Re: Ron Brown -- Long Rant

[Grahambo]

So now you're comparing gays to anarchists? Gays are as unhinged as murderers? Real nice comparison. You're an idiot.

Really? Show me where I compared gays to anarchists.

You completely missed the point.

 

[ACamp1900]

I will throw this out there... nature and nurture can both play a part in just about anything from person to person... I know many people who at some point in their youth claimed homosexuality or bisexuality and it was all a part of greater self-destructiveness that many young people take part in, some simply never grew out of it... and, I know others who have always made such claims and swear they always just were... I believe it really varies person to person, case to case, for just about any issue... not just this.

just me...

btw, what does any of this have to do with some guy preaching about not bullying people then shouting names at, and ridiculing people who don't agree with him??

 

[woolybug25]

Yes I choose to be straight. I feel attracted to women and I prefer women.

Are you implying that a guy just has a natural attraction to other guys?

Yes. I think everyone has given feelings and attractions. Typically, men are naturally attracted to women and vice versa. You for instance, were given natural attraction to women. But just like how some people naturally don't like tomatoes or people naturally love the feeling of water, some people are born with different feelings than yours.

Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time. It wasn't based off some confused kids desire to choose to be an outcast. I believe they are simply pursuing the natural feelings and attractions that they feel.

It simply astonishes me that so many people think that people like you and I could naturally be attracted to women while it is "against nature" for others to be attracted to their same gender. From a scientific standpoint, homosexuality is quite "aligned with nature".

 

[mgriff]

I have absolutely no problem with that story. Nor do I have a problem if someone is gay as I stated a day or two ago. I choose to believe that it is a choice until I see something that makes me change my mind. It does not mean I discriminate against gay because I don't. I already said I would lay my life down for another man (or woman) who is gay in a heartbeat if I had to. I'm sorry if you think I'm some terrible monster against the gay community because I believe it is a choice. I think gay people should have every right that I do. I believe they should get married if they so choose.

No your beliefs are your own and I had no problem until you compared them with anarchists who were attempting to precipitate murder.

 

[mgriff]

Really? Show me where I compared gays to anarchists.

You completely missed the point.

The same self-destructive behavior that defines mass-murderers is the same in homosexuals.

 

[Grahambo]

Yes. I think everyone has given feelings and attractions. Typically, men are naturally attracted to women and vice versa. You for instance, were given natural attraction to women. But just like how some people naturally don't like tomatoes or people naturally love the feeling of water, some people are born with different feelings than yours.

Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time. It wasn't based off some confused kids desire to choose to be an outcast. I believe they are simply pursuing the natural feelings and attractions that they feel.

It simply astonishes me that so many people think that people like you and I could naturally be attracted to women while it is "against nature" for others to be attracted to their same gender. From a scientific standpoint, homosexuality is quite "aligned with nature".

You presented a great counter argument.

I have no problem with what you said whatsoever, I just so happen to disagree. That's all.

There's a saying, I can't remember, there's three sides to a story, my side, your side, and somewhere in between is the truth..something like that.

 

[Grahambo]

The same self-destructive behavior that defines mass-murderers is the same in homosexuals.

Totally not where I was going with that. I lay the blame at my feet because I should have clarified my statement better so for that, my fault and I apologize.

 

[Grahambo]

No your beliefs, are your own and I had no problem until you compared them with anarchists who were attempting to precipitate murder.

See above.

 

[woolybug25]

edit -I'm bailing on this thread. There is way too much to get offended about and disagree with.

I come here for ND football and fun times. Not to get into a bible-thumping debate.


See ya on the flip side, homies.

 

[mgriff]

Totally not where I was going with that. I lay the blame at my feet because I should have defined it better so for that, my fault and I apologize.

No problem, and I apologize if I've offended you.

 

[Grahambo]

No problem, and I apologize if I've offended you.

Not at all. Nearly impossible to offend me. If I'm an idiot or being an idiot, by all means, say so.

Take the bolded part and what I said at face value. Nothing more or nothing less. Certainly was not implying that about gays.

(Let's see if I can try this again) My point was somebody decided to be an anarchist (recent events I am referring to) but knew (I really hope they did at least) it would subject them to ridicule. I didn't think saying someone chose to lead a life of ridicule by being gay was fair about gays because I don't believe that to be the case.

(Still not sure if I cleared it up. I suppose we can just stick with the I'm an idiot statement. I at least proved that.)

 

[Grahambo]

edit -I'm bailing on this thread. There is way too much to get offended about and disagree with.

I come here for ND football and fun times. Not to get into a bible-thumping debate.


See ya on the flip side, homies.

