Please - Some Impartial Advice Needed

Its one thing to accept homosexuality. Its another thing altogether to renounce heterosexuality in the process.I'm going to pulverize the obvious here... Without heterosexuals, there would be no homosexuals. 'Nuff said.

A well-written reply for Taylor.Oh, and welcome back. You were missed-- alot by your contemporaries, but mostly by your detractors.

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

quote:

---

I'm going to pulverize the obvious here... Without heterosexuals, there would be no homosexuals. 'Nuff said.

---

That you are such an ardent supporter of the ToE, which could be extended further to unguided naturalism in its purest form, coupled with the fact that you support, in essence, test tube babies or homosexuals defying their "natural" sexual proclivitites, reeks of the unnatural.So why do offer naturalism as the blanket answer for everything, only to turn it around on itself when it comes to an agenda you support? Natural selection is usually the ad hoc explanation for anything that appears teleological for an evolutionist. If it seems to have some sort of purpose or order to it, the commonly held belief among evolutionists is that through trial and error, nature will find the most efficient way of doing things. What you have just described is the most inefficient, unnatural way of doing things. Can you explain why you are going against the grain?Tell me what percentage of the population has been born of one parent who was a heterosexual, and the other a homosexual, for me to even entertain the notion. You say that me pointing out the obvious, that heterosexuality produces offspring, while homosexuality does not, is somehow a strawman, yet, you offer the world's largest scarecrow in your retort.If homosexuality was selected by nature, then for what? What advantageous quality would it be to give a creature the desire to copulate with members of its own sex, but still allow for it to go against its own nature to produce offspring?

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

I've never said that homosexuality is just like beastiality.I could say, however, that both are instances of sexual immorality, but, if you are a non-believer, saying that will be largely ineffectual.I could say that both are aberrant. But first I would need to know what your beliefs are concerning nature.

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

quote:

---

If homosexuality was selected by nature, then for what?

---

That doesn't answer the question. I'm not in the habit of reading bare links. Not only is it a bad idea while using government computers, but its also frowned upon at EvC because deferring one's position soley to "expert testimony," is a weak argument. Actually, its not even an argument.But I know what the gist is and I'd like to address that. You are essentially saying that homosexual unions have been seen in nature, and therefore, it must be natural.Well, I have seen dogs that hump other male dogs. This might be fascinating if it weren't for the fact that I've also seen them humping a pair of shoes.Likewise, I had three male cats. When one of the cats, (incidently, the only one of them who still had a pair of testicles), would attempt to copulate with other male cats. Consequently, that was his only option. Kind of like looking at the sexual sociology of inmates, who, if they weren't incarcerated, refer to themselves as heterosexuals. So, does that prove that the cat was a homosexual, or does it prove that he was sexual?Lastly, in all of this research, what kind of comparisons or parallels can be drawn from animal sexuality and human sexuality? I only ask because the same people that get upset at drawing parallels between beastiality and homosexuality are often the same people that have no qualms drawing parallels between animal sexuality and human sexuality.

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

quote:

---

Its one thing to accept homosexuality. Its another thing altogether to renounce heterosexuality in the process.

​

I'm going to pulverize the obvious here... Without heterosexuals, there would be no homosexuals. 'Nuff said.

---

You have it backwards. I want all people to be happy. Do you know what another word is for happy?.... No, I don't mean gay. I mean, blessedWhen Jesus gave His sermon on the mount, He gave a discourse commonly referred to as, the Beatitudes, where He said blessed is this, blessed is that, blessed are those, blessed are they... The point is that those blessings are conditional, as are most things. He is saying, in essence, "if you want to be happy, do this."I want all people to be happy. I suspect that you know that, but that you find it easier to disagree with someone when you detest them. But what kind of person would I be if I were to acquiesce from something simply to appease them? That doesn't help, that hinders. Clarify your position for me, please. You believe heterosexuality is a disease, of which you are currently afflicted?

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

Which is why I was wondering somebody had mentioned it. Its not an arbitrary law, Jar. But, I digress since we've been over this before. Ah, you have an unending supply of invectives Jar.

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

You're right. This thread is about Taylor. But, we have quite a few threads in the EvC archives that we could possibly resurrect from the dead.

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

quote:

---

I've never said that homosexuality is just like beastiality.

---

I didn't see that at as a comparison, save that they are both classified as sexual immoral.The use of something like beastiality is primarily to show that if one thing is tolerated, why not another, or another, or another?

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

There are only so many things that one could copulate with. Besides, if the analogy were so utterly and completely different, then it would also be useless to compare animal sexuality to human sexuality! In which case, it would completely undermine the point of bringing up "research" that shows that animals have homosexual unions. Animals don't give consent in the wild either. Ever see bulls and cows mate? Or alley cats? Its not consentual. Its tantmount to rape-- only, you can't call it rape because animals don't have a sense of morality, whereas, humans do.Secondly, there was a thread started the other day by Cavediver about how ass backwards US law is concerning a man who had sex with a consenting 17 year old. If we are going to go tit for tat, then the letter of the law applies.And if the letter of the law applies, then we have to determine why there are laws at all. It comes from a moral framework. The main premise of Taylor's post was predicated on the notion of feelings, right? He "feels" gay, so he is questioning whether he is gay. Most homosexuals have declared something to the affect of, "I've always known I was gay. I felt it at a very early age."That somehow is used to show how its a natural thing. But somehow, if someone said, "I've always been attracted to goats, ever since I was a young shepherd," the same reasoning isn't extended. Why is that?Or if someone said, "I've always been attracted to young boys," it immediately is cancelled out when they come of age. While they can still "feel" the attraction, the law says they can't act upon those feelings.So, what is the difference? Aren't you being just as intollerant as you claim others are?That is why the argument is made. Its to show that feelings do not substantiate or unsubstantiate something alone.We all "feel" angry at times. Some of us, to the point of violence. How is it going to go over in front of the judge when you tell them that you bludgeoned a man to death because he made you angry? In other words, does the feeling justify the action?No one is comparing homosexuals to proponents of beastiality. No one is saying that if you engage in homosexuality that you are the same as a pedophile, or a zoophile, or what have you. Its used to show that feelings do not encapsulate who are. And, in fact, its a caveat against the foolishly naivete notion of, "follow your heart, and you can't go wrong!"I hope that made more sense.

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

I was going to respond to you, but Wounded King brought up a good point that continuing in that vein would lead us Off Topic. Sure, resurrect one of the more applicable threads and follow suit.

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

Sen. John Kerry says that he is personally against abortion, but believes that the choice should remain personal to the woman.Does that mean that Kerry is against abortion?If we are going by your rationale, then Kerry is no different from Rat here.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it it difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

I think you misunderstood me.Nator said to Rat that even though he is personally against homosexual unions, but would not interfere with them in anyway, its still him not liking homosexuality.So I'm asking if that same rationale applies to Sen. Kerry when it comes to abortion. I seem to understand him fine. And I disagree with his position. By "not getting involved," you are basically condoning the action you claim to be against. At the same time, it doesn't always have to be all or none. For instance, I think everyone should come to God. Does that mean that I want theocracy that forces people to worship in vain, much like a Taliban regime? Absolutely not. Isn't he entitled to his opinion just like you reserve the right for that to piss you off? Afterall, isn't that what right and wrong boils down to in a relativistic outlook? Taz, you seem to think that opposing something somehow equal hatred... I'm not a pagan, friend. I can oppose something and not hate a thing. If you viewed it in the same terms as you see any other behavior of ill repute, you might better understand why he sees it as he does. Then why not keep your mouth shut when Rat expresses his opinion? I happen to feel the unproductive and unhealthy stance would be allowing impressionable youth to engage in destructive behavior simply because it might hurt their feelings.You know, my son sometimes tries to touch the stove. I impress upon him the notion that it is dangerous because I care for his well being. Its the same with anything else, including this topic. I would be an enemy of that person if I didn't tell them my honset opinion on the matter.That said, there is certainly productive ways of handling it. Thus far, has anyone that disagrees with homosexuality bashed Taylor over the head and called him all sorts of derogatory names? Certainly not. I think you're overly sensitive. If you want to survive in this world I think you are going to have to develop some thicker skin. There are all sorts of things that people don't like about me, and I about them. Does that mean my parents hate my everlovin' guts because I broke something of theirs when I was a child? Becasue breaking that object was wrong, and I broke it, must it mean that they hate.I hope not.Why must everything be so extreme with you? Why must I have to hate a homosexual simply because I don't agree with homosexuality? Does that mean that hate all murderers because they have murdered?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Then take it up with Nator.I wonder, though, if you'd have the same outlook when it comes to murder."I'm personaly against murder, but damn it, we shouldn't stop people from doing it if they want to!" Then what's the problem you have with Rat? Please substantiate your claim? Obviously, those that oppose it believe that it isn't an inherit disposition. No one could be blamed for the color of their skin. But people do choose whom they sleep with.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Neither does sexuality. My sexuality does not encapsulate who I am as a person. Maybe he is being genuine. He told you flat out that he disagrees with homosexuality, but feels that by trying to push legislation against homosexual marriage is counterproductive. How on earth does that somehow mean that he hates homosexuals? Yes, it does. Let me give you an example. The OKC bombing was a horrible thing, yet, I don't hate Timothy McVeigh, or bin Laden, or Hussein.Jesus instructed me to love even my enemies, and that's what I intend to do.You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

​

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. -Matthew 5:43-48 Taz, I'm not comparing homosexuals to anything else. I'm using analogies to help you understand where I'm coming from.(1) Opinions that matter and (2) opinions that don't matter. I realized a long time ago that I could do more harm than not if I share my opinions that matter, because while it's my opinion the matter is still up for debate and I could be wrong. On the other hand, there are opinions that don't matter, like my often shared opinion against democracy... people are more likely to pass it off as a rant of a lunatic than take it seriously.[/qs]This is a webforum where the whole idea is spitballing ideas. But if you really want to go by your own advice, then what makes this topic important enough to discuss? Isn't that what we're doing? Look, Taylor asked for advice. He has gotten plenty of it. He has both sides of the story. Yeah, exactly, so I don't want him getting a lopsided view. Explain to me why my opinion is different from yours? That's fine. You won't see me crying foul ball when somebody asks for an objective opinion on the matter and you chime in. You are trying to silence me, while telling your version of events to Taylor with a megaphone. Taz, nobody hates Taylor, m'kay. You've imagined this all in your mind to justify yourself. We all see that he is a confused boy who has asked for some guidance. We all are trying to help him forge his path by giving him the advice that he requested. I'm not here to make Taylor feel all warm and squishy inside, or tell him exactly what he wants to hear. I'm here to offer an answer to his questions. He's not picking on anyone! He's giving the advice that Taylor requested. And he is giving his opinion, just as you are giving YOUR OPINION! Just in case you were wondering, you don't own the title to opinions. Thanks. Is that why you hate me?Anyway, the rest of your post was inane, so I don't feel it warrants a response.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton