It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Montrovant]

Do you actually not comprehend that homosexuality is 'being gay' and not having sexual relations?

No, homosexuality is the sexual attraction to same gender. It does not imply an act.

Right.....I said homosexuality is being gay and not having sexual relations. Being gay is being attracted to the same gender.

You didn't say anything, you asked me: Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not?

There is no activity implied by an attraction. As I said, I know people who have been gay for 30 years and haven't engaged in homosexual behavior. You seem to not be able to distinguish between attraction and behavior. It's as if you think gay people only have one way they can possibly behave and they can't control that urge... so we have to change society to allow them to behave that way in order to have "fairness" or whatever. We do not accommodate ANY other sexual behavior this way, including heterosexual! In ALL other cases, we understand that people can control their sexual urges and modify their behavior accordingly... except the homosexuals.

You conveniently ignore the quote from you that began this. Here, I'll repeat it for you again :

What makes homosexuality something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it? How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?

Note in the second sentence you use the pronoun 'this'. What does this mean in context? Well, when we go back to the first sentence to look, it appears 'this' means homosexuality. So you are calling homosexuality a "rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity". Since you had just talked about a celibate homosexual, I questioned what your view actually is on the subject. You've made two rather contradictory statements. In one you describe a celibate homosexual, in another you describe homosexuality as a promiscuous sexual activity.

Now, if when you said 'this' in the second sentence you meant something else, but didn't provide the noun for which that pronoun is being used, fine. You can feel free to tell me that what you actually meant was that homosexual sex is a promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity. That is not, however, what you actually said, and is the reason I questioned your statements.

Oh, and I did say something. I said, as you quoted, "homosexuality is 'being gay' and not having sexual relations". I should have inserted the word 'is' in there to be clearer, so let me restate: Homosexuality is 'being gay' and is not having sexual relations.

I can easily distinguish between attraction and behavior. As someone who is repeatedly unable to distinguish between consensual and non-consensual relationships, you aren't exactly one to talk.

What accommodation for homosexuals are you so opposed to. Is it just marriage? I find it hard to believe that if the Obergefell ruling had gone another way you would be perfectly happy with the way the law and society treat homosexuals. You have a lot of hostility toward homosexuals in your posts. But as far as marriage is concerned, it is not sexual behavior which has been accommodated, it is attraction. Are you having trouble comprehending the difference?

 

[Montrovant]

Oh dear, do you actually not comprehend there is a difference between "being gay" and having homosexual relations?

It is impossible to actually talk sense with those suffering from OCD.

See nobody (other them then) can possibly use the excuse they were born the way they were.

What are you talking about now? Is that somehow supposed to relate to the conversation between me and Boss? I don't recall anything about people being born the way they are involved.

Homosexuals do indeed claim they were born the way they were.

Some do, certainly. I haven't made any claims about that, nor Boss that I recall. So again, is that supposed to relate to the conversation you're interjecting yourself into in some way?

There indeed was conversation as to who claims justification for their acts, and what they claim that justification is.

Thanks for providing quotes to that conversation when commenting on it. Oh, wait....

 

[Pop23]

It is impossible to actually talk sense with those suffering from OCD.

See nobody (other them then) can possibly use the excuse they were born the way they were.

What are you talking about now? Is that somehow supposed to relate to the conversation between me and Boss? I don't recall anything about people being born the way they are involved.

Homosexuals do indeed claim they were born the way they were.

Some do, certainly. I haven't made any claims about that, nor Boss that I recall. So again, is that supposed to relate to the conversation you're interjecting yourself into in some way?

There indeed was conversation as to who claims justification for their acts, and what they claim that justification is.

Thanks for providing quotes to that conversation when commenting on it. Oh, wait....

And, we've been following the thread a long time, if you can't keep up......

Maybe you were born that way?

 

[easyt65]

No, it's easier to KILL homosexuals, like the countrues Hillary is taking money from do....

 

[Boss]

Do you actually not comprehend that homosexuality is 'being gay' and not having sexual relations?

No, homosexuality is the sexual attraction to same gender. It does not imply an act.

Right.....I said homosexuality is being gay and not having sexual relations. Being gay is being attracted to the same gender.

You didn't say anything, you asked me: Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not?

There is no activity implied by an attraction. As I said, I know people who have been gay for 30 years and haven't engaged in homosexual behavior. You seem to not be able to distinguish between attraction and behavior. It's as if you think gay people only have one way they can possibly behave and they can't control that urge... so we have to change society to allow them to behave that way in order to have "fairness" or whatever. We do not accommodate ANY other sexual behavior this way, including heterosexual! In ALL other cases, we understand that people can control their sexual urges and modify their behavior accordingly... except the homosexuals.

You conveniently ignore the quote from you that began this. Here, I'll repeat it for you again :

What makes homosexuality something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it? How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?

Note in the second sentence you use the pronoun 'this'. What does this mean in context? Well, when we go back to the first sentence to look, it appears 'this' means homosexuality. So you are calling homosexuality a "rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity". Since you had just talked about a celibate homosexual, I questioned what your view actually is on the subject. You've made two rather contradictory statements. In one you describe a celibate homosexual, in another you describe homosexuality as a promiscuous sexual activity.

First of all, those are questions and not sentences. Second of all, the pronoun "this" in a completely different sentence has nothing to do with the subject of the previous sentence. In proper contextual grammar, the pronoun is applied to the subject of the actual sentence it appears in.. "promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity." (aka: "this homosexual activity")

Now, if when you said 'this' in the second sentence you meant something else, but didn't provide the noun for which that pronoun is being used, fine. You can feel free to tell me that what you actually meant was that homosexual sex is a promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity. That is not, however, what you actually said, and is the reason I questioned your statements.

No, as we see, you are attempting to be your usual and typical obtuse self. Instead of answering my questions you attempt to play liberal grammar nazi and fail all over the place because you're applying pronouns from one sentence to subjects of another sentence like an illiterate moron. It is for this reason that I fail to ever have a legitimate dialogue with you and have contemplated simply putting you on ignore rather than having to constantly correct your errors and misinterpretations.

Oh, and I did say something.

No, you asked a question. You didn't say anything.

I can easily distinguish between attraction and behavior.

No, I don't think you can. I think you are a simple-minded illiterate who can't comprehend basic 3rd grade grammar. You don't seem to know what the difference is between a question and a statement, you don't seem to understand the purpose of punctuation, and you damn sure don't seem to comprehend context.

 

[Montrovant]

Do you actually not comprehend that homosexuality is 'being gay' and not having sexual relations?

No, homosexuality is the sexual attraction to same gender. It does not imply an act.

Right.....I said homosexuality is being gay and not having sexual relations. Being gay is being attracted to the same gender.

You didn't say anything, you asked me: Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not?

There is no activity implied by an attraction. As I said, I know people who have been gay for 30 years and haven't engaged in homosexual behavior. You seem to not be able to distinguish between attraction and behavior. It's as if you think gay people only have one way they can possibly behave and they can't control that urge... so we have to change society to allow them to behave that way in order to have "fairness" or whatever. We do not accommodate ANY other sexual behavior this way, including heterosexual! In ALL other cases, we understand that people can control their sexual urges and modify their behavior accordingly... except the homosexuals.

You conveniently ignore the quote from you that began this. Here, I'll repeat it for you again :

What makes homosexuality something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it? How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?

Note in the second sentence you use the pronoun 'this'. What does this mean in context? Well, when we go back to the first sentence to look, it appears 'this' means homosexuality. So you are calling homosexuality a "rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity". Since you had just talked about a celibate homosexual, I questioned what your view actually is on the subject. You've made two rather contradictory statements. In one you describe a celibate homosexual, in another you describe homosexuality as a promiscuous sexual activity.

First of all, those are questions and not sentences. Second of all, the pronoun "this" in a completely different sentence has nothing to do with the subject of the previous sentence. In proper contextual grammar, the pronoun is applied to the subject of the actual sentence it appears in.. "promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity." (aka: "this homosexual activity")

Now, if when you said 'this' in the second sentence you meant something else, but didn't provide the noun for which that pronoun is being used, fine. You can feel free to tell me that what you actually meant was that homosexual sex is a promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity. That is not, however, what you actually said, and is the reason I questioned your statements.

No, as we see, you are attempting to be your usual and typical obtuse self. Instead of answering my questions you attempt to play liberal grammar nazi and fail all over the place because you're applying pronouns from one sentence to subjects of another sentence like an illiterate moron. It is for this reason that I fail to ever have a legitimate dialogue with you and have contemplated simply putting you on ignore rather than having to constantly correct your errors and misinterpretations.

Oh, and I did say something.

No, you asked a question. You didn't say anything.

I can easily distinguish between attraction and behavior.

