Richard Dawkins Versus Homophobic Christians

[Tim]

:homo:

I'm thinkin' that black lady kicked his professored ass.

Of course you did...

with your stated views on homosexuality, of course you would think she bettered him.

 

[doombug]

So are people born straight?

Science hasn't answered that question yet but the way I look at is people are who they are, born that way or by choice, so it doesn't matter that much.

 

[HK]

This is the whole point I am trying to get across.

Forget the argument of whether being gay is good or bad. Let's not even discuss that part...

Do you really think that it's a personal preference? I mean is your attraction to the opposite sex a personal preference? Or is it something you can't control?

I submit that your sexual preference is not something you control or change, and I'm talking about your deep down feelings of attraction. So this is why I do not believe that me being straight is a personal preference anymore than someone who is homosexual making it a personal preference...

See, I was trying to pick a phrase that wouldn't get that reaction and failed haha I don't mean preference as in 'it's something you decide', I just meant preference as in 'that's what I like'. My preference is men, but I didn't choose that, it's just the way things are.

 

[doombug]

This is the whole point I am trying to get across.

Forget the argument of whether being gay is good or bad. Let's not even discuss that part...

Do you really think that it's a personal preference? I mean is your attraction to the opposite sex a personal preference? Or is it something you can't control?

I submit that your sexual preference is not something you control or change, and I'm talking about your deep down feelings of attraction. So this is why I do not believe that me being straight is a personal preference anymore than someone who is homosexual making it a personal preference...

It is interesting to consider though. I would lean more toward genetics myself although it is probably a combination of factors.

 

[Guyzerr]

Of course you did...

with your stated views on homosexuality, of course you would think she bettered him.

I will put the same challenge to you that I did to Peter Parka so we can put your incorrect opinion(s) as to my belief(s) to rest once and for all. For the record he has left me alone regarding that subject since that day.

Here's your challenge.

Please inform me what my views and opinions of gays are. I will correct you where you're wrong and agree where you're right. Fair.... on your mark, get set.... go....................

 

[Tim]

See, I was trying to pick a phrase that wouldn't get that reaction and failed haha I don't mean preference as in 'it's something you decide', I just meant preference as in 'that's what I like'. My preference is men, but I didn't choose that, it's just the way things are.

My post wasn't meant to be confrontational, or meant to pick on your choice of words... I was only pointing out what a lot of people say/believe. That homosexuality is a choice, yet they themselves do not choose to be straight...

It is interesting to consider though. I would lean more toward genetics myself although it is probably a combination of factors.

Don't forget that what hormones we are subjected to in utero can change us dramatically. This has been shown scientifically in several areas. Why not sexuality?

 

[Guyzerr]

I am posting the following so the rest of the forum members see exactly what I have to contend with. Tim responded to my challenge by posting a red rep and it went like this... " fuck off ". Personally I don't give a shit that he told me to fuck off but what bothers me is the spineless way he went about it. Take a bow Tim... you deserve the recognition of being the spineless piece of shit you are.

 

[HK]

My post wasn't meant to be confrontational, or meant to pick on your choice of words... I was only pointing out what a lot of people say/believe. That homosexuality is a choice, yet they themselves do not choose to be straight...

Okay cool, I just didn't want it to look like I was saying I believe it's a choice!

 

[doombug]

Don't forget that what hormones we are subjected to in utero can change us dramatically. This has been shown scientifically in several areas. Why not sexuality?

I don't doubt that some evidence like that could be considered just as it could be with pedophilia. The big question, in my opinion, is how should society look at it. Besides the question of genetic influences on sexual orientation could be definitively answered by using DNA microarray technology. I wonder why this hasn't been done to answer the question of genetics or choice.

 

[HK]

I don't doubt that some evidence like that could be considered just as it could be with pedophilia. The big question, in my opinion, is how should society look at it.

Personally, I think if a sexual desire involves two (or more...) consenting adults then what's the harm? This is the big difference between paedophilia and homosexuality - one hurts people, the other doesn't, and that seems like the most basic thing to bring it down to.

 

[doombug]

Personally, I think if a sexual desire involves two (or more...) consenting adults then what's the harm? This is the big difference between paedophilia and homosexuality - one hurts people, the other doesn't, and that seems like the most basic thing to bring it down to.

I agree and this point makes genetics or choice seem unimportant. But whether or not victimization is involved doesn't seem to keep society from passing laws against things, for example, prostitution, smoking marijuana, etc...

 

[HK]

I agree and this point makes genetics or choice seem unimportant. But whether or not victimization is involved doesn't seem to keep society from passing laws against things, for example, prostitution, smoking marijuana, etc...

