(Advertisement)

Pryor: Gay Friends Didn’t Choose Sexual Orientation

Posted: April 6, 2013 at 2:57 a.m.

Gay and lesbian Arkansans have convinced U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor their sexual orientation is a characteristic, not a choice, the senator said Friday.

This story is only available from our archives.

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

Police Changeover Smooth

Zeb Rone, Tontitown police officer stands by his police car. Rone, and three other officers began patrolling in the city on March 26, taking over from Washington County deputies.

The newest police department in Northwest Arkansas has officers, police cars and a station, but no sign refle... Read »

Next Story »

School Safety Discussed

Building relationships between teachers and students might help prevent some school shootings but no single measure will stop all shootings, a national safety specialist to... Read »

Sen. Pryor, indeed, very few if any people choose to have same-sex attractions.

That doesn't mean, however, that they're born with them. In fact, after decades of research there's no scientifically-replicated proof that same-sex romantic attraction is genetic and/or inborn.

We do, however, have a lot of anecdotal evidence from people who've left their gay identity (and even same-sex attractions). Usually, people in this group have done so voluntarily through counseling . There are some who have spontaneously seen a change: about 10 years ago in an interview the singer Boy George said he couldn't honestly call himself "gay" any more and added (paraphrased): "I now see that my gay identity was all in my mind."

Be careful making decisions about something as important as marriage when the general public isn't being told what being "gay" truly is, and what it truly isn't.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 6, 2013 at 12:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "after decades of research there's no scientifically-replicated proof that same-sex romantic attraction is genetic and/or inborn."
While no "gay gene" has been discovered, studies have shown that epigenetic factors (gene activation/deactivation) and in utero environmental conditions have an effect on sexuality. See
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...
http://www.popsci.com/science/article...
And even Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/12...

RE "We do, however, have a lot of anecdotal evidence from people who've left their gay identity"
Of course, your "proof" ignores the existence of bisexuality, which would easily explain any small incidence of actual "cures". A lot of people are confused about the true nature of their sexuality because the beliefs and actions of people such as yourself makes it difficult for people to learn and understand more about their sexuality. Given the confusion and fear created by a judgmental society, it is no wonder that a lot of people are willing to seek a "cure" for their sexuality.

There's also a lot of anecdotal information about gay people who have been "cured" who, realizing that the idea that there is a "cure" is a sham, have reverted to their actual nature-- that is, being gay. However, anecdotal information is not scientific proof.

But think of it this way, if it makes you feel better: isn't God good? He gave us all of those fabulous people.

RE [Boy George]
There's that bisexuality thing again. As for his claim that "I now see that my gay identity was all in my mind", I will point out the obvious fact that almost all of sexuality is in the mind.

RE "the general public isn't being told what being 'gay' truly is, and what it truly isn't."
If anecdotal information were a valid basis for proof, you would be living proof of this assertion.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 6, 2013 at 1:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It bears repeating that gay behavior has been observed in quite a few animal species, including long-term same-sex relationships among greylag geese.
http://www.livescience.com/11125-bird...

Posted by: Coralie

April 6, 2013 at 4:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

Thank you for all the links, but there's one problem: as of December 2012, the epigenetic theory hadn't even gone to the laboratory yet. (And others I've spoken with have actually told me of late: "homosexuality isn't genetic...it's EPIGENETIC.")

To me, it's very serious whenever people are making CRITICAL life decisions based on a falsehood. It's also nearly inexcusable for whomever is promoting the falsehood.

Coralie, understood. Equally respectfully added, I can remember scientists warning on studies (I think the one I saw was on same-sex behavior in sheep) that such observations must be viewed as unique to the species and must not be extrapolated to human beings.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 6, 2013 at 6:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat, as for the ex-gays,

There's a movie upcoming about Christian songwriter Dennis Jernigan, who was once gay (not bisexual*) and now married with 9 children he and his wife have happily created. The documentary, called "sing over me", was just finished a week or two ago.

*I've seen this man give his testimony. He grew up in fear of having his sexuality discovered, and was deeply hurt as a boy by anti-gay statements made by men of his church. If you're truly bisexual, there's no fear...frankly, you can live your life in many ways without being discovered with a genuine "I can switch any time I want" mentality. (I'm thinking of David Bowie who once said: "I'm 'trisexual'...I'll try anything".) Jernigan was closeted throughout high school, and was scared growing up.

As for other "anecdotal stories", I've seen many of gay men (who act like they wouldn't read a Bible were they paid to do so) who were attracted to and even fell in love with the opposite sex. "Instinct" magazine (no "Bible-thumper" that) did a story 10 years ago interviewing a number of such gay men. You know a common denominator amongst them? FEAR. One man said: "My parents disowned me when they learned I was gay. Now that I've got (romantic feelings toward a woman) I'm afraid my GAY friends will disown me. How (expletive) up is that?!?!"

AlphaCat, why not just let gay people and ex-gay people be allowed to tell their stories truthfully, with no "media filters"? Let people know what scientific research has proven, and what it hasn't? And let them make up their own minds?

People are smart enough to do that on their own, aren't they?

Posted by: OTamandua

April 6, 2013 at 6:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Whether being gay is genetic, epigenetic, or just a choice, why does it matter? I know people that believe they were born gay and I know folks that have been in relationships with both sexes. There have been gay people throughout recorded history, in every culture. Why should we prevent people in same sex relationships from having the same rights as a straight couple? This is strictly driven by religious intolerance. Giving someone else the same rights you have does not diminish your rights in any way. Get over it.

Posted by: TheHunter

April 6, 2013 at 8:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "as of December 2012, the epigenetic theory hadn't even gone to the laboratory yet."
That's true, and I'm impressed that you suddenly care about the importance of laboratory testing, as "curing" gay people hasn't been lab tested, either. However, twin studies and studies of hormone tolerance are done in labs. The epigenetic theory has been proposed as a result of decades of laboratory study in several areas. One important outcome is that scientists are now looking for something other than a "gay gene".

RE "To me, it's very serious whenever people are making CRITICAL life decisions based on a falsehood."
By "people", do you mean the same-sex couples who want to be married, or society at large? What is "critical" about same-sex marriage? It's between two people who want to be married, which seems the most critical aspect. That's more than you can say for a lot of opposite-sex couples, many of whom never get married, and many of whom, once married, will get divorced. It's between two people who will not be able to have children by way of sexual reproduction, but they already know that. A lot of opposite-sex couples can't have children by way of sexual reproduction. What is "critical" about same-sex marriage?

RE "It's also nearly inexcusable for whomever is promoting the falsehood."
Which falsehood? That homosexuality is a choice? That homosexuality is only a "lifestyle"?

RE "There's a movie upcoming about Christian songwriter Dennis Jernigan, who was once gay (not bisexual*) and now married with 9 children he and his wife have happily created."
Apparently he is bisexual. Perhaps you need to read up on the subject. By the way-- this movie is very likely a "media filter".

RE "If you're truly bisexual, there's no fear..."
Says who? Bisexuals still have that gay thing to deal with.

RE "You know a common denominator amongst them? FEAR."
I said that earlier.

RE "One man said: 'My parents disowned me when they learned I was gay. Now that I've got (romantic feelings toward a woman) I'm afraid my GAY friends will disown me."
In other words, and contrary to your earlier assertion, if you're truly bisexual, then there is fear after all.

RE "why not just let gay people and ex-gay people be allowed to tell their stories truthfully"
Who's stopping them?

RE "...with no 'media filters'?"
What media filters are you referring to? Church and conservative publications? That's where most of those stories of ex-gay people are told. They don't report their failures. That's a real media filter.

RE "Let people know what scientific research has proven, and what it hasn't?"
That's why I posted those links.

RE "And let them make up their own minds?"
As long as you also let them see what religion has proven and what it hasn't.

RE "People are smart enough to do that on their own, aren't they?"
Not if they are overly religious. Religion is a severe media filter.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 6, 2013 at 9:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GO HOGS

Posted by: continuetocancelme

April 7, 2013 at 6:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

1. RE "as of December 2012, the epigenetic theory hadn't even gone to the laboratory yet."
That's true, and I'm impressed that you suddenly care about the importance of laboratory testing, as "curing" gay people hasn't been lab tested, either. However, twin studies and studies of hormone tolerance are done in labs. The epigenetic theory has been proposed as a result of decades of laboratory study in several areas. One important outcome is that scientists are now looking for something other than a "gay gene".

AlphaCat, isn't it fascinating then, that (just one example) Dr. Thomas J. Bouchard (look him up, it won't be a waste of your time...he may be one of the world's foremost living authorities on twins and "twin studies"), in his "Minnesota Twin Project", studied identical, monozygotic twins separated at birth. He only found a 16.6 concordance rate for homosexuality among the separated identical twins.

16.6 per cent concordance!

And that figure has been replicated in other twin studies. Given that, and the fact that the Human Genome Project found absolutely nothing in terms of a genetic link to homosexuality, and that no other genetic/inborn causes have been scientifically proven, and that now the "hot" theory of epigenetics hadn't even been started for testing as of December 2012, all adds up to a big "ZERO" for the "born that way" theory.

2.RE "To me, it's very serious whenever people are making CRITICAL life decisions based on a falsehood."
By "people", do you mean the same-sex couples who want to be married, or society at large? What is "critical" about same-sex marriage? It's between two people who want to be married, which seems the most critical aspect. That's more than you can say for a lot of opposite-sex couples, many of whom never get married, and many of whom, once married, will get divorced. It's between two people who will not be able to have children by way of sexual reproduction, but they already know that. A lot of opposite-sex couples can't have children by way of sexual reproduction. What is "critical" about same-sex marriage?

I've not even said what I feel about same-sex marriage, have I (regardless of what your assumption may be)? My concern is for something even deeper, which is "identity".

3. RE "It's also nearly inexcusable for whomever is promoting the falsehood."
Which falsehood? That homosexuality is a choice? That homosexuality is only a "lifestyle"?

The falsehood that "you're born that way and there's no way you can change (if you want to)."

Posted by: OTamandua

April 7, 2013 at 2:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

4. RE "There's a movie upcoming about Christian songwriter Dennis Jernigan, who was once gay (not bisexual*) and now married with 9 children he and his wife have happily created."
Apparently he is bisexual. Perhaps you need to read up on the subject. By the way-- this movie is very likely a "media filter".

AlphaCat, by his own admission he was exclusively attracted to men, until he was changed by the power of Jesus Christ. Forget the second half of that sentence, please, and focus on the first. How is being exclusively attracted to men "bisexual"?

5. RE "If you're truly bisexual, there's no fear..."
Says who? Bisexuals still have that gay thing to deal with.

Remember, GLBT people are only about 3% of the population. Bisexual people I've known (very few, and I've heard gay men say that there really are very few "bisexuals" indeed) can slip into either identity they want. Trust me, they have no fear of the str8t community. As for the gAys:

6. RE "You know a common denominator amongst them? FEAR."
I said that earlier.

See below, please:

Posted by: OTamandua

April 7, 2013 at 2:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

7. RE "One man said: 'My parents disowned me when they learned I was gay. Now that I've got (romantic feelings toward a woman) I'm afraid my GAY friends will disown me."
In other words, and contrary to your earlier assertion, if you're truly bisexual, then there is fear after all.

AlphaCat, google the phrase "Guardian Bob and Rose", and you'll come up with the UK Guardian newspaper link about the BBC show "Bob and Rose" from 10 years ago, created by the (gay) man who originated "Queer as folk".

Except this show was based upon a real-life friend whom the QAF creator (Russell Davies) said was the most "out, loud and proud gay man you could ever meet". This friend was also happily married to a woman! (And had fathered a child with her!)

The friend told Mr. Davies that instead of being "bisexual" that "(he) was born gay. I'll die gay. I'll have a gay tombstone." (Whatever that is.)

Here's the interesting thing. Davies got hate mail from GAY men about that show, wanting to see "Rose" (the straight woman the gay man fell in love with) killed in the most vicious ways possible. He also said that there was a lot of real-life vicious gossip against his friend.

Why? Wasn't that what "The sexual revolution" was all about, AlphaCat? The freedom to love whomever you wanted (as long as they were a consenting adult, of course)?

8. RE "why not just let gay people and ex-gay people be allowed to tell their stories truthfully"
Who's stopping them?

I hope, among other things, Mr. Jernigan's movie will be broadcast in full on a major network. I'm not holding my breath. I submit to you that there are many today who don't know ex-gays exist, not because they don't, but because they've never heard about them on the TV shows they watch, the internet sites they visit or the magazines they read.

AlphaCat, speaking of "ex-gays" and "truth", did you hear that the New Jersey Senate is about to ratify legislation against counseling to overcome same -sex attraction? Did you hear that the most riveting testimony they heard was from a male-to-female transsexual named "Brielle Goldani", about an ex-gay camp in Ohio she said she was sent to called "True Directions"? And did you also hear that "True Directions" never existed, but instead was made up in a 1999 RuPaul movie: "But I'm a cheerleader"?

"Media filters", indeed.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 7, 2013 at 2:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

9. RE "...with no 'media filters'?"
What media filters are you referring to? Church and conservative publications? That's where most of those stories of ex-gay people are told. They don't report their failures. That's a real media filter.

AlphaCat, have you ever heard of "The gates test?"

It was coined by former U.S. Education Secretary Bill Bennett about nations with oppressive governments and went as so: "If said oppressive nations had closed gates at their borders which were suddenly opened, how many people would want out? And how many people would want in?"

AlphaCat, NO ONE on my side that I've known of (and I've known a LOT of evangelicals) favors forced therapy for same-sex attraction. There's a saying: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Such "forced therapy" would never be successful.

All I want is to be able to see people who DON'T want to be gay and DON'T want to have same-sex attractions to be free to pursue counseling for them.

Yet I fear there are people on "the other side" who want those gates closed. Tightly.

10. RE "Let people know what scientific research has proven, and what it hasn't?"
That's why I posted those links.

AlphaCat, sorry, but those links are nothing. Would you be willing to bet $1,000,000 of your own money that there has been a genuine, scientifically replicated cause for same-sex attraction found? (When even P-FLAG says on their web site no one knows what causes it?)

11. RE "And let them make up their own minds?"
As long as you also let them see what religion has proven and what it hasn't.

Please, PLEASE let that happen. There is a truism: "Those who set out to discredit the word of God will end up proving it."

Bear in mind "The gates test" above.

12. RE "People are smart enough to do that on their own, aren't they?"
Not if they are overly religious. Religion is a severe media filter.

So is secularism. Problem is, nature abhors a vacuum. And there are other religions (cough *ISLAM* cough) which aren't afraid of secularism whatsoever, and will patiently wait to smash a secular culture.

If you ever let islam (which some demographers predict will be the U.S. majority religion by 2050 - did you hear on Friday that the Associated Press now no longer lets "Islamic" be in their style book? They still allow the phrase "right winger") become the majority religion over here, there will be legions of GLBT people BEGGING for the days of "fundamentalists", Dr. James Dobson, et al.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 7, 2013 at 2:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"such observations must be viewed as unique to the species and must not be extrapolated to human beings"
However, the fact that homosexual behavior has been observed in hundreds of species means that it is not "unnatural" and may serve some evolutionary purpose.

Posted by: Coralie

April 7, 2013 at 3:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"islam (which some demographers predict will be the U.S. majority religion by 2050)...."
Please give a source for that incredible statement.

Posted by: Coralie

April 7, 2013 at 3:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, the author who cited those stats is Dr. Paul L. Williams from his book "Crescent moon rising":

http://www.amazon.com/Crescent-Moon-R...

Posted by: OTamandua

April 7, 2013 at 3:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Is. Rev. Williams a Christian Zionist?
His book doesn't seem to have elicited much online comment, even among religious conservatives..
I wouldn't consider him a credible source.

Posted by: Coralie

April 7, 2013 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

""Muslims are less than 1 percent of the adult population, and a fair number are non-citizens -- students from foreign countries, or refugees," said Tom W. Smith, a senior fellow at the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. "While their number grew appreciably from the 1970s to the 2000s, their growth was no greater than that of a number of other religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism. Even if previous rates of growth continued, Muslims would still remain in the single digits even decades from now."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...

Posted by: Coralie

April 7, 2013 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

1. Bear in mind, Islam condones lying in defense of their faith. And their faith wants to destroy western (read: "Judeo-Christian") culture. Centuries of history bear this out. Again, keep this in mind. Christianity is hamstrung, if you will, but that commandment which says "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". (And frankly, I'm glad we are.)

2. Here's from Dr. Williams' own web site. He feels now like he is (per your observation) personna non grata on many Christian programs. If he's making this up he should pay a price. Yet here are his own words:

"The New York Times and CAIR project that there are 7 to 9 million Muslims living in the country. Over 115,000 arrive each year with work and diversity visas; 80,000 more arrive as refugees. And the numbers fail to reflect the Muslims who are living here illegally with expired travel and student visas. But the sea-change produced by this Islamic influx fails to concern the news networks.

By 2050, by all demographics, the dominant religion in America will be Islam. The religious landscape of the nation is being forever altered. And yet, most Christian leaders have turned a blind-eye to creeping shariah and the proliferation of mosques - - most built and controlled by the Saudis - - in their communities. They respond, as programmed, by upholding diversity as a virtue and multiculturalism as an ideal - - failing to realize that diversity and multiculturalism throughout history have resulted in the collapse of a culture."

https://www.facebook.com/DrPaulLWilliams

3. Coralie, if you are a supporter of GLBT rights, I don't see how you CAN'T be alarmed at what's happening, as a woman as well.

First, the AP bans the word "Islamist" from their style book:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/0...

This is after Naomi Wolfe (NAOMI WOLFE!) goes to Al Jazeera:

http://communities.washingtontimes.co...

...and Al "Jazeera" Gore (the environmentalist) sells out to (oil-financed)..Al Jazeera:

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com...

Coralie, I'm telling you...you are a FOOL if you think U.S. liberals like Gore and Wolfe can change Islam. Study that religion...they are patient. They have goals. They will not stop.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 7, 2013 at 5:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And back to the original article here on Sen. Pryor's thoughts.

We don't want to know what an Islamic culture here would do to those GLBT people ("born" and yet "unborn") in America.

"Modern family"? Bye-bye. "Gay pride parades"? As if. "Ex-gays"? In places like Pakistan if you're even suspected of being gay, your FAMILY is attacked. Ex-gays (ESPECIALLY the Christian ones) will die, too.

(Tragically, there are some GLBT militants who, I fear, would smile at that last comment.)

Posted by: OTamandua

April 7, 2013 at 6:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>By 2050, by all demographics, the dominant religion in America will be Islam.

Apparently someone failed to look at immigration numbers. By 2050, likely sooner, the U. S. will be predominantly Catholic since that's the religion of 95% of Hispanics who now comprise over 15% of our population and they're growing, fast.

Posted by: cdawg

April 7, 2013 at 7:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

cdawg, look at the demographics. Right now (according to this Catholic site) Islam is the #2 religion in the world, but Christians (Catholics included) are much older on average.

(One could say: yep, because tragically many muslims are blowing themselves up. Indeed, but they've got quite a birth rate as well.)

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/h...

Posted by: OTamandua

April 7, 2013 at 8:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OTam: "By 2050, by all demographics, the dominant religion in America will be Islam.">>

That is the most idiotic, naked, fear mongering, breathtakingly stupid claim I have heard in months. And the competition for that award is stiff!

Consider:

"A new survey reveals... the number of Muslims in the U.S. soaring 67% in the decade since the 9/11 attacks.

Data released Tuesday from the 2010 U.S. Religion Census shows Islam was the fastest growing religion in America in the last 10 years, with 2.6 million living in the U.S. today, up from 1 million in 2000."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/natio...

If that's roughly 6.7% growth per year, if they keep this up (unlikely), compounded over 37 years, there would be in 2050, 28 million Muslims.

Pew projects a US population of 438 million in 2050. That would put Muslims at about 6.4% of the US population.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2008/02/11...

Want to see who's growing? What the future holds? How about:

"One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation"

http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/...

Excerpt:

"In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%)."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 7, 2013 at 9:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fayfreethiner, and you liberal fools WANT no evangelical Christian church left in America! Thanks for the "who's growing" link.

Said it before: nature abhors a vacuum. Your way (secularism) is empty. Islam is waiting to capitalize.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 7, 2013 at 9:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Otam: "you... WANT no evangelical Christian church left in America!">>

Complete nonsense. What would do for amusement? I'd have to get a TV and watch Bill O'Reilly or something useless.

Those liberals over at the ACLU take the money I send them and work tirelessly to make sure you and your evangelical church can practice it's religion freely and openly. Observe the following 126 examples of them doing this in just the last decade:

"ACLU Defense of Religious Practice and Expression" http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-reli...

OTam: "Your way (secularism) is empty.">>

Nope. Secularism correlates very nicely with the most successful societies on the planet. The most sick, dysfunctional and screwed up societies? That would be the ones saturated with religion. Observe:

"The United States is an extreme outlier, being both exceedingly dysfunctional and exceedingly religious. We scored a rating of three on the 0-to-10 SSS scale while all 16 other nations scored between five and nine,... The correlation between religiosity and dysfunctionality is quite strong throughout all 17 nations, with the most religious nations (the United States, followed distantly by Ireland, Italy and Austria) being the most socially dysfunctional and the most secular nations (Sweden, Japan, Denmark and France) being the most socially successful.

"...the highly religious United States scores the most dysfunctional in per capita homicide, incarceration, juvenile mortality, gonorrhea and syphilis infections, teenage abortions, adolescent pregnancies, marriage duration, income disparity, poverty, work hours, overexploitation of resources, and income inequality. In nearly all these cases, the gap between the United States and the other 16 nations is large."

All laid out nicely in this short article: http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/NWAT/0...

The study in question is here: http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/u...

See also: "The dependence of religion on dysfunctional societies"

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 7, 2013 at 10:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fayfreethinker,

Your way (secularism) is EMPTY. People are looking for transcendent values, which secularism doesn't have. That's where Islam waits to step in.

As for not wanting to destroy the evangelical Christian church. Glad you don't, because it seems like most of the American left disagrees. The eC is the natural enemy of both socialism and islam. Even this libertarian (who's for civil unions) agrees: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journali...

Serious, if you want to know what the "wingnuts" are expecting, this is it. They feel that this same-sex marriage push is going to be just the beginning. Later or sooner, churches will be told what they can preach, pastors will be told who they can marry, or else.

There's precedence. The Edmunds-Tucker act was used against Mormons back two centuries ago due to that church's practice of polygamy. It enabled the government to seize assets, close churches, and make the mormons second-class citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%...

Now, the old pillars of barbarism are slavery and polyamory, and secularism is taking us back to both. I'm no fan of polygamy or mormonism (the mormon PEOPLE are wonderful), but genuinely, this law can be dusted off and re-used.

Laugh all you want, and I hope you're right about "keeping us around", but evangelicals right and left are expecting an all-out assault on the Christian church even if same-sex marriage passes (which it likely will with this supreme court). And Christians are told to pray for and follow the government unless it goes against God's law.

Again, a world with evangelical Christianity is going to be far better for GLBT people than one without...history shows that our gay brothers and sisters never fare well under totalitarianism, marxist or islamic.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 7, 2013 at 10:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "People are looking for transcendent values,">>

Actually, (and I know this make come as a shock), some people are actually interesting in knowing what is true. Your claim that:
"By 2050, by all demographics, the dominant religion in America will be Islam."

Shows you aren't very good at figuring out what is true (because that whopper is absurd).

OT: "Later or sooner, churches will be told what they can preach,...>>

Slippery slope fallacy. Hey, you and your religious conservatives fought interracial marriage based upon the same bogus arguments. How did that turn out? Can't preach what you want?

OT: "[Mormon] church's practice of polygamy. It enabled the government to seize assets, close churches,...">>

And now the Mormon official stance is against polygamy just like advanced secular societies. And who says religious folks can't learn a new trick?

OT: "Now, the old pillars of barbarism are slavery and polyamory,">>

Right, and both were instituted and supported by Yahweh.

OT: "secularism is taking us back to both.">>

I see your understanding of history is as weak as your consideration of compounding. Secularism, a rather vague term, has no interest in either one of those and it was in fact the values of the Enlightenment that got those out of Western society.

OT: "evangelicals right and left are expecting an all-out assault on the Christian church...">>

Then they are paranoid.

OT: "Christians are told to pray for and follow the government unless it goes against God's law.">>

Bible clearly says that the government is established by God himself:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." Romans 13:1

Soon gay marriage will be as normal as interracial marriage and you'll have to find some other minority to try and oppress based upon your religion.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 7, 2013 at 10:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

RE

"Slippery slope fallacy."

Nope, Lenin was about the gradual taking of control from the people. Undermine religion, take away guns, etc. People are tired of your atheist spin on the Bible too.

One answer to the issue could be to get government out of the marriage business altogethor.

Posted by: Tankersley101

April 7, 2013 at 11:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Slippery slope fallacy. Hey, you and your religious conservatives fought interracial marriage based upon the same bogus arguments. How did that turn out? Can't preach what you want?

fayfreethinker, with that said, isn't it funny that liberals at Brown University (and the Rhode Island "School of Design) are now sponsoring a workshop called "Protect me from what I want" with the express purpose of helping "queer people of color" overcome and avoid same-sex attraction to white people."

I thought liberals were supposed to be against that sort of thing?

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=...

Posted by: OTamandua

April 7, 2013 at 11:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank: "Lenin was about the gradual taking of control from the people.">>

Fallacy of disanalogy. Expanding this civil right to more people is actually doing the opposite of "taking control from the people."

Tank: "Undermine religion,">>

Religion has nothing to do with marriage.

Tank: "take away guns,">>

Your gun religion also has nothing to do with marriage either.

Tank: "your atheist spin on the Bible too.">>

I just quoted a verse directly. Spin it as you wish. But that one is pretty clear. God wanted Obama to win. I think he made the right decision this time. I don't know what he was thinking with that Bush fiasco.

Tank: "get government out of the marriage business altogethor.">>

Marriage is a legal contracted instituted and enforced by government. You can play around with putting some religion on it for decoration and symbolism, or you can get married in your pool in the nude or while skydiving. Religion has become entirely, one hundred percent irrelevant to the only enforceable part of the marriage contract: the part that is instituted and enforced by the state. The church is completely powerless on the matter.

D.
------------
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 7, 2013 at 11:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "workshop called "Protect me from what I want" with the express purpose of helping "queer people of color" overcome...">>

Even your wingnut source doesn't support your claim.

Read for comprehension.

D.
-----------
"Campus Reform reported on March 19, that the event entitled, “Protect Me From What I Want: A Workshop on Privilege, Desire, and Power,” which will be hosted on campus at Brown on April 8, would ask that its participants break into race-based groups.

“We will break into POC [people of color] and White caucus groups for a part of the workshop to unpack some of our specific experiences of racialized desire,” read the event description. “This will be an intentional, anti-racist, and feminist space.” --your link

Oh, the horror. If you don't like the workshop, don't attend.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 7, 2013 at 11:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Religion doesn't have anything to do With marriage? Maybe for you. An overwhelming amount of people disagree.

Posted by: Tankersley101

April 8, 2013 at 12:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I have to prepare for travel, so I can't respond exhaustively to OTamandua's posts of 2:14, 2:15 and 2:16. That said:

RE "My concern is for something even deeper, which is 'identity'."
Having reread your posts, I see that now. But how can you be truly concerned about identity when you resist the notion that some identities exist, and when you-- apparently-- support laws that oppress people with certain identities?

RE "Bisexual people I've known (very few, and I've heard gay men say that there really are very few "bisexuals" indeed) can slip into either identity they want."
I am friends with and acquainted with a large number of gay, lesbian and bisexual people, yet I don't rely on anecdotal information. But I will say that my larger collection of anecdotes contradicts your paltry assortment of anecdotes.

RE " Trust me, they have no fear of the str8t community."
I don't trust you. You rely too much on anecdotal information-- which you have too little of-- and you're not consistent about your reliance on information. But there are people in every segment of the LGBT community who fear the straight community, which uses a combination of religious zeal and statistical prevalence to direct, shape and oppress the LGBT community. Ask the ones who have been beaten up.

RE "The falsehood that 'you're born that way and there's no way you can change (if you want to).'"
As you have pointed out twice, there is no conclusive research yet to show that this is a falsehood. The current understanding, which I see no reason to disagree with, is that sexual preference is determined by a combination of genetic/epigenetic and environmental conditions. As the genetic switches that may be flipped epigenetically and the in utero conditions that appear to flip those switches are something one is born with, "you're born that way" is, in fact, a valid thesis for research purposes. And I've never heard a knowledgeable person who supports equal rights for homosexuals claim that "there's no way you can change"; it's irrelevant to the issue. Your brain seems to be cluttered with stuff you want to hear.

RE "AlphaCat, by his own admission he was exclusively attracted to men....How is being exclusively attracted to men 'bisexual'?"
Being bisexual does not necessarily mean that one is attracted to both sexes simultaneously. If he is actually attracted to women now (after all, a lot of homosexuals try desperately to be attracted to the opposite sex, or they lie about it, out of pressure or fear-- hence my hedge), then he is bisexual. Sexuality is capacity, not action. Bisexuality is the capacity to be attracted to both sexes.

(continued...)

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 8, 2013 at 12:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

(...continued)

RE "Did you hear that the New Jersey Senate is about to ratify legislation against counseling to overcome same -sex attraction?"
Did you know that the law applies to said counseling for people under eighteen, who usually have no choice in whether to have the counseling? That Christie might well not sign it if it gets that far? Are you equally concerned about the stupid laws that the Arkansas legislature has actually passed? (Of course not.)

RE " Did you hear that the most riveting testimony they heard...."
Says who? But it doesn't matter how riveting it was, as it was false. There is still evidence that this counseling is of questionable therapeutic value, that at age eighteen sexual preference is not fixed (and so no such counseling is called for) and that it should be undertaken voluntarily rather than under parental duress. (Even sex-attraction counselors admit that.)

RE "NO ONE on my side that I've known of (and I've known a LOT of evangelicals) favors forced therapy for same-sex attraction."
Then you should have no problem with that New Jersey law, if it passes. It prohibits forcing therapy on minors.

RE "All I want is to be able to see people who DON'T want to be gay and DON'T want to have same-sex attractions to be free to pursue counseling for them."
That seems reasonable, as far as it goes. I also want fewer impositions that cause people to not want to have same-sex attractions. The sex-attraction counseling business is largely created by religious people who make same-sex attractions undesirable-- or dangerous. There is a truism: "Create a market, then milk that market."

RE "Yet I fear there are people on 'the other side' who want those gates closed. Tightly."
Your fear means jack. It's even worse than anecdotal evidence, because there is no anecdote.

(continued...)

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 8, 2013 at 12:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

(...continued)

RE "Please, PLEASE let that happen."
Ask, and ye shall receive:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/...
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showt...
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/07...
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12...
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12...

RE "So is secularism."
Whatever you think secularism is doesn't matter. I responded to your implicit claims that religious people have special clarity.

RE "And there are other religions (cough *ISLAM* cough) which aren't afraid of secularism whatsoever, and will patiently wait to smash a secular culture."
We have Christians (Dominionists and Christian Nation believers) who are trying to smash the secular nation established by the Constitution. There's no need to point your subtle finger at Islam. The difference being, of course, that Christians are not patient, and they're not waiting.

RE "If you ever let islam....become the majority religion over here, there will be legions of GLBT people BEGGING for the days of 'fundamentalists', Dr. James Dobson, et al."
Congratulations: you've had a glimmer of insight as to the importance of separation of church and state. Or maybe you just think that the frying pan is better than the fire. Assuming that your farfetched assertion were true, then it would be a good idea to set a strong precedent now of not letting religion dictate our laws. If you let Christianity dictate our laws now (because Christianity is currently the majority religion), then what would you expect to happen if Islam were to become the majority religion? If you don't want Sharia law later, don't countenance overtly Christian law now. Or are you a hypocrite as well as an alarmist?

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 8, 2013 at 12:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What a phobia day! First homophobia then morphs into Islamophobia, finally secularphobia.

Too Much Fox News. TMFN!

Posted by: cdawg

April 8, 2013 at 1:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

Isn't it funny that you don't like my relying on anecdotal evidence, but you have absolutely nothing of proof after all these years of research that same-sex attraction is genetic, and are mentioning "epigenetics" when there's as of yet not even any results (or maybe even any testing) of that theory? And when your side (i.e. before the New Jersey senate) openly lies in order to get what it wants?

(Imagine, AlphaCat, if a Christian kid had made up so brazen of a story to a state senate that a simple google search would have disproven? I'd be surprised if we wouldn't be looking at penitentiary time for the kid AND his family AND his counselor. And, depending upon what "the stupid law in Arkansas" was, I'd say that as well for such a law in this state. As it is, that doesn't bode well for our government, or us.)

"The end justifies the means" and all that, I suppose.

Sir, there's a world of difference between Sharia Law (where there is no choice of religion, and where horrific punishment can be imposed arbitrarily by fatwah) and law based on judeo-Christian ethics (where there is still free choice, including choice of religion, involved). GLBT people will find that out, I'm afraid, sooner or later.

But in the meantime, I've got another question.

Over and over I've heard from evangelicals who discuss the subject that it should be known even if somehow there is a genetic/inborn cause found for same-sex romantic attraction. People make better decisions when they're informed by truth, not falsehoods.

I'll say it again...my side wants it to be common knowledge if there is some, any, genuine scientifically replicated cause found for same-sex romantic attraction. I've heard them say it time and again.

If "epigenetics" is, like everything else has been to date, not able to be shown as a cause, and if it was scientifically agreed upon that there is no genetic/inborn cause for same-sex romantic attraction, would you want that to be common knowledge, AlphaCat?

Or would you be afraid of it becoming common knowledge? And if so, why?

Posted by: OTamandua

April 8, 2013 at 6:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What any sitting member of the New Jersey Senate would have likely seen had they made a search for "true directions ex-gay" on Google:

http://www.google.com/webhp?source=se...

Posted by: OTamandua

April 8, 2013 at 6:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

fayfreethinker (and alphaCat), here was the first link (fayfree, I don't think you read it) on the "Protect me from what I want" conference...what I gave you was the second link:

"We “find ourselves falling always for the white queers... wishing we could have more agency in the process, be more intentional about who we desire and how,” reads the official Facebook description of the event.

“We are invested in generating a politics of sexuality that compels us to interrogate beauty as privilege and constructed by systems of white supremacy, ableism, capitalism, and heteronormativity,” it continues.

The Facebook page states the event is to take place in the Crystal Room at Brown University on April 8 from 6-7:30 p.m. The workshop called “Protect me from what I want: a workshop on privilege, power, and desire” is sponsored by an organization called the Comprehensive Allyship Network, according to the Facebook event page."

"Being more intentional" = "I don't want to fall in love with white same-sex people".

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=...

Fayfreethinker, I agree, if you don't like ex-gays, don't become one.

But am I understanding you and AlphaCat correctly, that if GLBT people want to become ex-gay (or perhaps, "heteronormative", as they'd say at Brown ">), they should genuinely have the freedom to explore that, just as these Brown and RISD "queer" (their term, not mine) students want the freedom to explore ways to not be attracted to white people?

Posted by: OTamandua

April 8, 2013 at 7:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What I don't understand is, even if sexual orientation and preference WERE a matter of choice, why would it be so important to promote a change of orientation among a very small minority of people whose experience is that they were "born that way"?
There are real problems around such as oil spills in our own state, domestic violence, droughts, superstorms, pig farm next to the Buffalo River, nuclear proliferation, soil erosion, world poverty, mass extinctions, radioactive waste, etc.
So why should the sexual orientation of 3% of the population be a high priority? Especially if most GBLT people aren't leading this drive.

Posted by: Coralie

April 8, 2013 at 11:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "the "Protect me from what I want" conference...what I gave you was...">>

I read your link. I don't care about some goofy workshop at a campus somewhere. What does that have to do with anything? It's just gay bashing regurgitate you are passing along from sources devoted to doing that. You should try to be less obvious with your fear mongering and dislike of gays.

You've been corrected throughout this thread and you've acknowledged none of it. So there may be a learning disorder going on here. Here's what you need to know:

If you think gays aren't born that way, you need more gay friends.

If your God doesn't like gays he shouldn't have made so many of them and he shouldn't also have made it so prevalent in the animal kingdom with homosexuality appearing in some 1,500 vertebrate species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexu...

The apostle Paul was probably gay (so argues Episcopal Bishop John Spong), but that doesn't make me look down on him in any way, and you shouldn't either.

Here's what the future holds: America will be entirely gay, atheist and Muslim, all at the same time, in the year 2050. That's a given, locked in, for sure. That's all you need to know. Now go buy some End of the World survival kits and start stockpiling them in your basement. Cause those Gay, Atheist, Muslims, they're coming for you, and they're going to get you and when they get you, they're gonna hold you down and tickle you until you deny Jesus.

Oh, and in case anyone thinks I am making up this secular atheist Muslim threat, besides OTamandua blathering about it, here's the Newt similarly making a fool out of himself:

"Count on Newt Gingrich to be right on top the latest threat to America, the creation of an atheistic society dominated by radical Muslims:

SAN ANTONIO — Newt Gingrich stood before thousands of evangelical churchgoers Sunday night to deliver a dire warning that nation’s Christian roots are under attack.

“I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9,” Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.” http://tinyurl.com/48f2djv

If one can find amusement in sheer ignorance, there is no greater wealth of entertainment than the modern day conservative.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 8, 2013 at 11:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

(...continued)

RE "...law based on judeo-Christian ethics (where there is still free choice, including choice of religion, involved)."
Choice of religion isn't the only issue. Same-sex couples have no ability to marry and receive benefits under federal law and under most state laws. In some states, same-sex couples cannot adopt or foster children. That is the same under our overtly Christian law as under Sharia. No world of difference here.

RE "I'll say it again...my side wants it to be common knowledge if there is some, any, genuine scientifically replicated cause found for same-sex romantic attraction."
Your singular, selective attachment to scientific method is admirable, but your statement isn't true. On the whole, "your side" is scared to death that God might actually have made homosexuality an integral part of His Creation, and your side will kick and scream long after that has been shown. I expect that at that point, you will lose this small bit of respect for science.

RE "If 'epigenetics' is, like everything else has been to date, not able to be shown as a cause..."
Research indicates that prenatal hormone exposure and maternal stress are possible causes. Epigenetics is the newer theoretical basis for determining how that might work.

RE "...if it was scientifically agreed upon that there is no genetic/inborn cause for same-sex romantic attraction,..."
Note that the matter isn't being studied because of a pro-gay agenda among scientists; it is studied because there is enough evidence to raise the question. That's one of the things that science does.

RE "...would you want that to be common knowledge, AlphaCat?"
Of course. Why wouldn't I?

RE "Or would you be afraid of it becoming common knowledge?"
No, I wouldn't. That would only make the discussion more interesting.

RE "What any sitting member of the New Jersey Senate would have likely seen had they made a search for "true directions ex-gay" on Google: [link]"
Although I appreciate your intrepidity, you'd better be careful-- Jeffieboy and Tankersley101 will accuse you of "farming" or "mining the Internet".

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 8, 2013 at 12:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Isn't it funny that you don't like my relying on anecdotal evidence, but you have absolutely nothing of proof after all these years of research that same-sex attraction is genetic,..."
Not at all. Anecdotes will never lead to a conclusion; research most likely will.

RE "...and are mentioning 'epigenetics' when there's as of yet not even any results...of that theory?"
I have never said that research has the answer; I have said that research uses evidence and results (or the lack of them) to adapt inquiries and procedures. Anecdotes don't do that, so I will continue to bet on science.

RE "(or maybe even any testing)"
In other words, even though you have twice insisted that there has been no testing, you don't actually know.

RE "And when your side (i.e. before the New Jersey senate) openly lies in order to get what it wants?"
One person who gives false testimony is not "my side". Any other examples? There are lots of liars on your side. We'll take up Ted Haggard, George Rekers, Lonnie Latham, Eddie Long, Paul Barnes, Paul Crouch, much of the Catholic Church hierarchy, and whoever else you like when I return.

RE "Imagine, AlphaCat, if a Christian kid had made up so brazen of a story to a state senate that a simple google search would have disproven?"
I don't have to imagine. Lots of people testify to the efficacy of ex-gay therapy, even though a simple Google search provides plenty of evidence that it doesn't work. None of them are in the slammer-- for their false testimony, anyway.

RE "'The end justifies the means' and all that, I suppose."
You said it, not I.

(continued...)

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 8, 2013 at 12:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Please note that the fershlugginer forum software reversed my two immediately preceding posts.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 8, 2013 at 12:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie - I'm all for nuclear proliferation especially after reading most these posts.

OTam - Tired yet?

Posted by: mycentworth

April 8, 2013 at 1:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What I don't understand is, even if sexual orientation and preference WERE a matter of choice, why would it be so important to promote a change of orientation among a very small minority of people whose experience is that they were "born that way"?
There are real problems around such as oil spills in our own state, domestic violence, droughts, superstorms, pig farm next to the Buffalo River, nuclear proliferation, soil erosion, world poverty, mass extinctions, radioactive waste, etc.
So why should the sexual orientation of 3% of the population be a high priority? Especially if most GBLT people aren't leading this drive.

Coralie, by far most people with same-sex attraction don't choose it. The fallacy that's been promoted is that "you didn't choose it" = "you're 'born that way'". All I want is for the fact to be known that there is no proof romantic same-sex attraction is genetic/inborn, and for both gay people and ex-gay people to be able to freely tell their life stories.

(If an ex-gay person still has some same-sex attraction, let it be told. If a person who identifies as gay falls madly in love with a woman (like this man: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver... ) let his story be told as it was in the Guardian and in "Bob and Rose" - more power to them. If a gay man is happy in his long-term partnership, let it be told (as many are telling us, If a once 100% gay man has had his attractions reversed and is madly in love with his wife and only her, let that be told as well (as the aforementioned Mr. Jernigan's movie, which recently wrapped up production, will do).

Let people have the freedom to be who they want one way or the other. I'm satisfied with that.

As for the other issues...not enough time in this forum. I've still got to respond to fayfreethinker and AlphaCat. ">)

Posted by: OTamandua

April 8, 2013 at 2:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "why would it be so important to promote a change of orientation among a very small minority of people whose experience is that they were 'born that way'"
Ask evangelicals and the promoters of ex-gay therapy.

RE "There are real problems around such as oil spills in our own state, domestic violence, droughts, superstorms,..."
Which seem to be embraced by many evangelicals as divine punishment, signs of the end times, a normal consequence of our rightful stewardship of the earth, and so on. Bring these things to the attention of evangelicals.

RE "So why should the sexual orientation of 3% of the population be a high priority? Especially if most GBLT people aren't leading this drive."
Ask the evangelical community. They're the ones who have an unhealthy obsession with six of all types.

Hey, wait a minute. Aren't you an evangelical?

RE "The fallacy that's been promoted is that 'you didn't choose it' = 'you're 'born that way'."
I have never seen or heard that equivalency promoted by knowledgeable people, who are aware that as far as we know, sexual orientation is caused by some unknown combination of nature and nurture. Indeed, you're the first person I've seen declare this equivalency.

RE "Let people have the freedom to be who they want one way or the other. I'm satisfied with that."
Tell that to the rest of the evangelicals. And see how many of them tell you you're going to Hell.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 8, 2013 at 3:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

1. RE "why would it be so important to promote a change of orientation among a very small minority of people whose experience is that they were 'born that way'"
Ask evangelicals and the promoters of ex-gay therapy.

Why is it so important to stop people who don't want to be gay and don't want their same-sex attractions from exploring their options (beside celibacy, which is a calling for some)?

2. RE "So why should the sexual orientation of 3% of the population be a high priority? Especially if most GBLT people aren't leading this drive."
Ask the evangelical community. They're the ones who have an unhealthy obsession with six of all types.

Hey, wait a minute. Aren't you an evangelical?

Yes, I am. Even though that wasn't my question I'm glad Coralie noticed that GLBT people are but 3% of the population (though their lives are just as precious as everyone else's). A sports journalist just last week reporting on the possibility of NFL players coming out repeated the oft-quoted screed that 10% of the population is gay, which never squares with census and related figures.

3. RE "The fallacy that's been promoted is that 'you didn't choose it' = 'you're 'born that way'."
I have never seen or heard that equivalency promoted by knowledgeable people, who are aware that as far as we know, sexual orientation is caused by some unknown combination of nature and nurture. Indeed, you're the first person I've seen declare this equivalency.

Errrr, OK. But your side's the one always saying that we go around saying "being gay is a 'choice'." Indeed, one chooses whether or not to act on same-sex romantic attraction...but the ssra generally isn't chosen. And none of the evangelicals I hear say otherwise.

Would you like me to send you an e-mail for the next time this subject is discussed on an eC radio program, so you can hear what I mean? (These programs are usually archived, so the next time I hear it I'll be glad to send you a link and the time of the quotation.)

4. RE "Let people have the freedom to be who they want one way or the other. I'm satisfied with that."
Tell that to the rest of the evangelicals. And see how many of them tell you you're going to Hell.

From your quotations above this post (some of which I very much admire and am in agreement with, but have to respond to) I see where you're coming from.

Maybe I'm a bit funny this way, AlphaCat. If people will let others (gay, ex-gay, etc.) tell their stories truthfully, tell what science has and hasn't proven truthfully, and allow (ONLY, ONLY!) people who don't want to be gay/have ssa to explore counseling to overcome their attractions, then I'm for same-sex marriage. But only in that case.

I'm for freedom and truth...but it has to work both ways.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 8, 2013 at 4:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1R E "...law based on judeo-Christian ethics (where there is still free choice, including choice of religion, involved)."
Choice of religion isn't the only issue. Same-sex couples have no ability to marry and receive benefits under federal law and under most state laws. In some states, same-sex couples cannot adopt or foster children. That is the same under our overtly Christian law as under Sharia. No world of difference here.

Except that under Sharia, someone can drop a fatwa on a gay man's posterior and kill him on the spot in the cruelest way possible. A bit of a difference there from Christianity which disagrees with the concept of same-sex marriage.

2. RE "I'll say it again...my side wants it to be common knowledge if there is some, any, genuine scientifically replicated cause found for same-sex romantic attraction."
Your singular, selective attachment to scientific method is admirable, but your statement isn't true. On the whole, "your side" is scared to death that God might actually have made homosexuality an integral part of His Creation, and your side will kick and scream long after that has been shown. I expect that at that point, you will lose this small bit of respect for science.

Psalm 19:1 - " The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."

AlphaCat, that essentially translates to: "God stuck out his finger in front of Himself and said: "There", and the universe was created. Evangelical Christians believe that not one electron anywhere in the universe spins apart from the will of God. If indeed homosexuality is "epigenetic" (a mutation), it's less than a cinch for Him to change it.

But (and I'll say this to the free thinker from Fayetteville as well), what good would it do me to pretend that same-sex attraction wasn't inborn/genetic if indeed that were the case?

3. RE "If 'epigenetics' is, like everything else has been to date, not able to be shown as a cause..."
Research indicates that prenatal hormone exposure and maternal stress are possible causes. Epigenetics is the newer theoretical basis for determining how that might work.

GOOD...LET'S START TESTING IT ALREADY INSTEAD OF SAYING "'GAYNESS ISN'T GENETIC, IT'S 'EPIGENETIC'." ENOUGH dangling false promise on something that's not even proven yet. (Remember when we used to have a scientific hypothesis and the rule was: "It's 'wrong' until you prove that it's 'right'?"

Posted by: OTamandua

April 8, 2013 at 7:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

4. RE "...if it was scientifically agreed upon that there is no genetic/inborn cause for same-sex romantic attraction,..."
Note that the matter isn't being studied because of a pro-gay agenda among scientists; it is studied because there is enough evidence to raise the question. That's one of the things that science does.

Great. Just like we've been studying this for a long time. And disproven Dean Hamer's "gay gene". And had the Human Genome Project come up completely empty on a gene for ssa. And had multiple identical twin studies come up with 16% concordance rates for ssa.

5. RE "...would you want that to be common knowledge, AlphaCat?"
Of course. Why wouldn't I?

We're in agreement. No further questions, your honor.

6. RE "Or would you be afraid of it becoming common knowledge?"
No, I wouldn't. That would only make the discussion more interesting.

I concur again!

7. RE "What any sitting member of the New Jersey Senate would have likely seen had they made a search for "true directions ex-gay" on Google: [link]"
Although I appreciate your intrepidity, you'd better be careful-- Jeffieboy and Tankersley101 will accuse you of "farming" or "mining the Internet".

Who are Jeffieboy and Tankersley101?

Posted by: OTamandua

April 8, 2013 at 7:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1. RE "Isn't it funny that you don't like my relying on anecdotal evidence, but you have absolutely nothing of proof after all these years of research that same-sex attraction is genetic,..."
Not at all. Anecdotes will never lead to a conclusion; research most likely will.

OK, same for GLBT people when they say they feel there were "born that way". That, too, is anecdotal (even when I don't doubt that they're sincere in their words). And per our discussion, given all we've (not) learned, research may not.

2. RE "...and are mentioning 'epigenetics' when there's as of yet not even any results...of that theory?"
I have never said that research has the answer; I have said that research uses evidence and results (or the lack of them) to adapt inquiries and procedures. Anecdotes don't do that, so I will continue to bet on science.

Sounds good to me. Now, what I'm guessing you're implying is: "Same goes for your ex-gay stories. If Dennis Jernigan says he was exclusively attracted to men, and now is quite attracted to his wife, there are scientific ways we can discern the truth on that."

3. RE "(or maybe even any testing)"
In other words, even though you have twice insisted that there has been no testing, you don't actually know.

4. RE "And when your side (i.e. before the New Jersey senate) openly lies in order to get what it wants?"
One person who gives false testimony is not "my side". Any other examples? There are lots of liars on your side. We'll take up Ted Haggard, George Rekers, Lonnie Latham, Eddie Long, Paul Barnes, Paul Crouch, much of the Catholic Church hierarchy, and whoever else you like when I return.

Ah, but AlphaCat, were any of the aforementioned (some of whom I've never heard of, not trying to say they weren't impactful evangelists and/or terrible sinners) ostensibly under oath in front of a state senate, with impending legislation hinging upon their testimony? Someone ought to be facing at least the threat of penitentiary time. Then again, this speaks as badly of the New Jersey senate as it does the one who told the blatant falsehood.

5. RE "Imagine, AlphaCat, if a Christian kid had made up so brazen of a story to a state senate that a simple google search would have disproven?"
I don't have to imagine. Lots of people testify to the efficacy of ex-gay therapy, even though a simple Google search provides plenty of evidence that it doesn't work. None of them are in the slammer-- for their false testimony, anyway.

A simple google search will also turn up a great number of ex-gays who have completely left their gay identity, and apparently their same-sex attractions as well. I know, I know, "anecdotal evidence."

Posted by: OTamandua

April 8, 2013 at 8:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

6. RE "'The end justifies the means' and all that, I suppose."
You said it, not I.

Then I wonder what THIS end was...a little over 10 years ago, a man from "Frontiers" magazine (I'm guessing you know what a Focus on the Family house organ (no pun intended) THAT publication is) reported on his experience in an ex-gay ministry.

He wasn't changed, not sexually, anyway. And he knew only one among his small group that were. Yet he also said he honestly enjoyed the experience, and that the (non-sexual) male friendships he made there were among the best he'd ever made in his life. Interestingly, he also added that gay men have a lot to learn about making genuine friends and implied he'd learned how to do this at the ministry.

