Ummm ... no. I have never seen the point in hugging a tree - their trunks are generally nasty things, covered in flaky, prickly, bark and sometimes ants which bite. But I would defend their rights to get married to other trees, if they were so inclined and capable.
There is no such thing. The term was invented to cast an air of scientific legitimacy on the myth... ...that you and so many others have bought into. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You merely parrot your cultural indoctrination, and there isn't a dime's worth of difference between you and Bible thumpers who believe homosexuality is an abomination because they had it drummed into them every Sunday as children. Yer a riot, kid. It's not possible to enlighten those who have developed an amity with darkness, at least until such time as they see fit to reconsider. I'm reminded of the monster in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, who, knowing he was hideous, reasoned that it was prejudice which made everyone intolerant of him, and that a child would be unprejudiced; but of course the child knew ugly when he saw it, and his awareness infuriated the monster so that he was driven to strangle the child. While homosexuals are generally not Frankenstein-ugly on the outside, they similarly cannot bear anyone seeing their inner ugliness for what it is; but rather than take such rash action as the monster did, the mean-spirited among them use their guile to lay guilt trips on people who have the unmitigated gall to call a spade a spade, and try to impose their immorality on the rest of society through the legal system.
As you have chosen to descend to the level of personal remarks, all I can say is - you have some serious issues, dude. If and when you are prepared to discuss the issues raised, let me know, and I shall be happy to resume discourse.
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it! Unless, of course, it was written upon the corpse of a dead tree.
I know the truth hurts, but that's not my problem. Yes, I'm every bit as "prejudiced" as the child in the novel; but of course that's a problem for you, not me. You and I cannot have a "discussion" on these issues, because you are hopelessly deluded, and evidently comfortable in that state of delusion. Sorry for any inconvenience. Believe me, I don't expect you to jerk your head out of your ass any time soon, kid.
I think they called them "sodomites" in biblical times It's true that many cultures do not have words for a variety of concepts, which can have a profound impact on the culture and identities within it. For example, consider the word "depression". In many native american languages, there's no word for it. A native american suffering from depression will often describe physical symptoms, like being fatigued. Such a native american may be unable to articulate and label his particular condition beyond the physical symptoms, but it's just as real. So you could say it's true that the word "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are modern terms that never before existed, but that neither confirms nor denies that attractions to the same sex have never before existed. It just means it didn't have a name, and that people were not specifically identified by it. And it certainly hasn't been studied until modern times. Just like the study of psychology where the term probably came from, it's very new.
The unsophisticated will be impressed by this, unaware that such "study" can more easily endarken than enlighten, a phenomenon which has been exploited at every opportunity by homosexual activists.
Sure it can. Lord knows we've seen evidence of that on this forum. Poor studies, and poor interpretation of studies can do a lot of harm. I didn't mean to use the word "study" to impress anyone, just using the fact that Psychology is a new study as a reason why many words that attempt to describe psychological concepts are also new. Still doesn't change the fact that just because the word itself is new, that doesn't mean the types of attractions it describes are new. Just means there hasn't been a word for it, or there has been a different word, or another word that describes a different (but related) concept. For example, Asian's historically refereed to the type as the "third gender". The bible gives rise to the word "sodomite". I'm not saying "third gender" = "homosexual", in fact I'm saying quite the opposite - that many cultures don't have words to describe various concepts, and many cultures view the concepts themselves differently. Nevertheless, the concepts that languages attempt (or sometimes don't attempt) to describe are stil seen throughout history.
