If You Believe Homosexual Acts Are Immoral, Why Are You Labeled a "homophobe"?

You think that the right to marry, which applies to everyone equally, automatically translates into a right to marry whoever or whatever you want, your sister, your goat, hell maybe even 3 or 4 women. That's where the gay rights movement is simply drawing "rights" out of thin air that don't exist.

 

Hmm...you sound a little touchy. Maybe on this Holy Week Sunday you could express a little gratitude that you live in a country where you can tell people you're gay. No punishment will befall you nor would I want any to. There are countries right now where men are being hanged by the neck for such a discovery. Instead of talking about how hateful, bigoted, and homophobic America is, why don't you try to be thankful for a change.

 

The very fact you couldn't debate my points proves my case.

There is nothing complicated about looking at the biological sexual reaction in all humans when exposed to sexual stimuli. The body prepares for natural procreation which requires heterosexual sex. Surely you know this.

 

And that's precisely why a lot of people advocate for same sex marriage.

 

No, not touchy. I'm simply not going to bullied in any way. Right now, I think it is fair to advise other human beings concerning reciprocity that will likely come their way, when they mistreat people.

I see the good potential that most people possess (one of my blessed weaknesses/strengths); but the spot rubbed-raw by the hateful antipathy and superior-minded thinking of some, has encouraged me to be less diplomatic of late.

I figured it was high time, that since most homosexual people treat heterosexuals humanely... then I don't see what's so wrong with heterosexuals affording homosexuals the same treatment. And since you mention "Holy Week" (which I still hold some reverence toward), I DO watch to see who exhibits the kind of compassion, grace, mercy and love toward ALL human beings, that the Savior I know would. Even so, I do know you have a point... yet I regret that I cannot always reflect the patience I am capable of.

Right about now, all I promise myself and God, is to treat others the best I can. If someone is pummeling me morally, socially, physically... then I must warn them if possible and then prepare to defend myself (or those who cannot defend themselves).

At this point in reality... I am grateful, but not for YOU (or other people antipathetic toward homosexuals) trying to stand above me in moral-superiority. You don't know me and you don't know the sacrifices I've made in this life to do good/right. It's not my purpose to insult or hurt you... but do not be shocked by me or other human being, if they respond or retaliate negatively, if/when they are mistreated.

 

Well actually the government is obligated to do so if they are provably similarly or identically situated to others it treats in a particular manner and if there is not, at the very least, a rational basis to continue the discrimination.

That's why bans against same-sex marriage keep losing, time and time again, when subjected to judicial scrutiny.

 

Oh so you don't like me comparing bigotry to bigotry?

LOL- as if I care that you are outraged that I call them all what they are- bigotry.

"legitimately oppressed groups"- homosexuals in America were oppressed far more than Jews in America were ever oppressed. Homosexuals have been jailed for being homosexuals, they have been beaten for being homosexuals and they have been murdered for being homosexuals. Up until the 1960's all of those things happened with great regularity.

The 'gay lifestyle' is very much like the African American 'lifestyle' or the Jewish 'lifestyle' - there are those who can't stand it, and would discriminate against them because of their 'lifestyle'.

 

Not any more at least. Go back 50 years and such punishment could and did happen. And that didn't change simply because people got tired of discriminating against homosexuals. It changed because homosexuals fought back against such discrimination.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly.

 

Oh yeah? Prove that these things actually occurred with "great regularity" as you claim.

Then prove that these actions were sanctioned by federal, state or local govt.

And prove it using an unbiased source like The Economist (greatest news magazine in the world).

 

My wife and I are married- when one of us passes away, the other one will inherit what we jointly own without any inheritance taxes due.

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple residing in New York, were lawfully married in Ontario, Canada in 2007. Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7), which provided that the term "spouse" only applied to marriages between a man and woman. The Internal Revenue Service found that the exemption did not apply to same-sex marriages, denied Windsor's claim, and compelled her to pay $363,053 in estate taxes.


Not sure how much more clearly discrimination can be pointed out. Of course the Supreme Court struck DOMA, which was the basis of this denial.

 

Who was hung for being homosexual?

Stop lying.

 

Whether or not there is a 'gay gene' is immaterial. Just like there is no "Jewish" Gene. There isn't even a "woman" gene.

Yet discrimination still takes place against Jews and against women- and its still wrong.

 

Please don't be ignorant about your own post- or my reply to it

Hmm...you sound a little touchy. Maybe on this Holy Week Sunday you could express a little gratitude that you live in a country where you can tell people you're gay. No punishment will befall you nor would I want any to. There are countries right now where men are being hanged by the neck for such a discovery. Instead of talking about how hateful, bigoted, and homophobic America is, why don't you try to be thankful for a change.

And my response:

Not any more at least. Go back 50 years and such punishment could and did happen. And that didn't change simply because people got tired of discriminating against homosexuals. It changed because homosexuals fought back against such discrimination.

Note my use of 'punishment' in referring to your use of the word 'punishment'.

Homosexuals in the United States were arrested and jailed for being homosexuals right up and until the Supreme Court told Texas it couldn't do that. Homosexuals were routinely beaten by police and individuals, and police would call up employers to have homosexuals fired.

None of that changed because good Christians suddenly decided not to discriminate against homosexuals- it changed because of events like Stonewall and Harvey Milk's assassination- homosexuals became political and started making their case. First to change was the laws- like most discriminatory laws they were unconstitutional- and then changed police policy- and slowly public perception.

 

LOL- so I have to prove it using only the Economist?

Before I start any such research- let us have this discussion- assuming that I do establish that such things happened 'with great regularity' and that they were 'sanctioned' by government what will be your reaction?

Will it change your position at all? Will you concede that homosexuals were a 'legitimately oppressed group' and change any of your position?

If not- why should I bother to take the time to do the research if all you end up doing is equivocating and rationalizing why that discrimination doesn't matter when it comes to homosexuals?

See, I have been down this road before- I take the time to provide the facts, and those who have deeply entrenched 'moral' views like yourself ignore the facts when they run contrary to your moral position. Why should I waste my time when it is unlikely you ever accept whatever facts I post?

 

My comments to Johnny were in the context of today, not the past, real or figments of your imagination.

 

How many Homosexuals arrested in the US? I keep looking for stats but no luck, could you post them if you have them.

 

Wow. Ok I guess I can help you with that.

The Y chromosome is one of two sex chromosomes (allosomes) in mammals, including humans, and many other animals. The other is the X chromosome. Y is the sex-determining chromosome in many species, since it is the presence or absence of Y that determines male or female sex. In mammals, the Y chromosome contains the gene SRY, which triggers testis development. The DNA in the human Y chromosome is composed of about 59 million base pairs.[1]

So you are incorrect that there isn't a "woman" gene when it could not be more obvious.

Here is some extra reading material:

http://chromosomebabysexdeterminati.../xy-chromosomes-and-xx-chromosomes-babys.html


And yes the Jewish people not the religion have genetic factors making that determination.

Early population genetic studies based on blood groups and serum markers provided evidence that most Jewish Diaspora groups originated in the Middle East and that paired Jewish populations were more similar genetically than paired Jewish and non-Jewish populations (Bonne-Tamir et al. 1978a, b, 1977; Carmelli and Cavalli-Sforza 1979; Karlin et al. 1979; Kobyliansky et al. 1982; Liv(*)(*)(*)(*)s et al. 1991). These studies differed in their inferences regarding the degree of admixture with local populations. Subsequent studies of the monoallelic Y chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA haplotypes demonstrated founder effects of both Middle Eastern and local origin, but did not adequately resolve the degree of admixture. To resolve this issue and to improve the understanding about the relatedness of contemporary Jewish groups, our research teams and others have independently performed genome-wide analyses of Diaspora Jewish groups and comparison with neighboring populations (Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010; Campbell et al. 2012; Kopelman et al. 2009; Bray et al. 2010; Listman et al. 2010). These studies varied in the specific populations analyzed and in the number of individuals included from each population. Yet, they came to remarkably similar conclusions, providing evidence for shared genetic ancestries among major Jewish Diaspora groups together with variation in admixture with local populations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543766/

Here they tested Africans for Jewish acestry.

The two best-known groups of Black Jews are Beta Israel of Ethiopia and Lemba of Zimbabwe. Beta Israel, also known as Falasha, is a community of more than 130,000 people. They too claim descent from one of Ten Lost Tribes, namely that of Dan. By now, nearly 85% of the Ethiopian Beta Israel community has emigrated to Israel, mostly during two rescue operations: Operation Moses in 1984 and Operation Solomon in 1991. The Falasha are not to be confused with the Falasha Mura, who are the descendants of Ethiopian Jews who converted to Christianity. Some members of this group now returning to the practices of Judaism, but their status is very controversial in Israel today. Some people even doubt that Falasha proper are truly Jewish. Unsurprisingly, a number of genetic studies have been conducted to clarify the status of the Falasha people. Already in the early 1990s, an examination of Y-DNA and mtDNA of Ethiopian Jews, conducted by a team headed by Batsheva Bonne-Tamir (Zoossmann-Disken et al. 1991), found that:

“Ethiopian Jews cluster with other Ethiopian tribes and occupy a central position on a principal component map between African and Asian populations.”

A further study by Lucotte & Smets (1999) came to a similar conclusion. Although the authors do not doubt the Jewish practices of Falasha, they dispute their claim of descent from the tribe of Dan:

“… the distinctiveness of the Y-chromosome haplotype distribution of Beta Israel Jews from conventional Jewish populations and their relatively greater similarity in haplotype profile to non-Jewish Ethiopians are consistent with the view that the Beta Israel people descended from ancient inhabitants of Ethiopia who converted to Judaism.”

Similarly, a later study by Bonne-Tamir’s team (Hammer et al. 2000) found Beta Israel to be an exception to the general commonality of the “paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population”. Their conclusion is that the Falasha are “affiliated more closely with non-Jewish Ethiopians and other North Africans”.

http://www.geocurrents.info/place/subsaharan-africa/are-the-black-jews-jewish

Can you now admit that there are Jewish genes Jeff?

I also take it by your inability to produce a single factual study to back up the laughable claim that homosexuality is genetic not theories that you have no evidence to support that faith based claim either. I accept your defeat.

 

I said "like The Economist" (which IIRC is a publication IN FAVOR of gay marriage). You can't use as evidence studies or figures from any kind of advocacy group in favor of gay rights in the first place. They have an obvious built in bias.

Your evidence has to be

1) Evidence of a systemic series of oppression including substantial numbers of outright acts. Not merely meaningless laws "on the books" which people stopped enforcing decades before and were at most only spottily enforced back in the day.

2) No anecdotal stories of brutalities by private individuals completely on their own. You can bring up all the Matthew Shepherds you want but it doesn't mean the govt. or the people that elected it were in any way responsible.

Fair enough?

 

And if I do- what will you concede if I do? Will it change one bit of your position?

 

I will then concede that homosexuals have in fact been the object of systemic widespread government sanctioned repression should you provide the evidence in the manner provided

 

From the site you reference as a expert source:
Now, this is the real fact:

The sex of a child is determined by a man, and NOT a woman. How?

 This is naturally what God endows man with since the man is the head of the family and he is given double portion of XY chromosomes.

Yep that is the claim of your experts.


However- you were correct- and I was wrong. A woman is a women genetically. My mistake.

Oh certainly there are genes that are linked to some distinctive populations of Jews. But there is no requirement that a Jew have those genes.

Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew. It is unlikely he had any of the "Jew" genes in him that you refer to. Being a Jew is not 'genetic' per se- there is no requirement that there be any of the genes in the persons body- AND- just because the person has those genes in his body doesn't mean that person will be a Jew.

Let me put it another way- you could genetically test someone for the gene you refer to, and you would not be able to use that test to prove whether the person was a Jew or not.

When have I ever made that claim Tex? Don't you get tired of making stuff up about me?

How silly- of course you don't get tired of making things up about me.

- - - Updated - - -

And that will change your opinion about Gays in what way?

- - - Updated - - -

Great backpeddling after accusing me of lying. Good job!

Once again my reply- to you accusing me of lying.

Please don't be ignorant about your own post- or my reply to it

Hmm...you sound a little touchy. Maybe on this Holy Week Sunday you could express a little gratitude that you live in a country where you can tell people you're gay. No punishment will befall you nor would I want any to. There are countries right now where men are being hanged by the neck for such a discovery. Instead of talking about how hateful, bigoted, and homophobic America is, why don't you try to be thankful for a change.

And my response:

Not any more at least. Go back 50 years and such punishment could and did happen. And that didn't change simply because people got tired of discriminating against homosexuals. It changed because homosexuals fought back against such discrimination.

Note my use of 'punishment' in referring to your use of the word 'punishment'.

Homosexuals in the United States were arrested and jailed for being homosexuals right up and until the Supreme Court told Texas it couldn't do that. Homosexuals were routinely beaten by police and individuals, and police would call up employers to have homosexuals fired.

None of that changed because good Christians suddenly decided not to discriminate against homosexuals- it changed because of events like Stonewall and Harvey Milk's assassination- homosexuals became political and started making their case. First to change was the laws- like most discriminatory laws they were unconstitutional- and then changed police policy- and slowly public perception.

 

Exactly. And yes... I'm more than thankful for Mr. Obama, the military and Congress for getting rid of DADT (which BTW is working better than I could have imagined).

But yes... even that was fought for by many.

None of these legal victories came without a fight; so please, excuse me if I happen to be in battle-mode... when I hear the kind of language/sentiment expressed, that wants to set people back in time.

 

I wasn't addressing the question of whether or not it was a right. I was addressing the fact that they are, indeed, treated differently. Whether or not this particular case, or all of the other cases you mentioned are justified, is an entirely different question.

And to that end, the "right" that I would argue exists is not so much a right to marry whomever or whatever someone wants, but rather a right to equal protection of the law. It doesn't matter if we're talking about marriage, or the government giving out free hot-dogs. The government is bound by the rules of equal protection, which require that the laws and distinctions that are drawn up in law are at least rationally related to a legitimate state interest. THIS is where the argument it, whether or not the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

 

As I've already demonstrated, gays are treated equally under the law and have no cause for complaint.

 

Legal punishment for homosexuality throughout the history of the USA has ranged from death, imprisonment and castration. Gays have been subject to legal and social ostracism, put into mental institutions, had their children taken from them as "unfit parents", abandoned by their parents, and generally been screwed over by society for generations. Much of this only ended 10 years ago after Lawrence v Texas. The road to the acceptance we have today is paved in blood and beatings of men and women in recent generations who stood up to fight against it.

Oh, and thank you.