the queer folks thread

shohin_branches said:
Nah dude, your conversation isn't polite at all and a lot of what you are saying is offensive. Just because you hate yourself doesn't mean you get to bring your shame here and put it on us. Please work on accepting yourself. We have already done that work.
Click to expand...
Quote me once being impolite and offensive. The closest you’ll get is my mere disagreement, or asking people not to be snowflakes. If you can’t handle disagreement, it’s because you’re not very mature. People should be able to handle these conversations when they’re adults. I shouldn’t have to keep quiet just because you’re underdeveloped. You ultimately have a choice whether or not to participate in this thread. You should either use your ability to reason, or just be quiet yourself. It’s not the end of the world just because I believe that as LGBT, I should abstain from sex with other men. It would also be very fascist of you to shut down a conversation that challenges you, yet allow conversations that challenges others.
 
Last edited:
Peter.Constantine325 said:
Quote me once being impolite and offensive. The closest you’ll get is my mere disagreement, or asking people not to be snowflakes. If you can’t handle disagreement, it’s because you’re not very mature. People should be able to handle these conversations when they’re adults. I shouldn’t have to keep quiet just because you’re underdeveloped. You ultimately have a choice whether or not to participate in this thread. You should either use your ability to reason, or just be quiet yourself. It’s not the end of the world just because I believe that as LGBT, I should abstain from sex with other men. It would also be very fascist of you to shut down a conversation that challenges you, yet allow conversations that challenges others.
Click to expand...
This was a positive and supportive thread and you came here to be rude and offensive. We get that enough out in the world just trying to exist. I don't want to come here and deal with someone starting out calling everyone that doesn't agree with them a snowflake and implying their queerness is the result of sexual assault. I also saw your rant saying LGBTQ people are pedophiles before Bnut did a mod edit so don't pretend you're innocent with good intentions.

You came here to bully, you use the words of a bully. Stop being negative towards us. Stop writing offensive things. Go scream your hate into the void but we don't have to tolerate your hatred here.

Claiming that you're LGBTQ doesn't give you a free pass to walk through the house with dog shit on your shoes. Take it outside.
 
shohin_branches said:
This was a positive and supportive thread and you came here to be rude and offensive. We get that enough out in the world just trying to exist. I don't want to come here and deal with someone starting out calling everyone that doesn't agree with them a snowflake and implying their queerness is the result of sexual assault. I also saw your rant saying LGBTQ people are pedophiles before Bnut did a mod edit so don't pretend you're innocent with good intentions.

You came here to bully, you use the words of a bully. Stop being negative towards us. Stop writing offensive things. Go scream your hate into the void but we don't have to tolerate your hatred here.

Claiming that you're LGBTQ doesn't give you a free pass to walk through the house with dog shit on your shoes. Take it outside.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t rude or offensive. All I did was say I don’t act on it because I believe it’s a sin. It’s you guys who started attacking me. Again, disagreement is not necessarily offensive, your being offended is a sign of immaturity. I never implied everyone’s queerness was a result of sexual assault, only that mine is. And I never said LGBT are pedophiles, only that it’s hypocritical to not include them.

I was the one bullied. Get over yourself. I don’t hate you just because I think acting on our abnormal sexual orientations is a sin. You’re just a snowflake.
 
Peter.Constantine325 said:
Why is that?
Click to expand...

Even if you're genuinely interested in sharing your Catholic beliefs, and you're not just here to troll the forum and sow discord, it should be obvious that you're not going to win any converts with passive-aggressive antagonism. You challenge others' sincerely-held beliefs, and then cry that you're being oppressed when they challenge your own beliefs or (correctly) complain that your comments are off-topic for the thread.

That said, your actions are suspect. You joined a bonsai forum, posted one picture of a ficus to your profile, and then went straight for the Tea House to proselytize. It's fair to say from the beginning you've been an agent of chaos and a provocateur. You hide behind a facade of intellectual curiosity, but it's just a rationalization for antisocial behavior. You're like the serpent tempting Eve, and Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness. It's plainly your goal to provoke a mistake and punish that misstep.

Go read the Bible, and then do your best to model your behavior accordingly.
 
Gabler said:
Even if you're genuinely interested in sharing your Catholic beliefs, and you're not just here to troll the forum and sow discord, it should be obvious that you're not going to win any converts with passive-aggressive antagonism. You challenge others' sincerely-held beliefs, and then cry that you're being oppressed when they challenge your own beliefs or (correctly) complain that your comments are off-topic for the thread.

That said, your actions are suspect. You joined a bonsai forum, posted one picture of a ficus to your profile, and then went straight for the Tea House to proselytize. It's fair to say from the beginning you've been an agent of chaos and a provocateur. You hide behind a facade of intellectual curiosity, but it's just a rationalization for antisocial behavior. You're like the serpent tempting Eve, and Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness. It's plainly your goal to provoke a mistake and punish that misstep.

