question about homosexuality

in your opinion are the gay people born that way or do they make a choice to be gay?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#527
#527
May have have been a poor choice of words and I am going to avoid arguing semantics at the moment. However, just seems like this conversation is heading down the slippery slope. Many people have appetites that they desire to act on but don't. I would also like to clarify that I am referring to bisexuality.
 
#528
#528
orangeslice13 said:
So your hatred for CDD and ff posting will be defined as good/poor behavior over the next few years?
Click to expand...

You make an incorrect assumption in saying I hate Derek Dooley. You got some proof? What is ff posting? I am sure I have quite a few poor behaviors, did I say I didn't?
 
#530
#530
orangeslice13 said:
ff=Football forum
Click to expand...

Nice try. But no where does that say I hate the guy. I hate he is the head of one of the few sports team I still care about. I assume he is doing the best he can thus I don't hate him. I hate that his best isn't good enough and that it resides at this university.
 
#531
#531
allvol123 said:
You make an incorrect assumption in saying I hate Derek Dooley. You got some proof? What is ff posting? I am sure I have quite a few poor behaviors, did I say I didn't?
Click to expand...

I can't find the best one. I once asked you in a pub thread "you still hate CDD?" And you said "is he still the coach at UT?"
 
#532
#532
orangeslice13 said:
I can't find the best one. I once asked you in a pub thread "you still hate CDD?" And you said "is he still the coach at UT?"
Click to expand...

Ok. Nevertheless, I don't honestly hate the man. In reality, it is a game, rather meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
 
#533
#533
I still don't see what the big deal is. Homosexuality isn't something special. It's just another way to get your rocks off. It's like jacking off into a sock.

To me, they don't get accorded any special considerations unavailable to any other groups. It's not a VIRTUE for a guy to get it on with a guy. It just IS. Homosexuals aren't somehow more evolved, or worthy of praise, than any other group.

If anything, the opposite is true.
 
#534
#534
Negateer said:
To me, they don't get accorded any special considerations unavailable to any other groups.

Homosexuals aren't somehow more evolved, or worthy of praise, than any other group.
Click to expand...

pretty sure no one has claimed either of these things. But don't let that stop you from making things up
 
#535
#535
Sure they have. They want to marry?

When will the polygamists get to marry 3 wives? They were born that way, right?. I don't see anyone screaming about that. As a matter of fact, I often hear gays talking down about Mormons and their history of polygamy, as if having multiple wives is more deviant that man on man butts3x.

...

Oh yes...they are wanting special rights, believe it.

As soon as two straight men can get married, I'll agree that gay men are being denied equal rights. But one thing I do not agree with, is granting special rights based on your sexual behavior.

Nope. No way. Never.
 
Last edited:
#536
#536
the argument has actually been pretty consistent- consenting adults should not be prevented from marrying. That actually negates all but one of your ridiculous examples (before your edit)

why are hetero couples the only ones granted "special" rights?
 
#537
#537
""'consenting adults should not be prevented from marrying"""

So, you agree that polygamy should be legal?

And what about loners? Shouldn't they be allowed to have the tax breaks afforded the married, without even marrying?

Hmm?

""'why are hetero couples the only ones granted "special" rights?"""

Which special rights? There is not one single law which applies only to heteros. All laws which apply to heteros, apply to everyone, regardless of sexuality.
 
#538
#538
Negateer said:
""'consenting adults should not be prevented from marrying"""

So, you agree that polygamy should be legal?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Negateer said:
And what about loners? Shouldn't they be allowed to have the tax breaks afforded the married, without even marrying?
Click to expand...

Yes, income tax rates should be level across the board.

Negateer said:
""'why are hetero couples the only ones granted "special" rights?"""

Which special rights? There is not one single law which applies only to heteros. All laws which apply to heteros, apply to everyone, regardless of sexuality.
Click to expand...

Negative. There are many benefits and protections given to heterosexual married couples: PNOK rights and adoption rights come immediately to mind. Moreover, why would it need to be more than one benefit?
 
#539
#539
therealUT said:
Yes.



Yes, income tax rates should be level across the board.



Negative. There are many benefits and protections given to heterosexual married couples: PNOK rights and adoption rights come immediately to mind. Moreover, why would it need to be more than one benefit?
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. The above and estate handling are probably the two most important to me, but there are several federal rights/benefits afforded to married couples. I've said before that the term 'marriage' is not all that important to me; I simply want an avenue to equal rights. I don't consider these 'special' rights or treatment, just equal.
 
#540
#540
therealUT said:
Negative. There are many benefits and protections given to heterosexual married couples: PNOK rights and adoption rights come immediately to mind. Moreover, why would it need to be more than one benefit?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as an 'adoption right', first off. And on top of that, single dads have the same issues adopting as gay couples, so it has nothing to do with homosexuality, but with a society's idea of what constitutes the type of home that a child should be released to.

However, there is not a single LAW on the books that is explicitly based on one's sexuality. Nowhere is there a law that applies to heteros, but if you're homo, you need not apply.

gcbvol said:
Absolutely correct. The above and estate handling are probably the two most important to me, but there are several federal rights/benefits afforded to married couples. I've said before that the term 'marriage' is not all that important to me; I simply want an avenue to equal rights. I don't consider these 'special' rights or treatment, just equal.
Click to expand...

Those 'rights' have nothing to do with one being homosexual, but with one not being married.

You might find the distinction to be almost nonexistent, but legally there is a huge distinction.
 
#542
#542
Negateer said:
There is no such thing as an 'adoption right', first off. And on top of that, single dads have the same issues adopting as gay couples, so it has nothing to do with homosexuality, but with a society's idea of what constitutes the type of home that a child should be released to.

However, there is not a single LAW on the books that is explicitly based on one's sexuality. Nowhere is there a law that applies to heteros, but if you're homo, you need not apply.



Those 'rights' have nothing to do with one being homosexual, but with one not being married.

You might find the distinction to be almost nonexistent, but legally there is a huge distinction.
Click to expand...


The distinction is that single heterosexuals have the option to marry and obtain those rights/benefits; homosexuals do not. Should they have to marry to obtain those? That's a different question. But in speaking strictly about couples, gays do not have the same access. I will say that a large part of the problem is with the government's use of marriage to define access to these benefits/rights. I personally feel a civil union structure should replace marriage from a governmental usage perspective.
 
#543
#543
Negateer said:
However, there is not a single LAW on the books that is explicitly based on one's sexuality. Nowhere is there a law that applies to heteros, but if you're homo, you need not apply.
Click to expand...

Except for marriage laws. So, yes, there is at least one law on the books that is explicitly based on one's sexuality.

Simply put, you are an idiot.
 
#544
#544
Negateer said:
You seem to have a recurring issue with reading comprehension.



Homosexuality is not special. It's just another deviation from the boring ol' norm. More extreme than foot-worshipping and less extreme than necrophilia. And yes, the more you indulge in it, the less you will be turned on by that aforementioned 'boring ol' norm'.

If you believe that "homosexuals were born that way", then you have to believe that all other deviations are present at birth.

Like to have your butt tickled? Born that way.
Like to spank your girlfriend and call her a dirty girl? Born that way.
Like to eat crap and be pee'd on? Born that way.

....which is, of course, ridiculous imo.
Click to expand...

Don't you believe that you are stretching it a bit? You are comparing apples to oranges.

There is no doubt that our genetic code plays a big role in our behavior. However, this genetic influence is mostly on a broad level; pretty general traits vs. specific actions like you mentioned.

The last genetic book that I read estimated behavior to be a 50/50 split between genetics and environment. Fwiw.
 
#545
#545
PKT_VOL said:
Don't you believe that you are stretching it a bit? You are comparing apples to oranges.

There is no doubt that our genetic code plays a big role in our behavior. However, this genetic influence is mostly on a broad level; pretty general traits vs. specific actions like you mentioned.

The last genetic book that I read estimated behavior to be a 50/50 split between genetics and environment. Fwiw.
Click to expand...

Same with the recent research I have seen. I think it is also key to understand that 'environment' can encompass many factors as we've discussed before - including exposures in the fetal environment (hormones, etc.). So simply because environment may play a large part does not mean that it is any way controllable by the homosexual.
 
#546
#546
orangeslice13 said:
Hair color and other physical traits can't be changed. Personality traits can. As I stated earlier I was born in a family of alcoholics. I believe the tendency to be alcoholic is genetic because of the high number of them in my family. Some will argue that gay people can't change their feelings but I know 2 who have. And futher more my cousin Todd drank himself to death so I know alcoholics that can't change. In my mind being predisposed to a sin doesn't excuse you from it.

This is very important. I don't get to say what is or is not a sin for you. For me I feel homosexuality would be a sin. You would need to decide if it was for you.
In the same way I have no intrest in trying to convince anyone that drinking is bad for them or a sin. If they decide not to drink and need help I'm there for them.
Click to expand...

Interesting post. You concede that a person has genetic predispositions to certain behaviors. You are right about alcoholism having a genetic base. However, you have two claims that are worth looking at more closely given the previous statement.

You say that a person has the ability to control those genetic predispositions. Being that we believe that behavior is split 50/50 based on genetics and environment, I generally agree with such a statement. The problem that arises both ethically and legally (in our country) is that the behavior homosexuals are genetically predisposed is one which causes no harm to any other individual. In fact, it brings great satisfaction and joy to their lives. It is quite literally natural to them. Epicureanism, one of the most basic moral philosophies, would say that there is nothing wrong with pursuing an action or lifestyle that makes one happy at no expense of another. Your view is basically at odds with the notion that happiness or pleasure is not intrinsically good.

Your retort to this would be as you stated above about homosexuality being sinful in the eyes of God from your interpretation of the Bible. I know you believe in creationism, however, do you believe that every individual is created by God or with God's love? Or is more like God created man and let evolution to take over? If it is the former, you have a theological problem on your hands. How could God possibly create a person who has inherent sin in every cell of their body? Further, how could God consider this true sin? He created it. It also calls into question his true benevolence and the problem of evil. Maybe it is just an elaborate test of faith?
 
#547
#547
Gramps said:
Sin is doing what is wrong, as well as not doing what is right.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that it implies absoluteness. I don't know how any person could possibly know what is "right" and what is "wrong". Everything is relative.

If your retort is that God's word determines what is "right" and what is "wrong" then I would question how you know such a thing. However, that is a whole 'nother thread though.

Gramps said:
It is doing what is against God's will. If he says "Do not lie," and you lie, then you have sinned. If he says "Do not steal," and you steal, then you have sinned.
Click to expand...

I don't know how anybody can know what God's will is.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top