Isn't it just a chicken sandwich...a really good chicken sandwich?

[siegsker]

Lemming, I tend to be middle-left on this issue. (It's my own category...don't try and figure it out.) However, you keep saying no arguments have been posited. One question that has been mentioned here is the lack of clear genetic evidence for homosexuality. With the genetic advances we have seen, we still have yet to find the genes responsible for sexual orientation. If something is innate we should have the biological components.

When I was teaching in 1991 it seemed like that info was right around the next corner. 25 years later with huge advances in gene mapping and still nothing conclusive. Maybe that is still to come. In many ways I hope so.

The current hypothesis is a combination of 'genetic, hormonal, and social factors'. Whether it is nature or nurture there is little choice in the matter. Gay people can no more decide to change their sexuality than straight people. For any person their sexuality may change over time, but it may be out of their control.

Even if it is entirely choice, probably you and I will agree that the government has no say in what two consenting adults choose to do in the bedroom. What they do also has no effect on anyone else's lives.

 

[Hoosker Du]

In terms of the Bible being the Word of God:

Yes, it is the inspired Word of God. Not only did God inspire, but He also guided human writers to record His story. Also, His divine oversight has preserved the integrity of the Scriptures through the ages.

It is the most preserved document of antiquity that there is. By far. Over 5,000 manuscripts, and by all indications, today's Bible is over 99% consistent with the original manuscripts (sans the books were not chosen to be included (Gnostics, Hidden Gospels).

But, as evidenced by the Letter to Dr. Laura, there are some portions of the Old Testament that are absolute nonsense.

 

[Hoosker Du]

Du, been on here for years. Having little to say, I lurk a lot but don't write much, and sometimes I think you're a little quick to judge what music sounds good in other people's heads, but this is the best post I've ever read on here.

My greatest problem is being a music snob. I may come across as a jackass on music topics, but I assure you that I am very nonjudgemental on the choices people make in life. After going through loss, illness, and many other difficulties over the last 13 years, I am one of the most compassionate people you will meet. I end up in conversations on a regular basis with people in the hospital setting that have gone through tremendous difficulty with their health, because I am in hospitals every day for my job. I 'get' them, because I've lived it, and we go through what I would call as a 'verbal hug,' because we know what the other has gone through.

Thank you for the kind words.

 

[Hoosker Du]

"Discusses Jesus"? For Christians the entire word of God is important, not just select pieces. Yes I have read your posts and all of misconceptions that go with them. Christ is clearly seen in the book of Genesis for just a start, long before Isiah. But everyone knows that right? Try using the word of God to learn more about Him and His character rather than using it with an agenda and lack of understanding.

You stuck your neck out with your claims of research on the gay and genetics issues. Since you refuse to supply any credible link that further hurts your case. I did my own search and in the first group of articles I did not find a single one who had any scientific proof. There are lots of theories but nothing definitive. In fact most said environmental was a factor. Of course if wish you can spin this any way you want until you supply something of substance. I am busy but I will wait.

I know the studies were probably over your head, but your lack of understanding doesn't diminish the value of the studies. I gave you quantifiable data, that showed physical differences between not only chromosomal structure, but differences in brain structure as well.

 

[JohnRossEwing]

I am so happy that I am not crazy

 

[tarheelhusker]

 

[NikkiSixx]

ahh there it is, i was looking for this

 

[leodisflowers]

This thread is great. It's just a build up for what is to come. The combine is around the corner, and so this is a good start. We soon get to discuss that folks on here run 4.5 40's and can do 25 reps on the bench. Currently on the Husker board, we are blessed with political and religious experts. Hell yeah!

 

[Tulsa Tom]

ahh there it is, i was looking for this

The Bible does say, "Seek and ye will find." Glad you found it...if that's your thing.

 

[Hoosker Du]

I am so happy that I am not crazy

I'm so glad that I'm not a dullard.

 

[JohnRossEwing]

I'm so glad that I'm not a dullard.

I agree

 

[Lincoln100]

My question on this is really my curiosity about why the passionate stance about gays marrying. From my understanding, a majority of people who oppose it, do so because of religious beliefs. Yet the Catholic Church and Bible is pretty clear about divorce and second marriages being a sin. Where is chick-fil-a funding groups to change the law to no longer accept second marriages? Non-existent. That's the hypocrisy in all of this to me. There are so many places where our law differs from the Bible, yet gay marriage gets everyone up in arms. I say either go all in and demand our law be 100% driven by the Bible or stop using it as a political book.

I don't think the Catholic Church treats divorce as a sin. A second marriage can be a sin, but is not necessarily so. If someone ever asked the guy about it, I am sure you would get his opinion, but it isn't nearly as inflammatory as this issue, so nobody in the media cares

 

[TruHusker]

I know the studies were probably over your head, but your lack of understanding doesn't diminish the value of the studies. I gave you quantifiable data, that showed physical differences between not only chromosomal structure, but differences in brain structure as well.

uh, you gave absolutely NOTHING. You said here google some stuff. As noted by other posters, you have failed to cite a single study that directly indicates a gay gene. Now you are going into brain structure which of course can be altered which I am sure you understand. Keep using insults to prove your point, won't work. I read research data and look for the words "may" or "may indicate" or "further studies are needed" or "there could be differences" - which is a long ways from hard facts. The truth is as an earlier poster pointed out to you - one research study actually provided evidence opposite of what you are proposing it states. So yes, the part of not showing by link a real study by you and then telling me it is over my head is quite confusing since you seem to be the one struggling with research data, not I sir.

