|
Post by possess on Nov 15, 2008 10:12:52 GMT -5
Homosexual activity should not be a special protected class, period. -$1000, and not just because you didn't phrase your answer as a question. Public free speech should not be restricted unless it is an incitement or profane, and if you are referring to Mr. Phelps as an attempt to discredit ME, then let's talk about some less than charitable non-Christians, why don't we?
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Nov 15, 2008 15:56:50 GMT -5
Wow....so much to respond to......lets dig in.... I appreciate your comments, but feel free to leave me with a fundie tag. Sorry to disappoint, but I do fully believe that homosexuality is a choice much the same way I believe that other sin is a choice. While we might be predispositioned toward a certain sin, that doesn't mean that we can't stop and say, "As right and natural as it feels....it's wrong and I am not going to do it. I don't mean this as offensive, but if i said, 'hey, I'm attracted to bunny rabbits. It's just the way I am built and there is nothing wrong with it. I will have a relationship and sex with rabbits and no one should judge me for it." you would think I was totally nuts and probably call the police. I'm not saying that beastiality is the same as homosexuality, but the point that I am making is simply that while a persons feelings may be absolutley accurate, it doesn't mean that it is right. I guess I'll turn those respect points back over now. :-) Micah....You may well be right. I haven't listened to any of his preaching, so I don't know one way or the other. You said: "There are people in [the U.S.] right now suffering because of this. Your China example isn't a good one, because China requires worship to be registered with the State and they swiftly persecute those who do not. We are in no such position. Concerning the photographers, I said in my post that it was out of line, much for the same reasons that you argued. (should a black photgrapher be required to photgraph a KKK rally, etc) The law was abused in this case and it will probably be overturned. That doesn't mean the general premise of the law is bad if it's purpose is to protect civil rights. Dude....the Colorado law was the premise of your argument....Here is what you said: When I went looking for that "proof in the pudding" it turns out you were incorrect. If you don't like the law, fine....but don't go around saying it does something that it doesn't. Tsk, tsk...same ole PACP. If the argument doesn't suceed, just say "if you aren't with us, your against us." That dirty debating dude. Why not? We aren't talking about Church membership here. Our view on the homosexual lifestyle should have no bearing on the persons civil rights to live as a normal member of society. On the public free speech thing.....I think half of this post has been refuting myth's about that. There has been no free speech (in this country) minimized by any of these laws. There are certainly some more than aggressive law enforcement and courts that have attempted such, but they always get it stuck back in their face on in the courtroom or on appeal. Why am I on the side of "evil" here? First, I strongly believe in full civil rights for everyone. It's important. Second, as Christians we are trying to reason with a world that thinks we are a bunch of crazy people to start with. If we are going to have any legitmacy at all, it's important not to get tied up in these crazy side issues. Even when we read a Christian news article, it's important to go find out whether or not it is true before we shout it from the rooftops.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 15, 2008 18:40:47 GMT -5
Homosexual activity should not be a special protected class, period. -$1000, and not just because you didn't phrase your answer as a question. Public free speech should not be restricted unless it is an incitement or profane, and if you are referring to Mr. Phelps as an attempt to discredit ME, then let's talk about some less than charitable non-Christians, why don't we? The fail is strong with this one, I see. *headdesk* For what has to be the fifty millionth time in this thread, I link you to the reason why your religion does not and CANNOT make decisions for the United States government. The government does not care what your religion thinks. What if my religion says that Christian activity should not be a protected class in America? Too bad: the establishment clause does not allow me to do that. The government doesn't care what your religion says about selectively denying basic civil rights, sorry. -- @ Tony -- I think we agree more than you think. I think homosexual behavior is a choice, just like heterosexual behavior. It says nothing about your sexual orientation which is not a choice. Can you, as a man, choose to kiss a man? Yes. Will it make you gay? No. Can you choose to stop finding women attractive? No. This is the major point of contention which the fundies absolutely cannot understand. For some reason, it's too difficult for their tiny brains. If you agree with the above, I simply think your God is a douchebag, not that you are a flaming idiot. That, of course, isn't really your fault, so I can deal with you. (Your God, however, is another story.)
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Nov 15, 2008 19:36:23 GMT -5
No, I totally get where you are coming from, its just that we have worldviews that don't reconcile.
