I am Gay - if your god told you to murder me, would you murder me?

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 458
#121
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
That is a big call. You have not actually produced any evidence. 

You gave a study which proves nothing. 

You provided a book which one has to buy. 

Neither prove homosexuality as occurring naturally can be applied to humanity. Unless everything else can be applied as well 

I said - I choose whom I am attracted too. I have said it is my experience. This is direct evidence. And it clearly refutes your position. 

It is not me being unreasonable. 
#122
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is untrue, there are lots of things you don't control in your body, most of your consciousness isn't actually controlled by you. Why you want or are compelled by things aren't controlled by you, the rate that your heart beats isn't controlled by you, the expansion rate of your lungs isn't controlled by you, when you get random erections, those aren't controlled by you. There are so many things you have zero control over. And telling yourself the lie that you do is nothing but unreasonableness and stubborn want for a place where scientific literature didn't surround us.
Ok. It is true that there are many things which we cannot control.  I accept that point.  But to extend that to whom we are attracted goes far beyond common sense. 

I know that I choose whom I am attracted too. I know whom I choose not to be attracted too. This is true. Repeating it does not make it true. 

But your studies have not shown otherwise. You have produced no evidence to support that it is not choice. 
Topic's author
#123
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Did you not see my three sources that disprove eye witness testimony as reliable? You say its uncompelling but you don't actually provide any points, you don't understand it and it makes you feel uncomfortable that something you thought was true, such a major paradigm is actually incorrect. That your beliefs and opinions are being left behind for actually being correct about something.
Topic's author
#124
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Here's yet another study about not choosing to be gay:

You are simply wrong, if you don't understand this one, stop relying on only your own experience and do some research please.
Topic's author
#125
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
A study which proves nothing
How so? There is a clear conclusion included in the study, can you simply not comprehend not being a homophobe?


Topic's author
#126
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
How does that go beyond common sense? Explain yourself by more than just a "testimony" that isn't valid evidence in any way but circumstantial. Only in cases where the proposition is necessarily dependent on testimony to exist to build a case is it definitive. Whenever we have actual scientific data, we prefer that.
#127
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tradesecret
So what does finding someone else attractive mean? And why is it relevant?

Like an natural feeling of sexual urge brought on by a person. It's relevant because people try to say that the sort of immediate sexual urge that homosexuals have when they see men that have traits that are attractive to them is somehow all made up or something they can just not feel automatically.  My intuition is that that's not very disputed by the science;  you can't just not find someone hot.  I'm not educated on this topic, but it'd be pretty damn weird that the human species populated if everyone had to choose to be attracted to someone. Why have sex at all then? 

Brains seem to give us lots of natural inclinations that are independent of our rational process. It seems like sexuality is just another one of those inclinations. 
#128
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
I've already proven how it's unreliable, especially without other arguments backing them up, and that literally told you about the gene that likely makes me attracted to males and females. You have not actually proven anything, nor made any compelling counter-arguments, my age here isn't relevant nor is it something I care to share with you in particular. Of course, you could always just look at my profile, but I suppose that must be hard to do from your glass castle.
Sorry.  you have not proven much at all.  Your study "told me" hearsay evidence - about a gene. It is hearsay - because you have simply linked me to an abstract that says something but provides no proof for it.  It might convince you, but that would not surprise me. I have made a counter argument. Do you even know what a counter argument is? 
The very fact that I indicated that my own direct evidence and testimony is that I choose whom I am attracted too - plus the fact that I choose whom I am not attracted too is a counter argument.  In fact it goes right to the heart of your argument. It says you are incorrect. 

Then you throw at me a book - which identifies that in nature - in the animal kingdom - homosexuality occurs naturally.  Your argument seems to be that since it occurs naturally in the animal kingdom that it is going to naturally occur within humanity and as such it is implicitly ok and normal. I counter this with the argument that such an argument "proves too much".  I suppose you are familiar with this type of false argument.  The naturally occurring argument proves far too much and therefore is a false argument. It implies that everything that occurs within the animal kingdom is ok and normal.  Yet we know that is not true - which is why I referred to pedophilia in the animal kingdom, and incest and murder and cannibalism - all occurring within the animal kingdom. It is incorrect to link what the animal kingdom does with what is ok and normal in the human kingdom. They are quite distinct.  

