When the going gets rough, start bashing the Gays

[Broheim]

Then explain how it isn't a genetic defect.

then explain how it is one.

 

[zsdersw]

I believe people have the genetic predisposition towards homosexual desire.

One has to seperate the desire vs the act. Desire is something you have no control over, the act you do. If an act is wrong (extramarital sex, sex with minors, homosexual sex, etc), then one should not do the act. The desire can strike, but what you do about the desire is what matters.

Your list of "wrong acts" is wrong. The difference is in whether consent was given, either in terms of the spouse of the person having extramarital sex or the minor who is generally not legally permitted to give consent or, in the case of children (young people far below adulthood or even puberty), don't know anything about sex and don't know what they are consenting to.

Homosexual sex is, for the most part, consented to by those involved.

Any sexual act that is not consented to, whether homo- or hetero-sexual, is always wrong.

Unlike your definition of what's wrong regarding sex, which hinges upon your own personal and religious beliefs, my definition hinges upon what others believe and agree to. Yours forces a personal opinion, mine depends on the opinion of the people involved. Yours is anti-liberty, mine is not.

It's quite simple:

Don't like or approve of homosexual sex? Fine... then don't have it.

 

[zsdersw]

Questions: Do you believe homosexual sex between consenting adults should be illegal?

If so, why?

If so, what should the punishment be?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

No it isn't. You are making an assumption based on nothing. I don't hate homosexuals, as I would not hate someone with a cleft pallet or born with some other abnormality. I think they are ( as so well put by another poster ) handicapped genetically. I don't think they are evil etc. They cannot help it, I simply do not believe in gay "marriage". I couldn't care less what they do behind closed doors.

Makng an assumption based on nothing? Like your assertion that homosexuality is a genetic defect with no research to show any genetic anomoly unique to homosexuals or evidence that it is hereditary and passed through genes?

You have nothing other than your desire to believe to support your claim.

 

[dank69]

Amazing that you mention comprehension. Here is exactly what I typed (bolding added):



What I see is simply another post from you cementing your statement that you are retarded.

The fact that you think there is anything dishonest about the way I quoted him in my sig shows your inability to use reason.

 

[cybrsage]

Your list of "wrong acts" is wrong.

Nope, it is correct.

The difference is in whether consent was given...

Nope[/quote]

Any sexual act that is not consented to, whether homo- or hetero-sexual, is always wrong.

Agreed.

Unlike your definition of what's wrong regarding sex, which hinges upon your own personal and religious beliefs, my definition hinges upon what others believe and agree to. Yours forces a personal opinion, mine depends on the opinion of the people involved. Yours is anti-liberty, mine is not.

Hold on there a moment. Your definition does not rely on your personal belief? Think that over again....if you believe it, it is a personal belief. To claim otherwise is to be dishonest.

Liberty is not anarchy. Liberty requires rules to ensure it is maintained. To claim having rules is anti-liberty is silly.

It's quite simple:

Don't like or approve of homosexual sex? Fine... then don't have it.

Care to apply that to all things considered wrong, or just the ones which do not align with your personal beliefs?

 

[cybrsage]

The fact that you think there is anything dishonest about the way I quoted him in my sig shows your inability to use reason.

This is simply more support of your own statement that you are a moron.

You really should quit while you are behind. If you keep it up, you will have dug a hole deep enough to hit molten rock.

 

[dank69]

This is simply more support of your own statement that you are a moron.

You really should quit while you are behind. If you keep it up, you will have dug a hole deep enough to hit molten rock.

That is quite a fantasy you have going there, don't let me interrupt it.

 

[cybrsage]

So then you're fine with gays having anal sex as long as they are married?

I have determined why you post idiotic things routinely. You are unable to remember past the very last post you see. Your mind simply cannot hold enough information in it to remember back farther than the one post your quote...and sometimes you cannot even remember the entire quote.

Your posts are easier to understand now that I realize this.


