MERGED--> He became straight + I despise...

[joyfulgirl]

^ Truly.

Ormus

 

[phillyfan26]

Ormus

 

[2861U2]

What? It's true. Here's the thing that many conservative Christians don't understand (or are intellectually incapable of understanding):

You don't set the rules.

Here's the thing that many non-Christians don't understand (or are intellectually incapable of understanding):

Christians aren't trying to set the rules. Show me where I'm wrong. I have a firmly rooted belief and if I see something that I disagree with, I'm going to say so. Excuse me if I have convictions. I'm not trying to change any rules by expressing my opinion.

Here's where your logic falls apart. Just because science hasn't conclusively discovered the specific genes related to homosexuality doesn't mean that science isn't on strong footing. The evidence is strongly in its favor.

But even at that, "disagreeing" with a scientific stance with some holes in it does not logically mean reverting to a stance that has long since been rejected. Science and psychology have rejected the idea that homosexuality is some flimsy choice. So even if you take issue with the science, the fact that you have "chosen" to believe in discredited quackery does mean that you are, in fact, homophobic. No amount of wishful thinking or smilies is going to change the fact that your "disagreement" with homosexuality is based on nonsense.

Sorry, I don't buy that there is absolutely no "choosing to be" factor in homosexuality. I do not accept that it is 100% genetic or predetermined by science. That is nonsense.

The reason for my was this statement by phillyfan: "A complete lack of respect for a person based on those grounds is homophobic."

I agree with that statement, but I wonder if people here are trying to apply that statement to me and calling me homophobic. I am not. I disagree with being homosexual, but I do not completely judge the person based on their orientation. That is ridiculous. I know a few gays, and they are nice and caring and good people. You must think that because they are gay that I avoid them as much as I can and hate them because they are gay. That isnt true. I would never let one aspect of a person, whatever it is, decide my opinion of said person. Again, people are too eager to call someone a homophobe. A homophobe is someone who hates or fears gays, which, sorry, I do not.

A message to most of the people in this thread: I feel sorry for whoever you might encounter in your life who has different opinions than you. They're going to be called every name in the book, arent they?

 

[anitram]

I disagree with being homosexual

That's the crux of your problem.

Do you also disagree with gays and lesbians being given the 1000-odd benefits you have under the law that they currently do not?

 

[martha]

A message to most of the people in this thread: I feel sorry for whoever you might encounter in your life who has different opinions than you. They're going to be called every name in the book, arent they?

Only if they're gay!

 

[phillyfan26]

Here's the thing that many non-Christians don't understand (or are intellectually incapable of understanding):

Christians aren't trying to set the rules. Show me where I'm wrong. I have a firmly rooted belief and if I see something that I disagree with, I'm going to say so. Excuse me if I have convictions. I'm not trying to change any rules by expressing my opinion.

Sorry, I don't buy that there is absolutely no "choosing to be" factor in homosexuality. I do not accept that it is 100% genetic or predetermined by science. That is nonsense.

The reason for my was this statement by phillyfan: "A complete lack of respect for a person based on those grounds is homophobic."

I agree with that statement, but I wonder if people here are trying to apply that statement to me and calling me homophobic. I am not. I disagree with being homosexual, but I do not completely judge the person based on their orientation. That is ridiculous. I know a few gays, and they are nice and caring and good people. You must think that because they are gay that I avoid them as much as I can and hate them because they are gay. That isnt true. I would never let one aspect of a person, whatever it is, decide my opinion of said person. Again, people are too eager to call someone a homophobe. A homophobe is someone who hates or fears gays, which, sorry, I do not.

A message to most of the people in this thread: I feel sorry for whoever you might encounter in your life who has different opinions than you. They're going to be called every name in the book, arent they?

You are homophobic. You do not respect that gays are who they are. You think they choose to sin. And it's all bullshit. Why? Because it's not a choice and because it's not a sin.

Guess what? I'm Christian. So throw that argument out the window.

Some Christians try to set the rules. Haven't you seen the legislation in attempt to keep them from getting marriage? That gives them legal benefits? That's trying to set the rules, buddy.

