Religion and LGBT people

[Aractus]

You keep making this false equivocation about incest, as though the two things are even vaguely related. They aren't, and I'm gonna lay a little knowledge on ya, but first I'd remind you that most people here have already made their position on that clear. Having them say it again wouldn't weaken their position.

But here's the crazy thing: Even if we all said no, we don't support incestuous marriages, that wouldn't make us hypocrites. Because, and this is really important so pay attention, one of these things is a choice, and one of them isn't. I'm not going to get into a debate about this: being gay is not a choice, just as being straight is not a choice. Take it from a bisexual, this ain't something that can just be turned off.

Okay, first off I never said, ever, that being homosexual is a choice. If I said that, where did I say it?

Second, let me see if I have your argument clear:

A man wants to marry his sister, this is a choice, so we can disagree with their choice.

A man wants to marry another man, this isn't a choice, so we can't disagree with their marriage.

Is this what you just said?

[Esquilax]

Okay, first off I never said, ever, that being homosexual is a choice. If I said that, where did I say it?

I never accused you of doing so. Merely cutting of a traditional religious tactic before we waste time on it, that's all.

Second, let me see if I have your argument clear:

A man wants to marry his sister, this is a choice, so we can disagree with their choice.

A man wants to marry another man, this isn't a choice, so we can't disagree with their marriage.

Is this what you just said?

Yes, essentially. We cannot blame, or restrict the rights of, a group of people based on something that is beyond their control. You can hold people personally accountable for their choices, because they were the ones that made them. You can't hold them personally accountable for their genetics. No matter what the religious reasoning is.

Oh, you can keep disagreeing with gay marriage all you want, on religious grounds. There were plenty of religious folks who disagreed with miscegenation and interracial marriage on the same grounds. But we as a society woke up and stopped punishing the love that two people share based on the color of their skin, and we rightly call those who would put their own self appointed righteousness above the love and happiness of people he's never likely to meet by their proper name: bigots.

That exact same awakening is finally beginning to happen again with gay people. It's the same argument, just applied to a different group of people.

[Zen Badger]

You keep making this false equivocation about incest, as though the two things are even vaguely related. They aren't, and I'm gonna lay a little knowledge on ya, but first I'd remind you that most people here have already made their position on that clear. Having them say it again wouldn't weaken their position.

But here's the crazy thing: Even if we all said no, we don't support incestuous marriages, that wouldn't make us hypocrites. Because, and this is really important so pay attention, one of these things is a choice, and one of them isn't. I'm not going to get into a debate about this: being gay is not a choice, just as being straight is not a choice. Take it from a bisexual, this ain't something that can just be turned off.

Okay, first off I never said, ever, that being homosexual is a choice. If I said that, where did I say it?

Second, let me see if I have your argument clear:

A man wants to marry his sister, this is a choice, so we can disagree with their choice.

A man wants to marry another man, this isn't a choice, so we can't disagree with their marriage.

Is this what you just said?

Still trying to wriggle out of the lie you got caught out on?

Just one quick question..... Since homophobia does not have a biblical basis, what do you base your hatred of gays on?

[Aractus]

Oh, you can keep disagreeing with gay marriage all you want, on religious grounds. There were plenty of religious folks who disagreed with miscegenation and interracial marriage on the same grounds.

Actually Eugenics was once scientific consensus and had nothing to do with religion. Still, isn't it fun to blame religion for all the world's problems?

But we as a society woke up and stopped punishing the love that two people share based on the color of their skin, and we rightly call those who would put their own self appointed righteousness above the love and happiness of people he's never likely to meet by their proper name: bigots.

So people who disagree with incestuous relationships are bigots too, right?

I want you to be clear on this point. Absolutely 100% clear. Drop the genetics argument, pretend it doesn't exist, assume that a homosexual relationship is a CHOICE. Your argument would be that that choice should be accepted and respected.

Now don't play games with me.

I suggest you read some pro-paedophilia blogs - with an open mind. If you do what you'll discover is what I've known for 10 years, and that is that some people are sexually attracted to children - and that doesn't fit in your box of definitions of sexuality: straight/bi/gay. If you don't believe me, read their blogs, and then come back and tell me they're lying about their sexualities. Most of them are celibate because they understand that sex with children is a crime, even though it's not their choice to be attracted to them.

