GOP Says Christians Discriminated Against More Than Gays

I very much understand the concept of bisexuality. Bisexual people are attracted to others based on criteria other than gender. It's a very simple concept.

Why do you think this supports the idea that people choose what gender to be attracted to?

No, that is just misogynistic. Not just lack of love, but actively hating women.

Some sexual encounters are about love and some aren't. Homo/hetero has nothing to do with it.

Both of those things are indeed a choice. I'm not trying to deny that.

The part that you didn't get to choose is who you want to indulge with.

As for letting sex become central to your life, that isn't exclusive to homosexuality... Heterosexuals do that, too.

I do actually.

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before. I am indeed, anti gay marriage. But I'm anti straight marriage too. I don't think the government should recognize marriage at all. There should not be privileges given to anyone for marriage, regardless of sexuality.

Yes, but you didn't choose to be attracted to another woman it just happened. The choice is when you act on the attraction.

What do you mean homosexuality is oppression?

Anyone who has done their homework knows that homosexuality and pedophilia are 2 completely different things. Pedophilia doesn't happen between 2 consenting adults.

Have you had a problem with gay men humping your leg?

Kinda ridiculous to use that as an example then, isn't it?

Why do they have to choose one sex over the other? If they have fully functioning organs of both types, why can't they be naturally attracted to both sexes?

I'm giving you examples of why your preconceptions about normal sexuality don't fit for all humans.

A swift dodge.

The problem here is that there are plenty of theists that think homosexuality is perfectly fine, too. Atheism has nothing to do with it.

 

Yep its so simple that it points to something other than factors beyond choice being at ease.

Indeed, if we read the Old Testament, why do you think so much of the laws that atheists take offense to, deal with sexual misconduct? Have you ever read ancient Chinese History? Ever wondered how homosexuality became taboo in a society that did not know Christianity?

Oh, somewhere in there is a little concept called choice.

Why doesn't it? Why am I the one having to support a thesis while all you do is lazily list about asking questions with no answers and no set standards?

Try supporting your own thesis - demonstrate the ability to think and explain.

Tough challenge, I know.

That is what some people CHOOSE to do. I agree that it is wrong, but it sure as hell isn't their gene's causing them to do it.

Well, glad we got that out the way. So it looks like choice is indeed part of the equation - if love both is and is not anyway ...

Are you attempting to make my case for me?

See why supporting a thesis statement is important?

None of this is relevant to either your thesis or mine. If there is a sexual procivility that applies to both sets of sexual choices and is clearly choice based - it strengthens my case - does it not?

Well, the only problem there is that science does not support your opinion. Children raised in a stable family environment with strong mother and father role models are significantly better off over the long run.

If you don;t accept that for some emotional reason ... well, I am seeing a trend here.

Exactly.

And most people when they see a sharp dressed man do not allow their thoughts to go any further. The same when you see an attractive women, and stop yourself from going any futher.

You master your desire.

If you give into it? Well, that too is a choice. And it isn't our genes that make it for you.

Its in English DP. What I am saying is that being denied marriage, tax benefits, for a sexual choice is not oppression or descrimination - its disagreement.

Who cares?

Its sexuality. Which is beyond choice. It would ths be oppression to deny them ... they were just born that way.

Only, in this case, its choice - and one that we can, should, and indeed do criminalize and for very good reason.

Now, again, not saying we should criminalize homosexuality, but we should NOT allow bad science into the realm of reality. the consequences of the perview that sexuality is inevitable? Well, as we see with pedophilia - that is just plane stupid.

But not with homosexuality?

Same question for theo - why is the level of social acceptability the determiner of sexual choices being beyond choice or choice?

That is not a very good indicator of scientific cause is it?

Yep, don;t like it when anything humps my leg.

But is dog can be taught to control his sexual appetite (which also goes toward his pack desire to dominate) then I am pretty sure that most rational human beings can too.