Irony in this statement by you:

"Sorry, I don't buy that there is absolutely no "choosing to be" factor in homosexuality. I do not accept that it is 100% genetic or predetermined by science. That is nonsense."

Your beliefs are nonsense, as Ormus said. It's based on a mix of misinterpretation, ignorance, and bigotry. And I also enjoy your belief that it is predetermined "by science." Acting like we believe science causes this!

The problem is that your bigoted and ignorant belief is keeping homosexuals from getting the rights of a straight person.

 

[Ormus]

Here's the thing that many non-Christians don't understand (or are intellectually incapable of understanding):

Christians aren't trying to set the rules. Show me where I'm wrong. I have a firmly rooted belief and if I see something that I disagree with, I'm going to say so. Excuse me if I have convictions. I'm not trying to change any rules by expressing my opinion.

Here's the thing:

I have done this repeatedly, not only in this thread, but in many threads before this. The problem is that you have already made up your mind, and no amount of logic, arguments, or even Biblical critical analysis has ever helped here.

So, at this point, I'm forced to say that this stance of yours amounts to bigotry. Thirty years of science, psychology, and psychiatry say that your "firmly rooted belief" is complete bunk. I'm sorry that that's not good enough for you.

Sorry, I don't buy that there is absolutely no "choosing to be" factor in homosexuality. I do not accept that it is 100% genetic or predetermined by science. That is nonsense.

Based on what reasoning? Because, as I see it, there is no "reasoning" with your stance. You were told that gay people are "icky" by someone for no rational reason, and you "firmly" don't want to change your mind.

A message to most of the people in this thread: I feel sorry for whoever you might encounter in your life who has different opinions than you. They're going to be called every name in the book, arent they?

Society has long determined that certain people's opinions are so far outside the realm of reality that they're worthy of scorn. Those few people who still believe that the Earth is flat? Scorn. People who think that young-Earth creationism is an "alternative" to evolution? Scorn. Those who believe that Jews kill and drink the blood of Muslim babies (the kind of things you literally see on Middle Eastern television even today)? Scorn. Those who believe that homosexuals are dirty, diseased hedonists who had overbearing mothers and weak fathers, and woke up one day to "choose" to be with the same-sex? Scorn.

This isn't the equivalent of "debating" whether Bush is the greatest president since Lincoln or the worst since Attila the Hun. I will vocally and strongly express my opinion; but politics are politics and that hasn't stopped me from being quite friendly with some Republicans. This subject, however, isn't debatable. The Earth is round. Evolution is a scientific theory, while creationism and intelligent design are not science, and, thus, are not worthy of being in science class. Jews are as capable of kindness and violence as any other member of humanity. And, most relevant to this thread, homosexuality is not a choice. There is no debate.

 

[BVS]

Here's the thing that many non-Christians don't understand (or are intellectually incapable of understanding):

Christians aren't trying to set the rules. Show me where I'm wrong. I have a firmly rooted belief and if I see something that I disagree with, I'm going to say so. Excuse me if I have convictions. I'm not trying to change any rules by expressing my opinion.

Many have shown you. But you always seem to stick with your abysmal understanding of the Bible.

I've shown you before, but read this and try to DISCUSS it before posting you "opinion" again.

http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Templat...ty&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=583

A message to most of the people in this thread: I feel sorry for whoever you might encounter in your life who has different opinions than you. They're going to be called every name in the book, arent they?

Wow, you are a judgemental one aren't you?

 

[Diemen]

These should be melon posts.

 

[Ormus]

These should be melon posts.

I've actually sat down more than once to try and write a new thread as "melon," in commemoration of the 10,000th post and all. Part of the problem ends up being that I get so busy that I push it aside.

I think I'll try again this weekend. I'm certainly quite interested in using that name primarily again.

 

[butter7]

Have you guys seen this? He was on the Colbert Report the other night...

http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/

Hmmm... interesting, I heard some of these all through the years and this article combined nearly everything.

The only thing I would say is that the finger thing is wrong, at least to me. I got the lesbian woman's finger ratio but I'm straight.

 

[AEON]

homosexuality is not a choice. There is no debate.