While we're at it some people have a genetic predisposition to violence too, does that excuse rape?

Now I view paedophiliac acts as thoroughly disgusting, and the people that do them as horrible, nasty people. But I wouldn't dare make the argument that some people aren't born with an engrained unchangeable sexuality that attracts them to children sexually. So you think you know a bit about sexuality, and you think you can lecture me, and you think your rock-solid argument is the "unchosen, unchangeable sexuality" card. If that was an argument, then paedophiles are just "acting out their sexuality".

Now I'm growing tired of being called hateful and bigoted. I've never had a gay friend that would say that about me, so what gives YOU that right?

[Zen Badger]

Oh, you can keep disagreeing with gay marriage all you want, on religious grounds. There were plenty of religious folks who disagreed with miscegenation and interracial marriage on the same grounds.

Actually Eugenics was once scientific consensus and had nothing to do with religion. Still, isn't it fun to blame religion for all the world's problems?

But we as a society woke up and stopped punishing the love that two people share based on the color of their skin, and we rightly call those who would put their own self appointed righteousness above the love and happiness of people he's never likely to meet by their proper name: bigots.

So people who disagree with incestuous relationships are bigots too, right?

I want you to be clear on this point. Absolutely 100% clear. Drop the genetics argument, pretend it doesn't exist, assume that a homosexual relationship is a CHOICE. Your argument would be that that choice should be accepted and respected.

Now don't play games with me.

I suggest you read some pro-paedophilia blogs - with an open mind. If you do what you'll discover is what I've known for 10 years, and that is that some people are sexually attracted to children - and that doesn't fit in your box of definitions of sexuality: straight/bi/gay. If you don't believe me, read their blogs, and then come back and tell me they're lying about their sexualities. Most of them are celibate because they understand that sex with children is a crime, even though it's not their choice to be attracted to them.

While we're at it some people have a genetic predisposition to violence too, does that excuse rape?

Now I view paedophiliac acts as thoroughly disgusting, and the people that do them as horrible, nasty people. But I wouldn't dare make the argument that some people aren't born with an engrained unchangeable sexuality that attracts them to children sexually. So you think you know a bit about sexuality, and you think you can lecture me, and you think your rock-solid argument is the "unchosen, unchangeable sexuality" card. If that was an argument, then paedophiles are just "acting out their sexuality".

Now I'm growing tired of being called hateful and bigoted. I've never had a gay friend that would say that about me, so what gives YOU that right?

So you equate a relationship freely entered into by two consenting adults (who happen to be the same gender) with raping children.

Good-o.

Do your gay "friends" know this? Or that you consider them second class people un-entitled to the same rights that you enjoy?

[Aractus]

No, I equate the reality of paedophilia as an engrained sexuality alongside heterosexuality, I thought I made that clear?

[Esquilax]

Actually Eugenics was once scientific consensus and had nothing to do with religion. Still, isn't it fun to blame religion for all the world's problems?

You might notice, if you actually read my words, that I never once said anything about eugenics. In fact, I said miscegenation, which is a term for interracial relationships. Which did have a strong negative response from religious groups. Try responding to what I actually say, next time.

So people who disagree with incestuous relationships are bigots too, right?

No, and I'll address the rest of your rant here too. Like I said, you can disagree with whatever you want. And I never once called you a bigot, because I don't know you. But if you're against gay marriage, you're going to have to deal with the fact that you hold a bigoted view. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable; maybe that fact should give you pause for thought.

Especially if you keep equating it to child rape.

So, I would have thought there was a fairly important line to draw between pedophilia and homosexuality, even if there is a genetic component to both; that line is one of harm, and of consent.

Perhaps I should have described my argument in greater detail: my position is not solely "it's genetic and therefore okay." It's "It's genetic and therefore unchangeable, and it hurts nobody and hence it's okay."

Pedophilia causes demonstrable harm, and violates a law of consent in doing so. This is the problem with it. Same with genetic predispositions for violence. I don't care if part of it is inborn: we're all sapient entities, and we can control our urges. Those who give in and hurt somebody... that's not okay. That shouldn't be allowed, genetic or not.

But in the case of homosexuality, it's genetic and nobody can mount a cogent argument as to the harm it causes, because so long as it's between two (or more!) consenting adults it brings no harm to anyone. Except for perhaps giving fundamentalist bigots the vapors, but they don't have the right not to be offended.