Why say that if it wasn't a positive experience for him?

Posted by: OTamandua

April 8, 2013 at 8:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Whoops, apologies:

3. RE "(or maybe even any testing)"
In other words, even though you have twice insisted that there has been no testing, you don't actually know.

AlphaCat, the researchers who have hypothesized the epigenetics theory THEMSELVES said this hadn't gone to laboratory as of December 2012.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 8, 2013 at 8:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1. You've been corrected throughout this thread and you've acknowledged none of it.

Not really. I've had an interest in this subject and have been listening to what GLBT people have actually been saying for a decade and a half now. There is no proof that gayness is genetic and/or inborn. I do believe stories of ex-gays but realize they're anecdotal evidence (as are stories of gay people who say they were born that way, whose stories should be heard as well). At some point we have to take such evidence of both sides seriously, and draw some type of conclusion.

2. So there may be a learning disorder going on here. Here's what you need to know:

If you think gays aren't born that way, you need more gay friends.

Fay, I've had a lot of gay and ex-gay friends and acquaintances. A LOT. I can honestly say to you, at times from what I've learned I almost wish they WERE born that way. ">( BTW, I used to believe they were, until I saw overwhelming evidence (from three gay men I was working with at the time, all of whom I very much respected and liked, plus learning the "behind the story" from my Mom about one of my best friends from high school whom we lost to AIDS way too young.)

3. If your God doesn't like gays he shouldn't have made so many of them and he shouldn't also have made it so prevalent in the animal kingdom with homosexuality appearing in some 1,500 vertebrate species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexu...

Not that this will make a difference here, but God created man above all animals, just lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:7, Psalm 8:5). He also made us in His own image (Genesis 1:27).

But, unfortunately (sometimes) I don't have wings like a bird, high-voltage electric organs like some freshwater fish (or high-amperage electric organs like some saltwater ones), venom glands in my heels like a platypus, urticating hairs like a new world tarantula, etc.

In other words, there are some significant differences between we homo sapiens and the animals. And that goes for sexuality in many ways, too. (That's why scientists used to quaintly say, as I mentioned earlier, that animal behavior shouldn't be extrapolated to humans.)

Posted by: OTamandua

April 8, 2013 at 8:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

4. The apostle Paul was probably gay (so argues Episcopal Bishop John Spong), but that doesn't make me look down on him in any way, and you shouldn't either.

I wasn't there then, sir. Perhaps he once was. But he also said (I Corinthians 6:9-11): "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Paul saw the light.

5. Here's what the future holds: America will be entirely gay, atheist and Muslim, all at the same time, in the year 2050.

I remember talking with a man who once worked in Saudi Arabia. A guy had gotten caught in some act deemed "homosexual" and was to be beheaded. The authorities and their henchmen wanted this to be a very public example - the man I spoke with was basically in a spot on the street where he was told "You WILL see this public execution." He said, obviously, it wasn't a pretty sight.

I do think we're headed for a showdown between the American left and islam (both of which want evangelical Christianity out of the way). I see three scenarios: 1) the guilt-ridden, self-hating American left is suicidal and wants to see their country destroyed by Islam; 2) the American left thinks it can overpower Islam (remembering how Stalin fomented Islamic rebellion in east Asian nations he wanted to destabilize, but burned mosques within the U.S.S.R. or, 3) thinks they can "C-O-E-X-I-S-T" with islam (kind of like they've gotten feminists to do the same with abortionists and pornographers, both of whom get away with HORRIBLE things against women).

Islam had no intention of co-existing with the American left in the long run, I guarantee.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 8, 2013 at 8:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OTamandua,

RE-

"Although I appreciate your intrepidity, you'd better be careful-- Jeffieboy and Tankersley101 will accuse you of "farming" or "mining the Internet".

Who are Jeffieboy and Tankersley101?"

Ok, bud. You want to talk about homosexuality and/or Islamic culture? I noticed you brought up Sharia Law.

Islamic culture in reality doesn't shun homosexualty as much as you might think. There is a saying called Man Love Thursday . Google it.

RE-

"5. Here's what the future holds: America will be entirely gay, atheist and Muslim, all at the same time, in the year 2050."

Hogwash.

You might want to talk to someone with a little exposure to world cultures before you shoot off at the keyboard.

Posted by: Tankersley101

April 8, 2013 at 9:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"5. Here's what the future holds: America will be entirely gay, atheist and Muslim, all at the same time, in the year 2050."

(Problem is, I didn't exactly say that. I just quoted it.)

"You might want to talk to someone with a little exposure to world cultures before you shoot off at the keyboard."

Well, Mahmoud Ahmedinijad (sic?) said there are no homosexuals in Iran, didn't he? ">)

Posted by: OTamandua

April 8, 2013 at 10:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

How many Muslims do you know, OTamandua?

I am a Conservative and I see no reason why we can't coexist with Muslims and a large amount of Muslims I've met feel the same way about any stripe of American people. Every society has radicals and every society has people that are willing to coexist with anyone.

RE-

"Islam had no intention of co-existing with the American left in the long run, I guarantee."

Ok. Islam is a religion, not a people.

R/

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

April 9, 2013 at 12:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

If you want to learn about some intersting stuff, study Pashtunwali.

Posted by: Tankersley101

April 9, 2013 at 12:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

OTamandua, unfortunately your posts are an unreadable mess full of quotes from other people without the simple courtesy of quotation marks or any identifying name tags or markers showing who said what. Thus AlphaC has responded to unidentified Coralie comments embedded in your post and now Tank responds to unidentified comments from me you have inserted into your post without identifying whose they are, or that they aren't yours.

You write like you think and it's quite an unworkable mess.

Plus, it's not clear what the hell your position is on these things and I haven't been able to take anything you say seriously since you said:

"By 2050, by all demographics, the dominant religion in America will be Islam."

And if that wasn't a big enough flag that you aren't well in the head, now we are treated to this bit of rubbish:

OTaman: "...the guilt-ridden, self-hating American left is suicidal and wants to see their country destroyed by Islam;">>

Sorry, it's not possible to take you seriously. On to better things.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 9, 2013 at 1:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

1. How many Muslims do you know, OTamandua?

I am a Conservative and I see no reason why we can't coexist with Muslims and a large amount of Muslims I've met feel the same way about any stripe of American people. Every society has radicals and every society has people that are willing to coexist with anyone.

- My long-term next-door neighbor was Tunisian. His wife was the assistant manager of our small business before we moved it from Georgia. I've stayed at their house before when traveling. The man who literally moved all our product to NWA was Saudi. (I think they were all Sunni Muslims).

I was living next door to them during 9/11 and never felt worried whatsoever. In fact, I learned a lot talking with them about the mindset of those who "did the deeds" in NYC, DC and PA that day.

2. "Islam had no intention of co-existing with the American left in the long run, I guarantee."

Ok. Islam is a religion, not a people.

Indeed, it's a WORLDVIEW with a religion. And there are many Islam followers who want nothing to do with jihadists. My friend from Saudi Arabia had a fascinating word that I wish I could remember about these people...it literally translates to just "talk". But he meant it that they just spout off a lot of their own gibberish.

Problem is, these gibberish-spouters cow down the rest over in the emerging caliphate. Speaking out against them can get you killed (vs. speaking out against, say, evangelical Christianity over here). It's tragic, but the ones who are hard-liners (I refuse to say "conservative" because it's a totally different definition - I daresay true "conservatives" over here value "life", and I'm talking WAY beyond the subject of abortion...over in these Muslim nations, life is tragically cheap) are all in charge.

It's cool, fayfreethinker. It's been fun talking with you, regardless. God bless.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 9, 2013 at 7:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley101, since we're here firmly ensconced in "Wally World", how easy, and cheap, has it been to go out and buy a pillow when we want from our nearest SuperCenter?

Just one pillow?

Well, in a comparison of our American culture (which you know as a conservative that, albeit having flaws as every single culture has, has liberated and prospered more people than our fallen world has ever seen), I was told by the Tunisian's wife, matter-of-factly, that her husband's relatives were very protective of their pillows. In her words, "People over there usually only get one pillow in their life, so they take care of it."

One pillow. To last your entire life in Tunisia.

I would discount whether that rule applies to every single Tunisian (ever see their wonderful ads from the early 90s in the Financial Times, Tankersley101...not many Islamic nations had such an active tourism campaign to the West). Nonetheless, it's a great metaphor for a culture I want no part of for my countrymen, GLBT or otherwise. I don't care WHAT "special days" there are for gay men in the caliphate. I guarantee you most gay people want no part of the world's second largest religion.*

*Which, along with today's militant American left which is using GLBT rights as the means, wants to destroy the American evangelical Christian church. Christianity is historically and literally the enemy and nemesis of tyranny.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 9, 2013 at 9:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

OTam says "Let people have the freedom to be who they want one way or the other. I'm satisfied with that."
Followed by 20,000 unnecessary words.

Posted by: Coralie

April 9, 2013 at 1:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OTam: "there are some significant differences between we homo sapiens and the [other?]animals. And that goes for sexuality."
Unfortunately, perhaps.
We could be as happy as the polyamorous porpoises and the bonobos (our closest cousins in the animal kingdom) who really do make love, not war.

Posted by: Coralie

April 9, 2013 at 1:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, isn't it interesting that the old "twin pillars of barbarism" were "polyamory and slavery"?

Took a couple of thousand years for Christianity to throw that yoke off people. Now we're sinking back down into it.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 9, 2013 at 1:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

One last comment on bonobos, from this past month's National Geographic (March 2013, pp 113-116):

"But Fruth and Hohmann reported nine cases of hunting by bonobos at Lomako, seven of which involved sizable duikers, usually grabbed by one bonobo, ripped apart at the belly while still alive, with the entrails eaten first, and the meat shared. More recently, here at Lui Kotale, they have seen another 21 successful predations, among which eight of the victims were mature duikers, one was a bush baby, and three were monkeys. Bonobos preying on other primates: 'This is a regular part of the bonobo diet,' Hohmann said."

I see how we REALLY want to take homosexual behavior of animals, so much like us, into consideration...

Posted by: OTamandua

April 9, 2013 at 2:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "I see how we REALLY want to take homosexual behavior of animals, so much like us, into consideration...">>

This completely mis-comprehends the comparison.

It's not that people should be gay, or left handed or whatever because it also occurs throughout the animal kingdom, but rather, the fact that people are gay, or left hand or whatever is explained somewhat by the fact that these things occur throughout the animal kingdom.

D.
-----------
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 9, 2013 at 10:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

fayfreethinker, welcome back!

Hate to be crude, but actually the intended comparison I hear you and others say is: "we're all animals, just like our "closest cousins" the bonobos...so since there's homosexual activity in their (and other parts of) the animal kingdom, there's going to be in our part as well. It's all natural."

Many scientists would have in an earlier day cautioned: "We are humans. They are bonobos. Just because they cannibalize other primates, including ones that are an equivalent of children or babies to them, and essentially perform vivisection on their live victims before ripping out the entrails and consuming them prior to sharing their victims' meat doesn't mean WE do or should do the same.

And that applies to ALL types of bonobo behavior."

Unfortunately, we're not in that day any more. Pity for us.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 10, 2013 at 8:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Question as well, fayfreethinker. I liked your comic, but do you have a scripture verse from the Bible saying that it's sinful to be left-handed?

Posted by: OTamandua

April 10, 2013 at 8:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "I hear you and others say is: "we're all animals,">>

We are animals. And quite close to bonobos.

OT: "Just because they cannibalize other primates,">>

Your attempt to compare the natural behavior of same sex attraction, with murder and cannibalism fails. Do I really need to explain to you why? Apparently.

If same sex marriage had the same outcomes as people eating their children, I would be against it. But same sex marriage doesn't have the same outcome as murder and cannibalism does it OT?

OT: "[cannibalism in nature] doesn't mean WE do or should do the same.">>

I'm glad you figured that out. Actually, as an aside, there was a time when we hadn't figured that out since your Bible God repeatedly condoned and commanded cannibalism:

Jer. 19:9 "I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives."

Ezek. 5:10 "Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds."

Lev. 26:24 "You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters."

We can all be thankful that our secular society doesn't allow you to experiment with this particular aspect of your religious moral system anymore.

OT: "Unfortunately, we're not in that day any more.">>

You mean the good old days when your God was dropping by to make people eat their children?

OT: "...do you have a scripture verse from the Bible saying that it's sinful to be left-handed?">>

Nope, but since when have Bible moralists needed to have a verse to oppress minorities or those who are different? There isn't a verse against interracial marriage but they waged a long rampage on that issue. Here's a picture of what you Teabagger types looked like 60 years ago:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Cx0fMEM3OR4...

Jesus never bothered to mention anything about either issue. Paul did but he also said women should not braid their hair, wear gold or pearls, speak in church or pray with their head uncovered. (1 Tim 2:9; 1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Cor. 11:3-10)

And how many Christians give a flip about that? Why should anyone, today, care what Paul's first century bigoted position was on such things? I'd rather ask a bonobo.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 10, 2013 at 11:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you, OTam, without your post I would never have found this out:
Before the Civil War, slavery and polygamy were know as the "Twin Pillars of Barbarism" and the Republican Party was formed in large part to oppose them.
But OTam, you missed the lightness in my tone about the porpoises and bonobos.
Of course I don't think that we should act just like those animals instead of like people.
++
Second, I could give you descriptions of human atrocities and even everyday practices in slaughterhouses and CAFOs that are unworthy of human beings--but we do them.
++
Third, while slavery has been abolished in the U.S. for 150 years, in the world as a whole more people are enslaved than ever before.
http://www.alternet.org/story/142171/...

Posted by: Coralie

April 10, 2013 at 12:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

In terms of slavery and atrocities, indeed, the left-sanctioned pornography and abortion industries, each which have generated billions, bear out your claim.

Fayfreethinker,

First, on bonobos, cannibalism and same-sex attraction, respectfully said, it is you who misunderstood. What scientists used to say could be boiled down to: "What's normal for bonobos isn't normal for US". And indeed, we're living creatures, but also separate from and given dominion over all animals. I know that's a concept people who hate Christianity won't acknowledge our belief of, so I understand your reaction.

Secondly, in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Leviticus, every one of those occasions were God giving the people what they thought they wanted (which was "no part of Him", and all that logically and genuinely comes with that). Whatever you may think of Satan as defined by Christianity understand this part of the definition: he's what's left over on this fallen world apart from God, and instead of being a real cool guy to party with, in reality he hates every human being, all created in God's image. As such, he has no pity whatsoever on any one of us, and that's putting it far too mildly.

BTW, did you see this story in ABC News on Washington State suing the florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding? And you still think there's no basis for evangelical Christians worrying (incessantly at this point) that the legalization of same-sex marriage will be just the beginning of efforts to break American Christianity?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/washin...

Thanks, also, for the answer on left-handedness in scripture, and for providing the example of mixed-race marriages. There were examples of God in scripture commanding His followers not to marry followers of other religions (and He also lets us see, through examples such as King Solomon, what happens when people turn from His loving admonitions to their own desires (examples of which you cited from Jeremiah, Leviticus, etc.). But if it was used to bar whites from marrying blacks and the like, it was wrong.

I haven't seen a single evangelical Christian church here in NWA that discriminates against mixed-race couples, even in heavily old-WASP areas like Bella Vista. Why should they? Then again, why should Brown and the Rhode Island School of Design hosted the "Protect me from what I want" to help "queer people of color" overcome same-sex attractions to caucasian people?

It's, tragically, a modern liberal hallmark...blast evangelical Christianity and conservatives for an alleged practice such as racial discrimination, only to adopt said practices when it suits their own needs.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 10, 2013 at 2:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Just curious, for those who think that it is a 'choice' to be gay, could you maybe describe what when through your minds when you made the 'choice' to be straight (or gay)? Did you do it at an early age? Did you try both to see which you liked best? Did you discuss the pros and cons with your families and friends before deciding? Why did you come to the conclusion that you did?

Posted by: Dexter

April 10, 2013 at 2:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fayfreethinker,

Interesting conditions which all preceded the scripture quotes you cited...interesting that you first cited Jeremiah - note what was going on in that verse in light of the other two:

Jeremiah 9:14-15

For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal--something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.

Ezekiel 5:5-6

"This is what the Sovereign LORD says: This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the center of the nations, with countries all around her. Yet in her wickedness she has rebelled against my laws and decrees more than the nations and countries around her. She has rejected my laws and has not followed my decrees.

Leviticus 26:1-13

You shall not make for yourselves idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves an image or a sacred pillar, nor shall you place a figured stone in your land to bow down to it; for I am the LORD your God. You shall keep My sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary; I am the LORD. If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments so as to carry them out, then I shall give you rains in their season, so that the land will yield its produce and the trees of the field will bear their fruit. Indeed, your threshing will last for you until grape gathering, and grape gathering will last until sowing time. You will thus eat your food to the full and live securely in your land. I shall also grant peace in the land, so that you may lie down with no one making you tremble.

I shall also eliminate harmful beasts from the land, and no sword will pass through your land. But you will chase your enemies and they will fall before you by the sword; five of you will chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand, and your enemies will fall before you by the sword. So I will turn toward you and make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will confirm My covenant with you.

You will eat the old supply and clear out the old because of the new. Moreover, I will make My dwelling among you, and My soul will not reject you. I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt so that you would not be their slaves, and I broke the bars of your yoke and made you walk erect.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 10, 2013 at 3:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dexter, unfortunately, that's the wrong comparison.

Very few "chose" (read: made one BIG choice: "Hey, Dad and Mom, guess what? I've decided to become GAY, and have you all REJECT me!") to become straight or gay.

Problem is, not choosing one's sexuality doesn't mean said sexuality is genetic/inborn. That's the false premise that everyone has fallen into.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 10, 2013 at 3:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

BTW, fayfreethinker, I meant to type in Jeremiah 19:14-15. Sorry for the typo.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 10, 2013 at 3:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So I guess that means that since I didn't choose to be gay, I can't choose NOT to be gay.

Posted by: Dexter

April 10, 2013 at 5:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dexter, probably a better way of saying it is: you didn't choose to be gay, and in adulthood it would take a supreme act of understanding AND will* to not be gay.

That being said it's certainly not impossible, either.

(*If you don't have the first I should think it near impossible to have the second.)

Posted by: OTamandua

April 10, 2013 at 5:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "In terms of slavery and atrocities, ...left-sanctioned pornography...">>

Yes, because porn is all about "the left." Oh wait, let's check:

"Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers
"The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users;...

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama." http://www.newscientist.com/article/d...

And:

"According to a Christianity Today survey, nearly 40 percent of Christian pastors are struggling with pornography....

It is "one of the fastest growing problems in the lives of North American pastors today," according to pastorswives.org. "It has become such a common problem, that groups have formed which only exist to help ministers out of the entangled lives they find themselves living."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11...

OT: "Interesting conditions which all preceded the scripture quotes you cited...">>

I am well aware of the fact that along with your God making people eat their children, you have some necessary excuses for the action. I am also aware that they aren't any good.

It may be the case that the bonobos also have some superstitious religious beliefs for why they some times eat each other. If so, I doubt their excuses could be any sillier than yours.

OT: "you still think there's no basis for evangelical Christians worrying... same-sex marriage... beginning... to break American Christianity?">>

Because "American Christianity" will just "break" if it can't oppress minorities? Good grief. Your religious conservative extremists have pretty much gotten over all of the other times secular society had to step in and shut down Bible based attempts to oppress. You'll get over this one too, because you'll have to.

OT: "God... commanding... not to marry followers of other religions...">>

And if your wife goes for another religion, kill her (Deut 13:9). Good stuff.

OT: "if it was used to bar whites from marrying blacks..., it was wrong.">>

If? You're funny. If Obama's mom had been in the wrong state about the time he was born, she could have been locked up for it. That one's on your guys. How soon we forget.

OT: "I haven't seen a single evangelical Christian church here in NWA that discriminates against mixed-race couples,">>

And you're so proud of it. Good. And in a decade or two, you'll be able to say the same about same sex couples. And that's a good thing.

It's always been this way, conservatives dragged kicking and screaming into the future, moaning and wailing that equal rights are being expanded to include yet another group that they had hoped to exclude and be prejudiced against.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 10, 2013 at 10:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dex: "...for those who think that it is a 'choice' to be gay, could you... describe... when you made the 'choice' to be straight (or gay)?">>

You'll notice OT has been extremely cagey about what they believe on this matter. All over the place. But it's a great question and here is a 3:00 minute video clip that underlines your point nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjqL...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 10, 2013 at 10:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "were any of the aforementioned... ostensibly under oath in front of a state senate, with impending legislation hinging upon their testimony?"
They lied in testimony before God and their congregations in church, and some used their lies to suppress the rights of others in testimony before government bodies. So yes, and hell yes.

RE "One pillow. To last your entire life in Tunisia."
Oh, the horror! I have several feather pillows that are older than I am. They will last my entire life. Not a big thing. But of course one reason it is so easy to go out and get a new pillow is that nobody makes a pillow that will last a whole lifetime any more.

I also have several quilts that outlasted my great-great-grandmother, my great-grandmother and my grandmother-- who died a while back at the ripe old age of 108.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 11, 2013 at 1:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

1. RE "were any of the aforementioned... ostensibly under oath in front of a state senate, with impending legislation hinging upon their testimony?"

(Got a link for that? And especially, got a link that shows what punishment they received?)

2. RE "One pillow. To last your entire life in Tunisia."

Oh, the horror! I have several feather pillows that are older than I am.

(AlphaCat, from what I gather of your responses you're WAY smarter than to have typed what you answered. Did someone hack your account?)

3. You'll notice OT has been extremely cagey about what they believe on this matter. All over the place. But it's a great question and here is a 3:00 minute video clip that underlines your point nicely:

(Nah, I know exactly what many of us believe. I want to let people explain what THEY believe, and hear what they have to say.)

Posted by: OTamandua

April 11, 2013 at 7:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

1. Yes, because porn is all about "the left." Oh wait, let's check:

"Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers
"The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users;...

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama." http://www.newscientist.com/article/d...

And:

"According to a Christianity Today survey, nearly 40 percent of Christian pastors are struggling with pornography....

(Fayfreethinker, since this thread is taking place in 2013, let's use numbers cited in 2012 instead of the (five-year-old?) statistics you cite.

A. According to Pornhub, that little company that had enough money to try and buy a spot in this year's Super Bowl ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01... ) , Washington, D.C. was far and away the nation's largest porn consumer in 2012, according to stats from alexa.com, with Hawai'i and northeastern states making up the rest of the top 10.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alannaokun/wa...

Who did those states vote for in 2008 and 2012?

B. As for your side and pornography, here's a story that was curiously tough to find in American papers late last year but made it to respected foreign papers. This is from Folha de Sao Paulo (which is essentially the New York Times of Brazil). The title translates to "Porn industry invigorated by Obama victory", and goes on to say more than 70% of porn industry people supported the (current) president.

(And frankly, this has been a pattern in place for at least 50 years or more in terms of political affiliation.)

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/11...

C. You're absolutely right on the stats of pastors and pornography. In fact, it's the evangelical Christian church that's not only calling attention to that, but fighting pornography on every front they can. (I can flood this section with links that you'll never read if you wish, but it's easily verifiable.)

Pornography destroys lives in front of the camera (actors/actresses in unsafe working conditions, people in the industry are nearly all emotionally damaged goods even before beginning work in it let alone afterward, prostitution and sex trafficking (fayfreethinker, I thought we're supposed to be against human trafficking, aren't we?) rife in the industry),

and in front of the screen (porn fuels if not ignites sexual addictions, has ruined and tainted innumerable relationships and marriages, warps people's views of the opposite (or same) sex, sometimes to the extreme).

What does help does your side, the side that says GLBT people are born that way, offer people ensnared in this trap? )

Posted by: OTamandua

April 11, 2013 at 8:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

1. I am well aware of the fact that along with your God making people eat their children, you have some necessary excuses for the action. I am also aware that they aren't any good.

It may be the case that the bonobos also have some superstitious religious beliefs for why they some times eat each other. If so, I doubt their excuses could be any sillier than yours.

(Fayfreethinker, lets say that murder and bloodshed, set by Israel's example of rebelling against God, was epidemic.

Let's say that (as evidence abounds) they were (cited in Jeremiah) killing their babies by burning them in idols of Molech.

What, in your opinion, should God have done to stop the killing of untold numbers of innocents?

Distract them by tossing them Playboy magazines from the sky?

2. Because "American Christianity" will just "break" if it can't oppress minorities? Good grief. Your religious conservative extremists have pretty much gotten over all of the other times secular society had to step in and shut down Bible based attempts to oppress. You'll get over this one too, because you'll have to.

“Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.” - G.K. Chesterton

Did you see the article yesterday that California is trying to strip non-profit status from not just the Boy Scouts but Christian youth groups?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governme...

I wish there were even a smidgen of convincing evidence that the government doesn't WANT to break the evangelical Christian church, but as I told you earlier about pornography, this is a plan that's been in place more than half a century.

3. If? You're funny. If Obama's mom had been in the wrong state about the time he was born, she could have been locked up for it. That one's on your guys. How soon we forget.

Good thing she didn't decide to have an abortion as so many liberals do. Then he'd never have been born. And good thing she didn't try to have an abortion in Illinois with the future president accidentally being born alive. State senator Obama would have voted to have his baby self killed.

4. And you're so proud of it. (NOTE: are you saying evangelicals SHOULDN'T welcome mixed-race couples in their churches, fayfreethinker?)

Good. And in a decade or two, you'll be able to say the same about same sex couples. And that's a good thing.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 11, 2013 at 8:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's always been this way, conservatives dragged kicking and screaming into the future, moaning and wailing that equal rights are being expanded to include yet another group that they had hoped to exclude and be prejudiced against.

