|
Post by messengermicah on Nov 26, 2008 15:44:13 GMT -5
Tony,
When a society becomes consumed with pleasure, indulgence, self gratification, time wasting entertainment like America has and Sodom was, then widespread accepted homosexuality will be the result.
That is the way I understand Ezekiel 16:49. I am not misrepresenting the truth of the Bible.
I am exposing you for being the coward you are.
You voted for Obama.
You defend hate crimes.
You try to divert the blame from homosexuals.
Fine but do not call yourself a Christian and certainly do not label yourself a fundamentalist street preacher.
You are far too much of a coward, compromising man pleaser more concerned with coming across as being reasonable, tolerant, understanding, and accepting by the unreasonable, intolerant of God, unaccepting of God society that rejects Him and His laws.
You want respectability.
You are pukewarm.
You are a coward.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 26, 2008 16:25:33 GMT -5
val, All this from a self avowed "Heroine Addict". It's a literary reference. Heroines as in female heroes, not the drug. As evidenced by my avatar, one of my favorite female heroes. I am drug free kthx. ..... So wait. "This is always the way things work. Anyone who agrees with me will agree! However, I'm not going to provide any evidence for it. But if you agree with me, you'll agree!" Right. Next? Any crowd can get nasty. It's called mob mentality. As I have asked you to do from day one, please prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that these individuals acted violently BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION and not for any other reason. Again, this is like saying that Jewish people are murderers because of a news story about a murderer who happened to be Jewish. You do a fine job of showing fundie preachers for what they really are without any news stories, dear.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Nov 26, 2008 16:42:29 GMT -5
Yes, any mob can be nasty but homosexuals are by far the nastiest, vilest, meanest, and most unreasonable.
That is why at most homosexual parades we are surrounded by barricades and police protection. The police and barricades are to keep the homosexuals away from us not us away from the crowd.
Ask any street preacher where the hardest and most dangerous places to preach are. Homosexual infested events and places. Castro street, Key West, Weekend of Decadence (New Orleans), homosexual parades.
You are dealing with people who are demon possessed. Anyone who is a homosexual has a homosexual demon. People do not normally do perverted acts like have sex with children, animals, dead people, or same sex unless they are perverted.
Normal people do not go out and become mass murderers. It starts with smaller things and grows. Same with homosexuals. Unnatural sexual acts that go unchecked.
Oh sure, homosexuals are not the only sinners who get violent. All sinners are selfish so they all are capable of violence.
2 Timothy 3:1-5 This know also that in the last days perilous times shall come (perilous means violent or dangerous)...men will be lovers of their own selves, covetous...., despisers of those that are good, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God
Yes, val it is because of their sin (including but limited to homoperversion and sodomy) that they are violent.
Homosex=selfishness
Violence=selfishness
Homosex=violence
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Nov 26, 2008 17:50:16 GMT -5
Micah....Didn't anyone tell you it's not nice to be a cyber bully. Problem with you is that you seem obsessed with this issue of homosexuality. I'm not sure what that means, but it might be something to think about. I know that when I was street preaching, lust was something that I spent more time on than some others...it was because it was the issue that I struggled with the most. No, as usual, you are saying the same incorrect thing over and over to try to convince others that you are right. LOL....what does that have to do with anything? I what? News to me. Blame for what? Other than behavior, I haven't blamed anyone for anything. Feel free to play that game....whatever makes you feel better dude. I would hope that we can all be reasonable and tolerant while standing up for our own position. Clearly you can't, because your interest seems to lie in just how irritated you can make a crowd of people. (You know, the rile them up, get them mad, they lash out at you and you get to say you were persecuted routine) but not all of us desire to be seen in this light. It's interesting that Jesus was able to be gentle while direct with sinners, other than the religious leaders who spent a great deal of time patting themselves on the back for how good of a job they did following the law. Jesus lashed out at those people....kind of a lesson to be learned there.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Nov 26, 2008 21:54:20 GMT -5
Yes, any mob can be nasty but homosexuals are by far the nastiest, vilest, meanest, and most unreasonable. That is why at most homosexual parades we are surrounded by barricades and police protection. The police and barricades are to keep the homosexuals away from us not us away from the crowd. Ask any street preacher where the hardest and most dangerous places to preach are. Homosexual infested events and places. Castro street, Key West, Weekend of Decadence (New Orleans), homosexual parades. You are dealing with people who are demon possessed. Anyone who is a homosexual has a homosexual demon. People do not normally do perverted acts like have sex with children, animals, dead people, or same sex unless they are perverted. Normal people do not go out and become mass murderers. It starts with smaller things and grows. Same with homosexuals. Unnatural sexual acts that go unchecked. Oh sure, homosexuals are not the only sinners who get violent. All sinners are selfish so they all are capable of violence. 2 Timothy 3:1-5 This know also that in the last days perilous times shall come (perilous means violent or dangerous)...men will be lovers of their own selves, covetous...., despisers of those that are good, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God Yes, val it is because of their sin (including but limited to homoperversion and sodomy) that they are violent. Homosex=selfishness Violence=selfishness Homosex=violence AS I SAID, Micah, source, please? The Bible is not a source, and neither are your anecdotal preacher tales. Prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that homosexuals are more likely than any other group to be violent because of their sexual orientation and nothing else, and then you might have an argument. And you know it's bad when a fellow fundie (for crying out loud, seriously, I have never in my life seen that, and I have been around fundies a long time) is suggesting that you're so closeted you can see Narnia. Seriously, Micah, it's okay. I, at least, won't judge you. =) (Tony, ever given any more thought to our discussion a few weeks ago about biology and sexual orientation?)
