Thursday, October 20, 2011

A potpourri on homosexuality

A Facebook friend posted the graphic that appears to the left. I commented and a mêlée ensued.

Me
 Clever, though hetero cousins still anatomically fit together.



JT
 So do gay men... They just have to flip each other around. So if we go by what fits gay women are out but gay men are in? Rhology you have turned a new leaf of acceptance!


Me
 Ah, the disconnect here is that you apparently think that delicate membranes, easily torn, thus introducing fecal matter into the bloodstream = "anatomically fit". That's an interesting opinion.



Cason
 Use a condom


Me
 Ah, right, b/c that'll fix the tissue tearing. Great idea.
Better one - stick with God's design.



Cason
 ‎**rools eyes** God designed me too.....



Cason
 Here is something for you to go do in your spare time Rhology (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/westboro-announces-protest-steve-jobs-funeral-iphone-141530936.html)


Me
 Do you really think that anyone who believes that God designed us to be heterosexual is automatically equivalent to Westboro? Do you know that Westboro picketed my church?
Do you realise how offensive your ignorant comparison is?


Me
 And yes, God designed you. If you're saying "God made me gay", you're leaving out a really big part of what the Bible teaches, and that is that we all break God's law.
You have just now broken God's law by comparing someone you don't know to a group of extremely hateful people, just b/c I said something you don't like. What do you think you'll have to say to God when you stand before Him on your day of judgment? Have you ever considered that?


Cason
 I'll pray for you. God Bless


Me
 Cason, please believe that I harbor zero hatred for you but rather compassion and love. But you have to be told the truth.
"He who turns away his ear from listening to the law, Even his prayer is an abomination." - Proverbs 28:9



JT
 Rhology and how will you explain yourself, may take a while. Rhology, how can you misconsture my trachings so bad he will ask... What will your answer be? Anyways back to the tearing issue. Women tear also Rhology. It happens.



BF
 Sometimes people are unaware of how they come across to others. It happens. Perhaps you failed to realize that your words come out more like Westboro and less like Jesus. Just a thought.


Me
I'd take such criticisms more seriously if they demonstrated any recognition of the vast difference between how I speak and how Westboro speaks. You guys just sound like bigots, I'm sorry.



BF
 Case in point.


Me
 Indeed it is. Maybe you could point out precisely where I sound like WBC, and point out where WBC speaks in the same way. Make sure you're making selections that are relevant.
Does WBC ask questions like I did?



JT
 Its not what you say, Its the fact that everyone is wrong and you are right and you then talk down to people. Rhology, its scary you cant see that. Plus back to the original debate.. Women tear during sex so your point is irrelevant



BF
 I didn't say you sound like them. I said you are received like them, primarily for the reason JT stated. It's the belittling of others' opinions that gets to people. It's putting your opinion out there, with a provocative edge (perhaps to get people's attention) that matches their style. I'm not saying that Christians should never be provocative. I'm not saying that Christians should never point out the wrongs of others. I'm mostly wondering how it's working out for you. Are you reaching a lot of homosexuals? Have you seen a lot of conversions with your approach? Does what you are offering to others sound as gracious as it really is? Of course grace is not extended without justice, judgment or sacrifice on our part but are you effectively presenting the full package or just the judgment part?


Me
 I suppose that you don't think you're right and I'm wrong? Come on, JT.
And women tear rarely, whereas the anal tissue is much more fragile AND ALWAYS IS NEAR FECAL MATTER.


Me
 So you think I'm wrong but you're not belittling my opinion? You exhibit a double standard, probably for the simple fact that you don't like what I say. It's not that I say it badly or with hate, but you don't like it so you rip me. You can have that hypocrisy.
BTW, who posted this photo? Is this my photo?
You know nothing about my approach, BF. You don't talk to me about this, but you apparently feel qualified to judge me? OK.


Me
 Anyway, as for "reaching" them, you can either feed them a line of lies and they'll be happy (until they go to Hell) or you can tell the truth. YOu can't demonstrate that I trade in hate, so I don't know what you're mad about.


Me
 Finally, the proud and the unrepentant willl not listen to grace; they need to be convicted of sin first.