No, I don't think you can. I think you are a simple-minded illiterate who can't comprehend basic 3rd grade grammar. You don't seem to know what the difference is between a question and a statement, you don't seem to understand the purpose of punctuation, and you damn sure don't seem to comprehend context.

So a question is not a sentence? And you have the gall to question my literacy? Here, let me help you out : the definition of sentence

When you say 'this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity' it still begs the question what promiscuous and self-indulgent activity? To find out, since it isn't stated in that sentence, we have to look elsewhere. In the case of your post, it was in the previous sentence where you talked about homosexuality. Let me paraphrase so it's easier for you to understand. "What makes homosexuality so important? How does this sexual activity overcome boundaries?" Can you see how the phrase 'this sexual activity' in the second sentence is clearly referencing homosexuality from the first sentence? Put another way, without any context, "How does this sexual activity overcome boundaries?" would make no sense. It doesn't explain what sexual activity it is talking about. Or how about I give you an entirely different example. If I said, "I love ice cream. This food is both delicious and healthier than many other desserts.", would you not know that the phrase 'this food' in the second sentence is referencing ice cream from the first?

The reason you fail to have legitimate dialogue is you are a dishonest, hypocritical, bigoted ass who usually refuses to admit any error. I answer your questions repeatedly. You have failed to answer many of mine and others'. You can feel free to put me on ignore, obviously. Maybe someone easier for you to argue with won't bring out your bigotry and hypocrisy so much. Perhaps other posters will simply not mention your blatant lies. Of course, considering you've had multiple other posters point out your lies in this and the killing homosexual marriage thread, maybe not.

I have to wonder if perhaps the reason you think I am not answering your questions has anything to do with your not realizing a sentence can be a question.

 

[Boss]

So a question is not a sentence?

No, it's a question. A sentence is a sentence. It's why there are two different words.

 

[Boss]

When you say 'this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity' it still begs the question what promiscuous and self-indulgent activity? To find out, since it isn't stated in that sentence, we have to look elsewhere.

No, you have to look elsewhere because you are too illiterate to follow context. The sentence is not incomplete. You simply read it as incomplete and then went searching for meaning from other sentences to find a context that was never stated, then you assumed you must be correct. You weren't correct, you missed the context of the sentence. You compounded your error by making a wrong assumption. Now you've wasted a lot of time arguing about what you thought I meant.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Morality has two different definitions .
One refers to the principles of right and wrong. By this definition I can't see where is the moral fault: no one gets harmed in the act of having two same sex persons engaged .
On the other hand rejecting them because of their preferences does harm them, THAT is moraly incorrect and probably as ridiculous as rejecting someone because he splits eggs by the little end.*

Because homosexuality is sexual depravity. It's pervasiveness destroys family which is the cornerstone of society, thus it contributes to destroying society. We reject all manner of sexual behavior that doesn't harm us personally. Why is that "morally correct" in some cases and not in others? There is no difference, you've drawn an imaginary moral line one place and I've drawn it somewhere else but we've both drawn a moral line.

Why do you think it is that we expect people to control their sexual urges when it comes to all the assorted -philias, but not for homosexuality? Why do we run around changing definitions and modifying our laws to accommodate the sexual urges of one group to the exclusion of all others? We don't excuse pedophilia by reasoning they were just born that way and there is nothing they can do about it, so we must accept their sexual behavior and find a way to accommodate it in the name of their rights. We don't surmise that the exhibitionist isn't "harming anyone" by exposing themselves to others in public, therefore we have to accept their sexual deviancy and change all our laws to accommodate it. In virtually ALL other instances, including basic normal heterosexual behaviors, we expect people to be able to control their sexual urges.. .we're not monkeys in the zoo.

Arguably pedophiles do harm someone else, so I can't consider that a valid argument.
An exhibicionist, hmm not sure Boss, nude beaches and strip clubs seem to be ok, because people going to those places know what they will see, whereas in the rest of public places the "default" assumption is you don't conscent to it. So, yes, I'd be even inclined to accept that if there is a previous concensus on that topic ( is it acceptable to go naked in the streets ).Some societies do that, I guess it's a matter of concensus.

On my morality scale running nude in a street is a minor moral offense, drunk driving is much more dangerous and serios from my view point. That doesn't make an argument to forbid alcohol, but rather to have controls to avoid drunk driving.

But again... all those things are dealt with by society having a collaboration of opinion to form a policy we can all live with. We don't run around getting our 5 judges to rule something upon us and to hell with what the opposition thinks.

