lol - do you have an online rhetoric generator?
He does,It generates enough rhetoric to power a city the size of Auckland.
Epicurus taught this incredibly simple, yet ultimately infallible logic:"If God is all powerful, why does God allow evil to exist? If God is willing, but unable to prevent evil, then God is not all powerful. If God is able, but unwilling then God is malevolent. If God is unwilling and unable then Why call him God?"
wow, 63 pages of drivel, sorry guys couldn't get past page 1.
i end up nailing myself to a cross just to see what all the fuss is about
The distinction is valuable because according to many homophobes, homosexuality is not natural. They argue that it is "wrong" that a man should "lie with" a man, because it is not natural. My comment intended to prove this allegation incorrect and completely without basis.
To suggest a behavior is natural just because it occurs in nature is extremely narrow minded definition of "natural" (your sheep example).
From wiki - "Exit polls revealed Americans who voted for President Bush cited the issues of terrorism and moral values as the most important factors in their decision." - 2004 election.
The best thing about Finance Minister Bill English\'s latest Budget is that it does finally signal a much greater role for the private sector in the New Zealand economy. And another step along the way to extract this country from the political cul-de-sac in which Helen Clark\'s Labour Government parked us.
To suggest a behavior is natural just because it occurs in nature is extremely narrow minded definition of "natural" (your sheep example). Saying it's natural in itself is as meaningless as saying it's unnatural in itself; without expansion the argument has no point.Homophobes? You do realise that to qualify as "phobic" you must meet certain criteria, the fear must be irrational, and the resulting behavior must also be irrational.Personally I'm against homosexuality. I have dozens of reasons why. But there is no medically recognised disorder known as "homophobia" and the use of the word deliberately attempts to falsely claim scientific support (as in other real phobias).
More than 80% of NZers were against the Anti-Smacking Bill which is a moral issue, so by your inference we are becoming a "hard right Christian fundamentalist" state.
Dude, what the hell.
And sure, it would be possible to make a hypothetical argument for Britain - but I think you knew that was full of shit when you posted it. The Queen doesn't make decisions, Tony B doesn't call her up for scones and tea and asks her permission to go to war.
I've had about 8 hours sleep in the past three days, cut me some slack for not being verbose.Homophobic means "prejudiced against homosexual people" (Link). You say that you are against homosexuality. That's pretty irrational. There isn't a war going on. The Village People aren't coming to take your penis away.
I think any discussion of homosexuality should happen in another thread, this one is big enough.
In that case the formation of the word is nonsensical and contradicts the intended meaning. Simply not liking or agreeing is not irrational, and is not a phobia. To classify as an anxiety disorder type the phobic must demonstrate either a measurable "fight or flight" physiological response and / or significant psychological impairment (e.g. hiding in the dark).As I said, to use the word homophobic or homophobe is falsely claiming a scientific basis (by being classified as a phobia) when there is none.So how did this misconception arise? Well the queer community chose this definition for those who oppose them to turn the tables, and suggest it is in fact their opposers who are not normal. And in my view this is a sad indictment of the character of those who perpetuate the myth of "homophobia".
^ an 'in-depth' analysis to match an 'in-depth' prejudice.Which is sadder? The fact that a minority of the population have been subjected to constant bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice since always, based purely on misinformation, irrational fear, and holy scripture. Or, as a reaction to such prejudice, said minority formulate a term slightly incorrectly?Which one is the sadder indictment of a person's character?I think a discussion of homophobia fits in just fine in the religious thread.
I've shown why it's not a phobia, and now it's a "prejudice", again erroneously. Homophobia has been officially rejected as a clinical syndrome. It does not exist because nobody can be diagnosed with it.The term wasn't formulated slightly incorrectly at all, it was deliberately chosen to mislabel anyone who disagrees with homosexuality as having a mental disorder.
It's not ok for me to hold misinformed, irrational, prejudiced anti homosexual views yet it's ok for you to make a large number of accurate assumptions about me (above).
religion vs science or reasonable people vs haters?fragin - even though you are a dude, i love you
