Noah Rothman:
Ali Muhammad Brown was already a suspect in the murder of three Seattle men when he shot 19-year-old Brendan Tevlin eight times at a West Orange traffic light in his home state of New Jersey in June.
Brown is described as a devout Muslim man who killed as part of what prosecutors allege was a “bloody crusade” against the United States. He sought revenge against America for what he said was the wonton killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tevlin was allegedly Brown’s fourth victim.
Brown’s victims, with the exception of Tevlin, had a similar background: they were young, gay men.
Brown met two of his victims at a gay-themed Seattle nightclub. Court documents indicate that Brown used a mobile application to set up meetings with his two victims before committing a double homicide. Brown is also implicated in the murder of a third man whose body was found on a highway outside Seattle in April, KIRO-TV Seattle reported.
Brown’s homicides made news in June, but his story fell off the radar until Wednesday when King County prosecutors charged him with murder. Brown’s prosecutors made it clear that the accused killer’s motives were to terrorize, though he did appear to operate according to a perverse code of conduct:
“In a subsequent July 25 recorded interview in New Jersey, [King County sheriff’s Detective John] Pavlovich wrote, Brown described his idea of a ‘just kill,’ in which the target was an adult male unaccompanied by women, children or elderly people,” CBS News reported.
The LA Times has more:
Whenever I see the, ”Gays For Palestine,” signs at liberal demonstrations I am astonished at the blatant ignorance of such gays in SF, Los Angeles, Berkeley, Seattle.
Gays in ”Palestine,” are often defenestrated: thrown off a 2 or 3 story building then spit on and kicked until they die where they hit….sometimes days later.
Gays in Iran are hung from construction cranes set to slowly suffocate them instead of quickly break their necks.
And one need not be arrested and charged and tried and found guilty before these death sentences are carried out.
The mere rumor that someone (say a rival barber on the street) is homosexual is enough for the morality police (muttuwa) to pronounce sentence and the mob to race into action.
A few years ago a couple of Muslim men were making a practice of driving around SF and stopping if they saw a man who ”seemed gay,” then beating him to within an inch of his life.
Still the Left LOVES them some Muslims!
Weird.
As if Muslims are going to change on this issue.
@Nanny G: Thank goodness The Christian Right, is so supportive of gay rights. It’s wonderful that you personally support gay marriage and stand up for their rights. You are evolving and displaying your compassion.
@Richard Wheeler:
Wow, Richard. Are you really equating Christian opposition to the concept of “gay marriage” to the wholesale murder by muslims of those afflicted with homosexual urges? And you miss the point entirely of the sheer hatred homosexuals have for Christian teachings that they throw their support to a group that calls for the brutal slaughter of those afflicted with homosexual urges.
@Pete: Good point, Pete.
Rich is offering a false equivalence.
I merely pointed out the utter STUPIDITY of any gay who holds a sign saying ”Fags for Palestine,” and “Gays for Palestine,” and “Gays for Gaza,” when it is Hamas in Gaza (part of what these gays think ”Palestine is) who are throwing men and boys off buildings for even the SUSPICION of being homosexual.
There are a few Christians who go beyond what is written when the Bible teaches us to ”hate the sin but NOT the sinner,” thus being a bad example gays can point to (and generalize about ALL Christians from.)
BUT Hamas is following the Koran exactly.
Yet homosexuals are blind to the danger they pose to gays earth-wide.
@Pete: “those afflicted with homosexual urges” you say. Pete, there lies the disconnect.
As to Palestine, we have a conflict that can not be solved until both sides agree to accept and respect the other. Hamas refuses to do this. They must go before a meaningful peace can be reached. Then and only then can Israel begin to treat the Palestinians as members of the human community. With respect and dignity and equality.
@Richard Wheeler: I’m a Christian, and I support rights for all people, including gays. But thanks for falling for that “hate” campaign against Christians here in the US. You are probably more enlightened, I’m sure.
