Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Old 07-07-13, 03:40 PM
  #151  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,486
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
Or perhaps you don't actually have any Jewish friends and you're making things up, which wouldn't surprise me given your aggressive Christian chauvinism.
Are you kidding? Creekdipper has loads of Jewish friends, tons of gay friends, and so on. His house on a Friday night features more diversity than the audition line for a Broadway production of Rent.
MoviePage is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 03:50 PM
  #152  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
I am not surprised that you are as ignorant of Judaism as you are on most other topics on which you opine. I don't know who your Jewish friends are, but either they are providing you with a view on Jewish metaphysics that no Jewish scholar of whom I am aware has taken in the millenia-long history of Judaism or, more likely, you simply do not comprehend their explanations of the Jewish view on the nature of religious observation.

Or perhaps you don't actually have any Jewish friends and you're making things up, which wouldn't surprise me given your aggressive Christian chauvinism.
Or perhaps you don't really exist and are occasional hiccup of the net.

I wish you had posted that years ago...I could simply have chalked up every post you ever made to "making things up" rather than actually considering them. My mistake.

I should have been tipped off by nonsensical, made-up terms such as 'aggressive Christian chauvinism'. Empty rhetoric for the easily-impressed.

Then again, you have been around for millenia, so who am I to argue with that sort of experience?
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 03:53 PM
  #153  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
Just for the record, you have no problem with homosexuality? You have a problem with two men having sex? Or two women having sex. Its not the orientation you have a problem with, it is the fact they are having same sex?

For example, there are gay priests in the Catholic church. You have no problem with this since they take they took the same vow of celibacy?

So you would be fine with a homosexual who was having sex with the opposite sex? And I'm assuming wouldn't be fine with a heterosexual man who had sex with another man.
Behavior.

Is incest a behavior or an "orientation"? Since you seem to have missed the point.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 03:57 PM
  #154  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by MoviePage View Post
Are you kidding? Creekdipper has loads of Jewish friends, tons of gay friends, and so on. His house on a Friday night features more diversity than the audition line for a Broadway production of Rent.
Aside from noting the probability that your house on Friday night probably isn't full of evangelical, reformed Christians, the assumption that all Jewish people and homosexuals are as close-minded as you like to imagine is just...wrong.

Sorry that you seem to revel in stereotyping people so much (Rent? What's next...thin people with a love for fashion and show tunes?).

Sad to see such bigotry displayed on a forum 'open to all'.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 03:58 PM
  #155  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
Sexual orientation is not a behavior....the belief that it is a behavior is only used as a shield to rationalize bigotry.
Since you love to cite 'science' so much, care to mention some "peer-reviewed articles" to support your rather bold assertion?

I mean, since you are qualified and all.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 04:03 PM
  #156  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,668
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Behavior.

Is incest a behavior or an "orientation"? Since you seem to have missed the point.
So your are not against same sex marriage...just the sex that you would assume goes with it? And you would be ok with a homosexual man getting married to a women even though it would be a "lie" to the women.

Behavior is a funny thing. If you simply discount the reason and go "black and white" can be problematic, to say the least. Killing is bad. Killing to defend your life or that of your family is generally acceptable.

I didn't miss anything....I'm just asking for clarification.

I've not studied or read about incest, so I won't comment on it.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 04:23 PM
  #157  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Since you love to cite 'science' so much, care to mention some "peer-reviewed articles" to support your rather bold assertion?

I mean, since you are qualified and all.
Nope. I'm not doing your work for you (and I am qualified). If I thought it would make a difference, than maybe I would. Do a simple google search on sexual orientation. Come back here and let us know if the current thinking is that sexual orientation is a behavior. In fact, find one reputable source from the scientific community that describes it as nothing but a behavior. That shouldn't be so hard, just one.


You see, sexual orientation is a complex construct, mixing nature, nurture, personal identity, and culture. Sex is a behavior. They are not the same thing. You can be of a sexual orientation without ever engaging in any type of sexual behavior. I get that you need them to be one and the same, so you can hold the beliefs that you do and still try and claim moral superiority. But reality is more nuanced than that...
dave-o is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 04:26 PM
  #158  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
So your are not against same sex marriage...just the sex that you would assume goes with it? And you would be ok with a homosexual man getting married to a women even though it would be a "lie" to the women.

Behavior is a funny thing. If you simply discount the reason and go "black and white" can be problematic, to say the least. Killing is bad. Killing to defend your life or that of your family is generally acceptable.

