Are you born gay?

[glockmail]

Seems like a design that can be ruined isn't a perfect design, to me at least.

And if we truly have/had free will, how is supernatural slaughter of the defective consistent with it?

1. You may want to re-think your statement, as it is illogical and unreasonable, to me at least, probably to most.
2. You lost me on that. What?

 

[Emmett]

No!

 

[Joz]

If I remember correctly, God said he would harden Pharaoh's heart. Exodus 9:12, 10:20

Does that not mean God made his heart hard so he wouldn't listen?

No that does not mean that. It was more of a what the result would be, not what God would physically do.

God sent Pharaoh a warning. His response? "Who is this Lord that I should obey his voice?"
Pharaoh saw the mighty works of God yet he refused to obey God's command. Pharaoh was determined to have his own way & by refusing to acknowledge God, it blinded his mind & hardened his heart. Through his stubborness came plague after plague until he was forced to look upon his dead son.
Every willful rejection of God's will hardens the heart to understanding, making it more difficult to distinguish right from wrong. By this behavior, as we now see, man will definately reap which he himself has sown.

No, I don't. And before you ask, I'm opposed to abortion.

C-o-o-l.

 

[Annie]

Going way back to the thread. I think some are born gay, genetics. Not so many, maybe 1-5% of total pop. As evidenced on this board, there is a greater number in play, environmental/nurture if you will. It's become de rigour to be 'bi', assumed that we are both both.

 

[Yurt]

It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Therefore someone cannot have a genetic homosexual parent. Since traits are passed on through generations, it is clear that the “trait” of homosexuality is not passed on through generations, but is in fact a learned response. Further, since I have known several who have been homosexuals in college and then entered into a heterosexual long term relationship, it is clear that they made a poor choice during a less mature period in their lives.

One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman, as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual? Further, one would not assume that a heterosexual male would venture from his instincts and become, even temporarily, aroused by another male and choose a time and place for a relation. So why would one assume a homosexual would venture from his instinct for the purpose of insemination? Moreover, if this is how a variant of the species procreates, then where is the evidence to support this? Are there a large percentage of homosexuals, greater than the incidence of homosexuality as a whole, who can claim they have a genetic parent who is also homosexual?

A second argument against my theory is that homosexuals use artificial insemination to procreate. If that were true then homosexuality could never have existed before about 35 years ago.

A third argument against is that homosexuality is the result of some kind of mutation or gene interaction between male and female DNA. If this is so, would homosexuality be in fact a medical abnormality, such as a cleft palette or autism? If that is the case, then why do we have organized groups attempting to normalize and encourage homosexuality? Moreover, where is the scientific evidence to support this? Surely pro-gay groups would have found and exploited this evidence by now.

How is impotency passed on? How is a non-birthing trait passed on?

Seems to fit under the third, yet, we are dealing with human sexuality, something very sensative. We have no problem calling people who sleep with nine year olds perverts/sexual diseased deviants, well, in the western world (though this might be telling on how things genetically passed on). Those people are called predators and are usually treated when caught. In CA they now have programs to treat these people. In WA they spend millions of year to treat rapists and/or child molestors in order to "cure" them. Ok, went off track, sorry, dealt with this at work today. Anyhoooo....

I guess my question is this:

What would you call a man who has anal sex with his girlfriend/wife?

 

[glockmail]

Going way back to the thread. I think some are born gay, genetics. Not so many, maybe 1-5% of total pop. As evidenced on this board, there is a greater number in play, environmental/nurture if you will. It's become de rigour to be 'bi', assumed that we are both both.

I've heard that the current estimate of homosexuals in the general population is somewhere around 1 %, or slihtly more, not the 10% that was stated as fact for years. So the real issues are:
1. What percentage of gays are born that way? And if so,
2. by what mechanism? And if by defect, then
3. why is the condition encouraged by many in today's society?
4. and finally, why do so many encourage "normal" people to "turn" gay?

 

[glockmail]

How is impotency passed on? How is a non-birthing trait passed on?

....

I guess my question is this:

What would you call a man who has anal sex with his girlfriend/wife?

1. Perhaps they are birth defects. Impotency is treated as a disease and not encouraged by many in society.
2. I would call him a pervert. (Actually I have other terms as well, but I'm too polite to mention them.)

 

[Yurt]

1. Perhaps they are birth defects. Impotency is treated as a disease and not encouraged by many in society.
2. I would call him a pervert. (Actually I have other terms as well, but I'm too polite to mention them.)