|
|
medea
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by medea on Nov 26, 2008 22:05:29 GMT -5
"5. Turn to Christ, Val. Turn to Jesus and tell your little sister to do the same.."
Unlike you, my sister doesn't tell me what to believe. She lets me make my own decisions about faith.
"One day Val you are going to really want God and you won't be able to find Him."
Well, that's not a very nice thing for God to do, is it? If my sister did ever go looking for God, why would he play hide and seek with her? Kind of counterproductive, don't you think?
Also, why is it so important for people to worship and praise God's holy name all day long? Wouldn't our time be better spent living and growing as a good person? Isn't that why we were put on Earth in the first place? If God is a perfect being, he doesn't need humans to sit around and tell him how perfect he is. I'd like to think he'd rather us to live our lives to the fullest and just be nice to each other.
Speaking of being nice to each other...
Trying not to look intolerant and please the God hating Christ rejecting world that nailed our Savior to the cross.
"Quit making up excuses Tony and stand up and speak out boldly against this sin or quit calling yourself a Christian"
After sifting through all the grammatical errors in that sentence and reading a few of your other posts in this thread, I've concluded that you, my good sir, are not a very nice person.
I'm a little different from Val. I'm younger, still uncertain about my faith, or lack thereof. But Micah...your religion and your intolerance are scaring me. I don't think I want to be a part of this.
|
|
medea
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by medea on Nov 27, 2008 12:08:16 GMT -5
"You are dealing with people who are demon possessed. Anyone who is a homosexual has a homosexual demon. People do not normally do perverted acts like have sex with children...unless they are perverted. "
So wait, homosexuals are possessed by demons, right? These demons make homosexuals perverted. This leads them to have sex with children, right?
Groth and Birnbaum (1978) categorized child molesters as either fixated or regressed (see also Groth, Hobson, & Gary, 1982). Fixated offenders never developed an adult sexual orientation of any sort, whereas regressed molesters have done so. Thus, regressed molesters can be adult homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals. But it is meaningless to speak of fixated molesters in these terms - <b>they are attracted to children, not to men or women.</b>
Using this distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) found that none of the 175 adult males in their sample - all of whom were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child - had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 of the men (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).
Micah, what you're talking about is pedophilia. Pedophilia is an adult's physiological, sexual preference to children. Homosexuality is one's physiological attraction to other adults of the same sex. Do those definitions sound different? It's because they are.
Homosexual=/pedophile.
In fact, if you want to go further (and I'm sure you do), pedophile=/child molester. Just because a man or a woman (yes, women are just as capable of child molestation as men), is attracted to children doesn't mean that he/she will molest them. The pedophile can realize that mental devastation that premature sex can have on the minor and choose to have sexual relations with adults instead, even if he/she has a sexual preference towards children.
Just like a gay man can CHOOSE to marry and have sex with a woman in order to keep up with his religion's agenda, even if he biologically prefers men.
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Nov 28, 2008 1:10:01 GMT -5
Medea, what do you define exactly by "being nice" ?