The facts are in: gay people are people, the only difference is that they're attracted to the same sex. Unless you can mount a specific, scientifically backed case for banning gay marriage, then you can keep your opinions to yourself. We don't legislate away the rights of others because it kind of makes you feel icky. We do it based on demonstrable, real harm to real people in the real world. That's the way it should be. And you can't tell me the harm homosexuality causes in that regard, because there is none.

That's it. That's my case. I don't know whether or not you're a bigot or hateful, but you definitely hold bigoted views. You're comparing harmless, adult homosexuality to the rape- and it's always rape because children can't consent- of children. That's bigoted, no matter your reasoning for doing so. You asked for an open mind from me earlier, and I would ask the same. Examine your views, ask yourself how your gay friends would feel if they knew you thought that way. They're human beings, just like you. Why don't they deserve equal rights and respect?

Maybe you don't hate them. Maybe you just hold to your views because they're part and parcel with your religion. I'd hope you're enough of an independent thinker to see past that, if you're genuinely empathetic toward the gay community.

[Aractus]

You might notice, if you actually read my words, that I never once said anything about eugenics. In fact, I said miscegenation, which is a term for interracial relationships. Which did have a strong negative response from religious groups. Try responding to what I actually say, next time.

I think you missed my point there.

Let me reiterate it for you. Eugenics was once consensus within science. Now you're going to tell me, but Daniel the Bible says don't marry the disgusting pagan people and have children with them (Old Testament), well true. I'll give you that much, however that was religious and not racial. Any pagan person could convert to Judaism and then marry one of the Jews, nobody cared what race they were. Miscegenation was never consensus within Christianity, but Eugenics was once consensus within science!! See the difference?

So, I would have thought there was a fairly important line to draw between pedophilia and homosexuality, even if there is a genetic component to both; that line is one of harm, and of consent.

No, that isn't what you said. You said that gay people HAVE NO CHOICE to enter into relationships and want to marry. That's what you said, do you want me to point out where you said that?

But in the case of homosexuality, it's genetic and nobody can mount a cogent argument as to the harm it causes, because so long as it's between two (or more!) consenting adults it brings no harm to anyone.

I'm going to call you up on this point. You keep saying "genetic". That's bullshit. Handedness isn't even genetic, and it doesn't need to be to make it real, so stop using the term "genetic" as if there's a fucking gene that controls sexuality when you know full well that there isn't.

I don't know whether or not you're a bigot or hateful, but you definitely hold bigoted views. You're comparing harmless, adult homosexuality to the rape- and it's always rape because children can't consent- of children. That's bigoted, no matter your reasoning for doing so.

You're so full of shit. This is what I said:

I equate the reality of paedophilia as an engrained sexuality alongside heterosexuality

WTF does that have to do with homosexuality??

As I said, if you can stomach it, go read some of their blogs, then come back here and tell me that I equated paedophilia to homosexuality.

[Brian37]

Give me a break I am dyslexic.
And teaearlgreyhot Its was supposed to be loaded as I am asking homophobes why they are.

You addressed "theists" not homophobes in your OP. Theists != homophobes.

---

Two men having sex is not the same as a man fucking a cow asshole. You merely find two men having sex yucky. Some women love to have their pussies eaten, and others don't. Just because you don't like it does not make it wrong. Your personal hang ups do not constitute the rest of us submitting to you.

No one owes you shit or submission merely because you don't like it. If you don't like gay sex, then don't have gay sex. But gays don't owe you shit. That is your own phobia and bigotry and they are not going to make your idiocy their problem.

He was pointing out the loading question by asking a loaded question.

Ok, but that kind of ambiguity is a cluster fuck, especially in text. That's why it is called "loaded".

[Violet]

Ok, but that kind of ambiguity is a cluster fuck, especially in text. That's why it is called "loaded".

Ambiguity has absolutely nothing to do with whether a question is or is not loaded.

A loaded question takes a backseat to its presumption.

When will you stop raping dogs?

Billy, my boy! How did you escape prison?

Come now, Sarah: won't you suck my dick like you did yesterday?

Regardless of whether a person answers yes or no or anything: the mission of the loaded question was completed, and doubt/suspicion is now cast upon the unfortunate recipient.