It's as if KG can't express a controversial opinion without being subjected to the bogus claim that he is merely expressing a facet of his own self-loathing.
Why is this your default?
Thanks CK. It looks like more and more people are starting to see this silly rhetoric for what it is, even if Schmo can't. There is nothing intellectual about this. There is no "working hypothesis" in his nonsense. It is just an attempt to dismiss via bigot-baiting, which is what we see all the time with race-baiters as well. This is the default position for most intellectually bankrupt minds.
My position is based on education and experience. My concerns have been expressed by experts in the field, so it cannot be said to be based on religious bigotry. The strength of beastie's argument is dependent on her ability misrepresent my position (either intentionally or just out of habit) by attributing feelings to me that I never felt and beliefs I never believed. The strengths of Schmos argument are ... well, he doesn't have an argument really. He can't seem to divorce himself from the "homophobe" term, even though it has been established here that it is an empty term used by morons who cannot formulate their own arguments.
Schmo reminds me of Shooter McGavin's hired help in Happy Gilmore. The guy who would always show up at the tournaments to distract the competition by screaming "ya jackass" in their backswing. Nobody would confuse this guy with a pro golfer anymore than Schmo's pithy remarks should be mistaken for intelligent commentary.
Ever notice how darte tends to echo the kinds of things I just said moments after I've said them. And he actually appears to think he's being original. Parsed to their most rudimentary level, the best he's got is, "I know you are but what am I?"
Also, ever notice how the people who don't, at least to some degree, validate his thoughts are all morons and idiots? One day, his head will explode because people simply don't respect what he thinks of as his own "intelligence." It's pitiable that the thing he lacks most is the thing on which his ego most depends.
ROTFLMAO
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Chap wrote:Now you can get back to the important stuff. Sorry for distracting people with these trivia.
Chap, what would we all do without you always reeling us back into what you deem important? Maybe you should start your own message board so that us less intellectually equipped to deal with the important matters could soak up your expertise and sharp focus without the forays into evolution, sexual matters, God notions, or anything else that you don't deem worthy of mention on a LDS board?
Feeling a bit snarky, are we?
If you haven't noticed the LDS Church takes on sexual matters and most if not all men and women in the Church were taught not to masturbate and that sex was merely for procreation. I find it startling and saddening since I had a step-son that used to come to my home and had fits when confronted with a female (me in a bikini) that he found sexually enticing. It went from horror to understanding when I came to this board and recognized my teenage step-son was told he couldn't masturbate when he was confronted with his normal feelings of arousal. I find the Church teaches some odd things about sexuality.
What does this have to do with homosexuality, anal sex, or explaining sex to children? And since your teenage stepson is no longer in your family (his father divorced you, if I remember right), how are his issues with masturbation at all germaine to the subject of this discussion?
I agree with your other points, though.
Well, Chap. There you go. You are allowed to give the points that Moniker agrees with, but she'll get out the whip if you bring up anything else.
Chap wrote:Now you can get back to the important stuff. Sorry for distracting people with these trivia.
Chap, what would we all do without you always reeling us back into what you deem important? Maybe you should start your own message board so that us less intellectually equipped to deal with the important matters could soak up your expertise and sharp focus without the forays into evolution, sexual matters, God notions, or anything else that you don't deem worthy of mention on a LDS board?
Feeling a bit snarky, are we?
Yep.
What does this have to do with homosexuality, anal sex, or explaining sex to children? And since your teenage stepson is no longer in your family (his father divorced you, if I remember right), how are his issues with masturbation at all germaine to the subject of this discussion?
I divorced him. The issue of sexuality and how it is taught in the Church was something that came into my house. I'd never seen some of the sentiments expressed by my step-son or what is seen on this board. Most people (outside of religious indoctrination) don't think of sex merely for procreation (often that is part of the issue religious people have with anal sex, oral sex, and masturbation), and that it's a "sin". If you can't connect the dots I'm not doing it for you.
I agree with your other points, though.
Well, Chap. There you go. You are allowed to give the points that Moniker agrees with, but she'll get out the whip if you bring up anything else.
Good grief. Chill.
Chap had already stated his points in the thread, a few times, if I recall correctly. I have no problem with him stating what he wishes to -- he apparently has issues with other people stating their points. Similar to his issues with people discussing evolution or anything else he doesn't deem important.
Moniker wrote:I divorced him. The issue of sexuality and how it is taught in the Church was something that came into my house. I'd never seen some of the sentiments expressed by my step-son or what is seen on this board. Most people (outside of religious indoctrination) don't think of sex merely for procreation (often that is part of the issue religious people have with anal sex, oral sex, and masturbation), and that it's a "sin". If you can't connect the dots I'm not doing it for you.
Actually, no. The issue of the thread is homosexuality. You're trying to broaden the scope by inserting sexuality in general.
The religious indoctrination thread is the one where GoodK goes off on a rant against all religious thinkers. You might be more in line with the topic, there.
Similar to his issues with people discussing evolution or anything else he doesn't deem important.
Amazing how I've never noticed this in relation to Chap. But then, evolution doesn't interest me much.
Moniker wrote:I divorced him. The issue of sexuality and how it is taught in the Church was something that came into my house. I'd never seen some of the sentiments expressed by my step-son or what is seen on this board. Most people (outside of religious indoctrination) don't think of sex merely for procreation (often that is part of the issue religious people have with anal sex, oral sex, and masturbation), and that it's a "sin". If you can't connect the dots I'm not doing it for you.