Because is terms of evolution, wasting valuable time and energy engaging in procreative activities that do not result in children is a waste of eneregy that put you a significant survival disadvantage over time.

Indeed, with homosexuality being a recessive gene - one has to wonder why it doesn;t just breed itself out? Well, that might be because its not genetic. Perhaps.

No, you are defining what you think my preconceptions are - even as I have repeatedly spelled them out for you.

We are responsible for our actions - period.

We master our sexuality - we are not enslaved by it. And if we CHOOSE to allow it to control us, well, that is a choice. The government doesn't have the throw money at me for making that choice.

Not as swift as that one liner devoid of evidence.

Right, right.

The fact that this is a banner issue for atheism, and the total inability of atheists to use their vaunted science is ... not noticeable?

Its funny, because when atheists do indeed run around bashing Christians, repeatedly refusing to make the delineations you do now?

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/219455-nigeria-imposes-state-enforced-religion.html

Right, let me know when you atheists will confront one of your own acting like this, rather than use it as an after the fact excuse to avoid criticism.

The ever changing standards of atheism are rather amazing.

 

Yes. They were homosexual before they 'gave into their attraction'. They did not suddenly become homosexual at that point. They always were homosexual.

Indeed. If you are equating sexual attraction with the attraction one might have to a car or an ice cream, then I can see why we are at odds here.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals know who they are attracted to from the age of puberty. This is not at all like alcoholism, which is considered to be a neurological disease. Homosexuality is not.

Quote:
None of the evidence that you have presented indicates that homosexuality is a choice. Some of the evidence that you posted, and that I reposted, points only to the conclusion that no choice is involved. Nowhere does it indicate that homosexuality is a choice. But somehow the absence of that evidence compels you to believe that it is a choice.

What are you on about? I have never denied that actions are a choice. I have denied only that feelings are a choice. How is homosexuality inevitable? It is conceivable that one could be homosexual all their lives without ever having had sex with anybody. People have certainly gone for long periods of time without sex. Have they not had any sexual preferences during that period or have they retained their original sexuality? The action does not define sexuality.

Why do you keep harping about pedophilia? The two things are unrelated. Some homosexuals are pedophiles, some heterosexuals are podophiles. Social acceptability has nothing to do with anything that we are discussing.

What we are discussing is whether or not homosexuality is a choice. In case you have forgotten. Again.

Perhaps you can explain to me how I could be absolutely certain about this without actually being the person in question. You, on the other hand seem to be absolutely certain that homosexuality is a choice, but you haven’t yet managed to provide any evidence that homosexual attraction is a choice.

Homosexuality exists before any sexual act is performed. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Were you heterosexual before you performed your first sex act, or were you not attracted to anything?
You were just waiting to make a choice?
Once you made that choice, then your sexuality was defined. That seems to be what you are saying.

 

The level of social acceptability is not a determinant. No one is arrested simply for being a pedophile (i.e. being attracted to pre-pubescent children) They are not arrested until they behave as a pedophile.
It has nothing to do with science, atheism, Christianity, marriage or taxes.

 

Since you are new to this whole "Evidence" thing, I'll explain how it works for you.

When you present evidence, like people being attracted to different sexes, you need to describe how it relates to your point and supports your argument.

You didn't do that.

I am willing to contend that the evidence you gave supports my argument. The idea that someone could have sex with a man or woman very much points at the idea that bisexual people aren't attracted to a gender, but a person.

Not relevant? It could actually be considered my thesis statement. How is it not relevant?

You have evidence to support this claim, right? Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be healthy and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households. Children raised in gay or lesbian households do not show any greater incidence of homosexuality or gender identity issues than other children.

Find me a reputable source that says otherwise.

To give into a desire is a choice. The part that is not a choice is having the desire in the first place. I can't eplain this concept to you any more clearly than I already have.

Did you see my last post? I am not for the promotion of Gay marriage? I am actually very much against it.

Except for the consenting adults part. No one has suggested relationships with children are ok. It is dishonest to attempt to use pedophilia as an argument against homosexuality when the 2 are unrelated.

