Would this guy have his job today, if he had tweeted about a different race?

[CAJUNEER]

Right...but where is that done? In a court which is by extension...Government. You said "why not get Government out of Marriage". They're already in it. Non Married couples who split up amicably don't need a court to divide up their stuff. But when there's a dispute...how would that be adjudicated?

If you're arguing no ones needs either Government or a Church to call themselves "Married", now you're redefining what that means and there you will get an argument from folks Religious or non.

As I said, I don't have a problem with calling same Sex couples who Marry "Civil Unions" but if you remove the Government from any recognition of that arrangement legal or otherwise...you're opening up a can of worms that may ultimately redefine what any union is. A man and 2 Women, 3 Women and 2 Men...10 Men and 20 Women....where would you draw the line?

I'm not ready to put society through that just so folks can live any way they want and be called a "union"

Let's define first what Marriage is (as we've always known it) then if same sex couples also want that legal status...let's define what their arrangement is...so there's no confusion for anyone, or the Government.

Then leave it at that.

I said nothing about church or the definition of marriage. I said the government need not be involved in sanctioning any marriage. If a live-in arrangement breaks up amicably and the couple figures things out themselves without a judge--what's wrong with that?

If a court needs to be involved what difference does it make which court hears the case?

Why do I or does anyone need to draw a line? People will decide as consenting adults what they think is best. If their decisions are wrong-headed then they suffer and have to make different choices.

 

[atlkvb]

I said nothing about church or the definition of marriage. I said the government need not be involved in sanctioning any marriage. If a live-in arrangement breaks up amicably and the couple figures things out themselves without a judge--what's wrong with that?

If a court needs to be involved what difference does it make which court hears the case?

Why do I or does anyone need to draw a line? People will decide as consenting adults what they think is best. If their decisions are wrong-headed then they suffer and have to make different choices.

Nothing.(what you said in bold) I said in cases of a dispute a court will settle the differences and that's by definition the Government.

You need to draw the line defining what Marriage is because as I said without it, all sorts of folks living under all sorts of weird arrangements could promulgate. Then if Children are involved you could have a near total collapse of civil society because no one would be responsible as a Mother or Father under polygamist types of live in arrangements.

You need some defining lines of who is Married and who can be Married (same sex couples can for instance) but not all live-in arrangements can be or should be considered the same as Marriage. Redefining or undermining that basic structure of society by essentially redefining what is a "Family" or a "Marriage", is a fast and slippery slope to a total collapse of any type of defined Morality or social order.

No Thanks.

 

[CAJUNEER]

Nothing.(what you said in bold) I said in cases of a dispute a court will settle the differences and that's by definition the Government.

You need to draw the line defining what Marriage is because as I said without it, all sorts of folks living under all sorts of weird arrangements could promulgate. Then if Children are involved you could have a near total collapse of civil society because no one would be responsible as a Mother or Father under polygamist types of live in arrangements.

You need some defining lines of who is Married and who can be Married (same sex couples can for instance) but not all live-in arrangements can be or should be considered the same as Marriage. Redefining or undermining that basic structure of society by essentially redefining what is a "Family" or a "Marriage" is a fast and slippery slope to a total collapse of any type of defined Morality or social order.

No Thanks.

You think because they could masses will join in group marriages? I don't.

 

[atlkvb]

You think because they could masses will join in group marriages? I don't.

Yes they could...you're arguing for them to do whatever makes them feel good. This is why I think it (Marriage) needs to be defined because without that anything goes and that type of permissive society is a Rx for moral disaster.

 

[atlkvb]

You've repeated the same thing over and over. What you haven't done is shown where prayer is directly protected. It's not. It's assumed protected not merely because of the first amendment but because it is a private activity...just like homosexuality is a private activity.

As soon as you allow the state to decide what private, adult, consensual activity which infringes on no one else's rights is deviant you allow them to declare, for instance, spanking children deviant.

