toldailytopic: Does your opinion about homosexuality change if the behavior turns out

[Skavau]

Uhhh, your biased rejection is showing.

This is so typical of the atheist/agnostic: "I've been scarred so have lame excuses for my rejection." Go ahead and stick with powderpuff and lambast tackle, its just this goofy and I see direct correlation in conversation. Why post on a tackle football site when you hate it and prefer anything but?

"You big tackle meanies! I got hurt! Doesn't look like real football to me...real football woudn't be so mean! ...."

What are you talking about?

Certainly nothing I said.

Also you sound like john w. Not a compliment.

 

[Lon]

Because this "institute" is notorious for its bad/pseudo science, Lon. And if you were willing to look into them and their background you'd know better than to rely on them. If you want to address the rest of my post, go on ahead, but so far you're just rehashing the same excuses the rest of you bigots use to justify hating people.

You mean...hmm...you think all these stats are only from those who 'hate' them? Good grief....

 

[Lon]

What are you talking about?

Certainly nothing I said.

Also you sound like john w. Not a compliment.

There are times John and I see eye-to-eye. But what I was talking about is that you are on a Christian forum. It seems odd to me you'd not think that such a perspective might be given here, hence the mismatch of football rules. You guys are trying awefully hard to label me. I have gay friends but I do not at all hide my belief concerning the matter. That would be worse, to me, than appearing a bigot. I'd suggest you and a few others are the ones who made this thread, at least with me, more than the OP. You(pl) have agendized your beliefs. The question was simply about genetics and whether this would change our views or not.

 

[Granite]

You mean...hmm...you think all these stats are only from those who 'hate' them? Good grief....

I already put a post together that you mostly ignored. You cited outdated stats and "research" from a quack farm. If you want to respond to my post, do so, otherwise, stop wasting my time. Sound good?

I'm always impressed with the lengths bigots will go to explain away or attempt to normalize their bigotry and am never impressed with their mediocre versions of mind games.

 

[Lon]

I already put a post together that you mostly ignored. You cited outdated stats and "research" from a quack farm. If you want to respond to my post, do so, otherwise, stop wasting my time. Sound good?

I'm always impressed with the lengths bigots will go to explain away or attempt to normalize their bigotry and am never impressed with their mediocre versions of mind games.

Yeah, not impressed. I said "show me" those new stats. Until such a time, I'd suggest that anything else is mediocre and mind-whatever....
Who is wasting whose time?

 

[Granite]

Yeah, not impressed. I said "show me" those new stats. Until such a time, I'd suggest that anything else is mediocre and mind-whatever....
Who is wasting whose time?

You're wasting mine. That's what happens when a bigot repeats old rumors and pseudo science to justify hatred. I half-expect phrenology to be trotted back out at this rate.

If there's any adults who want to return to the thread, feel free...

 

[Lon]

You're wasting mine. That's what happens when a bigot repeats old rumors and pseudo science to justify hatred. I half-expect phrenology to be trotted back out at this rate.

If there's any adults who want to return to the thread, feel free...

No. I asked for anything, anything at all, that points away from those statistics. I've actually read a bit of the Advocate and know their agenda over the past two decades. What I asked for was actual studies done, didn't get it. It is my estimation, that you are actually the bigot. You spread mistruth without facts. That's the definition. You've been bigotted against Christians for many years now. Oh, I know you have your reasons, but those aren't statistics either. Statistics are supposed to be unbiased studies. Its sad, frankly, that you are unable/unwilling to turn up any. Until such a time, I'll keep to my present course and you can keep bigot to yourself.

 

[Nightsights]

Stand with the Scriptures

Stand with the Scriptures

No change, the Bible calls it sin therefore those who choose to act on the impulse do so willingly. There is a way for them to avoid the sin. Also if it was simply a matter of genetics then what about those who have left the homosexual lifestyle.

 

[Granite]

It is my estimation, that you are actually the bigot.

Coming from a homophobe that's beyond hypocritical. Either you're deluded, or a considerable fool. And I don't think you're really this stupid.

Oh, I know you have your reasons, but those aren't statistics either.

Yes, Lon. That's right. And for that correct test answer you win a shiny new penny.

Do you have anything to offer beyond thirty-year-old studies cooked up by your predecessors to justify the hatred you stoke? Didn't think so.

If you want stats, figure out what you're looking for, and then let me know. If you can.

