hubris to anyone with the slightest sense of genteel.
> 
> You may either comply with the express wishes of the people running this site, or not. This determines the actual respect you are afforded and that you deserve, while you are posting here, as far as I am concerned. You *do not* have freedom of speech here, because this site is actually considered private property.


Where exactly are all of these Christian-bashing posts of mine?

I don't hate the Christians, just their Christianity.


----------



## Lukecash12

Couchie said:


> Big words from somebody who adheres to a religion whose infallible text states plain as day that (so far) four members of this forum should be put to death.


1. Once again, you are ascribing a belief to me that I haven't professed, and what's more: you are displaying that you haven't even gotten past propositional square one when it comes to assessing Christians and their beliefs. As is, your thinking predates Socrates, and doesn't even rival Thrasmachian Sophism (super, super outdated).

2. Right now, you are being given a challenge as to the contents of your posts here and the contents of the posts of others who behave the same as you. As far as this forum is concerned, I can believe in Baal and child sacrifice in the fires, in ritualistic murder of people I don't like, and every form of hedonism known to man; It still does not affect my behavior on these forums and the mandatory standards that I hold myself to. You simply do not have the necessary rights to free speech, to disparage me and those of the same mind as me, in a way that is contrary to the rules and admonishments of the mods here.


----------



## Lukecash12

Couchie said:


> Where exactly are all of these Christian-bashing posts of mine?
> 
> I don't hate the Christians, just their Christianity.


You implicitly supported the lynching of Christians, and consistently tell Christians that they are something other than they actually profess to be.

Christian: I hold no condemnation as regards people who participate in homosexual acts.

You: As a Christian, you adhere to a religion that wants to put homosexual people to death.

This displays a blatant lack of education in just how many methods of hermeneutics there are, just how many different denominational beliefs there are, and just how many people actually follow a denomination.


----------



## Couchie

Lukecash12 said:


> 1. Once again, you are ascribing a belief to me that I haven't professed, and what's more: you are displaying that you haven't even gotten past propositional square one when it comes to assessing Christians and their beliefs. As is, your thinking predates Socrates, and doesn't even rival Thrasmachian Sophism (super, super outdated).
> 
> 2. Right now, you are being given a challenge as to the contents of your posts here and the contents of the posts of others who behave the same as you. As far as this forum is concerned, I can believe in Baal and child sacrifice in the fires, in ritualistic murder of people I don't like, and every form of hedonism known to man; It still does not affect my behavior on these forums and the mandatory standards that I hold myself to. You simply do not have the necessary rights to free speech, to disparage me and those of the same mind as me, in a way that is contrary to the rules and admonishments of the mods here.


Ah, I understand our disagreement now. I'm glad to clear the air: I only "implicitly" support the non-personal bashings of the Christian religion and the stupid and heinous beliefs that large numbers of Christians (especially those in the US Defence of Marriage movement) hold, but do not believe _all _ Christians believe these things as you misconstrue.

If I make a general comment like "Christians are hypocrites", I am not saying that all Christians are hypocrites (which would include and be an offence to TC's Christian members) but rather commenting on a prevailing trend found within the congregation; TC's Christians may or may not be hypocrites, I don't know.

Let's not forget that all Christians are Christians voluntarily. Since this is not personally directed at any member, I do not believe it violates the site's TOS (I think saying a member has a "blatant lack of education" might though).


----------



## Lukecash12

Couchie said:


> Ah, I understand our disagreement now. I'm glad to clear the air: I only "implicitly" support the non-personal bashings of the Christian religion and the stupid and heinous beliefs that large numbers of Christians (especially those in the US Defence of Marriage movement) hold, but do not believe _all _ Christians believe these things as you misconstrue.
> 
> If I make a general comment like "Christians are hypocrites", I am not saying that all Christians are hypocrites (which would include and be an offence to TC's Christian members) but rather commenting on a prevailing trend found within the congregation; TC's Christians may or may not be hypocrites, I don't know.
> 
> Let's not forget that all Christians are Christians voluntarily. Since this is not personally directed at any member, I do not believe it violates the site's TOS (I think saying a member has a "blatant lack of education" might though).


Very well. Now that you've given that caveat, I'm willing to strike the social agreement of understanding that caveat. This issue between you and I has clearly run it's course, and we have an understanding of each other that extends about as far as we are willing to respect each other, so I am satisfied with this state of affairs.


----------



## Krummhorn

*Another thread shot to bloddy hell!! Why do you people continue doing this?? 

Once again, a thread gets grossly derailed - and into what, yet another endless religious thread. C'mon people - there are religious forums out there, so take those conversations to those places and leave them there, please. This is a classical music board!!

This has to stop right here and now ... Or we might just shutter this community forum from further use!!

The next time someone derails a thread, there could be consequences.

This thread is closed!! 
*


----------

