Posted on 09/19/2010 12:54:50 AM PDT by Stoat
Town Hall bosses are asking staff to take part in a 'heterosexuality quiz' so they can gain a greater understanding of what it is like to be gay.
The quiz, devised by managers at Buckinghamshire County Council, is part of an equality and diversity course called 'Respecting Sexuality'.
Questions, which are described as a 'twist' on those routinely asked of homosexuals, include 'What do you think caused your heterosexuality?', 'Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?', and 'If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?'
(edit)
The Buckinghamshire council course is just one of a series of publicly funded equality and diversity sessions uncovered in a series of Freedom of Information requests by The Mail on Sunday. Cardiff, Slough and Cheshire West and Cheshire councils have also incorporated quizzes in their sessions. In Slough, employees ask colleagues questions from a specially prepared grid such as 'Can you sing a few lines from a Supremes song?' and 'Do you read The Guardian?' Staff at Cardiff City Council are challenged to name the inventor of the 'great British classic car the Mini', and to identify the symbol used to celebrate the Chinese New Year. (edit) 'To see councils wasting money on such a ludicrous, politically-correct exercise in that environment is disgusting. 'Ensuring that councils don't discriminate doesn't require such insane attempts at a superficial understanding of different communities.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
It's irrelevant for including it. It's just an adjective.
Go back to the Genesis quote posted on this thread. It plainly says that all the men of Sodom, both young and old, from every part of the city, went to Lot's house and told him to fork over the strangers so they could have sex with them. All.
Is the Bible lying when it says "all" the men did this?
There was only one version of the Bible before the Council of Trent, yes?
No, if it's inclusive (as you agreed), then it's irrelevant for excluding it.
" Go back to the Genesis quote posted on this thread. It plainly says that all the men of Sodom, both young and old, from every part of the city, went to Lot's house and told him to fork over the strangers so they could have sex with them. All. Is the Bible lying when it says "all" the men did this?"
Again, it is your characterization of what is written as the only possible interpretation that is the fallacy of the false dichotomy.
I stated that rape, or the forcible sexual assault of someone else, is bad. Whether the rape is a homosexual one (same sex rape) or heterosexual one (opposite sex rape) is of no consequence. If you gleaned anything from my posts other than that, bad on me for not being crystal clear.
And the Genesis quote plainly says "all", does it not?
You're being purposefully disingenuous.
"I stated that rape, or the forcible sexual assault of someone else, is bad. Whether the rape is a homosexual one (same sex rape) or heterosexual one (opposite sex rape) is of no consequence. If you gleaned anything from my posts other than that, bad on me for not being crystal clear."
Except the argument is whether the Biblical language is inclusive or exclusive. It is disingenuous to imply that it is exclusive.
"And the Genesis quote plainly says "all", does it not?"
The Genesis quote isn't the problem. Your misrepresentation of it is where the fallacy of the false dichotomy occurs.
I know you're trying to make a point here, but you're water-boarding it to death. Why don't you take a deep breath, crack your knuckles, and try to make your point without resorting to this meaningless inclusive/exclusive bravo sierra. Try plain English. It usually works best.
Your misrepresentation of it is where the fallacy of the false dichotomy occurs.
This is exhausting.
The quote from Genesis says "all" the men from Sodom, men and boys, young and old, from every part of Sodom, surrounded Lot's house, no? That's quite a gathering. And all of them there demanded that Lot fork over the strangers so that they, with they being the men, could have sex with them.
In other words, all the men of Sodom wanted to gang-rape these strangers. And because the strangers were men, and because all the men in Sodom demanding this gang-rape were men, that characterizes the form of gang-rape as homosexual gang rape, does it not?
Suppose we assume that all of this is true.
This means that there was once a town in which every single man was predisposed to gang-rape. Young and old. Every single man in town. In other words, no single man in Sodom decided that gang-rape was probably not a good idea. Not one man said you know what? I'm not in the mood for a good gang-rape today; I'll sit this one out. The Bible said all.
Now put down your Bible and put on your secular human history hat.
A human settlement of any kind requires cooperation. A human settlement before the age of mass technology requires a very intimate and interpersonal sort of cooperation. In order to cooperate with one another, among other characteristics, human beings need empathy, a respect for the possessions of others, a willingness to restrain their will where it conflicts with the will of others, and a willingness to shoulder a common burden for the good of all.
A gang-rapist has no empathy, no respect for the possessions of others, no willingness to restrain his or her will, and no willingness to shoulder a common burden for the good of all. That's just one gang-rapist.
Now imagine a community in which there were nothing but males who were gang-rapists. How long could that community have lasted?
Not long.
Maybe the author of Genesis was being hyperbolic?
Occam's Razor it.
I know you're trying to avoid a point here, but you're yanking it to death. Why don't you get a paper bag, take a few deep breaths and try to present coherent thoughts instead of hyperventilating over your inability to think of a meaningful response.
"This is exhausting."
No it's not. It's kid-stuff.
"The quote from Genesis says "all" the men from Sodom, men and boys, young and old, from every part of Sodom, surrounded Lot's house, no? That's quite a gathering. And all of them there demanded that Lot fork over the strangers so that they, with they being the men, could have sex with them."
Have I not posted that the quote from Genesis isn't the problem. Did you have trouble understanding that?
"In other words, all the men of Sodom wanted to gang-rape these strangers. And because the strangers were men, and because all the men in Sodom demanding this gang-rape were men, that characterizes the form of gang-rape as homosexual gang rape, does it not?"
IOW, you are determined to pretend to exhaust yourself in hopes that someone believes that you really aren't invoking the fallacy of the false dilemma.
" Suppose we assume that all of this is true. This means that there was once a town in which every single man was predisposed to gang-rape. Young and old. Every single man in town. In other words, no single man in Sodom decided that gang-rape was probably not a good idea. Not one man said you know what? I'm not in the mood for a good gang-rape today; I'll sit this one out. The Bible said all."
Suppose we assume that you recognize where you begin using the fallacy of the false dichotomy.
"A human settlement of any kind requires cooperation. A human settlement before the age of mass technology requires a very intimate and interpersonal sort of cooperation. In order to cooperate with one another, among other characteristics, human beings need empathy, a respect for the possessions of others, a willingness to restrain their will where it conflicts with the will of others, and a willingness to shoulder a common burden for the good of all."
Suppose we further assume that you recognize how you continue down the path of building your fallacy of the false dichotomy?
"A gang-rapist has no empathy, no respect for the possessions of others, no willingness to restrain his or her will, and no willingness to shoulder a common burden for the good of all. That's just one gang-rapist."
Suppose we assume that you are in full fallacy mode by now. What next?
" Now imagine a community in which there were nothing but males who were gang-rapists. How long could that community have lasted? Not long. Maybe the author of Genesis was being hyperbolic?"
At what point does the disingenuous nature of your appeal to the fallacy of the false dilemma become too embarrassing for even you to avoid? Apparently not yet.
"Occam's Razor it."
Had you done so, you wouldn't even be here.
My Point A: Rape is bad.
My Point B: The prose in the Bible is hyperbolic at times.
Don't like having your use of logical fallacy pointed out, do you? That's unfortunate. Recognizing your use of logical fallacy really is an important concept to understand if you want to avoid deceiving yourself with presumed cleverness.
"My Point A: Rape is bad."
Clearly implied in the Sodom & Gomorrah narrative. You seriously thought that was a point that needed to be made?
"My Point B: The prose in the Bible is hyperbolic at times."
And I thought you were trying to say, "Perhaps the angels were bent on reaping havoc on a wicked city instead of a bunch of homos?"
The passage from Genesis was explicitly clear: it said all men. Not some, not most, not a large percentage, not a few. All.
For that passage from Genesis to be true, all men had to be involved.
Now, I can imagine a real-life scenario in which some men were involved, or most, or maybe just a really vocal minority. Perhaps a small gang of thugs. But all the male members of a given human settlement as determined rapists? I find that highly improbable, simply because I can't see how such a society could have even existed for one second to form itself into a society. They'd all be gang-raping each other left and right. Who the hell would stick around, especially the women?
But the Bible says all men.
Either the Bible is accurate, and all men in Sodom were gang-rapists, or the person who authored Genesis took a bit of poetic license when he chose the word "all".
If you believe the Bible reflects the literal word of God, you have no choice, then, but to believe that every single man-jack in Sodom was a gang-rapist.
Sure you did. And I already explained twice that the account in Genesis isn't the problem.
" Now, I can imagine a real-life scenario in which some men were involved, or most, or maybe just a really vocal minority. Perhaps a small gang of thugs. But all the male members of a given human settlement as determined rapists? I find that highly improbable, simply because I can't see how such a society could have even existed for one second to form itself into a society. They'd all be gang-raping each other left and right. Who the hell would stick around, especially the women? But the Bible says all men."
Right back at it, are you? Did you really think I wouldn't notice?
" Either the Bible is accurate, and all men in Sodom were gang-rapists, or the person who authored Genesis took a bit of poetic license when he chose the word "all". If you believe the Bible reflects the literal word of God, you have no choice, then, but to believe that every single man-jack in Sodom was a gang-rapist."
The Bible is accurate, however presenting your particular characterization of an event and insisting that I have no choice is the epitome of the fallacy of the false dilemma.
All sin is sin, but the only one that is "unforgiveable" is the one against the Holy Spirit. I've thought about that quite a lot, and I think one thing it could mean is this idea of calling good bad and bad good. If you have managed to get yourself into a mindset where you are absolutely convinced that something that is wrong actually isn't, then I would suggest you have sinned against the Holy Spirit. That sin you commit cannot be forgiven, for the very simple reason that you don't accept that it is sin and therefore you will never call upon the Holy Spirit to redeem you from it. As you have said, God does not force us, even with things that would do us the utmost good. This is what really worries me about the modern Homosexual lobbies. It doesn't bother me that they commit sin (or rather it doesnt bother me more than anyone else committing any other sin) what I think is really frightening is this attempt to affirm that it is completely "normal". Now, I'm Ok with the intention behind diversity training as a principle, but if they are asking me to be tolerant of something that I think is absolutely wrong - I dont see how that can be justified. Would they accept diversity training in paedophilia? Or necrophilia? Or axe-murderer? Actually one day they might. Without a religious basis they don't accept any moral absolutes, so it all eventually comes down to what the majority are "comfortable" with.
