Mississippi passes religious 'Freedom' bill:

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you stated that they have the desires and gave that as a reason why they might choose. I am saying the very fact that they have the desires is what is called homosexuality. They do not choose to have the desires any more than you choose to like women. It is built into their brains by biology.

Excellent point. It is the 'desire' that falls outside of the choice argument.

Personally speaking (which I know Robbie never does) I 'chose' to put nutella in my porridge this morning, I 'chose' to hop on a bus, even though I was only going 5 minutes up the road, I 'chose' to make Earl Grey this evening, even though we had run out of lemon. And although I 'chose' to marry my wife, I didn't 'choose' to fancy woman. Desire is not a choice, it is something at the core of our very being. I wouldn't even begin to explain how it got there, it just is.

And I know some desires are not healthy, and that we have choice whether or not to act on those desires. What we don't have however is a choice on having those desires in the first place,

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Excellent point. It is the 'desire' that falls outside of the choice argument.

Personally speaking (which I know Robbie never does) I 'chose' to put nutella in my porridge this morning, I 'chose' to hop on a bus, even though I was only going 5 minutes up the road, I 'chose' to make Earl Grey this evening, even though we had run out of lemon. And a ...[text shortened]... hose desires. What we don't have however is a choice on having those desires in the first place,

I cannot comment on this at present because I am busy learning how to dismantle the second rank defence of Queen and King v Rook and King, but when I have the time I will come back and toast you like a marshmallow on a charcoal stick!

Originally posted by checkbaiter
[b]Why do you imagine people would choose to be homosexual when society - despite recent developments - is far more accepting of heterosexuality?

Why would you think? I think it would be ungodly lustful desires.

And how do you explain that homosexuality is found with a more or less constant rate throughout many different cultures and has be ...[text shortened]... strong influence on all cultures and wildly varying acceptance of homosexuality is no surprise.

You are part of the problem. You think morality comes from some god. It does not. Men wrote the bible and men wrote morality in a form they only think a god would view morality. There was no deity telling them what to write.

I'm sure you would agree with that about, say, scientology or mormonism or Islam, but you only THINK you have the true faith when in fact all you have are words written in a book. Who wrote those words? Men. End of story. Morality is what we make of it and the morality of the bible is aimed at control pure and simple, they want to control people's lives. That is why they make all this cockamamie nonsense about its a sin against god. When was the last time your god told you something was immoral? No? That would be because there was no connection to a god in the first place. It was simply the biggest scam of the last 3000 years. Pure and simple.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I cannot comment on this at present because I am busy learning how to dismantle the second rank defence of Queen and King v Rook and King, but when I have the time I will come back and toast you like a marshmallow on a charcoal stick!

Okay sir, though please don't bring along your 'bisexuality argument' which is based on a deep misunderstanding of what bisexuality actually is.

In a nutshell, a bisexual is not a heterosexual who is undecided whether to 'choose' to desire men or women. A bisexual is someone who desires both. It is important you understand this if we are to have a reasonable conversation.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I do not believe [b]ALL science agrees with you. Relevant to who? You?[/b]

What evidence do you have that homosexuality is "demonic"?

Originally posted by googlefudge

If someone sells cakes they need to sell them to anyone, NO PROBLEM there, but if
some event comes up that a special cake is requested, that is not the same thing

Actually, given the example I cited was of a company that does weddings [and other events]
as part of it's services it is EXACTLY the same thing. Morally and legally.

If ...[text shortened]... ou have a product or service you provide it to anyone legally entitled to ask for it.

Period.

Buy a cake off the shelf you are getting a cake no different than anyone else that I made.
Make me do something I don't want too, we have crossed a line.
If you can refuse for no shirt, no shoes, no service you can refuse for other things too.

Go to a prayer meeting its mandatory from here on out...and by the way you must pray
too it isn't enough to just be in the room.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Okay sir, though please don't bring along your 'bisexuality argument' which is based on a deep misunderstanding of what bisexuality actually is.

In a nutshell, a bisexual is not a heterosexual who is undecided whether to 'choose' to desire men or women. A bisexual is someone who desires both. It is important you understand this if we are to have a reasonable conversation.

