Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Maren]

Then you should have no trouble, like BigBadWlf before you, in presenting all this mass of evidence.

When he said he was presenting such evidence, he turned out to be demonstrably mistaken at best.

And you see no need to address his misleading words as I have posted several times on this thread, but you find in the inadvertent use of the word "all" instead of "most", or "the vast majority", or, "almost all," a ready tool to accuse people who disagree with you of some level of dishonesty or lack of integrity?

Here is the link, again, since you refuse to address the point.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-24/#post51416556

It's not my study you see, or at least not exclusively so. BigBadWlf insisted that it proved his point. BigBadWlf, like you, insists there are massive numbers of studies supporting the idea that homosexuals are not promiscuous, and these two studies are some of what he posted in support of that conclusion.

His words concerning what the studies said were demonstrably false.

Perhaps you have some studies that are not demonstrably false? Perhaps you would be willing to denounce the habitual habit of spam posting dozens of articles that do not demonstrate homosexuality is harmless and healthy, and insisting that it nevertheless is?

If this case is so airtight, if it is so open and shut, why do we have this sort of thing cropping up? Rather than taking studies that say the exact opposite of what gay rights activists argue, why do you or BigBadWlf not cite the studies, which supposedly would be easy to find since they are in the vast majority, that actually do prove the points you keep trying to make.

I don't even care if the APA supports homosexuality. As far as I am concerned, where the legality or morality of things is concerned, the APA is outside its purview in making such statements as "homosexuality is not immoral." You folks are the ones riding on the coat tails of the APA, appealing to their percieved authority to make arguments about the nature of homosexuality. So go ahead... I have no dog in this hunt. Prove the point and start citing studies that say what you insist most of them say.

So, in one post you apologize for overstating things, in your next post you do it again. I didn't claim there was a "mass of evidence" or "massive numbers of studies", worse is you don't even quote the majority of my post to show that isn't what I said. This is typically seen as dishonesty in this type of debate, when you make claims and don't even post my thread so that people can see for themselves that isn't what I stated.

I also find it ironic that you want me to denounce BigBadWlf for a study that I haven't seen and don't have access to (other than screen shots you have posted that are allegedly from the study). Forgive me if I refuse to comment on something I don't have the knowledge to accurately comment on. At the same time, however, you have made at least three (or maybe more) false claims that I have engaged in personal attacks against you but when I confront you about it you don't have the decency to apologize for your false claims -- though it does seem like you finally, after the last time, admitted that I had not made personal attacks against you. Though, much like this, you did try to seem to claim that I had some type of personal responsibility for the comments of others.

Worse, I find it sad that you want to attack me because I chose not to address a paticular comment or disagreement but think I'm being petty (or whatever veiled pejorative you were implying) because, at least to me, it seems you are constantly (as in this post) overstating things to try to make your position look better. Which is the dishonest position, not getting involved in a debate over a study you don't have access to or misrepresenting what others say, especially when you cut out most of their response that shows what they actually said?

Further, I have addressed it to the degree I have knowledge of. I agreed with your claim that you even make in the post after the one linked (that is merely the second part of that post), "My point is that this issue seems far from resolved". Which makes your insistance that I comment on that particular study seem very odd.

And as for the APA, I don't recall the APA being a part of this conversation -- so what is that paragraph about? Just something else you could throw in to try to make you post "look better"? Honestly, though, I don't recall where the APA has ever stated that homosexuality is moral -- perhaps you could find that quote for me? Rather, all the APA has said that I'm aware of is that they do not find homosexuality to be a disease, nor do they believe homosexuals should be denied civil rights equality (to include marriage and adoption). Just as I know Christians that believe homosexuality is a sin but still believe that legally homosexuals should be equal.

Further, we have discussed those studies in the past and what reason is there to re-debate these various studies when ultimately we both agree that they don't provide any real proof for either side? I specifically remember four different studies and they supported my point. While you pointed out that at least one thread (and it may have been a couple of threads, don't quite remember) showed that a minority (less than 20%) of homosexual supposedly had more sexual partners -- the majority of homosexuals (the "average homosexual", as I stated) had roughly the same number of sexual partners in all those studies.

And, seriously, you are trying to state, "So go ahead... I have no dog in this hunt"? So why do you keep harping on this one study and trying to force people to state you as the "victor", or whatever it is you are trying to get us to say, when you don't really care or have any vested interest in it? Rather, it seems you are wanting to score some type of political points, or something, to keep trying to egg some sort of debate when in fact we've already agreed that the studies are inconclusive.

 

[Philothei]

I guess you'd first have to buy into the idea that it is bad to be homosexual, and for those of us who disagree, this seems like nothing but a mean spirited exercise in frustration.

I respect your view on the issue and you taking time to respond in a very organized manner other than just "because I say so" remarks or "slanted" evidence...

Although I have to only question you since I see a Methodist icon in your profile.

When the Bible differentiates between Male and Female and blesses the marriage between the two. Where in the Bible you see your "opinion" on bisexuality and homosexuality to fit? IOW Why God did not just say I create "bisexuals and homosexuals or unisex people" for that matter? I do not understand why we would be created with different sexual organs ...and be told to multiply and Christ performing a miracle in a wedding ceremony and the Apostles being admanat that homosexual acts are abominable if we were supposed for men to be sexually active with men and so forth. To my knowledge God would have been permisive to such behaviour...

 

[Shane Roach]

So, in one post you apologize for overstating things, in your next post you do it again. I didn't claim there was a "mass of evidence" or "massive numbers of studies", worse is you don't even quote the majority of my post to show that isn't what I said. This is typically seen as dishonesty in this type of debate, when you make claims and don't even post my thread so that people can see for themselves that isn't what I stated.

I also find it ironic that you want me to denounce BigBadWlf for a study that I haven't seen and don't have access to (other than screen shots you have posted that are allegedly from the study). Forgive me if I refuse to comment on something I don't have the knowledge to accurately comment on. At the same time, however, you have made at least three (or maybe more) false claims that I have engaged in personal attacks against you but when I confront you about it you don't have the decency to apologize for your false claims -- though it does seem like you finally, after the last time, admitted that I had not made personal attacks against you. Though, much like this, you did try to seem to claim that I had some type of personal responsibility for the comments of others.

Worse, I find it sad that you want to attack me because I chose not to address a paticular comment or disagreement but think I'm being petty (or whatever veiled pejorative you were implying) because, at least to me, it seems you are constantly (as in this post) overstating things to try to make your position look better. Which is the dishonest position, not getting involved in a debate over a study you don't have access to or misrepresenting what others say, especially when you cut out most of their response that shows what they actually said?

Further, I have addressed it to the degree I have knowledge of. I agreed with your claim that you even make in the post after the one linked (that is merely the second part of that post), "My point is that this issue seems far from resolved". Which makes your insistance that I comment on that particular study seem very odd.

And as for the APA, I don't recall the APA being a part of this conversation -- so what is that paragraph about? Just something else you could throw in to try to make you post "look better"? Honestly, though, I don't recall where the APA has ever stated that homosexuality is moral -- perhaps you could find that quote for me? Rather, all the APA has said that I'm aware of is that they do not find homosexuality to be a disease, nor do they believe homosexuals should be denied civil rights equality (to include marriage and adoption). Just as I know Christians that believe homosexuality is a sin but still believe that legally homosexuals should be equal.

Further, we have discussed those studies in the past and what reason is there to re-debate these various studies when ultimately we both agree that they don't provide any real proof for either side? I specifically remember four different studies and they supported my point. While you pointed out that at least one thread (and it may have been a couple of threads, don't quite remember) showed that a minority (less than 20&#37 of homosexual supposedly had more sexual partners -- the majority of homosexuals (the "average homosexual", as I stated) had roughly the same number of sexual partners in all those studies.

And, seriously, you are trying to state, "So go ahead... I have no dog in this hunt"? So why do you keep harping on this one study and trying to force people to state you as the "victor", or whatever it is you are trying to get us to say, when you don't really care or have any vested interest in it? Rather, it seems you are wanting to score some type of political points, or something, to keep trying to egg some sort of debate when in fact we've already agreed that the studies are inconclusive.

