Gay Bashing

[PoetPhilosopher]

Homosexuality is not consistent with Darwinism. The reason is evolution requires breeding so genes; DNA, can pass forward.

What about in cases where there is overpopulation?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

One of the main problems is leftist secularism, via Hollywood, tries to promote and wave homosexuality in everyone's face. At its best, the goal is to desensitize people ,by over saturating them, until they no longer over react. However, if it was below the radar, there would less over reaction by those not easily desensitize by such a strategy.

If you were a heterosexual you might would react similarly to a heterosexual couple getting too frisky in public. Not everyone want to see that. However, very few care if this is kept private. Gays are not below the radar and this pushes the wrong buttons to their own detriment. There is almost a uniform to create a target. It is a very simple cause and affect.

Consider the relatively new PC word taboos imposed by leftist theology. If you say the wrong buzz word, the tribe is trained to respond in an angry way. On the other hand, if you only think the words or say them in private, but do not express them in public or in ear shot of a leftist; below their radar, the tribe is more tolerant. It is simple cause and affect. It happens in all areas of life.

Bill Clinton helped homosexuals be more accepted in the Services by the policy, "don't ask and don't tell." Some people cannot control certain trained and/or natural reflexes, and can go over board when stimulated, so you need to protect yourself and them, by keeping certain things below the radar. It is like asking a spouse if they ever cheated on you. This may be a question best not asked or answered. It can open a can of worms.

If you wish to divide people, you trick certain scapegoats, into over providing the very stimulus that pushes certain buttons of others, and does them no good. Then you blame those who overreact. This is the modern Progressive divisive strategy for recruitment using manipulative redirect.

Homosexuality is not consistent with Darwinism. The reason is evolution requires breeding so genes; DNA, can pass forward. These passed forward genes control the impulses. Atheists should know this. Homosexuality precludes or limits sexual production, by default, yet this type of behavior perpetuates. This tells us this is not by genetic transmission, so it needs to be learned or conditioned and therefore involves choice and will at some level. It is being misrepresented by atheist secularism with the goal of division.

The goal appears to be to create division by calling what is willful, natural, and what is a natural reaction to willful, as artificial. Let us settle this conflict with science and Darwin.

Garbage. Get people should not closet themselves to please morons who think it's "icky". Those morons can mind their business as well as grow up. You can't live your life trying to please people who look down on you.

Yeah, homosexuality may seem counter-intuitive from an evolutionary standpoint at first glance, but it's really not. Male homosexuality is correlated with large families, with multiple siblings. One good theory is that it appears in such families as a way of reducing population pressure. The homosexual family member is able to provide for the family and support them without adding more children to the mix. That's for male homosexuality.
Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation - Wikipedia

As for female homosexuality, females tend to be more fluid sexually. To be honest, it's probably because a female is more likely to sexually satisfy another female, since (let's be even more honest) males and females aren't very compatible sexually. They're almost different species with all the differences between them. But that's my own personal theory. At the same time, total lesbianism seems to be pretty rare, along with masculine females (feminine men seem more common than masculine women).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God created LGBT?
Last I read the Bible, God created two people - Adam and Eve, from which all mankind came ... thieves, murderers, rapists, whores, sodomites, pedophiles.
God did not create them. They became what they are.
God made mankind through procreation.

Last time I read the Bible, you could cure snake bite with a brass carving of a snake, and Balaam's donkey could talk.

Not bad moments at which to ask yourself if it's really wise to take the thing literally.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Homosexuality is not consistent with Darwinism. The reason is evolution requires breeding so genes; DNA, can pass forward. These passed forward genes control the impulses. Atheists should know this. Homosexuality precludes or limits sexual production, by default, yet this type of behavior perpetuates. This tells us this is not by genetic transmission, so it needs to be learned or conditioned and therefore involves choice and will at some level. It is being misrepresented by atheist secularism with the goal of division.

This is actually probably not true. In fact, you may recall that some people are not only-children -- they have brothers and sisters, and they share their genes with them. And it is also a fact that the more older brothers a male has, the higher the likelihood that he will be gay. This is called the "Fraternal Birth Order Effect." The effect becomes stronger with each additional male pregnancy, with odds of the next son being gay increasing by 38–48%.