 

[TruHusker]

I cannot speak for others but a concern that was raised when the entire debate came to the Supreme Court about what constitutes a marriage is starting to become reality. The ruling that marriage could not be limited to just a man and a woman opened the door for anything. They didn't say what constituted a marriage. Now you have people who want to marry two women or two men, younger boys (age 14), animals, etc. Once the lid is removed from the box and there are no standards, man will find a way to make this up as he goes along. This is just the beginning of all of this.

 

[SilentCommit]

Why argue about a genetic link at all? What purpose does it serve? I didn't "choose" to be heterosexual, yet I am. Implying homosexuality is a "choice" is a hail mary pass to reconcile faith and fact. Stop it.

 

[Hoosker Du]

uh, you gave absolutely NOTHING. You said here google some stuff. As noted by other posters, you have failed to cite a single study that directly indicates a gay gene. Now you are going into brain structure which of course can be altered which I am sure you understand. Keep using insults to prove your point, won't work. I read research data and look for the words "may" or "may indicate" or "further studies are needed" or "there could be differences" - which is a long ways from hard facts. The truth is as an earlier poster pointed out to you - one research study actually provided evidence opposite of what you are proposing it states. So yes, the part of not showing by link a real study by you and then telling me it is over my head is quite confusing since you seem to be the one struggling with research data, not I sir.

Why is it that so many people that are fully entrenched in the Bible so nuts? You give Faith a bad name....Bad name. -Jon Bon Jovi.

You refuse to acknowledge the scientific method, and yet you can very easily make the leap to worshipping something that can't be seen. My proof there is a God is in nature. Your proof is that you've been indoctrinated your entire life.

You are so programmed to immediately refute something that gives you proof, because you think that your maker will disapprove of you discounting what you are supposed to believe.

He gave you a brain and a mind for a reason. Start using it.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

TruHusker, I think your view of history is short-sighted. While we may have much in common the idea that I should rely upon the Supreme Court or the Constitution or any secular structure to both define and give the right to marriage is a fairly recent notion. Furthermore, the concept that the state should oversee marriages is foreign to the long history of Christendom. What the Supreme Court says about marriage has very, very little bearing on me or the folks whom I pastor.

 

[jteten]

This is exactly what makes America great.
Chick-Fil-A has the absolute right to run their business as they wish.
Patrons also have the absolute right to either support it, or point it out as the dumbarse crap that it is.

I think they are ridiculous, but i will still drive through if I want a damn chicken sandwich and waffle fries. Im fine with separating the 2 without feeling like I support the CEO's ignorance. Its a selfish gift. Cool

 

[Hoosker Du]

uh, you gave absolutely NOTHING. You said here google some stuff. As noted by other posters, you have failed to cite a single study that directly indicates a gay gene. Now you are going into brain structure which of course can be altered which I am sure you understand. Keep using insults to prove your point, won't work. I read research data and look for the words "may" or "may indicate" or "further studies are needed" or "there could be differences" - which is a long ways from hard facts. The truth is as an earlier poster pointed out to you - one research study actually provided evidence opposite of what you are proposing it states. So yes, the part of not showing by link a real study by you and then telling me it is over my head is quite confusing since you seem to be the one struggling with research data, not I sir.

This is exactly what makes America great.
Chick-Fil-A has the absolute right to run their business as they wish.
Patrons also have the absolute right to either support it, or point it out as the dumbarse crap that it is.

I think they are ridiculous, but i will still drive through if I want a damn chicken sandwich and waffle fries. Im fine with separating the 2 without feeling like I support the CEO's ignorance. Its a selfish gift. Cool

Are you suggesting....(wait for it)....Separation of church and taste?

 

[jteten]

Are you suggesting....(wait for it)....Separation of church and taste?

I continue to be fascinated be anyone, and I mean anyone that protests marriage rights for all. Im fascinated that, for some incredibly odd reason, a gay couple getting married somehow challenges his or her own beliefs to the extent that one needs to use the Bible as a reason to demean other people and block basic human rights. Basic. Human. Rights. Sweet baby Jesus, let people be themselves. Get married, be happy. It blows my mind. Humans are just the worst.

 

[Lincoln100]

I don't desire to either, but what I really desire is that you quit offering replies that are truly bad.

I take it you do give a rip about what I am saying or else you wouldn't keep replying when I call you out. How else do you expect me to interpret this except for you attempting to save face? You're right - you've disagreed plenty, I've yet to find an argument anywhere. I'd be happy for you to disagree if you ever actually offered a defensible stance.