Drunk driving is yet another area where we apply an arbitrary moral judgement on what constitutes a crime and what is acceptable. I've known people so uncoordinated they didn't need to be driving sober, much less under the influence. I've also known people who could be 3-sheets and out-drive Richard Petty. This is something that varies between individuals but society has collectively come together to establish a "moral based" point at which something becomes "intolerable" by law. People's entire lives might be ruined by .0001 amount in a blood alcohol test.... is that "fair" for us to destroy someone over? We've decided... yes, in order to ensure people don't do this behavior, we can make this law.

You have your view, I have my view, the guy down the street has his view. We all have a view and they aren't all the same... and that's okay. It doesn't mean someone is terrible or awful people, they simply have a different view.

Fair enough ,
I have one more story to share given my background as a computer scientist. Alan Turing , one of the fathers of computer science was completely gay. Arguably he played a crucial role in intercepting nazi coded messages and significantly reducing the duration of the war.
Eventually he admited his homosexuallity. This lead to a series of rather nasty events : he was tried for indecency, chemically castrated (his choice instead of prision ) forbiden to continue his work as a cryptographer and was denied entry into the U.S.
He should have been treated as a hero, not as a second class criminal.
It does hurt me that anyone is treated in such manner, specially when he is a young and tallented person. So while I am not particularly fond of what could be called the "gay movement", I do honestly think everyone should have the right to live their lives and their sexuallity as they best see fit.

Alan Turing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Montrovant]

So a question is not a sentence?

No, it's a question. A sentence is a sentence. It's why there are two different words.

Did you miss the link I provided with the definition of sentence? A sentence can be a statement, a question, an exclamation, etc..

This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if you are actually just trolling sometimes. A sentence can be a question. I have provided you with proof that a sentence can be a question. It is a very basic fact. Yet here you are, continuing to deny it despite the clear evidence.

It would be like me telling you a dog is a canine and you replying, "No, it's a dog. A canine is a canine. It's why there are two different words.".

I can admit that I misread your post. I've explained why it gave me the wrong impression. If you can't even admit something as simple as that a sentence can be a question, you obviously have no intention or ability to accept any hint you might be mistaken about anything.

 

[Boss]

Did you miss the link I provided with the definition of sentence? A sentence can be a statement, a question, an exclamation, etc..

Yes, and none of that changes the fact that a question is still a question.

Is there some point to all of this? Is this "argument" going to rage on for days or weeks? Here we are, about 24 hrs. removed from the post where I asked you two questions. Instead of answering them, you decided to play "untrained grammar monkey." Apparently, you had still rather play games and obfuscate than answer my questions. By the way, my next post had another several questions you've avoided as well.

And I have noticed this is a recurring pattern with you. Things are taken completely out of context, in fact, the very post you are now myopically nit picking over my choice of words, was to correct one of your many false assumptions about what had actually been said. You accused me of "equating homosexuals with monkeys" which is false, I never made any such claim. In the midst of trying to untangle the mess you've created with context and your lack of ability to grasp it, you decide to start playing grammar nazi, and doing so badly. Then you waste a day whining about some meaningless point that you've failed at making. Typical of you.

I'm going to tell you this in hopes you will modify your behavior going forward... If you cannot stop this silly myopic game playing and obfuscation, this nit-picky and obtuse "cleverness" you think you're exhibiting, I am going to put you on ignore and never speak to you again. That's not a threat, it's a promise. This kind of shit is NOT going to continue. You can either grow the fuck up and engage in meaningful conversation with me, or you can render yourself irrelevant, it's up to you. Now... maybe this will prompt you to be defiantly bold and proclaim you don't really care... that's fine, just know that the next time you drag a thread off-topic to nit pick something this way, you're done and we're never speaking again.

 

[Montrovant]

Did you miss the link I provided with the definition of sentence? A sentence can be a statement, a question, an exclamation, etc..

Yes, and none of that changes the fact that a question is still a question.

Is there some point to all of this? Is this "argument" going to rage on for days or weeks? Here we are, about 24 hrs. removed from the post where I asked you two questions. Instead of answering them, you decided to play "untrained grammar monkey." Apparently, you had still rather play games and obfuscate than answer my questions. By the way, my next post had another several questions you've avoided as well.

