Do you believe being gay is a choice

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

would it bother if you the current President of the church were released due to recent homosexual acts?

I think I can safely say that it would bother many members, and they would wonder how such a thing could come to be.

My initial reaction would be yes, it would bother me. I'd question just why God would allow someone obviously not worthy to become His prophet.


Then, I think I'd remember stories from the Old Testament where apparently unworthy people become prophets, and spend some time pondering God's tendency to amplify the man to fit the calling.


In short, I don't know.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

Actually, it is you that is ignorant. Your words might apply in some cases, but most definitely not all. There is great evidence that certain animals know exactly what they're doing when engaging in homosexual acts, and there is little evidence that any animal actually understands the correlation between sex and offspring. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but try to get a refund.

Your last paragraph is objectively false.

Thanks for trying.

You contradict yourself with the words in bold If they can't understand the correlation then they can't understand that they are mistakingly trying to mate with the wrong sex ... because there was no choice to mate, it is an instinctive act ... therefore they are not homosexual or heterosexual but merely sexual!

I notice you didn't respond to my point about natural selection lol

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Makes you wonder what the workplace would be like if humans were like that.

I think it would get rid of the shirt and tie dress code for good.

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You contradict yourself with the words in bold If they can't understand the correlation then they can't understand that they are mistakingly trying to mate with the wrong sex ... because there was no choice to mate, it is an instinctive act ... therefore they are not homosexual or heterosexual but merely sexual!

I notice you didn't respond to my point about natural selection lol

You've conflated two completely separate issues. Your point about natural selection is extremely old and invalid. Animals aren't homosexual; they're bisexual.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

You've conflated two completely separate issues. Your point about natural selection is extremely old and invalid. Animals aren't homosexual; they're bisexual.

Your attempt to label animals as bisexual to support your opinion is the conflation. I have exposed your contradictory and faulty logic and it stings. Animals are sexual. They mate for the soul purpose of the continuation of the species.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by woot

You've conflated two completely separate issues. Your point about natural selection is extremely old and invalid. Animals aren't homosexual; they're bisexual.

I have no real input on this portion of the discussion...

But wouldn't it be better to call animals 'Asexual' than bisexual, since some exhibit the willingness to poke whatever willing participant they can find, when the mood strikes them?

Also - what is the thought process behind the pheromonal response involved with mating?


Personally, I don't find any argument involving animals' orientation to be very compelling, since animals don't have the capacity to reason, and therefore don't have a sense of 'right and wrong'....

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

You've conflated two completely separate issues. Your point about natural selection is extremely old and invalid. Animals aren't homosexual; they're bisexual.

All animals?

Do animals have sexual preferences?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Spaz

I have no real input on this portion of the discussion...

But wouldn't it be better to call animals 'Asexual' than bisexual, since some exhibit the willingness to poke whatever willing participant they can find, when the mood strikes them?

Also - what is the thought process behind the pheromonal response involved with mating?


Personally, I don't find any argument involving animals' orientation to be very compelling, since animals don't have the capacity to reason, and therefore don't have a sense of 'right and wrong'....

Woot has created a conflation to support his invalid argument. If you expose his invalid thought process he will choose to insult and denegrate as a method of distraction.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

I'm not being sarcastic at all. In fact both situations (the 3 year old and the bestiality) are real events that I have had the sad misfortune of being involved in. The 3 year old actually died from it. I have seen the men who did these horrible acts and they all said the same thing the gay community always says. They can't control what they are sexually attracted to.

I don't know that there is a clean anwser to this. I can't understand someone choosing to be attracted to kids or roadkill anymore than I can understand the biochemistry or social factors that would bring about the condition.

I do know that it wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was looked at as a perversion. It is now accepted. Where do we draw the line?????

In the bestiality cases the lawyers actually argued that it should be O.K. since no humans rights were violated (except for the woman who witnessed the perv in the bushes dropping the hammer on a day old deer carcass) but I think you get my point.

I completely agree that the pedophile and deer humper didn't choose their sexual preference just like homosexuals and heterosexuals don't choose their sexual preference. That is where the similarity ends though. The three year old girl was a victim of a horrible crime and that the perp couldn't help himself is irrelavant. Any person, homosexual or heterosexual that rapes someone is a criminal. Two gay men that choose to fall in love and live as a couple cause no harm to society. They didn't choose their sexual orientation, but they can choose their partner the same way heterosexual people choose their spouses. Every time the gay marriage debate heats up, someone brings up marrying an animal. That is weak. The animal obviously can't consent.

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Your attempt to label animals as bisexual to support your opinion is the conflation. I have exposed your contradictory and faulty logic and it stings. Animals are sexual. They mate for the soul purpose of the continuation of the species.

You sure love to declare victory on issues you have no clue about. Animals absolutely do not mate for the purpose of procreation. They mate because their genes demand that they do.