Truth - the New Hate Speech

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I'll humour you a while Sonship, but you'll need to come up with a more thoughtful example than that, and elaborate perhaps on your earlier statement that gay people were pretending to be so.

The conciseness of your post though is acknowledged and appreciated.

The point is that " I was born this way " can be argued for many things which we should not act out.

Civilization occurs where people restrain themselves in areas where they may have been born with an impulse that should be under self control.

I am happily married for over 35 years. I was BORN, however, with an innate impulse to have as many women as I want.
I don't (by God's mercy) give in to that impulse under the excuse that I was born that way without a choice.

Should we give in to every impulse that we were born with?

Originally posted by King Tiger
You claim to be a Christian, right? Why then is your self-described title the 'near genius'. I'm assuming it must be a joke?

I'm not accusing him of not being a programmer. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that. See no reason for him to lie.

You haven't been on here and dealing with him as long as I have. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well given that you know about epigentics, it really shouldn't.

[b]You as a computer programmer should not pretend to know a hundredth of what I know in my very own field.
There is no pretending at all. I do know a little about genetics, and have made no claims beyond what I do know. I have no idea how it compares to what you know, nor made claims ...[text shortened]... really really really assuming that Ghost of Duke meant 'genetics' when he said 'born that way'?[/b]

As I often say: ASSUME makes an ASS of U and ME 😏

Originally posted by lemon lime
I can't speak for all (or even most) Christians, because many of them have wisely chosen to keep their own counsel. And I can't blame many of them for being silent, because they either don't understand what has been happening or are protecting themselves from an increasingly litigious "court of public opinion".

When I first learned what the term 'homop ...[text shortened]... .



Truth - the New Hate Speech... the title of this thread pretty much says it all.

Since you seem to be quite confused and exhibiting symptoms thereof, the following is the definition of homophobia:

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

Originally posted by King Tiger

My own assertion was more a case of reverse reasoning. I am not of the opinion that people become gay as a result of social factors or early life exeriences etc. It therefore leads me to conclude that people are born gay. I don't see a third option. (Excluding the ridiculous).

I do see a third option actually-choice. Why are we so slow t ...[text shortened]... m curious to know, if you are willing, what those beliefs are that drive you to this conclusion?

I do see a third option actually-choice. Why are we so slow to consider we have free choice to choose in this regard yet we are so quick to give choice elsewhere (need I cite the abortion campaign? The right to choose etc).

Abortion? What a ridiculous example. Would you make the same argument to someone who claims to have been born with an aversion to the taste of black olives? That they should "own [their] choice"? Perhaps there is more than a little homophobia at work here.

Notice you failed to address the following the first time I posted it. It shows how untenable and poorly thought out your position is. One would think that more could be expected of someone who purports to being "am a MD and PhD and work[ing] in Neurogenetics".

I believe we all have a choice-to suggest we don't I feel fundamentally undermines our humanity. I actually find it far more respectful to say 'I chose to be gay' rather than 'I was born this way'. Own your choices and don't in some manner wear a badge of shame by seeking scientific validity.

Here your position seems to be that being gay (or more specifically, being sexually attracted to the same gender) is a definitely a choice rather than an orientation that a person is born with. On what do you base this? It doesn't seem that it can be based on your knowledge of genetics for as you posted earlier:

My point-to keep it short. We do not know the origin of most characteristics in the human genome. To say there is 'no gay gene' is as unsupportable and dumb as saying 'there is a gay gene'

As such, your position doesn't seem to be based upon your knowledge of genetics.

Originally posted by sonship
The point is that [b] " I was born this way " can be argued for many things which we should not act out.

Civilization occurs where people restrain themselves in areas where they may have been born with an impulse that should be under self control.

I am happily married for over 35 years. I was BORN, however, with an innate impulse to have as many ...[text shortened]... at way without a choice.

Should we give in to every impulse that we were born with?[/b]

The point is that " I was born this way " can be argued for many things which we should not act out.

Other than your interpretation of the bible, exactly why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to be in loving committed relationships like heterosexuals are?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you of the opinion that everyone in ancient Sparta and Greece was gay? Or are you telling porkies as usual?

I am saying it was a wide spread practice.

Why? Is it because the gay gene was wide spread?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]The point is that " I was born this way " can be argued for many things which we should not act out.

Other than your interpretation of the bible, exactly why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to be in loving committed relationships like heterosexuals are?[/b]

My concern is with the redefinition of marriage to be only about coupling of people.