The APA is stating unequivocally that there is no evidence of any problems with homosexuality, and many posters here supporting that idea use that to back their arguments. You let that slide by but nitpick everything I say.

Now you're even trying to imply I falsified the study clips I posted. It's an easy thing to solve -- go look at them yourself. I'll tell you what I know -- I know what's really on them because I have.

I say I have no dog in the hunt as to what the APA says because a large portion of my entire argument is that it is inappropriate for the APA to be making declarations as to what should or should not be legal or considered moral to begin with. That post I transferred to my own site here.

Psychiatry, Gay Activism, and the Medicalization of Behavior

I am not saying I have no interest in the subject in general, it's just that the APA and anything they discover about a behavior is irrelevant to whether or not behaviors are acceptable or not to society.

There was a study I remember you or someone else posting concerning a small portion of homosexuals accounting for a lot of the promiscuity, but the problem is you are telling only part of that story. There were gay activists claiming that that study falsified the entire concept of gay promiscuity, rather than admitting it really just narrowed it slightly.

Also, at that time, no one had posted the studies I am now looking at that seem to make that study's results questionable.

Whatever the case, it seems clear there is no "mounting body of evidence" or anything like it that proves that homosexuality is perfectly normal and harmless, and any attempt to demonstrate that this is the case runs afoul of every conceivable type of obfuscation by gay rights activists.

And I am not talking about you personally. I am talking about you personally only in the sense that in some cases I can document you doing precisely this. You'd rather think I falsified several pages worth of citations directly out of studies, visually cut not typed, in order to preserve some validity to the way you and others let BigBadWlf run roughshod over this topic.

I couldn't count on my fingers and toes the number of times he was praised for accusing people of bigotry, but when he is exposed to have at the very least engaged in exceedingly sloppy citation of articles, silence...

This is not something I am making up. This is not some sort of paranoid delusion. It is right here in your responses and the responses of others. Pages upon pages have been written here by gay rights activists accusing others of dishonesty, as if honesty and integrity were the hallmark of the gay rights movement itself, and yet even the most simple, straightforward examples coming out of it cannot be trusted without resorting to joining a University library and basically double checking every single word.

And this is the position of the APA?

Then ask me again why I find it to be more the result of a socialist political movement than anything else? It's clearly not the result of the available studies.

Finally, I believe what I have said is that it is not possible to prove conclusively one side or the other through science, but I believe I have also said that we make decisions in many cases based not on something that can be demonstrated to be true, but by weighing evidence to see which is more likely, and I have never ceded that studying the issue can tell us nothing about it at all.

 

[beechy]

I respect your view on the issue and you taking time to respond in a very organized manner other than just "because I say so" remarks or "slanted" evidence...

Although I have to only question you since I see a Methodist icon in your profile.

When the Bible differentiates between Male and Female and blesses the marriage between the two. Where in the Bible you see your "opinion" on bisexuality and homosexuality to fit? IOW Why God did not just say I create "bisexuals and homosexuals or unisex people" for that matter? I do not understand why we would be created with different sexual organs ...and be told to multiply and Christ performing a miracle in a wedding ceremony and the Apostles being admanat that homosexual acts are abominable if we were supposed for men to be sexually active with men and so forth. To my knowledge God would have been permisive to such behaviour...

To be honest, at this point I should probably replace the Methodist icon with a searching icon or something, since I've moved farther in that direction over the years. And I hesitate to get into the "is homosexuality a sin according to the Bible?" discussion here, because that truly is a thread in and of itself.

I will say, however, that I can understand and respect a Christian belief that homosexuality is not biblically supported (without going into whether I share that belief). I don't, however, understand how or why that belief should form the basis for civil laws (like civil marriage laws) which apply to those who are of a different faith, or have a different interpretation of the Bible.

Edit: Changed my icon

 

[Maren]

The APA is stating unequivocally that there is no evidence of any problems with homosexuality, and many posters here supporting that idea use that to back their arguments. You let that slide by but nitpick everything I say.

Because you have basically admitted it is true. You have claimed that the studies are inconclusive -- which means they do not provide evidence.

Besides, that isn't what you claimed, you stated, "As far as I am concerned, where the legality or morality of things is concerned, the APA is outside its purview in making such statements as "homosexuality is not immoral."" Once again, you are trying to shift the argument to something other than what you said.

Now you're even trying to imply I falsified the study clips I posted. It's an easy thing to solve -- go look at them yourself. I'll tell you what I know -- I know what's really on them because I have.

No, I implied no such thing. I said I don't have access to the study and don't know either way. Please do not take offense at things that I do not say or imply.

I say I have no dog in the hunt as to what the APA says because a large portion of my entire argument is that it is inappropriate for the APA to be making declarations as to what should or should not be legal or considered moral to begin with. That post I transferred to my own site here.

Psychiatry, Gay Activism, and the Medicalization of Behavior

I am not saying I have no interest in the subject in general, it's just that the APA and anything they discover about a behavior is irrelevant to whether or not behaviors are acceptable or not to society.

This might be more believable if we had been talking about the APA and you were merely responding, rather than suddenly making the comments about the APA out of nowhere. That you brought up the APA out of the blue, as it were, tends to show you had a reason for bringing them up. If you truly "have no interest in the subject in general" you would not 1) bring them up when they weren't part of our discussion to make some type of "point" and 2) you wouldn't have a portion of your own site dedicated to the APA.

There was a study I remember you or someone else posting concerning a small portion of homosexuals accounting for a lot of the promiscuity, but the problem is you are telling only part of that story. There were gay activists claiming that that study falsified the entire concept of gay promiscuity, rather than admitting it really just narrowed it slightly.

Also, at that time, no one had posted the studies I am now looking at that seem to make that study's results questionable.

So, again, somehow I am somehow responsible for what others claim?

Whatever the case, it seems clear there is no "mounting body of evidence" or anything like it that proves that homosexuality is perfectly normal and harmless, and any attempt to demonstrate that this is the case runs afoul of every conceivable type of obfuscation by gay rights activists.

Just as Christian groups tend to obfuscate as well. For that matter, you are trying to obfuscate as well, while you claim there is no "mounting body of evidence" for gays, you also have admitted that there is no "mounting body of evidence" against gays.

And I am not talking about you personally. I am talking about you personally only in the sense that in some cases I can document you doing precisely this.

So you aren't talking about me personally, but then you claim you are talking about me personally? So post the evidence where I've personally attacked you rather than making veiled references even while you backhandedly seem to admit that I haven't attaked you.

You'd rather think I falsified several pages worth of citations directly out of studies, visually cut not typed, in order to preserve some validity to the way you and others let BigBadWlf run roughshod over this topic.

I couldn't count on my fingers and toes the number of times he was praised for accusing people of bigotry, but when he is exposed to have at the very least engaged in exceedingly sloppy citation of articles, silence...

So, again, have this discussion with those people. Why do you feel the need to somehow "win", rather than simply admitting I said roughly the same thing you did prior to you saying it? Seriously, that I said it before you did is actually evidence that I wasn't one of those that was silent -- I just merely refuse to call you the winner, if you will, about a study that I haven't seen and don't currently have access to.

This is not something I am making up. This is not some sort of paranoid delusion. It is right here in your responses and the responses of others. Pages upon pages have been written here by gay rights activists accusing others of dishonesty, as if honesty and integrity were the hallmark of the gay rights movement itself, and yet even the most simple, straightforward examples coming out of it cannot be trusted without resorting to joining a University library and basically double checking every single word.

So bring it up with them when they do it. Again, you basically stated that is something I'm not doing. Do I hold you responsible for every false claim a Christian comes on here and makes, or for personal attacks Christians have made against me?

Though, I must again point out that you have repeatedly accused me of attacking you personally but have provided no evidence (and if I read between the lines right, you admit that I actually have never done that) yet you continue to state flat out you falsely accused me nor do you seem to have any interest in apologizing for your false accusation (even if it were merely a simple mistake). So it seems highly ironic you want to hold me accountable for other people's word when you won't even be accountable for your own words -- at least without me repeatedly pointing it out. Rather, you keep trotting out excuses to obscure the fact you made claims that weren't true.

And this is the position of the APA?

So, basically you are now going to say that it is the APA's position to support gays who make false claims? At least, that is what I seem to infer from asking this question right after that last paragraph. Not to mention, what does the APA have to do with our discussion again, especially since you keep claiming you don't have any interest in the APA?

Then ask me again why I find it to be more the result of a socialist political movement than anything else? It's clearly not the result of the available studies.

You have admitted that the studies are inconclusive. Do we convict people based on inconclusive evidence? Or another example, should we condemn ex-gay therapy because the evidence is seen to be inconclusive? The fact is, there are no studies that point to homosexuality as any type of disease. As such, there is no reason they should be legally discriminated against -- it is not the job of a medical organization to deny rights based on it being "immoral". In fact, you are condemning them because they are not commenting on the morality.

Finally, I believe what I have said is that it is not possible to prove conclusively one side or the other through science, but I believe I have also said that we make decisions in many cases based not on something that can be demonstrated to be true, but by weighing evidence to see which is more likely, and I have never ceded that studying the issue can tell us nothing about it at all.

And this is where I have my largest problem with you. You see things a particular way but, regardless of the fact you can't prove anything (as you admit), you basically state that we should deny things just because you believe the evidence tips a certain direction. You seem unable, or at least unwilling, to acknowledge that others see the evidence differently, including the way it tips.

 

[Philothei]

I don't, however, understand how or why that belief should form the basis for civil laws (like civil marriage laws) which apply to those who are of a different faith, or have a different interpretation of the Bible.

First of thank you for the explanation And note that you did not have to change your faith icon.. .I wasn't "accusing" or anything just was wondering... I am glad I did not offend you. I had no such intention. I was not haunting you down for the icon.. but to understand where you are coming from.

Okie... I never said I specifically do not "agree" or not agree with civil marriage. I was talking about Bible and its "view" on homosexual acts specifically. I was not even calling it "behaviour" either. Also about interpretation that word is so greatly missrepresented in Biblical studies. There are approximate translations and non approximate translations of a certain text. What scholars do is that they judge the "intepretation" according to how "close" the specific word is to modern plain english language so that they can "cut the distance" between the languages and the historical background. In doing so then the "intepretation" comes in...unfortuanately "altering" the original meaning all together. Historical evidence though on th eother hand proves that "homosexual acts" like very rightly you mention are not ALWAYS indication of homosexuality as we usually we use this term losely today...

I agree with you that doing the homosexual act does not ALWAYS signifies you or label one as a homosexual. Guess what? Greeks thought that way too... Not all who practice it were either doing it for that is what they "wanted" or needed to do... Motives are as important as the actual act. On the other hand as the Apostle says to comit it is a sin. The Apostle knew that some do it for easy money some for they happen to be in the situation and others did desire it and did not practice it out of shame. He knew the human nature and condition. The reason I think that homosexual act was so much in opposition was the disharmony that brings about in the individual who practices it and the people around him. Nothing that God gives us as law to follow is for own missery, but for our good.
Now about those who have different faith they can practice whatever they believe to be true. How is my believing that homosexual acts are not sanctioned by God and they are Godly acts have to do with ie an atheist? If he so desires to marry he is allowed to do that. On the other hand if the community does not wish to have that marriage taking place in their state through voting I think of it as a democratic mean to what these people's priority is and they are responsible for their decision. In USA many states allow gay marriage....BTW I do not see how someone wants to "marry" in a religious almost sense and demand a civil ceremony.... Also for those Christians who want a "religious" ceremony there are churches out there who practice that too. I am not the one on the picket line... outside their door either...

 

[beechy]

First of thank you for the explanation And note that you did not have to change your faith icon.. .I wasn't "accusing" or anything just was wondering... I am glad I did not offend you. I had no such intention. I was not haunting you down for the icon.. but to understand where you are coming from.

No prob.

