DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:So without some common ground (science) you are asking people to abandon common sense and replace it with your divine knowledge.

Am I? Read back a sentence. "I don't need" I offer it purely for consideration, and then I went on to indicate that there have been instances of deviant behavior being passed through contact with someone involved in it (and through initiation, in some cases). The Bible actually speaks of deviant behavior as judgment for Godlessness (this indicates a spiritual source). Also the influence of spiritual entities being behind certain behaviors is a Biblical concept.

Will Robinson wrote:You are suggesting a very cruel treatment of your fellow man based on some very questionable reasoning. That kind of order shouldn't be followed without some very substantial authority!

What cruel treatment is it that I am suggesting? What order? If you want to talk authority, for me, the fact that the Bible declares God's judgment for homosexuality is eternal damnation is authority enough. God "created then male and female". Condoning LGBT behavior as natural or healthy becomes a very serious matter, in light of that. As difficult as it might be for some of you to believe, I do not consider it my place to judge people involved in homosexuality, or whatever else. God help them. We're all sinners--we're all fallen. But when it comes to a discussion of right and wrong I don't pull any punches. I don't compromise what I know to be right. I also don't compromise reality. A guy attracted to another guy just isn't right. Same with a girl attracted to another girl. Nature itself can tell you that much, and whether it's written on our conscience, or just because we were raised by a father and a mother, we all knew at some point that something wasn't right there. I would not be the one slinging insults at a "queer", and I would not be one of the ones beating them up or treating them unfairly. These things are all a byproducts of the world you live in, just as the LGBT movement is, even as it goes right past stopping abuse, into the perversion of family (what's left), morality, innocence, and a denial of reality.

That's all for me, baring any further interesting debate.

Top Gun wrote:

CUDA wrote:Tolerance is a lie and those that scream for it the loudest usually offer it the least.

Hate to break it to you, but tolerance isn't a "lie" just because it refuses to tolerate bigotry.

big·ot·ry  

/ˈbigətrē/Noun
Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

English isnt your first language is it?
Your attitudes towards ST are as bigoted as you claim he is

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:But I challenge you to not make some snide remark to someone's face that you perceive is gay or gender variant when they pass you by

So ol' Thorne's just a big bully, eh? I'm never anything but kind to anyone I meet, regardless of how they come off.

I didn't start this thread about how you hate the sight of all that queerness on youtube, YOU DID. If you say you can hold your tongue in public when 2 gay guys walk by you, then you're a little nicer than I thought.

CUDA wrote:Tolerance is a lie and those that scream for it the loudest usually offer it the least.

"They tell you to be yourself, and then they judge you."

"Anybody who told you that you're no good, they're no better."

Wayne Dyer wrote:"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about."

And yes CUDA, I've been guilty of the last one.

ST, in your opinion, is homosexuality a deviation from the norm as I have suggested or choice to be a deviant?

What is the difference between Muhammed declaring devout muslims have divine authority from Allah to kill infidels and who ever taught you about god declaring homosexuals are bound for eternal damnation?

Other than god reserves the right to do the deed himself where Muhammed recruits mortals to do the deed I'm having a hard time differentiating between the two sources of 'authority'!

How can you claim you don't judge them and start a thread that belittles them in which you say you follow the authority of god who condemns them to hellfire?!?

Words mean things. Your words mean that you disrespect them as humans who are deviants yet you claim you don't judge!?

You don't get to have it both ways.