BF
 You and I can agree 100% on your last statement. I feel that it's best to rest on that. Hopefully I will be stripped of my pride before have to answer for it. I can only hope for the same or better for others.


Me
 It's our job to bring blessing to others by showing them their guilt before the Law of God before we extend to them the unspeakably amazing grace of Jesus.



JT
 What does fecal matter have to do with it. What about Urine. And does the tearing only occue less because of the freequencey and the body coping witht he situation. Much like a man on man. So all of my gay friends are going to hell? Because they cant choose who they like or are attracted to? Sounds like a design issue, might want to talk to the big guy on that one. God made us all in his image. So what does that say about God? Rhology when is the last time you ever thought you were wrong and maybe someone else was right. Oh wait you interpert the bible how you interpert it. Its not fact but interpertation after interpuertation!



Cason
 Any sins you care to confess Rhology?



Cason
 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7 NIV)


Me
 JT,
The anus is for elimination of waste, not for sexual contact. That's what it was designed for.
I already told you what fecal matter has to do with it. Are you paying attention or just arguing b/c you have emotional reactions to what the Bible says?

Tell you what, about your question "are all of my gay friends going to hell?" We've talked about these things numerous times. I don't care to repeat myself so many times, so let me ask you: what do you think I'll say in response to this question? Please surprise me by letting me know you actually do pay attention instead of just rail against God's law.

Let's say Jimmy were to come along and ask, "Hmm, what does JT's last comment mean?"
And Chris said, "It means he is eating tortillas and guacamole."

JT might later object and say "No, I was discussing homosexuality."
But that = "your specific interpretation of your comment". There are many, many readers who don't share your specific interpretation of your comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of your comment is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.


Me
 Cason, yes, I am a great sinner. I am a lustful and thus adulterous man. I covet things that aren't mine. I lie to my own advantage. I steal from others. I have been unjustifiably angry and thus am a murderer at heart. I am an idolater because I put things before God Almighty. I fail to honor my parents as I should, so I am a parricide.

Jesus has saved me because He is my only hope.

What are you trusting in? Are you better than I? Jesus said "Be perfect as My Father is perfect." Are you perfect? WHat will you tell God when you stand before Him to be judged?



Cason
 So, help me understand..... Do all sinners go to hell or just gay ones


Me
 All. Jesus is the only hope for anyone.



Cason
 None of us are without sin..... At least that's what I believe. If all this world has to do is worry about what Jim and Joe are doing in the bedroom then God help us all.



JT
 So fluids and urine in the bloodstream is ok but not fecal matter... Check! Ok so what if I cut myself and dirt gets in the blood stream. Is your only argument that fecal matter gets in the blodd stream? I bet a lof things get in the blood stream. My reaction is to how ridiclious some people are. How judging people who love everyone are. How a loving God is sending so many people to hell. Doenst sound very loving. You seem to be a homophob who thinks he is the end all be all when it comes to what God and Jesus want. Kinda Scary...



JF
This is a disgusting post... not because of homosexuality, but because of the intolerance thereof.



Cason
 So Anyone include "Rhology".....right?



JT
 Cason, its just the gay ones, your room is in the back witht he disco ball and the village people.



JF
 BF -- I'm disappointed in your early dismissal!


Me
 This is a disgusting post... not because of intolerance of homosexuality, but because of the intolerance of intolerance.


Me
 Cason, I believe I just explained what I meant. Are you reading or just trying to play a game?



JF
 oh... well touche Rhology. ha.



Cason
 Shiny disco balls!



JT
 Intolerance becasue we dont drop eveything and follow Rhology. You are one year away from having people drink Kool-Aid as the commet passes over... Seriously your not but your reaction to everyone else says that. No one is right but you


Me
 So, you can be intolerant but I can't. OK. Double standard again.


Me
 JT, that is false. You should be ashamed of yourself to talk that way.



JT
 Rhology, Do you think they choose to be or are they born that way


Me
 That question is unimportant and uninteresting. We are all sinners and we must all repent and belong to Jesus.



JF
 That question is unimportant and uninteresting.... to you.



