Quote:
I'm not gonna spend too many words on this b/c surely you know this happens to everybody, for a variety of reasons, many more than just ethnicity. If a family doesn't like a quality about you, they don't like it whethter it be that you're white, you have freckles or you wear a size 10 shoe. If you're different expect somebody to say something about it, that's the day and age we live in. The real irony is this is the same type of discrimination ur planning on teaching ur kids, b/c someones sexual orientation is different
Ah yes, when it comes to blacks being racist then you make this argument. Double standard? This woman's family discriminated me simply because i was white. So with this statement from you, i can assume that you believe its ok for whites to do the same thing to blacks? I will not teach my children to discriminate. I will teach them what is right and wrong and then teach them my faith. What they do with that is on them, this is a simple fact.....the anus is not intended to be a sexual organ, therefore making gay sex a perversion of natural intent. or do you wish to argue that the anus/rectum is indeed intended to be used for anything other than excretion of waste?
Quote:
I think you're confused as to the extent to which a person is able to make decision. Yes, you may prefer brunettesto blondes, or whites to indians, but the overall choice is that you are attracted to women. Think of the characteristics of those women that attract you as a sub-category to the fact that you like women and those characteristics are all subject to that initial statement. Now lets say you came across a white brunette male, do you think you could get an erection for him? Doubtful, b/c you don't find him attractive, now you could choose to pop the blue pill and bang it out like baby monkeys, but that doesn't mean that you find him anymore attractive. Choosing to have sex with a person, is not the same as choosing to be attracted to person, one is a choice, one is not. If you think that's not so I want you to choose to be attracted to blank cd tell me how that goes
I'm confused as to the extent to which a person is able to make a decision? I'm sorry, but i was under the impression that we as a species are cognitive and self aware and very capable of making decisions. There is always a choice to be made, we are not dogs or beasts that react on impulse alone. I made this part of your statement bold, i agree with this 100%. Sexual attraction is very much a choice which is heavily influenced by society and many other environmental aspects. For example, many whites don't find blacks attractive because they are taught it is wrong. Overweight people are not seen as "attractive" because society teaches us that skinny is "pretty"...i.e. look at all the young women who read magazines and such and the image they are shown of "beauty".
Quote:
Pretty sure Jesus say's don't judge...right? What is normal to one doesn't have to be normal to another, and if you think your right, then you're being judgmental. You are not anything thing close to being an intellectual or reasonable if think what you said to be 2 simple truths. Gay sex disgusts you, but your not homophobic...right. You've really put a lot of thought into gay sex. I also must applaud you for using the word retard - very Christian like...
Do not assume that you know anything about my beliefs nor what my Bible teaches me. Passing judgement would be me condemning this lifestyle to hell or saying that these people are evil. I have done neither, but according to my faith, this lifestyle is sin and therefore i am not out of place to say it is "abnormal". Even science agrees with me, normal sex encompasses that which is for reproduction. Yes gay sex disgusts me in the fact that i personally do not find it an act that is "beautiful". To think of two men having sex is a turn off for me, that does not in any way shape or form make me homophobic any more that a gay man viewing hetero sex or the female body as "disgusting". No it is not very "Christ like" of me to insult anyone on here or use "retard". please quote me where i said i was the standard for the Christian "image". I am human and have faults and can only be pushed so far, I made this argument earlier as to this being yet another double standard.
Quote:
Seriously? I am a scientist, and most (88%) do not believe in God. The scientists that are Atheists (5%) certainly know that the bible is a human doctrine. No Atheist would ever say that a Christian has a higher moral ground. The very reason they question Christianity is, because of the actions of so called Christians.
The ONLY reason the bible even was able to say the world would be like this is, because the two testaments are so far apart, and science was already taking the place of faith. The bible doesn't have a place anymore, because it's an antiquated story of fiction. There isn't a person out here who can say a single word from the bible, God's or Jesus's existence is a fact. It's a belief, but if you need an antiquated story of fiction to bind you to be a better person - please, keep following your FAITH.
So you're a scientist huh? Please show me any study of genetics you have conducted that would qualify you to make any assumptions that are more relevant than my own. Otherwise, you have read the articles, read the studies, and then have taken a stance on which side you believe; just like everyone else in this thread. So the (5%) of scientists that are atheist can speak to the bible being a human doctrine for the other 95% and also the billion people world wide that do believe.....Richard Dawkins must be your "god", and I can show you examples of atheist scientists that disagree with him and his tactics. There are apprx. 400 years in between the old and new testament. If you knew anything of the Bible then you would know why. Jesus and many events/people in the Bible can be historically proven therefore making it fact. For an educated man, you lack the simple ability to research historical accuracy.
Quote:
So what was the point of this? Some gay men have sex with women every now and then.
There was a study that showed women to be "turned on" by all types of sex, straight, gay, even between primates. Therefore, showing that they indeed were not "programmed" or born to be simply attracted to women or gay sex.
Quote:
What is with you and sex? I'm starting to think you may be questioning your manhood and may have strange feelings towards men and that scares you. I also can't grasp why people think gay people choose to be gay purely for sexual pleasure. Any gay guys I know are far more into each other than just in bed.
I somewhat agree if you're "bi" you're probably just bi because you have some freaky sexual desires, it's sort of hard to be in between I would imagine, but I'm not a scientist.
Ah yes, because I disagree with the gay agenda and have an opinion against it, that automatically makes me a bigot or a closet homosexual myself. I forgot that these are the only two options. Do people not have sex for pleasure? If that were not the case then only sex for reproduction would take place and there would be no gay people. Its funny, but no one here has even touched the topic of transexuals. Care to explain if thats a choice or genetic programming?
