or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's video of 2014 San Francisco Pride Parade celebrates company diversity
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's video of 2014 San Francisco Pride Parade celebrates company diversity - Page 2

post #41 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post


The law in '73 was to curtail government intrusion in our bedrooms and doctors offices. That you would characterize it as the government intruding in our private lives is like the people who spew hatred at gays and then get offended when you don't respect their intolerant position. They actually have the temerity to claim people should be tolerant of their intolerance.

 

Your first point is right on, from your perspective. Have to respect that.

From there you springboard into characterizing others and start painting with a broad brush.

Your last point is interesting in that folks who aren't pro-gay shouldn't be tolerated for their intolerance. From another perspective, that same stance is being intolerant of others; it can become a "if you're not with us, you're against us" position. I'm just saying that your last point can go both ways. It's sad how polarizing this issue has become. In any case, Kim Jong Un has a limp now.

post #42 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmondRoca View Post

So by your reasoning, you don't need another law to repeal it?

"The rights of the people are given unless restricted"... by officials the people elected to government. I don't know how it works where you live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

The point is that some states were enacting laws that intruded on people's private lives and more importantly on the decisions between a doctor and patient. The federal law was to nullify the state laws which were intruding. You can disagree with the law passed in '73 but to claim it is a government intrusion is crazy talk.
post #43 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmondRoca View Post
 

 

I think you're lead in sentence revealed Apple's motivation for the video.

I am somewhat less cynical than you because I don't think that was the only motivation. But yes, marketing was a certainly big part of it. My 'complaint' if you can call it that, was that Apple were too spineless and sanitized their support. 

post #44 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post


The point is that some states were enacting laws that intruded on people's private lives and more importantly on the decisions between a doctor and patient. The federal law was to nullify the state laws which were intruding. You can disagree with the law passed in '73 but to claim it is a government intrusion is crazy talk.

 

AlmondRoca is not even coherent and does not even understand the issues.   I would go so far as to say they are one of those "hands off my Medicare" tea partiers. 

post #45 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmondRoca View Post

Your first point is right on, from your perspective. Have to respect that.
From there you springboard into characterizing others and start painting with a broad brush.
Your last point is interesting in that folks who aren't pro-gay shouldn't be tolerated for their intolerance. From another perspective, that same stance is being intolerant of others; it can become a "if you're not with us, you're against us" position. I'm just saying that your last point can go both ways. It's sad how polarizing this issue has become. In any case, Kim Jong Un has a limp now.

Who are you referring to by saying "folks who aren't pro gay"? I'm not pro gay. I simply don't think they should be discriminated against in our laws. I'm not pro lawns either but I don't think you should do donuts with your car on my neighbors lawn. He likes his lawn. It's his damn lawn! And most importantly it isn't yours. People who want to discriminate against gay people have left the field of tolerance and shouldn't whine about how their discrimination should be respected. If they want respect they can show some and I'll be the first to welcome them in a civil conversation

Edit: Also, it's not a polarizing issue at all. One group is just so far out in right field they think the middle is extreme.
Edited by DrDavid - 7/8/14 at 2:58pm
post #46 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGNR8 View Post
 

 

I can't believe you are so blind in your defending of LBGT that would would begin to compare "Militant Muslims" who torture and mutilate small children and women, who find the weakest and most venerable in the society and send the to their death on suicide runs and who spew more hatred and venom than any radical group in the world to the "Tea Party" who is tired of a government they believe to be to intrusive. I would like to see you offer a side by side comparison of bullet points comparing the two groups so I can see the error of my ways...

The source is the same. Bigotry, intolerance, fear. They want intrusive government, just for their own peeves. They just aren't pushed to the brink like many militants are. 

post #47 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamacguy View Post
 

Sorry... they don't want to get into your bedroom. Quite the contrary. They want to get government out of it. Buy your own contraceptives (like I do) and don't force other people to buy them for you. Take some initiative and be responsible for yourself.

Rick Santorum says, in all seriousness, “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country…. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” 

post #48 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

I believe that it is an over simplification of things to simply place Hitler and Nazism as a right wing ideology. It's more complicated than that, and I don't believe that you can merely place Nazism on a simple graph that goes from left to right. That is too elementary school. Nazism has many left wing traits and is closer to left wing ideology and liberals today, than to the right wing and conservatives.

 

Some people like to point out that the Nazis were against the communists and socialists (even though the Nazis had the word socialist in their party name), but that doesn't automatically make Nazis "right wing". Communists and Nazis were rivals, and just because they disliked each other, that doesn't mean that they were on opposite ends of the political spectrum. No ideology on the planet has killed more people than left wing ideology, this includes Stalin, Mao and Hitler. I won't deny that Hitler had some right wing traits, but let's not pretend that he also didn't have any left wing traits, and his right wing traits have very little to do with any modern right wing traits, and he's much closer aligned to modern left wing thinking.