Your age is relevant only in the sense that your ideas do not seem to have a life experience about them.  You throw out cute little notions but actually provide nothing with substance. 




Topic's author
#129
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Did you just ignore literally all the other evidence I've shown you? Here is another study proving my point:

Testimony is unreliable:
You're a lawyer, right? Then you must know how easy it is for witnesses to get details wrong, and how unreliable eyewitness testimony is by itself, what is this? Do I have more scientific proof? Yup!

More? Why didn't you just ask!
That's not satisfying enough to compel you? Here's some more!

Additional evidence for homosexuality being a biologically determining factor:

Topic's author
#130
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
 The naturally occurring argument proves far too much and therefore is a false argument. It implies that everything that occurs within the animal kingdom is ok and normal.  Yet we know that is not true - which is why I referred to pedophilia in the animal kingdom, and incest and murder and cannibalism - all occurring within the animal kingdom. It is incorrect to link what the animal kingdom does with what is ok and normal in the human kingdom. They are quite distinct.  
That would be a straw man - my argument is that just as humans don't choose, neither do animals, and you still have failed to address 90% of my evidence for anything. I will not respond to your unproved arguments until you do so in a satisfactory way or you concede the point.
#131
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Username
So what does finding someone else attractive mean? And why is it relevant?

Like an natural feeling of sexual urge brought on by a person. It's relevant because people try to say that the sort of immediate sexual urge that homosexuals have when they see men that have traits that are attractive to them is somehow all made up or something they can just not feel automatically.  My intuition is that that's not very disputed by the science;  you can't just not find someone hot.  I'm not educated on this topic, but it'd be pretty damn weird that the human species populated if everyone had to choose to be attracted to someone. Why have sex at all then? 

Brains seem to give us lots of natural inclinations that are independent of our rational process. It seems like sexuality is just another one of those inclinations. 

Hi armoredcat, thanks for your comments.  

How does a sexual urge brought on look? To me that smacks of someone who cannot control their urges. Yes, when I see someone who I find very sexual, I can think hmm. Yet, that is not really attraction. It is lust and it is actually controlled.  I simply tell myself - that is an unreasonable urge to feel and then it is gone. I think rationally of the implications of entertaining such an urge. And make a decision. A choice. I have met men and females whom I can think about very quickly, but it is always a choice. And a choice to stay thinking that way or to think of something else. To say we have no choice is to reduce or remove our freewill.  The science despite your intuition is not in agreement on this point. There has been no study that says that homosexuality is genetic.  Not one which has any substantial credibility.  And one reason why it is often discredited by gay people is that - once we find a gay gene - then it will be a question of whether we turn it off or not. 

People do choose to be attracted to each other. I find your observation irrational.  Surely you think "consent" is relevant or do you think it is only relevant when it comes to sex.  Sex without consent is rape.  Attraction is very close to sex.  Not quite the same. Yet, if I don't want you to be attracted to me - yet you remain so - without your control - or choice - then you will become a stalker.  You see people can choose how to respond to their attractions or not.  I personally do CHOOSE whom I am attracted to or not. If others are not able to control themselves - that is a real problem. It simply means that our attraction is up to smells or to the time of the month or something else I am not in control of. The very next step is that sex - is like it is with the animals - non-consensual and rape is ok. 

Now I know you don't agree with that point and probably find that extension of the logic too far - but you need to be able to draw a line in the sand and say why it is too far and why somewhere else is ok. That is your burden of proof. 

I stand on the line - that it is our choice whom we are attracted too. And whom we are not attracted too. I readily concede we don't always want to accept this - we like it mostly when others like us - and we don't want to say no. But it is still our choice. Our decision. 
#132
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Is it a strawman? please show me how. that would be nice.  