But to answer your question, I will quote myself:

If an act is wrong (extramarital sex, sex with minors, homosexual sex, etc),

Clear enough?

 

[cybrsage]

That is quite a fantasy you have going there, don't let me interrupt it.

You claim purposefully misquoting someone is not wrong...and yet I am the one in a fantasy?

 

[zsdersw]

Nope, it is correct.

Nope it's wrong.

Nope

Yup.

Hold on there a moment. Your definition does not rely on your personal belief? Think that over again....if you believe it, it is a personal belief. To claim otherwise is to be dishonest.

Correct, it doesn't rely on my personal beliefs about sex. The choice to seek sex or to have sex is a choice someone makes for themselves, not for other adults. My personal beliefs about sex are the things I like and don't like when I'm having sex; they cannot and do not apply to anyone else.

I do not have an opinion or a personal belief about what others do with regards to sex as long as it's between consenting adults... which is not so much a personal belief of mine as much as it is the law.

Liberty is not anarchy. Liberty requires rules to ensure it is maintained. To claim having rules is anti-liberty is silly.

Yes, liberty requires rules to ensure it is maintained... but your statement implies that sex between consenting adults must be regulated to a degree more than it currently is (sex only when married, only between one man and one woman) in order for everyone's overall liberty to be maintained. That is very clearly wrong.

Care to apply that to all things considered wrong, or just the ones which do not align with your personal beliefs?

Actually, I do apply it to things that are of no direct consequence to anyone else.

I don't own a gun, but don't care if others do.
I don't use illegal drugs, but don't care if others do.
I don't fly the confederate flag, but don't care if others do.
I don't subscribe to any religion or spiritual construct, but don't care if others do.

Personal choices that do not affect anyone else's life or property are not in the purview of any level of law and government to restrict or otherwise regulate, IMO. Anyone who thinks otherwise is 100% wrong and 100% hypocritical when they claim to want government "off their backs".

 

[cybrsage]

Correct, it doesn't rely on my personal beliefs about sex. The choice to seek sex or to have sex is a choice someone makes for themselves, not for other adults. My personal beliefs about sex are the things I like and don't like when I'm having sex; they cannot and do not apply to anyone else.

Your personal belief is that everyone should do what they want...provided you agree with it. Yet you, for some strange reason, say it is not your personal belief. Your personal beliefs are what you use to say my list of wrong items is wrong. Yet you still claim it is not your personal beliefs.

Yes, liberty requires rules to ensure it is maintained... but your statement implies that sex between consenting adults must be regulated to a degree more than it currently is (sex only when married, only between one man and one woman) in order for everyone's overall liberty to be maintained. That is very clearly wrong.

Never made that claim; you saying such is silly. YOU are the one who said that my views would remove liberty. It is a silly claim.

Actually, I do apply it to things that are of no direct consequence to anyone else.

That is not what I asked.

Personal choices that do not affect anyone else's life or property are not in the purview of any level of law and government to restrict or otherwise regulate, IMO. Anyone who thinks otherwise is 100% wrong and 100% hypocritical when they claim to want government "off their backs".

Never claimed the government should do such things. Why do you continuously add things in which were never claimed nor even implied? There are many wrong things the government allows us to do. I never claimed the government should stop all those things. Pretending I did is silly.

My post simply showed that there is a difference between having the desire to do something wrong and actually performing the wrong act.

Someone cuts you off in traffic and you suddenly have the desire to ram their car and force them off the road. You do not follow through on your desire to do wrong.

I am a bit shocked you do not understand this.

 

[soulcougher73]

Troll Post.

Who cares really. Just because they exist doesn't mean everyone has to agree with their lifestyle. In the excerpts that you posted I didn't see any " gay bashing ". Just that Perry finds it "deeply objectionable" is not bashing. I think it is " objectionable " also. I don't care what they want to do in private, it is none of my business. It doesn't mean I have to accept it as a good thing.

Troll post.

Hey..that is fun to say when you dont agree with something. Thanks..i didnt realize saying "troll post" would bring such happiness.