I haven't been joining the discussions much lately (mostly because of National Guard duties and other life things). And I've written on this topic WAY more than I've ever intended. While Irvine and Ormus/Melon have certainly opened my heart to their beliefs on this matter, they have not yet changed my mind as to whether or not homosexual behavior is immoral.

That being said, doesn't a selfproclaimed recovered homosexual, whether you like him or not, qualify as someone that can offer an opinion that the behavior is in fact - a choice? Doesn't the fact that he even wrote such an article prove there is a debate?

 

[phillyfan26]

Doesn't the fact that he even wrote such an article prove there is a debate?

No.

 

[BVS]

I haven't been joining the discussions much lately (mostly because of National Guard duties and other life things). And I've written on this topic WAY more than I've ever intended. While Irvine and Ormus/Melon have certainly opened my heart to their beliefs on this matter, they have not yet changed my mind as to whether or not homosexual behavior is immoral.

That being said, doesn't a selfproclaimed recovered homosexual, whether you like him or not, qualify as someone that can offer an opinion that the behavior is in fact - a choice? Doesn't the fact that he even wrote such an article prove there is a debate?

I'd like to know what you thought about the link I provided earlier...

As to whether this article proves there is debate? No. People of all walks can be brainwashed, can be made to feel guilt for who they are, it's very easy when you are the minority and powerless. The "brilliance" of brainwashing is that no matter what it is it gives you a sense of empowerment. The KKK may be a minority, but it gives its members power over others. How and why would you be brainwashed into a minority role that offers no power?

 

[deep]

That being said, doesn't a selfproclaimed recovered homosexual, whether you like him or not, qualify as someone that can offer an opinion that the behavior is in fact - a choice? Doesn't the fact that he even wrote such an article prove there is a debate?

Has he said he has heterosexual feelings and desires?

or is he just repressing his sexual desires?


If one represses their heterosexual desires and does not have sex
would you say
they went gay?

 

[phillyfan26]

Hearing a lie enough times makes you believe it. If you can lie to yourself, it's easy to lie to other people.

 

[yolland]

OK, but what are your opinions on the fact that housing and employment discrimination against gay people is legal in 32 states, or that more than a thousand federal rights available to married heterosexuals and their families are categorically denied to longterm gay and lesbian couples and any children they may have?

I'd still like to hear an answer to this, from anyone who responds to the case for equal rights by saying that homosexual behavior is immoral. Not what are your foundations for holding that belief, not why do you believe that being gay is merely a choice...just, why is it that you're OK with all the anguish and loss and vulnerability that results from the legal applications of that belief--losing your job or your home, not being able to be with your dying partner in the hospital, no joint parenting rights to their biological children whom you love and are helping to raise, no right of inheritance to property you've shared together for decades, no right to have your partner whom you met and fell in love with while living abroad immigrate here to join you, etc., etc., etc. Because where no protected means of access (anti-discrimination laws, marriage) to those things exists, there can be no redress when they're denied. And there's no reasoning beyond "It's immoral" holding this state of affairs in place, no other reason why politicians need fear for their careers should they seek to change it. What quantifiable harm have gay people done to others that they deserve such vulnerability?

 

[Angela Harlem]

I've got 2 confessions. I'm a Christiaphobe and phillyfan is my hero.


Guess which of these sentences is sincere.

... Actually, they both are.
I'm really a Christiaphobe. I've decided not to try and change this, though. I've been battling it for a good few years. I know a great number of Christians and non Christians and there's great things in all of them. I just don't like the beliefs of Christians. They and their beliefs make my skin crawl. One of my greatest friends is Christian (this is a disclaimer statement, for those wondering why I keep harping on about friends whom none of you have met), so I know it is not them personally. I just cannot stomach their beliefs. Their beliefs make me sick. It's vile, it's hate filled, it's unloving, it's ungodly. I don't hate them, though. I really don't. I've never not be friends with one. I'd never support sanctioned discrimination. Never.

I'm a Christiaphobe, and phillyfan is awesome.

Anna.

 

[martha]

Doesn't the fact that he even wrote such an article prove there is a debate?