That's assuming that conservatives aren't sent off to American gulags or worse, if some of our president's friends and sympathizers could have their way: http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/78929/

But, again, it's funny how "pornography", "gay rights" and "breaking Christianity" all intersect...this has been a long-term plan by a group of unhappy people with (rather than a genuine desire to help their fellow man) an insatiable addiction to power they'll only have temporarily anyway.

If they are successful, like I said earlier, many GLBT people will beg for the days of Christian churches on every other corner in America. You never know how good something on this fallen earth is until you LOSE it for good.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 11, 2013 at 8:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

And if your wife goes for another religion, kill her (Deut 13:9). Good stuff.

Sorry that I didn't answer. God ALWAYS tells why He says things like you cited above (From Deuteronomy 12:29-31):

"The Lord your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods."

Fayfreethinker, what is so wonderful about "burning sons and daughters in the fire" that a person who might lead an entire PEOPLE to do the same should be stopped per God's command? And WHY might God be against it?

Posted by: OTamandua

April 11, 2013 at 8:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ah, just today, 4/1/13, on Little Rock's "Family Life Today", the subject is "A pastor's journey through sexual addiction". In fact, earlier this week there were a couple of shows dealing with a (Christian) wife whose husband was addicted to pornography.

Why don't you listen to what he has to say, Fayfreethinker? And her as well? (The pastor talks about pornography as well...he ended up being arrested for his addictions...he also talks about the biochemistry (and there's a GROWING body of evidence for this, as opposed to what science has learned about being "born gay") behind compulsive sexual behavior):

http://www.familylife.com/audio

Posted by: OTamandua

April 11, 2013 at 9:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

coralie,
you said there are 3% of the population that are gay? i have been wondering how many were in that catagory but can't find out. there seem to be alot less gay and lesbian folks than portrayed in the t.v. and movies.
Mark Pryor is a smart politician and i am guessing that he chose this issue to agree with the republicans as it is the most insignificant one on his table. He is in a dangerous position politically and has to compromise somewhere.
I think he is like TANK says not really caring about getting into religious and moral battles so let them have their way here as he seems to be choosing more politically important battles to fight.

i agree with tank that the government needs to draw a line in the sand and stay OUT of the religious and moral battles.

have a nice trip Alpha ..i always enjoy your posts.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

April 11, 2013 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ladyLiberty, don't take my figure of 3% for gospel--I don't think anybody knows for sure.
One source says this:
"Drawing on information from four recent national and two state-level population-based surveys, the analyses suggest that there are more than 8 million adults in the US who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, comprising 3.5% of the adult population. In total, the study suggests that approximately 9 million Americans – roughly the population of New Jersey – identify as LGBT."
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...
+++
BTW, I was sure glad to see your comment, breaking up a long string of long OT posts.

Posted by: Coralie

April 11, 2013 at 12:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT says "isn't it interesting that the old "twin pillars of barbarism" were "polyamory and slavery"?" Not so, the 2nd pillar was polygamy, not polyamory.
They are not the same thing. Polyamorous describes having many relationships at once, while polygamy is a form of marriage (that was common in Bible times).
+++
Actually, I got to thinking I might have used the wrong word as "polyamorous" just implies many partners, and both porpoises and bonobos are noted also for the diversity of their sexual exchanges: multi-sexuality. What Freud called "polymorphous perversity."
http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/the...
+++
I've also discovered that biologists know of several species with more than two sexes and up to 13. This is called sexual polymorphism.
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewt...

Posted by: Coralie

April 11, 2013 at 2:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh, to forestall OT--I don't think humans should try to emulate some slimemold that has 13 sexes (even if we could).. I just want to point out that the biological situation is not so simple.
+++
Truly, I don't see what is so screamingly wrong with polygamy if only the participants were fully adult and consenting. A suggestion was made some years ago that a limited form of polygamy be legalized for older people (say over 65) because there were so many more elederly women than elderly men. These polygamous marriages would be more for companionship and security .
But what often seems to happen with polygamy (as in Utah) is that some domineering male collects younger women and often using social coercion.
Also this custom creates an imbalance of the sexes so that younger men can't find a partner.

Posted by: Coralie

April 11, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Truly, I don't see what is so screamingly wrong with polygamy if only the participants were fully adult and consenting."

Thank you for being honest, Coralie.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 11, 2013 at 4 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

[quote] "Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama." http://www.newscientist.com/article/d...

OTam: "let's use numbers cited in 2012 instead of the (five-year-old?) statistics you cite.">>

Statistics from five years ago are certainly fresh enough to show, as they do, that conservative states are generally the largest consumers of porn.

OT: "Washington, D.C. was far and away...">>

Not a state. Nice try. And I'll take New Scientist over your Buzzfeed.

I don't give a flip that your pastors and hyper religious people like to watch a little more porn on average. If adults want to engage in making and watching porn, that's their business, but let's not pretend it isn't the case that your religious people fed a constant diet of sex/guilt aren't also a little extra hung up on twisty sex. Darrel Ray, psychologist and author of: "Sex & God: How Religion Distorts Sexuality" makes this point nicely (including reference to his own study involving 14,000 people) in the following clip. See minutes from 12:00 to 15:00.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p_YsL...

OT: "more than 70% of porn industry people supported the (current) president.">>

Good for them. Your guilt by association fallacy only works if you think porn industry people should be guilty of something and this somehow has something to do with Obama. Lame. The porn industry knows where the hypocritical religious nuts are and the avoid voting for them.

OT: "You're absolutely right on the stats of pastors and pornography.">>

40% of pastors. Quite a stat indeed.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 11, 2013 at 9:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OTam: "lets say that murder and bloodshed, set by Israel's example of rebelling against God, was epidemic.">>

There's no reason to believe that. It's superstition. When you hijack another religion's mythology and literalize it, you get gibberish.

OT: "What, in your opinion, should God have done to stop the killing of untold numbers of innocents?">>

I don't know, maybe make them eat their children? Require some human sacrifices to Him (you know Yahweh required human sacrifices at times right?). "Killing untold numbers of innocents," including the animals, was one of Yahweh's favorite pastimes. See a few hundred referenced examples here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/bibleeduca...

OT: "Distract them by tossing them Playboy magazines from the sky?">>

That would at least be evidence in favor of this God actually existing.

OT: "California is trying to strip non-profit status from not just the Boy Scouts...">>

Good. Until those guys stop discriminating against gays and unbelievers, no more favors. If the marines can evolve and allow gays, the Boy Scouts can (and will) too. They've only made it worse by delaying it.

OT: "http://www.breitbart. com/">>

I see you are constantly referring to the hack sites breitbart and Wing Nut Daily. They feed you the constant stream of fear mongering you get a buzz from.

OT: "I wish there were even a smidgen of convincing evidence that the government doesn't WANT to break the evangelical Christian church,">>

Case in point. Like I said, those atheist Muslim secularists are coming for you. Get under the bed. Christianity has been in decline for a century and it's not the government doing it, it's the availability of accurate information. Reality.

OT: "Good thing she didn't decide to have an abortion as so many liberals do.">>

Now OT tries to throw some abortion smear around. You do know your Bible is pro-choice from start to finish right? See: http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fet...

OT: "are you saying evangelicals SHOULDN'T welcome mixed-race couples in their churches,...?">>

Of course not. I'm just amused that you are so terribly impressed with yourself over it considering this was a hot topic... about half a century ago.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 11, 2013 at 9:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "That's assuming that conservatives aren't sent off to American gulags or worse,... : http://www.wnd. com/20>>

Wing Nut Daily. I think you could use some good reeducation in a brightly lit internment camp, courtesy of the UN. Watch for it, daily, it's coming.

OT: "what is so wonderful about "burning sons and daughters in the fire">>

I don't know, why don't you ask your Yahweh?

"Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD." Ezekiel 20:25-26 KJV

The R.S.V. gives:
"Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD."

"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep..." Exodus 22:29-30

See also: Lev. 27:28, 29, 34

D.
----------------
"Could a being create a hundred billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, and then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh? Really?"

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 11, 2013 at 9:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1. Statistics from five years ago are certainly fresh enough to show, as they do, that conservative states are generally the largest consumers of porn.

Indeed, but statistics from last year are even better, aren't they?

2. Not a state. Nice try. And I'll take New Scientist over your Buzzfeed.

Would be nice if it weren't even in the union right now. However, the District's pretty populous (and it's being treated as a state with an at-large representative and all) so it counts. As do all the other states.

As for Buzzfeed, they got the stats from Pornhub (as you know) which analyzed results from the computer scientists at Alexa.com. Check. and Mate. With newer stats on my end.

3. Good for them. Your guilt by association fallacy only works if you think porn industry people should be guilty of something and this somehow has something to do with Obama. Lame. The porn industry knows where the hypocritical religious nuts are and the avoid voting for them.

Nope, the porn industry knew that Romney said he was going to prosecute them. Pornography has long been the domain of the left.

4. 40% of pastors. Quite a stat indeed.

The pornography industry is predatory. It hurts a lot of people both in front of the camera and in front of the screen. Tragically.

5. There's no reason to believe that. It's superstition. When you hijack another religion's mythology and literalize it, you get gibberish.

But you're the one who brought up the quotes.

6. I don't know, maybe make them eat their children? Require some human sacrifices to Him (you know Yahweh required human sacrifices at times right?).

You're supposed to be the brilliant free thinker, aren't you? Again, if untold numbers of people were sacrificing babies and causing untold bloodshed all over the world, using your intellect, what do you think an all-powerful God should have done?

7. Good. Until those guys stop discriminating against gays and unbelievers,

The article said Cali's going after, apparently, all Christian non-profit youth groups. As predicted.

8. I see you are constantly referring to the hack sites breitbart and Wing Nut Daily.

"Wing nut daily"?

9. Case in point. Like I said, those atheist Muslim secularists are coming for you.

Well, here's a quick study of GLBT rights by nation. Sure looks promising in the emerging caliphate, no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rig...

10. Now OT tries to throw some abortion smear around. You do know your Bible is pro-choice from start to finish right?

Come to think of it, we're STILL sacrificing babies, millions of them, on the altar of convenience, aren't we?

11. Of course not. I'm just amused that you are so terribly impressed with yourself over it considering this was a hot topic... about half a century ago.

Same - sex marriage wasn't opposed in Scripture, either.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 11, 2013 at 10:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1. Wing Nut Daily. I think you could use some good reeducation in a brightly lit internment camp, courtesy of the UN. Watch for it, daily, it's coming.

Ah, now I see what you meant. Thing was, Mr. Grathwohl said all this a few decades before "Wing Nut Daily" was a gleam in someone's eye.

BTW, I thought this was made up, too, until I saw the Facebook apology of the company which made target practice productss of pregnant women, old women, smiling elementary school age boys and adolescent girls. Why would THOSE be necessary? https://www.facebook.com/LawEnforceme...

2. I don't know, why don't you ask your Yahweh?

No, I asked YOU. I've already said that God let people have what they thought they wanted. You clearly think He could have done something better. I'm curious what that might have been?

3. "Could a being create a hundred billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, and then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh? Really?"

I'll do you one better. Could a Being be so powerful that no electron ever spins apart from His will in a hundred billion galaxies each with two hundred billion stars, all of which He created, yet actually care about ME?

Yep. Praise Him. Wish you could know Him, too, fayfreethinker.

And I know this is all just gibberish to you, but goat skins and sacrifices (He Himself provided the ultimate sacrifice) weren't in His original plan. A relationship with us was.

Yet you can't have a relationship with a robot. He gave us free will, knowing that with it we'd eventually reject Him. And we've brought so much hurt in the world because of it, and because of it sacrifices would be required. But said "hurt" won't even be a memory some day.

4. (Heh, I said this, not you): "Same - sex marriage wasn't opposed in Scripture, either."

Faux pas. ">) Meant to say: "Interracial marriage wasn't opposed in scripture, either."

Posted by: OTamandua

April 11, 2013 at 11:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "Romney said he was going to prosecute them [Porn]">>

That's hilarious. Most porn watching? Romney's Mormon Utah.

OT: "Pornography has long been the domain of the left.">>

They make it so you religious folks can secretly watch it. Enjoy yourselves. God made your arms the right length for a reason.

OT: "people were sacrificing babies and causing untold bloodshed... what [should] God should have done?">>

Not told them to sacrifice babies and cause untold bloodshed? The bit about eating their children wasn't so useful either.

OT: "The article said Cali's going after... all Christian non-profit youth groups.">>

People who are gullible and have no discernment shouldn't be reading Breitbart and WingNut Daily, yet consistently that's the only people that do.

OT: "we're STILL sacrificing babies,">>

Embryos aren't babies, eggs aren't chickens, seeds aren't trees.

OT: "God let people have what they thought they wanted.">>

But that's not what the verse says. It say he caused them to sacrifice humans, to him. He wanted to impress them. Impressed?

OT: "two hundred billion stars,... yet actually care about ME?">>

I see no evidence of that.

OT: "goat skins and sacrifices... weren't in His original plan.">>

An all-powerful fellow's plans thwarted by his mere creation. What a story. But who could ever believe it?

OT: "A relationship with us was.">>

Then he ought to get a stronger handshake.

D.
----------
"Utah ranks No. 1 in [porn] subscriptions,...

A color-coded map in the journal article shows only two states with subscription rates higher than 3.6 per thousand home broadband users: Utah and [super religious] Mississippi. Utah topped the list, with 5.47 users per 1,000....

"Subscriptions are slightly more prevalent in states that have enacted conservative legislation on sexuality," Edelman writes. In the 27 states where "defense of marriage" amendments have been adopted, there were 11 percent more porn subscribers than in other states, he reports. Use is higher also in states where more people agree with the statement "I never doubt the existence of God." ...

Utah's No. 1 ranking doesn't surprise Freestone, who works with sex offenders at his Comprehensive Treatment Clinic. Freestone has done searches on Google Trends, typing in words ranging from "swimsuits" to "naked girls," and found that Utah ranked No. 1 or 2 in most searches. A similar exercise by Deseret News reporter Lee Davidson in 2007 found that Utahns were more prone to search for words like "topless" and "pornography" (as well as "Jesus" and "home storage")."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/70...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 12, 2013 at 12:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

1. That's hilarious. Most porn watching? Romney's Mormon Utah.

Ah, but Romney lives in Massachusetts and is native to Michigan. He started college at Stanford and transferred to BYU for his undergrad degree, and got his law degree at Harvard.

2. They make it so you religious folks can secretly watch it.

Yep, the left is a domain of predators and has been for awhile, sadly...all so a few people can have their precious, temporary power.

3. Not told them to sacrifice babies and cause untold bloodshed?

Why not just say: "I don't know what God should have done"? I'm glad you're taking an interest in scripture. Keep seeking answers, Fayfreethinker; just be willing to listen to them.

4. People who are gullible and have no discernment shouldn't be reading Breitbart and WingNut Daily, yet consistently that's the only people that do.

Non sequitur. That article is but one detailing the attacks against the American Christian church, which you know as well as I are going on.

5. Embryos aren't babies, eggs aren't chickens, seeds aren't trees.

Did you hear that during the murder trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia that one of his employees testified to hearing one of the "embryos" screaming as it was put on a shelf?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/med...

6. But that's not what the verse says.

Sir, if you're not going to read what precedes the verse in scripture, said verse is useless to discuss. I see, though, why when a gay person tells you they're "born that way" you'd believe it, without knowing that person's history or any of the proven/non-proven history of scientific research on same-sex attraction.

7. I see no evidence of that.

I can guess, though I haven't lived your life so I'm not sure what you're referring to? No offense.

8. An all-powerful fellow's plans thwarted by his mere creation. What a story. But who could ever believe it?

Right now we live in the temporal, fayfreethinker, God lives in the eternal. Nothing took Him by surprise. But I fully do, and I don't have the faith to be an atheist, as the book title goes.

9. Then he ought to get a stronger handshake.

I think you're going back to point 7. I'd be curious how you'd define a "stronger handshake", and I know you are honest in saying this.

10.."Utah ranks No. 1 in [porn] subscriptions,...

Fayfreethinker, respectfully said, I'm still not sure what this fixation with Utah is? As said, those are old numbers (though indubitably there are porn users there).

In fact, here's a great anti-porn ministry I've worked with out of there: http://www.fightthenewdrug.org/

What is your side's organization that works to combat this, with the trafficking/prostitution/deplorable work conditions on the performers' side and the addiction/broken relationships on the users' side?

Posted by: OTamandua

April 12, 2013 at 7:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "but Romney lives in Massachusetts">>

That's why I specifically said "Romney's *Mormon* Utah." Pay attention.

OT: "the left is a domain of predators...">>

We already know you can make assertions, but can you back them up? Here's what a "domain of predators" might look like. Restricting our examination to child predators just within republican leadership, we find about 80 specific examples: "Stop Republican Pedophilia" http://armchairsubversive.blogspot.com/

[quote] "3. "Not told them to sacrifice babies and cause untold bloodshed?">>

OT: "Why not just say: "I don't know what God should have done"?>>

But I did say: Playboy's falling from the sky. Do that and I'll sell everything and follow the Lord. You can't think of a better answer than making your creation eat their own children and sacrifice humans to you? Is there anything so absurd you won't believe it? (I ask this knowing the answer)

[quote]: "5. Embryos aren't babies, eggs aren't chickens, seeds aren't trees.">>

OT: "one of the "embryos" screaming as it was put on a shelf?">>

What did it say? Careful readers will notice how you don't actually respond to the point but pivot and go on about something else.

OT: "if you're not going to read what precedes the verse... useless to discuss.">>

I know you have been trained that you can make excuses for any atrocity, but some things just can't be smoothed over. When he wasn't commanding to kill everything that breathes, your God required human sacrifices to him and forced people to eat their children. There really is no apologetic for that.

OT: "when a gay person tells you they're "born that way" you'd believe it,">>

And I do that with people who say they are left handed too. Both are found throughout nature and we have good reason to think they aren't faking. And while you've been all over the place on the issue, you've admitted as much in this very thread.

OT: "God lives in the eternal.">>

How convenient.

OT: "Nothing took Him by surprise.">>

God gets taken by surprise a lot. Here are few examples of God having regrets, changing his mind, making mistakes, not knowing things, etc.,.

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Gen. 6:6

And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. Exod. 32:14

...and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. 1 Sam. 15:35

...and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. Jonah 3:10

OT: "I don't have the faith to be an atheist,...">>

Clearly you do because like me you are an atheist towards 99.99% of all of the Gods out there, you just make an except for the local one you were indoctrinated with. I'm a little more consistent.

OT: "What is your side's organization that works to combat [porn]...?">>

I'm not really into "combat porn." Each to their own.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 12, 2013 at 10:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

9. Clearly you do because like me you are an atheist towards 99.99% of all of the Gods out there.

Yet all the other "gods" came to turn bad people to good. Jesus came to make dead people live. There's no other such religion or worldview.

I was actually thinking of Sir Fred Hoyle (who coined the phrase "The big bang theory") and Chandra Wickramasinghe, both researchers with an alphabet soup after them name of degrees and titles. Look them up.

They were called as witnesses here in Arkansas for a case on creationism. The two scientists estimated the odds of complex proteins coming together to form an enzyme necessary for life was 10x40,000th power. That's before you calculate the odds of said enzymes coming together to form an actual CELL, let alone the various specialized cells we all have.

10. I'm not really into "combat porn." Each to their own

My compliments, fft. You know how to "pivot" yourself.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 12, 2013 at 12:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1. That's why I specifically said "Romney's *Mormon* Utah." Pay attention.

Words mean things, fayfreethinker. Romney doesn't own Utah, nor is he native to there, nor does he live there.

2. We already know you can make assertions, but can you back them up?

Indeed, I'm thinking of Rep. A.S. Herlong, Jr., a Democrat, who read these 45 goals of communism on the U.S. House floor exactly 50 years ago this year. Reading over the goals, there's been untold suffering in America alone just because of their fulfilment. And a lot of these have given rise to predators of all dirty stripes, pedophilic and otherwise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nake...

3. But I did say: Playboy's falling from the sky.

Nope, I'm the one who suggested that...read my post. ">)

4. What did it say?

Only a liberal could laugh at a baby in pain, sir. Dr. Gosnell kept severed feet of his little victims in glass jars lining his office. Maybe it would have said: "Please don't put me next to those"?

5. I know you have been trained that you can make excuses for any atrocity

No, I've been trained to read something in context, which you don't seem to have been. You are the one who brought up the original quotes...I cited the verses ahead of them. It's pretty wise to read them both.

6. And I do that with people who say they are left handed too. Both are found throughout nature and we have good reason to think they aren't faking. And while you've been all over the place on the issue, you've admitted as much in this very thread.

I haven't studied the science for "handedness" but it's interesting that there's an extremely low concordance rate among identical twins for this just like there is for gayness. And what I've consistently said is that there's no scientifically replicated proof that same-sex romantic attraction is genetic and/or inborn.

7. How convenient.

...for a person who doesn't want to read all that He's saying.

8. God gets taken by surprise a lot.

Bear in mind that His word came to people that were trying to come up with the right words to say at the time. Interesting, though, that you cite Jonah...there's not an element of surprise in that at all except to Jonah (who WANTED a lot of people to be destroyed).

Posted by: OTamandua

April 12, 2013 at 12:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"BTW, I thought this was made up, too, until I saw the Facebook apology of the company which made target practice productss of pregnant women, old women, smiling elementary school age boys and adolescent girls."
I went to the link and it was about a website which had been set up to train law enforcement not to hesitate to shoot.
Pretty horrible all around, but what it has to do with topic of debate I can't figure out.

Posted by: Coralie

April 12, 2013 at 12:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OTam says "I'm glad you're taking an interest in scripture...., Fayfreethinker;"
It should be evident by now that Freethinker knows the Bible backwards and forwards.

Posted by: Coralie

April 12, 2013 at 1:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

The link I furnished was for the Facebook page of Law Enforcement Targets, and specifically an apology for their "No More Hesitation" (which they call "NMH") line. The NMH target pictures themselves are pictured at the bottom of this page. Law enforement used of have such pictures of people who were unarmed, to train them to be extremely CAUTIOUS when shooting:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/dhs-contr...

...and since you were reading FFT's responses earlier chiding me for my statement that evangelical Christians are being targeted for escalating persecution, I had used that Facebook link as one of my responses. I'd heard a rumor about those targets yet had discounted it...then saw this link in a news story this week.

As for FFT, it's evident that he loves his Bible just like President Obama loves the U.S.Constitution.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 12, 2013 at 2:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "Yet all the other "gods" came to turn bad people to good.">>

Of course, your god is special, he's not like those other gods.

OT: "Jesus came to make dead people live.">>

Resurrections were a dime a dozen before the Jesus story, even in your own book.

OT: "There's no other such religion or worldview.">>

Unique has nothing to do with true. All differing religions are by definition unique.

OT: "Sir Fred Hoyle (who coined the phrase "The big bang theory")">>

He coined it as a term of derision because he didn't believe it. He was wrong about that too.

OT: "They were called as witnesses here in Arkansas for a case on creationism.">>

And they got spanked in court.

OT: "odds of complex proteins coming together to form an enzyme necessary for life was... [blah blah blah]">>

Begin your education here:

"The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDd...

"Origins of Life - Made Easy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-BNO_...

Nice article here too: "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,
and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abiop...

OT: "the odds of said enzymes coming together...">>

Can't calculate the odds unless you know the variables. Watch the short videos and don't get your science from creationists.

OT: "Reading over the [communist] goals, there's been untold suffering in America...">>

Good point. We're just up to our eyeballs in commies. You're still fighting commies.

OT: "Playboy's falling from the sky... I'm the one who suggested that.">>

And I said go with it. When does the rain begin?

OT: "Only a liberal could laugh at a baby in pain,">>

Only a wingnut tries to use emotion because they can't make a case. Do you know the difference between a seed and tree? It's pretty clear you don't the difference between an embryo a fetus and a baby. At least you can't be bothered to honest and accurate with language. And why does your God describe how to perform an abortion? We to believe that the same God that said to run pregnant women through with the sword was concerned with fetuses?

OT: "His word came to people that were trying to come up with the right words....">>

Excuses excuses. So much for inspiration.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 12, 2013 at 2:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

1. Resurrections were a dime a dozen before the Jesus story, even in your own book.

Where were they in the OT, FFT? And while you're at it on other religions, which other religion has a God who loves people enough that He would humiliate Himself to come down from eternity to teach, suffer, die and be raised again for their sake?

Seriously, I'd really like to see examples, particularly on the "suffer, die and be raised again" side.

2. All your scientific quotes:

The late Sir Hoyle and Wickramasinghe forgot more about science than you'll ever know, FFT. (Don't know if Hoyle was religious. Wickramasinghe is a buddhist. Their "panspermia" ideas are strange.)

There are as many links I could site that chop your case off at the knees.

As for the Creationism case, even non-Christians criticized the judge for some of the conclusions that were drawn.

Beside, with all this science you cite, why haven't you found something proving same-sex attraction is genetic and/or inborn, strong enough that you could make that $1 million bet with a stupid rich Repubilcan I suggested?

3. Good point. We're just up to our eyeballs in commies. You're still fighting commies.

Amazing how many of those goals in that link have come true. And sad for our nation and people.

4. Do you know the difference between a seed and tree? It's pretty clear you don't the difference between an embryo a fetus and a baby.

Seeds don't usually scream when you remove them from the ground and split them in half

5. Excuses excuses. So much for inspiration.

Not even going to tackle the use of "repented" (the way you meant it) in the story of Jonah, are you?

6. (And why does your God describe how to perform an abortion?) Are you referring to the passage in Numbers, FFT?

Posted by: OTamandua

April 12, 2013 at 3:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "FFT... loves his Bible...">>

Yes I do. It's a wonderful book that gives us an insight into early and primitive morality and how it developed over time. And since we consistently make our gods in our image, we can see the development of the Bible god's sense of morality improving over time as well.

[FFT] "Resurrections were a dime a dozen before the Jesus story,...">>

OT: "Where were they [resurrections] in the OT, FFT?">>

I refer to resurrections before Jesus' and there are several. This alludes to an interesting Bible problem for inerrantists. Sometimes when people want to put a profound emphasis on Jesus' resurrection, they point to these verses which claim his was the first:

a) Claim: Jesus was the first to rise from the dead.

...That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people and to the Gentiles. Acts 26:23
...Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Rev. 1:5

b) Except he wasn't remotely the first. A few examples:

(1.) ...was no breath left in him. (22) And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. 1 Kings 17:17, 22

(2.) ...Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead,... And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth,... and the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes. 2 Kings 4:32, 34-35

(3.) ...as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet. 2 Kings 13:21

(4.) While he [Jesus] yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue's house certain which said, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master any further?... he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her... Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. And straightway the damsel arose... Mark 5:35, 41, 42.

(5.) ...he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out,... And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her... And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. Luke 7:12-15

(6.) ...he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes:... John 11:43-44

(7) "At that moment [when Jesus died]... The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life." Matthew 27:51-54

Like I said, resurrection legends all over the place.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 12, 2013 at 7:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "on other religions, which other religion has a God who loves people enough...">>

Loved enough that based on a setup he knew in advance would cause the vast majority of his creation to roast in torment for eternity based upon them being blamed for the sins of an ancient ancestor that:

a) didn't know right from wrong
b) was duped by a bad character this God put in place

That kind of love? No, I don't know of any other religions that have a foundation exactly like that.

But I interrupted you, continue:

OT: "a God who loves people enough that He would humiliate Himself to come down from eternity to teach, suffer, die and be raised again for their sake?">>

a) any suffering is entirely optional. An all-powerful being could anesthetize themselves from any pain.
b) an all-powerful being can be "humilitated?" That makes no sense.
c) an immortal god can "die?" That makes no sense.
d) this God died (kind of, for 1 1/2 days) to appease himself for a transgression against himself? That makes no sense.

I am with the progressive voices that think it's time to throw this vicious and untenable atonement theory overboard. Episcopal Bishop John Spong, put it this way:

"The death of Jesus is said to have been something God required: a ransom, a sacrifice offered to God, a payment demanded by God for the sins of the world,...

I have come to the conclusion that this language, “Jesus died for my sins,” is a violent distortion of the meaning of Jesus. It offers me a God who is sadistic and bloodthirsty. A God whose will is served by a human sacrifice is not a God I would ever be drawn to worship. It is rather a grotesque idea.”

"The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbaric idea based on a primitive concept of God that must be dismissed." --The Bishops Voice-The Twelve Theses

OT: "I'd really like to see examples,... on the "suffer, die and be raised again" side.">>

Suffer: Any suffering was unnecessary. If this God wanted to forgive some transgression, they could just do it.

Die: How is an immortal god choosing to be being a ghost for a day and a half a "death" or a sacrifice?

Raised again: All of the anonymous resurrection stories are contradictory and cannot be reconciled. Even if these claims were unique to Christianity, this would say nothing about them being true.

D.
-----
"If the resurrection of Jesus cannot be believed except by assenting to the fantastic descriptions included in the Gospels, then Christianity is doomed. For that view of resurrection is not believable,...
If that were the requirement of belief as a Christian, then I would sadly leave my house of faith. WITH ME IN THAT EXODUS FROM THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, HOWEVER, WOULD BE EVERY RANKING NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLAR IN THE WORLD-- Catholic and Protestant alike:..."
--John Spong, "Resurrection: Myth or Reality (p. 237, caps mine)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 12, 2013 at 7:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "Hoyle and Wickramasinghe forgot more about science than you'll ever know,">>

I am sorry that your guys are so forgetful. Perhaps they shouldn't have forgotten the part about not being able to calculate odds unless you know frequency and duration. All we need is a plausible naturalistic explanation for the rise of self-replicating forms and then vacuous appeals to spiritland are completely unnecessary. Note:

a) we have that, see clips
b) God assertions are just the Argument from Ignorance and not an answer anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument...

OT: "many links I could site that chop your case off at the knees.">>

Promises promises. The short videos I gave you rebut your appeal to supposed enormous odds and show no appeal to a supernatural is necessary (or useful).

OT: "why haven't you [proven] same-sex attraction is genetic and/or inborn,">>

I don't need that, you do. It matters not a whit to me if it's a choice or not since I respect everyone's choice on the matter. You are desperately trying to find something to support it being a choice since if it's God installed it causes this problem for you:

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a...

We don't presume left-handed people make the choice or that straight people make the choice and since the animal kingdom is filled to the brim with gayness, I see no reason to not take the gay community at their word when they report that their natural attraction is to the same sex.

OT: "Not even going to tackle the use of "repented"... in the story of Jonah,...">>

Hey OT, why is your all knowing God telling us in his book that he is doing things he regrets?

OT: [re abortion directions] "Are you referring to the passage in Numbers?">>

Yes.

D.
---------
"Does God forbid abortion? Many people think he does, but they merely cite poetry or theological speculation. God actually speaks about abortion in only two places in the Bible, and Jesus never mentioned it at all.

ACCIDENTAL ABORTION
If a brawling man happens to strike a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage, that is, an ABORTION, he must pay a fine to the expectant father. But if he injures the woman in any other way, he must be punished accordingly (Exodus 21:22-25).

INTENTIONAL ABORTION
If a man suspects that his wife has had intercourse with another man--and possibly has become pregnant--he shall take her to the tabernacle, where the priest will mix holy water with dust off the floor--where animals are slaughtered for sacrifice--and force the woman to drink it. If she is guilty, her womb will discharge and her uterus will drop. In other words, she will have had an ABORTION (Numbers 5:11-21).

In neither case does God say that the fetus has a so-called "right to life." And in neither case does God forbid abortion." --R. Nielsen

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 12, 2013 at 8:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Pornography has long been the domain of the left."
See http://www.opposingviews.com/i/societ...
She's not just a conservative, Christian and child molester (her own daughter); she's also a pornographer.

Well, she /is/ a lawyer....

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 13, 2013 at 2:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat, good point - thank you for sharing this. She deserves any punishment she gets, but I pray that her daughter ends up in a truly good home, and that something good and blessed comes out of this for both of them.

In the meantime, in Washington, D.C., which is our nation's current porn consumption capital, Pornography Harms is working to combat porn and its attendant problems of sex trafficking and prostitution, as well as the problems for end users. They're fighting an enemy that's vastly superior in terms of funding, promotion and longevity, but Porn Harms is making wonderful inroads. They're very sympathetic to evangelical Christians, and vice versa. http://www.pornharms.com

Is there a parallel organization on the left that is fighting against pornography and the myriad problems it causes both performers and users?

Posted by: OTamandua

April 13, 2013 at 8:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

re 'Bible says marriage only between a man and a woman:"
A theologian (teacher of ecclesiastical history at the University of Glasgow) points out
"Jacob worked for his future father-in-law for seven years for Rachel, was tricked into marrying (or at least lying with!) her sister Leah, and then served another seven years to marry Rachel. That is a bigamous marriage. This remains a popular story in Sunday school; if people know their Old Testament at all they are likely to know it.
Well known too are David and Solomon and their many wives and concubines. Marriage in the Old Testament is certainly not simply monogamous."
She goes on to say that the model of marriage in the OT is one "in which a marriageable woman is viewed largely as the property of her father to be passed to her husband...It is nothing like a modern Western understanding of marriage as a relationship between two equals."
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingd...

Posted by: Coralie

April 13, 2013 at 11:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Charlotte Methuen (theologian mentioned above) goes on to say
"In contrast, Christianity does seem to have inherited an understanding of marriage as monogamous. The gospels, the letters of Paul and the household codes included in the New Testament all present a monogamous understanding of marriage....
The household codes (Ephesians 5:22-25, Colossians 3:18-4:1, Titus 2:1-10, and 1 Peter 2:18-3:7) offer a view of marriage which is clearly hierarchical: the wife is said to be rightly subordinate to her husband, although a husband is also reminded of his duty to love his wife. The understanding that the submission of women to men forms was part of a correct understanding of marriage persists through much of Christian history. Much of the contemporary discussion of headship is based on precisely these texts. They have been a strong influence on Christian understandings both of marriage and of the role of women, and the two have frequently been intertwined."

Posted by: Coralie

April 13, 2013 at 11:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Christians did not invent marriage.
"Greek, Roman and Jewish marriage practices all influenced developing Christian approaches to and understandings of marriage. The legal aspects of marriage would long remain a civil affair....
it was not until the thirteenth century that a priest was held to preside over the ceremony...although it was still recognised that it was the couple who made the marriage before God. Legally couples might still marry through mutual agreement without the involvement of a priest."

Posted by: Coralie

April 13, 2013 at 12:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Otamandaua - "We don't want to know what an Islamic culture here would do to those GLBT people ("born" and yet "unborn") in America."

I know, call on me, I have my hand up! As usual the thread diverged into all kinds of silly stuff with dubious links to anywhere google can take someone.

A freind who is a nearly 30 year veteran combat medic just got back from Afghanistan. She relates that she had the same young boys coming into the clinic week after week for treatment to repair damage from sodomy. Though primarily a "care giver" and "life saver" she was miffed (exchange some m's with p's and f's with s's) that she wasn't allowed to cure the root of problem once and for all and shoot some people. The boys weren't being molested by "gays" but by heterosexual men. So much for Islam. "Hadg" is mostly an uncivilized animal.

Regardless, gay people are not made by circumstance, they are born that way. They are people like everyone else and deserve the same rights as everyone else, including to get married under the legal provisions fo a civil contract if they want.

Think about it. More than half of heterosexuals that marry get divorced and something like 40% of "families" are single females without husbands. I don't see any high moral sanctity in the institution anyway so what's the point?

Equal opportunity, equal protection and all that. Who gives a crap about what monkeys do to each other? Who gives a crap how many laides out there have a battery assited "rabbit" or how many and what kind of people like porn? And what's wrong with polygamy anway? With that 40% of unwed mothers maybe if we legalized it we could legitimize some of those girls?

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 17, 2013 at 12:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"So much for Islam."
I don't think the belief-system of 1 billion people should by judged by what goes on in Afghanistan.
The country has been at war or in civil war since 1978.
Wikipedia says "In response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Carter administration and Reagan administration in the U.S. began arming the Mujahideen,...Recent reports state that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia provided as much as up to $40 billion in cash and weapons, which included over two thousand FIM-92 Stinger surface-to-air missiles, for building up Islamic groups against the Soviet Union. The U.S. handled most of its support through Pakistan's ISI. Saudi Arabia was also providing financial support....
The 10-year Soviet occupation resulted in the deaths of between 850,000 and 1,500,000 Afghan civilians."
Now they've had an 11-year war with the U.S.
People who are constantly subjected to the suffering of war lose some part of their social structure.
BTW, Afghanistan has the highest infant mortality rate in the world.

Posted by: Coralie

April 17, 2013 at 5:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeff: "young boys coming into the clinic week after week... damage from sodomy.... So much for Islam.">>

Good thing that never happens with Christianity. Oh wait:

"Child abuse cases have cost Catholic church more than $2.6 billion"

"The church has paid more than $2.6 billion in settlements and related expenses since 1950, according to an annual report released Friday by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The costs to dioceses and religious orders dropped in 2008 by 29 percent to about $463 million. But 2007 was an unusually high year, when the Archdiocese of Los Angeles began paying its $660 million settlement to about 500 people. It was the largest deal by a U.S. diocese."
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/0314...

And:
"Roman Catholic Church Sex Abuse Cases"
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/referen...

Forty pages of scandals and that's just going back 3 years (I got bored of clicking through them).

And not just to pick on the Catholics:

"Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah'...

It's everywhere.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 17, 2013 at 8:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeffieboy,

I was traveling over the weekend and didn't have access to the Web like I normally do. After what happened Monday, I wasn't going to say anything further. But after reading your comments...you sound like a conservative, except for that "born that way" tripe. (WARNING: graphic images on this link...scroll down to the bottom.)

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/04...

Apparently it's very common over in Afghanistan to molest boys. (And this has been a staple in Asian culture. You may be too young to remember the novel (a near 1,000 page marathon) "Shogun", by James Clavell, about samurai-era Japan. It wasn't uncommon, according to his book, for such warriors to pleasure themselves with females and boys.)

You Obama supporters, many of you, don't realize what's attempting to be foisted on our nation. Or maybe you really do. Meanwhile, the Saudi student said to be a person of interest, but then cleared, is now being DEPORTED. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=... ) This after Salon magazine had an article titled: "Let's hope the Boston bomber is a white American". ( http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_... )

In the spirit of the Fayfreethinker and his interpretations of holy scripture, why would a closeted gay president be so comfortable with Islam, and with letting the nation of his birth (America) which has been so friendly to GLBT people be destroyed?

"Pop takes another shot, neat,
Points out the same amber
Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine, and
Makes me smell his smell, coming"

- From "Pop", written by Barack Obama (no straight man would pen something like that).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/...

Posted by: OTamandua

April 18, 2013 at 8:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oops, left out a small piece of that poem:

"Pop takes another shot, neat,
Points out the same amber
Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine, and
Makes me smell his smell, coming
from me;..."

Posted by: OTamandua

April 18, 2013 at 9:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "(no straight man would pen something like that)."
How do you come up with that evaluation?

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 18, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

OTam pops his head up again. I thought maybe I had poked him too hard with all of those resurrection examples he was apparently unaware of.

Otam: " the Saudi student said to be a person of interest, but then cleared, is now being DEPORTED.">>

Probably to be protected from nuts like you.

Otam: "WARNING: graphic images on this link...">>

Otam gives us some pictures from countries where they actually believe the "One Nation Under God" phrase. He shows us, graphically, what happens when religious nuts like him are actually allowed to have power and enforce hatred and bigotry against minorities. He would like to pretend that this is unique to Islam, but that's nonsense of course (see: Westboro Baptists).

Here's a copy of a personal exchange I had on a public forum with a Christian Reconstructionalist, also known as Dominionism. They're a branch of your Christian wingnut right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

You might get an notion of the sorts of things they would do to minorities, and how it would be similar to your dreaded notions of Islam, if these Christian whackjobs could get a hold of some power to impose their strict interpretation of your religion:

“Yeah, I'm a CR [Christian Reconstructionalist]. And I do believe that if a person is caught in adultery, they should be stoned. Active, practicing homosexuals should be stoned. And non-Christians should be evangelized to, but not allowed to practice their faith openly. If they did practice their non-Christian faith openly, they should be punished by execution for worshipping false gods.
As far as the heretics go, I want the civil government to have the power and the will to execute heretics and blasphemers. It's what God's law calls for - and its the only viable model for civil government.
I do not advocate beating homosexuals. I advocate stoning *practicing* homosexuals. There is a difference. The prior is a violation of God's Law. The latter is a faithful application of God's Law. Witches should also be put to death, as you have said correctly.”
--Sam K., Christian Reconstructionalist, Fayetteville, AR (10/1995)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 18, 2013 at 10:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Otam: "Oops, left out a small piece of that poem:">>

Actually, you left out 90% of the poem, which provides the necessary context.

You're a literalist and probably a bit of a perv (hence the porno obsession), so you pick out four lines that you don't understand and literalize them in a way inconsistent with the poem. How transparently idiotic.

D.
------------------
The Poem in question:

Sitting in his seat, a seat broad and broken
In, sprinkled with ashes
Pop switches channels, takes another
Shot of Seagrams, neat, and asks
What to do with me, a green young man
Who fails to consider the
Flim and flam of the world, since
Things have been easy for me;
I stare hard at his face, a stare
That deflects off his brow;
I’m sure he’s unaware of his
Dark, watery eyes, that
Glance in different directions,
And his slow, unwelcome twitches,
Fail to pass.
I listen, nod,
Listen, open, till I cling to his pale,
Beige T-shirt, yelling,
Yelling in his ears, that hang
With heavy lobes, but he’s still telling
His joke, so I ask why
He’s so unhappy, to which he replies...
But I don’t care anymore, cause
He took too damn long, and from
Under my seat, I pull out the
Mirror I’ve been saving; I’m laughing,
Laughing loud, the blood rushing from his face
To mine, as he grows small,
A spot in my brain, something
That may be squeezed out, like a
Watermelon seed between
Two fingers.
Pop takes another shot, neat,
Points out the same amber
Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine, and
Makes me smell his smell, coming
From me; he switches channels, recites an old poem
He wrote before his mother died,
Stands, shouts, and asks
For a hug, as I shrink, my
Arms barely reaching around
His thick, oily neck, and his broad back; ’cause
I see my face, framed within
Pop’s black-framed glasses
And know he’s laughing too.

Apparently written when Obama was 19, hence forth for proving, according to Otam, that he's not a straightman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/...

Glad your back Otam.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 18, 2013 at 11:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

While we know homosexuality has existed for thousands of years, that is no excuse for calling wrong right. The fact that it perverts the natural processes for life convinces me that it is a behavior from the dark recesses of our minds acted on for whatever personal reasons. If we follow the line of thinking that it is some sort of genetic condition, then we must be consistent in that thinking when we evaluate other behaviors that pervert the human norm, i.e. murder, theft, pornography, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, lying, cheating, etc. Every human born has the propensity to be any and all of these things but for that indwelling knowledge of right and wrong. The truth as I see it is that we now have people practicing some of these behaviors organizing to force the world to call wrong right and convince everyone that they are normal. Our bodies have intelligent design for the purpose of reproduction. Any type of sexuality that perverts that design is not normal.

That is from a secular viewpoint. Now, from my Christian viewpoint, God didn't inspire the Scripture for Himself. It is for us that we might find peace, joy, and happiness while on this earth and have eternal life after we leave this earth. He destroyed Sodom (from which the act of homosexuality got its name) and Gomorrah because they had given in to the depravity of their minds to the extent that through generational acceptance, it had become the norm for them and there was no hope for repentance much less restoration and no doubt spread throughout society. Acceptance of any kind of depravity, not just sodomy, was not God's plan and since that defined those cities, He destroyed them.

I have tried to be fair in thinking through this issue, but regardless of which way I go, I always end up with the opinion that it is a choice which, based on environment and many other things, is harder for some to change than others, but, nonetheless, a choice and society should not be asked to become complicit in making laws normalizing it.

Posted by: SUERICHAR

April 18, 2013 at 11:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

OTam says molesting boys "has been a staple in Asian culture"
We see "Asian culture" consists of Afghanistan and medieval Japan (according to a novel).
Let's see, 1 billion people in India, 1 billion people in China, 1 billion followers of Islam, most of whom don't live in Afghanistan--are they part of "Asian culture"?

Posted by: Coralie

April 18, 2013 at 11:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

suerichar says "Our bodies have intelligent design for the purpose of reproduction. Any type of sexuality that perverts that design is not normal."
Why then did intelligent design allow hundreds of species of animals to display homosexual behaviors that do not further reproduction?
For instance, about one-fifth of greylag geese form same-sex pairs.
http://www.livescience.com/11125-bird...

Posted by: Coralie

April 18, 2013 at 11:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

suerichar lists "behaviors that pervert the human norm, i.e. murder, theft, pornography, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, lying, cheating, etc"
She does not have an anthropological or historical perspective on what she calls the human norm.
For instance, if war is regarded as murder, it has been the human norm for thousands of years.
So has theft of land by one group from another.

Posted by: Coralie

April 18, 2013 at 12:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh, Fayfreethinker, so suddenly now context matters?

And you yourself subscribe to the theory that Obama would have been "born that way". How would he be any different now than he was at 19 when he wrote that poem?

Posted by: OTamandua

April 18, 2013 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sue: "...homosexuality has existed for thousands of years, ...no excuse for calling wrong right.">>

Why is it wrong? Sue doesn't say. Let's try this:

"While we know lefthandedness has existed for thousands of years, that is no excuse for calling wrong right."

Why is gayness more wrong than being left handed? Arguments please, let's see them.

Sue: "The fact that it perverts the natural processes for life...">>

But it doesn't, gay people have children all the time. We have been quite good a subverting the natural process of humans dying at about age 40. We've increased lifespans by 30 years in one century. That's not natural, we do it by artificial means.
If "natural" is defined as what the majority is or does, then being left hand isn't "natural" either.

Sue: "it is a behavior from the dark recesses of our minds...">>

That's how I view a great many religious inclinations. For examples of the harm caused by these religious inclinations, see world history. Or see right now: http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfund...

Now let's walk through these items of badness Sue tries to associated with gay:

Sue: "behaviors that pervert the human norm, i.e. murder, theft, pornography, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, lying, cheating, etc.">>

Murder is by definition wrong. That's what the word means. When you say "murder" is wrong, you are saying it's wrong to do wrong. You are being redundant.

Theft infringes upon another person. I don't see how it correlates to a person being left handed or gay.

Pornography is a subjective claim of obscenity. Everyone brings their own interpretation to what is obscene. Is a picture of someone nude obscene? Is a sex act obscene? What if it's recorded? I don't think so. If someone isn't breaking the law or hurting someone else, I don't give a flip about what you think is "pornography."

Incest. According to Genesis, the human race is based upon incest. What does this have to do with people being left handed (er, I mean gay) anyway?

Sue: "pedophilia, bestiality, lying, cheating">>

There are good arguments against pedophilia (and these other things), but they're not entirely clear cut or the age of consent would be the same worldwide, and it isn't.

Where are your arguments for why being left hand, or gay, is wrong? Trying to smear these other bad things in with it, doesn't accomplish that task.

D.
---------
ps. There is no evidence a city of Sodom ever existed. It's probably a myth.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 18, 2013 at 1:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Otam: "so suddenly now context matters?">>

When did I say it didn't? I love context. Bring lots. Especially Bible context, that's my favorite. More context, more problems for you.

Otam: "you yourself subscribe to the theory that Obama would have been "born that way".">>

Yeah, I think left handed people, and gay people, are overwhelmingly born that way. I have no reason to think a gay person saying their inclination is to the same sex is any less authentic than a straight person saying their inclination is to the opposite sex. Or a left handed person saying that's the way they are.

Otam: "How would he be any different now than he was at 19 when he wrote that poem?">>

I don't see why he would be different. He was brilliant then, and he still is.

Apeing wingnuts across the land, you've grabbed four lines out of a 40 line poem and misread some homoerotic nonsense into it. This says something about you. It doesn't say anything about Obama.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 18, 2013 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fayfreethinker, I had numerous Biblical contexts above that you had ignored. Glad to know that it does matter to you, especially when you happily pull four lines out of forty (or more) scripture quotations yourself.

Why can't President Obama go ahead and "come out" if he is gay?

Posted by: OTamandua

April 18, 2013 at 1:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Belief systems" are not always relevant because people that subscribe to them many times do not practice them, at least not fully.

The bible in it's various forms provide systems in which one may believe, and that only takes "Christian" belief into account. As you continue to add other belief systems the fact that most people subscribe to them and don't necessarily belive them or practice them doesn't change.

The fact that Christians don't believe in homosexuality is unimportant to the beliefs of others just as gentital mutilation, arranged marriages, vengance, and the general treatment of women by Sharia isn't supported by christians.

People are animals. They might have different forms of a "higher" intelligence in some respects than other animals, but depending on a point of view those forms can be considered to be merely different.

Evidence suggests that "lesser" animals feel pain, remorse, fear, happiness, and a broad range of "human" emotions. Dogs and birds dream when they sleep. I have seen them do it.

So what makes "man" so especially important in the eye os "God"? I think it is man's obsession with "himself" and there is little else to do with it. That is why man (not God) invented all these religions and belief systems in the first place.

All of this simply illustrates that the Bible or any other religious doctrine doesn't "prove" anything other than you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 18, 2013 at 2:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I enjoy being able to agree with Pryor...twice. First he accepted that homsexuals are born that way, and they are, then he voted against Feinsteins expanded background check idea. Things are looking up for our Democratic Senator! Like Obama said, "It is a sad day in Washington.". What is more important is that it was a great day for eveybody else!

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 18, 2013 at 2:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So, Jeffieboy, you think we are no different than animals, only of the higher species. Evidently, you don't believe the Bible, so no sense in quoting it - but I will anyway. God gave man dominion over beasts. Animals have no soul, but then I know since you don't think the Bible is the Word of God, our discussion must be over. You have your right to believe as you do. I hate to see you miss out on eternal life, as this surely can't be all there is!

Posted by: mycentworth

April 18, 2013 at 2:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycent....awesome. It's an opinion page. You have yours and I have mine. I know better than argue religion with a "believer". If you want to believe in some vengeful, omnipotent "Super Santa Claus" waiting to give you the rewards you deserve that's up to you.

Do dogs go to heaven, too?

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 18, 2013 at 3:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

First he accepted that homsexuals are born that way, and they are,

There is no proof of that, Jeffieboy.

Posted by: mycentworth

April 18, 2013 at 3:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"...as this surely can't be all there is!"

Thank The LORD that this isn't all there is!

Posted by: OTamandua

April 18, 2013 at 3:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeffieboy, My God is not vengeful, He is forgiving and loving. We are all sinners. I would type out the whole message of forgiveness through the cross, but I'm sure you know it. Come on, Jeffieboy. Don't harden your heart.

By the way, we can't work our way to heaven. "For by grace are you saved though faith, it is the gift of God and not of works, lest any man should boast."

Christians automatically do good works - it is what they do.

Posted by: mycentworth

April 18, 2013 at 4:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Christians automatically do good works - it is what they do."

mycentworth, very gracious (and true) response, but it might be good to qualify your last sentence: "Christians automatically do good works - it is what they do."

Indeed, as you said earlier, we are all sinners. As such, we're going to make mistakes even after we're saved.

However, we know we don't HAVE to do good works. As you also said, we can't work our way to Heaven. Instead, the most you let Christ into your heart the more you WANT to do good works. And it helps to have a clear, objective standard of what "good" is, that God tells us through His word.

(How's that germane here? A lot of the ex-gay people who's stories I've read reported trying to do what people call "pray the gay away" usually with little or no success.

Things changed for them when they let go of everything in their lives and simultaneously gave it to God (isn't easy to choose, or at least it wasn't for me) and let Him start to change them rather than changing themselves. They ended up leaving their gay identity and all that came with and/or preceded it because they genuinely wanted to, not because they had to.)

Posted by: OTamandua

April 18, 2013 at 5:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OTam - One of my faults. What seems perfectly clear to me, sometimes, needs explaining. I do think when you truly love God and others, you automatically do good works, because you want to. Not because you have to.

When you become a 'born-again' Christian, you are filled with the Holy Spirit. If you willingly sin, that is very serious. The Spirit does convict you. I do believe God forgives you, but I also believe you won't purposely sin. Most teach past, present and future sins are forgiven. I have to be truthful - I am not sure. There may be some consequences if you sin after you have truly become a believer and follower of Christ.

We all have our cross to bear. God says deny thyself, take up your cross and follow me. That applies to all of us whatever our desires may be.

Posted by: mycentworth

April 18, 2013 at 5:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm amazed at how much more Christian Dominionists know about me and my sexuality than I do. I'm also amazed at how willing Christian Dominionists are to call 10 million gay people liars when the latter say they didn't choose their sexual orientation. FYI, the Afghanistan practice of bacha bazi was oulawed by the Taliban, but revived when U.S. forces took over the country. The same applies to Afghan opium production.

And I can't think of any group less qualified to talk about "natural law" than Christian conservatives seeing as how most of their religion relies on the suspension of said laws. They mock and discredit reputable scientific research at every turn when it doesn't suit their social or political agenda, yet suddenly become experts on any scientific matter by merely invoking the words "natural law." They try to stuff Nature into some nice, neat little box of predictable behavior. How arrogant.

The reason why reparative therapy is discredited by reputable mainstream organizations like the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychiatric Association is because these groups have basically been there, done that. Ever since their formation, they had tried to change sexual orientation with aversion therapy, electroshock therapy, abstinence therapy, etc., all to little or no effect. The only people who support reparative therapy are Christian conservatives because their big book says it's an abomination and because virtually all of the therapy is performed in Christian therapy clinics. Their claims are dubious at best because (1) they don't allow their work to be peer-reviewed, (2) there are no long-term studies done on its efficy, (3) they eagerly publish their "results" as soon as they can and almost exclusively to Christian conservastive media outlets, and (4) they don't publish records of the numbers of those who failed therapy, or of the side-effects caused by the therapy, such as radically decreased self-esteem, increased depression and suicide.

For the record, reputable mainstream medical and psychological groups have concluded that homosexuality is a normal, natural and positive variation of the spectrum of human sexuality, ranging from straight to bisexual to gay. Most people are to some extent bisexual, while a minority are exclusively gay. So again, there isn't a nice, neat little box to put everybody in, a concept that Christian conservatives are constantly trying to shove down our throats under the guise of natural law.

And my thanks to Fayetteville Free Thinker, one of the few voices of sanity and reason amid the orgy of convoluted thinking and self-righteousness expressed by the majority of Bible-thumpers on this thread.

Posted by: BradBailey

April 18, 2013 at 6:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bloody well said and a nod of the goat horn to you Brad Bailey.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 18, 2013 at 9:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You hit it Brad.

When I lived in Europe most people I associated with were certain that sexuality is determined in the womb and is not a behavioral choice. People I met were generally tolerant of homsexual lifestyles. Europe is also generally ahead of the US in abandonment of parochial religions.

A nurse I was very familair with referenced physical differences in male-female brain structure. He explained that an autopsy is performed on everyone that dies and results bear that out. He explained that male homosexuals autopsied generally had what is normally considred "female" brain structure, lesbians generally displayed "male-like" brainstructure, and others fell somewhere in between.

Interestingly enough I learned these things in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The issue has been pretty much settled there for over 30 years. I think the US is a little behind on it and religions are largely to blame.

I agree with most of the other things you had to say except or the last paragraph of course. In my experience "some" are the voice of whatever they can farm on the internet and there is little original thinking going on.

:)

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 19, 2013 at 12:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I've got to hand it to you all.

It takes some real "free thinking" to cook up a device like the "super coil" (catchy name, too), let alone so freely get away with using it here and in Bengladesh.

The world's just got too many people, you know. "Population bomb" and all that.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04...

Posted by: OTamandua

April 19, 2013 at 9:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeff: ""some" are the voice of whatever they can farm on the internet ">>

Jeff trots out and rides his little hobby horse around suggesting that a person making claims and then going to the trouble to actually back them up with reputable, verifiable reference and footnotes is somehow supposed to a bad thing.

How transparently ridiculous and idiotic.

I wish Jeffieboy could back up his claims with verifiable reference but unfortunately he cannot because if he did go to that much trouble he might learn in advance that his claims are false. So what can he do? Try denigrate those who do. It's just intellectually pitiful and embarrassing, and he knows it.

I thought the Simon LeVay stuff from early 90's had been debunked but this article from 2008 in TIME suggests there is something to the brain structure notion: "What the Gay Brain Looks Like"
http://www.time.com/time/health/artic...

Or perhaps that hasn't held up either. Perhaps Brian knows.

I could check more into it but I don't want to offend Jeff's delicate sensibilities by doing more research and providing reference for claims. It's not really possible to take him and his proudly ignorant hobby horse seriously.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 19, 2013 at 9:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "In my experience 'some' are the voice of whatever they can farm on the internet and there is little original thinking going on."
Says the guy who got his information on sexuality-related brain structure from other people. Where's the original thought? You are aware, I expect, that the information you base your opinion on is available on the Internet. Indeed, how is anyone to know you didn't just "farm on the Internet" to find it?

By the way-- you never did explain how the FBI and CDC websites are "liberal".

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 19, 2013 at 10:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey Alpha, real people beat a fundamentally anonymous web site any day. When you are talking to real people you know who you have. On the internet you have to be very careful. It's a free and open forum where anyone can post anything, slant it anyway they like, pursue any agenda regardless of rules or control, and are difficult to validate, especially if the designers are "crafty".

(There is nothing wrong with that, but it is very important to carefully consider them before accepting the validity of their claims. Illuminati and aliens anyone?).

And yes, the government FBI and CDC are liberal web sites. Last time I looked their boss was a community organizer extrodianire that has appointed some of the most progressively liberal people available as directors of those agencies. One need only visit them and evaluate their positions to see that.

Yes, most government web sites, much government research, and attendant rule making leans towards validating and promoting progressive liberal agendas. Those very organizations are currently advised by a phlanx of "Czars" and directed by some of the most dedicated progressive liberals in history.

Government web sites biased? They are controlled by political appointees. You can bet your cat's behind they are!

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 19, 2013 at 11:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

jeffieboy--I actually agreed with your post at 2:23pm!
Humans form a continuum with the other animals. It is not a sharp cut-off between us and them.

Posted by: Coralie

April 19, 2013 at 1:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

But quite disagree with your last post that government agencies, websites, and research lean to liberal/progressive.
I would say that where bias exists, it is toward the opposite.
The FBI liberal--after almost 50 years of J. Edgar Hoover!
+++
Regulatory agencies (such as the Nuclear Regulatory Agency) are too often controlled by the industry they are supposed to be regulating.
EPA, FDA too subservient to corporations.
Please give an example or two of "liberal" positions on FBI and CDC websites.

Posted by: Coralie

April 19, 2013 at 2:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, I made the statement that government web sites lean politically because they do. Long gone are the days when a safety professional carried around a copy of OSHA regulations made from trees (a large book of rules printed on paper).

Today, it is all there, including interpretations, letters of instruction, and regulatory decisions on the government's OSHA web site. It is the best source of current information on rules, regulations, lists of things like hazardous chemicals, certified indepenedent research labs they accept, and many other things. The EPA and DOT web sites are the same.

Having used these sources on a daily basis for nearly a quarter of a centruy I can tell you that bias is apparent as the politics at the "helm" change. Among all the technical information on those sites you will also find "emphasis" programs, agendas, outreach programs and a plethora of other things they do besides "regulate".

These programs and intitiatives closely shadow whatever the politics of the leaders in the Administrative branch happen to be. It is true with all the "Departments of" that make up the administrative branch of the federal government, and also independent bodies like the National Labor Relations Board. The decisions and rulemaking efforts of all of them change with the politics of the day.

I submit that politics often have little to do with science or reality in enough cases by government regulators that they can become destructive and harmful. I can provide hundreds of examples.

To me these facts are indisputableI because I have personally watched changes and evolution of these agencies on a professional level for many years. Again, I rely on personal experience and objective analysis, not notions that are simply my opinion.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 20, 2013 at 10:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

You appeal to your authority as an expert but you do not give one example.

Posted by: Coralie

April 20, 2013 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeff: "...real people beat a fundamentally anonymous web site any day.">>

Said the ding-a-ling on a fundamentally anonymous website.

Your opining is only worth something to the degree you can back up with verifiable objective reference. And as you've abundantly shown, you have no interest in that sort of thing and are in fact a little hostile to the idea. This is not by accident, it's for a good reason. Reality doesn't accord with what you wish to believe for emotional reasons.

D.
----------
Best Gun Control Commercial?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/th...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 20, 2013 at 1:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie: Years and years of keeping up with the changes posted at www.osha.gov, www.epa.gov, www.fmcsa.gov.

Go take a look and see all the "fluffy" stuff they have in mind. They are complex sites so it can take some looking. A good palce to start is press releases, outlook programs, and speeches.

Freebie, I don't think I'm going to be swayed by something from "buzzfeed" any more than a skit where an actor portrays Obama or Busch on Saturday Night Live. You need to get out and take a look at stuff in person. It is apparent that the internet has captured whatever imagination you may have. "Swat that fly!"

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 20, 2013 at 9:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yes, jeffieboy, I have got to say those "liberal" regulations in the financial industry, he ones that allowed financial corporations to fraudulently cause the loss of hundreds of billion dollars of wealth to private individuals, and we are not able to prosecute any individuals from the financial industry for the fraud.

Yes, indeed, you surely must be "right".

Posted by: ecsmith2

April 21, 2013 at 2:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

EC, I don't have a professional horse in the race when it comes to financial wrangling between government, the Fed, Treasury, and Wall Street other than the effect it has on my savings and investments. Performance there has been dismal.

I am an expert on the activities of DOL and OSHA, EPA, and DOT. I can state with confidence that many of their programs and initiatives are definitely politically motivated.

The politics of both political parties influence the issues these agencies pursue and have done some good but also caused much harm. Whether good or bad depends on one's political leanings, but much of what they do isn't based on facts, science, good ecomonics, or a scientifically balanced approach in any way.

Much like the internet miners here, they use whatever information that supports their objectives and purposefully ignore or discount any that doesn't. Debates among those affected by the regulatory community are always energetic because of it.

As far as your change of subject goes, I do remember the outcomes of the Affordable Housing Act (politically motivated by champions of equality for the poor like Barney Frank) and pressure brought to bear by Congress on private financial institutions.

Didn't that lead to a housing crisis that led to a financial crisis that led to bailouts, that led to government chosing winners and losers that is leading to more politically motivated waste and prolonged economic difficulty?

Hmmmm........

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 21, 2013 at 10:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

How did some fella poking his boyfirend in the rear or some girl calling her girlfriends efforts precious turn into a financial discussion? Oh, that's right! Barney Frank is gay!

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 21, 2013 at 10:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

jeffieboy says "Go take a look and see all the "fluffy" stuff they have in mind. They are complex sites so it can take some looking."
You are the one making the assertion and so I think it is your responsibility to find those examples and post a link to them.
I don't really have time to spend trying to prove YOUR argument.

Posted by: Coralie

April 21, 2013 at 2:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralee, are you stupid or what? I can't post what they deleted over the years and replaced with new stuff. I'm telling you that I saw what they had over the years. That is the beauty of the internet". They can change it daily without leaving a history behind. That is just as valid as every sweet time you can remember even if you don't have photos. Are you baiting me with kinky stuff? God forbid! Get a life dear and pay attention. It isn't all about what they are doing now. History is revealing if you can remember it. If you can't, oh well, sucks to be you. You on a morphine patch or something? My mom is and she acts a lot like you sometimes.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 21, 2013 at 8:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Having used these sources on a daily basis for nearly a quarter of a centruy I can tell you that bias is apparent as the politics at the 'helm' change. Among all the technical information on those sites you will also find 'emphasis' programs, agendas, outreach programs and a plethora of other things they do besides 'regulate'."
But the technical information, including raw data, does not change with the helmsman.

RE "These programs and intitiatives closely shadow whatever the politics of the leaders in the Administrative branch happen to be."
But the technical information, including raw data, does not change.

RE "To me these facts are indisputableI because I have personally watched changes and evolution of these agencies on a professional level for many years."
As an employee of a company that was often in violation of their regulations. In an industry that needed to have reams of regulations written for it.

RE "Again, I rely on personal experience and objective analysis, not notions that are simply my opinion."
You were the point man when George's screwed up, and, given your temperament as evidenced by your posts and other information, I can't imagine that your opinions on this subject are objective now. It is particularly difficult to take you for objective when you claim that no information from any government website can be trusted because, apparently, everybody who works for the government is a political appointee. That's not objective-- it's wrong.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 22, 2013 at 12:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha is being silly and is wrong as usual.

Everyone that works for the government isn't a political appointee, but all the bosses are. When they take over as the secretary of a particular administration they inject their particular and sometimes peculiar ideas and ideals into it. It is normal and common. A few examples:

At the state level, Theresa Marks runs ADEQ and is not a scientist, an environmental engineer, or even a technician. She is a lawyer, a political appointee put in the position by Beebee. Pure politics. She is famous for turning ADEQ into an adversary of business rather than any kind of partner. She runs the place run like a dictatorial law firm.

At the national level the liberal politician Hilda Solis known as "a committed liberal in the pocket of labor" was appointed to head the Department of Labor. She was not an expert on much of anything other than politics and was committed to the concept of Global Warming and unions. She was a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and enjoyed a 99% rating from left wing progressive organizations. She also wrote blog entries for the leftist Huffington Post.

Lisa Jackson, former director of the EPA was a decent scientist in some ways but pursued political and social agendas more than she pursued science. She called her favorite agendas things "closest to my heart". Many were kind of nuts. She is where the EPA got all freaked over CO2 and suggested in new rule making that chicken farmers needed to report the amount of CO2 their chickens produce by breathing to the EPA (it is in the new CO2 regulations under the Clean Air Act). There is no way to accurately measure that so it is silly to require it, but in her defense she did back off on the bovine flatulence issue. She was another "director" injecting personal politics, bias, and opinion into government rules and regulations we all must live with.

Lets not forget the progressive pro-union National Labor Relations Board that was recently slapped by the Supreme Court. I'm very happy to see that Boeing finally got it's non-union plant in North Carolina as a result. Excellent!

The technical information included in government regulations is ever changing. At the Federal level they post new stuff in the Federal Register on a nearly daily basis. In final rulings after the requisite comment period they do what they like regardless. The process is largely a sham. The common agency response generally goes something like "the administration doesn't believe that..." in spite of any evidence to the contrary if that evidence threatens their political agenda.

I have no idea what nutcase is talking about regarding me being a point man when "George's" screwed up. Care to explain that?

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 22, 2013 at 4:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

When comparing human behavior with that of lower animal species, genetics are actually the basis for the comparison. I think it is only fair to note that there is very little difference in the genetic code for different species including plant life, so has anybody ever seen a gay tree? I find it interesting that, It would seem, true homosexuality is only practiced by homo sapiens who have the only genetic code allowing for choice and reason.

Posted by: SUERICHAR

April 22, 2013 at 9:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I seem to recall reading something about monkeys, birds, and other animals that display homsexual behavior. You might want to check your "facts".

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 22, 2013 at 12:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "There is no way to accurately measure that so it is silly to require it"
Does the regulation require accurate measurement, or an estimate based on the number of chickens? Of course there was no way to get to the moon until Kennedy suggested that we go to the moon. Was Kennedy silly for wanting to go to the moon?

RE "Lets not forget the progressive pro-union National Labor Relations Board..."
Ooooh-- unions!

RE "...that was recently slapped by the Supreme Court."
Yet the Supreme Court has not slapped down unions. They're legal. Excellent!

RE "The technical information included in government regulations is ever changing."
That's not what you said earlier. You said,
"Among all the technical information on those sites you will also find 'emphasis' programs, agendas, outreach programs and a plethora of other things they do besides 'regulate'."
In other words, you said that emphasis, presentation and interpretation changed.

RE "The common agency response generally goes something like 'the administration doesn't believe that...'"
Which has nothing to do with the standard raw data that is collected year after year-- such as firearm-related homicide data collected by the FBI and CDC.

RE "...regarding me being a point man when 'George's' screwed up. Care to explain that?"
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/ftproot/P...
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/ftproot/P...
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/ftproot/P...

Certainly one must be careful in evaluating information from the Internet, just as one must be careful in evaluating information from your "original thinking". That's one reason I prefer to cite raw data. You should keep in mind that the information you distrust on the Internet comes from the same people who present it in person-- whom, oddly enough, you appear to trust.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 22, 2013 at 12:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jeffieboy, your post 8:37 was pretty insulting as well as non-responsive to my point
My point was that it was a waste of my time to search for evidence of YOUR argument..
If you can't provide your own links, then shut up.
++
I do not wear a morphine patch or any other kind. of patch, and I'll match my wits against yours any day.
++
I don't think you read very well, you just react to things in your own head.

Posted by: Coralie

April 22, 2013 at 2:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, if the internet is your primary source of information and inspiration you deserve a level of pity. It is not my job to do your research and I don't have a lifetime to dispute the crazy stuff people swallow. I will continue to dispute internet sources that are obviously biased and and especially liberal progressive ones that are radically left leaning. Attempting to replace rational thought with left wing propoganda is foolish.

Respectufully you often make decent arguments that are apparently based on your beliefs and I really do respect those. However, the instant you try to back them up with progressive liberal propoganda you lose me. If the shoe fits, you must wear it.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 22, 2013 at 7:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"if the internet is your primary source of information and inspiration..."
It is not.
I go to a variety of sources, print and broadcast as well as online. And much of what is on the Internet began as print (newspapers, periodicals, wire services).
+++
"It is not my job to do your research" [!!!]
I repeat, it is YOUR job to present evidence of what YOU assert.

Posted by: Coralie

April 23, 2013 at 12:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I assert my opinions that are based on way too many sources and personal experiences to waste time serching for and tossing internet links, news reports, and agendas, most of dubious origin, all over the place.

My evidence is in my head and usually not derived from conjectures and misinformation spread around by others. People that know so much that simply isn't so never cease to amaze me.

:)

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 23, 2013 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"My evidence is in my head" and it will stay there if you refuse to communicate it.
Your attitude is like that of a used car dealer--"Trust me."
That won't fly in a public discussion.

Posted by: Coralie

April 23, 2013 at 2:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dearest Coralie, are you saying that someone dredging the internet for any scrap of foolishness that supports their argument does? I think not. What did they used to say about computers? Something like "garbage in, garbage out"?

I simply offer opinions based on what I believe philosophically or morally, or facts about what I actually know to be true. Which set of premise I use depends on the subject.

To wit, I can prove there is already a universal backgound check system in place for firearms purchases nationwide because there is, but I can't prove or disprove the existence of God.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 24, 2013 at 8 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I think not."
You got that right.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 24, 2013 at 12:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey cat, you haven't answered on the fire extinguishers yet or is that just to painful for you?

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 24, 2013 at 1:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Hey cat, you haven't answered on the fire extinguishers yet or is that just to painful for you?"
What fire extinguishers? You must have mistaken me for somebody else.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 24, 2013 at 2:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

J: "My evidence is in my head and usually not derived from...">>

...Objectively verifiable sources outside of that low wattage brain basket.

The dumb is strong with this one.

J: "I can prove there is already a universal backgound check system in place for firearms purchases nationwide because there is...">>

Excellent. Prove it.

Jeff just shows again he doesn't grasp the topic being discussed.

D.
------------
"PROBLEM: The Brady Law requires criminal background checks of gun buyers at federally licensed gun dealers, but since unlicensed sellers are not required to do background checks, this loophole causes particular problems at gun shows which give these unlicensed sellers a guaranteed venue. In most states convicted felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into any gun show and buy weapons from unlicensed sellers, who operate week-to-week with no established place of business, without being stopped, no questions asked.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold used two shotguns, an assault rifle and a TEC-9 assault pistol to shoot 26 students at Columbine, killing 13. All four guns came from gun show sales. Their friend, Robyn Anderson, bought three of the guns for them from unlicensed sellers at a gun show. After the massacre, Ms. Anderson stated that had she been required to undergo a background check, she would not have purchased the guns."
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislat...

And:
"Gun shows are a major trafficking channel according to ATF, with an average of 130 guns trafficked per investigation, and over 25,000 firearms trafficked in total over one 17-month period alone (US Dept. of Treasury, June 2000, p. 13).

Undercover stings at gun shows in Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada documented that:
-63 percent of private sellers sold guns to purchasers who stated they probably could not pass a background check;
-94 percent of licensed dealers completed sales to people who appeared to be criminals or straw purchasers (City of New York, 2009, p. 6, 7).

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, commenting on an undercover investigation of guns trafficked by the Bloods gang from North Carolina to New York City, stated, "Half of [the guns] were stolen and half were, we believe, purchased at gun shows in North Carolina" (Gorta and Mongelli, 2010).
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislat...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 24, 2013 at 3:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeffieboy, what is your definition of "universal" that you used above?

Posted by: ecsmith2

April 24, 2013 at 7:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Freebie, go out and try it. That's all the proof anyone needs. Go actually DO it and see.

I'm sure there are a number of pawn shops near wherever you live. You can probably even walk it. Free yourself from wherever you sit all day and go do it. That should be enough proof even for you.

I will post the time and place of the next local gun show and you can go try that too.

And please, before you get out of your chair or wherever you sit buy one off the internet for us. Prove you can. Give it a shot and lets see how far you get with that.

Any of those activities will yield the truth of the matter. Your internet mining doesn't prove anything, and it won't because it can't. Go out and see what happens in real life. That will give yield a dose of reality.

Sorry cat, my apologies. That was for ec.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 24, 2013 at 7:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ec, universal means that there is a federal law that is in effect in all 50 states right now and it has been there for years (If you are president Obama it is all 57 states). It regulates all firearm transfers through FFL dealers. It regulates dealers and manufacturers. It doesn't regulate private citizens so you can give one to your wife as a gift, pass one on to your children, cousin, grandchild, and yes you can even sell one to your next door neighbor.

Some states have additional requirements and some towns and cities also add stuff making things even more complicated and restrictive. Hence recent supreme court rulings striking that kind of thing down.

Chicago, the murder capital of America in total numbers and just behind New Orleans in terms of per capita murders has some of the strongest restrictions in the nation. Washington DC, long an easy place to get shot or robbed after dark, even on the mall in front of the White House, completely banned them for years. Didn't work out very well for them.

The simple fact is that gun control through legislation isn't the problem and more rules are not a solution. People are the problem. Until you can change that you aren't gonna make any headway. All you will wind up doing is messing with law abiding citizens that never cause problems and are extremely passionate about their right to defend themselves. They are much more passionate about keeping them than progressives are about taking them away in spite of any garbage freebie can did up.

DC. Wonderful place...off subject but this is too good to resist. Let's lighten the mood. I have a funny story about DC.

When I lived in rural Virginia there was no trash pick up so you had to take it to centrally located dumpsters yourself. I had been carrying three big plastic bags of trash around in the bed of my pickup for a few days.

I forgot they were there and was driving to my parents in Pennsylvania and took a shortcut on the national highway thru the heart of DC instead of going around on the 95 beltway.

As I stopped at a red light in a DC neighborhood I felt something thump my truck. When I looked back three dudes had run over, one hopped in the bed and cleaned everything out tossing it to his buddies. The jerks stole the trash bags and my garbage out of the back of my truck and ran off.

That's the only time I ever got a kick out of being robbed.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 24, 2013 at 8:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Poor Jeff, he doesn't even know which way is up.

Jeff: "I will post the time and place of the next local gun show...">>

I went to the last one. Springdale Convention Center. Few months ago. Lot's of people selling, no record, no checks, no receipts, cash and carry. And sign on the door: "No loaded guns." They're just too dangerous.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Jeff: "there is a federal law... regulates all firearm transfers through FFL dealers.">>

Yeah. Duh. As everyone following this discussion with an IQ above room temperature has known from the beginning, the problem is the sales by those who are not FFL dealers. This has been covered at least a dozen times on this forum. Are you really this ignorant or are you now reduced to trolling? Apparently this method of getting "evidence from in your head" isn't working out very well.

D.
------------------
"In May 2006, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Alabama announced the arrests of a gun trafficking ring. The traffickers moved an estimated 70,000 guns over the last several decades, including 267 linked to violent crimes and drug offenses, by selling guns at gun shows and flea markets without background checks and without dealer licenses. The ring sold guns directly to felons among other offenses (U.S. Attorney, N.D. Ala., 2006)."
--U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Alabama, Alabama Receives National Recognition for Operation Flea Collar , May 3, 2006; Associated Press, Contraband Guns Targeted, March 1, 2007

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/n...

Etc.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 24, 2013 at 9:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Freebie, you must have gone to a different one than I did so I'm having a bit of difficulty believing you so there goes your credibility again. By the way, were you able to get one on the internet?

You continue to site examples where people used fraud and deception to commit crimes which is an important point. Any determined criminal can do that easily. It's what they do for a living. I seem to remember Atty Gen Holder and his bunch did just that recently and a couple of guys died for it.

Your arguments have nothing to do with second ammendment rights and abridgement of them. The fact that criminals can break the law doesn't have anything to do with law abiding citizens and their right to own firearms for any reason. It's a right people aren't going to give up so you might want to think about getting over it. We don't want you coming down with PTSD.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 24, 2013 at 10:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeff: "you must have gone to a different one than I did...">>

I referred to attending this show, on this forum, on April 4th: http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2013/ap...

Jeff: "I'm having a bit of difficulty believing you so there goes your credibility...'>>

It doesn't follow that your believing something, or not believing something has anything whatsoever to do with someone else's credibility. And that's a good thing.

Jeff: "By the way, were you able to get one on the internet?">>

It's easy to arrange to buy weapons, without a background check, via the internet. You shop on Armslist and elsewhere and then meet up with the person.

Jeff: "You continue to site examples where people used fraud and deception to commit crimes...">>

No, actually I provided many examples where people are trafficking guns, with no background checks, without breaking any laws. This is because we do not currently have universal background checks, your inability to grasp what the word "universal" means notwithstanding.

Jeff: "Any determined criminal can do that easily.">>

Any determined law breaker can cruise through stop signs easily, but we still find it useful to put up stop signs.

Jeff: "Your arguments have nothing to do with second ammendment rights and abridgement of them.">>

That's because having a requirement that we check to see if a person is a felon or mentally ill before they purchase a weapon has nothing to do with the 2nd or an abridgment of gun rights. Felon's and the mentally ill do not have the right to own a gun and SCOTUS, the sole interpreter of the Constitution, have never found BG checks to be unconstitutional.

D.
------------
"Ninety percent of background checks can be completed in less than two minutes and the Manchin-Toomey proposal would expedite the process. Under the amendment, if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, the background check would be required to be conducted in 24 hours. Background checks have already contributed to violence reduction. In the 14 states and Washington D.C. that require background checks for private handgun sales (including Toomey’s home state of Pennsylvania): 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners, 17 percent fewer firearms are involved in aggravated assaults, and 48 percent less gun trafficking."
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/201...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 25, 2013 at 10:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Freebie, you are foolish.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 25, 2013 at 6:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Back to the topic of the thread, this just in. Kind of a big deal:

***
"John Paulk, Former Exodus & Love Won Out Leader Apologizes"

Excerpt:
"In the 1998, at the height of the marriage of Evangelical Christianity and conservative Republican politics, another marriage was being hailed as “proof” that gay people could indeed overcome their homosexuality. John and Anne Paulk, former gay and lesbian people, were displayed on the cover of Newsweek magazine with the header “Gay for Life? Going Straight: The Uproar over Sexual ‘Conversion’”. John Paulk then served as Chairman of Exodus International, the largest umbrella organization of conversion therapy counselors, churches and ministries...

He and Anne were held out in holy hands as the proof that, with enough faith in God and adherence to strict self-controls, gay and lesbian people could become heterosexual....

During 2012, it had become quiet public knowledge that he had left Anne and was identifying as gay." [snip...]

"Untold damage to people, families and relationships has been done by the false notions of change in sexual orientation. Sadly, it continues...
John Paulk was part of the system that left people hopeless and drove them from churches. He was part of the regime that told parents and pastors that gay people needed to and could be changed. And, he spoke these messages into his own life as well.
At fifty, he is leaving the lies behind. It is his hope and mine that people will no longer participate in the dangerous, ineffective, hope-robbing practices of attempting to shift or deny the natural sexual orientation of any person."
http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/jo...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 25, 2013 at 10:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The end. The researches of "Freebie" have cast so much darkness on this subject that if he continues we shall soon know nothing at all about it.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 26, 2013 at 11:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Say something of substance.

Posted by: Coralie

April 27, 2013 at 12:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fayfreethinker, regarding Mr. Paulk (who 10+ years ago went into a gay bar after identifying as "ex-gay"), without going further into his story, it's sad that he's now divorcing Anne (who is said by those who know her to be a truly wonderful person) and leaving their two sons.

I fervently hope Sasha and Malia Obama aren't caught up in a similar charade.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 28, 2013 at 8:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Otam, you are just plain nuts.

Posted by: Coralie

April 28, 2013 at 2:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Otam: "it's sad that he's now divorcing Anne...">>

Oh well, some times marriage doesn't work out. Especially when a person gets fooled into temporarily trying deny their true sexuality for trumped up religious reasons.

Coralie adds: "Otam, you are just plain nuts.">>

That's putting sugar on it. Apparently Otam was/is invested in this conversion therapy nonsense, so, not being able to defend that junk they resort to embarrassing nonsense about Obama being gay or something. Swill so stupid it would make a birther blush. Conversion therapy is blowing up in their face, this may cause some discomfort among the faithful. Good.

D.
-----------------
"...the religious right's "conversion therapy" campaign, once a leading priority for the movement, which continues to collapse under the weight of its own ridiculousness.

"For many years, the religious right movement's main argument against LGBT rights has been that sexual orientation is a choice, and to that end, far-right groups and leaders became heavily invested in the 1990s in an effort to convince gay people that they could be "converted" to heterosexuality. James Dobson's Focus on the Family even created an "ex-gay" ministry and hosted "Love Won Out" conferences to promote the notion that Christian therapy could turn gay people straight."

Former Exodus International chairman and conversion therapy "success story" John Paulk has written a formal statement of apology for his role in promoting Focus on the Family's "ex-gay" ministry and for any harm his actions may have done to other gays and lesbians. [...]

Paulk also addresses his legacy in the letter, as many Christians struggling to come out still view him as a poster boy for conversion therapy and, unaware of his current life as an openly gay man, may look to his example to "cure" themselves. Paulk asks that people ignore the two books and countless public testimonies he gave before coming to honest terms with his sexuality because "they do not reflect who I am now or what I believe today."

The "conversion therapy" campaign was a cruel and pathetic initiative, which even many conservatives now prefer to forget. Paulk's apology, long overdue, should mark the formal end of the "ex-gay" movement, and the demise of a faith-based campaign that never should have been launched in the first place."
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/201...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 28, 2013 at 8:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And slavery was good for the slaves, too.

Posted by: Coralie

April 29, 2013 at 1:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Beautiful responses, FFT and Coralie.

Meanwhile:

"Peter Bearman, a researcher from Columbia, and Hannah Bruckner, a researcher from Yale...carefully examined data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health to determine the “concordance” rate of identical twins on matters of sexual identity.

The concordance rate ought to be 100%. It isn’t. In fact, Bearrman and Bruckner discovered that the concordance rate was in fact astonishingly low: just 6.7% for male identical twins and 5.3% for female identical twins.

Their conclusion: “[O]ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.” In other words, life experience shapes sexual preferences, not DNA."

http://instantanalysis.net/afa-blogs/...

Posted by: OTamandua

April 30, 2013 at 9:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey Otam, still buying stock in the "choice" idea eh?

At what age did you make the big decision? And the lefthand righthand thing, was that a tough one too?

Explain the brain, is that a choice too? "Scans see 'gay brain differences"

"The brains of gay men and women look like those found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex, research suggests.
The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults.
Gay men and heterosexual women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and heterosexual men." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/745...

This was already covered above on the 19th and you ignored it. Again: "What the Gay Brain Looks Like" http://www.time.com/time/health/artic...

I see no reason to presume that straight people are wired a certain way but the gay community is making a choice, but it doesn't matter to me in the least because I don't think consenting adults making a choice about their sexuality means they in any way give up their right to be treated as fully human with full and complete equal rights.

D.
-------------
"14 Steps That Will Evolve Your Views On Gay Marriage" http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/steps-...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 30, 2013 at 10:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

Never have said anywhere in this threat that gay people choose to be that way, have I? (Or at least not made one big choice i.e. "Hey, Mom, Dad, I've decided to be GAY, and have you REJECT me!") If I have, please point it out.

As far as what the gay brain looks like, any repeated behavior (sexual or otherwise) will indeed "rewire" the brain.

Meanwhile, back to identical twins with one identifying as gay. Bearman and Brucker (of Columbia and Yale) found a six per cent concordance rate among identical twins for gayness.

SIX PER CENT. SIX FRIGGING PER CENT!

Posted by: OTamandua

April 30, 2013 at 10:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Never have said anywhere in this threat that gay people choose to be that way, have I?"
And nobody here has said that sexual preference is entirely genetic, have they? Yet that is the argument you're trying to have, because your other arguments have been debunked.

Why are you so invested in this discussion? Reaction formation? Why the flamboyant distaste for same-sex preference? You've even quoted Barack Obama dishonestly so you could insinuate that he is gay. Is there something you need to tell us? I promise: we'll be very understanding.

Sixty-three comments. Sixty-frigging-three.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 30, 2013 at 10:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

I'm invested because people with same-sex attraction ARE BEING LIED TO ABOUT WHY THEY HAVE IT. And it infuriates me because that has terrible, terrible consequences. And I hate seeing my brothers and sisters being hurt.

As for President Obama, it's so strange that so many of you who are his fans are so sensitive about his sexuality. If he's gay, why not let him come out, just like Jason Collins did this week? What's that going to do, nullify his election?

If anything, it would be just another time when you can say that you've stuck your thumbs in the eyes of American evangelicals.

A SIX PER CENT concordance rate for gayness among identical twins. Good grief.

Posted by: OTamandua

April 30, 2013 at 11:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaC: "Why are you so invested in this discussion? Reaction formation?">>

Reminds me: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...

Otam: "President Obama, it's so strange that... so sensitive about his sexuality.">>

1) You show you have no discernment whatsoever when you fall for this Obama "closeted gay" nonsense. It's ludicrous. I'm pretty well informed on the vast library of swill wingnuts throw at Obama, but I had never even heard of this closeted gay claptrap until you shoveled it.

2) I care about his sexuality as much as I care about his handedness. He's left-handed. I don't hold it against him. Not even a little bit. You have nothing on this other than a snip of poetry he wrote at age 19 that you plucked out of context and didn't understand. It's really too stupid for words. This gets filed under dumber than birther stuff.

3) In following this ridiculous line of what you understand to be a smear, you don't reveal anything about Obama but rather unintentionally reveal something about you. You equate an assertion of a person being gay as if that's the same as an insult because in the circles you move in, that's what it is. But it's only an insult if you go with a baseless assumption that it's some how bad/wrong/evil that warrants them having something less than full equal rights.

D.
----------
"In Washington state, where a bill that would allow discrimination based on religious beliefs is being considered, the attack was venomous as well as ignorant. When asked what rural gays should to do if the only gas station or grocery store for miles won't sell them gas and food, a staffer in Washington State Senator Mike Hewitt's office answered "Well, gay people can just grow their own food." http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 30, 2013 at 11:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I'm invested because people with same-sex attraction ARE BEING LIED TO ABOUT WHY THEY HAVE IT."
One big lie being that they made a choice, usually accompanied by an equally-large lie that they can "pray away the gay". Are you just filled with this specialized compassion, or did somebody lie to you, too?

RE "And it infuriates me because that has terrible, terrible consequences."
Yet you have defended two big lies that lead to terrible consequences. Not only are you infuriated; you're also inconsistent. (Hint: fury does not enhance discussion. It causes confusion.)

RE "As for President Obama, it's so strange that so many of you who are his fans are so sensitive about his sexuality."
Ignoring your strange interest in buggery for a moment, it's even stranger that you brought up the subject of Obama's sexuality-- and tried to misrepresent it. Perhaps many of us are sensitive about adding irrelevant, speculative and dishonest material to a discussion. You are really inconsistent in your views about lies.

RE " If he's gay, why not let him come out"
If he isn't gay, why pretend that he is?

RE "If anything, it would be just another time when you can say that you've stuck your thumbs in the eyes of American evangelicals."
American evangelicals are very capable of sticking their own thumbs in their eyes, and I see no reason to invent a situation just so I can take part in a clusterthumb in some evangelical's eye-sockets.

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 1, 2013 at midnight ( | suggest removal )

Everyhone should have equal rights. Why should gays, lesbians, transgenders, cripples, idiots and fools, and anyone else mentioned in the ADA have "more equal" rights and be considered for special attention as being more equal than anyone else? God never made anyone equal, and professing to equalize things by granting some special rights others don't have doesn't change it.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 1, 2013 at 12:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "God never made anyone equal"
Nobody has said that.

RE "and professing to equalize things by granting some special rights others don't have doesn't change it."
Do explain how particular attention to deficits in basic rights and access creates "special rights". What special rights have ever been created for any of the people you mention, or for others? In what way has anybody been made "more equal"?

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 1, 2013 at 12:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oops, they did it again...

"Matt Moore, Christian Blogger Caught On Grindr"

"Matt Moore, the so-called "ex-gay" Christian blogger who was exposed for being on the gay-dating app Grindr in February, says in a new interview that he wasn’t looking for sex on Grindr: He was looking to meet men in New Orleans to take him to gay bars...
...He said he came forward now, seeking out an interview two months later, to clarify that he does not believe that he is “ex-gay” and that he doesn’t believe reparative therapy makes people heterosexual if they are homosexual." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 1, 2013 at 11:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT, here's an acquaintance of mine who is a "non-stipendiary" priest in the Church of England, Peter Ould. He identifies as "post-gay", and is married to a woman with whom he's fathered two sons (a third was stillborn). Why don't you e-mail him and ask about what being ex-gay is like?

http://www.peter-ould.net/fundamentals/

Also, Dennis Jernigan (once gay, not "bisexual", now married with 9 kids) has the documentary about his life out. Maybe you might engage him as well?

http://www.dennisjernigan.com

Posted by: OTamandua

May 1, 2013 at 1:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"SIX FRIGGING PER CENT!!
Has it ever occurred to you that something might happen in the course of gestation that influences whatever genetic disposition is there?
In other words, DNA doesn't control everything.
I don't pretend to be an expert on epigenetics, but this shows that the process of heredity is not cut-and-dried simple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
Also, if an estimated 3.5% of the population is homosexual, then 6% correlation might be statistically meaningful.

Posted by: Coralie

May 1, 2013 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Interesting idea Coralie. If homosexuality is a "natural" condition and not a result of some conscious decision sometime after birth, can it be rightfully delcared an abomnation any more than being born deaf, dumb, or blind is?

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 1, 2013 at 1:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Has it ever occurred to you that something might happen in the course of gestation that influences whatever genetic disposition is there?"
OTamandua has apparently forgotten the discussion of epigenetics above.

Interesting factoid: tamandua is a species of anteater. Now I have to wonder how anteaters take communion.

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 1, 2013 at 3:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "If homosexuality is a 'natural' condition and not a result of some conscious decision sometime after birth, can it be rightfully delcared an abomnation any more than being born deaf, dumb, or blind is?"
That's why they invented "sins of the fathers". It allows them to hate people who aren't actually guilty of anything.

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 1, 2013 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "...an acquaintance of mine... He identifies as "post-gay",">>

That's nice. Maybe unlike the examples I just gave above, he'll stay with that, or maybe not. The first gay person I ever met had a janitorial business in the small town I lived in in the early '80's. He was married with two children. I think he considered himself about 60/40.

I am well aware that human sexuality isn't black/white but rather a continuum with quite a rainbow of expression between gay and straight (compared to the animal kingdom we're quite boring however). Is this perhaps news to you? Because it isn't news to me.

Again, it doesn't matter to me in the least to what degree it is a choice because I don't think consenting adults making a choice about their sexuality means they in any way give up their right to be treated as fully human with full and complete equal rights.

Do you have a cogent reason why full and equal rights should be withheld from this group?

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 1, 2013 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT, honey, and YOU'VE forgotten that as of December 2012 "epigenetics" hadn't even started being tested yet, also stated above, maybe more than once.

Meanwhile, Ivy League researchers who HAVE conducted a longitudinal study of twins are now telling us there's a 6% chance that, if you're gay and have an identical twin, that your twin (male or female) will also be gay.

SIX MEASLY PER CENT(!)...for a condition that some gay people will tell you is at "the very core of their being".

When have I said on this thread (which I don't know how to edit my posts on and don't think it possible to do) that I want equal rights denied to GLBT people?

Seriously, go back and find it for me in this whole multi-week argy-bargy, since you're the exegetical expert.

All I've said is "let people who don't want to have same-sex attraction, and don't want to be gay seek methods to accomplish that. There are plenty of genuine ex-gay people out there."

Posted by: OTamandua

May 1, 2013 at 5:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If there is a person out there who understands scientific use of statistical probability, please tell us if 6% correlation between identical twins compared to 3.5% of the general population is statistically significant.
Since Otam makes such a big deal out of it.

Posted by: Coralie

May 1, 2013 at 7:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Also, Dennis Jernigan (once gay, not 'bisexual', now married with 9 kids) has the documentary about his life out."
If he is sexually attracted to both men and women, he is by definition bisexual. If he is not lying about having been gay, then the only way he could be "not bisexual" is if he is lying about his current marriage and family. You need to learn what these words mean. You can't carry on an intelligent discussion if you don't know the meanings of the basic vocabulary. "Gay", "straight" and "bisexual" refer to capacity, not just to action.

As fft has pointed out, sexual preference is a continuum. There are no "settings" for sexual preference.

RE "When have I said on this thread...that I want equal rights denied to GLBT people?"
You haven't said that in so many words, but when you focus on one supposed lie about sexual preference, which you say infuriates you, then repeatedly rely on two discredited lies that are promulgated by people who want to deny equal rights to GLBT people in order to justify your outrage, it certainly sounds like you want to deny those rights as well. That, or you're trying to protect God from the stigma of creating people that you dislike-- or fear, or feel superior to, or whatever-- so you can both love God and dislike-- or fear, or feel superior to, or whatever-- those people.

By the way (and I believe we've covered this before)-- you misrepresent the "lie" that infuriates you so much. This is the lie that you claim is widespread:
"The falsehood that 'you're born that way and there's no way you can change (if you want to).'" (April 7, 2013 at 2:14 p.m.)
While it is indeed widely said that people are born that way (and that "six frigging percent" you're so fond of shows that this is not a lie), it is not commonly said that there's no way one can change. The most likely addition, and the sole implication as far as conversion is concerned, is "there's no need or reason to change, unless you want to, so don't worry about it." Not worrying is a healthy way to approach any problem. Worry dulls thought.

The fact that you have to invent a lie so you can fight it-- like your dependence on the lies of conversion therapy-- doesn't speak well for your motivations. (It does, however, add to the impression that your argument is a form of reaction formation.)

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 1, 2013 at 7:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "When have I said on this thread... that I want equal rights denied to GLBT people?">>

I didn't claim you did. Why are you ducking the question? I simply asked if you had, as in knew of, a: "...cogent reason why full and equal rights should be withheld from this group."

You can know of one without agreeing with it. You are clearly trying to duck this basic question. I would suspect from your comments that you do not support the full and equal right of same sex marriage, but maybe you'll surprise us.

D.
------------
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 1, 2013 at 9:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Statistics mean little to people that are born a certain way. As I have mentioned before people in Europe have long understood that gays are not made, they are born. I suspect a large majority of gays will concur, and I bet they know a lot more about who they are than the "rest" of us.

As far as their abiltiy to do things like receive communion, various sacraments, and other such stuff is concerned, there is nothing scientific about the religious aspect of it except one thing.

Entering the priesthood is a perfect escape for a man born "gay" into the Catholic religion. Their faith tells them that their natural tendencies are sinful and abominable. What better escape from it is there than to enter the priesthood where vows of celibacy make the point mute? Perhaps that helps explain the large number of male gay catholics serving as priests?

And "cat", before you go off on that as some kind of invention you might be interested to know that I went to private Catholic schools from the 3rd grade thru the 12th. I know many of the priests I associated with that were my teachers and religious mentors were gay. It is a fact that that the overwhelming majority were good men and dedicated to their beliefs and the Church. The overwhelming majority were all good men of faith and not pedophiles. There was still absolutely no doubt about their sexuality. Even back in the 60's more than half I met were definitely gay.

Choosing to believe one religion or another is scientifically unsupportable and at best mythical and irrational opinion, nothing more. It presents no valid arguments regarding human rights, and more often the abridgement of them. Wouldn't it would be interesting if we could ask anyone forceably converted during the expansions of "Christianity" in search of treasure in the New World.

Religious views on the matter of homosexuality deserve no merit at all. To offer religious doctrine as any form of proof in the matter is silly. Religion is a dangerous double edged sword. It can be helpful and good and also the most desrtructive force around. That is why there are at least 150 million radical Muslims that want to kill you because you don't believe as they do. By some estimates there are already over 50,000 living here in America among us.

It is not gays we need to fear, but religious fanatics that put their peculiar beliefs ahead of their fellow man.

It is so funny when I make the comparison between bible thumpers, Islamic radicals, and internet miners like you know who. They are all addicted to propogandas that make no sense to anyone with a the smallest scrap of an unfettered and free mind.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 1, 2013 at 10:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Meanwhile, back to identical twins with one identifying as gay. Bearman and Brucker (of Columbia and Yale) found a six per cent concordance rate among identical twins for gayness.
SIX PER CENT. SIX FRIGGING PER CENT!"
------------------------------------
Coralie: "If there is a person out there who understands scientific use of statistical probability, please tell us if 6% correlation between identical twins compared to 3.5% of the general population is statistically significant. "'

It's been many years since my two college courses in stat but concordance correlation is used to determine agreement among continuous variables. If memory serves me correctly it's used in chemistry and microbiology for batch processing outcome possibilities .

It appears to be a significant difference depending upon the standard deviation which is not provided.

Posted by: cdawg

May 2, 2013 at 2:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie: "If there is a person out there who understands scientific use of statistical probability, please tell us if 6% correlation between identical twins compared to 3.5% of the general population is statistically significant. "'

Here's an interview with two identical twins who were separated at birth (if this is the same study that found four sets of female twins with one identifying as lesbian but zero concordance for gayness, I won't look at it in the same way again - you shouldn't treat people this way):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gwnzW...

Here's a video of FFT's "epigenetics" in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV8FM_...

For fun, here's a video of 5 twins graduating from Simpsonville, SC Hillcrest high school 2 years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU1CXT...

OK, back to Dennis Jernigan.

How is "I was once exclusively attracted to males" and now "I'm exclusively attracted to my wife" "bisexual"?*

Why can't we just admit his attractions changed instead of being stuck in this primitive "sexual attractions NEVER change" line of thinking?

*For those who think he's lying, he's been out giving his testimony for more than a decade. He's fathered 9 kids, probably a grandfather by now. A movie about his life was just made. He regularly tours and evangelizes. People with cameras caught John Paulk (FFT's friend above) escaping a gay bar in Washington, D.C. 10 or more years ago while he was still identifying as ex-gay. I guarantee the same cameras have been out there if DJ would have broken his vows.

(BTW, again, Mr. Jernigan said that when he entered the field of Christian music and evangelism he was told NOT to tell of his former gay past and that it would ruin his career. He said he remembered Revelation 12:11 and did so anyway.)

SIX PER CENT! Use your heads, guys and gals...how many identical twins have you known? Surely they go their own ways as adults (like four of the sets in the Simpsonville, SC video above) in terms of careers, etc., but...something as deep-seated as a gay identity?

Posted by: OTamandua

May 2, 2013 at 8:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

BTW, back to President Obama's sexual identity.

I'm not just citing that yuck piece of poetry he wrote (though again, no straight man would write something like that, and unless all of you are gay you know it as well as I do). There's also:

- The strange fact that no one in 2008 could track down any one of his former girlfriends. I think they found one and interviewed her briefly in the 2012 campaign.

- The stranger fact that President Obama admitted the girlfriend in his alleged autobiography didn't exist, and that he made a "composite" girlfriend for it.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2...

- Then there's Michelle calling herself "a busy single mother" (sorry, talk about "deep-seated", when you're genuinely married, women don't forget it): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2lo-...

- There's the weird story of kooky Larry Sinclair, who was arrested on order of Joe Biden's son during the former's press conference, with charges dropped almost immediately afterward: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Prof...

And, FFT, speaking about "things I've never heard of" , I'd heard of "hillbuzz.org" 2-3 years ago that was run by a gay man who was once a Hillary Clinton supporter, but never followed it.

Last month, I discovered this page (probably when I was searching for that goofball poem by our president): http://hillbuzz.org/is-barack-obama-gay

Funny thing - the supporter, Kevin DuJan, writes about people from Obama's past who have just disappeared, and now he, himself has disappeared. His site, Facebook and Twitter feeds haven't been updated for nearly 2 months.

Probably just a wingnut publicity self-promotion, as FFT would say.

(But I'll say one thing - I took my mother down to see my son at his college for the first time, and she, a diehard JFK liberal Democrat, wanted to see the Clinton Presidential Library.

Back in the 1990s, she wouldn't hear of sexual allegations against our president. Now, she (and everyone else) doesn't doubt them, and even though the museum was fun for her I could tell she really resents how Hillary Clinton was treated. It was actually kind of insulting to sit through the video at the "42 theatre" at Clinton's library and watch him call Hillary his "best friend".

DuJan on his site believes it will take about a decade for the knowledge of Barack Obama's personal life to become common knowledge, just as it did for Slick Willie.

I, sadly, concur. Also hope it's not true...not only Michelle, but also Sasha and Malia would be caught up in that excrement.)

Posted by: OTamandua

May 2, 2013 at 8:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fayfreethinker, can you answer one last Bible question for me?

I'm not expecting an answer I'll agree with, but I'm also not going to challenge you or even respond. There's just something that's (surprisingly) talked about very little in evangelical circles that I'd like to get your "take" on.

After that, "tchau", as the Brazilians say.

