snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Urban Legends » NFBSK » Top Seven Myths of Homosexuality (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Top Seven Myths of Homosexuality
Bassist
Chess Nuts Boasting 'Round an Open Fire


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bassist   E-mail Bassist   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mnotr2:
Um, I started to feel kind of funny while reading that article, do you think I may have caught teh gay?

It is quite possible. You need to immediately get with Barbara M. to make sure you still have strong enough feelings towards the better half of our species. (with apologies to David, of course)
[Roll Eyes]

--------------------
"I'm singing and deranged!"

Posts: 239 | From: Georgia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Logoboros
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Logoboros   E-mail Logoboros   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Casey, rolling home:
Very true. You NEVER list something you have done as proof, or as a fact. Studies and experiments can "demonstrate" and "show", but they can never "prove". To prove implies that there is not, nor can there ever be, a case where the proof is not true.

Not that I'm trying to support the OP article's construction of science, but I think maybe in the effort to improve upon the definition folks have been a little over-zealous and have imposed too narrow a definition of "science."

After all, the "non-provable" and "purely practical" definition excludes mathematics genenally as a "science" as well as mathematically inclined subfields like systems theory, game theory, etc. -- fields which encompass both practical and abstract theory.

Maybe what's been defined in this thread is "experimental science" -- but does not apply to the broader concept of "science" as a method of thought.

--Logoboros

--------------------
"If Men were Wise, the Most arbitrary Princes could not hurt them. If they are not wise, the Freest Government is compelld to be a Tyranny."

--William Blake

Posts: 1025 | From: Memphis, TN & Columbia, MO | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
jimmy101
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jimmy101   E-mail jimmy101   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Logoboros:
quote:
Originally posted by Casey, rolling home:
Very true. You NEVER list something you have done as proof, or as a fact. Studies and experiments can "demonstrate" and "show", but they can never "prove". To prove implies that there is not, nor can there ever be, a case where the proof is not true.

Not that I'm trying to support the OP article's construction of science, but I think maybe in the effort to improve upon the definition folks have been a little over-zealous and have imposed too narrow a definition of "science."

After all, the "non-provable" and "purely practical" definition excludes mathematics genenally as a "science" as well as mathematically inclined subfields like systems theory, game theory, etc. -- fields which encompass both practical and abstract theory.

Maybe what's been defined in this thread is "experimental science" -- but does not apply to the broader concept of "science" as a method of thought.

--Logoboros

Good point Lgoboros. However, I would point out that even in mathematics, the "hardest" science, there are situations where things get kind of fuzzy. Take i for example. An incredibly useful concept in many areas. But fundamentally somewhat suspect, basically along the lines of "well if we were to permit this non-permitable operation then we get mathematics that allow us to solve some very interesting problems".

Even besides some of the fuzzier concepts in math it still comes down to utility. If the math has no utility it is not of much use.

And, I would argue that game theory and system theory are really not science in and of themselves. They are organizational frameworks, or "ways of thinking about things". Heck, it is "game theory" and "system theory" and not "game facts" and "system facts". The names explicitly say theory. A theory is subject to, and dependent upon, some form of verification which may be computational or experimental.

Mathematics, I would say, is composed of theories and not a dogmas. (Using the defintion of dogma to be "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. (cite)"

Posts: 629 | From: Greenwood, IN | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Spooky Cactus
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Spooky Cactus   E-mail Spooky Cactus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jimmy101:
Mathematics, I would say, is composed of theories and not a dogmas. (Using the defintion of dogma to be "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. (cite)"

I've met people who talk about maths to me as if it was exactly what that definition of dogma describes. However, to misappropriate a snopes acronym, they were mainly pSms.

Plus, knowing them they probably thought the concept of anything beyond adding up was far too complex for anyone female, right-brained, on the philosophy course or all three to grasp. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
'When the world is dead and gone, we will still be Rocking On!' (J.P.McCartney)

Posts: 154 | From: Yorkshire, England | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Joe Bentley   Author's Homepage   E-mail Joe Bentley   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
By saying one in ten people are homosexual, you are promoting a lie. It is declaring to the world that homosexuality is “normal” and should be treated as such. Yet, if you think about it, 10 to 15 percent of Americans are alcoholic, but we don’t accept this behavior as normal or healthy. Or pedophilia. Using the homosexual mantra, the more people openly profess that it is “normal”, the more we should accept it. And we certanily do not accept any of these as normal behavior.
You know not to agree with the f*cktard that wrote the article in the OP one bit, but I will admit that its always bothered and disappointed me to some degree that the homosexual rights movements has backed so much of their arguments on "It's okay... see they are so many of us" and "It's okay... it's not our fault! Its genetics!," neither of which makes homosexuality either okay or not okay.

Homosexuality is okay because it doesn't hurt anybody. And that doesn't change if they were 10 homosexuals or 10 billion and it doesn't change if its a choice or a genetic predisposition.

I understand what the homosexual rights movment is trying to say when they say things like "X in 100 people are gay" or remind us all of the very strong evidence to support the idea that homosexuality isn't a choice, but neither of those things is what makes homosexuality okay. It's okay because it doesn't hurt anybody.

So by spending so much time harping on the two mostly irrelevent points of "percentage of the population" and "its not a choice" they are often playing into the very hands of the twits like thos who wrote the article.

A lot of things that 10% of the population do are bad. A lot of things that aren't a choice are bad as well. So you're not going to convience anybody that homosexuality is okay by reminding them of those two facts.

--------------------
"Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen

Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
FireSpook
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for FireSpook   E-mail FireSpook   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I love the way science is only good if it backs up the bull shit they put out. I mean really, 'biology doesn't confrem homosexually' and that's a fact, unlike evolution, which is also biology, but a big fat lie.

(or so they want you to believe)

It should be noted that other sexologists studies point to very few people being hetrosexual, about the same numbers as pure gays. most people are, to some degree, bisexual, lots of studies of nature conferm this.

and for the love of fat monkies, how can anyone believe them when they quote the bible.

also, saying that it can be 'cured' is fake, I mean really, they can't cure any other mind disorders, nor do the offer a biochemical reasoning for the disorder.

and they can cure it?! F*CKING HELL, Why don't you spend the money curing aids or other mental disorders! homosexual is as much as a disorder as thinking-outside-the-box. (which makes sense because TOTB lead to the theory that the earth goes around the earth, and other great theories and ideas. Of course, the church would like you to remain stupid as a brick and never question anything.)


these people sicken me.

--------------------
WARNING
The message above may have statements that only make sense in this user's mind.

Read at your own risk.

Posts: 667 | From: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
FireSpook
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for FireSpook   E-mail FireSpook   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
oh, and just for fun, they quote a news artical from another anti gay site. More on the good Doctor's paper:
quote:
In 2001, Spitzer delivered a controversial paper at the 2001 annual APA meeting arguing that "highly motivated" individuals could "successfully" change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. [1]. The APA immediately issued an official divowel of the paper, noting that it had not been peer reviewed and bluntly stating that "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."[2]
lovily

--------------------
WARNING
The message above may have statements that only make sense in this user's mind.

Read at your own risk.

Posts: 667 | From: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 14 posted      Profile for Canuckistan   E-mail Canuckistan   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Bentley:
You know not to agree with the f*cktard that wrote the article in the OP one bit, but I will admit that its always bothered and disappointed me to some degree that the homosexual rights movements has backed so much of their arguments on "It's okay... see they are so many of us" and "It's okay... it's not our fault! Its genetics!," neither of which makes homosexuality either okay or not okay.

The problem is twofold, Joe.

First, thest ****tards, as you so accurately named them, say, "It's a choice! You choose to be gay!"