This also emboldens further overreach by government. No right is absolute. We would not allow blood-letting on children, which is a part of some religions. The right of non consenting children cannot be abridge by a parent's freedom of religion. If Sodomy laws, which SCOTUS already ruled against, were maintained on the basis of deviancy then on the basis of deviancy a state could say its psychologically abusive to children to be taught Hell is real and any who doesn't believe in Jesus is going there.

You cannot construct a legal argument against a private activity you don't like without the potential of that very argument being used to abridge a freedom you do like.

CAJUNEER I didn't get a chance to respond to this because by the time I got around to reading it, the Basketball game v Okie State had started. So I'll ask you to read my response on the difference between choice of homosexuality and the state of being homosexual which I hope was clarified in the AT commentary I boldfaced in my response to you on how the Constitution considers the difference.

Legal precedent has also been established (I also linked those) where States do indeed decide and classify that which they consider to be "deviant" behavior. The definition indeed changes as societal norms adjust to relative moral constricts, but they do indeed define where that line is drawn.

The Constitution does recognize, nor does it limit our Freedom of choice. However that Freedom as you correctly stated is not absolute, either in rearing of Children in your example, or in choices of human beings to engage in Homosexual acts which as I've argued is also not an absolute right and certainly not a protected Freedom similar to Religious Worship or Prayer therein.

 

[Boomboom521]

CAJUNEER I didn't get a chance to respond to this because by the time I got around to reading it, the Basketball game v Okie State had started. So I'll ask you to read my response on the difference between choice of homosexuality and the state of being homosexual which I hope was clarified in the AT commentary I boldfaced in my response to you on how the Constitution considers the difference.

Legal precedent has also been established (I also linked those) where States do indeed decide and classify that which they consider to be "deviant" behavior. The definition indeed changes as societal norms adjust to relative moral constricts, but they do indeed define where that line is drawn.

The Constitution does recognize, nor does it limit our Freedom of choice. However that Freedom as you correctly stated is not absolute, either in rearing of Children in your example, or in choices of human beings to engage in Homosexual acts which as I've argued is also not an absolute right and certainly not a protected Freedom similar to Religious Worship or Prayer therein.

Homosexuality isn't a choice, that's where you are allowing prejudice to prevail in your thinking.

 

[atlkvb]

Homosexuality isn't a choice, that's where you are allowing prejudice to prevail in your thinking.

Yes it is Boomer. How else is one Homosexual unless choosing to do that which makes them so?

Can you choose not to do Homosexual things?

If the answer is yes, does that mean you are still a Homosexual or then just like anyone else?

Or are you only Homosexual once you choose to commit Homosexual acts?

Which is it?

 

[Boomboom521]

Yes it is Boomer. How else is one Homosexual unless choosing to do that which makes them so?

Can you choose not to do Homosexual things?

If the answer is yes, does that mean you are still a Homosexual or then just like anyone else?

Or are you only Homosexual once you choose to commit Homosexual acts?

Which is it?

From what I know, homosexuals do not choose to be attracted to the same sex, it is something they have no control over.

 

[atlkvb]

From what I know, homosexuals do not choose to be attracted to the same sex, it is something they have no control over.

Then explain how so many can and do come out of that Lifestyle?

If there is no choice or control over it, how is that possible?

What is the difference between them or you and I if they are not choosing to have sex with someone of their same sex? What makes them still homosexual without homosexual sex?

Can I stop being Negro?

 

[atlkvb]

From what I know, homosexuals do not choose to be attracted to the same sex, it is something they have no control over.

Let me try it this way Boomer my Man...

Let's say you're hungry. If you choose to eat, are you still hungry? The only change in your state of hunger comes when you choose to eat. If you choose not to eat, you'll still be hungry. You are not always hungry no matter what until you make a conscious choice not to be!

Likewise if you desire sex with with someone of your own sex, but then choose not to act on those desires are you still a homosexual? Or in this case, can you actually still be hungry (or homosexual) even if you choose to eat or even if you choose not to have homosexual sex?