And there could very well be an excellent Darwinian reason for this. Gay males are generally just as strong as straight males, but more likely to want to stay home that go out hunting with the other men. This could provide additional safety for the mother, because there's still a strong man to protect her if something untoward comes her way. Thus, she would be alive longer, to pass on more of her genes to more children.

Oooops! Edited to add @Saint Frankenstein beat me to it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

God made mankind through procreation.

No, Yahweh is said to have created Adam from dust and breathed life into him and then created Eve from one of Adam's ribs.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What did you mean by this?
I wouldn't say it's a lifestyle. But this is a good example. Pedophiles means someone who is attracted to children. Child molesters and abusers are those who are sexually intimate with children. The two are different. One is an attraction. The other is an action. The latter has nothing to do with attraction.

Oh. Homosexuality and pedophile deal with attraction.

People who have same-sex sex and people who are child abusers or molesters are not always homosexuals and not always pedophiles.

You don't have to have sex with people you're attracted to. But I do find it weird that people think just because two people have the same sexes, they have more reason and pull to "sin" than people of opposite sexes. As for pedophiles, the only thing I can really say is it has to deal with attraction not action. Child abuse and child molestation has to deal with actions. I read that not all people who do these latter two things are sexually attracted to children. It depends.

According to the Bible, both of the former are sexual sins.
Both of the latter are not encourage, and the Bible says we can have our minds made over, or be transformed.

How does same-sex sex and child molestation relate to each other making both sins?

I understand child molestation is a sin-but same-sex sex?
How does that work out?

Remember, this all started with the bashing argument.
I wanted to understand what the OP meant by bashing, so I brought up the child abuser to help me get that perspective.
Is it bashing to call anyone perverted? in other words.

You are witness to this. Instead of getting an answer, accusations of comparing homosexuality to child molestation started flying. What?
The person I addressed the question to, even said that I was comparing the two, and hence bashing gays... instead of answering the question.
As you are witness, the question was never answered.

It is bashing to call someone a pervert. Maybe say they have perverted behavior, it takes the focus off the person and puts it on the immoral behavior.

Yeah. Child molestation is a pretty big red flag and when compared to homosexuality, it does strike feathers. One because the former is an action and the latter is not. It's a sensitive issue but a healthier comparison would have helped lesson the conversations we're having and others brought about the comparison.

But bashing has to do with accusing the person not the behavior. The problem is, it's not just saying "homosexuals are SS sinners" that's an opinion. It's saying "'you' are a SS sinner 'because' you are homosexual." It's an accusation-that's the bashing part not the opinion itself.

Since everyone is on this comparison thing it must be interesting so hey, why not join in. Let's dig to the finish then.
Is it okay to bash pedophiles?
Actually Artist. I don't want to put you on the spot. So this is not for you.
You understand where I am at though. I hope. No one evidently wants to answer that. Why?
Because they are all guilty of bashing them.

Actually, I don't care for people bashing anybody regardless what they do. For example, I never agreed with capitol punishment because it kills the person for his behavior rather than addressing the behavior itself. It literally has nothing to do with the topic-child molestation, homosexual bashing, et cetera, but more to do with the act of bashing people for whatever reason it may be for.

Yes. Many people take the victim mentality. Which, I'm sure you can understand is justified based on experiences of being LGBTQ?

I do get what you're saying. The comparison wasn't a really good one due to the sensitive of the issues. From your religious perspective, I can understand why you relate them but I think most are trying to get you to see murder, molestation, abuse, et cetera are not related to homosexuality (despite the bible lumping them together).

I get this.
Actually, humility is what matters.
Take for example, a person that was abused as a child, and developed a hatred for all men, and a strong phobia against any man touching them.
They would still be able to serve God, since they are willing to submit to the teachings of God's word, to the best of their ability... even if they get reoccurring thoughts of castrating any male that touches them.
Or an alcoholic, who crave drinks, but restrains from drinking.

True. If you're comparing this to why people say they are homosexual, I think the comparison is false and inappropriate. But in itself, yes, people do build strong hatred for men or women. I don't see how that makes them homosexual though, if that's what you're saying.