Actually, no. The issue of the thread is homosexuality. You're trying to broaden the scope by inserting sexuality in general.
The religious indoctrination thread is the one where GoodK goes off on a rant against all religious thinkers. You might be more in line with the topic, there.
I thought about piping up in that thread. The issue here is homosexuality which includes anal sex, oral sex, and masturbation -- the issue that LDS have with homosexual sex (look at the title of the thread harmony!!!) is that it's not for procreation. Dart mentions procreation and this is usually what it comes down to with those that are religious. Next dart says that it's dirty. This is usually seen from those that think sex is okay if it's a man and a woman and don't even think past procreation to understand that sexuality can be erotic and that sexuality fulfills needs outside of having children. That homosexual sex (anal, oral) happens in heterosexual relationships usually is a way to introduce the notion that homosexual sex is really not so "gross".
Similar to his issues with people discussing evolution or anything else he doesn't deem important.
Amazing how I've never noticed this in relation to Chap. But then, evolution doesn't interest me much.
Well, then, just continue discussing "important" matters with chap, then. Evolution and how religious people view sexuality interests me 'cause it seems rather bizarre -- I get a kick out of watching them work it out.
Moniker wrote:I thought about piping up in that thread.
I think you could contribute some valuable insight on that thread.
The issue here is homosexuality which includes anal sex, oral sex, and masturbation -- the issue that LDS have with homosexual sex (look at the title of the thread harmony!!!) is that it's not for procreation.
And how does this have anything to do with your former teenage step-son's arousal at seeing you in a bikini? He's obviously heterosexual, not homosexual.
And LDS have a lot more issues with homosexuality than that it doesn't contribute to the continuation of the species. If you think that's our only issue with homosexuality, you haven't even scratched the surface yet.
Moniker wrote:I thought about piping up in that thread.
I think you could contribute some valuable insight on that thread.
The issue here is homosexuality which includes anal sex, oral sex, and masturbation -- the issue that LDS have with homosexual sex (look at the title of the thread harmony!!!) is that it's not for procreation.
And how does this have anything to do with your former teenage step-son's arousal at seeing you in a bikini? He's obviously heterosexual, not homosexual.
I was explaining to chap why I was interested in this topic and how the LDS Church focuses on sexuality. He has in the past questioned if some things deal with LDS matters or not and asked for them to be moved off-topic. My comments, at first, were to introduce the idea that different types of sex are not necessarily "dirty" and that heterosexuals enjoy sexuality in much the same way homosexuals do. Then Chap came in with his snarky comments about "important" matters. I was attempting to explain my interest in the LDS Church foray into indoctrination with sexuality -- that it struck close to home and I was interested in the indoctrination. Masturbation taboo is linked to sex being limited to procreation = sex in all forms being limited to procreation and those outside this is sinful.
Moniker wrote: Masturbation taboo is linked to sex being limited to procreation = sex in all forms being limited to procreation and those outside this is sinful.
That is incorrect, and has been incorrect since the early 80's. Masturbation is linked to "no sex outside of marriage". Sex is limited to marriage, which may include sex for procreation, but also includes sex to develop and maintain intimacy. At no time in the last 37 years in temple recommend interviews have I ever been asked if I masturbated. Somehow I doubt you've had all the same lessons on sex that I have over the past 37 years. I lived through the infamous "oral sex letter" and it's aftermath. Benson is dead; long live Pres Monson. At least Monson doesn't feel it necessary to regulate the marital bedroom as some of his predecessors have, and it would be very out of character for him to start trying to regulate it now.
I am thinking how much the LDS reaction to the California Supreme Court decision mirrors their reaction to Brown Vs. The Board of Education. In both examples, you have a court headed by Republican nominees, stepping up and making a big change in the law. In both instances you have conservative members bellyaching how an activist court lead by "those liberals" are overturning the will of the people.
Moniker wrote: Masturbation taboo is linked to sex being limited to procreation = sex in all forms being limited to procreation and those outside this is sinful.
That is incorrect, and has been incorrect since the early 80's. Masturbation is linked to "no sex outside of marriage". Sex is limited to marriage, which may include sex for procreation, but also includes sex to develop and maintain intimacy. At no time in the last 37 years in temple recommend interviews have I ever been asked if I masturbated. Somehow I doubt you've had all the same lessons on sex that I have over the past 37 years. I lived through the infamous "oral sex letter" and it's aftermath. Benson is dead; long live Pres Monson. At least Monson doesn't feel it necessary to regulate the marital bedroom as some of his predecessors have, and it would be very out of character for him to start trying to regulate it now.
You're right, I haven't had any of the lessons from the LDS Church on sexuality - thank "god". I've just picked up the bits and pieces on the two boards that make me cringe, often. Masturbation is still taboo within LDS marriages from my understanding of talking to a few men on this board. Might tell a few men that post here that they can masturbate away without being sinners or hurting the Church or their wives somehow or another.
Anyway... I don't know why we're having this conversation. My comments were directed toward notions that homosexual sex is dirty somehow and kids will be scarred while at the same time heterosexual couples have the exact same sort of sex and their kids are not scarred. Then my comments diverted to chap's notions of "important" matters and explaining why I was interested in religious indoctrination of sexual matters. I stated this (as my post above reiterates) 'cause chap a few times has questioned whether certain posts or topics on this board should be moved since he doesn't deem them appropriate for a LDS themed board.