Quote:
Yes.
No, they aren't allowed to marry whom they choose, so they aren't allowed the same rights as everyone else.
You need to read the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, the Amendments, and case law, and then come back with an intelligent response that doesn't have religion biased orientations. This issue that we're talking about is what separated us a Union, and marriage for gays is doing nothing less.
Show me one example of marriage being a civil right. The fact remains that gays are given every single right that a straight individual is guaranteed in the bill of rights, ect....If marriage is to be a civil right then it should be illegal to get divorced. There have been countless studies done that show divorce harms all those involved, especially children. I believe that gay couples who perform a civil union are to be given the same rights as a married couple, but to not change tradition or the definition of marriage. I'm highly suspicious though that even this would not be enough to satisfy them.
[QUOTEYou sound like the biggest closet homosexual with those comments, and you stifle them by claiming your faith. Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination, and you obviously need to understand what that means.
The courts still ask you to swear on the bible to tell the truth...yeah, that's gonna make someone say the truth. Whatajoke. The separation of church and state is not what it should be, or gay marriage would exist, swearing on the bible would cease to exist, our license plates would say "In God I trust," and the ten commandments wouldn't be outside or in court-houses. Even on a federal level, paper money still says a belief as well - "In God We Trust." Our country needs a real separation of State and Federal government from beliefs.][/QUOTE]
It is not discrimination. It is the will of the majority over the will of the minority. It has been put up to a vote before and the people spoke. That is what a democracy is no? Or should things of this magnitude of importance not be left up to the people to decide but rather the government? How about no presidential elections, the government can chose whom they believe would be the best candidate for our country? Also, your liberal kind argue that nothing should be illegal as long as it does not harm anyone or take away their rights. Therefore, who is being harmed and what rights are being taken away by having "in God we Trust" on our money, the 10 commandments outside court houses, or anything religious listed in the constitution ect....? Separation of Church and State was included so that no single religion would be endorsed by the government and then forced on others like it was in England; therefore taking away ones right to follow any religion or lack there of they wish. Talk about taking something out of context.
Quote:
First of all Jews only marry Jews, because it's part of Judaism. If two Jewish people of the same sex wanted to be married under Judaism, I'm sure they would be allowed, if it was allowed under law.
You realize there is a difference between the Jewish people and the people of Judea right? Jew is a term used for those that practice a faith. The Jewish Law is reliant upon and dictated by their faith passed down from father Abraham and Moses.
Quote:
Marriage has lots of rights that aren't afforded to those that aren't. Tax breaks, federal loans, and etc. - I'm not sure you have a grasp on what your talking about, besides your own beliefs. If two people want to be married they should be allowed, no one should have the right to they can't. It's considered a civil right, because it's a choice for an individual, that affords them the same benefits as those who have the right. The choice of what your attracted to is a choice, but sexual orientation has been proven on a genetic level.
Would you then legalize incestuous relationships or those between a 50 year old man and 14 year old girl? What if sexual orientation was proven to be strictly genetic and doctors could determine that a child will be gay even before they are born; would you then make it illegal to terminate that pregnancy simply because the parents don't want a gay child? I say all this to make the point of " where does one draw the line on morality and values"?
Quote:
FTR, I had CFA for breakfast, and it was good.
There is so much ideology going on here. Some people are born gay, and some chose. Some people like this or that, and that's another set of choices. However, therein lies the point, we live in a free society, one where we get to choose. Even more so, a Democratic society where we get to vote. Yet, all those choices are lost when we define what's right for one because of our own ideology. If you wanna be whatever you want to be sexually, socially, intellectually, politically, or etc. it's your choice, and if we live in a free society no one should be able to tell you otherwise.
You just supported a company that donates profits to organizations that believe contrary to your own beliefs. They donate to "Christian" organizations that believe in traditional marriage. Does that then make you a hypocrit? or is this a ridiculous argument to make? Addressing the bold part; see my above comment.
Quote:
Here's the thing, dude. No one is arguing that being gay can be a choice. You're still trying to push a debate that is currently only yours to debate because everyone is agreement with that issue. As far as attractions go, I believe that to be a choice that a person has. You can choose to like blondes over brunettes. You can choose to like heavier set women over thinner ones. I think that's your choice to make. But, if you prefer blondes over brunettes and you decide to go out with a brunette one time and you like it, you may end up swaying yourself into making more long term your commitment to that person who you initially didn't have an attraction to. I honestly don't see how this is relative to being born genetically gay. And it sure doesn't disprove the "gay gene."
How can one separate sexual orientation from sexual attraction? Sexual attraction in fact describes sexual orientation. True it does not disprove the "gay gene". Rather, it provides evidence that suggests sexual orientation is a choice. There also is no "proof" or a "gay gene/genes" but again, rather evidences to suggest their existence. The whole purpose of this debate was to say that one can not claim that sexual orientation is genetic any more than one can claim it is pure choice. Yet, the gay community would have you believe it is nor more a decision than choosing what color skin you are born with. How then can one support the notion of a "gay gene" and simply dismiss all the arguments and research that says the opposite? How does one take one researchers word as true and dismiss another's as false? What qualifies one over the other? Is it perhaps because one supports a minorities views and jumps on the "gay is good" band wagon; while the other dismisses this argument? Do you understand now the argument I am making? What if it is proven by FACTS that sexual orientation is pure CHOICE? How would that effect this "progressive" gay movement?