I kinda saw what you put in there but you edited it. Kinda wish you hadn't. If I'm being an idiot, please don't hesitate. I need to put in my place at times and I truly don't mind hearing other's opinions. If I'm out of line, misinformed, being a d****e, etc. tell me. I don't seek to be one, I sometimes have a hard time putting my thoughts into a proper format and letting them out. (Probably best if I just didn't say anything if that's the case.)

I value your opinion WB.

 

[Zwidmanio]

A lot of this nature vs. nurture/choice vs. inherent trait is a bit misguided. It's a lot easier to view things in a binary fashion, but as with most things, it's simply not the case. Sexuality is not an "I'm a homosexual" or "I'm a heterosexual choice." It's a spectrum and I doubt, if you really dug all the way down, that anybody is 100% oriented one way or another. Some of those that fall somewhere in the middle probably do make some kind of choice to lean one way or another, so yes, there is some element of choice.

However, those that try to paint it as a "lifestyle choice," whether they are accepting/tolerant of it or not, are misguided. I certainly never made a choice to be a heterosexual. I remember as a child being drawn towards the womanly figure and traits, but this was in no way a conscious decision to be attracted to the opposite sex. The consensus is, certainly amongst gays that I have met and know, that the process is the same for them. They don't know why but it's the way it works. I'm not sure why it's so hard for some to accept that.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

With all due respect, this is an impossible assertion. While I agree that government should not be the ones defining marriage, because of tax implications, they have to. Simply put, any type of legislature, tax break or tax code that addresses marriage is ad hoc defining marriage.

Why can't the definition simply be "union between two consenting adults who aren't related by blood"? That seems plausible to me.

I really doubt that many religious couples would truly care if their state certificate said "Civil Union" instead of "Marriage". For them, the church ceremony is what matters, and the certificate is just another legal hoop to jump through. I suspect that those who say otherwise simply don't want to cede any territory in the "Culture Wars".

They don't understand that the status quo is incompatible with the Equal Protection clause. It would be far better for the states to start doing this voluntarily than for the Supreme Court to hand down another Roe v. Wade, which will further entrench this bitter divide.

 

[Grahambo]

A lot of this nature vs. nurture/choice vs. inherent trait is a bit misguided. It's a lot easier to view things in a binary fashion, but as with most things, it's simply not the case. Sexuality is not an "I'm a homosexual" or "I'm a heterosexual choice." It's a spectrum and I doubt, if you really dug all the way down, that anybody is 100% oriented one way or another. Some of those that fall somewhere in the middle probably do make some kind of choice to lean one way or another, so yes, there is some element of choice.

However, those that try to paint it as a "lifestyle choice," whether they are accepting/tolerant of it or not, are misguided. I certainly never made a choice to be a heterosexual. I remember as a child being drawn towards the womanly figure and traits, but this was in no way a conscious decision to be attracted to the opposite sex. The consensus is, certainly amongst gays that I have met and know, that the process is the same for them. They don't know why but it's the way it works. I'm not sure why it's so hard for some to accept that.

For me, I can only speak for myself, it's not about accepting but about believing in what I choose to believe. I accept everybody and anybody.

 

[woolybug25]

Why can't the definition simply be "union between two consenting adults who aren't related by blood"? That seems plausible to me.

I really doubt that many religious couples would truly care if their state certificate said "Civil Union" instead of "Marriage". For them, the church ceremony is what matters, and the certificate is just another legal hoop to jump through. I suspect that those who say otherwise simply don't want to cede any territory in the "Culture Wars".

They don't understand that the status quo is incompatible with the Equal Protection clause. It would be far better for the states to start doing this voluntarily than for the Supreme Court to hand down another Roe v. Wade, which will further entrench this bitter divide.

I agree, but we both know that religious special interests groups would never allow the government to take away their legal definition of marriage and refer to them as "civil unions". The reality is that "civil unions" is really just what they want to categorize gay marriage as in order to mitigate their rights and discriminate against them.

Any situation where the government got out of the "marriage business" would be positioned as a federal attack on religion. As I said before, the religious fringe of this country only wants Seperation of Church and State when it is seperating other people's religious views, not their own.

 

[Zwidmanio]

For me, I can only speak for myself, it's not about accepting but about believing in what I choose to believe. I accept everybody and anybody.

I understand your position and accept it as your belief. If I had explained myself a little further, I don't have a significant problem with those that hold your belief, only with those that use your belief as justification for discrimination and prejudice against homosexuals.