 

[zsdersw]

Your personal belief is that everyone should do what they want...provided you agree with it. Yet you, for some strange reason, say it is not your personal belief. Your personal beliefs are what you use to say my list of wrong items is wrong. Yet you still claim it is not your personal beliefs.

Actually no, that's your personal belief. I never said people shouldn't do things I don't agree with or that things they do that I don't agree with are wrong.

Never made that claim; you saying such is silly. YOU are the one who said that my views would remove liberty. It is a silly claim.

You said that liberty requires rules in response to my statement that your view is anti-liberty. That implies that you think rules on this subject are required beyond what we already have.

That is not what I asked.

What you asked isn't relevant. All things considered wrong that do impact others are a matter of the intrusion on the right of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everything else is a matter of "Don't like XYZ? Fine... don't have/do XYZ."

Never claimed the government should do such things. Why do you continuously add things in which were never claimed nor even implied? There are many wrong things the government allows us to do. I never claimed the government should stop all those things. Pretending I did is silly.

I never claimed you did... I was elaborating on the previous paragraph in my response.

My post simply showed that there is a difference between having the desire to do something wrong and actually performing the wrong act.

That's correct, there is a difference... and I never said there wasn't.

I am a bit shocked you do not understand this.

I'm not at all shocked that you do not understand many things.

 

[lokiju]

Bottom line. Gays are here to stay and gay marriage will become legal in all 50 states of this country soon enough.

Republicans are again on the wrong side of social progress. Keep fighting that losing battle into slow but sure irrelevance.

In my opinion this is not a Republican vs Democrat thing.

It's a evangelical Christian vs non that's the issue.

the evangelical Christians are vocal and often associated with Republicans but they are Democrats, independents and non-voters as well.

They've been brought up their whole life to think that their Deity disapproves of homosexuals and to them, that's all that they need to know to disapprove themselves.

Then there's the homophobic old school folks that were raised without the influence of religion to also learn by example of those around them that homosexuals equal bad to them and it became ingrained.

I feel pretty confident that by the time my son (he's 2.5 now) is my age (30's) that all this will be a thing of the past or at the least considered so inappropriate to express that public lack of acceptance of such thinking will prevent most of the ones that still hold onto it to at least minimize the spreading of it to other younger people.

unfortunately even in my own age range group there are people that are blindly against and seemingly fearful even of coming in contact with homosexuals.

It truly makes me sad to see sometimes.

I try to avoid conversations with others on this topic as it to often leads to someone getting frustrated or upset but sometimes I can't help but ask "did you choose to be straight?" or "did you one day make a choice to like women (if it's a male)?"


Again, just my own personal opinion.

I just tire of seeing things posted all the time on both sides where these stereotypes are constantly invoked when it's so untrue.

It's a human nature thing not a political association issue on all these tired and regurgitated ad nauseam supposed associations that somehow tie to a political party.

 

[cybrsage]

Actually no, that's your personal belief. I never said people shouldn't do things I don't agree with or that things they do that I don't agree with are wrong.

You already posted your personal belief. Your personal belief is that it is ok for people to do anything they want provided it is not illegal. That IS a personal belief.

You said that liberty requires rules in response to my statement that your view is anti-liberty. That implies that you think rules on this subject are required beyond what we already have.

No, it means exactly what is written. It does not mean anything more or anything less.

What you asked isn't relevant. All things considered wrong that do impact others are a matter of the intrusion on the right of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everything else is a matter of "Don't like XYZ? Fine... don't have/do XYZ."

This, also, is a personal belief.

You say my personal beliefs are wrong because they are personal beliefs...and then say your personal beliefs are right because they are not actually your personal beliefs. If they are not your beliefs, whose beliefs are they?

I never claimed you did... I was elaborating on the previous paragraph in my response.

Ah, ok. My bad for reading more into it than was there.

 

[cybrsage]

They've been brought up their whole life to think that their Deity disapproves of homosexuals and to them, that's all that they need to know to disapprove themselves.

This is where many of the problems can be found. Christians should not think God disapproves (hates, whatever) homosexuals, for that is not true. God hates the act, not the person who performs the act. The person can change their actions and stop doing the wrong act, but the act is still aways wrong.

 

[zsdersw]

You already posted your personal belief. Your personal belief is that it is ok for people to do anything they want provided it is not illegal. That IS a personal belief.

It's the law.

No, it means exactly what is written. It does not mean anything more or anything less.

That clears it up, but doesn't mean the inference was unjustified. Speaking in general terms in response to something specific is rarely a good thing to do without clarifying things in a subsequent sentence.

This, also, is a personal belief.

You say my personal beliefs are wrong because they are personal beliefs...and then say your personal beliefs are right because they are not actually your personal beliefs. If they are not your beliefs, whose beliefs are they?

They're all of our beliefs. As citizens we agree to live by the Constitution and laws created by our government. We do not all agree to live by or take allegiance to the Bible or any one person's individual beliefs.

 

[cybrsage]

It's the law.

And your personal belief is aligned with the law. Thus, you are speaking of both at the same time. If I am wrong, simply say "My personal belief does not match what I have been saying."

They're all of our beliefs. As citizens we agree to live by the Constitution and laws created by our government. We do not all agree to live by or take allegiance to the Bible or any one person's individual beliefs.

Not everyone believes the laws are right. Just take a look at abortion, for example.

Having laws does not mean there are not conflicting beliefs.

 

[zsdersw]

And your personal belief is aligned with the law. Thus, you are speaking of both at the same time. If I am wrong, simply say "My personal belief does not match what I have been saying."

My personal belief does not exactly match what I've been saying.

Not everyone believes the laws are right. Just take a look at abortion, for example.

Having laws does not mean there are not conflicting beliefs.

Everyone won't believe all of the laws are right... ever. Such an ideal doesn't exist in a free society.. but we still believe that, overall, we're free so long as we don't intrude upon anyone else's freedom or right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, there are conflicting beliefs, but the fact remains we all pledge allegiance to our constitution, government, and law... not the Bible or any one person's views.

 

[HomerJS]

This is a great clip Piers Morgan asking Ann Coulter what if you had a gay son or daughter.

Little miss big mouth who has no trouble calling liberals evil and saying 9/11 widows were "harpies" for insisting Bush create a 9/11 commission. When asked a relevant political question relating to her personally, here is the "response"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQYSX4KYPs4&feature=related

 

[Darwin333]

IMO: Being gay is not a minority. It is a genetic defect in some and a lifestyle choice for others.

So you believe that gays should be given all of the benefits and protections of any other disability?

 

[Darwin333]

This is where many of the problems can be found. Christians should not think God disapproves (hates, whatever) homosexuals, for that is not true. God hates the act, not the person who performs the act. The person can change their actions and stop doing the wrong act, but the act is still aways wrong.

Then why did God make them attracted to the same sex?

Yall can say all you want about "choice" but you know damn well that you couldn't "choose" to be attracted to guys and repulsed at the thought of having sex with a woman.

 

[PingviN]

Then why did God make them attracted to the same sex?

Yall can say all you want about "choice" but you know damn well that you couldn't "choose" to be attracted to guys and repulsed at the thought of having sex with a woman.

Oh I'm sure that christians will blame the devil for that part.

 

[akahoovy]

I know this isn't relevant to the OP, but sexuality among people is highly malleable, based on their environment. That is to say that your upbringing and/or your environment could alter your sexual preference. I'm not too certain on how much sexual preference has to do with genetics as I haven't read much on it.

As an example, when the warriors of Sparta would go on long tours away from their families, the officers actively encouraged gay sex among the soldiers to ease their anxiety and tensions. When they came home, some would prefer stay with men they had been with on their tour and would leave their wives. I don't have a link to this, I'm quoting from memory reading a public school world history book.