@T-J

Quote:

There is no therapy available that works, because sexuality is a matter of brain structure. So the choice is between accepting reality or denying it, between being oneself or bowing to pressure from people like BigD to conform to their prejudices.

You have no proof to back up the insinuation that homosexual feelings cannot be reduced or even removed following therapy. Again I point out to you that there is no homosexual gene. Brain activity may occur when lustful emotions are fired up but again it is still the individual's choice whether to act on the feelings or not!

Last edited by BigD on 31-Oct-2012 at 09:51 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@Thread

Check out this BBC programme looking at Gay Conversion Therapy.

BBC Three: Stacey Dooley in the USA: Gay to Straight

Other than the 'liberal bias' from Stacey Dooley the presenter (would you expect anything different from our public service provider?) the programme does a good job of telling the story of the American men who have a dream to get married and overcome their unwanted homosexual feelings and lusts to get there. Quite inspiring really. It's just a shame that closed minded liberals like Stacey Dooley think they're helping by assuming everyone would be happier giving in to homosexual lusts and going with the flow. It was quite clear that the men coming to terms with their thought-life struggles and issues with relationships with their parents were further along the path to healing and having peace than the practising homosexuals that had given up on the programme. They came across as angry and petulant that the course was offered to 17 year olds. In my opinion it's better to offer the course to young people struggling with these feelings before they get involved in the homosexual lifestyle rather than after they do surely?

Last edited by BigD on 31-Oct-2012 at 11:23 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Are you still here? Hasn't god taken you from us yet? Look, even if people could suppress their desires, why should they? I really want to abuse you verbally because you are a wicked, mindless fundamentalist but this isn't the platform for the contempt I want to portray to you and your bigoted kind. You really can't see facts as being based on evidence and will keep going on no matter what is demonstrated to the contrary.


Quote:

BigD wrote: @T-J You have no proof to back up the insinuation that homosexual feelings cannot be reduced or even removed following therapy. Again I point out to you that there is no homosexual gene. Brain activity may occur when lustful emotions are fired up but again it is still the individual's choice whether to act on the feelings or not!

_________________
Amiga A1200, 3.1 ROMs, Blizzard 1230 MKIV 64MB & FPU, 4GB DoM SSD, Workbench 3.1

@BigD

Quote:

You are deluded if you think two practising homosexuals having to choose a Civil Partnership rather than marriage is comparable to a Christian being forced out of their jobs for following their faith

If we can't have separate rules for separate people then we can't. If its wrong that atheists and xtians have different sets of rules then for the same reasons its wrong for gays and straights to have separate rules.

Quote:

They are distinct and different relationship category and deserve a different relationship name in law.

I think you explained yourself great there. Its clear you do view them as inequal, as above, and therefore do not want to give them equal treatment under the law. You are prejudiced.

Quote:

We should be trying to increase the cohesion of our society not trying to weaken it and that means protecting marriage in its current definition.

67%of marriages in the US end with divorce the vast majority of those not due to gayness. If you want to protect marriage you are missing the huge mote in your own eye.

[quote]How do you honestly think this comparable to having black skin?]/quote] In both cases the person is not being measured by the content of their individual character but due to over arching stereotypes and prejudices. You do it here by claiming the average gay is promiscuous but failing to realize that is a statistic which has little reflection in a single individual. You use it as a reason to discard marriage and fail to be consistent as straights do it as well. In short we are not comparing gays to blacks but comparing your hate to other kinds of hate in this world.

You have nothing to show 100% of all gays are curable. And while genetic may be unknown it doesn't mean its not natural. There are hundreds of examples of animals being gay so it does appear in nature. As well as a distinct brain structure.

Just in case you didn't read it flip back a page where I give the statistics for where the majority actions resolve themselves against your claims.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Nov-2012 at 01:45 AM.

@A1200

Quote:

Look, even if people could suppress their desires, why should they?

If they are unhappy, want to get married and are not wanting to live the homosexual lifestyle then who are you to say they shouldn't get help to deal with their unwanted homosexual feelings? Are your prejudices so ingrained that you wouldn't want these individuals to have the CHOICE because you falsely believe that there shouldn't be a choice because of your own misconceptions?

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

It's got it all, doublethink, badly suppressed old testament desires to wreak vengeance on the sodom and gomorrah of gay lifestyles in the media and even insinuations about a gay conspiracy akin to the paranoid ramblings of those who rant on about zionist plots.