I didn't miss anything....I'm just asking for clarification.

I've not studied or read about incest, so I won't comment on it.
You asked honestly and not sarcastically...I appreciate that. So here's my answer:

I am against "same-sex marriage" because it is an extension of "same-sex behavior". I approve of neither.

A person whose psychological bent is toward practicing homosexuality should not marry a woman any more than a heterosexual person should marry a woman whom he doesn't love. Of course, there are differing opinions about that, too...in the past, many 'arranged marriages' or 'marriages of convenience' may have started out as pragmatic choices for desired goals (having little or nothing to do with romance) but sometimes grew into a loving (or at least 'affectionate') relationship. In fact, many happily married couples will attest that the 'passionate' sexual attraction of the early years changed in nature to reflect more an affectionate friendship (friends with benefits?) based upon many bonds (children, shared trials, mutual understanding, etc.). Anyway, the answer to your question about 'living a lie' is "No" (lying is never acceptable as a foundation for marriage).

For those who say that it is cruel to condemn those who cannot change to a life of celibacy...the same could be said for anyone who thinks that he/she is "oriented' toward a forbidden love. That would apply to being attracted to a person who doesn't return your affection, someone else's spouse, a taboo relationship such as incest or polygamy, etc. Unless society throws out the rule book so far as consenting adults are concerned, it's no more cruel to prohibit some relationships than others.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 04:33 PM
  #159  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
Nope. I'm not doing your work for you (and I am qualified). If I thought it would make a difference, than maybe I would. Do a simple google search on sexual orientation. Come back here and let us know if the current thinking is that sexual orientation is a behavior. In fact, find one reputable source from the scientific community that describes it as nothing but a behavior. That shouldn't be so hard, just one.


You see, sexual orientation is a complex construct, mixing nature, nurture, personal identity, and culture. Sex is a behavior. They are not the same thing. You can be of a sexual orientation without ever engaging in any type of sexual behavior. I get that you need them to be one and the same, so you can hold the beliefs that you do and still try and claim moral superiority. But reality is more nuanced than that...
You say "current thinking". Anecdotal evidence is not proof.

I could apply everything you said toward behaviors such as incest of which most people still approve, I would wager (haven't seen any polls lately...likely because no one really feels the need to conduct one).

As a psychologist, would you tell someone who is in love with his sister (especially if the feeling is mutual) that his feelings are 'normal, natural, and good'? Or would you tell him (or her) that he/she needs to find another outlet for this 'orientation'?

Your very statement regarding the origins of sexual "orientation" would seem to find controversy among those who insist that they are "born this way". What percentage of the factors you cite make up the overall construct of the 'orientation'? Is this something that we can map like the human genome, or is this simply guesses based upon interviews with patients?
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 04:37 PM
  #160  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
You asked honestly and not sarcastically...I appreciate that. So here's my answer:

I am against "same-sex marriage" because it is an extension of "same-sex behavior". I approve of neither.

A person whose psychological bent is toward practicing homosexuality should not marry a woman any more than a heterosexual person should marry a woman whom he doesn't love. Of course, there are differing opinions about that, too...in the past, many 'arranged marriages' or 'marriages of convenience' may have started out as pragmatic choices for desired goals (having little or nothing to do with romance) but sometimes grew into a loving (or at least 'affectionate') relationship. In fact, many happily married couples will attest that the 'passionate' sexual attraction of the early years changed in nature to reflect more an affectionate friendship (friends with benefits?) based upon many bonds (children, shared trials, mutual understanding, etc.). Anyway, the answer to your question about 'living a lie' is "No" (lying is never acceptable as a foundation for marriage).

For those who say that it is cruel to condemn those who cannot change to a life of celibacy...the same could be said for anyone who thinks that he/she is "oriented' toward a forbidden love. That would apply to being attracted to a person who doesn't return your affection, someone else's spouse, a taboo relationship such as incest or polygamy, etc. Unless society throws out the rule book so far as consenting adults are concerned, it's no more cruel to prohibit some relationships than others.
In you last paragraph here, do you see the difference between the "forbidden love" examples you gave and a same sex orientation? (hint: you used the word yourself in the last sentence)...
dave-o is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 04:38 PM
  #161  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 11,460
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
For those who say that it is cruel to condemn those who cannot change to a life of celibacy...the same could be said for anyone who thinks that he/she is "oriented' toward a forbidden love.
All forbidden loves are not equal. Anti-gay rhetoric gets a boost trying to make them so. Much of the polygamy-offramp consists of claiming "anything goes" is the only rationale for accepting gay relationships. It's not.
adamblast is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 04:47 PM
  #162  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,668
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
You asked honestly and not sarcastically...I appreciate that. So here's my answer:

I am against "same-sex marriage" because it is an extension of "same-sex behavior". I approve of neither.