This discredits your argument.

But not with homosexuality?

Again, you have no point unless a gay man has tried to hump your leg. Your comparisons of homosexuals to dogs is inaccurate and insulting.

You do realize that there are people out there with 2 fully functional sets of genitalia that can both impregnate and be impregnated.

Right?

I haven't tried to use genetics as evidence. I'm just saying you don't choose who you are attracted to.

We are responsible for our actions. We are not responsible for our desires. If you desire something that hurts another person, and you act on that desire, you are responsible for hurting someone else and you should be punished accordingly.

It seems so strange to see you talking about evidence.

 

Oh, so one day they just realized that their genetic code was programed to be gay? And the opposite? While busy sleeping with a man, he wakes up one morning and realizes that his genetic code is programed to be straight?

Sorry kiddo, but all you have is propoganda.

I believe I have spelled out my position, feel free to actually rebut it with something other than an opinion.

After all, the only thing you offer in support of your thesis is ... your opinion - and some very loose and VERY tenuous connections.

In short, you have nothing but the word of a few homosexuals, which is somewhat biased in terms of science, as the source of your opinion.

Your opinion is based in social pressure - nothing more.

You keep saying that, and then deliberately ignoring the switch hitters who change their sexuality.

That evidence DIRECTLY contradicts your claim.

Agh, feeling aren't a choice - but giving into them is? You are splitting hairs, and quite frankly, if every feeling we get is genetic - anger, happiness, etc. - are you suddenly going to tell me that all those feeling are genetic?

Or are you going to acknowledge that when a person feels angry there is a choice to act like an adult or through a petulent little tempter tantrum? If its the later, is ir pre-disposed by something beyond choice?

It has to do with human sexuality.

Either it is what you say or it is not.

And when you deliberately ignore the fact that you think science has different standards based solely on the social acceptability of certain sexual acts ... why that is terribly relevant.

Its why YOU keep dodging it with pathetic excuses. A real scientist would answer the question, and emotionalist will make excuses and insisit on a delineation ... because he says so.

Why don;t you explain to me how you inject a persons feelings in science without compromising it? Its called subjectivity, and if you inject it - which is what you are doing - you compromise science.

Does it? Because you say so?

And then pointedly ignore the sources that indicate that gay people recruit and later in life men realize that they are not gay and leave the life style?

Yep, the first time I slept with a woman I made a choice. And no, there are people, who, despite your protestation, are switch hitters. Indeed, you keep pretending that bi-sexuality is some kind of genetic choice (with no evidence whatsoever) and the prescence of these indicates that it is indeed a choice - as to people who completely switch roles.

They exist - you don;t want to acknowledge them - because that would mean you are wrong - and you are.

 

Agh, so until they make the choice. Gotcha - just like I said.

Indeed, they can also make the choice to seek treatment, and be successfully treated - eliminating the threat and temptation.

Which would be awfully hard if they were just born that way and powerless to do anything about it wouldn't they?

It has everything to fo with science, morality, law, and yes, your atheism.

Why do you REALLY believe that homosexuality is different?

 

Oh look, not one piece of evidence for a guy that is now lecturing about how ... no one else is doing it? Its not his failure its everyone else's?

you know its extremely .... trollish .... to repeatedly do this. Its not the first time you have demanded evidence and then gotten it, and then pulled an accusatory ostrich.

Its the same thing as, "Atheism is not a FAITH!!!," only when we ask you for the evidence to back it up, "Well, I am an agnostic atheist with no burden of proof!"

And indeed here we se it again - homosexuality is not a choice! - because .... a bunch of totally unsupported opinions about homosexuality that are clearly at odds with the scientific evidence.

Well, you just say so, huh?

Do you see the problem?

Just like being an atheist, we already know you don't believe in God, well, we already know that you think homosexuality is not a choice.

Now, why don;t you do us ALL a favor and present some kind of though process that lead you to that conclusion?

