Gays Are Terrorists

[_Brackite]

What if God doesn't exist?

Don't Worry. God does indeed exist.

[_JAK]

Most of the questions you have asked are rhetorical.

That's right. It's an exercise to see if your logic holds any weight.

A homosexual marriage is an offence to God and a mockery of the ordinance.

What if God doesn't exist?

As far as sexual relations within a marriage, any act that objectifies the man or the woman and debases them is wrong.

Then let's ask:

What if a married person is bisexual? Is that person, too, a sexual deviant?

What about a married person who is merely bi-curious? Is that person also a sexual deviant?

What about a married couple that engages in bondage and/or sadomasochism? Sexual deviant or not?

How about a married couple who does it doggy-style? Sexual deviant?

How about a married couple who does it with the lights on? A sexual deviant?

Please let us know where the cut-off line is, and what objective determination you employed to identify it.

Generally, these are relevant questions for which Gaz has provided no clarification.

The Gaz statement: “Homosexuals are perverts, plain and simple, and deserve no special treatment or unusual rights whatsoever.”

Of course “plain and simple” present no detail or refinement which would address Shades’ questions.

The statement also fails to address issues which I raised.

While it is easy to be dismissive, it’s not academic nor does it address the complexities of sexual behavior. Many more questions could be raised to draw out specific, detailed response for so generalized a dismissal.

Can heterosexuals be “terrorists”? Are only homosexuals “terrorists?”

[_Gazelam]

Shades,

Again, your questions are rhetorical. But since you obviously are kin to the Jews who need every hair split and every aspect and or concept of the gospel spelled out in detail I'll do my best to comply. You do realize your asking these questions is similar to asking how many steps to take on the sabbath, or whether or not spitting in the dirt and making mud is working.

There is a Spirit behind the laws. Regain it like you used to have it and you wont have to ask these ridiculous questions.

What if a married person is bisexual? Is that person, too, a sexual deviant?

If they are acting on it, then yes.

What about a married person who is merely bi-curious? Is that person also a sexual deviant?

Whatever made them curious in the first place? What are they doing that is encouraging this curiosity? Obviously they need a new hobby.

What about a married couple that engages in bondage and/or sadomasochism? Sexual deviant or not?

Debasing activity. Therefore deviant.

How about a married couple who does it doggy-style? Sexual deviant?

How about a married couple who does it with the lights on? A sexual deviant?

Do these activities debase or objectify the partner?

Please let us know where the cut-off line is, and what objective determination you employed to identify it.

I believe I answered this in a previous post.

[_JAK]

Shades,

Again, your questions are rhetorical. But since you obviously are kin to the Jews who need every hair split and every aspect and or concept of the gospel spelled out in detail I'll do my best to comply. You do realize your asking these questions is similar to asking how many steps to take on the sabbath, or whether or not spitting in the dirt and making mud is working.

There is a Spirit behind the laws. Regain it like you used to have it and you wont have to ask these ridiculous questions.

What if a married person is bisexual? Is that person, too, a sexual deviant?

If they are acting on it, then yes.

What about a married person who is merely bi-curious? Is that person also a sexual deviant?

Whatever made them curious in the first place? What are they doing that is encouraging this curiosity? Obviously they need a new hobby.

What about a married couple that engages in bondage and/or sadomasochism? Sexual deviant or not?

Debasing activity. Therefore deviant.

How about a married couple who does it doggy-style? Sexual deviant?

How about a married couple who does it with the lights on? A sexual deviant?

Do these activities debase or objectify the partner?

Please let us know where the cut-off line is, and what objective determination you employed to identify it.

I believe I answered this in a previous post.

With several opportunities to give direct answers, you evade them.

Repeating: Are only homosexuals “terrorists”?

Are there heterosexuals who are “deviant”?

Can you address Shades’ questions seriously (and mine) with detail?

I’m skeptical. You certainly have NOT answered questions.

Why not quote them directly as Shades and I have asked them, then provide lucid answers to the questions?

I’m skeptical.

[_Gazelam]

Jak,

With several opportunities to give direct answers, you evade them.

No I didn't.

Repeating: Are only homosexuals “terrorists”?

Is this a serious question? No, of course not.

Are there heterosexuals who are “deviant”?

Again, seriously? Never heard of a strip club?

Can you address Shades’ questions seriously (and mine) with detail?

What exactly did you need explained further?

Why not quote them directly as Shades and I have asked them, then provide lucid answers to the questions?

I did quote your questions, and I answerd them. Perhaps your reading comprehension needs work?

[_JAK]

Jak,

With several opportunities to give direct answers, you evade them.

No I didn't.

Repeating: Are only homosexuals “terrorists”?

Is this a serious question? No, of course not.

Are there heterosexuals who are “deviant”?

Again, seriously? Never heard of a strip club?

Can you address Shades’ questions seriously (and mine) with detail?

What exactly did you need explained further?

Why not quote them directly as Shades and I have asked them, then provide lucid answers to the questions?

I did quote your questions, and I answerd them. Perhaps your reading comprehension needs work?

Gaz,

You did not address question by question those presented. Responding to a question with another question is not an answer to the original question.