 

[nPeace]

That "transformation by Christ" is what they preach and promote. That has been highlighted in several of the links I provided.

I don't need several, although I can produce more than you can even dream of.
I just need one, How one homosexual changed
"I had been a homosexual since the age of eight..."

However, I think it's important you read the entire article, so that you understand that change is possible for homosexuals... why some do not change... and how their thinking is transformed.

Although I could bury you in a pile... two are better than one, so why not...
‘Ex-Gay’ Men Fight Back Against View That Homosexuality Can’t Be Changed

 

[Goddess Kit]

What's most unfortunate is that individuals feel the need change others when there is no need.

 

[Audie]

Last time I read the Bible, you could cure snake bite with a brass carving of a snake, and Balaam's donkey could talk.

Not bad moments at which to ask yourself if it's really wise to take the thing literally.

Freezing morality, science and social structure
at its point in development in one middle eastrrn tribe over two thousand years ago is freaking insane.

 

[Audie]

What's most unfortunate is that individuals feel the need change others when there is no need.

Unfortunate too when they see no need to change themselves

 

[Audie]

No, Yahweh is said to have created Adam from dust and breathed life into him and then created Eve from one of Adam's ribs.

Not the Grest Raven?

 

[Audie]

This is actually probably not true. In fact, you may recall that some people are not only-children -- they have brothers and sisters, and they share their genes with them. And it is also a fact that the more older brothers a male has, the higher the likelihood that he will be gay. This is called the "Fraternal Birth Order Effect." The effect becomes stronger with each additional male pregnancy, with odds of the next son being gay increasing by 38–48%.

And there could very well be an excellent Darwinian reason for this. Gay males are generally just as strong as straight males, but more likely to want to stay home that go out hunting with the other men. This could provide additional safety for the mother, because there's still a strong man to protect her if something untoward comes her way. Thus, she would be alive longer, to pass on more of her genes to more children.

Oooops! Edited to add @Saint Frankenstein beat me to it.

Then too, as the dominant males tend to hog the women, so the surplus males need somewhere to go.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't need several, although I can produce more than you can even dream of.
I just need one, How one homosexual changed
"I had been a homosexual since the age of eight..."

However, I think it's important you read the entire article, so that you understand that change is possible for homosexuals... why some do not change... and how their thinking is transformed.

Although I could bury you in a pile... two are better than one, so why not...
‘Ex-Gay’ Men Fight Back Against View That Homosexuality Can’t Be Changed

nPeace, all of these are religious biases. Here is something short about sexual attraction The neuroendocrinology of sexual attraction - PubMed

The only time one's sex is an issue is if one wants to procreate. Many homosexuals have children for whatever reason. Procreation is a choice. But attraction is not.

When I read about people "turning from" homosexuality, what they are saying is that they repressed their physiological attractions. For whatever reason, religious or not, they convinced themselves mentally that whatever they continue to naturally feel is wrong and after awhile they (and their peers) indoctrinate them to believe what they feel (how they were born) is wrong and in order to have the "right" feelings is to try to change one's physiology towards the opposite sex.

Attraction doesn't work that way. People are attracted to other people because we are all humans. Our interconnection doesn't have religious and biblical morals attached to it.

Take this:

"Mr. Smith, 58, who says he believes homosexual behavior is wrong on religious grounds, tried to tough it out. He spent 17 years in a doomed marriage while battling his urges all day, he said, and dreaming about them all night."

He is defining homosexuality as a behavior. We can change our behaviors but we cannot change our attractions. Homosexuality is not a behavior, so many homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, et cetera can abstain from sex but they are still homo, hetero, or bi regardless what they tell themselves they cannot do.

Your definition is off. That's the problem. Medically, it's not a behavior. Biblically it is. So, you're talking pass people until you guys have the same definition of the word. So far we know in the 21st century rather than before the common error, we found that sexual orientation isn't a crime. We don't need to imprison people for it as we used to.

Did you know:

Sodomy laws in the United States were laws that made certain kinds of sexual activity illegal. In the past, there were federal laws against sodomy. Every state also had a sodomy law, even in the 20th century.

