Chris Broussard is for lack of a better word a bigot

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Brousard isn't advocating denying anyone their rights.. He doesn't call his "exisitence" a sin, but his action a sin. A sin just like any other sin, theft, adultery, dishonoring your mother/father, etc.

I cannot believe anyone saying that adultery is a sin is a bigot. But you would I suppose.

Nobody is born an adulterer but people a born gay. Broussard is in fact saying their entire existence is a sin whether you want to believe it or not.

Saying someone is a sinner for acting the way they were born is disgusting.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Nobody is born an adulterer but people a born gay. Broussard is in fact saying their entire existence is a sin whether you want to believe it or not.

Saying someone is a sinner for acting the way they were born is disgusting.

Why not, about as easily believed as being born gay. It just doesn't have a voting bloc yet.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Why not, about as easily believed as being born gay. It just doesn't have a voting bloc yet.

How about bigots? Are they born bigoted? Unfortunately they DO have a voting bloc.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

How about bigots? Are they born bigoted? Unfortunately they DO have a voting bloc.

Well quite frankly I think born this way or that way is bullsnot, but if you say so then I guess there are born adulterers as well.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Why not, about as easily believed as being born gay. It just doesn't have a voting bloc yet.

I know you're a really religious, and that is fine. That is your right. But just for future reference there is something called science, which has proven sexuality to be congenital. So comparing it to aldutery is not only offensive but ignorant. But I expect no less from a fundie

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by SeanL

I know you're a really religious, and that is fine. That is your right. But just for future reference there is something called science, which has proven sexuality to be congenital. So comparing it to aldutery is not only offensive but ignorant. But I expect no less from a fundie

You don't know me from squat. Haven't been religious since I was about 10 years old. I just happen to respect folks who are and do not respect people who are bigoted towards them, especially folks who get up on their soapbox thinking that its their way or you are a racist way.

liberal bigots do not get to define morality.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You don't know me from squat. Haven't been religious since I was about 10 years old. I just happen to respect folks who are and do not respect people who are bigoted towards them, especially folks who get up on their soapbox thinking that its their way or you are a racist way.

liberal bigots do not get to define morality.

And yet here you are making some pretty ignorant and religiously inspired arguments.

And what you consider showing respect for religious people is very bizarre. Demeaning the gay community is a very strange way of showing that respect.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by SeanL

And yet here you are making some pretty ignorant and religiously inspired arguments.

And what you consider showing respect for religious people is very bizarre. Demeaning the gay community is a very strange way of showing that respect.

I'm not demeaning anyone but you and the other folks on this thread who are so obviously bigoted towards Christians.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I'm not demeaning anyone but you and the other folks on this thread who are so obviously bigoted towards Christians.

Likening lgbt community to adulterers is not demeaning? Heh. Sorry, but that is not a very convincing argument.

So calling someone a bigot for saying bigoted things (like you did) is being a bigot? LOL! It is the whole I'm rubber your glue defense. It may have worked when you were five, but it is not very convincing now either.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Nobody is born an adulterer but people a born gay.

Nobody is born gay - sexuality is all about personal experience and opportunity... I'd say bisexuals pretty much kill the "gay gene" theory.

I have a friend who was genuinely attracted to the opposite sex earlier in life. They weren't closeted, they weren't confused - they were straight... Then, later in life, they developed a strong friendship with someone of the same sex and started having sexual feelings for this person. Those feelings were reciprocated. A switch was flipped in their psyche... They became gay.

Sexuality is no different than any other preference in life. I used to hate rap music when I was younger, but then I heard A Tribe Called Quest when I was in college. A switch was flipped in my psyche and I started to seek out similar bands... I became a hip hop fan.

Don't get me wrong - some people are gay from the moment they discover sexuality (young children have no concept either way outside of social programming)... But it seems to me that the primary reason for the "born gay" agenda is to remove any sort of blame for their choices. So I ask, is being gay something that deserves blame in the first place? It's a choice... If you don't like being gay, then don't be gay. But don't judge others for the choices they make, especially when those choices don't really affect you.

