I told you, there is a cure for homosexuality.

the use of it to bad effect. That's the definition of abuse.

Where did I mention giving alcohol to children?


"the entirety of the judiciary history and present disagrees with you.

Outside of legalities yeah, but law is entirely within legality.

Explain what you mean by "those certain ways or methods,"

If we say it's wrong to harm children by beating them or having sex with them then we can say it's wrong to harm children and other ways and further make it illegal.

Well it is condemned unanimously by every mental health association in the United States, and by all experts in the field of behavioral Science.

so it's proven you have to prove it wrong to suggest conversion therapy isn't abusive.

I wish you luck.

but then you said there shouldn't be laws made about this. Why?

that's bullshit I can tell anyone I want anything I want. If I can't stop me have the police come and arrest me for telling people things.

again yes I can I can tell anybody to do anything I want.

It's not illegal.

you haven't you repeatedly say the law is the law. But then you say there shouldn't be certain laws. Your position seems schizophrenic to me.

So it's not clear at all.

Going by just your words.

It seems your position is going by how you've dodged the argument that every point. There shouldn't be a law against conversion therapy because you don't think it's abuse and parents should have the right do treat their children like property.

Am I mistaken if so explain?

 

no I'm not parsing words. In your original hypothetical you said meat causes heart disease. That would include infrequent consumption and consumption of white meat.

You moved the goalposts when you couldn't find anything to support your argument.

and you also should have included the phrase frequent consumption of red meat.

I wouldn't have argued against you then

Because the behavior of eating meat is different than the behavior of frequently consuming red meat.

I'm sure with processed foods it has to do with quantity. And if you aren't meeting your child's nutritional needs you are abusing them and that is illegal.

technically it is illegal to not meet the nutritional minimum. And again that's about quantity. if all you ever do is feed your baby Cokes and cheese balls you can be arrested for that. When that child dies from a heart attack or has to go to the emergency room there will absolutely be an investigation. It is considered child endangerment.

I don't understand this back and forth is it debate. You say the Law's the law, to wit I never debated at all. Didn't you say there shouldn't be a law against forcing your child to go through conversion therapy. If you heated argument for why you thought that was that would be a debate.

but again all you're saying is as long as they're not breaking the law the law will not punish them. Well yeah I never debated that.

 

So to give you another simile.

You should have no say in a parent performing a sex change on their three year old because it's legal?

Or a nine year old boy stripping in front of a bunch of gay men for dollars?

Neither one of these things are illegal so they should be allowed to do that right?

And there shouldn't be a lot because then there will be a law against letting them eat meat.

 

no soldier would give a sh*t in a foxhole under fire, if the soldier next to him is gay or not.

 

You think too highly of yourself.

 

Say who? You? Who made you the arbiter of deciding what women should or shouldn't do.

 

And yet you feel you have the right to criticize those who don't agree with your point of view. That is call....hypocrisy.

 

but YOU have the right to tell Gay people to keep their relationships at home?

how's that work?

and as a Christian woman, aren't you supposed to follow the New Testament which commands that woman must not educate men?

 

New Testament says you can only educate women.

 

Well apparently they got that part wrong.

 

There's been a few threads on objective morality.
If I go by my definition, which I think is the correct definition, is 100% of people would have to see it the same way. For it to be objective, there can be no bias at all.

So, I still stand by my assertion that all morals are subjective.
Yes, we outlaw certain instance of killing, but then throw all that out the window if there's a war. Especially if we are the one's doing most of the killing.
Laws are mostly based on the objective, of a functioning society, as best as it can be.
So murder, theft, and other things that could impact another's individual rights are usually against the law. Which may or may not be related to morals.

 

What I meant only you laid it out better than me

 

Honestly I took it as a tongue in cheek.

 

Duterte lies. Being gay is a genetic trait, not a curable infection. If you believe God made all of us, then you have to accept that either God makes mistakes, or God intended for 10% of us to be gay for a reason. Maybe it's a test, to see if those normal heterosexuals are capable of loving (platonic sense) others who are as different as gays. It would be a rather interesting test.

 

Have scientists found the gene?

 

Scientific results already confirm it's not just a single gene, but a combination of genes that control homosexuality in men. So far, I believe, they've identified four genes that play some part in male homosexuality, but anticipate finding more. Research is still in the early stages with lesbians.

 

"play some part"

What does this mean?

Does that mean other factors also play a part?

 

This entire thread is based on a murderer claiming that there is a "cure" for something that is not a disease

 

Yes, next to the hetero gene. /rolls eyes.

 

That was a genuine question lol I swear... I hear it said confidently said that homosexuality is genetic so I wondered what evidence there is to give people such confidence

 

I don't know if it's genetic. Another poster said a few genes may come into play.

But I do know gay people, and I believe them when they say they have no choice in the attraction they have.
Many of them tried to hide it, live a normal life, get married to opposite sex, have a family. But in the end, they still have same sex attraction.

 

I'm not disagreeing that they are attracted to who they are attracted to. That just seems like a human trait imo.

The question of what causes it seems like a complicated one to me so I wondered how people could confidently say it's genetics. Sure it plays some part but I would assume environment also has to play a part as well again how much I couldn't say.

 

Does it really matter?
Humans have gays, likely always have. The animal world has gays. How does environment affect the animal world?

 

Not really i was just the genetic thing peaked my interest.

I would add though

In the animal kingdom though to my knowledge there arevery few species that have life long homosexual partners

God says judge lest you be judged..... Not my place