Trump's take on the Michael Sam kiss & FSU linebacker mentions Tebow

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by PSGator66, May 13, 2014.

  1. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,817
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +767
    First of all, your arguments are silly.

    Second, 'prevalence of belief' is an awfully convenient dismissal of religion. It is not 'prevalent'; it is pervasive. Damn near every 'people' everywhere, in history, held/hold religious beliefs. That's not mere 'prevalence'; it runs much deeper than that.

    Third, in its thousands of years of history, homosexuality scarcely made so much as a cameo appearance within the institution of marriage, until now. We have not been "discriminating" against homosexuals for thousands of years; their 'lifestyle'--their defining 'trait'--the thing they do, that makes them homosexual--does not fit the concept of marriage.

    Fourth:

    Could it possibly be the reason that the majority of people in civilization are religious is because, from the time they are born, they are exposed nearly every day of their lives to people warning them of the punishments if they aren't?
    No. First, not all religions harbor a conception of 'hell'. In fact, many don't. Yet so many religions do view homosexuality as a deviance. What's more, while that my be a factor, it does not explain the almost universal phenomenon, of so many, so vastly different (even contentious) religions, first existing and prevailing amongst their respective ppl, and secondly, having such consistent views on homosexuality.

    Point being: religion is FAR MORE NATURAL to the human condition, than accepting homosexuality as 'normal'.

    Finally, if homosexuality were so benign and natural--why did the Am. Psychiatric Association have to sneak the removal of it from the definition of deviance from their manual? Why couldn't they have debated that one openly?
  2. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,817
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +767
    ^^^btw, don't recall where, but last week I heard someone put it liek this (think it was on Twitter):

    I think we're all going to look back several years from now, and view homosexuality much like we did the Bay City Rollers--remembering that we 'liked' them, but not able to remember why.
    IOW: this *trend* of viewing/treating homosexuality as equal to marriage, is a fad, not an actual trend.
  3. tilly
    Offline

    tilly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    19,379
    Likes Received:
    636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC (Jax Native...raised on the Gulf)
    Ratings Received:
    +2,243
    I havent. Dont plan to. Am disgusted by it...but... Dont know how to prove if I could or could not.

    But if someone can be bisexual, It seems one could switch.

    Are you telling me all who claim so are lying?
  4. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,817
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +767
    BTW: I should clarify--as it probably didn't come out very clearly--I don't actually think 'your arguments are silly'--it was just blind reciprocation for your reference to my argument as being silly, and because you dismissed several others' arguments as silly--I threw it in there to make a point, not to make the point suggested thereby.

    FWIW.
  5. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,446
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    How in God's name did you run off on this tangent, 92?

    My point has nothing to do with whether people all over the world feel an inherent need to have some big story to comfort them about what everything means.

    It's a simple one. Are you born Christian? No, plainly not. While you might be born pre-disposed to believing in a religion, what that religion is is quite plainly not defined at birth, and it isn't unchangeable.

    If it was, the entire "spreading the Gospel" thing would have just been God sending you on a pointless errand.

    Look at it simply. Do two Christian parents just give birth to someone who, as soon as he reaches the age where he has conscious thought, looks around his parents' church and says "what am I doing here, I'm a hindu"? Of course not. Why? Because religious views are socialized. People plainly learn their religion, you don't just - without having ever been exposed to it at all - say "well, that's strange, turns out I'm Jewish."

    On the other hand, that certainly appears to be exactly what sexuality is. Once someone reaches the age where they have sexual feelings, one of the possible outcomes is "what the heck, how come I'm sexually attracted to men?" - even if they have never met a single gay person in their life.

    That's literally the entirety of my point.
  6. tilly
    Offline

    tilly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    19,379
    Likes Received:
    636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC (Jax Native...raised on the Gulf)
    Ratings Received:
    +2,243
    It is too much of the undertone of scripture. The constant references of God/Marriage and the way scripture uses it to illustrate our relationship with Him...and..
    Its not just an old testament metaphor. Jesus addresses marriage as well.

    Thats where the Christian opinion is based.
  7. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,446
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    I think the most convincing explanation, that both fits observational data and provides an answer other than "churches have put together a huge lie with their 'gay cure' stuff," is that sexuality isn't the binary choice we tend to portray it as but is instead a broad spectrum with a bunch of possible outcomes. The spectrum would clearly seem to be weighted towards the two ends - completely straight or completely gay - but plainly there are people who experience sexual attraction, to some degree, to both sexes.

    I suspect that's most of what the church-related "gay cure" groups are dealing with; they've found people somewhere in the middle of that spectrum and have gotten them to repress and not act on the attraction to the same sex. That probably works (although whether it's something we should encourage people to do is certainly open for debate). On the other hand, the persons on either end of the spectrum, it doesn't work there. I don't think you could teach a man who is only sexually attracted to other men to suddenly suddenly stop that and be sexually attracted to women instead anymore than I think that you could teach me to stop being sexually attracted to women and to be sexually attracted to men instead.
  8. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,817
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +767
    I don't think it was that much of a tangent--perhaps some disjunction trying to pick up from yesterday (and regain my footing, and recall context...)--here was part of what that was addressed to:

    ...and the larger point, that so many religions--not just Christian--hold such similar views.

    Anyway....Ok, no, folks aren't born Catholic, or Hindu, or Buddhist, specifically.

    Now, to your actual point (as restated)--and let's set aside the religion thing for a while, as the analogy is simply more problematic than helpful. Yes, I will concede that many--even most (though not all, not by a long shot) homosexuals, are indeed born naturally wired to like members of their own gender.

    ...but many are also born hard wired to harbor various similar attractions--to animals; to children (that is, they never out grow their initial attraction to what they were once themselves); to S&M; perhaps a few others that don't come to mind. The traditional view--(yes, held in Christianity, but not limited therein, nor originated therefrom--just traditional)--is that these attractions represent a deviance--that is, a deviation from how ordinary ppl. are wired. We do not punish, or lock anyone up for holding these deviant attractions (natural though they may be to the person harboring them)--unless they act on them, AND such act is against the law;

    ....but we also don't hold their attractions out as the standard bearer, or the norm, either.

    Yet, that's exactly what the 'homosexual lobby'/advocates--are seeking to do. To go beyond tolerance of them for harboring deviant attractions--and to accept their acting on their deviance, and moreover, to pretend that such behavior is not deviant.

    ...but it is.

    So says history, the world over.
  9. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,446
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    Fair enough. And I think my responses to people other than you may have drawn the discussion slightly off what my original point was, so tangent forgiven. :D

    I think my perspective may just be a little different. Is it "deviant" or not? I don't care a bit.

    Can we articulate some way their acting on the deviance harms anyone (save, perhaps, for themself)? If so, make it against the law if you want. If not, no reason to treat them differently.

    It's not government's role to define what we think is normal versus what we think is weird; barring some articulable harm that they are preventing, government should be neutral.

    Unfortunately, in the context of marriage, government has (probably inextricably) inserted itself into the equation long ago and started handing out benefits. If we just follow along with how government has always done it, government inherently can't be neutral because it's handing out benefits (and conferring status and official recognition) based on the normal vs. weird distinction. So what are the two solutions that return government to the neutral place it was supposed to be? Either stop handing out benefits and conferring official recognition altogether, or to stop doing so on the basis of the "normal vs. weird" distinction.

    Does that mean government has to treat all "deviances" the same way? Not at all. Just that if they're going to treat them differently, it should be on the basis of needing to prevent some harm to others, not on the basis of "is this what most people are like or not."

