Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality

[LoneLaugher]

Ok, I am not intending to derail the thread, but just a few thoughts.

When discussing whether homosexuality and whether it is nature or nurture, I often run across people that make the statement "who would choose to live that way", or "why would I choose to live this way". In either case, those phrases are sad to see.

That does not compelled me to change my mind on what homosexuality is, it simply makes me want to know the reasoning that it exists. It could indeed be a genetic issue that would make the statement true, but many with differing forms of OCD would make the same statement. So, six of one, half a dozen of the other.

As stated many times before, homosexuality does not seem to make much sense in the natural order of things. As a species, for the species to exist at all, heterosexuality must exist. The same is not true for homosexuality. That being said, humans elected to form societies and governments to protect us, so there must be a place for those who do not reproduce. They should be valued for what they are in the present, not just what they supply to the future.

This being said, true homosexuals benefit in this society to a far greater extent (especially if we allow homosexuals to be comfortable with who they are), than heterosexuals benefit from Homosexuals.

As an example, as a homosexual ages, they rely on the fact that heterosexuals reproduce. They benefit that a heterosexual created taxpayers that help fund their social security. A aging heterosexual does not get that benefit from homosexuality. True, a homosexual could raise children that become taxpayers, but a true homosexual will not create the taxpayer through homosexual activity.

The argument could be made that a homosexual could be an egg or sperm donor, but it is the male / female component of the procedure that creates the offspring, not the homosexual aspect.

If homosexuality is genetic, even sperm and egg donation needs to be extremely transparent (this my argument for a more transparent and tolerance of homosexuality). If homosexuality is a genetic condition, then those donating should be required to declare their sexuality, or at the very least declare that they are uncertain so that those seeking a donation are well aware as to the chance they could be passing the trait to future generations. If we insist in a society that forces gays to stay in the closet the chances of deceit increases.

If homosexuality is not genetic, if it is not something a person is born with, we should actively research what causes it and whether or not there is the possibility of therapy.

Ok, the above is my opinion on several aspects of the debate. Next time I stay at a Holiday Inn Express........

There is some pretty disturbing stuff in there. Do you know that, or does it need to be pointed out to you?

 

[Silhouette]

READ GOD'S WORD AGAIN!!=====THE TRUTH IS HERE IN THE WORD OF GOD!!!===Your question is answered here!!!!!!!!!! THOSE THAT REJECT GOD===God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
romans 1:24-32

Shut up GISMYS. Nobody is buying your act. How much are your handlers paying you to act at being a bible thumper filled with ignorant ranting? By the hour? Salary?

Tell me "GISMYS" why do you think lipstick lesbians are attracted to mannish looking/acting/walking/talking "women" with strapon penises? Do you think there are closeted hetero women in the lesbian population?

 

[Vandalshandle]

...reminds me of when one gets a song that he hates stuck in his head, that never ends...

 

[Mac1958]

Sometimes I despair that a grown up discussion that encourages all points of view to be be thoughtfully and intelligently discussed is no longer possible in our dumbed down, brainwashed, and politically correct world. Hats off to the OP for trying. But it seems hopeless.

Here's the problem as I see it: The minute an issue becomes politicized, it's immediately broken down to its most simplistic level - "dumbed down", as you call it. Nuance is tossed out, everything becomes binary. And then comes the traditional deflection, distortion, straw men, hyperbole, outright lies and name-calling, and the conversation becomes nothing more than professional wrestling for political geeks.

This thread has some interesting posts, though, with some more conservative posters saying that they really don't care one way or the other about the topic, and even disagreeing with the hardcore Christian guy.

Refreshing!

.

As I posted previously, I am pretty darn sure that MOST Christians don't agree with the hardcore Christian guy. Nor with the politically correct if-you-don't-see-it-our-way-you-are-racist-homophobic-bigoted-scum-who-want-to-deny-equal-rights-to-gays crowd. But between the two of them, rational discussion seems pretty unlikely.

Yep.

They're both True Believers, a waste of time.

.

 

[Silhouette]

Ok, I am not intending to derail the thread, but just a few thoughts.

When discussing whether homosexuality and whether it is nature or nurture, I often run across people that make the statement "who would choose to live that way", or "why would I choose to live this way". In either case, those phrases are sad to see.

That does not compelled me to change my mind on what homosexuality is, it simply makes me want to know the reasoning that it exists. It could indeed be a genetic issue that would make the statement true, but many with differing forms of OCD would make the same statement. So, six of one, half a dozen of the other.

As stated many times before, homosexuality does not seem to make much sense in the natural order of things. As a species, for the species to exist at all, heterosexuality must exist. The same is not true for homosexuality. That being said, humans elected to form societies and governments to protect us, so there must be a place for those who do not reproduce. They should be valued for what they are in the present, not just what they supply to the future.

This being said, true homosexuals benefit in this society to a far greater extent (especially if we allow homosexuals to be comfortable with who they are), than heterosexuals benefit from Homosexuals.

As an example, as a homosexual ages, they rely on the fact that heterosexuals reproduce. They benefit that a heterosexual created taxpayers that help fund their social security. A aging heterosexual does not get that benefit from homosexuality. True, a homosexual could raise children that become taxpayers, but a true homosexual will not create the taxpayer through homosexual activity.

The argument could be made that a homosexual could be an egg or sperm donor, but it is the male / female component of the procedure that creates the offspring, not the homosexual aspect.

If homosexuality is genetic, even sperm and egg donation needs to be extremely transparent (this my argument for a more transparent and tolerance of homosexuality). If homosexuality is a genetic condition, then those donating should be required to declare their sexuality, or at the very least declare that they are uncertain so that those seeking a donation are well aware as to the chance they could be passing the trait to future generations. If we insist in a society that forces gays to stay in the closet the chances of deceit increases.

If homosexuality is not genetic, if it is not something a person is born with, we should actively research what causes it and whether or not there is the possibility of therapy.

Ok, the above is my opinion on several aspects of the debate. Next time I stay at a Holiday Inn Express........

There is some pretty disturbing stuff in there. Do you know that, or does it end to be pointed out to you?

Inasmuch as raw science and logic are "disturbing". I'm sure if you are heavily invested in a system based on denial and defensive-reactionism, the information you just read must indeed be "disturbing". But that in no way affects the information's veracity or the speaker's obligation to convey factual information.

In short, if you don't like the facts, tough!

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

TRUTH HURTS!!!HUH?????THE TRUTH IS HERE IN THE WORD OF GOD!!!===Your question is answered here!!!!!!!!!! THOSE THAT REJECT GOD===God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
romans 1:24-32

If you would add your own thoughts on occasion or talked about something other than the bible every once in a while, maybe someone would actually engage you in a debate.

We all pretty much own a bible - we'll read it if we get bored.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Sometimes I despair that a grown up discussion that encourages all points of view to be be thoughtfully and intelligently discussed is no longer possible in our dumbed down, brainwashed, and politically correct world. Hats off to the OP for trying. But it seems hopeless.

Here's the problem as I see it: The minute an issue becomes politicized, it's immediately broken down to its most simplistic level - "dumbed down", as you call it. Nuance is tossed out, everything becomes binary. And then comes the traditional deflection, distortion, straw men, hyperbole, outright lies and name-calling, and the conversation becomes nothing more than professional wrestling for political geeks.

This thread has some interesting posts, though, with some more conservative posters saying that they really don't care one way or the other about the topic, and even disagreeing with the hardcore Christian guy.

Refreshing!

.

As I posted previously, I am pretty darn sure that MOST Christians don't agree with the hardcore Christian guy. Nor with the politically correct if-you-don't-see-it-our-way-you-are-racist-homophobic-bigoted-scum-who-want-to-deny-equal-rights-to-gays crowd. But between the two of them, rational discussion seems pretty unlikely.

This is great. You said most Christians don't agree with the hardcore Christian guy. Pertaining to what, exactly? They agree, as you do, that gay people should not be permitted to get married.

When it comes to a discussion of homosexuality, is that not one of the points of disagreement? Along with whether or not homosexuals are "born that way" and whether or not they are sinners on the way to hell if they decide to follow their libido.

Then, you say that most Christians also do not agree with the politically correct if-you-don't-see-it-our-way-you-are-racist-homophobic-bigoted-scum-who-want-to-deny-equal-rights-to-gays crowd.

That is interesting. Don't you think?

Now....let me try and understand, once again, where you are coming from on the marriage issue.

You think gay people are fine....and should be treated with respect and dignity as others are. Gay Americans ought not be discriminated against. You have neighbors who are gay and you like them just fine.

But........you think that if we allow gay people to marry, it is going to make your marriage less traditional.....less special....less.......something. So...it is better if we come up with another....separate but equal......thing for these good people to do instead of get married.

Is that it? Have I got the gist of it?

Finally, I would like to know....in fifty words or less....where you fall on the other two issues that divide here. Are gay people born gay.........and are they going to hell if they do the nasty in their beds....or cars.....or living rooms?

PS...why did you throw the word "racist" into the description for those who disagree with you on this issue? Is it mandatory?

 

[Foxfyre]

Someone else's sexual preferences do not affect me in any way, shape or form.

Here's the problem as I see it: The minute an issue becomes politicized, it's immediately broken down to its most simplistic level - "dumbed down", as you call it. Nuance is tossed out, everything becomes binary. And then comes the traditional deflection, distortion, straw men, hyperbole, outright lies and name-calling, and the conversation becomes nothing more than professional wrestling for political geeks.

This thread has some interesting posts, though, with some more conservative posters saying that they really don't care one way or the other about the topic, and even disagreeing with the hardcore Christian guy.

Refreshing!

.

As I posted previously, I am pretty darn sure that MOST Christians don't agree with the hardcore Christian guy. Nor with the politically correct if-you-don't-see-it-our-way-you-are-racist-homophobic-bigoted-scum-who-want-to-deny-equal-rights-to-gays crowd. But between the two of them, rational discussion seems pretty unlikely.

Live and let live. Not a hard policy to follow.

Yes, allowing the fundamenalist Christian to be who and what he is, allowing the more pragmatic historical Christian to be who and what he is, allowing the Jew to be who and what he is, allowing gay people to be who and what they are, allowing the traditionalist marriage heterosexual types to be who and what they are, and understanding that because they all come from a different place, they are not inherently evil or have evil motives--that is live and let live.

Not sure it is not a hard policy to follow though as so many here don't seem to be able to do that.

 

[Pop23]

Ok, I am not intending to derail the thread, but just a few thoughts.

When discussing whether homosexuality and whether it is nature or nurture, I often run across people that make the statement "who would choose to live that way", or "why would I choose to live this way". In either case, those phrases are sad to see.

That does not compelled me to change my mind on what homosexuality is, it simply makes me want to know the reasoning that it exists. It could indeed be a genetic issue that would make the statement true, but many with differing forms of OCD would make the same statement. So, six of one, half a dozen of the other.

As stated many times before, homosexuality does not seem to make much sense in the natural order of things. As a species, for the species to exist at all, heterosexuality must exist. The same is not true for homosexuality. That being said, humans elected to form societies and governments to protect us, so there must be a place for those who do not reproduce. They should be valued for what they are in the present, not just what they supply to the future.

This being said, true homosexuals benefit in this society to a far greater extent (especially if we allow homosexuals to be comfortable with who they are), than heterosexuals benefit from Homosexuals.

As an example, as a homosexual ages, they rely on the fact that heterosexuals reproduce. They benefit that a heterosexual created taxpayers that help fund their social security. A aging heterosexual does not get that benefit from homosexuality. True, a homosexual could raise children that become taxpayers, but a true homosexual will not create the taxpayer through homosexual activity.

The argument could be made that a homosexual could be an egg or sperm donor, but it is the male / female component of the procedure that creates the offspring, not the homosexual aspect.

If homosexuality is genetic, even sperm and egg donation needs to be extremely transparent (this my argument for a more transparent and tolerance of homosexuality). If homosexuality is a genetic condition, then those donating should be required to declare their sexuality, or at the very least declare that they are uncertain so that those seeking a donation are well aware as to the chance they could be passing the trait to future generations. If we insist in a society that forces gays to stay in the closet the chances of deceit increases.

If homosexuality is not genetic, if it is not something a person is born with, we should actively research what causes it and whether or not there is the possibility of therapy.

Ok, the above is my opinion on several aspects of the debate. Next time I stay at a Holiday Inn Express........

There is some pretty disturbing stuff in there. Do you know that, or does it need to be pointed out to you?

Please point it out. If my opinion is disturbing I want to examine that and respond. I think there's plenty in my opinion to be attacked by both the left and the right.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok, I am not intending to derail the thread, but just a few thoughts.

When discussing whether homosexuality and whether it is nature or nurture, I often run across people that make the statement "who would choose to live that way", or "why would I choose to live this way". In either case, those phrases are sad to see.

That does not compelled me to change my mind on what homosexuality is, it simply makes me want to know the reasoning that it exists. It could indeed be a genetic issue that would make the statement true, but many with differing forms of OCD would make the same statement. So, six of one, half a dozen of the other.

As stated many times before, homosexuality does not seem to make much sense in the natural order of things. As a species, for the species to exist at all, heterosexuality must exist. The same is not true for homosexuality. That being said, humans elected to form societies and governments to protect us, so there must be a place for those who do not reproduce. They should be valued for what they are in the present, not just what they supply to the future.

This being said, true homosexuals benefit in this society to a far greater extent (especially if we allow homosexuals to be comfortable with who they are), than heterosexuals benefit from Homosexuals.

As an example, as a homosexual ages, they rely on the fact that heterosexuals reproduce. They benefit that a heterosexual created taxpayers that help fund their social security. A aging heterosexual does not get that benefit from homosexuality. True, a homosexual could raise children that become taxpayers, but a true homosexual will not create the taxpayer through homosexual activity.

The argument could be made that a homosexual could be an egg or sperm donor, but it is the male / female component of the procedure that creates the offspring, not the homosexual aspect.

If homosexuality is genetic, even sperm and egg donation needs to be extremely transparent (this my argument for a more transparent and tolerance of homosexuality). If homosexuality is a genetic condition, then those donating should be required to declare their sexuality, or at the very least declare that they are uncertain so that those seeking a donation are well aware as to the chance they could be passing the trait to future generations. If we insist in a society that forces gays to stay in the closet the chances of deceit increases.

If homosexuality is not genetic, if it is not something a person is born with, we should actively research what causes it and whether or not there is the possibility of therapy.

Ok, the above is my opinion on several aspects of the debate. Next time I stay at a Holiday Inn Express........

There is some pretty disturbing stuff in there. Do you know that, or does it need to be pointed out to you?

Please point it out. If my opinion is disturbing I want to examine that and respond. I think there's plenty in my opinion to be attacked by both the left and the right.

There is nothing disturbing in your very well thought out and reasoned post, Pops. There are some points of view that intelligent, thoughtful, people might argue with, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong or 'disturbing'. But some of it isn't politically correct and that automatically makes you subject to being among those of us who are already branded racist, homophobic, anti-gay, evil people who want to deny gay people their civil rights. If it ain't PC, then you are scum. As the world churns. . . .

 

[LoneLaugher]

Someone else's sexual preferences do not affect me in any way, shape or form.

As I posted previously, I am pretty darn sure that MOST Christians don't agree with the hardcore Christian guy. Nor with the politically correct if-you-don't-see-it-our-way-you-are-racist-homophobic-bigoted-scum-who-want-to-deny-equal-rights-to-gays crowd. But between the two of them, rational discussion seems pretty unlikely.

Live and let live. Not a hard policy to follow.

Yes, allowing the fundamenalist Christian to be who and what he is, allowing the more pragmatic historical Christian to be who and what he is, allowing the Jew to be who and what he is, allowing gay people to be who and what they are, allowing the traditionalist marriage heterosexual types to be who and what they are, and understanding that because they all come from a different place, they are not inherently evil or have evil motives--that is live and let live.

Not sure it is not a hard policy to follow though as so many here don't seem to be able to do that.

Being a member of the "traditional marriage heterosexual types" group....I can speak first hand to the fact that we have never....not for a moment...been denied the opportunity to be who and what we are. This is where you go off the rail.

Two people who love each other get married......and it victimizes you somehow. Right?

 

[Pop23]

There is some pretty disturbing stuff in there. Do you know that, or does it need to be pointed out to you?

Please point it out. If my opinion is disturbing I want to examine that and respond. I think there's plenty in my opinion to be attacked by both the left and the right.

There is nothing disturbing in your very well thought out and reasoned post, Pops. There are some points of view that intelligent, thoughtful, people might argue with, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong or 'disturbing'. But some of it isn't politically correct and that automatically makes you subject to being among those of us who are already branded racist, homophobic, anti-gay, evil people who want to deny gay people their civil rights. If it ain't PC, then you are scum. As the world churns. . . .

I re read my post and look forward to discussing the disturbing part of it. I think I've been fair in my reasoning, but I would someday love to become part of an open discussion of the issues involved, so I remain open.

 

[Foxfyre]

Live and let live. Not a hard policy to follow.

Yes, allowing the fundamenalist Christian to be who and what he is, allowing the more pragmatic historical Christian to be who and what he is, allowing the Jew to be who and what he is, allowing gay people to be who and what they are, allowing the traditionalist marriage heterosexual types to be who and what they are, and understanding that because they all come from a different place, they are not inherently evil or have evil motives--that is live and let live.

Not sure it is not a hard policy to follow though as so many here don't seem to be able to do that.

Being a member of the "traditional marriage heterosexual types" group....I can speak first hand to the fact that we have never....not for a moment...been denied the opportunity to be who and what we are. This is where you go off the rail.

Two people who love each other get married......and it victimizes you somehow. Right?

Nope, and by your post you demonstrate that you don't have a clue what I was talking about. I have not once claimed to be a 'victim' nor have I used that as an argument in this debate. But several on your side seem to believe that gay people are victimized if the definition of marriage is not changed.

When you can frame your argument with a rationale that does not demonize or condemn those who disagree with you, then we can continue this discussion. Until then, do have a great day.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Ok, I am not intending to derail the thread, but just a few thoughts.

When discussing whether homosexuality and whether it is nature or nurture, I often run across people that make the statement "who would choose to live that way", or "why would I choose to live this way". In either case, those phrases are sad to see.

That does not compelled me to change my mind on what homosexuality is, it simply makes me want to know the reasoning that it exists. It could indeed be a genetic issue that would make the statement true, but many with differing forms of OCD would make the same statement. So, six of one, half a dozen of the other.

As stated many times before, homosexuality does not seem to make much sense in the natural order of things. As a species, for the species to exist at all, heterosexuality must exist. The same is not true for homosexuality. That being said, humans elected to form societies and governments to protect us, so there must be a place for those who do not reproduce. They should be valued for what they are in the present, not just what they supply to the future.

This being said, true homosexuals benefit in this society to a far greater extent (especially if we allow homosexuals to be comfortable with who they are), than heterosexuals benefit from Homosexuals.

As an example, as a homosexual ages, they rely on the fact that heterosexuals reproduce. They benefit that a heterosexual created taxpayers that help fund their social security. A aging heterosexual does not get that benefit from homosexuality. True, a homosexual could raise children that become taxpayers, but a true homosexual will not create the taxpayer through homosexual activity.

The argument could be made that a homosexual could be an egg or sperm donor, but it is the male / female component of the procedure that creates the offspring, not the homosexual aspect.

If homosexuality is genetic, even sperm and egg donation needs to be extremely transparent (this my argument for a more transparent and tolerance of homosexuality). If homosexuality is a genetic condition, then those donating should be required to declare their sexuality, or at the very least declare that they are uncertain so that those seeking a donation are well aware as to the chance they could be passing the trait to future generations. If we insist in a society that forces gays to stay in the closet the chances of deceit increases.

If homosexuality is not genetic, if it is not something a person is born with, we should actively research what causes it and whether or not there is the possibility of therapy.

Ok, the above is my opinion on several aspects of the debate. Next time I stay at a Holiday Inn Express........

There is some pretty disturbing stuff in there. Do you know that, or does it need to be pointed out to you?

Please point it out. If my opinion is disturbing I want to examine that and respond. I think there's plenty in my opinion to be attacked by both the left and the right.

1. Gay people would not have to ask " why would I want to live this way" if they were not discriminated against by others. That is what that question refers to and THAT is why it is sad. It is not because homosexual people look at their orientation as an affliction of some kind....like OCD.