 

[Boomboom521]

Then explain how so many can and do come out of that Lifestyle?

If there is no choice or control over it, how is that possible?

What is the difference between them or you and I if they are not choosing to have sex with someone of their same sex? What makes them still homosexual without homosexual sex?

Can I stop being Negro?

Let's try this:

You're a Mountaineer fan. Can you choose not to love the Mountaineers?
You might be so disgusted with bowl losses that you say "that's it, I'm done", but you will still somewhere inside hope they get it together.
Being a Mountaineer fan is a result of many factors. Maybe where you were born (levels of testosterone/ genetic makeup), maybe you attended college there (your development / how you were raised), maybe someone you care about loved them (a mental aspect of attraction /association), or maybe you just like the coach or a certain player (a physical attraction to the opposite sex).

It might be one or all of these factors that make someone a Mountaineer fan. Can some of these factors change? Yes. But some cannot. And unless you were never REALLY a fan to begin with, even if they do there will always be a part you that is a Mountaineer fan. Why repress it?

Point I'm making (with what might be a horrible analogy) is that many different factors contribute to homosexuality, and the only thing that "changes someone back from it" is a forced denial of being homosexual. This is of course not true with bisexuality, but that is NOT the same thing.

 

[atlkvb]

Can you choose not to love the Mountaineers?

Have you read some of the Dana haters on this board?

 

[atlkvb]

Let's try this:

You're a Mountaineer fan. Can you choose not to love the Mountaineers?
You might be so disgusted with bowl losses that you say "that's it, I'm done", but you will still somewhere inside hope they get it together.
Being a Mountaineer fan is a result of many factors. Maybe where you were born (levels of testosterone/ genetic makeup), maybe you attended college there (your development / how you were raised), maybe someone you care about loved them (a mental aspect of attraction /association), or maybe you just like the coach or a certain player (a physical attraction to the opposite sex).

It might be one or all of these factors that make someone a Mountaineer fan. Can some of these factors change? Yes. But some cannot. And unless you were never REALLY a fan to begin with, even if they do there will always be a part you that is a Mountaineer fan. Why repress it?

Point I'm making (with what might be a horrible analogy) is that many different factors contribute to homosexuality, and the only thing that "changes someone back from it" is a forced denial of being homosexual. This is of course not true with bisexuality, but that is NOT the same thing.

You're right Boomboom my Man, it's a horrible analogy because you're implying I have no choice as a football fan other than to be a Mountaineer Fan. All you have to do is just read some of the Dana haters posting on this board to know that ain't true!

But to your point, choice is implied because being a Mountaineer fan in your analogy was dependent on various factors...most of which are controllable and not a condition of my football birth. If the team pisses me off, I can choose not to follow them. If they please me, I can choose to buy season tickets and attend all of their road games.

The point is I can choose if I remain a Mountaineer fan, or become a Dana hater. You are implying there is no such choice in being Homosexual. You're claiming it's as natural as being a Mountaineer fan so long as you were raised to be that way. You're saying there's no choice involved in it.

Correct?

So why would it even be possible then to be a Pitt Fan or in the case of your analogy, a Heterosexual...if other factors were different?

I'm arguing that yes, homosexuals certainly do choose or prefer sex with their own kind...and if that is indeed their choice (which I'm arguing it is) they certainly have complete control over when, how, and where to exercise it and under what conditions...just like true Mountaineer fans make their choices to follow the team under certain conditions.

It is certainly not something that is inherent to them (being Mountaineer fans) as Football fans no matter what. Similarly, homosexuals are not bound to their sexual preferences (choices) for those of the same sex...indeed they can and often do make alternate choices which by definition means they are not inherently destined to always choose same sex partners no matter what. I asked you what makes them different or distinguishes them from you or I without their choice of a same sex partner?

Ans: Nothing. It's their choice of a same sex partner which makes them homosexual.

Just ask Pitt fans or our own Dana haters who choose not to follow or worship our beloved Mountaineers.

 

[Boomboom521]

You're right Boomboom my Man, it's a horrible analogy because you're implying I have no choice as a football fan other than to be a Mountaineer Fan. All you have to do is just read some of the Dana haters posting on this board to know that ain't true!

But to your point, choice is implied because being a Mountaineer fan in your analogy was dependent on various factors...most of which are controllable and not a condition of my football birth. If the team pisses me off, I can choose not to follow them. If they please me, I can choose to buy season tickets and attend all of their road games.

The point is I can choose if I remain a Mountaineer fan, or become a Dana hater. You are implying there is no such choice in being Homosexual. You're claiming it's as natural as being a Mountaineer fan so long as you were raised to be that way. You're saying there's no choice involved in it.

Correct?

So why would it even be possible then to be a Pitt Fan or in the case of your analogy, a Heterosexual...if other factors were different?

I'm arguing that yes, homosexuals certainly do choose or prefer sex with their own kind...and if that is indeed their choice (which I'm arguing it is) they certainly have complete control over when, how, and where to exercise it and under what conditions...just like true Mountaineer fans make their choices to follow the team under certain conditions.

It is certainly not something that is inherent to them (being Mountaineer fans) as Football fans no matter what. Similarly, homosexuals are not bound to their sexual preferences (choices) for those of the same sex...indeed they can and often do make alternate choices which by definition means they are not inherently destined to always choose same sex partners no matter what. I asked you what makes them different or distinguishes them from you or I without their choice of a same sex partner?

Ans: Nothing. It's their choice of a same sex partner which makes them homosexual.

Just ask Pitt fans or our own Dana haters who choose not to follow or worship our beloved Mountaineers.

The point I was trying to make is that homosexuals can only choose to repress their desires or embrace them. They cannot change who they are attracted to at all. Many factors could possibly be the cause. The homosexual men and women I've known in my life lead me to believe that it is not a choice.

 

[atlkvb]

homosexuals can only choose to repress their desires or embrace them.

But you're saying they have no choice in the matter. If they choose to repress their desires even if same sex is all they desire to have, how are they then still homosexual?

The homosexual men and women I've known in my life lead me to believe that it is not a choice.

How do they have no choice when you just finished stating they have a choice only to repress those desires or embrace them?

You're trying to argue they have no choice but to be homosexual or choose homosexuality, but you still haven't told me what makes them homosexual if they choose to repress those desires which you're also claiming they are incapable of doing? You're doing this all the while trying to convince me there is no "choice" involved in either scenario!

So I'm confused Boombom521...almost as confused as they are and apparently you are too to trying to defend them.

 

[Boomboom521]

But you're saying they have no choice in the matter. If they choose to repress their desires even if same sex is all they desire to have, how are they then still homosexual?



How do they have no choice when you just finished stating they have a choice only to repress those desires or embrace them?

You're trying to argue they have no choice but to be homosexual or choose homosexuality, but you still haven't told me what makes them homosexual if they choose to repress those desires which you're also claiming they are incapable of doing? You're doing this all the while trying to convince me there is no "choice" involved in either scenario!

So I'm confused Boombom521...almost as confused as they are and apparently you are too to trying to defend them.

I'm not trying to defend anyone. The do not choose who they are attracted to (this is homosexuality). They can choose to repress it because people make them feel ashamed about who they really are, or they can choose to allow their natural attraction to be known.

You think it's some perversion of natural sexuality. It's not. Are you a heterosexual only because you choose to be with women?

 

[atlkvb]

It's not. Are you a heterosexual only because you choose to be with women?

Yes boom boom, even if I choose not to have sex with a woman, it doesn't change my status as a heterosexual Male. That's my natural state.

Again I'm asking you, what makes them (gays) homosexual if they are not having same sex? I'm not talking about if they prefer or chose same sex partners or not, how can they "be" homosexual if they are not having sex with a same sex partner? Isn't that choice of an act that which then makes them homosexual? If you're not a Male heterosexual, then you're a Female heterosexual in your natural state are you not?