Posted by: OTamandua

May 2, 2013 at 8:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Otam: "instead of being stuck in this primitive "sexual attractions NEVER change" line of thinking?">>

Who has claimed that in this thread? No one. I've known a couple people who were straight, switched teams for a while, then went back. It's not a black white thing. It's also none of you, or your religion's, business. Not even a little bit.

Otam: "back to President Obama's sexual identity.">>

Good grief. You just reveal yourself to be a complete lunatic when you go on about such stuff. It's embarrassing. But I guess I knew that from your April 7th comment above:

"By 2050, by all demographics, the dominant religion in America will be Islam."

Otam: "Here's a video of FFT's "epigenetics"...">>

I've not used the word epigenetics once in this thread. You're confused.

Otam: "can you answer one last Bible question... I'm also not going to challenge you or even respond.">>

Well, that would be rather normal for you. So are you for the full and equal right of same sex marriage, or are you not? Why are you afraid to answer this question?

D.
-------------
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 2, 2013 at 10:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT, if I haven't said it before I'll say it now.

Let same-sex couples marry. But while we're doing it, tell the truth that there is NO genetic/inborn/"epigenetic" component to gayness, and that that are indeed some people who were once Über-gay but now are not. Let gay people tell their stories. Let post-gay and ex-ex-gay people tell their stories. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. And not one without the other. If we're going to stop denying equal rights to GLBT people, then stop telling them this fantasy "born that way" crap that does absolutely NOTHING but advance someone else's agenda (which may or may not be good for GLBT people).

I know I've asked you this many times, FFT: people are smart enough to make up their own minds when given the truth, aren't they? You do believe that, don't you?

Posted by: OTamandua

May 2, 2013 at 11:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT, as far as President Obama...here's a question for you - back 15 years ago in January 1998, did you believe President Clinton was telling the truth about Monica Lewinsky? A bunch of his cabinet members (who sat at the very type of desk I saw modeled this past Monday at Clinton's library) supposedly did:

'Clinton did meet this morning with his Cabinet and afterward, his appointees voiced their support. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, "I believe the allegations are completely untrue." Commerce Secretary William Daley added "I'll second that. Definitely." "Third it," said Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala.'

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/0...

Posted by: OTamandua

May 2, 2013 at 11:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry that I misattributed any "epigenetics" quotes to you, FFT.

Posted by: OTamandua

May 2, 2013 at 11:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "Let same-sex couples marry.">>

Excellent.

OT: "tell the truth that there is NO genetic/inborn/"epigenetic" component to gayness,">>

I have no reason to think that is true, and some good reasons to think that it isn't. My inborn inclination tends to be wired rather straightforwardly. Sometimes I wish I was gay just so I could bug the bigots.

OT: "some people who were once Über-gay but now are not.">>

Since the human experience is rather subjective, especially on matters of human sexuality, I wouldn't draw any strong conclusions from a few anecdotes. But it is fun to watch the super-righteous who claim to have publicly and famously converted their sexuality, fail.

OT: "did you believe President Clinton was telling the truth about Monica Lewinsky?">>

a) As I remember, he said he didn't have "sexual relations" with her. Parsing his words precisely, with a razor, I suppose he didn't. No one was going to get pregnant. I don't concern myself with what other folks do with their naughty bits. But I do sometimes enjoy the pious getting all exercised about it what other folks do with their naughty bits.

b) It doesn't follow from anything Clinton did, that this in any way applies to anything about Obama.

OT: "A bunch of his cabinet members supposedly did [believe Clinton]">>

Right. I don't imagine whatever he and Lewinsky did, was done in front of them. So when stuff was thrown at the boss, they sided with him. That's a given. This has nothing to do with your nonsense about Obama being gay.

What's your Bible question?

D.
-------------
Paul Newman: http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 2, 2013 at 11:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I have no reason to think that is true, and some good reasons to think that it isn't."

And tragcially, there's a bunch of evidence to believe it is (i.e. the Columbia/Yale researchers finding a six per cent concordance for gayness among identical twins). And given that the liberal democrat side has had a propensity for decades to boldly lie to the American people* I see a lot of reasons to fear that GLBT people are being lied to here as well, and it's buttressed by the fact that I KNOW a lot of GLBT people.

And I'd asked you earlier: "People are smart enough to make up their own minds when given the truth, aren't they?"

*As I recall when President Clinton said, as you cited, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Ms. Lewinsky", he said it to "the American people": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_K...

Posted by: OTamandua

May 2, 2013 at noon ( | suggest removal )

Otam makes a very strong assertion: "There is NO genetic/inborn/"epigenetic" component to gayness."
I don't know if that would also include events during gestation such as exposure to toxic chemicals, mother's smoking, etc.
In any case, how does he explain the persistence of homosexual behavior through history and in many cultures?

Posted by: Coralie

May 2, 2013 at 12:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, I'll go one further.

If this was genetic (in which case we would see similar percentage expressions in populations throughout history) or a result of exposure to materials as toxic chemicals and mother's smoking, why was homosexuality described at near-epidemic levels in areas such as ancient Greece?

Posted by: OTamandua

May 2, 2013 at 12:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"near-epidemic levels" in ancient Greece
Your source please.
It's possible that certain customs were more widespread among Athenian aristocrats and intellectuals who wrote the literature that has survived, and not so much among the common folk or the rural areas.
The ancient Greek comedy Lysistrata by Aristophanes depicts a "sex strike" by women of two rival cities to force their husbands to stop warring and declare peace.
I don't think such a strike would have worked if so many of the men had a different sexual orientation.

Posted by: Coralie

May 2, 2013 at 12:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: "there's a bunch of evidence to believe it is [a choice]">>

I've not seen anything persuasive. And again you've ducked:

"Scans see 'gay brain differences"
"The brains of gay men and women look like those found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex, research suggests.
The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults.
Gay men and heterosexual women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and heterosexual men." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/745...

And: "What the Gay Brain Looks Like" http://www.time.com/time/health/artic...

OT: "liberal democrat side has had a propensity... to boldly lie [therefore] people are being lied to here as well,...">>

Even if the first claim was true, your conclusion wouldn't follow. See the non sequitur fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequ...)

OT: "People are smart enough to make up their own minds when given the truth, aren't they?">>

This begs the question of whether they are given the truth in the first place (which is the question), and no, even when given facts to begin with, people usually aren't very good at determining true conclusions from those facts. Hence all of the creationists in the US for instance.

OT: *President Clinton said, as you cited, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Ms. Lewinsky",">>

Right, and according to a strict definition of that phrase, he didn't.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 2, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, with Greek society in mind, the link FFT cited (from researchers "Wilson and Rahman") is fascinating, because according to a pro-GLBT activist, there's a tribe in New Guinea where, for a period of time, a teenage male is EXPECTED to be gay (with an older man!). In ancient Greece there was no differentiation in males between sexual orientation - it was between those who were aggressive and who were passive. The definitions were different, just as they were in the tribe FFT's researchers cite (thanks, FFT ">):

"Much as I would love to go along with the emerging 'born gay' consensus, I can't. The evidence does not support the idea that sexuality is a fixed biological given.

Wilson and Rahman inadvertently reinforce my doubts. As evidence that people do not become gay by seduction, they cite the example of the Sambia tribe in New Guinea. Cultural expectations dictate that for most of their teenage years all young men have sex with an older warrior as part of their rite of passage to manhood. Once their initiation is completed, they become warriors and initiate the next generation of male youths. Then they become straight and marry.

If sexuality was predetermined at birth by genes and hormones, it would be impossible for young Sambian males to switch to homosexuality and then back to heterosexuality with such apparent ease. This suggests there is an element of flexibility in sexual orientation, and that cultural traditions and social mores are also influential factors. In an enlightened, gay-affirming society, more people might be inclined to explore same-sex desire.

Born gay? No. Human sexuality is too varied and complex to be reduced to a simple equation of genes plus hormones."

http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rig...

Posted by: OTamandua

May 2, 2013 at 2 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

BTW, before I answer you FFT, thanks (with your first link, which led to that Tatchell link) for reminding me of this song by Tom Robinson, once gay, now married with 2 kids of his own. I had this album "Power in the darkness" back in the late 70s in high school.

"Glad to be gay" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLc-bh...

Posted by: OTamandua

May 2, 2013 at 2:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "BTW, back to President Obama's sexual identity."
Well. That was inane.

RE "no straight man would write something like that"
What in that poem would no straight man write? Be specific.

RE "and unless all of you are gay you know it as well as I do"
Classic reaction formation.

RE "The strange fact that no one in 2008 could track down any one of his former girlfriends."
You omit the fact (which isn't strange at all) that nobody found any former boyfriends, either. And I'm sure they tried.

RE "The stranger fact that President Obama admitted the girlfriend in his alleged autobiography didn't exist, and that he made a 'composite' girlfriend for it."
A composite is a combination of more than one of something. Apparently, then, Obama had more than one girlfriend. Your vocabulary is apparently rather limited. You don't know what "bisexual" and "composite" mean.

RE "Then there's Michelle calling herself 'a busy single mother'"
Boy-- that's really ironclad. She also corrected herself, and said, "When your husband is President, it can fell a little single, but he's there." Even if it meant anything, it would show absence, not sexual preference.

RE "There's the weird story of kooky Larry Sinclair"
Which is not corroborated by any evidence. Some people claim that Obama is a Kenyan, and some claim that he is a Muslim. Famous people bring out the crazies. Must you rely on conspiracy theories to make a case?

RE "Funny thing - the supporter, Kevin DuJan, writes about people from Obama's past who have just disappeared, and now he, himself has disappeared."
Remember when the Clinton's had all of those people killed? Oh, wait-- they didn't. Must you rely on conspiracy theories to make a case?

RE "Probably just a wingnut publicity self-promotion, as FFT would say."
You have to admit: it take some kind of nut to promote himself by being a complete idiot.

continued....

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 2, 2013 at 2:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

....continued

RE "even though the museum was fun for her I could tell she really resents how Hillary Clinton was treated."
And she is entitled to feel that way, but what really matters is how Hillary feels. I see the Clintons are still married.

RE "It was actually kind of insulting to sit through the video at the '42 theatre' at Clinton's library and watch him call Hillary his 'best friend'."
Why? And what does that have to do with Obama? My lovely wife is my best friend, and I am her best friend. It's an important aspect of marriage. Maybe if Newt Gingrich and the other hypocrites who made such a big deal out of Monica Lewinsky had been "best friends" with their first wives, they wouldn't have had so many subsequent wives-- or acted on their same-sex preferences, as the case may be.

“I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights!” --Warren G. Harding

RE "DuJan on his site believes it will take about a decade for the knowledge of Barack Obama's personal life to become common knowledge, just as it did for Slick Willie."
DuJan is cute, but he's not particularly intelligent. Considering the amount of scrutiny that Obama has endured, if it hasn't been found already, it isn't there. Must you rely on conspiracy theories to make a case?

RE "I, sadly, concur."
That is sad.

RE " Also hope it's not true..."
No, you don't. You hang this little fantasy of yours on conspiracy theories and wishful thinking. You want it to be true so you can wrap your fear and dislike for Obama and your fear and dislike for gay people into one neat package. Classic.

RE "not only Michelle, but also Sasha and Malia would be caught up in that excrement.)"
"That excrement", obviously, being your post.

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 2, 2013 at 2:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OT: " there is an element of flexibility in sexual orientation, and that cultural traditions and social mores are also influential factors.">>

Duh.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 2, 2013 at 2:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat, without going line by line, I think I can respond fairly easily,

1. If all the things alleged against Obama (FROM HIS OWN WORDS) had been alleged against a Republican presidential candidate, many liberal Democrats couldn't wait to "out" the latter.

2. Glad you're happily married. If you'd treated your wife the way Bill Clinton treated his (or maybe Barack Obama his) or Newt Gingrich treated his, you'd be a cad. Not that anyone cares here, but I remember discussions from evangelicals who were upset that Gingrich's coalition (which did some good things regardless) pretty much ignored them and the social conservatives back in 1994, and they were worried that he and his friends would do so again in 2012. Looks like they were right.

3. DANG, you all are sensitive about President Obama's sexuality. Give it up, man. Clinton's cabinet members looked like fools when their president had to admit under oath that he did indeed engage in sexual acts with Ms. Lewinsky. Only God Himself knows what we're someday going to learn about President Obama, and his proclivities, and his intentions.

4. As far as happy about "excrement", it is YOUR side that has flooded us with no-fault divorce and broken thousands if not millions of families. YOUR side that has promoted pornography and obscenity that's helped the aforementioned. YOUR side that promoted the "sexual revolution". YOUR side that has (at least some) members who say they honestly would like to destroy the institution of marriage. (In this period of awaiting the verdict of "Dr." Kevin Gosnell, let's not even visit the issue of abortion. Or of treatment of the infirmed, the disabled or the elderly who are deemed as having "no worth to society".)

Millions of people have hurt because of anti-family and I'd daresay "anti-human" causes that modern liberalism and socialism has championed.

You've given us more than enough "excrement" to bury the planet six feet deep and floating on the oceans.

Posted by: OTamandua

May 2, 2013 at 2:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

" there is an element of flexibility in sexual orientation, and that cultural traditions and social mores are also influential factors.">>

Duh.

Let's finish the quote, FFT. "In an enlightened, gay-affirming society, more people might be inclined to explore same-sex desire."

Just like our "fellow animals", the bonobos...

Posted by: OTamandua

May 2, 2013 at 2:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The reserches of many have cast so much doubt upon this subject that if they continue we shall soon know nothing at all about it.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 2, 2013 at 3:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE " If all the things alleged against Obama (FROM HIS OWN WORDS)..."
You have only one allegation against Obama from his own words, and you had to take them out of context to make an allegation out of them.

RE "....had been alleged against a Republican presidential candidate, many liberal Democrats couldn't wait to 'out' the latter."
That's just speculation. Of course the extra-delicious element of Republican hypocrisy makes the prospect enticing. But one reason it has never happened is that Republican candidates are so good at outing themselves, even if by accident.

RE "If you'd treated your wife the way Bill Clinton treated his (or maybe Barack Obama his) or Newt Gingrich treated his, you'd be a cad."
Yes, but my best friend, like most of my other friends, would probably forgive me. Nobody else matters. But Clinton is irrelevant to Obama anyway. As they say about investing in the stock market, "past performance is not an indication of future results".

RE "DANG, you all are sensitive about President Obama's sexuality."
This from the person who keeps bringing up conspiracy theories about Obama's sexuality. You have written more about Obama's sexuality here than anybody else has, and you are the one who is trying to connect Obama's sexuality to Clinton's.

RE "Give it up, man."
That's entirely up to you, but you just can't seem to let go of Obama's manhood. I know you're trying to make something big out of it, but be careful-- it might go off in your face.

RE "it is YOUR side that has flooded us with no-fault divorce and broken thousands if not millions of families."
Way to change the subject. But it is your "side" that gets the most divorces. If a couple should not be married (and people who do not want to stay married to each other probably shouldn't be married to each other), how is no-fault divorce more damaging to families than regular divorce? Also, note that the divorce rate is lower than you probably think it is, that the divorce rate for couples with children is 40 percent lower than for couples with children, and that even as no-fault divorce has spread, divorce rates have steadily gone down since about 1990.

RE "YOUR side that has (at least some) members who say they honestly would like to destroy the institution of marriage."
Oh, that's just talking the talk. Your "side" has many members who actually do it. That's walking the walk.

RE "Millions of people have hurt because of anti-family and I'd daresay 'anti-human' causes that modern liberalism and socialism has championed."
And millions of people have been hurt because of causes that conservatism and religion have championed. People get hurt. It's an integral part of God's lovely Creation.

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 2, 2013 at 4:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeff, just a note to thank you for your post (May 1st, 10:08 pm). It was honest, truthful and spoke from your personal experiences. I respect that. I also agree with everything you said in it because of my own personal experiences. Thanks for your honesty.

Posted by: BradBailey

May 2, 2013 at 4:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "And 'cat', before you go off on that as some kind of invention"
Actually, I tend to agree with BradBailey. Your post is a reasonable summary of your religious beliefs, and your personal experiences are not used as "proof" of some greater or more widespread truth.

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 2, 2013 at 5:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Has anybody here heard of the Kinsey Reports, the two studies of human sexuality which so shocked many back in the days of my youth.
The first Kinsey Report came out (1948). Alfred Kinsey was a zoologist who studied human sexual behavior through thousands of interviews.
According to Wikipedia:
"The reports also state that nearly 46% of the male subjects had "reacted" sexually to persons of both sexes in the course of their adult lives, and 37% had at least one homosexual experience."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_R...

Posted by: Coralie

May 2, 2013 at 5:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Careful, Coralie,

"If you ever wondered how criminal penalties in the US for pedophilia transitioned for a time from extreme sentences to relatively short sentences, and how pedophiles from the late 1950s up until recent years were given revolving-door sentences only to target children again, you might wonder whose work guided those who drafted the Model Penal Code in 1955 that advanced the reduction of prison sentences for pedophiles and other sexual criminals.

If you guessed that it was the bishops of the Catholic Church, you guessed wrong. The recommendation to reduce sentences for pedophiles and other sexual criminals was made along with civil libertarians by an atheist and an Indiana University scientist, Alfred C. Kinsey (1894-1956)...

This is from "Sanity and social justice.net", which also has all six videos of a program called "Kinsey's pedophiles", plus a lot of information. Almost too much, given the subject

http://sanityandsocialjustice.net/?p=416

Thanks again to liberalism/marxism, AlphaCat.

Marxists knew from "the Frankfurt school" (probably earlier) and onward that the way to completely undermine a society is to make it become totally debauched sexually. Hence, the emphasis on getting full control of the media for purposes beside propaganda, for (again) flooding a culture with pornography and obscenity, normalizing promiscuity, making divorce very easy, completely discrediting Christianity, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nake...

And when you claim that religion has "hurt" more millions of people than marxism/liberalism/whatever you want to call it...sorry. No other religious worldview has liberated women, and people, like Christianity has.

And in modern times at least, no worldview has killed more people than marxism/communism/maoism/national socialism, etc. (There's a lot more sources out there than Wiki...but this page is easy to read and fairly well organized.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_kil...

And we've elected a president who, from his words and more importantly actions, so dearly wants to destroy the former and implement the latter.

Nope, I DON'T want his marriage to be a charade, much as I chide you and other liberals about it. So many people have suffered at the hands of socialists. We don't need to add three more in the form of Michelle, Sasha and Malia Obama.

If you want to believe that I'm lying (just like believing in "epigenetics" as the cause for ssa), in saying that, believe away.

Posted by: OTamandua

May 2, 2013 at 6:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The problem with progressive liberal thinking is that it is not possible to reach utopian ideals that are at best hundreds or thousands of years into the future right now or even in a soon to follow tomorrow. Human evolution and social and technological development just aren't up to it. The time when energy and food is free and money doesn't matter and everyone can dream up a "perfect" world on a "holodeck" inspired by the internet is not yet within our grasp. It will be a very long time before it is. Until then, the reality of the world we live in must drive things. And it will, in spite of utopian science fiction "dreamology". We aren't capable of synthisizing a steak dinner or bottle of hundred year old scotch or "beaming anyone up yet Scotty", not even close. While we have to deal with the reality we have there is nothing wrong with dreaming, but what we have to live with is the reality that is "now".

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 2, 2013 at 7:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeffieboy, there's something more sinister with this vision of utopia. We have those in charge who think they can come up with perfect PEOPLE. (Just like many before them have fantasized.) To do that, they've got to get rid of the ugly, the infirm, the old, the feeble, the useless, all as someone else defines the terms. There is no true respect for human life, and I'm not just talking about abortion - far from it, in fact.

It's a blessing that there is no genetic/inborn component to gayness - otherwise, in this culture, GLBT people might end up never being born.

Posted by: OTamandua

May 2, 2013 at 8:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Claims of a utopia are 100% strawman. Made up. Caricature.

We don't need a perfect world to have a better world. We don't need free healthcare to have affordable healthcare. 10,000 Americans dying each year because they can't access the healthcare system is twice as good the 20,000 that currently die each year. Background checks on new weapon purchases is better than no checks at all, and checks on used weapons is better than just checks on new weapons. Etc.

Nuance, gradation, color, learn to see it. It's there.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 2, 2013 at 9:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Interesting discussion. Regardless of it people are born gay.

They don't become gay as many surmise because they don't exhibit the symptoms until puberty. They don't exhibit it until then because they don't have sexuality until then.

Hence the idea of "coming out". There are two "coming outs". One when someone realizes their natural preference and the the second when they become part of some silly debate.

I remember when I stayed at a freinds house and heard the couple upstairs "going at it" and remarked on it. They were absolutey getting "down", yeah! When I was told they were a couple of gay guys it made my stomach turn a liitle. It was disgusting to me. A natural reaction to someone that has been chasing females for a lifetime.

But that is what sexuality is about. Pleasure and perhaps preference. I see it like this....do what you want in your own place and it is none of my business. If if it is disgusting to me don't burden me with it or try to push it off on my home. If you like it that is up to you. Live and let live is good as long as you don't come over to my house and try to dictate my preferences or how I should behave.

If you do I have a .45 ACP waiting for you. I have several rounds but will only need one. I'm a good shot. You don't want to meet that on the way into my hallway to as you attempt that invasion. Wouldn't work out well for either of us. Live and let live and keep it at home and we are OK. No shots fired, everybody happy.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 2, 2013 at 10:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

otam says "Marxists knew ...that the way to completely undermine a society is to make it become totally debauched sexually."
You don't know anything about Marxists. To you they are just some kind of demon.
However, in my long life I have known some bonafide Marxists, and have read more widely than otam, too.
There are several versions of Marxism and Marxists. You are talking specifically about the New Left, who combined Marxism with feminist and other theory.
The object of Marxists generally is economic justice. They are about the class struggle. They want to make society better according to their own theories--not to undermine it..
I don't consider myself a Marxist, but what did make sense in Marxism was screwed up by the New Left.
However otam's comments are a goulash of conspiracy thinking.

Posted by: Coralie

May 3, 2013 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"no worldview has killed more people than" (choose one):
NATIONALISM.
MILITARISM
COLONIALISM

Posted by: Coralie

May 3, 2013 at 12:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jeffieboy like many on ADG blogs is afraid of home invasions.
How often does that happen? I sure don't hear much about home invasions in the news.
I suspect this fear is a throwback to the Anglo-Scots Borderlands where home invasions were a common practice, along with rustling livestock, extortion, kidnappings, and blackmail.
Or fear of Indians fighting back against white invasion.
Or maybe it was a fear of slave uprisings in the antebellum South..
Whatever, it doesn't seem very here and now..

Posted by: Coralie

May 3, 2013 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, I'm not afraid of home invasions at all. Nope, not one little bit. As long as no one tries one here nobody need fear a thing, especially from me. I'm a good neighbor and generally a nice, kind, generous, and compassionate guy.

Regardless, they do occur. I have no patience for criminals or bad people so it's good one hasn't happened here. If a home invasion does happen here I won't be afraid, but will certainly meet it with firm resolve.

Invading here would not be smart or healthy unless I fell asleep well into a fifth of Evan Williams Single Barrel and slept through it but sleeping eith Evan is a very rare event. and poor gamble on the part of some dastardly criminal.

Hugs and kisses to good people everywhere! Hugs and kisses to hog and chicken farmers. Hugs and kisses even for those disabled by clinical mental disorders like progressive liberalism, too!

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 3, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"We have those in charge who think they can come up with perfect PEOPLE."
Let's be specific here. These are a few extreme advocates of genome gene engineering--they call themselves transhumanists.
They are the reincarnation of the discredited advocates of eugenics.
I don't think they are in any sense "in charge."
However, it would be wise to know they are out there and to critique such ideas so that they never do get "in charge." If they do, it would probably not be via politicians but rather through technological innovation and mass marketing--what jeffieboy calls "progress."

Posted by: Coralie

May 3, 2013 at 2:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And they are about as common as what? Pressure cooker bombers? I doubt such a minority of anyone is going to have much of an effect on anything. All you guys want to do is get all balled up and worried over abnomalities that really don't matter much in the grand scheme of things. "Them" getting in charge is about as probable as Obama doing the right thing about anything. Very unlikely.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 3, 2013 at 11:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Not quite the minority that you seem to think, jeffieboy.
And not quite as different from your own beliefs as expressed here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhum...
http://lifeboat.com/ex/transhumanist....

Posted by: Coralie

May 4, 2013 at 12:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Some people are worrying, and they aren't all "liberals".
"We might be inclined to dismiss Transhumanist devotees as yet another science fiction induced group of harmless mooncalves, destined merely to play out their impotent, self-absorbed fantasies in internet chatrooms, reechy out-of-the-way bars, and occasional sparsely attended conferences.
That would be a mistake. As will soon become apparent, we should be taking Transhumanism with the utmost seriousness."
http://www.discovery.org/a/1910

Posted by: Coralie

May 4, 2013 at 4:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The top 10 technologies listed by a transhumanist site (lifeboat link above) are:
* Cyronics
* Virtual reality
* Gene therapy/RNA interference:
"Gene therapy replaces bad genes with good genes, and RNA interference can selectively knock out gene expression. Together, they give us an unprecedented ability to manipulate our own genetic code"
* Space colonization
* Cybernetics (enhanced humans or cyborgs)
* Autonomous, self-replicating robotics
* Molecular manufacturing [nanotech]
* Megascale engineering
* Mind uploading
* Artificial general Intelligence [AI]
See, jeffieboy, doesn't that all sound sexy?

Posted by: Coralie

May 6, 2013 at 12:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, come on the attack and see.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 7, 2013 at 9:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

???
You are familiar with the term "sexy" applied to technology, aren't you?
Don't you want to terraform Mars?
Be part of a Super Race with 300 IQs and purple wings?
Have robots do all the work?

Posted by: Coralie

May 8, 2013 at 12:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )