Nearly everyone that lived before the 19th century believed stealing, murder, fraud, corruption, vandalism, and about 100 other things were not acceptable... were they wrong? no
"durr if you believe something in the past it MUST BE wRonG becAuSE it Was thE pasT!! Got you!!!"
Murder results in the death of another human being, stealing and vandalism result in the damaging or taking of someone else's property, fraud and corruption involves taking advantage of other people for personal profit. Meanwhile, consensual sex between two human beings, regardless of gender, results in their personal happiness, and has no other impact on anybody else. Your analogy is completely ridiculous. Please explain to me how consensual sex between two human beings is similar to killing someone.
But thats not the angle you brought up. You brought up "just because something was considered acceptable in the old days doesnt mean its acceptable now". But thats dumb. Theres countless things that will always be wrong or right no matter what the era. Of course you're probably a liberal and you want EVERYTHING to be changed. Because you're a degenerate and a heathen
and lol at you missing the point and getting into the weeds of each and every example I brought up. I could bring up 50 other ones. They all apply. Moral law is timeless. It doesnt change.
Nearly everybody who lived before the 19th century believed that slavery was acceptable (except the slaves of course). Were all those folks wrong? Yes.
Also, this is a ridiculous post. No, in fact, slavery was always a debated issue. It was a polarized one. There were abolitionist movements in the US and in other civilizations before it on the issue. So no not 'nearly everybody" who lived before the 19th century believed it was acceptable. It was part of the times, but it was not an overwhelming consensus
In terms of homosexuality, there were very few times in history it was embraced. It led to destruction. "NEARLY EVERYONE" from every era of history, in every place, agreed homosexuality was repulsive, deviant, anti-social, sinful, and a path to death of human reproduction. That is until recent years and subversive scum who want to undermine society and destroy it with perverse corruption. The lgbt movement is not for anything. Its a destructive movement.
But they arent just my own personal beliefs. Those beliefs existed in mass for thousands of years. YOU'RE the abnormal one, and you and everyone else who affirms sodomy in this recent history of the past 25 yrs are a small minority and a blip in history.
Is it bigotry to believe that some sexual behaviors are discordant with the purposes of sex? Nearly everybody who lived before, say, the 20th century, believed that same sex acts were wrong. Were all those folks bigots? I don't think so. I think many had at least an inkling that sex is ordered or directed toward making babies and toward bonding. Put differently, they at least somewhat understood that sex has a procreative and a unitive function. And even the ancient Greeks who accepted pederasty did not equate a same-sex couple with a married couple.
It's ridiculous the ease with which what used to be harsh words such as "bigot," "hater," "racist," "sexist," etc., are hurled these days, and you mussibini gave another example.
In theory Bi = 2 (usually male and female) while Pan = all (male, female, non-binary). Regardless of your sexual identity there are really only two when it comes to actual intimacy as far as I can tell so I'm not sure the two are functionally any different.
My question is who would a pan sexual have sex with that a bi-sexual wouldn't? I'm serious, not being mean. I support whatever anyone wants to be but I'm not sure what the FUNCTIONAL difference between the two is.
I think pansexuals are also attracted to trans, nonbinary, and intersex people, whereas bisexual tends to refer to an attraction to cisegender women and men.
Not surprising at all, especially watching him in Whose Line years ago.
This is why they needed to add + to LGBTQ.
I think a bisexual man will be with a straight woman or a gay man. Two choices.
Whereas as pansexual man will be with either of those two or a trans or a queer person or a pan or something we haven’t thought of yet.
Correct, as far as I’ve read and heard. There is also omnisexual, which is the same romantic interests as pansexuals. However, pansexuals are considered “gender-blind,” while omnisexuals are very aware of the different genders they are with.
I don't think ExL's view is correct at all. ExL says a bisexual man will only be with a straight woman or a gay man. Whereas most of the bisexuals of both sexes that I know, and know of, are open to having sex and sexual relationships with other bisexuals (bisexual woman and bisexual men), rather than just with monosexuals.