Then, when told that it's most likely at least partly genetic, they say, "Well, pedophilia can be partly genetic as well."

You simply can't win.

To me, you have to do both: show it doesn't harm anyone and that it's naturally occuring. Otherwise, the homophobes just won't listen to either of those arguments by themselves.

--------------------
People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril)

Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
rogue
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for rogue   E-mail rogue   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Canuckistan:
[QUOTE]

You simply can't win.

Here you are abosolutely correct.

quote:

To me, you have to do both: show it doesn't harm anyone and that it's naturally occuring. Otherwise, the homophobes just won't listen to either of those arguments by themselves.

The problem is, they JUST WON'T LISTEN regardless. For those who view it as a MORAL issue, God says it is wrong, and there can be no answer higher than that.
I have so far not found any homophobe who did not acquire this belief from religious based instruction.

-Rogue

--------------------
"'Cause you might enjoy some madness for awile."

Posts: 119 | From: Norman, OK | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ganzfeld
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ganzfeld     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
By attempting to prove that it is not harmful or that it is naturally occuring, proponents may lose sight of the fact that the burden of proof is on the people who say it is not natural or that it is harmful.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Don Enrico
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Don Enrico   E-mail Don Enrico   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Picking out the "homosexuality is not genetic" part, I'd like to point to the (deliberate, I guess) misunderstanding of the scientists quoted in the article:
quote:
Fact: There is no evidence to support the claim that a person can be born homosexual.

(...)

- In July 1996, five researchers led by Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute released a study that attempted to link male homosexuality with a specific region of their X chromosome. Hamer, himself a gay man, commented:

“There is not a single master gene that makes people gay … I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.”

Which doesn't say that there is no combination of different genes that "makes people gay". Actually, the quote from Dean Hamer (without context) makes me believe that he came to the conclusion that homosexuality is in fact genetically determind, just not predictable.

quote:
- Many researchers found fault with the well-known Simon LeVay brain study of 1991 which tried to find differences in the hypothalamuses (a very small part of the brain) of homosexual and heterosexual men. LeVay, one of the researchers and a gay activist, offered the following criticisms of his own work:

“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”

Mr. LeVay, according to his words, "did not prove that homosexuality is genetic." That's something completely different from "did prove that homosexuality is not genetic."

Please, if you want to argue your case against homosexuality, do so on a decent level of argumentation!

Don ", himself not a gay man," Enrico

--------------------
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling, but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. - Pooh Bear

Posts: 2209 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Don Enrico:
quote:
- Many researchers found fault with the well-known Simon LeVay brain study of 1991 which tried to find differences in the hypothalamuses (a very small part of the brain) of homosexual and heterosexual men. LeVay, one of the researchers and a gay activist, offered the following criticisms of his own work:

“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”

Mr. LeVay, according to his words, "did not prove that homosexuality is genetic." That's something completely different from "did prove that homosexuality is not genetic."

... so using the logic of the writer of this drivel, since I cannot prove that God exists, He, therefore, does not.

Wonder how'd they like them apples?

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I've never understood why anyone cares if homosexuality is genetic or not. What difference does it make to anything? It shouldn't make any difference to anyone why people are sexually attracted to the same sex except as a purely academic interest.

pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
diddy
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for diddy   E-mail diddy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pinqy:
I've never understood why anyone cares if homosexuality is genetic or not. What difference does it make to anything? It shouldn't make any difference to anyone why people are sexually attracted to the same sex except as a purely academic interest.

pinqy

This is just a theory, but not only does it grant some legitmacy to "curing" homosexuality (which i think is a rediculous idea - no cure is necesary), its the crux of many arguments that its un-natural. If many many people are born with a sexual attractiveness to the same sex, you have a hard time saying its unnatural.