Personally, I have seen enough evidence that I'm convinced that overall, it's not a choice. If anybody were able to point to any reputable counter-evidence, I'm always open to listening.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

What does it matter if I think it's a choice or not?? Is that really the issue here? Why is it that folks like you, and gays, demand that we accept that they were born that way, without any proof? Who knows??? Importantly....WHO CARES. Why does it offend people that I just don't buy the "gay gene" theory??

It matters because it changes the whole dynamics of the conversation. The only justification for moral upright persons bashing gays, is that they are evil, which is caused by having free will and making a choice. If, however gay people didn't make that choice, everything that morally upstanding bastards were doing to make their existance impossible, would be deemed evil. See a man named Bull, two inch fire hoses, and police dogs in Birmingham, Al.

I couldn't careless about someone's sexual orientation. My problem with this entire Savage deal wasn't that he was gay....it was that he is just as guility of bullying as the people he was calling out. So don't make fun of gays.....but if you wanna slam Christians, go ahead. They deserve it for their beliefs.

You forgot the "but." There is a "but" between "orientation" and "My"; that may seem to camouflage your statement a little, but not so much. The first bolded statement comes off with all the smarm of the lie it is. The second bolded statement is interesting. I watched his tape over and over. I watched the people walk out, and other than be assertive, I didn't see one bit of bullying. Not even when he called those that couldn't discuss it, "pansies." You have to understand I had an NCO that was both gay and maybe the toughest human being I ever knew, so when I saw Mr. Savage use the term pansy, and sort of pause and smile, not only the irony, but the reminiscence of my friend doing the same made me more than chuckle.

The rest of your argument melts away into the uppity ni***r arguments I remember from racists in the sixties. They mostly boiled down to this, "If you let him speak his mind or give him true freedom, he will take everything from you." Since then we all should have learned, that a man or woman wanting their own piece does not mean they will take it from you, and just because you give someone their rightful power, it doesn't mean they will ever treat you as badly as you have treated them.

Mgriff, best post ever! Grambo, your logic is a degree or two off, but your heart is good and true!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgriff
So now you're comparing gays to anarchists? Gays are as unhinged as murderers? Real nice comparison.

You're an idiot.

Really? Show me where I compared gays to anarchists.

You completely missed the point.

Guys, I say the only thing to debate is whether gays have free will or not. That is what everone has been circling. You cannot boil everything down to simplicity with real flesh and blood human beings (MGriff) and there is a point where you have to make a decision, you either are or are not over the line, (Grambo). And nobody is an idiot. It takes too much to have an in depth conversation like this and keep authentic.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It simply astonishes me that so many people think that people like you and I could naturally be attracted to women while it is "against nature" for others to be attracted to their same gender.

Homosexual desires are not inherently immoral, because people are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little control. But homosexual activity is indeed immoral because it is "against nature".

From a scientific standpoint, homosexuality is quite "aligned with nature".

This strikes me as a twisted argument from Natural Law. A genetic predisposition toward a specific behavior doesn't make that behavior moral. An alcoholic's genetic predisposition toward binge drinking doesn't absolve him from guilt when he over-indulges. If a careless driver ran over your child in front of you, your desire to pull him from his vehicle and beat him to death would be quite "natural"; it still wouldn't be moral.

Natural Law deals with design. Just as we can intuitively perceive that the natural sex partner for a person is another person, and not an animal, we can easily perceive that the natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and visa versa. If one believes that God made humanity in his image and likeness, then the sanctity of human life and the way God designed men and women are critically important to the Christian understanding of morality.

Sex has a sacred purpose. When it is divorced from that purpose, the result is gravely immoral for a whole host of reasons.

That argument has little force in modern society because our culture is so aggressively secular. We're conditioned from birth to do what feels good, as long as it doesn't obviously harm anyone else. Unfortunately, there are plenty of things one can do in private, or with other consenting adults, which cause no immediate visible harm, but are still immoral.

 

[irishpat183]

Yes I choose to be straight. I feel attracted to women and I prefer women.

Are you implying that a guy just has a natural attraction to other guys?

Exactly. Especially since the two parties cannot procreate.

Why would humans be "wired" to be attracted to the same sex?

 

[gkIrish]

I said wayyyyy back on page one that this thread should be closed before things get personal. And yes it's my business because this will bleed into other threads at some point. Seriously, close this thread please

 

[irishpat183]

It matters because it changes the whole dynamics of the conversation. The only justification for moral upright persons bashing gays, is that they are evil, which is caused by having free will and making a choice. If, however gay people didn't make that choice, everything that morally upstanding bastards were doing to make their existance impossible, would be deemed evil. See a man named Bull, two inch fire hoses, and police dogs in Birmingham, Al.



