Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 23, 2024, 3:27 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance
#61
RE: Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance
(May 16, 2012 at 2:11 pm)libalchris Wrote: hmmm haven't heard that before. Either way my point still stands. We don't deny people of rights just because they chose to be that way. (And the evidence still suggests that orientation can't be changed.

The criticisms of the study are that the sample size was all picked from willing twins who were already a part of the homosexual community. It seems like a silly gripe, but the sample wasn't diverse and that means a lot.
[Image: SigBarSping_zpscd7e35e1.png]
Reply
#62
RE: Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance
Yes that would mean a lot.
Reply
#63
RE: Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance
(May 16, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Hovik Wrote: I think the real point to be considered here is what I and libalchris said before. Godschild cannot choose to be homosexual any more than I can, just like I didn't choose to be heterosexual. I have no choice in my attraction to women.

I don't agree with your premise here. The fact that there is a choice I'm not willing to make does not mean that it isn't a choice. I'd never set fire to my mother, but that doesn't mean setting fire to my mother is not a choice. It only means setting fire to my mother is not something I would personally choose.

You can always look at it from the perspective that humans are simply organic machines and that nothing is really a choice. We're all just atoms whooshing around toward an inevitable conclusion, and any semblance of control is an illusion. That kind of negates the idea of anything being a choice, though, so I tend to ignore it since it's meaningless to the human experience.

I still agree with you that we shouldn't persecute homosexuals even if homosexuality is a choice. We have laws curbing the rights of those who choose to rape, murder, or steal. That's because those are choices with victims. Any view of homosexuality that includes the victimization of even a single person is purely a work of fiction.
Reply
#64
RE: Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance
(May 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm)Jinkies Wrote:
(May 16, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Hovik Wrote: I think the real point to be considered here is what I and libalchris said before. Godschild cannot choose to be homosexual any more than I can, just like I didn't choose to be heterosexual. I have no choice in my attraction to women.

I don't agree with your premise here. The fact that there is a choice I'm not willing to make does not mean that it isn't a choice. I'd never set fire to my mother, but that doesn't mean setting fire to my mother is not a choice. It only means setting fire to my mother is not something I would personally choose.

You can always look at it from the perspective that humans are simply organic machines and that nothing is really a choice. We're all just atoms whooshing around toward an inevitable conclusion, and any semblance of control is an illusion. That kind of negates the idea of anything being a choice, though, so I tend to ignore it since it's meaningless to the human experience.

I still agree with you that we shouldn't persecute homosexuals even if homosexuality is a choice. We have laws curbing the rights of those who choose to rape, murder, or steal. That's because those are choices with victims. Any view of homosexuality that includes the victimization of even a single person is purely a work of fiction.

I think your are combining having homosexual feelings and acting on them.
[Image: SigBarSping_zpscd7e35e1.png]
Reply
#65
RE: Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance
(May 16, 2012 at 5:09 pm)Annik Wrote: I think your are combining having homosexual feelings and acting on them.

Honest question here, could you explain the difference between heterosexual feelings and homosexual feelings for me (or provide a link)? The idea of there being separate types of feelings for homosexuality and heterosexuality does not jive with my personal experience at all, so I'm a bit thrown as to what you mean.

I completely get that there are sexual feelings. I'm aware that I feel them toward some very small percentage of women. I just don't understand how these feelings are any different than those of homosexuals. Why are my feelings not the exact same as theirs, even though we are attracted to different people?

For instance, I think there is a definite feeling of pleasure for me when seeing a can of Pepsi. I understand that some people get that same feeling when seeing a can of Coke. I do not, however, believe that there are separate Coke-feelings and Pepsi-feelings.

(As a note, I would consider myself someone who chooses Pepsi over Coke. For what it's worth.)
Reply
#66
RE: Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance
(May 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm)Jinkies Wrote: You can always look at it from the perspective that humans are simply organic machines and that nothing is really a choice.

I don't subscribe to that particular notion. Wink

Jinkies Wrote:The fact that there is a choice I'm not willing to make does not mean that it isn't a choice. I'd never set fire to my mother, but that doesn't mean setting fire to my mother is not a choice.

The problem here is the difference between capability and willingness. You are capable of setting fire to your mother, but there are multiple things that make you unwilling to act on the choice to do so. Sexuality is not a choice; I am no more capable of choosing to be homosexual than I chose to be heterosexual.
[Image: hoviksig-1.png]
Ex Machina Libertas
Reply
#67
RE: Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance
(May 16, 2012 at 6:24 pm)Hovik Wrote: Sexuality is not a choice; I am no more capable of choosing to be homosexual than I chose to be heterosexual.

I have never seen any evidence of this, and last I heard there still wasn't any. Do you have links handy to any studies that support your claim? I honestly don't keep up all that well since I consider the choice/not a choice debate rather trivial, so I easily could have missed new studies.
Reply
#68
RE: Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance
(May 16, 2012 at 5:30 pm)Jinkies Wrote:
(May 16, 2012 at 5:09 pm)Annik Wrote: I think your are combining having homosexual feelings and acting on them.

Honest question here, could you explain the difference between heterosexual feelings and homosexual feelings for me (or provide a link)? The idea of there being separate types of feelings for homosexuality and heterosexuality does not jive with my personal experience at all, so I'm a bit thrown as to what you mean.

I completely get that there are sexual feelings. I'm aware that I feel them toward some very small percentage of women. I just don't understand how these feelings are any different than those of homosexuals. Why are my feelings not the exact same as theirs, even though we are attracted to different people?

For instance, I think there is a definite feeling of pleasure for me when seeing a can of Pepsi. I understand that some people get that same feeling when seeing a can of Coke. I do not, however, believe that there are separate Coke-feelings and Pepsi-feelings.

(As a note, I would consider myself someone who chooses Pepsi over Coke. For what it's worth.)

We're referring to physical attraction. For example, I could choose to have sex with a male, as repulsive to me as that would be. I can not, however, choose to feel attracted to another man, because I am not homosexual.

We're referring this same sense to homosexuals. Either every time they engage in acts of homosexuality they really don't want to, and are simply engaging in acts of sin just to piss off God and Christian fundamentalists, or they are really attracted to their partners. Since I cannot choose to be attracted to another man, I would assume that homosexuals cannot choose not to be attracted to a member of the same sex.
Does that make sense?
Reply
#69
RE: Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance
(May 16, 2012 at 7:19 pm)libalchris Wrote: We're referring to physical attraction. For example, I could choose to have sex with a male, as repulsive to me as that would be. I can not, however, choose to feel attracted to another man, because I am not homosexual.

We're referring this same sense to homosexuals. Either every time they engage in acts of homosexuality they really don't want to, and are simply engaging in acts of sin just to piss off God and Christian fundamentalists, or they are really attracted to their partners. Since I cannot choose to be attracted to another man, I would assume that homosexuals cannot choose not to be attracted to a member of the same sex.
Does that make sense?

Ah, we were arguing different things. Your view sort of takes the power away from having choices at all, though.

Going back to my Pepsi vs. Coke argument, you can say that I don't get to choose which flavor I have a preference for. Therefore, when it comes to choosing whether I drink Coke or Pepsi, there's really no choice at all. I will simply reach for the one I prefer without choosing, assuming that my preference is strong either way (strict hetero- or homosexual), grab whichever I prefer at a given time (bisexual, simplified for sake of argument), or grab a Faygo (filthy, filthy Juggalo). Any semblance of choice is illusory, though, since I'm unable to control my preferences.

I think that argument is a reasonable one, but I don't believe it fairly represents the human experience. We definitely feel as if we have choices, so saying sexuality is not a choice, but other similar experiences are, feels entirely contradictory. I'm completely with you if you want to view it from the perspective that choices are illusions. I just don't think defining things in those terms is very useful for discussion.
Reply
#70
RE: Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance
Quote:I missed nothing and understand well, I stated the truth Nietzsche is dead and God is alive.

Nietzsche WAS alive....your fucking god is just mythology dreamed up to keep blithering fools in line.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Theists: What is your stance on evolution? Agnostic1 118 14157 March 27, 2022 at 8:48 pm
Last Post: The Architect Of Fate
  Why did God allow his words to be changed? Fake Messiah 53 6116 October 23, 2021 at 11:55 am
Last Post: Jehanne
  If God's Not An Asshole His Followers Are Minimalist 21 3662 August 13, 2018 at 4:26 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Man creates in his own image Silver 7 1383 June 14, 2018 at 5:08 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  So can god end his own existence? Vast Vision 53 16331 July 27, 2017 at 1:51 am
Last Post: Godscreated
  If God of Abraham is true, then why didnt he use his intelligent design to make a new Roeki 129 50949 July 9, 2017 at 2:11 am
Last Post: Astonished
  Bad Religion: How Trump is warping Christianity for his own gain. Silver 4 1193 February 6, 2017 at 4:47 am
Last Post: Pat Mustard
  This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden Greatest I am 17 4461 November 29, 2016 at 6:10 pm
Last Post: ApeNotKillApe
  This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden Greatest I am 18 4533 November 28, 2016 at 8:56 am
Last Post: purplepurpose
  Religion & Marriage miaharun 6 2099 November 5, 2015 at 10:37 pm
Last Post: TheRocketSurgeon



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)