Thanks for being a bigot. You’re the problem, not the solution. The left exploits gays.
And you are completely off the mark if you think Israel and Palestine are on equal moral footing. Israel respects Palestine, and always has. You simply need to do more research and reading, rather than swallowing a ready-made thoughts supplied by LiberalFox News (what I call rollingstone, nyt, cnn, abc, cbs, nbc, the ap, comedy central — strangely a much larger and much influential force for biased information than FOX).
You’re ignorance is appalling. It’s 2014, not 1994. Get with the times, idiot.
@Nathan Blue:”Israel supports Palestine and always has.” You are the idiot Nathan. You have consistently shown that.
BTW Are you onboard with describing gays as “those AFFLICTED with homosexual urges?”
Semper Fi
@Nathan Blue: Actually you said “Israel RESPECTS Palestine and always has.” Are you serious?
@Richard Wheeler:
Richard, it is only a “disconnect” because the PC crowd has tried for decades politically to bestow normalcy upon something that is inherently scientifically abnormal. There is absolutely no benefit to the species, even if the pro-homosexual crowd someday proves the existence of a “gay gene”, because homosexual activity cannot produce offspring. Homosexual urges are simply misdirected urges just like having other abnormal sexual attractions. Homosexual urges were recognized as abnormal until the 1973 APA conference held in San Francisco was hijacked by homosexual activists who manipulated a vote by the group responsible for updating the next DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental illness) resulting in homosexuality being removed from the list of mental illness.
That being said, there is no justification for persecuting someone afflicted with homosexual urges, anymore than there would be justification for persecuting someone with bipolar disorder, borderline or narcissistic personality disorders, depression, alcoholism or diabetes. However, simply because persecution of individuals afflicted with any medical or mental illness is abhorrent does not mean said individuals should be encouraged to behave in a manner that is harmful to them, no matter how much short term gratification said individual obtains from their abnormal indulgences.
And please don’t waste your breath calling me a bigot or a homophobe as the typical PC person responds when I present this argument. Neither charge is accurate, no matter how uttering such terms may soothe your sense of self-righteous indignation. “Majority (politically correct) opinion” is not a component of truth, nor does such trump scientific fact. It does not matter how large a crowd exists praising the emperor’s garments, he is still stark raving naked.
@Pete:
Is that really your argument? We know that gays biologically can and do produce offspring, when they so choose. Those who choose not to are in the same company as Catholic priests. What is a priest afflicted with that makes him “abnormal” in his desire to pursue activities that don’t, by your definition, benefit the species and satisfy his biological imperative (and can he cured)? By the way, does it make a heterosexual person “abnormal” if he has sex with a condom, “activity that cannot produce offspring”? Your argument, Pete, it’s looking pretty sad. What foolishness.
Are you going to argue homosexuality is statistically biologically abnormal, as in “deviating from what is typical”? So is having eidetic memory, or red hair, or being albino, or seven feet tall, or an outlier athlete like Lebron James. Do you frequently compare Lebron James’ abilities to having bi-polor disorder?
And is what is abnormal in a single person the same as what is abnormal in a species? We know that people have been gay as long as there’s been recorded history. Just like it would be abnormal to have an entire generation on Earth without an albino born, it would likewise be abnormal to have a generation born without a gay person. But you can still dream, Pete!
There is no science in your arguments, Pete. You very purposefully, and pejoratively, use the word “”afflicted” and compare being gay to having “bipolar disorder, borderline or narcissistic personality disorders, depression, alcoholism or diabetes”. That implies there is something tangible we should want to cure. And that’s not science, that’s just simplistic moral judgement. There is no cure for being gay, unless you consider forcing someone to live a certain lifestyle against his will a cure. You define something loosely as abnormal to justify not liking it and your urge to want to “cure” it. Mankind doesn’t have a very good record of trying to force conformity upon the species, Pete.