I know plenty of people who are generally nice , by education or/and by personnal effort. But if bad times come what do they do , will they seek to selfishly save their skin, and what if they feel threaten by others ? Being nice does not mean a lot of things for me , as it is not a virtue , not a deep one anyway, maybe only a "vernish". Rather i think it would be better to tell about sacrificial love , being longforbearing , merciful , etc...
|
|
medea
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by medea on Nov 28, 2008 12:09:13 GMT -5
First of all, I consider selfishness a virtue. If we don't have the sense to save our own skin over someone else's, we should all (in the words of Dr. House), "sign our own organ donor cards and kill ourselves." Someone who isn't afraid to fight back and "save their own skin" when they themselves (not their religious views) feel "threatened by others" isn't selfish; they're smart.
Nice is a broad word. When I said "being nice" in my last post, I was talking about being a courteous person, someone who can listen to others' beliefs without lashing out at them personally. There are, of course, lots of other ways we can be nice to each other.
This is not one of them:
"Quit making up excuses Tony and stand up and speak out boldly against this sin or quit calling yourself a Christian"
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Nov 29, 2008 16:04:40 GMT -5
Tony,
How do I "seem obsessed" with the issue of homosexuality? You "seem obsessed" with defending them, hate crimes and Obama who fully supports the homosexual agenda.
I realize you are totally out of touch with what is going on Tony since you do not speak out plainly, directly, and boldly against sin and sinners and you never expose their hearts and their mindsets so you can deal with them and destroy their false mindsets so they can see the truth (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, 1 Corinthians 1:19).
However, homosexuality is a very important issue. Most of our society now does not believe it is a sin, much less a choice. They think they are born that way.
Once a society becomes so self indulgent, pleasure seeking, time wasting, and selfish the result will be widespread accepted homosexuality.
Yes, the prophets, Jesus, the apostles always preached on the issues of the day. The Bible makes homosexuality an issue. If it is in the Bible then we should be preaching it where it is pertinant.
As far as the issue of lust that you said you preached on so much when you "used to preach on the streets" (why did you stop) go dust your bible off and take a look at any laundry list of sins and you will always find sexual sins at the top.
Examples: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Ephesians 5:5, Galatians 5:19-21, Mark 7:21-22, etc.
That is the most prevalent sin in our society and with males so stop trying to make yourself out to be some kind of "Rico Suave".
99% of college students who claim to be Christian and say they cannot stop sinning are involved in sexual sin (porno and masturbation).
It is like this Tony: The homos cry that is the only thing we preach against, the ganster rappers claim that is the only thing we preach against, the masturbators claim that is the only thing we preach against, etc.
People always defend what they love (come to think of it maybe you should wonder why you defend homosexuals so much).
By the way what "routine" are you talking about? Are you talking about the canned, preprogrammed "Ray Comfort" routine of "preaching the law"?
Yes, Tony in order to get people's attention you must deal with their emotions. Once you have gotten their attention then you begin to deal with their reason, conscience and their will.
Tony do you know why Jesus was sharp with the Pharisees? Have you ever considered that Jesus and the disciples only preached to Jews? Read Matthew 10:5-6.
The Jews were very religious. Adulterers were stoned. Contrast this with our society.
Jesus was sharp with them because they were full of pride. Read Psalm 10:4.
Why do they wicked not seek after God Tony? Pride.
You are such a coward and compromiser that you do not have the boldness to confront sin directly and boldly in no uncertain terms to realize that almost everyone in our society claims to be saved. They are very religious. If you would preach against their sin directly you would understand that.
Where all all these examples of Jesus preaching to masses of hardened, obstinate sinners claiming they are saved and being so gentle with them?
John the Baptist-Matthew 3:7
Jesus-Matthew 23:33, Matthew 11:23, Matthew 7:23, Matthew 25:41
Paul-Acts 13:10
Stephen-Acts 7:51
Peter-Acts 2:23
Sure this is not the only way. It all depends upon who you are dealing with. I have plenty of times where I am just gently instructing or answering questions.
You have no problem with me doing that so I do not have to defend that.
You want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible and Jesus character you like and which you do not like.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Nov 29, 2008 16:05:25 GMT -5
Val,
How do you prove something in science?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Nov 29, 2008 16:08:42 GMT -5
medea,
Learn one thing. God is not there to make you want to like Him.
You were made for His pleasure (Revelation 4:11).
If the truth of the holiness of God turns you off then you need to repent and turn to God.
All you do when you say things like "When I hear things about God like that then I do not want to be a Christian!" all you do is prove the Bible true and show how wicked and selfish you are.
You are a God hater. All sinners are. That is why you need to repent and be reconciled to God. You are an enemy of God. You are an enemy of God because you choose to be.
When you are shown the truth of who God is it turns you off because you are a God hater.
|
|
medea
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by medea on Nov 29, 2008 21:48:33 GMT -5
Micah, when did I say "When I hear things about God like that then I do not want to be a Christian!"
*goes back to read post*
I'm a little different from Val. I'm younger, still uncertain about my faith, or lack thereof. But Micah...your religion and your intolerance are scaring me. I don't think I want to be a part of this.
Hm...that doesn't sound anything like ""When I hear things about God like that then I do not want to be a Christian!" In fact, I wasn't even talking about God. I was talking about *you* and the way you were treating Tony.
You called me selfish and wicked over something I never even said. I want an apology.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Dec 1, 2008 16:16:25 GMT -5
My religion is the religion of the Bible and He is intolerant of sin.
What exactly do you mean by tolerance anyway? These words "tolerance", "acceptance", "hatred, and "fearmongering" are thrown around quite a bit these days.
Does a person who loves black people tolerate the KKK?
Does a person who loves Jews tolerate Nazis?
Does a person who loves God tolerate that which offends, hates, and crucified Jesus Christ?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Dec 1, 2008 16:17:43 GMT -5
Tony accuses me of being obsessed with the issue of homosexuality yet he is the one involved in an unending thread of trying to debate whether or not homosexuals are born that way or not.
Wouldn't the Bible, reason, conscience and the laws of nature be enough to figure that one out?
|
|
|
Post by fs on Dec 2, 2008 13:32:03 GMT -5
Mucag, I appreciate your prayers for me on the oppsoite thread in the prayers section so in spute of some issues here I have to thank you as a brother in Christ. Understand the pasy month has been a trying one and do ntot ake anything personal.
Believe me, I would know, homosexuals are NOT born that way. It is a choice that can be fixed on one's own intiiative or preferably through Christ.
Sin is sin and it ias not catagorized as one sin is more or less than another before God, except blasphemy against the holy spirit.
And Valentine , quit playing games with God. You and your sister will be sharing a room in hell.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Dec 2, 2008 14:48:22 GMT -5
That is exactly correct Micah. Hi Val....Sorry for taking so long answering your question, but it took quite a while to read, then figure out what I was reading, then read some more. From the best that I have been able to gather, they make a pretty compelling case that it is possible that a person may have a disposition toward being gay. I also read some pretty good articles that took the opposite position and also made a good case. All in all, I still believe that homosexuality is a choice, but did see some good case studies to at least consider the other side could be on to something. Do keep in mind though, I am one of those guys that believe that many psychological issues are a load of crap. (ADHD/Chronic fatigue syndrome/ etc). I will admit that this could have some bearing on my assessment. Something did kind of hit me during this though.....You have never argued against this point, but in my worldview it wouldn't matter. This is probably over simplifying, but even if a person is prone toward a certain behavior, it doesn't mean that they should partake in that behavior. Again, you were clear that you were looking at two separate parts of homosexuality (behavior and orientation). Just mentioned the last part as it was kind a "along the way revelation" for me.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Dec 2, 2008 16:16:50 GMT -5
That is exactly correct Micah. El oh el, Tony is win. What articles? I've read most of them and can tell you why they are, to use your words, a load of crap. I'll save you the trouble of taking another three weeks to read them and tell you right now, but if you don't believe me, I can get similar sources from what I've showed you before to explain it. NARTH is wrong. JONAH is wrong. Exodus is wrong. Focus is wrong. Those are not credible scientific organizations, and most of their "researchers" were expelled from said credible scientific organizations -- note, not because of their beliefs, which is a common accusation by the Christian agenda, but because they were falsifying data and using faulty research methods. Again, if you don't believe me, I can show you evidence, but since last time it took you so long to digest said evidence and you ended up finding it sound, I thought you might want the opportunity to take my word for it. Let me know. If it's another institute that I didn't mention, feel free to link, but I think I've got the big ones. Keep in mind that I have read the counter-research carefully, probably more extensively than you have, and have the tools to recognize faulty methods when I see them. I am going to do this for a living. If all you have for your opinion is "I think [they're] crap," don't you agree that it's a little premature to use that opinion (and that's all it is, an opinion, unless you have evidence, which you have not provided -- in which case, it's not even a very sound opinion) to make laws? That's because I was never able to get any further with the argument because others were being bullheaded and refusing to, you know, actually read things. One common tactic I have seen the Christian agenda employ time and time again is distraction techniques to get away from the real issue that is being discussed. That's not going to work, and we must first resolve the issue of sexual orientation being biological before we can move onto other topics that build on that assumption. Once you admit that, there are many other roads this discussion can take. As it stands, the only outstanding issue keeping you from doing just that seems to be that you have read other research that seems to make compelling points. The mere fact that you have read "research" tells me nothing. I can find "studies" claiming with a lot of convincing science-babble that dinosaurs still roam the earth. It doesn't mean I should believe them for a minute, or that they're in any way more valid than actual peer-reviewed research with sound methods. Let's see if we can address that research and find it credible or... less credible. Yes, but even if that were true (which we have not broached, and I have never said I agreed with), would you deny civil marriage to alcoholics? People with cancer? Then why would you vote for Proposition 8?