And I have noticed this is a recurring pattern with you. Things are taken completely out of context, in fact, the very post you are now myopically nit picking over my choice of words, was to correct one of your many false assumptions about what had actually been said. You accused me of "equating homosexuals with monkeys" which is false, I never made any such claim. In the midst of trying to untangle the mess you've created with context and your lack of ability to grasp it, you decide to start playing grammar nazi, and doing so badly. Then you waste a day whining about some meaningless point that you've failed at making. Typical of you.

I'm going to tell you this in hopes you will modify your behavior going forward... If you cannot stop this silly myopic game playing and obfuscation, this nit-picky and obtuse "cleverness" you think you're exhibiting, I am going to put you on ignore and never speak to you again. That's not a threat, it's a promise. This kind of shit is NOT going to continue. You can either grow the fuck up and engage in meaningful conversation with me, or you can render yourself irrelevant, it's up to you. Now... maybe this will prompt you to be defiantly bold and proclaim you don't really care... that's fine, just know that the next time you drag a thread off-topic to nit pick something this way, you're done and we're never speaking again.

Oooo, you'll put me on ignore! For doing the things you constantly do.......your hypocrisy never ends.

You said

First of all, those are questions and not sentences.

When I asked you if a question is not a sentence, you replied like this

No, it's a question. A sentence is a sentence. It's why there are two different words.

What you wrote and what I was talking about were sentences. Those sentences were questions, but still sentences. Had you just been willing to say, "Oops, you're right, my bad" this would have ended long ago. Instead, you refuse to admit any error. Maybe you meant a statement is not a question. Hey, everyone screws up sometimes. I've already told you I misread what you said that started this little side-bar. Why can't you just do the same?
I've noticed it's a recurring pattern with you. Make mistaken statements or tell outright lies, have them called out, then refuse to admit them or simply ignore them.

You have made any number of comparisons between homosexuals and other things. Pedophiles, necrophiliacs, monkeys, etc.. You then attempt to say those comparisons belong to other posters, despite the fact no one but you is saying those things.

Again, you should think about not calling someone a 'grammar nazi' when you are telling them a sentence can't be a question.

You never answered how Alabama recognizing common law marriage, a non-licensed form of marriage, jibes with your contention that removing licensing removes state recognition of marriage.

You never answered whether two unrelated people can get a non-marriage contract and become recognized as immediate family members by the state.

There are plenty of questions you have left unanswered. But you're going to put me on ignore if I don't answer all of yours?

Taking things out of context, not grasping what someone is saying? You've claimed I think homosexuals cannot control their sexual urges. I've never said nor implied any such thing, in fact I've stated the opposite.

What questions have I left unanswered? Why homosexuality requires a change in society? I don't think society is required to do anything. I think that societal views change over time and the condemnation of homosexuality is one of those things. More and more people have come to the conclusion that if two consensual adults love each other, or even just want to have sexual relations together, that's not a big deal. More and more people think that two consensual adults, whatever their genders, should be able to be legally married. I also don't think society has changed radically in being more accepting of homosexuality. Marriage has, but what constitutes marriage is one small aspect of society and, in this case, will only apply to a small percentage of the population. As far as the SCOTUS ruling, a majority of the court found that same sex marriage bans did not fill a compelling state interest in denying equal protection under the law. You clearly disagree with that decision, but USSC decisions are not up for popular vote. If enough people disagree they can push for a new constitutional amendment. It's the same for any USSC ruling, whoever may disagree with it.

Anything else? Do you want me to break down your silly questions regarding consent? Do I need to once again talk about the difference between two adults consenting to a relationship and pedophilia, or necrophilia, or bestiality? Do you want me to discuss each individual age of consent law? Do I need to again say that age of consent laws can change and are not specific to the individual? Whatever questions I answer, you're going to be upset, because I will continue to point out when you lie, when you make ridiculous comparisons (even if you try to attribute them to others), I will continue to point out your hypocrisy and your denigration of homosexuals. Put me on ignore if you must, I can't change how thin your skin may be.

 

[Pop23]

English lit class????^^^^^

 

[Syriusly]

Did you miss the link I provided with the definition of sentence? A sentence can be a statement, a question, an exclamation, etc..

Yes, and none of that changes the fact that a question is still a question.

God- when will you strap on a pair of balls and own up to your own mistake instead of lying about them?

Boss: First of all, those are questions and not sentences.

As Montrovant correctly pointed out- those were sentences- that were questions.

He pointed out your error- and rather than admitting you just made an error, you dance around and pretend you never said your mistake.

 

[Syriusly]

Did you miss the link I provided with the definition of sentence? A sentence can be a statement, a question, an exclamation, etc..