Go read the Bible, and then do your best to model your behavior accordingly.
Click to expand...
Your judgment doesn’t seem to match with reality. You really seem to just be parroting off the other guy. For example, none of my beliefs have actually been challenged in an intellectual way. I challenge you to find a quote indicating otherwise. And I haven’t been the antagonist here, I have only reacted to bigotry, and this can be shown by simply following the thread from start to finish.

I have involved myself in two threads, here and the philosophy thread. I’m LGBT, and have a conservative opinion on the matter. I merely shared that opinion, and was swarmed upon by the others. And people were already discussing God and existentialism in the other thread, so I chimed in. Only to be reacted to with silly intellectual superiority type replies.

I came to the tea house after reading other posts dealing with bonsai because I am new and only have questions as of right now. I don’t know enough yet to really speak on it. I just asked a question concerning watering a few minutes ago as an example. And before I came to the tea house, I made a post about bonsai and my grow tent.

Maybe you should reserve judgment until you have actually assessed the entire matter. The problem here is that I’m a conservative who doesn’t hide his conservatism. The problem is an inclination towards safe space culture.
 
Gabler said:
Even if you're genuinely interested in sharing your Catholic beliefs, and you're not just here to troll the forum and sow discord, it should be obvious that you're not going to win any converts with passive-aggressive antagonism. You challenge others' sincerely-held beliefs, and then cry that you're being oppressed when they challenge your own beliefs or (correctly) complain that your comments are off-topic for the thread.

That said, your actions are suspect. You joined a bonsai forum, posted one picture of a ficus to your profile, and then went straight for the Tea House to proselytize. It's fair to say from the beginning you've been an agent of chaos and a provocateur. You hide behind a facade of intellectual curiosity, but it's just a rationalization for antisocial behavior. You're like the serpent tempting Eve, and Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness. It's plainly your goal to provoke a mistake and punish that misstep.

Go read the Bible, and then do your best to model your behavior accordingly.
Click to expand...
Where have you seen me trying to proselytize? You also can’t quote me once ever doing that either. How off could your judgement possibly get? I merely shared my conservative opinions. Please, if this is a safe space, tell me now. I’ll hide who I am so as not to upset the sensitive people here.
 
Peter.Constantine325 said:
Where have you seen my trying to proselytize?
Click to expand...

May I direct you to your very first post in the philosophy thread? It doesn't get more Catholic than that.

Post in thread 'philosophy study, anyone?'
https://www.bonsainut.com/threads/philosophy-study-anyone.61359/post-1072852
Click to expand...

Or perhaps your first post in this thread?

Peter.Constantine325 said:
I’m technically pansexual. I’m attracted to men, women and trans. And this is likely due to sexual manipulation by an older child when I was a kid. I’ve been with men before, but because I’m a Christian, I actively seek to abstain from sex in general unless I’m married, let alone with other men as this is a sin in my worldview.

But of course we’re all adults here and we can accept different worldviews and not resort to being snowflakes and seeking the banishment of people who might disagree with us, right?
Click to expand...

Before anyone responded, you had already assumed your audience was a bunch of "snowflakes." You dismissed any disagreement at the same time you pretended to invite it. That is not the hallmark of an intellectually honest discussion. It could not be more clear that your goal was to pick a fight. If you march into a room with your sword drawn and your shield raised, those in the room will naturally perceive your approach as a threat.

I had tried to ease the tension in the Philosophy chat by pointing out that the internet, as a medium, incites division, and it's easy to forget there's a human at the other end of the line. Rather than thank me for the favor of covering your faux pas, you doubled down and started a pointless argument on the topic of whether pointless arguments are more likely online than offline.

When you stopped arguing and asked for an answer to your philosophical questions, I gave you the benefit of the doubt once again, and directed you to the Euthyphro, which is one of the older philosophical works on the topic of religion and provided a link for free reading, yet you complained that I hadn't been sufficiently helpful.

I'll ask you just one more time to reexamine your motives and conduct yourself with genuine intellectual curiosity, or at least be forthright about your mission. As a politically conservative Christian myself, I have no quarrel with your basic position, but I must insist you cease in taking the name of the Lord in vain.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Click to expand...

If you can't take that advice, I'll have to take the advice of the verse that follows:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Click to expand...
 
Gabler said:
May I direct you to your very first post in the philosophy thread? It doesn't get more Catholic than that.



Or perhaps your first post in this thread?



Before anyone responded, you had already assumed your audience was a bunch of "snowflakes." You dismissed any disagreement at the same time you pretended to invite it. That is not the hallmark of an intellectually honest discussion. It could not be more clear that your goal was to pick a fight. If you march into a room with your sword drawn and your shield raised, those in the room will naturally perceive your approach as a threat.