    Or, basically to be less long-winded, does consensual gay sex (or marriage) harm anyone other than arguably the consenting parties to it? No, so who cares whether the government allows it or not.
    Last edited: May 14, 2014
  10. tilly
    Offline

    tilly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    19,379
    Likes Received:
    636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC (Jax Native...raised on the Gulf)
    Ratings Received:
    +2,243
    Ben - While you may disagree with this part, in fact I'm sure you will...there is a spiritual component at work here.
    It is my belief, and that of many of similar theology, that a supernatural act can restore one to the way we were designed. A person who cant stop staring at their secretary, while they attempt to be faithful to their wife, can also be changed. (for instance)

    In spiritual terms, it is called restoration. Its what Jesus came to do. To change us all back into the spiritual image of God that we were originally created in. We all are victims of mankind's movement away from God. Some through sexual things (straight or gay), some through dishonesty, some through hate, some through anger, some steel crab legs. We are all EQUALLY fallen away from that design.

    I think a common misconception on our POV is that we (religious folk) think being Gay is worse than being straight and cheating for instance, or chasing skirts every day. But that isnt the case. Both are against God's design. I am no better. We have done a poor job of explaining our position, and some (Westboro types) have taken to extremism.

    However, it does not mean I should ignore what I perceive to be wrong. It just means I am supposed to clean up my own act as well.

    "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?4"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? Matthew 7:2-4
  11. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,574
    Likes Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,036

    There you go...have your disagreement, but stay out of their way

    You are free to believe you know what God thinks
  12. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,817
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +767
    It simply comes down to public policy.

    No one is looking to punish or criminalize homosexuality.

    The question is, what is being promoted by recognizing such a thing as "homosexual marriage"?

    No one is saying that gays can't be together, can't live together, can't hold property together...just that when they are together, we should not promote such union, upon the same basis as, and for the same reasons that, we promote--as a matter of public policy--marriage (b/t a man and a woman, that is).
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,817
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +767
    ^^^what is the end game here?

    What supposedly desirable result does society achieve, by incentivising homosexual union?

    Are we running short on fashion consultants? Wedding planners? Waiters? Hair stylists? Disney World employees, or such?
  14. gatorman_07732
    Offline

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    29,894
    Likes Received:
    2,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +3,663
    round and round she goes, where she stops no one knows :)
  15. tilly
    Offline

    tilly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    19,379
    Likes Received:
    636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC (Jax Native...raised on the Gulf)
    Ratings Received:
    +2,243
    I haven't gotten in their way.

    You'll never see me protesting.
    You'll never see me confront.
    You'll never see me treat them differently.
    I would hire a qualified person regardless.
    ...and so on.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. reformedgator
    Offline

    reformedgator VIP Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,796
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +154
    I have a very good friend where that exactly has been the case & he is now married & has 2 grown children. He became & remains a "new creature". Sometimes I think with sexually deviant behavior that is the only answer.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. tilly
    Offline

    tilly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    19,379
    Likes Received:
    636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC (Jax Native...raised on the Gulf)
    Ratings Received:
    +2,243
    Exactly. The idea that someone born gay can not become straight is as silly as saying that a crack baby can not recover or that a shy person can not become outspoken. We are not completely chained to the person we were born as. Someone who is born gay, and genuinely desires not to be, can accomplish his or her goal. Its unfortunate that some here are challenging the claims of people whom they never met, simply because it puts a hole in a theory.

    You and I are well aware of the renewing that Jesus can perform when allowed to.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Bushmaster
    Offline

    Bushmaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,594
    Likes Received:
    114
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +486
    The difference between Tebow and Sam is this:

    No player was disciplined by his team for criticizing Tebow for being religious.

    I have read articles of players being talked to and disciplined for being disgusted about two homos kissing on TV.
  19. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,175
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +923
    You honestly believe that if an NFL player Tweeted out that he was "disgusted" by Tebow's religious convictions nothing would happen to him? I'm curious, what's the worst comment you can find by an NFL player about Tebow being religious? Not generalities, but an actual comment.
  20. Bushmaster
    Offline

    Bushmaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,594
    Likes Received:
    114
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +486
    There was a LOT made of his kneeling after his OT win against Pittsburgh. I had childhood friends call me telling me he was an attention whore for kneeling for the camera. Football analysts were telling him to tone down the religion.

    The first announcer to tell Sam to tone down the gay will be fired. In fact, the draft story was all about a 7und pick and how Jeff Fisher wanted to be part of "this" thing.
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page