Uganda, a stand against homosexuality? Death penalty introduced.

[dsade]

OMG!

Get your paws off of me, you damn dirty homosexual.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

OMG!

Your obvious position of arrogance offends me!

 

[EasyEJL]

OMG!

It's a mad house! A mad house!

 

[Zero V]

It means little if a blind man argues with me over the color of something.

This is a thread that was supposed to be about discussion, debates, etc. People like mullet through(you should be in Obama's cabinet) have to make useless posts, simply because they do not agree...

And I find it funny people ask so many questions and complain, or deny, and so forth...Yet never answer any questions asked of them.

I admitted death may not be the best policy, and asked for a restructured system for Uganda...but those who complained and yell are too incompetent to provide one. Mostly because their own "narrow" view and preference to attempt to insult others(being childish, que?) is more important.

When a man only answers with an attempted insult, it is only because he has lost that battle in his head and has no means to continue the discussion. You do make for a good laugh though, Because I think you would be surprised how many people stand opposite of your podium. Not everyone likes riding the bandwagon.

Never said I am the world authority of understanding these things. But I can at least enjoy not being so childish as to act as some of you have. Unique opinions? Often. Act like you? Thank God I dont fall that far down.

 

[dsade]

You do make for a good laugh though, Because I think you would be surprised how many people stand opposite of your podium. Not everyone likes riding the bandwagon..

A million screaming retards pounding the ground proclaiming the world is flat (with no evidence) against the one proclaiming the world to be spherical (with evidence) is not an argument for correctness.

 

[AE14]

It means little if a blind man argues with me over the color of something.

This is a thread that was supposed to be about discussion, debates, etc. People like mullet through(you should be in Obama's cabinet) have to make useless posts, simply because they do not agree...

And I find it funny people ask so many questions and complain, or deny, and so forth...Yet never answer any questions asked of them.

I admitted death may not be the best policy, and asked for a restructured system for Uganda...but those who complained and yell are too incompetent to provide one. Mostly because their own "narrow" view and preference to attempt to insult others(being childish, que?) is more important.

When a man only answers with an attempted insult, it is only because he has lost that battle in his head and has no means to continue the discussion. You do make for a good laugh though, Because I think you would be surprised how many people stand opposite of your podium. Not everyone likes riding the bandwagon.

Never said I am the world authority of understanding these things. But I can at least enjoy not being so childish as to act as some of you have. Unique opinions? Often. Act like you? Thank God I dont fall that far down.

Zero, if you are looking for debate that is fine. Ask whatever questions you may have.

However, you also need to understand something. You come across with a certain sense of lunacy (no offense intended). This lunacy is well above any sense of normalcy for the majority who are here. Your comments about death possibly as an option, or getting into fights, or the many times you have made reference to shooting a variety of different government officials. What I am getting at, is truly, you need to aspire to a bit of maturity, and not this childish drivel that will consistently provoke the responses that you do not desire.

 

[Zero V]

Zero, if you are looking for debate that is fine. Ask whatever questions you may have.

However, you also need to understand something. You come across with a certain sense of lunacy (no offense intended). This lunacy is well above any sense of normalcy for the majority who are here. Your comments about death possibly as an option, or getting into fights, or the many times you have made reference to shooting a variety of different government officials. What I am getting at, is truly, you need to aspire to a bit of maturity, and not this childish drivel that will consistently provoke the responses that you do not desire.

That I can understand and agree to. Which like I said in person, it doesnt get the same results it does on here. Maybe its the lack of being able to explain it properly or express it with tone/body language etc.

This is maybe why I never liked the idea of writing articles, I come across "too strict" of a mindset. Works great for prose and story based writings though heh.

Could be I just cant stand the shameless and outright suicidal direction our nation, and most of the world is taking. And as a man, I will always have faults, wrong impressions or ideas, and so forth.

But the question I asked is can someone provide a better way for Uganda to go about their beliefs of banning homosexuality, while still keeping within standards of right and wrong on a worldwide scale.

I simply agree with Uganda's views because quite frankly, if you try to introduce ANYTHING anti-homosexual here in the states...you are labeled a horrible person/fake christian(even if your not a person of faith it gets tossed out I have noticed), inbred redneck, or who knows what.

Simply because you have a different opinion. To be honest what this does with people is alienate them. Make them have issues with the whole world, and in turn usually develop extreme ideals. Its the by-product of people like mullet here. So someone who has taken the polar opposite of the devil, even if its another demon, is at least not what you have already decided you hate(not people, politics wise).

Kinda like "pick your poison".

And as I have said, my views are not very "extreme" or on the border of lunacy as you think...If thats the case, then America is in for trouble because I honestly have met alot of people who I view as "extreme" and who are more than capable of pulling things off (a few are ex-marines). But it is ok to be an extreme feminist, extreme liberal, extreme anything as long as its not extreme-against societies current ideals.

You know Columbus was thought to be a madman for thinking the world was round...Most great philosophers, a few mathematicians, and most of the great artists were all along the edge or completely past the point of lunacy. So I at least I have good company lol.(its a joke...)

Personally death is extreme, I support Ugandas choice because over there it is 100% left or right atm. No in between. Now how would you provide a more plausible way for them to enact a ban on something they have deemed morally wrong and we as another nation must respect? I could see being stripped of a certain status, being barred from things such as healthcare, blocked out of government jobs/political parties, to be used as "deterrents" . But then even though people got what they want, and the death penalty is gone. Its still NEVER enough. So we will batter that country until it thinks like mullet...and another nation starts down the poophole.

 

[dsade]

But the question I asked is can someone provide a better way for Uganda to go about their beliefs of banning homosexuality, while still keeping within standards of right and wrong on a worldwide scale.

.

You cannot. The mere act of banning/punishing violates basic human rights. This is what you don't get.

 

[EasyEJL]

You cannot. The mere act of banning/punishing violates basic human rights. This is what you don't get.

Why is there an assumption that homosexuality is a basic human right, yet polygamy isn't?

 

[dsade]

Why is there an assumption that homosexuality is a basic human right, yet polygamy isn't?

An agreement between two individuals versus an agreement between multiple individuals?

Personally government should get out of the marriage/morality business. If people want to forge some kind of contract, then contract law should be the only application there.

 

[Zero V]

You cannot. The mere act of banning/punishing violates basic human rights. This is what you don't get.

Why is there an assumption that homosexuality is a basic human right, yet polygamy isn't?

^this.

"Human Rights" are decided by the current people in power. It has changed alot, and will change many more times. Going back and forth indefinitely till the world eventually nukes itself or we all die of a super-bacteria. Who knows.

Homosexualty was viewed as a mental disease for a couple oh I dont know....thousand years?(probably more). During this time its been labeled demons, its been labeled mental disease, its been labeled everything.

The one thing it doesn't do though, is in no way shape or form, bring anything beneficial to society. Only division and confusion.

America has taking a really weird twisted view on homosexuality that most of the world does not agree with.

 

[Harry Manback]

Name one "pure" race.

Mitochondrial DNA would like a word with you.

I'd like to hear of a pure race, too. I'd also like to know what corruptions take place when this happens.

You guys surely don't have to agree with me, it is simply how I feel. My morals are different than yours. Does not make you or I the better person. For every ten people who feel the way you do, there's ten people who feel the way that I do. However, I can respect your stance on the issue.

 

[Zero V]

An agreement between two individuals versus an agreement between multiple individuals?

Personally government should get out of the marriage/morality business. If people want to forge some kind of contract, then contract law should be the only application there.

I honestly never had a problem with Gay's doing civil unions or whatever it is. But marriage is something that did not come from the secular world, and is trampled on enough let alone letting something that is against the very laws that created our view of marriage step on it.

 

[AE14]

But the question I asked is can someone provide a better way for Uganda to go about their beliefs of banning homosexuality, while still keeping within standards of right and wrong on a worldwide scale.

I do not believe you can ban it without violating human rights. Additionally, right or wrong are very subjective concepts and evidently the view of them by the Ugandan government is different from that which I hold.

 

[rubberring]

I admitted death may not be the best policy...

Oh... well, you've matured tremendously then. ((sarcasm))

For an admitted virgin, you sure have a lot of opinions about sexuality. Seriously, you should stick to bitching about not having medical insurance, because without a shred of life experience... which you clearly lack... you come off as a simpleton.

Quit kidding yourself by asserting that there is anything intellectual about your posts or this thread. There isn't. I showed this thread to a staff of educators at lunch today and they all just rolled their eyes, and a few made gagging noises. The most conservative Christian I know commented that you sound naive and uneducated.

Oh, and since you had the audacity to neg me because you were so offended by my trolling... the Prince gif was an attempt to add humor to an otherwise disgraceful thread. And yes... he was looking at you.

You nauseate me.

 

[Jayhawkk]

I just wanted more depth to your opinion on why you feel that way but you are more than entitled not to provide it.

 

[dsade]

You guys surely don't have to agree with me, it is simply how I feel. My morals are different than yours. Does not make you or I the better person. For every ten people who feel the way you do, there's ten people who feel the way that I do. However, I can respect your stance on the issue.

You weren't expressing a feeling, you were stating a conclusion based upon the premise that there is such as a thing as a "pure" race.

You were asked to support your premise, that is all, by showing us an example of "pure" race.

There exists no such thing.

 

[Sam I Am]

America has taking a really weird twisted view on homosexuality that most of the world does not agree with.

And you know this through you extensive World travels? Or are you basing your point of view around some articles from Wiki and other binary mediums? You have no clue what is truly going on in this world beyond your parent’s walls. Grow up, kid.

 

[EasyEJL]

And you know this through you extensive World travels? Or are you basing your point of view around some articles from Wiki and other binary mediums? You have no clue what is truly going on in this world beyond your parent’s walls. Grow up, kid.

Actually that happens to be one small piece he is actually right on mathematically. Remember that half the population of the globe is between india, china and pakistan.... Add the rest of the muslims, and there are far more people living in countries that don't recognize homosexuality as normal than people living in countries that do. Again doesn't make it right or wrong on either side as the majority believed the world was flat as well.

 

[Sam I Am]

Actually that happens to be one small piece he is actually right on mathematically. Remember that half the population of the globe is between india, china and pakistan.... Add the rest of the muslims, and there are far more people living in countries that don't recognize homosexuality as normal than people living in countries that do. Again doesn't make it right or wrong on either side as the majority believed the world was flat as well.

No, my questioning was the, "America {…} weird twisted norm." That is almost as puzzling and never-ending as to argue what, "normal," actually means. It's a paradox.

 

[EasyEJL]

No, my questioning was the, "America {…} weird twisted norm." That is almost as puzzling and never-ending as to argue what, "normal," actually means. It's a paradox.

Ah yeah, well what is normal is always tinted by our own glasses

 

[dsade]

No, my questioning was the, "America {…} weird twisted norm." That is almost as puzzling and never-ending as to argue what, "normal," actually means. It's a paradox.

Two cardiologists were arguing about what they saw in the mirror. After much gesticulating and back and forth, they decided it was just a paradox.

 

[Sam I Am]

Two cardiologists were arguing about what they saw in the mirror. After much gesticulating and back and forth, they decided it was just a paradox.

Whoa, that's deep! :tongue2:

 

[Harry Manback]

You weren't expressing a feeling, you were stating a conclusion based upon the premise that there is such as a thing as a "pure" race.

You were asked to support your premise, that is all, by showing us an example of "pure" race.

There exists no such thing.

By telling you that I don't approve of interracial couples is not expressing how I feel? Interesting.

I did not make mention of a "pure" gene pool. In fact, I agreed that there is no "pure" gene pool. I just do not like the further contamination of it. (page 2 if you need to cite the info)

You can try and get all scientific, throwing all sorts of propaganda at me. But like I mentioned before, it's more of a morals thing with me. Sorry you don't like how I -dare I say- feel.

 

[dsade]

By telling you that I don't approve of interracial couples is not expressing how I feel? Interesting.

I did not make mention of a "pure" gene pool. In fact, I agreed that there is no "pure" gene pool. I just do not like the further contamination of it. (page 2 if you need to cite the info)

You can try and get all scientific, throwing all sorts of propaganda at me. But like I mentioned before, it's more of a morals thing with me. Sorry you don't like how I -dare I say- feel.

You cannot "corrupt" something that, definition, is simply what it is - a myriad of gene variations formed from a simple pool of DNA (mitochondrial and chromosomal). What exactly is it corrupted WITH?

 

[Sam I Am]

What exactly is it corrupted WITH?

Apple juice.

 

[Harry Manback]

You cannot "corrupt" something that, definition, is simply what it is - a myriad of gene variations formed from a simple pool of DNA (mitochondrial and chromosomal). What exactly is it corrupted WITH?

I don't like it. I don't have to like it. I'm not going to like it. That's all there is to it.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Homosexuality has not been regarded as a "mental disease/disorder" for thousands of years; in fact, the emergence of the concept of disease as such, as well as the processes of hospitalization, proliferation of medical knowledge, sanitation, hygiene and so forth that both precipitated and contributed to the medicalized notion of disease are relatively new developments. Now, one could hypothetically posit that homosexuality has historically been regarded as abnormal, however, the archaeological records bears that to be untrue as well: it is only within the repressive sexuality of the Abrahamic religions that sexuality has been demonized, pathologies, and ascribed "Other" status. There is much evidence to the contrary that, in fact, homosexuality had largely been accepted throughout history, in various cultures, across various social strata, etc.

Whether or not these instances of historical instantiation make it "natural," per se, is highly debatable - and a topic, as a matter of fact, that has been partaken in on this very forum, and which I contributed a significant portion to. Nevertheless, and this contention notwithstanding, what is indisputable is that the demonization of homosexuality is not normal, in the capacity and context of normative behavior, in and throughout history. There have been epochés where it was largely regarded as acceptable and mundane behavior; epochés where it was treated as ceremonial behavior in the context of rights of passage, and; yes, epochés where it was demonized. This fact bears one thing to be true: appealing to homosexuality as "against" the "natural way" is simply fallacious reasoning, as the "natural way" alters as per the dynamic conventions of the time.

 

[Lacradocious]

Why is there an assumption that homosexuality is a basic human right, yet polygamy isn't?

People have a basic human right to live and do with their lives as they please so long as it doesn't interfere with anothers right to do so. So both are basic human rights.

Polygamy gets a bad rap due to cases of young boys being shunned from polygamist culture, and they have a tendancy to marry pre-teen to early teen girls to much older men. No person of that age legally or morally can enter a contract such as marriage. Some have no issue with this, and look to the bible or other religious texts to justify pedophilia.

As far as adults practicing it - fine, there adults. Plus, the government has nothing to gain from it.

 

[Lacradocious]

in the end, any physical activity you are involved in is a choice, whether it be homosexuality, bowling, walking into a church, mugging old ladies, kicking a dog.

And i'm against any hate crime laws, as i've never seen a "love crime".

I would still argue it is not a choice. Gays can't help that they are wired to be homosexual. I can't help that I am drawn to women and have only fell in love with them. I am wired that way as are most of us. But some are not. A lot of gay men and women want to have children. If it was a choice, being gay would just be a phase that would pass once someone decided to have children. But it doesn't. The only choice we have is to accept who we really are, and thus choose to act on either our heterosexual or homosexual feelings.

Your hate crime logic is a bit off. With this reasoning, what's wrong with murder? I've never seen a crime for bringing a life into the world.

Hate crime laws simply recognize that it takes a crime to a more sadistic level to criminalize someone simply for who they are. I can understand how a woman murders her abusive husband, or how someone might kill their spouses mistress in a fit of rage. I can't understand how someone would kill someone for simply being white, muslim, gay, etc.

I would be just as concerned if it was the other way around and gangs of gay men were running around murdering straight men for being straight. That would be totally fukced up on a different level if its hate based.

 

[Lacradocious]

I honestly never had a problem with Gay's doing civil unions or whatever it is. But marriage is something that did not come from the secular world, and is trampled on enough let alone letting something that is against the very laws that created our view of marriage step on it.

The word marriage and civil union is interchangeable to and means the same thing to the state. The state has no business meddling in the religious/moral aspect of marriage. To them, marriage is simply a social contract for tax purposes, etc. That is why a priest can marry you in the church but you still need to apply for a license from the state. And atheists can still get married at the courthouse without the blessing of the church.

 

[KarlaG]

note to zeroV . . do not travel to Uganda

 

[bioman]

I did a spit take.

 

[bioman]

Apple juice.

Wrong. The answer is; "sinners".


lmao.

 

[dsade]

x2..

Well, God created us free men free of choice. We made a bad decision in the beginning and thats why we are here.


I can't find the original post containing THIS gem.

Please, do tell how "we" (considering I am 39 years old and have made around 33-34 years' worth of "choices") made a bad decision in the beginning.

Or...are you asserting that we have and will be judged/punished for the actions of others from a "just" being?

 

[EasyEJL]

I would still argue it is not a choice. Gays can't help that they are wired to be homosexual. I can't help that I am drawn to women and have only fell in love with them. I am wired that way as are most of us. But some are not. A lot of gay men and women want to have children. If it was a choice, being gay would just be a phase that would pass once someone decided to have children. But it doesn't. The only choice we have is to accept who we really are, and thus choose to act on either our heterosexual or homosexual feelings.

Your hate crime logic is a bit off. With this reasoning, what's wrong with murder? I've never seen a crime for bringing a life into the world.

Hate crime laws simply recognize that it takes a crime to a more sadistic level to criminalize someone simply for who they are. I can understand how a woman murders her abusive husband, or how someone might kill their spouses mistress in a fit of rage. I can't understand how someone would kill someone for simply being white, muslim, gay, etc.

I would be just as concerned if it was the other way around and gangs of gay men were running around murdering straight men for being straight. That would be totally fukced up on a different level if its hate based.

You are totally backwards with both of these. I said nothing about emotion or desire, I spoke of action. You can fall in love with a second person while you are married and there is nothing wrong with that, taking action on it is wrong as taking action IS in your control.

Similarly you missed the boat entirely on hate crimes. My point was that beating up a person because he is gay is no worse than beating up a person because he stepped on your toe. Again you are beating him up because of what he is, a clumsy fool. The start of violent crimes is always about what the other person is, whether its race, religion, personality, etc. Again, what else would be your cause of violence against someone? If you start a fight because someone is hitting on your girlfriend, it is you starting a fight because of "who he is" - a crass classless fool. And trying to say that race, religion, sexual preference is "out of a persons control", well honestly you can say the same for someone who is clumsy and unapologetic as thats the way they were raised.

No violent crime is a "love" crime, they all have elements of hate. By establishing a higher penalty for the EXACT SAME action against a specific group you are in effect saying its not as big of a deal to perform that same action against people of any other group that doesn't get protected. Again, your feelings may or may not be entirely in your control, but your actions are. I'm all for stronger penalties for violent crimes, I'm a fan of faster death sentences as well to keep prison costs down. Rape, child molestation and first or second degree murder all deserve rapid death sentences.

 

[Vtaper]

Still waiting for the "Uganda: Gays miss Idi Amin" article.

 

[Lacradocious]

You are totally backwards with both of these. I said nothing about emotion or desire, I spoke of action. You can fall in love with a second person while you are married and there is nothing wrong with that, taking action on it is wrong as taking action IS in your control.

Similarly you missed the boat entirely on hate crimes. My point was that beating up a person because he is gay is no worse than beating up a person because he stepped on your toe. Again you are beating him up because of what he is, a clumsy fool. The start of violent crimes is always about what the other person is, whether its race, religion, personality, etc. Again, what else would be your cause of violence against someone? If you start a fight because someone is hitting on your girlfriend, it is you starting a fight because of "who he is" - a crass classless fool. And trying to say that race, religion, sexual preference is "out of a persons control", well honestly you can say the same for someone who is clumsy and unapologetic as thats the way they were raised.

No violent crime is a "love" crime, they all have elements of hate. By establishing a higher penalty for the EXACT SAME action against a specific group you are in effect saying its not as big of a deal to perform that same action against people of any other group that doesn't get protected. Again, your feelings may or may not be entirely in your control, but your actions are. I'm all for stronger penalties for violent crimes, I'm a fan of faster death sentences as well to keep prison costs down. Rape, child molestation and first or second degree murder all deserve rapid death sentences.

I do believe we are all accountable for our actions because we can control what we do and how we choose to react to things. I simply don't think a gay person can be blamed for choosing to act on it. If a man is gay he has no business acting straight and marrying a woman and vise versa. It just isn't right in my opinion.

I agree with you as far as the death penalty and making it more swift. I still disagree regarding hate crimes because the legislation isn't intended to give preferential treatment to any particular group. It is a shame that our legal system is so weak and inconsistent that we have to have such legislation to ensure the worst offenses get the highest level of punishment.

The day after 9/11, a guy went into a gas station here in Phoenix and murdered the owner for being a Muslim (he was actually a Seikgh from India). He was murdered for being a "Muslim", not for money or because he personaly wronged him. I simply feel that it is an agregious act that should bring the strongest punishment with no option for leniency. In a similar sense, I feel that crimes against children, public servants, and pregnant women should bring the strongest punishment without a chance for leniency.

But I understand your logic. If our courts were consistent and didn't lean so far to the left, there would be no need to differentiate which form of murder is worse, or which one deserves a harsher penalty. The way it is now, advocacy groups have to petition to change the laws to ensure firm justice is applied. Police and other public servants, children, and victims of hate crimes wouldn't need to petition for these things if the courts simply did their jobs and we actually started executing murderers regardless.

 

[dave12]

you really believe that AIDs is a homosexual disease soley at this point in time?

Homo's and iv drug users.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Homo's and iv drug users.

It depends on geography. That trend is only prevalent in the so-called, "Industrialized West," whereas heterosexuals predominate both confirmed HIV and AIDS cases in the MENA states, the African continent, the South Pacific and Eastern Europe-Asia.

 

[EasyEJL]

I do believe we are all accountable for our actions because we can control what we do and how we choose to react to things. I simply don't think a gay person can be blamed for choosing to act on it. If a man is gay he has no business acting straight and marrying a woman and vise versa. It just isn't right in my opinion.

I suppose that for that it partially goes back to the definition of whether homosexuality is a nature or nurture issue - whether its genetic (which is basically impossible due to the non-reproductive nature) or whether its the way a person is raised and their experiences in their childhood. Honestly its no different than any other social deviation in that respect. It just happens that its one that is generally harmless to others and is disproportionately glamorized by the media. And comically female homosexuality is generally supported by most males

But if a man has no desire to be with a woman then true he shouldn't be with a woman, however if his country/social group strongly disallows homosexual physical contact then he can choose to be celibate instead of following through on his desires. Then you get into of course the question of whether "satisfying your sexual desires" is a human right or not, and i'd have to go with not on that one. Again specifically we have things like anti-polygamy laws, age of consent laws, etc that outlaw other forms of satisfying sexual desires so it is not considered an inalienable right. Heck strip bars are still illegal in many states here in the US.

 

[dave12]

It depends on geography. That trend is only prevalent in the so-called, "Industrialized West," whereas heterosexuals predominate both confirmed HIV and AIDS cases in the MENA states, the African continent, the South Pacific and Eastern Europe-Asia.

How does a heterosexual, monogamous, non iv drug using male catch himself the G.R.I.D.S. catch himself exactly? I know wimminz can catch the stuff relatively easily, boys on the other hand I was under the impression it took some doing.

 

[Sam I Am]

But if a man has no desire to be with a woman then true he shouldn't be with a woman, however if his country/social group strongly disallows homosexual physical contact then he can choose to be celibate instead of following through on his desires.

What in the hell? So the said person should live their life within the borders of what the country or society allows, or deems to be appropriate? May I ask what your profession is? You seem to refute a lot of science and dismiss many claims.

 

[EasyEJL]

What in the hell? So the said person should live their life within the borders of what the country or society allows, or deems to be appropriate? May I ask what your profession is? You seem to refute a lot of science and dismiss many claims.

Yep, thats it exactly. That is how civilization actually works - the individuals agreeing to act as per the morals and expectations of their local peer group. Refusing to do so means rejecting the civilization of your local group. If you live in a society that believes in ritual animal sacrifice and you refuse to do so you are branded as an outcast. The "right or wrong" of that is impossible to judge because morality is always subjective, there is no absolute right or wrong. The Carthaginians believed in sacrificing their infants and although I believe it is wrong, they didn't. There is no absolute right or wrong at all, it is always defined by your civilization group.

What science am I refuting? If anything i'm perpetually the person on this forum who dismisses broscience and asks for clinical evidence. But i'm a software developer.

 

[AE14]

I suppose that for that it partially goes back to the definition of whether homosexuality is a nature or nurture issue - whether its genetic (which is basically impossible due to the non-reproductive nature)

one of the interesting aspects of this particualr argument is how homosexuality is found in nature. My assumption is, since animals mental capacity is much simpler than ours, it is n ot necessarily a choice for them.

 

[EasyEJL]

one of the interesting aspects of this particualr argument is how homosexuality is found in nature. My assumption is, since animals mental capacity is much simpler than ours, it is n ot necessarily a choice for them.

For animals that is true, but for humans there is no stating positively that all homosexual feelings are one or the other, which I probably should have been clearer on. Makes far more sense that there is some amount of overlap, with some people being more strongly wired that way genetically and some people less so, but nurture having some effect as well and our personal choices filling in the rest as far as desire to be with someone of the same sex goes. Still the act is entirely in ones control.

Its pretty obvious that the ballooning in the last 20 years of lesbians is partially due to the encouragement by the media and young girls questioning that since they don't at 13 or 14 find any boys attractive that maybe they are lesbians. Not very different than blaming eating disorders on skinny models

 

[TheLastRonin]

Well, God created us free men free of choice. We made a bad decision in the beginning and thats why we are here.


I can't find the original post containing THIS gem.

Please, do tell how "we" (considering I am 39 years old and have made around 33-34 years' worth of "choices") made a bad decision in the beginning.

Or...are you asserting that we have and will be judged/punished for the actions of others from a "just" being?

This was actually Blacktail's post but as you quoted me...
I meant of course "We" as a human race D. I have explained to you the story of Sin and how it affects us in previous threads, so I don't feel the need to go into depth here unless you truly wish to know what the Bible states again.
As a short version, Satan challenged God's authority to rule, Eve went along with Satan, Adam followed. We thus inherited sin from the first set of genes. Like a pan with a dent that bakes bread with the same dent in the bread day after day.Sin meaning quite literally to miss the mark of perfection.
God has let humanity rule themselves for the most part aside from his chosen people, and Satan the rest. All this for US to prove that man cannot rule himself very well and that God really is the best leader for us. He made the way out for us by sending his Son Jesus to earth to atone for our imperfection by way of propitiatory sacrifice. To make a way out for us. He could have killed us all and started again..so it is loving to give us another chance. Humans wouldn't do the same.
We are not being judged/punished from the sins of others but how we deal with the sin we have inherited and how we either let it run our lives or fight against it.

 

[AE14]

For animals that is true, but for humans there is no stating positively that all homosexual feelings are one or the other, which I probably should have been clearer on. Makes far more sense that there is some amount of overlap, with some people being more strongly wired that way genetically and some people less so, but nurture having some effect as well and our personal choices filling in the rest as far as desire to be with someone of the same sex goes. Still the act is entirely in ones control.

Its pretty obvious that the ballooning in the last 20 years of lesbians is partially due to the encouragement by the media and young girls questioning that since they don't at 13 or 14 find any boys attractive that maybe they are lesbians. Not very different than blaming eating disorders on skinny models

I would agree to an extent. I think the evidence of homosexuality in the nature leads more evidence to support is natural origin.

 

[EasyEJL]

I would agree to an extent. I think the evidence of homosexuality in the nature leads more evidence to support is natural origin.

by the same logic cannibalism could be suggested to be natural as well The urges may be natural but a conscious act of acting on them or not is what separates us from the animals. Its a natural for a larger male to beat up or kill a smaller male to take his mate in the animal world, would that somehow be appropriate in the human world because its common in nature?

 

[AE14]

by the same logic cannibalism could be suggested to be natural as well The urges may be natural but a conscious act of acting on them or not is what separates us from the animals. Its a natural for a larger male to beat up or kill a smaller male to take his mate in the animal world, would that somehow be appropriate in the human world because its common in nature?

I think you and I are battling semantics. I dont deny that there is control of the urge, however, the urge is derived from a natural source.