Plenty of lesbians are reluctant to get sexually and romantically involved with bisexual women because they fear that bisexual women will tire of being in a same sex relationship and will end up dumping their lesbian partners for men. Similarly, lots of gay men don't regard bisexual blokes as the good potential longterm mates because they suspect bi guys will prefer to have het relationships and conventional marriages and families with women, and they'll only hook up with other guys on the side - and often on the DL. (Although lots of gay men certainly don't mind having hook-ups and casual flings with bi guys.) But my sense is that bisexual people themselves are usually open to having sex, dating, settling down and having kids with other bisexuals.
When bisexuals are wary about getting involved with other bisexuals, my impression is that it's usually bisexual women who are leery of involvement with bisexual men. My sense has always been that it's far less common for bisexual men to exclude bisexual women from the pool of people they're willing to shag, date and setttle down with.
But obviously you guys have insight into men that I as a woman don't have. So please fill me in on why you both are so sure that a bisexual man wouldn't be with another bisexual.
This post was edited 13 minutes after it was posted.
See? There's the tell. The only way you can seriously believe that accepting gay people could lead to the "death of human reproduction" is if you think that straight people can be turned gay. Despite my support for gay rights and my regular exposure to gay people, I have yet to feel even the slightest desire to join their team. This is the case for most straight people. So, if you think your sexuality could be "corrupted" by gay people, what does that suggest about you, Reverend's Little Helper?
Correct, as far as I’ve read and heard. There is also omnisexual, which is the same romantic interests as pansexuals. However, pansexuals are considered “gender-blind,” while omnisexuals are very aware of the different genders they are with.
I don't think ExL's view is correct at all. ExL says a bisexual man will only be with a straight woman or a gay man. Whereas most of the bisexuals of both sexes that I know and know of are open to having sex and sexual relationships with other bisexuals (bisexual woman and bisexual men), rather than just with monosexuals.
Plenty of lesbians are reluctant to get sexually and romantically involved with bisexual women because they fear that bisexual women will tire of being in a same sex relationship and will end up dumping their lesbian partners for men. Similarly, lots of gay men don't regard bisexual blokes as the good potential longterm mates because they suspect bi guys will prefer to have het relationships and conventional marriages and families with women, and they'll only hook up with other guys on the side - and often on the DL. (Although lots of gay men certainly don't mind having hook-ups and casual flings with bi guys.) But my sense is that bisexual people themselves are usually open to having sex, dating, settling down and having kids with other bisexuals.
When bisexuals are wary about getting involved with other bisexuals, my impression is that it's usually bisexual women who are leery of involvement with bisexual men. My sense has always been that it's far less common for bisexual men to exclude bisexual women from the pool of people they're willing to shag, date and setttle down with.
But obviously you guys have insight into men that I as a woman don't have. So please fill me in on why you both are so sure that a bisexual man wouldn't be with another bisexual.
Well, I think you just demonstrated why so many folks are annoyed by all the labeling. If sex and gender is supposed to be on a spectrum and come in every shape and color, why do we need to have a label for every possible situation, and why are the situations sometimes so hard to distinguish from each other. It reminds me of business jargon.
But they arent just my own personal beliefs. Those beliefs existed in mass for thousands of years. YOU'RE the abnormal one, and you and everyone else who affirms sodomy in this recent history of the past 25 yrs are a small minority and a blip in history.
You are completely wrong about homosexuality being universally condemned throughout history. Attitudes towards LGBT people have varied throughout different periods of history and in different cultures. Since LGBT people will always be a minority, it's easy for them to be condemned by others. Please explain to me how a man having a consensual relationship with another man, has any impact on any other human being.
Sure, gay men can be forced to marry women who they are not attracted to, and can even procreate by fantasizing about men during sex with their wives. Sounds like a wonderful, affirming relationship that will lead to joy and happiness!
Please explain to me how a man having a consensual relationship with another man, has any impact on any other human being.
I'm tired of people like you pretending you don't know.
You want policies and laws in both private and public spheres which revolve around homosexuals. You want their marriages publicly sanctioned by public policy. You want speech codes about the words people say and how than can talk about it, and you want those codes enforced with punishments for those who wont comply. You want homosexuality taught in the elementary, middle school and high school curriculum, glorifying it, praising it , legitimizing it. Therefor you want school curriculum changed and mandated. YOu want pride parades in public view, of everyone,. You want characters in movies, stories, art etc to depict and validate it. You want rainbow flags to be flown everywhere. You want a month honoring it. You want media stories meant to steer national discussion toward pride. You want parents to have their own children removed from them if they are "transphobic" or "homophobic". You want Christians punished in any way you can get them punished -- for their thought-crimes of thinking homosexuality is a sin, and for not complying with facilitating it in their businesses, and organizations. Theres more..... But you want all that.
