When James “Beat Children Like Animals” Dobson accuses you of distorting the bible.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
The teachings of Jesus seem to bear little resemblance to the way they are practiced by christians IMO.
A lot of the more beautiful wording from the bible was added by William Tyndall in the 16th century (”Let there be light” for example), and if you think the accounts of the end of Jesus’ life were not changed to make the Romans able to accept Christianity, I’ve got the deeds to Alaska to sell you.
Dude, there are a few dozen links for this story, so there is no need to link to the anti-blogger and litigious AP.
Oh, this is good.
Uh-oh. Isn’t Biblically-based opposition to acceptance of gay people also based on those same Old Testament texts? The dietary codes no longer apply, but codes of temple purity are still valid?
Keep it up, Mr. O. Let’s have a great, big, open discussion of the conservative Christian interpretation of scripture. That ought to be illuminating.
If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be – a Christian.
Mark Twain
Isn’t Biblically-based opposition to acceptance of gay people also based on those same Old Testament texts?
Well, it has nothing to do with the “acceptance of gay people” but about the act of homosexual sex being a sin. And there is enough NT scripture to draw on that.
King James bible, Leviticus 11:9
Once again, Dobson doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
20 ¶ All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
I don’t know what that means. Anybody know of any birds that walk on all fours?
Jay: Well, it has nothing to do with the “acceptance of gay people” but about the act of homosexual sex being a sin. And there is enough NT scripture to draw on that.
Romans 1:26-27
Homosexual sex is routinely found in nature, so claiming it is against nature is false.
Saying that you love the sinner but hate the sin is a ridiculous cop-out. “You’re a good person, but I hate what you do.” Don’t make no sense.
There is nothing so ludicrous on the unhinged right that Jay can’t find a way to defend.
The Bible never mentions abortion. And it vaguely mentions men lying with other men (but not women sleeping with other women) but certainly doesn’t obsess on it. It lists it among other sins like eating shellfish. But if you listen to Republicans, you’d think those two issues were the only thing mentioned in the Bible at all.
Obama’s point, and he nails it on the head, is that using one’s personal faith, in particular arguing as Dobson does that his interpretation of the Bible is ONLY interpretation of the Bible, as a justification for law is an inadequate argument that requires a reasoned and secular argument to back it up.
There is nothing so ludicrous on the unhinged right that Jay can’t find a way to defend.
Defend what? I was correcting Quaker’s incorrect assertion that the biblical view of homosexuality equates to a the “opposition to the acceptance of gay people.”
But if you listen to Republicans, you’d think those two issues were the only thing mentioned in the Bible at all.
I won’t disagree with you that many evangelicals get caught up in abortion and homosexuality as pet issues with regard to politics. I think that viewpoint is changing in many ways, but that’s happening within the churches themselves and not necessarily in the political arena.
So following your logic, it doesn’t make sense to support the troops but hate what they do. Is that the logic you want to promote?
I was correcting Quaker’s incorrect assertion that the biblical view of homosexuality equates to a the “opposition to the acceptance of gay people.”
So let me see if I have this, um, straight. This reading of the Bible says it’s OK to be a homosexual, but it’s a sin to practice homosexuality?
That leaves a mighty blurry line between sin and righteousness, doesn’t it? I mean, can I like a dude a whole lot as long as I have my pants on?
I just saw this. You’re saying two different things here. Most parents are going to continue to love their kids regardless of what they do. Loving a person doesn’t mean you’re saying to them, “You’re a good person.” That being said, I will agree that saying it is somewhat of a cop-out in explaining your point of view on the bible and homosexuality.
arguing as Dobson does that his interpretation of the Bible is ONLY interpretation of the Bible, as a justification for law
Change the title of the book in question, and you’ve got yourself a mullah.
“Defend what? I was correcting Quaker’s incorrect assertion that the biblical view of homosexuality equates to a the “opposition to the acceptance of gay people.”
The Dobsonian Biblical view of the Bible DOES equate to the opposition to the acceptance of gay people. That’s what they mean by the “gay agenda” and why they target issues like gay marriage and gay rights. Otherwise, they’d focus on sodomy.
“I think that viewpoint is changing in many ways, but that’s happening within the churches themselves and not necessarily in the political arena.”
By “many evangelicals” you mean the evangelicals who support Republicans, and by “political arena,” you mean the REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM. Let’s not try and pretend like this issue isn’t almost completely owned by your party.
Btw, here’s the right-wing evangelical AFA flipping out, not over homosexual sex, but two men kissing in an ad.
http://www.afa.net/Petitions/Issuedetail.asp?id=324
Tell us, Jay, where in the Bible this reaction is justified.
And it vaguely mentions men lying with other men (but not women sleeping with other women)
Well, of course not, ‘cuz that’s Teh HAWT. Even in Moses’ time.
So following your logic, it doesn’t make sense to support the troops but hate what they do. Is that the logic you want to promote?
Oooh, so close. No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. A soldier BECOMES a soldier. A gay person does not, all preacher’s wet dreams to the contrary, does not BECOME gay.
Besides, I hate what our troops are ORDERED to do.
I will agree that saying it is somewhat of a cop-out in explaining your point of view on the bible and homosexuality.
Well, thanks for that, Jay. Sincerely. The crux of my point was bible thumpers who say “Jesus loves you, but you’re gonna burn in Hell anyway.”
I call bullshit.
The ad features a “homosexual family,” referring to one of the men as “Mom.”
Wow, mega, did they completely miss the tagline of that ad, or what?
It’s pretty obvious this ad is not run in the US, you know in countries where it’s no big deal.
Now it seems besides reading comprehension deficiencies, they have TV viewing comprehension problems as well.
The crux of my point was bible thumpers who say “Jesus loves you, but you’re gonna burn in Hell anyway.”
I call bullshit.
Exactly. That’s exactly where it all falls apart. You simply cannot have a “loving god” who would condemn you to extreme punishment when it is in his power to not do so.
I’m sure the True Believers feel that God’s more of a “tough love” sort of parent. I always worry about the legions of kids that they pop out.
What I find disturbing isn’t so much the punishment as it is the eternity. God is capable of “love,” it seems, but not “forgiveness.”
That’s not “tough love”. That’s abuse.
If a normal, human father treated their children as “God” treats his we’d be calling social services and the cops.
So let me see if I have this, um, straight. This reading of the Bible says it’s OK to be a homosexual, but it’s a sin to practice homosexuality?
There’s no sin in being homosexual. Remember, in the Christian faith, only one person lived his life free of sin and that was Jesus Christ. Man cannot and never will. Any guy who says he has never committed adultery is a liar. Sure, they may not have engaged in the physical act of adultery, but Christ warned that even looking upon another woman with lust in your heart is a sin. Unfortunately, this is a point that people like Dobson lose sight of.
Contrary to what you believe about the majority of evangelical Christians, most do not believe that because a person is gay it prevents them from going to heaven (those who do are the ones who are not reading their bibles as Obama says). The path to eternal life (and I am not interesting in getting into a theological discussion about which faith is ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ I am only discussing this in the context of homosexuality and the Christian faith) has one route: the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. That’s it. John 10:28 says, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of My hand.”
A gay person does not, all preacher’s wet dreams to the contrary, does not BECOME gay.
Getting into this is off topic, but there is not a single shred of verifiable evidence that proves homosexuality is something people are born with. It just isn’t.
That’s exactly where it all falls apart. You simply cannot have a “loving god” who would condemn you to extreme punishment when it is in his power to not do so.
Nonsense. The ‘condemnation’ comes from the person themselves. If you believe the New Testament, people make the choice on their own to cross the line of faith or to choose not to.
What I find disturbing isn’t so much the punishment as it is the eternity. God is capable of “love,” it seems, but not “forgiveness.”
If a normal, human father treated their children as “God” treats his
You realize how absurd this sounds? How can one compare “a normal human father” to God? Cmon.
What version of the New Testament have you read?
Fine. So long as someone equates “homosexuality” with being a sin on the same level as “owning possessions”, I guess I’m OK with it.
Jesus said it was a sin to not give away ALL your possessions – ALL of them – but failed to mention homosexuality. I’m just sayin’.
Jay: “…and the Christian faith) has one route: the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.”
This is not true, by the way. There are conflicting verses in the Bible that say how one gets into heaven. There are plenty of verses that say you need more than faith to get into heaven.
skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html
For instance…
Matthew 19:17
If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.
Add in the quote by Jesus that merely thinking about sinning is just as bad as sinning, and one dirty / violent / greedy thought it enough to get you cast into hell forever.
“Contrary to what you believe about the majority of evangelical Christians, most do not believe that because a person is gay it prevents them from going to heaven”
I think most of us realize this. We are largely talking about REPUBLICAN evangelical Christians. And contrary to the nonsense you are peddling, they absolutely oppose rights for gays that go well beyond simply opposing homosexual sex. You know it and so does everyone else here.
“Getting into this is off topic, but there is not a single shred of verifiable evidence that proves homosexuality is something people are born with. It just isn’t.”
Keep in mind that the evangelical Republican standards for “verifiable evidence” also don’t allow for global warming, evolution, or an earth older than 6000 years either, all of which the reality based scientific community accept as fact.
In fact, homosexuality is found in nature, and the overwhelming evidence supports the theory that homosexuality is not a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice.
“You realize how absurd this sounds?”
Dobsonion projection rears its ugly head again.
CS, the link you provided isn’t really worth much because the quotes are cherry picked and not shown in their full context. For instance, Matthew 16:27 says, “For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.” This occurs AFTER a person has died and gone to heaven. It has nothing to do with salvation.
Matthew 19:17 says, “If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” The entire passage has to be read in order to understand what is being said. The “keep the commandments” quote is law, not gospel. Jesus wanted to impress upon the young man both the high standard required by God and the absolute futility of seeking salvation by his own merit. His reaction should have similar to that of the apostles in verse 25 (ie, the impossibility of keeping the law perfectly) but the man instead confidently declared he qualified for heaven under those terms. The man would not even admit to his own sin. It’s at that point, Jesus dropped the “Sell what you have and give to the poor and you will treasure in heaven and come follow me” and the man’s true character was revealed.