What is deviant? See definitions

The Wright brothers were engaged in deviant behavior. While it had nothing to do with sex, it was deviant by definition. They were regarded by many if not most as deviant, even crazy. But today, they are revered as innovative, creative, and brilliant. The same may be said for many others who, by engaging in deviant behavior invented and discovered what the normal, accepted behavior did not and could not do.

Not all deviant behavior is “debasing” as you imply in the statement: “Debasing activity. Therefore deviant.”

The terms are not synonymous.

Gaz stated: “There is a Spirit behind the laws.”

You are aware that “laws” are in a constant state of flux and change. Societies develop laws, revise laws, repeal laws, and substitute laws. In the USA, prohibition was once the law. That law was repealed. There is continuous change as I describe regarding laws. Keep in mind as well that laws differ from country to country. They even differ from state to state in the USA. Your comments appear not to recognize that. Laws regarding sexual activity differ from state to state. Once it was illegal in many states for people of different races to marry. By implication/definition, marriage involves sex and sexual behavior. (I’ll address some particulars later.)

You also speak as if there were some kind of “cut off line” (Shades’ comment in a question), yet you don’t clarify in any way just what that is.

If sexual partners engage in mutually satisfying ways, is that any issue of “wrong”? If so, why? What is your concern that people in their private lives conform to your notions of right conduct? You have not addressed that in the least. Your pontificating statements lack refinement and specificity.

Gaz stated: “Any sexual relationships outside the bonds of marriage are wrong.”

You have not established that claim in any way. Some cultural groups (globally) don’t have “marriage” as you imply in that term.

Is a romantic kiss a “sexual relationship”? Most people, virtually all people in the USA culture who eventually marry have some kind of “sexual relationship” long before they marry. Is hand-holding sexual? ...A couple age 15 years old (or whatever) holding hands, stopping to kiss, they dance, they engaging in passionate kissing. That is having “a sexual relationship.” Read your statement as I quoted you exactly above.

You have not defined “any sexual relationship” in your statement. You don’t demonstrate that you have really thought through your own claims. This is an issue.

What is “wrong”? By that, I’m asking: Are there levels of “wrong” in your view? Just how “wrong” is hand-holding in a romantic, sexual way? And just WHY is it “wrong” in your view? Is French kissing “wrong” in your view? It is clearly a “sexual relationship outside the bonds of marriage…” Or, would you consider French kissing ALWAYS "wrong"?

You state “Any”. Read your own words above. Or, do you claim that passionate French kissing is NOT a “sexual relationship”?

Let’s look further:

Is oral sexual contact “deviant”? Again, you have no applied working definition of “deviant.” You just make pontificating statements absent detailed analysis.

Do you accept the on-line definitions of deviant? If not, why not? If not, what are your definitions?

Let’s press this further:

What is the lowest percentage in number of people that you would permit for any given sexual relationship to consider it “departing from the norm”? That’s the on-line definition of “deviant.” Also in that definition is “social behavior.” What is your perception of “social behavior” vs. private conduct? That is, what is your notion of a dividing line between private and social? Humm?

If 10% of people engage in a given sexual activity, are they deviant?

I invite you to address these issues question by question and avoid the pontification with generalizations such as you have offered thus far.

[_Gazelam]

Jak,

Your splitting hairs. Its kind of like pornography, hard to place an explicit definition on, but you know it when you see it. There is a "spirit of the law" thing that you need to grasp.

In an effort to help with confusion, I have acquired a graph:



Anything on or after second base is off limits before marriage.

Marriage is only acceptable between a man and a woman. Within the confines of marriage any sexual activity that degrades or objectifies the partner is wrong.

This isn't really that hard.

[_GoodK]

Within the confines of marriage any sexual activity that degrades or objectifies the partner is wrong.

This isn't really that hard.

What fun is sexual activity if it doesn't objectify the other partner? Or degrade them.

I just don't get it sometimes...

[_JAK]

Within the confines of marriage any sexual activity that degrades or objectifies the partner is wrong.

This isn't really that hard.

What fun is sexual activity if it doesn't objectify the other partner? Or degrade them.

I just don't get it sometimes...

Gazelam’s graph is not only pointless it’s not responsive to questions. It demonstrates no thinking on his part and is the antithesis of academic engagement on the issues which I have detailed in questions and which Shades detailed in questions as well.

It was precisely my point that drawing arbitrary, absolute, pontificating characterizations with no daylight between “right” and “wrong” is an absurd position. He seems unable to grasp that.

[_Gazelam]

Jak,

OK captain clueless, your completely missing the point. I've even tried pictures with you, and short concise sentances, but you still don't get it.

D&C 58:26-27

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

I'm not going to go over every sexual situation or position or circumstance with you and tell you what to do in that instance. It would be pointless.

What you do need to understand is that you are expected to operate your life from a stance of a core belief.

God has chosen the name of Father. We know that God lives after a manner of happiness and prace and joy. The name/title he has chosen to be called by is a BIG hint as to how we should lead our lives if we wish to be happy. What Father exists who does not have a wife and children?

How many evils and sad situations would be overcome if people would apply the simple rule of confining their creative power to the bonds of holy matrimony? Of simply waiting until they are married to have sex, and honoring and respecting their partner in their daily lives? Of emulating the character and nature of God in regards to their relationships with others.

Stand still for a moment and approach all sexual questions from that vantage point, and these questions answer themselves.

Gaz