This video below is yet another lesson we've received recently from the apostles of tolerance from the homosexual community.
This took place last Friday night in San Francisco's Castro District. There was yelling and screaming and profanity and assaults and lewd behavior.
Since Proposition 8 passed in California on Nov. 4 to protect marriage, we have seen a number of displays of "tolerance" from the homosexual community that has so "innocently" beseeched tolerance from society.
They called for violence and murder against the people who voted to protect marriage. They ripped a cross out of an old lady's hand, stomped on it and shouted her down as a reporter attempted to interview her. They've stolen and vandalized private property. They have disrupted church services with yelling profanities, blasphemies and throwing condoms. They've burned a holy text on the doorstep of a church. And since blacks voted to protect marriage by a 70-30% margin, they've resorted to calling black people "niggers" and such.
At this point, I don't know if homosexual activists will ever be able to peddle their "tolerance" snake oil again. There has been far too much animosity coming from their camp toward people who simply voted to maintain the integrity of marriage as humanity has known it since the beginning of the human race.
If voting for morality, normality, and preserving marriage and family are "intolerance," I wonder what the behavior described above and in this video would be called...
From the video description:
I went to the Castro (the homosexual district of San Francisco) with JHOPSF (I have been with the Justice House of Prayer San Francisco since April 2008.) like we usually do on Friday nights.
Normally, we sit on 18th and Castro, and someone plays the guitar, and we all worship God.
Sometimes a person will yell at us, or maybe a few. Sometimes people will ignore us. Sometimes people will let us pray with them.
This time was not a normal night. It was the first time we'd been back in the Castro to do our normal outreach since California Proposition 8, which defined marriage as "one man with one woman" was passed. We played the guitar and sang together and worshiped the Lord. After just singing and worshiping God for a while, Roger decided that we should all hold hands in a circle and continue singing. So we did.
Someone (Actually a person who came up and hugged and kissed some of us who he knew from the past) convinced some people that we were there to protest against the no on 8 campaign.
Then some guy who was dressed up like one of the sisters (The sisters of perpetual indulgence is a group of men who dress up like nuns and call themselves the spiritual authority of the Castro.) took a curtain-type thing (Which I think they use to curse people) and wrapped it around us.
Then a crowd started gathering. We began to sing "Amazing Grace", and basically sang that song the whole night. (At some points we also sang "Nothing but the Blood of Jesus" and "Oh the Blood of Jesus".)
At first, they just shouted at us, using crude, rude, and foul language and calling us names like "haters" and "bigots".
Since it was a long night, I can't even begin to remember all of the things that were shouted and/or chanted at us.
Then, they started throwing hot coffee, soda and alcohol on us and spitting (and maybe even peeing) on us. Then, a group of guys surrounded us with whistles, and blasted them inches away from our ears continually.
Then, they started getting violent and started shoving us. At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles.
Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said "Hey, that's not yours, can you please give it back?". He responded by hitting her on the head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her.
I called the cops, and when they got there, they pulled her out of the circle and asked her if she wanted to press charges. She said "No, tell him I forgive him."
Afterwards, she didn't rejoin us in the circle, but she made friends with one of the people in the crowd, and really connected heart to heart. Roger got death threats.
As the leader of our group, people looked him in the eyes and said "I am going to kill you.", and they were serious. A cop heard one of them, and confronted him. (This part is kinda graphic, so you should skip the paragraph if you don't want to be offended.)
It wasn't long before the violence turned to perversion. They were touching and grabbing me, and trying to shove things in my butt, and even trying to take off my pants - basically trying to molest me. I used one hand to hold my pants up, while I used the other arm to hold one of the girls. The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them.
Soon after, the cops came and stood between us and the mob. When it was getting more heated, the cops were like "You guys should leave." and Roger said "We want to stay." Someone tried to steal my backpack, but I tapped a cop on the shoulder, and said "Hey, that's my bag." and he got it from him and gave it to me. Others weren't so lucky. Probably half our team got their jackets stolen.
Eventually, as the crowd was getting more and more uncontrollable, the cops were afraid for our lives, so they escorted us to our van. (The cops were very nice to us from start to finish.) Our van was parked pretty far because it was hard to find parking that day.
As the cops escorted us, the mob followed us, until the cops formed a line, and held off the people so we could drive away.
We took the long way home, just in case anyone tried to follow us. When we got home, we prayed and sang more, and then prayed over each-other. Please know my heart.