Otherwise all you are saying, "I have an opinion, and everyone else can go screw yourself!"

Maybe you should at least attempt to debate?

 

You disagreeing with what I am saying doesn't make me a troll or give you the right to call me names.

Most of what you criticize me for has to do with words that you put in my mouth and nothing to do with things I actually say.

 

The fact that you are rambling incoherently and failing to present a case is not about mere disagreement.

Its a pretty clear challenge, and one you routinely fail at.

Please lay out the process or chain of reasoning that lead you to conclude taht homosexuality was beyond choice.

We already know your opinion. The fact that have repeatedly twisted statements I have made, are introducing random bits of sexuality without thought, and utterly refuse to support your statement with a coherence is what marks your arguements as .... trollish.

Perhaps you do not like that criticism of your position? Well, as I said, we already know what your opinion is - and it would be nice to see the polite outlay of the reasoning that lead you to your conclusion rather than just the random 'nuh uh' that seems to flow with purpose or point after the statement of your opinion.

And if you are wondering about where that comes from - you can start with the, "Well, that is not only for homosexuals," comments that you keep making.

No (*)(*)(*)(*) DP, human sexuality is not about JUST homosexuals - and when everyone else is choosing things and homosexuals are not .... well, apparently homosexuality is not subject to teh rest of the rules of humanity.

The contast double standards and utter failure to grasp your opponents thesis, his chain of reasoning, and his conclusion is ... IMO ... sheer obstinance.

Prove me wrong - lets see you explain rather than just question - if you can.

 

Well DP?

Its a simple challenge.

What lead you to conclude that homosexuality was beyond choice?

No silly questions - just a narrative explanation if you will.

 

I have very thoroughly explained myself. Anyone that is actually trying to see another point of view already understands my position very well.

If you would like to continue the discussion in an honest manner by addressing my points instead of addressing straw men, and discussing the post instead of the poster, I would be happy to re-engage in our discussion.

 

I don't think marriage should carry any legal benefits other than in regards to property rights.

I think its bull (*)(*)(*)(*) that I have to pay the same amount of taxes as a single person that a married couple who makes twice my household income has to pay. That means single people are subsidizing the lives of married people.

It's bull (*)(*)(*)(*).

Marriage and Divorce Law has been completely corrupted by feminists to the point that a man gains no legal advantage through marriage anymore anyway, but does gain a huge amount of legal liability that makes marriage not even worth considering.

The woman sponges off the male and then leaves him for another one, taking half his income and the kids with no real legal consequences. I encourage all males to just cohabitate and stay legally single and lobby for marriage tax breaks to be eliminated.

Even the pre-nup isn't solid protection legally anymore.

 

So, you arrived at the position that homosexuals do not choose .... because everyone already knows why?

If you are not understanding why I think you are trolling yet, then perhaps you should take a good hard dose of the honesty you preach.

To be clear - there is nothing to discuss, because your refuse to state anything.

It is a clear and simple challenge - and one, just like I said, that you continuously fail.

 

Did you even read what you wrote?

I have to pay amount that what a married couple makes? In short, the married couple, if they make the same amount as you - pays the same amount.

That is why we call it INCOME tax bro.

If you ever had a room mate, well, certainly that is unfair advantage to people who desire privacy and an unfair economic advantage?

Not too mention, most (by no means all) married couples have these things called children - and if we want our society to continue ... guess what we need?

So it makes sesne to incentivise children - and makes even more sense to incentivise those who attempt to raise children in the best possible enviroment where we turn out healthy, well adjusted adults. That is why marriage gets you a tax break.

 



They have known that they were attracted to men since (or even before) puberty. If he was in bed with a man, it is very likely that he is there because he was attracted to the man. If you can find a documented case of someone waking up in the morning and realising that their attraction to the gender of the person they are in bed with has evaporated, I would like to see it.