It used to be illegal for same-sex intercourse
The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States - Washington

The last state to repeal it was 2003 in alabama
LGBT rights in Alabama - Wikipedia

I think maybe you're coming from a old (and foreign) perspective to homosexuality that just doesn't exist since the 70s or so when we found out in the States homosexuality is not a behavior (and later illness) etc.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@nPeace here is something else
9 Ex-Leaders of the Gay Conversion Therapy Movement Apologize

“There will be people who will be understandably upset, leaders can’t undo the harm they caused while they’re a part of these programs,” says Bussee who in 2007 publicly apologized for his work in the movement from 1976 until 1979. “All we can do know is say this harm needs to stop.”

This is why people are so sensitive about this issue. People who believe that people can change and what they believe and feel are wrong, and those who promote these mindsets, do harm and make people victims of their own natural born attractions.

I know they may be opinions but there are many people who harm others with their opinions. Hopefully, they can still say I disagree while understanding what they disagree with. We can deal with opinions but not the behaviors based on them.

 

[nPeace]

No, Yahweh is said to have created Adam from dust and breathed life into him and then created Eve from one of Adam's ribs.

God created Adam and Eve. He made mankind.
(Acts 17:26) . . .he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth. . .

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

God created Adam and Eve. He made mankind.
(Acts 17:26) . . .he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth. . .

Yeah, and I just told you how he did it. There was no sex involved in creating Adam and Eve, according to the story.

 

[nPeace]

Oh. Homosexuality and pedophile deal with attraction.

People who have same-sex sex and people who are child abusers or molesters are not always homosexuals and not always pedophiles.

You don't have to have sex with people you're attracted to. But I do find it weird that people think just because two people have the same sexes, they have more reason and pull to "sin" than people of opposite sexes. As for pedophiles, the only thing I can really say is it has to deal with attraction not action. Child abuse and child molestation has to deal with actions. I read that not all people who do these latter two things are sexually attracted to children. It depends.

Most people of different sexes commit more sins than people of the same sex, since there are more adulterers, or people having extramarital sex, and rapists, than there are homosexuals, so where did you get the idea that people think just because two people have the same sexes, they have more reason and pull to "sin" than people of opposite sexes.?
Do you have a link to where that is said. I'm curious where it came from.

How does same-sex sex and child molestation relate to each other making both sins?

Huh

I understand child molestation is a sin-but same-sex sex?
How does that work out?

Do they have to relate, in order to be a sin? Why?
Obviously you are coming from a perspective of 19th century thinking. I am coming from a perspective of universal law - God's law - from the Biblical perspective.

It is bashing to call someone a pervert. Maybe say they have perverted behavior, it takes the focus off the person and puts it on the immoral behavior.

Really? I don't know about that Artist. So you mean our dictionaries need updating, or thrown away?
In that case, it is bashing to call someone a thief, an adulterer, a whore, etc. Correct? Note : I don't mean go up to the person and scream it to their face.

Yeah. Child molestation is a pretty big red flag and when compared to homosexuality, it does strike feathers. One because the former is an action and the latter is not. It's a sensitive issue but a healthier comparison would have helped lesson the conversations we're having and others brought about the comparison.

I thing child molestation is the perfect example to use in the bashing argument.
For the reason that there are children who willfully choose to have sexual intercourse with both young and old. I'm talking about children 11 and up.
If one is going to bash the child abuser, it is the same as they would say, "take the log out your own eye."
Speaking of ruffling feathers, some do evidently get all ruffled even at the slightest thing, as long as it disagrees with their position.

That's what I like about you, that even though you disagree, and others disagree with you, and it may be a sensitive area, you don't get all ruffled, but you are cool. You stay on target, and reason through to the end, without resorting to demoralizing tactics.
Perhaps that's because you are open minded. I don't know. Maybe there is still much of the church left in you. Whatever it is, I appreciate you greatly, for that.

Oh. I almost forgot, I was just talking about ruffling feather. I know your feathers stay well groomed, but feel free to join me in this thread I just created.

