Do you believe Homosexuals Are Not "Born That Way."? - Page 6

**South** · 05-01-2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G10

South dude, I would say they should be classed more as magicians than a piece of property as they have this uncanny way of making funds from ones bank balance slowly vanish and then if you divorce them, they go for the big on and pull the rabbit out of the hat and manage to make your house disappear also

Do y'all listen to Jerry Reed over in the UK?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04RJyFCg7ks

Atom · 05-01-2009, 09:38 PM

"No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. (...)"

"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. (...)"

http://borngay.procon.org/viewanswer...stionID=001335

.

krahmaan · 05-01-2009, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranter

Look ahead, let say 50 years from now and you will hear the same question you are asking today: what they were thinking about 50 years ago when they persecuted Black on White marriages.

Let us explore a bit about the similarities of gay and black persecution, since you also seem to think they fall in the same category. Let's see if logic will bring us to a base that is similar... OK?

Born black: People don't choose to be born. While they also have no control over what family the are born with (in, by).

(Hypothesis) Born gay: If someone is born gay, they do have the choice not to have sex, or control sexual desires. Just like most people try and control sexual urges say, when at work. Also at special occasions where too much flirtation or sexual advances would be improper. From this I can conclude that even homosexuals have some control over their desires. Or they would all be homeless and without jobs -right?

Conclusion: Since it's was found logical that even gays can show self restraint with sexual desires. Being persecuted for choosing to have sex with the same sex must not be related to having no choice to whom you are born.

ranter · 05-01-2009, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krahmaan

Let us explore a bit about the similarities of gay and black persecution, since you also seem to think they fall in the same category. Let's see if logic will bring us to a base that is similar... OK?

No, it's not OK

I chose example not to make parallel but merely to point to historical occurrence in social attitude engaged by Bible loving, God fearing society at that time.

If it’s going to make you to feel better then think about the same group of folks who were making laws to stop Elvis from shaking his heaps.

I hope now you’ll sleep better knowing that you were wrong by attacking messenger and not message. If you want to comment on what people 50 years from now will say about people who are making everything they can to repeat mistake of their parents, then I'm all ears.

krahmaan · 05-02-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranter

No, it's not OK

I chose example not to make parallel but merely to point to historical occurrence in social attitude engaged by Bible loving, God fearing society at that time.

But your statement did make a parallel between those being born black. Who were persecuted by white men who didn't agree with them marrying white women. But they were still men, trying to be with women. When many white males had 'forced' intercourse with black women, but that was OK wasn't it ranter?

I'll repost your 'made parallel' statement which was really oh-so-perpendicular...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranter

Look ahead, let say 50 years from now and you will hear the same question you are asking today: what they were thinking about 50 years ago when they persecuted Black on White marriages.

Still no common ground is found in this comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranter

I hope now you’ll sleep better knowing that you were wrong by attacking messenger and not message.

Well the messenger was the one giving the message -no? And the message itself cannot rebuttal -can it? Still, how did I attack the messenger (you)? I just took a path down logic, which those who support your views still don't seem even to get. But you could say that now I am attacking you. Attacking your suggested point, because there was none.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranter

If you want to comment on what people 50 years from now will say about people who are making everything they can to repeat mistake of their parents, then I'm all ears.

Mistake of their parents? But if everyone was to go gay 50 years from now and do it your way (not making your proposed mistake), then the word parent would cease to exist. But of course you wouldn't be 'all ears' to that statement either.

We'd have to make up better words for actual parent. Like 'adoptive', 'test tube', or 'step parents', but biological parents (real birth parents) would be on the decline. I guess that's the way nature made it -huh?

To make it clear, I'm not downing adoptive parents or parents who by birth can not produce children without some medical or adoptive help. Nor am I downing step parents who take on the role of a parent from more irresponsible ones. No.

But to say that Nature didn't necessarily make men and women to procreate is scientific idiocy! To say that nature intended on two men to produce children is preposterous! Common logic could reveal that fact. So what if a man is attracted to another man. That happens in the prisons! Because the men there can no longer control their urges to penetrate something.

But I'd dare you to go there, and call 'Big Butch' who's serving a life sentence gay! You would become his next wife (inmate property).

**Zap** · 05-07-2009, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krahmaan

Let us explore a bit about the similarities of gay and black persecution, since you also seem to think they fall in the same category. Let's see if logic will bring us to a base that is similar... OK?