We agree that behavior is easy to change. A lot of gay people live a life with no outward indications of being homosexual for many reasons (work, not wanting family to know, etc)
My worldview is that sexual orientation would be a combination of feelings and emotions (for lack of a better way to put it) rather than a part of our actual design. One of the reasons that Christians are dependent on the Bible is that we come to realize that we can't trust our feelings and emotions. It's not that we totally ignore them (our own relationships would be really weird without them) its just that we put our faith on the Bible as the ultimate guiding light.
How does one stop being gay? Honestly, I don't know. I would love to just say, "repent and turn to Jesus" but I can understand why that would sound insane talking to a person that is sure that being gay is just part of how they were designed. I think that it is a process. If a person realizes that they need Jesus as their savior and they trusted the Bible as the Word of God, then it becomes a battle. I have known of some Christians who came to realize that being gay was wrong and struggled with it for years. The best that I can offer without knowing personally is that it is done, over time, with God's help. There is sin in my life that I struggle with today. (keep in mind there are some varying definitions of sin here, so all may not agree with this). To me, lusting, even for a second, after another woman who is not my wife is sin. Has it totally stopped? No. Is it better than it was a year/month/day ago? Yes.
I know you don't agree with me, but do you at least see where I am coming from?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 15, 2008 20:04:18 GMT -5
We agree that behavior is easy to change. I am saying that there are two different things. 1.) Sexual orientation 2.) Sexual behavior 2 often, but NOT always, correlates with 1. 2 is a choice. 1 is not. If you think 1 is a choice, then yeah, you really are an idiot, sorry. Do moar research.
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 15, 2008 22:19:22 GMT -5
OK, Tony, people suffering, not physical pain yet, just lesser forms of oppression, it's where it is headed that concerns me, which was my point with the Colorado law, "that's where this is headed" was/is my point, not that I think book stores in CO can't sell bibles - can't find where I said that is happening. My China example was merely an illustration of people saying, "but I know this one guy and he did it and nothing happened" when China is a whole country, like the US, like Canada (which was really the country involved) where different things happen in different parts, not that what happens in China is going to happen here. What happens in China, stays in China. We hope.
"That doesn't mean the general premise of the law is bad if it's purpose is to protect civil rights." We have laws to protect them already, I think we don't need to ad so many more to the confusion, we need people to enforce them correctly.
Civil rights are the same for everyone, we don't need discriminatory laws
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Nov 15, 2008 22:54:57 GMT -5
We agree that behavior is easy to change. I am saying that there are two different things. 1.) Sexual orientation 2.) Sexual behavior 2 often, but NOT always, correlates with 1. 2 is a choice. 1 is not. If you think 1 is a choice, then yeah, you really are an idiot, sorry. Do moar research. There has been a great deal of research done on this, and there is still no conclusive proof one way or the other that there is a "gay gene". Our DNA is the same, our brainwave activity is, for the most part, the same, etc. Is their some particular research that you are talking about?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 15, 2008 23:13:24 GMT -5
I am saying that there are two different things. 1.) Sexual orientation 2.) Sexual behavior 2 often, but NOT always, correlates with 1. 2 is a choice. 1 is not. If you think 1 is a choice, then yeah, you really are an idiot, sorry. Do moar research. There has been a great deal of research done on this, and there is still no conclusive proof one way or the other that there is a "gay gene". Our DNA is the same, our brainwave activity is, for the most part, the same, etc. Is their some particular research that you are talking about? There is no "gay gene." Is there a "hot chocolate gene"? That's a ridiculous oversimplification of genetics fed to you by those pushing their radical Christian agenda on the rest of us. I mean this research, of course. Although if you want to talk "gay gene," Xq28 is a marker for sexual orientation in human males. That is still not a "gay gene," but if you want to call it that because you can't be bothered to understand genetics, I'm fine with that as long as you admit you're wrong. I'll give you the relevant bit in case you miss it: statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.
|
|
|
Post by fs on Nov 16, 2008 6:20:34 GMT -5
1. I stopped being gay (actually bi) 2. This nation needs to get back to God and its Christian foundations. 3. Valenyine, YOU need to quit playing games with God and renounce secular humanism
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 16, 2008 10:46:03 GMT -5
1.) You mean you were conditioned by aversive training to repress your feelings for women, and your feelings for men were legitimate enough from the start, given your bisexuality, that it doesn't make your life totally miserable. 2.) Pity that this nation isn't allowed to be governed by any kind of Christian foundations. Let me introduce you to my little friend the establishment clause. 3.) Hmm.... how about.... no! ;D
|
|
|
Post by fs on Nov 16, 2008 18:34:55 GMT -5
1. I have never been happier than when I left the swinger lifestyle. My true joy right now is salvation in Jesus Christ and when God provides me witht he right man I am meant to be married to that will be fine with me. God took my evil desires away from me and lifted my burden. Bisexuality is a choice and a bad one. It is a lust. No one made that way or born that way. It is because mankind is born in sin and embraces sin. I know that now.