 

Just because Nazism borrowed elements of fascism, that doesn't make them right wing either, because fascism is equally as comfortable on the left, represented by various left wing fascist groups and movements that exist today. The Nazis were also anti-capitalist, they were for big government, they were for gun control, they were environmentalists, they were extremely for animal rights, they were of course anti-semitic and they were bizarrely race obsessed. I just described a typical progressive person right there.

 

I do agree with Corrections on one thing though. The way that Turing was treated by the UK was a disgrace. I remember seeing a documentary about that a long time ago.

I have never read such nonsense & a total distortion of history. Where did you read this nonsense at? Are you really that far gone that you can only subscribe to a total distortion of history made up by right wing ideologues? You really need to check more reputable sources. History & every reputable source on the subject says you are completely wrong. Jesus, what's happened to the conservative movement in this country? Are you trying to somehow equate liberals in the USA as somehow being a slippery slope into Nazism? No one is trying to say that American Conservatism is a slippery slope into Nazism. I don't get your argument & who or what you are trying to defend.

 

The Environmental Protection (EPA) Agency was proposed by Richard M. Nixon.

Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican & founder of the Progressive Party.


Edited by Splif - 7/8/14 at 8:05pm
post #49 of 70

Hopefully that's sarcasm. I understand people having rights, but I do not understand the celebration of deviant behavior which doesn't fit in the natural, biological science of the world.

 

Shame on Apple for joining in, promoting, and encouraging such a lifestyle choice (NOT genetics as some are led to believe - just look at identical twin studies).

 

I love people and have friends and family who are gay, but the definition of love is not acceptance of one's behavior in all circumstances! True diversity is a wonderful and powerful thing. Gay, lesbian, and transgender may be a form of diversity but it is not beneficial to society. It is merely a SEXUAL preference - and a twisted, un-natural one at that.

 

To address some of the hateful comments that may follow, I will reiterate that true love is never defined as an acceptance of another's behavior but rather the acceptance, commitment to, and sacrifice toward the person. True love can often hurt because those who truly love are not afraid to speak and act in truth for the benefit of the one(s) they love.

 

So many supporters of the gay/lesbian movement tout tolerance but I bet I'll get some seething non-tolerant replies to this post. ;-)

post #50 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post

I love people and have friends and family who are gay, but the definition of love is not acceptance of one's behavior in all circumstances! True diversity is a wonderful and powerful thing. Gay, lesbian, and transgender may be a form of diversity but it is not beneficial to society. It is merely a SEXUAL preference - and a twisted, un-natural one at that.
How do your gay family members and gay friends feel about your view that being gay, lesbian or transgender is nothing but a sexual preference? I can't imagine they love you as much as you claim you love them.
post #51 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post


How do your gay family members and gay friends feel about your view that being gay, lesbian or transgender is nothing but a sexual preference? I can't imagine they love you as much as you claim you love them.


If you base your whole life on doing things in order to be loved by everyone, you're not likely to accomplish much.

Too many Apple products to list...Long on AAPL, so take what I say with a bucket of salt.

You are only relevant...if your customers love you.

Reply

Too many Apple products to list...Long on AAPL, so take what I say with a bucket of salt.

You are only relevant...if your customers love you.

Reply
post #52 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post

Hopefully that's sarcasm. I understand people having rights, but I do not understand the celebration of deviant behavior which doesn't fit in the natural, biological science of the world.

Shame on Apple for joining in, promoting, and encouraging such a lifestyle choice (NOT genetics as some are led to believe - just look at identical twin studies).

I love people and have friends and family who are gay, but the definition of love is not acceptance of one's behavior in all circumstances! True diversity is a wonderful and powerful thing. Gay, lesbian, and transgender may be a form of diversity but it is not beneficial to society. It is merely a SEXUAL preference - and a twisted, un-natural one at that.

To address some of the hateful comments that may follow, I will reiterate that true love is never defined as an acceptance of another's behavior but rather the acceptance, commitment to, and sacrifice toward the person. True love can often hurt because those who truly love are not afraid to speak and act in truth for the benefit of the one(s) they love.

So many supporters of the gay/lesbian movement tout tolerance but I bet I'll get some seething non-tolerant replies to this post. ;-)

Thank you for providing such a good example of the type of hypocrite I was referring to in a previous post. Throughout your post you insult people different than you by calling them "deviant, twisted, unnatural and of no benefit to society" yet end your post suggesting that people who are offended by your insults are the ones who are intolerant. You are the person who decided to leave the field of tolerance. Don't expect respect if you aren't willing to give any.
post #53 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post


If you base your whole life on doing things in order to be loved by everyone, you're not likely to accomplish much.

