Joan of Arc and Nine Other "Queer" Saints

WinterBorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Isn't nice that we live in America, where we can hold our own beliefs, and not be swayed by political or social agendas, of any kind?
 
poet said:
Isn't nice that we live in America, where we can hold our own beliefs, and not be swayed by political or social agendas, of any kind?
Click to expand...

Isn't it nice that some people will defend those who cannot speak for themselves?
 
Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...

1. Must we do this constantly? AIDS was spread by gays. They fuck each other up the ass. The anus is susceptible to disease.
2. Not in species exposed to normal environments, unless you count worms.
3. No. Morality is fixed. No major moral code accepts queer as moral.
 
DamnYankee said:
1. Must we do this constantly? AIDS was spread by gays. They fuck each other up the ass. The anus is susceptible to disease.
2. Not in species exposed to normal environments, unless you count worms.
3. No. Morality is fixed. No major moral code accepts queer as moral.
Click to expand...

Ignorance is bliss, is it not? Well, how about dangerous? AIDS was spread by sexual contact, and then by blood. Africans were infected with tainted monkey polio virus, whether by accident or deliberately, and had sexual relations with a Canadian flight attendant (Gaetan Dugas), "allegedly", who brought the virus to the West.
If, by this time, you think that anal sex is the only way the virus can be transmitted, then you're probably infected yourself, because vaginas carry the virus, as well. And I'm not all that sure that you don't swing "both ways".
And your reality is your own, and no one else's. Morality is different for different people. "Queer" is a pejorative, and hardly the term to describe millions of human beings. Millions.
Fake Christian. Tell the truth, and shame the devil.
 
poet said:
Isn't nice that we live in America, where we can hold our own beliefs, and not be swayed by political or social agendas, of any kind?
Click to expand...

This is pretty funny to me. While its true that in America we are free to hold our own beliefs, we are mostly too retarded to do anything except be swept up by political, and especially social agendas, every minute of every waking day. You might call it the Jersey Shores Syndrome, as wreality tv seems particularly effective at turning us into mindless socialites.
 
poet said:
...
If, by this time, you think that anal sex is the only way the virus can be transmitted...
Click to expand...
Straw man. I said it was spread by gays fucking each other in the ass. Queers tend to have relations with numerous other queers.
 
poet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tell me poet.... what does the above have to do with "Impotency is your waterloo. You probably have family members that are gay, and you're the last to know."

That is what I asked you about when I asked what you were rambling about. Somehow you came at me with a 'you don't know who is gay around you' line of crap.

Yes, you are entitled to your OPINION on whether historical figures were gay or not. If you wish to make proclamations based on flimsy evidence at best, that is your choice. As I stated, this puts your line of 'thinking' in the same category of DY when he states 'gay people are immoral'. he is basing it on nothing. Just as you are. If you like that kind of company, by all means keep advocating your ridiculous opinion.
 
WinterBorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Superfreak said:
Tell me poet.... what does the above have to do with "Impotency is your waterloo. You probably have family members that are gay, and you're the last to know."

That is what I asked you about when I asked what you were rambling about. Somehow you came at me with a 'you don't know who is gay around you' line of crap.

Yes, you are entitled to your OPINION on whether historical figures were gay or not. If you wish to make proclamations based on flimsy evidence at best, that is your choice. As I stated, this puts your line of 'thinking' in the same category of DY when he states 'gay people are immoral'. he is basing it on nothing. Just as you are. If you like that kind of company, by all means keep advocating your ridiculous opinion.
Click to expand...

I think the thing that distresses me most about reinterpreting history, through modern eyes, is when you see someone stating that an historic figure is homosexual but celibate. I have great difficulty understanding what the fuck that means.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I think the thing that distresses me most about reinterpreting history, through modern eyes, is when you see someone stating that an historic figure is homosexual but celibate. I have great difficulty understanding what the fuck that means.
Click to expand...

It's the same thing as being heterosexual and celibate. What does one thing have to do with the other? Priests and nuns are assumed to be heterosexual and celibate, and that could only be the case, half the time.
 
poet said:
It's the same thing as being heterosexual and celibate. What does one thing have to do with the other? Priests and nuns are assumed to be heterosexual and celibate, and that could only be the case, half the time.
Click to expand...

So explain to me how somebody who has never had sex can be defined as either homo or heterosexual?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
So explain to me how somebody who has never had sex can be defined as either homo or heterosexual?
Click to expand...

Is that so hard to fathom? It's about sexual orientation....who one is sexually aroused by or attracted to. I was homosexual before I ever had sex. What? It's not the act that makes you hetero or homo....it's the way your mind is oriented. Geez.
 
poet said:
Is that so hard to fathom? It's about sexual orientation....who one is sexually aroused by or attracted to. I was homosexual before I ever had sex. What? It's not the act that makes you hetero or homo....it's the way your mind is oriented. Geez.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but I cannot see how you can determine the sexual orientation of an historical figure that never had sex, that is just an attempt to apply modern day social mores to another time and place.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I am sorry but I cannot see how you can determine the sexual orientation of an historical figure that never had sex, that is just an attempt to apply modern day social mores to another time and place.
Click to expand...

Well I guess it isn't too different in trying to determine if Caesar, Alexander the Great and Mohammad were epileptic.
 
Rana said:
Well I guess it isn't too different in trying to determine if Caesar, Alexander the Great and Mohammad were epileptic.
Click to expand...

Reports of them having numerous bouts of "tremors" and such, are usually a good indication.
Do you have anything that shows that Joan of Arc had homosexual desires?
 
poet said:
It's the same thing as being heterosexual and celibate. What does one thing have to do with the other? Priests and nuns are assumed to be heterosexual and celibate, and that could only be the case, half the time.
Click to expand...

If someone claims to be heterosexual and celibate, unless there is some evidence to the contrary, why would we call them anything else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top