Who is Wade Englund?

[_wenglund]

Really? Ya think? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So if you actually knew they were parodying you, why did you decry the fact that I, and others, did not also call them bigots like you?

On principle and as a reverse object lesson. Obviously. (Hint: parodies of real bigotry would still be bigotry and offencive and warrant objection. Your silence was telling.)

Now that I have answered your question, how about answering mine:

Are women as a group, and homosexuals as a group, above and beyond criticism?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

On principle and as a reverse object lesson. Obviously. (Hint: parodies of real bigotry would still be bigotry and offencive and warrant objection. Your silence was telling.)

Now that I have answered your question, how about answering mine:

Are women as a group, and homosexuals as a group, above and beyond criticism?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, you don't seem to get the concept of racism, homophobia and sexism. Making sweeping generalizations about women is sexist. It's not intelligent, it's not cute. It's just ignorant.

[_wenglund]

So, what you're saying is that though God made the man gay, it's the man's fault and should rise above the way God made him in order to act as God desired?

I didn't say that God made the man gay. And, I said nothing about "fault?" I have no idea where you got that from, but it wasn't from me.

So, you're saying that strength in conviction can override the fact one is gay?

Obviously.

Doesn't the man's ability to "engage" in sexual relations require him to be sexually attracted to his mate?

It only requires that he be able to respond to sexual stimulation.

Is this fair for her if he tries to suppress his natural attraction to other men?

No more so than it is unfair to her for him to suppress his natural attraction to other women.

Is God testing this man?

No.

I'm finding it hard to understand your point.

That is because I am looking at this in a way that may be new and unfamiliar to you and not consistent with your current way of thinking.

On one hand, what I believe you're saying is that suppressing ones own SSA desire is a choice, but that doesn't mean he can choose to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex... can it?

I believe that sexual attraction may be somewhat maluable, particularly when it is put into proper perspective with things like emotional and social maturity, intamacy, and love as well as when couched in the context of a highly desirable goal that both parties are deeply committed to.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade, you don't seem to get the concept of racism, homophobia and sexism. Making sweeping generalizations about women is sexist. It's not intelligent, it's not cute. It's just ignorant.

You don't seem capable of answering my question. And, you seem not to comprehend that your ignorant and overly simplistic view of my comments are meaningless to me--in large part because you seem unwilling or able to engage me in an intelligent discussion on the issue, but hypocritically resort instead to dismissive slurs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

Wade, you don't seem to get the concept of racism, homophobia and sexism. Making sweeping generalizations about women is sexist. It's not intelligent, it's not cute. It's just ignorant.

You don't seem capable of answering my question. And, you seem not to comprehend that your ignorant and overly simplistic view of my comments are meaningless to me--in large part because you seem unwilling or able to engage me in an intelligent discussion on the issue, but hypocritically resort instead to dismissive slurs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're the victim here, clearly. No one should call you a sexist or a homophobe merely because you make sexist and homophobic comments. Good call. Accurately labeling you sexist and homophobic for your dismissive slurs against women and gays is just wrong. It's wadeophobia!

To answer you question, any group that is a member of a group by birth is beyond criticism. If you want to criticize someone, criticize based on what they do and say, not what they were born as.

[_Chap]

Doesn't the man's ability to "engage" in sexual relations require him to be sexually attracted to his mate?

It only requires that he be able to respond to sexual stimulation.
...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Reading this part of Wade's post, I really, really think that he does not have a lot of experience with this kind of thing in practice. I don't say that to insult him, but simply to suggest that his opinions on human sexuality may not need to be taken too seriously.

Goodness only knows what he has in mind by 'sexual stimulation'. Electrodes or what? I pray he never gets his hands on me, at any rate!

[_Buffalo]

Reading this part of Wade's post, I really, really think that he does not have a lot of experience with this kind of thing in practice. I don't say that to insult him, but simply to suggest that his opinions on human sexuality may not need to be taken too seriously.

Goodness only knows what he has in mind by 'sexual stimulation'. Electrodes or what? I pray he never gets his hands on me, at any rate!

You have to wonder about the wisdom of listening to a lecture on sexuality by a celibate loner in his 50s.

[_wenglund]

Let me parody myself using as a scenario where various board member are at the hair salon eves-dropping in on a conversation between two women:

Woman 1: My 10-year-old son does some pretty repelling things at times. He picks his nose and eats what he digs out; he doesn't lift up the toilet seat when he pees, and doesn't clean off the urine; he incessantly teases girls, sometimes until they cry, and that makes him laugh; he takes his clothes off and just tosses them around the room; he seldom washes his hands; and I have to continually plead with him to do any work around the house because he just wants to go out and play.

Woman 2: That sounds like most young boys I know. In fact, it sounds like my husband and most the husbands of women I know. Men!! (said in a derisive voice)

Woman 1: Yeah, men!!! (said with light-hearted disgust)

Beastie: I am shocked and appauled! You ladies are bigots! (Said with pronounced self-righteousness)

EA: Beastie is right. It like saying, "Jews!!!"

Woman 1: Who are you...the PC police?

EA: You're trying to hide behind the PC excuse and yet take pride in making bigotted comments, you PC captain.

Blixa: Yes...PC is a canard, and besides, men are that way because of the patriarchal system.

[Insert various board members lamely parodying the two women and drawing pictures of the two women making out, etc., and the two women noting the rank hypocracy and attempting to interject some rational perspective by asking a question on criticism of males that expectedly goes unanswered]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_EAllusion]

Those women - who appear to be poorly drawn sitcom characters come to life - are saying misandric things. Fortunately, the light misandry they express isn't part of a deep history of oppressive behavior towards men and we can dismiss them with an eyeroll.

[_Buffalo]

Let me parody myself using as a scenario where various board member are at the hair salon eves-dropping in on a conversation between two women:

Woman 1: My 10-year-old son does some pretty repelling things at times. He picks his nose and eats what he digs out; he doesn't lift up the toilet seat when he pees, and doesn't clean off the urine; he incessantly teases girls, sometimes until they cry, and that makes him laugh; he takes his clothes off and just tosses them around the room; he seldom washes his hands; and I have to continually plead with him to do any work around the house because he just wants to go out and play.

Woman 2: That sounds like most young boys I know. In fact, it sounds like my husband and most the husbands of women I know. Men!! (said in a derisive voice)

Woman 1: Yeah, men!!! (said with light-hearted disgust)

Beastie: I am shocked and appauled! You ladies are bigots! (Said with pronounced self-righteousness)

EA: Beastie is right. It like saying, "Jews!!!"

Woman 1: Who are you...the PC police?

EA: You're trying to hide behind the PC excuse and yet take pride in making bigotted comments, you PC captain.

Blixa: Yes...PC is a canard, and besides, men are that way because of the patriarchal system.

[Insert various board members lamely parodying the two women and drawing pictures of the two women making out, etc., and the two women noting the rank hypocrisy and attempting to interject some rational perspective by asking a question on criticism of males that expectedly goes unanswered]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I know a lot of guys like you, equally clueless, equally hopelessly out of touch. That doesn't mean that all men are equally clueless, or that I would be justified in saying so.