With whom did I lose credibility? You? I don't think you're in any position to decide. I've been trying to get you to see that. As I've stated, and as I challenged you, you've yet to provide anything of value whatsoever to this discussion. Your contributions have been entirely one handed against the political left or ad hominem attacks against me. I'm not impressed. It must be really frustrating for someone to call you out on your truly sophomoric attempts to avoid providing reasons and justification for your stance.

If you were willing to admit that your disagreement with me has been entirely personal in nature and not in any way based on what I've said, I'd let the whole thing drop. I also said I'd eat crow if you could provide one thing you offered of value to the discussion which I summarily dismissed (after all, you accused me of being dismissive, if you recall). You've yet to do either.

"Try to answer in less than 1000 words." Yet another attempt to dismiss what I say because I actually think before typing and try to take a position that is defensible and nuanced.

Wrong again. Listen, the "under the power lines" thing really got under your skin; I apologize for that. I think the main problem I have with much of what you are saying is illustrated in how you respond above. I say that you have lost credibility, and then you tell me that I am not in any position to decide? Of course I can make a determination as to your credibility, that isn't even up for debate. Far too often, you treat your opinion as fact, whereas other's opinions are simply that, an opinion. Having a debate with someone like that isn't a debate.

You aren't calling me out. You are insulting me, which you are free to do. It doesn't make you scary or intimidating or right, although I have a feeling you think it does. You have spent what seems like days on this issue, and I have read more than enough to be as equally unimpressed with you. Some of what you have said is really out there, and so continuing the conversation with you was pointless. I should have simply stopped responding rather than make a crack about where you grew up.

 

[CC_Lemming]

Wrong again. Listen, the "under the power lines" thing really got under your skin; I apologize for that. I think the main problem I have with much of what you are saying is illustrated in how you respond above. I say that you have lost credibility, and then you tell me that I am not in any position to decide? Of course I can make a determination as to your credibility, that isn't even up for debate. Far too often, you treat your opinion as fact, whereas other's opinions are simply that, an opinion. Having a debate with someone like that isn't a debate.

You aren't calling me out. You are insulting me, which you are free to do. It doesn't make you scary or intimidating or right, although I have a feeling you think it does. You have spent what seems like days on this issue, and I have read more than enough to be as equally unimpressed with you. Some of what you have said is really out there, and so continuing the conversation with you was pointless. I should have simply stopped responding rather than make a crack about where you grew up.

I know I am belittling you and I know it's not nice. I know my tone is insulting, but I've tried to be careful not to insult you, as I don't even know you. I've been doing it to make a point. That point is that when I've offered a claim I've attempted to provide reasons in defense of it. You can go all the way back to the point about moral judgment involving a degree of intolerance, or the drawing a distinction between morality in the narrow sense and ethics or norms broadly conceived. Neither of those are controversial, and yet you summarily dismissed them.

The thing that bothers me is that you dismissed, especially the latter, without providing any reasons. This is why the power lines thing bothered me, not that you think I am stupid, but that you completely disregarded the distinction by doing so which didn't require you to provide any reasons. I have been studying these issues for a number of years and will have written a dissertation on moral philosophy and psychology within the next 2-3, and you denied that the distinction I drew was worthwhile. The irony in all of this is that you think I am the one being arrogant. I get why you think that, because I have been nothing but combative towards you from the beginning, but the fact of the matter is I seriously doubt you are an expert in the fields I am, and I doubt you know more than me, and yet you feel yourself entitled to completely disregard something I brought to the table and offered no reasons in defense of your doing so. To make matters worse, you attempted to justify your position by harping on my being an academic. My response to all of this is that I wish you would have taken a class on logic or critical thinking in college, as then you might have seen that my being academic in no way invalidates my arguments in the same way being conservative or liberal in no way invalidates their arguments.

My problem is not with you - I don't even know you. My problem is entirely with the way you've argued throughout - or, to put it more accurately - tried to shy away from actually giving an argument and still take yourself to have offered a defensible opinion. I know it's a jerk thing to say, and I'm sorry about that, but you haven't offered defensible opinions (in your exchange with me, and I don't take this to mean you don't have any, just that you haven't defended them). You've merely offered opinions, and you know what they say about opinions...

 

[Suh is King]

Did you even read the article? You talk about "kneeling at the alter of big business" and the school siding with the students as if Chick-Fil-A had announced they were bringing a restaurant to campus and the students rose up against it. Read the article.
The student government gave the students options to vote on, and a "majority" (taken directly from the article) voted for CFA. Then a "very small minority" (also taken directly from the article) decided to get upset, and the student government reversed course. Also, if you READ the article (strange concept, I know) it sounds like enough students complained about the reversal that they are going to hold a forum on the subject.
This is nothing more than a small group ruining things for the majority because they can't handle anything that opposes their viewpoint. If they don't like it, they don't have to eat there.

Easily the best post in thread.

What would happen if this situation were reversed... A group of students wanting to prevent a business from being on campus due to a public statement by the owner in support of same sex marriage. What then? Are those students taking a stand to fight for what what they believe is "right"? Are they being closed minded bigots?

 

[cornhustler]

Humans are just the worst.

Made me laugh thank you! You are spot on as well.