Remember: a few of those studies are completely irrelevant to me (so gay guys have a lot of sex: so what?) or shouldn't bother you (gay men usually have low life expectancies: why would you care?) Suicide rates for gay teens? Easy. Then again, if you weren't naturally lazy or disinterested in the facts, you could and would have done this yourself a while ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_suicide_in_the_United_States

Unsurprisingly, considering they have to deal with folks like you (and worse), suicide amongst gay teens remains high. That's a tragedy, and hopefully one our society will deal with by providing a more tolerant world for these young people to live in.

It's people like you who look other way when the villain of the moment--no matter who the villain may be--is victimized, ostracized, or killed outright. And it's always sanctimonous self-congratulating blowhards who always have some kind of excuse for the hatred and violence you encourage. Always.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You mean...hmm...you think all these stats are only from those who 'hate' them? Good grief....

Sorry Lon but the FRC and Paul Cameron are hardly credible sources on the subject. In this country it's the equivalent of buying the Daily Mail and expecting to find some news in it....

Cameron was found guilt of misappropriating research and was ostracized by his own profession so that should give you pause for thought...

 

[Skavau]

There are times John and I see eye-to-eye. But what I was talking about is that you are on a Christian forum. It seems odd to me you'd not think that such a perspective might be given here, hence the mismatch of football rules.

I'm never surprised by Christians referencing vicarious redemption or showing disdain or disagreement with homosexuality. It doesn't mean that it justifies outright bigotry and hatred towards homosexuals and nor does it justify any smear campaign towards them.

You guys are trying awefully hard to label me. I have gay friends but I do not at all hide my belief concerning the matter. That would be worse, to me, than appearing a bigot.

Well, yes it would.

I'd suggest you and a few others are the ones who made this thread, at least with me, more than the OP. You(pl) have agendized your beliefs. The question was simply about genetics and whether this would change our views or not.

What are my beliefs, sir?

 

[some other dude]

I wonder if any of our leftist friends can explain their bigotry towards pedophiles.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's not bigotry to be opposed to acts that violate people, be it child molestation or rape, murder etc. I'd have thought this would be obvious by now....

lain:

 

[some other dude]

OK. Let's restrict it to pedophiles who are in consensual relationships.

Can you explain why you're bigoted against them?



BTW - it's worth noting that artie's technique of grouping those poor innocent pedophiles in with rapists and murderers used to be a common tactic of homophobes, before the progressive movement enlightened our society to the groovy nature of homos.

 

[Arthur Brain]

OK. Let's restrict it to pedophiles who are in consensual relationships.

Can you explain why you're bigoted against them?



BTW - it's worth noting that artie's technique of grouping those poor innocent pedophiles in with rapists and murderers used to be a common tactic of homophobes, before the progressive movement enlightened our society to the groovy nature of homos.

There's no such thing as a consensual relationship between an adult and a child. As before it is not bigotry to be opposed to that which violates others. If that doesn't compute to you then not my problem.

 

[some other dude]

There's no such thing as a consensual relationship between an adult and a child.

:chuckle: Are you saying adults and chidren can't be friends?

As before it is not bigotry to be opposed to that which violates others.

That would assume that a consensual sexual relationship between an adult and a child "violates" the child.

Only a bigot would make such an assumption.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:chuckle: Are you saying adults and chidren can't be friends?

Nope. Obviously the context of 'relationship' was obvious

That would assume that a consensual sexual relationship between an adult and a child "violates" the child.

Only a bigot would make such an assumption.

It does violate, as the law reflects also. Using your "logic" you may as well accuse people of bigotry if they object to babies or toddlers being in a *relationship*

 

[Granite]

There's no such thing as a consensual relationship between an adult and a child. As before it is not bigotry to be opposed to that which violates others. If that doesn't compute to you then not my problem.

It's worth pointing out that to even consider the idea that a child can give consent justifies a crime...

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's worth pointing out that to even consider the idea that a child can give consent justifies a crime...

Good point.

 

[some other dude]

Nope. Obviously the context of 'relationship' was obvious

Yes, obviously.

Careless of you not to be more precise, but not unexpected. :chuckle:

It does violate, as the law reflects also.

As did the law fifty years ago wrt homosexuality.

Using your "logic" you may as well accuse people of bigotry if they object to babies or toddlers being in a *relationship*

No artie, I'm using your "logic" to show that societal acceptance of homosexuality, which you, and Granite, and most of the leftist/liberal/progressive/democrats champion, will lead to societal acceptance of pedophilia. It's inevitable.