JT
 I apologize Rhology, point is you act like you know it all and we are all wrong. You have never thought about what we say you just spew off what you heard in Church or read in a book..... Oh it is very important;


Me
 Why is it important?



JT
 Answer and you will see why


Me
 Read in "a" book? Is it just "a book", JT?



JT
 Well I want talking about just the Bible but yes it is just a book...Just like words are just words...



JT
 So Rhology answer my question please



Cason
 I was born this way...... I also have brown skin and brown eyes.... Nothing that I can change. I have a relationship with my God whom I call Jesus Christ. I have learned from my understanding that he loves all with an unimaginable measurement of love but hates all sin. "Love the sinner not the sin"



JT
 Rhology wont answer becasue if he does he knows the outcome.



Cason
 This is the written account of Adam's family line.
When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. (Genesis 5:1 NIV)


Me
 Cason,
What happened in between then and now? Specifically, Genesis 3.
Why did Jesus come to Earth?
ANd how do you know what you think you know about Jesus?


Me
 JT, if the BIble is just a book, how do know what you think you know about God and about humankind?



JT
 Rhology, Anser my question please. The bible is just a book. It does nothing. Its the words... The longest game of telephone ever...


Me
 JT, if the BIble is just a book, how do know what you think you know about God and about humankind?



JT
 So wait if it wasnt for the bible we wouldnt know anything about God and humankind. So before the bible what did they do



Cason
 It was breathed into me at the moment of my conception Along with my brown hair, skin, Gay ways. My life story along with my trials, tribulations, and the Facebook thread were already known from beginning to end. Jesus was sent to die for all sins up to and include homosexuality, murder, lieing, stealing, lustfull thoughts. His blood was shed for the sins of the world that include Cason, Rhology, JT, Neal, or Bob. I don't question your strong faith or your relationship with God. I do question why you think I am condemned to hell for my sins but you are not.



Cason
 What makes your Church and it's members any better than Westbrook, me, my church, or my beliefs?



Cason
 What makes you better than me?



Cason
 ‎"If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. (Matthew 18:6 NIV) ***Please don't cause me to stumble because I am a child of God.



BF
 ‎JF, I threw the towel in because Rhology is not going to stop just because I make valid points. He seems to be committed to a Crusade style of evangelism. It's unfortunate that people choose that style. It embarrasses me to be a Christian.



JF
 BF, I agree. 100%.


Me
 Cason, yes, Jesus died for sins. What did He say about how someone can benefit from that death?
And I have never said, nor implied, that I am better than you.
My church follows what the bible says. If yours does not, it does make my church better than yours, but that is by God's grace and not because of the people in it.

JF and BF, I am glad you enjoy your mutual back-patting. Maybe you could consider how different from Jesus and the apostles you are.


Me
 Cason, you said Jesus died for sin. How do you know what sin is? How do you think Jesus knew what sin was? How did he define it?


Me
 Finally, Cason, do you hate sin? Is homosexual sex a sin?



JT
 LOL Rhology why wont you answer my question? You know you will be backed in a corner. You follow your interpertation of the bible. You dont follow the bible. Jesus still loves you though. Homosexual sex is love between two people. Is all straight sex a sin? Once again we are back to who are you to judge, why cant you let people love each other the way they want to? I wish I could watch your life everyday and critize you as you critize and cast stones. Are you a homophobic? Or maybe you have feelings that scare you.


Me
 Told you why, JT. Why won't you answer mine?



JT
 Rhology I clearly asked you first... You ignore questions and ask questions... So are they born that way or is it a choice?

47 comments:

David said...

What's a mouth designed for? What's a hand designed for?

Rhology said...

Lots of things for each.
A hand is not designed for inserting into a meat grinder and turning on the grinder.

David said...

"Lots of things for each."

Bingo.

So maybe the argument that Part X is not "designed" for Part Y is not a very good one.

For example, is the female mouth designed for the insertion of a penis?

(Meat grinder? This is a body part?)

Rhology said...

Hmm, why restrict the question to intercompatibility of body parts and thus exclude discussion of meat grinders?

