The Chick-Fil-A controversy

[GreenMachine]

Why? What is the first guys opinion on the matter?

[UNTLifer]

UNTstormchaser, you are making statements typical of "The Left" that baffle me. You preach tolerance and understanding but call those that don't share your POV intolerant or label their beliefs misguided or silly. That is my problem with your argument and what gets me fires up. Atheist and other non-Christians are always so quick to criticize our beliefs and to tell us the real meaning of the Bible and that we are intolerant yet they are not practicing what they preach.

Comparing race issues to lifestyle issues is apples to oranges and patting your back over how right your opinions are while ridiculing other's won't win many friends and hamstrings your points.

As for CFA, keep closing on Sundays, treating and serving everyone equally and respectfully and standing up for your beliefs. As for those that want to make a stand, go for it but you better walk to your protest site. Ever researched what the leaders of OPEC believe and support and their level of tolerance for those that don't share their views?

[forevereagle]

And, although I think +/- is a silly thing, to make a quick point, there is a reason all of my comments have many +'s. I'm being incredibly fair, reasonable, and coherent. If you find that to be annoying bickering, then fine. But I do not.

Careful you don't pull something patting yourself on the back.

[UNTstormchaser]

UNTstormchaser, you are making statements typical of "The Left" that baffle me. You preach tolerance and understanding but call those that don't share your POV intolerant or label their beliefs misguided or silly. That is my problem with your argument and what gets me fires up. Atheist and other non-Christians are always so quick to criticize our beliefs and to tell us the real meaning of the Bible and that we are intolerant yet they are not practicing what they preach.

Comparing race issues to lifestyle issues is apples to oranges and patting your back over how right your opinions are while ridiculing other's won't win many friends and hamstrings your points.

As for CFA, keep closing on Sundays, treating and serving everyone equally and respectfully and standing up for your beliefs. As for those that want to make a stand, go for it but you better walk to your protest site. Ever researched what the leaders of OPEC believe and support and their level of tolerance for those that don't share their views?

Really? It would be apples and oranges if I was comparing race and a true lifestyle issue, such as political affiliation, housing preferences, clothing preferences, musical preferences, career and money issues, whatever. Being gay is nothing like any of those. It isn't a lifestyle, it isn't a subculture (although admittedly many gays choose to live a certain way, but not all do). I don't know why you're turning this into a left vs. right thing, or a atheist vs. Christian thing. My point in bringing up Christianity and the bible is saying that one cannot legislate their religion, which is fact. I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe, and neither one of us can legislate our beliefs. If it were up to me, God would be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. But that's MY opinion, and I cannot legislate that. The point I am attempting to make here is not that I want my views to be law. I don't want that at all. I am trying to make the point that we need to have equal rights for all, and currently that isn't the case when it comes to gays.

Being gay is not a choice, that is a fact. There is no other evidence needed for that other than this: 10% of men are gay. That's all the evidence necessary, you know why? Because 10% of the world's male population would not choose to change their natural sexual orientation to live a life in which they are talked down upon, and don't have equal rights. My gay uncle has said he wished he was straight, because his life would be a lot easier. But he isn't, and that can't change. Whether or not it's genetic, or happens sometime during childhood development, is beyond me. No one knows which it is for sure. But, that's irrelevant. The point is that, as a nation where we say that everyone has the same inalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), we cannot deny gays the right to get married. This isn't a lifestyle choice; sexual orientation is as much a part of who a person is as the color of their skin is. Due to this, we cannot deny them the right to get married. Denying them marriage is infringing on their freedom, or liberty. It also blocks their pursuit of happiness. I really don't understand why this is such a controversial issue, it's so freaking basic that it's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with left or right. It has nothing to do with Christian or Muslim or atheist. It has to do with inalienable rights, and simple logic.

I'm going to now defend myself a bit here. I preach tolerance and understanding, you are correct. I preach that for all people. That is where I call others out. If you don't share the vision of all people having the same rights and everyone getting along, regardless of religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, height, weight, hair color, whatever, then you are intolerant to whatever type of person it is that you don't want rights for. Again, simple logic. A person who does not tolerate another person due to things that they either are born with, cannot change, or that does not effect the judging person in any way, shape, or form, is not tolerant towards that person. This isn't even 1+1=2 in logic factor. This is literally 1=1. I'm not saying tolerate murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc., because those people harm others and effect people in a negative way. If someone wants to dye their hair the colors of the rainbow, what's wrong with that? It's a bit taboo, but why judge? It doesn't effect you at all. If you men or women want to get married because they love each other, and they want the same rights that straight couples have, what is wrong with that? It does not effect you or your life at all in any way, so why does it matter to you? I really do not comprehend how people fail to understand this logic. I reiterate, this has nothing to do with religion, nor politics. It is simple freaking logic.

I have said countless times now due to the fact that people cannot read, and see me defending gays and immediately go into "attack the commie" mode, I support the rights of all people. I disagree with Christianity, that doesn't mean that I want it to be outlawed. As a nation we need to understand that people differ than each other, and there are going to be countless amounts of opinions, thoughts, etc., on every subject. That doesn't make one right or wrong, they're opinions. But it isn't an opinion that gay marriage should be legal in our country. It is fact found through logically looking at the inalienable rights that every citizen of our country has, and by looking at our constitution. If you don't want this country should legalize gay marriage due to your own personal reasons, or you think that it should due to your own personal reasons, those are opinions. There is a major difference there. I think that Jerry Sandusky should be tortured like we did to suspected terrorists at Guantanamo. That's an opinion. But, I know that that isn't going to happen due to our laws, and I believe that under our laws that it should not happen. If someone thinks that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, again because of their personal beliefs and morals, then fine. But they should also know that because of the fact that we have inalienable rights and because of the things in our constitution, namely freedom of religion, that it should be legal. They can have the opinion that it shouldn't, and they may believe that we should change our laws, constitution, and rights, to exclude gays, but until that happens, they should understand that it should be legal.

Also, as a quick side story, to show you how this issue should have little to do with religion and politics, one of my best friends is hardcore Christian. Incredibly hardcore Christian. He's also a right leaning, gun loving, libertarian. He supports legalizing gay marriage. Not because he agrees with it (he doesn't), not because he wants to partake in it (he doesn't), but because we can't keep infringe on the rights of gays, regardless of the reason that they are gay. Everyone has the freedom to live how they choose, and as long as it doesn't harm others, it should be fine. That's basically his logic to it. And you know what? That's why he's one of my best friends. We may have major differences when it comes to religion, politics, and social issues, but he actually uses the brain he has and thinks logically. That is literally all that needs to be done here.

Finally, I completely support CFA in being closed on Sunday's and believing what they want. As I said, what he said wasn't even an issue, or even remotely bad. People overreacted totally. But what he said did something important. It brought the fact that CFA donates millions of dollars to organizations whose primary purpose is to legislate Christianity, mostly banning gay marriage and abortion, to national attention. Most people nationwide did not know this, and that is what got people the most upset. I had already known this, it wasn't news to me, so I didn't give a damn about the whole fiasco, and I continue not to. I support the people's right to protest against CFA in any way and their right to stand up for what they feel is morally right. And I support the supporter's of CFA and their right to protest and stand up for what they believe is morally right. So, don't throw political and anti-religion labels on me. Be angry at me for being logical and for knowing more about the bible and Christianity than most Christians if you want to. But don't imply that I'm some liberal extremist who wants only my opinions to be tolerated. Get to know a few of us, we're a lot more tolerant and intelligent than you may think.

Edited July 29, 2012 by UNTstormchaser

[UNTstormchaser]

Careful you don't pull something patting yourself on the back.

I've got a TMish wingspan, so I can reach pretty easily. But thanks for the concern fellow Mean Green fan.

[UNTstormchaser]

Pandering for a pandering to not get a -1, equals a -4

Well played...