Ok TG, we are kinda on the same page. To me the thought is personally repulsive, but then again God has told me to love everyone and treat all people the same, without showing partiality. That is where I differ from a lot of Christians I think. I am not told to do anything about the moral behavior of others, and when 'humans' think it's their business to punish others for acts they think is against their beliefs, well then they become some of the most atrocious. I think you can win people over by acting kind, loving, open and honest. Especially to those who don't believe how you do. Now, if this person was claiming to be a Christian and to have had developed a relationship with God, then I would have a very hard time developing a genuine friendship with them, otherwise I could care less either. That is where I differ from Thorne. I think you have to express the same love for people that God has expressed to you, and you cannot do that while fostering judgemental thoughts towards them. As far as hearing from God, I couldn't live without that relationship. It's an inward leading, but never steers me wrong. I only mention it in the hopes that others will seek it for themselves, not so that I can be any type of influence in their lives. I've said this before and I'll say it again. I had no human influence to my beliefs, by the time I was 8 I was arguing at the dinner table more than once . I don't understand why others don't talk to God and why they don't hear Him respond in their spirit. Up until recently in my life, I thought everyone did, but when I realized they did not, I began to understand why some responded the way they did

So I guess now it’s a character flaw if someone is grossed out by seeing two guys kissing….


Well I have a little secret for you…some gay people are grossed out by the thought of having sex with the opposite sex.

Tolerance densely borders on negligence. Listen, you think, I never wanted to ★■◆● the nice blue boy or to try heroin? There was a wish! ! ! Some blue boys are more sexual than many girls. And heroin ecstasy is the magic fairy tale, as far as can be judged from the some opinions.There are things you do not need to try ever. Even once. But before the children will understand it, they need the help of adults. I am genuinely sorry for the people who had not received timely help in their education. It should not be. People are not born knowing what is right and what is wrong in this life. It's society's fault that it failed to timely inform them about the dangers of various fatal temptations. And the fact that I have not committed many terrible mistakes in my life, being young and foolish, certainly has merit not only my parents, but also of our society that does not permit excessive tolerance to deviations in the psyche. I'm sure that people with deviations in sexual orientation suffer from big sincere anguish from understanding of the abnormality that they didn't speak to you. Society has to most tactfully help LGBT to be guided by true human values. Gay parades it is nonsense. The human nature and moral health of society is different things. Clever people don't arrange parades in honor of the mistresses though mistresses, in my opinion, play an important role in family preservation.

sigma wrote:Tolerance densely borders on negligence. Listen, you think, I never wanted to **** the nice blue boy or to try heroin? There was a wish! ! ! Some blue boys are more sexual than many girls. And heroin ecstasy is the magic fairy tale, as far as can be judged from the some opinions.There are things you do not need to try ever. Even once. But before the children will understand it, they need the help of adults. I am genuinely sorry for the people who had not received timely help in their education. It should not be. People are not born knowing what is right and what is wrong in this life. It's society's fault that it failed to timely inform them about the dangers of various fatal temptations. And the fact that I have not committed many terrible mistakes in my life, being young and foolish, certainly has merit not only my parents, but also of our society that does not permit excessive tolerance to deviations in the psyche. I'm sure that people with deviations in sexual orientation suffer from big sincere anguish from understanding of the abnormality that they didn't speak to you. Society has to most tactfully help LGBT to be guided by true human values. Gay parades it is nonsense. The human nature and moral health of society is different things. Clever people don't arrange parades in honor of the mistresses though mistresses, in my opinion, play an important role in family preservation.

Having a mistress, or being a mistress is a choice. Homosexuality is not a choice.
The fact that some small percentage may choose to experiment with same sex partners is not proof that all homosexuals chose to be one. And it is not a good reason to ostracize the citizens who are born with same sex inclinations.

There is a difference you don't seem to be recognizing.

I agree that homosexuality shouldn't be celebrated as something special. However, there is a recent celebration that homosexual status is on the path to being recognized as something natural, that people born with homosexual instinct are deserving the same consideration as people born with heterosexual instincts. It is to be expected there would be a bit of a public 'cry of relief' after so many centuries of persecution...

I tell about moral society health. I meant that tolerance to LGBT will surely lead to increase in their quantity, and respectively, to the power. You are personally ready to choose in U.S. Presidents of the representative of LGBT?

You are personally ready to choose in U.S. Presidents of the representative of LGBT?