Your question is answerable two diff ways, depending on one's starting point.
1) ON ATHEISM, IN WHICH THERE IS NO DESIGN AND THUS NO GOAL/PURPOSE/TELOS
No, the "female" mouth is not designed for the insertion of a penis. It's not designed for anything.
ON CHRISTIANITY
No, it's not designed for that, which is not to say that it would be necessarily morally wrong for that purpose. But how can we know?

David said...

"Hmm, why restrict the question to intercompatibility of body parts and thus exclude discussion of meat grinders?"

Umm, because body parts are what you were discussing with respect to anal sex.


"ON ATHEISM..."

Huh? What? Your point? I was responding to a Christian's arguments here.


"ON CHRISTIANITY - No, it's not designed for that..."

So, we males shouldn't have oral sex with our female partners? If the mouth isn't designed for the insertion of the penis, then according to your anal argument, there is something horribly wrong with oral sex. After all, we should "stick with God's design".


"...Which is not to say that it would be necessarily morally wrong for that purpose."

Ah, but wait! We CAN use certain body parts in sex acts, even if these parts were NOT designed for these sex acts! The "design" of the mouth is irrelevant! Oral sex is ok after all! Whew!

So the "God's design" argument against anal sex is out the window. You cannot argue that an act is immoral on the basis of the body part's alleged design.

So, why bring alleged "design" into the discussion at all?

Rhology said...

If the mouth isn't designed for the insertion of the penis, then according to your anal argument, there is something horribly wrong with oral sex

"It's not designed for that" != "it's necessarily wrong to do"

Besides, I wasn't really responding to the interlocutors on Christian grounds.


You cannot argue that an act is immoral on the basis of the body part's alleged design.
So, why bring alleged "design" into the discussion at all?


B/c there's "not designed for" and then there's "runs directly against the design".
Since I didn't have these questions you're asking in mind when I first made that first comment, it wasn't specific enough, but I hope you'll take these further clarifications into account.

Anonymous said...

Ah, the disconnect here is that you apparently think that delicate membranes, easily torn, thus introducing fecal matter into the bloodstream = "anatomically fit".

You. Are. A. Genius.

David said...

"I hope you'll take these further clarifications into account."

Yes, your point is much clearer now. We do NOT have to "stick to God's design". We can do things with our bodies even if a given body part was not designed for what we are doing. Do I get it now?

"B/c there's "not designed for" and then there's "runs directly against the design"."

And certainly putting one's penis into meat grinder would be against design, right? Hey, you know what's good for grinding meat?

Teeth. In the female mouth. If there's one thing that the mouth is designed for, it's ginding meat.

Rhology said...

Oh, are teeth always engaged in mouth functionality?
Your point is in trouble.

David said...

"Oh, are teeth always engaged in mouth functionality? Your point is in trouble."

Don't really see the relevence. A mouth can be a very effective meat grinder, including at any point in time when it is filled by a penis.


Let's wrap this up.

First.

Anal sex can tear membranes.
Oral sex can shred the penis.
Vaginal sex can tear membranes, cause physical pain and lead to bladder infections (even if partners are monogamous and free of STDs).

In other words, ALL sex acts carry some physical risk because, in fact, we're NOT perfectly designed. You've tried to parse words by using phrases like "not designed for" and "runs directly against the design", but that's a dodge. In fact, all sex acts entail risk.


Second.

We've learned that we are permitted by God to do perform a given sex act even if a given body part was NOT designed by God for that act. We do NOT have to "stick to God's design".

Your call to "stick with God's design" is really just about the types of sex acts you like and the type sex acts you don't like.

Unless you're ready to give up oral sex, I would suggest that you avoid references to "sticking to God's design" yourself.

Rhology said...

Anal sex can tear membranes.

Very often does. And unintentionally.



Oral sex can shred the penis.

Does not very often, and if it does, it's intentional.



Vaginal sex can tear membranes, cause physical pain and lead to bladder infections

1) The vagina is designed for sex, among other things.
2) Not as often as anal sex.



because, in fact, we're NOT perfectly designed.

You need to argue for that, instead of just assert it.



We've learned that we are permitted by God to do perform a given sex act even if a given body part was NOT designed by God for that act.

And yet that's not the whole of the argument. The argument is that anal is extremely risky and entails a high level of dysteleology. Not the same.