I had tried to ease the tension in the Philosophy chat by pointing out that the internet, as a medium, incites division, and it's easy to forget there's a human at the other end of the line. Rather than thank me for the favor of covering your faux pas, you doubled down and started a pointless argument on the topic of whether pointless arguments are more likely online than offline.

When you stopped arguing and asked for an answer to your philosophical questions, I gave you the benefit of the doubt once again, and directed you to the Euthyphro, which is one of the older philosophical works on the topic of religion and provided a link for free reading, yet you complained that I hadn't been sufficiently helpful.

I'll ask you just one more time to reexamine your motives and conduct yourself with genuine intellectual curiosity, or at least be forthright about your mission. As a politically conservative Christian myself, I have no quarrel with your basic position, but I must insist you cease in taking the name of the Lord in vain.



If you can't take that advice, I'll have to take the advice of the verse that follows:
Click to expand...
That’s not proselytizing. I’m not preaching Christ there. I’m not telling people to repent. I’m philosophizing. I asked a question and your response was a link to Euthyphro. I asked for a source for objective meaning, purpose and morality, and you give me a book to read? Come on now. You dodged the question.

And of course I said that in my first post here. I didn’t dismiss any disagreement at all. There was no legitimate disagreement to be had either, just feelings. I dismissed sensitive people incapable of handling an intelligent conversation on the subject. Did you ever consider I might be used to being attacked on the subject, and preemptively countered such attacks by naming the potential bullies for what they are? I’ve had these conversations before, and it always ends with some overly sensitive person taking my conservative opinions personally, as though I’m attacking them. And this sensitivity is often just played out, like it’s really just a form of cultural fascism. Oftentimes the individual isn’t actually sensitive, he or she just wants to shut down the conversation. So I preemptively shut down the shut down.

I should be able to get support from fellow LGBT without being required to submit to their beliefs concerning my sexuality.

Was I rude outside of dismissing overly sensitive people?
 
For what it's worth, the Christian distaste for homosexuality was a reaction to the Greek practice of pederasty and the Roman attitude that an adult male citizen should be free to enjoy whatever human orifice he fancied, without regard for the modern idea of consent, with the exception of other adult male Roman citizens and their immediate families. Slaves, women, and children were the playthings of the adult male citizens, and Christianity began as a religion of slaves, women, and their children.

Europe's reaction to the plague sort of renewed that early ideal of chastity and monogamous, reproductive sex, and that persisted, in part, through the Puritan roots of New England. It's no coincidence that Puritan and Purell share the same root.

Ironically, the practice of pederasty has survived through the Catholic church itself.
 
Last edited:
Gabler said:
For what it's worth, the Christian distaste for homosexuality was a reaction to the Greek practice of pederasty and the Roman attitude that an adult male citizen should be free to enjoy whatever human orifice he fancied, without regard for the modern idea of consent, with the exception of other adult male Roman citizens and their immediate families. Slaves, women, and children were the playthings of the adult male citizens, and Christianity began as a religion of slaves, women, and and their children.

Europe's reaction to the plague sort of renewed that early ideal of chastity and monogamous, reproductive sex, and that persisted, in part, through the Puritan roots of New England. It's no coincidence that Puritan and Purell share the same root.

Ironically, the practice of pederasty has survived through the Catholic church itself.
Click to expand...
Well I respect your opinion, I just think it’s wrong. You seem to be hyper focusing on one aspect of why it is wrong, to the neglect of the other reasons. For example, man was created for woman, and woman for man. Sex is to be unitive and procreative, or it’s sinful. So even sex using contraception is sinful, because it’s denying the possibility of life. Sex isn’t about pleasure alone.

You’re also not really being honest here. As the entire Church has universally condemned homosexual acts since the beginning of Church history and on. It’s really just a caving in to the progressive movements of recent history, wanting to please man instead of God, that has brought about this idea that everyone for over nineteen hundred years was wrong. You’re basically denying any real power and influence the Holy Spirit could possibly have in guiding the Church.

And as far as your snide little comment about pederasty in the Catholic Church? I’m assuming you’re referring to the sexual abuse scandals? You’re quite ignorant on that, as there wasn’t any more of that in our Church as there was anywhere else that worked with children. Actual experts have stated quite clearly that the Catholic Church isn’t a hotbed for abuse.

I’d also note that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality. And that the lack of support for pedophiles by their LGBT brethren, the people who would most understand them (both are abnormal sexual orientations), actually puts a societal pressure on them to isolate and not seek help, which leads to more sexual abuse. The only reason there’s not a P after LGBT is politics, because it would destroy the agenda seeking to normalize it all, instead of seeking just acceptance.
 
Peter.Constantine325 said:
Did you ever consider I might be used to being attacked on the subject, and preemptively countered such attacks by naming the potential bullies for what they are?
Click to expand...

You're within inches of seeing how your approach went wrong. Do you see that "preemptive counterstrike" is an oxymoron?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom