Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole

[Peacemaker]

I see this is the part where KT tries to impugn a source instead of producing supporting argumentation to justify his own.

 

[cooleddie74]

Science and medicine evolve, progress, make advances and make corrections and apologies for past errors and mistakes.

Unlike a lot of organized religion across this planet, which doesn't do any of those things.

 

[Amaris]

That's a lie. You stated that people choose to be gay. At some point, you made your choice. When was it, and when did you stop finding yourself sexually attracted to men?



except in the same post I said that I have always been attracted to women only and you know it.

You're promoting a strawman argument where people who dislike homosexuality are smeared with the suggestion they have such tendencies themselves.

No, he's exposing the fallacy that lies behind your own argument. Since he doesn't believe that persons with homosexuality are bad people, immoral by definition, and so on, it would not be a smear tactic at all. It would only be a "smear" if he considered these negatives.

Rather, he's pointing out that "choice" implies a volitional act, and that act includes options of some sort. That's not an eccentric definition at all. So, to say that a person "chooses" to be gay implies he/she must have had some attraction in both directions from which he/she chose one opton over the other. This be true under either a libertarian or a compatibilist action theory of free will. In the former, the options would be of equal weight; in the latter, one option would be of greater weight than the other. The same would apply to a heterosexual such as yourself as well. If one is a choice, then so is the other. That, KT, is what he's pointing out. So, by your own logic, you have had some homosexual attractions as well. It's a shame somebody else has to point out what "homosexuality is a choice" actually means and requires to be true, and how it applies equally to heterosexuality as well if true, when you are the one invoking the argument itself. Wow.

Exactly. If one can choose one's sexuality, then one is capable of attraction to men and women. Knight Templar chose women, which means at one time, he was also attracted to men.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Templar, it sounds like you believe that a virgin is neither gay nor straight, because they have not "performed a sexual act", is that right?

 

[Knight Templar]

Templar, it sounds like you believe that a virgin is neither gay nor straight, because they have not "performed a sexual act", is that right?

I wouldn't go that far.

 

[Knight Templar]

No, he's exposing the fallacy that lies behind your own argument. Since he doesn't believe that persons with homosexuality are bad people, immoral by definition, and so on, it would not be a smear tactic at all. It would only be a "smear" if he considered these negatives.

Rather, he's pointing out that "choice" implies a volitional act, and that act includes options of some sort. That's not an eccentric definition at all. So, to say that a person "chooses" to be gay implies he/she must have had some attraction in both directions from which he/she chose one opton over the other. This be true under either a libertarian or a compatibilist action theory of free will. In the former, the options would be of equal weight; in the latter, one option would be of greater weight than the other. The same would apply to a heterosexual such as yourself as well. If one is a choice, then so is the other. That, KT, is what he's pointing out. So, by your own logic, you have had some homosexual attractions as well. It's a shame somebody else has to point out what "homosexuality is a choice" actually means and requires to be true, and how it applies equally to heterosexuality as well if true, when you are the one invoking the argument itself. Wow.

Exactly. If one can choose one's sexuality, then one is capable of attraction to men and women. Knight Templar chose women, which means at one time, he was also attracted to men.

Or at one time was not attracted to either.

 

[boobatuba]

Templar, it sounds like you believe that a virgin is neither gay nor straight, because they have not "performed a sexual act", is that right?

I wouldn't go that far.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

So is a gay person who's never had sex an "abomination"?

 

[cooleddie74]

Yet many, many kids who have not had any sexual intercourse yet already know what their orientation is and which gender they feel attracted to and gravitate towards.

Their sexuality is, apparently, already there and having an effect on them long before the very first act of sexual intimacy in their lives even takes place. So virgins apparently can be straight or gay.

 

[Knight Templar]

Templar, it sounds like you believe that a virgin is neither gay nor straight, because they have not "performed a sexual act", is that right?

I wouldn't go that far.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

So is a gay person who's never had sex an "abomination"?

Of course not.

 

[boobatuba]

I wouldn't go that far.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

So is a gay person who's never had sex an "abomination"?

Of course not.

But the very same person is as soon as they have a homosexual sexual experience?

 

[Peacemaker]

I wouldn't go that far.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

So is a gay person who's never had sex an "abomination"?

Of course not.

Quite right, after all, it's Leviticus that uses that language, and the Old Testament is no longer applicable.

 

[Knight Templar]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

So is a gay person who's never had sex an "abomination"?

Of course not.

But the very same person is as soon as they have a homosexual sexual experience?

Correct.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Templar, it sounds like you believe that a virgin is neither gay nor straight, because they have not "performed a sexual act", is that right?

I wouldn't go that far.

So you believe that sexual activity is not what defines a person as gay or straight?

 

[cooleddie74]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

So is a gay person who's never had sex an "abomination"?

Of course not.

Quite right, after all, it's Leviticus that uses that language, and the Old Testament is no longer applicable.

You forget. Our good friend Paul condemns it as well, and that's just as good. Right?

 

[Knight Templar]

Of course not.

Quite right, after all, it's Leviticus that uses that language, and the Old Testament is no longer applicable.

You forget. Our good friend Paul condemns it as well, and that's just as good. Right?

Precisely.

 

[Balrog]

My faith in the will of an individual is nearly unlimited. I believe a person can choose what they are and are not regardless any any biological factors.

Even your God doesn't have this kind of faith in mankind. That is why a.) he gave man the Law, to show man he could not do it by himself, and b.) gave mankind an intercessor - Christ.

If you say man can do it on his own, then why do you bother being a Christian?

 

[Knight Templar]

My faith in the will of an individual is nearly unlimited. I believe a person can choose what they are and are not regardless any any biological factors.

Even your God doesn't have this kind of faith in mankind. That is why a.) he gave man the Law, to show man he could not do it by himself, and b.) gave mankind an intercessor - Christ.
?

Never said that man can do it on his own. He can't save himself from his sins.

but mans will is sufficient (with support from God) to run away from any of his most base and disgusting tendencies like immoral sexual acts.

 

[Amaris]

Never said that man can do it on his own. He can't save himself from his sins.

but mans will is sufficient (with support from God) to run away from any of his most base and disgusting tendencies like immoral sexual acts.

So Jesus isn't necessary at all.

 

[Gojira]

I don't think a Bronze Age culture writing back then had the scientific understanding of how sexuality develops therefore I do not think that we should allow them to dictate our understanding of sexuality today.

 

[boobatuba]

but mans will is sufficient (with support from God) to run away from any of his most base and disgusting tendencies like immoral sexual acts.

Well, that about settles it, doesn't it?

Even allowing for the bad grammar and spelling, there's really no point in trying to reason with this guy anymore.