What is their natural state without gay sex? Mine is Male heterosexual, how are they any different?

heterosexual - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/heterosexual
A heterosexual person is attracted to people of the opposite sex. Boys who like girls and women who like men are heterosexual. Being heterosexual has long been considered "normal" in our society. When you think of a married couple or parents, it's usually been a man and woman — in other words, a heterosexual couple.

 

[atlkvb]

You think it's some perversion of natural sexuality.

Yes I do Boom. It is not a natural state, it is an unnatural perversion...just like pedophilia., or necrophilia, or bestiality....or even celibacy or perhaps exhibitionism. None of those are "normal" states of human sexuality, they are all either abnormalities or as I said perversions.

 

[atlkvb]

They do not choose who they are attracted to (this is homosexuality)

So is a person who's attracted to Children always a pedophile boomer? You're saying that's not a conscious choice they have no control over? In other words you'd know he's a pedophile even without the stimulation of him choosing to look at pics or even trying sex with one of 'em? (kids). He can't help what he's attracted to?

A Pedophile can be spotted a mile away without actually doing something to call attention to his attraction for little tykes? And you think that's normal? Just like homosexuals? There's nothing else they have to do? It's their normal state?

So tell me boomer (and this is not meant to be personal, it's only for illustration's sake) if a guy moved in next door to you and you knew he at least liked watching little kids and kinda even admired your little Daughter...would you still be OK with him thinking that way as his "normal" preference or at least just looking at her because that was simply his natural choice of sexual stimulation?

Or would he be OK with you still getting his jollies off simply looking at or admiring or even desiring your little Girl as long as he didn't put his hands on her?

Everybody doing what they prefer or makes them feel good as long as it doesn't effect you right boomboom521?

 

[Boomboom521]

So is a person who's attracted to Children always a pedophile boomer? You're saying that's not a conscious choice they have no control over? In other words you'd know he's a pedophile even without the stimulation of him choosing to look at pics or even trying sex with one of 'em? (kids). He can't help what he's attracted to?

A Pedophile can be spotted a mile away without actually doing something to call attention to his attraction for little tykes? And you think that's normal? Just like homosexuals? There's nothing else they have to do? It's their normal state?

So tell me boomer (and this is not meant to be personal, it's only for illustration's sake) if a guy moved in next door to you and you knew he at least liked watching little kids and kinda even admired your little Daughter...would you still be OK with him thinking that way as his "normal" preference or at least just looking at her because that was simply his natural choice of sexual stimulation?

Or would he be OK with you still getting his jollies off simply looking at or admiring or even desiring your little Girl as long as he didn't put his hands on her?

Everybody doing what they prefer or makes them feel good as long as it doesn't effect you right boomboom521?

To compare pedophillia to homosexuality, to me, is unbelievably wrong, prejudiced, and ignorant. As long as you keep those views in your church, I don't care....you're free to think what you want. If a man or woman identifies themselves as a homosexual, I am completely ok with that, and if they tell me it's not a choice I believe them in that fact. I will not make assumptions about another's life based solely on my own interpretation of spirituality or the characteristics of nature. I will only act to prevent or even judge another's actions in life if they impede on the rights of another individual.

 

[Boomboom521]

So is a person who's attracted to Children always a pedophile boomer? You're saying that's not a conscious choice they have no control over? In other words you'd know he's a pedophile even without the stimulation of him choosing to look at pics or even trying sex with one of 'em? (kids). He can't help what he's attracted to?

A Pedophile can be spotted a mile away without actually doing something to call attention to his attraction for little tykes? And you think that's normal? Just like homosexuals? There's nothing else they have to do? It's their normal state?

So tell me boomer (and this is not meant to be personal, it's only for illustration's sake) if a guy moved in next door to you and you knew he at least liked watching little kids and kinda even admired your little Daughter...would you still be OK with him thinking that way as his "normal" preference or at least just looking at her because that was simply his natural choice of sexual stimulation?