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Dec 3, 2008 10:45:54 GMT -5
Val...Can't you just be tolerant of my beliefs? Anyway.....I'll take your word that you have done a great deal of research on this and the opposition, but I would also say that even if we threw out opposing points, what remains is the stance that there can be a disposition towards being homosexual. I really wouldn't go to the mat arguing against this as first...yes that is possible and second, you are much more educated on this subject than I and you would be debating with a unarmed man in the world of science. So, for the sake of continuing, lets just assume that it is possible for a person to be prone towards homosexuality. On the marriage issue.....No, I wouldn't agree that homosexual marriage should be permitted as marriage is supposed to be a Holy Union between a man and a woman. Though that has been eroded over the years (drive through weddings in Vegas, Wiccan weddings, etc) I remain steadfast that the basic principle of marriage is a husband and wife joining together in a commitment before God. I do, however, have no issue with civil unions for benefit and tax purposes as long as it were not limited to homosexual couples. Two perfectly straight men or women could make a home together for a mulitude of reasons and should have the same rights. If the government isn't willing to do this, I do think that common law marriages should also be disbanded with any benefits (tax, health, etc) removed. Basicly, if a guy and a girl can shack up together and recieve governmental recognition as being a union (for the lack of a better term)....this should also extend to anyone else who does so.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Dec 3, 2008 14:13:41 GMT -5
Val...Can't you just be tolerant of my beliefs? Sure, as long as they don't violate my rights. Unfortunately, that's exactly what your buddies are trying to do. Thus, alas, here I am arguing with you and them. No, not just that. I'm talking about everyone, not just gay people. Including you. You didn't make a choice to be straight (I assume), and you can't make a choice to be anything else, either. What I am saying is that all sexual orientation is biological, not a product of "personal choice." I am also saying that sexual orientation is functionally immutable, i.e. there is no way to significantly alter one's sexual orientation through psycho"therapy." (Brain surgery is a different story, as I do believe that's possible to some degree, but that just further demonstrates the point that you don't choose your orientation any more than you choose the size of your corpus callosum or the characteristics of your amygdala.) Therefore, my argument (thus far) is two-fold: 1.) We do not choose our sexual orientation 2.) We cannot change our sexual orientation Agree to that, and we can move on. If you don't agree, tell me why. I am not deliberately talking over your head to confuse you. I offered for you to take my word on a complicated issue that I have experience with, but if you don't take my word for it, I am perfectly capable of defending it. I can hear you saying at the end of the day that you still don't believe me anyway because I'm just a lousy secular scientist who's trying to poison your mind. If you don't believe me, say so. If you don't understand something and aren't willing to take my word for it, say so. No playing the ignorance card allowed. I said civil marriage. I have never even mentioned religious marriage. Like it or not, marriage is not purely a religious sacrament in the USA any longer. It's also a legal contract -- and for many, that's all it is. Otherwise, we wouldn't allow secular people to get married. Civil and religious marriage are two completely different things, which is what the fundies cannot seem to understand. If you don't like the fact that the government is stealing your name for it, then that's unfortunate, but it's not gay people's fault. Your beef is with the government's involvement in a religious sacrament, not with homosexual couples wanting civil marriage, if that is truly your only complaint. In which case, I would be right there with you on getting the government out of religious marriage. I think all legally-recognized marriages should be abolished and all couples should be required to get civil unions, and after that free to hold the religious ceremony of their choice that would hold