All of what we do is for the Love of Jesus Christ, and the love for those in the Castro. The Bible says to love God, and then love people. We can only love because He loved us first. We can't hate the people because they are just broken and blinded by the spirit of this age. Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against Principalities and Powers. It's not a political thing, we just love the people.
WARNING: Offensive language in this video!
34 comments:
What you did was hostile and hateful. It wasn't about love at all, it was about antagonizing gay people in our own neighborhood. If all you wanted to do was pray, you dont have to be in the middle of a gay neighborhood to do that. You were there only to cause trouble and you got it! If you dont like gay people, stay out of our neighborhood! Don't go there to cause trouble or you might just find it. Gay people live in a gay neighborhood to be away from creeps like you. Stay out.
The last time I checked, it was a free country. Or is this a "Straights Only" neighborhood, in the great tradition of "Whites Only" locations?
As I said, great example of "tolerance" from the apostles of tolerance.
What you did was offensive. Straight people go to the Castro all the time. But they don't go there and cause trouble. You went there to "cure" them. That is offensive. Police dont put victims in the paddy wagon, they put trouble makers in the paddy wagon.
There are as many straights that live in the Castro as gays. So why is it that only these particular straights got put in the Police Paddy wagons? It's obviously because they caused trouble. If you are there to cause trouble, stay out.
Thank, Anonymous 7:13 and 7:11. It's early in the morning and already I've seen the Truly Delusional Person of the Day.
It is overwhelmingly (and sadly) obvious that these Christians had to be escorted from the area by police (who were pushing back aggressive homosexual activists with their night sticks) to protect them from the "tolerant" crowd of homosexuals.
How sad that many in the homosexual community are so filled with hatred and loathing for anything good and moral that they can't even stand having a Christian pray for them.
Don't pray for me. I don't want your prayers. I have my own God, I don't want yours. Go pick on someone else and stay out of our neighborhood if you want to cause trouble. There are far many more places for straight "christians" to live than there are for gay people.
Thanks for yet another glowing display of "tolerance," Anonymous 7:35.
With these kinds of example, the homosexual community is a tough act to follow.
I am praying for you now as I am tieing my boot laces getting ready for work. So long pal.
Bob,
I don't agree with the what the people in that video were doing, but I can understand why so many in the gay community are upset right now. They feel that conservative Christians are trying to destroy their lives. You'll disagree with this, but they believe they are being attacked just for being who they are. Most of them just want to be left alone, but they feel that conservatives are trying to turn the government against them (even though they're American citizens too). So I think they are justified in their protests. But, like I said, some of them are going too far like in that video.
First of all, I'm gay and I am not violent. That being said, I can't believe that you're a christian. You decry intolerance among the few gay castro crowd when you yourself show intolerance by making fun of our lives, mocking us. How? Think on it.
In the past, I would have been one of the people who would say hi and smile to you folks. SHAME ON YOU!
We are tolerant. But how many times does our community have to take so many beatings, humiliation, taunts, mockeries, disdain, secon-class citizenship, and damnation from your religious sects?
Do you not understand that some gay folks are lashing out? You said so yourself that you just came back the Friday following the election. Did you not think that anybody would be sensitive to your presence?
No, you were not there for peace. You were there trying to poke the bear, provoking a reaction. But there were only a few, believe me, a few who will not tolerate such blatant display of ignorance. So don't try to imply that the whole community was suddenly raining down you guys.
As for their violence? You were just scared. Tell that to all the people of the LGBTQ community that have been bullied, harrassed, and beaten since childhood by other bullies such as you.
And you think that we chose this lifestlye, to be gay. Therefore, it's not immutable, therefore no need for 'special protection'. The irony is, religion is a CHOICE. Everyday, people change their religion based on what they believe at that moment. And guess what, religion has more 'rights'.
Call it sourgrapes, but is it fair? Think on it!
"The Intolerance of the Tolerant"
I don't get you bi-bull thumpers. Who said gays, or liberals, or anyone critical of you superstitious Christian freaks are "tolerant?" I am openly intolerant of stupid ideas. This notion that conservative Christian freaks have that their ideas are just as good as mine is asinine and smacks of Chinese Red Guard mentality. Superstition is never the proper basis for government policy, or science, or anything for that matter.
Let's look at this objectively.
When a gay activist finds someone he doesn't like or doesn't agree with, he commits vandalism, takes an old lady's cross away before shouting at her, and yells profanities during a church service. And all of this is done out of anger, provoked by his fellow citizens' decision to deny his relationship equal status to marriage. I doubt you would react any better if someone decided to make YOUR marriage illegal, Bob.