Your putting words in his mouth. He said nothing about basing your whole life doing things in order to be loved by everyone. He was wondering if the people smurfman considers loved ones might have some misgivings about how smurfman judges them. A very specific situation involving family and friends. Nothing like what you are saying.
post #54 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post


How do your gay family members and gay friends feel about your view that being gay, lesbian or transgender is nothing but a sexual preference? I can't imagine they love you as much as you claim you love them.

I've been mocked by some of my family members (and non-family members) who are gay, and that's for just being a Christian. I had not said anything to them or against their lifestyle. I would go to family get togethers at their house to enjoy loved ones and my gay family member would get drunk and start mocking my faith. Again, this mocking was not provoked in ANY way. I had not communicated my viewpoint to him. He did not know my viewpoint whatsoever.

 

I did not retaliate but just answered his mocking question calmly. I continue to love him even though he treats me (at times) in a very degrading manner. Regarding others comments of me being a hypocrite, I think we all are to a certain extent, but I'm honest as possible about my sin. We ALL sin and sometimes that wrong-doing needs to be called out for our benefit. God's heart is for us to have the best life imaginable. He wants us to be fulfilled and satisfied. My family member, and others I know who willingly engage in homosexual behavior appear happy and fulfilled on the outside but I've come to discover my family member and many others are absolutely miserable with their lives. It's sad and I hate that for them.

 

And as far as my "views", more and more scientific fact is coming out that it is not genetic. It's a lust and/or desire. That's it.

 

And no one can escape the truth that being gay/lesbian biologically makes no sense. Male and Female are physiologically built for one another. You may ignore that truthful fact but ignoring the truth does not make it any less a truth. This is not just my opinion, but a simplistic, observable fact.  

post #55 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post

I've been mocked by some of my family members (and non-family members) who are gay, and that's for just being a Christian. I had not said anything to them or against their lifestyle. I would go to family get togethers at their house to enjoy loved ones and my gay family member would get drunk and start mocking my faith. Again, this mocking was not provoked in ANY way. I had not communicated my viewpoint to him. He did not know my viewpoint whatsoever.

I did not retaliate but just answered his mocking question calmly. I continue to love him even though he treats me (at times) in a very degrading manner. Regarding others comments of me being a hypocrite, I think we all are to a certain extent, but I'm honest as possible about my sin. We ALL sin and sometimes that wrong-doing needs to be called out for our benefit. God's heart is for us to have the best life imaginable. He wants us to be fulfilled and satisfied. My family member, and others I know who willingly engage in homosexual behavior appear happy and fulfilled on the outside but I've come to discover my family member and many others are absolutely miserable with their lives. It's sad and I hate that for them.

And as far as my "views", more and more scientific fact is coming out that it is not genetic. It's a lust and/or desire. That's it.

And no one can escape the truth that being gay/lesbian biologically makes no sense. Male and Female are physiologically built for one another. You may ignore that truthful fact but ignoring the truth does not make it any less a truth. This is not just my opinion, but a simplistic, observable fact.  

Your gay relatives anger at your religion likely stems from the fact that you consider him "deviant, twisted, unnatural and of no benefit to society". Surely he knows what your feelings are whether or not you think you've kept them to yourself. You judge him, so he judges you (and your religion). You judge people in the harshest terms and then cry foul when others judge you. You did it on this forum and your doing it to your gay relative. It's impossible to have such a mean spirited opinion and have others around you not know.

You mentioned me calling you a hypocrite and said we all are to some extant and that you are as honest as possible about your sin. I'd like to hear some of that honesty. You seem to acknowledge that you were acting in a hypocritical way but didn't really admit it. What do you think the honest truth is about that? That you weren't a hypocrite? That you were but it's ok for you to do it for some reason.

Also, if your going to claim science backs up your opinion then your going to have to provide proof (a link or citation) no one gets to simply say science says so and offer no proof. You use the phrase truthful fact when what you mean is a strongly held belief. Unless you can provide scientific proof. Using the word fact doesn't make it one.
post #56 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post


Your gay relatives anger at your religion likely stems from the fact that you consider him "deviant, twisted, unnatural and of no benefit to society". Surely he knows what your feelings are whether or not you think you've kept them to yourself. You judge him, so he judges you (and your religion). You judge people in the harshest terms and then cry foul when others judge you. You did it on this forum and your doing it to your gay relative. It's impossible to have such a mean spirited opinion and have others around you not know.
You don't know me nor the relationships and personalities involved. All I can say is that I hadn't shared my faith with him, nor my opinion. Also, he knows I am not a "mean-spirited" individual. If you could ask him, he would actually vouch in that regard.

