Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

You're half right: bigotry is indeed an inner state, not a behavior; persecution and other discriminatory acts are behavior.I am astonished that you will not defend your premise that only biologically determined characteristics should be protected by law, preferring to claim the question is an attempt to "box you in".But you have boxed yourself. Without that premise, your argument is nonsense.I find some religious tenets abhorrent: may I refuse service to anyone I suspect of embracing them? No, the equivalent would be refusing to serve salads to vegetarians because they won't eat the meat. One frequently hears that a chorus of condemnation is an affront to free speech rights. That's as ridiculous as your attempt to allocate equal treatment under the law on biologic grounds.It is also typically the complaint of bigots.

Nope. A PUBLIC bakery discriminated against a couple based on the bigoted beliefs of the owner.

quote:

---

Which is odd, since its purely a mental state brought on by environment and chemical reinforcement, which can be reversed.

---

Like religion. I'm glad you can see how it is now time to sweep away all the false religions protected by law and force everyone to convert to the true faith and worship the king of kings, lord of lords, Odin the Allfather.

There have been enough misunderstandings all the way around. Faith spoke in general at first then became more specific as the misunderstanding came forth.We all know Faith. We should know she did not mean that a homosexual is incapable of reproducing by heterosexual means. Some chose to ignore this for reasons of their own. No, and I don't believe Faith thought so either. I think she misunderstood what Pressie was saying in response to lokiare.

People who have sickle cell anemia are immune or resistant to malaria a wide spread disease in some areas. There is a reason it persisted. There is no reason for homosexuality (if it were genetic) to persist. I already addressed this in a post above. My example is that every restaurant is forced to serve vegetarian options on their menus. Is that protected under the law? Because that's what homosexuals are pushing for. Ah the Ad hominem fallacy, where a source of information is defamed rather than the information provided.

And you continue the misunderstanding. So be it.

Well my religion says that i cannot do business with black people, and now i can be sued, Nazis tried to make them white with blue eyes and the world condemned such experiments and prosecuted the scientists.

No. The equivalent would be to put up a sign that says "Will Not Serve Christians" since your religion is a choice. That is the agreement you make with our democratic society when you open a business that is open to the public. If you don't want to cater to homosexuals, then don't run a business that would require you to cater to homosexuals. It's not as if government agents are showing up to your home and forcing you serve homosexuals in your home. Tell you what. Go find Jesse Jackson who worked with Martin Luther King, Jr. Tell him your story, and then ask him how your story compares to the persecution that blacks suffered in the South during the Civil Rights movement. Don't be surprised if he laughs at you . . . for a long time.

Perhaps you could produce the evidence for this claim? False. Vegetarians can order anything off the menu, just like anyone else. There is no discrimination. If it were comparable, you would not let vegetarians enter your restaurant.

Actually relatives helping others in their families in social animals is seen whether the animals in question are gay or not. So this proposition doesn't even stand up to basic logic (are there other equally likely reasons that this could happen?). There is no genetic advantage to this that wouldn't be eclipsed by a heterosexual creature that helps take care of relatives young as well as its own. Thus being more likely to spread their genetic code to the next generation.Also even if that were true, it doesn't follow unless the creature in question passes its genes on to another generation. If it doesn't, then it would still get weeded out.In order for natural selection to work, the gene has to be passed on, homosexual animals don't pass on genes. Uh no. There could just be similar unnatural reasons why both animal and humans have homosexuals within their ranks. Has anyone done studies on serotonin imbalances in animals that show that homosexuality in animals is driven by an imbalance? Why yes they have. So there is one similarity right there.Unless of course evolution is false, then there is no need to have an advantage, but assuming for the moment that evolution is fact (instead of a loosely put together theory that has been proven false over and over) what advantage would there be that wouldn't be eclipsed by other advantages that a heterosexual social animal brings to the table? I have yet to see a valid answer to this. I haven't reviewed your links. I will do so after I get done responding to what you've posted, if you properly summarized them, though it doesn't do much for the homosexual cause.

Nope, the question applied just to you. So is this:Do you remember when you chose to be heterosexual? Or did you always know? This is one of the most pernicious lies going around.You can make people hide their homosexuality by persecuting them, that is not a cure, it is going back to the dark ages.There is also no social reason for homosexuality to be "cured" when the alternative is to just recognize the various orientations within the human population. They are natural, they occur in other animals as well, there is no rational reason for discrimination.

OK show me where i misunderstand. Look at the OP, look at Faiths statements. Show me what I am misunderstanding.

Do you have some references to back up the 1000 year claim? Short of the few years in medieval times and the Muslim people's practices, I was under the impression from early times that homosexuality was accepted along side everything else as just an oddity. Can you show me any studies at all that have been done that haven't been later disproven that show some genes that have anything to do with homosexuality? From my own research I haven't been able to find a single source that proves homosexuality is genetic in any way. Merely environmental and reversible at that.

I can speak from personal experience.

It is a choice, not an easy choice. Many homosexuals are caused by sexual abuse as children (as the studies I linked show). The choice may not have been the individuals, but it was a choice. Many homosexuals voluntarily rid themselves of homosexuality through various therapies which indicates anyone can choose to change from homosexual to heterosexual.When I say its a choice, I don't mean its 'vanilla vs. chocolate' choice, I mean its a 'heroin addiction vs. being clean' choice. Being brought on by environmental factors (such as sexual abuse, parenting, or chemical imbalanced in the brain) and reinforced by brain chemistry means unless its caught early, it might be a difficult choice to change.