Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1 2

"Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad"?!

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: shagdrum

This should make for an interesting discussion...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/F...s_know_its_bad

Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage.

He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”

How so?

The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.

So what?

People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy.

Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist? No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”

But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.

You might say, “Correlation doesn’t always indicate causation!” Yes, but often it does. Is there any doubt that liberalizing marriage laws impacts society for the worse? You need look no further than the last 40 years of no-fault divorce laws in the United States (family disintegration destroys lives and now costs tax payers $112 billion per year!).

No-fault divorce laws began in one state, California, and then spread to rest of the country. Those liberalized divorce laws helped change our attitudes and behaviors about the permanence of marriage. There’s no question that liberalized marriage laws will help change our attitudes and behaviors about the purpose of marriage. The law is a great teacher, and if same-sex marriage advocates have their way, children will be expelled from the lesson on marriage.

This leads Blankenhorn to assert, “One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both.”

Blankenhorn is amazed how indifferent homosexual activists are about the negative effects of same-sex marriage on children. Many of them, he documents, say that marriage isn’t about children.

Well, if marriage isn’t about children, what institution is about children? And if we’re going to redefine marriage into mere coupling, then why should the state endorse same-sex marriage at all?

Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.

That conclusion has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with what’s best for children and society. Just ask pro-gay, liberal democrat David Blankenhorn.

Posted by: fossten

Hadn't you heard? It takes a village to raise a child. Hillary Clinton said so.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Not all straight married couples have children.

Marriage grants people rights and privilages that unions don't.

A fact of note, not one single gay couple in Mass who has been married has yet to divorce and "illegitimize: their child. How many straight couples divorce and this has a "negative affect on children"?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Not all straight married couples have children.

Marriage grants people rights and privilages that unions don't.

A fact of note, not one single gay couple in Mass who has been married has yet to divorce and "illegitimize: their child. How many straight couples divorce and this has a "negative affect on children"?

Eh...not one single gay couple has legitimately had a child yet.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Eh...not one single gay couple has legitimately had a child yet.

Gay couples have adopted together, in the cases of a lesbian couple, they have had children and the non-birth mother has adopted the child and some have children from a previous (straight) relationship.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

You are describing blended families, the PC term that includes the "illegitimizing" that you've described. Also, I'd like to see a link that backs up your assertion that no gay couple has been divorced in Massachusetts. Meanwhile, I'll post one of my own.

PWNED

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Your point? There are straight couples that marry under the same conditions and adopt.

Last time I checked there were none, one point for you. Though it is irrelevant to the big picture, as the divorce rate among straight couples (with or without children) is high.

If your going to pull out the "oh the children, the CHILDREN" card here to not allow equal rights because of a fear of "illegitimacy". I remember Shagdrum posting some statistics of "illegitimacy rates in the black community" and how high they were, under that same train of thought, should we deny them the right to marry? What about straight couples who previously divorced and one or more parrent "illigitimzed" their child, should we bar them from ever marrying again, under that same train of thought?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Ah, my sweet little noob, my point is that you are trying to use very narrow statistics to paint lesbian/homosexual love as this Utopian, blessed, divine, perfect thing that has no flaws and is the solution to the nasty hetero marriage debacle. The fact is that people are people, and it's easy (if you're truly intellectually honest and not just trying to be PC) to predict that gay marriage will be a total disaster, both for the country and in and of itself.

By the way, the divorce rate for hetero couples is high because the marriage rate itself is high. You cannot compare unequal samples. Furthermore, you haven't done a demographic sample comparison yet either.

Finally, I never pulled the "children" card. You pulled it and then tried to claim that I pulled it by responding to you. That, my confectionary little nublet, is known as a straw man.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

LOL, I see you've resorted to a strawman, nice. I never said gay-marriage is a blessing and straight marriage is a curse, just that marriage is marriage, it's between two consenting adults and another's marriage is none of my or your business. Did you have to ask homosexuals if you could get married, did you need their blessing?

Yes, people are people, which is the reason you shouldn't deny someone else, something you partake in yourself. Why don't you use that "intellectuall honesty" you always parade to have and truly say or better yet, give some solid points why people should be denied equal rights, instead of just the typical nonsensical assertions that America will crumble and other straight people's "sanctity of marriage" will be destroyed, that we usually hear from the anti-equal rights group(s).

I wasn't saying "there's only one", just that divorce rates are high in straight couples, so why should it matter that gays might/could/will have high divorce rates? Gut instinct tells me that if people have to fight extremely hard for something, they're more willing to appreciate it, but that is irrelevant.

I was referring to the article, which I assume you agree with, Scarecrow. Do you not agree?

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Not all straight married couples have children.

Exceptions to the rule hardly disprove the rule. In fact, to argue that is to make a fallacious argument; specifically the fallacy of composition:

A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part

Bill Bennet wrote:

Based as it is on the principle of complementarity, marriage is also about a great deal more than love. That "great deal" encompasses, above all, procreation. The timeless function of marriage is childbearing and child-rearing, and the best arrangement ever developed to that end is the marital union between one man and one woman

Quote:

Marriage grants people rights and privilages that unions don't.

Marriage in and of itself doesn't "grant" any rights. What rights are you talking about, anyway?

Quote:

A fact of note, not one single gay couple in Mass who has been married has yet to divorce and "illegitimize: their child. How many straight couples divorce and this has a "negative affect on children"?

This is a red herring that misses the whole point. The article is talking about illegitimate births; kids born to single parents (usually a single parent). Not marriages that dissolve after the kid is born. When a marriage dissolves, the kid still usually has two loving parents; not so with illegitimate births.

Fossten is right to point out that gay couples can't have kids (not biologically). So no gay couple can divorce and "illegitimize" their kid; the kid is all ready illegitimately born. This point is nothing but obfuscation it seems (I know you love that word

).

In fact, to say that kids can be made illegitimate through divorce (before which they are born) is equivocation. Illegitimate is defined as "born out of wedlock". The marriage status of the parents after the birth is irrelevant.