You mentioned me calling you a hypocrite and said we all are to some extant and that you are as honest as possible about your sin. I'd like to hear some of that honesty. You seem to acknowledge that you were acting in a hypocritical way but didn't really admit it. What do you think the honest truth is about that? That you weren't a hypocrite? That you were but it's ok for you to do it for some reason.
My point is, in our lifetimes, we all put on masks and can pretend to be someone were not - or better than we actually are. I have desires/lusts for other women besides my wife. Those desires/lusts, if acted upon, are wrong and should be called-out. We are all subject-able to our own desires. That is why God has given boundaries to both protect us as well as to know what brings Him honor or dishonor.

Also, if your going to claim science backs up your opinion then your going to have to provide proof (a link or citation) no one gets to simply say science says so and offer no proof. You use the phrase truthful fact when what you mean is a strongly held belief. Unless you can provide scientific proof. Using the word fact doesn't make it one.
Again, the "science" I am primarily speaking about is the obvious biological/physiological makeup of both male and female. It is simply beyond obvious (to be direct) that a vagina is made for the males penis in both producing pleasure but especially for the reproductive process. Arguments against this fact would be delusional. If you want a recent scientific study regarding homosexuality in identical twins, here's an unbiased 20-year study: http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647​
post #57 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post
 

Hopefully that's sarcasm. I understand people having rights, but I do not understand the celebration of deviant behavior which doesn't fit in the natural, biological science of the world.

 

Shame on Apple for joining in, promoting, and encouraging such a lifestyle choice (NOT genetics as some are led to believe - just look at identical twin studies).

 

I love people and have friends and family who are gay, but the definition of love is not acceptance of one's behavior in all circumstances! True diversity is a wonderful and powerful thing. Gay, lesbian, and transgender may be a form of diversity but it is not beneficial to society. It is merely a SEXUAL preference - and a twisted, un-natural one at that.

 

To address some of the hateful comments that may follow, I will reiterate that true love is never defined as an acceptance of another's behavior but rather the acceptance, commitment to, and sacrifice toward the person. True love can often hurt because those who truly love are not afraid to speak and act in truth for the benefit of the one(s) they love.

 

So many supporters of the gay/lesbian movement tout tolerance but I bet I'll get some seething non-tolerant replies to this post. ;-)

Then don't sleep with people of the same sex. That is your right & follows your beliefs.

post #58 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post

You don't know me nor the relationships and personalities involved. All I can say is that I hadn't shared my faith with him, nor my opinion. Also, he knows I am not a "mean-spirited" individual. If you could ask him, he would actually vouch in that regard.

1) Are you saying he is clairvoyant or that he just guessed you're Christian?

2) Regardless of how he feels about your religion the question is why you think that gives you carte blanche to attack him. What happened to turn the other cheek? Oh yeah, gays are less than human and God hates fags¡



Quote:
My point is, in our lifetimes, we all put on masks and can pretend to be someone were not - or better than we actually are. I have desires/lusts for other women besides my wife. Those desires/lusts, if acted upon, are wrong and should be called-out. We are all subject-able to our own desires. That is why God has given boundaries to both protect us as well as to know what brings Him honor or dishonor.

1) Do you or have you ever had lustful desires for the same sex? If so, do you think that was a conscious choice? If not, when did you choose to not be gay?

2) What does Jesus say about homosexuality?
Quote:
Again, the "science" I am primarily speaking about is the obvious biological/physiological makeup of both male and female. It is simply beyond obvious (to be direct) that a vagina is made for the males penis in both producing pleasure but especially for the reproductive process. Arguments against this fact would be delusional.

Yes, those are sexual organs used for reproductive purposes and based on your definition that feeling comes from the organs themselves and not the physical and chemical make up of the brain despite "science" saying you're wrong. Since these organs are for reproduction it would be deviant, based on your definition, to masturbate or even have intercourse for any other purpose outside of procreation. Furthermore, if one knows they can't get pregnant or make someone pregnant than any such behavior would also be deviant.
Quote:
If you want a recent scientific study regarding homosexuality in identical twins, here's an unbiased 20-year study: http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647​

Now you're just writing stupid shit.
Edited by SolipsismX - 7/9/14 at 7:11pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #59 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) Are you saying he is clairvoyant or that he just guessed you're Christian?
My guess is he heard from my aunt or possibly my mother. Not 100% sure about that.

