Hi,
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
Yes, JLAP you are correct some species do not require both genders of the species to reproduce, but since your typing this I assume you're not one of them. So that point's illrelavant
We are talking about HUMANS. If you want to involve the animal kingdom, and akin their instinct to mankind we're back to the whole murder issue. A spade is a spade.
Humans are animals just animals with certain rather unique features. We walk upright which frees our breathing from being used as the engine of fast short term propulsion and so we could develop a more complex verbal communication system and that allowed us to access larger portions of the brain which in turn evolved the brain. But we are still just another animal on this planet -- just the most advanced in terms of self awareness. It is this trait of self-awareness -- intelligence -- that we celebrate in all our "god" and "religion" myths -- including Christianity. What is love and compassion if not the awareness of empathy -- how the other guy feels. Christianity is nothing but the projection of that all too human consciousness into the imagination -- the real inspiration for the notion of the "divine". Religion is art. It is a fiction that reveals truth. To make it a literal reality is to pervert it. humans are just animals.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
I don't doubt you were born gay, in the same respect I don't doub't my father was born an alcoholic.
Yes, your father was born an alcoholic and yes he had a choice to drink or not but that comparison only applies to being gay IF one is working under the assumption that being gay -- like alcoholism -- is a disease to be avoided. To "choose" to act on one's core reality -- one's sexuality -- is not to believe the core itself was simply a matter of choice. It is not. It is too choose to be one's self rather than live a lie to please an unfair, bigoted and unjust society. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason not to accept being gay and to freely and guiltlessly live out of that core sense of being. There are many reasons to never choose to act on that aspect of self that is an alcoholic. It is destructive to one's health. Now, of course, the anti-gay bunch is screaming AIDS at this point. Well, if AIDS is the issue determining choice,
heterosexuals need to abstain from sex yesterday as it is killing the world's heterosexuals!
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
Now is their such thing as a gay gene? Absolutly not.
Genes or hormones what it is IS BIOLOGICALLY BASED and not a choice based on culture or nurture.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
First if you're implimenting evolution as a premise for doing what you want then their would be no gay people. Evolution, to my limited understanding, is the advancement of a species over time through the sucessfull adaptation of new generations. Homosexuality is a trait that negatively effects the human species and it's advancement. Secondly if homosexuality was genetic it would have dissapeared a LONG time ago (I.E.) they don't reproduce. Don't even say "well some gays do reproduce" because that would prove it's a choise.
First, a gay person choosing to have straight sex does not prove being gay is a choice; it proves that one can be gay, deny that self and pretend to be straight, pretend to be bi, be bi, be a little gay and alot straight and all the other percentages of human complexity possible here. The sexaul act that Christians like to focus on (calling Dr. Freud!!!!!)does not determine gayness. One can be as gay as a 3 dollar bill and never have sex. One can have gay sex and be as straight as an arrow. The act has nothing to do with it. To define it by the sex act is to reveal a mistaken mind.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
I not knocking anyone for doing what their heart tells them, but you can't reject religion, and science and still have a leg to stand on when used for self-serving idealogy.
Yes, you are and I do not understand the rest of the sentence.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
Also throughout history homosexuality occoures within civilazation in waves, almost (just an example NO offence intended) like a plague.
Actually, smarty, you meant every offense by that choice of words. It is exactly that kind of passive/aggressive pretend tolerance that is so deeply hurtful to the Christian cause as it exposes Christians as intolerent, bigoted, hateful people in the eyes of everyone else.
Homosexuality appears throughout history. The bigoted minded "waves" you have imagined has to do with social acceptance of homosexuality. Where it was accepted it appeared to increase but, in fact, the only thing going on was that it was allowed into the open. It was always there. If America ever experiences economic collapse anyone not in power will be open season for bigots. Economic well being, since it lowers survival stress, produces real tolerance in society -- liberalism. Republicans killed liberalism in America by turning white people into a group that imagined it was under attack and beseiged and the Repubs have played that survival fear card ever since. It is far deeper and more effective than the race cards they play but no one ever notices that their real strategy is to make white people feel threatened. Nothing like fear to close a mind and keep compassion in check.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
If it were genetic it would be much more even, and of course bred OUT of scociety. ........Just a breeders point of view.
No, because gay people do breed and to breed a gene out of the humna pool would require a selected breeding process that even Hitler could not imagine!
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
biggun, i dont think we should have the same thing for gays under a different name. ever heard of "seperate but equal" well america tried that once and things were not equal.
I agree it is a risk as "seperate but equal" did not work, although there are those who argue that America is creating a seperate but equal society today between blacks and whites. I think all marriages should be defined as a civil union first and a religious union second and under that law gay marriage is a civil union. I have no wish to force Chritians to change their beliefs. I just want them to keep their beliefs in their churchs and homes and out of US law. But to please the Christians I am more than willing to give them "marriage" as their special word and make up a new word for the exact same thing for gays. Unlike with African Americans, separate but equal here could just be an issue of semantics.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
an apple isn't an orange, and a different name for marriage that only applies to gays is not marriage
"Marriage" is not the issue; equal rights is. Equal rights can be obtained under another name and action. Christians have every right to deny gay marriage within their religion. I would never fight to force Christianity to accept gays. I would fight for US civil society to fully and unquestionably accept gays. I am an American; not a Christian. I care what America does; not what Christians do. What they do and believe behind closed doors is their own business.
Bobby