I don’t have time to get into the rest, but the other verses are similar. They do not stand on their own as evidence of confliction with regard to how a person gets to heaven.
We are largely talking about REPUBLICAN evangelical Christians.
No, YOU are. If one doesn’t understand salvation from a biblical perspective, it has nothing to do with whether they’re a Republican or a Democrat.
And contrary to the nonsense you are peddling, they absolutely oppose rights for gays that go well beyond simply opposing homosexual sex. You know it and so does everyone else here.
What does rights for gays have to do with the concept of salvation. You’re continuing to make the issue political and I am not discussing it from a political perspective.
My God can totally beat up your God. It says so here in this book some guy wrote and told us was the word of God.
Somehow I think the real God finds this kind of thing really amusing.
Contrary to what you believe about the majority of evangelical Christians, most do not believe that because a person is gay it prevents them from going to heaven
But I’m not talking about “the majority of evangelical Christians.” I’m talking about Dobson and his crew. They’re the ones who rally and rail against gay rights, the gay “agenda”, gay marriage, and any form of media or entertainment that even suggests the corrupting influence of gayness.
If you’ve got some stats on what the majority thinks about it all, I’d be interested. But that’s not where I came in.
most do not believe that because a person is gay it prevents them from going to heaven”
Ah ha, but if, as you say, I look at another woman other than my wife with lust, I’m committing a sin. So even if a gay man doesn’t act on his homosexuality, but likes watching gay porn, isn’t he also committing a sin, just by thinking about it?
You can’t have it both ways.
Whatever. I like scallops.
And porn.
Ah ha, but if, as you say, I look at another woman other than my wife with lust, I’m committing a sin. So even if a gay man doesn’t act on his homosexuality, but likes watching gay porn, isn’t he also committing a sin, just by thinking about it?
Sure.
Um, okay. So he’s damned no matter what?
What a rip-off.
What do you mean damned? People aren’t ‘damned’ because they sin.
most do not believe that because a person is gay it prevents them from going to heaven”
How does a gay person who has never committed a homosexual act get into heaven, then?
People aren’t ‘damned’ because they sin.
Mea culpa.
“Getting into this is off topic, but there is not a single shred of verifiable evidence that proves homosexuality is something people are born with. It just isn’t.”
Do you mean it just isn’t or there just isn’t. Because if you are emphatically asserting that homosexuality if strictly a “lifestyle” choice, I’d like to know what evidence you have that it is. A thing isn’t what you think it is until someone proves you wrong, Jay. You also have to assert proof for what you believe.
I think this whole talk about what the Bible says about gays is just bullshit. If you choose to be a Christian and you choose to believe the Bible, fine, but your personal choice of religion should have no bearing on public policy whatsoever.
What I find so ridiculous here is that Jay can assert that being gay is a lifestyle choice but then go on and on about the Bible as if it has some inherent authority in and of itself. It doesn’t. Christianity is a lifestyle choice and way fucking more a lifestyle choice than being gay. As I understand it the Bible condemns homosexuality because it is contrary to god’s will. Sorry. That’s not a sound basis for public policy. Not by a long shot.
“You’re continuing to make the issue political and I am not discussing it from a political perspective.”
Oh, well, then, that clears everything up. Could you please just shut the fuck up then – and tell Dobson and his ilk to shut the fuck up too?
Seriously, if Christian’s weren’t trying to assert their Biblical worldview in the political arena, people would care as much about what the Bible says on homosexuality as they do about what it has to say about not eating certain kinds of shellfish every other Tuesday because it makes god angry.
How does a gay person who has never committed a homosexual act get into heaven, then?
Salvation is open to anybody and has nothing to do with what a person has done in their lives. This is what Paul said about himself in 1 Timothy 12-15:
“And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.”
Soooo, JC is an enabler, then. got it.
A thing isn’t what you think it is until someone proves you wrong, Jay. You also have to assert proof for what you believe.
Nice try. But the assertion is coming from the other side. If somebody claims they are born gay and that is not a choice in any way, they need to provide the evidence to support that. Saying I have to prove they’re not born gay is asking me to prove a negative which is a logical fallacy.
Could you please just shut the fuck up then
Hey, if you don’t like what I am writing, don’t read it.
Soooo, JC is an enabler, then. got it.
You know, you asked a question and I answered it. If your intent is to elicit a response that gives you an opening just to be a smart-ass, then please don’t waste my time.
Okay, how do you justify calling anything except failure to love your neighbor a sin for Christians, given the clear statement of Romans 13:8-10? (NIV, KJV, LOL) The passage refers to harm. What harm does same-sex desire do? If you think lust is inherently disrespectful or something, I have to tell you that’s not what feminism means.
“Saying I have to prove they’re not born gay is asking me to prove a negative which is a logical fallacy.”
Someone just shoot me. Jay. I’m asking you to give evidence that homosexuality is a choice. That’s the assertion you made. Can you give evidence in support of it?
If somebody claims they are born gay and that is not a choice in any way, they need to provide the evidence to support that.
