No such thing as a "gay gene"

[RickD]

No, why would I? How'd you show that it fails?

One would be hard pressed to find someone who argues that left handed acts are evil, because they hurt no one. Homosexuality is no different. No unwilling victims are involved when homosexuals fall in love with each other and act upon it.

You showed that your comparison between being left handed, and being homosexual was not the same, because you agreed that there can be unwilling victims when two Homosexuals are in love and act on it, when you stated:

Oh there are victims in that case.

I hope you'll now admit how ridiculous the comparison is.

[PaulSacramento]

Yeah, that's a nice objective definition that won't cause any issues...* cough age*, *cough mental state*, etc

Okay? I definitely agree that children cannot give consent because of their mental and sexual immaturity. I never argued for pedophilia in the slightest sense. Homosexuality and pedophilia are separate issues entirely.

Who decides what is "well being" for "human kind"?
By the way, based on "well being for humankind", homosexuality would, obviously, not be good.
Neither from a biological standpoint OR a social one.

I clearly meant good for the individual, not good for the reproduction of the human species. I already gave my justification for what determines something to be good in my opinion, that which results in the greatest wellbeing for the greatest amount of individuals. Theres no "who" involved or necessary.

The fact that you don't see the slope you are is, well, typical of people that are trying to push the social agenda of the times.
I am sure the communist believed that what they were doing was for the greater well being of the greatest amount of individuals, I know that Mao believed that.

As for the consent thing, if consent is the ONLY measure you are using, you have to another slope to slide on.
WHO defines age of consent? who define mental ability to consent? at what point is consent revocable?
Etc, etc, etc..

You remind me of the pro-transgender people that laughed when it was pointed out that IF simply saying that one identifies as a woman is all the is required then that any man can identify as a woman and, in the case of sports for example, put biological women at a disadvantage.
Yet, that is what is happening now.

[Blessed]

Whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, one thing is very clear: it isn't a choice. At no point does a homosexual person say "I think I'll start being attracted to members of the same biological sex now". Treating homosexuality as though its a moral choice in the same way as stealing or something like that is a completely false comparison. Homosexual attraction in a person is more akin to something like being left handed. There isn't any particular gene for left handedness, its a bunch of environmental factors working together.

Your response - and avatar - says it all. Thank you for your honest avatar.

WRONG. It it a choice. If it were genetic and evolution was correct (as so many sodomites assume evolution is correct which is why I use it as an example) it would have been genetically eliminated.

It's not a genetic predisposition. It's a choice is triggered by anything from puberty-lust, easy access, child molestation victimization, and social conditioning with help from the demonic realm. This is a choice people make. In some people the choice is easier to resist. Others almost impossible. Dependent on a host of factors specific to each individual which I know nothing about.

Being a homosexual male, in almost all cases, involves quick and easy sex with a large numbers of partners. What it is not, is being left handed. That has nothing to do with being a homosexual.

[Blessed]

Keeping in line with my earlier comparison, that is essentially the same as saying "it is not depraved to be left handed, only to write with your left hand".

I'd love to hear the rationale behind that!

Homosexual love (or " homosexual acts") is akin to writing with your left hand, being "left handed" is akin to being homosexual in the comparison. Homosexuality has the same level of free will and volition involved (whether it has a specific gene linked to it or not) as one being left handed. One would be hard pressed to find someone who argues that left handed acts are evil, because they hurt no one. Homosexuality is no different. No unwilling victims are involved when homosexuals fall in love with each other and act upon it.

WRONG.

The social legal and medical costs on society are enormous and (I believe) intentionally under-reported by the media. This says nothing of the continued evolution of viruses and bacteria has a result of increased antibiotic resistance and untreatable STD's.

You can't see the forest from the trees It doesn't "hurt no one". Wrong. Yes it does. There is a collective effect on society. There are consequences to defying God's laws.

[Blessed]

[/quote]

Im not sure what it is you're thinking of, with STDs I mentioned that STDs are possible in the case of either homosexuals or heterosexuals.
[/quote]


Except it's 1000x MORE possible among homosexuals and would be 1000x LESS possible among heterosexuals; where it not for the large increase in STD's spread to heterosexuals through bisexuals after the 1960's until today. And boy you ain't seen nothing yet. Look at the super Gonorrhea coming out now.

[PaulSacramento]

Homosexual lifestyles pose greater risks.

Gay men have higher STD rates, Higher risk rates ( more dangerous lifestyles).
Lesbian couples have higher domestic abuse rates.

https://ncadv.org/blog/posts/domestic-v ... -community

[Blessed]

The STD's are just the tip of the iceberg. Now add all these insane government forced social justice policies from the LGBT lobby and an nation will eventually fall into decline and destruction. This is more than backed up by God in the Bible historical examples thereof manifested again and again.

Another tiny example: They have sued for a man on LGBT donated blood at Florida blood banks. I don't know if they won or not. If your gay your blood is banned because of AIDS. High percentage of refusal costs on the blood banks. So they banned it to offset costs. It's like a guaranteed statistical monetary loss on the healthcare system.

You also have homosexuals giving AIDS blood knowingly (money) and talking about it on the gay forums oh they will just throw it anyways don't put gay on the blood bank forms etc. Lab's aren't perfect. What's the betting 1/100000 get through ?

So they banned blood from gays altogether and last I checked they had a discrimination lawsuit against the Federal Government because of this. Not sure what happened with that.

Knowing this I recently went to the ER and was surrounded by employees as "witnesses" when I put - no blood transfusions and told her no pollution in my blood I prefer death - on the forms. (I didn't need it but they asked so I told them).

They angrily demanded what I mean by "pollution" and wanted the real reason why I was refusing if it was not for religious purposes. Very unprofessional.