Does it matter why people are gay?

The homophobes typically say "It's a choice"....because they want it to be something that is the gay person's "fault"....not "God's fault" for it being innate.

Of course they quickly get tripped up when you ask them "Okay when...exactly...did you 'choose' to be heterosexual.....and what were you BEFORE you 'chose' that?"


If homosexuality is genetic, the homophobic are stuck. First the religious among them, who say "God makes us who we are" have to answer "Okay, why did God make gay genes...if being gay is a sin?"

Second, it then becomes the same as race or gender. So you can't discriminate legally against being gay....no more than you can discriminate legally against being black or Latino or Asian...or a woman.


Plus it means "reversion therapy"....where homophobes try to brainwash those who are gay into pretending they are straight....is doomed to fail.

 

It is rather unfair to compare these atrocious acts to homosexuality (which is between consenting. living adult humans). Though I get your point I do not consider it valid at all.


Can you prove the opposite?

I too am a strong believer in biology. And from a biological and evolutionary point of view it is indeed very much unnaturral and contra-productive to be homosexual as the primary purpose of all creatures is to ensure its survival through reproduction. However, I do not think homosexuality is a disease or psychological illness that can be cured with therapy. Some people are just born that way.

I do not think homosexual's can be turned into straights. Do you?

I have to add here that I do not think homosexual's should have equal right to wed as heterosexual couples. This not because I am religious (I am not) but because I respect religion and believe it is an ugly move by the state to force churches neglecting their laws and replace them with the laws of the state.

If you really are a tolerant relativist you should agree on above. The key is to respect the "native's point of view" and if the church rejects holding a gay-wedding referring to the Bible it is completely and fully rational and should not at all be classified as "discrimination". Quite the contrary, forcing a Church to reject its belief is what is to be considered as discrimination imo.[/QUOTE]






there are no medically proven answers as to why one is a pedophile, necrophile or homosexual.

There are lots of hypotheses as to why and we see a common one of "born that way" floated on this forum when it comes to homosexual.

You'll also see attempts at insulting me on this topic because yes, it does hit home with some posters and one even suggests that I support pedophilia when my posts display the exact opposite. That is what happens when you dare ask why homosexuals believe they should have "gay rights" when there is not one medical way to prove that one deserves those "gay rights"

All I must do is simply claim that i'm homosexual and that's why I did not receive x, or was not granted Y, and compensation will come my way. I never would need to be qualified as being entitled to the protection. Many times that protection comes at the expense of forfeiture of Constitutional rights of the accused. We have qualifications to vote, drive automobiles, enter the military, purchase a gun etc yet we have no qualifications to those who claim to be entitled to "gay rights". It gets worse with cross-dressers. They simply need claim to think they are the opposite sex and we must allow then into those locker rooms and showers.

So, given no medical proof to why some practice the sexual abnormalities (correct use of abnormality), then shouldn't the same logic which is used for homosexuals also be granted to pedophiiles and necrophiles?

If you disagree, then that's called progress and we need to re-visit "gay rights"

 

It's not the gays who are persecuting anybody. Of course, they are certainly in their rights to sue those who persecute and discriminate against them...

 

Though the homophobic hate the analogy to racism and civil rights....their argument in the 1950s would be-


"Why are all these black people forcing their blackness on me at my segregated lunch counters. I don't want to see that. Let them be black in the privacy of their own home....s'fine with me. Just tell them to stop asking for special rights and wanting to be treated as a normal white person."

 

Since the faux controversy these days is usually about marriage, I'd compare it to past attitudes (and some continuing attitudes) about interracial marriage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage
Many jurisdictions have had regulations banning or restricting not just interracial marriage but also interracial sexual relations, including Germany during the Nazi period, South Africa under apartheid, and many states in the United States prior to a 1967 Supreme Court decision.

See? Even interracial marriage has only been legal in all 50 states since 1967. Black jihad!!

 

And I've posted quotes from "anti-miscegenation" folks (from the 1960s back to the 1800s) with NEARLY IDENTICAL arguments against inter-racial marriage.....as to those who oppose same-sex marriage today.

That's why it's a pretty good bet that like how nobody (except a few die-hards) care about inter-racial marriage 50 years after "Loving v. Virginia"......that 20-30 years from now, after Obergefell, nobody (except a few die-hards) will care about gay marriage

 

You and I are outside that system, asking to prove they did or did not lie is ridiculous. How about you prove they did not lie? See how ridiculous your request is?

To become a teacher at a Catholic school an employee typically has to sign a morality clause. This is a typical employment contract http://napcis.org/TeacherContract.doc


From the contract:

The TEACHER may be suspended or discharged for good cause as shall be determined in the
exclusive discretion of the Board of Trustees. It is specifically understood that good cause for
discharge shall include but not be limited to: inadequacy of teaching, misconduct, neglect of
duty, physical or mental incapacity, actions involving moral turpitude, violation of the terms of
this agreement or _____ Academy policy, or any conduct not in keeping with the Catholic Faith
or conduct tending to reflect discredit upon the school or tending to impair the TEACHER’S
usefulness in his capacity as a teacher.

 

You are behind the times, and falling to the gay propaganda. Ten years ago you could say gays were the victim, no longer. Gays have amassed great political power and have gained special protected legal status. They use that special position to target anyone who does not endorse the gay lifestyle and agenda.

- - - Updated - - -

On Kim Davis, she requested accommodation under the state and federal religious accommodation laws.

The fact she did not win means nothing. There is the law as imposed upon people, and there is fairness and justice. They are not the same. The rule of law is dead.

 

You must be referring to their social bullying habits. We do have certain minority groups that make trouble for anyone who says anything against them, yes. It's sadly easy to do in today's interconnected world. We see it from the LGBT(etc) crowd and from the black crowd in particular, and it costs careless people their jobs and can, I would suppose, lead to harassment for them.

However, I would be careful about attacking all gays or all blacks over this. It is a few troublemakers who do this.

 

State and Federal law trumps religious law. It has made nothing worse... If you open a business you are required to follow all regulations set by State, Local, and Federal regulations - religion is irrelivant in this regard.

What special product did the gay couple request, I thought they had requested a cake - was the bakery out of cake? Does cake become a different product when sold to gay people?

 

Yes. Your logical fallacy is ridiculous and I can see that. But what I stated wasn't. If I went in for an interview and they didn't directly ask me if I was gay I wouldn't be lying if I didn't tell them. If they asked me if I was Christian, I'd say yes because I am.

So I wouldn't be lying.

They have no reason to fire somebody just for being gay. That isn't against Catholic faith.

If they were caught having sex with somebody if the same sex, that would be.

 

Can the religious institution state that as part of the religion you can not marry someone of the opposite race? Why not?

 

Frankly, yes I think they are. The issue you introduce now is consent. Just because you're straight doesn't mean you can have sex with people without their consent. I'm gay and also require consent. The issue with pedophiles is they aren't able to legally obtain consent from a minor. Therefore it's deemed inappropriate social behavior and called a crime.

 

Homosexual relationships are consensual, I understand you have trouble with the meaning of consent by some of your remarks. Your other two examples lack consent and result in harm to either the child or the family of the deceased.

Rotate to your next fallacy...

 

By the way I love the Orwell quote. He's my favorite socialist.

 

So I keep hearing about this special status. I am beginning to think it's kind of like white privilege, in that it only exists in people with inferiority complexes.

Incorrect. She was attempting to use her position to undo law.

The laws accommodate religion. She is permitted to worship any way she likes. So long as it doesn't interfere with liberties of others.

Actually it means our government is secular.

It was upheld in the case of Kim Davis. The first amendment in particular.

 

Your boss saying lets all go celebrate right after a work meeting in the middle of the day, doesn't sound like much of an option. It was coercive, as demonstrated by my boss' eventual termination after 15 years of employment because he "didn't fit in". You could easily say women have a choice to work with sexual harassers, victim blaming isn't helpful.

Should a restaurant owner have to serve black clients? Or Asian clients? I'm not trying to provoke an argument, I'm genuinely interested in if you think businesses should be able to refuse service based on race.

 

The type of accommodation that she requested was unavailable to her for a variety of reasons. One of the primary reasons was that she was acting as a representative of the state. For all intents and purposes, she was the state in her capacity as County Clerk. She had to put aside her religious beliefs and act in a neutral manner. If she had opted to let other clerks in the office issue marriage licenses, but not do it herself, that probably would've been acceptable. But instead she chose to throw a tantrum and prevented any of the clerks who were willing to issue licenses do just that. The Governor was unable to excuse her from her duties because his reading of Kentucky state law, as concurred by the Attorney General of that state, that he lacked the authority to change the marriage license forms to remove her name from them. Only the state Legislature could do that.

The rule of law is dead only in your opinion. In my opinion, the law was upheld, and will ultimately continue to be upheld in her case. She represents the state. She cannot impose her religious views on the residents of her county. To allow her to do so would be as if the state were acting to impose a particular religious view on the residents of the county, something which the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit government from doing. Justice and fairness carried the day.

 

how can a dead body give consent ? How is the dead body harmed? In fact, male/male necrophilia would have zero chance of spreading HIV

You might think I'm trying to be funny but the cold hard facts are that if you give quarter to one group who live a chosen lifestyle then you must for all.

If despite ZERO medical proof that one is "born homosexual", laws are passed as if it were true, then the same laws MUST also protect other sexual deviancies including cross-dressers, pedophiles and necrophiles.

Remember, it is not I who is claiming that it was wrong for 2 same-sex people to be shamed or arrested for having sex and we've reached balance.

If you can use that argument then so too can all the other sexual deviants and like you, they should not be prosecuted or persecuted for simply acting out on how "they were born"

Who are you to deem your morality against necrophiles or pedophiles? Remember, they were "born that way" and you wish to punish them for that and make cutesy laws with ages of consent to deny them from acting on how they were born

Welcome to your slippery slope you created

The men using the showers of little girls in California is only the tip of the iceberg

 

The slippery slope started with adulterers. Why do adulterers always want to blame gays? Adulterers started the sexual deviation. Adulterers, reign yourself in, before going after other people.

 

That's a common excuse for a lot of bad segments of the population - its only a few bad ones, all the rest are good.

Apologists for islam use it all the time, claiming there are 3 billion muslims but only 200,000 are the extremists waging jihad and committing barbaric terroristic acts. Unfortunately, the silent masses don't count. The only ones who matter are the activists who act and impact the world, those who sit on the sidelines and let the small minority act are irrelevant. While there might be 2.8 billion muslims who are not extremists, they sit and do nothing and are irrelevant at best, and at worst by their silence they condone and encourage the extremists.

Its the same for the gays. The true activists might be a minority of the gays, but the majority sits silent and lets the activists have a free hand.

Compare that to the Westboro church, when Westboro rose up the Christian community at large also rose up in opposition to Westboro. The Christian community also speaks out against the people who murdered abortionists.

Where are the gays speaking out about the overreach of the gay activists? By their silence they condemn themselves.

 

Under the Kentucky Religious Freedom Act, and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, under state and federal law Davis had protections and should have been granted accommodation.

Religion is also explicitly listed as a right under the 1st Amendment, before freedom of the press, speech, and assembly.

The free exercise of religion trumps marriage as dictated by the state.

****

They requested a gay wedding cake. Both the Oregon and the Colorado bakers offered to bake the gays a cake without the specific gay related decorations. Both gay couples refused a cake and demanded a "gay wedding cake" - in other words the gays demanded a special product tailored to their specific demands. In both cases, the gays could have gone to the bakery down the street, or bought the cake from the Christians and placed the same-sex-statue on the cake themselves, but that's too much tolerance for the gays to allow.

 

You refuse to admit to the evidence right in front of your eyes. The Bible is clear, homosexuality is a sin. Gay marriage is not just a sin but flaunting a sin in God's face. That's the Catholic doctrine, and standard Christian doctrine.

 

Born that way has no bearing on the granting of rights. Most rights are behaviors. At best you have a philosophical discussion that has no bearing on rights

 

Heterosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. So because we don't outlaw heterosexuality we should allow pedophiles to express their lifestyle as well?