Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance

[Hovik]

I don't get why you're disagreeing so fervently with reality here. You may not agree with the definitions given by dictionaries, but you're completely wrong to claim that the definition I use is not there at all. Did you even check before saying that?

Reference.com
Merriam-Webster

I could keep going, but these were just the first two results on Google. Note that I actually read them before making a claim as to what they contain. Truth and accuracy are a tad easier to achieve that way. Feel free to keep making faith-based proclamations as to what information various books contain, though. I always enjoy getting arguments not based on any sort of evidence from other atheists.

Well, I would've given you the courtesy of politely retracting my previous statement considering I misunderstood exactly what you meant, but the manner in which you replied no longer gives me such incentive.

That said, those definitions are crude and imprecise, and they are insufficient to describe the phenomenon of homosexuality vis-à-vis psychology. Yes, those may be suitable layman's definitions, but we're not talking in layman's terms, are we? Homosexual relations with another person does not necessarily equivocate homosexuality with respect to my sexuality/orientation, and that's what Annik is driving at. Consider a pertinent example the difference in definition of a 'theory' in the scientific and layman senses; on the one hand, there is the more precise definition that is relevant to science, and on the other there is the less precise definition that roughly equates to "hypothesis" used by the layman.

You have to understand that dictionaries report usage; they do not dictate it.

[Jinkies]

Well, I would've given you the courtesy of politely retracting my previous statement considering I misunderstood exactly what you meant, but the manner in which you replied no longer gives me such incentive.

"Rargh! Bad man hurt Hulk feelings! Hulk smash!"

As I said, though, I'm not interested in debating whether you consider dictionary definitions or common usage sufficient reason to use the definitions I use.

[Hovik]

Well, I would've given you the courtesy of politely retracting my previous statement considering I misunderstood exactly what you meant, but the manner in which you replied no longer gives me such incentive.

"Rargh! Bad man hurt Hulk feelings! Hulk smash!"

As I said, though, I'm not interested in debating whether you consider dictionary definitions or common usage sufficient reason to use the definitions I use.

Then you're an idiot, and I have nothing further to discuss with you.
If you're not going to be mature or scientifically relevant, your input is worthless.

Edit: Actually, I lied. A final point:

The problem is that you can't lump them together like that. They're separate things.

Actually, according to dictionaries, you totes can.

Here is the root of the issue. Annik is talking about sexual preference as a psychological phenomenon that is rooted in more than just choice wherein the layman's definition of homosexuality is irrelevant, yet you equivocate the definitions and have stated that, according to dictionaries (which report usage, not dictate it), one can lump the definitions together in a scientific context. This is patently false. If you wish to ignore reason, go right ahead, but at least take a moment to pull your head out of your ass long enough to actually understand what's being said to you instead of acting like a child.

[Jinkies]

Then you're an idiot, and I have nothing further to discuss with you.

If you're not going to be mature or scientifically relevant, then your input is worthless.

"GRAAR! Hulk feelings hurt bad! Smash harder! CALL BAD MAN NAMES!!"

---

Edit: Actually, I lied. A final point:

The problem is that you can't lump them together like that. They're separate things.

Actually, according to dictionaries, you totes can.

Here is the root of the issue. Annik is talking about sexual preference as a psychological phenomenon that is rooted in more than just choice wherein the layman's definition of homosexuality is irrelevant, yet you equivocate the definitions and have stated that, according to dictionaries (which report usage, not dictate it), one can lump the definitions together in a scientific context. This is patently false. If you wish to ignore reason, go right ahead, but at least take a moment to pull your head out of your ass long enough to actually understand what's being said to you instead of acting like a child.

Actually, I see no indication that Annik is using anything more than the common dictionary definition of "sexual feelings toward a person of the same sex." She may not be, but reading what she wrote using that definition offers absolutely no contradictions. Anything else you add to that definition such as scientific context is baggage you brought along with you.

Edit: Could you also post the scientific definition of homosexuality you're using? It's obviously not common usage (as you've explicitly stated), and it's not found in dictionaries, so I'm interested in knowing what you in particular mean when you say "homosexuality." I understand that you'll be speaking for yourself, though, and not necessarily a single other person.

[frankiej]

Man, if I could force choke G-C right now I would.

[Godscreated]

Man, if I could force choke G-C right now I would.

Exactly why would you want to do that, seriously?

[Hovik]

Man, if I could force choke G-C right now I would.

Exactly why would you want to do that, seriously?

It might have something to do with the fact that your beliefs would be more welcome in the Bronze Age.

By the way, let me ask you something. Are you okay with banning pork? I mean, Jewish folk don't want to eat any of it, so why should the rest of us? It's against their beliefs! Clearly the only fair solution is to legislate against it.

[Annik]

Actually, I see no indication that Annik is using anything more than the common dictionary definition of "sexual feelings toward a person of the same sex." She may not be, but reading what she wrote using that definition offers absolutely no contradictions. Anything else you add to that definition such as scientific context is baggage you brought along with you.

Edit: Could you also post the scientific definition of homosexuality you're using? It's obviously not common usage (as you've explicitly stated), and it's not found in dictionaries, so I'm interested in knowing what you in particular mean when you say "homosexuality." I understand that you'll be speaking for yourself, though, and not necessarily a single other person.

I think you're are combining having homosexual feelings and acting on them.

I thought I'd made it clear with this post...

Regardless, your dictionary definition has two definitions. This doesn't mean the term is to be used to lump both things together, but that the same word has multiple definitions. I'll use on of the definitions you linked to.

Definition of HOMOSEXUALITY
1
: the quality or state of being homosexual
2
: erotic activity with another of the same sex

I want you to be aware that the definitions are separate. This is because you can use the word in both situations, but that doesn't mean the word is a blanket statement for both definitions at the same time. This should be especially true when actually debating the nature of homosexuality. In complex situations like this, things need to be broken down. When deciding if homosexuality is a choice, we need to both decide if being homosexual (as in definition 1) and homoerotic activities (such as definition 2) are choices.

So separating them is paramount to getting to the meat of the situation.

And for the scientific definition... I do have the APA's insights into sexuality, which is applicable to homo-, hetero-, and bi- sexuals.

Sexuality has three stages: Desire is an interest in being sexual. Excitement is the state of arousal that sexual stimulation causes. And orgasm is sexual pleasure's peaking.

Here was can see sexuality split into 3 sections. Orgasm is not as pertinent to our conversation, however. Thought and action are clearly separate here. (This was pulled from an article about sexual disorders, found here: http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/index.aspx, which was adapted from the Encyclopedia of Psychology)

It should also be noted that the APA prefers the term "sexual orientation" over words like "homosexuality" when discussing anything in depth. This is likely because the APA separates orientation from action.

Here is the APA's explanation of sexual orientation:

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.

I also think that there is no "scientific" definition of the word homosexuality. In studies, people are usually testing about the orientation side of it, thus a blanket statement is not appropriate.

And, as a side note, there's no need to be a dick to anyone.

EDIT: Something just occurred to me that could cause some confusion when surf the APA's site. When they use the term "homosexuality", they are usually referring to it as a sexual orientation.

[Jaysyn]

Hence, you not only completely missed his point, but you didn't even bother doing the research to see how and why you're wrong.

He's southern baptist for fucks sake, why would he start thinking now?

Could be worse I guess, he could be primitive baptist.

---

By the way, let me ask you something. Are you okay with banning pork? I mean, Jewish folk don't want to eat any of it, so why should the rest of us? It's against their beliefs! Clearly the only fair solution is to legislate against it.

Banning shellfish would be more relevant seeing as Christians are supposed to consider shellfish just as abominable as homosexuality.

Picking & choosing, as usual.

Fucking hypocrites.

[Jinkies]

I thought I'd made it clear with this post...

No, it's quite clear to me that you meant what I said you meant, especially since you responded to my point of us talking past each other by agreeing that was your view. I'm not sure why the other guy was claiming you used some heretofore unknown scientific definition of homosexuality.

(I actually do know why, and it's because his outrage forced him to respond even though he was wrong and had no actual arguments.)

Regardless, your dictionary definition has two definitions. This doesn't mean the term is to be used to lump both things together, but that the same word has multiple definitions. I'll use on of the definitions you linked to.

Just to note, I'm fairly confident that you also checked the first site, which only has one definition, which just so happens to be the definition I use. It's disingenuous to completely ignore that and write what you've written here anyway. Cherry picking is not a tactic that leads toward honesty and intelligent discussion.

Regardless, I have no issue with using homosexuality to refer to either aspect even when the definitions have different numbers. There's a definite connection there, and I see no need to ignore one definition (using M-W's) and focus solely on the other, or to at various points in a conversation say, "and guys, to clarify, now I'm talking about physical acts, not feelings," or the reverse. It's not like the word "tire," where different definitions are not related in any way. With homosexuality, the two definitions have a relationship that is deeply intertwined.

And, as a side note, there's no need to be a dick to anyone.

I know, right? I have no idea why that guy keeps insulting me and calling me names. It really does seems a bit childish. All I did was parody his righteous outrage using a stereotypical Hulk comment. Why would anyone ever post that they got so upset by a comment that they will no longer admit they were wrong, but instead start arguing? In addition to being incredibly stupid, that's just not an attitude that leads to intelligent conversations (as seen by the junk that followed).