I could write an article proclaiming myself Japanese. I could tell you I prayed about it, that I've sought counseling to overcome my whiteness, and that I no longer consider myself white. I could point out that acquaintances have frequently thought I had a Japanese parent due to the shape of my eyes. In the article, I could carry on about how God helped me see the immorality of my earlier choice to be white, and now I'm right with Him as a Japanese person.

But all that still wouldn't indicate there's a debate about the choice to be white.

 

[martha]

and have been in a four year monogamous relationship--

On a side note, I was just thinking of this a few days ago; remembering when you started this relationship and how you were concerned about long-distance relationships and their success. I can't tell you how happy I am to see that it's working out for you two.

 

[CTU2fan]

Not to mention the fact that even if sexual orientation were 100% voluntary it still isn't anybody else's damned business...

 

[Ormus]

That being said, doesn't a self-proclaimed recovered homosexual, whether you like him or not, qualify as someone that can offer an opinion that the behavior is in fact - a choice? Doesn't the fact that he even wrote such an article prove there is a debate?

No. And I'll tell you why. I can go on the internet today and find detailed essays on why the Holocaust never existed, and that it's just a Jewish conspiracy to extort money and sympathy from the West. I can go on the internet today and find an essay proclaiming that we never landed on the moon in 1969, and they will outline detailed "evidence" as to why this never happened.

In other words, the source of this "debate" means everything. Why is it that only neo-Nazis deny the Holocaust, while the entire scientific and historical community wholeheartedly agree that it did, in fact, exist? Why is it, when it comes to insisting that homosexuality is "a choice" that it always originates from religious groups with a pre-existing hatred of it, while the entire scientific community agrees that it's not?

This comes back to what I said earlier in this thread:

Conservative Christians do not get to set the rules.

You can find stories of "self-proclaimed recovered homosexuals" on extremist Christian websites just like you can find stories of converted Jews to Islam, who then confess that, before their conversion, they did, in fact, kill and drink the blood of Muslim infants on extremist Muslim websites. These sites don't exist for homosexuals or Jews; they exist for one reason: to dehumanize and to reinforce misunderstanding and hatred of a traditional enemy at any and all costs. Then these conservative Christians and Muslims can march through life passing off all their problems on other people, never once realizing that they need to change themselves. Gosh...all these unwed mothers and divorces in this country? It must be caused by homosexuals....yes, that must be it. Gosh...I'm living in a country with 50% unemployment run by an autocratic despot who has left our country impoverished. It must be caused by the Jews...yes, that must be it.

That's why there's no debate.

 

[CTU2fan]

 

[AEON]

I'd still like to hear an answer to this, from anyone who responds to the case for equal rights by saying that homosexual behavior is immoral. Not what are your foundations for holding that belief, not why do you believe that being gay is merely a choice...just, why is it that you're OK with all the anguish and loss and vulnerability that results from the legal applications of that belief--losing your job or your home, not being able to be with your dying partner in the hospital, no joint parenting rights to their biological children whom you love and are helping to raise, no right of inheritance to property you've shared together for decades, no right to have your partner whom you met and fell in love with while living abroad immigrate here to join you, etc., etc., etc. Because where no protected means of access (anti-discrimination laws, marriage) to those things exists, there can be no redress when they're denied. And there's no reasoning beyond "It's immoral" holding this state of affairs in place, no other reason why politicians need fear for their careers should they seek to change it. What quantifiable harm have gay people done to others that they deserve such vulnerability?

Well, I certainly don't advocate denying apartments or jobs to gays. I don't personally know of anyone who would agree with this. If it is still on the books, these laws should be removed.

As far rights pertaining to married couples - I think the whole system is out of whack. From the "marriage penalty" in the tax system to the debate on who can legally marry. Personally, I advocate more of a divide between marriage and state. Leave marriage up to the churches and other institutions. Everything else should be a simple, legal note that people voluntarily sign.

 

[martha]

If it is still on the books, these laws should be removed.

Make sure to let your legislators know how you feel.

 

[AEON]

Why is it, when it comes to insisting that homosexuality is "a choice" that it always originates from religious groups with a pre-existing hatred of it, while the entire scientific community agrees that it's not?