 

[Lincoln100]

I know I am belittling you and I know it's not nice. I know my tone is insulting, but I've tried to be careful not to insult you, as I don't even know you. I've been doing it to make a point. That point is that when I've offered a claim I've attempted to provide reasons in defense of it. You can go all the way back to the point about moral judgment involving a degree of intolerance, or the drawing a distinction between morality in the narrow sense and ethics or norms broadly conceived. Neither of those are controversial, and yet you summarily dismissed them.

The thing that bothers me is that you dismissed, especially the latter, without providing any reasons. This is why the power lines thing bothered me, not that you think I am stupid, but that you completely disregarded the distinction by doing so which didn't require you to provide any reasons. I have been studying these issues for a number of years and will have written a dissertation on moral philosophy and psychology within the next 2-3, and you denied that the distinction I drew was worthwhile. The irony in all of this is that you think I am the one being arrogant. I get why you think that, because I have been nothing but combative towards you from the beginning, but the fact of the matter is I seriously doubt you are an expert in the fields I am, and I doubt you know more than me, and yet you feel yourself entitled to completely disregard something I brought to the table and offered no reasons in defense of your doing so. To make matters worse, you attempted to justify your position by harping on my being an academic. My response to all of this is that I wish you would have taken a class on logic or critical thinking in college, as then you might have seen that my being academic in no way invalidates my arguments in the same way being conservative or liberal in no way invalidates their arguments.

My problem is not with you - I don't even know you. My problem is entirely with the way you've argued throughout - or, to put it more accurately - tried to shy away from actually giving an argument and still take yourself to have offered a defensible opinion. I know it's a jerk thing to say, and I'm sorry about that, but you haven't offered defensible opinions (in your exchange with me, and I don't take this to mean you don't have any, just that you haven't defended them). You've merely offered opinions, and you know what they say about opinions...

I found this in the Randy Gregory thread:

CC_Lemming said:↑
And people in this thread an even worse one.

Husker.Wed., Saturday at 6:15 PM
How so?

4.6.3
Because he said so.


I think that sums it up pretty well and I really don't even know what defensible position you are looking to find. Your overall approach is that, you are right because you think it and you say it. As I said above, you take your thought / opinion as fact and dismiss others opinions because they don't jibe with your opinion.

You wish I had taken a class on logic or critical thinking? My degree and my profession are centered around use of logic and critical thinking. Just because I choose not to continue to engage you, a person who, as far as I am concerned, selectively uses critical thinking, doesn't mean that I lack in logic or critical thinking. In fact, it is my logic and critical thinking that told me to get the hell out of the conversation after spending several minutes going back and forth with you. There doesn't seem to be a debate with you, especially on this topic, there are only your facts and then everyone else's opinion. I didn't shy away from anything. I simply realized it would go nowhere, no matter what I said. Good luck with your dissertation.

 

[cornhustler]

man will find a way to make this up as he goes along

I must say, this is what man has done since man could first think. Also I find relating two consenting adults getting married to underage kids or beast weddings to be very silly indeed. The US Gov't is secular meaning it shouldn't include biblical arguments in deliberations. This is a great thing because while I support your right to believe in killing witches in theory (Exodus 22:18) I cannot allow anyone's religious beliefs to interfere with personal freedom. If a lady wants to be a witch who am I to blow against the wind. One of the ideas this country was founded on was religious freedom... and that expressly means freedom from religion too. Clever guys the Founding Fathers. GBR!

 

[CC_Lemming]

I found this in the Randy Gregory thread:

CC_Lemming said:↑
And people in this thread an even worse one.

Husker.Wed., Saturday at 6:15 PM
How so?

4.6.3
Because he said so.


I think that sums it up pretty well and I really don't even know what defensible position you are looking to find. Your overall approach is that, you are right because you think it and you say it. As I said above, you take your thought / opinion as fact and dismiss others opinions because they don't jibe with your opinion.

You wish I had taken a class on logic or critical thinking? My degree and my profession are centered around use of logic and critical thinking. Just because I choose not to continue to engage you, a person who, as far as I am concerned, selectively uses critical thinking, doesn't mean that I lack in logic or critical thinking. In fact, it is my logic and critical thinking that told me to get the hell out of the conversation after spending several minutes going back and forth with you. There doesn't seem to be a debate with you, especially on this topic, there are only your facts and then everyone else's opinion. I didn't shy away from anything. I simply realized it would go nowhere, no matter what I said. Good luck with your dissertation.

I have 4.6.3 on ignore, as like you, I find that he rarely has anything worthwhile to say, and once he criticized another member on this forum for being a bad parent - not knowing anything about how said person is as a parent - I figured that was all I needed to ignore him. So I was completely unaware of him replying to me, and by design. I replied to Husker.Wed last night. And I offered reasons for my saying that. I quote:

"Some people keep saying weed is addictive. They don't specify what they mean. Do they mean physiologically or psychologically? My understanding is that it is far from clear that weed is physiologically addicting in the way cocaine, nicotine, and alcohol are. If what they mean is psychologically addicting, do they mean to say that it is worse than, say, pornography and video games? These also have the potential to be psychologically addicting. I am tempted to think that most people don't think these things ought to be outlawed because their existence runs the risk of addiction. If that's the case, they're employing a double standard.