It's difficult, because sometimes I do think why do we even need these laws? I wouldn't take heroin even if it was legal. And if I hit rock bottom, prostitution being illegal wouldn't be a huge deterrent either. People mainly seem to do what they like doing, and if it's wrong then they avoid getting caught as much as possible.

There are some things, like drugs and sex for money, that I'd rather see regulated than outlawed. We know you can't stop people doing these things, why expend so much energy trying?

 

[doombug]

It's difficult, because sometimes I do think why do we even need these laws? I wouldn't take heroin even if it was legal. And if I hit rock bottom, prostitution being illegal wouldn't be a huge deterrent either. People mainly seem to do what they like doing, and if it's wrong then they avoid getting caught as much as possible.

There are some things, like drugs and sex for money, that I'd rather see regulated than outlawed. We know you can't stop people doing these things, why expend so much energy trying?

I don't know about England but here in the US there are efforts to regulate everything from food contents to wearing seatbelts. So much for the land of the free.

 

[HK]

I don't know about England but here in the US there are efforts to regulate everything from food contents to wearing seatbelts. So much for the land of the free.

I feel like I can live with regulation, because it's nice to know there are rules to stop them putting all kinds of crap in your food, etc. And some laws are obviously for public safety, like not drink driving, not murdering others etc.

But that's the thing, I far prefer regulation to just saying 'no, you can't do this ever'.

Hell, I don't even understand why sex for money is illegal.

 

[BornReady]

Personally, I think if a sexual desire involves two (or more...) consenting adults then what's the harm? This is the big difference between paedophilia and homosexuality - one hurts people, the other doesn't, and that seems like the most basic thing to bring it down to.

Yep, that is what matters. Homosexuals shouldn't have to defend themselves. It's really no one's business but theirs.

And another thing, government shouldn't be in the marriage business. There should just be civil unions and they should be available to any adult that wants one.

 

[doombug]

Yep, that is what matters. Homosexuals shouldn't have to defend themselves. It's really no one's business but theirs.

And another thing, government shouldn't be in the marriage business. There should just be civil unions and they should be available to any adult that wants one.

I agree BR. But something I think about is while we as individuals see nothing wrong with things where there isn't really a victim how do these things affect us as a society. Are they good or bad? Does a society have a right to impose rules against certain things because it sees them as negative? For example, should a society regulate food that isn't healthy because it isn't good to have alot of the people in bad health. To me this is the question to ask. Are there any negative social aspects to homosexuality? I think that should be studied more than why people are gay in the first place.

 

[tommysize1]

regulation is a good thing in moderation.
too much regulation and we just become slaves with no free will.

positive social aspects of homosexuality: the supposed "pink pound" is a theory that gays spend more money as they have more disposable income than the average person.

negative social aspects of homosexuality: they are icky.

i wonder if homosexuality rises as the exposure to gays in everyday life increases.
as in: are there more gays in britain now than in 1960?

i say this as i feel i could of easily tried homosexuality if it werent for how my parents raised me and my social environment.
if there was an openly gay person when i was at school that i could of related to i believe my chances of trying homosexuality would of increased.

 

[doombug]

regulation is a good thing in moderation.
too much regulation and we just become slaves with no free will.

positive social aspects of homosexuality: the supposed "pink pound" is a theory that gays spend more money as they have more disposable income than the average person.

negative social aspects of homosexuality: they are icky.

i wonder if homosexuality rises as the exposure to gays in everyday life increases.
as in: are there more gays in britain now than in 1960?

i say this as i feel i could of easily tried homosexuality if it werent for how my parents raised me and my social environment.
if there was an openly gay person when i was at school that i could of related to i believe my chances of trying homosexuality would of increased.

Regulations or not humans have free will. It is just that some choices have consequences that a person might not want.

 

[HK]

You can't catch gay. Being exposed to men who like cock won't magically turn an otherwise straight man. The closest that comes to truth is that by being around people of a certain lifestyle it might make you more open-minded to the possibility.

And if numbers look different across generations then you have to account for the fact that it's far more acceptable now to be gay than it ever has been before. Previously, people wouldn't admit to it. Hell, some still won't.

 

[doombug]

You can't catch gay. Being exposed to men who like cock won't magically turn an otherwise straight man. The closest that comes to truth is that by being around people of a certain lifestyle it might make you more open-minded to the possibility.

And if numbers look different across generations then you have to account for the fact that it's far more acceptable now to be gay than it ever has been before. Previously, people wouldn't admit to it. Hell, some still won't.

You can't catch gay? I wonder if Dawkins would scold you for making a statement like that without scientific evidence to back it up. He probably would if it would help sell his books. Dawkins is pretty much a charlatan.