[Andrew]

Lol who is this guy

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

That doesn't make any sense. It isn't ANYONE'S job, including the states. If gays don't have the right, due to the state they live in, then they need to fight for the right. It wasn't the states right to play moral cop back when racism was the issue either. There is a reason the federal government made it impossible for the states to play moral cop when it comes to outlawing interracial marriage and preventing blacks from voting. The same logic applies here. There is no reason other than religion that someone would want to outlaw gay marriage. Due to that, it cannot be outlawed, because religion cannot be legislated.

Easy.

No. There are non-Christians who understand science and, therefore, oppose gay marriage as well.

When you study anatomy and physiology, you discover that the purpose of the anus is not sexual. It is part of the digestive system. It's the final stop in expelling waste. In short, its natural function is as an exit for that which the body has no use for, and not for stuff things into.

The anus isn't a sexual organ. Hence, diseases and other problems arise from tearing the rectal wall from its misuse.

When you study biology, you discover that the way humans procreate is an egg from a female of the specie, and sperm from the male. There is no other way man could have evolved and continued reproducing.

Two men, alone, cannot procreate another human. They have to have an egg donor. For two women, they must have a sperm donor, because they cannot procreate with two eggs alone.

We can wonder why a man and a woman who marry and stay monogamous do not get venereal diseases and HIV/AIDS. Or, we can simply accept the truth: because they are not misusing their bodies sexually, they will not get those diseases.

We can wonder why a man and a woman are able to procreate and reproduce. Or, we can simply accept the truth: in order to reproduce, you must have the egg of a woman and the sperm of a man.

We are talking about what is natural scientifically. If it was natural to the body to accept abuse of the anus, there would not be the plethora of warnings to homosexual men about diseases. If it were natural to the body to allow procreation between two men alone or two women alone, then reproduction would occur between same sex couple without egg or sperm donors.

Gay activists choose to ignore science altogether. They live in a cocoon, denying that HIV/AIDS is still a problem almost exclusive to their community. The cure for HIV/AIDS has been and always will be abstaining from homosexual sex.

The easiest target for gay activists is Christians because Christians cite the Bible truthfully. However, Bible or no Bibe, God or no God, homosexual sex goes against the sciences of, at minimum, physiology and biology.

Those who are truthful about what the Bible says about homosexuality oppose gay marriage. Those who scientifically understand the health risk attributed to homosexual sex oppose gay marriage.

For me, it's good enough to be able to live with my eyes wide open. I see that people leading the lifestyle that Chik-Fil-A's CEO leads are not plagued with diseases wrought by their own sexual behavior.

By contrast, I see that people leading the gay lifestyle have to deal with those sexual disease issues as well as the financial and psychological fallout from them...as well as costing the health care system billions and causing R&D in the pharmaceutical industry to divert time and money away from tragic diseases that do not arise from behavioral choices.

Edited July 29, 2012 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[UNTLifer]

Nope, you made it a Christian vs. Atheist argument when you stated you were Atheist and you opinions were fair, educated...and others that didn't share your POV were not.

[CaribbeanGreen]

When you study anatomy and physiology, you discover that the purpose of the anus is not sexual. It is part of the digestive system. It's the final stop in expelling waste. In short, its natural function is as an exit for that which the body has no use for, and not for stuff things into.

The anus isn't a sexual organ. Hence, diseases and other problems arise from tearing the rectal wall from its misuse.

These words appearing - on topic, no less - on GMG has made every argument, every insult, and every -1 along the way worth it.

Oh, and if next year's football poster slogan isn't "TEARING THE RECTAL WALL", we've learned nothing.

[UNTLifer]

Also, bases upon your statement that homosexuality is not a choice because why would they choose a lifestyle that is difficult in so many ways. Then is drug addiction, being a criminal, driving drunk, being an alcoholic genetic also? Wouldn't it be much easier on these people to not be this way, so why do they make the choice to do these things or live that lifestyle since their are social stigmas attached to these?

[CMJ]

Also, bases upon your statement that homosexuality is not a choice because why would they choose a lifestyle that is difficult in so many ways. Then is drug addiction, being a criminal, driving drunk, being an alcoholic genetic also? Wouldn't it be much easier on these people to not be this way, so why do they make the choice to do these things or live that lifestyle since their are social stigmas attached to these?

Genetics definitely play a role in alcoholism. There's a reason why American Indians can't drink alcohol. Genetics predisposes you to certain kinds of things, like alcoholism. Now, it doesn't make you drink that first time -- but once you do it plays a huge role.

I have seen studies that show based on brain chemistry, certain people are more likely to exhibit sociopathic behavior. There was a segment on this one of the latest Into the Wormhole episodes on the Science Channel actually.

[UNTstormchaser]

Nope, you made it a Christian vs. Atheist argument when you stated you were Atheist and you opinions were fair, educated...and others that didn't share your POV were not.

I don't believe I put it so bluntly, nor even attempted to imply that, but if that's what you took anything I said as, then fair enough, and I apologize.

Also, bases upon your statement that homosexuality is not a choice because why would they choose a lifestyle that is difficult in so many ways. Then is drug addiction, being a criminal, driving drunk, being an alcoholic genetic also? Wouldn't it be much easier on these people to not be this way, so why do they make the choice to do these things or live that lifestyle since their are social stigmas attached to these?

I had about 500 words typed out just about the drug addiction part and then lost everything I wrote. I am pretty peeved about that, but I'll start over again. I'm going to go one by one to break this down for you, as I cannot believe you are really making those comparisons. I don't mean to offend you, but those are possibly some of the most unintelligent and ignorant comparisons I've ever come across. But, I digress. Here we go.

1. Drug addiction: I'm pretty pissed that I lost everything I wrote about this, as it took me about 25 minutes to type out, but here we go again. Let's start with the personality of a person, before they are addicted. Most psychologists believe that one of the most important parts of personality development is in early childhood, although the rest of childhood, the puberty stage, etc., have a lot to do with it as well. So, if you take your average 25 year old, he has about as much control over his personality as he does the color of his skin and eyes. The things that made him who he is personality-wise, all happened before he was consciously independent enough to do anything about it. And aside from that, a lot of very interesting research is being done with identical twins that were separated at birth, which shows that a lot of personality and interests may in fact be genetic. So, adding that thought in, it just reiterates the fact that one's personality is not really one's choice. Now, the reason I bring all this up about personality is because personality has a lot to do with addiction. Some people have very strong personalities, and do not stray from their views and no one can convince them to do anything. Others have weaker personalities, and are easily influenced by others. Most people are somewhere in the middle with that. Another interesting facet of personality is how some people seem to have addictive personalities, and others do not. Some people latch onto things and do not let go, they become obsessed with the things they like, and others do not do this at all. So, personality does have an effect on addiction, and that part is out of a person's control.

Moving onto the first time someone uses drugs, personality plays a big role. People with weaker personalities may falter due to peer pressure (ex. high school or college party), others may be experiencing a tough time in their life and resort to drugs to escape (usually this is someone who has used before in some capacity, be it alcohol, or a small time drug like marijuana, and this is their first time either drinking to excess to reduce stress or resorting to a stronger drug such as cocaine or heroine), others might do it because they think it's cool (ex. a couple of dumb teenagers stealing their parents medication or alcohol), or the person has grown bored with smaller time drugs that he has been using for recreational purposes (marijuana or alcohol) and is seeking a greater high. Depending on the drug, the person may be addicted from the first use or first few uses (heroine, meth, crack), it may take a decent amount of uses or more to get addicted (alcohol, caffeine [yes caffeine is a drug, and people actually die from it, although it is in a special "safer" category], cocaine, opiates/painkillers), the person may never become physically addicted because the drug does not cause physical addictions, but the drug becomes a psychological crutch for the person (marijuana, LSD/acid), or the person may die/completely lose their mind and eat people's faces (synthetic drugs such as bath salts, poorly made LSD, or an OD of almost any drug other than marijuana). There is a special case where the addiction is not the fault of the addict, or at least not the direct result of the person choosing to take drugs. This situation is actually what happened to my father. Over a period of 3 years, he had 4 major surgeries on his stomach area (he had a foot of his colon removed due to a precancerous tumor, 2 different hernias, had scar tissue block his bowels, lots of fun stuff), plus chronic back issues (herniated disks) and chronic knee issues (he actually needs a knee replacement now). Because of all of these problems, he was put on painkillers while he was in the hospital, and for while he was at home. Unfortunately, by the time he had healed enough to the point where he did not need them, he had developed an addiction. This is actually a very common situation that can happen to absolutely anyone, which is pretty terrible. Luckily, he's clean now, but it wasn't an easy road.