Okie... I never said I specifically do not "agree" or not agree with civil marriage. I was talking about Bible and its "view" on homosexual acts specifically. I was not even calling it "behaviour" either. Also about interpretation that word is so greatly missrepresented in Biblical studies. There are approximate translations and non approximate translations of a certain text. What scholars do is that they judge the "intepretation" according to how "close" the specific word is to modern plain english language so that they can "cut the distance" between the languages and the historical background. In doing so then the "intepretation" comes in...unfortuanately "altering" the original meaning all together. Historical evidence though on th eother hand proves that "homosexual acts" like very rightly you mention are not ALWAYS indication of homosexuality as we usually we use this term losely today...

Ok.

I agree with you that doing the homosexual act does not ALWAYS signifies you or label one as a homosexual. Guess what? Greeks thought that way too... Not all who practice it were either doing it for that is what they "wanted" or needed to do... Motives are as important as the actual act. On the other hand as the Apostle says to comit it is a sin. The Apostle knew that some do it for easy money some for they happen to be in the situation and others did desire it and did not practice it out of shame. He knew the human nature and condition. The reason I think that homosexual act was so much in opposition was the disharmony that brings about in the individual who practices it and the people around him. Nothing that God gives us as law to follow is for own missery, but for our good.

Not sure I understand or agree with your "disharmony" conclusion, but nothing worth arguing about.

Now about those who have different faith they can practice whatever they believe to be true. How is my believing that homosexual acts are not sanctioned by God and they are Godly acts have to do with ie an atheist? If he so desires to marry he is allowed to do that. On the other hand if the community does not wish to have that marriage taking place in their state through voting I think of it as a democratic mean to what these people's priority is and they are responsible for their decision.

I know we've heard it before, but I'll say it again because I find the parallel so striking -- when the country was debating the forced integration of schools, those who opposed it also argued it should be left to the states. Constitutional law is complicated, but the super (over)simplified summary of the pro-gay marriage argument is that insofar as marriage has been deemed a fundamental right under the Constitutional privacy protections, alteration of such a right can't be left to a simple majority vote.

In USA many states allow gay marriage....BTW I do not see how someone wants to "marry" in a religious almost sense and demand a civil ceremony.... Also for those Christians who want a "religious" ceremony there are churches out there who practice that too. I am not the one on the picket line... outside their door either...

I agree that civil and religious concepts of marriage can and should be dealt with separately. IOW, a couple that is married under the laws of the state may not have their marriage recognized within the church, and vice versa -- and that's ok with me.

 

[Philothei]

that insofar as marriage has been deemed a fundamental right under the Constitutional privacy protections, alteration of such a right can't be left to a simple majority vote.

You are using the word marriage... When the constitution was written did it signify that marriage was between man and woman? See now how the "interpretation" is faulty? It talked about man and woman because those were the standards of the times. How can we "alter" the concept of marriage? is that legally acceptable? It is dishonesty to do so as today that does not hold true. The word marriage is for heterosexual couples and that is the way it has been used in legal documents... Altering that then we are altering the constitution or not? If we use the word "union" then that by itself is the right path to take in describing the "act" of legalising two people who practice the act of homosexuality or bisexuality or whatever.

 

[roflcopter101]

They are not valid arguments because they are not supported by anything other than his opinion, which he has more than once simply refused to back with anything other than more of his opinions.

Are not your accusations of socialism being linked to homosexuality also opinions not supported by anything but more opinion?
More on that in a second...

No, my argument is that many who support gay marriage do it because they want to marginalize Christianity. That is why when Wyzaard went on his anti-Christian rant I said, "I rest my case."

I think that it is not he supports gay marriage BECAUSE of a want to marginalize Christianity, but because supporting gay marriage causes conflict with some Christian views. In essence, implicating any sort of gay marriage law would be opposed to Christian views, just as a ban on polygamy may be against Mormon or Muslim views.

And I'll re-state my case that most of this is basically socialist in origin, coming from socialist political entities in both Europe and here. The connection to socialism here in the states is exceedingly easy to make since gays connected to the socialists at the early stages of the whole 60's sexual revolution, and have been safely ensconced there ever since.

