*Wanders into thread*

I'm SO waiting for this reply. I really am curious. If it IS in fact a choice, then everyone one day must have made this choice, right? Personally I'm bisexual, one day I realized I was attracted to both. I didn't CHOOSE to be. But apparently, if i choose to NOT be attracted to girls, I can actually be straight. I'm kind of curious how I would go about this. Theoretically. This is intriguing.

The whole problem is that theists have a "belief." My philosophy professor asked us once what was the difference between a religious belief and a superstition. Point being, nothing. They're both things that cannot be proven to be true yet people still believe them to be. Now with this being said to say you "believe" something to be a choice when there is far more scientific proof that it is NOT a choice is relying on something akin to superstition/religious belief. Looking at the evidence tells you there's more to it than choice. Saying gay people have a choice is like saying straight people have a choice to which I reply well then, you might want to go out and have sex with someone of the same sex just to make SURE your choice to be straight is correct. It just doesn't work that way. Again, I've always told people who slander gays and lesbians that if they want to come up with some reasoning, go right ahead, I can refute all of them with ACTUAL facts. People will believe anything that they're told if they're comfortable doing so. If it doesn't affect them it's so much easier to say "I believe it's a choice" than to research heavily and THEN say such a thing. That's the reason why so many theists think so, they simply aren't educated enough to know otherwise. 

Razor, I've twisted nothing. If it makes you uncomfortable that I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies in your posts then "there's nothing I can do." You have said time and time again if society says gay people can marry, then so be it, but you won't vote for it and you also won't picket if people say we DO deserve the same rights to which I'm saying that doing so in the voting booth is akin to picketing on the streets. I use the term terrorism because by definition this is exactly that. The tactics of fear are alive and well.

Trying to pack the courts with Christian judges to "protect America", pack the schools with bibles "to keep kids moral", create laws based on Christian ideology "because this way is the only way" and shoving the religion down the throats of every American by doing such things is, by definition, a terroristic behavior. Not all theists are terrorists but as soon as their ideology crosses the church/state line and begins enforcing its laws and ideology on citizens REGARDLESS then that, by it's very nature, is terroristic behavior. And I'll say it again, how on earth can you level with someone when their methods of conformity, conversion, coercion are not subject to question? Scientists and doctors around the world are overwhelmingly on the side of GLBT citizens but like many other biblical tales the church pins science against the wall and strong-arms it into doing what it says regardless of the facts. How is this not terroristic behavior? Whether you're using a bomb like abortion clinic bombers, a vote, hate-speech masked as "religious love speech" or otherwise it's still terroristic behavior. Ignoring this fact doesn't make it go away.

I've been in the statehouse while thousands upon thousands of CHRISTIANS were standing around shouting how evil gays were, how they were going to destroy the country, how they must "protect marriage," and getting little kids as young as five years old to chant "god hates fags." I've been to events where the KKK was outside with signs saying we should all die in the name of GOD. The fact that nearly EVERY STATE in this country has done such things says to me that there are a whole lot of people out there with this behavior. When we see the same behavior in other countries we gasp and think how awful! You need to remember that gays and lesbians were picked out and thrown into the gas chambers in Nazi Germany, too, my friend. They were considered the worst of ALL people in the concentration camps. Nazi ideology is alive and well in America but theists today call it "protection from..." I know Americans would like to forget that, though. It makes their anti-gay behavior seems so...evil. Mask it as "protecting people from the gays" and calling it "love" ... yeah...that's the ticket. I prefer to call a spade a spade.

 To ignore that we have Christian politicians in office right now who, by their religious upbringing, believe that gays and lesbians should be hung should be an outrage, but it's not. They envision the same treatment as Hitler did and this should not be ignored, but we do. Creating laws that segregate the GLBT population is simply the first step and anyone with a shred of historical knowledge would know this. The events leading up to the persecution of GLBT citizens is similar to how they're trying to do it here. Looks like we took something from him on his treatment of gays like he did from early American Christian settlers and politicians' treatment of American Indians. Sick.  

 I will never accept your "explanation" because it is NOT an explanation and it never HAS been. It's based on no scientific evidence, nothing verifiable and therefore is nothing more than an ideological belief - SUPERSTITION. Come up with a good solid argument and we'll talk but you're simply talking in terms of religious mantras which here, mean nothing. You can't prove any point by bible quoting or saying that because that's what you believe it should be law. There needs to be more to it other than "because I said so." But that's all the bible is and that's all your argument rests on. Hence, it's not an argument or a justifiable position at all. Maybe if this were the Dark Ages or in the prime of Hitler's reign. If people don't stand up to this "explanation" it eventually will revert us back to those days. 

 

what am i assuming? this is what you've TOLD us. when your gay friends tell you their sexuality is not a choice, and you choose to believe otherwise, you either: 1) think your gay friends are lying or 2) you believe you know more about their sexuality than they do. please show me where my assumption comes in. seems to me you are finally realizing how silly some of your positions really are when they are presented back to you.

 

yep, i choose not to be celibate for some fictional deity. and my heart breaks for anyone who does.

and i already had your god. for the majority of my life, in fact. and i'm much happier, more content, and at peace without it.

except when you judge their sexuality and/or sexual behavior to be immoral.

 

 

except let them get married.

 

 

you won't throw them aside, but you'll discriminate against them and deny them rights they are completely entitled to. and i don't see that as love. 

 

no, you don't hate them. but you do discriminate against them. and you do wish to deny them their rights. and i don't see that as very much better. so i'm not sure why you are arguing the hate angle. even without hate, your position is still a shameful one.

 

yeah, that's exactly what you're telling us with your comment. those are your two choices. unless you've got another option for us. why don't you show me how i'm assuming. show me how i'm wrong.

 

 

 

i'd rather have a partner than be best friends with beings who live only in my head. so are you going to abstain? or are you going to get married and live your little amercian dream all the while expecting me to become an ascetic in your religion?

 

yes, yes, the old "you just didn't really have (or know) god" routine. i like that one. and i'm sure i would have told any ex-christian the same myself when i was a christian, because i really had god. i know, i know, you don't believe me. i doubt i would have believed myself either. and i certainly didn't imagine that i'd become an atheist. maybe you'll get lucky like me and become free from living according to the superstitions of acient men.

Just a gentle warning.  Please be respectful. 

Razor, if I came across as disrespectful, I apologize.  I tried very hard to word my posts so they weren't accusatory.  Again, if they sounded that way, I'm sorry.

So everyone, please remember this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness thread.

No cussing.  No insults.  No name calling.

You may disagree, but please do it respectfully. 

I'm not sure how you figure I'm bisexual.  That sounded more like a personal attack intended to get me pissed or who knows what.  I'm not attracted to men. 

glamor, it's between that person and God if its "okay".

 Actually, yes. Catholics believe you're born gay but you just can't act gay. Can you imagine forcing straight people to have sex with people of the same sex because it was the societal norm? They act like it's just no big deal to force this same thing on gay people. It's frustrating that they can't see outside of their own sexuality to understand anyone else's but yet still try to dictate for them. Nazi Germany did it, too. I'm waiting for the day when they ship everyone off to their own island. 

 

i never said you said those words. what i said is: "that's exactly what you're telling us with your comment." i'm sorry you've taken that to mean you've actually typed them out. what that sentence means is that your comment tells (or shows, or indicates, etc.) us one of two things: 1) you believe your friends are being dishonest with you or 2) you believe you know more about your friends' sexuality than they do. you say i am assuming, as if the conclusions i have made are incorrect. so simply show me how they are wrong. that's all i'm asking. show me what i should be inferring from your claim. my original comment didn't come from a desire to piss you off or anything. i was actually genuinely surprised that you didn't take your friends at their word about their own sexuality.

 

 

 

what makes you think that i fled at one test? i've never told you why i became an atheist. what "one test" do you think it was that caused me to flee? and what evidence do you have that would cause you to claim it to be a "fact"? this is cute, actually. wouldn't this be an assumption?

 

 

i will, thank you. especially when people stop manhandling my rights.

No it was personal considering I have already stated I was straight.  It has nothing to do with how I perceive "gayness" as you called it but the fact that it was directly soley at me after I've already stated within this thread I was not attracted to men.  Don't turn it around because you know full well what that sounded like... 

And being called gay is not an insult to me either (because if you don't know it's ok to ask) but when there are eight pages to a thread and I've stated my positions on this topic very clearly including my sexual orientation and after all that someone comes out insinuating something else, that doesn't sound like someone being inquisitive...

You are told you cannot drive down the highway at 100 mph or there will be consequences. You do it anyway and one day it happens that you took a turn too fast and crashed. You didn't head any warning about your future and then the warnings came about. Now despite the warnings, someone else wants to make it legal to go down that same stretch of road at 100 mph. It hurts no one because the one's killed are always single car accidents so only the one doing the action is affected. But yet those who want to go down that path want the public to support their actions.

For anyone wandering into this thread midway through, this is razorphreak's analogy for homosexuality.

I guess you missed the part where I said you wouldn't accept it? I didn't need to hear your rejection of God; I already knew it was there.

Whoa, I thought I was talking to Nostradamus for a second there.

Already done. If you can't read what I've already written or don't understand what I wrote, not exactly sure what else I can do for you.

WHERE??? The SECOND time I replied to a post of yours in all history you were already *****ing to me that you'd already answered my questions. You never got that New Testament support for your brand of Christianity you were crowing about, and a brief look at what's transpired since I and GlamourKat posted reveals you have not addressed the question about the PRACTICAL difference between hating the sinner and hating the sin. I'm a micrometer from dismissing you as a troller.

 [MOD EDIT for language]

I bowed out of this thread rather early on but I've been trying to keep track of what's going on in here. 

Razor, why can't you just admit that because of the beliefs you and others share, homosexuals are not given the same legal rights as heterosexuals?  Look at the laws, it's there in black and white.  If you feel so strongly about your beliefs and your views on homosexuals, I don't understand why you can't own up to the fact that your views and those who share your views impede on homosexuals rights.  Just own up to it, please.

And if you already have and I missed it, my apologies. 

Also, please don't ignore this post, as you have with other ones that I've posted.  Thanks.

 

What, you mean these questions?

OK folks.  Again.

THIS IS THE KILL 'EM WITH KINDNESS THREAD. 

Please tone down some of the pointed and sarcastic comments. 

No attacks.  No insults.  No foul language.  No name calling.

It shouldn't be necesssary for this many reminders to be posted in one thread. 

Please practice civility. 

In another thread you said:

So what is your evidence that homosexuality is immoral?

When someone says, "The 'Old Testament'-rules no longer hold," they're not decrying gravity. ('Hey, stuff fell down before the New Testament, so jumping off this building is the new way to travel!' and, if you believe that, you're welcome to try it.)

The New Testament, I just rehd, was the KJV translation of 'the New Covenant (of God and His Chosen).'

It's a continuation of the Old Covenant, except 1) it's how one gains/retains citizenship in the Kingdom of God (not the Kingdom of Israel) and 2) the promised land is not one, solid, physical place, but is the 'worth' (or whatever) of the remaining Chosen.

But jumping off a building is still a 'bad idea.' Just like giving homosexuality an equal place with heterosexuality. If you're not why homosexuality is a bad idea, do this long experiment: take one onion and put it in some fertile ground; then--over the next year--bang two onions together every night ... now, how many onions do you get from each of the activities.

 

The proposition that any use of an organ that is contrary to its principle purpose or function is unnatural assumes that organs have a principle purpose or function, but the purpose or function may change according to one's needs or desires. Eyes are for seeing but women may use their eyes to flirt. By flirting with their eyes are women violating the laws of nature?

Sex organs are adapted for procreation, but that’s obviously not the only function for which they are adapted. Choosing one function and calling it the only natural one seems arbitrary, if not question begging.

 

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church 

 

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  2333 ...

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues  2347of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

 

what about a heterosexual that marries and/or has sex with his/her sterile partner is that a "bad idea"? if you can have children naturally but you choose to adopt, because of the large number of unwanted children in the world, is that a "bad idea"? what about all the homosexuals who are having kids? is homosexuality okay then? and why do you feel we need more "onions"? i find that the people making onions (homosexuals included) are doing a fine job of it, and they really don't need my help. so i'm failing to see how homosexuality is a "bad idea." can you please explain it to me better? thanks.

Why do theists think that homosexuality is still wrong? Because the bible says so?

That's just not a good enough answer as we all know that the bible says a whole lot of contradictory things.

Last time I checked, being gay wasn't a choice. Last time I checked, being prosecuted and denied equal rights is not beneficial to anyone and no one would choose such an existance. Ask a black person.

I sure didn't choose to be straight. Hell, I didn't even choose to be a woman! OMG, I didn't even choose my skin colour!!!

But if I had a choice...

You bet I would choose to be white. In a second! Especially during our times! Fine, alrighty then, I'm not allowed to be white??!

Fine, I'm gonna be a man... oh, I guess I don't get to choose that either...

But according to theists, I did choose to be these things based on what they perceive are choices.

And then to have the arrogance of using the theory of evolution to to back up your case against homosexuality?

I just don't get it. I thought Theists didn't believe in the theory of evolution.

***
Supenmanu wrote:

simple. If you believe God created men and women, it should be obvious to you why he created two genders. Actually if you believe in the Theory of Evolution, it is the same and it should be equally obvious to you why evolution created two genders.

***
Easy there Supenmanu...

Poor use of using evolution to support your argument.

Clearly, you do not understand evolution. If you look in nature you will see evidence of homosexuality. Jeez, what do you think all the other lions do when the king of the lions gets all the lion babes?!

Or what do the other walruses do when the Biggest Walrus gets all the walrus babes?! Guess what? The pride, or the herd, or a murder (I love that "murder" of crows thing) or flock produces some kind of balance in the group that has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with "roles". It produces a population that can take on those roles regardless of gender.

It happens in nature all the time. Therefor it is not considered "unnatural" even though god made both "female" and "male" animals. Gender is minor variable because it is the role that is important. Hrmm... I guess these animals choose to be gay too!

Another thing... Marriage isn't about sex... Please stop bringing this sex thing up. Marriage is about love between two people... or if you prefer, Civil Union is about love between two people... Sex is so secondary in loving relationships... I wish people would stop perverting love by equating it to sex... very shallow... (However I notice that a lot of religious people just can't talk enough about sex!)

And the whole, "I don't judge the sinner, I judge the sin" is really gently caressing ridiculous. It takes away all responsibility of wrong-doing from the "sinner". You guys do judge and yet seem to absolve any wrong-doing that a person does as long as they "ask for forgiveness"? So what are you saying?... I can go around and do terrible things and as long as I'm on my death bed asking for forgiveness I get a pass into heaven? I guess that's why religious figures continue to indulge in wrong-doings without any consequences?

Do not lecture me on remorse and repentance. I do not need the threat of hell or god to recognize my wrongs or to feel remorse. I do not need the bible as a moral compass. I did not need the bible to develop compassion, sympathy or empathy. Guess what? I do not need the bible to recognize the wrong-doings of others. I don't know, but does the bible mention anything about molesting children? I know it's wrong, I didn't need the bible to tell me that, but do priests need that in literal writing to understand how wrong it is? And how wrong it is to continue to do so?

 I also didn't need the bible for my kindness and I certianly don't need an "afterlife of reward in heaven or 72 virgins (whichever book you perfer)" to be kind.  That "reward" is often the biggest motivator for religious folk.  How sad that they need that to force them to be kind or compassionate or to help the less fortunate.  The rest of us just are kind because we choose to be... not because some book told us.  (See, being "kind" is a choice... being gay is not)

Being gay is not a sin. Being a woman is not a sin. Being coloured is not a sin. I need a better example than the bible, after all according to the bible, women are evil... Poor Eve! 

 Oh, and let's not forget that before minorities got equal rights, before even women got equal rights, CORPORATIONS were given equal rights and were defined as "persons" before the rest of us were. Please don't tell me that gay people have nearly equal rights. Women and minorities barely do, how could gays possibly hope for equal rights when we can't even give it to "straight" people who happen to be women or black? lol

too much!

BTW, I just found this site because of the Nightline Debate (well done and thank you for representin'!).

I don't usually post in forums as I find that there are often other people who are far more intelligent and articulate than I am who can better explain our common values (thank you folks).

But this gently caressing thread was just begging for my late response. Actually, I don't really want to be white or a man - I want to be a cat in a very comfortable and loving home.

welcome aboard

 

pretty sure you sumed up everything perfectly  

 Yup!

That looks like paradise to me! 

 

Actually you are completely misled. Evolution as a basic idea is the name given to the changes in the gene pool of a population over successive generations. Darwinian evolution is the name given to the method by which these changes occur which were proposed by Charles Darwin - natural selection. Add to this what we have learned/rediscovered in the years since it's original proposition - important ideas such as Mendelian Inheritance to name just one, and we have today what is often called neo-Darwinism: a very complete and solid scientific theory to explain the facts of evolution.

Evolution of species was believed by many scientists in the years leading up to Darwin's orginal work on the subject, and there were many propositions as to how the changes occurred. A popular hypotheses was proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamark and is known as Lamarkism - this is what you are confusing. Lamark's two basic laws were:

1. In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.
2. All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.

(quoted from wikipedia)

 

Needless to say, natural selection provides a far better explanation than this does, and with the publishing and subsequent acception of Darwin's theory support for Lamarism dwindled rapidly. Please ask questions of anyone in the science forums for more information if you have any interest in furthering your education, I'm sure everyone will be willing to provide civil answers to civil questions.

 

Now on to something more controversial DISCLAIMER: I'm not aiming to offend anyone! This is just my interpretation of things!

I am blind in one eye and I have epilepsy. Luckily this doesn't endanger my life too much and I was still able to pursue my second career choice, but it's still a pain in the arse. My conditions are congenital - I didn't get them from an accident or as a gradual development, I was born with them. My body works differently from how an ideal human body 'should', but my conditions are 'natural'. In this same way someone may be born with severe mental retardation, a life threatening heart condition, or on the other hand amazing intelligence or the body of an olympic athlete, or any combination of various conditions - and these would all be 'natural' conditions (i.e. not brought on by accident or outside influence). I see a state of the mind which causes people to be attracted to the same sex as just one of these little things we all have, whether for good or for bad (and I'm not suggesting which), which make us different from what an ideal human body 'should' be - looking at it simply from the point of view of the production of new generations to propagate our species.

But what is immoral or wrong about being different? And how can you say that just because homosexuals, or people who are physically unable to have children don't create new life they aren't contributing to the raising of children of other families in the roles of teachers or extended family members? Could you argue that they aren't doing their bit as human beings to enrich our society, to make it a better environment for raising new generations? And anyway, from a gene-centric evolutionary angle everyone is involved in the processes of proliferating and preserving their own genetic material (for better or for worse) whether through their own children, or through others who share large amounts of their genetic material - family members, and to a lesser extent other members of their communities.

And I'd like to add, God does not call us to hate anybody....but to love even our enemies. Jesus died for homosexuals as well. The bible says fornicators and homosexuals won't enter the kingdom of heaven...but look at the next verse:

 

1Cr 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.