Are You a "Bigot" If You Don't Think Homosexuality Should Be Celebrated? - Page 4

catsmate · 24th January 2023, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Total lie. Read it if you want but it's a waste of time. Article's conclusion = nobody cares. There's nothing else worth quoting.

Try a search for "liberals complaining about whatever the **** his name is" and take a look. I already did. There's no gotcha here.

Funny because the question of whether or not he should be expected or forced to wear something like this is a valid question. The rest is bullcrap.

It's the Daily Caller, were you expecting truth?

wareyin · 24th January 2023, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Let's say a Muslim player (from Canada) is supportive of USA but wont wear the pride jersey.
??? Bigoted villian? or diversity hero?

Nazem Kadri
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...yers-1.6563099

I'd still like to know why you claimed Kadri wouldn't wear a pride jersey, then gave a link which said no such thing.

Steve · 24th January 2023, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by Susheel

How convenient...

And,.....um,........fabricated?

Or perhaps the kid is bi, and swings different ways at different points in his life.

catsmate · 24th January 2023, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Bob lives!

I take it you'll be providing some evidence that the punishment you claimed was being mooted, was actually suggested in the article?

wareyin · 24th January 2023, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by catsmate

I take it you'll be providing some evidence that the punishment you claimed was being mooted, was actually suggested in the article?

I think Brainster is under the misunderstanding that a coach saying he never considered benching a player means someone then must have suggested benching that player. Apparently Brainster has never watched a sports interview before.

8enotto · 24th January 2023, 06:41 AM

To go back to the thread title it becomes a blanket issue.

A person or group throws a blanket over everyone that disagrees and labels them. Even if it is a range of attitudes and beliefs under that blanket.

While an individual may not be or easily support an idea it doesn't mean they oppose it or even really care much.

But they may lash back when some activist decides his cause is everyone's problem. It isn't.

Upchurch · 24th January 2023, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by 8enotto

While an individual may not be or easily support an idea it doesn't mean they oppose it or even really care much.

That's why I asked for more context.

Darat · 24th January 2023, 08:41 AM

Since he is Russian and I assume he has family and friends in Russia and he goes back to visit I don't blame him one iota for not doing or taking apart in anything connected to a positive attitude towards homosexuality. That would place him and his family and friends in real danger.

(I know he has said he didn't take part because he believes in the bigoted views of the EOC. I'm also fine him using that as mealymouthed excuse if he has to)

Upchurch · 24th January 2023, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It seems you define "homophobe" as anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a good thing, never mind if they don't attack gays as people, never mind if they don't persecute gays, never mind if they treat gays with the same respect they treat others.

But that is attacking gays as people. Not physically, but arguing that they, as people, are immoral. A mistake. A sin. And that is not treating gays with the same respect as others.

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Someone else said that if a church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, it is guilty of homophobia. This is another misuse of the word. So if a church teaches that serial adultery/swinging is a sin, does that make the church adulterophobic?

You are making the false of equivalence between criticizing someone for who they are and criticizing someone for what they do. Committing adultery is a choice, being gay is not.

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Ever heard of the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin"? I had a son who lived the gay lifestyle for several years. I was disappointed with him and believed he was making mistake, but my wife and I never stopped loving him and never stopped helping him with college, rent, etc. By the way, after several years, he decided that homosexuality was not for him and abandoned it.

This is a super sad story. A son so desperate for his parents' approval that he'd rather deny a part of himself and go back into the closet than continue to disappoint them.

Thermal · 24th January 2023, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

...This is a super sad story. A son so desperate for his parents' approval that he'd rather deny a part of himself and go back into the closet than continue to disappoint them.

Yeah, this. I've never heard of a gay man who said being gay was a choice (much like I didn't choose to be attracted to women), but I personally know of a couple who are closeted out of shame. It's so ******* wrong to not let people be who they are.

turingtest · 24th January 2023, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Resume

Quote:

"love the sinner, hate the sin"

Is just an excuse, a rationalization, to marginalize or otherwise subjugate and control behavior. The in-group "loves" the sinner in much the same way some folks use the term "Well bless your heart!"

You know what would be a good sin to hate? Slavery. But I can't find it in that book.

And to excuse their own behavior. When it's the same person (or institution, like a church) defining the sin and then the sinner by that sin, it's just self-serving and mealy-mouthed logic-chopping for them to claim that they can differentiate their way out of their own circle. They pretend that "sin" is, for this particular case, an objective standard by which the action is all that's necessary for it to fall on the wrong side of the line; and they get to absolve themselves of the sin of hate by creating a difference that makes no difference between the action and an identity. It's a distinction rooted only in its convenience as a salve for their consciences.

Brainster · 24th January 2023, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I'll remind you of what you claimed:

Where in that article is there any mention that he should have been punished?

Here:

Quote:

Provorov then identified himself as Russian Orthodox and later shut down a question as to whether he was concerned his skipping warmups would lead to him not playing in the game.

Somebody (a reporter of course) asked this question, implying that they thought it was a logical consequence of his actions. Not leaving it at that, they asked the coach:

Quote:

Tortorella added that he did not consider scratching Provorov despite the player's choice to miss warmups over the jersey and that Tuesday was "a great night in celebrating."

Note that word "despite"; it clearly implies that scratching Provorov would have been appropriate and expected.

I don't understand why you folks are trying to deny that the sportswriters thought he should have been punished in some way. Whatevs, there's a saying about horses and water at this point.

wareyin · 24th January 2023, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Since he is Russian and I assume he has family and friends in Russia and he goes back to visit I don't blame him one iota for not doing or taking apart in anything connected to a positive attitude towards homosexuality. That would place him and his family and friends in real danger.

(I know he has said he didn't take part because he believes in the bigoted views of the EOC. I'm also fine him using that as mealymouthed excuse if he has to)

I'm still pretty convinced that any danger faced by Provorov for wearing a pride jersey would be the same or less than danger faced by Provorov for wearing a jersey in support of the US military.

dann · 24th January 2023, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

This is a super sad story. A son so desperate for his parents' approval that he'd rather deny a part of himself and go back into the closet than continue to disappoint them.

Hmmm. This is your interpretation of mikegriffith1's anecdote, and I can see why you suspect that this is what happened (if it's more than a story), but it's also possible that his son is bisexual and neither hetero- nor homosexual. It is possible for somebody like that to 'live the gay lifestyle for several years' and then give it up in favor of a nuclear family (whatever). And it's possible that he may swing back again later. It's even possible that he still prefers to have sex with men but just got tired of the lifestyle: '... and hang around in bars ...'

I am reminded of an openly gay female comedian in Denmark, married to a woman, who switched to a heterosexual relationship at one point, much to everybody's surprise:
Tidligere lesbisk komiker overrasker: Forelsket i en mand (Avisen.dk, March 2, 2016)
Surprise from comedian who used to be a lesbian: In love with a man
Linda P: 'Jeg vidste hele tiden, at jeg ikke var lesbisk' (BT, Sep 9, 2018)
Linda P (her stage name): 'I always knew that I was not a lesbian'

Stranger things have happened.

And remember that this is in Denmark. We have openly gay leaders of conservative parties:
Conservative leader: 'I'm gay, so what?' (The Local, Aug 13, 2014)

There is no reason to believe that she switched to heterosexuality out of shame.

Of course, this is the wet dream of all parents who are desperate to make their gay children 'convert', which should never be encouraged and only serves to make their lives miserable.

wareyin · 24th January 2023, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Here:

Somebody (a reporter of course) asked this question, implying that they thought it was a logical consequence of his actions. Not leaving it at that, they asked the coach:

Note that word "despite"; it clearly implies that scratching Provorov would have been appropriate and expected.

I don't understand why you folks are trying to deny that the sportswriters thought he should have been punished in some way. Whatevs, there's a saying about horses and water at this point.

Are you concerned that 'x' may happen =/= 'x' should happen. Jeez, you're really stretching to find some way those "liberal" sports reporters are trying to get a player punished. (I repeat that your interpretation seems to require your never having watched a sports interview before.)

And the word despite in no way implies it would have been appropriate or expected. At best, a player skipping a practice or warm-up could be benched for skipping the practice or warm-up. In fact, that has actually happened in sports, but that's a long way away from it being expected. Players that get benched for missing practice tend to have quite a few other violations that lead to that.

Upchurch · 24th January 2023, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by dann

Hmmm. This is your interpretation of mikegriffith1's anecdote, and I can see why you suspect that this is what happened (if it's more than a story), but it's also possible that his son is bisexual and neither hetero- nor homosexual. [snip]

Sure, all these things are possible. Without verifying, I am under the impression that they are not as statistically likely as my interpretation, but still possible.

It does not negate the part of the narrative where the son is seen as a disappointment in the eyes of the parents. And although we are assured the sone was not treated any differently, it is highly likely that the son was fully aware of that disappointment, given the parents' rather vocal prejudice against homosexuality.

dann · 24th January 2023, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

... the son is seen as a disappointment ...

That is the tell-tale sign of homophobia.

Darat · 24th January 2023, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Here:

Somebody (a reporter of course) asked this question, implying that they thought it was a logical consequence of his actions. Not leaving it at that, they asked the coach:

Note that word "despite"; it clearly implies that scratching Provorov would have been appropriate and expected.

I don't understand why you folks are trying to deny that the sportswriters thought he should have been punished in some way. Whatevs, there's a saying about horses and water at this point.

Your claim is that the sportswriters thought he should be punished - there is nothing in that CBS article that indicates the sports writers thought that at all. It's in fact a good report in that the journalist own views aren't in the article.

Hercules56 · 24th January 2023, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It seems you define "homophobe" as anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a good thing, never mind if they don't attack gays as people, never mind if they don't persecute gays, never mind if they treat gays with the same respect they treat others. Nope, sorry. If you refuse to say that you think homosexuality is a good thing, you are automatically a "homophobe." That is not what the word "homophobe" means by any rational definition.

Someone else said that if a church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, it is guilty of homophobia. This is another misuse of the word. So if a church teaches that serial adultery/swinging is a sin, does that make the church adulterophobic? Does it mean the church "hates" people who commit serial adultery/swing? No, of course not. But that's the extreme illogic that you and others here are peddling, while you ignore the meaning of the terms "phobic" and "phobia."

Ever heard of the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin"? I had a son who lived the gay lifestyle for several years. I was disappointed with him and believed he was making mistake, but my wife and I never stopped loving him and never stopped helping him with college, rent, etc. By the way, after several years, he decided that homosexuality was not for him and abandoned it.

So in order to get your approval he is lying to you and others about being able to turn of his homosexual feelings and be straight?

That's terrible. I feel really bad for him.

mikegriffith1 · 24th January 2023, 02:57 PM

It's hard to have a rational discussion on this issue when so many liberals start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and a homophobe, and with the assumption that the only alternative to their "progressive" position is bigotry and homophobia.

No, I do not buy the myth that gays are born that way. If gays are born that way, how do you explain the tens of thousands of ex-gays walking among us? Ever heard of the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX)? Gay rights groups hate PFOX because the group is living proof that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic mandate. The PFOX website addresses this issue:

Quote:

Aren’t people born gay?

Many ex-gays will tell you that at one point in their life they thought they were “born gay.” The reality is that no scientific evidence has established a genetic cause for homosexuality or found a “gay gene.” There is no DNA or medical test to determine if a person is homosexual. Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. “Gay” is a self-chosen identity. According to the American Psychiatric Association, there are no replicated scientific studies to support that people can be born “gay” or that homosexuality is innate.

