Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Quote:Really?

Why did you cut off my statement? Here is the total statement I made:

"Nope. I have it and all the desires of my orientation because it is who I am just as a straight person's love for their soulmate is part of who they are."

Quote:So are you lying about this now, then, or are you on longer asexual? @_@

Where did I lie and say I don't have the capacity to love or all the desires of my orientation? I don't have to have sex to have desires.

Quote:You're the one specifically talking about preferences that are acted upon... otherwise you wouldn't be whining about Christians thinking the act is a sin.

I'm not the one claiming a gay orientation in itself is a sin. Christians are. Hence the turning of a matter of mere preference into a moral issue.

Quote:No one is talking about "forc[ing] them to be celibate." They're simply saying it is a sin. You're free to commit sins in a free country.

It's what they believe--that gay people are automatically sinful and "unsaved" simply for acting upon their orientation. The only way they can be saved is by giving it up. Which is forcing them to be celibate.

Quote:Jesus literally said that you must address your own sins (plank in your eye) before you can judge another's sins (speck in their eye).

Which doesn't mean you can now judge that person and condemn them. It means helping them overcome their particular problem. Big difference there. At no point was Jesus advocating judging others. That's why he was very clear: "Judge not that ye be not judged." Not "Judge not at first, but then wait awhile and you can judge them then." lol

(Sep 18, 2025 01:36 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]The first time that I heard about furries was on here from C_C. And now there’s this other term that I never heard about that’s associated with Charlie Kirk. It seems like the whole world has gone mad. 

I used to think it was clever to associate going down rabbit holes with quantum mechanics or whatnot, but nowadays, rabbit holes aren’t what they used to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groypers

Could you guys ease up on the all the weird shit for awhile? 

Sadly, I was already familiar with furries, from the internet. I had seen the word groyper, but wasn't aware of it's meaning until now.
Yes, the world has gone mad.

---

(Sep 18, 2025 01:41 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Really?

Why did you cut off my statement? Here is the total statement I made: 

Quote:You have said you don't act on it. Do you lack "the capacity for love" just because you don't have sex?

"Nope. I have it and all the desires of my orientation because it is who I am just as a straight person's love for their soulmate is part of who they are."

So you do have the capacity for love without having sex?
If so, that proves my point... that the act is not necessary.

Quote:

Quote:So are you lying about this now, then, or are you on longer asexual? @_@

Where did I lie and say I don't have the capacity to love or all the desires of my orientation? I don't have to have sex to have desires.

We've been talking about acting on preferences this whole time.
If you're asexual, have such preferences, and don't act on them, it proves my point... that the act is not necessary.

Quote:

Quote:You're the one specifically talking about preferences that are acted upon... otherwise you wouldn't be whining about Christians thinking the act is a sin.

I'm not the one claiming a gay orientation in itself is a sin. Christians are. Hence the turning of a matter of mere preference into a moral issue.

Wanting to molest children, hurt people, etc. are also preferences. Are these desires, even not acted upon, completely moral?
If so, are there any desires, at all, that you would deem immoral?

Quote:

Quote:No one is talking about "forc[ing] them to be celibate." They're simply saying it is a sin. You're free to commit sins in a free country.

It's what they believe--that gay people are automatically sinful and "unsaved" simply for acting upon their orientation. The only way they can be saved is by giving it up. Which is forcing them to be celibate.

Sinful, yes. Unsaved, no. You can be saved and still commit sin. Christians do it all the time. But if you're saved, you should be trying to fight your sinful nature. Many Christians fail at this as well.

Quote:

Quote:Jesus literally said that you must address your own sins (plank in your eye) before you can judge another's sins (speck in their eye).

Which doesn't mean you can now judge that person and condemn them. It means helping them overcome their particular problem. Big difference there. At no point was Jesus advocating judging others. That's why he was very clear: "Judge not that ye be not judged." Not "Judge not at first, but then wait awhile and you can judge them then." lol

"and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye" literally means then you can address another's sin.
You're "wait awhile" is an illiterate straw man.

Quote:So you do have the capacity for love without having sex?
If so, that proves my point... that the act is not necessary.

LOL I don't know of anyone who has a soulmate and who is in love with them that doesn't express that thru sex. The very suggestion that gays shouldn't do this is ludicrous. Again, it's why they call it SEXUAL orientation.

Quote:We've been talking about acting on preferences this whole time. Dodgy
If you're asexual, have such preferences, and don't act on them, it proves my point... that the act is not necessary.

You're the one that brought up the issue of a pedophile's preference, implying being gay is like that and is morally wrong simply for being a preference. Are you now backing off that? That there is only something morally wrong with being gay when it is acted upon?

Quote:Wanting to molest children, hurt people, etc. are also preferences. Are these desires, even not acted upon, completely moral?