But bashing has to do with accusing the person not the behavior. The problem is, it's not just saying "homosexuals are SS sinners" that's an opinion. It's saying "'you' are a SS sinner 'because' you are homosexual." It's an accusation-that's the bashing part not the opinion itself.

Actually, I don't care for people bashing anybody regardless what they do. For example, I never agreed with capitol punishment because it kills the person for his behavior rather than addressing the behavior itself. It literally has nothing to do with the topic-child molestation, homosexual bashing, et cetera, but more to do with the act of bashing people for whatever reason it may be for.

I have come to understand what lens you use in looking at things. It's your view, which, as I said before is based on your experience and evaluation. it would differ to mine and others, but that the way it is.

Yes. Many people take the victim mentality. Which, I'm sure you can understand is justified based on experiences of being LGBTQ?

I do get what you're saying. The comparison wasn't a really good one due to the sensitive of the issues. From your religious perspective, I can understand why you relate them but I think most are trying to get you to see murder, molestation, abuse, et cetera are not related to homosexuality (despite the bible lumping them together).

What? You insulted my simple and very effective example. On my opinion it stood the test and held.
Well I suppose you can understand that just as a person may see the Bible as foolishness, I can see their ideas and opinions as foolishness, and just as they want me to see their foolishness, I want them to see my ... what they call foolishness.
Surely you can understand that, can't you?
It's quite elementary, you would agree?

True. If you're comparing this to why people say they are homosexual, I think the comparison is false and inappropriate. But in itself, yes, people do build strong hatred for men or women. I don't see how that makes them homosexual though, if that's what you're saying.

Huh?
Comparing? Oh my head hurts. What?
Did you just read my post here?
What did I just say?

 

[nPeace]

Yeah, and I just told you how he did it. There was no sex involved in creating Adam and Eve, according to the story.

You said No, to mankind being made through procreation.
Which means you disagreed. There is no need to tell me what I already know... especially milk.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Maybe it doesn’t work because God’s not against it.

Their god very clearly is. His books, his laws, it does say homosexuality is an abomination, it does say homosexuals are to be put to death, it does say their blood is on their hands.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One of the main problems is leftist secularism, via Hollywood, tries to promote and wave homosexuality in everyone's face. At its best, the goal is to desensitize people ,by over saturating them, until they no longer over react. However, if it was below the radar, there would less over reaction by those not easily desensitize by such a strategy.

If you were a heterosexual you might would react similarly to a heterosexual couple getting too frisky in public. Not everyone want to see that. However, very few care if this is kept private. Gays are not below the radar and this pushes the wrong buttons to their own detriment. There is almost a uniform to create a target. It is a very simple cause and affect.

Consider the relatively new PC word taboos imposed by leftist theology. If you say the wrong buzz word, the tribe is trained to respond in an angry way. On the other hand, if you only think the words or say them in private, but do not express them in public or in ear shot of a leftist; below their radar, the tribe is more tolerant. It is simple cause and affect. It happens in all areas of life.

Bill Clinton helped homosexuals be more accepted in the Services by the policy, "don't ask and don't tell." Some people cannot control certain trained and/or natural reflexes, and can go over board when stimulated, so you need to protect yourself and them, by keeping certain things below the radar. It is like asking a spouse if they ever cheated on you. This may be a question best not asked or answered. It can open a can of worms.

If you wish to divide people, you trick certain scapegoats, into over providing the very stimulus that pushes certain buttons of others, and does them no good. Then you blame those who overreact. This is the modern Progressive divisive strategy for recruitment using manipulative redirect.

Homosexuality is not consistent with Darwinism. The reason is evolution requires breeding so genes; DNA, can pass forward. These passed forward genes control the impulses. Atheists should know this. Homosexuality precludes or limits sexual production, by default, yet this type of behavior perpetuates. This tells us this is not by genetic transmission, so it needs to be learned or conditioned and therefore involves choice and will at some level. It is being misrepresented by atheist secularism with the goal of division.

The goal appears to be to create division by calling what is willful, natural, and what is a natural reaction to willful, as artificial. Let us settle this conflict with science and Darwin.

Disgusting nonsense. The entire post, that is. Science has crushed your hate-saturated, false, mosleading, and misguiding argument.