I thought the scientific community is still debating the causes/origins of homosexuality.

Also, if it is not a "choice" - are you then insisting that it is a birth defect? A genetic mutation?

 

[Ormus]

I thought the scientific community is still debating the causes/origins of homosexuality.

Also, if it is not a "choice" - are you then insisting that it is a birth defect? A genetic mutation?

There's a difference on debating the fine details and debating whether something exists or not.

The Theory of Evolution is still heavily debated in science, but there's no question that it exists. There's far too much scientific evidence to support it, but, as you'd expect from academics, they are busy bickering over the fine details. The Theory of Gravity is under far more debate than you'd first imagine; but it's not a question of whether gravity exists, but how it exists.

The same goes for the origin of sexuality--I say this, because researchers don't even know the specific genetic triggers that cause heterosexuality (presuming that it's all about testicles/ovaries, XY/XX chromosomes, and testosterone/estrogen is overly simplistic and doesn't explain it at all). But while they're debating the "how" question, there's certain things that they know for sure:

It's not a choice.

This conclusion is now over 30 years old, and further evidence has only supported this conclusion. Now as for why it's not a choice? That's where researchers are busy. They know the answer to the equation; it's a question of understanding the reasoning behind it.

As for whether it's a genetic mutation (remembering that "mutation" is, in scientific terms, value-neutral; each person has, on average, at least eight mutations at birth), the evidence seems to be pointing that its genetic basis is related to questions of why left-handed people exist, etc. But these are certainly the kinds of questions that science wishes to resolve, and once they are able to understand how and why something like this exists, we will most certainly benefit from a greater understanding of what makes us human, as a whole.

 

[Irvine511]

While Irvine and Ormus/Melon have certainly opened my heart to their beliefs on this matter, they have not yet changed my mind as to whether or not homosexual behavior is immoral.

Achtung!

is having sex before you're married, Stephen, immoral?

 

[Irvine511]

Also, if it is not a "choice" - are you then insisting that it is a birth defect? A genetic mutation?

if we could determine, based on genetics, which babies would turn out to be gay or not, would you abort your potentially gay baby?

(and this sums up a whole lot -- being gay = being defective; that's a world of Christian compassion for you)

 

[AEON]

There's a difference on debating the fine details and debating whether something exists or not.

The Theory of Evolution is still heavily debated in science, but there's no question that it exists. There's far too much scientific evidence to support it, but, as you'd expect from academics, they are busy bickering over the fine details. The Theory of Gravity is under far more debate than you'd first imagine; but it's not a question of whether gravity exists, but how it exists.

The same goes for the origin of sexuality--I say this, because researchers don't even know the specific genetic triggers that cause heterosexuality (presuming that it's all about testicles/ovaries, XY/XX chromosomes, and testosterone/estrogen is overly simplistic and doesn't explain it at all). But while they're debating the "how" question, there's certain things that they know for sure:

It's not a choice.

This conclusion is now over 30 years old, and further evidence has only supported this conclusion. Now as for why it's not a choice? That's where researchers are busy. They know the answer to the equation; it's a question of understanding the reasoning behind it.

As for whether it's a genetic mutation (remembering that "mutation" is, in scientific terms, value-neutral; each person has, on average, at least eight mutations at birth), the evidence seems to be pointing that its genetic basis is related to questions of why left-handed people exist, etc. But these are certainly the kinds of questions that science wishes to resolve, and once they are able to understand how and why something like this exists, we will most certainly benefit from a greater understanding of what makes us human, as a whole.

Understanding the cause is still important. If the cause is purely psychological - then it would be possible for people to address it and "cure" it there. If it is purely genetic, then I suppose it opens up the debate of Natural Selection. Meaning, it is a decisively genetic disadvantage to be a homosexual and that the societies and cultures inherently understand this and perhaps that is why they tend to react negatively toward it.

Natural Selection Requires...

For natural selection to occur, two requirements are essential:

1.There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness.

2.There must be differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.

Unless both these requirements are met, adaptation by natural selection cannot occur.

SOURCE: Natural Selection