2) Regardless of how he feels about your religion the question is why you think that gives you carte blanche to attack him. What happened to turn the other cheek? Oh yeah, gays are less than human and God hates fags¡ 

No, God does not hate "fags", and I never attacked him. And stating what God has to say about homosexuality and other actions God deems as sins is not an attack – that is a lie our society, media, and our public education system have preached from the rooftops.  Those I know who submit their homosexual desires to Christ have come to discover how they were actually in bondage to those desires – slaves to it in a manner of speaking. Many I know have experienced freedom since coming to Christ. Not all have had their desires taken completely away, but some have. Those who haven't had their desires completely taken away but still strive to honor Christ find strength from Him. They're not perfect but they find freedom from the bondage of their desires – the ability and joy in saying no to their temptations and fulfillment in honoring God with their bodies.

1) Do you or have you ever had lustful desires for the same sex? If so, do you think that was a conscious choice? If not, when did you choose to not be gay? I think my other comments here touch on this question.

2) What does Jesus say about homosexuality? One example – Romans 1 (and yes, God is our judge, not me but that doesn't mean God's word about Homosexuality shouldn't be spoken or considered)
Yes, those are sexual organs used for reproductive purposes and based on your definition that feeling comes from the organs themselves and not the physical and chemical make up of the brain despite "science" saying you're wrong. Since these organs are for reproduction it would be deviant, based on your definition, to masturbate or even have intercourse for any other purpose outside of procreation. Furthermore, if one knows they can't get pregnant or make someone pregnant than any such behavior would also be deviant.
Now you're twisting my words. I'm not restricting sexual organs to only reproductive purposes. My point is that it's obvious, from a natural/biological perspective, a male body is sexually fitting ("made for") a female body. Though I know you don't agree with the Bible, it mentions that fact in Romans 1:23 - "Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
Now you're just writing stupid shit.
You deny that 20-year study? Explain why.

Edited by Smurfman - 7/9/14 at 7:16pm
post #60 of 70
Can you learn to quote or is that something else you believe is controlled by your DNA?
Edited by SolipsismX - 7/9/14 at 7:19pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #61 of 70
Scientific proof

Anti-Gay-1.jpg
post #62 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post


You've demonstrated your mean spiritedness right here in this forum. I quoted you several times and it rolls off your back like water off a duck. A relative vouching for you means less than what I've witnessed. And chances are if you don't recognize how insulting you've been here there surely are other times when you insult people and refuse to recognize it. Or you think your qualified to speak for god to other people.

I guess that's part of how you can be insulted by your relatives view of your religion despite the fact that you consider him "deviant, twisted, unnatural and of no benefit to society". It doesn't really matter if you haven't articulated to them that you think they are twisted and unnatural. If your comfortable insulting people here like that you should be fine with similar criticism.

It really is galling to hear someone outright insult others and in the same post say that others should tolerate it.

At first I was put off by your putting the word science in quotes but your understanding of science deserves them. Your logic is very spurious. Just because humans reproduce heterosexually doesn't mean homosexuality is unnatural by any stretch. Quite the contrary, in nature we see gay relationships in many species. Its very natural. Not as common as heterosexuality but it's been around, well, pretty much forever.

All you have to back up your opinion is your view of the bible. And many people who believe in the bible have a different view than you. And beyond that most people don't even believe in the bible. Which by definition makes it a deviant belief. And your understanding of it seems twisted and unnatural and I can't help but wonder what the benefit to society is in generating such ill will in your fellow humans.
post #63 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDavid View Post



You've demonstrated your mean spiritedness right here in this forum. I quoted you several times and it rolls off your back like water off a duck. A relative vouching for you means less than what I've witnessed. And chances are if you don't recognize how insulting you've been here there surely are other times when you insult people and refuse to recognize it. Or you think your qualified to speak for god to other people.

I guess that's part of how you can be insulted by your relatives view of your religion despite the fact that you consider him "deviant, twisted, unnatural and of no benefit to society". It doesn't really matter if you haven't articulated to them that you think they are twisted and unnatural. If your comfortable insulting people here like that you should be fine with similar criticism.

It really is galling to hear someone outright insult others and in the same post say that others should tolerate it.

At first I was put off by your putting the word science in quotes but your understanding of science deserves them. Your logic is very spurious. Just because humans reproduce heterosexually doesn't mean homosexuality is unnatural by any stretch. Quite the contrary, in nature we see gay relationships in many species. Its very natural. Not as common as heterosexuality but it's been around, well, pretty much forever.

All you have to back up your opinion is your view of the bible. And many people who believe in the bible have a different view than you. And beyond that most people don't even believe in the bible. Which by definition makes it a deviant belief. And your understanding of it seems twisted and unnatural and I can't help but wonder what the benefit to society is in generating such ill will in your fellow humans.

First, you misunderstand that I am not devaluing the person but the act of homosexuality. Homosexuality should not be celebrated or valued. I understand it seems by default I am devaluing the person, but in actuality it a the opposite.

You say my statements are insulting, but I view you putting humans on the same level as animals as extremely insulting to the human race. Humans are MUCH more valuable than that. We are God's greatest creation because we were created "in His image" (or likeness). This brings incredible value to our lives - not just in this life but for all eternity.

Jesus often offended people as He spoke the truth. John the Baptist (who Jesus called the greatest of men up to that time) was beheaded for condemning the marriage of King Herod to his brother Phillip's wife.

There are things God will judge men for and he has called His followers to warn others while sharing the good news that there is NO condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.

You, and many others, may want a world where there is no God but that will NEVER happen. You'll get close, but God will prevail. I've often heard that Hell is simply where God is not - granting the wish of countless millions during their lives to escape the presence of God. But a place where God is not present is a place with no comfort, no love, and no hope (to name only a few). Imagine if all 3 of those were eliminated from your life forever.

Don't automatically accept society's way. God says if you seek Him you WILL find Him. His love is truly great but in order to appreciate how great, we need to know what condition we're in and how far He's come to rescue us.

Which summed up, is all about love. Consider your definition of love is actually more like a need for acceptance and that is why you (and others) view what I say with such contempt.
Edited by Smurfman - 7/10/14 at 5:01pm
post #64 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post

Jesus often offended people as He spoke the truth.

Still waiting for all those sermons Jesus had regarding homosexuality as being unnatural.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #65 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post



You say my statements are insulting, but I view you putting humans on the same level as animals as extremely insulting to the human race. Humans are MUCH more valuable than that. We are God's greatest creation because we were created "in His image" (or likeness). This brings incredible value to our lives - not just in this life but for all eternity.

 

 

They are very insulting along with your poke and jab arguments. First you say homosexuality is unnatural but once that is proven to be natural you divert the argument and ignore your mistake. 

 

Homosexuality is in nature everywhere.  Homosexuality is natural.  By extension (using YOUR logic not mine), homosexuality was created by god. 

post #66 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post

(...)

 

Smurfman, as you say the homosexuality is unnatural, do you know your PC was created by a gay and Atheist called Alan Turing? Why are you using your social networks, your iProducts and your PC if you condemn Apple, Microsoft, Google and Facebook for making apology to the Atheism and the homosexuality? Would you like me to accuse your Christian religion of unnatural and criminal? Of course, your religion is. If you deny, would you like me to show all the crimes of your religion since 1 a.C. until today? You said God doesn't hate the gays, but I don't believe in His love or in your Christian love. Why? I would show all the contradictions of God's love in the Old Testament and and of course, in the New Testament. 

post #67 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeltsBear View Post

Homosexuality is in nature everywhere.  Homosexuality is natural.

Natural/unnatural would be the wrong word to take issue with. Lots of things happen in nature like cannibalism, eating raw meat, sexual interaction with young, incest, killing, feces throwing, cleaning by licking. Those would all be described as natural but none of them tolerated by humans. Maybe cleaning by licking but not in public.

There are lots of instincts that come naturally but the issue is down to what people tolerate and I'd say it relates to perceived harm. That tends to drive revulsion. Like if you think food is bad, you are put off because of the perceived harm it will do by eating it. Children don't have this built-in and they will happily play with and even eat their own feces, they will run into a fire or traffic until they are taught otherwise.

Some form of conditioning leads people to feel revulsion over uncommon partnerships, even legal ones such as when Jerry Seinfeld dated a 17 year old girl when he was 39:

http://imgur.com/gallery/RHclO

If she had been 15, that would have been illegal and people would be even more put off by it but why would such a small difference in age cause such a huge difference in perception? It's just conditioning. Same with Anna Nicole Smith 39 married to a 90 year old billionaire (check the smooching photo here if you dare):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2333657/1billion-dollar-baby-Anna-Nicole-Smiths-year-old-daughter-Dannielynn-finally-late-mothers-fortune-new-ruling-Californian-judge.html

Part of the harm I think people see in those relationships is if they have kids, the older person could end up too old to raise kids adequately and there's the obvious difference in physical attractiveness.

We don't tolerate people being together who are too closely related such as here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7182817.stm

Both consenting adults but it turned out they were twins separated at birth and brother and sister so their marriage was annulled. This sort of thing could happen quite easily - look at Steve Jobs not finding out he had a sister until he was 27. They could have made out with each other and not known they were related. If two homosexuals were related (e.g brothers, father-son, sisters, mother-daughter), would that cause similar revulsion given that they can't reproduce? The revulsion with close relations comes from the probability of birth defects. The fact that people have a single biological mother and father tends to give that union a higher degree of importance and acceptance because it's the only union that prolongs the human race and is responsible for people's genetic heritage. Other forms of union are more recreational. This is evident from people in adult entertainment who identify as straight (not bisexual) but perform in gay scenes.