According to the American Psychological Association, “[a]lthough much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” [2008] (https://www.pfox.org/frequentlyaskedquestions)

If you read the supposed "scientific" evidence that gays are born gay (and I've read a fair amount of it), you quickly realize that this "evidence" is nothing but inference and speculation. There is not one shred of hard genetic evidence that anyone is born gay.

JoeMorgue · 24th January 2023, 03:01 PM

I don't give a **** if people are born gay or have to take a 3 month correspondence course and get gay certified.

They aren't a problem, people like you and people who pretend to clutch their pearls when people like you are called hateful are a problem.

pzkpfw · 24th January 2023, 03:01 PM

Meh. Long ago I decided that where I stand on "nature versus nurture" is ... I don't care - because it's none of my business and does not affect me anyway.

I do care that some people are gay (or any number of ways different to me) and they have the right to just be who they are.

Nobody has the right to oppress, harass them, or discriminate. And that's what this thread is really about.

Upchurch · 24th January 2023, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

If you read the supposed "scientific" evidence that gays are born gay (and I've read a fair amount of it), you quickly realize that this "evidence" is nothing but inference and speculation.

Could you be more specific or maybe provide an example?

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

There is not one shred of hard genetic evidence that anyone is born gay.

There are more ways to be born a certain way aside from it being in one's genetic code. I hope you are basing your argument on this incorrect assumption.

turingtest · 24th January 2023, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It's hard to have a rational discussion on this issue when so many liberals start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and a homophobe, and with the assumption that the only alternative to their "progressive" position is bigotry and homophobia.

No, I do not buy the myth that gays are born that way. If gays are born that way, how do you explain the tens of thousands of ex-gays walking among us? Ever heard of the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX)? Gay rights groups hate PFOX because the group is living proof that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic mandate. The PFOX website addresses this issue:

If you read the supposed "scientific" evidence that gays are born gay (and I've read a fair amount of it), you quickly realize that this "evidence" is nothing but inference and speculation. There is not one shred of hard genetic evidence that anyone is born gay.

Interesting how we've gone from "sin" to "science!" but, ok- is there any scientific evidence for a heterosexual gene? Anything that points to a conclusion that everyone is "born straight" as a genetic default, and all others are deviants by choice?

And I have to echo JoeMorgue here- even if it were purely a matter of choice, so what? That it's not yours is neither here nor there- religion is a non-genetic choice too, is it not? Does that make religion, or any particular one, an aberration?

Pacal · 24th January 2023, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

No, I do not buy the myth that gays are born that way. If gays are born that way, how do you explain the tens of thousands of ex-gays walking among us? Ever heard of the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX)? Gay rights groups hate PFOX because the group is living proof that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic mandate.

Absolutely hilarious. So why don't you choose to be attracted to guys today? When I was 12 and I started to go through puberty I noticed I was turned on by guys and not gals. I didn't act on it until I was 24 years old but for all that time I was very attracted to guys and not gals.

I did have sex with a few women but it took quite a lot of work and I had to fantasize about guys to make it work. The idea that I could just choose to be turned on by guys or gals is inane. Your attracted to what your attracted too.

As for the tens of thousands of ex-gays and PFOX. I guess you don't know about the infighting, the self destruction of those organizations, the vast numbers who leave such organizations after they utterly fail to "cure" them. So how do you explain the vast numbers who despite their best efforts fail such attempts at conversion? Or how about those organizations that openly state that the "best" most can hopeful is a chaste life still "tormented" by homosexual thoughts and desires. Or how about those within such organizations who take "advantage" of their patients. And I will mention that some of these ex-gay organizations have disbanded complete with appologizing.

Has icing on the cake what about a certain ex-gay group founded by two men who after many years fell in love and left the organization.

dudalb · 24th January 2023, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Susheel

How convenient...

Just a little too convientet....

dudalb · 24th January 2023, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It's hard to have a rational discussion on this issue when so many liberals start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and a homophobe, and with the assumption that the only alternative to their "progressive" position is bigotry and homophobia.

No, I do not buy the myth that gays are born that way. If gays are born that way, how do you explain the tens of thousands of ex-gays walking among us? Ever heard of the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX)? Gay rights groups hate PFOX because the group is living proof that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic mandate. The PFOX website addresses this issue:

If you read the supposed "scientific" evidence that gays are born gay (and I've read a fair amount of it), you quickly realize that this "evidence" is nothing but inference and speculation. There is not one shred of hard genetic evidence that anyone is born gay.

I have a feeling if we did produce scientific evidence, you would just reject it because if did not fit with your religious beleifs anyway.
Something tells me you probably don't buy into evolution, either because ti clashes with your book of Fairy Tales.

I Am The Scum · 24th January 2023, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Note that word "despite"; it clearly implies that scratching Provorov would have been appropriate and expected.

No it doesn't

I Am The Scum · 24th January 2023, 04:20 PM

Hey man these leftists sure do mad at nothing!

*Makes up a straw-leftists to get mad at*

Shalamar · 24th January 2023, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It's hard to have a rational discussion on this issue when so many liberals start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and a homophobe, and with the assumption that the only alternative to their "progressive" position is bigotry and homophobia.

By your own words, you are a homophobe.

Quote:

No, I do not buy the myth that gays are born that way. If gays are born that way, how do you explain the tens of thousands of ex-gays walking among us? Ever heard of the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX)? Gay rights groups hate PFOX because the group is living proof that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic mandate. The PFOX website addresses this issue:

Prove it. BE gay. CHOOSE to be gay. Have sex with another man and enjoy it.

MarkCorrigan · 24th January 2023, 04:31 PM

Conversion "therapy" is a crock, and virtually all of PFOX aren't even so called ex gays. They're a bunch of self admitted heterosexuals.

Stacyhs · 24th January 2023, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It's hard to have a rational discussion on this issue when so many liberals start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and a homophobe, and with the assumption that the only alternative to their "progressive" position is bigotry and homophobia.