Or would he be OK with you still getting his jollies off simply looking at or admiring or even desiring your little Girl as long as he didn't put his hands on her?

Everybody doing what they prefer or makes them feel good as long as it doesn't effect you right boomboom521?

If you ever wonder why moderate liberals run hard to the left, look no further that your own comments about homosexuality. They're why liberals hold the right with such disdain and disrespect. Some on this board were beginning to change my mind about the right's bigotry.....then someone says these types of things

 

[atlkvb]

If you ever wonder why moderate liberals run hard to the left, look no further that your own comments about homosexuality. They're why liberals hold the right with such disdain and disrespect. Some on this board were beginning to change my mind about the right's bigotry.....then someone says these types of things

And boomer my Man as much as I do respect you and admire some of the ways you think, you can't understand how frustrated those of us on the Right get when you guys on the Left don't listen to the maniacal lunatic fringe arguments you resort to in attempts to justify your positions, or worse yet you guys never directly answer legitimate questions about those positions you hold without either resorting to name calling or changing the subject.

I just wish you'd engage me in answering the simple questions I've posed to you several times in this thread so I can better understand where you draw the line between a person's normal sexuality and aberrant or deviant choice behavior?

You either can't answer me or you simply refuse to, but I get it.

 

[atlkvb]

To compare pedophillia to homosexuality, to me, is unbelievably wrong, prejudiced, and ignorant. As long as you keep those views in your church, I don't care....you're free to think what you want. If a man or woman identifies themselves as a homosexual, I am completely ok with that, and if they tell me it's not a choice I believe them in that fact. I will not make assumptions about another's life based solely on my own interpretation of spirituality or the characteristics of nature. I will only act to prevent or even judge another's actions in life if they impede on the rights of another individual.

You didn't answer my questions, but that's OK Boom.

 

[Boomboom521]

And boomer my Man as much as I do respect you and admire some of the ways you think, you can't understand how frustrated those of us on the Right get when you guys on the Left don't listen to the maniacal lunatic fringe arguments you resort to in attempts to justify your positions, or worse yet you guys never directly answer legitimate questions about those positions you hold without either resorting to name calling or changing the subject.

I just wish you'd engage me in answering the simple questions I've posed to you several times in this thread so I can better understand where you draw the line between a person's normal sexuality and aberrant or deviant choice behavior?

You either can't answer me or you simply refuse to, but I get it.

"Normal" sexuality as defined by your religion and your idea of social norms. Homosexuality and bisexuality were common and accepted in Ancient Greece and Rome. It is "normal" in America and has been, maybe not in the social mainstream but in practice none the less. Your argument, to me, is baseless. You say "it's not natural, look at nature"....I tell you homosexuality exists in nature. You say "you must choose to be homosexual, but I don't choose to be heterosexual because it's my natural state", again I say it very well might be their natural state as well. The you compare it to pedophilia and state that it is a perversion.

Look, believe what you want, but have the respect to realize and identify that you are homophobic, and that view might not be uniform for those on the right.

 

[atlkvb]

To compare pedophillia to homosexuality, to me, is unbelievably wrong, prejudiced, and ignorant.

I called both of them sexual perversions boom. You're excusing homosexuality and that's OK...I'm not. I'm not comparing them, I'm equating them.

Both are sexual perversions outside of normal sexual behavior or human sexuality in my opinion.

 

[atlkvb]

"Normal" sexuality as defined by your religion and your idea of social norms. Homosexuality and bisexuality were common and accepted in Ancient Greece and Rome. It is "normal" in America and has been, maybe not in the social mainstream but in practice none the less. Your argument, to me, is baseless. You say "it's not natural, look at nature"....I tell you homosexuality exists in nature. You say "you must choose to be homosexual, but I don't choose to be heterosexual because it's my natural state", again I say it very well might be their natural state as well. The you compare it to pedophilia and state that it is a perversion.

Look, believe what you want, but have the respect to realize and identify that you are homophobic, and that view might not be uniform for those on the right.

You still have not explained to me boom my man how one is "homosexual" as a natural condition of existence without doing or performing homosexual acts?

How is that possible?

 

[atlkvb]

homosexuality exists in nature.

True boom...but that doesn't make it "normal". Cancer exists in nature too, is it "normal" boom my Man?

 

[Boomboom521]

Do I need to? You posted the definition of heterosexuality didn't you? How is homosexuality any different? It's being attracted to only someone of the same sex. As I said, one could choose to ignore those attractions, so bigots like you don't judge them as perversions of the righteous, or they can embrace who they are and pursue happiness. That is until the true Americans say they shouldn't.

 

[Boomboom521]

True boom...but that doesn't make it "normal". Cancer exists in nature too, is it "normal" boom my Man?

Are you referring to something as common or normal?

 

[atlkvb]

Are you referring to something as common or normal?

Aberrant boom. Not considered as or being of a condition found naturally occurring, like walking. A person who is crippled is common, but not "normal".

Get the difference my friend?

 

[Boomboom521]

Are you referring to something as common or normal?

It is uncommon in the sense that it doesn't exist at the same frequency as heterosexual. It is normal in the sense that the act is not perverse, and is a natural state of being in the animal (or human).

 

[Boomboom521]

Aberrant boom. Not considered as or being of a condition found naturally occurring, like walking. A person who is crippled is common, but not "normal".

Get the difference my friend?

It is naturally occurring, hence the reference to the sexual condition occurring in nature (disconnected from any mental perversion or illness)

 

[atlkvb]

As I said, one could choose to ignore those attractions

Boom you're the one who claimed there is no "choice" involved in being homosexual! you claim it is their natural state of being. I can't choose to stop being heterosexual until or unless I either engage in non heterosexual activity or die.

What makes one who chooses to abstain from homosexual behavior still homosexual?

 

[Boomboom521]

Aberrant boom. Not considered as or being of a condition found naturally occurring, like walking. A person who is crippled is common, but not "normal".

Get the difference my friend?

This is without a doubt ..... you attempting to push your religious view onto others. That's not religious freedom, and that's NOT American.

 

[Boomboom521]

Boom you're the one who claimed there is no "choice" involved in being homosexual! you claim it is their natural state of being. I can't choose to stop being heterosexual until or unless I either engage in non heterosexual activity or die.

What makes one who chooses to abstain from homosexual behavior still homosexual?

THEY ARE ATTEACTED TO ONLY PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX!!!!! Do you still not get it?

 

[atlkvb]

It is naturally occurring, hence the reference to the sexual condition occurring in nature

So a homosexual if one is a naturally occurring position or condition in nature is easy to determine or spot without them having to perform homosexual acts? Have I got that right boom?

 

[Boomboom521]

Boom you're the one who claimed there is no "choice" involved in being homosexual! you claim it is their natural state of being. I can't choose to stop being heterosexual until or unless I either engage in non heterosexual activity or die.

What makes one who chooses to abstain from homosexual behavior still homosexual?

That's why I asked what makes someone a heterosexual. And you responded with the definition: which stated that is it being attracted to someone of the opposite sex.

 

[atlkvb]

THEY ARE ATTEACTED TO ONLY PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX!!!!! Do you still not get it?

Nope, 'cause I don't know what they are unless they choose to actually act on that attraction. I'm attracted to food...does that make me obese?

 

[Boomboom521]

So a homosexual if one is a naturally occurring position or condition in nature is easy to determine or spot without them having to perform homosexual acts? Have I got that right boom?

What does spotting them easily have to do with anything at all?

 

[Boomboom521]

Nope, 'cause I don't know what they are unless they choose to actually act on that attraction. I'm attracted to food...does that make me obese?

Ridiculous