One thing I've found interesting is that male to male relationships are viewed differently from female to female. Adult sites actually put female with female under the straight category because they appeal to straight men. However, it turns out that straight women like male with male (even in books) so they'd have to look under the gay category:

http://metro.co.uk/2008/10/14/women-who-like-to-watch-gay-porn-30888/
http://gawker.com/5615899/why-are-straight-women-so-obsessed-with-gay-sex

There are even books that have stories about dragons, werewolves, dinosaurs seducing women made for women:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/so-theres-an-author-on-amazon-who-writes-erotic-novels-about

Someone actually left reviews on Amazon saying they liked the story and characters. Male/female is obviously not the only acceptable form of fantasy scenario.

For every kind of union that is described, everyone internally makes decisions that say whether it's right or wrong. Can you marry two women, no; can you sleep with two women, yes; can you sleep with a 15 year old, no it's abhorrent; can you sleep with a 16 year old, yeah knock yourself out.

It's obvious we don't accept any kind of union and simply using a rule of two consenting adults above an arbitrary age doesn't go far enough, it's just another rule that complies with someone's own sense of comfort.

Is there any perceived harm in homosexual relationships that justifies an objection to them? As far as the union itself goes, there really isn't anything harmful about it and it's more harmful to express objection towards it because people are suffering as a result. When it comes to reproduction, a homosexual couple can only produce children that have genes from a 3rd party and one of the partners and so there is likely some conditioning there that makes people see it as objectionable. This is changing though the more that people accept sexual interaction as recreational and not primarily reproductive:

http://fortune.com/2012/01/25/solo-nation-american-consumers-stay-single/

"In 1957, University of Michigan psychology professors Joseph Veroff, Elizabeth Douvan, and Richard Kulka released a survey that examined American attitudes to being single. The findings were stark: 80% of those surveyed believed that people who preferred being unmarried were “sick,” “immoral,” or “neurotic.” At a time when more than 70% of adults were married, it’s not surprising that people would express a preference for wedded life. But the scorn certainly sounds jarring to contemporary ears.

Oh, how things have changed. Americans are now within mere percentage points of being a majority single nation: Only 51% of adults today are married, according to census data. And 28% of all households now consist of just one person — the highest level in U.S. history."

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/25/childlessness-up-among-all-women-down-among-women-with-advanced-degrees/

"Nearly one-in-five American women ends her childbearing years without having borne a child, compared with one-in-ten in the 1970s."

This is coinciding with a decline in religion:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/culture-lifestyle/world-religion/130602/europe-church-mosque-christianity-islam-religious-crisis

In a few European countries religion is noted as being as low as 20% vs 60% in the US. This change won't happen overnight, people can't be easily reconditioned to accept something they've spent an entire lifetime rejecting. It will happen across generations. There's a video here showing kids' reactions to homosexuality:



They will be more accepting than past generations but some kids still had objections. The difficulty is how do you ever take away the conditioning that all kids go through? The conditioning that girls and boys are separated and dress differently. The reason for the separation is because they are attracted to each other and kids aren't meant to be fooling around with each other. How do you enforce that kind of separation once you introduce another two forms of attraction? The story I posted in another thread about the gender reassignment of a 5 year old shows how difficult this can be:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2643231/When-family-dies-I-cut-hair-I-boy-Parents-share-story-having-transgender-child-let-change-gender-aged-just-FIVE.html

That kid likely won't have surgery until they are much older so they have the physical body of a girl while behaving like and interacting with boys. Some people would say that's wrong to do that but again, they are simply making decisions for other people. It's up to individuals to express what their attractions are and other people simply work around that. There's a teenage couple here who both changed gender together:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/23/transgender-teenage-couple-arin-andrews-katie-hill_n_3639220.html

The girl apparently didn't feel right in herself when she was 7 or 8 years old and told her mother at 15. The couple aren't considered gay because they are dating opposite genders.

What is clear is that everyone draws a line at what they are willing to tolerate. At some point, everyone deems some form of union to be objectionable to them. What makes someone's line any more valid than another? There are many clear indicators to determine harmful unions so we can at least approach some form of consensus but there are a lot of grey areas.