A person whose psychological bent is toward practicing homosexuality should not marry a woman any more than a heterosexual person should marry a woman whom he doesn't love. Of course, there are differing opinions about that, too...in the past, many 'arranged marriages' or 'marriages of convenience' may have started out as pragmatic choices for desired goals (having little or nothing to do with romance) but sometimes grew into a loving (or at least 'affectionate') relationship. In fact, many happily married couples will attest that the 'passionate' sexual attraction of the early years changed in nature to reflect more an affectionate friendship (friends with benefits?) based upon many bonds (children, shared trials, mutual understanding, etc.). Anyway, the answer to your question about 'living a lie' is "No" (lying is never acceptable as a foundation for marriage).

For those who say that it is cruel to condemn those who cannot change to a life of celibacy...the same could be said for anyone who thinks that he/she is "oriented' toward a forbidden love. That would apply to being attracted to a person who doesn't return your affection, someone else's spouse, a taboo relationship such as incest or polygamy, etc. Unless society throws out the rule book so far as consenting adults are concerned, it's no more cruel to prohibit some relationships than others.
Interesting. I'm assuming your making this argument in "Gods eyes".

So you agree it's not the behavior? If a 20 something playboy model marries an 80 year old millionaire and they both know the reason why, is this ok or not? I would assume not. Yet legally, there is no issue. Have you written your congressman or protested against such things?

Many marry for reasons other than love. Arranged marriages are still the norm in some parts of the world. Are you as vocally opposed to those as to same sex marriage?

And FYI sex in same sex marriage will mirror opposite sex marriage. Some couple will have a little, some a lot, and some none.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 04:49 PM
  #163  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
You say "current thinking". Anecdotal evidence is not proof.

I could apply everything you said toward behaviors such as incest of which most people still approve, I would wager (haven't seen any polls lately...likely because no one really feels the need to conduct one).

As a psychologist, would you tell someone who is in love with his sister (especially if the feeling is mutual) that his feelings are 'normal, natural, and good'? Or would you tell him (or her) that he/she needs to find another outlet for this 'orientation'?

Your very statement regarding the origins of sexual "orientation" would seem to find controversy among those who insist that they are "born this way". What percentage of the factors you cite make up the overall construct of the 'orientation'? Is this something that we can map like the human genome, or is this simply guesses based upon interviews with patients?
You asked me to cite evidence that sexual orientation is not the same thing as a behavior. I asked you to do a little reading of your own. How'd that go? Nice dodge though... Let me know if you find anything that supports the idea that it is a behavior.

If even half of one percent of gay people are born that way, it is enough to expose your beliefs for what they are.

As a psychologist, I would not presume to judge anyone on feelings they have. Calling someone's feelings "unnatural" is the fast way to being a horrible therapist. Try to stick with what is healthy for that individual and you'd be far better off (the same way that I don't impose any beliefs on the religious folks that I work with). I also would not judge anyone on actions they take as a result of those feelings if they are not harming anyone else or themselves. If someone was happy and in love with their sister, and it's not harming anyone else, it would be quite unethical for me to try and impose a belief system on them that would harm them. This is why I've had to spend so much time repairing the damage caused by so-called "Christian counselors"...
dave-o is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 04:53 PM
  #164  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by adamblast View Post
All forbidden loves are not equal. Anti-gay rhetoric gets a boost trying to make them so. Much of the polygamy-offramp consists of claiming "anything goes" is the only rationale for accepting gay relationships. It's not.
Why are they not equal? (I know that you have expressed this line of reasoning before, and I'm sincerely interested in your answer).

Also, thank you for your civil tone even though we are from totally opposite viewpoints (understandably). You are taking the opportunity to present your views to the unpersuaded even if you believe that my views are so entrenched that I'm beyond hope.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 05:04 PM
  #165  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
You asked me to cite evidence that sexual orientation is not the same thing as a behavior. I asked you to do a little reading of your own. How'd that go? Nice dodge though... Let me know if you find anything that supports the idea that it is a behavior.

If even half of one percent of gay people are born that way, it is enough to expose your beliefs for what they are.

As a psychologist, I would not presume to judge anyone on feelings they have. Calling someone's feelings "unnatural" is the fast way to being a horrible therapist. Try to stick with what is healthy for that individual and you'd be far better off (the same way that I don't impose any beliefs on the religious folks that I work with). I also would not judge anyone on actions they take as a result of those feelings if they are not harming anyone else or themselves. If someone was happy and in love with their sister, and it's not harming anyone else, it would be quite unethical for me to try and impose a belief system on them that would harm them. This is why I've had to spend so much time repairing the damage caused by so-called "Christian counselors"...
"If? If?" Why, what happened to that ever-so-confident expert we all love? You know, the one with all the proof at his fingertips?

I have done plenty of reading on the subject and I have not found anything to prove that it is genetic; therefore, by definition, it is a behavior. YOU are the one dodging the question by failing to cite any evidence to support your theories. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Funny...atheists are always saying that the Christian must provide tangible, incontrovertible proof (other than reason) to show that God exists. "Faith" is not accepted as a substitute for tests conducted in a laboratory. Yet you accept your assertion based upon faith. Or could it be that you do not have any sources to cite despite your [seeming] confidence? Perhaps you should reconsider the meaning of "dodge".

And your last paragraph pretty well sums up how far afield you have gone astray. So tell, me, Doc...how is 'incest' categorized in the annals of your field? Is it considered normal, natural, and healthy by your profession (depending upon the situation, of course ?

So this represents the genius of "peer-reviewed" professionals? Uh, thanks, but no thanks.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 05:13 PM
  #166  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,982
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by Arpeggi View Post
I don't have a disdain for the ill. I have disdain for people who shove their illness down everyone throats and force everyone to believe it's normal and healthy.

Like I said, a man loving another man is not normal behavior.

Being black or Jewish has nothing to do with behavior. I wish people who are pro-gay would stop bringing up interracial relationship or compare not accepting that a medical condition is not normal to being racist.
I agree and so is man have sex with animal or married man with hot wife having affairs with sleazy hookers.
wm lopez is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 05:15 PM
  #167  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
Interesting. I'm assuming your making this argument in "Gods eyes".

So you agree it's not the behavior? If a 20 something playboy model marries an 80 year old millionaire and they both know the reason why, is this ok or not? I would assume not. Yet legally, there is no issue. Have you written your congressman or protested against such things?

Many marry for reasons other than love. Arranged marriages are still the norm in some parts of the world. Are you as vocally opposed to those as to same sex marriage?

And FYI sex in same sex marriage will mirror opposite sex marriage. Some couple will have a little, some a lot, and some none.
No, no, a thousand times, NO!

It IS the behavior. While I would highly disapprove of the Hugh Hefner-esque example you gave, that's because I would see it as degrading marriage by turning it into a purely pragmatic exchange. In other words, while the octogenarian might marry for love (probably lust), it's unlikely (although possible) that the younger person has any interest in anything other than $. It becomes high-stakes prostitution, not a true marriage. However, as you point out, people marry out of many motives and not just for love.

I'm not proposing that there be a litmus test for marriage in which romantic intent has to be established. As long as the marriage is consensual, it should be legal.

The difference is that heterosexual activity (within the bounds of marriage is condoned by God). Homosexual activity is never condoned by God in any context; rather, it is prohibited. So, while some heterosexual marriages are a mockery of what a true marriage should be (reading how a husband and wife should love each other according to biblical ideals), all homosexual marriages are sinful by nature.

Again, as you say, I'm taking a biblical perspective. Societies don't always do that...some embrace sin and call it good. That's a biblical truth, too.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 05:16 PM
  #168  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
"If? If?" Why, what happened to that ever-so-confident expert we all love? You know, the one with all the proof at his fingertips?

I have done plenty of reading on the subject and I have not found anything to prove that it is genetic; therefore, by definition, it is a behavior. YOU are the one dodging the question by failing to cite any evidence to support your theories. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Funny...atheists are always saying that the Christian must provide tangible, incontrovertible proof (other than reason) to show that God exists. "Faith" is not accepted as a substitute for tests conducted in a laboratory. Yet you accept your assertion based upon faith. Or could it be that you do not have any sources to cite despite your [seeming] confidence? Perhaps you should reconsider the meaning of "dodge".

And your last paragraph pretty well sums up how far afield you have gone astray. So tell, me, Doc...how is 'incest' categorized in the annals of your field? Is it considered normal, natural, and healthy by your profession (depending upon the situation, of course ?

So this represents the genius of "peer-reviewed" professionals? Uh, thanks, but no thanks.
Ugh...really? Everything that is not 100% genetic is a behavior? I think you have a strange definition of behavior. The fact of the matter is that no one (outside of anti gay promoters) calls sexual orientation a behavior. Because by its very definition it is much more complicated than a behavior. I'm really not sure why that is so hard to understand. Sex is a behavior. Attraction to a gender is not a simple behavior, by any definition of the word. Again, find me one source (just one!) that defines sexual orientation as just a behavior. You can't because it is much more complex than just labeling it a behavior.

To answer your last question, I work with individuals and treat them based on empathy towards the unique circumstances of their lives. I know empathy is not something you are real big on, but it is sort of a "must have" in my field.
dave-o is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 05:20 PM
  #169  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 11,460
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by adamblast View Post
All forbidden loves are not equal. Anti-gay rhetoric gets a boost trying to make them so. Much of the polygamy-offramp consists of claiming "anything goes" is the only rationale for accepting gay relationships. It's not.
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Why are they not equal? (I know that you have expressed this line of reasoning before, and I'm sincerely interested in your answer).
I am merely gay, but internalized a level of shame more appropriate to a rapist or child molester. I remain too uptight for sex after a lifetime of willing the problem away coupled with the occasional feeble try. I'm exactly the Ennis you tried to build--minus the painful Brokeback marriage, fortunately, but complete with a fairly empty life suited only for singing torch & smiths songs. Smile! It's what you wanted! SSA without the behavior!

That's the personal answer. To be more objective is also to be more mundane: society changes. It can decide it was wrong about a thing without it being wrong about everything. I think gay sex is OK, and it has no bearing on my feelings about rape being *not* OK whatever their respective behavioral causes. I've never claimed ethics or morality was over post gay equality, that's more in your camp.
adamblast is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 05:28 PM
  #170  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by adamblast View Post
I am merely gay, but internalized a level of shame more appropriate to a rapist or child molester. I remain too uptight for sex after a lifetime of willing the problem away coupled with the occasional feeble try. I'm exactly the Ennis you tried to build--minus the painful Brokeback marriage, fortunately, but complete with a fairly empty life suited only for singing torch & smiths songs. Smile! It's what you wanted! SSA without the behavior!

That's the personal answer. To be more objective is also to be more mundane: society changes. It can decide it was wrong about a thing without it being wrong about everything. I think gay sex is OK, and it has no bearing on my feelings about rape being *not* OK whatever their respective behavioral causes. I've never claimed ethics or morality was over post gay equality, that's more in your camp.
And that's the crux of the matter right there isn't it? Thanks for sharing Adam, and sorry to hear about the pain you've been through. But I'm glad people like you are speaking out, so 'the other side' can stop hiding behind their twisted definitions and see the actual damage their beliefs (and the actions connected with them) cause on an individual level.
dave-o is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 05:28 PM
  #171  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
Ugh...really? Everything that is not 100% genetic is a behavior? I think you have a strange definition of behavior. The fact of the matter is that no one (outside of anti gay promoters) calls sexual orientation a behavior. Because by its very definition it is much more complicated than a behavior. I'm really not sure why that is so hard to understand. Sex is a behavior. Attraction to a gender is not a simple behavior, by any definition of the word. Again, find me one source (just one!) that defines sexual orientation as just a behavior. You can't because it is much more complex than just labeling it a behavior.

To answer your last question, I work with individuals and treat them based on empathy towards the unique circumstances of their lives. I know empathy is not something you are real big on, but it is sort of a "must have" in my field.
Right...and I hope you won't mind my sharing your enlightened views about how your professional community cannot bring itself to tell someone that their behavior (er...orientation) is wrong.

I read you loud and clear. Kleptomania (if that term still applies) is an orientation, theft is a behavior. The only reason you would dissuade a person of embracing their orientation is the harmful effects on your patient or others.

On the other hand, sexual attractions are also orientations. If a person is attracted to someone of the opposite sex, same sex, multiple partners, multiple partners simultaneously, chairs, cats, toddlers, or themselves, there is no judgment on your part since those are all 'orientations'. It is only when your patient acts upon those orientations that they become a problem when they cross over into non-consensual behavior that harms others.

Therefore, it isn't empathetic to call a person "sick" if he/she indulges in harmless fantasies as long as he/she can function normally and never attempts to engage in behaviors that would be harmful.

I would agree that we shouldn't punish people for the thoughts in their head, but I think most non-professionals would not share your amazing empathy in embracing these orientations in a non-judgmental way. If your patient is feeling guilty about having such thoughts, it's your duty to put him straight and help him/her accept himself/herself for 'who they are'.

After all, God made them that way, right?

Of course, it could be that all of us are born with different sinful desires that we have to deal with. But then, that's just according to "some old judgmental book".

Hey...I'm OK, you're OK.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 05:32 PM
  #172  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
And that's the crux of the matter right there isn't it? Thanks for sharing Adam, and sorry to hear about the pain you've been through. But I'm glad people like you are speaking out, so 'the other side' can stop hiding behind their twisted definitions and see the actual damage their beliefs (and the actions connected with them) cause on an individual level.
Except that you do not agree with adam.

Adam reserves the right to find some consenting adult orientations disturbing and their resulting behaviors wrong.

You don't.

Pity the poor polyamorist.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 05:35 PM
  #173  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Except that you do not agree with adam.

Adam reserves the right to find some consenting adult orientations disturbing and their resulting behaviors wrong.

You don't.

Pity the poor polyamorist.
I don't have to agree with him to have empathy for what he has been through. Believe it or not, gay people are not some monolithic entity with a hive mind. I am sure there are lots of people of all walks of life that I don't agree with on the nature of consenting adult relationships.
dave-o is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 05:42 PM
  #174  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by adamblast View Post
I am merely gay, but internalized a level of shame more appropriate to a rapist or child molester. I remain too uptight for sex after a lifetime of willing the problem away coupled with the occasional feeble try. I'm exactly the Ennis you tried to build--minus the painful Brokeback marriage, fortunately, but complete with a fairly empty life suited only for singing torch & smiths songs. Smile! It's what you wanted! SSA without the behavior!

That's the personal answer. To be more objective is also to be more mundane: society changes. It can decide it was wrong about a thing without it being wrong about everything. I think gay sex is OK, and it has no bearing on my feelings about rape being *not* OK whatever their respective behavioral causes. I've never claimed ethics or morality was over post gay equality, that's more in your camp.
At the risk of inviting bashing, I am sorry for your conflict. Yes, I'll be told that attitudes such as mine are responsible just as has been said dozens of times before...but I don't wish pain on anyone. I've read your posts about your past and actually hear you. I won't be flippant about my liking Morrissey and Johnny Marr...music makes strange bedfellows...but I believe that there is a different way for you. If I didn't care, I wouldn't say that and invite the curses, but it's not about me...it's about you and what I think God wants for all of us.

Not the time to debate the other issues...despite what has been said, I do respect your very personal post and understand that this is your life and not some abstract point.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-07-13, 05:42 PM
  #175  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Re: Seattle gay pride participants beat up Christian street preacher on video

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Right...and I hope you won't mind my sharing your enlightened views about how your professional community cannot bring itself to tell someone that their behavior (er...orientation) is wrong.

I read you loud and clear. Kleptomania (if that term still applies) is an orientation, theft is a behavior. The only reason you would dissuade a person of embracing their orientation is the harmful effects on your patient or others.

On the other hand, sexual attractions are also orientations. If a person is attracted to someone of the opposite sex, same sex, multiple partners, multiple partners simultaneously, chairs, cats, toddlers, or themselves, there is no judgment on your part since those are all 'orientations'. It is only when your patient acts upon those orientations that they become a problem when they cross over into non-consensual behavior that harms others.

Therefore, it isn't empathetic to call a person "sick" if he/she indulges in harmless fantasies as long as he/she can function normally and never attempts to engage in behaviors that would be harmful.

I would agree that we shouldn't punish people for the thoughts in their head, but I think most non-professionals would not share your amazing empathy in embracing these orientations in a non-judgmental way. If your patient is feeling guilty about having such thoughts, it's your duty to put him straight and help him/her accept himself/herself for 'who they are'.

After all, God made them that way, right?

Of course, it could be that all of us are born with different sinful desires that we have to deal with. But then, that's just according to "some old judgmental book".

Hey...I'm OK, you're OK.
First, I don't pretend to speak for an entire professional community anymore than you speak for all Christians. You can continue to stretch the definition of 'orientation' and 'behavior' (or any other words for that matter) as much as you want. The rest of us will keep using the terms correctly and view your display of mental gymnastics for what it is. The rest of what you wrote is a shining example of why it is so dangerous and potentially harmful to try and mix psychotherapy with religion. Luckily my profession is pretty good at policing these things now...
dave-o is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.