Men can invent a kind of practice of having babies suck on their male nipples. But I don't think the term "breast feeding" should be redefined just for the sake of males who wish to do that.

My response would be that actually male "breast feeding" is impossible.
My reasoning is that marriage does not involve people coupling of the same sex.

They insist that it is called marriage because they wish to ram down everyone's throat that "You WILL regard us as normal. Or we will come after you with the strong arm of the law, fire you, imprison you, fine you, label you as hateful."

They demand that I agree.
I can love them as being created in the image of God like me, without agreeing with their desire to redefine marriage.

Originally posted by sonship
My concern is with the redefinition of marriage to be only about coupling of people.

Men can invent a kind of practice of having babies suck on their male nipples. But I don't think the term [b]"breast feeding" should be redefined just for the sake of males who wish to do that.

My response would be that actually male "breast feeding" is imposs ...[text shortened]... ted in the image of God like me, without agreeing with their desire to redefine marriage.[/b]

Here is the definition given in Wiki:

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.[

Doesn't seem that homosexuals are precluded from this definition.

Even if they were, you think it just to deny a group of people from being allowed to be in loving committed relationships because you don't like the idea of a word being redefined?

Edit: Prior to 1967, not all US states allowed interracial marriage. It's not hard to imagine that some of those who were opposed to interracial marriage also looked upon that as a "redefinition" of marriage. Do you similarly see that as sufficient reason to deny interracial marriages?

I can’t comment on such things as genetic predispositions. But, I often wonder how heterosexual people who claim that homosexuality is a choice, chose to be heterosexual rather than homosexual themselves. What alternative urges, moral prescriptions and such did they consciously weigh in making the decision? I don’t recall ever receiving a direct answer.

I am wondering if anyone can cite any studies that show that homosexuals arrive at such conclusions (with regard to their sexuality) in ways that are demonstrably different from heterosexuals. There are no doubt observations to be had on the tails of any statistical distribution—but the question is whether the distribution itself is different for heterosexuals than for homosexuals.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Here is the definition given in Wiki:

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.[

Doesn't seem that homosexuals are precluded from this ...[text shortened]... ion" of marriage. Do you similarly see that as sufficient reason to deny interracial marriages?

God's Word says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Is wiki your God?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I do see a third option actually-choice. Why are we so slow to consider we have free choice to choose in this regard yet we are so quick to give choice elsewhere (need I cite the abortion campaign? The right to choose etc).

Abortion? What a ridiculous example. Would you make the same argument to someone who claims to have been born with an avers ...[text shortened]... /b]

As such, your position doesn't seem to be based upon your knowledge of genetics. [/quote][/b]

Abortion? What a ridiculous example. Would you make the same argument to someone who claims to have been born with an aversion to the taste of black olives?

ThinkOfOne,

Before you come at me, you need to carefully consider what I said. Does it really sound like to you that I made an argument? I did not. Rather, I raised a rhetorical question which I think is a valid question that ought to be answered. I did not suggest they are the same or even similar. My simple point is this-often individuals will grant the right to choose to women yet on the flip side argue choice has nothing to do with sexual orientation. My simple point was, 'do we need to be consistent here?' I'm not suggesting they need to be, but simply raising the point that it is not unusual for many holding the view that it isn't a choice regarding sexual orientation but it is choice in so many other regards. In other words, I feel the burden of proof is on them to convince me why it should be choice here and not choice there.

Now, yes. They are not the same and nor are they really similar if you truly believe sexual orientation is a product of genetics. However, the choice to have an abortion can be a product of nurture certainly. Therefore, if sexual orientation is only a product of nurture then it has more in common with choice regarding right to life or abortion in my view then many would perhaps care to admit (Such as yourself perhaps? You did call it a stupid example but I don't think you thought very deeply about my meaning). It's time that most of you on here realize when I post something it isn't the product of careless assertion. I'll hopefully rarely do that.

Interesting that you tried to slap the term 'homophobia' on me maybe? Ad hominum attack shows your true colors if that is what you are doing.

Interesting that I have not, at least in this thread, stated my views on homosexuality. I think you all are assuming that I must disagree with it. Yet, as I stated in my first post I was not here to argue whether it was right or wrong but rather address an issue I at the time believe ghost of duke either believed or could be understood to have believed. It wasn't clear. And it seems at least 1 if not more on this forum at least gained information from my post.

I think you are coming here to fight.

Notice you failed to address the following the first time I posted it. It shows how untenable and poorly thought out your position is..."

Is it possible that I might have other things to do then follow every post on this thread. I'm working on beating a 2200+ USCF player on here (he's a bit old and worn out now but still a solid player). That draws my attention more than you to be honest. I rarely frequent these forums precisely because of individuals like yourself who come at me asserting their own small minds. I don't care who you are or what you think of me no more than you care for me likely. What I will say is this. I will gladly discuss anything with anyone if they agree to put ego aside, give and take criticism graciously, and not be downright stupid about things or make things personal.

You make things personal real quick. As such, I will not respond to you as you simply aren't worth my time or attention.

If you don't like it. Get over it. Simple. I'l continue to talk to those who want to actually talk and I'll continue to play and beat chess players 500+ rating points over yours on here.

Cheers,

K.T.

Originally posted by sonship
The claim of the homosexual community includes. ie. "If homosexual marriage goes into law and adoption rights go into law, it won't have an impact on everyone else."

Cases around the globe where this clearly was not true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afDZPivGIo4

Gay marriage is just one more absurdity of the Kali Yuga.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I do see a third option actually-choice. Why are we so slow to consider we have free choice to choose in this regard yet we are so quick to give choice elsewhere (need I cite the abortion campaign? The right to choose etc).

Abortion? What a ridiculous example. Would you make the same argument to someone who claims to have been born with an avers ...[text shortened]... /b]

As such, your position doesn't seem to be based upon your knowledge of genetics. [/quote][/b]

Notice you failed to address the following the first time I posted it. It shows how untenable and poorly thought out your position is. One would think that more could be expected of someone who purports to being "am a MD and PhD and work[ing] in Neurogenetics".

Now you've made yourself an idiot. Just because someone didn't respond to you doesn't show 'how untenable and poorly thought out [their] position is."

You are an idiot for claiming this. I guess you better respond to me to make sure your position isn't 'proven' untenable or poorly thought out....

🙄

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Doesn't seem that homosexuals are precluded from this definition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C'mon ToO. Don't you think already the dictionaries are being looked at for modificatopm to accommodate the trend?

Even if they were, you think it just to deny a group of people from being allowed to be in loving committed relationships because you don't like the idea of a word being redefined?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Does loving committed relationship have to come under the heading of being married ? You never asked yourself that?

So I'm a hateful bigot who forbids a loving committed relationship because I want marriage not to be tampered with in terms of the union of a male and a female ?

Anyway, the promise that "Oh you will not be effected. Why do you as a heterosexual care?" is turning out more and more to be an empty promise of not being effected.

The irony should be pointed out.
It is not a slippery slope logical fallacy. It is truly a slippery slope - period.


Edit: Prior to 1967, not all US states allowed interracial marriage. It's not hard to imagine that some of those who were opposed to interracial marriage also looked upon that as a "redefinition" of marriage. Do you similarly see that as sufficient reason to deny interracial marriages?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. the argument that Homosexual is the new Black I cannot buy.
There are no former Black people (not counting Michael Jackson).
But there are those coming out of the Homosexual life - "former gays".

Some similarities exist between the Civil Rights Movement and the Homosexual Movement. I don't think these constitute an exact parallel in all respects.

A G and a C do look somewhat the same. But they are not the same if you look closely.

Now someone suggested an experiment. Let nature decide. If you don't like the Bible, let nature tell us.

Put four traditional married couples alone on a island with the mans to survive.

Put two men on another island with the means to survive.
Put two woman on yet another island with the means to survive.

Come back in two hundred years and see who is left at each island.
Nature will tell us which one furthers human society and which ones die out.

Now we may allow same sex civil unions. But should the government promote them ? And I think when it gets down to it we will find that the promoters are doing so because of a "green thing" - money.

Married people spend more money. The economy is in shambles so encrease the number of ":married " people for the economic engine they provide. Doesn't matter who or what the marriage IS.

And I think the promotion of same sex marriage is also probably rooted in some form of over population control too. But I am looking more into that.

As a Christian I know the gay man or gay woman, like me, are created in the image of God and therefore bear that dignity. And Christ died for them as for any other sinner. I don't hate them.

Some aggressive ones are going to see to it that any disagreement with them is quickly labelled hate. And the strong arm of the law will be brought in to MAKE me disavowed any concept of homosexuality being abnormal.

Did you ever think something was just going against your conscience?