Oh so now we are back again to just having a gay preference being morally wrong like pedophiles and sadists? In no case is the mere thought of doing something morally wrong. Immorality is a matter of actual actions.

Quote:Sinful, yes. Unsaved, no.

Nope..Christians are very clear about gay people not going the heaven. Unless they get washed with Jesus blood and become celibate. Which means not being who they innately are.

Quote:"and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye" literally means then you can address another's sin.

Helping someone overcome their problem isn't judging. In fact it is the exact opposite. You are not just sitting there accusing them of sin and condemning them. You are compassionately helping them out. Once again, "Judge not that ye be not judged."

(Sep 18, 2025 02:50 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:So you do have the capacity for love without having sex?
If so, that proves my point... that the act is not necessary.

LOL I don't know of anyone who has a soulmate and who is in love with them that doesn't express that thru sex. The very suggestion that gays shouldn't do this is ludicrous. Again, it's why they call it SEXUAL orientation.

Again, if you're really asexual, you prove my point. Or are you only asexual because you're an incel?

Quote:

Quote:We've been talking about acting on preferences this whole time. Dodgy
If you're asexual, have such preferences, and don't act on them, it proves my point... that the act is not necessary.

You're the one that brought up the issue of a pedophile's preference, implying being gay is like that and is morally wrong simply for being a preference. Are you now backing off that? That  there is only something morally wrong with being gay when it is acted upon?

I was refuting your blanket statement that a preference couldn't be a moral issue.
I never implied anything was like anything. You inferred it all on your own.

Quote:

Quote:Wanting to molest children, hurt people, etc. are also preferences. Are these desires, even not acted upon, completely moral?

Oh so now we are back again to just having a gay preference being morally wrong like pedophiles and sadists? In no case is the mere thought of doing something morally wrong. Immorality is a matter of actual actions.

I'm not "back again to just having a gay preference." You're the only one who keeps assuming there's an equivalence there. Freudian?
Of course you don't think any thoughts can be morally wrong, even murder, pedophilia, etc..

Mark 7:20-23 (ESV):
"And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person”.
Matthew 5:27-28 (NASB):
"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart".
Genesis 6:5:
"Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time

Quote:

Quote:Sinful, yes. Unsaved, no.

Nope..Christians are very clear about gay people not going the heaven. Unless they get washed with Jesus blood and become celibate. Which means not being who they innately are.

Now you're just cherry-picking very particular Christians, when that is not Biblical.
If an action, like sex, is "who they innately are," then you do seem to claim they are their actions... thus justifying your belief that the actions cannot be separated from the being.
This is not what the Bible teaches. So you're conflating your own beliefs.

Quote:

Quote:"and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye" literally means then you can address another's sin.

Helping someone overcome their problem isn't judging. In fact it is the exact opposite. You are not just sitting there accusing them of sin and condemning them. You are compassionately helping them out. Once again, "Judge not that ye be not judged."

Shame and judgement are very often needed motivators for changing ones behavior. This is exactly why the left does the cancel culture thing. They believe that shame and judgement has an impact on behavior.

And there's no accounting for the depth of your illiteracy.

Quote:Again, if you're really asexual, you prove my point. Or are you only asexual because you're an incel?

Prove what point? Be specific now..

Quote:I was refuting your blanket statement that a preference couldn't be a moral issue.
I never implied anything was like anything. You inferred it all on your own.

There's no other reason to bring up pedophiles other than showing how being gay is also an instance of an immoral preference. Are you now saying being gay is NOT an immoral preference? And how does this jibe with what Christians claim about gays?

Quote:I'm not "back again to just having a gay preference." You're the only one who keeps assuming there's an equivalence there. Freudian?

Why did you bring up pedophilia if not as an example of an immoral preference? Do you remember what you are arguing about?

Quote:Of course you don't think any thoughts can be morally wrong, even murder, pedophilia, etc..

Mark 7:20-23 (ESV):
"And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person”.
Matthew 5:27-28 (NASB):
"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart".
Genesis 6:5:
"Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time

Which totally proves my point that Christians view being gay as immoral even without being acted out. Fortunately ethical theory has progressed a little since 2000 yrs ago and most people nowadays don't judge others as doing bad things just by thinking of or fantasizing about them. That's the difference between thoughts and actions.

Quote:Now you're just cherry-picking very particular Christians, when that is not Biblical.
If an action, like sex, is "who they innately are," then you do seem to claim they are their actions... thus justifying your belief that the actions cannot be separated from the being.

For every hundred denominations of Christians there a hundred interpretations of the Bible. But by far the most common view among them regarding sodomites is that the gay sexual orientation is itself immoral and sinful and damning. Hence all the bogus claims by certain groups to be able to cure them of their sinful desires thru the power of Jeebus and "conversion therapy."