You forgot the "but." There is a "but" between "orientation" and "My"; that may seem to camouflage your statement a little, but not so much. The first bolded statement comes off with all the smarm of the lie it is. The second bolded statement is interesting. I watched his tape over and over. I watched the people walk out, and other than be assertive, I didn't see one bit of bullying. Not even when he called those that couldn't discuss it, "pansies." You have to understand I had an NCO that was both gay and maybe the toughest human being I ever knew, so when I saw Mr. Savage use the term pansy, and sort of pause and smile, not only the irony, but the reminiscence of my friend doing the same made me more than chuckle.



The rest of your argument melts away into the uppity ni***r arguments I remember from racists in the sixties. They mostly boiled down to this, "If you let him speak his mind or give him true freedom, he will take everything from you." Since then we all should have learned, that a man or woman wanting their own piece does not mean they will take it from you, and just because you give someone their rightful power, it doesn't mean they will ever treat you as badly as you have treated them.

Mgriff, best post ever! Grambo, your logic is a degree or two off, but your heart is good and true!



Guys, I say the only thing to debate is whether gays have free will or not. That is what everone has been circling. You cannot boil everything down to simplicity with real flesh and blood human beings (MGriff) and there is a point where you have to make a decision, you either are or are not over the line, (Grambo). And nobody is an idiot. It takes too much to have an in depth conversation like this and keep authentic.

Yet if a straight person called a gay a pansy....what do you think the result of that would be??? Hint: it rhymes with "small shoots".

And they walked out....so what? Why did he have to point that out? You want gays to be left alone and not be singled out(that's not really what they want, but that's another argument).....so why do that to others?

I now realize that you are unable to see the hypocrisy right in front of your face. You must be a liberal.

And none of what you said in your second paragraph is even REMOTELY close to what I was saying. People are free to go find their own "peace". It has nothing to do with me.

I'm not afraid of people getting theirs. I'm out to get mine. Just don't force me to buy into something that I don't agree with.

And don't start movements that preach acceptance and love, and you show neither to those that disagree with you and your CHOOSEN lifestyle.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

There have been so many studies done that show reasons why people are gay. It's science. I don't understand why our cultures denies science so much.

Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men [eScholarship]

THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY | Serendip's Exchange

Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/s...&ex=1116302400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

 

[irishpat183]

I have absolutely no problem with that story. Nor do I have a problem if someone is gay as I stated a day or two ago. I choose to believe that it is a choice until I see something that makes me change my mind. It does not mean I discriminate against gay because I don't. I already said I would lay my life down for another man (or woman) who is gay in a heartbeat if I had to. I'm sorry if you think I'm some terrible monster against the gay community because I believe it is a choice. I think gay people should have every right that I do. I believe they should get married if they so choose. I'm also not gonna sit here and give them sympathy either.

Don't ever be sorry about voicing your opinion about anything. That is what makes our country great. As unpopular as it may be....you're entitled to that. And you're not a terrible monster. People just get their feeling hurt too easily these days.

 

[woolybug25]

Exactly. Especially since the two parties cannot procreate.

Why would humans be "wired" to be attracted to the same sex?

The rest of the animal kingdom is. There are over 1500 documented species of animals that display homosexual behavior. I doubt birds and squirrels are making a proactive choice to do so, rather just acting on natural instincts.

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Natural Law deals with design. Just as we can intuitively perceive that the natural sex partner for a person is another person, and not an animal, we can easily perceive that the natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and visa versa. If one believes that God made humanity in his image and likeness, then the sanctity of human life and the way God designed men and women are critically important to the Christian understanding of morality.

Sex has a sacred purpose. When it is divorced from that purpose, the result is gravely immoral for a whole host of reasons.

With all due respect, Whiskey. That is you're personal belief system, not a scientific fact of nature. As I mentioned above, the rest of the animal kingdom is littered with homosexual activity. They are not concerned with religious morality and are acting simply on natural instincts.

From a completely centrist position (ie -non-religious), what are some of the hosts of reasons that make it immoral? To clarify, other than some verse from the Bible, what are some unilateral, widely-accepted reasons that classify it as immoral?

If someone feels that it is morally wrong to be gay, then don't be one. But you cant say in one note that someone is morally reprehensible and in another say that you "you don't have anything against them". If someone feels that someone else's sexual preference damns them to hell, they obviously find them to be poor examples of people.

 

[ACamp1900]

If someone feels that it is morally wrong to be gay, then don't be one. But you cant say in one note that someone is morally reprehensible and in another say that you "you don't have anything against them". If someone feels that someone else's sexual preference damns them to hell, they obviously find them to be poor examples of people.

