The post that was quoted here has been removedYou know more about what the term "intersex" means than divegeester. But what I am asking is how does making an assertion about divegeester's supposed "abysmal ignorance" and asserting that he is a "troll" help you give your explanation about "intersex people"? It's a fair question.
The post that was quoted here has been removedYou know more about what the term "intersex" means than divegeester.
You set him straight.
He didn't really know what "intersex" meant or referred to.
However, you did.
You corrected him.
This is not disputed.
But I am asking you about something else.
What I am asking is this:
How does making an assertion about divegeester's supposed "abysmal ignorance" and asserting that he is a "troll" ~ and going on and on and on and on about people's dishonesty ~ how does this help you deliver your explanation about "intersex people"?
It's a fair question. You should address it.
The post that was quoted here has been removedWell, you've certainly taught him about the term "intersex".
Do you believe all the highly personalized caustic remarks you have aimed at him have affected his - or indeed anyones' - "willingness to learn" from you?
Has your own demeanour on this thread enhanced your on-topic contribution to it regarding the meaning of the term "intersex"?
1 edit
@bigdoggproblem saidNo your right homosexuals do seem to be born that way and as you point out so do some mentally ill people.
The "born that way" argument may be of little practical relevance.
Say it turns out that a small few people are inclined to be sociopaths, or pedophiles. Clearly, we must condemn those people for acting on those urges, even though they are built-in.
I do not want to give the impression that I am in any way conflating these two examples with homosexuality. I'm jus ...[text shortened]... defend consensual homosexuality. Consenting adults ought to be able to do what (or whom) they want.
However the ‘born that way’ defence should not be abandoned when discussing the subject with Christians or any other religious group. If they believe that God created us then they have to accept that God created homosexuals and psychopaths.
It goes to their claim about homosexuality being ‘unnatural’.
We can leave public opinion and the courts to decide the acceptability and legality concerning consensual homosexual acts as opposed to the acts of a psychopath.
Being born that way shoots down the sinner gone astray accusation and it’s associated straight training camps.
I’m ok with the idea that psychopaths are born that way thus putting the onus on society to treat them with as much respect as they can whilst protecting wider society from their actions.
-Removed-No group can defend themselves against the prohibitions in the Bible by utilising the Bible.
The Bible and all its nonsense has to be attacked for what it is a self contradictory pile of garbage for the most part. The idea that anyone should bother to defend themselves against the findings of a book that claims the world is only about 6 or 7 thousand years old is ludicrous.
The born that way argument is useful when Christians and others start to talk about what’s natural and what isn’t. If it occurs in nature then it’s natural by definition.
If some deluded individuals want to believe that a guy in an extravagant beard is going send another gay guy to hell then given that they are much more likely to be the product of nurture rather than nature I think their ramblings are mostly irrelevant.