In my opinion, homosexuals don't owe Christians any sort of apology for their choices... Especially since the vague passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality are in the Old Testament, which really only applies to the Jews (and newsflash: modern Jews have no problem with homosexuals). Christians need to start behaving like Christians and follow Jesus' Commandment:

"Love your neighbor as yourself." --Matthew 22:39

Personally, I've rarely encountered any sort of problems in life when I follow that philosophy... It seems like common sense, but it's a lot harder to do than to say. In the end, I think protesting and lobbying to restrict the fairly benign actions of your fellow man is a far greater "sin" than homosexuality. Plus, everybody's sh!t stinks:

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?" --Matthew 7:3-4

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Nobody is born gay - sexuality is all about personal experience and opportunity... I'd say bisexuals pretty much kill the "gay gene" theory.

Reading your post, I see that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on, but I both agree and disagree with you on this point. It doesn't make sense (to me) to assume that there is one and only one path to the development of sexual identity/attraction, and there is a large variety of research that is identifying the genetic basis for sexuality. But yes, sexual identiy/attraction is based on exposure to outside influences and experiences AND how a person's genetic endowment gets exposed to them. Most children, of course, grow up to be heterosexual. But I have also seen children who showed evidence of same-sex attraction as pre-adolescents, and who grew up on the express track to being adult homosexuals.

Then there are people who are born intersex, and children who identify as the opposite sex. I've also seen one particular instance of a child who was born male, but who from a very early age identified as female. He is just hitting adolescence now, so I guess we'll know pretty soon which way things are going to go. You're right though, that some people move from one side to the other of the sexual attraction spectrum during the course of their lives (and some people move back and forth).

Ultimately, I think that social influences hold a lot more people back from expressing their innate sexual identity than push people into one of the less numerically frequent categories. Sexuality as social fad just doesn't ring true to me.

Either way, if religion or political affiliation (which are choices and definitely NOT genetically based), or physical handicap (which is not necessarily genetically based) can be legally protected choices/classes, then it makes no sense to exclude sexual identity/attraction, which seems to be at least partially genetically based.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Reading your post, I see that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on, but I both agree and disagree with you on this point. It doesn't make sense (to me) to assume that there is one and only one path to the development of sexual identity/attraction, and there is a large variety of research that is identifying the genetic basis for sexuality. But yes, sexual identiy/attraction is based on exposure to outside influences and experiences AND how a person's genetic endowment gets exposed to them. Most children, of course, grow up to be heterosexual. But I have also seen children who showed evidence of same-sex attraction as pre-adolescents, and who grew up on the express track to being adult homosexuals.

Then there are people who are born intersex, and children who identify as the opposite sex. I've also seen one particular instance of a child who was born male, but who from a very early age identified as female. He is just hitting adolescence now, so I guess we'll know pretty soon which way things are going to go. You're right though, that some people move from one side to the other of the sexual attraction spectrum during the course of their lives (and some people move back and forth).

Ultimately, I think that social influences hold a lot more people back from expressing their innate sexual identity than push people into one of the less numerically frequent categories. Sexuality as social fad just doesn't ring true to me.

Either way, if religion or political affiliation (which are choices and definitely NOT genetically based), or physical handicap (which is not necessarily genetically based) can be legally protected choices, then it makes no sense to exclude sexual identity/attraction, which seems to be at least partially genetically based.

The United States penal system would disagree with you.

There are a lot of people who go into prison having never been attracted to the same sex and end up having a lot of (consensual) sex with people of their own gender... Some never do it again when they get out, while others are changed for life.

The same could be said about the military (especially in times past).

That's circumstantial, not genetic. And it happens all the time.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Underdog

The United States penal system would disagree with you.

There are a lot of people who go into prison having never been attracted to the same sex and end up having a lot of (consensual) sex with people of their own gender... Some never do it again when they get out, while others are changed for life.

The same could be said about the military (especially in times past).

That's circumstantial, not genetic. And it happens all the time.

Yeah, but that's the point-- circumstantial is one of several possibilities, not the ONLY possibility.