2. If McCain and Palin would have won we would have been on the right track back to God. Obama is not the antichrist as people think, but is a judgment from God on this country and will lead us further down the drain. We get what we ask for.
3. Renounce secular humanism. Receive Christ.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 16, 2008 23:13:42 GMT -5
1. I have never been happier than when I left the swinger lifestyle. My true joy right now is salvation in Jesus Christ and when God provides me witht he right man I am meant to be married to that will be fine with me. God took my evil desires away from me and lifted my burden. Bisexuality is a choice and a bad one. It is a lust. No one made that way or born that way. It is because mankind is born in sin and embraces sin. I know that now. 2. If McCain and Palin would have won we would have been on the right track back to God. Obama is not the antichrist as people think, but is a judgment from God on this country and will lead us further down the drain. We get what we ask for. 3. Renounce secular humanism. Receive Christ. 1.) "Swinger lifestyle" =/= bisexuality. And if you are bisexual, there is nothing wrong with finding the right man for you. I hope you find him and are happy with him. All other things being equal, it'd be much easier for you with society being what it is to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex, so why on earth do you think I'd discourage it? 2.) That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I already linked you and the other numbskulls in this thread to the establishment clause. If it's too hard to read, maybe Hooked on Phonics will work for you. 3.) No. Wait... No. -- I am still waiting for a response from the deluded fundies who still cling to their ridiculous belief that homosexuality is a "chosen lifestyle." Was the science I showed you too hard?
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 17, 2008 11:18:00 GMT -5
Science: Too hard, or a waste of time for a message board. You are well aware that conflicting studies can be found, and then we can argue about the trusted sources. How about this: many diseases are genetic in nature and that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about them - they're harmful, like homosexuality, like adultery, like murder, etc and we should oppose them on that basis, not whether or not they are "natural" (although, let's be honest here, the equipment makes it obvious that it's far from natural).
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 17, 2008 11:41:11 GMT -5
Yeah. "Conflicting studies" from organizations passionately discredited by every respectable medical association in the world. Not to mention studies that, IF they publish their methods, which they often don't, use highly questionable research designs and manipulated results. AND these "conflicting studies" are not peer-reviewed, meaning that any Joe Schmuck dropout from Podunk, Mississippi can "publish" their study on their personal website and pretend it's sound. Finally, I've read most of the "studies" you cite (if you think I haven't, just try me), and even NARTH is forced to admit about a 70% failure rate, using samples of homosexuals who are ALL greatly distressed about their orientation and DESPERATE to change it. Just imagine the failure rate if they could do their "studies" with representative samples. You're comparing that to articles in places like Neuron and Nature? Don't. Make. Me. Laugh. I can find you "studies" claiming that dinosaurs still roam the earth, but I'm sure you're so far gone that you actually believe that, too. "Natural"? So I guess all the animal species, from monkeys to lizards to dragonflies, that exhibit homosexual behavior are just following a lifestyle choice that they learned from watching too many gay pride parades? RE genetic disorders, should I then assume that you admit you were wrong about homosexuality being a "lifestyle choice" and changeable? And also wrong about it not being worthy of rights? (Do we tell people with six toes or cystic fibrosis that they can't get married?) You don't get to change your position and argue from a new plane and still be right, sorry. If you're accepting my original argument that it's genetic and not a choice, you've accepted that it's natural (i.e. occurring in the natural world), biological and unchangeable. Either address my arguments about its genetic links or admit you were wrong, and then we'll move to the next point. Science: Too hard, or a waste of time for a message board. I will let that speak for itself. So you're saying that I win, then, are you? Man, your "Bible" is awfully easy to debunk. PS: I was mostly speaking to Tony in my inquiry in the previous post. I already know you're an idiot, Possess. I still hold out some hope that Tony may be redeemable.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Nov 17, 2008 13:20:45 GMT -5
LOL....Well thanks for not giving up on me. I am honestly looking at the article, but it is taking some time. I'm certainly not the smartest guy in the world, and this stuff is pretty much over my head.
