Activist Sets Fire to Church

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

How can you prove that homosexuals all choose to be the way they are?



Genes create "voices" (so to speak) in your mind.
You chose whether to listen to those voices.

I didn't have to, you just did.

[Oi_Ve]

I didn't have to, you just did.

I also said there's a big difference between saying to resist an urge now and saying to resist an urge period.

its morally responsible, indeed healthy, to resist some urges.
it is not healthy to suppress urges.

there's a mile wide gap there.

the popular notion is that gays choose to be gay and that homosexuality is a result of choice.
yes, they choose to have sex with another member of the same gender. but if that's the only desire they have, it wasn't really a choice. they didn't choose to prefer men to women, they merely chose to fulfill an urge.
its a matter of where they the choice begins.
alot of people here say its when that person chooses to have sex with a man instead of a woman.
I say its when that person fulfills a natural desire, that he didn't choose the sexual preference.
there is a difference.
if it is the latter, then the person has three options.
1.) not have sex, which is unhealthy
2.) repress the urge, which is unhealthy, and try and make a heterosexual family, which is equally unhealthy for the spouse and a child if one results
3.) resist the urge and wait and perform sex as an act of love and a sign of commitment with another human being who happens to be of the same gender.

and what about the other questions?

why does a grieving spouse exempt from advancing the human species?
why is someone having sex for pleasure wrong?

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

Ok, now relate what you are suggesting to a pedophile or necrophile?

How is a pedophile or a necrophile any different than a homosexual.

If as you say it is unhealthy to suppress urges, then there can be no argument with any of the above two, correct?


why does a grieving spouse exempt from advancing the human species?
why is someone having sex for pleasure wrong?

First off, I've already stated that abstinence is unnatural, however the grieving spouse at least has contributed or attempted to contribute by maintaining a hetro sexual relationship.

Nevertheless, the spouse CHOOSES to remain celibate. So the point you're trying to make here is moot.

As for sex for pleasure. I pointed out that procreation is Primary, pleasure is Secondary. When ever there is intercourse between natural partners, the cycle completes itself. Irrespective of whether procreation occurs or not. The natural cycle of life is being completed, in that the two are following the design's of nature.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

A Male does not have a uteris or a vagina, therefore he is by DESIGN not intended to be the partner for another male.

Like the one preacher I heard say " I don't care how many ways you break your wrists, or how many sex changes you go through, if you do not have a womb, you are a brother.

It's a choice. You choose to be a homosexual/pedophile/necrophilliac/animal molestor. These are all deviant behaviour, and as such unnatural!

[Oi_Ve]

but here's the problem, WAA.
you're looking at humans as falling perfectly in line with all the other rules of nature and you're looking at sex in a purely natural sense.
But because humans are far more complex mentally than any other creature on the planet, you can't hold them to the same standards as a dolphin or any other creature.

You say that men are naturally built, sexually, to be partnered with women, and thats true.
But reproduction, because of the great amounts of time, energy, and resources needed to properlly raise a child, should only be done between people who are mutually commited and loving.
But if a man is mentally incapable of intimately loving a woman, then obvious WAA, he isn't meant to be coupled with a woman and reproduce.
You can't say homosexuality goes against natural selection because we don't know what causes it. If you dont know the cause, and most of the possibilities are equally as likely, you cant determine if it fits or not into a scientific law.
If homosexuality is caused a gene characteristic, then it would be a contradiction of natural selection (until we remember there are bisexuals).
If its caused by a gene malfunction, then it isnt contradicting nature.
If its caused by enviromental factors, it doesnt go against nature.
Nature's design cannot be applied in full to humans, WAA, thanks in part to our higher brain functions and moral code.
The 'natural design' of humans suggest that men have sex with women spontaneously, yet our moral code says we stay and help care for the baby.
In all animals in which males stay with the female for life, the bond is formed when they mate, not when they procreate.
Human males don't stay out of instinct like a goose might do. they stay for one of two reasons
1.) love, a emotion unique to humans, for the mate
2.) to raise a child if one is concieved.
but seeing as how even the most conservative places in this nation don't think you're obligated to marry an un-pregnant hooker, WAA, obviously there isn't a natural urge to stay with a female, its a cognitive decision.

But what should be done then, WAA, with people who cannot love a member of the opposite sex intimately? Should they feel obligated to violate human moral standards just to continue the 'cycle of life'?
Whats worse, that 'sin' alone or that they repress their urge and possibly harm others?

WAA, you can't prove that homos choose to have a sexual urge for members of the same gender. You can prove that they succumb to them, but not that the urge itself was a cognitive choice on their part.
yet common sense and science show that there is 100%, without a doubt, chance that homosexuality is caused by forces outside of a person's control.
hell, common sense tells us that it definitely can't be 100% choice and about pleasure. otherwise you wouldn't have gay virgins or gays who go into isolation.
If there is a chance WAA, a very real one, which can be proven, and is of appropriate size and significance (which it is), then you can't just go around spouting at the top of your lungs that something is unnatural and wrong.
because if it is happening because of forces beyond a person's control it obviously is natural.

But....

how about gays who are in hetero relationship or even marriage but can't maintain it? They tried, now didn't they? don't they get an excuse to proceed with an unnatrual sexual act?

Also, pedophilia and necrophilia are scientifically proven sexual urges. Homosexuality constitutes more than just sex. gays dont't just want to ==== men, they find compatibility with them. its more than just sex, its legitimate love.
I also covered this earlier. Homosexuals don't hurt you, WAA, or anyone else. Necrophilia and pedophilia do. neither the dead nor a child can consent to sex legally, nor can they consent to marriage. sometimes urges need to be altered. there's a difference between alteration/reducing and repression. it also helps that we have techniques and medication that is proven to stem or even end these abnormalities in a majority of patients, while we have no such luck with homosexuals.
The comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia/necrophilia/beastiality is old and ridiculous.
homosexuality is between 2 consenting adults.
necrophilia, beastiality, and pedophilia are not.

[Oi_Ve]

Where the ==== did you get that idea from Oi_Ve? Sure Disney made it look like the tribe jumps off cliffs but out of the 118 varities of lemmings 46 of the species do committ suicide. If a male or female does not mate in a year that lemming will committ suicide for population control. Another intersting fact is that lemmings mindlessly walk en masse into any danger in their path.

could you give a citation, FT?

[Wadi66]

You know, my gut tells me that if it wasn't by choice, God wouldn't condemn it. Now then Oi, I know you no longer believe in God so my argument doesn't hold water. But to others who do believe in God, it makes complete sense.

[Oi_Ve]

You know, my gut tells me that if it wasn't by choice, God wouldn't condemn it. Now then Oi, I know you no longer believe in God so my argument doesn't hold water. But to others who do believe in God, it makes complete sense.

No no, Wadi I believe in God.
I'm deist, not atheist. I certainly do believe in God. Just not the Judeo-Christian God, at least in the sense you and others here do.

But there are lots of holes here Wadi, and while it does make perfect sense in one respect, it doesn't in another.

Again, why would some one choose to be gay?
For pleasure?
But if you have a gay virgin, then pleasure can't be a reason, at least for them, because they haven't experienced pleasure.
But what about the gays who hate themselves? The ones who go into isolation? Wouldn't it be easier to just not be gay?
What constitutes homosexuality?
Is just sex with a member of the same gender?
Or is it sharing a life with that person, maybe not involving sex (and yes, there are people of the same gender who live together all their lives and never have sex)?
Is it having a sexual desire for a member of the same sex, though not necessarily pursueing that desire?
Why would any person put themselves through all the hassle gays go through? for pleasure? again, there are gay virgins.
How can choice explain these things?

I feel these are legitimate questions, Wadi, and we owe it ourselves and gays to at least come up with answers, good answers, before we go around condemning people.

[Oi_Ve]

FT, I'm looking at wikipedia doing googles and yahoos and the only thing I keep seeing is that there are population booms and mass migrations, not intentional suicide. be in norway lemming or otherwise.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

ok here's where the 3rd world african comes to the front.

WTF is a lemming?

[Wadi66]

For myself Oi, I don't "condemn" gays and lesbians. I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I don't condemn them either.

Several years ago I read that considerable attention should be given to the concept that homosexual preferences was the result of childhood rejection. Say you have a little girl who tends to be a bit of a tomboy or a little boy who likes to play with dolls. Dealing with family and/or friends who chastize them because that child doesn't fit the "mold" of what little boys and girls are suppose to be like. Instead of going through a natural stage of bonding, be it with males or females (as you know each child requires both at different times in their lives), the bonding is interrupted. They find acceptance only with others who have faced the same interruption in their life.

People in general become so wrapped up in their own needs and desires they pay scant attention to the needs of others. Rather than just catagorize their behavior as a personal choice, we should be looking at the human psyche for the answer. Gays and lesbians who hate themselves for having the choices they do know something is wrong. Is what's wrong them? No, I think its a result of something that happened to them, be it physical or emotional.

I think this is behind some peoples attitude that gay and lesbian homes should not be raising children. Because there is the understanding that a child needs a solid male and female influence in the home 24/7. One gender homes can not provide it and to down play the importance is to ignore the human psyche.

Is their sexual preference natural? Not according to my beliefs, because I believe God created us and He didn't create anything imperfect. As I said before, rather than being natural, I think its the result of lacking that which is natural. Essential bonding.

[Oi_Ve]

ok here's where the 3rd world african comes to the front.

WTF is a lemming?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming

Ain't it cute? :biggrin:

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I was thinking about that 2-D computer people that do mindless shit, like squash their heads in a press.

Then I was thinking, what the hell does 2-d pc game characters have to do with this debate.

Then I started thinking who the hell would raise that as a valid point.

Makes mroe sense now.

[Yankee Doodle]

errr . . . I don't know, Wadi.

Being in school for so long and thus being part of a generation where more gays and lesbians come out of the closet and live their lives without a mask, I have had the chance to get to know a lot of "psyches."

As such, I have yet to meet one who is the result of anything unnatural. I think that your theory (how boys and girls encounter each sex when younger, and the balance of each gender that they are acculturated to) may be a more old-fashioned way for people to imagine that gays and lesbians have, in effect, chosen their sexualities.

No, these are definitely not chosen. Do not look to a conservative psychologies or social scientist for the answer.

Those around me who are gay are part of a younger generation who grew up in homes where they received more support and, in effect, were given to the tools to be themselves more naturally. They never felt pressured into choosing homosexuality.

They are gay and they are lesbian. The are not straight people who chose this manner of "lifestyle" because, after all, God's plan is imperfect. (and unless you literally interpret the Bible word for word, we have no such basis for imperical assumptions).

As a conservative I once struggled for so long with homosexuals who were in my peer groups. Now actual experience makes me realize that they are not the abnormailities my Church minister and parents wanted me to falsely believe.

No, homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. That is a category that includes fashion, sedan versus coupe, and wine choice issues. Sexuality is bequeathed to us in a much more natural way.

I won't lie to anyone though . . . it was a struggle to learn this much, to move away from mere tolerance to acceptance.

[Yankee Doodle]

I mean, have you seen my avatar.

For crying out loud, the obscure Ukrainian sailor I chose could be misconstrued as me . . .

. . . and thus certainly making others think I'm flaming!, what with that bandana of gaity pulled around the guy's head!!!

:icon_surp