@Tom:
Pete did not dispute that. What Pete did say was:
, which is absolutely correct. Homosexual activity cannot produce offspring.
And have rapists and pedophiles existed since recorded history. It doesn’t prove that rape and pedophilia are normal human conditions.
Please, name one other mental illness that just disappeared from the DSM without a cure or any form of treatment. Just one. Now, logical people understand that mental diseases, just as with physical diseases, do not just go away because a group of doctors got together and decided, for politically correct reasons, and under extreme pressure along with threats of harm, that a particular disease no longer existed.
You are trying to conflate the physical with the mental. A thousand years from now, if someone digs up your rotted corpse, using today’s technology, they will be able to tell if you were male or female, what color your hair was, the tone of your skin, and how tall you were. They will not be able to tell if you were gay, a rapist or a male who was into little boys.
It seems that you understood little of what Pete was saying. I highly recommend you take a reading comprehension course.
@Tom:
Tom, your argument is nonsensical when you say homosexuals can produce offspring. Of course someone afflicted with homosexual urges can reproduce, but only by engaging in heterosexual activity can they do so. Homosexual acts cannot, by definition, produce offspring. Hence homosexuality is inherently a darwinian dead end.
I am puzzled as to why you equate individual characteristics which provide an individual beneficial results, simply by virtue of being statistical outliers, with the clearly unbeneficial tendency towards homosexual behavior. The CDC has for years reported -even before the scourge of HIV – that the average life expectancy for homosexually oriented males is roughly 20 years less than heterosexual males.
Arguing that there have been people born afflicted with homosexual tendencies throughout history, therefore positing that homosexuality is “normal”, is a strange position to support. People have been born throughout history with all sorts of afflictions, but that does not make them normal either.
The claim that there is no “cure” for being gay presupposes a known cause for homosexual tendencies, of which there is not. There is no cure for any number of diseases, both medical and psychiatric, but that doesn’t mean people so afflicted are to be considered “normal”.
Finally, if anyone is out trying to force conformity on anyone, it is the gay rights movement demanding conformity of opinion on the alleged normalcy of homosexuality. Personally I could not care less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. I do not, however, have any desire to see what said couple may be doing, and I certainly have no intention of being browbeaten into believing that which is inherently disordered is in any way normal simply because 2 to 3 percent of a population demand that I do so. Using your logic, had the Aztecs survived to the present day, we would have to accept their bloodthirsty enactment of human sacrifice was “normal”, and any opposition to such acts nothing more than inappropriate moral judgment. The same goes for the savages in ISIS and Iran (following the tenets of the koran), who are actually murdering homosexuals simply for being afflicted with homosexual urges. Which, of course, brings us back to the original point of the bizarre situation in which gays are protesting in support of islamic terrorists who would repay such support by murdering them for being gay. Such behavior on the part of individuals afflicted with homosexual tendencies being evidence of mental illness.
@retire05:
And neither can celibacy. Celibacy cannot produce offspring and therefore, according to Pete, is of ” absolutely no benefit to the species” and thus ” inherently scientifically abnormal”. So please explain why you aren’t trying to cure priests of this affliction.
There is no clinical or empirical basis for the belief that being gay is a mental illness. Should we call it one anyway, just because that’s what people used to think? Did people used to think anything else that was proven wrong?
Not true. If being gay is biological, then there is a physical component. If it’s an “illness”, as you believe, then there is a physical component. Only if it’s merely a conscious choice of behavior, is it purely mental. And that still leaves you with the problem of justifying why you should have any input into how other people live their lives.
If there is gay gene, perhaps they will be able to tell. Is there any point to this observation?
@retire05:
If I were a Christian Conservative who started with the premise that homosexuality is an abomination and gay people are all going to hell, would that help me to understand Pete’s scientific approach better?
@Tom:
Choosing to whether or not to use birth control -.as far as the morality component – is a religious argument with which we can engage if you like – but generally I try to discuss this from a secular, scientific standpoint as religious positions are unlikely to sway the nonreligious. Being forthright I must tell you that my wife and I did not use birth control for religious reasons, and we had 7 children together.