Thank goodness I have some friends that are smarter than I am that are looking at this in parts with me and trying to break it down to the simplest form.
Promise to get a answer back, but it may take a bit.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 17, 2008 13:49:29 GMT -5
Well, I can certainly respect an actual attempt to understand it rather than sticking Leviticus in your ears. Yet more evidence that you may indeed be redeemed of your fundie lifestyle. =D
However, I'm sorry to report that that's just the tip of the iceberg in the biology of sexual orientation. There is much, much more where that came from. The specifics of the mechanisms that determine sexual orientation are still under debate, and it's probably due to a lot of factors, but no self-respecting scientist would claim today, or in the past ten years, that "personal choice" played any substantial role in the determination of one's sexual orientation.
People who take "we don't know EXACTLY how it works yet" to mean "OMG IT MUST BE A CHOICE~~" are just as stupid as people who think that a "scientific theory" means that it's just a wild guess. Not knowing exactly how the brain works yet does NOT mean that you can substitute in "the brain is run by little moon men inside your skull."
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 18, 2008 3:39:10 GMT -5
Not sure why you are so hostile to me??? Anyway, sorry, even if I am willing to say that there is a possibility that homosexuals are born that way (which was merely a hypothetical, and I believe you knew that) does not mean you debunked the bible - that's a little bit simplistic on your part, and you know it, as it is to say I'm an idiot because I don't agree with you, and you know that, also, and I'm sorry you resort to that. I was under the assumption that I was in a discussion and not an insult match, but if I was an occasion for you to high five your friends (ooh! Good one!) then fine by me, that changes nothing. People may be genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism, but that doesn't mean they should be encouraged to indulge (obviously). There are many struggling with this sin as well, that doesn't mean it's ok...
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 18, 2008 4:00:06 GMT -5
As for too much information to read for an internet insult match, you got it, let that speak for itself. People way smarter than you (or this idiot) debate that stuff, and it all hinges on what they believe, which influences the interpretation of the information. And what did I say? Discredit the sources, I guess I called that one, as if your sources were unbiased, sorry, another thing you know - they're not (to say the least). Looks like there's dust on my shoes... And know there's a heaven for those who will wait And I know that it's better, than some useless fate If you'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints And the sinners are much more fun... Then why do you spend all your time here?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 18, 2008 7:32:22 GMT -5
I've been here for two and a half years, Possess. After two years of people acting like you, you get a little tired of telling the same idiots the same information and having them ignore you over and over and over and over. Kind of like you're doing right now. You'll notice that I haven't been all that "hostile" to Tony, who has at least made an attempt to understand my arguments rather than whining "OMG IT'S ~*TOO HARD*~, SO YOU MUST BE ~*WRONG*~."
And I ask you again: are you admitting that I'm correct in my argument that ALL sexual orientation is biological and not a choice, or not? I asked you a simple question, Possess, and you refused to answer it and instead wrote me a ridiculous poem (I lol'd). This is an example of why I am being snarky with you. If you're not taking my arguments seriously, why should I take your defense mechanisms seriously?
As for insulting you, well, at least I haven't insulted your signature in a desperate attempt to have something to say to you.
You have no argument other than to keep telling me "YOU'RE WRONG DDDD=". I have yet to see any reasonable explanation from you as to why I'm wrong, whereas I have given you many, many reasonable explanations as to why I'm right. You have ignored all of them. This isn't a discussion: it's me providing evidence and you burying your head in the sand and yelling "NANNYNANNYBOOBOO I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
No. They. Do. Not.
First of all, as I said, in the scientific community, this IS NOT A DEBATE. No self-respecting scientist in the last ten years would agree with you. NOT ONE. I have explained to you why my sources are better than your sources. Right here:
Yeah. "Conflicting studies" from organizations passionately discredited by every respectable medical association in the world. Not to mention studies that, IF they publish their methods, which they often don't, use highly questionable research designs and manipulated results. AND these "conflicting studies" are not peer-reviewed, meaning that any Joe Schmuck dropout from Podunk, Mississippi can "publish" their study on their personal website and pretend it's sound. Finally, I've read most of the "studies" you cite (if you think I haven't, just try me), and even NARTH is forced to admit about a 70% failure rate, using samples of homosexuals who are ALL greatly distressed about their orientation and DESPERATE to change it. Just imagine the failure rate if they could do their "studies" with representative samples.
