The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

JimiTime

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You can be sure all you want. That does not make it true. I can only speak for myself however... but I can tell you that "flip flopping" is not an issue for me. I simply do not _care_ what a persons opinion was in the past or how many times (if at all) they changed it.

The only thing that is important to me is A) What a person's opinion is at the current time and What his arguments, evidence, data and reasoning is to substantiate that position.

So despite your confidence in what my actions would be I can tell you it is false and whether someone goes from anti gay to pro gay, or the other way around, my question for them is the same: "Really? Why do you think that then?".

Fair enough. I'll take you at your word. A small point though, but it is nothing to do with anti or pro GAY. But rather, what marriage is.

As I said I really think it is a sad state of affairs that the discourse between theists and atheists is rife with accusations of bias and close mindedness. Yet when someone actually does change their mind on an issue they are accused of weakness, flip flopping or pandering. "Damned if you do and Damned if you don't" has never sounded so true.

You yourself accused Philologos of what I am accusing others. Namely, that when something agrees with ones POV, its embraced and lauded. If its the other way round, its usually seen in a negative light. So like I said, if the shoe was on the other foot, those lauding it, would likely be condemning it.

Personally I don't think he ever changed his mind. I think he simply played the game, but sure, its neither here nor there. The fact is, he believes what he does now.

SoulandForm

http://narth.com/main-issues/medical/

Its a public health issue.

SoulandForm

http://www.henrymakow.com/i_wasnt_born_gay_didnt_choose.html

Very interesting article.

Delirium

SoulandForm wrote: »

http://narth.com/main-issues/medical/

Its a public health issue.

Narth.com? They're a group involved in "conversion therapy" and hold a position on homosexuality that neither the world's scientific or mental health organisations agree with. Hardly an unbiased website.

28064212

SoulandForm wrote: »

http://narth.com/main-issues/medical/

Its a public health issue.

SoulandForm wrote: »

http://www.henrymakow.com/i_wasnt_born_gay_didnt_choose.html

Very interesting article.

Wow, just some of the links from those sites:
How the SF Chronicle Invented Aids
Is this "Deceased" Emilie Parker With Obama?
Pinkos Invade Last Male Bastion, Football
Super-HIV Man Has Sex With 100 Men
“Crystal Meth” New Drug Of Choice On Gay Party Circuit

Don't think I'll be addressing anything from those sites. If you have real, scientific research to bring that actually demonstrates causation, not correlation, bring it

Links234

SoulandForm wrote: »

http://narth.com/main-issues/medical/

Its a public health issue.

NARTH Becomes Main Source for Anti-Gay ‘Junk Science’

NARTH is also home to grade-A creeps like George Rekers, who abused children, falsified research and was later found out to be a closet homosexual after he hired a rent boy. the only thing NARTH have an authority on is self-deception

oh, and could you please answer the questions I put to you here? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82864464&postcount=1831

L.Jenkins

SoulandForm wrote: »

http://narth.com/main-issues/medical/

Its a public health issue.

SoulandForm wrote: »

http://www.henrymakow.com/i_wasnt_born_gay_didnt_choose.html

Very interesting article.

I would view these both as horendous attempts to demonise Homosexuality, comparing it to an addiction. To quote a site dealing in repairative therapy says it all regarding your argument. Not once have you read up on biological diversity within Humans and other species occupying this planet.

aloyisious

SoulandForm wrote: »

I read the link. The fact is that homosexuality is socially acceptable now and unfortunately there isnt social pressure to help people suppress perverted desires. However the fact that engaging in these unnatural acts causes mental illness in itself is not going to be admitted so people have to come up with nonsense like that.

Please explain what you mean by "social pressure".

nozzferrahhtoo

JimiTime wrote: »

So like I said, if the shoe was on the other foot, those lauding it, would likely be condemning it.

Perhaps some would, but I repeat it would not be me. I am merely interested in what position a person espouses today... and why. What they believed in the past or how often their mind changed is irrelevant to me.

SoulandForm

I wonder what would happen if someone went over to the Gay section and started to preach the Gospel?

Links234

SoulandForm wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if someone went over to the Gay section and started to preach the Gospel?

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Can you please answer the questions I put to you in this post?

28064212

SoulandForm wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if someone went over to the Gay section and started to preach the Gospel?

Well, that would be off-topic, and like all the forums on Boards, you would receive infractions. On the other hand, if you wanted to discuss the implications of, say, being "Gay and Christian", you'd find there are dozens of threads on that exact subject

L.Jenkins

SoulandForm wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if someone went over to the Gay section and started to preach the Gospel?

They might show you some curtescy, read what you've wrote and respond accordingly.

JimiTime

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps some would, but I repeat it would not be me. I am merely interested in what position a person espouses today... and why. What they believed in the past or how often their mind changed is irrelevant to me.

I wholeheartedly stand by that principal, however, when it comes to politicians, its usually not about changed minds unfortunately. I could respect that, even if I disagreed. I think in Obama's case, he just played the game, and even if I agreed with him, I loathe dishonesty.

philologos

Links234 wrote: »

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Can you please answer the questions I put to you in this post?

SoulandForm wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if someone went over to the Gay section and started to preach the Gospel?

I disagree Links234, it's relevant to the whole thread. I disagree with a lot of what SoulandForm has said. I disagree with the concept of criminalising sexual behaviour, but I think it's important to ask, what is the point of the thread, and what is the reason for you (and I) posting.

These are questions we need to ask if we are to properly consider what the point of this thread is.

Links234

No it isn't, it's derailing the discussion. SoulandForm made statements about same sex relations leading to mental instability, I questioned him to explain his statement further, and he's ignoring the questions and changing the subject. it's nothing but whataboutery

philologos

Links234 wrote: »

No it isn't, it's derailing the discussion. SoulandForm made statements about same sex relations leading to mental instability, I questioned him to explain his statement further, and he's ignoring the questions and changing the subject. it's nothing but whataboutery

I disagree, this question in particular is a valid one and worth answering even if what he said previously was offensive and inflammatory and I agree it was.

What is the point of this thread? What is the point of contributing to it? It all seems incredibly circular.

SoulandForm

philologos wrote: »

I disagree Links234, it's relevant to the whole thread. I disagree with a lot of what SoulandForm has said. I disagree with the concept of criminalising sexual behaviour, but I think it's important to ask, what is the point of the thread, and what is the reason for you (and I) posting.

These are questions we need to ask if we are to properly consider what the point of this thread is.

So do I.

Look at it this way though- we dont jail people for adultery but at the same time we dont promote it as a valid lifestyle equal to being loyal to your husband, wife, girlfriend or boyfriend, while people do promote homosexuality.

I agree with the Russian law forbidding its promotion- I would disagree with a law making homosexual acts illegal for people over 21.

philologos

SoulandForm wrote: »

So do I.

Look at it this way though- we dont jail people for adultery but at the same time we dont promote it as a valid lifestyle equal to being loyal to your husband, wife, girlfriend or boyfriend, while people do promote homosexuality.

I agree with the Russian law forbidding its promotion- I would disagree with a law making homosexual acts illegal for people over 21.

I prefer freedom of speech. That's the same freedom that ensures that we can share the Gospel to a world that desperately needs to hear it.

L.Jenkins

SoulandForm wrote: »

...I agree with the Russian law forbidding its promotion - I would disagree with a law making homosexual acts illegal for people over 21.

How would you feel if there were a law preventing the promotion of religion or Marriage as it is currently defined? In the same breathe, could you provide an example from a source of your choice, how homosexuality is promoted in modern day society, because I don't see it.

SoulandForm

Itzy wrote: »

They might show you some curtescy, read what you've wrote and respond accordingly.

I doubt that strongly. All the homosexuals I have come into contact with had a deep hatred of Christ and Christianity. It was observing this fact that started me researching this issue. The Mod here banned someone for posting a link about how Satan wants gun control and thanked a pro-homosexual post here so maybe if I dont reply its because I dont want get banned myself?

L.Jenkins

Well if you start a thread to see how many of our frequent posters are religious, you might be suprised.

SoulandForm

philologos wrote: »

I prefer freedom of speech. That's the same freedom that ensures that we can share the Gospel to a world that desperately needs to hear it.

Freedom of speech is all well and good as an ideal. However for it to function properly in a healthy manner you need a mature and educated population that is capable of casting judgement on what is presented to it. Anyway Im sure you dont believe in completely unlimited freedom of expression and support the laws against child pornography for instance; what are your views on laws against incitement to racial hatred?

philologos

SoulandForm wrote: »

Freedom of speech is all well and good as an ideal. However for it to function properly in a healthy manner you need a mature and educated population that is capable of casting judgement on what is presented to it. Anyway Im sure you dont believe in completely unlimited freedom of expression and support the laws against child pornography for instance; what are your views on laws against incitement to racial hatred?

Producing or disseminating videos which are the result of child abuse is naturally illegal. That's not just expression.

As for racist hate speech, honestly I think people should be responsible for regulating the speech of others rather than expecting the law to put red tape around it.

SoulandForm

Links234 wrote: »

No it isn't, it's derailing the discussion. SoulandForm made statements about same sex relations leading to mental instability, I questioned him to explain his statement further, and he's ignoring the questions and changing the subject. it's nothing but whataboutery

I posted links showing that homosexuals have greater amounts of drug abuse and mental health issues. They reply has been is that hetrosexuals are mean to them and they have higher rates of homelessness. Maybe they have higher rates of homelessness because they are more mentally unstable? Maybe we could actually help people by treating homosexual attraction as a psychological disorder so that people could live productive lives who probably otherwise wouldnt?

tommy2bad

what are your views on laws against incitement to racial hatred?

I would be against that but then again I don't think they should promote jewishness or blackuality or asianism.
See how this works?

SoulandForm

philologos wrote: »

As for racist hate speech, honestly I think people should be responsible for regulating the speech of others rather than expecting the law to put red tape around it.

Im not sure exactly what you mean. What do you mean by people regulating the speech of others?

tommy2bad

SoulandForm wrote: »

I posted links showing that homosexuals have greater amounts of drug abuse and mental health issues. They reply has been is that hetrosexuals are mean to them and they have higher rates of homelessness. Maybe they have higher rates of homelessness because they are more mentally unstable? Maybe we could actually help people by treating homosexual attraction as a psychological disorder so that people could live productive lives who probably otherwise wouldnt?

Jesus wept!
Are you trying to be offensive or is it accidental?

philologos

SoulandForm wrote: »

Im not sure exactly what you mean. What do you mean by people regulating the speech of others?

Challenging them and rebuking them.

SoulandForm

tommy2bad wrote: »

I would be against that but then again I don't think they should promote jewishness or blackuality or asianism.
See how this works?

Are seriously comparing a person's race to sexual perversion?

Im not a Calvinist at all but Voddie Baucham is 100 per cent correct here- http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-not-the-new-black/