Heh. I tell you what has happened over here. A great deal of our youth have become self-serving and sensual, not considering or even caring about the big picture. No, I would have no confidence at all with that type of moral character representing me.

Will Robinson wrote:However, there is a recent celebration that homosexual status is on the path to being recognized as something natural, that people born with homosexual instinct are deserving the same consideration as people born with heterosexual instincts. It is to be expected there would be a bit of a public 'cry of relief' after so many centuries of persecution...

If identical twins have the same genes or DNA and they are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. Then if homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay? As this report says only about 38% depending on what sex the twins are.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

Homosexuality isn't normal when you think about procreation. But it is something that happens in nature and we have to adapt to tolerate/accept it. It's not going away.

I hate coming back to a thread-gone-ugly after a weekend.

Despite the personal crap (again, it doesn't belong, folks!), there's some good discussion here, particularly about the varied public response to increasing LGBT support among corporations.

Here's a question: Do things like boycotts (e.g. Christian groups boycotting organizations supporting LGBT community, or folks like Thorne removing their support from commercial sites) work?

No, you do not understand me. But I always try to understand the causes of conflicts, not stupidly accuse or condemn people for their actions. Look, sex for pleasure only deal intelligent animals with a high level of intelligence, so to speak. The man, chimpanzees, dolphins, and even rats. Among all the members of these animals have blue. I am not against the right to choose who and how to have sex. I can not understand why engage in propaganda of non-traditional relationships. I can not imagine any of my sexual fantasies, which can not satisfy a woman for me. The woman is beautiful, everything else can not be called a full-fledged sex, in my opinion. I am concerned only the fact that a healthy young man in a society tolerant of LGBT people may become a gay with a spoiled mentality, not even knowing it.

If tolerance for gay people is based on the notion that being gay is not a choice (which I happen to agree with) then why doesn’t the same tolerance apply to a “bigot” surely those people don’t choose to be that way, for many of the same reasons a person wouldn’t choose to be gay.

Hey, I woke up one day and decided to become a bigot.

Because what happens is the same children that are now taught that it's normal and acceptable, would be the same ones to attack and bash them otherwise. It's just the times we live in so I have no good solution. I am not of the opinion that people who are gay are born that way. I think it's a choice and an unhealthy choice personally and for society as a whole, but when that was the accepted way of thinking, people would beat, abuse and even murder them. If anyone is to blame for the change of thinking about homosexuality, it is the gay bashers themselves. They created an atmosphere where the mindset had to be changed.

sigma wrote:I tell about moral society health. I meant that tolerance to LGBT will surely lead to increase in their quantity,and respectively, to the power. ...

I don't know how you can say that their numbers would increase unless you believe homosexuality is a choice and not a natural state of being.

sigma wrote:You are personally ready to choose in U.S. Presidents of the representative of LGBT?

I wouldn't have an objection to a rationale gay man or woman but not a militant one. Just like I am not prejudiced against a black man but am opposed to the one who is President today because he is a 'militant' black man. He has made race a wedge issue and uses it to divide us and justify inequal application of the law.

So I wouldn't want Rosie O'Donnel but Ellen DeGeneres is fine with me.

I would enjoy the world of Islam recoiling at the most powerful leader in the world being a homosexual!

There are lots of pro and con arguments to that scenario but I think we would come out better for it and the Whitehouse would finally get a make over that has style!

sigma wrote:I tell about moral society health. I meant that tolerance to LGBT will surely lead to increase in their quantity, and respectively, to the power...........

