Skilled political debate
Are gays born that way, and do they deserve the right to marry?
Posted by DennisMarcellino • 6/28/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS]
Topics: gay marriage, liberalism
Recently gay marriage became legal in California, and gays are getting a buzz from this “victory”. But like with all addictions, this buzz will only be temporary and more ground will be fought for in the future.
When I say “buzz” and “addictions” I’m referring to what I describe in my book (The Plague Of Liberalism) as a psychological disease that liberal activists suffer from: “Freedom Addiction”. That is, they don’t feel free so, like with all addictions where a stronger dose is sought when ultimate satisfaction isn’t achieved, they keep pushing to break the legal barriers that restrict in any way.
Unfortunately they are using and severely hurting this culture and natural maturing of young people in the process. And the other unfortunate part is that, like with all addictions, this psychodramatic charade will never give them the freedom that they crave. Only submitting their inner and outer lives to being in harmony with the observable, inherent designs in nature will. (And my many years of research and experimentation in many different approaches to lifestyle, problem solving, personal growth and truth, have concluded with being able to prove that the Bible contains an inerrant explanation of those designs.)
A key underlying question to this whole issue is: are gays born that way? According to the stand of the APA (American Psychiatric Association) before 1973, the answer is “No”. To see how they changed their position because of heavy intimidation and not science, that story is in my book, which you can see at www.ThePlagueOfLiberalism.com.
User Comments
-
That's just silly. They deserve the right to marry just as much as YOU do.
[A key underlying question to this whole issue is: are gays born that way? According to the stand of the APA (American Psychiatric Association) before 1973, the answer is “No”. To see how they changed their position because of heavy intimidation and not science, that story is in my book, which you can see at www.ThePlagueOfLiberalism.com.]
I see a claim, but I don't see any actual sources cited. CITE THEM, dammit!
Links, especially.-
VK: That's just silly. They deserve the right to marry just as much as YOU do.
Me: "Just silly" isn't an intelligent response, it's an emotional reaction. Why do "They deserve the right to marry just as much as YOU do"?
[A key underlying question to this whole issue is: are gays born that way? According to the stand of the APA (American Psychiatric Association) before 1973, the answer is “No”. To see how they changed their position because of heavy intimidation and not science, that story is in my book, which you can see at www.ThePlagueOfLiberalism.com.]
VK: I see a claim, but I don't see any actual sources cited. CITE THEM, dammit!
Links, especially.
Me: Another emotional reaction. I thought blogs were supposed to be a place where people intelligently reasoned (I'm brand new to the world of blogging). And this one in particular advertises itself as a "skilled political debate" (which is what attracted me to it). Emotional reactions are off limits in a skilled debate. Here is the link: www.narth.com/menus/reso.html. Actually, there's a lot on this subject at www.narth.com. -
If you want to end the emotional responses, please start following the rules of an intellectually honest debate:
www.johntreed.com/debate.html -
Dennis - I don't believe there is any evidence for the idea that AIDS is a "feedback to homosexual behavior." AIDS spread quickly through the gay community because gay men at the time had no reason to think that they should be wearing condoms, as they were not at risk of unwanted pregnancy. Yes, it created the ideal conditions for the disease to spread, but to argue that AIDS is a direct response to homosexuality requires explaining how every other major plague in human history has been in response to something (one assumes, with your reasoning, they will all be punishments for sin).
I have not read your book, but it has always been my understanding that the nature of God is that He cannot be either proven or unproven. As such, I find it likely that your logic is exceptionally flawed.
-
-
According to one of the rules (Name calling) you had no excuse to do that ... especially as a first response to me. So that is what I was correcting. I was kind of expecting a welcome committee to be happy that someone else wanted to join in their discussions. But thanks for the rules of debate.
-
I didn't call YOU anything; I said your ACTIONS were silly.
-
-
Okay, then why is it "just silly"? And you didn't answer my question: "why do "They deserve the right to marry just as much as YOU do"?
-
Here's a question: Do blacks deserve the same rights as whites? Do women deserve the same rights as men? Do gays deserve the same rights as heterosexuals?
The answer to all three questions should be the same.
-
-
Not according to the laws of nature (and nature's creator). Yes regarding blacks and whites. Men and women have equal value, just different roles (and also differing from person to person). Homosexuality is a perversion of nature. Of course, "rights" are determined by a government. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the government is in harmony with nature (as is the case here in the U.S. and I would imagine every country in one way or another).
-
First, let's not assume nature HAS a creator unless there is concrete, unassuming, falsifiable evidence (and not just speculation; a "god of the gaps") that this creator exists.
Second, the "laws of nature?" What laws of nature? "Homosexuality is a perversion of nature?" What does that even mean? What you should say there is, "In my opinion, Homosexuality is a perversion," because all you have done is stated your opinion.
There's a book you should read that covers both topics (religion and, in chapter 8, homosexual/abortion controversies): The God Delusion by Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University.
-
-
[Homosexuality is a perversion of nature.]
No, that is incorrect.
Like VoodooKobra says, you can say that in your opinion, homosexuality is a perversion of nature. At least then it is about your opinion and not about the laws of nature.
If homosexuality is a perversion of nature, asexual reproduction would have to be a perversion of nature too. Clearly, this is not the case. The other implication is that homosexuality is supernatural. By this logic, if homosexuality is supernatural, and god is supernatural.....
You could make a strong argument for homosexuality being a perversion by the psychological definition of a perversion, ie a deviation from what is considered normal sexual activity. However, this does not imply homosexuality is in the same legal ballpark as paedophilia.
Forget about homosexuality. Think about what consenting adults are doing with each other. Is it any of your or my business?
Besides, if you are interested in recent science:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080616101119.htm
Being born that way is not relevant. Being a consenting adult is the only requirement to be eligible for marriage. Therefore, if you are eligible for marriage, how can another consenting adult not enjoy the same right?-
FP: [Homosexuality is a perversion of nature.]
No, that is incorrect.
Like VoodooKobra says, you can say that in your opinion, homosexuality is a perversion of nature. At least then it is about your opinion and not about the laws of nature.
Me: "No, that is incorrect". That doesn't sound like an opinion, it sounds like a definitive statement. So you are guilty of your own charge. Therefore the discussion should move into proving our points. The proofs that I gave to VK are: (1) NATURE created AIDS to deter homosexual behavior (you can't get AIDS from heterosexual behavior by virgins); (2) The sexual apparatus was designed only for heterosex; (3) If it isn't a perversion, then the Bible is wrong (but I've proven it to be right).
FP: If homosexuality is a perversion of nature, asexual reproduction would have to be a perversion of nature too. Clearly, this is not the case. The other implication is that homosexuality is supernatural. By this logic, if homosexuality is supernatural, and god is supernatural.....
Me: I didn't get that. I never said that homosexuality is supernatural.
FP: You could make a strong argument for homosexuality being a perversion by the psychological definition of a perversion, ie a deviation from what is considered normal sexual activity. However, this does not imply homosexuality is in the same legal ballpark as paedophilia.
Me: It used to be. The laws of the land are not necessarily a representation of nature.
VK: Forget about homosexuality. Think about what consenting adults are doing with each other. Is it any of your or my business?
Me: If it causes confused, psychologically troubled people to die from AIDS because they were experimenting with their feelings, then yes, it is our business to not put that temptation in front of them. I speak from experience on this because I had a roommate die from AIDS at a young age.
FP: Being born that way is not relevant. Being a consenting adult is the only requirement to be eligible for marriage. Therefore, if you are eligible for marriage, how can another consenting adult not enjoy the same right?
Me: It is relevant if we are talking about nature. And if the Bible is true, it is very relevant because God destroyed entire cities because of homosexuality. -
Saying "Nature created AIDS" sounds like a conscious decision. Why are you assuming there was an intent behind this instead of what happened? A virus mutated and infected humans. No more, no less. Also, let's hold off the "if the Bible is true"s until we have irrefutably concrete (and falsifiable in laboratory settings) proof that there is a god and the Bible got it right.
-
@Dennis - If it isn't, then the Bible is wrong (but I've proven it to be right).
You continually state you have evidence, a smoking gun as it were. Proof positive. Present it. You claim you've proven it in your book yet all you are proving here is that you have an opinion. Again, you make argument based on opinion claiming irrefutable proof...
What makes you think you are so arrogant as to have the "answers"? You, in thousands of years of thinkers and non-thinkers alike, have it all figured out? "just buy my book for the answers and proof? Bullshit... You start controversial conversation in order to market your crap books. I pity the mindless fool that buys the crap you are pawning off on people...
To some, I'm sure you figured it all out right? I mean you must have, you're a great musician... c:\sarcasm.exe
-
-
VK: First, let's not assume nature HAS a creator unless there is concrete, unassuming, falsifiable evidence (and not just speculation; a "god of the gaps") that this creator exists.
Me: On my part there is no assumption, I have proof.
VK: Second, the "laws of nature?" What laws of nature? "Homosexuality is a perversion of nature?" What does that even mean? What you should say there is, "In my opinion, Homosexuality is a perversion," because all you have done is stated your opinion.
Me: I say that homosexuality is a perversion of nature because (1) Nature created AIDS to deter homosexual behavior (you can't get AIDS from heterosexual behavior by virgins); (2) The sexual apparatus was designed only for heterosex; (3) If it isn't, then the Bible is wrong (but I've proven it to be right).
VK: There's a book you should read that covers both topics (religion and, in chapter 8, homosexual/abortion controversies): The God Delusion by Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University.
Me: You need to see the movie Expelled. Dawkins is interviewed a lot in it and shows himself to be inept.-
Yes, you claim to have proof, but I have not seen one ounce of proof.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_proof
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)
True proof that there is a god (or gods) must be unassuming, falsifiable, and (after considering ALL the data) ONLY point to one conclusion (even if new data is introduced). I'd like to see some of that proof.
Keep in mind that no matter how convincing an argument might sound, it does not make it true. I myself have been guilty of passing off non-sequiturs to less-capable debaters without them noticing; it doesn't make the logic behind those statements valid.
[(you can't get AIDS from heterosexual behavior by virgins)]
I have two words that blow that whole "Nature created AIDS" hypothesis right out of the water: Blood transfusions.
-
-
[Me: "No, that is incorrect". That doesn't sound like an opinion, it sounds like a definitive statement.]
Yes, but I can and I do motivate that statement objectively. It is not just my opinion. I believe I have proved to you that your stance is incorrect. If homosexuality were against the laws of nature, then why do homosexual acts occur in a wide variety of species? Why are there creatures that reproduce asexually? Why are snails hermaphroditic?
[Me: If it causes confused, psychologically troubled people to die from AIDS because they were experimenting with their feelings, then yes, it is our business to not put that temptation in front of them. I speak from experience on this because I had a roommate die from AIDS at a young age.]
Excuse me for jumping to conclusions, but it seems to me that you think that AIDS was caused by homosexuality.
[(1) Nature created AIDS to deter homosexual behavior (you can't get AIDS from heterosexual behavior by virgins)]
Actually AIDS has been contracted by people who did nothing more but go to the dentist. Did god punish them for getting an unnatural tooth?
[2) The sexual apparatus was designed only for heterosex]
Then why is the prostate an erogenous zone?
[(3) If it isn't, then the Bible is wrong (but I've proven it to be right).]
I think you need to re-read the Bible and look up all the references to sodomy.
[It is relevant if we are talking about nature. And if the Bible is true, it is very relevant because God destroyed entire cities because of homosexuality.]
Then why hasn't god destroyed San Francisco, Sydney, Cape Town, Linkin Park? -
As a med student, I feel that homosexuality is not a biological "mistake", except in instances of exclusive homosexuality--refusal to mate with the opposite sex under any circumstance.
From an evolutionary standpoint, continuation of the species depends on reproduction--I think that goes without saying. Therefore, by definition, exclusive homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end.
Also remember though that there are no rules in biology. What is natural and unnatural is EQUAL, in spite of what most people like to think. Assigning rules or boundaries to biology is silly and generally counterproductive. If gays figure out a way to have test-tube babies (distant future), that's just as good as far as biology is concerned.
I also don't think anyone is born gay. I think there's a strong hormonal component early on in life--we've already seen that homosexual brains tend to develop in many ways more similar to the opposite sex, and hormones can be the only explanation for that. For some, this is the case, others (probably a minority) it can be totally psychological I'm sure.
All that said, who cares? Are we not going to love and care for these people just because they're not going to have children, or they weren't "born" the way they ended up?
There's a condition where males are actually born female (XX+SRY) and their testicles fall and penis grows from the clitoris at around puberty (by the way, they're very often fertile). That's all hormones that changed them. When they grow up, are they not accepted in society? What's the difference?
As far as marriage... I don't understand the mystique anymore anyway, so I probably shouldn't say anything. -
Gays and marriage... What's next? Oh, I know...
People who love their pets... Let's pass a law that says owners can marry their pets. Then beastiality can be legal! So where does it stop? It's legal to fuck another guy in the ass... Why not a dog... Or even a poodle... Why not? I'll fuck a poodle...-
Wrong group. This is Skilled Political Debate.
-
OK Kobra boy... What do you know about politics? or skills... you're not old enough to have developed any yet. Have you balls dropped yet boy? I can still smell similac on your breath...
-
Your repertoire appears to consist entirely of personal attacks. Pity.
-
-
Repertoire? That's a big word for you... You can spell it but I bet you can't pronounce it...
-
Rep Er Twar
-
-
I believe that homosexuality is "normal", as it occurs in nature.
Are people "born that way"? I don't know. Physiologically, gay men's brains have been shown to be structurally similar to straight women's brains, but since children are not born sexually active, it's not easy to answer that question.
Is homosexuality "normal"? It is, because it occurs in nature. And to those who equate homosexuality to a "perversion of nature", I say that I, a straight, physically disabled man, fit that category myself, because I was born with brain damage. Should I, a "perversion of nature" (at least physicall) be allowed to marry? I believe I should.
According to the Book of Mormon, black people are a "perversion of nature" because they bear "the mark of Cain", black skin. They were initially denied the privilege of marriage until the 1860s, but those who want to be married are allowed to do so since that change took place. The same is true of Chinese immigrants. They are allowed the same privilege now.
Denying any privilege to an entire section of any population who have worked hard to gain the privilege, is simply unfair and unkind. Labels such as "traditional marriage" make no sense, because people break traditions (marriage is supposed to be "until death do us part" but we live in a society that can split up in two days or less).
Is homosexuality normal? Yes. Should anyone be allowed to get married, as long as they reach the age of majority, and are capable of understanding marriage? Yes.
Last, I'll say what Bill Maher recently said on his show: if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.
Henrik-
Henrik. Your reasoning sounds nice and compassionate. But here are the problems I find with it. You say that "nature" supports homosexuality. But nature also produced AIDS as a feedback to homosexual behavior. And in the final analysis to this discussion (and all discussions) is: what are the "ultimate" truths about all matters and can we be aware of them? In my many year search to try to find those truths out, I've landed on the fact that God exists and the Bible (not the Book of Mormon) is true. I PROVE those truths (scientifically, logically, experientially and statistically) in my new book, THE PROOF that God exists and the Bible is true. That would be too long of a thing to go into here, but if you are interested, I spell a lot of it out at www.ConclusiveProofOfGod.com.
-
"But nature also produced AIDS as a feedback to homosexual behavior"
Evolve much? o_0
-
-
hai my friends you see sexy clips in this website www.sexiqueens.blogspot.com
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