I came to this one late, and I cheerfully admit I have only skimmed the comments above. So with that caveat, I humbly submit that nobody has anything to prove to anybody (except perhaps the government, which may need to prove it believes in that whole ‘equal protection’ bit of the 14th amendment), and the legal questions involved in homosexual rights do not depend on how one feels about this rather irrelevant question. Even if it were a choice, I – and I suspect others who’d refer to themselves as liberal, including liberal Christians – feel it is a legitimate one, as much as liking pizza or the color blue. Even if it isn’t a choice, conservative Christians are still going to think it’s a sin, because they believe the Bible says so.
Okay, that was a cheap shot, sorry. but Paul said it, not me.
Salvation is open to anybody and has nothing to do with what a person has done in their lives.
So what is the whole point of saying sinning is so bad at all? If salvation is not dependent on how one lives their lives, how can you say that gay people are sinners?
Do you choose to be hetero, Jay? How old were you when you decided to be straight?
“Even if it were a choice, I – and I suspect others who’d refer to themselves as liberal, including liberal Christians – feel it is a legitimate one …”
I would agree with this statement. The problem, however is that conservatives assert that homosexuality is a choice, and a “sinful” one at that, for the precise purpose of denying rights to gays which is why it is not irrelevant to legal questions such as gay rights.
My point is that there is no conclusive evidence supporting either position, that it’s a choice or that it isn’t a choice. And yet Jay here definitively asserts that it is a choice, offers no evidence to back it up and then dismisses any demand for what he bases his assertion on.
I know that I did not choose to be heterosexual. I just was. My 6 year-old nephew recently told me that he “liked” a girl at his school. It was all very cute. But I don’t believe that he sat down before that and “decided” that he liked girls in general over boys, first. He may have a vague awareness that some boys like boys from family conversations he’s overheard but I highly doubt that when he gets older and learns more about homosexuality, that he’s going to rethink his “decision” to like girls.
At the same time, all of my gay friends who have shared their personal stories with me say they just knew they were gay. They didn’t choose it. They don’t spend their time fighting and suppressing some heterosexual impulse just be “different.”
I know one lesbian who spent most of her life dating women who suddenly announced to me that she had a boyfriend. But that isn’t evidence that being gay is a choice. It’s evidence of bisexuality, which is itself, a form of sexual orientation.
It’s also true that some people experiment sexually and choose to sleep with someone of the same gender to see what it’s like, or if they would like it. But neither is that evidence that sexual orientation is a choice. It’s evidence of experimentation. That’s it.
Someone just shoot me. Jay. I’m asking you to give evidence that homosexuality is a choice. That’s the assertion you made.
No, I did not make an assertion. Duros did. He said:
A gay person does not, all preacher’s wet dreams to the contrary, does not BECOME gay.
I responded:
“…but there is not a single shred of verifiable evidence that proves homosexuality is something people are born with.”
Ok? Read more closely. The people making assertions are those who claim that being gay is something people are born with. THEY are making the claim. THEY are the ones with the burden of proving their claim.
If salvation is not dependent on how one lives their lives, how can you say that gay people are sinners?
ALL people are sinners Duros. It has nothing to do with being gay or straight.
The problem, however is that conservatives assert that homosexuality is a choice, and a “sinful” one at that, for the precise purpose of denying rights to gays which is why it is not irrelevant to legal questions such as gay rights.
There are atheists that don’t believe in gay marriage either, so the denial of things like marriage privileges does not stem only from conservatives.
My point is that there is no conclusive evidence supporting either position, that it’s a choice or that it isn’t a choice. And yet Jay here definitively asserts that it is a choice,
There you go again with your nonsense. Read above. And you still cannot comprehend logical arguments. The claim is, “People are born gay.” THAT is the claim. If I say, “People are not born gay. There is no evidence to support that claim” you cannot with any logic or reason tell me to prove the people ARE NOT born gay! You cannot prove a negative.
It’s hilarious that you’re sitting here, whining that I won’t prove a negative.
ALL people are sinners Duros. It has nothing to do with being gay or straight.
Then why all the outrage?
We can all agree that instances of homosexuality occur in nature, yes? We can therefore not claim that homosexuality is unnatural. Leviticus calls “lying with a man” an abomination, but even Bible scholars can’t agree on the definition. Eating clams is also an abomination, so there is definitely some wiggle room going on. Some researchers have taken the word “abomination” used in the Bible as literally meaning “unknown” or uncustomary. Of course eating scallops would be unknown to people in the desert.
Like I said, Jay, whatever. I don’t think being gay is a choice a person makes, but I can offer no proof that a person’s sexual preference is determined at birth. Whatever is the case, Dobson and his minions have no right to lord their version of Christ over everybody else. If evangelicals are so gung-ho on a personal relationship with god, then it should be just that; personal and none of Dobson’s business.
I yam what I yam and that’s all that I yam.
Damn open tags!
The problem, however is that conservatives assert that homosexuality is a choice, and a “sinful” one at that, for the precise purpose of denying rights to gays which is why it is not irrelevant to legal questions such as gay rights.
