|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 23, 2006 21:14:48 GMT -5
The most common arguement for homosexuality being natural is, "why would someone choice to be a homosexual in a society that frowns upon it? Would someone really choose to suffer so much for it?"
My answer to that is yes. Homosexuals do choose to suffer for their sin. Much as a drunkard will choose to suffer for his sin. Why would a drunkard choose to drink when in many cases it costs him his job, his family, his house, and he is left to be the homeless bum sleeping in a drunken daze on the park bench? Why? Simply because he loves the bottle.
Is robbing a house a choose even though the robber suffers for it when he gets caught and goes to jail? Does the fact that he suffered for it deny the fact that he choose to do it? The question is not whether or not he choose to do it, the question is why did he choose to do it?
The point is that people are willing to suffer for what they love. Some men suffer for righteousness because they love righteousness. Some men suffer for sin because they love sin.
But the arguement that homosexuality cannot be a choice because they suffer in some respects for it does not hold weight and it not a logical arguement as we can clearly see that many choices bring about suffering and yet they are chosen because of the love of it.
Do you know why people sin? Because they are sinners who love their sin.
|
|
|
Post by jobafunky on Apr 23, 2006 22:56:57 GMT -5
It's not their fault, it's not anybodies fault for anything because god made them that way. The illusion of free will is a lie. God is omnicient and he knew what choices you would make before he intelligently designed you to make those choices. If he knew you would make those decisions before you were made and he could have simply made a minor adjustment in your body chemistry or brain design so that you would freely choose the right choice...but he didn't so he's going to have some of his other creations violate you with a red hot poker for the rest of eternity.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 23, 2006 23:25:29 GMT -5
jobafunky,
For someone who says there is no God, you sure talk about Him as though He exists.
God has declared in His Word that the sin of homosexuality is a choice.
However, since you claim that there is no God how can you say that God created them that way?
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 23, 2006 23:26:35 GMT -5
Hm... this topic AGAIN? Really Jesse... you asked for this...
PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION
|
|
|
Post by ian2400 on Apr 24, 2006 0:14:34 GMT -5
Jesse, homosexuality is most certainly NOT a choice, or at the very least it is almost definitely not a choice: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stmHopefully you find that article interesting. Now on another note, I would like to add this: Your god may tell you to hate homosexuals, but he also tells you to love all people as if they were your family. So I have to ask, do you hate homosexuals because your god tells you to, or do you hate them because you are a mean-spirited bigot using your god as an excuse to hate people and deny them the rights they deserve? I'll leave it at that for now.
|
|
|
Post by jobafunky on Apr 24, 2006 0:32:47 GMT -5
jobafunky, For someone who says there is no God, you sure talk about Him as though He exists. God has declared in His Word that the sin of homosexuality is a choice. But the perpencity to get hardons for the same sex was his design. Where exactly did I say there was no god? I was given a Xian upbringing so I know a bit about the story of Yaweh. If I say God made us this way you can just insert, "the christian god of the bible," in the place of god. I just find the long version a bit cumbersome. And weather or not I believe he exists shouldn't be relivant to the conversation in most cases. I'm out for the night.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 24, 2006 8:36:40 GMT -5
IAN, pro-homosexual meds in spain concluded that there is no such thing as a "homosexual gene" and that being "born gay" has never been shown to be factual... this is from PRO GAY sources.
Again, check out NARTH
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 24, 2006 8:48:44 GMT -5
The most common arguement for homosexuality being natural is, "why would someone choice to be a homosexual in a society that frowns upon it? Would someone really choose to suffer so much for it?" My answer to that is yes. Homosexuals do choose to suffer for their sin. Much as a drunkard will choose to suffer for his sin. Why would a drunkard choose to drink when in many cases it costs him his job, his family, his house, and he is left to be the homeless bum sleeping in a drunken daze on the park bench? Why? Simply because he loves the bottle. Is robbing a house a choose even though the robber suffers for it when he gets caught and goes to jail? Does the fact that he suffered for it deny the fact that he choose to do it? The question is not whether or not he choose to do it, the question is why did he choose to do it? The point is that people are willing to suffer for what they love. Some men suffer for righteousness because they love righteousness. Some men suffer for sin because they love sin. But the arguement that homosexuality cannot be a choice because they suffer in some respects for it does not hold weight and it not a logical arguement as we can clearly see that many choices bring about suffering and yet they are chosen because of the love of it. Do you know why people sin? Because they are sinners who love their sin. Good responses Jesse...
|
|
|
Post by ian2400 on Apr 24, 2006 8:50:39 GMT -5
Oh, geez you guys must truly be ignorant. NARTH is patently anti-gay. They would never allow any impartial research to be done, and anything on that site is skewed and most likely false because of it. Give me something peer reviewed or stop being a bigot.
|
|
|
Post by ian2400 on Apr 24, 2006 8:53:28 GMT -5
You suffer from your own argument here. If this were true, I could simply say that the believer believes because he is scared and unable to face reality. He is such a worthless sheep that he needs to be told the answers and be unable to question. Pathetic...