2. It is physically possible for a gay man to have sex with a gay woman and produce offspring. And.....should the need arise....they will. As long as a sufficient number of the babies born in the world are boys and a sufficient number are girls....the procreation part will take care of itself.

3.That whole idea about how we benefit from producing taxpayers was just a little weird. Homosexual men are males. Homosexual women are females. There is no "homosexual aspect" to the joining of sperm and egg.

4. Then...you went and suggested, if homosexuality is genetic ( as if that is still undecided ) that we need to have sperm donors declare their sexuality so people know that a gay person is the donor. You therefore suggest that if a gay dude donates spermatozoa......the resulting offspring will be gay. That is disturbingly inaccurate.

5. Is there deceit when it comes to sperm donors? Is there a conspiracy of some kind?

6. Therapy?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yes, allowing the fundamenalist Christian to be who and what he is, allowing the more pragmatic historical Christian to be who and what he is, allowing the Jew to be who and what he is, allowing gay people to be who and what they are, allowing the traditionalist marriage heterosexual types to be who and what they are, and understanding that because they all come from a different place, they are not inherently evil or have evil motives--that is live and let live.

Not sure it is not a hard policy to follow though as so many here don't seem to be able to do that.

Being a member of the "traditional marriage heterosexual types" group....I can speak first hand to the fact that we have never....not for a moment...been denied the opportunity to be who and what we are. This is where you go off the rail.

Two people who love each other get married......and it victimizes you somehow. Right?

Nope, and by your post you demonstrate that you don't have a clue what I was talking about. I have not once claimed to be a 'victim' nor have I used that as an argument in this debate. But several on your side seem to believe that gay people are victimized if the definition of marriage is not changed.

When you can frame your argument with a rationale that does not demonize or condemn those who disagree with you, then we can continue this discussion. Until then, do have a great day.

Have I demonized you? Have I Condemned you? Please explain.

Thanks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When I was teenager 16-18 I was constantly being approached by gay guys so I thought they could somehow sense that I was gay even though I was sure I was not. That worried the hell out of me.

Took me awhile to feel comfortable around gay men but after working with a lot of them I found out they are just like everyone else and now I simply don't care.

I always thought it was natures way of implementing population control since it has always occurred

Aww.

It took me about 36 seconds to figure that out. Does that make me smart, or does it just prove that you learned to hide your bigotry when it helps you?

 

[Coyote]

Thread has been partially cleaned and re-opened.

Politics is Zone 2 - this means that flames must include content related to the subject of discussion. I realize this is a hot issue, but please remember that

Further derailments and drive-by flames will be dealt with on a case by case basis.

 

[Pop23]

There is some pretty disturbing stuff in there. Do you know that, or does it need to be pointed out to you?

Please point it out. If my opinion is disturbing I want to examine that and respond. I think there's plenty in my opinion to be attacked by both the left and the right.

1. Gay people would not have to ask " why would I want to live this way" if they were not discriminated against by others. That is what that question refers to and THAT is why it is sad. It is not because homosexual people look at their orientation as an affliction of some kind....like OCD.

2. It is physically possible for a gay man to have sex with a gay woman and produce offspring. And.....should the need arise....they will. As long as a sufficient number of the babies born in the world are boys and a sufficient number are girls....the procreation part will take care of itself.

3.That whole idea about how we benefit from producing taxpayers was just a little weird. Homosexual men are males. Homosexual women are females. There is no "homosexual aspect" to the joining of sperm and egg.

4. Then...you went and suggested, if homosexuality is genetic ( as if that is still undecided ) that we need to have sperm donors declare their sexuality so people know that a gay person is the donor. You therefore suggest that if a gay dude donates spermatozoa......the resulting offspring will be gay. That is disturbingly inaccurate.

5. Is there deceit when it comes to sperm donors? Is there a conspiracy of some kind?

6. Therapy?

1. Why do you think we disagree on this? We don't, I simply think it's sad that they feel this way. But I also stated that those with OCD respond the same.

2. What would the need have to do with it, that's confusing

3. Not weird at all. Homosexuals prefer same sex relationships. They do not procreate within those relationships, that is exclusive to heterosexuals

4. I never suggested it destined an offspring to be gay, it may, pass the genes down the line. I see no benefit in less than full disclosure.

5. There could be, and that should be minimized. Do you disagree in full disclosure? Why?

6. If it is not genetic than we should look into the possibility.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Please point it out. If my opinion is disturbing I want to examine that and respond. I think there's plenty in my opinion to be attacked by both the left and the right.

1. Gay people would not have to ask " why would I want to live this way" if they were not discriminated against by others. That is what that question refers to and THAT is why it is sad. It is not because homosexual people look at their orientation as an affliction of some kind....like OCD.

2. It is physically possible for a gay man to have sex with a gay woman and produce offspring. And.....should the need arise....they will. As long as a sufficient number of the babies born in the world are boys and a sufficient number are girls....the procreation part will take care of itself.

3.That whole idea about how we benefit from producing taxpayers was just a little weird. Homosexual men are males. Homosexual women are females. There is no "homosexual aspect" to the joining of sperm and egg.

4. Then...you went and suggested, if homosexuality is genetic ( as if that is still undecided ) that we need to have sperm donors declare their sexuality so people know that a gay person is the donor. You therefore suggest that if a gay dude donates spermatozoa......the resulting offspring will be gay. That is disturbingly inaccurate.

5. Is there deceit when it comes to sperm donors? Is there a conspiracy of some kind?

6. Therapy?

1. Why do you think we disagree on this? We don't, I simply think it's sad that they feel this way. But I also stated that those with OCD respond the same.

2. What would the need have to do with it, that's confusing

3. Not weird at all. Homosexuals prefer same sex relationships. They do not procreate within those relationships, that is exclusive to heterosexuals

4. I never suggested it destined an offspring to be gay, it may, pass the genes down the line. I see no benefit in less than full disclosure.

5. There could be, and that should be minimized. Do you disagree in full disclosure? Why?

6. If it is not genetic than we should look into the possibility.

Are you as bored by this as I am at this point? Disturbing may have been a poor word choice. I may have gotten a vibe that wasn't there. Maybe I should have used questionable.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Here's the problem as I see it: The minute an issue becomes politicized, it's immediately broken down to its most simplistic level - "dumbed down", as you call it. Nuance is tossed out, everything becomes binary. And then comes the traditional deflection, distortion, straw men, hyperbole, outright lies and name-calling, and the conversation becomes nothing more than professional wrestling for political geeks.

This thread has some interesting posts, though, with some more conservative posters saying that they really don't care one way or the other about the topic, and even disagreeing with the hardcore Christian guy.

Refreshing!

.

As I posted previously, I am pretty darn sure that MOST Christians don't agree with the hardcore Christian guy. Nor with the politically correct if-you-don't-see-it-our-way-you-are-racist-homophobic-bigoted-scum-who-want-to-deny-equal-rights-to-gays crowd. But between the two of them, rational discussion seems pretty unlikely.

This is great. You said most Christians don't agree with the hardcore Christian guy. Pertaining to what, exactly? They agree, as you do, that gay people should not be permitted to get married.

When it comes to a discussion of homosexuality, is that not one of the points of disagreement? Along with whether or not homosexuals are "born that way" and whether or not they are sinners on the way to hell if they decide to follow their libido.

Then, you say that most Christians also do not agree with the politically correct if-you-don't-see-it-our-way-you-are-racist-homophobic-bigoted-scum-who-want-to-deny-equal-rights-to-gays crowd.

That is interesting. Don't you think?

Now....let me try and understand, once again, where you are coming from on the marriage issue.

You think gay people are fine....and should be treated with respect and dignity as others are. Gay Americans ought not be discriminated against. You have neighbors who are gay and you like them just fine.

But........you think that if we allow gay people to marry, it is going to make your marriage less traditional.....less special....less.......something. So...it is better if we come up with another....separate but equal......thing for these good people to do instead of get married.

Is that it? Have I got the gist of it?

Finally, I would like to know....in fifty words or less....where you fall on the other two issues that divide here. Are gay people born gay.........and are they going to hell if they do the nasty in their beds....or cars.....or living rooms?

PS...why did you throw the word "racist" into the description for those who disagree with you on this issue? Is it mandatory?

Did I miss the reply to this?