The quantity of LGBT people in any population will not rise just because they are accepted. Only the number that actually come out of the closet will make it appear that the number is rising, but the percentages in any population will remain the same. The numbers are actually around 1.7% for gay and 1.8% for bisexual worldwide, even in Russia. It's not anywhere near the 25% that seems to be thrown around by the homophobes of the world. They're really only a drop in the population bucket. Only the numbers of visible LGBT people will rise when they no longer fear repression or stigmatization and they quit hiding from everyone's view. People will not suddenly change from hetero to homo in large numbers and overwhelm society because they think it's more fun because it's NOT a lifestyle choice. Nor will there be a collapse of social morals or reproduction. Things will go on as always. LGBT people have been around all through time. Nothing is changing but their visibility. Society will not rot because of LGBT people living their lives in peace.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/257753/

The Russian OUT List

flip wrote: I am not of the opinion that people who are gay are born that way. I think it's a choice and an unhealthy choice personally and for society as a whole, but when that was the accepted way of thinking, people would beat, abuse and even murder them.

Never once have I heard a gay person (friends or people that I've talked to) say that homosexuality is a choice. To choose isolation, parental disownment, and social rejection is not what a normal human being "chooses", and most of them are as normal as you and I. There's no possible way for myself to one day wake up, see that homosexuality is "the new trend" and change my sexual orientation. It won't happen, and it can't happen. The same goes for all the heterosexuals on this board.

To the OP. You have every right to voice your opinion on this matter. However, don't be surprised when society lashes out against you. It's happened multiple times in the past in areas concerning racism and gender equality: when those seeking equal rights and/or end segregation overwhelm those that are on the opposing side. Frankly, I'm surprised that people are still fighting this, especially when concerning marriage. What is the current divorce rate among straight couples? 50-60%? What concerns you regarding marriage, if a gay couple were to be able to marry, that would change for you?

Where's the cry out to deny straight atheist couples from getting married? If you want to preserve the "sanctity of marriage" that should be issue #1.

Well, this is the question I have then, and I'm not saying there may not be a genetic predisposition towards homosexual behavior, although how that got in the code is a debate for another thread Why is homosexuality given status over other sexual desires we criminalize. What functionally is the difference. It's obvious that pro-creation is a necessary ingredient to keep the wheels turning so to say. Same sex does not follow any convention and even the percentages speak to it's aberration. How is it then different from someone who has sexual feelings towards children, except that it's victimless? The mechanics are the same. If a person is born predisposed to have unhealthy feelings towards children, how is that any different on a genetic level? Again, unless it's because it's a victimless crime, I can see that, but biologically what is the difference?

I agree with the notion that whatever people do, the percentage of gay people will remain the same in any population.

With that being said, I will also be willing to bet money that the amount of homosexual “acts” would increase, especially among the young…is that a good thing or a bad thing, I can’t really make a call on that one…but my gut tells me, with the danger associated with certain types of sex acts…it won’t be great.

flip wrote:Well, this is the question I have then, and I'm not saying there may not be a genetic predisposition towards homosexual behavior, although how that got in the code is a debate for another thread Why is homosexuality given status over other sexual desires we criminalize. What functionally is the difference. It's obvious that pro-creation is a necessary ingredient to keep the wheels turning so to say. Same sex does not follow any convention and even the percentages speak to it's aberration. How is it then different from someone who has sexual feelings towards children, except that it's victimless? The mechanics are the same. If a person is born predisposed to have unhealthy feelings towards children, how is that any different on a genetic level? Again, unless it's because it's a victimless crime, I can see that, but biologically what is the difference?

I can't speculate on the biological difference between the 2 since I don't know. But, the first question you presented you answered in the same paragraph. Homosexual acts between 2 consenting adults is not illegal. Sexual acts between an adult and a child, whether homosexual or heterosexual in nature, is illegal. The mechanics are definitely NOT the same. The singular similarity between the 2 is that some people might be disgusted by both equally, deeming the 2 immorally comparable. Which is a ludicrous stance to take.

Well, I was speaking towards the genetic mechanics that predispose someone beyond accepted norms. Both acts are not what would be considered normal, and that is the only way I meant to compare them.

EDIT: Up until recently, and I think even in many states still the laws are on the books, homosexuality was considered illegal. I'm wondering how that would change your argument if it was still considered a perverseness?

Heretic wrote:If identical twins have the same genes or DNA and they are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. Then if homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay? As this report says only about 38% depending on what sex the twins are.