My bisexual argument as you call it is only produced for those that claim some kind of genetic predisposition which puts them in a logical quandary.

As for your assertions of desire, or attraction as being the defining criteria of sexuality I must inform you that as existentialist I reject not only those definitions but also the appellations homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual etc because all that matters is acts.

Acts are the defining criteria not some alleged attraction or genetic predisposition. I may want to rob a bank but I am not a bank robber until I actually attempt to rob the bank through some criminal act. We as humans are capable of all kinds of sexual acts and are therefore in essence neither heterosexual or homosexual, we are simply humans with the capacity to exercise free will. You should know and understand this so that you will not waste time with definitions that have no basis in reality and which I reject for reasons already given.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You have never had lust in your heart? Ungodly lustful desires I already pointed out?

Did I choose to have "lust in my heart" and/or "ungodly lustful desires"? No, I don't think so. Did you ever make that choice?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Excellent point. It is the 'desire' that falls outside of the choice argument.

Personally speaking (which I know Robbie never does) I 'chose' to put nutella in my porridge this morning, I 'chose' to hop on a bus, even though I was only going 5 minutes up the road, I 'chose' to make Earl Grey this evening, even though we had run out of lemon. And a ...[text shortened]... hose desires. What we don't have however is a choice on having those desires in the first place,

Lemon in Earl Grey? Barbarian!

Originally posted by Suzianne
Lemon in Earl Grey? Barbarian!

Yeah - he's crossed the line there!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As for your assertions of desire, or attraction as being the defining criteria of sexuality I must inform you that as existentialist I reject not only those definitions but also the appellations homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual etc because all that matters is acts.

Definitions are merely for the purpose of communication. When you reject a definition, you refuse to communicate.

Acts are the defining criteria not some alleged attraction or genetic predisposition. I may want to rob a bank but I am not a bank robber until I actually attempt to rob the bank through some criminal act.
Homosexuality is not criminal except in a few backward countries in the world.
What the 'defining criteria' are depends on who is doing the defining. Hint: it isn't you.

We as humans are capable of all kinds of sexual acts and are therefore in essence neither heterosexual or homosexual, we are simply humans with the capacity to exercise free will.
But which acts do we prefer?
Before you became Christian, did you engage in sex with men and women at an equal frequency?
As a child, were you considering marrying a man?

You should know and understand this so that you will not waste time with definitions that have no basis in reality and which I reject for reasons already given.
If you want to communicate effectively you would do well to come up with your own words rather than hijacking and changing the standard definitions of common words as that can only lead to confusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you stated that they have the desires and gave that as a reason why they might choose. I am saying the very fact that they have the desires is what is called homosexuality. They do not choose to have the desires any more than you choose to like women. It is built into their brains by biology.

I know what you mean, but it is not normal and I would seriously look at the biological side of the issue. There are spiritual powers at work that we cannot discuss.
From a natural standpoint, I might agree with you. But I know based on bible teaching there is more to it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
We as humans are capable of all kinds of sexual acts and are therefore in essence neither heterosexual or homosexual, we are simply humans with the capacity to exercise free will.

So, if you refuse to identify yourself as a heterosexual, does that mean that you could choose to fall in love with a man, marry him, have a lifelong sexual relationship with him, adopt and raise children, and grow old together and that you could, through free will, choose not to prefer to have done all that with a woman?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are part of the problem. You think morality comes from some god. It does not. Men wrote the bible and men wrote morality in a form they only think a god would view morality. There was no deity telling them what to write.

I'm sure you would agree with that about, say, scientology or mormonism or Islam, but you only THINK you have the true faith when ...[text shortened]... god in the first place. It was simply the biggest scam of the last 3000 years. Pure and simple.

Who decides what is right and wrong?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
My bisexual argument as you call it is only produced for those that claim some kind of genetic predisposition which puts them in a logical quandary.

As for your assertions of desire, or attraction as being the defining criteria of sexuality I must inform you that as existentialist I reject not only those definitions but also the appellations hom ...[text shortened]... ime with definitions that have no basis in reality and which I reject for reasons already given.

Excellent point!