Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For your second question the baker did bake many cakes for the gay person for birthdays, etc. He just could not do the wedding cake for his religious convictions.
But, a birthday cake recognizes and honors the person's birth and by baking a gay birthday cake the baker is supporting the idea the gay person was born gay and says it is OK..
Or do you seriously NOT see the hypocrisy in NOT going a SSM wedding cake and then DOING a gay birthday cake? Do fundies actually see a difference???
But, a birthday cake recognizes and honors the person's birth and by baking a gay birthday cake the baker is supporting the idea the gay person was born gay and says it is OK..
Or do you seriously NOT see the hypocrisy in NOT going a SSM wedding cake and then DOING a gay birthday cake? Do fundies actually see a difference???
Where is the proof that anyone is born gay? I am not a fundie so don't ask me. ???
Where is the proof that anyone is born gay? I am not a fundie so don't ask me. ???
Given that there are few people that suggest that sexuality is independent of genetics, one wonders where the burden of proof actually lies on that question. Especially given how significant a minority homosexuality is in our species.
That is a comment I make even BEFORE I mention two extremely pertinent facts.
The first of which is entirely undeniable which is that every human being alive contains the full set of chromosomes for implementing humans of either sex. That is right. Every male contains the full genetic requirements for being female. And vice versa. So if sexuality is in ANY way genetic.... then every human being alive already contains the genetics for being homosexual.
The second is shakier but not by much. What we observe very very often in our species is the random but noticeable activation of the "wrong" genetics from the "other" sex in subjects of both sexes. That is to say we have people identifying with the opposite sex, developing characteristics of the opposite sex down to, and including, genitals..... often enough that there is even a whole porn industry devoted to exploiting people of one sex with the genitals of another.
So the entire "born gay" argument can be strongly founded in the fact that our species contains the full set of genetics of the opposite sex at all times, and we know that opposite sex traits arise in individuals with some frequency. So why the hell not sexual attraction? Why is it suddenly exempt from this dynamic that we observe frequently and starkly?
It seems to me the debater arguing that homosexuality is a born in trait has little work to do other than suggest that it is a trait like any other that surfaces often in the "wrong" sex in our species. The onus of evidence lies strongly therefore at the feet of people claiming people are NOT born gay. Especially in the face of people who have lived that life path in the face of wishing they were otherwise.
Aside from ALL of that I also tend to proffer a rather more subjective argument to the issue. Which is to ask anyone who thinks that homosexuality is a choice whether they have ever tried to choose to be attracted to someone that they patently are not. I myself am straight. Entirely so. And I can not even "choose" to be attracted to members of the OPPOSITE sex that do not normally attract me. In fact there is a whole RACE of people on this planet to whom my penis appears to be racist and has no interest in, and I have tried and failed to "choose" to be attracted to those women.
So in the face of that..... I have to say the idea that people can not only choose their attractions, but shift it so readily as to throw it over to another gender..... is comedy and little else.
Objectively and subjectively therefore... I am compelled by the data set available to me to consider only one conclusion. Sexuality is inate either from birth... or not a hell of a lot long after it.
Scientists have never found the gene. We all have afflictions we have to endure. Doesn't mean we are born with it.
And THAT is the main point. Why should anyone have to suffer for the age old error of thinking that the acts in themselves are wrong rather than the selfish, exploitive way their use is described i the few passages i the Bible?
Suppose nobody had the idea that Matthew Sheppard was anything but one end of normal human sexuality?
And THAT is the main point. Why should anyone have to suffer for the age old error of thinking that the acts in themselves are wrong rather than the selfish, exploitive way their use is described i the few passages i the Bible?
Suppose nobody had the idea that Matthew Sheppard was anything but one end of normal human sexuality?
There are all kinds of sexual sins, not just homosexuality. God made man for woman, look at how we are made. Forget the bible and God, it is in our nature. We need to feel sorry for those whose mind does not match their body and most Christians do or should.
There are all kinds of sexual sins, not just homosexuality. God made man for woman, look at how we are made. Forget the bible and God, it is in our nature. We need to feel sorry for those whose mind does not match their body and most Christians do or should.
Instead of feeling sorry for them why not just accept them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