I would ask you to consider this simple thought experiment. How many expectant parents actively want their offspring to be gay? When have you ever known such a couple to express hope that their child would have homosexual tendencies? I am not implying that anyone should reject a child who grows up to engage in homosexual tendencies, just simply asking if people about to have children ever hope that their child will choose to be gay as an adult.
@Tom:
Interesting that you impart a Christian religious theme to my posts when I have not done so.
How is my stated position (not the strawman argument you attributed to me) that homosexual acts cannot produce offspring unscientific? Do you have a case where 2 homosexual men, or 2 homosexual women, engaged in homosexual activity and produced an infant?
I know it is a kneejerk reaction of the pro-gay left to impart that the basis of any opposition to the movement trying to force conformity of.the opinion of homosexual “normalcy” as being based on nothing but religious bigotry, but the only religions I have brought up on this thread are islam and the old Aztec religious practice of human sacrifice.
@Tom:
Pete didn’t bring religion into the argument. Why did you? Is it because you have such disdain for Christians and their beliefs? The subject of this thread, in part, is the belief of Muslims toward gays. But you didn’t want to go there, did you? You reserve your disdain for only Christians. Why are you not slamming the Muslims who are actually killing gays in the public square?
But you also do not offer any rebuttal to what Pete said, and only showed just how little of what he said was understood by you.
Celibacy is a choice. Are you trying to argue that homosexuality is also a choice because I think you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
.
There is no proof that homosexuality is biological. None.
What is the physical component of bi-polarism, which is also a mental illness?
.
You’re getting warm.
I don’t have to justify having input into other’s lives since I am not in the position of justifying the actions of others. As a citizen, of a nation that has laws and a certain moral norm, I do have the right to think as I wish, by using any standard of my choosing.
Now, care to rebut Pete’s opinion with some rationale?
@Tom:
Interesting tack you seem to be taking in comparing celibacy to homosexuality. It isn’t only Catholic priests who choose to be celibate, and those who make that choice do so for a variety of reasons. I am divorced, and currently am choosing to be celibate as an example to my teen children.
Again, from a purely biological standpoint, sexual activity is designed to propagate the species, with certain genetic traits that grant a higher likelihood of an individual surviving to reproductive age and passing on these traits to progeny being of benefit to the species. So even if there is a “gay gene” (an issue for which there is no scientific evidence at present) the inherent inability to reproduce by engaging in homosexual acts is of no benefit from a survival of the species standpoint at all, anymore than having a genetic cause for any other mental illness or physical malady is.
The idea that there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is abnormal is hardly true. Evolutionary theory, as I have already mentioned, is one such bit of evidence. Basic histology is another. The vagina is covered with squamous epithelium which is composed of multiple cell layers, designed to withstand the frictional forces inherent in intercourse. Vaginal lubrication is a biological development which also protects the vaginal mucosa during intercourse. The rectum is covered in columnar epithelium, which is single layered columns of cells, which is not designed to withstand the friction of intercourse, making rectal tissue highly susceptible to tearing from anal intercourse. Such tears make the individual much easier to be infected by diseases, exposing the bloodstream through these tears. These are scientific medical truths that cannot be ignored, no matter how politically incorrect they may be.
A few years back, there was an article I came across that discussed an internet message board where young HIV seronegative homosexual males could go in hopes of hooking up with HIV seropositive males in hopes of contracting HIV. If that isn’t evidence of mental illness, I don’t know what else would be. I am not aware of any heterosexual websites that offer to link up people for the purpose of transmitting STDs.
@Richard Wheeler:
It’s good to see you back Rich, but I didn’t know you had converted to the role of troll. Why deflect the conversation? I read Nan’s post and after that it devolved into a debate about gays in the US. It’s pretty hard to equate the two. I haven’t seen homosexuals hung from the gallows in a public square in the US, but have seen it in Iran.