I think at a very basic level, we have to accept that human development is driven by very random biological events and not some overarching purposeful system governed by fixed rules on what's acceptable and this creates uncommon scenarios that people have to adapt to:




Combinations of genes and environmental conditioning are going to produce physical and emotional outcomes that are uncommon. Someone living with those results doesn't benefit from being ostracised but there are many unions that people would still be happy to reject such as the married twins above. The consensus that society reaches will never please everyone.
post #68 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

They will be more accepting than past generations but some kids still had objections. The difficulty is how do you ever take away the conditioning that all kids go through?

Education is one way, I think we all change our views to some extent throughout our lives, but overall we see tend to see changes from generation to generation. Unfortunately this seems to also lead to people so upset with acceptance of nature that we also end up getting nutcases that will push the other direction to compensate which can lead to additional issues. Fortunately those people tend to be few and far between.

“If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” —Pope Francis


PS: You didn't mention hermaphrodites. If one can be born physically with both sex organs are they then only actual bi-sexuals according to the "your sex organs determine what your natural attraction is" theorists?

PPS: We know that you can change the gender of chickens by altering the temperature in which the eggs are incubated at a certain point in the development so perhaps it's possible that environment conditions play a role in sexual orientation. Then there is a frog DNA from Jurassic Park that can allowed the dinosaur to change its sex after its birth. Humans are too complex for that to happen but what if homosexuality occurs more often in utero in more congested societies and/or where resources are more limited as a way a biological mechanism to help reduce future population growth. Who will take that as scripture?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #69 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post
It is simply beyond obvious (to be direct) that a vagina is made for the males penis in both producing pleasure but especially for the reproductive process.

 

I don't think gay men or women are trying to get each other pregnant, so what is the relevance?  Plus, gay love is not all about sex.

 

Aside from that, the list of things that men will put their penis in to get pleasure is a very long list, and probably gets a new addition every day.  The vagina is certainly not alone in it's ability to produce pleasure, nor is it unheard of for heterosexual sex to be uncomfortable and to cause tearing and other unpleasantries.  And don't forget that the male G spot isn't in the penis, it's behind the prostate and next to the rectum, so very stimulated by anal sex.  Meanwhile the female G spot is more often easier to hit with fingers than it is with a penis.

 

And modern science means we don't even need to have sex to reproduce.  Imagine that!  Isn't God's earth amazing?!

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #70 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You didn't mention hermaphrodites. If one can be born physically with both sex organs are they then only actual bi-sexuals according to the "your sex organs determine what your natural attraction is" theorists?

I imagine people would consider that person's partner bisexual but yeah, if they had the idea that someone born with one organ should be attracted to the opposite, they'd have to assume people with both are attracted to both. It's complicated. When babies start to develop in the womb, they appear to have the same organs and then they develop in two different ways. Sometimes it doesn't go one way or the other completely but they are typically only functionally one gender. It's rare but possible for someone to have fully developed male and female organs so they have to decide which to identify as. Someone intersex changed their gender identity 3 times:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2109384/Ive-changed-gender-times-Young-woman-reveals-she-intersex-28.html

Started as a boy, changed to live as a girl during teens without surgery, then at 20 lived as a man, married a woman but the marriage failed then at 28 found out they were intersex and changed to live as a woman with surgery.

"As many as one in 2,000 people do not have clearly sexually-defined genitalia or physical characteristics."

It's clear there is at least some separation between sexual orientation, gender identity and physical characteristics but they have to influence each other in some way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

We know that you can change the gender of chickens by altering the temperature in which the eggs are incubated at a certain point in the development so perhaps it's possible that environment conditions play a role in sexual orientation.

Given that people change sexual orientation suggests that environmental factors play a role but it's not an overnight switch and hormones have a part in it too. People who change gender are given hormone replacement therapy and some people have said it has changed their preferences:

http://www.tgboards.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=14902

Some people say sexual orientation is not a choice but choice is the wrong word as it implies a short timeframe. You don't choose one day to like ice-cream and then the next day change your mind. Over a period of time, you can develop different likes and dislikes. This means heterosexuality develops the same way as well as sexual attractions that are considered deviant or illegal. Sexual behaviour doesn't show up until at least a few years into childhood so there's lots of environmental and hormonal conditioning before that happens. I'd say the reason that heterosexuality is so dominant is simply because it's the only one that prolongs life and that's what evolution promotes. Every human being that has ever existed has done so because of the union of a male and female. I suspect this will keep pushing alternative orientations into a small minority, which will make it harder to gain acceptance than with race. People can't experiment with race the way they do sexuality so it's much more well-defined and in far greater numbers. Women have experimented with women:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/30/cameron-diaz-lesbian-relationship_n_5237549.html

but they can't experiment being black or hispanic so I think it's going to be a longer process to work through and may never fully resolve itself.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's video of 2014 San Francisco Pride Parade celebrates company diversity