Unless you're ready to give up oral sex

It's hardly a question of whether *I* am "ready" to "give up" anything.

David said...

With respect to the first part of your comments, you recognize that all sex involves physical risk. Good enough.

(By the way, a penis can get shredded UNintentionally, too. A mouth is a dangerous place to be.)


“You need to argue for that, instead of just assert it.”

Already did. See tearing, pain and infection. I wonder why God made sex physically risky?


“And yet that's not the whole of the argument.”

You said “stick with God’s design”. But you then you made it clear that we don’t’ have to stick with God’s design at all. Good thing that this is not the “whole of the argument, because this part of the argument is out the window. That’s the point.


"The argument is that anal is extremely risky and entails a high level of dysteleology. Not the same."

All sex is risky.

Dysteleology? What’s the point here? What is the telos of oral sex?


"It's hardly a question of whether *I* am "ready" to "give up" anything."

Yes, it is. If you’re going to argue that we should “stick with God’s design”, then you should not be having oral sex. Unless, of course, you don't really believe in what you are saying. Of maybe you just have a bad argument to begin with.

zilch said...

Even if we accept what rho thinks the Bible says, and what rho believes to be rational definitions of the teleology of various twiddly bits, and what rho considers to be acceptable levels of risk, I don't see any reason not to accept gay oral sex. Or is there?

Anonymous said...

And lesbians are off the hook as well, I would imagine.

Anonymous said...

Now that Rhology has gotten us thinking about it, I'm not even sure that straight vaginal intercourse is on the cards. I mean, if God had intended men to use their penises for sex at all, then surely retrograde ejaculation wouldn't exist?

zilch said...

And what about peeing your name in the snow? That's unlikely to be a telos for the human penis on any worldview. And you could get frostbite. Is it also forbidden?

Alex B said...

Alan, did you post this to proudly show how much of an intolerant homophobe you are? Cos I can't see any other reason beyond a perverse boasting at how bigoted you are.

Rhology said...

I wonder why God made sex physically risky?

Perhaps you've heard of a little sthg called sin and the Fall of Man...



You said “stick with God’s design”. But you then you made it clear that we don’t’ have to stick with God’s design at all.

I did? Where?
Or is it that I made some necessary nuanced distinctions and you're refusing to take them into acct?
Correct - it's the latter.



What is the telos of oral sex?

Um, pleasure.
Now, back to DYSteleology...


zilch:
I don't see any reason not to accept gay oral sex.

When I discuss God's design, I'm talking about God's design, on Christianity.
Under no circumstance are our bodies designed for any gay sexual contact. that would include lesbianism as well.
If you disagree, please let me know why ON CHRISTIANITY this is incorrect.
Don't start talking as if we're on the standpoint of atheism here. Atheism has no design and no purpose, so it is not true to say that a bodily structure is designed for ____ any more than it is true to say that that structure is NOT designed for ____.



And what about peeing your name in the snow? That's unlikely to be a telos for the human penis on any worldview.

You think that urination is not a designed usage of the penis? Um K.



Anonymous,

I mean, if God had intended men to use their penises for sex at all, then surely retrograde ejaculation wouldn't exist?

Perhaps you've heard of a little sthg called sin and the Fall of Man...

Alex B said...

Alan, are you a homophobe and bigot because you're a Christian, or were you attracted to Christianity due to a pre-existing leaning towards homophobia and bigotry?

Rhology said...

Neither.
Do you have some sort of moral problem with what I'm saying here? If so, what is it and how do you know it's morally wrong?

Alex B said...

"Neither."

Ah, so it was a happy coincidence that your douchebaggery and chosen religion happened to share key elements!

"Do you have some sort of moral problem with what I'm saying here?"

Yes, because you're passing judgement on other people whilst hiding behind the skirts of your non-existent god.

"If so, what is it and how do you know it's morally wrong?"

I know you want to tell other people what they should and shouldn't do. I know that homophobes like you have the blood of those who've died for the 'crime' of being born with a certain sexual orientation on your hands. I know that you're a sickening coward who'll proclaim anti gay hate and then quickly follow up with 'I'm telling you this in love' or 'It's not me, it's BIBLE TRUTH'. Simply, I know that you are a disgusting control freak and bigot.

zilch said...

Alex- the egg came before the chicken.

Rho- you say:

Under no circumstance are our bodies designed for any gay sexual contact. that would include lesbianism as well.

While I can imagine stretching "men lying with men" to refer to any male homosexuality, where are lesbians and/or what women do with their twiddly bits mentioned in Scripture? Chapter and verse, please.

Rhology said...

zilch,
Romans 1.

Alex,

If God does not exist, what precisely is wrong with passing judgment on other people? You seem to think it's OK because you're doing it to me, here and now.


I know you want to tell other people what they should and shouldn't do.

Aren't you telling me what I should and shouldn't do?
Are you telling me that I shouldn't be a disgusting control freak and bigot?

zilch said...

I guess you mean Romans 1:26:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature

I don't know about you, but I don't find this very specific. What exactly does "against nature" mean? Bonobo females rub their genitals together- that's natural, isn't it?

zilch said...

Oh, and David, to answer your first question:

What's a mouth designed for? What's a hand designed for?

Ask Ray Comfort. He'll tell you that a mouth is designed to eat bananas, and a hand is designed to hold them. Or is it the other way around?

Rhology said...

As far as "What is ___ designed for?" type questions, the answer is always: Ask the guy who made it.

David said...

"Perhaps you've heard of a little sthg called sin and the Fall of Man..."

So, anal sex was without risk before the Fall? Adam’s penis could not be shredded? No bacteria in the pre-Fall world? What a fantasy world you live in.

I love "The Fall". First you make the claim that God designed it all, and then when the flaws are pointed out to you, the answer is “the Fall”. It’s the all-purpose excuse for all of the flaws in the “design”.

So God designs a perfect universe that’s billions of light years across. It has trillions of stars with who knows how many planets circling those stars. On this one planet alone, we have millions of species of living things. And it's all totally perfect.

It’s all totally perfect until two individuals of a single species make one wrong choice…and God says “F*** it, I’m going to let it all go to hell, just because of these two idiots.” Yeah, that makes sense.


"Or is it that I made some necessary nuanced distinctions and you're refusing to take them into acct?"

Ah, so you realized that you were in trouble with your "stick to God's design" pronouncements, and so now you waffle and weave and bob. Fair enough. I'm going to have to rememeber the phrase "nuanced distincitions". Could come in handy next time I stick my foot in my mouth.


>What is the telos of oral sex?

"Um, pleasure."

Um, that sounds the telos of anal sex, too.


"Under no circumstance are our bodies designed for any gay sexual contact. that would include lesbianism as well."

What is the anatomical difference between a male mouth and a female mouth? If a mouth is designed for oral sex, then this holds for both male and female mouths. If it's not designed for sex, then using it for sex is NOT "sticking with God's design" and it's no more oral sex for you.

Rhology said...

Yeah, that makes sense.

You haven't given us any reason to think it doesn't.
There's nothing to respond to there, just bigotry.


Um, that sounds the telos of anal sex, too.

Which is why I referred you back to the question of DYSteleology. Sorry you're having trouble paying attention.


What is the anatomical difference between a male mouth and a female mouth?

Where did I claim there is one? You're the one limiting the question to anatomy, not me.

David said...

So, anal sex was without risk before the Fall? Adam’s penis could not be shredded? No bacteria in the pre-Fall world? What a fantasy world you live in.


"You haven't given us any reason to think it doesn't (make sense)."

You think this makes sense? How many reasons do you need to support the conclusion that the story of the Fall doesn't make sense?

My conclusion that this doesn't make sense has nothing to do with "bigotry". I simply cannot imagine anything dumber and more pointless than blowing up a perfect universe-wide creation because two individuals of a single species on a single planet did one thing "wrong". I put the whole damn universe in the hand of two humans? I have the power to create a perfect universe and I let two humans f*** it up? It really and truly does not make sense.


"Which is why I referred you back to the question of DYSteleology. Sorry you're having trouble paying attention."

Dysteleology is the philosophical view that existence has no telos or final cause from purposeful design. Right?