no legal standing whatsoever. But, again, you can't blame homosexual couples for that. Denying them civil marriage is making them a ridiculous scapegoat for the real issue. Gay people are going to have religious marriages whether you like it or not. Ironically, when the fundies passed Prop 8 and forbid civil marriage, the only thing they couldn't change is the very thing they supposedly object to. There will always be churches comfortable performing same-sex marriage ceremonies. Why on earth would a gay couple (one who's actually religious, which eliminates many to start with; most gay people, surprise, don't care about religious marriage) want to be married at one of the churches that doesn't bless their union? If you are being honest and your ONLY real worry is your church of choice having to mess with the icky gays, your church is safe, trust me. Would you want to get married in a church that hated you when the one down the street welcomes you? No gay couple is going to seriously try to get married at Westboro Baptist Church, and if someone did it for teh lulz*, the first amendment would protect WBC from doing anything they didn't want to do. The entire argument is irrational. And now I want to know, is that the issue? Or are you on any level okay with withholding civil rights to a person on the basis of an immutable and un-chosen biological trait? *Because I can hear pacp and Micah coming in here screeching that the nasty "homos" would be itching to use their hard-fought marriage rights to annoy some fundies. The beauty of allowing same-sex civil marriage is that WBC wouldn't be denying said gay couple of any fundamental right, and therefore they ARE actually able to exercise their freedom of religion. Whereas using "freedom of religion" as an excuse to deny civil marriage is A.) mind-numbingly illogical and B.) only going to cause MORE interest in same-sex religious marriage, which fundies cannot prohibit due to, surprise, freedom of religion.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Dec 3, 2008 15:21:48 GMT -5
Nope, not saying that you are talking over my head on purpose, just saying the scientific nature of the conversation IS over my head. Here is a horrible analogy....... We have a new NBA team in Oklahoma City. I absolutley love them and have learned a great deal about the team, players strengths and weaknesses, etc. The team has currently won only two games this season. For the analogy, lets say that you are clueless about professional basketball, but make the statement that they are horrible. I would argue to the mat using stats, improvement opportunities, lottery, etc because I know a great deal about this stuff. I would give you what I consider to be a iron clad case that they are not horrible and you still would think they were. Unless you were just a fan of debate, you probably wouldn't argue too hard that I was wrong even if you thought I was. You wouldn't have the knowledge set to make a convincing argument, so you probably wouldn't try to make one. Ok, maybe I was just looking for an opportunity to talk about our team....but anyway. What I am saying is that while a convincing argument is being made that sexual orientation could be disposed by biological influences, I didn't read much that indicated that sexual orientation was absolutley determined by biological influences. As you said before....there is no gay gene, there is no gay enzyme or hormone...no real smoking gun. While I didn't give you anything that I read showing the the disagreeing side I noticed that you immediatley jumped on the offensive and started saying that all of those researchers were wrong, used false information, saying that they aren't credible, etc. Is it possible that it is easy to dismiss that work because it doesn't agree with what you want to be true? Driving down to the point......It is impossible to have a debate on this subject, because we would simply dismiss the others sources and stand on our own. At that point, debate devolves to argument....and I don't like to argue. On to marriage.....Don't misunderstand me......The purpose of marriage or a civil union turn what was two into one. Other than in the case of a man and woman, I am against that. What I am for is to extend state and federal benefits, rights, and protection under the law to those who choose to operate a household together much like what is done in the case of "common law marriages".