I'm going to tell you this in hopes you will modify your behavior going forward... If you cannot stop this silly myopic game playing and obfuscation, this nit-picky and obtuse "cleverness" you think you're exhibiting, I am going to put you on ignore and never speak to you again. That's not a threat, it's a promise. .

Can you promise that to all of us who post responses to your BS like your OP?

Personally I love it when folks are so upset about my responses that they feel compelled to use technology to prevent having to see the words.

Of course I still get to respond to your BS. And you will just let my responses stand unchallenged- which will be fine- I love getting the last word.

 

[Pop23]

Did you miss the link I provided with the definition of sentence? A sentence can be a statement, a question, an exclamation, etc..

I'm going to tell you this in hopes you will modify your behavior going forward... If you cannot stop this silly myopic game playing and obfuscation, this nit-picky and obtuse "cleverness" you think you're exhibiting, I am going to put you on ignore and never speak to you again. That's not a threat, it's a promise. .

Can you promise that to all of us who post responses to your BS like your OP?

Personally I love it when folks are so upset about my responses that they feel compelled to use technology to prevent having to see the words.

Of course I still get to respond to your BS. And you will just let my responses stand unchallenged- which will be fine- I love getting the last word.

^^^^ must love talking to himself

 

[Boss]

What you wrote and what I was talking about were sentences.

No, what I wrote were questions you called "sentences" and tried to apply some kind of weird Marxist sentence diagram upon.. Borrowing from one according to ability and giving to another according to need. I pointed out; "first of all, those are questions." As in... those are not "just sentences" but rather, questions, which you have not answered. You failed to grasp context, just like you did in the other sentence you were obsessing on... just like you do in so many instances.

I do not have the time or patience to break down every nuance of context you miss and then decide to derail the conversation over. If you can't control this behavior you are going to be ignored by me. I have given you fair warning this is going to happen the next instance and I will not continue to put up with it. If you don't want to take me seriously and you want to try and test me, you're going to find that I am a person who means what he says.

 

[Boss]

What questions have I left unanswered? Why homosexuality requires a change in society?

Again... not the question I asked.

What makes homosexuality (in particular) something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it?

How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity(homosexual behavior) somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?

As anyone can clearly see, I am not simply asking why homosexuality requires a change in society.

 

[Montrovant]

What you wrote and what I was talking about were sentences.

No, what I wrote were questions you called "sentences" and tried to apply some kind of weird Marxist sentence diagram upon.. Borrowing from one according to ability and giving to another according to need. I pointed out; "first of all, those are questions." As in... those are not "just sentences" but rather, questions, which you have not answered. You failed to grasp context, just like you did in the other sentence you were obsessing on... just like you do in so many instances.

I do not have the time or patience to break down every nuance of context you miss and then decide to derail the conversation over. If you can't control this behavior you are going to be ignored by me. I have given you fair warning this is going to happen the next instance and I will not continue to put up with it. If you don't want to take me seriously and you want to try and test me, you're going to find that I am a person who means what he says.

You've had this quoted to you on multiple occasions, but I'll do it again to highlight your lie.

First of all, those are questions and not sentences.

You clearly say they are not sentences. You did not say they are not just sentences.

You clearly often do not mean what you say, but rather mean something else entirely. Apparently when you say something is not a sentence what you mean is it is not just a sentence.

Again, if my pointing out your errors and lies is too damaging to your fragile ego, put me on ignore. It won't ruin my day.

 

[Montrovant]

What questions have I left unanswered? Why homosexuality requires a change in society?

Again... not the question I asked.

What makes homosexuality (in particular) something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it?

How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity(homosexual behavior) somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?

As anyone can clearly see, I am not simply asking why homosexuality requires a change in society.

I'll reply again.

I do not believe homosexuality is something that we have to change our culture and society radically and fundamentally to attempt normalizing it. I disagree that it has to be done, I disagree that our society is radically changed by the acceptance of homosexuality. I believe that all societies change over time and this is simply an example of that. If anything the view of homosexuality as acceptable could be seen as just one of many changes to the sexual mores of American society.

I don't think homosexual behavior is inherently promiscuous. I think men are much more sex-oriented than women, generally speaking, so with gay men the likelihood of promiscuity goes up. I don't believe that homosexuality overcomes the boundaries of reason, I don't believe that homosexuals are somehow unable to control their sexual urges. That is your projection on me.

I have answered your questions again. Strangely, despite your complaints, you still have not answered mine.