And all of that affects the society. All of that is designed to affect society. The society everyone lives in. Everyone, including those "other humans" you asked about.
Then you play stupid and ask how it affects other humans. It's designed to affect them. And you knew that all along.
You are completely wrong about homosexuality being universally condemned throughout history. Attitudes towards LGBT people have varied throughout different periods of history and in different cultures.
This is total BS. It's propaganda and you've totally bought into it. Even today, almost everyone is disgusted by it, but because of systemic coercion people shut their mouths, and try to stay under the radar about their feelings on this issue because powerful forces in the establishment threaten their livelihoods, and threaten to marginalize them in society if they are open about it. If people were protected from facing penalization by their employers, banks, internet companies, etc, they could speak openly without ramifications, and you'd know. However there are no such protections at this time, so people have families to feed, and jobs they need, so they stay quiet. Their silence isn't consent. It's coerced onto them.
Please explain to me how a man having a consensual relationship with another man, has any impact on any other human being.
I'm tired of people like you pretending you don't know.
You want policies and laws in both private and public spheres which revolve around homosexuals. You want their marriages publicly sanctioned by public policy. You want speech codes about the words people say and how than can talk about it, and you want those codes enforced with punishments for those who wont comply. You want homosexuality taught in the elementary, middle school and high school curriculum, glorifying it, praising it , legitimizing it. Therefor you want school curriculum changed and mandated. YOu want pride parades in public view, of everyone,. You want characters in movies, stories, art etc to depict and validate it. You want rainbow flags to be flown everywhere. You want a month honoring it. You want media stories meant to steer national discussion toward pride. You want parents to have their own children removed from them if they are "transphobic" or "homophobic". You want Christians punished in any way you can get them punished -- for their thought-crimes of thinking homosexuality is a sin, and for not complying with facilitating it in their businesses, and organizations. Theres more..... But you want all that.
And all of that affects the society. All of that is designed to affect society. The society everyone lives in. Everyone, including those "other humans" you asked about.
Then you play stupid and ask how it affects other humans. It's designed to affect them. And you knew that all along.
Homosexuals have always existed and will always exist even when they live in societies that do not tolerate them and think they are "degenerate" and "sinful" simply for being attracted to members of the same sex. Gay people were born gay and should be accepted in society. No one should face legal punishment for hating homosexuality, and in America you have free speech rights that enable you to espouse your personal opinion that LGBT people are evil, but other human beings are free to condemn your bigotry and hate. Calling someone a sinful degenerate for their innate sexuality is bigotry. Full stop. People used to use their religion to justify slavery and segregation. You are using your religion to justify bigotry and hatred towards the LGBT community. The only reason you believe gay people to be degenerate is because you were brainwashed by your religion to feel this way. There is no other reason to be upset or bothered by consensual relationships between adults of the same sex and their existence has nothing to do with you. If you don't like pride parades, don't go. If you don't want your kid to learn that another child in his/her class has two moms, or two dads, you are free to homeschool your children, or send them to a private conservative school. Odds are, even if you send your kid to a Christian school, there will possibly be other kids at the school with gay parents, and there will definitely be kids at that school who art gay. The overwhelming majority of Americans feel the same way I do about this. You are the minority, hanging on to antiquated beliefs about fellow members of the human species.
You are completely wrong about homosexuality being universally condemned throughout history. Attitudes towards LGBT people have varied throughout different periods of history and in different cultures.
This is total BS. It's propaganda and you've totally bought into it. Even today, almost everyone is disgusted by it, but because of systemic coercion people shut their mouths, and try to stay under the radar about their feelings on this issue because powerful forces in the establishment threaten their livelihoods, and threaten to marginalize them in society if they are open about it. If people were protected from facing penalization by their employers, banks, internet companies, etc, they could speak openly without ramifications, and you'd know. However there are no such protections at this time, so people have families to feed, and jobs they need, so they stay quiet. Their silence isn't consent. It's coerced onto them.
Nah, almost everyone is disgusted by you, you backward, regressive trash.