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Dec 3, 2008 16:29:32 GMT -5
Valentine is basing her position on the trend of this world , as if it was solid ground. She speaks of science also, but is unable to bring any proof to her claims.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Dec 3, 2008 20:22:38 GMT -5
While I didn't give you anything that I read showing the the disagreeing side I noticed that you immediatley jumped on the offensive and started saying that all of those researchers were wrong, used false information, saying that they aren't credible, etc. Is it possible that it is easy to dismiss that work because it doesn't agree with what you want to be true? No no no no no no NO. I "went on the offensive" because I am aware of every major "ex-gay" "research" facility and why their methods are flawed. I even listed the major ones in a previous post. If you have one that I haven't heard of, please, do enlighten me. As it stands, I know that A, B and C say X, Y and Z, and I know that they're wrong. Why would I say otherwise? Again, if it's not the people I mentioned, please, do enlighten me. But you haven't. All you've done is accuse me of poisoning the well without even giving me the sources for this "research" you keep speaking about. You clearly aren't believing me, so fine, let's play hardball. First, I'll need your sources. Every last one of them, with either .PDF links to the primary research (not meta or review) or enough information that I can find them. Don't talk to me about your "sources" if you can't back them up. I want your full citations or I want you to drop this and concede. No, it's impossible to have a debate because I provided sources, and you vaguely mentioned that you'd read somewhere that your great aunt's best friend told you that there was equally-credible research that said otherwise. You don't have to be a scientist to understand the fallacy of that; this is not science-babble or jargon but simple logic. Until you produce this research, my points stand. It's impossible for me to discredit research that you refuse to provide, and you know it, which is probably why you haven't provided it. So let's have it: your sources. Even if it's NARTH or Focus. That'll just make it easier for me, anyway, so I don't know why I tried to discourage you from bringing them up. If you want to make a tin can your first line of defense, why on earth should I encourage you to bring a bazooka? That's what civil marriage is in the United States. You don't get to define it based on what your religion says because of that nasty thing called the Establishment Clause. If you want a government that decides who can get married based on what the religion du jour thinks, I suggest several fine middle eastern nations that would be happy to accommodate you. Your solution will not work because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. We are not allowed to treat people differently under the law, and that includes what we call their unions. If I told you that I wasn't a racist, and I think that black people should be able to recognize their relationships with white people as "interracial unions," would you believe that I wasn't a racist? As I said, I don't like the government involved in marriage, either, but that means for EVERYONE, not just for the people that Mr. Tony Holland doesn't like. Either everyone gets a civil union for their legal benefits or everyone gets a marriage or everyone gets a Funtime Mickey Mouse Sunshine Union. You'll notice that the common thread in all of those suggestions is that we are all calling it the same thing. I couldn't care less what you call it as long as there is NO difference, even nominally, between same-sex and opposite-sex couples to the US government (I couldn't care less what your religion thinks about them). Anything else is a violation of the 14th amendment and unconstitutional. Fortunately for the USA, we make laws based on protecting rights, not on what Tony Holland "believes" about "two becoming one." Don't like it, move to Iran. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to watch Iron Man blow things up The American Way.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Dec 4, 2008 0:09:14 GMT -5
I don't think you are getting what I am trying to say. I am saying that this is not a debate that I intend to engage in. It would require a good deal of time and study on a issue that even if it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was wrong.....my Worldview would be the same as I already believe that we are prone to sin. If this particular sin had a biological contributor.....well, ok. It appears that you are itching for a full scale scientific debate over the issue and the sources of the information. i just dont think that anyone here, least of all me, are prepared to engage in that debate.
This is interesting. You are right, my solution probably wouldn't work, but apparently, neither does yours above. I think that the government takes my position as marriage being two becomes one almost exactly as I do. This is why they continue to define marriage between one man and one woman. As PC as many want to be, its pretty clear most of America feels that this is the way it should be. Good grief, if they couldn't get same sex marriage concept passed in what is arguably the most liberal State in the Country....where can they?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Dec 4, 2008 11:06:57 GMT -5
I don't think you are getting what I am trying to say. I am saying that this is not a debate that I intend to engage in. It would require a good deal of time and study on a issue that even if it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was wrong.....my Worldview would be the same as I already believe that we are prone to sin. If this particular sin had a biological contributor.....well, ok. It appears that you are itching for a full scale scientific debate over the issue and the sources of the information. i just dont think that anyone here, least of all me, are prepared to engage in that debate. So what you're saying is that you have no idea if what you're saying is correct, you admit it's probably wrong, you still refuse to show me the sources to your arguments, which I am starting to believe do not actually exist and you're making this up because it's too frightening of a challenge to your worldview, and yet you continue to be okay with using that baseless, ridiculous, and probably incorrect by your own admission opinion to write laws into the US Constitution? There's an idiot in the room, and it's not me. The problem, Tony, is not that "most people in the US don't