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?".
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.
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.
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.
JimiTime wrote: » So like I said, if the shoe was on the other foot, those lauding it, would likely be condemning it.
SoulandForm wrote: » I wonder what would happen if someone went over to the Gay section and started to preach the Gospel?
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.
Links234 wrote: » Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Can you please answer the questions I put to you in this post?
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
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.
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.
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.
Itzy wrote: » They might show you some curtescy, read what you've wrote and respond accordingly.
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.
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?
what are your views on laws against incitement to racial hatred?
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.
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?
SoulandForm wrote: » Im not sure exactly what you mean. What do you mean by people regulating the speech of others?
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?
