lololol likewise but its still a choice. Personal preference can always change. I used to hate avocados with a passion. People would say here try it? Id shudder and say yuck that tastes like shit. Then one day I had guacamole and I couldnt get enough of it and I didnt care it was avocado. Now I LOVEE avocados. So it still falls under personal choice, some males are just attracted to males. Hell some males are more attracted to sheep than their wives. Personal choice haha.
RE: "some males are just attracted to males" - and this, J Mc, is exactly what we've been saying --
Yah its what Ive been saying using different words lol
Sorry, I didn't recognize them.
Unfortunately those words you (J Mc) have been using are also used by the idiots who insist it is a personal choice (in the "I feel like being gay today" camp) and they will argue it is some sort of thing you can be cured of, an illness, etc. This is why Strega's big alarm went off when she read them; it sounded homophobic on your part, to her and to a lot of us. Now when I read the rest of the things you wrote I kind of suspected what you were trying to say and I am happy to see I was right. You were using "choice" more as if it were "something you should be and are allowed to do."
Were it not for the rednecks running around bashing "fags" on a daily basis (mostly but not entirely on theocratic grounds) it really wouldn't matter whether it was genetic, environmental in the womb, environmental in early, early childhood, or a "what the hell" choice five minutes before the clothes come off as to whether you were going to go after men or women, as what you do with the parts would be no one's business but your own and that of the other adults whose consent you need for whatever it is you plan to do.
But unfortunately we don't live in such a world, and we do have people trying to call it a neurosis and a mental illness and a sin, so please (as a favor to our friends who chase people with the same plumbing they themselves have) don't phrase it that way.
J Mc, you have some points upon which I agree, some on which I don't, and a couple I would have to question.
First, I absolutely agree that government and religion don't mix, which is why our Founding Fathers sought to separate Church and State.
I also agree that churches should be allowed to decline religious marriages under any of their own regulations as they wish, because the government, if it continues to maintain its separation, has no right to set religious rules, quite unlike America's Religious Right, which is trying to influence the rules that the US government makes.
On the other hand, I believe one can find many reasons as to why the government got into the marriage business, and while I can't discount that one of them might be a form of control, I also can't say that it is actually a reason, or if it is, that it is the only one. Another possible reason could well be that the government wanted to allow people the opportunity to marry without affiliating that marriage with any particular religious institution.
I also know, that while churches may well be exempt from most civil rights obligations, governments, however, are not, in fact, they are obligated to enforce them, and if the law of the land permits gay marriage, government institutions, such as Justices of the Peace, Judges, and other civil servants authorized to do so, are required to facilitate those marriages.
As for homosexuality being a sin, that is purely a religious concept, and since, as an atheist, I reject ALL religious concepts, I do not recognize the concept you label as, "sin."
Further, the causes of homosexuality are still not firmly decided. There is one school that maintains that the tendency for a person to be attracted exclusively to members of their own sex is hardwired into them at birth. There are others who believe that in every instance of Human behavior, one can never totally separate heredity from environment.
What is NOT agreed upon by any school of thought with which I'm familiar, is that homosexuality is a clear and conscious "choice." I suppose that COULD be said of ONE given instance - the decision to be sexual or to remain celibate - a homosexual person could conceivably choose to remain celibate, but assuming they have a normal, healthy sex drive, I see no reason why they would be inclined to do so.
But as for clearly and consciously choosing with which sex one would become sexual, that choice, according to all serious scientific research - whether of the heredity or the environment school of thought - would appear to be out of everyone's hands.
Yes, I agree it might be nice and tidy if everyone preferred vanilla ice cream, but that is simply not the case, which is what keeps Baskin Robbins in business --
Agree with most of what you say. One thing I do notice is that atheist do seem to look at science alot. The first lesson I learnt in science was this "Science is theory not truth or fact, this is why we call it theory" Theres no reason to look for answers as to why someone would prefer man on man or girl on girl because they still have no idea how thought comes to be. Now that Im starting to think of Quantum physics I think I better stop there lol.
On a side note, why do they never talk about how men might not like man on man but have no issues with girl on girl lolol.
@J Mc, RE: "Science is theory not truth or fact, this is why we call it theory" - where did you learn your science, "Answers In Genesis"? As many here can explain to you much better than I, in REAL science, the term, theory, means a great more than simply an educated guess.
Uhm, I can only assume you were home-schooled by semi-illiterate parents. Scientific theories are not called 'theories' because they lack truth or fact, but because they describe natural phenomenon and allow one to predict other natural phenomena. Music 'theory' doesn't mean music isn't 'true' or a 'fact' - it is called music theory because it is a collection of the observed phenomenon that allow one to predict how certain notes will fit together.
I learnt my science in the same place Earnest Rutherford was born. The person who gave birth to Nuclear Physics the person who split the atom. It doesnt matter where I learnt my science what matters is that there is a movement now where science has suddenly changed by people to say it is the opposite to religion when in fact it isnt, its far from it. Its a study not truth or fact and alot of people turn to it because they need something to believe in even though it isnt truth nor fact but a study lol.
Then I'm afraid you didn't learn it very well. Want to demonstrate that the science of gravity is just a theory? Go jump off a tall building and let us know how that worked out for you.
Science IS "the opposite to religion" science changes as new things are learned, religion never does. Ever hear of anyone who went into the Bible and changed the part in the book of Joshua that said the sun stood still for hours? We now know that it's the rotation of the earth that makes the sun appear to move - science teaches us that - but in the Bronze Age, it was believed the sun revolved around the earth, and that for the day to become longer, required that the sun stand still. Have you heard of any plans to change that passage, now that new information is available?
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, written in 1905, predicted a static universe - one that was, is, and will always be the same. But in 1920, Edwin Hubble proved that the galaxies were moving away from each other, indicating that the universe had been different in the past, and would become even more different in the future, totally negating the idea of a static universe. Einstien amended his equations to reflect that - science is not afraid of change, religion is.
not science of....Im talking about what Science is. Science is not the opposite of religion. Science is a "study" to try explain why things are. Religion in reference to Christianity is about how life should be lived and to outline how we were created and everything we know was created. I dont remember the bible saying the sun revolved around the earth. You made reference to what someone said, which is just that, thats what he said. Joshua had nothing to do with creation. In the beginning god created light. That was the very first thing he created. Of all things that could have been created he creates light? Why is this important?
In Quantum Physics at the sub atomic level light holds atoms together. At that level all the laws of science go out the window. So if all the laws of science that exist in our physical realm why would atoms be any different?
Einstein was never afraid of change, the bible isnt afraid of changing either because it doesnt need to.