The Christian, on the other hand, is taught to seek out people who haven't heard the "good news," and proceeds to tell those people that unless they reject every independent thought they currently have about the world, believe every word of the Bible without question and without demanding a shred of proof, and drink the Christian kool-aid (literally), they will burn forever in the firey pits of hell. Threatening people physically is child's play as far as the Christian is concerned - he must go one step further and threaten their eternal soul.
I think it's far more laughable that Christians are the thought to be the "tolerant" ones.
Oh, yes... I'm soooo sure all gays are "intolerant." You've certainly cleared my sight in that regards.
Now, since "Christians" are responsible for the many beatings, murders, and other acts of physical and verbal violence on gay folk, I also by your logic must assume that all Christians are violent, intolerant people.
This saddens me greatly, because I am a Christian myself, and had no idea I was such a hateful maniac.
Two salient points to begin with, Haggs.
1. They aren't even being attacked. People voted to protect marriage from being hijacked and counterfeited, which would undermine the family and the very stability and welfare of our nation.
2. Homosexuals aren't being criticized (much less attacked) for who they are; they are often criticized for what they do. They aren't animals who act on instinct; they are human beings with intelligence, will, choice, and moral responsibility. They really should respect themselves more than to claim they are powerless slaves to their desires.
3. Another good point is that if they would leave society alone (quit demanding acceptance of their behavior, quit demanding that society accommodate their behavior, quit demanding society redefine a fundamental social institution, etc.), society would very happily leave them alone.
And what I find most interesting about all this behavior (the hostility from homosexual activists, not the homosexual behavior itself) is that after all these years of preaching and demanding "tolerance" of their sexual practices, they are finally being revealed (revealing themselves, actually) for the hypocrites they are.
Jake, I don't think anyone here was making fun of your lives. What these Christians hope is that you will see that your homosexual behavior is a sin, that it is separating you from God, and that it is unhealthy and harmful to you physically.
You don't have to like that, but it's a free country--these Christians should have a right to say it publicly without harassment.
And thanks for the admission that homosexuality is a choice. That's a rare thing to hear from the homosexual community. The honesty is refreshing.
I'm glad you said we need to examine this objectively, Anonymous 11:22.
In order to make a credible threat, one must have intent, capability and opportunity to carry it out. The Christian has no intent, capability or opportunity to damn a soul to hell. Concerned Christians warn, they do not threaten.
And there is no basis whatsoever to deny the legality of my marriage. I am a man married to a woman; my wife and I meet the requirements for a marriage--a man and a woman. Homosexual couples lack one or the other of these requirements.
If a homosexual wants to get married, they should find someone of the opposite sex. If they do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, then they should be satisfied having sex with someone of the same sex. You just can't have both; two men or two women simply cannot comprise a marriage any more than an empty candy wrapper can be a $20 bill.
Not only do homosexual unions not meet the definition of marriage, they simply do not provide any of the positive benefits or services to society that a real marriage provides. They do not produce a new generation of citizens to carry on a civilization, and due to the instability in most homosexual relationships (increased risk of AIDS, other STDs, hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, etc.) they make a terrible place to put an adopted child. Even if all these health risks were not present, a home with two men or two women would send the unhealthy and inaccurate message to the child that one or another sex was unnecessary or undesirable.
There is simply no reason to allow marriage to be counterfeited or hijacked to make a group of people feel better about their sexual behavior.
"They aren't even being attacked. People voted to protect marriage from being hijacked and counterfeited, which would undermine the family and the very stability and welfare of our nation."
I'd consider giving that credence, except for one thing: same-sex marriage (or any variation of it) does not prevent or discourage heterosexuals from marrying. I would believe that same-sex marriage undermines the family and the stability and welfare of our nation if you would be kind enough to give some evidence. In what quantifiable ways have the stability and welfare of Massachusetts been negatively impacted since it legalized gay marriage? How about Canada? Spain? Belgium?
And I don't think Jake admitted that homosexuality is a choice. He said, "And you think that we chose this lifestyle, to be gay." Actually, I can't think of a single gay activist who ever said that homosexuals are unable to choose their behavior. If you insist on looking at homosexuality as just a behavior with no psychological or biological groundwork behind it, of course you would think that being homosexual is merely a matter of choice. But putting the argument in those terms is demonstrably false and dishonest - but helpful for your position, which is obviously why you do it ;-) Just remember that a man who's attracted to women would be considered heterosexual even if he's never had sex.
Bob,
Still, you'd be hard-pressed to find a gay activist say, "If you don't accept homosexuality, you will burn in hell forever." On the contrary, we have more than enough Christians saying, "If you don't accept Christ, you will burn in hell forever." We can split hairs over whether this is a threat or a warning, but the meaning is the same: if you don't agree with me, you are going to die. That's a far less tolerant ultimatum than anything a gay activist can offer.
Bob,
1. I beg to differ, denying us rights is an attack to our livelihoods. Still have I yet to hear a valid reasoning on how my marriage to another guy would undermine your family. The stability and welfare of our nation? Married gay couples help stabilize the family and therefore the nation. When we marry it's because we're ready for the commitment. And majority of married gay couples would adopt children. If not for married gay couple, a lot those children would end up forever in the welfare system or a life of crime. We do more than you ever give us credit.
2. You're a religious white male. I feel your pain. We mouth of on you and you take away our rights. Who's suffering here?
3. We have left society alone for a long time. And what did we get? Persecution! Harvey Milk was right when he said that the greatest enemy of us 'gays' is invisibility. We needed to show that we are here and there are a lot of us. If we cower back like you proposed, we will be thought of as weak. No, now is the time for us to stand up for our rights. And MLK once said that civil rights are not asked, it has to be taken.
Hypocrites? No, we are just mad. We're angry. We've been complacent just like you proposed. Before the election, there were only a few rallies, marches, protest against prop 8. I've volunteered thinking that I did my job. But was it enough? I thought then that sure it was. I don't need to be boisterous outside because the people of California are smart enough to determine the lies that the Prop 8 proponents were saying in their ads. Before the election, a lot of gay folks were quiet, leaving the general society alone. LIKE YOU PROPOSE, because we thought we would not be denied our rights. BECAUSE we never believed that they would add discrimination to the CA Constitution.
No Bob. After the election we will no longer hide. It is not because we are hypocrites. It's because we are ANGRY. We are human after all.
Bob, I didn't say that homosexuality is a choice. Here's my quote:
"And you think that we chose this lifestlye, to be gay..."
I was merely demonstrating that your religion IS a choice and being gay is not.
Contrary to what you think, I did not choose to be gay. The only choice that I had was to stop lying myself about it. But Bob, when did you choose not to be gay?
Anonymous 12:49, it's early yet, but marriage is starting to fall by the wayside entirely in some of the earliest countries to adopt this nonsense. When something can mean anything, it means nothing.
As to some of the specific harms of this insanity, I outlined those briefly in my comment at 12:28.
Sorry, Anonymous 12:49. I suppose in my excitement at seeing something that even resembled honesty from a homosexual on the matter of moral choice, I got carried away. But all behaviors have psychological or biological. That does not absolve human beings of the ability or the responsibility to act properly.
And remember that attraction does not equate to an act. Being tempted isn't wrong; giving it to it IS.
Anonymous, 12:56, of course you wouldn't. There is absolutely no grounds whatsoever upon which to assert, "If you don't accept homosexuality, you will burn in hell forever." You're being silly, right?
As for the warning, if you don't like it, you have to take it up with God. He said it; Christians are just carrying out His instruction to warn people about it.
Jake:
1. You assume facts not in evidence. You have no "right" to redefine marriage. It is a fundamental human institution, the definition of which can only be met by combining a man and a woman. You also don't have the right to pick up a sno-cone wrapper off the street and demand the guy at Burger King take it in exchange for the meal you order. Why? Because a sno-cone wrapper is not money, just as two men or two women is not marriage. As for "stability," a group characterized by high rates of AIDS, other STDs, hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, and promiscuity cannot in any reasonable circumstance be called "stable." What's more, such an environment is a terrible place to situate a child. What's more, such a setting sends the dangerous and erroneous message to a child that one or the other sex is unnecessary or undesirable.
2. Again, I cannot take away something that doesn't exist.
3. If you'd remained quiet, I don't think anyone would have interfered with your right to sodomize one another. But when you insist on undermining marriage and family, all decent people have an obligation to oppose such attacks. And we will, as even the relatively liberal people of California illustrated. Oh, and you're comparisons to the civil rights movement are pathetic and a joke at best. Skin color is an innate quality which is morally neutral. Homosexuality is a behavior which is clearly immoral and also clearly unhealthy. It's an insult to black Americans to equate immoral behavior with skin color.
As for your protests, keep it up. I really hope you do. The veil of lies known as "tolerance" is finally getting pulled back, and the American people are finally getting to see the dark underbelly that is homosexual activism. The longer you keep it up, the more Americans will wake up to just how arrogant and hateful the agenda is, and will wake up to just how far homosexual activists want to take our country down the tubes.
You have been successful so far because, as Kirk and Madsen counseled in "After the Ball," you've kept the dark truth hidden. The homosexual movement is now coming fully out into the light of truth, and if you continue, we will soon be free of the illusion that this has been about "tolerance" and such drivel. Once we've gotten past the propaganda, we can deal with the issue purely on the merits of the argument, and beyond the satisfaction of desire, there are no merits to the legitimization of homosexual behavior.
This says it all:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081124/olbermannprop8_video
You have a great point, Anonymous. This Max Headroom video does indeed say a lot about this issue.
While it does contain a generous amount of misguided liberal drivel, it does point out some important truths about this issue.
When Olbermann says it's about the "human heart," he's right. It's all about emotion and emotionalism and nothing about rational thought or public welfare.
The Bible says the human heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure, and this issue proves that. When we are led astray by our emotions and lusts, we usually abandon all rational or logical thought in favor of what I want.
Homosexual activists have demonstrated that the desires of their heart come before public health, the institution of marriage, societal stability, and the good of children.
It is indeed "all about the heart," that desperately wicked heart.
Mary Cheney is a lesbian. Help her.
You are a bigoted person Bob. Seek some help for your prejudices.
If people who shout std's and AIDS really thought much about their anti-gay marriage stance, they would encourage monogamy and stable relationships by supporting same-sex marriage.
Anonymous 7:19, someone who is bigoted usually treats someone of a racial or ethnic background different than their own with hatred or intolerance. I do none of those things.
I do, however, tell the truth about the moral and health hazards of homosexuality, and about the obvious intolerance of homosexual activists such as those in this post.
"Skin color is an innate quality which is morally neutral. Homosexuality is a behavior which is clearly immoral and also clearly unhealthy."
But Bob, homosexuality is also a morally neutral innate quality, insofar as sexual orientation is caused by psychological, biological, and environmental forces. This is not to imply that homosexual behavior is moral/immoral or unavoidable, just that gay people are fundamentally different from straight people in terms of physiological composition. That is to say, one can BE homosexual without having sex, and therefore a homosexual orientation is an innate quality which is morally neutral...just like skin color. And like skin color, who a person is and what a person chooses to do are not necessarily the same thing, so it's important to realize the distinction.
Anonymous, your statement is totally unfounded.
Not only does the Bible (and every major religion) specifically condemn homosexual behavior as immoral, your assertion that there are physiological differences is also false.
There has not been a single difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals detemined--not even the mythical "gay gene." Other studies have produced ambiguous results at best--at best.
Homosexual behavior is not in any way morally neutral.
1. I have no right to redefine marriage? Of course I do. Just like past generations did when they redefined marriage several times. Marriage is a word and just like everything else, it evolves. It may have it's roots in religion but so does a lot of things. As for your example using Burger King? Pathetic and totally written in poor logic. How about you eating a burger with no cheese while I eat mine with cheese. We're still both eating a burger and having it our own way. As for your stability argument, clearly you don't know a lot of gay people. You're just stuck with this biased, stereotypical, one dimensional image, and one that's been brainwashed into your head by the christian right. One more reason why all gay men and women should come out to show everyone that we're just like everyone else, NORMAL and not the demonized version that's being promoted at, of all places, the church altars. A pity. Although AIDS and STDs are a problem within the gay community, we don't have the monopoly. We just need to reiterate strongly that no condom, no sex. But the religious right does not even want sex education in school. Abstinence? Please! Anal cancer? Ha! Get your facts straight, it's the heterosexual men that are more inclined to get anal/prostate cancer. Depression, substance abuse, suicide? Gee, I wonder why? Look in the mirror, that's your answer. People like you. Domestic Violence? Seriously, you're going to say that my community has a higher domestic violence rate? Laughable. Oh, and that last sentence where you mentioned that such a setting (meaning a gay setting) "...sends the dangerous and erroneous message to a child that one or the other sex is unnecessary or undersirable", right, I guess my straight parents led me to the right way. Yeah, straight parents do not have gay children. You're delusional.
2. It exists. California Supreme Court, May 15, 2008 (In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757, 859-860.)
3. Lawrence v. Texas. Romer v. Evans.
Contrary to your beliefs, we do believe in forming families. The reason why Prop H8 passed was becaused of the scare tactics that the proponents used, and childrent at that! What about those gay kids that are being bullied and harrassed? Why aren't you proctecting them? It's ok that they're being shot, beaten, humiliated, harrassed, murdered, and discriminated against or ultimately commit suicide because in the long run they're just going to turn into gay adults? With all the religious people shouting about the children, why turn a blind eye to some children? That's hypocracy. Civil Rights is Civil Rights. When we're discriminated against because of who we love, that's a Civil Rights issue. When our right(s) are obliterated, that's a Civil Rights issue. When we are gay bashed, that's a Civil Rights issue. When we're demoted to a second-class citizenship, that's a Civil Rights issue. When did the Civil Rights movement became the monopoly of the Blacks/African-Americans? My Homosexuality is not immoral. What's immoral is you judging me. You have thrown the first stone indeed.
I am prepared to argue based on merits alone. What is going down is your hateful and illogical rhetoric.
I seem to remember a conversation we had about why animals engage in homosexual behavior. You claimed it's because of original sin, and when I asked you to prove your assertion with scientific evidence as any logical person would, you said, and I quote: "Since the god of science is all you will worship, and you demand scientific proof of everything before you'll believe it, answer something for me - assuming you love your mother, prove it scientifically."
Your defensive and hyperbolic answer tells me two things. First, that you are too proud to admit that for all your self-congratulatory talk of being logical and reasonable, your claim is blatantly ILlogical. And second, that you don't always need evidence to accept something, even something as complex as sexual behavior in the animal kingdom. Which makes me wonder, why the double standard for human homosexuality?
Here you are telling me that my claim that there are physiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals is false, your (incorrect) reason being that scientists have yet to produce any data in favor of that claim. Yet you are all too eager to believe, going on ZERO scientific evidence, that thousands of animal species behave homosexually because Adam and Eve ate a piece of fruit, invoking the oft-cited and intellectually abortive "cuz the Bible says so!" maxim.
So I guess my question is, why am I not allowed to make a claim that's based on admittedly incomplete data, but you feel entitled to make a claim that's based on NO data whatsoever? Is the lesson here that scientific evidence is relevant only when it reinforces your predetermined and biased conclusion? I'm not sure whether you went to college, but if you did, I would demand a refund.
Even if we were to someday find a "gay gene" (as if human sexuality were simple enough to pin on one single trait), it wouldn't make any difference to someone like you. Just as your genetic predisposition for alcoholism does not condone binge drinking or dictate that you have no choice but to drink, neither would a genetic presdisposition for homosexuality "legitimize" homosexual behavior or negate its supposed immorality, in your opinion. Discovering a "gay gene" would not even contradict the Bible! So given these considerations, and the fact that you by your own admission accept certain biological premises without evidence, why are you so quick to criticize me? I'm just following your example!
Anonymous 12:59, you assert that behavior in animals which is obviously abnormal and aberrant is somehow normal and natural. This is obviously contrary to scientific evidence (normal behavior is easily measured statistically), so it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence that it is normal and natural. I provided a theory to explain an aberration, yet your contention that aberrant behavior is natural??? It's hard to even have a coherent conversation with someone so fundamentally ungrounded in reality and logic.
Again, you insist that there are physiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals (ostensibly in the hopes that such hypothetical differences might absolve homosexuals of moral culpability) yet have no evidence to back your claim. Even psychological research into that possibility is ambiguous at best. Sorry, "Because I want it to" just doesn't cut it.
The likelihood that my theory about abberant animal behavior is correct is quite high, but it relies on a lengthy and detailed chain of evidences. It would take too long to explain them here...and I have absolutely no doubts (based on other comments you have made) that even if I were to take the time to attempt an explanation, you would dismiss the effort I put into it as "superstition" without a fair hearing. Sorry, I have better things to do than waste my time trying to get a fence post to understand complex subjects.
Finally, most of your last paragraph is correct. There is no evidence of a "gay gene" and even if there were, it would not absolve you of moral resposibility for you actions, any more than theoretical genetic causes for alcoholism absolve drunks of their moral culpability.
Who are you by the way, Anonymous? Why don't you have the guts to leave your name? It's much easier to leave incoherent arguments here and there that can't be connected, isn't it?
I've wasted enough time on you...yet again.
Post a Comment