Homosexuality is not a choice. It is actually technically a birth defect (since it decreases the ability to procreate). So get over your hate, please.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 24, 2006 8:59:20 GMT -5
IAN, pro-homosexual meds in spain concluded that there is no such thing as a "homosexual gene" and that being "born gay" has never been shown to be factual... this is from PRO GAY sources. Again, check out NARTH In addition to what Ian already said about the skewed nature of the study, there are many other theories concerning the origins of homosexuality in addition to the genetic theories. Even if it isn't genetic, (and many many reputable studies have shown that is most likely is) enivironmental factors in early childhood have been shown to be crucial in shaping the people we grow up to be. This is true in all aspects of life, including sexuality. So the issue isn't necessarily only genetic.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 24, 2006 10:02:52 GMT -5
IAN, pro-homosexual meds in spain concluded that there is no such thing as a "homosexual gene" and that being "born gay" has never been shown to be factual... this is from PRO GAY sources. Again, check out NARTH You're right that this "gay gene" has yet to be discovered and in all liklihood doesn't exist. There is a genetic basis for homosexuality as demonstrated by twin studies--however, there is probably no specific gene that determines one's sexual orientation. That bears absolutely zero significance on the question of whether or not homosexuality is a "choice," of course. Personally, I hope to every deity that ever did or didn't exist that we NEVER find a "gay gene." If the sexual orientation of a given fetus could be determined in the womb, I would be absolutely terrified for what people like the ones on this board would do with that information. Fill in the blanks. I'm actually considering writing a novel about this. PS: Ian is right--NARTH is incredibly biased. I have never seen them supported by any reputable organization.
|
|
|
Post by ian2400 on Apr 24, 2006 10:20:13 GMT -5
I will agree with you here. One can be predisposed to homosexuality (sometimes more than others) but yes, this holds no great signifigance as far as the bigots are concerned.
Yes, these extremists are terrifying and would be doing things as bad or worse than muslim extremists given the chance. This is why I think that no zealot should ever be allowed to have children. Would you let a psycho who thought aliens in their head were telling them to teach their kids to hate have kids? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 24, 2006 10:28:50 GMT -5
Oh yeah, I'm not saying there's no genetic influence. There is. Just that we have yet to find one specific "Your Sexual Orientation" gene and given current research, we probably won't find one because it doesn't exist. Sexual orientation is probably determined by myriad factors that are some mixture of nature and nurture--choice not in the equation, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 24, 2006 10:31:56 GMT -5
A birth defect? So if someone supports abortion and doesn't want their baby to born with this defect that of course causes all kind of depression and opposition and may lead to someone having the average life expectancy of only 42, should it be aborted? Or should we try to get this defect "cured"?
|
|
|
Post by ian2400 on Apr 24, 2006 10:37:43 GMT -5
And this is what we are talking about. Bigots wanting to kill their children simply because they are homosexual. Oh, and there is no way to change genetics after conception, so you can't "cure" it, as if it was so bad that it needed a cure (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, you people seem to think that gays can do no good. How the hell could any person not be able to contribute memes to society?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 24, 2006 10:47:42 GMT -5
A birth defect? So if someone supports abortion and doesn't want their baby to born with this defect that of course causes all kind of depression and opposition and may lead to someone having the average life expectancy of only 42, should it be aborted? Or should we try to get this defect "cured"? Ian got this but since I said the statement that prompted it, I'd like to weigh in. Yep, that's exactly what I am afraid of: abortion of a fetus based on sexual orientation. I am getting more and more excited about this novel, for the record. And if this "gay gene" was ever found, it would at least present the (probably highly disturbing for those such as yourself) irrefutable idea that sexual orientation is most certainly not a choice, is determined before birth, and cannot be altered. Which would of course open up a whole new realm of violence and horror. I do not want us to discover a "gay gene." Ever.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 24, 2006 10:58:15 GMT -5
The whole "gay gene" arguement is totally prejudicial conjecture and is not a valid arguement.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 24, 2006 11:02:51 GMT -5
The whole "gay gene" arguement is totally prejudicial conjecture and is not a valid arguement. Who's arguing? I'm correcting the mistaken belief that there is one. I don't understand what's wrong with that. We are extrapolating what might happen if we found such a gene because I find the idea morbidly fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 24, 2006 11:10:00 GMT -5
God created Adam and Eve; not Adam and Steve. Think about that. Lastly, if everyone was gay, you wouldn't be debating this issue, now would you?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 24, 2006 11:10:54 GMT -5
God created Adam and Eve; not Adam and Steve. haha Oh no, no: he actually DID mean "Adam and Steve." That was just a typo. He told me last night. Whoopsiedoodle, huh? Haha. PS: If everyone were celibate, I wouldn't be debating this issue either. Therefore, being celibate must not be natural.