You make some excellent points Fafaroo, except I still don’t see how, even if homosexuality were a choice (the two homosexuals with whom I have spoken about the subject certainly didn’t believe it was, in agreement with your experience), one could argue that to be legitimate grounds on which to deny rights.
It seems to me that the we deny rights to people when they make choices obviously harmful to others – If I choose to rob someone, I go to jail – but not generally for choices that cause no harm to others.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say it’s all just basically a big dodge intended to deny the civil rights to hundreds of thousands/millions (whatever the number is) of Americans. I’ll continue to think that until somebody can give some halfway decent reason to restrict them other than a religious one, which, last I checked, we typically try to avoid in the Western European/American legal tradition.
Religion is clearly a choice, and not genetic, but it’s still a protected status under housing/employment/etc laws. So it’s hard to see how that argument even makes it to the starting line with regard to orientation.
Parthenon, here’s one persons view of the issue. He’s a conservative, but he’s also an atheist:
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/single/18855/
Jay – Thanks for the link. I see there is reasoning beyond the religious aspect. I imagine it won’t surprise you that I completely disagree with his reasoning (and therefore find that it falls short of the ‘halfway decent’ standard), and that of his commenters.
While it’s true that the membership of marriage has had a very narrow and specific definition for most of history, that doesn’t mean things can’t improve. It seems to me a fallacy to simply say ‘that’s the way it’s always been done’ and leave it at that. Also he ignores the fact that the institution of marriage has evolved, despite the fact that ‘any two consenting adults’ has been instituted only recently. For instance in ages past very few marriages were for reasons of love or intimacy, whereas today (in theory, anyway) that explains the majority of all marriages.
And I find his advocacy of the Santorum theory ludicrous (where he writes about how one redefinition opens the door to essentially a slippery slope). There seems to me a world of difference between consenting adults and anything else. Is the author okay, then, with arranged marriages between adults and children, so long as the genders are different? After all, in certain societies this would be the position advocated by the traditionalist faction.
One of his commenters suggests that marriage is a bedrock institution in society (true enough), and that we tinker with it at our peril. It seems to me, as I suggested above, that it’s already been tinkered with – it’s not always necessarily a religious ceremony anymore, it’s now generally out of love, etc. And I’m not aware of any morality meltdown in those countries that have had legalized gay marriage for a while now.
Anyway, long story short, I appreciate the non-religious perspective you provided but I strongly and respectfully disagree with his logic.
Jay, let’s just get some clarity here.
You wrote:
“The ‘condemnation’ comes from the person themselves. If you believe the New Testament, people make the choice on their own to cross the line of faith or to choose not to.”
Now do you believe that in practicing homosexuality, gays are choosing to cross the line of faith and thus “condemn” themselves?
We’ll start there and see how you do.
And Jay, why on earth should anyone pay any attention to anyone who could write something as asinine as this:
And, lest we forget, Western civilization is responsible for most of the freedom, happiness, and prosperity which exists in the world today, while other civilizations are responsible for quite the opposite of each.
I mean, he’s joking right?
Now do you believe that in practicing homosexuality, gays are choosing to cross the line of faith and thus “condemn” themselves?
You’re either being deliberately obtuse or not paying attention. Practicing homosexuality has no more (or less) to do with a person’s salvation than adultery does.
And Jay, why on earth should anyone pay any attention to anyone who could write something as asinine as this:
You have a problem with what he wrote? Take it up with him. Parthenon wanted to see somebody making the case against gay marriage from a perspective outside of religion and I provided him with an example.
“You’re either being deliberately obtuse or not paying attention.”
Uh, sure. Let me just ask you straight out: Do you believe that homosexuals choose to be gay?
Let me just ask you straight out: Do you believe that homosexuals choose to be gay?
Well that’s funny because that’s a totally different question than from the one you asked. I’ve already answered this question as well. If I say there’s no evidence to support the assertion that people are born gay, that’s a pretty good indication of my viewpoint.
Jay, can you ever just say something directly? Can you just write, I think gay people choose to be gay?
And, lest we forget, Western civilization is responsible for most of the freedom, happiness, and prosperity which exists in the world today, while other civilizations are responsible for quite the opposite of each.
Well, that’s clearly a matter of perspective, I guess.
and arrogance, me thinks.
Fafaroo, why you do keep asking questions you KNOW the answer to?
How many times do you have to be told 2 2=4?
Because sometimes 22 isn’t equal to 4? I’m just guessin’.
while other civilizations are responsible for quite the opposite of each.
This part in particular reflects an ignorant chutzpah that deserves its own adjective – ‘Bushian.’
“Fafaroo, why you do keep asking questions you KNOW the answer to?”
On what facts do you base your opinion that gays choose to be gay?
Jay, when did you choose to be straight and why?
On what facts do you base your opinion that gays choose to be gay?
Because there is no evidence that proves people are born gay.
My turn.
If our sexuality is something we are born with and cannot change, you would have to agree that applies to ALL forms of sexuality, correct?
Jay: Because there is no evidence that proves people are born gay.
What evidence is there that proves people are born straight?
