Joan of Arc and Nine Other "Queer" Saints

No, it is you that missed the point. Your proclamations and defense of the article are equivalent to DY's non-stop condemnations of gays. You are basing your accusations on your desire for them to be true. They are not based on any sort of evidence. At least none that I have seen you produce thus far.
When have I condemned gays as a group? I condemn those who lie. I have exposed the truth that gay isn't normal moral natural or healthy, period. If they want to be queer, let them be queer.
 
Women were allowed to go to battle and wear armore?

Yes, women wore armor and fought. It was not particularly common, but also not unheard of. Countess Jeanne de Penthièvre was another example of a female commander in armor. She donned armor to command the defense of a city, and then led a group of knights on raids to attack rear camps of their enemy.
 
Right. And given the dismissal of women, even today, rabble and countrymen were going to follow around a girl, in whom they saw femininity, not strength, conviction and the fearlessness of a male warrior.

The fact that she claimed to have had visions from God helped. But men followed female commanders into battle. Countess Jeanne de Penthièvre led knights on raids in the Breton War of succession in 1345, so there was a precedent long before Joan of Arc was born.
 
No, it is you that missed the point. Your proclamations and defense of the article are equivalent to DY's non-stop condemnations of gays. You are basing your accusations on your desire for them to be true. They are not based on any sort of evidence. At least none that I have seen you produce thus far.

You've lost all credibility (as if you once had it) by comparing me to DY, on any level. It's not "my accusations". I reposted an article, I thought significant and interesting from Huff Post...and you've accused me short of authorship, in your zeal. Don't fucking believe it...I don't give a shit.
 
Understanding Black Attitudes Toward Homosexuality
By George E. Curry

Are African-Americans less supportive of homosexuality than other racial and ethnic groups? The answer is an emphatic yes. But the reasons have more to do with religion than race.

“While the U.S. is generally considered a highly religious nation, African Americans are markedly more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. population as a whole, including level of affiliation with religion, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer and religion’s importance in life,” observes a report titled, A Religious Portrait of African-Americans by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.


The report noted, “Nearly eight in ten African Americans (79%) say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 56% among U.S. adults. In fact, even a large majority (72%) of African-Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular faith say religion plays at least a somewhat important role in their lives, nearly half (45%) of unaffiliated African-Americans say religion is very important in their lives, roughly three times the percentage who says this among the religiously unaffiliated population overall (16%).”

And African Americans are more likely to act on their religious beliefs.

“More than half of African Americans (53%) report attending religious services at least once a week, more than three-in-four (76%) say they pray on at least a daily basis and nearly nine-in-ten (88%) indicate they are absolutely certain that God exists. On each of these measures, African Americans stand out as the most religiously committed racial or ethnic group in the nation,” the report stated.

Among the most religiously committed, no group is more committed than African-American women. The report found that 84 percent of black women say religion is very important to them and 59 percent say they attend religious services at least once a week.

Given African Americans’ close affiliation with the church, it should come as no surprise that most blacks oppose homosexuality.

“Blacks are much more likely to think that homosexuality is morally wrong (64%) than whites (48%) or Hispanics (43%),” according to a Pew poll last year on civil unions and gay marriage.

Again, that should be placed within the larger context of religion.

“Overall, two-thirds of those who attend services at least weekly say homosexual behavior is morally wrong, compared with 43% of those who attend services monthly or yearly and 32% of those who seldom or never attend,” the report stated.

A survey released Wednesday that combines two recent polls by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life shows that 43 percent of the public favor same-sex marriage and 48 percent oppose it. The report, Gay Marriage Gains More Acceptance, represents the first time in the 15 years Pew has been polling that fewer than half of Americans oppose same-sex marriage.

“Blacks continue to oppose same-sex marriage by a wide margin,” the new report states. “In 2010, just 30% of non-Hispanic blacks favor gay marriage while 59% are opposed. From 2008 to 2000, 28% of blacks favored same-sex marriage and 62% were opposed.”