Quote:

I remember Shagdrum posting some statistics of "illegitimacy rates in the black community" and how high they were, under that same train of thought, should we deny them the right to marry?

Again attempting to redefine illegitimacy.

The point is very valid that illegitimacy rates in the black community are very high (upwards of 70%, if I remember correctly), and this plays a large part in the high crimes rates, violence, etc. in the black community.

To compare the black community (with high illegitimacy rates) to the gay community is comparing apples and oranges; a false analogy. Gay couples cannot biologically have kids.

Quote:

What about straight couples who previously divorced and one or more parrent "illigitimzed" their child, should we bar them from ever marrying again, under that same train of thought?

Again, this whole point is based on a false definition of illegitimacy.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Oh boy, here we go again Cpt. Ifallaciouslyclaimfallacieswhileignoringthedoubles tandardsimake

If your argument (or part of) is "homosexuals can't*** have children together and marriage is about children, ergo they can't marry" then the same rule applies to straight couples who either can not have children together or don't want children. By doing so, you're denying equal rights on the grounds of sexual orientation, which is illegal.

(***This is besides you conveniently ignoring that homosexuals can have children together in the same ways that some married straight couples currently do, eg Adoption, the woman is artificially inseminated, surrogate mother etc.)

Besides tax breaks for being married, the right to your spouses (shared)property in case of injury/death, the right to speak on behave of your spouse in the case they're unable, rights to adopted children etc. (I can get you list)

Then what exactly is the issue/connection in not allowing same sex couples to marry and illigitimacy? They can now have children while not being married, as do non-married straight people. If they were allowed to marry, their children would be just as "legitimate" (or not) as a straight couple who either adopted, artificially inseminated, found a surrogate etc. etc. etc.

And what you and Fossten conveniently ignore, gays can have children in other ways besides heterosexual sex, just as straight people currently do, while either being married or not.

Edit: BTW, you're the one that initially brought up the black community as a comparision to what would/could happen if gay marriage were allowed when we had that discussion long ago, it certainly wasn't me that initially brought in "black illegitimacy rates" into the gay-marriage debate. Funny that you now say "apples to oranges, can't compare".

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

LOL, I see you've resorted to a strawman, nice. I never said gay-marriage is a blessing and straight marriage is a curse, just that marriage is marriage, it's between two consenting adults and another's marriage is none of my or your business. Did you have to ask homosexuals if you could get married, did you need their blessing?

Yes, people are people, which is the reason you shouldn't deny someone else, something you partake in yourself. Why don't you use that "intellectuall honesty" you always parade to have and truly say or better yet, give some solid points why people should be denied equal rights, instead of just the typical nonsensical assertions that America will crumble and other straight people's "sanctity of marriage" will be destroyed, that we usually hear from the anti-equal rights group(s).

I wasn't saying "there's only one", just that divorce rates are high in straight couples, so why should it matter that gays might/could/will have high divorce rates? Gut instinct tells me that if people have to fight extremely hard for something, they're more willing to appreciate it, but that is irrelevant.

I was referring to the article, which I assume you agree with, Scarecrow. Do you not agree?

Mkay, first of all, I wasn't using a straw man. I was using hyperbole to illustrate what you were actually trying to do, which was paint a rosier picture of gay couples in general by using a narrow (and flawed) sample. I successfully did that, so now in your frustration you are moving the goalposts and requiring that I answer the question of equal rights.

Fine.

Gay people have the same rights as straight people in this country. They can marry any person of the opposite sex and gain the exact same tax breaks, insurance rates, legal rights, et al as anyone else of legal age. You can bluster and stamp your foot all you want, but the fact is that they do enjoy the same rights as anyone else.

However, what they are demanding is a set of special rights. They want the government's and society's blessing and financial subsidy on their behavior, which is not a societal norm, and is in fact in the eyes of many an immoral act. They are demanding that they get special treatment if they decide to sleep with a person of the same sex on a regular basis. So let's take this a step further.

What about NAMBLA? If a man wants to marry a little boy because that's the lifestyle that he's chosen, shouldn't he get a tax break and JTWROS rights to property? What about the woman that falls in love with her dog? Does she get a car insurance discount because she has an alternative choice lifestyle? Should a man married to a woman but who keeps a young, strong pool boy in an apartment on the side get a tax break on the extra rent because he likes to bite the pillow now and then? What about the man who marries two women? Should he get access to government benefits for both wives? Three deductibles? Heck, any single guy should be able to legally marry his goldfish and thus claim extra deductibles on his annual federal taxes. Hallelujah, everybody's got rights!!!!

Posted by: Marcus

I think the key issue here is "consenting adults", Fossten. Or if it makes you feel better, make it "consenting human adults".

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

I think the key issue here is "consenting adults", Fossten. Or if it makes you feel better, make it "consenting human adults".

You'd better stop discriminating against people who have alternative lifestyles, you bigot. Everyone has rights, even child molesting fathers who want to marry their daughters. Let's not pass judgment because this sort of thing may be genetic, y'know? Who are we to say something is wrong?

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

You implied that I tried to paint gay-marriage as one thing (the positive) and straight-marriage as another (the negative), and then attacked that argument, when I did neither to begin with. But sure.

It's not a "special rights" issue, it's equal rights, which is 'to be able to marry a consenting adult of their choosing'. Social norms and what someone may find personally immoral isn't grounds to deny others something which “society" normally indulges in.

At one point it wasn't a social norm and it wasn't moral in the eyes of many people for a Caucasian to marry a Negro. Should we reinstate that since there are people who are still against the mixing of ethnicities?

LoL, I love that senseless argument, as noted by Tommy, "consenting adults". Last time I checked, a child, toaster or hamster can not legally give their consent. Isn't that a fallacy you just made? "If two f@gs can marry, then we'll have some other homo trying to marry a stallion."

I'm not asking to like it, but you seriously don't see a difference and just blanket it all as "it's immoral and therefore wrong?"

