glassjester
Well-known member
Right. So do you agree or disagree with either statement?
Homosexuality selected because of societal function
- Thread starter kmoney
- Start date
Right. So do you agree or disagree with either statement?
glassjester
Well-known member
Here's that slippery slope every gay marriage proponent thought wouldn't happen.
glassjester
Well-known member
You're actually defending incest, here. Just think about that. Really.
I, for one, recognize "Oedipus the King" as the tragedy that it truly is.
You think it's a romcom.
glassjester
Well-known member
I do. An incestuous sexual relationship is not ordered toward the good of the potential offspring. That good, being the ultimate purpose of the sexual relationship.
Incestuous desires are disordered for the same reason homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, and pedophilia are. They are inherently divorced from the actual purpose of the sexual relationship.
Let me ask you this (again), what makes pica a disorder?
glassjester
Well-known member
What if a brother/sister couple is sterilized? Would you say there is nothing wrong with them copulating?
but you have not demonstrated that homosexuality is not natural. All you have done is toss out a few insults and demonstrate your personal dislike for this minority by tossing around words that you would not use in discussions about other minorities.
And you miss the point entirely. (perhaps purposefully). The comparison is not between the minorities but rather the methods and practices of those trying to justify prejudice and discrimination.
Just recently we say Donald Trump falsely claim that blacks killed 81% of white homicide victims.
Racists have long claimed that rape is a crime committed almost exclusively by black men against white women.
and on and on and on.
You do realize that no one has made such an argument don't you?
People with genetic disorders that may potentially affect offspring enter into relationships all the time. So what? Let's say our happy incestuous couple takes steps to prevent pregnancy or were infertile. What logical objection can you offer?
Still no evidence to support this claim.
Again the lumping of a minority into this particular grouping of people is no different from David Duke's ideas about black men and rape.
Is homophobia a disorder?
I've asked you for logical objections. Can't think of any?
glassjester
Well-known member
My stance is consistent with what you've written. Contraception is immoral for the same reason homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, and incest are immoral.
Believing something is morally wrong is a phobia? Come on.
So you're pro-homosexuality.
You're pro-incest.
Let's keep going.
Are you pro-necrophilia?
Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Since you [Sela] have no knowledge of what causes homosexual desires, you are correct: you are "guessing". I covered the topic extensively in Part 2 of my WHMBR! threads, showing that the LGBTQ movement after spending millions upon millions of dollars couldn't come up with any valid evidence showing that they were "born that way".
I've looked thoroughly over your post and (here is my claim) I can't find that supposed "evidence" presented anywhere. Desires and behaviors are changeable, homosexuality is no different.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
More importantly I showed testimony from hundreds and hundreds of people showing that environmental factors (molestation during childhood, growing up in a dysfunctional family: a distant or abusive father, a overbearing mother, etc.) created those same sex desires.
I'd ask you to read the links found in the index on page 1 of WHMBR! Part 4, but trolls really aren't interested in the truth.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
EX-'gays' are the LGBTQ movement's worst enemy, as they've shown that change is possible and that no one is born with perverted desires, meaning that hate crime laws are not needed to protect people whose behavior is changeable.
Fixed that for ya.
Hate crime legislation was designed for the LGBTQueer movement, hence their hatred of people who show that they were not "born homosexual" and that change is possible.
Regarding "changeable religions": God's universal moral code doesn't change, hence the LGBTQueer movements HATRED of God. They HATE Him so much that they change His Word to meet their selfish and perverted desires.
Since you [Sela] have no knowledge of what causes homosexual desires, you are correct: you are "guessing". I covered the topic extensively in Part 2 of my WHMBR! threads, showing that the LGBTQ movement after spending millions upon millions of dollars couldn't come up with any valid evidence showing that they were "born that way".
I've looked thoroughly over your post and (here is my claim) I can't find that supposed "evidence" presented anywhere. Desires and behaviors are changeable, homosexuality is no different.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
More importantly I showed testimony from hundreds and hundreds of people showing that environmental factors (molestation during childhood, growing up in a dysfunctional family: a distant or abusive father, a overbearing mother, etc.) created those same sex desires.
I'd ask you to read the links found in the index on page 1 of WHMBR! Part 4, but trolls really aren't interested in the truth.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
EX-'gays' are the LGBTQ movement's worst enemy, as they've shown that change is possible and that no one is born with perverted desires, meaning that hate crime laws are not needed to protect people whose behavior is changeable.
Fixed that for ya.
Hate crime legislation was designed for the LGBTQueer movement, hence their hatred of people who show that they were not "born homosexual" and that change is possible.
Regarding "changeable religions": God's universal moral code doesn't change, hence the LGBTQueer movements HATRED of God. They HATE Him so much that they change His Word to meet their selfish and perverted desires.
Homosexuality starts as a child, maybe starting around 10 to 12 years old, maybe earlier - Nobody was ever born gay nor will be
glassjester
Well-known member
No one's ever met a gay baby!
I thought of that once, I may have said it but I may have just thought it - either way, it's true
glassjester
Well-known member
I know I've said it many times; I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it.
glassjester
Well-known member
If babies were "born gay," I wonder if liberals would support a mother's right to abort a baby for being gay.
That wouldn't happen, because liberals love homos
No ... only some of them. I am a moderate and would never support abortion regardless of the circumstances.
There is nothing "moderate" about people who support the LGBTQ agenda. Besides, your new political party is hardly pro life:
1.5 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
http://www.lp.org/platform
Pre-natal development is what I mostly had in mind, I think. Something tied to hormones. Perhaps epigenetics is tied in as well, though I'm by no means very familiar with any of this. I do see that some epigentic changes are heritable so there could be some selection based on that as well. I've also heard that males with older brothers are more likely to be gay.
My obvious thought or point is that prevalence is only evidence of selection if the cause can be passed on and I'm not sure how strongly the evidence points in that direction yet. Perhaps it is simply caused by something else that is relatively common in various species.