The number of African Americans in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military has dropped from 57 percent in 1994 to 48 percent in 2010. Over the same period, white support increased from 51 percent to 63 percent.

There are other variations as well, with younger people and the better educated more likely to favor same-sex marriage than their older and less educated counterparts. Geography is a factor as well, with a majority Southerners opposed to same-sex marriage, the Midwest and West were about evenly divided and the Northeast supported gay marriage by a margin of 49 percent to 41 percent.

The new study did not address civil unions, which would give unmarried gay and lesbian couples many of the rights now enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. A Pew poll last year revealed that blacks support civil unions over gay marriages, with 43 percent of black Protestants in favor of civil unions and 49 percent opposed. Overall, 57 percent of Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into civil unions, up from 45 percent in 2003.

Interestingly, the poll on civil unions and gay marriage noted that 64 percent of Americans say gays and lesbians encounter a lot of discrimination, facing more discrimination than Muslims (58 percent), Latinos (52 percent), blacks (49 percent) or women (37 percent).

Gregory B. Lewis of the Andrew Young School of Public Policy Studies at Georgia State University examined data from 31 public opinion polls conducted from 1973 and 2000, which involved nearly 7,000 blacks and 43,000 whites. In 2003, his analysis was published in Public Opinion Quarterly. Lewis concluded, “Despite their greater disapproval of homosexuality, African-American opinion on gay civil liberties and employment discrimination are quite similar to whites’ opinions, and African Americans are more likely to support laws prohibiting anti-gay discrimination.”

Many African Americans are influenced by the Bible and their religious leaders. Black preachers tend to address social issues such as school prayer, the death penalty and homosexuality more than their White counterparts.

In one survey, nearly 50 percent of African-American churchgoers reported that their pastors regularly expressed negative viewpoints toward homosexuality. In one Baltimore study, 68 percent of the Black respondents said their pastor had preached that homosexuality was a sin or immoral.

Ministers point to various passages of the Bible to justify their stand against homosexuality, including Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and the most quoted Scripture on the subject, Leviticus 18:22, which reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

In its 2009 report titled, At the Crossroads: African American Same Gender Loving Families and the Freedom to Marry, the National Black Justice Coalition, the nation’s only African-American gay civil rights organization, said: “The ‘homosexuality is a choice’ rhetoric is also preached by African-American ministers in their churches. Arguing that as a result gays are not entitled to certain rights and protections in the same way African Americans are, creates a wedge between African-American and gay communities.”

To some, it is a wedge unlikely to disappear.

During a Freedom Weekend panel discussion earlier this year in Detroit, Anthony Samad, a scholar, social activist and columnist, told supporters of gays and lesbians: “…What you’re asking African Americans to do is go against their belief system, which is the church. Most of them believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman. You’re asking them to choose between your cause and their church.”
 
When have I condemned gays as a group? I condemn those who lie. I have exposed the truth that gay isn't normal moral natural or healthy, period. If they want to be queer, let them be queer.

Um... right there ass munch.

Time and again you make that unbelievably stupid comment and like Poet above, you have NOTHING to back it up.

1) Show us where Gay people are any more/less healthy than straight people
2) It is natural as it occurs in nature in numerous species. Not only do you lack any evidence to support your position there are numerous studies showing you are wrong.
3) Morality is a personal and subjective issue. While it may not fit your religions moral code, we are not required to follow YOUR personal BELIEFS.
 
You've lost all credibility (as if you once had it) by comparing me to DY, on any level. It's not "my accusations". I reposted an article, I thought significant and interesting from Huff Post...and you've accused me short of authorship, in your zeal. Don't fucking believe it...I don't give a shit.

You have lost all credibility by posting such nonsense and then defending it.
 
Um... right there ass munch.

Time and again you make that unbelievably stupid comment and like Poet above, you have NOTHING to back it up.