CC_Lemming,Yesterday at 8:08 PM"

Notice how when I was called to justify my opinion I offered some evidence in support of it? The initial claim was that people in that thread had a poor understanding of addiction, I then clarified what I meant and offered some support for it. Anyone is free to disagree with me. I did not belittle Husker.Wed, I did not take offense at his questioning me. And if he offers a response, I will take such disagreement seriously, so long as he does what I did and supports his opinion. Can you point to one thing you've said in this thread against me that qualifies as doing that? Can you? Please, show me, I will shut up.

You still do not get it. I do not selectively use logic and critical thinking. My profession, I am willing to bet, relies on their use far more than does yours. My profession teaches classes on logic and critical thinking. Does yours? I have taught classes on logic and critical thinking (I am teaching intro to logic right now). Have you? You've now made yet another claim and offered no defense of it. Please tell me why you think I selectively use logic and critical thinking. Your referencing that other thread is no evidence - as I have demonstrated.

It was not your training in logic and critical thinking that told you to avoid a debate with me. From all that you've offered, I can only infer that it is your lack of reasons. What else do you want me to think when your only reply to my drawing some distinction that supports one of my claims, is to accuse me of "living under power lines"? That is an obvious attempt on your part to avoid using the logical and critical thinking skills you profess to possess.

 

[CC_Lemming]

"Your overall approach is that, you are right because you think it and you say it. "

Can I also point out that this is either completely false or a banal point to make. It is banal because everyone who offers an opinion does so because they think it is right. It is completely false because because it involves you making an inference about me and my character you have no way of knowing is true.

I know you won't accept my saying so simply because it comes from me, but that is not how I operate or carry myself. You may form that impression about me given the things I say on here, but that's because I find people making blatantly false or uncharitable claims all the time - its the norm here, not the exception. And yeah, I do tell them they are wrong. But almost always tell them they are wrong because they've offered no or indefensible support in favor of it - that is why I tell them they're wrong - it's not because I am certain that I am right in every instance. You've got my motivations entirely ass-backwards.

 

[Hoosker Du]

I must say, this is what man has done since man could first think. Also I find relating two consenting adults getting married to underage kids or beast weddings to be very silly indeed. The US Gov't is secular meaning it shouldn't include biblical arguments in deliberations. This is a great thing because while I support your right to believe in killing witches in theory (Exodus 22:18) I cannot allow anyone's religious beliefs to interfere with personal freedom. If a lady wants to be a witch who am I to blow against the wind. One of the ideas this country was founded on was religious freedom... and that expressly means freedom from religion too. Clever guys the Founding Fathers. GBR!

Oh my....stellar response!! I'm sure you enjoyed the Letter to Dr. Laura as much as I did.

 

[Lincoln100]

I have 4.6.3 on ignore, as like you, I find that he rarely has anything worthwhile to say, and once he criticized another member on this forum for being a bad parent - not knowing anything about how said person is as a parent - I figured that was all I needed to ignore him. So I was completely unaware of him replying to me, and by design. I replied to Husker.Wed last night. And I offered reasons for my saying that. I quote:

"Some people keep saying weed is addictive. They don't specify what they mean. Do they mean physiologically or psychologically? My understanding is that it is far from clear that weed is physiologically addicting in the way cocaine, nicotine, and alcohol are. If what they mean is psychologically addicting, do they mean to say that it is worse than, say, pornography and video games? These also have the potential to be psychologically addicting. I am tempted to think that most people don't think these things ought to be outlawed because their existence runs the risk of addiction. If that's the case, they're employing a double standard."

Notice how when I was called to justify my opinion I offered some evidence in support of it? The initial claim was that people in that thread had a poor understanding of addiction, I then clarified what I meant and offered some support for it. Anyone is free to disagree with me. I did not belittle Husker.Wed, I did not take offense at his questioning me. And if he offers a response, I will take such disagreement seriously, so long as he does what I did and supports his opinion. Can you point to one thing you've said in this thread against me that qualifies as doing that? Can you? Please, show me, I will shut up.

You still do not get it. I do not selectively use logic and critical thinking. My profession, I am willing to bet, relies on their use far more than does yours. My profession teaches classes on logic and critical thinking. Does yours? You've now made yet another claim and offered no defense of it. Please tell me why you think I selectively use logic and critical thinking. Your referencing that other thread is no evidence - as I have demonstrated.

It was not your training in logic and critical thinking that told you to avoid a debate with me. From all that you've offered, I can only infer that it is your lack of reasons. What else do you want me to think when your only reply to my drawing some distinction that supports one of my claims, is to accuse me of "living under power lines"? That is an obvious attempt on your part to avoid using the logical and critical thinking skills you profess to possess.

Cheese and rice man. I fully understand what you want. I am not going to go back through everything to try to prove to you why I think you aren't always logical. I told you why I reacted and responded the way I did, and now you want proof of why I feel the way I do? Maybe it isn't selective, maybe you do it involuntarily, I don't know. You are holding on so tight. Do I need to prove to your satisfaction why I feel the way I do about you, or else my feelings toward you are not legitimate? This is exactly what I am talking about. I have reasons for disagreeing with you, and I have stated my reasons for not wanting to spend hours on the computer with you, but if I don't want to get into a three week conversation about it (which is most certainly what it would turn into), I must not have any reasons whatsoever? You're getting a little goofy. I couldn't care less what you infer. I already apologized for the "living under power lines" comment and you brought it up again. Do you also have maturity issues? Let it go brother. All I've wanted to do is be done with you, but you just can't walk away. Imagine how much time we would waste if I actually wanted to have a conversation with you. Maybe this will help. You are more logical. You have better critical thinking skills. You are the expert. Good?

 

[Hoosker Du]

I continue to be fascinated be anyone, and I mean anyone that protests marriage rights for all. Im fascinated that, for some incredibly odd reason, a gay couple getting married somehow challenges his or her own beliefs to the extent that one needs to use the Bible as a reason to demean other people and block basic human rights. Basic. Human. Rights. Sweet baby Jesus, let people be themselves. Get married, be happy. It blows my mind. Humans are just the worst.

Ya know, I'm probably more in the middle on this subject than most involved in this discussion. I don't believe being gay is a choice, like some, but am I also convinced that it isn't a sin? I really don't know on that topic. But I am not going to judge anyone on that issue. As with any other potential sins, I'm going to let God sort it out. I am going to do as instructed by Jesus, to love thy neighbor, and to understand that we are all sinners.

As I've said, there are a lot of kooky things in the Bible (especially the Old Testament) and I find people that follow it to the letter to be pretty extreme. It might be the inspired word of God, but it is was written by humans, who still applied their personal views and the views of those that helped them determine doctrine.

 

[CC_Lemming]

Cheese and rice man. I fully understand what you want. I am not going to go back through everything to try to prove to you why I think you aren't always logical. 1) I told you why I reacted and responded the way I did, and now you want proof of why I feel the way I do? Maybe it isn't selective, maybe you do it involuntarily, I don't know. You are holding on so tight. 2) Do I need to prove to your satisfaction why I feel the way I do about you, or else my feelings toward you are not legitimate? This is exactly what I am talking about. 3) I have reasons for disagreeing with you, and I have stated my reasons for not wanting to spend hours on the computer with you, but if I don't want to get into a three week conversation about it (which is most certainly what it would turn into), I must not have any reasons whatsoever? You're getting a little goofy. I couldn't care less what you infer. I already apologized for the "living under power lines" comment and you brought it up again. Do you also have maturity issues? Let it go brother. All I've wanted to do is be done with you, but you just can't walk away. Imagine how much time we would waste if I actually wanted to have a conversation with you. Maybe this will help. You are more logical. You have better critical thinking skills. You are the expert. Good?

1) Do you think it is unreasonable of me to require that you defend your claim that I use logic selectively? (I just showed you that the evidence you provided was no evidence at all, as it did not support the claim you wanted to make, i.e., that I simply dismiss contrary opinions or requests for clarification). If so, you're not in the business of forming or defending arguments at all.

2) No, you do not need to prove to "my satisfaction," you need to provide some evidence that your opinion of me is legitimate at all. You don't need to "prove" shit. I don't know how you would (indeed, this is a BIG part of the problem).

3) I can accept that you have reasons and you don't want to say them, I really can. Just don't sit there and act like you've offered a defensible opinion or have any leg to stand on whatsoever, or disagree with reasons I've offered, if you're unwilling to reciprocate.

4) No, not good. For one, I don't think you really mean that. Secondly, I want you to see that your approach to disagreeing with me throughout this thread has been very poor. That is what I want, not for you to think I am right. Every time I've asked/demanded you justify yourself, not only did you not do so, your tactic was to impugn me or my character, either through veiled shots at you thinking me stupid, or about my profession.

Again, I do not care that you think I am stupid, as you have done nothing in my mind for me to think you've formed a worthwhile opinion of my being so. I do not care what you think about me, I want you to acknowledge you have no reason to think so aside from your disliking me. If you would do me just this one favor I will happily place you on ignore and we'll never have to speak again.

 

[jteten]

Ya know, I'm probably more in the middle on this subject than most involved in this discussion. I don't believe being gay is a choice, like some, but am I also convinced that it isn't a sin? I really don't know on that topic. But I am not going to judge anyone on that issue. As with any other potential sins, I'm going to let God sort it out. I am going to do as instructed by Jesus, to love thy neighbor, and to understand that we are all sinners.

As I've said, there are a lot of kooky things in the Bible (especially the Old Testament) and I find people that follow it to the letter to be pretty extreme. It might be the inspired word of God, but it is was written by humans, who still applied their personal views and the views of those that helped them determine doctrine.

Regarding this subject, I will keep my religious beliefs completely out of it, because, in my little opinion, no single religion should allow one human to be the moral compass over another. Forget Islam, Christianity, Buddism, etc... The fact is, this isnt a moral issue, because gay marriage absolutely does not effect the loudest detractors in any way, shape or form, especially morally. Hell, I think Eggplants are gross, but I am not going to stand outside of Whole Foods and trash those that eat it. Next, I dont really care if homosexuality is a choice or genetic (However, anyone who thinks that ALL LGBT individuals choose to do/be so, as opposed to just "being" should just quit talking.....forever). The cool thing about being an American is that we can choose who and what we want to be. That said, I know for an absolute fact that denying others simple human rights to life and love is abhorrent and indefensible. Believe in what you believe, just dont force others to do so for the sake of your conscience.

 

[Hoosker Du]

uh, you gave absolutely NOTHING. You said here google some stuff. As noted by other posters, you have failed to cite a single study that directly indicates a gay gene. Now you are going into brain structure which of course can be altered which I am sure you understand. Keep using insults to prove your point, won't work. I read research data and look for the words "may" or "may indicate" or "further studies are needed" or "there could be differences" - which is a long ways from hard facts. The truth is as an earlier poster pointed out to you - one research study actually provided evidence opposite of what you are proposing it states. So yes, the part of not showing by link a real study by you and then telling me it is over my head is quite confusing since you seem to be the one struggling with research data, not I sir.

Are you just completely opposed to reading the 2 clinicials and the retrospective analysis that I provided above? One of the papers provided a "statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced."

It takes much more blind Faith to believe what you read in the Bible than it does to read the results of clinical paper in a peer reviewed medical journal of today, and yet you continue to stick by your guns. That isn't common sense. That is indoctrination.

Listen, I applaud a person for having Faith. I believe there is a God because of the universe that He created. I believe that Jesus is THE Savior, and He is the only way that a fallible human being can have a relationship with God, as all other Christians do. But God gave us the ability to develop theories and to test those theories...the Scientific Method. When a study is conducted for that very purpose, and the data comes back as strong as the papers that I've provided, I take notice.

Nothing is 100%. Even the most God-fearing people question their faith at times. That's why it is comical to me that you won't budge, simply because you believe that you would be selling out on your God. Again, that nasty word, indoctrination.

 

[mkbrkloster]

I must say, this is what man has done since man could first think. Also I find relating two consenting adults getting married to underage kids or beast weddings to be very silly indeed. The US Gov't is secular meaning it shouldn't include biblical arguments in deliberations. This is a great thing because while I support your right to believe in killing witches in theory (Exodus 22:18) I cannot allow anyone's religious beliefs to interfere with personal freedom. If a lady wants to be a witch who am I to blow against the wind. One of the ideas this country was founded on was religious freedom... and that expressly means freedom from religion too. Clever guys the Founding Fathers. GBR!

Yes...except for the fact that the US Govt can use religious arguments in deliberations and decisions. But you don't need to worry about that, evidently.

Regardless, the OT isn't about any of that. It's not about whether "gay people are born that way", whether they are being treated as lesser citizens, whether they are being denied absolute rights, or even the Bible. It is about whether the majority (Chic-fil-A won a vote of the majority of the student body) will continue to cower to the vocal minority in a situation in which no laws are broken and no discrimination has occurred. Just the opposite, in fact. Chic-fil-A's customer service is generally spectacular to anyone and everyone, even when teenagers are confronted or verbally attacked at the drive-through.

As I stated earlier, Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon.com, is a strong proponent of same-sex marriage, giving millions to the cause. If the vocal minority of Bible believing Christians on the campus raised the same pressure to UNK, would UNK ban Amazon.com deliveries from campus? Of course not, and why should they? Amazon hasn't broken any laws and does not discriminate in its business practices. Neither does Chic-fil-A.

 

[Jimmy Frank]

Thank goodness these situations don't

We all struggle with issues of sin of all kinds. Again, kind of the point of Jesus. As CC_Lemming said, you should probably just sit this one out.

Legit question IMO. But ok, I'll sit this one out since you don't have an explanation.

 

[siegsker]

The Amazon comparison is not a comparison unless you are talking about a physical store. To use a real example take Starbucks which vocally supports gay marriage. Our democracy respects and protects minorities. If Starbucks wanted to open a store and a vocal minority protested them for supporting LGBT marriage equality, then UNK's student government could reject it and try to choose something less controversial to their student body.

It would be a stand against marriage equality that many would be proud of. And many more would see it as embarrassing.

This is why I am heartened that there are many UNK students standing for marriage equality. I respect where the student president is coming from. What he and the UNK students choose in the end is not important. If so many want CFA it's OK to let them have it.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

Hoosier Du...where are the identical twin studies? If genetics are the source for sexual orientation one would have to think twin studies would reveal this. The reality is that those studies have not corroborated this genetic causal link.

P.S. I am not saying it is all about a person's choice. Frankly, I think that position is untenable in many cases. However, thus far, genetics have failed to provide an answer as well.

 

[CC_Lemming]

I'm going to post to answer some questions that have been asked and to respond to a couple other posts directed to me, than I'm going to bow out of this discussion. As I said, trying to debate someone on this topic is usually an exercise in futility. That being said, this thread has probably been one of the more constructive and cordial ones I've seen on the topic.