Jay: If our sexuality is something we are born with and cannot change, you would have to agree that applies to ALL forms of sexuality, correct?
Makes sense. But knowing or acknowledging that sexuality may not happen for a variety of reasons. So it’s really hard to judge whether someone who switches to a particular sexuality as an adult (Anne Heche?) was actually changing their sexuality or finally acknowledging it.
“Because there is no evidence that proves people are born gay.”
And that means the only other possibility is that gays choose to be gay? That makes sense to you?
“If our sexuality is something we are born with and cannot change, you would have to agree that applies to ALL forms of sexuality, correct?”
I don’t know either way. What i do know is that I never chose to be heterosexual. There was never a moment that I sat and contemplated, do I like boys or girls. I just started noticing girls.
Is that nature or nurture or both? I don’t know. But I do know it was not a conscious choice on my part.
The same goes for the countless stories and experiences i have heard or read about coming out stories from gay friends and others. They didn’t decide to be attracted to the same sex. They just were – and they knew that made them different.
If you want hard scientific proof about being born into our sexuality, you’re right to say that there isn’t any – there’s no evidence we are born heterosexual or born homosexual or bisexual or whatever.
But there are mountains of anecdotal evidence in the form of personal experience that suggests sexual orientation is not something we choose consciously. Jay, did you decide consciously to be heterosexual?
I did not choose to be attracted to women and every gay man I know who has shared his experiences with me have said they did not choose to be attracted to other men.
Going back to the Biblical discussion here, I understand that in the christian tradition there is the free will to sin or not sin. While can easily be seen in the decision to commit adultery or to entertain adulterous thoughts, it cannot be so easily applied to sexual preference because while we may choose to commit adultery, we do not choose which gender we are sexually attracted to. We just don’t. Assigning homosexuality to the category of sinful behavior then doesn’t leave any allowance for free will and so is a different order of expectation altogether.
It would be as if the bible said having blue eyes was sinful and that if you have blue eyes, you had to deny yourself sight to live a life of faith.
I’ll just add that I find it interesting that you have so far offered no basis for your opinion that we choose our sexual orientation other than to say that some other explanation can’t be proved. That’s not exactly a logical argument, Jay, and you know it.
The world wasn’t flat just because no one could prove it was round.
Fafaroo, I am not saying that people consciously go out and flip a coin (well, unless you’re Anne Heche) and say, “I want to like girls.” I am sure there are a variety of factors, some being physical (hormonal) and some being societal and personal that can lend itself to the predisposition of being gay, but ultimately it is still a choice. There is no evidence to prove that people are born gay like they’re born with blue eyes, brown hair, height or even with other genetic traits like cystic fibrosis and Down’s syndrome.
Are pedophiles born the way they are? (And no I am not comparing pedophilia to homosexuality. I am merely talking about choices vs. being born a certain way) Are those who engage in incest born that way?
People can be predisposed to being alcoholic, but they still ultimately make the decision to become one.
Going back to the Biblical discussion here, I understand that in the christian tradition there is the free will to sin or not sin. While can easily be seen in the decision to commit adultery or to entertain adulterous thoughts, it cannot be so easily applied to sexual preference because while we may choose to commit adultery, we do not choose which gender we are sexually attracted to. We just don’t. Assigning homosexuality to the category of sinful behavior then doesn’t leave any allowance for free will and so is a different order of expectation altogether.
Unfortunately, you’re again making the incorrect assertion that people are born gay as if it the same as eye color. It isn’t.
I’ll just add that I find it interesting that you have so far offered no basis for your opinion that we choose our sexual orientation other than to say that some other explanation can’t be proved. That’s not exactly a logical argument, Jay, and you know it.
It is most certainly logical. There are people who believe that there are alien life forms living on other planets. I am supposed to just accept that as fact because somebody believes it be so? If I don’t, why should I have to prove there isn’t? That’s illogical.
The world wasn’t flat just because no one could prove it was round.
Well, I can’t prove in the textual sense that God exists. That’s what faith is: evidence without proof. But the issue of homosexuality is not one that is being discussed as a matter of faith, but rather a matter of biology and science. You realize what that kind of thinking lends itself to? “Well I was born _______ and since nobody can prove otherwise, you’ll just have to accept it.”
Cmon.
What i do know is that I never chose to be heterosexual. There was never a moment that I sat and contemplated, do I like boys or girls. I just started noticing girls.
Is that nature or nurture or both? I don’t know. But I do know it was not a conscious choice on my part.
Exactly. So why should people be punished for that?
“I am supposed to just accept that as fact because somebody believes it be so?”
Jay, that’s exactly what you’re doing. There who people who say that gays choose to be gay and you believe it is a fact without any actual positive proof of it. You have only a negative proof: gays choose to be gay because there’s no evidence that they are born that way. That isn’t a logical proof of anything. But you go further to actually judge homosexuals based on a belief you have no evidence of (rather two unproven beliefs if we include the belief in god itself). The more accurate statement is that no one knows how sexual preference is determined and so it is impossible to judge homosexuals as somehow “violating” god’s law.