What are your arguments? A gene by a study that you cannot produce anything but an extract. a book you want me to read - but which I have to purchase. 

They are not arguments. 

Waiting. 
#133
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Testimony is reliable. In fact 99% of all criminal law cases are decided by testimony. 

Of course witnesses get things wrong - that is human. But it is the story we know is still correct. Think of the titanic sinking. Did it sink? Yes. 

But the eyewitnesses were in two camps. One lot said it broke into two before it sank. The other camp said it did not. Who was right? Well the group that said it broke into two. 

Were the ones who said it did not  wrong? Well yes - but their eye witness testimony was correct. From their perspective it remained in one piece. 

Do we just say well - there was no consistent eye-witness testimony - it did not happen. 

Well I suppose we could - but that would be dumb.  This is a little like "how many angels were at the grave when Jesus rose from the dead"? One or two or more. 

Testimony is reliable. Your suggestion otherwise is STUPID. 
Topic's author
#134
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
You literally ignore all of my evidence, did you even read it? Are you just so delusional that you ignore evidence when it's presented to you?
Topic's author
#135
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Until you can learn to remove the stick from your arse, and actually engage my arguments and evidence, this conversation is through. I'll respond if you consider my evidence, or provide a valid counter source or a mass critique with quotes to prove you aren't taking it out of context. Until then, have fun being unreasonable with yourself.
#136
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I know, it must be sad for you that we aren't the monsters you wish we were.
 I honestly believe you are ill Mopac. 

 I have nothing against Christians. It is your scriptures that concern me. 

#137
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
->@Tradesecret: You're a lawyer, right? Did you just ignore literally all the other evidence I've shown you?

 Yes, she will do that whenever is suites her to do so. She even ignores facts that concern  her own title and hos she should be addressed. 
#138
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
well there are a few million Christians will give you an argument there.
So? They will have to make a valid argument before I care. Why don't you? 

I don't need to make a valid argument . I am simply highlighting what these "god breathed"  scriptures have to say about you and other so called "abominations". I am supporting your corner sunshine. Your not doing too good on your own.  Is all you keep repeating is I am gay, god wants me dead and the bible gives god moral authority. 


 Am I supposed to lie about being gay? 

 Not my call is it. and we are not living in ancient times are we.  


then you will be sentenced to death and killed by the state under gods commandment, in those ancient times. But lucky for you,  you are saved
So? If I don't recognize the state's authority to execute then it doesn't matter, not to mention that god is the foundation of their laws there, in both cases it's still not execution.

Well just as today, you can shout as much as you like that you don't recognise the law of the land or jurisdiction but that is not going to save anyone from the course of the law. 

Look you have  had you replies pages ago. No one here would take a blind bit of notice what the bible says when I came to you or your sexuality NO ONE! 
They just can't bring themselves to admit the Old Testament is barbaric nature. They want it both ways all the time. It is as you say " ignoring the fact that Jesus says contradicting things about the old laws. "

   Jesus makes it plain on many occasions what his stance is on the mosaic law. But these Christians will rewrite and reinterpret the hole bible if that what it takes  to make god and the Scriptures come up smelling of roses every time. 


Common sense and common law?

Are you really as stupid as you are coming across to be?  We are not living in ancient times. They don't stone homosexuals even in Israel anymore!!!! Lucky you eh!!!!

A  jury is allowed to use it own reasoning  and  common sense. The law on the other hand  only sees black  OR  white.  The law is an IT , and IT cannot do anything on ITS own IT has to have advocates to bring IT to life and for IT to have a voice. Common sense comes in when a  jury  via their own thoughts and reasoning  come to a  conclusion that are usually outside of what IT , the law actually stipulates.  In other words common sense and reasoning can do what IT cannot do.

This goes back to my own thread where I say a  "book " is full words that DO " cause people to do things" and contrary to what our resident lawyer the Reverend Tradesecrete says. (that why she's given that thread a wide berth)https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5123-the-bible-can-t-cause-anything









#139
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
The scriptures ought not scare you Stephen, not if you know how the church uses them.