Once the person becomes an addict, the tables shift a bit. Personality does play a role, but not nearly as much of one. As much as people don't like to admit it, a drug addiction is an illness. But, it's a curable one, although it is very difficult to overcome. Addiction really is the perfect storm of two things. It would be hard enough to overcome the body and mind yearning for the drug, but throw in withdrawal symptoms and it becomes very easy to just continue the cycle. The mind of an addict is altered; often the person is not able to think as clearly as is necessary to realize they have a problem, but even if they do, it's so much easier to just continue using to prevent withdrawal symptoms. At this point, it's hardly a conscious decision to continue the path they're on. I've seen firsthand the mindset of someone struggling with addiction, and even with the people you love trying to get you help it isn't an easy thing to do. But, like I said, it is curable. People do get help, they get their addictions treated, and they are free from it. Many people stay clean forever after that, many do not for a plethora of reasons (usually they continue to surround themselves with the same people and get themselves into the same situations as before), but until they fall into using again, they are not addicted (there is an exception: alcoholism; I'm getting to that later). This is probably the biggest point I can make about why comparing drug addiction to homosexuality is both unintelligent and incredibly ignorant: people can overcome addiction, and it is a conscious choice to use drugs originally. While factors outside of a person's control may effect their likelihood to falling into a drug addiction, it is still a conscious choice to use, whereas being gay is not a conscious choice (whether or not it's genetic, a birth defect in brain chemistry and hormone production, or happens during early development, is unknown and irrelevant). So, ignorant comparison number one shot down. Let's move on. I'm going to ignore the fact that you're making an blanket statement by implying that all drug addicts (and homosexuals for that matter) are the same.

2. Being a criminal: Again, this is another ignorant blanket statement. All criminals are not the same; they commit different crimes for different reasons. The fact that you're also choosing to use criminals to compare to homosexuals also astounds me. Outside of the social stigma part (which is a stretch anyways), there is absolutely no relevancy whatsoever, but I'll humor you and respond. I assume you're referring to people that are career criminals, and/or people that commit heinous crimes. As the person above me pointed out, depending on brain chemistry (which is what causes personality essentially), a person may be more likely to exhibit sociopathic behavior. As I stated in the first part, personality has a lot to do with genetics and early childhood development and experiences. So, let's take your run-of-the-mill criminal, say he is a serial bank robber who also uses marijuana recreationally. Odds are, this person feels a major void in their life and mind. Robbing banks not only provides them with money, but with an intense thrill and adrenaline rush. This person has a weak personality most likely, and they could suffer from a number of mental illnesses (depression being the most obvious choice). Again, this is caused by genetics and his psychological development. Maybe this person feels this void in their life because they had an abusive father who walked out on the family at age 5, or something along those lines. He also could be a user of marijuana because it relaxes him after committing a robbery. Who knows? But, the point I am making here is that there could be any number of reasons why a person acts the way he does. That doesn't make this a relevant comparison however.

If you polled 5,000 current criminals (let's say thieves of any kind, rapists, dealers and users of hardcore drugs like heroine and meth, serial killers, and even some blue collar criminals that are committing crimes that have to do with money, like extortion), and you asked them if they gave a damn about the social stigma surrounding them, and if that was a deterrent at all, what do you think they would say? Sure there definitely is a social stigma surrounding people who break the law, but do you really think people that knowingly break laws that could send them to prison for years, really give a damn about the social stigma part of it? I'm not going to be that guy that throws out a percentage on a poll that doesn't exist, but just think about it. Their friends (if they have any) are criminals. They probably have cut themselves off from their family, or their family has no idea about their criminal behavior. If you actually think that the social stigma surrounding breaking the law is a deterrent for these types of people, when the actual law itself and the consequences are not a deterrent, then you might be certifiably insane. I doubt that you actually think that they care though, you just resorted to throwing out a random life-raft to try to save your argument. I understand.

Now, there are a couple other major flaws in comparing homosexuality to being a criminal. For one, most criminals negatively effect other people. This is why they are in trouble with the law, and are being punished for what they have done. Killing someone, raping someone, robbing someone, using a hardcore drug, etc., all do or have the potential to harm other people in some way. Two men or two women getting married do not do this. The other fundamental flaw in your argument is that, sometimes, criminals can be reformed. The United States Penal system is not built to reform, as they would like to tell us it is; it is built to punish, and protect mainstream society from psychopaths. But, there are examples of people having such a terrible experience in prison that they completely change their lives on the outside. Others find God while in prison, and dedicate their lives to being a wholesome religious person after they get out. But, this all depends on personality, and one's experience in prison. A lot of people that get thrown in prison for small time crimes (marijuana possession for example) end up a lot worse off after their sentence, and continue committing crimes and spend their lives going in and out of prison. Others are borderline mentally retarded, grew up in the hood, and despite attempts at reform from a young age, end up spending the majority of their lives playing the prison game. It really does vary and depend on a lot of factors, but occasionally people's lives are changed for the better. This usually happens at a younger age (below 18-21, depending on when the crime was committed and state laws) when punishment is based a lot more on reform than making people pay from their crimes. And sometimes, people serve one prison sentence and then change their lives, as I said above. People can be reformed from their criminal ways, whereas gays, again, cannot be turned straight.

3. Drunk driving: This is probably the one I am most astounded you put. This isn't even remotely close to being a lifestyle, a way one lives, the type of person one is, etc. This is an action, a stupid one indeed, but it is an action. Now, some people that drive drunk legitimately have an alcohol issue, and they end up with multiple DUI's. There was actually a person near where I currently live who just got busted for his 5th DUI. How a person is not in prison before this point is beyond me. But, despite the fact that he had 4 previous DUI's and a suspended license, he got behind the wheel of a car while ridiculously intoxicated and got busted. He is now in prison, thankfully. Clearly, he is someone who has serious alcohol issues and needs major help. A lot of good, intelligent people get DUI's, or drive drunk without getting caught, and it is just a really stupid mistake. At 19 years old, I can say that I drove under the influence one time (I wasn't ridiculously drunk or anything, but above the legal limit for 21 year olds most likely, definitely above the legal limit in RI for people under 21, which I believe is like .015 or something, in case of something like alcohol based mouthwash showing up on a reading as a minuscule amount), and it was a major mistake. Luckily, I was 3 minutes from home, but it was still a risk I don't ever want to take again. In your 46 years, if you can honestly say that you have never driven drunk, then that is remarkable and I commend you. But, this isn't even remotely close to being something one can compare to being to being gay. This is beyond apples to oranges, this is like comparing snow to elephants.

4. Alcoholism: I am responding to this separately from drug addiction because there are a couple of subtle differences. One, alcoholism is a recognized disease and is a very well known disease in the mainstream world, whereas addiction to heroine is really not as much of a widespread issue. Secondly, although someone can be clean from alcohol, it is recognized as fact that this is an addiction that never completely dies, similar to the way cigarette addiction works. This is probably the best comparison out of the four that you made, but I'm going to be honest, it's still pretty terrible. They still have very little in common other than a negative social stigma and the fact that one does not choose whether or not they are susceptible to becoming an alcoholic. If necessary, for a reference re-read everything I said about personality in the first part, because I am not about to type it out again, and it absolutely still applies here. Now, alcoholism is interesting, because alcohol is legal, and very easily attained. This makes being addicted much more convenient, as you don't have to illegally buy drugs or find a doctor to prescribe pills for you that you do not need, so keep in mind the ease of attainment and near guarantee of supply. Now, one's personality and genetics are very much a part of how susceptible they are to becoming an alcoholic. There is strong evidence to suggest that alcoholism can run in families, so family history is a strong indicator of how one may react to alcohol. And personality can play a crucial role in whether or not one drinks alcohol at all, how early in life they do it, and how they react to it. Someone with a weak personality and low self esteem may start drinking at an early age due to peer pressure. An addictive personality may cause someone to want to drink a lot, before they are actually addicted. A lot of alcoholics started drinking at a young age (college, high school, or even earlier sometimes, I remember watching a show documenting how some 12 year olds were drinking, and their parents reaction to it...pretty interesting), when alcohol is more sport than it is a beverage. Things like binge drinking often cause addictions that last a life time, not to mention how incredibly dangerous drinking to ridiculous excess can be. Due to it's illegality to minors, they view it as a mystery and curiosity, and it makes them want to try it. If you have kids, I'm sure you understand that when you tell a kid that they can't do something, or have something, it makes them want it more. It's human nature, but it is very easy to spot this characteristic when people are young. This is why kids are a lot more responsible with alcohol in European nations, as it isn't illegal, and a lot of them grew up drinking wine with dinner. But, alcohol plays a very important role in teenage and college-age subculture in America, because of the view that people place on it. It's fun, it makes you social, it makes you more attractive, blah blah blah, etc., etc. Because of this, many younger people drink before the legal age, and drink to excess, when their brains are not developed enough to handle it. There is evidence to suggest that this is why people that drink at a young age are more susceptible to becoming an alcoholic. But, enough about the beginning of an alcoholic, why people begin drinking, why kids drink, etc.

As I said, alcoholism is a disease. There are many factors that play into whether or not someone is more or less likely to get addicted and become an alcoholic. So, in a way, your comparison is at least somewhat valid. Homosexuality isn't a choice, and whether or not someone is more or less likely to become an alcoholic isn't a choice. But, there's a key difference. Homosexuality isn't a disease, and gay feelings are not a drug. Alcoholism is a disease, and alcohol is a drug. That's just simple fact. Another point of difference is how drinking alcohol may cause alcoholism. To put this same logic towards homosexuality doesn't make sense, as gay feelings do not cause homosexuality, rather, if anything, it's the opposite, but it cannot be a valid comparison as alcoholism and homosexuality are the things we are comparing, not alcoholism and gay feelings. I'm trying not to get too off topic here, so I'm going back to alcoholism being a disease. Once a person is an alcoholic, regardless of how it started, regardless of when it started, regardless of the type of alcoholic they are, they are an alcoholic. That is all it is, and it needs to be addressed as nothing more than that. I don't know the medical definition of alcoholism off of the top of my head, but let's just say generally that alcoholism is a physical and mental addiction to alcohol, where if the person were to stop drinking completely for a period of time, they would suffer withdrawal symptoms, and not be able to function properly. In this respect, alcoholism is like every other drug addiction. Treatment is necessary to break the addiction. I went through this with my father as well, a couple of years ago. Again, it's very difficult to break, just like the other addictions. But the big difference is here that one cannot be cured of alcoholism. You may break the addiction, but drinking again in the future is dangerous. It's very easy to fall down the same path again. Some can avoid it despite the temptations, others cannot. Again, that has to do with personality and genetics, something out of a person's control. As for the social stigma part, most alcoholics do not realize that they are, until it is too late to change anything on their own. By this point, even if they do give a damn about the social stigma (which most don't, trust me), it isn't going to deter them from drinking. So, poor comparison yet again.

I think in conclusion of all of this, you made a poor argument for why you think my reasoning is poor. If being gay was a choice, a simple choice that they could then reverse, they would do so. I think that's all the evidence necessary for me, and I don't understand why that isn't enough for others. Out of the four things you mentioned that people choose to be (one of them isn't even a thing someone chooses to be, it's an action), none of them even remotely compare to the point you're trying to make. I get what you're trying to say, that other people choose to make their life difficult too. But, no one sets out every morning trying to make their life suck. No one has an ambition as a child to be a career criminal, to be a druggy or an alcoholic, just the same as no child has the ambition of growing up to becoming something where they have their rights infringed upon and have people tell them that their lifestyle is not okay, among worse insults. It just simply does not make any sense to believe that someone would consciously choose a path in which they cannot have children, where they are discriminated against, where they don't get respect, where they may lose relationships with friends and families over it, etc. Therefore, it must not be a choice. If a much smaller amount of the population was gay, say something like .3%, then maybe that argument would hold less weight because some people inexplicably choose really stupid things. But 10% is far too high of a population for that counterargument to be valid.

I appreciate you trying to come up with something, but please do some research on something before you blindly throw ignorant blanket statements out to form an argument. I get that you're 46, so you probably have a job, have kids, and have real responsibilities, so I understand that sitting down and researching homosexuality, alcoholism, psychology of criminals, etc., is probably not very high on your list of things to do. But, if you don't have the time to research to make an intelligent counterargument, then please don't make a counterargument at all. All of the blanket statements you made resulted in you implying fallacies. You implied that people consciously choose to become drug addicts and alcoholics, which is just plain false, as I have shown. Same thing for criminals, although we can blame them a lot more for their choices than we can addicts. I am absolutely not condoning any of the behaviors of hardcore drug addicts and criminals, but implying that everything that they do and everything about them is their choice and their fault is just not true. You'd be amazed at how many future criminals and addicts are helped out in childhood when their mental illnesses are diagnosed and treated. This has taken me over 2 hours to completely type out, and I now am about to have to leave, so I will end here. As I have said, I don't mean to offend with my opinions. I am trying to discuss this issue fairly, and honestly. Cheers everyone, GMG.

PS: I will get to the other post that was directed at me later on, I have run out of time for now.

[GreenMachine]

I don't believe I put it so bluntly, nor even attempted to imply that, but if that's what you took anything I said as, then fair enough, and I apologize.

I had about 500 words typed out just about the drug addiction part and then lost everything I wrote. I am pretty peeved about that, but I'll start over again. I'm going to go one by one to break this down for you, as I cannot believe you are really making those comparisons. I don't mean to offend you, but those are possibly some of the most unintelligent and ignorant comparisons I've ever come across. But, I digress. Here we go.

1. Drug addiction: I'm pretty pissed that I lost everything I wrote about this, as it took me about 25 minutes to type out, but here we go again. Let's start with the personality of a person, before they are addicted. Most psychologists believe that one of the most important parts of personality development is in early childhood, although the rest of childhood, the puberty stage, etc., have a lot to do with it as well. So, if you take your average 25 year old, he has about as much control over his personality as he does the color of his skin and eyes. The things that made him who he is personality-wise, all happened before he was consciously independent enough to do anything about it. And aside from that, a lot of very interesting research is being done with identical twins that were separated at birth, which shows that a lot of personality and interests may in fact be genetic. So, adding that thought in, it just reiterates the fact that one's personality is not really one's choice. Now, the reason I bring all this up about personality is because personality has a lot to do with addiction. Some people have very strong personalities, and do not stray from their views and no one can convince them to do anything. Others have weaker personalities, and are easily influenced by others. Most people are somewhere in the middle with that. Another interesting facet of personality is how some people seem to have addictive personalities, and others do not. Some people latch onto things and do not let go, they become obsessed with the things they like, and others do not do this at all. So, personality does have an effect on addiction, and that part is out of a person's control.

Moving onto the first time someone uses drugs, personality plays a big role. People with weaker personalities may falter due to peer pressure (ex. high school or college party), others may be experiencing a tough time in their life and resort to drugs to escape (usually this is someone who has used before in some capacity, be it alcohol, or a small time drug like marijuana, and this is their first time either drinking to excess to reduce stress or resorting to a stronger drug such as cocaine or heroine), others might do it because they think it's cool (ex. a couple of dumb teenagers stealing their parents medication or alcohol), or the person has grown bored with smaller time drugs that he has been using for recreational purposes (marijuana or alcohol) and is seeking a greater high. Depending on the drug, the person may be addicted from the first use or first few uses (heroine, meth, crack), it may take a decent amount of uses or more to get addicted (alcohol, caffeine [yes caffeine is a drug, and people actually die from it, although it is in a special "safer" category], cocaine, opiates/painkillers), the person may never become physically addicted because the drug does not cause physical addictions, but the drug becomes a psychological crutch for the person (marijuana, LSD/acid), or the person may die/completely lose their mind and eat people's faces (synthetic drugs such as bath salts, poorly made LSD, or an OD of almost any drug other than marijuana). There is a special case where the addiction is not the fault of the addict, or at least not the direct result of the person choosing to take drugs. This situation is actually what happened to my father. Over a period of 3 years, he had 4 major surgeries on his stomach area (he had a foot of his colon removed due to a precancerous tumor, 2 different hernias, had scar tissue block his bowels, lots of fun stuff), plus chronic back issues (herniated disks) and chronic knee issues (he actually needs a knee replacement now). Because of all of these problems, he was put on painkillers while he was in the hospital, and for while he was at home. Unfortunately, by the time he had healed enough to the point where he did not need them, he had developed an addiction. This is actually a very common situation that can happen to absolutely anyone, which is pretty terrible. Luckily, he's clean now, but it wasn't an easy road.

Once the person becomes an addict, the tables shift a bit. Personality does play a role, but not nearly as much of one. As much as people don't like to admit it, a drug addiction is an illness. But, it's a curable one, although it is very difficult to overcome. Addiction really is the perfect storm of two things. It would be hard enough to overcome the body and mind yearning for the drug, but throw in withdrawal symptoms and it becomes very easy to just continue the cycle. The mind of an addict is altered; often the person is not able to think as clearly as is necessary to realize they have a problem, but even if they do, it's so much easier to just continue using to prevent withdrawal symptoms. At this point, it's hardly a conscious decision to continue the path they're on. I've seen firsthand the mindset of someone struggling with addiction, and even with the people you love trying to get you help it isn't an easy thing to do. But, like I said, it is curable. People do get help, they get their addictions treated, and they are free from it. Many people stay clean forever after that, many do not for a plethora of reasons (usually they continue to surround themselves with the same people and get themselves into the same situations as before), but until they fall into using again, they are not addicted (there is an exception: alcoholism; I'm getting to that later). This is probably the biggest point I can make about why comparing drug addiction to homosexuality is both unintelligent and incredibly ignorant: people can overcome addiction, and it is a conscious choice to use drugs originally. While factors outside of a person's control may effect their likelihood to falling into a drug addiction, it is still a conscious choice to use, whereas being gay is not a conscious choice (whether or not it's genetic, a birth defect in brain chemistry and hormone production, or happens during early development, is unknown and irrelevant). So, ignorant comparison number one shot down. Let's move on. I'm going to ignore the fact that you're making an blanket statement by implying that all drug addicts (and homosexuals for that matter) are the same.

2. Being a criminal: Again, this is another ignorant blanket statement. All criminals are not the same; they commit different crimes for different reasons. The fact that you're also choosing to use criminals to compare to homosexuals also astounds me. Outside of the social stigma part (which is a stretch anyways), there is absolutely no relevancy whatsoever, but I'll humor you and respond. I assume you're referring to people that are career criminals, and/or people that commit heinous crimes. As the person above me pointed out, depending on brain chemistry (which is what causes personality essentially), a person may be more likely to exhibit sociopathic behavior. As I stated in the first part, personality has a lot to do with genetics and early childhood development and experiences. So, let's take your run-of-the-mill criminal, say he is a serial bank robber who also uses marijuana recreationally. Odds are, this person feels a major void in their life and mind. Robbing banks not only provides them with money, but with an intense thrill and adrenaline rush. This person has a weak personality most likely, and they could suffer from a number of mental illnesses (depression being the most obvious choice). Again, this is caused by genetics and his psychological development. Maybe this person feels this void in their life because they had an abusive father who walked out on the family at age 5, or something along those lines. He also could be a user of marijuana because it relaxes him after committing a robbery. Who knows? But, the point I am making here is that there could be any number of reasons why a person acts the way he does. That doesn't make this a relevant comparison however.

If you polled 5,000 current criminals (let's say thieves of any kind, rapists, dealers and users of hardcore drugs like heroine and meth, serial killers, and even some blue collar criminals that are committing crimes that have to do with money, like extortion), and you asked them if they gave a damn about the social stigma surrounding them, and if that was a deterrent at all, what do you think they would say? Sure there definitely is a social stigma surrounding people who break the law, but do you really think people that knowingly break laws that could send them to prison for years, really give a damn about the social stigma part of it? I'm not going to be that guy that throws out a percentage on a poll that doesn't exist, but just think about it. Their friends (if they have any) are criminals. They probably have cut themselves off from their family, or their family has no idea about their criminal behavior. If you actually think that the social stigma surrounding breaking the law is a deterrent for these types of people, when the actual law itself and the consequences are not a deterrent, then you might be certifiably insane. I doubt that you actually think that they care though, you just resorted to throwing out a random life-raft to try to save your argument. I understand.

Now, there are a couple other major flaws in comparing homosexuality to being a criminal. For one, most criminals negatively effect other people. This is why they are in trouble with the law, and are being punished for what they have done. Killing someone, raping someone, robbing someone, using a hardcore drug, etc., all do or have the potential to harm other people in some way. Two men or two women getting married do not do this. The other fundamental flaw in your argument is that, sometimes, criminals can be reformed. The United States Penal system is not built to reform, as they would like to tell us it is; it is built to punish, and protect mainstream society from psychopaths. But, there are examples of people having such a terrible experience in prison that they completely change their lives on the outside. Others find God while in prison, and dedicate their lives to being a wholesome religious person after they get out. But, this all depends on personality, and one's experience in prison. A lot of people that get thrown in prison for small time crimes (marijuana possession for example) end up a lot worse off after their sentence, and continue committing crimes and spend their lives going in and out of prison. Others are borderline mentally retarded, grew up in the hood, and despite attempts at reform from a young age, end up spending the majority of their lives playing the prison game. It really does vary and depend on a lot of factors, but occasionally people's lives are changed for the better. This usually happens at a younger age (below 18-21, depending on when the crime was committed and state laws) when punishment is based a lot more on reform than making people pay from their crimes. And sometimes, people serve one prison sentence and then change their lives, as I said above. People can be reformed from their criminal ways, whereas gays, again, cannot be turned straight.

3. Drunk driving: This is probably the one I am most astounded you put. This isn't even remotely close to being a lifestyle, a way one lives, the type of person one is, etc. This is an action, a stupid one indeed, but it is an action. Now, some people that drive drunk legitimately have an alcohol issue, and they end up with multiple DUI's. There was actually a person near where I currently live who just got busted for his 5th DUI. How a person is not in prison before this point is beyond me. But, despite the fact that he had 4 previous DUI's and a suspended license, he got behind the wheel of a car while ridiculously intoxicated and got busted. He is now in prison, thankfully. Clearly, he is someone who has serious alcohol issues and needs major help. A lot of good, intelligent people get DUI's, or drive drunk without getting caught, and it is just a really stupid mistake. At 19 years old, I can say that I drove under the influence one time (I wasn't ridiculously drunk or anything, but above the legal limit for 21 year olds most likely, definitely above the legal limit in RI for people under 21, which I believe is like .015 or something, in case of something like alcohol based mouthwash showing up on a reading as a minuscule amount), and it was a major mistake. Luckily, I was 3 minutes from home, but it was still a risk I don't ever want to take again. In your 46 years, if you can honestly say that you have never driven drunk, then that is remarkable and I commend you. But, this isn't even remotely close to being something one can compare to being to being gay. This is beyond apples to oranges, this is like comparing snow to elephants.

4. Alcoholism: I am responding to this separately from drug addiction because there are a couple of subtle differences. One, alcoholism is a recognized disease and is a very well known disease in the mainstream world, whereas addiction to heroine is really not as much of a widespread issue. Secondly, although someone can be clean from alcohol, it is recognized as fact that this is an addiction that never completely dies, similar to the way cigarette addiction works. This is probably the best comparison out of the four that you made, but I'm going to be honest, it's still pretty terrible. They still have very little in common other than a negative social stigma and the fact that one does not choose whether or not they are susceptible to becoming an alcoholic. If necessary, for a reference re-read everything I said about personality in the first part, because I am not about to type it out again, and it absolutely still applies here. Now, alcoholism is interesting, because alcohol is legal, and very easily attained. This makes being addicted much more convenient, as you don't have to illegally buy drugs or find a doctor to prescribe pills for you that you do not need, so keep in mind the ease of attainment and near guarantee of supply. Now, one's personality and genetics are very much a part of how susceptible they are to becoming an alcoholic. There is strong evidence to suggest that alcoholism can run in families, so family history is a strong indicator of how one may react to alcohol. And personality can play a crucial role in whether or not one drinks alcohol at all, how early in life they do it, and how they react to it. Someone with a weak personality and low self esteem may start drinking at an early age due to peer pressure. An addictive personality may cause someone to want to drink a lot, before they are actually addicted. A lot of alcoholics started drinking at a young age (college, high school, or even earlier sometimes, I remember watching a show documenting how some 12 year olds were drinking, and their parents reaction to it...pretty interesting), when alcohol is more sport than it is a beverage. Things like binge drinking often cause addictions that last a life time, not to mention how incredibly dangerous drinking to ridiculous excess can be. Due to it's illegality to minors, they view it as a mystery and curiosity, and it makes them want to try it. If you have kids, I'm sure you understand that when you tell a kid that they can't do something, or have something, it makes them want it more. It's human nature, but it is very easy to spot this characteristic when people are young. This is why kids are a lot more responsible with alcohol in European nations, as it isn't illegal, and a lot of them grew up drinking wine with dinner. But, alcohol plays a very important role in teenage and college-age subculture in America, because of the view that people place on it. It's fun, it makes you social, it makes you more attractive, blah blah blah, etc., etc. Because of this, many younger people drink before the legal age, and drink to excess, when their brains are not developed enough to handle it. There is evidence to suggest that this is why people that drink at a young age are more susceptible to becoming an alcoholic. But, enough about the beginning of an alcoholic, why people begin drinking, why kids drink, etc.

As I said, alcoholism is a disease. There are many factors that play into whether or not someone is more or less likely to get addicted and become an alcoholic. So, in a way, your comparison is at least somewhat valid. Homosexuality isn't a choice, and whether or not someone is more or less likely to become an alcoholic isn't a choice. But, there's a key difference. Homosexuality isn't a disease, and gay feelings are not a drug. Alcoholism is a disease, and alcohol is a drug. That's just simple fact. Another point of difference is how drinking alcohol may cause alcoholism. To put this same logic towards homosexuality doesn't make sense, as gay feelings do not cause homosexuality, rather, if anything, it's the opposite, but it cannot be a valid comparison as alcoholism and homosexuality are the things we are comparing, not alcoholism and gay feelings. I'm trying not to get too off topic here, so I'm going back to alcoholism being a disease. Once a person is an alcoholic, regardless of how it started, regardless of when it started, regardless of the type of alcoholic they are, they are an alcoholic. That is all it is, and it needs to be addressed as nothing more than that. I don't know the medical definition of alcoholism off of the top of my head, but let's just say generally that alcoholism is a physical and mental addiction to alcohol, where if the person were to stop drinking completely for a period of time, they would suffer withdrawal symptoms, and not be able to function properly. In this respect, alcoholism is like every other drug addiction. Treatment is necessary to break the addiction. I went through this with my father as well, a couple of years ago. Again, it's very difficult to break, just like the other addictions. But the big difference is here that one cannot be cured of alcoholism. You may break the addiction, but drinking again in the future is dangerous. It's very easy to fall down the same path again. Some can avoid it despite the temptations, others cannot. Again, that has to do with personality and genetics, something out of a person's control. As for the social stigma part, most alcoholics do not realize that they are, until it is too late to change anything on their own. By this point, even if they do give a damn about the social stigma (which most don't, trust me), it isn't going to deter them from drinking. So, poor comparison yet again.

I think in conclusion of all of this, you made a poor argument for why you think my reasoning is poor. If being gay was a choice, a simple choice that they could then reverse, they would do so. I think that's all the evidence necessary for me, and I don't understand why that isn't enough for others. Out of the four things you mentioned that people choose to be (one of them isn't even a thing someone chooses to be, it's an action), none of them even remotely compare to the point you're trying to make. I get what you're trying to say, that other people choose to make their life difficult too. But, no one sets out every morning trying to make their life suck. No one has an ambition as a child to be a career criminal, to be a druggy or an alcoholic, just the same as no child has the ambition of growing up to becoming something where they have their rights infringed upon and have people tell them that their lifestyle is not okay, among worse insults. It just simply does not make any sense to believe that someone would consciously choose a path in which they cannot have children, where they are discriminated against, where they don't get respect, where they may lose relationships with friends and families over it, etc. Therefore, it must not be a choice. If a much smaller amount of the population was gay, say something like .3%, then maybe that argument would hold less weight because some people inexplicably choose really stupid things. But 10% is far too high of a population for that counterargument to be valid.

I appreciate you trying to come up with something, but please do some research on something before you blindly throw ignorant blanket statements out to form an argument. I get that you're 46, so you probably have a job, have kids, and have real responsibilities, so I understand that sitting down and researching homosexuality, alcoholism, psychology of criminals, etc., is probably not very high on your list of things to do. But, if you don't have the time to research to make an intelligent counterargument, then please don't make a counterargument at all. All of the blanket statements you made resulted in you implying fallacies. You implied that people consciously choose to become drug addicts and alcoholics, which is just plain false, as I have shown. Same thing for criminals, although we can blame them a lot more for their choices than we can addicts. I am absolutely not condoning any of the behaviors of hardcore drug addicts and criminals, but implying that everything that they do and everything about them is their choice and their fault is just not true. You'd be amazed at how many future criminals and addicts are helped out in childhood when their mental illnesses are diagnosed and treated. This has taken me over 2 hours to completely type out, and I now am about to have to leave, so I will end here. As I have said, I don't mean to offend with my opinions. I am trying to discuss this issue fairly, and honestly. Cheers everyone, GMG.

PS: I will get to the other post that was directed at me later on, I have run out of time for now.

Crap, another GL2Greatness.

[MDH]

Crap, another GL2Greatness.

Except that Stormchaser knows the english language and can make intelligent arguments.

[GreenMachine]

Except that Stormchaser knows the english language and can make intelligent arguments.

Yes, calling people unintelligent and an idiot is an intelligent argument.

[UNTcrazy727]

Except that Stormchaser knows the english language and can make intelligent arguments.

I would love to read his posts, but each one is as long as a Stephen King short story. I don't have time for that when I'm posting from my iPhone

[UNTstormchaser]

I don't recall calling anyone an idiot or unintelligent. I may have called an argument or a particular facet of an argument unintelligent or idiotic, but never the person. Smart people can make dumb arguments, it happens. And yes, I'm a bit long winded. I'll gladly admit to that.

[UNTLifer]

Please show me a study that proves homosexuality is genetic. My comparisons, which you didn't like, were to combat your statement that people wouldn't choose that lifestyle because of what they have to endure. My point is that people make choices all the time that make their lives more difficult. We have differing opinions and I am fine with that. It is what makes our country great, but pushing one's agenda to harm another's, the Chic-fil-a issue and plans for August 1 by those that don't agree, is typical of the pot calling the kettle black.

We can argue all day and I would bet we wouldn't change each other's minds, so I'll leave it at that.

Edited July 29, 2012 by UNTLifer

[Green Mean]

UNTstormchaser, you are making statements typical of "The Left" that baffle me. You preach tolerance and understanding but call those that don't share your POV intolerant or label their beliefs misguided or silly. That is my problem with your argument and what gets me fires up. Atheist and other non-Christians are always so quick to criticize our beliefs and to tell us the real meaning of the Bible and that we are intolerant yet they are not practicing what they preach.

Comparing race issues to lifestyle issues is apples to oranges and patting your back over how right your opinions are while ridiculing other's won't win many friends and hamstrings your points.

As for CFA, keep closing on Sundays, treating and serving everyone equally and respectfully and standing up for your beliefs. As for those that want to make a stand, go for it but you better walk to your protest site. Ever researched what the leaders of OPEC believe and support and their level of tolerance for those that don't share their views?

Just the left? I think both sides are guilty of that whether we all like to admit it or not. Being gay or pro/anti gay has nothing to do with the left or the right. There are plenty of left people that disagree with that lifestyle and there are plenty of right people that are okay with that and accept it.

[UNTstormchaser]

Just the left? I think both sides are guilty of that whether we all like to admit it or not. Being gay or pro/anti gay has nothing to do with the left or the right. There are plenty of left people that disagree with that lifestyle and there are plenty of right people that are okay with that and accept it.

I'm glad someone else sees that this isn't a political issue.

[UNTstormchaser]

Please show me a study that proves homosexuality is genetic. My comparisons, which you didn't like, were to combat your statement that people wouldn't choose that lifestyle because of what they have to endure. My point is that people make choices all the time that make their lives more difficult. We have differing opinions and I am fine with that. It is what makes our country great, but pushing one's agenda to harm another's, the Chic-fil-a issue and plans for August 1 by those that don't agree, is typical of the pot calling the kettle black.

We can argue all day and I would bet we wouldn't change each other's minds, so I'll leave it at that.

I agree that we cannot change each other's minds, but it just saddens me that you can't properly read what I type. I know I'm long winded, but c'mon man, I'm not difficult to understand. I have said explicitly, multiple times in fact, that being gay may not be genetic. No one knows whether it is genetic, whether it is caused from occurrences in early childhood when the brain is still developing, whether it's some form of birth defect that effects brain chemistry and hormones, or by something else entirely. The point is though, it is not a conscious decision. I understand what you're argument was, but unfortunately your examples were so ignorant and poor that it didn't prove a single thing that you were trying to say. Like I said, research first, then argue. To reiterate, no one consciously makes a decision thinking that it will make their life more difficult. In the heat of the moment, a decision may be made to do something stupid. But, being gay isn't a single decision. It is a part of someone, and thinking that they can turn gay on and off is just absurd. You don't choose to be straight, you just are. Try getting aroused by gay pornography, if it doesn't work, you're straight. If it does, you're probably bisexual. It really is that simple.

Besides, if being gay was a choice, don't you think that at least ONE out of the closet homosexual would say that he chooses to be that way? Don't you think that at least one of them would have let the cat out of the bag at this point? Doing some simple math, there are roughly 15 million gay men in the United States. Every gay person that has ever talked about being gay, says it is not a choice. Look at the entire world, in which there is a population of 7 billion now. Cut that in half to divide between men and women, and divide by 10 to get the rough amount of gay men. That is 350 million gay men. Do you really think that every single one of them is choosing to be gay, and every single one of them is denying that they are choosing that? Yeah, I don't think so.

[UNTstormchaser]

No. There are non-Christians who understand science and, therefore, oppose gay marriage as well.

When you study anatomy and physiology, you discover that the purpose of the anus is not sexual. It is part of the digestive system. It's the final stop in expelling waste. In short, its natural function is as an exit for that which the body has no use for, and not for stuff things into.

The anus isn't a sexual organ. Hence, diseases and other problems arise from tearing the rectal wall from its misuse.

When you study biology, you discover that the way humans procreate is an egg from a female of the specie, and sperm from the male. There is no other way man could have evolved and continued reproducing.

Two men, alone, cannot procreate another human. They have to have an egg donor. For two women, they must have a sperm donor, because they cannot procreate with two eggs alone.

We can wonder why a man and a woman who marry and stay monogamous do not get venereal diseases and HIV/AIDS. Or, we can simply accept the truth: because they are not misusing their bodies sexually, they will not get those diseases.

We can wonder why a man and a woman are able to procreate and reproduce. Or, we can simply accept the truth: in order to reproduce, you must have the egg of a woman and the sperm of a man.

We are talking about what is natural scientifically. If it was natural to the body to accept abuse of the anus, there would not be the plethora of warnings to homosexual men about diseases. If it were natural to the body to allow procreation between two men alone or two women alone, then reproduction would occur between same sex couple without egg or sperm donors.

Gay activists choose to ignore science altogether. They live in a cocoon, denying that HIV/AIDS is still a problem almost exclusive to their community. The cure for HIV/AIDS has been and always will be abstaining from homosexual sex.

The easiest target for gay activists is Christians because Christians cite the Bible truthfully. However, Bible or no Bibe, God or no God, homosexual sex goes against the sciences of, at minimum, physiology and biology.

Those who are truthful about what the Bible says about homosexuality oppose gay marriage. Those who scientifically understand the health risk attributed to homosexual sex oppose gay marriage.

For me, it's good enough to be able to live with my eyes wide open. I see that people leading the lifestyle that Chik-Fil-A's CEO leads are not plagued with diseases wrought by their own sexual behavior.

By contrast, I see that people leading the gay lifestyle have to deal with those sexual disease issues as well as the financial and psychological fallout from them...as well as costing the health care system billions and causing R&D in the pharmaceutical industry to divert time and money away from tragic diseases that do not arise from behavioral choices.

I'm going to attempt to respond as kindly as possible, but I may come off as rude in some instances. This is not on purpose, I'm just in a very blunt mood today, and I'm probably going to put things bluntly. If I offend you with the way I say something, then I am sorry. End disclaimer

Thank you for the basic high school anatomy brush up. You're science is somewhat sound, I will give you that. And I am glad someone has actually tried to use logic and science in an argument against this, this is actually the first time I have actually seen that anywhere. But there are fundamental flaws with using this argument in general, and your astounding level of ignorance tacks on many more. I could be wrong, but to me your post wreaks of Christian bias.

The first flaw is bringing up the matter of anal sex altogether. Before your post, not a single person explicitly mentioned that; the forum was about gay marriage, not gay sex. While the two may go hand in hand with gay male marriage oftentimes, it is a blanket statement to assume this is always the case. And it is never the case with female gay marriage, you know, since they lack....an appendage to use. Regardless of the science behind the dangers of anal sex, which are very true and it is sound science, that has nothing to do with the legality of gay marriage, for a couple of reasons. For one, it has nothing to do with actual marriage and relationship, since a gay male couple may exclusively perform oral sex on each other, and a gay female couple is not going to do it at all. Regardless, you can't legislate what happens in the bedroom, since it's just flat out wrong to do, and there is no way of actually enforcing that. Secondly, allowing a gay male couple to marry isn't going to make them more or less likely to have anal sex anyways. If they are a couple, and they'd get married if it were legal, then they're going to do it anyways. So, this point is completely invalid towards the argument of the legality of gay marriage.

A second fundamental flaw is that you bring up the point of nature, and how a male and female are needed to have a baby. This was probably the most laughable part of the argument. First off, no sh!t. I don't think any gay couple has sex in any capacity thinking they're going to get pregnant. That isn't the point of sex for them, and it isn't the point of sex for a large amount of heterosexual couples either. They have sex because it's the most stimulating and amazing way to show your partner how you feel about them. The majority of mainstream America does not view sex as just a way to make children. It's a beautiful and incredibly diverse part of life that people embrace regardless of their sexuality. This is again, an irrelevant argument.

Another part of that argument's laughability is how other mammals engage in homosexual activities. If it was just a conscious and irresponsible choice by the species of higher intelligence, this would not be the case. Conveniently, someone posted a list of all mammals that have exhibited homosexual behavior in some way, shape, or form (listed with legitimate sources, and the page has been up for quite some time; if it was incorrect the wikipedia mods would have edited it by now...I've experienced firsthand how quick they are). I'll link it below this paragraph. We aren't talking about a list of 3 or 4 mammals. There are well over one hundred listed mammals that have been documented to act in homosexual ways. So, clearly it is a natural phenomenon that wasn't invented by humans, considering there are countless examples of it happening in nature. Again, I sense a very strong Christian bias. Science gotten from a Christian Apologetic website is not actual science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Now to go back a bit, to the subject of how anal sex is unnatural and the point of the anus is not to be penetrated, but to expose of waste. Fantastic, I'm glad you cleared that up for me. I was also convinced that my nose's secondary function was to be penetrated as well, but your point got me doing some research...never mind. Look, obviously the biological function of the ass is not a sexual function. Neither is the mouth, but I don't see anyone trying to outlaw oral sex. So why anal sex? I mean, haven't you ever heard of a man and a woman having anal sex? It really isn't that uncommon. The fact that you imply that gay couples are the only couples to do some sexual exploration is both baffling and another strong indicator of your strong Christian bias.

Now, onto your point about AIDS. I really can't believe that you think that AIDS is still exclusively in the gay community. That's honestly baffling. How sheltered are you? Have you ever watched the world news and seen that AIDS is a major issue in some of the poorer parts of Africa? AIDS has nothing to do with the gay community; it is where it first appeared in the US, but AIDS and gay are not something that goes hand in hand. Due to the fact that no one knew about it when it was first surfacing, blood transfusions were one of the biggest spreaders of the disease, and it is in the general population. Magic Johnson has AIDS, and he is not gay. Obviously that is just one example, but you get my point. Being sexually "responsible" does not reduce your chance of AIDS. Your partner could have been born with the disease due to his mother unknowingly having it, and he could be a virgin when you guys first have sex, and there you go, now you have AIDS. Now yes, admittedly, there are more gay people than straight people with AIDS, especially in the United States. But that is merely due to the fact that it was introduced in the gay population for whatever reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are gay, and worldwide this is not the case. Being gay does not cause AIDS, as you insinuate. Your point is both ignorant and bigoted.

Please point me in the direction of a non Christian scientist who is against gay marriage. Please do. I am calling your bluff here. I have never heard a non Christian scientist come out against gay marriage. But, if you can give me a link, a name, something, to point me in that direction, I'll accept your point. Regardless, even if they are any, they aren't the majority. Not even close. They are random statistical outliers, who in the scheme of things, are meaningless. But that is even if you can point me in the direction of just one, which I doubt you can. That being said, there literally is no reason other than religion to outlaw gay marriage. Not one. Science is not a reason, as everything you pointed out is easily shown to be flawed as an argument against gay marriage, namely because marriage or no marriage, gays are going to have sex. So if science is ruled out, what else is there? Any other argument has to do with religion. If religion is taken out of the argument, there is literally no reason to tell gays they cannot get married.

I agree with you that anal sex is not a safe thing. I disagree with you that that is a good reason to outlaw gay marriage. To go with my reasoning from earlier, gays are going to do it anyways, it doesn't apply to all of them, and you cannot enforce a law against anal sex anyways...let alone that legislating the bedroom is just disgustingly immoral. But, to take that a step further, if you're going to use the argument that allowing gays to have anal sex should be against the law because it costs us unnecessary money in health costs, then fine. As you put it:

"...as well as costing the health care system billions and causing R&D in the pharmaceutical industry to divert time and money away from tragic diseases that do not arise from behavioral choices."

Okay. Then, in order to be fair, we need to outlaw every other activity that will divert time and money from tragic diseases that do not arise from behavioral choices. It is now illegal drive a car, ride a bike, go outside for long enough to get a sunburn without globbing on tons of sunscreen, play sports, run, go swimming, go on a plane, go on a train, drink alcohol, work any kind of blue collar job like construction, etc. The government now needs to enact legislation to prevent the companies that process food using chemicals that have been known and documented to cause cancer. Coal mines need to stop, because they're too dirty and cause too much bodily harm to the workers. Minor injuries, such as broken bones, concussions, fairly bad cuts, muscle pulls and tears, need to go untreated because we need to focus all our attention on people that have fallen victim to a tragic disease, so in order to maintain the safety of society without basic medical care, the government has put many bans into effect to prevent them from hurting themselves, including but not limited to everything listed. Basically, the only thing that is allowed is to grow food that isn't too dangerous to maintain, on your property, without using pesticides or other potentially harmful chemicals, using and drinking water that comes from your faucet that uses a government mandated water purification system, and then sleeping. Have fun with that life. While you try to legislate what others do in the bedroom, think of the potential consequences of ensuring that this group of people does not get equal rights. That opens a pandora's box, your group may be next.

[GreenMachine]

The point is though, it is not a conscious decision. I understand what you're argument was, but unfortunately your examples were so ignorant and poor that it didn't prove a single thing that you were trying to say. Like I said, research first, then argue. To reiterate, no one consciously makes a decision thinking that it will make their life more difficult. In the heat of the moment, a decision may be made to do something stupid. But, being gay isn't a single decision. It is a part of someone, and thinking that they can turn gay on and off is just absurd. You don't choose to be straight, you just are. Try getting aroused by gay pornography, if it doesn't work, you're straight. If it does, you're probably bisexual. It really is that simple.

Besides, if being gay was a choice, don't you think that at least ONE out of the closet homosexual would say that he chooses to be that way? Don't you think that at least one of them would have let the cat out of the bag at this point? Doing some simple math, there are roughly 15 million gay men in the United States. Every gay person that has ever talked about being gay, says it is not a choice. Look at the entire world, in which there is a population of 7 billion now. Cut that in half to divide between men and women, and divide by 10 to get the rough amount of gay men. That is 350 million gay men. Do you really think that every single one of them is choosing to be gay, and every single one of them is denying that they are choosing that? Yeah, I don't think so.

Your arrogance is annoying and your generalizations are laughable. I find it stunning that you choose to speak for the entire gay population of the world because in fact, you are wrong. I have a female friend that was treated like crap by guys time and time again and made a conscious choice to go the gay route. She met a lesbian, fell in love with her, and they have been together for almost 8 years. I also have a male friend that was crapped on by several women and made a choice to go the gay route. After numerous relationships, he has been with his partner for over 5 years. I think its safe to say they aren't the only 2 in the world to make that decision. What about all the homosexuals in prison, gotta believe that was a choice mainly due to the lack of availabilty of females.

Edited July 30, 2012 by GreenMachine

[Rudy]

And yes, I'm a bit long winded. I'll gladly admit to that.

That's the first step in recovery.