Even the implication that lesbians and gay men do it because its trendy or because they lack self control. Incredible stuff all from one individual.

I'm not quite sure which canard to shoot at first.

All that I've learned from bigd is this, his personal god either shares his views and is beneath any sentient beings contempt or bigd is going to be the one judged wanting both by his god and by his peers.

Which us it did you choose a god to suit your warped views or did your chosen god warp you?

@Clapper

Just watch the BBC programme and tell me which group of people come across as the most balanced having come to terms with their personal struggles? You want to destroy marriage on the basis of wrong information, assumptions and prejudices against those that speak out against your world view. You're the one trying to change the law not me, and you act like I'm the one shaking the barrel! Most people see the benefits that marriage brings to society and want to protect it rather than discard it and they are not just Christians but from a wide range of backgrounds.

Last edited by BigD on 01-Nov-2012 at 07:58 AM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

You have no proof to back up the insinuation that homosexual feelings cannot be reduced or even removed following therapy.

You got a problem with that statement? Take it up with the World Health Organisation, the American Medical Association, maybe the Royal College of Psychiatrists, because its their research and publications that I'm basing my statement on.

Sexuality is a matter of brain structure.

You can't change that by praying. You can't change it by really really wanting it to change. You can't wish upon a star and find that magically all your opinions become true.

And if we're talking about evidence, you have no proof to back up your opinion that therapy does work. All you've got is a sample bias whereby your conversion therapists are fortunate enough to get a handful of bisexuals they've managed to traumatise into believing they're straight.

And you keep calling the rest of us perverted or twisted, while condoning that level of abuse. The mind boggles.

Quote:

Again I point out to you that there is no homosexual gene.

Again I point out to you that your understanding of the subject is comically backward. There is no homosexual gene because genetics doesn't work like that. Genes are not blueprints, they describe chemistry and the underlying fractal structure which creates life.

Quote:

Brain activity may occur when lustful emotions are fired up but again it is still the individual's choice whether to act on the feelings or not!

Its not just brain activity, it is the structure of the brain that delimits what activity is possible and to what stimuli it will occur in reaction to.

A gay person does not choose to be attracted to the same sex. A gay person likewise cannot simply choose to be attracted to the opposite sex, nor can anyone else alter that gay person such that they are.

There is always the option of celibacy, but you have yet to provide any reason why someone *must* choose that option simply based on who they're attracted to, when the object of that attraction will freely reciprocate.

Quote:

In my opinion it's better to offer the course to young people struggling with these feelings before they get involved in the homosexual lifestyle rather than after they do surely?

No, its not better.

What you propose is handing vulnerable teenagers over to a group with a biased viewpoint, a loaded methodology and a strong, even overriding preference for one outcome.

This is not medicine and it does not deliver results that are best for the patient. In fact, I would without hesitation say that abandoning children to the tender ministrations of these sort of organisations is abuse.

What the rest of us want, and what the medical profession agrees is desirable, is for those vulnerable teenagers to have access to real therapy, if indeed they are finding their sexual orientation to be at odds with their self-image.

If, and only if this is the case, they should have access to a therapist who will help them to explore the reasons behind this issue, without favouring any particular outcome.

Last edited by T-J on 01-Nov-2012 at 02:08 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 01-Nov-2012 at 02:07 PM.

This site is kinda busy so give it until 11/2 perhaps to check.

In Alabama the first High School announced their Atheist club. Whadda think the reaction was? Loving Christians make death threats

Again it's shown that if you don't believe my God loves you I must kill you is a mantra that Western religions consider rational.

@BigD

Quote:

You have no proof to back up the insinuation that homosexual feelings cannot be reduced or even removed following therapy. Again I point out to you that there is no homosexual gene. Brain activity may occur when lustful emotions are fired up but again it is still the individual's choice whether to act on the feelings or not!

You have no proof to back up the insinuation that religious feelings cannot be reduced or even removed following therapy. Again I point out to you that there is no godbothering gene. Brain activity may occur when fundamentalist emotions are fired up but again it is still the individual's choice whether to act on the feelings or not!

Quote:

Are your prejudices so ingrained that you wouldn't want these individuals to have the CHOICE because you falsely believe that there shouldn't be a choice because of your own misconceptions?