Alcohol causes fetal alcohol syndrome, yet twin studies on mothers who drink while pregnant don't show 100% overlap between twins either, despite each twin having the same genes, same prenatal conditions, and being exposed to the same amount of alcohol. But yet without a doubt alcohol causes fetal alcohol syndrome.

When we talk about "x causes y" in cases like these, we aren't saying that whenever x then y. What we're really saying is that x predisposes y.

flip wrote:Well, I was speaking towards the genetic mechanics that predispose someone beyond accepted norms. Both acts are not what would be considered normal, and that is the only way I meant to compare them.

EDIT: Up until recently, and I think even in many states still the laws are on the books, homosexuality was considered illegal. I'm wondering how that would change your argument if it was still considered a perverseness?

I think the conventional wisdom behind the distinction between the two examples is based on the victimization of one of the parties. Children are too young to consent....no matter the sexual orientation of their partner or themselves.

And there are other scenarios, incest, polygamy, etc where the argument is a health issue or it is counter productive for society because it leads to a less than equal relationship(being one of five wives for a single man).

***********

At Spidey: I think tolerance of bigotry is tolerating a learned behavior where tolerating homosexuals who have no choice is different. Obviously I'm clinging to my belief gay is not a choice...

**********

And for those who think homosexual acts would increase....I suppose they might but I don't think experimenting with same sex partners can switch your instinct so I don't think it would increase the number of gay people.
I have no science to back this theory other than the obvious long running celebration/display of heterosexual sex that we Americans enjoy inserting in all forms possible of our culture that has failed to eliminate the much smaller number of gays within our ranks by exposure.

The twins thing is interesting but we don't know when the switch is flipped so maybe you can be genetically predisposed but still need a catalyst of some sort that isnt shared by both twins.
If so then some of my belief is in jeopardy if that catalyst is through exposure to homosexuality.

I think it very well could be Will. Today we like to blame everything on genetics, but if that's the case, choice plays very little part. It's like saying the child molester can't help himself, nor can the necrophiliac or the serial rapist. The only difference is that it's not consensual. This is what Sigma is trying to say I think, and I totally agree with him. In this country we all want to talk about personal liberties and hardly anything about civic responsibility. I am of the opinion that the only way we can remain free is to be above reproach. Sure, we shouldn't condemn people or punish them for victimless crimes, but to outright sanction it is crossing a line.

I've read this thread all the way through but still can't figure out where You-Tube comes into the whole thing......

I got Rick-Rolled, decided he was queer, and it just spun out of control from there. I apologize.

Will…I understand the difference between the two, perhaps you miss the point.

While one may be learned, the result is still a place where the person never intended to be. IE: not their choice.

In the case of a learned experience, one has to look at the teachers…not the student. I believe people that have been taught harmful or hateful things deserve my sympathy as much as the next guy.

Now you can ask…can he change…can gays change? You would be asking him to give up his very belief system…could you do that?

And the basic reason I can cut Thorne some slack is he doesn’t seem like the “active” bigot type, never once have I heard him advocate the mistreatment of gays.

I judge people by their actions, not their thoughts, and he has every right to his religious beliefs. And boycotting YouTube is not exactly an evil act.

Spidey wrote:Will…I understand the difference between the two, perhaps you miss the point.

While one may be learned, the result is still a place where the person never intended to be. IE: not their choice.

In the case of a learned experience, one has to look at the teachers…not the student. I believe people that have been taught harmful or hateful things deserve my sympathy as much as the next guy.

Now you can ask…can he change…can gays change? You would be asking him to give up his very belief system…could you do that?

And the basic reason I can cut Thorne some slack is he doesn’t seem like the “active” bigot type, never once have I heard him advocate the mistreatment of gays.

I judge people by their actions, not their thoughts, and he has every right to his religious beliefs. And boycotting YouTube is not exactly an evil act.