All social pressure is on the individual to be heterosexual. No homosexual has chosen to be homosexual. Many try to deny their sexual orientation for years, have dated and slept with the opposite sex to try to overcome the homosexual feelings that they have been made ashamed of. Feelings that they know, if they ever disclosed them, that they would be condemned for, that they might lose some or all of their friends, have family members that might shun them. You think this a cheap Hollywood script. It’s not, this is reality. A reality that you have no idea of apparently.
Go and talk to some real homosexuals about the anguish of ‘coming out’. Go along and sit in on a gay help line and hear homosexuals who are on the point of suicide because they have feelings that they can’t deny and can’t express. Then come here and dribble on about how it’s all a choice. That you make. Every single day.

Nobody changes their sexuality. People change their lifestyle. There are a number of reasons, most of which have been explained to you here.

Yes, giving into them is a choice.
Anger is a feeling that can be so intense that it drives some people to murder. Sexual attraction is a feeling that causes some people to jump into bed with the object of their attraction.
The feeling that you have certainly predisposes you to act in some way. How you act is a choice. People usually choose to act in a way that will give them some payoff.

I don’t think that science has different standards based on social acceptability. Show me where I said that.

Ok, I’m happy to explain it. When you remind me where I said it. Because I don’t recall saying it and I think you are making it up.

Everybody ‘recruits’. It’s usually called a pickup. Bus stations are good for pickups, so I’m told.

Are you talking about the self-confessed liar who lived a gay lifestyle with six different lovers in 11 years because he was ‘recruited’? Seems like he had plenty of time to walk away from it if he wasn’t inclined that way. Only someone with an axe to grind would swallow that nonsense.

Can you explain what it was that led you to make the choice to sleep with a woman?


Here is what I said about the sources of human sexuality:
Post #65

You chose to reply with some nonsense about space aliens rather than make a reasonable reply.

Yet another example of your obvious inability to formulate and present a cogent argument.

It’s time for you to give it up before you drive another nail into the coffin of your credibility.

Or you could recommence your tirade against the atheists. That’s always worth a chuckle or two.

 

I provided you with an example fo this happening to both a man and a woman. I provided you with the opportunity to check out stories of this happening by the dozens a quick google search away.

Yet here you claim that it cannot be done? It has been done for you, and just like I claimed:

BS.

The idea that it is not socially acceptable to be gay these days ia bunch of BS.

Have you ever been around teh homosexual community? Have you ever seen the intense social pressure inside THAT community?

Once again, you make declarative statements that anyone familiar with homosexuality knows are just flat our wrong.

Except that they do. You are believig something in the opposite of facts.

Try Anne Heche.

And we hold people accountable when the are angry and murder people.

We sure as hell don't say, "Well, you see your father was slightly angry when your mother was pregnant, and this caused a chemical reaction that just made you uncontrollably angry ... so its OK that murdered someone - you were just born that way."

Even when we have CLEAR genetic influence, as with a sociopath, the decision to engage in that temptation is still a choice. Genetics do not make choices for us.

And if you are thinking homosexuality starts out with someone going, "Hmmm ... for some reason I really want a penis in my butt this morning?" Then you were clearly not paying attention in high school in the slightest.

Yes you do. You say one form of socially acceptable sexuality is beyond choice and another is not. That is what it means, that YOU haven't said that EXACT phrase is called being coy.

Nope, once again faililng to deal with the evidence when presented. Beastiality is different than homosexuality.

Oh, so the decision to recruit is genetic rather than a choice?

That is one of the most shallow and abusive comments I have ever seen a scientist make.

You demand compassion but show none, and have nothing but flimsy excuses and double standards. The only thing that realy matters to you is pride.

Do you see why yoru atheism matters? Do you see why this is a red banner for atheists? Its not about science, its about being a 'good' person because YOU tolerate homosexuality.

Apparently, you will also tolerate sexual manipulation and abuse by calling those victimized by it liars. Shame on you. And all for the sake of pride.

Yep, gay people should be able to get married based on the egos of atheists?