Quote:Shame and judgement are very often needed motivators for changing ones behavior.

On the contrary shame and judgement and stigma are the ultimate demotivating factors, enslaving poor souls with guilt and self-contempt to the point that they are helpless and miserable and in need of Jesus blood. Hence again: "Judge not that yet be not judged."

Is it possible conservatives just don't like homosexuals? Nothing to do with what Jesus or god thought or said (though anything they can find is a bonus).. but basically they just don't like 'em.

Religion: Made by Sociopaths to manipulate others to do their bidding, the way they say.

Thus quotes of Religious texts hold absolutely no grounds for "Generalist-Specialist" morality or law.

(Sep 18, 2025 10:47 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]Is it possible conservatives just don't like homosexuals? Nothing to do with what Jesus or god thought or said (though anything they can find is a bonus).. but basically they just don't like 'em.

Plenty of conservatives were fine with Milo Yiannopoulos (who supported Trump in his first election) and seem to like Dave Rubin (who has a show on Glenn Beck's conservative media outlet The Blaze). Plenty of conservative pundits/commenters are friends with Rubin. I haven't see any backlash from their audiences over it, because conservatives are largely "live and let live." But when you start having public "pride" parades and redefining marriage, that becomes a public matter.

---

(Sep 18, 2025 11:18 AM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]Religion: Made by Sociopaths to manipulate others to do their bidding, the way they say.

Thus quotes of Religious texts hold absolutely no grounds for "Generalist-Specialist" morality or law.

Yes, the common law, particularly in England and its former colonies like the United States, historically had significant religious foundations, drawing heavily on Christian philosophy and principles until at least the early 19th century. Influential jurists and legal thinkers, informed by their Christian faith, integrated concepts such as natural law, presumption of innocence, due process, and equality before the law into the common law system.
- Google AI

9_9

Quote: drawing heavily on Christian philosophy and principles until at least the early 19th century.

Clearly meaning that as of the 19th century common law does not draw heavily from Christian philosophy and principles. Hence the separation of church and state, free speech, LGBT rights, the banning of slavery, etc.

(Sep 18, 2025 04:59 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Again, if you're really asexual, you prove my point. Or are you only asexual because you're an incel?

Prove what point? Be specific now..

Can't suss out simple English, huh?
In crayon: if_you_can_love_without_sex_it_proves_that_the_act_is_not_necessary.

Again, unless you're an incel, in which case you don't have any choice in the matter.

Quote:

Quote:I was refuting your blanket statement that a preference couldn't be a moral issue.
I never implied anything was like anything. You inferred it all on your own.

There's no other reason to bring up pedophiles other than showing how being gay is also an instance of an immoral preference. Are you now saying being gay is NOT an immoral preference? And how does this jibe with what Christians claim about gays?

I just told you the reason, no matter how much your paranoia is kicking in.

Quote:

Quote:I'm not "back again to just having a gay preference." You're the only one who keeps assuming there's an equivalence there. Freudian?

Why did you bring up pedophilia if not as an example of an immoral preference? Do you remember what you are arguing about?

See above.^

Quote:

Quote:Of course you don't think any thoughts can be morally wrong, even murder, pedophilia, etc..

Mark 7:20-23 (ESV):
"And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person”.
Matthew 5:27-28 (NASB):
"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart".
Genesis 6:5:
"Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time

Which totally proves my point that Christians view being gay as immoral even without being acted out. Fortunately ethical theory has progressed a little since 2000 yrs ago and most people nowadays don't judge others as doing bad things just by thinking of or fantasizing about them. That's the difference between thoughts and actions.

Who said they don't? @_@
The bandwagon fallacy is not a moral/ethical argument.

Quote:

Quote:Now you're just cherry-picking very particular Christians, when that is not Biblical.
If an action, like sex, is "who they innately are," then you do seem to claim they are their actions... thus justifying your belief that the actions cannot be separated from the being.

For every hundred denominations of Christians there a hundred interpretations of the Bible. But by far the most common view among them regarding sodomites is that the gay sexual orientation is itself immoral and sinful and damning. Hence all the bogus claims by certain groups to be able to cure them of their sinful desires thru the power of Jeebus and "conversion therapy."

Again...
Sinful, yes. Damning, no. There is only one unforgivable sin. It isn't homosexuality.

Quote:

Quote:Shame and judgement are very often needed motivators for changing ones behavior.

On the contrary shame and judgement and stigma are the ultimate demotivating factors, enslaving poor souls with guilt and self-contempt to the point that they are helpless and miserable and in need of Jesus blood. Hence again: "Judge not that yet be not judged."

Without shame and judgement (even if only your own judgement that you need to change) there is zero reason to change.