Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I don't have time to dig up the research right now, but its no where near as simple as you wish to claim.

The studies showing biological links to homosexuality, are in no way all unscientific, ridiculously small, etc.

I'm sure you will do a better job than this guy did in supporting it. I was getting a bit hyperbolic in order to get some action. I predict, however, that it will still be far from conclusive, and far from "If you don't know this is true you're ignorant". As Harry Truman said, "If you took all the experts in the world and lined them up end-to-end, they'd still point in all directions."

Just to clarify, you are trying to say that there is no such thing as biological homosexuality, that it is basically a mental illness?

I am saying that as far as scientific research is concerned the jury is still out. I am saying that to dismiss an opinion that there is choice involved as being ignorant of the clear truth is not warranted.

I am saying that every person is an individual and the reasons why a particular person finds themself attracted to people of the same sex may be any, or more likely a complex combination of factors. I am not even ruling out the possibility that in some cases one of those factors may be a genetic tendency, tendency mind you, toward it.

But mostly, I object to the assertion that "the debate is over". It is not. Hope that clears things up.

daddy1gringo wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I don't have time to dig up the research right now, but its no where near as simple as you wish to claim.

The studies showing biological links to homosexuality, are in no way all unscientific, ridiculously small, etc.

I'm sure you will do a better job than this guy did in supporting it. I was getting a bit hyperbolic in order to get some action. I predict, however, that it will still be far from conclusive, and far from "If you don't know this is true you're ignorant". As Harry Truman said, "If you took all the experts in the world and lined them up end-to-end, they'd still point in all directions."

Just to clarify, you are trying to say that there is no such thing as biological homosexuality, that it is basically a mental illness?

I am saying that as far as scientific research is concerned the jury is still out. I am saying that to dismiss an opinion that there is choice involved as being ignorant of the clear truth is not warranted.

I am saying that every person is an individual and the reasons why a particular person finds themself attracted to people of the same sex may be any, or more likely a complex combination of factors. I am not even ruling out the possibility that in some cases one of those factors may be a genetic tendency, tendency mind you, toward it.

But mostly, I object to the assertion that "the debate is over". It is not. Hope that clears things up.

Do you agree with the idea that one's choice is limited by other factors (e.g. personal, genetic, environmental, etc.)?

If yes, then how much choice does one really have?

I'm not ruling out the possibility that I might have a genetic tendency to be straight, either.

Woodruff wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:The premise of this thread is that it is offensive to use the word "homosexual" rather than "gay" because what the word "homosexual" implies about the nature of homosexuality is clearly proven not true (so clearly that only ignorant people who think the world is flat believe it). Therefore it is bigotry and hate. If, however, it is not clearly proven, the whole premise falls apart. I ask again, where is the compelling scientific proof?

While I don't tend to agree with the article, I believe you're starting from a poor premise.

How refreshing: intelligent discussion without invective.

How so?

InkL0sed wrote:I'm not ruling out the possibility that I might have a genetic tendency to be straight, either.

And cultural tendency and societal tendency (which maybe is the same as cultural). Perhaps the word is "pressure" instead of tendency.

Ironically, I find this argument utterly irrelevant as I believe the government should have no say in what anyone chooses to do with his or her sex life (unless it has a negative effect on one's neighbor). So, if it's a choice, I'm fine with it. If it's biological or genetics, I'm fine with it. If it's both, I'm fine with it.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Do you agree with the idea that one's choice is limited by other factors (e.g. personal, genetic, environmental, etc.)?

If yes, then how much choice does one really have?

In part, it depends on your definition of choice. Earlier (I think in the american kids thread?), you essentially seemed to say that a lot of pressure equals no choice. I would argue we ALWAYS have choice.

Just to add a bit, I have this debate constantly with my kids, particularly the one who has ADHD, with a specific tendency to impulsiveness. We NEVER allow him to use that as an excuse for bad behavior. Just never. Nor should anyone else. Some people do have a more difficult time, but they don't get a pass. Even facing death, one has the choice of misery or joy.

BUT don't misunderstand. Whether one has choice, whether they should be forced to make that choice to accomodate society, as opposed to accomodating religion, is another question.

daddy1gringo wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I don't have time to dig up the research right now, but its no where near as simple as you wish to claim.

The studies showing biological links to homosexuality, are in no way all unscientific, ridiculously small, etc.

I'm sure you will do a better job than this guy did in supporting it. I was getting a bit hyperbolic in order to get some action. I predict, however, that it will still be far from conclusive, and far from "If you don't know this is true you're ignorant". As Harry Truman said, "If you took all the experts in the world and lined them up end-to-end, they'd still point in all directions."

Just to clarify, you are trying to say that there is no such thing as biological homosexuality, that it is basically a mental illness?

I am saying that as far as scientific research is concerned the jury is still out.

Which question? That homosexuality has a biological basis (note that includes genetics, chemicals in the womb, etc... etc.) IS pretty firmly established. Whether that can or should be overcome is where the question lies. That gets far more into religion than biology.

daddy1gringo wrote: I am saying that to dismiss an opinion that there is choice involved as being ignorant of the clear truth is not warranted.

It depends on how the opinion is framed and its basis. To cite a very poor article and to claim it is scientific proof of your opinion, well.. is definitely not a show of intelligence. And that is part of why folks get so frustrated talking to those against homosexuality, particularly those claiming a religious basis, most particularly those claiming the Bible. (note.. I can absolutely provide a lot of very well done academic research on this issue, but they have been presented before, that takes a lot of time and my basic argument lies elsewhere)

There Is a legitimate question, but its not about science. The question is about where religion needs to consider biology and where it does not.

Rather than looking at the polygamy continuum (which, ironically enough is very much approved in the Old Testament) or the pedophil continuum (very much a false debate.. homosexuality is no more tied to pedophilia than heterosexuality), instead we should look at the biological continuum. That is, there are children very much born with mixed sexual parts. Where do they fit into "God's plan". If parents/doctors decide, in that case, that someone is a girl and not a boy, then later that child decides otherwise, do they have that right? Did the doctors and parents "simply goof". Or, more to the point, why would God allow such?

Many argue that homosexuality is just a more mild form of "mixed gender." They argue that gender is more about the brain and perception than the physical body. No one doubts that there is extreme variation within each gender. I have to get away from stereotypes here, because many are so idiotic as to be laughable from a pure biologic/ strict "logic" sense, particularly when they are "translated" to modern society. (I mean who decided that pumping gas was "too dirty", but cleaning dirty diapers and toilets was OK ? ). However, you have women who are very physically strong, men who are not. You have women who are very gifted in mathematics, men who write very well. There is some exception perhaps at the very extreme..that is the very absolute top mathematicians seem to be men. Some of that may be as much due to societal bias (women just are not encouraged as much, even today, are less likely to be recognized for achievements in some areas, etc.), but there is still great biologic variation. Why is such variation only acceptable to a point? Why is it we are allowed to have variance in everything except gender/sexuality?

From a purely biological perspective, there is no real sense to exclude homosexuality. There is no reason to count that particular difference as a "pathogenic" development, that is, something incorrect that needs to be changed. It falls within the full realm of normal human variation. In fact, you see such variation in all aminals. Of course, sexuality varies incredibly, but even species that are primarily heterosexual have homosexual individuals.

daddy1gringo wrote:I am saying that every person is an individual and the reasons why a particular person finds themself attracted to people of the same sex may be any, or more likely a complex combination of factors. I am not even ruling out the possibility that in some cases one of those factors may be a genetic tendency, tendency mind you, toward it.

The thing is, that argument is essentially irrelevant. That is, much of humanity is subject to genetic or biologic variability. As a society, today, we here have decided to accept that diversity in all its forms. If homosexuality is to be an exception, there has to be an overriding reason. Something about homosexuality has to be harmful to society. And not just that old "no children" bit.

Some Christians, of course, say "religion". That is a very valid argument, for themselves. However, when it gets brought into the broader context of society, it is no more valid than to say that every child must be baptized (or not baptized). Absolutely a critical and important issue, even a "deal breaker" within the church. It is not, however anything that the church gets to decide about society.

This is really the only reason so many conservatives still harken back to the "its not biology" debate, because they feel it lends more credibility to the argument. (and of course, a lot of well meaning people simply believe there is still a debate here). Except, not only is the biology part truly proven, or as much proven as anything in behavior can be (note.. that is an important qualification!), the whole debate is actually irrelevant. It simply does not matter how or why homosexuality arises. (that does matter some in the Christian, God design debate, just not for society) The question, for society, is whether the behavior is harmful or not. Only if it is truly harmful does society get to say "no". Else, it comes under the heading of "freedom". Specifically, freedom of religion, freedom to just be and make one's own choices in life.

daddy1gringo wrote:But mostly, I object to the assertion that "the debate is over". It is not. Hope that clears things up.

Biologically, it is. Religiously, sociologically, it is not.


EDIT. I answered here, because the original post was here, but maybe we should move the discussion to this thread?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=151282&p=3316801#p3316801

I'm not running away, I intend to answer you, but there's a lot to say and things are a little crazy here right now. Btw, I'm enjoying fencing with polite and intelligent opposition from you, Player, Sym and Woody, as we do some honest truth-seeking.

It's story's like this one that gives the entire homosexual movement a bad rap. People should not be losing their jobs just because they disagree with homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage. Actions like this make the movement seem unreasonable instead of actually debating the legitimate issues about whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed. And what's worse is that if you disagree with them, you automatically lose your free speech rights and can't say how you feel. It's censorship at its worst by pushing one agenda over another.

Night Strike wrote:It's story's like this one that gives the entire homosexual movement a bad rap. People should not be losing their jobs just because they disagree with homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage. Actions like this make the movement seem unreasonable instead of actually debating the legitimate issues about whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed. And what's worse is that if you disagree with them, you automatically lose your free speech rights and can't say how you feel. It's censorship at its worst by pushing one agenda over another.

Being "disgusted" when seeing two men kiss is not disagreeing with homosexual marriage. It is homophobic.

He got fired cause he can't separate Church from State. It is not on our moral ground to say whether or not a man and man or a woman and a woman can not get married. Also, that dude was completely disrespectful. He didn't disagree with it at all. It was pure hate.

Army of GOD wrote:

Night Strike wrote:It's story's like this one that gives the entire homosexual movement a bad rap. People should not be losing their jobs just because they disagree with homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage. Actions like this make the movement seem unreasonable instead of actually debating the legitimate issues about whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed. And what's worse is that if you disagree with them, you automatically lose your free speech rights and can't say how you feel. It's censorship at its worst by pushing one agenda over another.

Being "disgusted" when seeing two men kiss is not disagreeing with homosexual marriage. It is homophobic.

Even if it is, that doesn't mean you don't have the right to say it. And for many people, especially Christians, who believe that homosexuality is not a choice but is actually unnatural/a sin, then yes, it is disgusting to see. For me, it's disgusting to see someone who has tattoos up and down their body or piercings through every orifice. Does that mean I should be fired for saying that?

Nola_Lifer wrote:He got fired cause he can't separate Church from State. It is not on our moral ground to say whether or not a man and man or a woman and a woman can not get married. Also, that dude was completely disrespectful. He didn't disagree with it at all. It was pure hate.

1) Separation of church and state does not exist.

2) This man made the comments on his own time, not in a classroom. There is HUGE difference even if your point #1 was valid.

I haven't been in this thread much, but I'll jump in anyways...

Night Strike wrote:
Even if it is, that doesn't mean you don't have the right to say it. And for many people, especially Christians, who believe that homosexuality is not a choice but is actually unnatural/a sin, then yes, it is disgusting to see. For me, it's disgusting to see someone who has tattoos up and down their body or piercings through every orifice. Does that mean I should be fired for saying that?

No you shouldn't be fired. It's an opinion. but here's the difference. Your opinion of some dude with a ton of tattoos is an opinion of a guy who can choose to get those tattoos or choose not to. Your "opinion" of homosexuals is an "opinion" of people who don't have a choice.

Night Strike wrote:
1) Separation of church and state does not exist.

Why not?

QoH wrote:I haven't been in this thread much, but I'll jump in anyways...

Night Strike wrote:
Even if it is, that doesn't mean you don't have the right to say it. And for many people, especially Christians, who believe that homosexuality is not a choice but is actually unnatural/a sin, then yes, it is disgusting to see. For me, it's disgusting to see someone who has tattoos up and down their body or piercings through every orifice. Does that mean I should be fired for saying that?

No you shouldn't be fired. It's an opinion. but here's the difference. Your opinion of some dude with a ton of tattoos is an opinion of a guy who can choose to get those tattoos or choose not to. Your "opinion" of homosexuals is an "opinion" of people who don't have a choice.

People who are Christians belief that since the Bible states that homosexual relations are sinful, then it's obviously a choice as something would not be a sin if there were no choice in the matter due to genetics. I would take it a step further to state that just because there may be some research indicating that homosexual tendencies are genetic, that doesn't outweigh the fact that people can still overcome those tendencies. We see the same thing with common addictions such as alcohol as well as people who have a genetic predisposition to violence. We still hold them accountable for their actions even if there is a genetic link to them because those people are expected to keep those impulses in check. Christians believe the same thing applies to homosexual relations (as well as all other sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage). One thing that people always forget in this debate while they're calling Christians homophobic is that Christianity actually teaches that ALL form of sex outside of a one-man, one-woman marriage is wrong. Homosexual relations aren't unique in that regards.

QoH wrote:

Night Strike wrote:
1) Separation of church and state does not exist.

Why not?

It's not in the Constitution and it's impossible to achieve. The simple test is "Who does the separation?" If you answer "The Courts", the courts are an agent of the state and there is still no separation. There is no other agents that can neutrally achieve such a separation.

Right, but since it's caused by a genetic malfunction (something you can't overcome) you can't label that a choice, no matter how much you want to.

And even if it's not in the constitution, the government isn't run by the church.

No, when you allow what is considered moral come into the argument of politics you bring in Church. Not all Muslims want women to wear the shale covering their head and in a country where majority is large then the garb is illegal not to wear, but in France it is the oposite. They claim that wearing the garb is against rights. Neither of these topic are necessary nor do they belong in politics. Same as gay marriage and abortion.

QoH wrote:Right, but since it's caused by a genetic malfunction (something you can't overcome) you can't label that a choice, no matter how much you want to.

It's not caused by a genetic malfunction. Some people have a genetic predisposition to same-sex relationships, but they still have the power to overcome those predispositions. The exact same thing is seen in other addictions as well as violent behavior.

Army of GOD wrote:

Night Strike wrote:It's story's like this one that gives the entire homosexual movement a bad rap. People should not be losing their jobs just because they disagree with homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage. Actions like this make the movement seem unreasonable instead of actually debating the legitimate issues about whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed. And what's worse is that if you disagree with them, you automatically lose your free speech rights and can't say how you feel. It's censorship at its worst by pushing one agenda over another.

Being "disgusted" when seeing two men kiss is not disagreeing with homosexual marriage. It is homophobic.

whoa whoa. No way dude.
No way

Night Strike wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

Night Strike wrote:It's story's like this one that gives the entire homosexual movement a bad rap. People should not be losing their jobs just because they disagree with homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage. Actions like this make the movement seem unreasonable instead of actually debating the legitimate issues about whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed. And what's worse is that if you disagree with them, you automatically lose your free speech rights and can't say how you feel. It's censorship at its worst by pushing one agenda over another.

Being "disgusted" when seeing two men kiss is not disagreeing with homosexual marriage. It is homophobic.

Even if it is, that doesn't mean you don't have the right to say it.

Very poor argument. Nobody is saying they don't have the right to say it...that's free speech. However (and how many times do I have to keep repeating this!!!!), every right has consequences that go with applying that right. This is a natural consequence of the teacher applying his right to that particular free speech. MANY jobs have public behavior clauses written into their contracts, and I'm sure that's the case here.

Night Strike wrote:Does that mean I should be fired for saying that?

If it's in your contract, then it might. It's all about the consequences of your actions.

Night Strike wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:He got fired cause he can't separate Church from State. It is not on our moral ground to say whether or not a man and man or a woman and a woman can not get married. Also, that dude was completely disrespectful. He didn't disagree with it at all. It was pure hate.

1) Separation of church and state does not exist.

Excuse you? It damn well better! Are you actually prepared to submit to Sharia Law, Night Strike? If your statement holds true, then you should be.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

Night Strike wrote:It's story's like this one that gives the entire homosexual movement a bad rap. People should not be losing their jobs just because they disagree with homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage. Actions like this make the movement seem unreasonable instead of actually debating the legitimate issues about whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed. And what's worse is that if you disagree with them, you automatically lose your free speech rights and can't say how you feel. It's censorship at its worst by pushing one agenda over another.

Being "disgusted" when seeing two men kiss is not disagreeing with homosexual marriage. It is homophobic.

Even if it is, that doesn't mean you don't have the right to say it.

Very poor argument. Nobody is saying they don't have the right to say it...that's free speech. However (and how many times do I have to keep repeating this!!!!), every right has consequences that go with applying that right. This is a natural consequence of the teacher applying his right to that particular free speech. MANY jobs have public behavior clauses written into their contracts, and I'm sure that's the case here.

Night Strike wrote:Does that mean I should be fired for saying that?

If it's in your contract, then it might. It's all about the consequences of your actions.

The statement was said on his personal Facebook account completely separated from his role as a teacher. The school doesn't control your life like that.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:He got fired cause he can't separate Church from State. It is not on our moral ground to say whether or not a man and man or a woman and a woman can not get married. Also, that dude was completely disrespectful. He didn't disagree with it at all. It was pure hate.

1) Separation of church and state does not exist.

Excuse you? It damn well better! Are you actually prepared to submit to Sharia Law, Night Strike? If your statement holds true, then you should be.

Instituting Sharia Law would be an establishment of a religion which is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment. Having religious viewpoints when deciding what laws one will support/oppose or taking personal stances based on religion is not a violation of the above clause. The latter viewpoint is what is continually attacked by people who live under the lie of "separation of church and state" and that is false.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

Night Strike wrote:It's story's like this one that gives the entire homosexual movement a bad rap. People should not be losing their jobs just because they disagree with homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage. Actions like this make the movement seem unreasonable instead of actually debating the legitimate issues about whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed. And what's worse is that if you disagree with them, you automatically lose your free speech rights and can't say how you feel. It's censorship at its worst by pushing one agenda over another.

Being "disgusted" when seeing two men kiss is not disagreeing with homosexual marriage. It is homophobic.

Even if it is, that doesn't mean you don't have the right to say it.

Very poor argument. Nobody is saying they don't have the right to say it...that's free speech. However (and how many times do I have to keep repeating this!!!!), every right has consequences that go with applying that right. This is a natural consequence of the teacher applying his right to that particular free speech. MANY jobs have public behavior clauses written into their contracts, and I'm sure that's the case here.

Night Strike wrote:Does that mean I should be fired for saying that?

If it's in your contract, then it might. It's all about the consequences of your actions.

The statement was said on his personal Facebook account completely separated from his role as a teacher. The school doesn't control your life like that.

This is completely wrong. Your boss very well may "control your life like that". Typically, the public behavior clause essentially says "Don't do anything that will embarrass us, and we get to decide what that means.". This is a very common thing.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:He got fired cause he can't separate Church from State. It is not on our moral ground to say whether or not a man and man or a woman and a woman can not get married. Also, that dude was completely disrespectful. He didn't disagree with it at all. It was pure hate.

1) Separation of church and state does not exist.

Excuse you? It damn well better! Are you actually prepared to submit to Sharia Law, Night Strike? If your statement holds true, then you should be.

Instituting Sharia Law would be an establishment of a religion which is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment. Having religious viewpoints when deciding what laws one will support/oppose or taking personal stances based on religion is not a violation of the above clause. The latter viewpoint is what is continually attacked by people who live under the lie of "separation of church and state" and that is false.

I don't believe you understand the concept very well. You might want to research it some more.

Woodruff wrote:This is completely wrong. Your boss very well may "control your life like that". Typically, the public behavior clause essentially says "Don't do anything that will embarrass us, and we get to decide what that means.". This is a very common thing.

1) Being against homosexual marriage doesn't count as doing anything to embarrass the employer.

2) This man is employed by the government, not be a private company. The government can't curtail free speech like that.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:1) Separation of church and state does not exist.

Excuse you? It damn well better! Are you actually prepared to submit to Sharia Law, Night Strike? If your statement holds true, then you should be.

Instituting Sharia Law would be an establishment of a religion which is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment. Having religious viewpoints when deciding what laws one will support/oppose or taking personal stances based on religion is not a violation of the above clause. The latter viewpoint is what is continually attacked by people who live under the lie of "separation of church and state" and that is false.

I don't believe you understand the concept very well. You might want to research it some more.

I have spent extensive time studying the false concept of "Separation of Church and State" and how it has no basis in the actual wording and intent of the First Amendment's prohibition against an establishment of religion. The statement was taken out of context from one single letter by Thomas Jefferson on a completely unrelated subject and was never used in any other correspondence or comments from any other Founding Father. In fact, most of the writings and even first acts of Congress go completely opposite to what is now forced upon us in today's society in regards to religion in the public sector.

This topic is strange.
Homosexuality is a term to define the preference, a scientific term.
But isnt it the sin that you ppl what you dress this term with some weird meanings ? Then push it to be an insulting word ?
Some in this forum suggesting to call em not straights instead homoselxuals... I wud say not strait is insulting, not homosexual...
What is straight, and what is not straight here ? This is a simple fkin preference, and its literal definition with use of that scientific (from medical dictionary) word...
In my opinion, there is no fkin nothing wrong calling someone homosexual if he is so...
But, say, do we call ppl as heterosexual ? No we dont. Then why do we call ppl as homosexuals ? Maybe better idea is we should never speak of/ or we should never be pointing ppl's preferences...What the fck, how dare, why one feels it is neccesary to speak of other's choices, arent we living in a free and democratic fkin world ? Then everyone is going to have his/her living n whatever way they will like as long as his/her life does not conflict with mine.
BS

Night Strike wrote:It's story's like this one that gives the entire homosexual movement a bad rap. People should not be losing their jobs just because they disagree with homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage. Actions like this make the movement seem unreasonable instead of actually debating the legitimate issues about whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed. And what's worse is that if you disagree with them, you automatically lose your free speech rights and can't say how you feel. It's censorship at its worst by pushing one agenda over another.

he should tell them that disliking gay marriage is part of his religion... then the schools would be forced to hire him back, otherwise he would be "discriminated against because of his religion", and could win tons of money in a lawsuit.

that story is really sad, and assuming the school is a public school (it sounds like they are), the school officials are completely wrong and their actions are pathetic.