The post that was quoted here has been removedYou know more about what the term "intersex" means than divegeester. But what I am asking is how does making an assertion about divegeester's supposed "abysmal ignorance" and asserting that he is a "troll" help you give your explanation about "intersex people"? It's a fair question.
The post that was quoted here has been removedThis is a thread about being born a certain way relevant to biblical attitudes about homosexuality.
The bible mentions nothing of intersex people but we know they exist. Existing as an intersex person is not a sin in the bible but homosexual sex is. If a person is intersex and does not indulge in homosexual sex then their life and existence is irrelevant to this thread so why would you even bring it up?
If, as I assumed considering the thread topic, that you were taking about intersex people who were indulging in homosexual sex, then my initial comment to you is completely relevant and on topic.
Perhaps you should consider starting a new thread on people who are born “intersex” but who do NOT indulge in homosexual sex and see if anyone is interested in indulging you in your tangential virtue signalling?
@divegeester
You took the words right out of my mouth. That is not to say you are my mouthpiece.
The post that was quoted here has been removedYou know more about what the term "intersex" means than divegeester.
You set him straight.
He didn't really know what "intersex" meant or referred to.
However, you did.
You corrected him.
This is not disputed.
But I am asking you about something else.
What I am asking is this:
How does making an assertion about divegeester's supposed "abysmal ignorance" and asserting that he is a "troll" ~ and going on and on and on and on about people's dishonesty ~ how does this help you deliver your explanation about "intersex people"?
It's a fair question. You should address it.
06 Apr 21
@fmf saidDuchess64 is in the final throes of forum vinegar strokes
@divegeester
You took the words right out of my mouth. That is not to say you are my mouthpiece.
😆
The post that was quoted here has been removedWell, you've certainly taught him about the term "intersex".
Do you believe all the highly personalized caustic remarks you have aimed at him have affected his - or indeed anyones' - "willingness to learn" from you?
Has your own demeanour on this thread enhanced your on-topic contribution to it regarding the meaning of the term "intersex"?
06 Apr 21
@fmf saidI suspect Duchess64 is upset by me persisting in asking if she opposes the “hurling of insults” as a matter of forum principle. She seems most unwilling to respond...
I beg to differ. As for his grasp of what "intersex" means, if you read my posts, I have left divesgeester high and dry. I haven't supported him in his error at all.
@bigdoggproblem saidNo your right homosexuals do seem to be born that way and as you point out so do some mentally ill people.
The "born that way" argument may be of little practical relevance.
Say it turns out that a small few people are inclined to be sociopaths, or pedophiles. Clearly, we must condemn those people for acting on those urges, even though they are built-in.
I do not want to give the impression that I am in any way conflating these two examples with homosexuality. I'm jus ...[text shortened]... defend consensual homosexuality. Consenting adults ought to be able to do what (or whom) they want.
However the ‘born that way’ defence should not be abandoned when discussing the subject with Christians or any other religious group. If they believe that God created us then they have to accept that God created homosexuals and psychopaths.
It goes to their claim about homosexuality being ‘unnatural’.
We can leave public opinion and the courts to decide the acceptability and legality concerning consensual homosexual acts as opposed to the acts of a psychopath.
Being born that way shoots down the sinner gone astray accusation and it’s associated straight training camps.
I’m ok with the idea that psychopaths are born that way thus putting the onus on society to treat them with as much respect as they can whilst protecting wider society from their actions.
06 Apr 21
@divegeester saidNo group can defend themselves against the prohibitions in the Bible by utilising the Bible.
Yes. That’s what I just said. Read it.
The reason for indulging in homosexual sex is irrelevant as far as the bible is concerned. It is the act which matters.
People born in any sexual condition, gender assignment, non gender assignment, pan, trans, poly, whatever... who DO NOT indulge in homosexual sex are irrelevant to this thread topic.
The Bible and all its nonsense has to be attacked for what it is a self contradictory pile of garbage for the most part. The idea that anyone should bother to defend themselves against the findings of a book that claims the world is only about 6 or 7 thousand years old is ludicrous.
The born that way argument is useful when Christians and others start to talk about what’s natural and what isn’t. If it occurs in nature then it’s natural by definition.
If some deluded individuals want to believe that a guy in an extravagant beard is going send another gay guy to hell then given that they are much more likely to be the product of nurture rather than nature I think their ramblings are mostly irrelevant.
06 Apr 21
@kevcvs57 saidOkay. I think you may be addressing your post me under a misunderstanding that I’m defending the victimisation of homosexuals. I’m simple pointing to what written in the Bible as being that which informs many Christians of what attitude to adopt with homosexuals.
No group can defend themselves against the prohibitions in the Bible by utilising the Bible.
The Bible and all its nonsense has to be attacked for what it is a self contradictory pile of garbage for the most part. The idea that anyone should bother to defend themselves against the findings of a book that claims the world is only about 6 or 7 thousand years old is ludicrous. ...[text shortened]... ikely to be the product of nurture rather than nature I think their ramblings are mostly irrelevant.