Yes. Many could be lost because they will convince them it isn't sin. And they will try to silence us. They may silence some but not all.
Thanks DJ MacWoW, for you subsequent response.
stuartcr, DJ MacWoW nailed it. Even Adam (at least as far as we can know from the somewhat short Biblical narrative), who I hold in high regard, did what virtually all people who have erred do, he shifted the blame to someone else.
The thing is, you can keep blaming God for everything that is wrong, or you can place responsibility with the people that have done the wrong. God doesn’t do things wrong. I could expound, at length, an explanation to what you’re saying, but I’d rather not open a theological debate that gets fought every day here on freerepublic. If you’d like more info on my personal faith’s beliefs, you can PM me, be the short of it is what DJ MacWoW has already said, namely God is not responsible when people do wrong.
Perhaps you have ever raised children (this is an analogy, but not precisely the same), and you know that when you have a child, that that child will make mistakes, no matter how well you raise them (although if you train them the right way, they will stick to it by and large, but no one, but Christ, is or has been perfect), they will do something wrong. Well God loves us too, and created us, and Christ died so we wouldn’t be cut off forever, because God knew we would fail to be perfect. So according to His will, we have a Saviour, and whether you believe Christ to be real or not, is up to you.
I believe that our Heavenly Father sent His only Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him, with all that that entails, should not perish (as they should due to sin), but have everlasting life. To say that just because God created someone and they do wrong is an affirmation that God is ok with someone doing wrong, or that thewre is no wrong is a cop out. As the prophets have said, we are as sheep who have gone astray, and wandered. Everyone does something wrong, but Jesus did not, whether it is to a degree to what you’re talking about, or not. Everyone has an opportunity to choose, and virtually every sin (except, maybe, the shedding of innocent blood, and blashphemy against the Holy Spirit) has an absolution, through Christ. But God didn’t create people to fail, He created people, and knew they would fail, and gave His Son a ransom, for their sins, if they would believe on Him, and take up their cross and follow Him. And of that, I bear my personal witness that these things are true, of Christ’s atonement, and resurrection, that these things are true, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
“Why do parents have children knowing the awful things that can happen?
Mr X chooses to sin. God didn’t make the choice for him just because he sees it’s going to happen.
You want to blame God for mans sinful nature but it isn’t God that chose disobedience, man did. And man has been blaming everyone else for his sin since. Not taking responsibility for ones choices is also a sin. Blaming God for those same choices is stupid.
If Mom says no cookies before dinner and the kid takes one anyway is Mom responsible for it because she said “No”?”
I just saw this post. Wonderfully articulated. Had I seen it, I might not have responded to Stuartcr, at length as I did. Thanks for fighting the good fight. :) I’m not so patient, as you seem to be, bless you for that!
“And for this tale to be true, that would have to mean that every man in Sodom was both a rapist and a homosexual; I simply don’t see how any form of human society could exist even for a week where every male in that society were a violent homosexual rapist.”
Hemingway’s Ghost, I actually can counter this with an actual tribe/society on the Earth, today, in the here and now. There is a tribe (beware, the wikipedia article is very, very lean in details, but I have read more extensively on this tribe in other studies), called the “Kukukuku” or “Angu” who have the practice of older males raping the younger ones in order to put there, ahem “Essence” in them, and say that it’s what makes them grow up to be men. In the culture, it is universal—at least reception of the act— and, according to the other texts I have read it was all elder males and involved all the young boys. Wikipedia’s article is very, very whitewashed.
In any event, I’ve posted the link and almost complete artice below, it’s short, but you can research further. In any event, it should offer some insight as to how differently something can be, just an ocean away. Not everone thinks and acts in a more civilized manner, as we do today (albeit we are FAR from perfect), but I imagine the same issues we have today were at least as rampant, if not moreso, in the early biblical times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angu
“The Angu, also called Kukukuku (pronounced “cooker-cooker”) by neighbouring tribes, are a small and previously violent tribe living mainly in the high, mountainous region of south-western Morobe, a province of Papua New Guinea. Even though they are a short people, often less than 5 foot, they were once feared for their violent raids on more peaceful villages living in lower valleys.[1]
They are also known to Westerners for practicing a sexual ritual involving preadolescent boys acting as courtesans for male tribal elders.”
I missed you in my ping to post #276, where I responded to HG about the exchange between you guys/gals. I just didn’t want to leave you out. Have a good one.
“Hypothetically, yes or no: YOU see a vicious rape/murder. If seeing and knowing something equals being responsible for it as you stated, then you are responsible for the crime.”
Checkmate.
??? How dare I? The person that asks a yes or no question, certainly has the right to expect a yes or no answer. Good grief.
You have responded more completely, not answered.
Look, I understand the reasoning behind your answers. Sorry I mistook you for someone that could just answer honestly yes or no, nothing more.
I’m sorry you find it necessary to respond this way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.