Born black: People don't choose to be born. While they also have no control over what family the are born with (in, by).

(Hypothesis) Born gay: If someone is born gay, they do have the choice not to have sex, or control sexual desires. Just like most people try and control sexual urges say, when at work. Also at special occasions where too much flirtation or sexual advances would be improper. From this I can conclude that even homosexuals have some control over their desires. Or they would all be homeless and without jobs -right?

Conclusion: Since it's was found logical that even gays can show self restraint with sexual desires. Being persecuted for choosing to have sex with the same sex must not be related to having no choice to whom you are born.

K-Man: I'm not going to speak to the specific comparison (being born black and/or gay). But your post on the topic is very telling about your views so I wanted to use it to illustrate another point entirely.
You keep saying that gays are not born gay because they can control their desires, as heterosexuals do at work, etc. But that thinking completely side steps the issue at hand. I don't know if you do it intentionally or not, but choosing when/where to have sex is NOT equal to choosing who you want to have sex with.
You say a gay person has a choice. They can choose not to be gay by abstaining from sex. That's no more maintainable than a black person choosing not to be black by painting their body in white paint. A black man in white paint is still a black man. Just as a gay person who doesn't have sex is still gay. The choice is not in the colour of the skin or the sexual orientation. The choice is in how they deal with it. The same thing goes for heterosexuals. I choose not to have sex at work because I want to keep working, but that doesn't change the fact that I still want to have sex with women only.

And, on the topic of your friend, Dan the man. Perhaps he was more confused than he was gay. Maybe he's bisexual and mariage to a woman was a better option for him than marriage to a man. If he lives in most US states, I'd say that was a certainty.

And lastly... try to open your mind a bit about the purposes and benefits of sex. Procreation is only one purpose that sexual intercourse serves and it is a very small one at that. Most of the time that sex occurrs, procreation is exactly NOT the desired outcome. I have two children. I've had sex more than twice. How about you?

ranter · 05-07-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap

I've had sex more than twice. How about you?

Very good point Zap.
All I want to do is to add my thoughts to your factual presentation

Not only straight recreational sex but also something our parents told us not to do because if we do it again, we will go blind.

How many times we people of all colors and shapes promised to ourselves never do it again but then 10 minutes later would run to washroom to get another sunshine in our eye. Are we so week or the nature that made us what we are thus it care less what was your outside influences told you about who you must be and how you must act?

Nature made us what we are. It programmed our brain from the moment we were born and told us what to do when and how. At age of 1 hour, we somehow knew, we have to get to cafeteria to grab some food and if cafeteria was closed for maintenance we knew what to do to make sure it would open the doors in a hurry.

It doesn’t matter if you are religious or spiritual or both person but if you believe in the power of Nature, then you must accept the fact that we were born the way we are and that Nature is the power behind of we had become.

krahmaan · 05-07-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap

K-Man: I'm not going to speak to the specific comparison (being born black and/or gay). But your post on the topic is very telling about your views so I wanted to use it to illustrate another point entirely.
You keep saying that gays are not born gay because they can control their desires, as heterosexuals do at work, etc. But that thinking completely side steps the issue at hand. I don't know if you do it intentionally or not, but choosing when/where to have sex is NOT equal to choosing who you want to have sex with.
You say a gay person has a choice. They can choose not to be gay by abstaining from sex. That's no more maintainable than a black person choosing not to be black by painting their body in white paint. A black man in white paint is still a black man. Just as a gay person who doesn't have sex is still gay. The choice is not in the colour of the skin or the sexual orientation. The choice is in how they deal with it. The same thing goes for heterosexuals. I choose not to have sex at work because I want to keep working, but that doesn't change the fact that I still want to have sex with women only.

Zap, I wanted to address this part of your post with a entirely different post. I want to make myself clear on this, because I won't be addressing this particular issue any longer.

When people speak about gays, then bring up black people as if there is some kind of correlation, this is highly offensive. Because they only bring up black people when they do this -mostly. Why not bring up gays, then bring up Europeans in correlation? Or how about Asians, Indians, or Samoans? My point being that they always bring up blacks, as if being black is related to being gay. Or as if all blacks are gay. They might have not said that, but this correlation surely implies this slander -IMO. So then it becomes an insult.

I hope this make it clear to why I see no correlation between being persecuted as gay or otherwise. Choosing who you want to have sex with has nothing to do with being born from/in a different creed. I hope this makes sense.