Far Right Christian Pastor in EPIC gay rant...

[JustAlex]

Just because you do not believe on God does not necessarily mean that you support gay rights. I have know many bigots in my life that have never set foot in a church nor read the Bible.

Sorry being An Atheist does not guarantee tolerance.

OK, very fair points, and I guess I should elaborate a little better.

The reason gay marriage is still a POLITICAL issue is due to one book.

And you are 100% correct Atheism has nothing to do with tolerance....being an atheist doesn't mean you will automatically support gay rights or for that matter any particular right in general.

BTW, a bit off topic but....I kinda wish I was bisexual.

These people got it made!

Are you in the mood for a girl or a guy...why not both at the same time!

Lots of girls are into gay men the same way us guys are into lesbians.....so bisexuals can use this to their advantage.

Man....what a great life!

[andrewhoya]

BTW, a bit off topic but....I kinda wish I was bisexual.

These people got it made!

Are you in the mood for a girl or a guy...why not both at the same time!

Lots of girls are into gay men the same way us guys are into lesbians.....so bisexuals can use this to their advantage.

Man....what a great life!

Haha, you would think so, but the problem is myself, and many others, go through phases...which kind of makes it tough for long term stuff!! But yes, it provides more opportunities/options....

[ajcorleone]

Yes I was responding to Alex's post #94
Go back to that thread and you'll see how I said two or three times that even though I disagreed with the story, I thought it was "small peanuts"...

Why not cry to your god Ground, why not ask him to smite an evil atheist like me?

C'mon WHERE IS YOUR GOD, GROUND?!

WHY DOES HE ALLOW ME TO CONTINUE MOCKING HIM?!!!

Pray to him and he'll do your bidding....keep crying about how christians like you are being oppressed by evil atheists like me.

OH Your god doesn't do anything huh?

He must be nothing more than a coward that needs people like Ground to fight his battles for him.

Keep fighting the good fight Ground, cuz Yahweh sure as hell won't!


The comment I made can be viewed as insulting as I found his response insulting. AND I AM NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN. Ijust found the tone and text insulting. Hope that helps you then

Err...I did....in my original post. Hence the link.

[andrewhoya]

The comment I made can be viewed as insulting as I found his response insulting. AND I AM NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN. Ijust found the tone and text insulting. Hope that helps you then

That's all I was trying to get from you. Thanks!

[ajcorleone]

Yes as long as I am not accused of "teaming up" on anybody. I can speak for myself without help I always give my own opinion. And like I said and hope you see anybody can take anything said any way they want.Thats all I want to get from you.

That's all I was trying to get from you. Thanks!

[habsheaven]

habs, what did I skirt before?!!!

the video regarding all the Jesus-like characters that came before him

thanks for the good wishes.

Your welcome

I must say the one pleasure I get from this site, I was reminded of today. I actually give thought to some of this, well, when it hasn't gone down the tubes.

now back to the topic.

habs, what the heck am I deflecting?

you were deflecting from stating a position on CHOICE/BORN THAT WAY by claiming it is not important when determining equality in marriage.

(disclaimer, this is off the top of my head, no research was done on my part)
I have said it does not matter if someone is born gay or not, what difference does it make?

It makes a big difference. First, people use the CHOICE argument to argue that they are not against the GAY person, rather they are against the choice being made by the gay person to engage in a gay relationship. In essence, it doesn't recognize the gay person for who they are.

I have said it is possible people could be born gay, but there is only opinions,

Problem is you equate a gay person's opinion to the opinion of a straight person. Clearly, one has more insight into the topic than the other.

not any real proof.

I'm not sure what would ever pass as real proof to you.

The 1,000's of suicides by gay youth looking for acceptance?
Their choice to kill themselves rather than change from gay to straight? You would think it's a simple transformation if they were born straight.
The 6 year old girl that wants to be a boy?
The masculine woman.
The feminine male.
The cross-dresser.
Your gay friends that claim both choice and birth?
The hermaphrodite born with both male and female organs?
The copious amounts of research on the topic that indicate our sex is not just determined by our sexual organs. The studies that breakdown our sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation?

If none is proof, surely it is evidence.

so lets break this down a little,

is it possible that humans can be born straight?(using this term because it is easier to type)
yes, without this sexual preference, no of us would be here.

of course it is. but only straight? not likely based on all we know.

is it possible that humans can be born gay? (see above about term usage)
yes, but rather than basing this on the fact there are gay humans, and the fact that some/most "feel" they were born gay, why can't we apply some logic to this?

I'm quite certain that the people that study this apply logic to it.

side note:
I am a bit of a freak. I like to look at every argument for and against whatever the topic may be. I like to widdle out the nonsense such as: gay sex is nasty. gays sex is unatural. gays are not normal.
all 3 statements are opinions and not facts, so they would get thrown out.
then re-argue every argument from every side, and see where I end up.

I'm the same way. That's why I am trying to get you to discuss the points I raise, and not dumb it down to opinion vs opinion, no facts so we can never make an intelligent call one way or the other.

back to topic.

so the two questions about being born gay can be argued.

first throw out the junk.
the junk is the crazy stuff that is opinion and not fact. such as "gays aren't natural".
There are other opinions (like you mentioned) that hold more validity and if facts and opinions align, then opinions hold a little more water. but without any facts behind them, they are mute to me.

this does not mean they should not hold personal importance to someone else, but that is your experience, I am not saying it is wrong, but it is not mine. I have been told by people that "they talk to God", or "know God", speak in Gods language, Aliens planted human life on Earth. I am not calling anyone a liar about their personal experience, but there is a reason it is a personal experience, it means, I have not experienced it, it is my shortcoming, not yours.
this does not mean the argument whether humans can be born gay is over, just the argument using the opinion of personal experience. though valid, it is not fact.

See, this is the interesting part. You claim the feelings and opinions of gays are sort of valid, but without facts they are void in the analysis of the topic.

so there is no "scientific evidence" about humans being born gay, but this still does not end the possibility. It is just time to use some theories that are based upon facts, that could apply to humans being born gay.

depends on your version of scientific evidence. I think some of what I listed is scientific evidence and I will bet there is a lot more out there.

How about human evolution? I mentioned it before. as humans we have shed the need to repopulate which has freed some to chose a life partner based soley on the individual, gender, race, nor any other human trait matters, it is just the person.
Does this hold any validity, rather than just sounding really good?
sure, when humans "came to be", there was a pretty small population. The need to breed was high on the list, thus we mutated to want to breed as much as possible.
over time, the population has been high enough ( now too high) and slowly this trait receded and the need to breed was lessened. this enabled human to evolve both sexually and allowing mating to not be based on high breeding desires, some have more and some have less of this trait.
not the best defense, but interesting enough to look into the possibilities of it.

That's an avenue to look at but I think any mutations about population control would revolve around female anatomy and biology like gestation periods and menstruation cycles. I doubt it would affect sexual orientation of males.

second theory would be culture, society, and environment. the changes mentioned above were not genetic in nature, but a cultural, societal effect on human nature. even think of the last 100 years in America. If you were not one of the elite, it took a large family to survive. Whether you lived on the plains, farmed the land in Ohio, or lived in the mountains, large families were needed. This is not the norm of today and it has slowly gone away over the last 100 years. even my grandparents were raising families of 5-8 kids, to help run the farm, do chores, and pretty much be a built in work force.
my parents generation bore around 3 -4 kids and my generation maybe I think is at 2.5 kids?
so the need to breed is lessened and with some it has changed just for a need for a monogamous relationship. some may be only attracted to the same gender, some to both, some to the opposite, and some to no gender.
I not sure I am I agree with what I just wrote, but I am just throwing stuff out there.

I would suggest changing cultural and societal circumstances would elevate the presence of more gays only because I still believe a large portion of the population is bisexual from birth.

At this point I would pick trying to figure the in and outs of the first "theory". That would require a whole heck of a lot of research that I do not care to do.

My personal interests are elsewhere.

so, can humans be born gay? sure, but I don't have much to back that statement up against somebody who really wants to argue it.

Yet you have the opinion that they are not born gay and offer nothing to support it.

The debate can go either way, depending on approach, but the facts are not there. It is at this point people will divide and each will have their opinions they want seen as facts.

Again, no one has to treat them as facts. Much like a court case. All you have to do is study the evidence presented and come to a reasonable conclusion.

I'm really curious to know what you based your opinion on?

[gsj68]

And you posted this why?

because these are the batons i've been passed and i carry them proud
i carry them for the gay and the straight for the the right and the left for the theist and the atheist
so be free and pursue happiness my friend,i have your back




actually i made all that stuff up,i'm a little nuts and post without thinking
carry on with shrew,you two lost me along time ago

[gsj68]

woops did it again

[Star_Cards]

The comment I made can be viewed as insulting as I found his response insulting. AND I AM NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN. Ijust found the tone and text insulting. Hope that helps you then

I'd like to add that my comments on this matter were in no means saying that other parties are completely innocent and not posting similar insults. Nor was I trying to say this was the only example of annoying bickering. This was just the major example that came to mind when replying to andrews comment. I get that things will get heated when discussing such topics but similar insults just derail any sort of constructive conversation.

[shrewsbury]

But it is an opinion based on personal knowledge of those experiencing it and it's an opinion that covers all the bases

to be fair, the old saying "hindsight is 20/20 plays a role here.
the human brain does many "tricks" one of them is stringing similar events together to form a pattern that seems familiar.

it makes us think we knew something was going to happen before it did, but the facts are, we did not.