No, I do not buy the myth that gays are born that way. If gays are born that way, how do you explain the tens of thousands of ex-gays walking among us? Ever heard of the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX)? Gay rights groups hate PFOX because the group is living proof that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic mandate. The PFOX website addresses this issue:

Quote:

Quote:
Aren’t people born gay?

Many ex-gays will tell you that at one point in their life they thought they were “born gay.” The reality is that no scientific evidence has established a genetic cause for homosexuality or found a “gay gene.” There is no DNA or medical test to determine if a person is homosexual. Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. “Gay” is a self-chosen identity. According to the American Psychiatric Association, there are no replicated scientific studies to support that people can be born “gay” or that homosexuality is innate.

According to the American Psychological Association, “[a]lthough much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” [2008]

(https://www.pfox.org/frequentlyaskedquestions)

If you read the supposed "scientific" evidence that gays are born gay (and I've read a fair amount of it), you quickly realize that this "evidence" is nothing but inference and speculation. There is not one shred of hard genetic evidence that anyone is born gay.

Critical thinking fail big time. You don't really expect your "it's a choice" website to provide anything that doesn't support its agenda, do you?

You and your website 'forgot' the remaining part of your partial quote:

Quote:

“[a]lthough much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Let's look at this statement in your quote:

"The reality is that no scientific evidence has established a genetic cause for homosexuality or found a “gay gene.” There is no DNA or medical test to determine if a person is homosexual."

Genes aren't the only determining factor in how a fetus develops during gestation. We may not know the cause/s of homosexuality YET, but there is always a cause or causes.
Someone choosing to be bullied, beaten, harassed, mocked, and even disowned by family and abandoned by friends is not something people choose.

So tell me, Mike: when did you choose to be straight? Were you sitting in class at around 10 or so and thought to yourself, "Hmmm....am I going to have a crush on Steve or Eve? Which to choose? Hmmmmm...Ok, Eve it will be!"
You cannot be talked into being attracted to someone or not. You either feel it or you don't.

Once a person admits that homosexuality is not a choice, they have to confront their own prejudices, including religious beliefs. They have to admit they've been wrong. And so many people are just incapable of doing that.

I Am The Scum · 24th January 2023, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

So tell me, Mike: when did you choose to be straight?

This question is just going to bounce off of homophobes because they don't see straight and gay as two different sexual preferences. Rather, to them, being straight is the norm (default) and being gay is the unnatural deviation. A "problem" that demands a "correction" (hence conversion therapy).

It's the same way that racists don't view white as another race. Rather, it is the absence of race, thus white "purity" can only be maintained by keeping it from racial "pollution."

JoeMorgue · 24th January 2023, 07:24 PM

What is with this board? "Choose to be gay." "NAMBLA is a gay rights organization."

Way to have your thumb on the pulse of homophobia from 20 years ago. You're not just bigots you're retro. Quick someone go "AIDS is a punishment from God" since you're just playing the oldies.

Robin · 24th January 2023, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Here:

Somebody (a reporter of course) asked this question, implying that they thought it was a logical consequence of his actions. Not leaving it at that, they asked the coach:

Note that word "despite"; it clearly implies that scratching Provorov would have been appropriate and expected.

I don't understand why you folks are trying to deny that the sportswriters thought he should have been punished in some way. Whatevs, there's a saying about horses and water at this point.

You are drawing a very long bow here indeed. A journo asking if he was worried about consequences clearly is not implying that he deserves consequences or that it is a logical consequence of his actions. For example a Christian I know recently came out as gay. I said "Are you worried your church will throw you out?" I was clearly not implying that being ostracized from his church was a logical consequence of coming out as gay or that he deserved such a thing. In case you were wondering he was thrown out of his church.

Robin · 24th January 2023, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

What is with this board? "Choose to be gay." "NAMBLA is a gay rights organization."

Way to have your thumb on the pulse of homophobia from 20 years ago. You're not just bigots you're retro. Quick someone go "AIDS is a punishment from God" since you're just playing the oldies.

Yep, I've often thought that it was a little like arguing with ,1972.

newyorkguy · 24th January 2023, 07:40 PM

Benching Provorov would have been appropriate and expected because he skipped the warmup. Not because of why he skipped the warmup. Just the fact he skipped it. Any jocks in the house?

Robin · 24th January 2023, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It's hard to have a rational discussion on this issue when so many liberals start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and a homophobe

No, we are simply making the assumption that people who repeatedly say homophobic things are homophobic.

Like saying that being attracted to your own sex is a lifestyle choice.

If you thought about this for even a second you would realise that this is nonsense. To begin with being attracted to your own sex is very obviously not a "lifestyle". You can be same sex attracted sex and live any way you choose.

As for it being a choice, did you one day day decide to be attracted to the opposite sex? Did you one day ponder whether to find men attractive or to find women attractive?

Do you think that I did? Do you think that one day I decided to become the thing that most hated in my locale, hated by my parents, by the church, by my friends subject to a hefty prison sentence? Something I believed at the time would damn me to hell?

Do you seriously, hand on heart, think that I decided "hey that's for me, I'm going to start finding men attractive"?

It bewilders me that anyone could even entertain such an obviously nonsensical idea.

Upchurch · 24th January 2023, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Could you be more specific or maybe provide an example?

There are more ways to be born a certain way aside from it being in one's genetic code. I hope you are basing your argument on this incorrect assumption.

I withdraw my questions. I read mike’s home page about evolution and intelligent design. He simply doesn’t understand science well enough to discuss the topic.

Regnad Kcin · 24th January 2023, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It's hard to have a rational discussion on this issue when so many liberals start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and a homophobe, and with the assumption that the only alternative to their "progressive" position is bigotry and homophobia.