So, I asked, what is the telos of oral sex? What is the purposeful design of oral sex?

You said "pleasure". That was your entire answer.

Well, if "pleasure" counts as a telos or purpose, then anything that brings pleasure has a purpose and is not lacking in telos.


"You're the one limiting the question to anatomy, not me."

I believe that you are the one who raised the issue of anatomical design, not me. You are the one who is obsessed with the way body parts fit together and with tearing membranes and such. You are the one who says that we should "stick with God's (anatomical) design".

I understand that you now wish to change the subject.

Anonymous said...

The major problem here is that the purpose of our anatomical design can't be settled very easily. For example, childbirth brings with it a huge range of health risks to both mother and child - with a "natural" mortality rate at an estimated 1500 deaths per 100,000 births.

Does that mean that women weren't designed to have children? Rhology's argument suggests that this must be the case... yet I notice that he himself has been party to his own wife risking her life in this way. So are health risks an ummistakeable indicator that we are going against God's design, or not?

fish watkins said...

It's funny, because you are very comparable to Westboro. You base your beliefs off a system of fear-mongering and judgment. That's God's job to judge. Not yours asshole.

I'd also say that I actually respect Westboro more because they preach their message in the open. They don't hide behind pseudonyms and blogs. Like you. They're crazy and honestly pretty brave preaching their crazy hate, you're just crazy and a coward.

Rhology said...

They don't hide behind pseudonyms and blogs

Thanks for watching out for my integrity, "fish watkins".

Anonymous said...

It's a shame that you can spare the time to taunt fish watkins, Alan, but not spare the time to answer the critiques of your argument laid out above.

Rhology said...

You might read some of the earlier comments where I interacted extensively. I'm kinda bored with it, though, so I'm probably done here. And "taunting" "fish watkins" took 5 seconds.

Maybe you could take some time and answer, since David wasn't able to do so very well. take your own unique stab at it.

Alex B said...

"I'm kinda bored with it, though, so I'm probably done here."

Convenient, considering that your irrational and nonsensical homophobia has ended up with you backed into a corner from which you can't escape without looking very foolish indeed.

zilch said...

That's a new one on me, rho- the Argumentum ad taedium. Maybe I'll try it sometime when I don't have any good answers.

Anonymous said...

What am I supposed to be answering? I read through the comments, but I couldn't see any intelligible questions from you.

Anonymous said...

p.s. My own question to you was a pretty simple yes/no: are health risks an ummistakeable indicator that we are going against God's design, or not?

Rhology said...

No.

Anonymous said...

So why do you keep presenting it as if it's evidence for your position?

Anonymous said...

Because, you know, THAT WAS YOUR CENTRAL ARGUMENT IN THE ORIGINAL POST.

Rhology said...

Meh, not really.

Alex B said...

Once again, Alan is cornered and starts trying to deny what he said in the first place.

Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Your argument was that homosexual sex was inappropriate because homosexual (men) do not "anatomically fit together." When questioned as to what you meant, you said "that delicate membranes, easily torn, thus introducing fecal matter into the bloodstream" were not "anatomically fit" and that the only way to avoid such tissue tearing was to "stick with God's design".

Thus your central argument was that the generally accepted health risks of homosexual activity was evidence that such activity is against God's design. While you were easily distracted, you quickly returned to this theme, reminding us that "women tear rarely, whereas the anal tissue is much more fragile AND ALWAYS IS NEAR FECAL MATTER."

Of course, you then used this point to deliver some of your favourite lines of unrelated issues - intolerance of intolerance, zing! - but you were then happy to pursue it vigorously in the comments section. And of course this is not the first time you've deployed this argument - the argument from design is your standard argument when you are attacking homosexuality.

Since you seem to be terminally confused about what your argument is, however, perhaps you should avoid engaging in debates on the issue until you have a coherent position? It would save everybody else a lot of precious time.

Alex B said...

Oh dear , Alan, it would appear that Anonymous has torn YOUR delicate membrane and introduced fecal matter into your blood stream!

Chemist said...

Now that is funny!

Chemist said...

That was directed to the Argumentum ad taedium by Zilch. Don't know why it chopped the first part of the last comment.