Posted by: fossten

That's a pretty weak argument, Deville. I'm not convinced. You didn't address the meat of my argument, namely the financial benefit bestowed upon anyone's chosen behavior. You glossed over it. It IS special rights, and you cannot deny that.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Let's see, you mentioned pedophilia, bestiality, adultery and polygamy. Your reasoning is, if we allow two consenting adult men or women to marry, we'll have to accept all of those, yet you call me argument weak? Seriously?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Let's see, you mentioned pedophilia, bestiality, adultery and polygamy. Your reasoning is, if we allow two consenting adult men or women to marry, we'll have to accept all of those, yet you call me argument weak? Seriously?

My reasoning is that gays want special rights. Nobody else gets them, just gays. You just proved my point again.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

My reasoning is that gays want special rights. Nobody else gets them, just gays. You just proved my point again.

Actually, it wouldn't be just gays. E.g. you could divorce your wife and marry a consenting man, if you so wished. Mind you, you may never want to indulge in this "right", but it would be available to you; just as you mentioned, a gay man is free to marry a woman.

Thanks for proving my point, its equal rights for all, which is "to marry the consenting adult of your choice", not just gays.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Sorry, wrong. And I didn't prove your point, either, and neither did you.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

How so, since if marriage is expanded to include same-sex couples, it would include every man and woman?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

How so, since if marriage is expanded to include same-sex couples, it would include every man and woman?

Marriage already includes every man and woman. You just don't get the tax breaks if you go up the dirt-chute.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Marriage already includes every man and woman. You just don't get the tax breaks if you go up the dirt-chute.

And as noted, it has an exception based on sexuality.

Correction, if you don't go up certain dirt-chutes, see what I mean about that "exception".

Posted by: fossten

Mkay. You made your points and I made mine. Are we done now?

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

And as noted, it has an exception based on sexuality.

There is no exception in the definition of marriage based on sexuality; that is what the gay community is asking for.

Since being gay has not been proven to be anything more then a lifestyle choice there is no claim to equality, as the person is choosing to exclude themselves from the mainstream.

What they are asking for is special rights for themselves; namely the redefining of marriage to accomadate their lifestyle choice; to make an exception for them. This ignores all the potential negative consequences of redefining marriage in order to push the agenda built around their lifestyle choice.

Posted by: hrmwrm

being gay is a lifestyle "choice"? i'd have to see you back that one up. being religious is a lifestyle choice.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

being gay is a lifestyle "choice"? i'd have to see you back that one up. being religious is a lifestyle choice.

Yes, being religious can be considered a lifestyle choice, but it is given a constitutionally privileged position in the 1st amendment.

The burden of proof on homosexuality is on those claiming it is genetic (biological), not the other way around (on those viewing it as a lifestyle choice). Just think about it; if there was a "gay gene" how could it be passed along? Gay's historically have not been able to reproduce (unless I am missing something).

Here is the conclusion from this article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

Consider the obvious problem of survival for individuals who allegedly possess a gay gene: individuals who have partners of the same sex are biologically unable to reproduce (without resorting to artificial means). Therefore, if an alleged “gay gene” did exist, the homosexual population eventually would disappear altogether. We now know that it is not scientifically accurate to refer to a “gay gene” as the causative agent in homosexuality. The available evidence clearly establishes that no such gene has been identified. Additionally, evidence exists which documents that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Future decisions regarding policies about, and/or treatment of, homosexuals should reflect this knowledge.

In fact, the head of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis S. Collins, has concluded that homosexuality is not genetic.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Gays do indeed have children, Ted haggard has several children.

If sexuality is a choice, then do tell me when and how you choose to be attracted to women? I also assume like every other person, there are certain qualities you find more attractive than others, eg blue eyes over brown, when and how did you choose yours?

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Where can the final and absolute definition of marriage be found?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Gays do indeed have children, Ted haggard has several children.

If sexuality is a choice, then do tell me when and how you choose to be attracted to women? I also assume like every other person, there are certain qualities you find more attractive than others, eg blue eyes over brown, when and how did you choose yours?

Haven't you ever heard the phrase "sexual preference?" That PC term was coined by homosexuals.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Gays do indeed have children, Ted haggard has several children.

Quote:

If sexuality is a choice, then do tell me when and how you choose to be attracted to women? I also assume like every other person, there are certain qualities you find more attractive than others, eg blue eyes over brown, when and how did you choose yours?

No one said sexuality is a choice. You are mischaracterizing again to set up a straw man, I see. Homosexuality is very likely a choice (consciously or unconsciously), as it is due to a number of psychological factors. You choose to deviate from the norm. Heterosexuality is the norm and is biologically natural. Remember that the ultimate biological purpose of sex is reproduction. Heterosexuals can reproduce while homosexuals cannot.

Posted by: Marcus

I'm sure you're aware that there is ample documentation of homosexual behavior in wild animals, so that raises some important questions:

1. Assuming that an animal of the opposite sex is available, what factors would cause the animal to ignore his natural instincts and choose the "dirt chute"?

2. Can animals "choose" at all or is it strictly a human concept?

3. Since, as you say, homosexuals cannot produce offspring, why do we still see it in the animal kingdom at all, given that it should have been bred out long ago (I'll refrain from using the E-word

).

I don't have the answers to these questions and neither does anyone else. But it certainly seems that there is more to homosexuality than making a conscious decision to become one.

As for number 3, I think the obvious answer is that homosexuality is not inherited, but genetic factors cannot necessarily be ruled out. Even identical twins are not identical genetically.

Also, I know this is an old argument, but why would ANYBODY choose to be a homosexual, given the obstacles and torment many have to go through? But this brings up another point that just occurred to me: Why aren't homosexual animals shunned by their heterosexual peers? The fact that they are not implies that homosexual behavior is indeed natural, even if it's not common.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Ted Haggard didn't have any children in a homosexual relationship. They were from a hetro relationship. Haggard is hardly an example of a homosexual, more and example of a bisexual. Considering his use of crystal meth, I think it is safe to say that there were probably a lot of phsychological factors involved in all his problems, and in his case, the homosexual encounters have to be considered one of those problems.

Either way, the example of Ted Harrard is tangential at best, and only serves to obfuscate the point; which I assume is your goal anyway.

