"Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad"?!
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
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.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
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?
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?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Haven't you ever heard the phrase "sexual preference?" That PC term was coined by homosexuals.
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.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
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.
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.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
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?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
as to whether gay is a lifestyle choice.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_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.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
There are a large number of people who are living examples that this point is false
Yes, it is explainable. It is obvious that homosexuality is not genetic or inheritable, but more likely psychological, a learned behavior.
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.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
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.
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.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
This is a very solid argument.
This is not. It is a sarcastic straw man argument that generalizes as well.
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.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
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.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
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"?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
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.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Your reading comprehension is lacking.