This is also a question that can be turned back at you. Are your prejudices so ingrained that you wouldn't want these individuals to have the CHOICE to follow their preferred lifestyle rather than your preferred lifestyle,because you falsely believe that there shouldn't be a choice because of your own misconceptions? As I have frequently informed you, nobody is forcing you to live a homosexual lifestyle, so why do you feel the need to impose your theocratic dictatorship on the rest of the world.

I will once again ask you, where is the evidence that giving equality to homosexuals will destroy the concept of marriage.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

I will once again ask you, where is the evidence that giving equality to homosexuals will destroy the concept of marriage.

An inequality does not exist. If a practising homosexual wants to legally register a homosexual partnership there's a Civil Partnership, if they want counselling in order to get rid of unwanted homosexual feelings and find someone of the opposite there's marriage.

But to alter the very definition of marriage to please a few thousand of the homosexual community when the majority of homosexuals don't give two hoots is an entire waste of time and money.

Quote:

Mr Burns said that he saw no need for a change to the law and that there is “no clamour for this at all within the gay community”.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

An inequality does not exist. If a practising homosexual wants to legally register a homosexual partnership there's a Civil Partnership, if they want counselling in order to get rid of unwanted homosexual feelings and find someone of the opposite there's marriage.

And by making this statement you acknowledge that you are aware that civil partnerships and marriages are different, and also not equal. Why are you so terrified of the concept of equality in law for all?

Quote:

But to alter the very definition of marriage to please a few thousand of the homosexual community when the majority of homosexuals don't give two hoots is an entire waste of time and money.

There was a time when only a very few people wanted to marry people of a different racial background, and interracial marriage is still the exception rather than the rule, however these days attempting to prevent it would contravene equal rights legislation, demonstrating that a small uptake doesn't alter the basic facts.
- 1. Giving people the right to marry a partner of their own choosing regardless of racial origin is an advance of human rights and dignity, as well as more civilised.
- 2. Giving people the right to marry a partner of their own choosing regardless of racial origin did not destroy the cherished institution of marriage.
- 3. Denying rights to a minority does not become acceptable if the minority is small enough to ignore. The act of ignoring injustice is contrary to any concept of a caring civilisation. But of course some people only talk about caring, while perpetuating the injustice.

The same three points can be applied to people of different belief structures, whose marriages you belive to be somehow unworthy, or invalid, but who do have the right to live free from persecution or threat.

I will once again ask you, where is the evidence that giving equality to homosexuals will destroy the concept of marriage.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

The same three points can be applied to people of different belief structures, whose marriages you belive to be somehow unworthy, or invalid, but who do have the right to live free from persecution or threat.

Will you stop bringing your cross-religion marriage into this. 'Christians' are taught not to be yoked to a non-believer in the Bible because their faith is likely to watered down and compromised when this happens. People in this situation are no less 'married' than other Christians they are just more likely to become backslidden and luke-warm in their approach to following Christ.

As to your comparisons to mixed race marriages what the heck has that got to do with the issue of redefining marriage? There might have been wrong social stigma against mixed race marriages in the past especially in the USA due to the lack of upstanding Christians like Granville Sharp but the law never forbade such unions in the UK! And anyway the fact people are BORN with the colour of their skin and PEOPLE CHOOSE to act on homosexual feelings seems to escape your attention. Neither the battle for racial nor gender equality is relevant to this debate. Equality already exists in law as civil partnerships are equivalent to marriage although different relationships as they should always be due to the obvious differences. i.e. a civil partnership is made up of two individuals of the same sex as opposed to marriage which is made up of two people of the opposite sex! Do you see how those two relationships are inherently different?! Do you also see that a child ideally needs both a male and female role model to do best.

As MP Connor Burns states;

Quote:

Marriage is an institution that is the building block of stable society. All the evidence points to the fact that kids who are brought up by a married couple have higher education attainment rates, lower propensity to commit crime; marriage is a force for good in society and I think you need absolutely compelling reasons to want to redefine what marriage means.

You're on a losing streak if you try and argue that a child can be raised in any old family situation and still have just as good a start in life. It has been proved in countless studies that marriage is the ideal relationship in which to bring up children, there will always be exceptional children and single parents that will buck the averages but an average children do better with a committed, loving mother and father. And you want to destroy this institution meaning less children will be in committed, loving married families because marriage will be increasing lowered in standing to be on par with every other casual relationship you can think of!!!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

Will you stop bringing your cross-religion marriage into this.

