"The Voters have Spoken!"

[SughaNSpice]

There is no way for you to demonstrate that there is some intrinsic homosexuality that is merely more often expressed in a more tolerant society, and the APA, oft quoted by liberals on this subject, absolutely positively does not posit any such definite cause. It simply states that most homosexuals report experiencing little or no control over their orientation.

Well of course not... you define homosexual as someone who says they experience little or no control of their orientation. Everyone else who has ever had homosexual sex or a homosexual experience of any kind and overcome it, you define out of the group. I am supposed to be amazed by this "discovery"?

If you believe, as I do, that homosexuality is in most cases largely learned, and that the small percentage of people exclusively homosexual are that way largely because they have simply wholeheartedly chosen to define themselves as such, then the snowball effect of homosexuality becoming more and more prevalent can be seen to be having a deleterious effect on society's cultural underpinnings.

No one seriously believes that. At least no one who is willing to provide evidence for their claims.

There is no evidence that sexual orientation is learned – none.
If you have legitimate evidence showing other wise please reference it

 

[SughaNSpice]

I've been told by you two I am misusing the words, and have cited the APA itself saying the way you're trying to characterize it is false. I even put it up word for word against one of the two or three of you's exact post.

Not that having the APA and someone's exact words together in the exact same post would ever prove anything to gay activists, since the main point is to demonize anyone who disagrees.

Yet the APA manages to contradict pretty much all of your claims about homosexuality.



They contradict your claim that ”that homosexuality is in most cases largely learned”
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatis



They disagree with you that “homosexual are that way largely because they have simply wholeheartedly chosen to define themselves as such”
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice? No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31


They contradict your claims about family and your claims that somehow gay parents make their children gay

Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not indicate their children's. http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31



And they manage to say some very wise things to
What Can Be Done to Overcome the Prejudice and Discrimination that Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals Experience?
Research has found that the people who have the most positive attitudes toward gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals are those who say they know one or more gay, lesbian or bisexual person well, often as a friend or co-worker. For this reason, psychologists believe that negative attitudes toward gay people as a group are prejudices that are not grounded in actual experience but are based on stereotypes and misinformation. Furthermore, protection against violence and discrimination are very important, just as they are for any other minority groups. Some states include violence against an individual on the basis of his or her sexual orientation as a "hate crime," and ten U.S. states have laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Why Is it Important for Society to be Better Educated About Homosexuality?
Educating all people about sexual orientation and homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice. Accurate information about homosexuality is especially important to young people who are first discovering and seeking to understand their sexuality,whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Fears that access to such information will make more people gay have no validity; information about homosexuality does not make someone gay or straight.

 

[Smidlee]

Here's another question: what if a proposition was put on the ballot stating that a change to the Constitution was going to be made that every child in America should be given a nuclear missile and it was pass by 51% majority.

Should that vote stand since the voters have made it clear what they want, or should the Supreme Court overturn it because it's deciding on the rights of people that every child should have a nuke?

 

[lawtonfogle]

No one seriously believes that. At least no one who is willing to provide evidence for their claims.

There is no evidence that sexual orientation is learned – none.
If you have legitimate evidence showing other wise please reference it

How about a humanist poster who is taking this semester off to finish her degrees? Albeit Canata (am I spelling that right) is the only person I know of who choose to change their sexual orientation. But a few facts as to why we should trust this testimony. First off, she was pro-homosexual, so she would not be making something up to hurt her own side. Second, there is evidence in basic psychology, something called classical conditioning, that one can choose to increase their own sexuality. Now, the important part to remember is this only works with increasing, including new characteristics, of which one is sexually attracted. As far as I can tell, you can go from hetero to bi or homo to bi, but you cannot go from hetero to homo or homo to hetero. That is to say you can become sexually attracted to more things, but you cannot stop being sexually attracted to others. Of course, in extremely traumatic situations this rule can be violated, such as a raped woman no longer being heterosexual (though it is likely she will just turn asexual).

 

[lawtonfogle]

Here's another question: what if a proposition was put on the ballot stating that a change to the Constitution was going to be made that every child in America should be given a nuclear missile and it was pass by 51% majority.

Should that vote stand since the voters have made it clear what they want, or should the Supreme Court overturn it because it's deciding on the rights of people that every child should have a nuclear weapons?

But I want a nuke.

 

[Maren]

But I want a nuke.

Reminds me of the clip "Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority" from Elephant Parts.

 

[TeddyKGB]

But I want a nuke.

Your parents didn't buy you one? They totally didn't love you, dude.

 

[Andreusz]

*Bump*, to Shane Roach:

Why should anyone change their orientation, except to please you?

 

[LightHorseman]

On Shane's claim that societies where homosexuality is more prevalent become overly feminised and then eaten up by the Muslims, it occured to me the other night that the ancient Spartans, possibly the only society in history where homosexuality was, if not mandatory, then at least deeply encouraged and institutionalised, were one of the most warlike and militarily successful societies in history, particularly against foreign invaders.

I wonder if Shane can cite an actual example of a homosexual accepting society that actually fits his "become more feminised, then taken over by evil aliens" paradigm? Or is it, as I suspect, baseless supposition built on a strawman of the limp wristed lisping homosexual?

 

[LightHorseman]

Well, it basically is saying (by negation) that a few people get to choose their sexuality, and odds are, some of them are gay. So a few people are gay by choice, though the other 99% aren't.

As to the increase in homosexuality, I dare say that is self evident. In a culture where it is not acceptable to be homosexual, there will always be those who lie about it, hide it, act heterosexual, ect. But in a culture that has no such ban, there is little to no reason for them to do the same. So there will be more open homosexuals. Of course, are we counting 'open' homosexuals or just homosexuals in general?

I already said something similar abvout acceptance leading to a higher rate of open homosexuality, however I contend that acceptance doesn't actually change the actual rate of objectively homosexual people. As you yourself are saying here.

Ted Haggard would seem to be the poster child, and demonstrates what I'm talking about far better than my mere words can.

 

[LightHorseman]

Your parents didn't buy you one? They totally didn't love you, dude.

I could teach you how to make one out of used smoke detectors, if you like?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Why should anyone change their orientation, except to please you?

to have a loving wife and your own children and family? To want to give glory to God and please him?
​

 

[Polycarp1]

to have a loving wife and your own children and family? To want to give glory to God and please him?
​

What if the person who wants a loving wife and children is female? What if someone is convinced that they can give glory to God and please Him without following to the letter the Rule of Life Set Forth by Creed Is Christ?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

What if the person who wants a loving wife and children is female? What if someone is convinced that they can give glory to God and please Him without following to the letter the Rule of Life Set Forth by Creed Is Christ?

the rule is in the book of Genesis and the Gospels, not me.

 

[Polycarp1]

the rule is in the book of Genesis and the Gospels, not me.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. And thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. That is the Law and the Prophets."

Not one word in there about prohibiting others from marrying. Not one word in there about condemning those different from yourself. Not one word in there about misrepresenting the truth (as in the thread about the Connecticut church financial accountability proposal) to carry out your own private agenda of vilifying others.

Try again, sport. What you decide to read into Genesis and the Gospels doesn't impress me.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. And thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. That is the Law and the Prophets."

Not one word in there about prohibiting others from marrying. Not one word in there about condemning those different from yourself. Not one word in there about misrepresenting the truth (as in the thread about the Connecticut church financial accountability proposal) to carry out your own private agenda of vilifying others.

Try again, sport. What you decide to read into Genesis and the Gospels doesn't impress me.

oh please, even the Bishops in the archdiocese knew what that bill was trying to do, as well as the thousands of protesting Catholics outside.


Also there is a certain word(I forgot it) that talks about using irrelevant information to try to prove a point that has no relation to the statement. Association fallacy I believe? It explains what you are trying to do

However I was talking about these verses:

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." - Genesis 2:18-25


'That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, - Mark 10:7


For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh - Genesis 2:24

'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. - Leviticus 18:22

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them - Leviticus 20:13

and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error - Romans 1:27



I think when you read that as a whole. You get the point that God didn't intend for man to marry man. If he truly did there would be no reason for him to create the female. Or are these verses misrepresenting your version of "truth" also? I would be careful about throwing "truth" around as if you truly know it in its fullness. And out of curiosity, why would I try to impress you? My posts are not about impressing people. As you've seen the general harshness posted towards me it is clear I am not here to impress others or for vainglory. If I truly wanted that i would just agree and nod my head in agreement with all the posts here. Trust me, I would rather take the heat from other people rather than the heat from Hell.

 

[Jade Margery]

oh please, even the Bishops in the archdiocese knew what that bill was trying to do, as well as the thousands of protesting Catholics outside.


Also there is a certain word(I forgot it) that talks about using irrelevant information to try to prove a point that has no relation to the statement. Association fallacy I believe? It explains what you are trying to do

However I was talking about these verses:

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." - Genesis 2:18-25


'That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, - Mark 10:7


For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh - Genesis 2:24

'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. - Leviticus 18:22

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them - Leviticus 20:13

and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error - Romans 1:27



I think when you read that as a whole. You get the point that God didn't intend for man to marry man. If he truly did there would be no reason for him to create the female. Or are these verses misrepresenting your version of "truth" also? I would be careful about throwing "truth" around as if you truly know it in its fullness. And out of curiosity, why would I try to impress you? My posts are not about impressing people.

Soooo, Creed, you want to take everything in Leviticus literally? Really? Because you can't pick and choose the word of god, right? It's all words of god. So....

Everything in the bible, including Leviticus, is the true word and command of your god, right or wrong?

Please just answer the question. One word would suffice.

 

[LightHorseman]

to have a loving wife and your own children and family? To want to give glory to God and please him?
​

If they are happy with a loving same sex partner, and they sincerelky believe that their union gives glory to God and pleases him, then your argument fails.

(Also, many homosexuals have their own children)

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Soooo, Creed, you want to take everything in Leviticus literally? Really? Because you can't pick and choose the word of god, right? It's all words of god. So....

Everything in the bible, including Leviticus, is the true word and command of your god, right or wrong?

Please just answer the question. One word would suffice.

this is a dishonest question considering your already using a false premise.

The bible is full of all forms of hermeneutics. Not all of it is literal. The bible is full of allegorical, symbolic, literal, historical, visual, ethic/moral, first principle, second principle, prophetic, and application based as well as Patristic guided, etc. All this is based on the grammar and it consonantal form or according to its vocalization within the type of sentence structure being used.

Christ did away with the physical traditions of the OT law(washing, food, clothing, etc). However there are morals laws that still stand considering they are both condemned also in the NT. We read in the book of Acts , since this was a problem as to which laws for Christians to follow, and while many of them were fulfilled in Christ they still told Christians in the counsel to abstain from strangled meats and sexual fornication.

 

[LightHorseman]

Soooo, Creed, you want to take everything in Leviticus literally? Really? Because you can't pick and choose the word of god, right? It's all words of god. So....

Everything in the bible, including Leviticus, is the true word and command of your god, right or wrong?

Please just answer the question. One word would suffice.

Watch this space for a forthcoming tapdance about how the Levitical condemnation of homosexuality is a moral law as opposed to a ceremonial law, and anyway, teh gays have teh AIDS! ZOMG!