No, not everyone who disagrees with this liberal (actually a moderate, but NVM) is a duck. But when they waddle, molt, fly in a V formation, and say “You’re dethpicable,” their quacks to the contrary aren’t exactly convincing.

As to the rest of your post, I can only say, sincerely, I hope your son is well, has made peace with the sadness, and that it’s not his fault.

24th January 2023, 06:14 AM	#121
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,930	Originally Posted by mgidm86 Total lie. Read it if you want but it's a waste of time. Article's conclusion = nobody cares. There's nothing else worth quoting. Try a search for "liberals complaining about whatever the **** his name is" and take a look. I already did. There's no gotcha here. Funny because the question of whether or not he should be expected or forced to wear something like this is a valid question. The rest is bullcrap. It's the Daily Caller, were you expecting truth?
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

24th January 2023, 06:22 AM	#123
Steve Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 12,033	Originally Posted by Susheel How convenient... And,.....um,........fabricated? Or perhaps the kid is bi, and swings different ways at different points in his life.
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

24th January 2023, 06:25 AM	#124
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,930	Originally Posted by Brainster Bob lives! I take it you'll be providing some evidence that the punishment you claimed was being mooted, was actually suggested in the article?
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

24th January 2023, 08:26 AM	#127
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,439	Originally Posted by 8enotto While an individual may not be or easily support an idea it doesn't mean they oppose it or even really care much. That's why I asked for more context.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

24th January 2023, 08:41 AM	#128
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 106,908	Since he is Russian and I assume he has family and friends in Russia and he goes back to visit I don't blame him one iota for not doing or taking apart in anything connected to a positive attitude towards homosexuality. That would place him and his family and friends in real danger. (I know he has said he didn't take part because he believes in the bigoted views of the EOC. I'm also fine him using that as mealymouthed excuse if he has to)
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

24th January 2023, 06:20 AM	#122
wareyin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 10,928	Originally Posted by Sherkeu Let's say a Muslim player (from Canada) is supportive of USA but wont wear the pride jersey. ??? Bigoted villian? or diversity hero? Nazem Kadri https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...yers-1.6563099 I'd still like to know why you claimed Kadri wouldn't wear a pride jersey, then gave a link which said no such thing.

24th January 2023, 06:30 AM	#125
wareyin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 10,928	Originally Posted by catsmate I take it you'll be providing some evidence that the punishment you claimed was being mooted, was actually suggested in the article? I think Brainster is under the misunderstanding that a coach saying he never considered benching a player means someone then must have suggested benching that player. Apparently Brainster has never watched a sports interview before.

24th January 2023, 06:41 AM	#126
8enotto Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2018 Location: Mexico Posts: 2,756	To go back to the thread title it becomes a blanket issue. A person or group throws a blanket over everyone that disagrees and labels them. Even if it is a range of attitudes and beliefs under that blanket. While an individual may not be or easily support an idea it doesn't mean they oppose it or even really care much. But they may lash back when some activist decides his cause is everyone's problem. It isn't.

24th January 2023, 08:42 AM	#129
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,439	Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 It seems you define "homophobe" as anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a good thing, never mind if they don't attack gays as people, never mind if they don't persecute gays, never mind if they treat gays with the same respect they treat others. But that is attacking gays as people. Not physically, but arguing that they, as people, are immoral. A mistake. A sin. And that is not treating gays with the same respect as others. Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 Someone else said that if a church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, it is guilty of homophobia. This is another misuse of the word. So if a church teaches that serial adultery/swinging is a sin, does that make the church adulterophobic? You are making the false of equivalence between criticizing someone for who they are and criticizing someone for what they do. Committing adultery is a choice, being gay is not. Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 Ever heard of the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin"? I had a son who lived the gay lifestyle for several years. I was disappointed with him and believed he was making mistake, but my wife and I never stopped loving him and never stopped helping him with college, rent, etc. By the way, after several years, he decided that homosexuality was not for him and abandoned it. This is a super sad story. A son so desperate for his parents' approval that he'd rather deny a part of himself and go back into the closet than continue to disappoint them.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

24th January 2023, 09:02 AM	#130
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section Posts: 21,213	Originally Posted by Upchurch ...This is a super sad story. A son so desperate for his parents' approval that he'd rather deny a part of himself and go back into the closet than continue to disappoint them. Yeah, this. I've never heard of a gay man who said being gay was a choice (much like I didn't choose to be attracted to women), but I personally know of a couple who are closeted out of shame. It's so ******* wrong to not let people be who they are.
	__________________ "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain "Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

24th January 2023, 09:14 AM	#131
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 5,184	Originally Posted by Resume Quote: "love the sinner, hate the sin" Is just an excuse, a rationalization, to marginalize or otherwise subjugate and control behavior. The in-group "loves" the sinner in much the same way some folks use the term "Well bless your heart!" You know what would be a good sin to hate? Slavery. But I can't find it in that book. And to excuse their own behavior. When it's the same person (or institution, like a church) defining the sin and then the sinner by that sin, it's just self-serving and mealy-mouthed logic-chopping for them to claim that they can differentiate their way out of their own circle. They pretend that "sin" is, for this particular case, an objective standard by which the action is all that's necessary for it to fall on the wrong side of the line; and they get to absolve themselves of the sin of hate by creating a difference that makes no difference between the action and an identity. It's a distinction rooted only in its convenience as a salve for their consciences.
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

24th January 2023, 09:31 AM	#132
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 19,578	Originally Posted by Darat I'll remind you of what you claimed: Where in that article is there any mention that he should have been punished? Here: Quote: Provorov then identified himself as Russian Orthodox and later shut down a question as to whether he was concerned his skipping warmups would lead to him not playing in the game. Somebody (a reporter of course) asked this question, implying that they thought it was a logical consequence of his actions. Not leaving it at that, they asked the coach: Quote: Tortorella added that he did not consider scratching Provorov despite the player's choice to miss warmups over the jersey and that Tuesday was "a great night in celebrating." Note that word "despite"; it clearly implies that scratching Provorov would have been appropriate and expected. I don't understand why you folks are trying to deny that the sportswriters thought he should have been punished in some way. Whatevs, there's a saying about horses and water at this point.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

24th January 2023, 09:35 AM	#133
wareyin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 10,928	Originally Posted by Darat Since he is Russian and I assume he has family and friends in Russia and he goes back to visit I don't blame him one iota for not doing or taking apart in anything connected to a positive attitude towards homosexuality. That would place him and his family and friends in real danger. (I know he has said he didn't take part because he believes in the bigoted views of the EOC. I'm also fine him using that as mealymouthed excuse if he has to) I'm still pretty convinced that any danger faced by Provorov for wearing a pride jersey would be the same or less than danger faced by Provorov for wearing a jersey in support of the US military.

24th January 2023, 09:38 AM	#134
dann Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 17,015	Originally Posted by Upchurch This is a super sad story. A son so desperate for his parents' approval that he'd rather deny a part of himself and go back into the closet than continue to disappoint them. Hmmm. This is your interpretation of mikegriffith1's anecdote, and I can see why you suspect that this is what happened (if it's more than a story), but it's also possible that his son is bisexual and neither hetero- nor homosexual. It is possible for somebody like that to 'live the gay lifestyle for several years' and then give it up in favor of a nuclear family (whatever). And it's possible that he may swing back again later. It's even possible that he still prefers to have sex with men but just got tired of the lifestyle: '... and hang around in bars ...' I am reminded of an openly gay female comedian in Denmark, married to a woman, who switched to a heterosexual relationship at one point, much to everybody's surprise: Tidligere lesbisk komiker overrasker: Forelsket i en mand (Avisen.dk, March 2, 2016) Surprise from comedian who used to be a lesbian: In love with a man Linda P: 'Jeg vidste hele tiden, at jeg ikke var lesbisk' (BT, Sep 9, 2018) Linda P (her stage name): 'I always knew that I was not a lesbian' Stranger things have happened. And remember that this is in Denmark. We have openly gay leaders of conservative parties: Conservative leader: 'I'm gay, so what?' (The Local, Aug 13, 2014) There is no reason to believe that she switched to heterosexuality out of shame. Of course, this is the wet dream of all parents who are desperate to make their gay children 'convert', which should never be encouraged and only serves to make their lives miserable.
	__________________ /dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx Last edited by dann; 24th January 2023 at 09:59 AM.

24th January 2023, 09:40 AM	#135
wareyin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 10,928	Originally Posted by Brainster Here: Somebody (a reporter of course) asked this question, implying that they thought it was a logical consequence of his actions. Not leaving it at that, they asked the coach: Note that word "despite"; it clearly implies that scratching Provorov would have been appropriate and expected. I don't understand why you folks are trying to deny that the sportswriters thought he should have been punished in some way. Whatevs, there's a saying about horses and water at this point. Are you concerned that 'x' may happen =/= 'x' should happen. Jeez, you're really stretching to find some way those "liberal" sports reporters are trying to get a player punished. (I repeat that your interpretation seems to require your never having watched a sports interview before.) And the word despite in no way implies it would have been appropriate or expected. At best, a player skipping a practice or warm-up could be benched for skipping the practice or warm-up. In fact, that has actually happened in sports, but that's a long way away from it being expected. Players that get benched for missing practice tend to have quite a few other violations that lead to that.

24th January 2023, 09:49 AM	#136
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,439	Originally Posted by dann Hmmm. This is your interpretation of mikegriffith1's anecdote, and I can see why you suspect that this is what happened (if it's more than a story), but it's also possible that his son is bisexual and neither hetero- nor homosexual. [snip] Sure, all these things are possible. Without verifying, I am under the impression that they are not as statistically likely as my interpretation, but still possible. It does not negate the part of the narrative where the son is seen as a disappointment in the eyes of the parents. And although we are assured the sone was not treated any differently, it is highly likely that the son was fully aware of that disappointment, given the parents' rather vocal prejudice against homosexuality.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

24th January 2023, 09:56 AM	#137
dann Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 17,015	Originally Posted by Upchurch ... the son is seen as a disappointment ... That is the tell-tale sign of homophobia.
	__________________ /dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

24th January 2023, 10:02 AM	#138
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 106,908	Originally Posted by Brainster Here: Somebody (a reporter of course) asked this question, implying that they thought it was a logical consequence of his actions. Not leaving it at that, they asked the coach: Note that word "despite"; it clearly implies that scratching Provorov would have been appropriate and expected. I don't understand why you folks are trying to deny that the sportswriters thought he should have been punished in some way. Whatevs, there's a saying about horses and water at this point. Your claim is that the sportswriters thought he should be punished - there is nothing in that CBS article that indicates the sports writers thought that at all. It's in fact a good report in that the journalist own views aren't in the article.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

24th January 2023, 02:07 PM	#139
Hercules56 Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 2,998	Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 It seems you define "homophobe" as anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a good thing, never mind if they don't attack gays as people, never mind if they don't persecute gays, never mind if they treat gays with the same respect they treat others. Nope, sorry. If you refuse to say that you think homosexuality is a good thing, you are automatically a "homophobe." That is not what the word "homophobe" means by any rational definition. Someone else said that if a church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, it is guilty of homophobia. This is another misuse of the word. So if a church teaches that serial adultery/swinging is a sin, does that make the church adulterophobic? Does it mean the church "hates" people who commit serial adultery/swing? No, of course not. But that's the extreme illogic that you and others here are peddling, while you ignore the meaning of the terms "phobic" and "phobia." Ever heard of the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin"? I had a son who lived the gay lifestyle for several years. I was disappointed with him and believed he was making mistake, but my wife and I never stopped loving him and never stopped helping him with college, rent, etc. By the way, after several years, he decided that homosexuality was not for him and abandoned it. So in order to get your approval he is lying to you and others about being able to turn of his homosexual feelings and be straight? That's terrible. I feel really bad for him.