Maybe there is room for concern when dealing with all these renegade heretical churches, but certainly not the Orthodox Church.
#140
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tradesecret
 It is lust and it is actually controlled
Okay, that's what I'm referring to. We're really getting down to semantics here. I'm referring to the immediate feeling, not the. . . whatever you're talking about. 

 The science despite your intuition is not in agreement on this point. There has been no study that says that homosexuality is genetic.  Not one which has any substantial credibility.  And one reason why it is often discredited by gay people is that - once we find a gay gene - then it will be a question of whether we turn it off or not. 
I provided you with plenty of evidence for that conclusion. And I'm pretty sure you can determine that something is genetic without finding a specific gene. If we could find a gay gene, I don't see any reason why anyone would want to turn it off. 

People do choose to be attracted to each other. I find your observation irrational.  Surely you think "consent" is relevant or do you think it is only relevant when it comes to sex.  Sex without consent is rape.  Attraction is very close to sex.  Not quite the same. Yet, if I don't want you to be attracted to me - yet you remain so - without your control - or choice - then you will become a stalker.  You see people can choose how to respond to their attractions or not.  I personally do CHOOSE whom I am attracted to or not. If others are not able to control themselves - that is a real problem. It simply means that our attraction is up to smells or to the time of the month or something else I am not in control of. The very next step is that sex - is like it is with the animals - non-consensual and rape is ok.
Sexual attraction, like all other feelings, is just a feeling. It doesn't imply action. 

I've never heard anyone say that they can just stop a feeling of sexual desire at will like you can. If that's really the case, your experience probably doesn't apply to many other people. 
Topic's author
#141
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Stephen
You misquote me, and leave out entire sections of sentences, I am not interested in having a conversation with a dishonest person, who makes up for their lack of logic with straw men. Try again.
#142
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Username
We are not what we feel.

What a terribly degrading thing it would be if that was the case.

We can certainly choose to not go by our feelings. For example, anger is rarely a good thing to act on.

But like anger, even sexual attraction comes from something else that takes root in the soul. Curing an anger problem is not much different than curing an aberant sexual predisposition.




Topic's author
#143
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
Haven't proven an of this, the psychologists and the geneticist disagree with you bud.
#144
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Mopac
We can certainly choose to not go by our feelings. For example, anger is rarely a good thing to act on.
That's true. When did I dispute that? 

People have natural sexual attractions. A lot of these attractions are difficult to wish away. That's all I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that we get to rape people or anything. 
#145
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
So you claim.

Modern psychology is kind of a joke. Do they even believe in a soul? Yet that is what their field of study is. There are some good psychologists though. Their field is infinitely more respectable than psychiatry.

That all said, the church understands psychology better than any of these people. We also have had a great deal more time doing the science than they. A lot of these fields are polluted by politics and modern philosophy.

What can I say? I'm not likely going to convince you. An in depth study of the subject matter would be required.

The whole gay gene thing is obvious pseudoscience. It's just propaganda. People are predisposed to pleasure. The reality is, one can find sexual gratification in just about anything depending on how perverse they are willing to get. 

#146
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Username
It's difficult to wish away heroin addiction to, but it happens.

Most of these issues come from bad psychology. That is my viewpoint.

#147
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Mopac
Heroin addictions aren't genetic.
Most of these issues come from bad psychology. That is my viewpoint
Right, because the God in the book said so. 

Topic's author
#148
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
I don't believe in a soul no, and you have no evidence for literally any of your claims
#149
Elminster
Elminster's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,210
2
3
5
Elminster's avatar
Elminster
2
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Debating the choice about choosing to be gay with religious people will be never ending. Saying you don't have a choice implies that God made you gay, and since that would contradict the orthodox religious stance on this then it has to be a choice. 

That's the summary of every conversation you will have. 
Topic's author
#150
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Elminster
I realize, at least with Mopac and Tradesecret, however there are a multitude of religious people who acknowledge the fact that you don't choose to be gay.