In one word, NO.
You are the one that CHOOSES to define other marriages than your 1950's fantasy as worthless, and if "christians" like yourself do not believe that my wife should remain yoked to me then that is a direct threat to my marriage that does not come from the homosexual section of society.

Quote:

the fact people are BORN with the colour of their skin and PEOPLE CHOOSE to act on homosexual feelings seems to escape your attention.

It does not escape my attention that people with black skin CHOOSE to marry people with white skin, nor does it escape my attention that christians CHOOSE to imply that only christians can maintain a lifelong commitment, or recognise right from wrong. It also does not escape my attention that a certain brand of self styled christian CHOOSES to ignore any persons right to choose not to slavishly folllow the self styled christians narrow world view, and then that same so called christian CHOOSES to preach intolerance and tell lies. Civil partnerships are not equal to marriage in law. and do not confer equal status.

What makes it worse is when that same self proclaimed arbiter of truth and honesty then CHOOSES to ignore a simple question regardless of how often it gets asked.

I will once again ask you, where is the evidence that giving equality to homosexuals will destroy the concept of marriage.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Civil partnerships are not equal to marriage in law. and do not confer equal status.

That is exactly what was deduced by the verdict of the Bull vs Hall and Preddy case. Hall and Preddy's civil partnership was deemed equivalent in law to marriage hence why the Bull's had to pay damages for not allowing the homosexual couple to share a double room in their B&B. How quickly you forget. You can't have it both way; persecuting Christians for living by their faith and then denying the implications of the ruling!

The Wilkinson's case seems to have tipped the balance even further towards a complete 'Gay Rights' trumping of all other rights by making homosexuals not in a civil partnership equivalent to marriage. The Wilkinson's had a clear policy of only allowing 'married' couples to share a double bed in their B&B and yet the judge ruled in favour of two homosexual men who have not publicly or legally committed to each other in any way, shape or form.

Quote:

I will once again ask you, where is the evidence that giving equality to homosexuals will destroy the concept of marriage.

Equality as shown in the Bull vs Hall & Preddy case is already in place. The destruction of marriage has already been outlined

Back to post #1248 we go...and more recently #1308

Quote:

Redefining marriage in reality means it is for all intensive purposes destroyed. More so with passing decades as the inevitable push comes to redefine it again to include polygamy. The fact you haven't taken that on board is not surprising as you are blinded to the effects this will have on our society should it come into force. The fact that you look at this through rose tinted & liberally biased spectacles as an 'equality' exercise despite the fact there is no further 'equality' required due to Civil Partnerships being legal has completely escaped you so it is not surprising the bigger picture seems to have as well! There are plenty of case studies to look at and discuss before signing up to the big social experiment here. Why don't we do the sensible thing and see what damage occurs to social cohesion in Canada and New York etc over the next fifty years before we do anything so rash and unadvised as Boris and Dave are suggesting for our country? Marriage will no longer be 'consummated' and as such will be more of a 'friendship' and 'adult contract' rather than a selfless bond and the ideal relationship for raising children. Selfish adults will become the centre of this Frankenstein experiment not vulnerable children. Heterosexual couples will increasing shirk marriage should this go ahead and instead choose to cohabit as everything that was unique and special will have been attacked and watered down by liberal activists fixated on an 'equality' problem that doesn't exist!! The very basis of marriage as being, "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." ..would be removed and replace by generic 'thinkspeak' language along with the 'marriage' certificate nomenclature of 'husband' and 'wife' being replaced by the politically correct 'Progenitor A' and 'Progenitor B'!!! The list goes on. The institution we know and love will be mauled and in all intensive purposes destroyed.

In addition, an editor-in-chief of the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion and law professor Julian Rivers also suggests that the redefinition would be the start of marriage law unraveling completely..

The case for caution by Professor Julian Rivers

Quote:

The proposal to change the current definition of marriage depends on a sense that the man-woman criterion confers no distinctive social goods and represents an arbitrary limitation. But this is not the case. Marriage affirms the equal value of men and women, and promotes the welfare of children. Moreover, the logic of equal recognition and radical choice means that the boundaries of any new definition will be far more vulnerable. Challenges to its exclusivity, its permanence and even its sexual nature will be unavoidable. Marriage risks becoming any formalised domestic arrangement between any number of people for any length of time. On such a trajectory, marriage will eventually unravel altogether.

