What's funny is LL often makes scathing pronouncements on others' poor logic, generally accompanied by--either in the same post or a nearby one--a glaring fallacy of his own.
I should have clarified a bit more. I don't believe that homosexuality has much, if anything, to do with genetics. I am also dumbfounded by the circular logic and why I even bother getting into these threads. The bottom line is: if it's genetic, you're right, if it's not, I'm right. No amount of discussion will change that and it will ultimately lead us to that very bottom line. So if it is genetic, yes I am discriminating. If it is not, then I am not. You believe it's genetic so to you it's discrimination. I don't believe it's genetic, so its not discrimination in my eyes. For me, it doesn't matter if the government accepts gay marriage. It's unimportant to me personally because it's only important to me if God accepts marriage. Regarding rights, a truly secular + democratic nation should provide the same rights to homosexuals as they do to everyone else IMO once it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is genetic. But again, I'm completely against having a secular + democratic nation for reasons such as this one. [Note: Completely uninterested in exchanging sources regarding whether it's genetic or not. I've seen it all and there is no way any of us will prove to the other that one side is overwhelmingly true and the other is not.]
IOW, you are completely closed minded on the subject, will not look at any of the scientific evidence, and you will choose to be a bigot. In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether it is "genetic" or not. Homosexuals are just as much members of society as you are. As such, they deserve the same rights you have, rights that include being able to fall in love with and marry the person of their choice. The biggest difference between you and I is that you have chosen bigotry and choose to cover it up in a "debate" about genetics. I have chosen tolerance (which the Bible calls for repeatedly, BTW) because I reject bigotry in all of its forms.
Those of you concerned that gay parents will teach their gayness to their kids might be shocked to know that most gay people had straight parents!
4 years? Damn. My hat's off to you, man. You're much stronger than I am. I don't think I could have done that. My doctors are telling me I'm a year out from being nearly back to normal and that already seems so, so long. I'm glad to report that I'm finally doing better on the pain front. I just got back from a pain management specialist and he finally gave me some meds that seem to work. It took 23 days of unbearable suffering but I'm finally having a little relief. I might even be able to pay attention to the draft tonight.
Why does it matter if it's genetic or not? What if it's not that simple? There is very good evidence that there are both genetic and environmental factors involved in homosexual orientation. The science is not black and white (it rarely is). Regardless of whether a homosexual couple is so because of genetics, they are stil denied the right to marry the person they love. It's discrimination either way. (emphasis mine) In other words, you beleive in fascist theocracy. Good to know where you stand. You have every right to ignore the evidence in favor of your rigid and hateful theology.
not really. Gay rights activist want you to believe this is a battle of civil rights. Rather than acknowledge homosexuality as a behavior, they equate homosexuality with race and ethnicity, and the last time I checked.....those are inborn qualities and typically, morally neutral. so instead of focusing on the truth(which obviously wasn't working), they changed their language. Now it's not an action. It's an identity. And using words like "people" and "minority". discriminating against an action is easy, and often just. but who in their right mind would discriminate against a people? if I am in a diner, I can look around and fairly easily point out who is white, who is black, who is aisan etc....pointing out who is gay is nearly impossible, except for the extremely flamboyant, which btw can be easily altered. I'd like to see a black person go home and change his skin color because he got picked on. African americans were unjustly discriminated against because of who they were, not because of their actions. Apples......Oarnges.
I don't mean to but in, but.....I'd like to respond as well. It's not discrimination. do you not agree that marriage is named for it uniqueness between a man and a woman? the possibilities that are in a heterosexual relationship do not exists in a homosexual relationship. Just look at how man and woman's body are shaped. They are designed to unite as one sexually. Two woman cannot achieve this union because of their natural sex organs, and men have to go into places that are specifically designed for anything but sex. I also like to think that a united heterosexual relationship has a natural chemistry vital to children, not found in homosexual relationships. Where as each others weaknesses are canceled out by the opposite sex's strengths. Thus passing on a healthy balance to the child. Homosexuals are both the same biologically and weak in the same areas, their biological differences cannot be successfully eliminated by their union. any attempt to make homosexual marriage synonymous with heterosexual marriage is inaccurate. It's not the same biologically, in relation to offspring, or what their union achieves. yet, we have those who want us to believe it is the same, I don't want to believe it is the same, and niether do the other millions of americans who keep rejecting gay marriage. 99.99% of this country believes that marriage between a man and a woman is okay, and we know that at least 50% of this country disagrees with gay marriage. yet advocates are still cramming their agenda down our throats.......who is the bigot again?