My larger point is that in Christianity, it is not a sin for men to be attracted to women. It is however a sin to lust after them.
At the same time, in Christianity it appears that it is a sin for a man merely to be attracted to a man, no matter how that person acts on that attraction. That’s an impossible standard of judgment.
Your comparisons to pedophiles or incest are, as you anticipated, wholly offensive. We are talking about consensual homosexual sex between two adults. I have never seen someone make a sweeping comparison between heterosexuality and pedophilia, even though there are a lot of heterosexual pedophiles. For some reason, pedophilia is only dragged out when trying to make points about homosexuals. Are pedophiles born pedophiles? Again, I don’t know. But there are reasons why pedophilia is against the law. The same reasons don’t hold for consensual sex between gay adults. They simply don’t. But the “religious” insist on making the comparison any way.
The idea here is not that some people prone to certain behaviors should not have to control themselves in society. Indeed, the maintenance of society requires that they do not choose to act on certain desires. My point, however, is that being gay and engaging in consensual sex between adults does not fall into that category.
All this time I thought proving a negative was impossible. Jay has dispelled that myth, apparently.
“Well I was born _______ and since nobody can prove otherwise, you’ll just have to accept it.”
Just to reiterate, Jay, you’re saying the same thing:
“Gays choose to be gay and since nobody can prove otherwise, you’ll just have to accept it.”
This is a fairly awesome leap in logic: If A can’t be proven then B must be true.
You make this assertion even in the face of mountains of anecdotal evidence that the vast majority of heterosexuals or homosexuals have no recollection of ever experiencing a moment of choice of any degree in their sexual preference.
You also wrote:
I am sure there are a variety of factors, some being physical (hormonal) and some being societal and personal that can lend itself to the predisposition of being gay, but ultimately it is still a choice.
Even here, I was not born with a predisposition for being attracted to women. I just am. yes, I can choose to sleep with a man if I want but it would take an incredible denial of self to sleep with men and sustain an intimate relationship with a man over any extended period of time. The decision to be intimate with a man, on my part, would be a conscious choice in constant need of conscious reinforcement. I don’t believe that gays experience gay relationships in this way. They would, however, experience any heterosexual relationship this way because, again, it would constitute a conscious and asserted denial of self.
And for the record, Jay, I am an alcoholic six years sober. I can tell you that I never chose to be one or become one. I, like most alcoholics, had no idea I might be predisposed to be an alcoholic and once I started drinking I never made a conscious decision to let it get out of hand. It was a long time before i even realized I had a problem. I did, however, choose to quite drinking and maintain my sobriety on a daily basis. This is a constantly self-conscious process. It requires constant vigilance and an awareness that even one drink will set me back down the path of self-destruction.
Asking homosexuals to go through a similar process of self denial in terms of their sexuality is ludicrous on its face, inhuman at it’s core because there is no comparison between alcohol abuse and consensual sex between adults. One is never healthy, the other can be perfectly healthy at all times.
Again, you are casting moral judgments on people based on a proposition – that they choose their behavior – for which you have absolutely no evidence. Indeed, you assert this proposition despite the very large amount of anecdotal evidence — even from your own life — that sexual preference has little if anything do with conscious choice.
congrats, Fafaroo
Asking homosexuals to go through a similar process of self denial in terms of their sexuality is ludicrous on its face,
Speaking of which,
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/27/sens-craig-and-vitter-team-up-to-co-sponsor-marriage-protection-amendment/
Irony is the new black this year.
There who people who say that gays choose to be gay and you believe it is a fact without any actual positive proof of it.
Once again.
Again
Again
Again
and Again
And again
The claim comes from GAY PEOPLE and their advocates that they are BORN GAY. Is it possible for you to stop trying to play word games in a bogus attempt to put the burden of proof on me?
You have only a negative proof: gays choose to be gay because there’s no evidence that they are born that way.
That’s just it. I don’t have to prove anything as I am not the one making a positive claim.
Person A: “I was born gay.”
Person B: “No you weren’t.”
Person A: “Prove I wasn’t”
Person B: “That’s a logical fallacy. You have to prove you were.”
I’m not going to discuss this part of the issue anymore because you continually engage in an intellectually dishonest viewpoint of telling me I have to prove a negative.
At the same time, in Christianity it appears that it is a sin for a man merely to be attracted to a man
No it is not.
Your comparisons to pedophiles or incest are, as you anticipated, wholly offensive. We are talking about consensual homosexual sex between two adults.
Except I didn’t compare homosexuals to pedophiles. I merely used them as a point of reference in context to people allegedly being born a certain way. Nice try at deflection.
All this time I thought proving a negative was impossible. Jay has dispelled that myth, apparently.
That’s hilarious since I am the one being challenged to prove a negative.
Just to reiterate, Jay, you’re saying the same thing:
No I am not. See above.
It was a long time before i even realized I had a problem. I did, however, choose to quite drinking and maintain my sobriety on a daily basis. This is a constantly self-conscious process. It requires constant vigilance and an awareness that even one drink will set me back down the path of self-destruction.