|
|
|
Post by ian2400 on Apr 24, 2006 11:15:48 GMT -5
If every woman was born infertile we wouldn't be having this conversation either. Not everyone is born one way, and not everyone acts one way. This is a piss poor argument. Any other whopers you wanna throw at me?
|
|
|
Post by ian2400 on Apr 24, 2006 11:20:14 GMT -5
Prove it. Oh wait, you can't because your only proof is a 2000 year old book of fiction...
(oh, come on. Everyone saw that coming)
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 24, 2006 11:26:39 GMT -5
Ian... show me one fiction
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 24, 2006 11:31:37 GMT -5
Ian, if it had been Adam and Steve none of us would be here.
Ian, you are the greatest proof for Adam and Eve.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 24, 2006 11:43:27 GMT -5
Ian... show me one fiction Orrrr you could address our other valid arguments. Ian2400, it's okay. Sometimes Jesse and his crew like to say the same thing over and over again. We've adequately addressed the fallacy of the (incredibly silly) "Adam and (St)eve" tag line. Just leave it be.
|
|
|
Post by elwing96 on Apr 24, 2006 12:26:16 GMT -5
i would just like to say that i'm amuzed that in ALL the homophobic threads, it's all male-on-male action. no one has bothered to mention lesbians, bisexuals, or transexuals. why is it we (as a culture) automitically see to boys kissing (like in morluna's censored sig) when we hear the word "gay"?
why couldn't God have created Anna and Eve?
|
|
|
Post by ian2400 on Apr 24, 2006 13:03:23 GMT -5
*cough*projection*cough*
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 24, 2006 15:20:27 GMT -5
Apparently if you can't convince people with your argument, the appropriate course of action is to create a new thread and restate, verbatim, your arguments. This issue has been addressed before. If you have not seen it or need a refresher course, please visit General::Doctine and Theology::Preaching agains the sin of homosex. To make it easier for you, skip ahead to page 7 or so. The argument heats up a bit by page 9. Now, let me address the above arguements. No, homosexuality is not a choice. I suppose I could make conjecture as to why it isn't, but I'll let the studies speak for themselves. I don't think that the cause is totally, or even primarily genetic, although it may be a factor. The theory that I think is most probable claims that the main factors in generating homosexuality are biological. Basically, the brain is "sexed" or perhaps I should say "oriented" at some point in the womb. Most of the time, this "sexing" is consistent with the genetically determined gender of the embryo. However, 5-10% of the time, it is believed that this "sexing" is inconsistent. Thus, a child born with an inconsistent orientation is homosexual. You must remember that the most important sex organ in the body is the brain. This hypothesis also explains the differences in sexuality for identical twins, who, of course, share the same DNA. If a certian enzyme or hormone is introduced in the womb to one embryo, but not the other, it could explain their differing sexualities. You might ask, of course, don't twins share the same womb? Yes they do, but I believe that they have seperate placentas. If you'd like more info, 60 Minutes recently did a story on it. It can be found at: www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230.shtml Incidentally, the show chronicles a pair of pre-adolescent identical twins who were raised together from birth. One acts normally (likes cars, GI Joes), the other plays with dolls and paints his nails. Remember that these children are both younger than puberty, so any sexual awakening has yet to occur. Therefore one twin exhibits "extreme gender non-conformity" but not homosexuality. It is very likely that he will be gay, however, when he grows up. This, I think, lessens the impact of environment, although I think it still plays a role.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 24, 2006 15:21:31 GMT -5
The whole "gay gene" arguement is totally prejudicial conjecture and is not a valid arguement. I could also argue that "the whole 'Bible is infallible' arguement is total prejudicial conjecture and is not a valid argument."
|
|