1) Show us where Gay people are any more/less healthy than straight people
2) It is natural as it occurs in nature in numerous species. Not only do you lack any evidence to support your position there are numerous studies showing you are wrong.
3) Morality is a personal and subjective issue. While it may not fit your religions moral code, we are not required to follow YOUR personal BELIEFS.

I am surprised even DY would continue with the "its not normal, moral, natural or healthy" nonsense. It has been debunked so many times.
 
You have lost all credibility by posting such nonsense and then defending it.
Right. But since I validate me...I'm in good stead. Impotency is your waterloo. You probably have family members that are gay, and you're the last to know.
 
Um... right there ass munch.

Time and again you make that unbelievably stupid comment and like Poet above, you have NOTHING to back it up.

1) Show us where Gay people are any more/less healthy than straight people
2) It is natural as it occurs in nature in numerous species. Not only do you lack any evidence to support your position there are numerous studies showing you are wrong.
3) Morality is a personal and subjective issue. While it may not fit your religions moral code, we are not required to follow YOUR personal BELIEFS.

You are absolutely right to point out that homosexuality occurs widely in nature.

Homosexuality is regarded as being unnatural, but that's a paradox: nature abounds in examples of homosexual behavior in animals.

Various explanations have attempted to explain homosexuality in both humans and animals. Some researches point that genes conferring homosexuality in men could deliver more fertile female offspring and the genes that confer high masculinity can produce lesbian female offspring. Vice versa, genes of high femininity can render homosexual male offspring.

One hypothesis suggests that males can sometimes gain support in a pack by having homosexual contact, increasing their chances
of copulating females. When a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships allow an easier way to join a pack. Homosexual sex can sometimes train infants for adult sexual roles.

It appears clearly now that for many species, like in humans, mating may not have a necessarily reproductive role. And observations made on our closest relatives, monkeys and apes, could explain the homosexual behavior in humans. This seems to be a basic primate pattern not exclusive to man.

In the case of Bonobo, the dwarf chimpanzee, the closest living species to humans, the community model is based on female solidarity and good relationships between the two sexes. Sex is at the basis of their social relationships and the weakest conflict is solved through sex, no matter if the other is male or female, as part of social bonding. This ape actually mates from each possible position.

From time to time, there are real orgies in the bonobo groups, with individuals of any sex and age (offspring included!) taking part, with both heterosexual and homosexual behavior. Bonobos frequently masturbate and females do it, too, which is very unusual.

The only taboo is sex between mother and son and almost all bonobos are bisexual. They copulate frenetically and often express sexual pleasure by screaming, especially females, in 66 % of the cases. The females form alliances, hardened by lesbian sex, and this way they detain a dominant position inside the group (but a peaceful one).

"In bonobos for instance, strict heterosexual individuals would not be able to make friends in the flock and thus never be able to breed," said Petter Bockman from University of Oslo.

But homosexuality is also common with the Japanese macaques. Here, females form strong bounds with one another and temporary lesbian pairs during the mating season, ruling several partners during the whole period. They stimulate genitally each other and express their pleasure by cackling. That's why the links amongst females are extremely strong in a group.

In each group, there is an older dominant male that will have priority in copulating the females. The other male macaques practice homosexuality, but they do not form pairs, preferring a one-night stand.

In stumptail macaques too there is a frequent prolonged, intensive genital stimulation between individuals of the same sex, both males and females, adults and infants. Homosexual activities were accompanied by positive emotional facial expressions.

During the first copulations of the young they are helped by adults of the same or opposite sex.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Homosexuality-a-Basic-Behavior-in-the-Human-Ancestors-71153.shtml
 
Right. But since I validate me...I'm in good stead. Impotency is your waterloo. You probably have family members that are gay, and you're the last to know.

You are obviously a clever chap, which is why I can't understand why you mostly seem to post about matters that concern you personally.
 
I am surprised even DY would continue with the "its not normal, moral, natural or healthy" nonsense. It has been debunked so many times.

I know. I am shocked he could even type the words 'when have I condemned gays as a group'... because I am pretty sure he does that at least twice a week.
 
Right. But since I validate me...I'm in good stead. Impotency is your waterloo. You probably have family members that are gay, and you're the last to know.

What the fuck are you rambling about now? The above seems to imply I have some beef with gay people or some lack of awareness. I know for a fact my cousin is gay. I know for a fact several of my friends are gay. So what the fuck is your point? Is this your pathetic attempt to deflect from the stupidity of your OP article that you keep defending? Is that how you 'validate' yourself? ROFLMAO
 
What the fuck are you rambling about now? The above seems to imply I have some beef with gay people or some lack of awareness. I know for a fact my cousin is gay. I know for a fact several of my friends are gay. So what the fuck is your point? Is this your pathetic attempt to deflect from the stupidity of your OP article that you keep defending? Is that how you 'validate' yourself? ROFLMAO

We are all entitled to our beliefs. I believe the article, because, in my life I have experienced too many instances where a male friend was married and had children, and either was leading a "double life" or came to the conclusion that he was living a lie, and decided to move to rectify the situation, usually at great cost. I've known women, who had children, and later became involved in lesbian relationship. You're suggesting that circumstantial evidence is way too flimsy to certify whether or not a religious figure, in this case, canonized saints, were celibate, and/or gay or bi-sexual. Reality renders it plausible, to say the least. Now, that obviously doesn't sit well with you. I'm sorry, but this isn't about you. This isn't about me. You want to make it personal. It's not. Don't accept it? You don't have to...some would call it "wild speculation"....others, "gospel". Whatever. Take a chill pill and sit your ass down somewhere.
 
We are all entitled to our beliefs. I believe the article, because, in my life I have experienced too many instances where a male friend was married and had children, and either was leading a "double life" or came to the conclusion that he was living a lie, and decided to move to rectify the situation, usually at great cost. I've known women, who had children, and later became involved in lesbian relationship. You're suggesting that circumstantial evidence is way too flimsy to certify whether or not a religious figure, in this case, canonized saints, were celibate, and/or gay or bi-sexual. Reality renders it plausible, to say the least. Now, that obviously doesn't sit well with you. I'm sorry, but this isn't about you. This isn't about me. You want to make it personal. It's not. Don't accept it? You don't have to...some would call it "wild speculation"....others, "gospel". Whatever. Take a chill pill and sit your ass down somewhere.

No, it is not about him. It is also not about you. It is about taking facts and going wildly overboard in speculation. It is about you taking your life epxeriences from the 20th & 21st century and thinking that they apply in the 14th century.

Mainly, it is about judging people based solely on their LACK of a spouse or on rumors. If it makes you feel better I guess you have something to hold on to. But to think this is anything more than an attempt to rewrite history to satisfy a political or social agenda is to be blind to the facts.
 
We are all entitled to our beliefs. I believe the article, because, in my life I have experienced too many instances where a male friend was married and had children, and either was leading a "double life" or came to the conclusion that he was living a lie, and decided to move to rectify the situation, usually at great cost. I've known women, who had children, and later became involved in lesbian relationship. You're suggesting that circumstantial evidence is way too flimsy to certify whether or not a religious figure, in this case, canonized saints, were celibate, and/or gay or bi-sexual. Reality renders it plausible, to say the least. Now, that obviously doesn't sit well with you. I'm sorry, but this isn't about you. This isn't about me. You want to make it personal. It's not. Don't accept it? You don't have to...some would call it "wild speculation"....others, "gospel". Whatever. Take a chill pill and sit your ass down somewhere.

wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.jpg
 

And WTF is that supposed to mean? We know you can surf the internet and find pictures of questionable taste, but what the hell does a wolf in sheep's clothing have to do with anything posted here?
 
Back
Top