Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
homosexuals are born a certain way. there's evidence of homosexuality in other species, not just humanity. it's not a choice, it's something
that's built into a person
sure, you can choose to commit a homosexual act as a heterosexual, but that's just being dishonest to yourself.
the vast majority of homosexuals fall into the category of people born that way.
We have 1 in 4 woman in school with STD's we have reports of as many as 40% of students saying they are Bi-sexual and I am sure Atheist will come up
with "Science" saying their is a "Bi" gene. I have seen NO evidence that suggests any part of the Human brain has a Homosexual gene or
chromosome. Telling me other species engage in aberrant sexual behavior proves nothing. Men often have Homosexual sex in prison and when they get
out, they go back to being straight. Call it evolution. Some people are born with no hearing, blind, some born with albinism so I know that much.
I just know I have never read anything to finally settle that question. I am not saying you are wrong nor am I challenging you to try to prove me
wrong, in fact, I would appreciate any data you have read without further argument.
Next time you put words in my mouth to the effect that I said something about people born a certain way, then after you make the assertion, you then
call it ( me ) prejudice.
No madd I was NOT saying that, at all. I was referring to the days (the last days) where accusing someone of sin will be more risk to be ridiculed
then their would be risk for shame or rebuke by the sinner for engaging in it. It was a general statement. The state we are born into is sin and
that means all of us.
calling the state someone is born into sinful is prejudice
Having explained,, that no longer applies,, if it ever did.
I'm not being dishonest.
You said that homosexuality is sinful and that people are taking a risk by displaying their prejudice against homosexuality.
No I did NOT and again I will ask you to quit adding context to my statements in addition to putting words in my mouth.
I see you do this all the time and YES, it is DISHONEST. The fact that you continue to sneak words and meanings I have never said is something all of
us are getting very tired of. Most of the time you sneak it past people, but you will not with me. See Below Madds attempt to do it again:
"and that people are taking a risk by "displaying their prejudice against homosexuality".
Again, to clarify for the readers who you have just tried to bamboozle, they risk being ridiculed for making the charge, against a sinner. I never
said anything about displaying their prejudice against homosexuality, so if you are going to quote me, fine, just don't add your own spin to it
because you continue to use that tactic since UI have seen your first posts and can already predict your denial for it as I type where I am already
digging up all the many, I am willing to show in rotation. I like using that method because when you seem them all go by one after another, you also
see the method of obfuscation, mis-representation, circular semantic switching etc.
the pattern becomes easier to recognise in future posts and yours, like wraoth and many others are begining to see, I too, have developed a keen eye
for seeing them and will not hesitate correcting them and exploiting the intended dis-honesty for doing it.
All you have tried to do is force the comment to mean anyone calling that particular sin, what it is, is actually displaying prejudice and that THAT
is the risk because as everyone knows,, nobody wants to be told they are "prejudice" .
In my case, I could care less what YOUR opinion is or why YOU are more shocked at my disbelief that a Pedophile would seek the ACLU's assistance
rather then why I could care less about his "freedom to express his homosexual pedophilia".
To me it isn't important. To me, what is important, is that kind of sick perversion has people like you defending his right to speak about it in the
context he wants to further Nambla's agenda. To even give that kind of voice a platform is ludicrous and with members of NAMBLA, you can bet your
&$$^# I am not only prejudice, I AM A BIGOT. Homosexual Pedophilia disgusts me. Don't reply with "but I didnt say pedophila" because it, like every
sin we are talking about, has now become too taboo to tell those engaged in it, they are wrong.
The murdering of children still in their mothers womb, DISGUSTS ME. That some people can do that with the frame of mind that it is no differen't then
flushing a goldfish down the toilet, troubles me a great deal. Freeborn mentioned that I was well intended and passionate about my beliefs and I can
tell him that they weren't always my beliefs. That the more I study Jesus teachings the more my heart changes and am more sensitive to the things
that were not over the line before. The more I allow to go over the line,, the more accepting I get the more desensitized I get to things that
always lead down a path to more depravity and destruction.
If you want to call my being against it, prejudice, or my being against the Atheists semantics agenda re-naming it "pro-choice" a prejudice, let me
be the first to tell you,,, Ya THINK!
Their are some prejudice I have that I feel are not only PERFECTLY normal and justified but are so much, that I am suspicious of people who would
question them at all. The pendulum of life never swings to the what is best foir the greater good or to what is normal but to extremes and whether
they are Religious extremes or sexual preferences and the rights to express them. The common sense as to when some of those are already in the
extreme zone is well passed the idea they should even be heard let alone defended using tax dollars to defend it.
If Atheists want to test the limits of free speech continuing their efforts to change history and meanings such as church and state to where the
Religious person is kept out of politics because people like YOU arte to scared to vote for them merely because they believe in GOD, is the very
reason I WILL vote for them. That it isn't about freedom FROM religion but freedom OF relgion.
What it looks like is when the government pays for a state park and installs a softball field. If Softball were a religion, Atheists would protest my
right to play just because they don't play softball.
They don't like it they don't believe in it and are offended by it blah blah blah. They would get together and book hours of each day and every hour
booked kids that want to play would sit there watching an empty field with no one playing. They would get on the field and start playing but get
kicked off because the Atheists are so un-interested in playing they are so uninvolved that they have a right to express their un-interest and their
non play. I mean after all we all learned the game from our Dads but we weren't born that way. Little by little the Atheists have done to the
Constitution what they would to the softball game chipping away at it till the hours of daylight play were all booked up and we would see the
emptyness of a field no one is playing on as there right to NOT play, like they have a right to NOT believe.
To me the Atheists agenda to remove GOD from our language from Government is more then obvious. You still got 50 states with their own preamble to
their own constitutions which all refer to God in the very begining. I see they are working on those now too. Not long the Atheists will re-write the
history of those too like they are everything else we see now as people and events that go from historical people and events to mythical fables that
never happened like the holocaust to people that never existed like Jesus.
Atheist are not going to get away with this unscathed I can tell you that. They are NOT under the radar anymore and what they are doing, saying and
the liquid linguistic language of legion is the kind of cryptic crap we are all becoming aware of.
i really don't...
in fact, i tend to only use it when it's necessary.
It is never necessary
i asked you to show me how it hurts people
you just repeated an assertion and then made a bigger one
No you didn't ask me, you asked whammy. I offered a general opinion but if whammy hasn't already answered, I will offer mine .
Do you have any evidence to demonstrate that it's simply a choice that people make?
The same Kinsey study also produced other evidence that can not be explained in terms of biological determinism, but would readily support the
idea that choice is involved in sexual orientation and behavior:
• 74% of their gays admitted to having been sexually aroused by a female and 80% of lesbians said that they had been sexually aroused by a
• 19% of their gays and 38% of lesbians had been heterosexually married;
• 20% of gays, 5% of heterosexual men, 7% of lesbians and no heterosexual women had had sex with animals.
Consistent with these results, the Family Research Institute (FRI) 10 conducted a nationwide random survey of 4,340 adults drawn from 5 U.S. cities in
1983 and found:
• 82% of those currently lesbian and 66% of those currently gay said that they had been in love with someone of the opposite sex;
• 88% of lesbians and 73% of gays had been sexually aroused by someone of the opposite sex;
• 67% of lesbians and 54% of gays reported current sexual attraction to the opposite sex;
• 85% of lesbians and 54% of gays, as adults, had sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex;
• 32% of gays and 47% of lesbians had been heterosexually married; and
• 17% of gays, 3% of heterosexual men, 10% of lesbians and 1% of heterosexual women reported sex with animals.
These are the kinds of sexual choices one would expect from the sexually adventurous or confused. Unless Dr. Isay and his supporters are willing to
believe that people are "born" to fall in love, get married or to have sex with animals, some measure of choice, rather than biological
inevitability, must have been involved.
The ability to change explains the FRI findings that:
• Overall, 7.8% of women and 12% of men claimed to have been homosexually aroused at some point in their life. Yet 59% of the once
homosexually aroused women and 51% of the once homosexually aroused men were currently heterosexual;
• 5.1% of the women and 9.4% of the men admitted to at least one homosexual partner. Of these, only 58% of the women and 61% of the men
were currently gay;
• 4.1% of women and 5.8% of men reported that they had, at least once, been "in homosexual love." Yet only 66% of those who had fallen
in love with a member of the same sex were currently gay; and
• almost a third of those who admitted to homosexual relations in adulthood were now heterosexual.
People Can Change
Where is the "biological inevitability" or "immutability" in these findings? The evidence suggests that people can modify their sexual tastes. The
FRI survey in Dallas, similar to the Kinsey survey in San Francisco, found that 1% of heterosexual females and 3% of heterosexual males at one time
considered themselves homosexual (i.e., were ex-gay when interviewed).
And a survey of 50 wives who had no homosexual experiences or interests up to age 30, but who participated in homosexual sex acts as part of
"swinging" (where married people swap partners) reported that all of these women eventually considered themselves to be bisexual.
These are among the findings that seriously challenge the claim that sexual orientation is predetermined before or after birth, or even that it is
permanently fixed in adulthood.
What is at Stake?
If sexual orientation is actually a matter of choice like drug use, we can expect that more of our youth will try homosexuality the more that it is
tolerated and encouraged. Along these lines, Dr. Christopher Hewitt's analysis of the frequency of homosexuality in various societies is summarized
in the Table: societies that accept homosexuality have more of it and those that disapprove of and punish it have considerably less of it
...so it's ok to criticize people for things they're born with
There you go again, quit trying to paint my argument in a corner where I am "displaying prejudice"
Could you be more specific?
oh dear noodley lord, you're actually going to compare homosexuality to a mental illness?
Madd! Is this a game to you?? Are you just trying to aggravate people or can you NOT argue a topic, without resorting to superimposing your own
discontextual embellished exaggeration? If I have to respond to you as if you were a 6 year old, to get you to understand, I will certainly try, but
I find it a little hard to believe that you would think I was suggesting such a thing as being Gay a mental Illness.
Not two paragraphs up I had to instruct you once again, that it is not MY position, such genetic, bio-chemical factors have anything to do with being
gay, but that it is YOURS!
Furthermore, if you could concentrate on the central message of my post, rather than look for angles you can setup straw men or infuse your agenda
into the context of my post by miss representing me.
You just might find people would not seem so much like Bigots to you. Most will not catch your little twists and they get angry not knowing what it
is about you. They just cannot put their finger on it; all they know is your just too much exercise.
I CAN and I catch you, all the time and Wraoth has 100% of the time. You are either doing this because you think it is cute, OR you are having
problems following. Here is what I said.
" Having said that, being Born that way, if that is how you want to argue it, has nothing to do with it. You are the one saying this.
You are even suggesting I am calling it a mental illness goes right to the premise of my statement that is what is wrong with so called what??
"Brain disorders"comma "syndromes" comma "so called diseases" et-cetera, et-cetera, et-tedious cetera.
I see excuse for "restless leg syndrome" and all these new three letter acronyms for this disorder that complex this simplex and I am skeptical
about much of what they say about the so-called "Gay Brain" especially when the arguments for your assertion that it is genetic, is the same one
used by the Nambla members. That they would have the nerve to use such a study of so called science to Justify their right to access the sexual
depravity they desire with young boys, and NOT to use it to prove it is why they cannot be trusted.
If it is that strong an influence that they cannot help themselves and they are a victim to their own Body chemistry their own genetic design, then
perhaps we should fix them. Perhaps then MADD we can actually CRITICIZE something they were born with as a birth defect and,, I don't know,, cut it
out? You tell me. Oh, that might put Gays in a rather difficult spot then wouldn't it. Ok well back to square one and your next quote.
Well, comparing her to a regular thief is a bit prejudiced. Many kleptomaniacs do not even realize that they're stealing things at the time...
Madd,, did you NOT get the point or are you just being difficult? You get the point I am making but I think as usual that is the problem, so you add
superfuous details that aren't at issue and then refute the original point as if those added were part of the whole discussion.
Why? I can only assume that you have such a problem with ever having to say "good point" would just make you nauseous and as we have established,
being wrong is not an option.
Must you insist on being argumentative even when it is OBVIOUS I am not discussing the Advanced Psychology of klepto mania and am speaking
extemporaneously using it as an example.
The ONLY reason, you did that AGAIN is that it makes sense. You just can't let a thing like that get by without yet again splitting hairs so that
at LEAST you can be half right while creating yet another opportunity to impart the word "Prejudice"! .
Your constant obsession with dissecting your "opponents" post before you even give it a chance to speak to you is why you totally MISSED the point
in the next quote
And you're comparing apples to oranges, because homosexuality isn't inherently harmful and stealing an item is
Totally missed the point and No I am tired of re-direct
actually, it's just mean and quite possibly the worst way to deal with an alcoholic.
Madd I can think of a thousand worse ways of dealing with an alcoholic but if they can't handle being told they are drunk when they are drunk, it
isn't the fault of society, me or anyone else. It is yours because you cannot seem to shut it off. LOSE the Semantics overdrive Madd it is
affecting your perception of what is critical to an argument and what is just plane ridiculous. I do not care if you call them Drunk, Impaired,
inebriated, hammered, wasted what ever. The Fact is you can't fix what you don't acknowledge, and playing pussy foot with people who have a problem
being called something that may shed a negative light on them, doesn't mean I have to find the perfect word as to not hurt their witto feewings but
GET THEM to hear what is THEY ARE. If they do not like it,, then they should not get DRUNK.
You know you could have just agreed rather then make a statement about "quite possibly" being the yadda yadda yadda.
Homosexual sex doesn't lead to fatalities (if you bring up AIDS, then heterosexual sex is just as dangerous)
Yes I will bring up the FACT that AIDS was spread like a wildfire by the Gay community where the statistics prove unequivocally absolutely by the CDC
a direct correlation to Aberrant gay sexual deviance and promiscuity that existed in the bath houses, sex in bars, quickies, in cars, men behind
I don't know any straight person who has died of Aids but I have personally known a hundred gay people that died of it.
(if you bring up AIDS, then heterosexual sex is just as dangerous)
Dead wrong my friend and I would again, suggest using that phrase in the most plausibly rational context below
Not "IS" just as dangerous but "Can be" just as dangerous.
Statistically however, your safest bet is the woman or man you stayed faithfully married to.
Believe it or not,, heterosexual married sex has benefits
Has Richter scale orgasms and
[edit on 10-4-2008 by Conspiriology]