You ignored me and responded with "well they're STILL BIASED!" That's not an argument. Either show me why they are, or admit you're arguing like a three-year-old.
In any case, you haven't even showed me a single source that you keep talking about, so why should I believe they exist? The only reason I DO is because I actually have read the counterresearch, unlike you, and because I have read it, I know it's crap. Why don't you go find me some specific examples, and then I'll show you why.
I am a PhD student in Neurobiology. There are indeed people smarter than me and more knowledgeable who research this subject, but I think it's safe to say that I understand how to read a basic study, understand its points and evaluate it. That's not an argument, either, sorry. The mere fact that there are people who are smarter than either of us does NOT mean that I'm wrong. That's like saying that because there are smarter people who study gravity, a college student majoring in Physics is wrong about objects falling at 9.8 m/s-squared.
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 18, 2008 12:15:05 GMT -5
But you can't understand the basic premise of life - there is a God, he has revealed himself in his word, and you are actively rejecting him by your own choice and to your own peril.
No matter how "smart" you are, that's the point you are missing, you are stuck in that loop, so arguing with you and saying "wait a minute, their are scientists and studies that disagree, not everyone that disagrees with you is an idiot, etc etc" is pretty much futile if in the end if you miss the main point, whether it's by a mile or by an inch - if you miss it you miss it, no matter how many plausibility structures you pile in the way, there is a God who loves you and wants you to choose to love him with your whole heart, wants you to choose goodness and not wallow in the mire of wickedness and ultimate suffering.
I'm glad you are so well educated, now put it to use for goodness - "Physician, heal thyself"
So long, and I hope everything turns out well for you, now and in the end.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 18, 2008 17:43:21 GMT -5
But you can't understand the basic premise of life - there is a God, he has revealed himself in his word, and you are actively rejecting him by your own choice and to your own peril. No matter how "smart" you are, that's the point you are missing, you are stuck in that loop, so arguing with you and saying "wait a minute, their are scientists and studies that disagree, not everyone that disagrees with you is an idiot, etc etc" is pretty much futile if in the end if you miss the main point, whether it's by a mile or by an inch - if you miss it you miss it, no matter how many plausibility structures you pile in the way, there is a God who loves you and wants you to choose to love him with your whole heart, wants you to choose goodness and not wallow in the mire of wickedness and ultimate suffering. I'm glad you are so well educated, now put it to use for goodness - "Physician, heal thyself" So long, and I hope everything turns out well for you, now and in the end. That's nice. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with my argument. I have been dealing with fundies for a looong time, Possess, and I know their tricks when I see them. You don't get to change the subject because you realize you're losing and don't have a leg to stand on. Unless you're going to respond to it, everything I said previously stands. Sexual orientation, including homosexuality, is biological, natural, and unchangeable. I have demonstrated why in my above posts, while you have ignored them and tried to put a smoke screen over the fact that you have no argument. Others reading this, please be careful who you listen to and what "debate" tactics they use. Notice how Possess employs fearmongering and changes the subject to avoid answering simple questions. Those are tools of the devil if I've ever seen them, and certainly enemies of reason. I'll SEE your blatant cop-out and RAISE you running away with your tail between your legs! ;D It's nice to know that you think there's no way to argue with me. I hope that others who read this thread can see the ridiculousness of "homosexuality is a lifestyle choice," now that I have hammered it into your head.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Nov 18, 2008 18:05:37 GMT -5
I believe the young people have an adjective for this ... ah, yes. Val BURNED Possess.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 18, 2008 18:18:20 GMT -5
I believe the young people have an adjective for this ... ah, yes. Val BURNED Possess. Lawl, that's actually a verb, but I appreciate the sentiment. XD Do you smell bacon? ;D
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Nov 18, 2008 18:22:40 GMT -5
Oh, you're right. Man, I think I need to figure out how to turn on the heat in my apartment because I can NOT focus while my fingers slowly freeze off!
*le sigh* It's one of those days.
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 19, 2008 5:45:02 GMT -5
For the record, this was actually about the hate crimes bill, and I was called an idiot because I see where this kind of thing is leading and because I think parents should be in charge of the what and when and who in regards to teaching their children about sexual matters. Especially five year old children. Sheesh. What. An. Idiot. I. Must. Be. The rest is just a mess of rabbit trails. The idiot comment came before the genetics discussion, which everyone knows proves nothing because, well, all the research proves nothing. You directed me to a study from Science, 1993. From Science, 1994: Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute." www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/264/5166/1686I don't know if there is a "gay gene" or not, and I'm really not that interested. I do know that it is deviant behavior, and I want the right to say so, and I want the right to teach my children the same. There are many that do not want me to have these rights, and this type of legislation is an obvious step in that direction. Notice how Valentine attempts to use humiliation to batter her adversaries into submission! The establishment clause, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I ever said or even may have insinuated, is meant to limit government intervention into religious affairs. I don't want my religion or yours to make decisions for the government, I don't want to deny anyone's basic civil rights and never indicated anything even close to that and, as far as I'm aware, I have not advocated theocracy. Did anyone? Now, what questions am I avoiding?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 19, 2008 11:03:32 GMT -5
Back so soon, Possess? But I thought you'd said "so long"? For the record, this was actually about the hate crimes bill, and I was called an idiot because I see where this kind of thing is leading and because I think parents should be in charge of the what and when and who in regards to teaching their children about sexual matters. No. I did a "find" search on this thread for "idiot." The first use of it had nothing to do with the hate crime bill. You were originally called an idiot because you brought up an incident that was taken utterly out of context, did NOT do what you claimed it did, AND demonstrated that the side you supposedly agree with violated parents' right to privacy with regard to their children's images used in political ads that they don't agree with. You were A.) telling baldfaced lies, B.) manipulating facts, and C.) bringing up an incident in which the only people telling others what to do with their children was the anti-gay agenda. Please explain to me why that's not idiotic. Rabbit trails which you chose to participate in. And YOU were the one who said that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice." I did not come in here and bring that up. If you didn't want to get called on it, you shouldn't have said it. "Oh noes, I said something that I didn't realize was baseless and asinine, and now I look like a moron because there's no graceful way to get out of this." Wah wah, cry me a river. If you don't want to play the game, take your balls and go home. Nobody's making you. But you don't get to make the game about chess just because you're losing the baseball game that YOU started. It "proves nothing" because it "proves nothing." WOW, IS THAT IRON-CLAD LOGIC, OR WHAT? If you really can't see why you deserve the title of "idiot," read that again. Wow, wow, wow. Are you going to take LeVay's "it is important to stress what I did NOT find..." out of context next? I tried to preempt this kind of nonsense with an earlier post, but apparently you still didn't read it and/or didn't get it. Here it is again: Earlier, I said: People who take "we don't know EXACTLY how it works yet" to mean "OMG IT MUST BE A CHOICE~~" are just as stupid as people who think that a "scientific theory" means that it's just a wild guess. Not knowing exactly how the brain works yet does NOT mean that you can substitute in "the brain is run by little moon men inside your skull." This paper says NOTHING about homosexuality not being biological. It says "we don't understand EXACTLY how behavior correlates with genetics and still need to work on it." It does NOT say "behavior does not correlate with genetics." In fact, it says just the opposite. Let me quote some more bits rather than the lines that you took out of context: The VERY SAME PERSON YOU QUOTED also said: "There is definitely a genetic basis for many conditions, ranging from Tourette's to alcoholism. The evidence is overwhelming that something is there." And right after that, "There are clear genetic components to behavior. We just want to try to get at what the mechanisms are." Even the strongest dissenters in the paper (your guy was not among them) to the genetic idea concede that there is a large genetic component in most behaviors. They know genetics plays a part in behavior. They are worried about using genetics as an excuse to further oppress minorities and those with low incomes. (I agree with them.) Their complaints have nothing to do with not thinking genetics plays a part in behavior and DEFINITELY nothing to do with homosexuality. BZZT, try again. This paper proves nothing except THAT I AM RIGHT. Idiot. So we are back to my exceedingly. Simple. Question. Do you admit I'm right that homosexuality is biological?I'm not really interested in your preaching, so that's okay. But YOU engaged ME, not the other way around. If you didn't want to debate with me, you should have kept your mouth shut. 1.) It's not. We haven't even GOTTEN there yet because you refuse to answer my question. I am not going to let you change the subject. We finish one topic and then move on to the next one; that is how debate works. Concede that sexual orientation is biological, and THEN I will explain why it's not harmful in the least. 2.) For the last time, I have said that you have a right to your idiocy, and no one is trying to take that away. If all you want to do is verbally masturbate with others who will say "yes yes I agree THIS NATION IS DOOMED!!!1", then you don't have to keep responding to me. But since you do keep responding, I'll wager that what you actually want to do is dig yourself out of the massive hole you've dug, but unfortunately you don't have the right to auto-win debates by playing the persecution card. Notice how Possess is still using distraction (poorly) to try to get you to ignore the fact that he's been pwn'd. That has nothing to do with what we were discussing, either (I think that was Jared and pacp). You're just summarizing this thread to, once again, distract from having to answer the relevant points. See, oh, I dunno, everything I've said in this post. --- ETA: Where's Tony? I miss Tony. Wow, never thought I'd say THAT.
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 19, 2008 13:00:30 GMT -5
1) Wrong: www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=607342) Gene or not, it is a lifestyle choice 3) Yup, nothing proved 4) No I don't, as the study only suggests and does not prove, pedigree and linkage analysis doesn't conclusively "prove" just about anything, and if you "understand" genetics, then you know that, which makes your statement closer to a "baldfaced" lie. This why the study is peppered with language such as"suggesting the possibility". The very same person I quoted was expressing his opinion (belief) in the quote you cited. The verdict is still not in, which is one reason why it proves nothing. On the surface, this "correlation" of a genetic structure and behavior traits seems to mean that the trait in question is "genetic" (or inherited). But actually it doesn't mean that at all, it's just easy to throw out a bunch of research mixed with opinion and spin it that way in the hopes of influencing people towards your agenda. There is actually no human trait that doesn't have multiple correlations like the one they are claiming. They just don't know enough about it yet: The next step for the researchers is to locate the precise gene or genes involved and attempt to determine their biochemical effects. Will finding such "gay genes" rule out the idea that social and psychological influences can have a significant effect on a man's sexual preference? "Absolutely not," declares molecular biologist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute, who headed both the 1993 investigation and the new one. "From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psychosocial factors." www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983713,00.html When it comes to questions of the genetics of any behavior-homosexuality included-all of the following statements are likely to be at least roughly true: 1. Such and such a behavior "is genetic"; 2. There are no genes that produce the behavior; 3. The genes associated with the behavior are found on such and such a chromosome; 4. The behavior is significantly heritable; 5. The behavior is not inherited. www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.htmlThose who involved in this research admit that these kind of findings are not proof, "the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic" - that means it is not even close to being a in the heredity classification as say, hair color. Also, "But with the use of similar methods of family ascertainment, phenotyping, and genotyping, we were unable to confirm evidence for an Xq28-linked locus underlying male homosexuality". They readily admit that there are big problems with taking their research to mean that homosexuality is inherited, and that there is, indeed, a "gay gene". Again, that is why I say that it actually proves nothing. Again, there is a growing desire in the "Gay Community" to strip away my rights, it's everywhere, and calling me idiot etc. is only an attempt at distraction, whereas my pointing out your unprovoked personal attacks is not distraction in the least, but an in answer to the same (although hopefully not in kind). If we want to keep distraction to a minimum, than stop with the insult throwing. Your establishment clause was stated under a quote from one of my posts. You brought it up, and it looks suspiciously like you're the one "just summarizing this thread to, once again, distract from having to answer the relevant points". So, oh, I dunno, everything you've said I've, like, answered.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 19, 2008 13:43:18 GMT -5
1.) When you number your points for no reason and don't tell me what you're referring to, this makes it NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY. 87.) You're still an idiot. ;D No. We were originally talking about the California case. This one was in Massachusetts. Stop changing the subject. IT IS NOT A LIFESTYLE CHOICE IF IT'S GENETIC. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. DO YOU ADMIT THAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS BIOLOGICAL? IF NOT, WHY NOT?ANSWER. MY. QUESTION. And no, you, like, haven't. 43792734.) I have no idea what you're referring to.
|
|
|
Post by possess on Nov 19, 2008 14:50:49 GMT -5
Actually, I numbered it to make it easier for you to follow. I was referring to what happens with this type of legislation, and I cited CA, NM and even Canada, not CA exclusively, as is obviously apparent.
I don't think it is inherited, if that is what you mean. It's so obviously simple to see that it goes against human nature that any defense of it is pitiful, no matter how you dress it up, and no matter how many animal instances you cite, unless you believe that animals are the same as humans. It is a continuation of the pagan love affair with unfruitfulness, which ironically, in the long run, will trump your speculations about who is going to die out.
My citations are good enough to prove that the genetics issue is not cut and dried, nor is it signed and sealed, it's still up in the air, and it is also a moot point (and a much belabored one, at that). No amount of twisting and shaking is going to change that, name calling might make you feel superior, but it's not showing the validity of anything whatsoever.
The debate does not hinge on whether or not "sexual orientation" is biological, and I've tried to correct that assumption, like six times, but you can't get over it. I don't think homosexuality is something that can't be helped - is that clear enough for you? I also never advocated the return of OT laws such as stoning people for deviant sexual behaviors, but that does not mean I think what they are doing is right, and I am going to reserve the right to say it's wrong, disgusting even, *dangerous* even, and I'm going to continue to teach all of my children the same (teaching children is not a hypothetical situation for some of us).
There is really no end to the arguing, because at the basis of it are two different faiths, and until we agree on that, there will likely be no meaningful agreement on anything else, which is why I "immortalized" (used twice, actually) my comments to you in my signature. Those comments are the most relevant comments that have been made so far. You think X? That's nice, but that's not what counts. First and foremost, what counts is that you can't understand the basic premise of life - there is a God, he has revealed himself in his word, and you are actively rejecting him by your own choice and to your own peril.
No matter how "smart" you are, that's the point you are missing, you are stuck in that loop, so arguing with you and saying "wait a minute, their are scientists and studies that disagree, not everyone that disagrees with you is an idiot, etc etc" is pretty much futile if in the end if you miss the main point, whether it's by a mile or by an inch - if you miss it you miss it, no matter how many plausibility structures you pile in the way, there is a God who loves you and wants you to choose to love him with your whole heart, wants you to choose goodness and not wallow in the mire of wickedness and ultimate suffering.
And I still hope everything turns out well for you.
That being said, I'm not looking forward to see what happens with this from Obama.com
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 19, 2008 15:27:43 GMT -5
Actually, I numbered it to make it easier for you to follow. It wasn't. No, we were talking about when you first got called an idiot, which is when you mentioned the California school kids going to surprise their teacher after her wedding ceremony. THEN you used A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION to tell me that I was "wrong" to call you an idiot a week ago about the California situation. Not that anyone should be surprised by now, as distraction is your key debate tactic, it seems. Hahaha. Once AGAIN, science says, BZZT WRONG.ORLY? Then why don't you explain it to us, Possess. Why is it "against human nature"? You may not use religious texts in any way, shape or form to explain your reasoning. WOAH WAIT WAIT. First you say that homosexuality is "unnatural" because no other animal species does it. I SHOW YOU the hundreds of species with documented homosexual behavior. You then turn around and say that WE'RE NOT LIKE ANIMALS SO THAT DOESN'T MATTER. Your logic fails. So hard. Again and again and again and again, I said: People who take "we don't know EXACTLY how it works yet" to mean "OMG IT MUST BE A CHOICE~~" are just as stupid as people who think that a "scientific theory" means that it's just a wild guess. Not knowing exactly how the brain works yet does NOT mean that you can substitute in "the brain is run by little moon men inside your skull." The authors of your studies all AGREE WITH ME, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions. You are making a ridiculous dichotomy where none exists. I dunno, getting you to stop calling sexual orientation a "lifestyle choice" certainly isn't a moot point to me. And I've told you why you were wrong, like six million times, but you are IGNORING it. Sexual behavior or sexual orientation? They are two different things, which, as I explained to Tony, is the critical point that you fundies cannot comprehend. Sexual behavior is certainly a choice. Sexual orientation is certainly not. Well, I don't advocate killing fundies, either, but that doesn't mean I think they're right, and I reserve the right to say that what they are doing is wrong, disgusting, dangerous, AND asinine. And I'm going to teach all of my future children the same, and, no, that is not hypothetical for me either (it's not an 'if' but a 'when,' peaches). Because I have an interest in keeping my children away from the radical Christian agenda until they have the tools they need to face it, my children will be homeschooled. Which you are also free to do. If you don't like the way public education educates, then nobody's making you use it. Otherwise, put on your big girl panties and deal with it. Things that have nothing to do with the argument (neither did the children statement, either, for the record, but I indulged you because, unlike this babble, the topic actually interests me). You still aren't allowed to derail the topic with gorillas on a bicycle to distract from the fact that you have no leg to stand on.
|
|