--------------------
W.W.F.S.M.D?
But this image of Bush as some sort of Snidely Whiplash tying the fair maiden to the railroad tracks is beyond the pale. - Joe Bentley

Posts: 2311 | From: Minnnesota | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Don Enrico
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Don Enrico   E-mail Don Enrico   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
From what I understand, the main point of "debunking the myth" that people are born with a certain sexual preference is to "proof the fact" that homosexuality is a choice (or rather, a "lifestyle choice"). That means, you can talk or force people out of that evil way to eternal perdition.

--------------------
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling, but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. - Pooh Bear

Posts: 2209 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
But why does it matter if it's unnatural or not? And religion is equally a choice, yet is subject to a host of legal protections.

pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pinqy:
But why does it matter if it's unnatural or not? And religion is equally a choice, yet is subject to a host of legal protections.

pinqy

If it is unnatural, then those who are against homosexuality can claim that it is against God. If it can be proven that it is genetic, not only in is "natural," but also provides the dilemma of "God made them that way."

How do you argue that something that God has created is an offence to God?

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jay Temple
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jay Temple     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
DW: the same way that one argues that opium and hemp are offenses to God

--------------------
"Well, it looks we're on our own ... again."--Rev. Lovejoy

Posts: 3572 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah! But it could easily be argued that opium and Hemp are not offences to God, but the using them to get high is.

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DemonWolf:
If it is unnatural, then those who are against homosexuality can claim that it is against God. If it can be proven that it is genetic, not only in is "natural," but also provides the dilemma of "God made them that way."

How do you argue that something that God has created is an offence to God?

The Catholic position is that we are all called to celibacy (defined as no sex outside of marriage), that sex is for the primary purpose of reproduction (under Natural Law), that to have sex without the possibility of reproduction (excepting physical damage/post-menopausal women) is a violation of God's Natural Law, and that since marriage is the institution set up by God to support procreation, any sex outside of marriage is an offense against God and any sex that attempts to artificially prevent reproduction or by its nature cannot result in reproduction is an offense against God. By this reasoning, homosexual sex is on the same level as any extra-marital sex and any sex that either uses artificial contraception or results in ejaculation in any place but a vagina.

pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
True, but Catholics are not the majority or even the most rabid of "anti-gay" christians.

The Catholic position as actually kind of sane compared to some that I seen (See: Chick, Jack or Robertson, Pat).

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
waffles

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
waffles

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 24 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DemonWolf:
True, but Catholics are not the majority or even the most rabid of "anti-gay" christians.

The Catholic position as actually kind of sane compared to some that I seen (See: Chick, Jack or Robertson, Pat).

Sure, but I was responding as to how an anti-homosexual (conduct) attitude could exist even if homosexuality were proved genetic. The Catholic position would simply be that homosexuals had a different burden to bear.

pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dutch Angua
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dutch Angua   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The Catholic position is that we are all called to celibacy (defined as no sex outside of marriage), that sex is for the primary purpose of reproduction (under Natural Law), that to have sex without the possibility of reproduction (excepting physical damage/post-menopausal women) is a violation of God's Natural Law, and that since marriage is the institution set up by God to support procreation, any sex outside of marriage is an offense against God and any sex that attempts to artificially prevent reproduction or by its nature cannot result in reproduction is an offense against God. By this reasoning, homosexual sex is on the same level as any extra-marital sex and any sex that either uses artificial contraception or results in ejaculation in any place but a vagina.

And this offends me to no end, because this would most probably also mean that my infertile friend shouldn't have gotten married.

--------------------
Dude, where's my siggy?

Posts: 276 | From: Holland | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jay Temple
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jay Temple     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pinqy:
Sure, but I was responding as to how an anti-homosexual (conduct) attitude could exist even if homosexuality were proved genetic. The Catholic position would simply be that homosexuals had a different burden to bear.

pinqy

I've read at least one Christian author who said exactly that. And I used to echo it.

--------------------
"Well, it looks we're on our own ... again."--Rev. Lovejoy

Posts: 3572 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 02 posted      Profile for Canuckistan   E-mail Canuckistan   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pinqy:
Sure, but I was responding as to how an anti-homosexual (conduct) attitude could exist even if homosexuality were proved genetic. The Catholic position would simply be that homosexuals had a different burden to bear.

Of course, it's a burden brought on by these people. The ultimate in circles: you have a bigger burden to bear because we deem you to be less worthy than others. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril)

Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
TimK
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for TimK     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
OK. First of all, as a gay man, I tend to agree with Joe Bentley on the numbers argument. In spite of that, I want to bring out an aspect of the numbers discussion that you can really use to beat these morons over the head.

An HHS study (that the Bush I administration compassionately refused to release, IIRC) found that of teenagers who attempt suicide, 20% are gay; of teenagers who actually kill themselves, 30% are gay.

Now it's bad enough if only 10% of the population is gay, because that means that (sinful) societal pressure against these young people, and a lack of support for them, is driving a disproportionate number of them to suicide.

The moron side of this argument can go to as low a percentage as they like here, as far as I'm concerned, because the fewer of us there are in the population, the more severe (and therefore, the more sinful) the pressure is that they are putting on young people.

Best,
Tim

Posts: 61 | From: Bayonne, NJ | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dutch Angua:
quote:
The Catholic position is that we are all called to celibacy (defined as no sex outside of marriage), that sex is for the primary purpose of reproduction (under Natural Law), that to have sex without the possibility of reproduction (excepting physical damage/post-menopausal women) is a violation of God's Natural Law, and that since marriage is the institution set up by God to support procreation, any sex outside of marriage is an offense against God and any sex that attempts to artificially prevent reproduction or by its nature cannot result in reproduction is an offense against God. By this reasoning, homosexual sex is on the same level as any extra-marital sex and any sex that either uses artificial contraception or results in ejaculation in any place but a vagina.

And this offends me to no end, because this would most probably also mean that my infertile friend shouldn't have gotten married.
Why is it offensive? If the sole purpose of marriage were to reproduce why would it be offensive to say that those who reproduce can't marry? But in any case, I'm pretty sure the Church has a loophole for infertility.

quote:
Originally posted by Canuckistan:
quote:
Originally posted by pinqy:
Sure, but I was responding as to how an anti-homosexual (conduct) attitude could exist even if homosexuality were proved genetic. The Catholic position would simply be that homosexuals had a different burden to bear.

Of course, it's a burden brought on by these people. The ultimate in circles: you have a bigger burden to bear because we deem you to be less worthy than others.
It's one thing to disagree with a position. It's another to invent more to add on to it to make the people hold it look even worse. That's dishonest and makes you look like a bigot.

pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
TimK
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for TimK     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pinqy:
quote:
Originally posted by DemonWolf:
If it is unnatural, then those who are against homosexuality can claim that it is against God. If it can be proven that it is genetic, not only in is "natural," but also provides the dilemma of "God made them that way."

How do you argue that something that God has created is an offence to God?

The Catholic position is that we are all called to celibacy (defined as no sex outside of marriage), that sex is for the primary purpose of reproduction (under Natural Law), that to have sex without the possibility of reproduction (excepting physical damage/post-menopausal women) is a violation of God's Natural Law, and that since marriage is the institution set up by God to support procreation, any sex outside of marriage is an offense against God and any sex that attempts to artificially prevent reproduction or by its nature cannot result in reproduction is an offense against God. By this reasoning, homosexual sex is on the same level as any extra-marital sex and any sex that either uses artificial contraception or results in ejaculation in any place but a vagina.

pinqy

Funny how this position conveniently reinforces the status quo (which often appears to be the primary function of the Catholic Church) AND reserves the right of sexual expression to married heterosexual people.

The Catholic theology of sex (I'm reluctant to dignify it with the word "theology," but anyway) is completely borked.

