|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 17, 2023 23:06:24 GMT
Hateful expressions come in degrees. The very fact that the OP suggests homosexuals are, merely by being homosexuals, somehow "broken," is disgusting, bigoted nonsense. This is not rocket science, and you should not require something so basic to be explained to you. No. Just because somebody disagrees with something, does not make them hateful. What makes them hateful is repeating and spreading hateful claims and ideas.
This isn't rocket science. No one should have to explain something so basic to you.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 17, 2023 23:07:30 GMT
Hateful expressions come in degrees. The very fact that the OP suggests homosexuals are, merely by being homosexuals, somehow "broken," is disgusting, bigoted nonsense. This is not rocket science, and you should not require something so basic to be explained to you. Are you referring to me, or the guy in the video? Because I merely used the same title of the video for the thread heading. Those are not my own words. You obviously support those words as well as the garbage claim that your bigotry comes from the Bible. No, it comes from YOU.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 17, 2023 23:23:45 GMT
Yes, but I thought I was careful to make clear I was talking about a person's sexual orientation, NOT a person's actions. Would you care answer my question? Yes, so you did. Apologies. But I do not believe these people are born gay though. I believe in most cases psychological trauma and some other factors influence them to go down that road. It seems then that you agree that sexual orientation (whether from genetics, environment, or some complex interplay of the two) is NOT a matter of choice. With that in mind, I'll ask you the same question I asked Clusium. God (according to conventional Bible understanding) created a non-sinful arrangement for straight people to live and act according to their sexual orientation. That arrangement is marriage. But...God did not create a non-sinful arrangement for gay people to live and act according to THEIR sexual orientation. He could have granted them marriage (like other couples who won't conceive children), but He didn't. How is that not obviously unfair of God?
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 17, 2023 23:44:55 GMT
Yes, so you did. Apologies. But I do not believe these people are born gay though. I believe in most cases psychological trauma and some other factors influence them to go down that road. It seems then that you agree that sexual orientation (whether from genetics, environment, or some complex interplay of the two) is NOT a matter of choice. With that in mind, I'll ask you the same question I asked Clusium. God (according to conventional Bible understanding) created a non-sinful arrangement for straight people to live and act according to their sexual orientation. That arrangement is marriage. But...God did not create a non-sinful arrangement for gay people to live and act according to THEIR sexual orientation. He could have granted them marriage (like other couples who won't conceive children), but He didn't. How is that not obviously unfair of God? I didn’t say I agree that it isn’t a matter of choice. Imo it is a matter of choice, in the same way that an alcoholic or druggie chooses to practice that lifestyle which eventually leads to addiction. There is a reason heterosexual marriages are prescribed in the bible, it’s because they were created as part of God’s natural order. When practiced properly it is healthy. There is a reason homosexuality, theft and dishonesty are prohibited, it’s because they are ultimately not good for us or our neighbour.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 17, 2023 23:54:53 GMT
It seems then that you agree that sexual orientation (whether from genetics, environment, or some complex interplay of the two) is NOT a matter of choice. With that in mind, I'll ask you the same question I asked Clusium. God (according to conventional Bible understanding) created a non-sinful arrangement for straight people to live and act according to their sexual orientation. That arrangement is marriage. But...God did not create a non-sinful arrangement for gay people to live and act according to THEIR sexual orientation. He could have granted them marriage (like other couples who won't conceive children), but He didn't. How is that not obviously unfair of God? I didn’t say I agree that it isn’t a matter of choice. Imo it is a matter of choice So, you chose your sexual orientation, did you? You didn't know at some point in your life that you just were straight, you actually chose it. "What shall I be? Um...I think I'll be straight!" Remarkable.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 18, 2023 0:03:06 GMT
It seems then that you agree that sexual orientation (whether from genetics, environment, or some complex interplay of the two) is NOT a matter of choice. With that in mind, I'll ask you the same question I asked Clusium. God (according to conventional Bible understanding) created a non-sinful arrangement for straight people to live and act according to their sexual orientation. That arrangement is marriage. But...God did not create a non-sinful arrangement for gay people to live and act according to THEIR sexual orientation. He could have granted them marriage (like other couples who won't conceive children), but He didn't. How is that not obviously unfair of God? I didn’t say I agree that it isn’t a matter of choice. Imo it is a matter of choice, in the same way that an alcoholic or druggie chooses to practice that lifestyle which eventually leads to addiction. There is a reason heterosexual marriages are prescribed in the bible, it’s because they were created as part of God’s natural order. When practiced properly it is healthy. There is a reason homosexuality, theft and dishonesty are prohibited, it’s because they are ultimately not good for us or our neighbour. "There is a reason heterosexual marriages are prescribed in the bible" Probably because it was written by anciet nomadic desert people which archaic beliefs. The Bible also prescribes child marriage and slavery. "it’s because they were created as part of God’s natural order." That's just a presuposition, you would have to actually demonstrate God to be true first for this to be a valid argument. That would be like someone saying "Eating seafood is wrong because my belief in outerspace leprechauns commands so." It's a rather useless argument on it's own. "When practiced properly it is healthy." The same could be said for gay marriage and relationships. "There is a reason homosexuality, theft and dishonesty are prohibited, it’s because they are ultimately not good for us or our neighbour." Well let's see, theft is generally considered bad because you wouldn't want someone to steal from you, so you return that level of repriprocity to someone else. Dishonesty is generally considered bad for the same reason. Homosexuality is bad because...ancient nomads thought it was icky and gross? That's really about it.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 18, 2023 0:14:31 GMT