Ahh, I did miss that perspective...learned isn't a conscious choice in the moment...got it.

Also, I took your example of bigotry as a generic example of a potentially similar behavior. I didnt think you were refering to ST in particular and I hadn't applied it to ST even though I find the result of his protest to be offensive because, ironically perhaps, because he feels that way out of pure faith, not malice. I guess I'm wrong at assuming bigotry is always born of malice.

Spidey wrote:If tolerance for gay people is based on the notion that being gay is not a choice (which I happen to agree with) then why doesn’t the same tolerance apply to a “bigot” surely those people don’t choose to be that way, for many of the same reasons a person wouldn’t choose to be gay.

Hey, I woke up one day and decided to become a bigot.

I agree with this, but I also don't believe in free will. However, we still have to make choices when presented with opportunities even if the underlying nature of those choices is shrouded in determinism. There is an important distinction to be made when comparing homosexuality and bigotry. The actual sexual orientation of a gay person is tied deep into biology. The opinions of a bigot are usually tied to culture. In that same sense, you have homosexuals that can't help their orientation but choose to not live the life they were intended and stay in the closet due to cultural influence. That is where the homosexual makes a choice -- to admit what they are or live a lie due to society. That cultural influence is much easier to break than the biological one. And usually the cure for bigotry is education.

Also, two bigots can get married in the US.

Spidey wrote:…but my gut tells me, with the danger associated with certain types of sex acts…it won’t be great.

Might reduce instances of teen pregnancy if all the kids are gaying it up.

I guess there can be an up side to anything.

And, I totally agree with the cure for bigotry.

Will Robinson wrote:ST, in your opinion, is homosexuality a deviation from the norm as I have suggested or choice to be a deviant?

Personally I don't think it fits neatly into either. I think I probably backed "it's a choice" when I was younger, maybe even here. The truth is we have a choice, but we also have propensities, and to understand where propensities hail from is to be much closer to the answer. I think there has been a large push from the LGBT supporters to make their condition unavoidable, in order to make it acceptance an imperative. I don't find it believable that sexual deviation is tied to healthy genetics or biology, since that's where we get classics sexuality. I don't see a natural conflict as a plausible scenario. I do believe that chemical balances can effect these systems, or that the systems can be damaged or deformed, but any of these things are acting on DNA, not originating from it. I think they have cause and effect mixed up.

Will Robinson wrote:What is the difference between Muhammed declaring devout muslims have divine authority from Allah to kill infidels and who ever taught you about god declaring homosexuals are bound for eternal damnation?

Other than god reserves the right to do the deed himself where Muhammed recruits mortals to do the deed I'm having a hard time differentiating between the two sources of 'authority'!

There is little difference in outcome, if we assume separately that each one is true. Practically, to you, there is a world of difference, because if I'm a devout Muslim and I'm wrong I'm still out to kill infidels, and if I'm a devout Christian and I'm wrong then I'm still out to love others as God loved me, and in the end we find that no one is going to be damning you all for all eternity. EDIT: Maybe a better way to state the difference is that one puts the right of judgement and punishment in the hands of notoriously imperfect men, and the other reserves it to an all-knowing God only, while commanding that we love in the meantime as God loved us.

Will Robinson wrote:How can you claim you don't judge them and start a thread that belittles them in which you say you follow the authority of god who condemns them to hellfire?!?

Words mean things. Your words mean that you disrespect them as humans who are deviants yet you claim you don't judge!?

You don't get to have it both ways.

There is a difference between judging an issue and judging a life. I can judge homosexuality as a concept, but there are a lot of variables and unknowns in a person's life that I may not know about. As an ignorant party I don't think I can justly stand in judgment (unless I had experience in that area). I can judge actions, and I can judge concepts, but I am not here to fix homosexuals, I am here to make a statement of uncompromising truth regarding their condition.