-- Tim

Posts: 61 | From: Bayonne, NJ | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
TimK
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for TimK     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pinqy:
quote:
Originally posted by Canuckistan:
quote:
Originally posted by pinqy:
Sure, but I was responding as to how an anti-homosexual (conduct) attitude could exist even if homosexuality were proved genetic. The Catholic position would simply be that homosexuals had a different burden to bear.

Of course, it's a burden brought on by these people. The ultimate in circles: you have a bigger burden to bear because we deem you to be less worthy than others.
It's one thing to disagree with a position. It's another to invent more to add on to it to make the people hold it look even worse. That's dishonest and makes you look like a bigot.

pinqy

Who's inventing?

What that boils down to is: First, we're going to convince you you're worthless; then we're going to tell you that your worthlessness is your cross to bear.

NFBSK that.

-- Tim

Posts: 61 | From: Bayonne, NJ | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TimK:


What that boils down to is: First, we're going to convince you you're worthless; then we're going to tell you that your worthlessness is your cross to bear.

Canuckistan invented the position that because God gives people additional burdens that makes them less worthy. Or that less worthy people are given additional burdens. Those are not Catholic positions at all. And despite your also bigotted support, you'll find nothing in Catholic teachings that states that people who have homosexual attractions are less worthy, or even that any homosexual is worthless. See if someone doesn't actually hold a position, and then you claim that they do because you want them to look bad, that's called lying. It's what the fundies do...."Teh gays want to convert your children into their sex slaves!"

Don't confuse the Catholic position with the Fundie position that homosexuals are unrepentent sinners who hate God.

pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
TimK
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for TimK     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pinqy:
quote:
Originally posted by TimK:


What that boils down to is: First, we're going to convince you you're worthless; then we're going to tell you that your worthlessness is your cross to bear.

Canuckistan invented the position that because God gives people additional burdens that makes them less worthy. Or that less worthy people are given additional burdens. Those are not Catholic positions at all. And despite your also bigotted support, you'll find nothing in Catholic teachings that states that people who have homosexual attractions are less worthy, or even that any homosexual is worthless. See if someone doesn't actually hold a position, and then you claim that they do because you want them to look bad, that's called lying. It's what the fundies do...."Teh gays want to convert your children into their sex slaves!"

Don't confuse the Catholic position with the Fundie position that homosexuals are unrepentent sinners who hate God.

pinqy

There's no difference in practice.

Whether you like it or not, telling people that a fundamental part of themselves is sinful and must be suppressed makes them feel worthless. That's called "human nature."

And before you tell me that it's not the homosexual feelings that are sinful, it's the homosexual acts: Let me assure you that to someone who's actually experiencing these feelings, that is a classic example of a distinction without a difference.

The Catholic Church would do damned well to learn a little bit about human nature and incorporate that into its teachings.

You, for your part, are distorting (or perhaps misunderstanding) Canuckistan's argument. It's not (1) additional burdens make someone less worthy, and it's not (2) less worthy people are given additional burdens. It's (3) first we'll make you feel worthless, and then we'll tell you that the thing we don't like about you is your cross to bear. See the difference?

-- Tim

Posts: 61 | From: Bayonne, NJ | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Whether you like it or not, telling people that a fundamental part of themselves is sinful and must be suppressed makes them feel worthless.
But they say that about everyone...it's the concept of Original Sin.

quote:
And before you tell me that it's not the homosexual feelings that are sinful, it's the homosexual acts:

No, it's not homosexual acts either. Reread this post...I hate repeating myself to people who've already made up their mind and refuse to listen to reality.

pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
You, for your part, are distorting (or perhaps misunderstanding) Canuckistan's argument. It's not (1) additional burdens make someone less worthy, and it's not (2) less worthy people are given additional burdens. It's (3) first we'll make you feel worthless, and then we'll tell you that the thing we don't like about you is your cross to bear. See the difference?

There's no difference between 2 and 3 unless you're claiming that the position is completely insincere. And it's still an untrue claim that you can't support.

pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2