I didn’t say I agree that it isn’t a matter of choice. Imo it is a matter of choice So, you chose your sexual orientation, did you? You didn't know at some point in your life that you just were straight, you actually chose it. "What shall I be? Um...I think I'll be straight!" Remarkable. You keep being disingenuous, bro. I meant the homosexual orientation is a choice. It’s a complicated process with possibly a variety of factors that influence it, but so is gambling, alcoholism and drug addiction.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 18, 2023 0:33:33 GMT
So, you chose your sexual orientation, did you? You didn't know at some point in your life that you just were straight, you actually chose it. "What shall I be? Um...I think I'll be straight!" Remarkable. You keep being disingenuous, bro. I meant the homosexual orientation is a choice. So, straight people don't choose their sexual orientation. Just gay people do. Got it.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 18, 2023 1:13:27 GMT
I didn’t say I agree that it isn’t a matter of choice. Imo it is a matter of choice, in the same way that an alcoholic or druggie chooses to practice that lifestyle which eventually leads to addiction. There is a reason heterosexual marriages are prescribed in the bible, it’s because they were created as part of God’s natural order. When practiced properly it is healthy. There is a reason homosexuality, theft and dishonesty are prohibited, it’s because they are ultimately not good for us or our neighbour. No, the reason is because the main purpose of a marriage is for building a family and providing a stable environment for that family. This is what we’ve found been practiced in every human civilisation throughout history. Secular Psychology also recognises that men and women are psychologically & emotionally designed to compliment one another. In regard to the family, psychologists also contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Anatomically, men and women were clearly designed to fit together sexually. The “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation, and only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. So the bible, history, psychology and nature all favour heterosexual marriages and argue against gay marriage. I would disagree. Children need both fathers AND mothers. They also hunger for their biological parents. There are a myriad of other reasons why it’s logically a bad idea. I was thinking more along the lines of bad for society in general and has a negative impact overall. It’s anti-procreation. Doesn’t have the stability a traditional family does. Homosexuals have a higher incidence of infidelity and Mental health. Homosexuals have a shortened lifespan. Homosexuals have much higher incidence of domestic violence. Statistically far more child molestors are homosexual. Higher incidences of sexually transmitted diseases. Financial drain on society due to medical costs etc. The list goes on.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 18, 2023 1:16:45 GMT
You keep being disingenuous, bro. I meant the homosexual orientation is a choice. So, straight people don't choose their sexual orientation. Just gay people do. Got it. I believe we are all predisposed to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex. This makes sense even from an evolutionary perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 18, 2023 1:18:26 GMT
There is a reason heterosexual marriages are prescribed in the bible... One reason is homosexuals didn't need marriage until modern times. Marriage now has tax and legal advantages and may be required for some benefits. Heterosexual couples usually have children which brings a third party into the relationship so marriage was an ancient way of formalizing the relationship for the benefit of child rearing.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 18, 2023 1:37:59 GMT
So, straight people don't choose their sexual orientation. Just gay people do. Got it. I believe we are all predisposed to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex. This makes sense even from an evolutionary perspective. "Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed." www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/sexual-orientation"Humans aren't the only species that has same-sex pairings. For instance, female Japanese macaques may sometimes participate in energetic sexual stimulation. Lions, chimpanzees, bison and dolphins have also been spotted in same-sex pairings. And nearly 130 bird species have been observed engaging in sexual activities with same-sex partners. While the evolutionary purpose of this behavior is not clear, the fact that animals routinely exhibit same-sex behavior belies the notion that gay sex is a modern human innovation. No studies have found specific "gay genes" that reliably make someone gay. But some genes may make being gay likelier." www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html Look at actual science on the topic instead of disreputable cranks like the one on your video.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 18, 2023 1:43:06 GMT
I didn’t say I agree that it isn’t a matter of choice. Imo it is a matter of choice, in the same way that an alcoholic or druggie chooses to practice that lifestyle which eventually leads to addiction. There is a reason heterosexual marriages are prescribed in the bible, it’s because they were created as part of God’s natural order. When practiced properly it is healthy. There is a reason homosexuality, theft and dishonesty are prohibited, it’s because they are ultimately not good for us or our neighbour. "There is a reason heterosexual marriages are prescribed in the bible" Probably because it was written by ancient nomadic desert people which archaic beliefs. The Bible also prescribes child marriage and slavery."it’s because they were created as part of God’s natural order." That's just a presupposition, you would have to actually demonstrate God to be true first for this to be a valid argument. That would be like someone saying, "Eating seafood is wrong because my belief in outer space leprechauns commands so." It's a rather useless argument on its own."When practiced properly it is healthy." The same could be said for gay marriage and relationships. "There is a reason homosexuality, theft and dishonesty are prohibited, it’s because they are ultimately not good for us or our neighbour." Well let's see, theft is generally considered bad because you wouldn't want someone to steal from you, so you return that level of reciprocity to someone else. Dishonesty is generally considered bad for the same reason. Homosexuality is bad because...ancient nomads thought it was icky and gross? That's really about it. The OP presumes that all people accept the god of Christianity as the one and only GOD. Interesting, because there are a lot of other religions that have been practiced throughout human existence. And even within mainstream Christianity, there are countless denominations because no one can agree on every aspect of their belief. That's why it is about faith, because none of it can be scientifically proven as fact. We have secular laws. It is wrong to murder someone, to take their life from them. Everyone basically agrees on that. Those laws can be clarified and expanded to fit all circumstances of murder, and everyone within that country or government is to abide by that law. If they break that law, there is a consequence in the here-and-now.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 18, 2023 1:52:34 GMT
I believe we are all predisposed to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex. This makes sense even from an evolutionary perspective. "Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed." www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/sexual-orientation"Humans aren't the only species that has same-sex pairings. For instance, female Japanese macaques may sometimes participate in energetic sexual stimulation. Lions, chimpanzees, bison and dolphins have also been spotted in same-sex pairings. And nearly 130 bird species have been observed engaging in sexual activities with same-sex partners. While the evolutionary purpose of this behavior is not clear, the fact that animals routinely exhibit same-sex behavior belies the notion that gay sex is a modern human innovation. No studies have found specific "gay genes" that reliably make someone gay. But some genes may make being gay likelier."www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html Look at actual science on the topic instead of disreputable cranks like the one on your video. Bolded part is the only relevant bit IMO. The science is not conclusive at all on whether or not it’s a choice to be gay.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 18, 2023 1:57:03 GMT
"Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed." www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/sexual-orientation"Humans aren't the only species that has same-sex pairings. For instance, female Japanese macaques may sometimes participate in energetic sexual stimulation. Lions, chimpanzees, bison and dolphins have also been spotted in same-sex pairings. And nearly 130 bird species have been observed engaging in sexual activities with same-sex partners. While the evolutionary purpose of this behavior is not clear, the fact that animals routinely exhibit same-sex behavior belies the notion that gay sex is a modern human innovation. No studies have found specific "gay genes" that reliably make someone gay. But some genes may make being gay likelier."www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html Look at actual science on the topic instead of disreputable cranks like the one on your video. Bolded part is the only relevant bit IMO. The science is not conclusive at all on whether or not it’s a choice to be gay. If it's not conclusive, then how about offering a reputable source of scientific information asserting that gay people have chosen their sexual orientation.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 18, 2023 2:07:55 GMT
Bolded part is the only relevant bit IMO. The science is not conclusive at all on whether or not it’s a choice to be gay. If it's not conclusive, then how about offering a reputable source of scientific information asserting that gay people have chosen their sexual orientation. I don’t see why I need to tbh. If science hasn’t determined unequivocally that being gay is innate and not a choice then it’s simply not conclusive. You’re basically making an argument from silence.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 18, 2023 2:11:29 GMT
If it's not conclusive, then how about offering a reputable source of scientific information asserting that gay people have chosen their sexual orientation. I don’t see why I need to tbh. If science hasn’t determined unequivocally that being gay is innate and not a choice then it’s simply not conclusive. You’re basically making an argument from silence. In the world of science, there is no debate on the point. No reputable scientific voice argues that people, gay or straight, choose their sexual orientation.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 18, 2023 2:18:06 GMT
I don’t see why I need to tbh. If science hasn’t determined unequivocally that being gay is innate and not a choice then it’s simply not conclusive. You’re basically making an argument from silence. In the world of science, there is no debate on the point. No reputable scientific voice argues that people, gay or straight, choose their sexual orientation. “”“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”” - American Psychological Association
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 18, 2023 2:30:19 GMT
In the world of science, there is no debate on the point. No reputable scientific voice argues that people, gay or straight, choose their sexual orientation. “”“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”” - American Psychological Association"No consensus among scientists about the exact reasons". But there IS consensus as far as what can be eliminated. From that same American Psychological Association, which I already quoted for you: "psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice".
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 18, 2023 3:32:28 GMT
No, the reason is because the main purpose of a marriage is for building a family and providing a stable environment for that family. This is what we’ve found been practiced in every human civilisation throughout history. Secular Psychology also recognises that men and women are psychologically & emotionally designed to compliment one another. In regard to the family, psychologists also contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Anatomically, men and women were clearly designed to fit together sexually. The “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation, and only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. So the bible, history, psychology and nature all favour heterosexual marriages and argue against gay marriage. I would disagree. Children need both fathers AND mothers. They also hunger for their biological parents. There are a myriad of other reasons why it’s logically a bad idea. I was thinking more along the lines of bad for society in general and has a negative impact overall. It’s anti-procreation. Doesn’t have the stability a traditional family does. Homosexuals have a higher incidence of infidelity and Mental health. Homosexuals have a shortened lifespan. Homosexuals have much higher incidence of domestic violence. Statistically far more child molestors are homosexual. Higher incidences of sexually transmitted diseases. Financial drain on society due to medical costs etc. The list goes on. OK so instead of one good argument, you decided to bombard me with a bunch of bad ones. Well let's go through these one at a time: "No, the reason is because the main purpose of a marriage is for building a family and providing a stable environment for that family." Then by your reasoning, infertile women shouldn't get married. Is that what you're going with? This is what we’ve found been practiced in every human civilisation throughout history. That's actually rather debateable (there have been completely different family structures throughout past civilizations). Even if it were, it wouldn't really matter, this is just an appeal to tradition fallacy (rape and slavery was also widely accepted for a long time, so this is a moot argument) "Secular Psychology also recognises that men and women are psychologically & emotionally designed to compliment one another." Even if that were true (I'd have to look into it), that has nothing to do with whether or no homosexuality is harmful, so this is just a red herring. "In regard to the family, psychologists also contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children" Then why is it when I did a simple 5 second Google search, none of the studies by actual pyschologists reaffrimed what you claim? This is probably the part where you intentionally misrepresent data and compare the outcomes of children from single parent households to two parent households and then I respond by stating that's because two parent households benefit from double incomes (its easier to raise a child when you have more money), it has nothing to do with mother/father pairing. Are you gonna go ahead and waste my time with that one anyways? "Anatomically, men and women were clearly designed to fit together sexually." This is just an appeal to nature fallacy. And again this has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is harmful "So the bible, history, psychology and nature all favour heterosexual marriages and argue against gay marriage." If that were true, then why do psychologist no longer label homosexuality as a mental disorder and there is no actual valid psycholgical studies that demonstrate male/female couples are better parents? Do you know you're lying? On some level I feel like you have to be. The fact that you seriously think the field of psychology is on your side is laughable. "I would disagree." I know because you have a feelings based world view, the concept of empiricism doesn't really seem matter to you. "Children need both fathers AND mothers." Cite me one actual study that proves this. And by that I mean an actual peer reviewed study and not something cobbled together by some Christian fundamnetalist hack. "They also hunger for their biological parents" Then by that your reasoning straight couples shouldn't adopt either. Is that what you're going with? "It’s anti-procreation." Then again by your reasoning, infertile men and women shouldn't date/marry. is that what you're going with? "Doesn’t have the stability a traditional family does." Actually if you bothered looking at the data, you would find this isn't the case. From wikipedia: Scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has found that children raised by same-sex couples are as physically or psychologically healthy, capable, and successful as those raised by opposite-sex couples,[1][2][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[2] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise. "Homosexuals have a shortened lifespan" Yes, but that's mainly because of the high suicide rate cause by depression, which is casued by being around bigots (aka people such as yourself) "Homosexuals have much higher incidence of domestic violence." Yes but again this is because of external social factors (male on male and female on female violence is more socially acceptable than male on female violence). This has nothing intrinsincly to do with homosexuality. "Statistically far more child molestors are homosexual." Nope, from SPL Center: According to the American Psychological Association, children are not more likely to be molested by LGBT parents or their LGBT friends or acquaintances. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men. Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships. "Higher incidences of sexually transmitted diseases." OK, well black men have higher rates of STDs than other racial groups, by your reasoning is that an argument against black people having sex or perhaps there's external factors you need to account for? "Financial drain on society due to medical costs etc" Do you have any data to back that up? Even if that were true, well guess what? Elderly people tend to be a financial drain on society (they can't work, rely on social security, medical costs are WAY higher than younger people) by your reasoning is that an argument against being old?
|
|