Lemming: Thanks for the offer to have a respectful dialogue on this. I think I would really enjoy that conversation and based on your responses to me, at least, I think we could probably have a great back and forth. But, it seems to me that we are both way too busy to participate in that right now. I know I am. So, thanks for the offer, but I'm going to have to pass for now for the benefit of my work and family time. Maybe in the future we can take this up and learn from one another.

Lincoln100 & Lemming (if you ever have the inclination): 1) The book I was referencing is "What is Marriage: Man and Woman: A Defense" by three Ivy League educated PHds Sherif Girgis (philosophy), Robert George (law), and Ryan Anderson (political philosophy).

Hoosker: You can't provide a link to a study that has identified the gay gene because that study doesn't exist. At best, there are studies that may show a link between a person's DNA and homosexuality, but even those study authors admit that it is not a definitive link and at best shows that those people who have that gene may only be more prone to homosexuality if exposed to the right environmental stimuli. So please stop saying that there is a study that has conclusively isolated and identified a "gay gene." There is not. On the contrary, the most comprehensive behavioral study that has been conducted indicates the opposite. The study looked at a large pool of identical twins where one of the twins identified as homosexual. There was only an 11% occurence where both twins were homosexual. Being that identical twins have identical DNA, whenever there is one gay twin, the other should be as well if there is a gay gene. That is not the case.

Lemming: a point about the quote below:

2) I'm sure you don't believe this to be true being that you teach philosophy, but since you said "No such evidence exists (yet)" I just think that it is interesting how some will argue that gay people are that way because of some gene, but when confronted with the fact that no study has been conducted that proves that, they simply say that science hasn't discovered it yet, but will someday so they again dismiss the other side. Another example of how those who are "enlightened" sidestep the science (or lack thereof) when it doesn't support their viewpoint on this issue. Totally different topic, but that seems to be a pretty common tactic of those who want to require scientific proof of everything (ie. the existence of God) before they will believe it. Again, not accusing you of ascribing to this because I know that as a philosopher, you know that not all things can be proven by science nor will they ever be able to be proven by science, as there are any number of different intellectual approaches that can be applied to answering life's questions (philosophy being one).

Anyway, amazed this thread was not locked long ago, but happy that it wasn't given some of the good and respectful dialogue.

God Bless! (and that goes to you atheists in the thread, too. You may not believe in God, but He believes in you!)

Sorry I am being late on the reply, I have unfortunately been preoccupied with a rather ridiculous debate with Lincoln100, which is something I am not particularly proud of.

1) I am very intrigued! So I just read the blurb on Amazon, but I must say that what I read at the very least sounded plausible and worth taking seriously. Here was my main and initial reaction. a) Insofar as their approach is a priori - to define marriage given what it has traditionally been and argue from the basis of that definition - I suspect I would be very sympathetic to their argument (it seems to me uncontroversial that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman and a religious practice at that). One concern: do they argue that same-sex couples should not be allowed to "marry," given how they have defined it and think it ought to be defined, or do they make the further (and more difficult) argument that same-sex couples should not enjoy civil-union and the same privileges/rights of those who get to marry (e.g., tax incentives)? I've often thought it might be a worthwhile compromise to allow same-sex couples the same rights/privileges that come with marriage while not actually calling it "marriage," since that idea has the religious tradition and history it does (one complication, though, is that it clearly has become a secularized idea too).

2) As you suspected, I was not using "yet" in that sense. I suspect that homosexuality is not merely genetic, that's one reason. Secondly, and more importantly, my use of "yet" was to maintain logical consistency, as just because no gene has been discovered yet, does not mean that one will not. That is why I put the argument in those terms, as I thought that was the most charitable way to do so and preserve what I thought TT was getting at.

 

[Hoosker Du]

Hoosier Du...where are the identical twin studies? If genetics are the source for sexual orientation one would have to think twin studies would reveal this. The reality is that those studies have not corroborated this genetic causal link.

P.S. I am not saying it is all about a person's choice. Frankly, I think that position is untenable in many cases. However, thus far, genetics have failed to provide an answer as well.

Tom, you are aware that identical twins do not have identical DNA, right? Hundreds, if not thousands, of alterations occur to genetic information while still in the zygotic stage of development. And even then, some of these alterations in gene sequences may or may not be expressed similarly in both twins. Their DNA is much more similar than other twins, because they were the same egg, that divided after being fertilized...but their DNA is still not identical.

Which brings me to a point that some may and some may disagree with. Could it possibly be that the "gay gene" so to speak, is simply an alteration in gene sequence that instead of resulting in hereditary high blood pressure or diabetes or depression or any host of disorders, the resulting gene sequence ended up with that person being gay. And just like some people not accepting how a schizophrenic conducts him or herself, some people haven't accepted that a gay person has no say in the matter either. I'm not suggesting that gay people are any more defective than I am with allergies. It was in the cards when we were conceived.

At any rate, Tom, the studies I've seen on identical twins show a genetic predisposition from one gay twin to the other. No, it's not an absolute, but the data is pretty strong in the studies I've read. But with some of the folks on this board, a Cobra would have to strike them and kill them before they would believe that a Cobra's bite can kill you.