I think it is interesting that you have to explain this. It kind of reveals to me that some people have put a fairly significant amount of intellectual energy attempting to ascribe a NON-MEANING to words that are WELL-DEFINED already; and apparently WHY some school systems don't even want this discussed with the students. They foolishly think that willfully induced "ignorance" or "unawareness" is some preventative or deterrent. LOL!! Those schools systems and their closed-minded and bigoted constituencies don't want teachers and kids to describe what actually around and near to them; people who are "homosexual". They foolishly "think" that if teachers don't have a way to discuss it, or the kids don't have a way to talk about it (due to instilled-ignorance)... that it will prevent or reduce the numbers of gay young people. What they either don't accept or realize, is that there are still GAY or bi-sexual kids mingling with one another in the hallways and classrooms; nevertheless experiencing their homosexuality or heterosexuality. Another fairly modern term (coined in the 1970's) is "homophobia". I've seen many homophobes deny that the term has meaning applicable to this society or the human race (in general). They pretend or assume that the person who found/invented the term, just threw it out there and it somehow "stuck" onto society; when in reality, that could not be further from the truth. What they are doing is engaging in anti-intellectualism. They tend to imagine that if they or their children avoid 'understanding' "homosexuality"... then it is something that won't really affect them. (A lot like one's head in the sand, and thinking that because they don't see others, then others won't see them (with their head in the sand). It's an OLD problem with human beings; but that is exactly the way some people are.
You repeat yourself - and that to no apparent purpose, since the sexual attraction some people have to children or animals isn't particularly new either. And in neither case have the academicians produced any observations that serve any other purpose than to stupefy, AFAIK.
I didn't know observing and explaining behavior was an attempt to stupefy. Understanding homossexuality, just as understanding pedophilia and beastiality, is not inherently wrong. It's a study of behavior and its causes. Deciding that those behaviors are wrong and harmful are different, but related questions. So why don't you just come out and say what you're really trying to say... you don't object to the terms themselves, you object to the fact that homosexuality is not commonly seen by academicians (and much of society) as being wrong and harmful.
It is when the intent is to justify patently immoral behavior. Obviously, but modern psychology is inimical to such understanding. Actually, the last thing modern psychologists want is for the cause of homosexuality to be understood, as that would divest them of the power they have accrued by serenading the gullible with sweet little lies - not just about homosexuality, but about the human condition generally. Deciding has nothing to do with it, except to those for whom understanding is anathema. Try, nothing. What I said is precisely what I meant, neither more nor less. There is hardly any need to say that. You just want to reduce everything I've said to a merely personal objection.
That wasn't my intention at all. I'm inviting you to explain your objection, because I haven't seen you do so yet. So far the only complaint I've seen you levy is that the word "homosexual" is new, but I don't think that's a good reason to object to anything, and I doubt you do either. I assume you have much better reasons than that.
Yes, be grateful to live in a country that if you are gay and attacked for being gay and defend yourself with a book you can be charged with using a deadly weapon. What a joke.
lol, ignorance != lying. You probably have given your reasons, but that doesn't mean I've seen them - or if I have, I simply don't remember your name to match them with. Of course it's not your responsibility to correct my preceptions, I simply assumed that's the reason you chose to come here on this forum. Apparently I was wrong. Carry on with... whatever you were doing, I won't trouble you any more with conversation.
The constitution gives her that authority on the condition that she acts within her traditional bounds. She'll soon find herself written out of the constitution whether she likes it or not if she starts acting against the will of the majority, regardless of any theoretical authority to do so. She can yell and scream "Constitutional Authority!" all she wants - if it falls on deaf ears, then there's nothing she can do about it. The monarchy has never been so bold as to assert this kind of authority against the will of the majority in the last several hundred years, it's highly unlikely this one issue represents such a crisis as to require her immediate and unconditional assertion of power to stop it. The queen could take political moves, but it's highly unlikely she's make an overt and direct attempt to stop the legislation. If anything, she'd just work to have it overturned.
Like I said, Parliament doesnt have the authority to write her out of the constitution. As part of the Royal perogative, Parliament would need her assent to even debate the matter in parliament.
England does't have a supreme court like the USA. There's nobody for her to cry "constitutionality!" to, other than parliament.
She wouldnt cry. She would simply withold her assent. If she wanted, she could simply dissolve the parliament
If your implying the people can storm the castle and be off with her head, yes, there is always that. Im speaking in terms of the law, not the realm of possibilities.