Last edited by BigD on 08-Nov-2012 at 10:16 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 02-Nov-2012 at 01:09 AM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

The Wilkinson's case seems to have tipped the balance even further towards a complete 'Gay Rights' trumping of all other rights by making homosexuals not in a civil partnership equivalent to marriage. The Wilkinson's had a clear policy of only allowing 'married' couples into their B&B and yet the judge ruled in favour of two homosexual men who have not publicly or legally committed to each other in any way, shape or form.

Wilkinson's had a clear exclusionary policy which harkens back to a not so long ago era.

@BigD

Just a quick reminder for you since you struggle with stuff science related...

An opinion piece is NOT evidence. It's just somebodies view.


And if I were still taking part in this thread I'd point out that either you are being deliberately misleading with your choice of quotes, or you yet again haven't read the whole article you've linked to and therefore have yet again failed understood it's context as per normal.

Nice to see things have moved on in this thread. (That's sarcasm D, just in case you were under an illusion your claims were any more valid today than they were in the first page of this thread).

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

Quote:

persecuting Christians for living by their faith and then denying the implications of the ruling

And once again you dishonestly paint yourself and your co-conspirators as the victims. How many christians have been jailed for the "crime" of being christians, or forced to undergo dubious psychiatric or medical "treatments" to "cure" them of religion. I can count them on the fingers of one foot. Stopping somebody from carrying out persecution is not in itself an act of persecution, just as opposing intolerance is not an act of intolerance.
Giving homosexuals "equivalent protection in law" is a mean spirited, mealy mouthed way of avoiding granting full equality.

Quote:

The Wilkinson's had a clear policy of only allowing 'married' couples into their B&B

and if the Wilkinsons had a clear policy of not allowing a heterosexual couple in without showing their marriage permits/wedding photographs/certificate from the Pope, that would also have been illegal. So would a policy of No Blacks, No Jews, No Gypsies etc. If you or anybody want to impose such policies in your own home that is your right, but a B&B establishment is a place of business and as such falls under the remit of anti-discrimination legislation.

Quote:

Back to post #1248 we go...and more recently #1308

If I had wanted you to simply repeat your baseless allegations I would have asked you to simply repeat your baseless allegations. What I asked you was "where is the evidence that giving equality to homosexuals will destroy the concept of marriage." and I put the word evidence in bold font to draw your attention to the fact that I was asking for something called evidence The fact that you can find a like minded individual willing to repeat the same baseless allegation does not prove that the baseless allegation is true. BrianK has often cited the demonstrable statistic that in heavily religious states in USA where homosexuality is violently discouraged and church attendance is high, the rates of teen pregnancy and divorce are consistently higher than in states that respect the rights of homosexuals (and other minorities), and do not seek to impose religious intolerance on society as a whole. Likewise when the Danes legalised pornography various sanctimoniuos, self righteous, holier-than-thou word-merchants claimed that soon all Danes would turn into slobbering, hairy palmed worshippers of the one eyed monster, and their country would quickly degenerate into a perpetual Sodom and Gomorrah. The actual outcome was somewhat different. Denmarks already low sex crime rate plummeted, and since then has stayed low. Other countries that have followed their example have also seen the same benefits, and far from exporting hodes of mindless rapists, Scandinavia now exports probably the best lager in the world (their claim, not mine), probably the safest cars in the world(Volvo), and probably the blandest flatpack furniture in the world(Ikea).
These are not a collection of baseless assertions made to promote a particular partisan viewpoint, they are a matter of historical record, and as such are acceptable as evidence.

I will once again ask you, where is the evidence that giving equality to homosexuals will destroy the concept of marriage.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

Bible quiz show

@BrianK

Quote:

In Alabama the first High School announced their Atheist club. Whadda think the reaction was? Loving Christians make death threats

I finally managed to follow the link and read the article, and I was left wondering if these particular "christians" showed any feelings of smug superiority over Islam when they heard about the shooting of Malala Yousufzai, because "no true christian"would stoop so low as to threaten the lives of children. I suppose the phrase "suffer the little children" (Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16) have a whole new meaning in certain quarters.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.