I would say that many homosexuals were usually liberal, and some may have connected with socialist policies, but that does not imply that all homosexuals agreed with socialist policies. (Socialism and LGBT rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Correct me if I fail to distinguish between socialism and communism, but many communist states during the 20th century discriminated and persecuted GLBT people, making it slightly doubtful for me that such GLBT peoples in the US would support communism.
As for socialism, are not many policies today a result of socialism? For example, Medicare and welfare programs are important to many citizens today. Socialism itself may be a flawed system, but when combined with capitalism, it may provide tangible economic and social benefits.
On a more personal note, were you alive during the Cold War? I feel as if you have had personal experience with socialism/communism during your life.

The same people who are forever attacking sexual decency are, not surprisingly, back at work behind the gay marriage initiative as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if that were true, but I would disagree that this statement reflects a vast majority of people backing gay marriage.
Additionally, what do you mean by sexual decency?

 

[Shane Roach]

Because you have basically admitted it is true. You have claimed that the studies are inconclusive -- which means they do not provide evidence. .

Here's something that needs to be gotten correctly before we go on with this interchange. If I said at any time that the studies are "inconclusive" in the sense that they are entirely meaningless, I misstated myself. I do not recall saying that. What I have said, I believe twice now, is that folks such as yourself make assertions about some default position that you presume makes your position superior and requires others to prove something. No such position exists. In a free and self governing nation, people make their choices and take their chances every day with laws that are agreed upon without conclusive scientific evidence. That does not establish that there is no evidence at all to be had, or that decisions cannot be made based on a preponderance of evidence that is nevertheless not conclusive.

Whatever I may or may not have said, understand, this is the meaning, and understand also please that this very explanation may not be easily comprehensible to you. Just because you understand something I say in some way does not mean you are correct and I am wrong about what I say or mean.

Do you now have a better understanding of where I am coming from, or do we need to go over this point again in order to get more or less on the same page as to what I have said?

 

[Wyzaard]

Yes, and it is an interesting counterpoint.

Expelled mocks the very concept of informed discussion; as creationism/ID-theory isn't science, to place them side by side with Evolution is laughable.

 

[Wyzaard]

Your assertions have been countered at every turn.

Nope...

I do not intend to ever claim "victory" in a subject so subjective to begin with,

... nope...

I've already posted my definition of homosexuality and exactly why it is correct.

And 'nope' again. Your positions have been utterly demolished, over and over again; for you to continue in this discussion indicates... nevermind, I'm prohibited on exploring that track.

 

[Wyzaard]

There is an underlying point to the conflict between Christianity and evolution, or the big bang theory, or abiogenesis theories, and it is that if science attempts to look into the past and draw conclusions, it is impossible for scientists in our current day to go back and test those conclusions. What has happened before stays in the past forever, and even if you were to prove conclusively that any or all three of these things could have happened, it does not prove that they did.

Wow! I've never heard scientific induction explained so... wrongly before.

 

[Shane Roach]

Expelled mocks the very concept of informed discussion; as creationism/ID-theory isn't science, to place them side by side with Evolution is laughable.

Your lack of understanding of epistemology allows you to mock at very obvious problems with your statement.

Also, the scientific community has been changing its own understanding of what we call "science" for quite some time now. ID theory would have been quite fine as science not long ago, but now defenders of the status quo do not feel that counter-evidence to evolution and so forth is science in and of itself.

That's all well and good, but the fact is that you cannot run the clock backwards to do experiments on the past, and you cannot establish that conscious efforts do not effect the physical universe despite the fact that consciousness is itself not apparent in the physical universe.

Whereas I at the very least know myself to be conscious....

Kids are being purposefully screened from understanding this about epistemology and science in order to undermine Christianity.

 

[beechy]

You are using the word marriage... When the constitution was written did it signify that marriage was between man and woman? See now how the "interpretation" is faulty? It talked about man and woman because those were the standards of the times. How can we "alter" the concept of marriage? is that legally acceptable? It is dishonesty to do so as today that does not hold true. The word marriage is for heterosexual couples and that is the way it has been used in legal documents... Altering that then we are altering the constitution or not? If we use the word "union" then that by itself is the right path to take in describing the "act" of legalising two people who practice the act of homosexuality or bisexuality or whatever.

The U.S. Constitution does not contain or define the word "marriage". Marriage as a constitutionally protected right is a common law concept (primarily) arising from the 14th amendment's due process clause: "No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Courts have interpreted the word "liberty" as a protection of personal autonomy in certain areas (like marriage, procreation, and child rearing).

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally Posted by Shane Roach

This is not something I am making up. This is not some sort of paranoid delusion. It is right here in your responses and the responses of others. Pages upon pages have been written here by gay rights activists accusing others of dishonesty, as if honesty and integrity were the hallmark of the gay rights movement itself, and yet even the most simple, straightforward examples coming out of it cannot be trusted without resorting to joining a University library and basically double checking every single word.
​

So bring it up with them when they do it. Again, you basically stated that is something I'm not doing. Do I hold you responsible for every false claim a Christian comes on here and makes, or for personal attacks Christians have made against me?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358040-13/#post51423951

Here you accuse Christians of not being able to move on, as if Gay marriage were fundamentally the same thing as racism. How is racism even similar to the gay marriage issue?

Because people insist that homosexuality is a type of person, and not simply a behavior.

This is where one can connect something you participate in with what BigBadWlf does, which is misrepresent the science.

You claim ignorance of this connection? You had no idea any such connection existed? His work in attempting to belittle anyone or anything that undercuts the assertion that homosexuality is a behavior just like other behaviors impacts directly on your assertion that opposing homosexuality is like supporting slavery.

There is absolutely no correlation between being suspicious of a specific behavior and being prejudiced against a person. Prejudice itself is the presumption that a person will behave in a certain way based on aspects that have nothing to do directly with behavior, so the whole comparison is utterly intellectually bankrupt if you deny the importance of the work of people like BigBadWlf who under gird your arguments with the trappings of science.

And then, when those assertions are questioned, you simply disconnect as if you were neither of you related to the other on this discussion.

I see the relationship quite clearly.

 

[Shane Roach]

The U.S. Constitution does not contain or define the word "marriage". Marriage as a constitutionally protected right is a common law concept (primarily) arising from the 14th amendment's due process clause: "No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Courts have interpreted the word "liberty" as a protection of personal autonomy in certain areas (like marriage, procreation, and child rearing).

Procreation and child rearing being functions of heterosexual behavior, and marriage being the institution regulating said issues, among others.

If one cannot be made to fit the description, one should not be assumed to be included.

 

[beechy]

There is absolutely no correlation between being suspicious of a specific behavior and being prejudiced against a person. Prejudice itself is the presumption that a person will behave in a certain way based on aspects that have nothing to do directly with behavior, so the whole comparison is utterly intellectually bankrupt if you deny the importance of the work of people like BigBadWlf who under gird your arguments with the trappings of science.

Do you believe that the terms "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" ONLY describe behavior? IOW, if I told you that Jim slept with 2 women and 0 men last year, does tha make Jim a heterosexual as far as you're concerned?

 

[Wyzaard]

Your lack of understanding of epistemology allows you to mock at very obvious problems with your statement.

Which you conveniently do not explain; <staff edit>

ID theory would have been quite fine as science not long ago, but now defenders of the status quo do not feel that counter-evidence to evolution and so forth is science in and of itself.

The so-called "counter-evidence" to evolution has failed repeatedly; evolution now stands as one of the most well-confirmed empirical models science has produced.

That's all well and good, but the fact is that you cannot run the clock backwards to do experiments on the past,

Scientific induction, causal inference... valid logical frameworks undergirding methodologies for modeling the past.

and you cannot establish that conscious efforts do not effect the physical universe despite the fact that consciousness is itself not apparent in the physical universe.

If you'd like to demonstrate the significance of these presumably metaphysical terms, go right ahead... but they do not interest science, and as you are the claimant...

Whereas I at the very least know myself to be conscious....

<staff edit>

 

[beechy]

Procreation and child rearing being functions of heterosexual behavior, and marriage being the institution regulating said issues, among others.

If one cannot be made to fit the description, one should not be assumed to be included.

If an unmarried man and woman have sex and get pregnant, there is nothing in the law which requires them to get married in order to be regulated either in their child rearing or future procreative efforts. Also, of course, the meaning and purpose of marriage in modern society is precisely what's at issue. There are several courts which disagree with your characterization.