24th January 2023, 02:57 PM	#140
mikegriffith1 Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 495	It's hard to have a rational discussion on this issue when so many liberals start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and a homophobe, and with the assumption that the only alternative to their "progressive" position is bigotry and homophobia. No, I do not buy the myth that gays are born that way. If gays are born that way, how do you explain the tens of thousands of ex-gays walking among us? Ever heard of the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX)? Gay rights groups hate PFOX because the group is living proof that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic mandate. The PFOX website addresses this issue: Quote: Aren’t people born gay? Many ex-gays will tell you that at one point in their life they thought they were “born gay.” The reality is that no scientific evidence has established a genetic cause for homosexuality or found a “gay gene.” There is no DNA or medical test to determine if a person is homosexual. Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. “Gay” is a self-chosen identity. According to the American Psychiatric Association, there are no replicated scientific studies to support that people can be born “gay” or that homosexuality is innate. According to the American Psychological Association, “[a]lthough much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” [2008] (https://www.pfox.org/frequentlyaskedquestions) If you read the supposed "scientific" evidence that gays are born gay (and I've read a fair amount of it), you quickly realize that this "evidence" is nothing but inference and speculation. There is not one shred of hard genetic evidence that anyone is born gay.
	__________________ Mike Griffith Home Page

24th January 2023, 03:01 PM	#141
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 42,380	I don't give a **** if people are born gay or have to take a 3 month correspondence course and get gay certified. They aren't a problem, people like you and people who pretend to clutch their pearls when people like you are called hateful are a problem.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

24th January 2023, 03:01 PM	#142
pzkpfw Thinker Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 152	Meh. Long ago I decided that where I stand on "nature versus nurture" is ... I don't care - because it's none of my business and does not affect me anyway. I do care that some people are gay (or any number of ways different to me) and they have the right to just be who they are. Nobody has the right to oppress, harass them, or discriminate. And that's what this thread is really about.
pzkpfw Thinker Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 152

24th January 2023, 03:14 PM	#143
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,439	Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 If you read the supposed "scientific" evidence that gays are born gay (and I've read a fair amount of it), you quickly realize that this "evidence" is nothing but inference and speculation. Could you be more specific or maybe provide an example? Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 There is not one shred of hard genetic evidence that anyone is born gay. There are more ways to be born a certain way aside from it being in one's genetic code. I hope you are basing your argument on this incorrect assumption.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

24th January 2023, 03:25 PM	#144
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 5,184	Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 It's hard to have a rational discussion on this issue when so many liberals start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and a homophobe, and with the assumption that the only alternative to their "progressive" position is bigotry and homophobia. No, I do not buy the myth that gays are born that way. If gays are born that way, how do you explain the tens of thousands of ex-gays walking among us? Ever heard of the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX)? Gay rights groups hate PFOX because the group is living proof that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic mandate. The PFOX website addresses this issue: If you read the supposed "scientific" evidence that gays are born gay (and I've read a fair amount of it), you quickly realize that this "evidence" is nothing but inference and speculation. There is not one shred of hard genetic evidence that anyone is born gay. Interesting how we've gone from "sin" to "science!" but, ok- is there any scientific evidence for a heterosexual gene? Anything that points to a conclusion that everyone is "born straight" as a genetic default, and all others are deviants by choice? And I have to echo JoeMorgue here- even if it were purely a matter of choice, so what? That it's not yours is neither here nor there- religion is a non-genetic choice too, is it not? Does that make religion, or any particular one, an aberration?
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

24th January 2023, 04:11 PM	#145
Pacal Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,404	Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 No, I do not buy the myth that gays are born that way. If gays are born that way, how do you explain the tens of thousands of ex-gays walking among us? Ever heard of the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX)? Gay rights groups hate PFOX because the group is living proof that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic mandate. Absolutely hilarious. So why don't you choose to be attracted to guys today? When I was 12 and I started to go through puberty I noticed I was turned on by guys and not gals. I didn't act on it until I was 24 years old but for all that time I was very attracted to guys and not gals. I did have sex with a few women but it took quite a lot of work and I had to fantasize about guys to make it work. The idea that I could just choose to be turned on by guys or gals is inane. Your attracted to what your attracted too. As for the tens of thousands of ex-gays and PFOX. I guess you don't know about the infighting, the self destruction of those organizations, the vast numbers who leave such organizations after they utterly fail to "cure" them. So how do you explain the vast numbers who despite their best efforts fail such attempts at conversion? Or how about those organizations that openly state that the "best" most can hopeful is a chaste life still "tormented" by homosexual thoughts and desires. Or how about those within such organizations who take "advantage" of their patients. And I will mention that some of these ex-gay organizations have disbanded complete with appologizing. Has icing on the cake what about a certain ex-gay group founded by two men who after many years fell in love and left the organization.
	Last edited by Pacal; 24th January 2023 at 04:14 PM.

24th January 2023, 04:13 PM	#146
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 57,259	Originally Posted by Susheel How convenient... Just a little too convientet....
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

24th January 2023, 04:15 PM	#147
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 57,259	Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 It's hard to have a rational discussion on this issue when so many liberals start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and a homophobe, and with the assumption that the only alternative to their "progressive" position is bigotry and homophobia. No, I do not buy the myth that gays are born that way. If gays are born that way, how do you explain the tens of thousands of ex-gays walking among us? Ever heard of the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX)? Gay rights groups hate PFOX because the group is living proof that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic mandate. The PFOX website addresses this issue: If you read the supposed "scientific" evidence that gays are born gay (and I've read a fair amount of it), you quickly realize that this "evidence" is nothing but inference and speculation. There is not one shred of hard genetic evidence that anyone is born gay. I have a feeling if we did produce scientific evidence, you would just reject it because if did not fit with your religious beleifs anyway. Something tells me you probably don't buy into evolution, either because ti clashes with your book of Fairy Tales.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

24th January 2023, 04:18 PM	#148
I Am The Scum Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 4,971	Originally Posted by Brainster Note that word "despite"; it clearly implies that scratching Provorov would have been appropriate and expected. No it doesn't
	__________________ Please temper your expectations if you are going to argue with a nazi sympathizer

24th January 2023, 04:20 PM	#149
I Am The Scum Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 4,971	Hey man these leftists sure do mad at nothing! Makes up a straw-leftists to get mad at
	__________________ Please temper your expectations if you are going to argue with a nazi sympathizer

24th January 2023, 04:27 PM	#150
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Somewhere Else Posts: 5,635	Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 It's hard to have a rational discussion on this issue when so many liberals start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and a homophobe, and with the assumption that the only alternative to their "progressive" position is bigotry and homophobia. By your own words, you are a homophobe. Quote: No, I do not buy the myth that gays are born that way. If gays are born that way, how do you explain the tens of thousands of ex-gays walking among us? Ever heard of the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX)? Gay rights groups hate PFOX because the group is living proof that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic mandate. The PFOX website addresses this issue: Prove it. BE gay. CHOOSE to be gay. Have sex with another man and enjoy it.
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

24th January 2023, 04:31 PM	#151
MarkCorrigan ¡No pasarán! Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Слава Україні Posts: 11,389	Conversion "therapy" is a crock, and virtually all of PFOX aren't even so called ex gays. They're a bunch of self admitted heterosexuals.
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist. - Hélder Câmara

24th January 2023, 05:06 PM	#152
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 28,684	Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 It's hard to have a rational discussion on this issue when so many liberals start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and a homophobe, and with the assumption that the only alternative to their "progressive" position is bigotry and homophobia. No, I do not buy the myth that gays are born that way. If gays are born that way, how do you explain the tens of thousands of ex-gays walking among us? Ever heard of the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX)? Gay rights groups hate PFOX because the group is living proof that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic mandate. The PFOX website addresses this issue: Quote: Quote: Aren’t people born gay? Many ex-gays will tell you that at one point in their life they thought they were “born gay.” The reality is that no scientific evidence has established a genetic cause for homosexuality or found a “gay gene.” There is no DNA or medical test to determine if a person is homosexual. Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. “Gay” is a self-chosen identity. According to the American Psychiatric Association, there are no replicated scientific studies to support that people can be born “gay” or that homosexuality is innate. According to the American Psychological Association, “[a]lthough much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” [2008] (https://www.pfox.org/frequentlyaskedquestions) If you read the supposed "scientific" evidence that gays are born gay (and I've read a fair amount of it), you quickly realize that this "evidence" is nothing but inference and speculation. There is not one shred of hard genetic evidence that anyone is born gay. Critical thinking fail big time. You don't really expect your "it's a choice" website to provide anything that doesn't support its agenda, do you? You and your website 'forgot' the remaining part of your partial quote: Quote: “[a]lthough much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. Let's look at this statement in your quote: "The reality is that no scientific evidence has established a genetic cause for homosexuality or found a “gay gene.” There is no DNA or medical test to determine if a person is homosexual." Genes aren't the only determining factor in how a fetus develops during gestation. We may not know the cause/s of homosexuality YET, but there is always a cause or causes. Someone choosing to be bullied, beaten, harassed, mocked, and even disowned by family and abandoned by friends is not something people choose. So tell me, Mike: when did you choose to be straight? Were you sitting in class at around 10 or so and thought to yourself, "Hmmm....am I going to have a crush on Steve or Eve? Which to choose? Hmmmmm...Ok, Eve it will be!" You cannot be talked into being attracted to someone or not. You either feel it or you don't. Once a person admits that homosexuality is not a choice, they have to confront their own prejudices, including religious beliefs. They have to admit they've been wrong. And so many people are just incapable of doing that.

24th January 2023, 06:09 PM	#153
I Am The Scum Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 4,971	Originally Posted by Stacyhs So tell me, Mike: when did you choose to be straight? This question is just going to bounce off of homophobes because they don't see straight and gay as two different sexual preferences. Rather, to them, being straight is the norm (default) and being gay is the unnatural deviation. A "problem" that demands a "correction" (hence conversion therapy). It's the same way that racists don't view white as another race. Rather, it is the absence of race, thus white "purity" can only be maintained by keeping it from racial "pollution."
	__________________ Please temper your expectations if you are going to argue with a nazi sympathizer

24th January 2023, 07:24 PM	#154
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 42,380	What is with this board? "Choose to be gay." "NAMBLA is a gay rights organization." Way to have your thumb on the pulse of homophobia from 20 years ago. You're not just bigots you're retro. Quick someone go "AIDS is a punishment from God" since you're just playing the oldies.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. Last edited by JoeMorgue; 24th January 2023 at 07:27 PM.

24th January 2023, 07:26 PM	#155
Robin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 14,198	Originally Posted by Brainster Here: Somebody (a reporter of course) asked this question, implying that they thought it was a logical consequence of his actions. Not leaving it at that, they asked the coach: Note that word "despite"; it clearly implies that scratching Provorov would have been appropriate and expected. I don't understand why you folks are trying to deny that the sportswriters thought he should have been punished in some way. Whatevs, there's a saying about horses and water at this point. You are drawing a very long bow here indeed. A journo asking if he was worried about consequences clearly is not implying that he deserves consequences or that it is a logical consequence of his actions. For example a Christian I know recently came out as gay. I said "Are you worried your church will throw you out?" I was clearly not implying that being ostracized from his church was a logical consequence of coming out as gay or that he deserved such a thing. In case you were wondering he was thrown out of his church.
	__________________ We all hate poverty, war, and injustice Unlike the rest of you squares. Tom Lehrer - Folk Song Army