I often feel the religious stance on gays is misrepresented... I believe homosexuality is a sin... I also believe drinking in excess regardless of what hereditary or social factors are at play is also a sin, (and one of many I commit often)... and any number of behaviors, lifestyles and the like that can be viewed in this light.

I am only speaking for myself obviously, but I do not bash homosexuality some lone sin, and neither should any other Christians... we are all of sin and all have preferences of some sort that need redeeming... if anything it's the sexual preference that I connect to on a religious level with many gays... I too know what it is like to be a sinner,... this whole life thing is not easy and there we find common ground, that kind of thing. It is not, or at least should never be, "You are gay; enjoy the heat of hell..." Not even close.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

With all due respect, Whiskey. That is you're personal belief system, not a scientific fact of nature. As I mentioned above, the rest of the animal kingdom is littered with homosexual activity. They are not concerned with religious morality and are acting simply on natural instincts.

(1) Animals aren't created in the image and likeness of God and (2) a natural instinct to do something doesn't make that act moral.

From a completely centrist position (ie -non-religious), what are some of the hosts of reasons that make it immoral? To clarify, other than some verse from the Bible, what are some unilateral, widely-accepted reasons that classify it as immoral?

The argument from Natural Law is the closest thing to a non-religious reason why homosexual activity is immoral. Which is a big reason why legal and social discrimination against homosexuals is unjustified. American law tends to focus on negative rights, and since homosexual activity generally harms no one but the participants, it should be legal just as masturbation and pornography are legal.

If someone feels that it is morally wrong to be gay, then don't be one.

As I mentioned previously, the Church's stance is that homosexual desires aren't sinful per se; only acting on them is.

But you cant say in one note that someone is morally reprehensible and in another say that you "you don't have anything against them".

I never stated that "gays are morally reprehensible", or that "I don't have anything against them."

If someone feels that someone else's sexual preference damns them to hell, they obviously find them to be poor examples of people.

I don't presume to know who ends up in hell. One's own conscience is the ultimate arbiter of sin; if a gay man makes a genuine effort to properly inform his conscience and still truly believes that homosexual activity isn't offensive to God, then he commits no sin.

To be clear, I have no interest in convincing anyone here that the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality is correct. As I've explained several times before, I'm a staunch libertarian who is strongly opposed to any form of legal or social discrimination against homosexuals. I'm merely defending my Church's position on the issue.

So many of you dismiss the Church's stance on sexuality as bigoted, anachronistic, and arbitrary when it's none of those things. It's supported by a consistent philosophy (Aristotelian/ Thomist/ Natural Law) and informed by Holy Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the magisterium.

You don't have to agree, but a little respect would be appreciated instead of the condescension and ignorance that's been directed toward the Church in this thread.

 

[woolybug25]

This is misrepresenting the whole stance imo... I believe homosexuality is a sin... I also believe drinking in excess regardless of what hereditary or social factors are playing into it...

I am not bashing homosexuality any more than any other sin, and neither should any other christians... we are all of sin and all have preferences of some sort that need redeeming...

Gay people don't believe that they need redeeming or believe that they are damned to hell. They have no intention of repenting or even admitting that their actions are wrong. So excuse me if I find it dumb that many Christians feel like damning someone to hell, openly chastising them as immoral, and openly saying that they find their behavior reprehensible isn't offensive.

 

[ACamp1900]

Gay people don't believe that they need redeeming or believe that they are damned to hell. They have no intention of repenting or even admitting that their actions are wrong. So excuse me if I find it dumb that many Christians feel like damning someone to hell, openly chastising them as immoral, and openly saying that they find their behavior reprehensible isn't offensive.

You are throwing a false blanket over two entire communities while pretending to be insulted by such things... you realize that??? Also, who says that gays are damned to hell?? Pretty much nut bag 'Baptists' from Oklahoma and those you wish to paint average Christians the wrong way...

again, I believe every single person on the planet sins... gays are no different and yes they can be redeemed, if they don't care about that then fine... I find it unreal I can't hold that completely reasonable stance without it being 'reprehensible'...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Gay people don't believe that they need redeeming or believe that they are damned to hell. They have no intention of repenting or even admitting that their actions are wrong.

You speak for the entire gay community? There are many open homosexuals in the Catholic Church. Some believe that homosexual activity is a sin and live chastely (I personally know a few). Some believe, in good faith, that the Church is wrong and exercise their right of conscience by engaging in homosexual activity. That's between them and God.

So excuse me if I find it dumb that many Christians feel like damning someone to hell, openly chastising them as immoral, and openly saying that they find their behavior reprehensible isn't offensive.

Excuse me for being offended that you feel the need to talk down to Christians as unenlightened bigots.