Are you really trying to argue the fact that homosexual couples cannot biologically reproduce?!

No one said sexuality is a choice. You are mischaracterizing again to set up a straw man, I see. Homosexuality is very likely a choice (consciously or unconsciously), as it is due to a number of psychological factors. You choose to deviate from the norm. Heterosexuality is the norm and is biologically natural. Remember that the ultimate biological purpose of sex is reproduction. Heterosexuals can reproduce while homosexuals cannot.

Nice way to dodge. Gay men can and do have sex with women, sometimes those sexual outtings produce children. Gay women can and do have sex with men, sometimes those outtings produce a child. I work with a lesbian, who has a child from a long previous relationship with a man, she has no further interest in men and initially married a man because that is what she thought was right and expected of her, the mariage didn't last long for obvious reasons (her words). Correct, two males or two females can not have a baby together, that doesn't mean that a homosexual couldn't reproduce and pass on whatever it is you think they have or don't have.

It was a valid assumption that you meant "sexuality" as a whole and not just homosexuality. My error.

So tell me, what would make these people choose to deviate from the norm and what is supposedly biology ingrained? Incorrect again, 'homosexual sex' can't reproduce, homosexuals can and do.

I've never met a homosexual that said "I choose". Have you?

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

Also, I know this is an old argument, but why would ANYBODY choose to be a homosexual, given the obstacles and torment many have to go through? But this brings up another point that just occurred to me: Why aren't homosexual animals shunned by their heterosexual peers? The fact that they are not implies that homosexual behavior is indeed natural, even if it's not common.

Because animals don't have souls Tommy, duh.

Posted by: hrmwrm

as to whether gay is a lifestyle choice.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/mag...es_people_gay/

there is lots of evidence that gay is from birth. it is not a lifestyle choice. you cannot be "cured" from being gay. that is why it has been removed from the list of mental disorders. there are gay animals. obviously, if genetic, it should get bred out and never resurface. yet it reappears. the reason for it is as yet fully explainable. the fact that it exists elsewhere in the animal kingdom and not just in humans proves it is beyond a "lifestyle choice".

but god doesn't make gays, right? just like the sun revolves around the earth.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

as to whether gay is a lifestyle choice.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/mag...es_people_gay/

there is lots of evidence that gay is from birth. it is not a lifestyle choice. you cannot be "cured" from being gay.

You are wrong about this.

Quote:

the reason for it is as yet fully explainable. the fact that it exists elsewhere in the animal kingdom and not just in humans proves it is beyond a "lifestyle choice".

Ah, yes, the typical hrmwrm "proof," eh? LOL You don't have a clue what proof is. Animals =/= humans. Nice try.

Quote:

but god doesn't make gays, right? just like the sun revolves around the earth.

Romans 1:27 would definitely answer your sneering sarcasm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

Also, I know this is an old argument, but why would ANYBODY choose to be a homosexual, given the obstacles and torment many have to go through?

Not so much anymore.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Gay men can and do have sex with women, sometimes those sexual outtings produce children. Gay women can and do have sex with men, sometimes those outtings produce a child.

No, men and women who choose (for whatever reason) to go gay can have children in a hetero relationship, not in a homo relationship. You seem to be ignoring the fact that these people are not biologically gay! they changed their sexuality. They may claim they were always gay, but when it comes to sex, love and relationships, most people tend to be self-delusional. "She slept with him but it was a accident", "He beat and raped me but he still loves me". To believe that these are biologically predisposed to being gay is to suspend disbelief.

Quote:

I work with a lesbian, who has a child from a long previous relationship with a man, she has no further interest in men and initially married a man because that is what she thought was right and expected of her, the mariage didn't last long for obvious reasons (her words). Correct, two males or two females can not have a baby together, that doesn't mean that a homosexual couldn't reproduce and pass on whatever it is you think they have or don't have.

Again, your example of your co-worker or Haggard are examples of people who chose to change their sexuality, not biologically gay. No "gay gene" could be passed on (if it exists) because these people are not biologically gay.

The only gays that being genetically gay may be a possibility are people who have been gay their whole life and never had heterosexual desires.

Quote:

So tell me, what would make these people choose to deviate from the norm and what is supposedly biology ingrained? Incorrect again, 'homosexual sex' can't reproduce, homosexuals can and do.

Homosexual couples cannot reproduce. Your are intentionally changing the focus to heterosexuals who have changed their sexuality. They didn't and couldn't have children in a homosexual relationship, which is my point. Someone who has children and later changes their sexuality doesn't negate my point.

All you have shown is that homosexuals by choice can have reproduced in there past as heterosexuals. As homosexuals, they cannot reproduce. People who are gay their whole lives cannot reproduce, and those are the only ones that might pass on a gay gene if it does exist. Basically, being gay isn't inherited or genetic in any way. There is no way a "gay gene" could be passed along. It would be weeded out through natural selection.

As to why someone might turn gay, it could be any number of psychological factors; rape and/or abuse as a child, parent issues, need for attention, wanting to belong to a group, a number of things. Most likely stemming from childhood, according to Freud.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

I'm sure you're aware that there is ample documentation of homosexual behavior in wild animals, so that raises some important questions:

1. Assuming that an animal of the opposite sex is available, what factors would cause the animal to ignore his natural instincts and choose the "dirt chute"?

2. Can animals "choose" at all or is it strictly a human concept?

3. Since, as you say, homosexuals cannot produce offspring, why do we still see it in the animal kingdom at all, given that it should have been bred out long ago (I'll refrain from using the E-word

Are we stickin with that term; "dirt-chute"?

Can't really say when it comes to #2. animals do have choice to a degree, I would think, but in regards to sexuality, not so sure. As to the other two questions, these quotes offer a good perspective on that.

Simon LeVay, a homosexual scientist said:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

Dr. Antonio Pardo said:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

Basically, homosexuality is incidental at best in the animal kingdom and is likely due to a number of other instincts besides reproduction or sexual attraction. There is no such thing as a homosexual animal (an animal that is only attracted to animals of the same sex). Really it is hetero animals who occasionally conduct homosexual acts.

Quote:

I don't have the answers to these questions and neither does anyone else. But it certainly seems that there is more to homosexuality than making a conscious decision to become one.

Never said it was a conscious decision. Usually, it is unconscious and due to a number of psychological factors. The fact that there are ex-homosexuals gives strong credibility to the idea that homosexuality is not genetic, but psychological.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

as to whether gay is a lifestyle choice.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/mag...es_people_gay/

Actually, the studies in that link have been discredited:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

While all the studies had their individual problems, the big issue is that none of them could be verified or reproduced.

Quote:

there is lots of evidence that gay is from birth.

Not really. There are a lot of studies that suggest it, all of which cannot be verified and reproduced, and usually have inherent problems in the study.

Quote:

it is not a lifestyle choice. you cannot be "cured" from being gay.

There are a large number of people who are living examples that this point is false

Quote:

there are gay animals. obviously, if genetic, it should get bred out and never resurface. yet it reappears. the reason for it is as yet fully explainable.

Yes, it is explainable. It is obvious that homosexuality is not genetic or inheritable, but more likely psychological, a learned behavior.

Quote:

the fact that it exists elsewhere in the animal kingdom and not just in humans proves it is beyond a "lifestyle choice".

Not really. No animals are exclusively homosexual, so a homosexual predisposition doesn't exist in the animal kingdom. There are heterosexual animals that occasionally conduct homosexual acts, but that is likely do to a number of other factors besides reproduction or sexual attraction.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

You know, a homosexual probably knows more about their own desires than say, you. Of course they're lying or just delusional when they say "I didn't choose", as the vast majority will say.

You simply can not accept the possibility of someone having an attraction to the same sex that is beyond their control (ie born) and not a factor of some trauma like a rape, molestation, neglect etc. Funny actually.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

You simply can not accept the possibility of someone having an attraction to the same sex that is beyond their control (ie born) and not a factor of some trauma like a rape, molestation, neglect etc. Funny actually.

Your the one mischaracterizing, making fallacious arguments and ad hominem attacks (claims of "hypocricy"; which say nothing to counter the argument being made but dishonestly redirects the focus of the debate on the person making the argument), using misdirection, etc. I would say it is you who can't accept the possibility the homosexuality isn't biological, even when the evidence and common sense suggests it is not biological.

I really don't care either way, no personal stake in the debate on my part. Just wanna make sure the issue is looked at honestly without any inaccurate preconceptions or mischaracterizations.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

All you have shown is that homosexuals by choice can have reproduced in there past as heterosexuals. As homosexuals, they cannot reproduce. People who are gay their whole lives cannot reproduce, and those are the only ones that might pass on a gay gene if it does exist. Basically, being gay isn't inherited or genetic in any way. There is no way a "gay gene" could be passed along. It would be weeded out through natural selection.

This is a very solid argument.

Quote:

You know, a homosexual probably knows more about their own desires than say, you. Of course they're lying or just delusional when they say "I didn't choose", as the vast majority will say.

This is not. It is a sarcastic straw man argument that generalizes as well.

Posted by: hrmwrm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

You are wrong about this.

Ah, yes, the typical hrmwrm "proof," eh? LOL You don't have a clue what proof is. Animals =/= humans. Nice try.

Romans 1:27 would definitely answer your sneering sarcasm.

Not so much anymore.

the typical fossten proof. you found one man who suppresses his urges, even declaring he still has them. hardly cured of anything. supppressing things is not cured. more like he was brainwashed. and 1:27 was to explain what? recitation from scripture doesn't explain a thing, unless you are trying to use this as to why you are homophobic. i quote
"1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error. "

i didn't realize gay was just men. yet you argue against all gay's. where is lesbianism wrong in the bible then? or is that 1:26. can't quite figure it's meaning. but then, this IS a BOOK. just words written down centuries ago, when their understanding was less. and if you think i'm sneering, show me anywhere in scripture it's written that the earth revolves around the sun. you can't. it's actually written that the earth is fixed. which is why much stock is not put in a scriptural arguement.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

Typical hrmwrm argument. First you set up the argument, then you promptly forget that you did so, and mock the response. Okay, first of all, YOU brought God into the discussion, demanding to know where it says that God doesn't create gays. I answer your stupid challenge and then you mock me for doing so? I keep learning the same lesson over and over: You do not debate in good faith. But what else is new. So go pound sand.

Posted by: hrmwrm

shaggy, your still caught up on a "gay gene". finding one would be impossible. (at least until more is understood about them) i merely stated that people are born gay. whether something went wrong in their wiring or whatever. you like examples, i'll give one.

a famous man, who kept it hidden from everyone, and was very public. good looks, charming, easily could have had any woman in the world. yet he gravitated toward same sex companionship. rock hudson.

if it was choice, why would somebody in a position as his endanger everything for choice? because he had no sexual attraction to women. which is not choice, but something he was born with.

your other arguements have no backing to them. even fossten tried a link of being cured from gay, but this man even stated he has urges. and this large number of converts would be what as a percentage of real gays? i don't believe there are enough successful converts for you to declare a win in your arguement.

as for a gay gene, i'll set up the task at hand. i was just reading an article on obesity and what's involved. (it's debating whether it's food choices or genes). from fat tissue samples, it was found 17,000 genes correlate with body mass index. and a further 14,900 correlate with waist to hip ratio. so, at this point, it would be a daunting task to find a small amount of genetic factors that are accountable for homosexuality. big problem is studies for it are grossly underfunded. but that is still not proof that it's not genetic. they just haven't been able to find what the triggers are.

as to animals being exclusively gay, yes there are some. it's been documented. they go along doing their mating rituals without a care for attracting the opposite sex. they only keep trying to mate and attract the same sex. they have no heterosexual interest.

is there a gay gene? maybe not. as i stated at the beginning, maybe it's something else. it's like any other malfunction. biological functioning is very complex and prone to occasional mistakes. whether it be an actual gene, improper expression of a/multiple genes, it's unknown at this point. but take someone like elton john, who refused to believe he was gay. even tried marriage for a while. when he finally gave in to recognizing his homosexuality, he found peace and repaired his life. now, you think he did this by choice? it wasn't. it was something in him beyond his control.