You also chose to start drinking in the first place. The fact that you didn’t ‘realize’ you had a problem is irrelevant. Nobody held your head back and forced alcohol down your throat. Don’t get me wrong. I’m no saint myself. There was a point in my life where I was headed down a very dangerous path. Drugs, drinking and surrounding myself with the wrong people and it took a few brushes with the law to wake my ass up. But those were conscious decisions I made.
Again, you are casting moral judgments on people
I’m not casting moral judgments on anybody. You are 100% flat out wrong on that.
“Larry Craig and David Vitter… have named themselves as co-sponsors of S.J. Res. 43, the Marriage Protection Amendment. If passed, the bill would amend the Constitution to declare that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.”
What’s the problem, D? Mr. Craig didn’t want to marry the guy in the next stall.
Okay, how about this
A: I wasn’t born straight.
B: Yes you were.
C. Prove I was.
Better?
Somehow, I think it’s problematic to assume that people are “born” one way or the other. I think it is probably safer to say we are each of us starting out both, as all developing fetuses (fetae) possess both sexual characteristics until a certain point when genetics takes over. At some point in development, that decision is made for us.
Would that be a fair characterization?
If so, how can we justify legislating over something people have no concious control of?
OK, head spinning now trying to keep the “They are” “They aren’t” “I didn’t say they were” from both sides straight while trying to follow the points being made.
Jay, could you just clarify for me: Do you believe gays are born gay, or that it’s a choice they make to be gay?
I’m not getting into the whole proof/proving negative bit. Just want to make sure I understand your base position so I’m reading your postings with the right understanding.
This is how he answered this question yesterday;
Which really doesn’t clarify anything at all, does it?
At the same time, in Christianity it appears that it is a sin for a man merely to be attracted to a man
Jay: No it is not.
Then what’s the problem?
“I’m not going to discuss this part of the issue anymore because you continually engage in an intellectually dishonest viewpoint of telling me I have to prove a negative.”
Jay, you wrote:
I am sure there are a variety of factors, some being physical (hormonal) and some being societal and personal that can lend itself to the predisposition of being gay, but ultimately it is still a choice.
Now “but ultimately, it is still a choice” is a positive assertion that something is true. I asked you to prove it and you refuse. I am not asking you to prove that gay people are born gay. I am and have been asking you to prove that gay people choose to be gay. Tow different things, my friend, no matter how you want to duck and dodge it.
You also chose to start drinking in the first place. The fact that you didn’t ‘realize’ you had a problem is irrelevant.
Oh christ. Choosing to have a drink is not the same thing as choosing to be an alcoholic. It’s like saying that choosing to cross the street is choosing to be hit by a car.
I’m not casting moral judgments on anybody.
Right. You’re just defending the argument that homosexuality is a sin that homosexuals choose to commit.
Duros: This is how he answered this question yesterday;
Because there is no evidence that proves people are born gay.
Which really doesn’t clarify anything at all, does it?
Yes, and he also said “The claim comes from GAY PEOPLE and their advocates that they are BORN GAY.”
Which is why I just asked for a clarification as to whether he believes people are born gay or not.
“Which is why I just asked for a clarification as to whether he believes people are born gay or not.”
Been there. Done that. Jay believes that “ultimately,” gay people choose to be gay. He believes this because no one has proven that gay people are born gay.
One, of course, does not follow from the other but have fun trying to convince Jay of that. Especially since he refuses to discuss the question any more!
Wow… sorry to be tardy to this party. I just trudged through this whole thread. Damn, Jay… Are you serious?
I don’t know how how any heterosexual man can assert (or believe, or assume, etc) that being homosexual is a choice. There’s no reason to believe that it is a choice at all, any more than another person realizing they’re a heterosexuality. There’s no basis to believe that the two situations are fundamentally different… so unless, Jay, you’d like to claim that you weighed the pros and cons of your own potential sexualities and decided to be a heterosexual…
More important, even if it IS a choice, what the hell does it matter? It shouldn’t matter a-tall in the political sphere. Not one bit. Consenting adults in privacy? Go nuts, do what you want!
Applied to the religious sphere, the question of whether it is a choice perhaps matters more. But this is one point where I realize that Christianity is a big steaming pile of bullshit. In actuality, I don’t believe that choice exists. Free will is a total illusion, as everything that you ever do and ever experience is due to the interaction of a) genetics, which you have no control over, b) dumb luck, such as where you’re born, who your parents are, etc., which you have no control over either. From the point where you come into existence until you die, you’re simply an example of physics. In that sense, you are not fundamentally different from a chemical reaction in a beaker, or from a line of dominoes toppling over.
This is why eternal punishment as meted out by God is a horseshit idea. If you can’t choose anything that you do, if you become a sinful person, if you reject Christ because of factors outside of your control, you get sent to eternal hellfire? That’s pointless. Furthermore, if an omnipotent and omniscient God is up there, and presumably knows all the physical states of all the matter in the universe, He therefore knows before you even exist how you’ll live your life: gay, straight, Christian, atheist, Hindu, tall, short, handsome, ugly, etc.
Punishment for a foregone conclusion is a fucking ridiculous idea.