Political Crossfire Forums

[mwm1331]

Reason wrote: Quote: And homosexuality is a lack of morals.

Homosexuality is a desire...it is not a lack of morals. Even in your own frame of reference, that homosexuality is a sin, it is not the desire that is the sin but the acting on it.

You may say that the latter is a choice, as it clearly is, but you may not say that having homosexual desires is a choice.

Yes I can. Like it or not we all choose our own desires. Some of us choose to desire success, some of us choose to desore money, some of us choose to desire food, we all chose.
We create who we are, the thoughts we think, the emotions we experience, and the life we lead.

[Robin Hood]

Quote:
Yes I can. Like it or not we all choose our own desires. Some of us choose to desire success, some of us choose to desore money, some of us choose to desire food, we all chose.

We don't choose our desires, as such, but rather they are a part of us.

Quote: We create who we are, the thoughts we think, the emotions we experience, and the life we lead.

Yes; however when you say that you mention a 'we'. Certain things constitute that 'we', such sexuality can.

[mwm1331]

Reason wrote: Quote:
Yes I can. Like it or not we all choose our own desires. Some of us choose to desire success, some of us choose to desore money, some of us choose to desire food, we all chose.

We don't choose our desires, as such, but rather they are a part of us.

Quote: We create who we are, the thoughts we think, the emotions we experience, and the life we lead.

Yes; however when you say that you mention a 'we'. Certain things constitute that 'we', such sexuality can.

Belive that if you want.
We choose who we are going to be very young. That choice once made is nearly inpossible to change.
Sexuality is part of that.
We either choose to be who we were born, or we choose to deviate for one reason or another.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Belive that if you want.
We choose who we are going to be very young. That choice once made is nearly inpossible to change.
Sexuality is part of that.
We either choose to be who we were born, or we choose to deviate for one reason or another.

I believe in volition, but obviously in many cases genes and environment can be determining factors. Hormones in the womb can lead people to a certain sexuality.

[mwm1331]

Reason wrote: Quote: Belive that if you want.
We choose who we are going to be very young. That choice once made is nearly inpossible to change.
Sexuality is part of that.
We either choose to be who we were born, or we choose to deviate for one reason or another.

I believe in volition, but obviously in many cases genes and environment can be determining factors. Hormones in the womb can lead people to a certain sexuality.

Or perhaps it only makes more liekly to choose that route.
Tell me if Homosexuality is genetic and inborn, why is it that we see no higher rates of homosexaulity among the identical twins of Homosexuals than among the fraternal twins of homosexuals?
Were it truly inborn, then identical twins should have a much higher incidence of homosexuality when thier twin is homosexual than do fraternal twins, yet the incidednce among both types of twins in nearly identical.

Every other genetic factor, whether the one which leads to sickle cell anemia, or the ones which lead to blonde hair follow the pattern, homosexuality does not.

[milo1047]

I'm done with this guy. He will never comprehend what we're trying to tell him.

[Dragoon]

mwm1331 wrote: Reason wrote: Quote: Belive that if you want.
We choose who we are going to be very young. That choice once made is nearly inpossible to change.
Sexuality is part of that.
We either choose to be who we were born, or we choose to deviate for one reason or another.

I believe in volition, but obviously in many cases genes and environment can be determining factors. Hormones in the womb can lead people to a certain sexuality.

Or perhaps it only makes more liekly to choose that route.
Tell me if Homosexuality is genetic and inborn, why is it that we see no higher rates of homosexaulity among the identical twins of Homosexuals than among the fraternal twins of homosexuals?


We do.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

http://kmayeda.bol.ucla.edu/HC92/studies.html
Scroll down on that one.

I could keep linking, but you get the idea.

[milo1047]

Dragoon wrote: mwm1331 wrote: Reason wrote: Quote: Belive that if you want.
We choose who we are going to be very young. That choice once made is nearly inpossible to change.
Sexuality is part of that.
We either choose to be who we were born, or we choose to deviate for one reason or another.

I believe in volition, but obviously in many cases genes and environment can be determining factors. Hormones in the womb can lead people to a certain sexuality.

Or perhaps it only makes more liekly to choose that route.
Tell me if Homosexuality is genetic and inborn, why is it that we see no higher rates of homosexaulity among the identical twins of Homosexuals than among the fraternal twins of homosexuals?


We do.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

http://kmayeda.bol.ucla.edu/HC92/studies.html
Scroll down on that one.

I could keep linking, but you get the idea.

:owned:

[Enoch]

mwm1331 wrote: Reason wrote: Quote:
The poor also believe poverty is not a choice, despite the fact that it is a choice they make every day. Few people are willing to accept responsibillioty for the consequences of thier own choices, why should homosexuals be any different.

The difference is that poverty is a lack of money, the result of following certain desires. Meanwhile homosexuality is a desire.

The better comparison would be actually partaking in homosexual intercourse, and being poor.

And homosexuality is a lack of morals.

Whose morals? Yours, mine, my mother's, the Catholic Church's, President Bush's? Whose moral view are you subscribing to? And, why should I subscribe to the same?

[The Redcoat]

mwm1331 wrote: Reason wrote: Quote: Belive that if you want.
We choose who we are going to be very young. That choice once made is nearly inpossible to change.
Sexuality is part of that.
We either choose to be who we were born, or we choose to deviate for one reason or another.

I believe in volition, but obviously in many cases genes and environment can be determining factors. Hormones in the womb can lead people to a certain sexuality.

Or perhaps it only makes more liekly to choose that route.
Tell me if Homosexuality is genetic and inborn, why is it that we see no higher rates of homosexaulity among the identical twins of Homosexuals than among the fraternal twins of homosexuals?
Were it truly inborn, then identical twins should have a much higher incidence of homosexuality when thier twin is homosexual than do fraternal twins, yet the incidednce among both types of twins in nearly identical.

Every other genetic factor, whether the one which leads to sickle cell anemia, or the ones which lead to blonde hair follow the pattern, homosexuality does not.

Why do you care? Seriously? It doesn't matter why they are like that, they just are, so accept it.

[mwm1331]

Dragoon wrote: mwm1331 wrote: Reason wrote: Quote: Belive that if you want.
We choose who we are going to be very young. That choice once made is nearly inpossible to change.
Sexuality is part of that.
We either choose to be who we were born, or we choose to deviate for one reason or another.

I believe in volition, but obviously in many cases genes and environment can be determining factors. Hormones in the womb can lead people to a certain sexuality.

Or perhaps it only makes more liekly to choose that route.
Tell me if Homosexuality is genetic and inborn, why is it that we see no higher rates of homosexaulity among the identical twins of Homosexuals than among the fraternal twins of homosexuals?


We do.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

http://kmayeda.bol.ucla.edu/HC92/studies.html
Scroll down on that one.

I could keep linking, but you get the idea.
Even if thatw were true.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html
http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/regenera/twins.htm
http://www.bri.ucla.edu/bri_weekly/news_050812.asp

it isn't
Quote:

II. Bailey and Pillard’s Study on Identical Twins

The second scientific study that the media uses to propagate the myth that homosexuality is genetically determined is the prevalence of homosexuality among twin and adopted brothers by Bailey and Pillard. Bailey and Pillard recruited the subjects for their study through homosexual publications which cater exclusively to the homosexual population. Thus, their study did not represent a randomized, non-biased selection.1

They found that of the homosexual brothers that responded 52% of identical twins, 22% of fraternal twins, 11% of adoptive brothers were homosexual, and 9% of non-twin brothers were homosexual.

Bailey and Pillard theorized that the reason there was such a high percentage of homosexuality among identical twins was because of their identical genetic make-up.

Problem: Half of the identical twins were not homosexual; rather, they were extremely heterosexual. How could this be if they shared the same genes? Cohen noted:

As identical twins have identical genetic make-up, it is much easier to interpret the findings as supporting the nurture rather than the nature theory. If a homosexual orientation is genetic, then 100% of all identical twin brothers should have been homosexual, but only half were. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that environmental factors, not genes, cause homosexuality.2

Dr. Simon LeVay admitted that neither Bailey and Pillard’s study on identical twins nor his brain research has proven that homosexuality is genetically determined:

At the moment it’s still a very big mystery. Not even my work nor any other work that’s been done so far really totally clarifies the situation of what makes people gay or straight.... In fact, the twin studies, for example, suggest that it’s not totally inborn because even identical twins are not always of the same sexual orientation.3

Pillard’s Biased Agenda

Dr. Pillard is himself a homosexual. He admits that his agenda is to promote the notion that homosexuality is in-born and therefore a natural sexual behavior.


The researcher is biased, admits his research was done in hopes of promoting his agenda, did not use a random selction as a control.

Nice try though.
Furthermore
Quote:

III. Leading Scientific Researchers Conclude Homosexuality Is Not Biologically or Genetically Based

Masters and Johnson stated: "The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today... no serious scientist suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship applies."4

Dr. John Money, leading sex researcher at Johns Hopkins University, reported:

No chromosomal differences have been found between homosexual subjects and heterosexual controls. [and later] On the basis of present knowledge, there is no basis on which to justify an hypothesis that homosexuals or bisexuals of any degree or type are chromosomally discrepant [different] from heterosexuals.5

He also stated: "The child’s psychosexual identity is not written, unlearned, in the genetic code, the hormonal system or the nervous system at birth."6

Even John DeCecco, the editor of the Journal of Homosexuality, said: "The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is foolish."7

No less than Alfred Kinsey himself believed that homosexuality was not biologically or genetically based. Rather, he admitted: "I have myself come to the conclusion that homosexuality is largely a matter of conditioning."8

Dr. van den Aardweg stated: "No genetic factor—sexual or otherwise—has been found that would differentiate persons with homosexual tendencies from others."9

In the same issue of Archives of General Psychiatry that the Bailey/Pillard piece on the lesbian twins appeared, two well-credentialed researchers at New York State Psychiatric Institute, said: "There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory of sexual orientation."10


Can't blame this on nature, its a choice.

[F'losrix]

mwm1331 wrote: And homosexuality is a lack of morals.
I've stopped ignoring you for the moment as this point is too important to let pass. Fail to engage in honest debate and you'll end up back on the list, though.

Prove that homosexuality is a lack of morals. On what do you base your assessment that homosexuals are immoral?

Or is this yet another example of you making some bold statement that misrepresents your opinion as fact with nothing to back it up?

[mwm1331]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: mwm1331 wrote: And homosexuality is a lack of morals.
I've stopped ignoring you for the moment as this point is too important to let pass. Fail to engage in honest debate and you'll end up back on the list, though.

BAck on the list?!?!?!?
Ohhhhhhhhhhh Nooooooooooooooooooo :shock:
Can't you tell how much that worries me?:lol:
Quote:
Prove that homosexuality is a lack of morals. On what do you base your assessment that homosexuals are immoral?

Homosexuals are more promiscuous, have more partners, more anonymous partners, are less able to sustain long term relationships, are more likely to be involved in "swinging" if they do, and are all around less moral as a group. This is because homosexuality is immoral. Men are meant for women, women for men.
Quote:
Or is this yet another example of you making some bold statement that misrepresents your opinion as fact with nothing to back it up?
Ohh you mean like you contention that you're "opressed"?

[F'losrix]

mwm1331 wrote: Quote:
Prove that homosexuality is a lack of morals. On what do you base your assessment that homosexuals are immoral?

Homosexuals are more promiscuous
Proof? Bear in mind that we don't actually have any way of knowing how many homosexuals there actually are and that a limited study of those who are still in their unsettled youth, being treated for STD's, out of the closet and living in an urban area is NOT using a representative sample.

Also, prove that promiscuity is immoral.

Quote: have more partners, more anonymous partners
I must be an exception to your 'rule', as I've never had anonymous sex. Nor have most of the gay people I've known.

Quote: are less able to sustain long term relationships
Again, proof? What makes a long term relationship automatically more moral than a short term one? I've been with the same partner for 5 years - longer than some heterosexual marriages. I attended the 25th anniversary of a gay couple 10 years ago - to my knowledge, they're still together.

Is the inability of some couples to sustain long term relationships reason to deny those that are successful at it? Are those that are successful more 'moral'?

Quote: are more likely to be involved in "swinging" if they do
Again, proof? From an unbaised source? Using a representative sample? (Something that I've already noted is pretty damn hard to obtain giving that much of the gay population is still closeted).

I've never 'swung' and I've no intention to.

Quote: and are all around less moral as a group.
Based on what? You believe it's worth persecuting the gay people who don't engage in these activities for the acts of those who do? What about the heterosexuals who engage in promiscuous behavior, are 'swingers' and all around immoral people? Should they also be denied recognition of their marriages?

Quote: This is because homosexuality is immoral.
How is it immoral?

Quote: Men are meant for women, women for men.
Again, opinion. Maybe some men aren't meant to be in heterosexual relationships. Is it your opinion that gay people should ignore their difference of sexual orientation and instead engage in heterosexual relationships? What do you think the chances for success there are likely to be?

Quote: Quote:
Or is this yet another example of you making some bold statement that misrepresents your opinion as fact with nothing to back it up?
Ohh you mean like you contention that you're "opressed"?
It depends on one's definition of oppression. It doesn't equate to violent suppression:

Oppression is the negative outcome experienced by people targeted by the arbitrary and cruel exercise of power in a society or social group. The term itself derives from the idea of being "weighted down."

Under that definition - yes - gay people are oppressed in the United States. Most of us stll live in places where we can lose our jobs, be denied housing and any number of other things simply because someone doesn't like the fact that we're homosexuals. Until recently we were subject to prosecution for engaging in homosexual acts in the privacy of our own homes.

Do you now see how this works? You've made a group of assertions, mostly based on prejudicial generalizations. I've provided arguments to refute your asertions. Now, you can either challenge my refutations with your own counterarguments, fall back on your disputed assertion of 'one man/one woman', or simply remain silent.

[mwm1331]

Quote: Proof? Bear in mind that we don't actually have any way of knowing how many homosexuals there actually are and that a limited study of those who are still in their unsettled youth, being treated for STD's, out of the closet and living in an urban area is NOT using a representative sample.

In other words any study I could post would be "invalid" in your eyes.
Quote: Under that definition - yes - gay people are oppressed in the United States.
Prove it.
Quote: Do you now see how this works? You've made a group of assertions, mostly based on prejudicial generalizations. I've provided arguments to refute your asertions. Now, you can either challenge my refutations with your own counterarguments, fall back on your disputed assertion of 'one man/one woman', or simply remain silent
You haven't refuted anyone. in point of fact there isn't a single fact in that whole statment.
You asked for "proof" just before explaining why nothing I could post would "
count" as proof. You then write about somthing which may or may not have happened, citing people who may or may not exist doing thing they may or may not have done.
So no refutation here.
Nice try though.
Homosexuality is immoral.
All three major world religons agree.
The majority of Americans agree.
SO wehter you judge by religon, or society, either way its immoral.
An Immoral choice no less.

[F'losrix]

mwm1331 wrote: Quote: Proof? Bear in mind that we don't actually have any way of knowing how many homosexuals there actually are and that a limited study of those who are still in their unsettled youth, being treated for STD's, out of the closet and living in an urban area is NOT using a representative sample.

In other words any study I could post would be "invalid" in your eyes.
Quote: Under that definition - yes - gay people are oppressed in the United States.
Prove it.
I gave you examples as an offer of proof. You haven't presented any argument against them in refutation.

Quote: Quote: Do you now see how this works? You've made a group of assertions, mostly based on prejudicial generalizations. I've provided arguments to refute your asertions. Now, you can either challenge my refutations with your own counterarguments, fall back on your disputed assertion of 'one man/one woman', or simply remain silent
You haven't refuted anyone. in point of fact there isn't a single fact in that whole statment.
Um, it's not enough to say the statements aren't factual - you need to provide arguments that illustrate why.
Quote: You asked for "proof" just before explaining why nothing I could post would "
count" as proof.
Which is to say, you don't have any proof, then.

Quote: You then write about somthing which may or may not have happened, citing people who may or may not exist doing thing they may or may not have done.
True, I can't really prove to you that those people exist or their actions, despite what I personally know to be the truth of the situations. I can't even prove the truth of my own statements with regard to my own personal experience and actions. But the type of proof you're asking for with regard to those things is a bit unreasonable in the context of an Internet forum. You can't prove that what I've said isn't the truth, so the point is moot.

Quote: So no refutation here. Nice try though.
Nice counterargument - I mean that.

Quote: Homosexuality is immoral.
All three major world religons agree.
The majority of Americans agree.
SO wehter you judge by religon, or society, either way its immoral.
An Immoral choice no less.
So it is public opinion that determines morality then? We don't need to rely on reasoning or logic to show why something may or may not be moral - we only have to take a poll and ask what people think about it?

Morality as determined by polling - what a concept!

[perpetrator]

get your promiscuous gay ass into this thread:
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=42209&start=40


Quote: Homosexuals are more promiscuous, have more partners, more anonymous partners, are less able to sustain long term relationships, are more likely to be involved in "swinging" if they do, and are all around less moral as a group. This is because homosexuality is immoral. Men are meant for women, women for men.

give me a study! just a study, that's all i ask for. then we can take it from there.

how do you define "moral", btw? does liking sex equal harming people in your book?

[connermt]

thegriffinator13 wrote: I know a woman who was perfectly straight and married with 4 children, who around the age of 35, divorced her husband and moved in with a woman. She now identifies herself as a lesbian.

I am wondering if this is common... I have heard that it is. WHY? I mean, if you are really unattracted to men, how do you have 4 kids with a man before realizing that you don't like men? Could she be bisexual and just got sick of hubby because he was an ***hole, or maybe she is not REALLY gay she just got sick of hubby and decided that the reason was that she likes women. I think that's kind of weird and disturbing... how would that make you feel if you were the man? "Yeah, my wife left me for a WOMAN. Why, was I not man enough for her?"

My step brother's mother left her hubby for a woman, lived with her for 5-ish years, then just left her & went back to guys. This happened in a relatively small town. The woman that she lived with had 2 younger brothers, one gay one straight. Unfortunately, the straight guy was ran over by a semi-truck several years back.

[connermt]

Suragia wrote: I'm sorry but I think you know who you are by the time your 13. Does that mean that you get a free pass later on when your 30 with couple of kids? This really s*cks for the husband or wife. I don't think its right to keep this double life and then marry someone thats has no idea or who might had idea about it. Being upfront is the key. How about the kids that don't understand why mommie or pops left to be with same sex? That would suck. The kids get hurt in all this.

You may know by 13 (or younger), but that still doesn't mean that you have the courage to do anything about it until later (or at all). Granted, IMO, they shouldn't get married & have kids just to appease the masses, but the reality is that this is the case more often than not.
And you might be surprised to find that kids are surprisingly strong. IF there is a strong bond between them & the parent(s), most times they are OK with it. Sometimes it even creates a stronger bond than before. At least from my experience

[connermt]

mwm1331 wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: It's confusing because people's actual behavior doesn't necessarily reflect their true sexual orientation.

This is true. Homosexual behavior doesn't reflect one's natural sexual orientation, instead natural instinct is over-ridden somehow by the desire to participate in deviant sexual behavior.
A statement which implies that it's a matter of conscious 'choice' and that homosexuals are worthy of blame for making this 'choice' and are therefore undeserving of basic respect and common courtesy.

That you would make such a statement leads me to the conclusion that you are mean-spirited and not a very nice person.

We can argue all day over whether differences in sexual orientation are 'natural', but that's not really the issue.

Nice distortion of my statement. I used to have some respect for you, cap'n, but it's pretty well gone at this point.


Mean spirited has nothing to do with it.
Homosexuality is a choice.
You choose on some level to deviate.
Heterosexuality isn't, thats the way we are all born.
You and yours choose to be gay.

:lol: :roll:
wow
Don't know where to start with that one so I guess I won't