The great thing about living in the US is that we can disagree with someone’s choices, be it religion, politics, or lifestyle. We don’t take someone out to the public square and execute them over it. The left is such a big proponent of big federal government, yet they fail to see most of their problems are a direct result of big government. That’s not exactly true, the problem is when big government rules against their side. Take DOMA for example: where exactly in the constitution does the congress have the right to decide who can marry who? But the problem there is that if the left decides that congress doesn’t have that right, they have to acknowledge a whole list of legislation that congress doesn’t have the right to decide. We used to have a system where the States got to decide what was best for their people. And people had a much bigger voice in their States. Now we have 535 morons deciding what is best for all of us.
You direct your anger, frustration, and sarcasm at the right when it should be focused on how our government has devolved into an oligarchy.
@Aqua: Aqua and Patvann return on the same day—fantastic!
The far right’s refusal to accept gay marriage is difficult for a social lib. to ignore. Live and let live. Why should they be denied? Why should heterosexuals care?
Keep govt. out of the bedroom and let women make their own choices when it comes to their bodies. Counsel adoption and make this process much easier.
In no way do I condone the abhorrent treatment of gays by radical Islam. Let’s bring ISIS to their knees.
@Richard Wheeler:
Since black Americans basically oppose same sex marriage, do you also include them in your “far right” category?
Do you also support polygamy? How about incestuous marriages? Do you support those, as well?
Does a people not have the right to determine their own social norms?
Are we to take from that that you believe the federal government has no authority demanding that companies provide a birth control inclusion in their employer sponsored health care insurance plans?
Isn’t the choice made by women done prior to conception?
Interesting compare/contrast.
There are ”social liberals,” who are fiscal conservatives.
USUALLY these call themselves ”blue-dog democrats,” not ”social liberals.
Are YOU a fiscal conservative?
IF you are you already know why there are some on the ”far right,” (as you call them) who oppose gay marriage because of the increases in costs to the taxpayers it brings.
And, speaking of the “far right” WHY would a middle-of-the road dem (blue dogs are conservative at least fiscally) contrast himself to that gruop?
There are such things as ”social conservative,” republicans, who are a more exact fit in comparison to a social liberal democrat.
We usually call those socially conservative, but fiscally liberal republicans RINOs.
Some liberals might like to call you a DINO if, you are really a socially liberal BUT fiscally conservative dem.
But I bet you are a full-on liberal.
Both socially AND fiscally.
Thus your comment tries to color you are more to the middle than you really are.
@Nanny G: That was extremely confusing. Do you even understand what you said? Reminded me of a discourse in The Princess Bride lol
@Richard Wheeler:
Why don’t you respond to my questions in #21?
@retire05: You’re so damn nasty tiresome.
In response to your 5 questions— NO,NO.YES,YES.NO.
@Richard Wheeler:
So you are laying the burden on only white conservatives although blacks do not support same sex marriage? How convenient.
What happened to your “live and let live” philosophy?
Then people should have the right to determine what laws they want to live under.
Good. At least you understand that the government has no business in your medicine cabinet.
Is it your contention then, that all the pregnancies that result in abortion are due to rape? Because that would be the only way the woman had no choice in the actions that resulted in a pregnancy.
Having unprotected sex is like drinking too much; it comes with a risk. And that choice was made PRIOR to conception. Or has the science changed so that a woman can conceive with out first deciding to have unprotected sex?
And you’re a jerk. So?
@Pete:
That’s a narrow view that doesn’t withstand scrutiny. To suggest that only those people or creatures who can and do breed are of value to the species is a specious argument. Or should I say, a reverse-engineered argument designed to come to a designed conclusion. How do you square this argument with the existence of species where only the alpha males breed? The species is reliant upon the contributions of non-alpha males to exist, but they do not breed. Are the beta males therefore “Darwinian dead ends”? Only in your narrow sense, yet their value to the species is self-evident. Did Leonardo da Vinci earn his keep as a human or is he similarly flawed, in your worldview, for not having bred?
I didn’t argue anything about an affliction. I stated a fact, that gay people have always existed as part of the human race. It is absolutely normal for gay people to exist. The proof is that they do. You seem confused by the distinction between something being “abnormal” as in “statistically unlikely” and the fact that it’s normal for some statistically unlikely things to happen regularly. You continue to advance arguments that are easily dismissed by my simply pointing at a gay person and saying “there he is!”. So the question is, what do you plan to do about it? Again, your entire worldview on gays falls apart when one points out that its careful construction cannot withstand comparison to other Darwinian unlikely or “abnormal” occurrences in nature. Does a blind person throughout history, in purely Darwinian terms, stand an equal chance of passing on his genetic material than a non-blind person? Should he be allowed to marry? Your scrutiny can be brought to bear on almost anyone. You call it an “affliction” to distance yourself from the reality. The fact of the matter is that there are many people who primarily identify as “gay”. This is outside the mechanics of sexual activity. When you say a gay person can’t marry, that has nothing to do with sex. That is a cultural, a moral, prescription.
Utterly ridiculous (but creative). Obviously, gays aren’t asking for human sacrifice. They’re asking to be granted exactly the same, no more or less, standing in society that you have.Part of that is the right to marry. Your stance is very illustrative of a certain mode of thinking, the illogical notion that “other” people should be satisfied with what they have, even though it’s less. In fact, they should be grateful! We don’t kill you people any more for your disgusting activities, yet here you are, asking for more. Why isn’t less than what we have, but better than you used to have, good enough? Of course the same argument has been made many, many times, for example, about blacks, who apparently were supposed to be happy enough with Jim Crow, since it was better than slavery. The simply fact is no one is ever satisfied being a second class citizen, and artificially settling for less. That wouldn’t be very “Darwinian”, would it?
@Pete:
I’m sure some gay parents might hope for a gay child. Most people I know hope for a healthy child who will grow up to be happy. If being gay is part of that happiness, so be it. It’s called accepting reality. It’s so sad to think of gay children born into religiously conservative households where homosexuality is frowned upon, if not worse. I’ve known several gays as adults who had that experience. The pain for both the parents and children is just heartbreaking. And what good did it do anyone?
@Pete:
Pete, again, I think you’re too hung up on the sex aspect. I happen to know some gay people pretty well. They would be gay whether they engaged in gay sex or not. Trying to reduce it to some physical activity you find disgusting is reductive. They have rich lives, in some cased with committed partners. These are people, not thought experiments on the Darwinian odds of human propagation or rectal lubrication.
@Richard Wheeler:
Not everyone on the right or even far right are against gay marriage. A lot of it has to do with the federal government telling us what we should or should not find acceptable. It’s simply not their role.
Glad you want to engage ISIS. I think that’s the fight we’ve been heading for since before the bombing of the USS Cole. I hate the thought of sending more of our young people to war, but I don’t think we’re going to be able to avoid this one.
@Tom:
Well then, provide an example of where a homosexual man impregnated another homosexual man. Or where has a homosexual woman ever impregnated another homosexual, or even straight, woman?
No matter how you cut it, Tom, the male/female equation must be present for reproduction of the human species.
As have rapists and pedophiles. Does that make them part of the normal human condition in your mind? If so, how can we punish someone for doing what you consider normal?
Possibly.
1.6% of the U.S. population, according to the federal government.
Name the state that asks the question “Are you gay?” on a marriage license. Gays already have the right to marry, but are limited in who they can marry, just as straights are.
Lame argument since blacks were discriminated against due to their skin tone and people being able to identify them visually. Now, how can we tell is someone is gay by simply looking at them?
We also don’t kill polygamists. Do you think polygamy should also be legal? How about incestuous relationships? Should those be legal, as well as long as both participants are of legal age?
Actually, Tom, it is the homosexuals choice of sexual partner that defines them. Are those homosexuals who are not married any less homosexual? And a society has the right to determine what is, and what is not, acceptable for that society.
@Tom:
You are deliberately misrepresenting my position to avoid the obvious ramifications. Being a darwinian dead end refers specifically to the fact that homosexual acts cannot pass on their genes – if one accepts the unproven “gay gene” theory. Simply because something exists does not automatically confer normalcy, as is understood with the existence of individuals afflicted with Trisomy 21, Prader Willi Syndrome, depression, bipolar disorder, or any other medical or psychiatric condition. These afflictions exist as well, but are hardly considered normal.
I notice you have nothing to say in response to the histologic design point I made.
The idea that people who do not breed do not contribute to society is your red herring argument, not mine.
You dodge the question regarding expectant parents wanting a gay child. It would seem that two homosexuals who adopt would want their child to choose a gay lifestyle, but that is hardly unexpected from individuals who have chosen such a path. I was specifically asking about average heterosexual parents’ wishes for their child.
I have many friends and coworkers who choose the gay lifestyle. (I got my undergraduate degree in acting and filmmaking before deciding on medicine.) I chose as best man for my first marriage my best friend, who was (and still is) flamboyantly gay. As I am sure you can imagine, he and I are on opposite political positions, but he is still my friend. I do not condemn my gay acquaintances, nor treat them any differently than my heterosexual friends and coworkers. But the typical leftist tact of equating opposition to “gay marriage” with the brutal acts of murder perpetrated against homosexuals by muslims is nonsensical, and counterproductive.
In my medical practice, I regularly care for infants of lesbians who underwent artificial insemination, as well as infants being adopted by homosexual males from young single women giving their children up for adoption. It is not my place to judge these situations, and I care for those infants exactly the same as all my other patients. That does not mean I have to accept homosexuality as normal, anymore than I should have to accept any other paraphilia as normal. Simply because I disagree with the PC characterization of homosexuality as “normal” does not mean I hate or despise those afflicted with homosexual tendencies.
You castigated me for having no scientific basis for classifying homosexuality as abnormal. I have provided a darwinian basis and a histological justification for my reasoning. You have misapplied the concepts of Darwin, and have avoided the histological aspect of our debate, as well as implying that I am a hate-filled Christian when I have not brought Christian religious precepts into the discussion at all. The bottom line is that the PC demand that homosexuality be considered “normal”, simply because people exist with the affliction of homosexual urges turns reality upside down.
@Pete:
I haven’t misrepresented your position. I think we both agree you consider homosexuality to be an “affliction”. Affliction has a negative connotation, does it not? The disconnect is that most gays don’t consider being gay an affliction, at least those living in places where they’re not forced to feel that way. There’s something obtuse about your refusal to acknowledge this. And something creepily Dr. Mengele-ish about your insistence that homosexuality is the result of a malignant cause, something to be remedied.
Hardly. My job as a parent isn’t to “wish” a specific fate upon my child, it’s to love my child unconditionally and be the best parent I can be, come what may. I don’t go in for hypotheticals like this because they’re pointless. Happiness and health are not mutually exclusive with being gay. If that’s what you choose to fret about and pray over, to try and put a finger on the metaphysical scales, that’s your deal.
Seriously? Don’t get me wrong, I have friends who are (fill in the blank), BUT…
Don’t play a victim. This is an anonymous online debate, after all. To your accusation: all you’ve done is gone into the weeds while avoiding the simple matter that your opinion and your actions vis a vis gay people have a tangible impact upon their lives and happiness. What is your goal in that regard? You brag about your bestie, but you display nothing like empathy for those you term “Darwinian dead ends”.
@Tom: Dr. Mengele–ish. There’s an image!
Just when I’d almost recovered from images of the ghoulish purveyor of hate for BHO Dr.J.