I think this post makes it completely obvious where the disagreement is (and I seem to recall having a similar epiphany in another thread on this subject, although maybe with a different poster). You believe being gay is about what somebody does. Gay people and supporters of gay rights claim it is about what somebody is. Nobody changed the language. Homosexuality has always been defined by what someone is. Gays and lesbians have never claimed that they are homosexual by choice. In fact, if you asked each and every gay person who applied for marriage whether they were gay by choice, I'm guessing 99% would say no, it is just who they are. Also, there are gay people in the world who have never had gay sex of any kind, including some who have never kissed a member of the same sex. How is that based on action and not something inate? I think if you want to discuss homosexuality and the rights of homosexuals in society, you should probably put in big red letters at the start of every conversation that you think homosexuality is a behavior and a choice. My guess is that most people assume you would know that it is not a choice, and you'll save a lot of time and words getting to the bottom of that misunderstanding right away.
agreed. I have stated as much before as well. It's really the bottom line on this issue. This is actually false. The language has been changed in numerous areas. Their are also a large portion of gay and lesbians who admit to homosexuality being a choice and have ended homosexual behaviors in favor of heterosexual. That is an interesting point. My first thought would be that the action is what defines homosexuality. IDK though.....something to think about(no homo).
Those people are actually quite a small group who have been persuaded by the shame brought on by bigotry such as yours to deny who they truly are and live a lie. They shouldn't be ashamed of themselves; you should.
So you're not straight until you've slept with a member of the opposite sex? Homosexuality is about who you're attracted to. No physical act is required. Oh, and by the way... do you think slavery is a complicated issue, yes or no? (if you avoid the question a 5th time like a sissy 3-year-old, you win a set of steak knives)
by definition, you are a troll. your act of following up everyone of my posts with name calling, wild, audacious and unsubstansiated claims of hate and constant ridicule of my parenting skill is old. You make religious wing-nuts look tame. Congrats.....you win the first ever award of...... Spoiler
For one thing, testimony does not equal proof. It's like us saying that we were made in the image of God, that would be the testimony of millions of people, but that doesn't mean it's proof. Plus, could you produce this result please, some scientific journal or maybe a newspaper article? It would be interesting to see where this information comes from.
it's only the 4th time (I think). 3 year olds around the world find that statement reprehensible. keep the steak knives. I'm trying to cut-out red meat.
My completely arbitrary guess is that more homosexuals commit suicide for reasons related to their sexual orientation than "convert" to heterosexuality. I have as much evidence to back up that guess as you do to back up your impressions, though, so don't take it as fact. But the fact that some feel it is better to kill themselves than it is to change their sexual orientation indicates that maybe they cannot change their sexuality because it is not a choice. Many homosexuals know they are gay when they are young and before they have any sexual experiences. I'm not sure if you were aware of that, but if you interpret homosexuality to be the act of same-gender sex, then I guess you would consider these people to just know that they have a higher proclivity to engage in homosexual acts later in their lives? Which brings me to another question that I'm honestly curious about. I wonder if you believe that most homosexuals choose to love people of the same sex. Gay people are a heck of a lot more likely to engage in homosexual sex than straight people. Why is that? Wouldn't it have to be because there is something about them that makes them desire homosexual sex? And if there is something about them that causes that desire, is it really a choice?
So when you start a debate, do you know ahead of time that you're going to simply ignore anything that challenges your own viewpoint, or do you delude yourself into thinking you're an adult?
Wow. You don't even realize how painful these stupid James Dobson "Love Won Out" pamphlets and conferences are for the people involved. Have you ever been to one? Have you ever spoken to an individual who has been dragged to one before? They are often kids - brought by their parents to "cure" their "disease." One of my best friends from high school was taken to that conference in Colorado by his father and felt like killing himself afterward. Hearing that an intrinsic part of who you are is going to send you to hell is nothing short of abusive. Spare us this "ex-gay" bull****. These people are shamed and belittled into "becoming" heterosexual. They are told they are an abomination and that they condemned to "spend eternity away from God." There are tons of gay Christians from fundamentalist backgrounds that have killed themselves because they couldn't live with the shame. Tell me which side is perpetuating the *wrong* in this argument. It absolutely incenses me that people won't let themselves see the pain that many of these people go through. Say all you want that it's "a choice, and they can control it." Exclude these people all you want. Keep them from having similar rights. But this is not making homosexual individuals "understand," it's not showing them love or compassion. It's not making something click in their head that says, "Oh, I can change, I didn't even realize that." It just gives people feelings of alienation and it hurts deeply.
I chose to ignore your lousy comparison. When you enter a debate, do you think everyone MUST agree with you? Many, many people have challenged my viewpoints in this thread. Don't act like a "sissy 3-year old" because I purposely ignored yours.