On mine, it is impossible to deny that fact that the real LGBT understand their perversity of the genetic deviations. And instead of helping clever LGBT to establish a traditional family, to give rise and bring up the child with normal sexual orientation (while without breaking own nature and opportunity to have LGBT of lovers), society starts indulging LGBT-fools, confirming their right to remain fools and to besot the madness of normal people.

sigma wrote:On mine, it is impossible to deny that fact that the real LGBT understand their perversity of the genetic deviations. And instead of helping clever LGBT to establish a traditional family, to give rise and bring up the child with normal sexual orientation (while without breaking own nature and opportunity to have LGBT of lovers), society starts indulging LGBT-fools, confirming their right to remain fools and to besot the madness of normal people.

I think your concerns are only valid if homosexuality can be spread by contact or example. Can anyone show that a gay couple will turn straight children into gays?
If not why should we believe they are that kind of threat?

Here's my issue with it: I don't want corporations to be making political statements about the matter.

Home depot has supported the LGBT cause financially, and has drawn the ire of some groups as a result. I see the Youtube banner in a similar light. I guess it comes down to me not wanting to see corporation taking action to support causes that don't match with mine - and if they do, I do feel that my appropriate response as a consumer is to choose to do business with those who agree with me.

As far as the fight goes, I think it's a stupid thing to be fight over, we should all stop wasting our money on all of these legal battles, legalize marriage between whatever you want, and be done with the argument. I don't particularly see it as any more of a threat to society than our light view of heterosexual marriage & no-fault divorce. IMO both fall in the realm of things that I want to be allowed to disagree with, but also things that from a government standpoint can simply be a reflection of the majority of the populace.

Here's the central issue that I have with the argument in general: People (on both sides of the fence) seem to be unable to separate the actions from the person. If I do a good job of loving the people around me, what's hateful about disagreeing with some of their lifestyle choices; calling them sin? When it comes to sexual lifestyle choices, the Bible's pretty narrow in its definition of condoned behavior - but somehow disagreeing with one person going to the strip club is okay but disagreeing with another having a homosexual relationship is hateful? In my book, both lead to the same eternal consequences. If you want to say that that calling any action sinful is hateful, then I'm a universal hater, and first a self-hater. If you want to make that claim your problem is also with the word sin, not with the idea of reprehensible behavior - because we all (well hopefully all of us) agree with laws that bring murderers, rapists, and other criminals to justice.

A final thought on the whole tolerance thing, though I think it's been pretty well covered: I think that the chinks in the "tolerance" idea's armor are starting to show. Proponents of "tolerance" are being called on their vehement intolerance of points of view that don't agree with theirs, and they are being forced to write loopholes into their code of honor to justify their attitudes. If you're going to be logically consistent, you are either forced to be tolerant of everything, including other's intolerance (and, incidentally, others' hurtful/damaging/criminal actions against you); or you're forced to self-admission of intolerance and are subject to the same judgement as everyone else.

Yea, all this fuss over a passive action like a boycott, one might get the impression people are more upset over that, then his position on gays.

How Dare You, boycott the magnificent YouTube!

Spidey wrote:I agree with the notion that whatever people do, the percentage of gay people will remain the same in any population.

With that being said, I will also be willing to bet money that the amount of homosexual “acts” would increase, especially among the young…is that a good thing or a bad thing, I can’t really make a call on that one…but my gut tells me, with the danger associated with certain types of sex acts…it won’t be great.

Why would that be the case? Most heterosexual males are absolutely repulsed by the idea of homosexual acts. Even heterosexual females think it's gross. Only homosexuals, or bisexuals, would want to do it and would certainly BE the only ones doing it. I can't see a straight youngster even wanting to try it out unless they were truly gay. And all sex, even oral, is dangerous because bodily fluids are exchanged between partners. No sex is absolutely safe unless a condom is used. Most gay men know that.

tunnelcat wrote:No sex is absolutely safe unless a condom is used. Most gay men know that.

There. The only "safe" sex is NO sex.. none. condoms 100%. They are still prone to user error and "mechanical" failure.