like gay marriage." The problem is that most people in the US are, like you, illogical and dumb and can't be bothered to interpret the constitution when what they really want to do is make their "beliefs" laws. This is why we are not a democracy but a representative constitutional republic, because the founding fathers knew that people like you vastly outnumbered people that actually understand what rights are. Our entire constitution, fortunately, is built on protection against rule by a very, very stupid mob. The fact that you have a stupid mob does not make you either credible or right. When the Supreme Court ruled the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" (note that it was worded just as spuriously and positively as the "Defense of Marriage Act") in Loving v Virginia in 1967, over 70% of the United States population believed that segregation laws were good and necessary and should remain on the books. Did the Supreme Court listen? No! They understood, again, unlike you, that "majority rule" is the very antithesis to our government, and that rights of a minority cannot be put up to a majority vote. I don't really care if 90% of people hate the idea of civil marriage for same-sex couples (and they don't; even in less liberal states, that number is substantially less than the national figure in Loving v Virginia). That means nothing. If 90% of people supported the "Defense of Religion Act" that would allow us to exterminate Jews, would that make it right? Your entire argument thus far has been "a lot of people think this shouldn't happen, therefore it shouldn't happen," and there is no precedent for that US history. That's why we have the Supreme Court. To strike down mob rule like the type that happened in California and the type that you unfortunately are dumb enough to support. And yes, Tony, you are dumb to believe this. This is not just about gay people. If that law stands, we have set the precedent, like it or not, that a simple 50.00001% majority can take away rights of a minority. If you have any understanding at all about how law is interpreted, you will understand how dangerous that is. There is a reason why racial civil rights groups and women's rights groups are on the Prop 8 lawsuit, and it has nothing to do with gay people. How hard do you really think it'd be to pass a "Racial Integrity Act" in Alabama or South Carolina or Mississippi, with an iron-clad and well-funded campaign like the one of Prop 8? More importantly to you, how hard do you really think it would be in a state like Massachusetts to pass the "Defense Against Hate Crime" act that would forbid street preaching in any public area in the state? What percentage of people you preach to actually want you there, Tony? Do you think we could find 50.0001% of people in Massachusetts who didn't? Whose rights will be next? I hope they won't be yours.
|
|
|
Post by fs on Dec 4, 2008 13:47:46 GMT -5
Valentine, beyond all these words you miss the main and the ONLY lasting fact. YOU need Jesus Christ.
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
As for there beign an idiot in this room and it not being you, don't be so sure.
The Bible mentions YOU and your kind.
It reminds us the fool has said in his (or her) heart there is no God.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Dec 4, 2008 13:48:24 GMT -5
Now who is blending the lines between sexual orientation and behavior? If you are correct that a person could have a predisposition towards being gay, it doesn't mean that the person should live a homosexual lifestyle anymore than a alcoholic should be a drunkard just because they have that disposition.
You went on quite a rant that seemed to conclude that homosexual marriage is already a right guranteed by the Constitution.....but same sex marriage is still not legal. Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Dec 4, 2008 16:35:58 GMT -5
Now who is blending the lines between sexual orientation and behavior? If you are correct that a person could have a predisposition towards being gay, it doesn't mean that the person should live a homosexual lifestyle anymore than a alcoholic should be a drunkard just because they have that disposition. Would you deny civil rights to alcoholics? There is nothing in the US Constitution banning gay marriage nationwide. If there was, the court would have come after Massachusetts years ago. Your point?
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Dec 4, 2008 23:58:45 GMT -5
Now who is blending the lines between sexual orientation and behavior? If you are correct that a person could have a predisposition towards being gay, it doesn't mean that the person should live a homosexual lifestyle anymore than a alcoholic should be a drunkard just because they have that disposition. Would you deny civil rights to alcoholics? There is nothing in the US Constitution banning gay marriage nationwide. If there was, the court would have come after Massachusetts years ago. Your point? I don't believe that marriage is a civil right. As I have said numerous times, marriage is defined by society as a union between a man and a woman. Massachusetts has been a expeception. It is noteworthy though that marriages there are not recognized on a federal level....just by that State. If there is no restriction in the Constitution, why is not legal in the rest of the States?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Dec 5, 2008 7:50:56 GMT -5
Would you deny civil rights to alcoholics? There is nothing in the US Constitution banning gay marriage nationwide. If there was, the court would have come after Massachusetts years ago. Your point? I don't believe that marriage is a civil right. As I have said numerous times, marriage is defined by society as a union between a man and a woman. Massachusetts has been a expeception. It is noteworthy though that marriages there are not recognized on a federal level....just by that State. If there is no restriction in the Constitution, why is not legal in the rest of the States? Civil marriage, according to the California Family Code, is a civil right, at least in California. Anything less violates the 14th amendment. It's not my fault if you don't like that; again, move to Iran. They aren't recognized on a federal level because of DOMA, which will not be around much longer anyway and only says that states aren't required to recognize same-sex marriages in other states. This violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause and, again, won't be around much longer. You know what else wasn't in the Constitution until 1865? A prohibition on slavery. Does that make it right? By your logic, yes.
|
|