Can you explain to me why you ignore the scientific admonition to avoid putting personal feelings into a decision? Why you are displaying an uncivilized desire to over reach into personal areas - where, having seen your ilk do this a few time - all you really seek is a person hammer to hit someone with?

Stick to science ... oh, that's right - you can't. Because this is not about science for atheists.

Feel free to address my rebuttals.

No, speculation is just that. You choose to employ strawmen now.

So that is a cogent arguement rather than petulance?

Is that what you call sticking your head in the sand and lecturing people sanctimoniously?

No need, you guys do the damage to yourselves. I simply hold you to the standards you claim.

You all claim science? Well, where the hell is it?

Its not in your religion, and its not in your politics.

Some how, that makes Christians bad?

Atheists do seem to love accountability - for everyone but themselves.

 



Yes. You presented the story of a bisexual man who lived a gay lifestyle for 11 years through six different lovers and who has renounced his former lifestyle because he has been handed a guilt trip.
These stories are, as you say, everywhere. Most of them originate with those who seek to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is a choice, hence a sin. And sinners have to be Saved.
This in no way proves that homosexuality is a choice.

As usual you are just flat out wrong. I have been 'around' the homosexual ‘community’ for over 50 years. You want to discuss the social pressures within that 'community'? Let's go.

I suppose we can’t believe her any more because she refuses to comply with your wild theory that people can change their sexuality.

Her mother has concocted a story that Anne’s sexuality was switched, but not Anne herself, who might just be in a better position to know what her own feelings are.

http://www.mademan.com/chickipedia/anne-heche/

More voices inside your head. Don’t bother to post them.

Of course 'the decision to engage in that temptation is still a choice.’ That actually agrees with what I have been saying all along. ffs.

I have not said anything remotely resembling that. Show me where I have or apologise for repeatedly lying about it.

You haven’t presented anything resembling evidence, but I have dealt with most of your assertions.
Yes, homosexuality is the attraction to humans of the same gender. Bestiality is not.

What in that statement could possibly cause you to think such a silly thing, let alone bother to type it out?

Please spare us the fake outrage. I am not a scientist. Where did you get that idea?

Thank you for the rant. I knew you wouldn’t disappoint us.

So your decision to sleep with that woman was scientific?

Yep. Enough rope.

 

No I handed you the story of a man who lived as homosexual man and thenb switched, I handed you the story of a lesbian who did the same thing, told you about Ann Heche, and invited you to do more research.

Now you snivel, and have frankly crossed over into sheer obstinate dishonesty.

And you wonder why we call you guys zealots. Anything to protect your opinions.

Then why do you so casually miss what everyone else knows about it.

Because you lack teh strength the question. To acknowledge. To go where evidence leads.

You lack the strength to challenge friends. Yourself.

And there are no social pressures atheist, that is what you said. Now, when confronted with what you should have said in the first place, you switch sides?

What I have come to expect from militant atheists, too easily turn into would be bullies when they are actually confronted with facts. Emotionalists the lot of them.

And others do. I guess we'll just not recognize anything at all then.

It's irrelevant. You miss the point because you are being overtly dishonest and not wanting to admit that you are wrong. You are also blowing your stack - as atheists tend to do when they are wrong.

Ann Heche was living as an out and out lesbian, with one of the most famous lesbians in the world.

Now she is married to a man and has children ...

Oh, but that hurts.

So does this?

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/reorienting_sexuality/

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-am-an-ex-gay-and-i-support-michele-bachmann-and-her-husband/

In fact, there are entire organized groups of people who are FORMER homosexuals.

But you would malign and speculate about Ann Heche? And call that science?

I call that a desperate excuse to keep believing in a fallacious bit of propoganda.

More sceince, another atheists loses his temper when challenged and exposed as a emotional charlatan.

Your guys are all the same. Arrogant and mean.

No, it does not.

Because #1 - its what I have been saying since the beginning, and you have been screaming, its not choice.

And homosexuality is the END RESULT of attraction.

So just remember, the next time you see a sharp dressed man and think, heh, he looks nice - well, you will not be a fulfilled human being until your penis is in his butt. That's what you are saying.

We control our sexuality - not the other way around. You can love a man without having sex, same with a woman. You can be married and attracted to another woman, and not have sex with her.

But if you are gay, well, you are JUST born that way. No choice involved whatsoever - except now we acknowledge it.

Whatever your totally unspported opinion is that keep your precious non-scientific excuses in tact. Enjoy the parsimony.

I have said charlatan. Its you who keep dodging it and yes, you have very clearly placed beastiality and homosexuality in two different camps.

BTW - have you noticed how those losing debate and blowing their tempers accuse others of being dishonest when their house of cards comes crashing down?

I have done so repeatedly.

Why do ALL athesists do this? Demand evidence, get it, and then claim none?

Well, you believe in your delusions. Enjoy.

Not liking atheist bullies. Perhaps.

Oh, we know you are not a scientist. You are an emotionalist. It the only thing any atheist ever really has.

And time and time again, when challenged to support their claims - this is what we get - anger and arrogance.

Its in the religion and their politics. Hard to miss.

But you don;t think that is relevant? Pretty much anything you don't like is irrelevant, huh? Doesn't that define emotionalism?

Oh, your evidence is so much better - a bunch of opinions, retractions, accusations, double standards, and arrogance. The stuff of logic and science.

We should support gay people because atheists are arrogant? Gotcha.

Like I said, not surprised at all that homosexual 'rights' are a banner issue for militant emotional atheists.

It was choice charlatan.

Well, nice to see another atheist declare himself winner because ... well, he's still appealing to his own self. His belief in homosexuality - self.

Now, do we understand why so many theologians consider atheism to be self worship?

Go ahead, blow youo stack some more and declare yourself 'right', because angry arrogance is the stuff of evidence. In atheism.

And another one blows his stack.

Why do people keep thinking that atheism is a 'logical' process?

 

10 characters

 

And that is the logical outlay of why homosexuality is NOT a choice.

All evidence presented was presented by me, its claims examined. A clearly defined thesis statement with supporting evidence.

And, like Wells and other Jesus Mythers, all we get is a long series of excuses and the delcaration of being right - no matter what.

Zealotry.

This is no basis of science or even the pretense of objectivity, and this no basis for policy.

 

While you did give evidence, it did not support your claims.

This is a dead topic. You are the only one left on the "Choice" side that is still posting, so I am unsubscribing due to a lack of opposition.

 

Yep, no atheist can actually defend their pet project.

I do like teh declararative statement though - plenty of evidence, now it just doesn't support the claim ... because you say so. Very good at judgement and lecturing people about how evidence works, very bad at actually doing it.

How is this entire thing NOT about your totally unsupported opinion?

It was a simple challenge - write out what lead you to conclude that homosexuality was beyond choice?

Nothing.

As I started out with - that is not science, in fact, its bad science - and thus no basis for policy.

 



Indeed.



The evidence that you presented did not support your statement in any way. You can keep repeating the mantra that it was debunked, and that somehow it all cancelled itself out, but that is simply not so.

Even your own star case, Anne Heche, contradicted your claim unequivocally:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/g/sex_orientation.htm

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene

What part of that do you not understand?

How is this entire thing NOT about your totally unsupported opinion?

The real definition of ‘bad science’ is: Anything that Neutral does not agree with.

One final question: Did you choose to be attracted to women?

 

Some people will believe that homosexuality is an abomination until the world ends. I don't think it's possible to change their minds. I used to think maybe the anti-gay crowd just hadn't heard the right arguments, or hadn't seen the scientific evidence. On the contrary, either they have seen it and dismiss it or misinterpret it, or they won't allow it to effect what they already believed. It's like Sisyphus and the rock that can never be pushed up the hill, no matter how much effort is expended.