Posted by: hrmwrm

fossten, i wasn't setting up an arguement, i was being sarcastic at the end of the post. now, if you wish to use scripture as a proving point of arguement, i'm afraid we're back at the same problem of the reality of god. if you can prove him and that those are his words, then you'd have the upper hand.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

fossten, i wasn't setting up an arguement, i was being sarcastic at the end of the post. now, if you wish to use scripture as a proving point of arguement, i'm afraid we're back at the same problem of the reality of god. if you can prove him and that those are his words, then you'd have the upper hand.

That's the whole problem with your attitude - you think debating is some sort of juvenile playground fight. Frankly, I don't care if you believe me or not, but if you're going to discuss things in such a disingenuous manner, I'm not going to be sucked in to trading insults with you. If you see a logical flaw in my argument, by all means point it out. But don't mock my beliefs, that only destroys your own credibility and makes you look like a jerk.

Oh, and I don't need the upper hand, because you're going to meet God solo one day whether you believe in Him or not, and that's your own deal.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

This is a very solid argument.

This is not. It is a sarcastic straw man argument that generalizes as well.

Can I have a hand-job too, please?

It was sarcasm, correct. How is it a strawman when Shagdrum would refuse to believe a homosexual's word of "I did not choose"?

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Oh, and I don't need the upper hand, because you're going to meet God solo one day whether you believe in Him or not, and that's your own deal.

I believe that was his point in you using scripture as "proof". You believe, someone else might not, there is also no way to ultimately prove (or disprove) God.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I believe that was his point in you using scripture as "proof". You believe, someone else might not, there is also no way to ultimately prove (or disprove) God.

Your reading comprehension is lacking.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Can I have a hand-job too, please?

ahh, no.

Quote:

How is it a strawman when Shagdrum would refuse to believe a homosexual's word of "I did not choose"?

First, I didn't say it was a solely conscious choice. More often it is an unconscious thing due to psychological factors; they wouldn't realize it as a choice.

Second, as I spelled out, when it comes to the area of love, sex and relationships most people are not honest with themselves. They forgive someone cheating on them or beating them when the truth is obvious for everyone around them to see. I am sure you have known people who have gotten a divorce that all their friends could see coming much earlier then when they decided to get a divorce. Or a friend that married someone that you knew they shouldn't. Very few people are honest with themselves in these areas; that is simply human nature.

This problem of self-delusion or being dishonest to ones self in this area is inherent in every category, from Bill Gates level to the homeless man on the street. It is even worse in people who are self-destructive. Considering the higher level of drug use in the gay community then in the normal population (here, here and here), the higher incidents of disease often from activities engaged in by homosexuals (here, here, here, here, here and here), the higher risk of suffering from psychiatric problems ( here and here) and the higher rates of violence and murder ( here, here and here), it can strongly be argued that a large portion (if not a majority) of the gay community is very self-destructive (in some manner) and is more prone to being dishonest with themselves in the areas of love, sex and relationships then even the normal population.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Point is, you believe it's a choice; that is what I was saying, ergo, no strawman.

Yeah, yeah, I got it, 'the gays' are for the most part a total mess.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Your reading comprehension is lacking.

"if you wish to use scripture as a proving point of arguement, i'm afraid we're back at the same problem of the reality of god." -hrmwrm

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

a famous man, who kept it hidden from everyone, and was very public. good looks, charming, easily could have had any woman in the world. yet he gravitated toward same sex companionship. rock hudson.

if it was choice, why would somebody in a position as his endanger everything for choice? because he had no sexual attraction to women. which is not choice, but something he was born with.

It most likely wasn't a conscious thing; more likely due to a number of psychological factors. No one consciously chooses to be depressed or suicidal either.

Quote:

your other arguements have no backing to them

Actually, the opposite is true.

Quote:

even fossten tried a link of being cured from gay, but this man even stated he has urges. and this large number of converts would be what as a percentage of real gays?

So what? Someone with depression problems still can have bouts of depression even when treated successfully. You seem to not want to consider any psychological factors that might lead to homosexuality, even when the info points in that direction.

Quote:

i don't believe there are enough successful converts for you to declare a win in your arguement.

Maybe not, but it can't be disregarded out of hand either.

Quote:

that is still not proof that it's [homosexuality] not genetic. they just haven't been able to find what the triggers are.

They have mapped the human genome. It isn't like that can't get the info. The problem with these studies isn't that there is a "lack of funding", it is that when attempted, the results of these studies cannot be reproduced, and thus the studies hold no weight, and have no scientific credibility.

To argue that there isn't proof that is isn't genetic is a fallacious argument that reverses the burden of proof; namely negative proof. The burden of proof is on proving homosexuality is genetic or biological, not the other way around. All evidence suggests that it is more due to psychological factors; a learned behavior.

Quote:

as to animals being exclusively gay, yes there are some. it's been documented.

not really

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Point is, you believe it's a choice; that is what I was saying, ergo, no strawman.

Yeah, but not a conscious choice as your were claiming. It can be a conscious choice for some ( i know of at least two people for whom it was), but for the most part it is more unconscious and due to psychological factors; A learned behavior. I probably should have clarified that when I used the term "choice", sorry.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

WTF? If being hetero is normal and biologically ingrained (reproductive purposes and whatnot), then you're telling be these "two people" consciously willed themselves to not find women sexually attractive and willed themselves to be aroused by men? (assuming they're men, if not the opposite)

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

WTF? If being hetero is normal and biologically ingrained (reproductive purposes and whatnot), then you're telling be these "two people" consciously willed themselves to not find women sexually attractive and willed themselves to be aroused by men? (assuming they're men, if not the opposite)

These two people are attention whores that live in Lawrence, Kansas; a city which politically probably belongs in California. These two people are very immature and latch onto being gay as defining who they are (as opposed to most of the homosexuals I know, where it is an aspect of them, but doesn't define them as a person). One of them has told me it was basically a choice for him. There may have been some other unconscious factors, I know he was sexually abused as a kid. The other, some of his friends have intimated that is was a conscious thing for him, and I don't know what (if any) aspects of his past played a part, but he has a...unique background, to say the least. The gay community in Lawrence and the Kansas City, Kansas area is rather big. Being a part of that community seems to give these two a sense of belonging, IMO. One of the bars in Lawrence even has an "alternative lifestyles" night once a week, with the occasional drag show. I have actually gone there with some of my gay friends once (they forgot to mention it was "drag show night"). There was a very hot and intelligent (female) bartender that my friends wanted to hook me up with.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

"if you wish to use scripture as a proving point of arguement, i'm afraid we're back at the same problem of the reality of god." -hrmwrm

Erm...you missed it yet again. I guess your scrolling skills are lacking too. Do I have to do everything for you? See post #35.

Posted by: Bob Hubbard

I'm not going to get into the gay marraige thing because I think for the most part, it is becomming an accepted fact of life today, and into the future.
I want to address the last two or three post which talk about the reasons , or non- reasons one is homosexual.
I have a solem belife in why some are homosexual, while many others are not.
First, let us delve into the bible.
It is written that homosexuality is an abomination.
Suppossedly this came right from Jesus himself.
Throughout time, we have had this drummed into our heads.
Now I ask you, do you think it is possible for God, who suppossedly is.almighty, and who created the heavens and earth, and all who inhabit it, to have a change of heart?
Is having second thoughts above and beyond the creator?
Who among us can say for absolute surity, that the creator of all has not had a change of heart, or a different plan if you will?
Perhaps homosexual people are here for one reason, and one reason only, that being to control the population.
This world can't feed and house the people it already has.
What do you think the population of this earth would ber if every homosexual person was not homosexual, and pro-created as was dictated centuries ago in the bible?
We would be over run with the population.
Enough resources could not be produced to take care of an overwelming populous.
I think the creator took a long look at what he created, and felt stringent control had to be put in place to stop the world from killing itself.
Population control is a must, and what better way to acomplish this than to creat a group of people who are not the sligest bit interested in pro-creation?
To those of you who say, it is "written in stone", and cannot be changed are only fooling yourselves.
How do you, or for that matter, anybody know for sure that our creator has not taken a good look at his creations, and come to the conclusion change was needed?
Not one of us mortals can say that with any certanty.
So to you homophobes I say, "CHILL"
Everything on this planet happens for a reason, and who are we mere mortals to dispute what may well be a devine order?
Bob.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Hubbard

Now I ask you, do you think it is possible for God, who suppossedly is.almighty, and who created the heavens and earth, and all who inhabit it, to have a change of heart?
Is having second thoughts above and beyond the creator?
Who among us can say for absolute surity, that the creator of all has not had a change of heart, or a different plan if you will?
Perhaps homosexual people are here for one reason, and one reason only, that being to control the population.
This world can't feed and house the people it already has.
What do you think the population of this earth would ber if every homosexual person was not homosexual, and pro-created as was dictated centuries ago in the bible?
We would be over run with the population.
Enough resources could not be produced to take care of an overwelming populous.
I think the creator took a long look at what he created, and felt stringent control had to be put in place to stop the world from killing itself.
Population control is a must, and what better way to acomplish this than to creat a group of people who are not the sligest bit interested in pro-creation?
To those of you who say, it is "written in stone", and cannot be changed are only fooling yourselves.
How do you, or for that matter, anybody know for sure that our creator has not taken a good look at his creations, and come to the conclusion change was needed?
Not one of us mortals can say that with any certanty.
So to you homophobes I say, "CHILL"
Everything on this planet happens for a reason, and who are we mere mortals to dispute what may well be a devine order?
Bob.

Where do you get the idea that "population control is a must?" The entire population of the world could live inside Texas with plenty of room for each person. This is a specious argument, as is the whole "God changing his mind about sin" thing. It sounds good because you're using your own human knowledge. But the Bible has much to say about it.

God is Immutable

Definition:

The perfection of God by which He is devoid of all change in essence, attributes, consciousness, will, and promises. No change is possible in God, because all change must be to better or worse, and God is absolute perfection. No cause for change in God exists, either in Himself or outside of Him.

Meaning:

Perfection means perfection. There is no reason for God to change because there is no change that would make Him better. However, man should be striving to be found complete and perfect in God's eyes.

Scripture Support:

Psalm 102:27
But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 6:17 & 18
Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.

There's a lesson in this: Stop trying to mold God into your image, where He accepts your sin and approves of your lifestyle. Instead, try to mold yourself into God's image. That's the only way to become more like Him.

Posted by: Bob Hubbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Just because it is written, does not make it so.
As a mere mortal, you have no idea what can, and cannot be changed, and that includes the decisios made by our crteator.
You only have empty,written words to back up your claim that change is not possible.
I have the power of reason behind me that proves something has created gay people, and that reason may well be population control in a starving world.
I really need to take issue with your rediculous comment about me trying to mold God's word to my lifestyle.
You have absolutely no knowledge of my lifestyle, or my religous background.
You have once again managed to dengage your brain before putting your mouth in gear.
Bob.

Posted by: fossten

Great argument. Proof by assertion, and ad hominem. Your reasoning is faulty because it presumes knowledge of God without a source for that knowledge. You discount the Bible as a source, but give no reason for doing so. You simply call it empty words. That's fallacious as you cannot base this claim on anything, least of all any knowledge of the Bible. You simply suppose that the Bible is wrong, but in fact you have never actually researched it. You use that supposition as proof, which is absurd.

I have the power of reason behind me, and that tells me that you're full of crap and know nothing about the Bible.

And I wasn't talking about your lifestyle personally, I was speaking in general. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

Your little slam at the end of your post is childish and ill-timed, as it has no basis, except maybe directed at your own post.

Posted by: Bob Hubbard

Oh , NOW I get it.
It never entered my mind reading some of your other post for the last month or so.
You are one of those die hard bible thumpers.
I should have known.
There is just no reasoning with your type.
You use the bible as your crhtches to get you through the day.
Well, to each his own.
You are so attached to that book, that you can't see the forest for the trees.
If it is in the bible, then it has to be true.
Wow man, do you have a lot to learn.
Bob.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Hubbard

So to you homophobes I say, "CHILL"

Careful who you are calling a "homophobe" there. You don't really know anyone well enough on this forum to make that assertion.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Hubbard

Oh , NOW I get it.
It never entered my mind reading some of your other post for the last month or so.
You are one of those die hard bible thumpers.
I should have known.
There is just no reasoning with your type.
You use the bible as your crhtches to get you through the day.
Well, to each his own.
You are so attached to that book, that you can't see the forest for the trees.
If it is in the bible, then it has to be true.
Wow man, do you have a lot to learn.
Bob.

So when you lose the argument, you resort to abject name calling. Classic. Your hatred is palpable and pathetic.

You presume to know a lot about me. Weren't you the one who was just whining about that?

Quote:

You have absolutely no knowledge of my lifestyle, or my religous background.
You have once again managed to dengage your brain before putting your mouth in gear.
Bob.

What a hypocrite.

By the way, there isn't anything in the Bible that you can point to and prove that it's false. But then again, how would you know, you haven't read it.

Posted by: Bob Hubbard

"By the way, there isn't anything in the Bible that you can point to and prove that it's false. But then again, how would you know, you haven't read it."

That is absolutely true, and the flip side of that is how can you offer proof that what is in there is true?
I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you.
You have your beliefs, and I have mine.
Let's just leave it at that.
Bob.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

By the way, there isn't anything in the Bible that you can point to and prove that it's false. But then again, how would you know, you haven't read it.

In that case, prove to me unicorns, pegasi and minotaurs do not exist or existed at one point.

Posted by: fossten

Prove to me that you love your father.

Posted by: hrmwrm

from shagdrum

"Considering the higher level of drug use in the gay community then in the normal population (here, here and here), the higher incidents of disease often from activities engaged in by homosexuals (here, here, here, here, here and here), the higher risk of suffering from psychiatric problems ( here and here) and the higher rates of violence and murder ( here, here and here), it can strongly be argued that a large portion (if not a majority) of the gay community is very self-destructive (in some manner) and is more prone to being dishonest with themselves in the areas of love, sex and relationships then even the normal population."

take any minority group that has not been accepted by the white christo majority due to factors beyond their control and you find many of the same problems. look at the native populations that were for centuries told their way of life was wrong and were segregated and force fed christian idealism's. many are returning to the older ways and turning their communities around.

so is self destructive behaviour a part of gay life or a symptom of dealing with the negativity and religiously based non-acceptance of them?

from shagdrum
"First, I didn't say it was a solely conscious choice. More often it is an unconscious thing due to psychological factors; they wouldn't realize it as a choice."

if it's not solely a conscious choice, but subconscious, then it could be something beyond ones control. this answer looks like someone backtracking themselves out of a limited corner after declaring gay is a lifestyle choice. pick a side and stop waffling.

Posted by: hrmwrm

by fossten
"By the way, there isn't anything in the Bible that you can point to and prove that it's false. But then again, how would you know, you haven't read it."

and by that you would mean all extensions of it? including the writings of any prophets named in it?

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

take any minority group that has not been accepted by the white christo majority due to factors beyond their control and you find many of the same problems.

Actually, a lot of that is spin to absolve people or communities of any responsibility. Look at the whole "legacy of slavery" fallacy based on the idea of blaming whitey for all the black community's ills, when it can be shown that the vast majority of the black community's problems today are internal and don't stem from slavery.

Quote:

look at the native populations that were for centuries told their way of life was wrong and were segregated and force fed christian idealism's. many are returning to the older ways and turning their communities around.

What? I haven't seen any native american community turning to "old ways" to turn their communities around. I have seen many communities stop relying on the federal government and be responsible for themselves, which has caused a turn around in those communities. Cite some examples.

Quote:

so is self destructive behaviour a part of gay life or a symptom of dealing with the negativity and religiously based non-acceptance of them?

You are mischaracterizing it as an either or thing when it is not. It is a combination of factors (as I have been saying). Still, there is a level of personal responsibility that your argument absolves them of.

The gay community is different from other communities (like the native american community) in that someone isn't often born and raised in the gay community. More often they are born into a family with a predisposition to being self-destructive; a broken household, or a single parent, drug use in the house, questionable people around the children, domestic violence, whatever. They become gay as a result of some of those emotionally scaring and/or psychologically traumatizing experiences in that childhood.

Basically, people are not born into the gay community, like they are into the Native American community. So the analogy is fallacious; a false analogy.

Quote:

if it's not solely a conscious choice, but subconscious, then it could be something beyond ones control.

So it is "beyond their control"...so what? I am sure that many rapists, serial killers, pedophiles, etc. can make the same claim. Is society supposed to change their standards to allow for their proclivities? NAMBLA would love that!

Quote:

This answer looks like someone backtracking themselves out of a limited corner after declaring gay is a lifestyle choice. pick a side and stop waffling.

You are now assuming my argument is claiming that the lifestyle choice I am talking about here is an exclusively (or largely) conscious thing, when the opposite has been the case (and you acknowledged as much in the previous sentence). When I first brought up "lifestyle choice" in this thread, I messed up and didn't make that distinction clear. But in every post since (where I expanded on what I meant by "lifestyle choice"), I have been very clear that it is due to subconscious factors the vast majority of the time. You are ignoring that, to disingenuously set up that straw man mischaracterization of my definition of "lifestyle choice".

More importantly, you are shifting the focus of the debate away from the argument I am making to me personally (ad hominem reasoning), and trying to discredit me. That says nothing about the credibility of the argument I am making.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

by fossten
"By the way, there isn't anything in the Bible that you can point to and prove that it's false. But then again, how would you know, you haven't read it."

and by that you would mean all extensions of it? including the writings of any prophets named in it?

I meant what I said. Nice try.

Posted by: hrmwrm

nice try about what. book of enoch. next you'll be telling me the earth is flat, let alone 6000 years old.

Posted by: 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten