A cartoon now playing on Youtube

[Cole Parker]

Someone sent this to me. I thought it should be shared.

C

[Paul_and_Paco]

What? You mean there really is scientific evidence about what makes you GAY?!

CBN has evidence Charles Darwin is the devil!

[Lugnutz]

I'm the oldest of three boys. What happened there?

[Cole Parker]

I'm the oldest of three boys. What happened there?

I think you should check with your brothers!

C

[Lugnutz]

I think you should check with your brothers!

C

Nope. Married with kids.

[Cole Parker]

Old Uncle Lug. That has a nice ring to it.

C

[Lugnutz]

It does, sadly I don't hear it much.

[FreeThinker]

Very interesting and in an entertaining way.

I disagree with the idea that people are strictly one or the other. I believe sexuality is a very complicated issue with a number of "causes" or influences resulting in people falling at various points on a sexuality spectrum and that that point may move one direction or the other at various times in a person's life. I am certainly overwhelmingly homosexual, but I will confess (gasp- NO!) to having found some females interesting at times. I still couldn't do it with one, though. And, I had a young relative when I was a boy who was definitely straight, but who didn't object to messing around. We all fall at various points on the spectrum and genetics may influence where we fall, environment may do so as well, or a combination of the two (more likely) that can vary from person to person.

[The Pecman]

I disagree with the idea that people are strictly one or the other. I believe sexuality is a very complicated issue with a number of "causes" or influences resulting in people falling at various points on a sexuality spectrum and that that point may move one direction or the other at various times in a person's life.

I think that's 100% true. The Kinsey scale put it this way:

I think it might even be more like a 1-10 -- 1 is pretty much totally straight, and 10 would be totally gay. But there's a large percentage of people who might be a 3 or a 7. I've often said, you put somebody in a "desert island situation," you're eventually gonna have sex with anybody who's there.

Howard Stern has done some funny bits on the radio where he'll ask a male guest, "so you're on a desert island. If you have Bea Arthur [at the time, a 75-year-old actress not known for being a beauty], Whoopi Goldberg, or Mario Lopez, who are you going to have sex with?" Howard has forced a few people to admit under duress that they might consider having gay sex.

[EleCivil]

I always hated the argument about whether or not sexual orientation was a choice. It really doesn't matter - since when was it acceptable to descriminiate against someone because of their choices? Even if it's a choice that involves something you don't personally agree with?

Even though we know it's BS, let's pretend that tomorrow, science proves conclusively that homosexuality is a conscious choice. ...So? It still hasn't been demonstrated that it's a less ethical choice than heterosexuality.

Christianity is a choice - one that I don't agree with - but I still think Christians should be allowed to marry each other. Even gay Christians.

When someone pulls the "Homosexuality is a choice!" card, and we respond with "No, it isn't. Here's the science," we're agreeing to play in their home field, so to speak. It's like we're saying "Sure, we're SINNERS, but we didn't CHOOSE to be sinners!"

No. I'm not having that argument. The argument needs to be "Is it morally wrong to love someone of the same gender?" All of these side issues - whether it's a choice, whether it's "natural", etc. - are things pulled out by the other side to distract from the real argument, because they have no valid, reasonable way to support that argument.

I'm not playing your game - you're making a claim about my morals. Now prove your claim, or step out of my way.

[EleCivil]

...That's not to say I don't like the cartoon, however.

[Cole Parker]

Yeah, but they'll prove their claim by quoting from the bible, and where will that get us?

I love your argument, however. We should be able to make any choice we want as long as we're not hurting anyone with it. And that choice is as personal a one as anyone could make.

C

[EleCivil]

Yeah, but they'll prove their claim by quoting from the bible, and where will that get us?

In no part of the Bible does it say to use political force to coerce non-believers into acting like believers. If you go by the Bible, that's completely backwards - the idea is to convert to Christianity first, THEN you'll start acting Christ-like. Passage after passage speaks of how none are righteous, and simply acting right and following the rules aren't what gets you into heaven.

But then again, we're back to playing in their yard. The Bible says some things are sinful. Yes, but there are no bullets in that gun. What is the Bible to a non-believer? It's an appeal to an unproven authority. To a non-believer, quoting God is quoting a fictional character. God says "Homosexuality is an abomination." Mr. T says "I pity the fool". One of these quotes is from a spiritual force that has not been proven to have ever said it, let alone exist, and it suggests that the supreme creator despises His own creations. The other is from a man who most definitely does exist (He's even on camera saying it! Many, many times!), and it suggests that one should have sympathy for the ignorant. Out of the two quotes, I would prefer to follow the second.

(Though I think I'm preaching to the choir here. Er, so to speak.)