1. Most likely true, which is why I said it probably fits with your option 3.

2. A pervert only? What do you call a man who does that to a man? It was very interesting your response, because it is the response I get from almost everyone I ask that question. Never the word "homo," rather, "well, he's just weird, or something..." The main thing about homosexuality is the ass banging. Reproduction, sure, without it, a people will not continue. It is the ass banging that is sick. That is what spreads the diseases that come with homosexuality. IMHO. I don't think oral is the same, else.... well, we'd all be in trouble........... It is the putting your God given reproductive tool inside an orafice that is for shit, excuse me, let me rephrase, it is for excreting garbage from the body. It is not a vagina, it is not a mouth. It is an anus. Diseases are spread through this sensative and unique region. Hence, at least biblically, homosexuality is wrong. As to propagating species, as you said, I don't doubt for a second that people thousands of years ago swung both ways. I mean come on, the romans, greeks, and the arab shieks and on down the line, it was not considered a "bad" thing back then. Think back to soddom and gomorrah (sp?).

IMHO

 

[The ClayTaurus]

1. You may want to re-think your statement, as it is illogical and unreasonable, to me at least, probably to most.

How is it illogical or unreasonable to believe that a perfect design is one which is indestructable? You are the one with the illogical, unreasonable position, claiming that God's design is perfect yet is easily compromised through free will and evil. That doesn't sound perfect to me in the slightest.

2. You lost me on that. What?

How is the slaughter of the defective consistent with our supposed free will? Would it not be a better excercise in free will to leave the defective so as to better discern the true believers?




Where is NT250? Does this count towards my arguing with the religious credits?

 

[nt250]

I'm always amazed, but never surprised, at how the politically correct, supposedly 'tolerant’ and ‘open minded' crowd, always uses ‘gay’ as an insult. And for merely presenting a valid argument.

It never surprises me. Liberals have absolutely no problem accusing conservatives and Republicans of being gay if it furthers some argument they have about how evil they are. They did it to Karl Rove during the reporter scandal. Remember that? There was some reporter, whose name I now forget, who also ran some kind of gay porn site. He went by two different names. He asked a question at a press conference and the next thing you knew it was all over the news.

He was gay. Karl Rove was his gay lover and that's how this guy managed to get day passes to Whitehouse press briefings. It was hysterical. They actually used the safety of the president to go after conservatives that time. Liberals have absolutely no shame at all. People who would throw a party if Bush caught a bullet between the eyes had no problem trashing a man like Karl Rove because ANYTHING they can do to stop a "neocon" is perfectly OK with them. So they claimed he is gay, and as we ALL know, gay people have no ethics what-so-ever. It was pathetic.

 

[nt250]

Whether people are born homosexual or not isn't really an issue. I don't care if people are born that way. I think it's obvious that some are. You can tell just by looking at them.

But this argument about nature or nuture is a perfect example of the hoops the gay rights movement jumps through to promote their agenda. When it suits their purposes, being gay is a born trait. Then they can compare themselves to blacks, and women, and other minorities and use that comparison to call anybody who disagrees with them bigots and homophobes.

If, however, the argument that gays are born that way does NOT help their cause, then they shift gears and go with the "culture" argument. It's very similiar to the "deaf community" who consider being deaf a "culture" unto itself and resent anyone who thinks being deaf is something that needs to be "fixed". These activists protest the Cochlear Implant and don't think the hearing parents of deaf children should have the right to "force" their deaf children to conform to the hearing world. The fact that they're nuts is beside the point. Gays want to be considered a minority whose behavior should be accepted by others because they're born that way. Until the idea that what's wrong with them can be "fixed". Then it's not genetic.

The closest comparison to gay rights is religious freedom and that, too, is an invalid argument. Gay rights is all about behavior and what gays believe the rest of the world should accept and celebrate about their behavior. The concept of religious freedom is not about behavior at all, it's about ideas and the freedom to believe and follow those ideas without being persecuted for them. While all religions have behaviors that are associated with the adherence of their rules, there is no religion that has ever demanded that those behaviors be accepted without question or the objection from society at large.

Only gays want that. And they are getting just that.

 

[Joz]

Whether people are born homosexual or not isn't really an issue.

No ,it isn't an issue, it is THE issue.

 

[nt250]

No ,it isn't an issue, it is THE issue.

It's the topic of this thread but it's not an issue for me because I don't give a shit if they're born that way or not.

 

[Bullypulpit]

It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Therefore someone cannot have a genetic homosexual parent. Since traits are passed on through generations, it is clear that the “trait” of homosexuality is not passed on through generations, but is in fact a learned response. Further, since I have known several who have been homosexuals in college and then entered into a heterosexual long term relationship, it is clear that they made a poor choice during a less mature period in their lives.

Your assertion is so patently absurd that it is laughable. Many gay men lead double lives...As apparently straight men...until they come to terms with their sexual orientation. As a result, many marry and have families, i.e. procreate. I ahve know several gay men who have gone this route and they have all plainly stated that it would have been far easier and far less painful for everyone involved to embrace their sexuality before they married. AS for the homosexuals you "knew", they were more likely bisexuals.

One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman, as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual? Further, one would not assume that a heterosexual male would venture from his instincts and become, even temporarily, aroused by another male and choose a time and place for a relation. So why would one assume a homosexual would venture from his instinct for the purpose of insemination? Moreover, if this is how a variant of the species procreates, then where is the evidence to support this? Are there a large percentage of homosexuals, greater than the incidence of homosexuality as a whole, who can claim they have a genetic parent who is also homosexual?

Men don't need to become "temporarily" anything to become sexually aroused. It's hard wired into us.

A second argument against my theory is that homosexuals use artificial insemination to procreate. If that were true then homosexuality could never have existed before about 35 years ago.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

A third argument against is that homosexuality is the result of some kind of mutation or gene interaction between male and female DNA. If this is so, would homosexuality be in fact a medical abnormality, such as a cleft palette or autism? If that is the case, then why do we have organized groups attempting to normalize and encourage homosexuality? Moreover, where is the scientific evidence to support this? Surely pro-gay groups would have found and exploited this evidence by now.

Gender preference is more than the sum of its parts, and genetic predisposition is but one of those parts. The complex synergy of all of the factrs that contribute to the development of a fetus, from conception to birth, all play a role in shaping gender preference.

 

[nt250]

Gender preference is more than the sum of its parts, and genetic predisposition is but one of those parts. The complex synergy of all of the factrs that contribute to the development of a fetus, from conception to birth, all play a role in shaping gender preference.

Nobody cares about another person gender preference. Gays shouldn't be harrassed, but they also shouldn't be advocating the celebration of their abnormal behaviors either.

Private sexual habits should remain just that, private. That goes for gays, hetrosexuals into S&M as long as it's consenual.

The rest of us really don't want to hear about it. I don't, anyway. I sure as hell don't want my kid reading about it in the first grade.

 

[manu1959]

was i born gay?



sadly yes......i am a lesbian trapped in a man's body

 

[glockmail]

..... I don't doubt for a second that people thousands of years ago swung both ways. I mean come on, the romans, greeks, and the arab shieks and on down the line, it was not considered a "bad" thing back then. .....

IMHO

I think, here too, that history has been re-written by the pro-gay agenda crowd. Homosexuality undoubtedly existed, but its glorification with regards to "main stream", IMO, is greatly exaggerated.

 

[glockmail]

How is it illogical or unreasonable to believe that a perfect design is one which is indestructable? You are the one with the illogical, unreasonable position, claiming that God's design is perfect yet is easily compromised through free will and evil. That doesn't sound perfect to me in the slightest.How is the slaughter of the defective consistent with our supposed free will? Would it not be a better excercise in free will to leave the defective so as to better discern the true believers?
.....

1. The very perfection of something can make it more delicate.
2. I give my children as much freedom as they can responsibly handle. If they go over the line I kick their their little asses. I belive God does the same, only with a much longer leash, and more dreadful consequences.

 

[dilloduck]

was i born gay?



sadly yes......i am a lesbian trapped in a man's body

I hear ya---I even pretended to be hetero so I could marry a woman and have a child. I feel so dirty.

 

[glockmail]

It never surprises me. Liberals have absolutely no problem accusing conservatives and Republicans of being gay if it furthers some argument they have about how evil they are. They did it to Karl Rove during the reporter scandal. Remember that? There was some reporter, whose name I now forget, who also ran some kind of gay porn site. He went by two different names. He asked a question at a press conference and the next thing you knew it was all over the news.

He was gay. Karl Rove was his gay lover and that's how this guy managed to get day passes to Whitehouse press briefings. It was hysterical. They actually used the safety of the president to go after conservatives that time. Liberals have absolutely no shame at all. People who would throw a party if Bush caught a bullet between the eyes had no problem trashing a man like Karl Rove because ANYTHING they can do to stop a "neocon" is perfectly OK with them. So they claimed he is gay, and as we ALL know, gay people have no ethics what-so-ever. It was pathetic.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to nt250 again.

Thanks for reminding us of that.