VTTW Board Index

Is there another openly gay male athlete in major professional sports? I can't think of one but I could be wrong.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/news/20130429/jason-collins-gay-nba-player/?sct=hp_t11_a1&eref=sihp (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/news/20130429/jason-collins-gay-nba-player/?sct=hp_t11_a1&eref=sihp)

(Not aimed at you, but at the media circus that will surely follow.)

My response is, "Who cares?!?"

You don't think this is significant in light of the cultural shift in the US, the legislation and court cases re: marriage equality and DADT, and the uber-macho testosterone-driven nature of professional sports? I think this is a pivotal event in a number of ways, both within and beyond sports.

How do you thing his teammates feel about it...Hell, they have been naked in front of him....

Yep, and apparently he never made moves on any of them. So their egos are probably a bit bruised.  :smile:

FWIW, I think we can be reasonably sure that most NBA players have had a gay teammate at one time or another in their playing careers. Collins is just the first guy with the balls to walk through the door and be open about being gay in a workplace that's quite homophobic.

I don't put any thought into the significance of it because I truly don't care. I couldn't care less about what someone's sexual preference is and find it absurd that we, as a nation, are so obsessed with something that involves less than 10 percent of the population.

It will be an issue as long as they are marginalized and discriminated against; as long as gay kids are so afraid to be who they are that some of them choose to end their life instead; and as long as homosexuals don't have the same rights as heterosexuals do. Just over 10% of the US population in the 1960s was black, but I'd say the national attention that minority's issues got during that time was warranted, and as a nation we are better for it.

Jason Collins coming out publicly as a professional athlete will make a difference, IMO, if only to a small portion of the population who are just a little more inclined to be themselves, or to love their children despite being different. That's worth talking about.

well we all know Tebow is gay

Homosexuality and civil rights is an apples-oranges comparison, IMO. I would further say that the more this issue is shoved down people's throats, the more resentment it is going to create. I know a lot of people who, like me, really don't give a rip about anyone's sexuality, but they're tired of being preached at by the gay-rights movement.

I personally know several gay people and I don't know any who are discriminated against...and I live in a very rural, very backwards community.

Any of them get married in Tennessee? I think if you don't see discrimination against gays, you must have blinders on. It is everywhere and we live in a hotbed of it. Do I think there is a 1-to-1 relationship between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement of the 1960s? No, I don't, and history plays an awfully big part in that, going back to slavery. But this is still a civil rights movement nonetheless.

The fact remains that an NBA player coming out as gay is, and should be, national news. It's sad that it has to be, but the fact that nobody has ever come out before in the long history of the major sports leagues tells you all you need to know about how tough what he has done must be. It's significant and it matters, whether you think sexual orientation ought to be a national conversation or not.

The same thing was said by many in the 60s "I don't give a rip about someone's race but I am tired of being preached at by the civil rights movement". The problem is, they had to shout and they had to be heard by everyone to make the change in the LAWS. If you have no issue, they they're not preaching to you anyway. Gay people do not have the same rights as non-gay, by law, in most states. That in itself is discrimination, whether you personally discriminate or not.

It is big news. The sports world can be harsh to someone like that. Of course there are other gay people in male sports. I wonder if they will have the courage to come out and hurt their career, because it will. Collins is pretty much near the end of his career.

Volznut, there was a moral demand for the civil rights movement. We, as society, were treating people differently simply because of who they were — something they had absolutely no control over. I don't see any stories about anyone who is gay being forced to attend a separate school, drink from a separate water fountain, sit at the back of the bus, etc.

Now, if you fellas see marriage as a civil rights issue then, yes, I'll concede to you that gays are being discriminated against. I don't see it that way. I do not see gay marriage bans as discriminatory.

With that said, I personally do not care whether gay marriage is legalized or if the bans are upheld and I think the Christian factions who are fighting so hard against it are wasting their time, money and energy when they could be putting those resources to much better use. But beyond the issue of marriage, I challenge anyone (especially you, CO, if you're going to accuse me of looking at the issue with blinders on) to show me where wholesale discrimination is taking place. Are gay people occasionally singled out and mistreated because of who they are? Absolutely. And that should be punished accordingly. But that happens in all walks of life, not just with gay people. Spend time in any elementary school and you'll learn real quick that we have, at our very core, a tendency towards cruelty and bullying is an equal opportunity tendency. Its targets aren't just gay people, they're anyone who is perceived as different.

CW, That's the thing. People who are anti-gay don't understand that gay people don't have a control over it either. It's not a "lifestyle choice", gay people are gay, they cannot be straight. And many hide it for fear or discrimination, so we don't even know how many people are facing this. You can't hide if you're black or brown. As far as a moral demand, there is a moral demand for it now, and it will increase more and more, as more heterosexual people join their fight.

Of course Gay marriage ban is discriminatory, it is the definition of it. You are targeting a group of adults and saying they can't marry because of their sexual preference.  Is being gay illegal? No. Then why would two gay adults marrying be illegal? It is a discriminatory practice. The easy way to avoid the issue is to say "I don't care about the issue", but if you don't care then you don't care about equal rights for all people, which is what this country is/should be about.

Sure! They are free to marry people of the opposite sex just like anyone else, right? Their happiness . . . and their rights to hospital visitation, inheritance, family health benefits, adoption, etc. . . . should be of no regard to us.


This is tending toward being awfully loungeish but there is systematic, learned, bigotry toward gays in this country, largely stemming from religious groups. Kids are literally taught that homosexuality is an abomination, and this is not from some fringe minority group . . . nor is it random. This is from the majority population in the USA. Acts of bullying and abuse toward homosexual kids are bred and taught indirectly, if not explicitly, by the "morals" millions of kids in this country are taught by their parents, sunday school teachers, and other irresponsible people in their lives. It is NOT the same as other bullying because they are targeting based on what they have been taught at home, not based on some stupid playground jackassery.

Wait...you're saying that Sunday School teachers, ministers and parents who teach their children the Bible are the problem here?

Wow. Okay.

Talking civil rights and demonizing people who are exercising their freedom of religion all in the same breath is the height of irony.

Growing up, my parents made me memorize the 10 Commandments by the first grade. And I didn't go around punching anyone who took God's name in vain, who didn't go to church on Sunday, who lied, etc. Imagine that.

People who teach their children that other human beings are abominations, are not deserving of equal rights, and ought to be "fixed' . . . yes, they are a big part of the problem. I don't want to extend this to teaching the Bible wholesale, and it's you, not I, who said that.

Free exercise can be perfectly legal and still be wrong. If one teaches his kids that gays are something to hate or pity . . . then he is wrong. If he uses the Bible as justification for it, then he's wrong and ignorant on top of that. This is the case whether his right to do so is supported by the constitution or not (and it is).

Being morally opposed to a lifestyle does not unilaterally equate hatred.  And all Christian groups aren't teaching their kids to go out and bully gay peers.  Why don't you go ahead and lop us all in with the Wetboro crowd.  Lol, good grief.

That's great. Where in the 10 commandments does it teach you to hate Gay people?

If exercising one's freedom of religion teaches hatred of a group of people then YES it is a problem. No one is saying everyone does it. Look at the Muslim religion. Do you think that every muslim teaches their kids to hate jews and Christians? No. However there are those that do, and hide behind their religion.  Is that a problem? Yeah....I'd say so.

Freedom has its limitations. Your rights end when you invade on others rights. Gay people want the same rights as everyone else... not more. That shouldn't be a problem for anyone, and if someone teaches their kids to discriminate, hiding behind religion, I find it despicable.

I'm glad to hear that. I was raised in church and I didn't either, not that your childhood or mine effectively sum up the practice of discrimination against gays nationwide.

But I'll bet we both played "smear the queer" on the playground. And I'll bet it's still played.

That isn't what he is remotely doing.

One can be morally opposed to whatever they want. That's their morals though... once you make it law, it becomes much more than that. MUCH more.

You are both putting words in my mouth.

"Tolerance is wonderful, as long as you agree with me."  :naughty:

Easy for you to say. You are married to the person you love and have all the legal rights that entails.

And by the way, let me throw out there that I find this highly disappointing. I think you both know me by now, and you know that I am not who you are painting me to be. But it's convenient to do so because it allows you to dismiss everything that I have said without acknowledging its truth.

Exactly. And that's the point the opposite side of this debate has difficulty wrapping their minds around. Any Christian who is truly teaching their kids the Bible will teach them that homosexuality is a sin. They will also teach them that God is love, that it isn't our job to judge people according to their sins and, although it isn't written explicitly in the Bible, "God hates the sin, not the sinner."

And, CO, your argument was that the MAJORITY of people in the US are being taught by irresponsible people like Sunday School teachers that homosexuality is an abomination, and that in turn is what leads to bullying. . It's pretty easy for anyone to take a Bible and build the argument that homosexuality is a sin. It's not very easy to take a Bible and build an argument that homosexuals should be targets of abuse or hatred. Are there people who teach their kids that gay people should be hated? Yes there are. But to lump all Sunday School teachers who are teaching children about the Bible into a wholesale group is nonsense.

Again, who is teaching anyone to hate gay people? I'd love for you to come and sit through a couple of sermons at my decidedly conservative, Southern Baptist church. It might clear up a lot of misperceptions.

Creek, kids do not have to be taught to pick on people they perceive to be different from/less than/weaker than themselves. That comes from human nature. But when their parents teach them who those different/lesser/weaker people are, then don't be surprised when they become targets.

Neither of us wants to have a conversation about the bible, as what it says is not the point. You know that there is religious basis for much bigotry WRT homosexuality. I can't imagine that you will sincerely deny this.

Lets just say that makes two of us who are disappointed.

Your first version of this response was better. I'll accept that apology even if you didn't mean it.

As to this one, OK.

I know that there are some who are weak and cowardly who will use religion as a crutch; as an excuse for bigotry and hatred. I also know that, contrary to what you posted above, that is NOT mainstream Christianity. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Believe it or not, it is possible to teach that homosexuality is a sin and not teach hatred nor promote it. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Your wholesale condemnation of millions of Americans as hatemongerers is simply without merit.

Let us all join hands and sing Kumbya over and over......

To compare homosexuality with race is absurd.  You can choose who and what you want to have sex with.  You can't choose what race you are born.

And, yeah - I know.  Scientific studies say ..................

One can make a scientific study say anything they want to make it say.  

Having "urges" is one thing.  Human beings have urges to do a lot of things.  Whether they act on them or not is a different story.  

I don't care if one wants to have sex with a turnip.  That's their choice.  Wanting special treatment because of it is not a right.  

Yep, which is why edited my apology out. 

Don't even try, Vinnie.  That's the party line of the left.  They believe that any who professes a Christian faith are like the Westboro group.  The political left, and especially in this day, is the most intolerant group out there. They are tolerant, as long as you agree with them.   Disagree with them and the party line begins.  

  :thumbup:

Good thing I'm not the political left! They sound like real bastards.

I'm a proud heterosexual Christian single father of an amazing little girl.  I COMPLETELY support gay rights, and I'm a conservative Christian but if I say I support gay rights I'm a screaming liberal because that's the only possible way I could support it according to some of you.

I was born the way I am... desiring women.  As gay folks were born to grow into adults who are attracted to their own sex.  Piss on science all you want, pretend like it isn't fact all you want... and this stupid argument will continue forever.  If you find their behavior reprehensible, trust me the LAST thing I want to even imagine is some of you folks in your bedrooms.  BARF!  VOMIT!

If the tax code is more advantageous to heteros than to gays because heteros can marry, that is the end of any question as to whether there is or isn't discrimination.  That one single issue is enough to negate any comment suggesting homosexuals have the same rights as any of us.  If I charge you significantly more in taxes, let's not hear you scream discrimination as well. 

I swear to goodness, I am so sick of this I just want to turn the internet off.  If you don't like homosexuals, fine.  Don't marry one.  Don't move next door to one.  Cast your son or daughter aside if he or she tells you "I'm gay".  It's your business.  But if you want the "screaming" and "forcing it down our throats" to stop?  Then make it a fair and equitable world... and hide in your cave.

What would Jesus do?  I know for a fact what he would do and it would be the same as he would do for anyone else.  UGH!

I'd ask where this condemnation was, but Creek would quote this:


Therefore, Clockwork has condemned all Christians as hatemongers. QED. It's an awfully easy strawman to attack, but I'm glad three of you have been working on it just to make it faster. Whenever you want to actually confront the issue that some religions do teach intolerance,  do paint homosexuals as deviants, and  do contribute to the general problem of discrimination, I'd be happy to talk about that with you. To this point, all you've been confronting is my strawman.

If it makes me "intolerant" because I won't tolerate the treatment of a group of human beings as deviants, evil, abominations, etc. and the teaching of these views to children then I suppose I am "intolerant." I'll gladly rally behind that banner. Because these are human beings, with loves, fears, hopes, dreams, curiosities, strengths, and weaknesses like the rest of us. They don't deserve what they have been dished so far and I, for one, am glad that public sentiment-- even among many religious groups-- is shifting in favor of equal treatment.

And I'm done with this thread. Good evening, gentlemen. You are free to judge me as you wish, but I am 100% comfortable with my feelings on this issue. 20 years from now your kids are going to wonder how this was even a question our generation had to ask.

I'm sorry; I really don't want an argument with you, but enough with the faux indignation over what I said. Your use of the words "millions" and "majority" made your intent pretty clear. Christians who teach their children that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible are responsible for promoting hatred of gay people -- is that or isn't that what you intended by your statement?

Again, you've used one of the favorite tactics of the intolerant left.  You can't understand that MOST people who don't fall on your side can actually differentiate between the sin and the sinner.  Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible that Christianity believes in.  That doesn't mean that we "hate" those who practice homosexuality.  I don't hate anybody, except maybe Kliempsein fans.  

Since you used the "forcing it down our throats" comment, I assume you were directing part of that at me. As I've maintained throughout this thread, I have absolutely no problem with gay people. I have friends who are gay, and I defend their right to live the lifestyle they choose. It's none of my business what they do with their lives and I'm not going to lose any sleep if and when the state constitutional amendments against gay marriage are struck down. I don't see same-sex marriage as being a civil rights issue but I don't really care to go into that long and detailed argument, even now that the thread is in the political forum. I also have my feelings on whether homosexuality is a choice but, again, that isn't something I care to go into a lengthy debate over.

However, the flip side of all this is my rights as a Christian. I don't have the right to try to force everyone to live according to God's law, and I wouldn't want to even if I could. But I do have the right to teach my children according to my beliefs, and I won't stand by and see good, Christian parents dragged through the mud as hatemongerers and bigots for teaching that homosexuality is a sin any more than I'll stand by and see my gay friends verbally accosted because of their beliefs. As we've already well established in this thread, teaching certain human behaviors as sin is not the same as teaching intolerance or hatred. If it was, we'd be having this same conversation about any number of other people because there are many legal and socially acceptable behaviors that are taught as sins in the Bible and parents (and Sunday School teachers) are teaching children about those behaviors just as they're teaching them about homosexuality. Are we to ask that parents stop teaching their children that homosexuality is a sin? Anyone who is a Christian who believes that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible is simply choosing which parts of the Bible he wishes to accept and which he wishes to ignore. Yet, I don't know very many Christians who harbor a hatred or resentment of gay people. Most Christians I know are more apt to pray for them than belittle them in conversation with others. Exceptions? Sure, there are exceptions to that. But let's make sure we realize there's a distinction between the exception and the norm . . . and that's been my argument all along.

Well said.  I am SO reluctant to join political arguments and yes, I am not a literalist, so I'm one of those bad Christians I suppose.  I have yet to see one friend give all his worldly possessions to strangers and we can go into the litany of laws proclaimed by the Bible that are conveniently glossed over.  But this is, bottom line, a Constitutional issue and when it comes to that... the Bible is not the source.  Sorry, it's not.

And an addendum to my comments:

This is another one of those areas where the federal government is way over reaching.  Marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue.  Marriage is regulated by each individual state.  The feds have no business getting in the middle of it. 

It seems there are a couple of thoughts in this thread so I'll do my part to muddy the waters as best I can.

1) Playing in the NBA is a job. People I work with have the right to have pretty much whatever sex life they want, but it's considered bad form to detail exploits at the office. That having been said saying "I'm gay" wouldn't raise more eyebrows than saying "I like Hawaiian style pizza". Both are immaterial to an individual's ability to do the job.

2) I do NOT know all the legal ins and outs (no pun intended), but I do think unmarried people get hosed on a lot of things. Why should married people get breaks on insurance while single people pay full price? That's not right. I think a lot of things go way beyond gay rights. I'd like to hear a discussion of what gay/single/whatever people can't do (including tax deductions) that married people can. Let's deal with specifics.

***It should be noted I'm a Christian. Why? I'm a horrible guy who needs to change. I have scoreboard on no one when it comes to being good. No one. I did what I wanted to do and never found happiness. Based on personal experience I've got to say the things listed as sins end up bringing temporary pleasure, but long term pain. I haven't tried every sin, but 100% of the ones I have yielded that result. In the end I got no benefit from sin.

Romans 6:21-23 sums it up pretty well. Saying some things are sins doesn't mean I hate people. It means I don't want anyone to experience the emptiness I have.

"What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

As an aside I think we're all predisposed to struggle with certain things, but we don't have to give into those. I have friends who can drink in moderation. I can't. I also think it is key to differentiate between temptation and sin. I might be tempted to attempt to seduce every hot woman I see
, but I don't have to do that. There's also forgiveness. I mess up all the time, but when I do I try to confess. Christians are messed up people who need to change, not perfect folks cruising through life.

How'd the last states rights issue turn out?  I think we came in 2nd place on that one!

Yep, and watch how any media figure who speaks up as being opposed to that lifestyle is shouted down and even fired.  "tolerance".  Pfft

You can come back with all the smart ass answers that you want, but the fact is that marriage is not a fed issue.  Never has been.  It is an issue that is handled by the individual states.  Rules and regs differ by states. 

.

Smart ass answers?  I've seen little else posted from you on this thread.  Later, hater.

This.  Homosexuality is a sin (if acted on) according to the Bible.  So is adultery, lying, stealing, murder, etc.  Christians are not supposed to hate those people, any more than they hate their fellow Christians.  You know who the sinners are?  Everyone.  The Bible says that ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. 

So, hate the sin, not the sin, not the sinner.

But by no means say that sin is okay either.  And to me, those wanting to legalize gay marriage are seeking a legitimacy through the law that those who think their actions wrong deny them.  Just my opinion....I personally don't see any need for gay marriage.  All the other things you discuss...inheritance, life insurance, etc, could be achieved through a form of legal adoption. 

But at the end of the day, I am not sure it matters that much one way or the other.  But to me, homosexuality is a sin and I won't change that belief no matter what legislation is passed.

One thing I see that is rarely discussed, is how homosexuality plays out in nature.  Are there gay animals?  Some would say yes, but let's get real....if there were gay animals, they aren't going to reproduce, right?  And if so, how long would that gene pool last?

So you can approach it from a religious angle or a natural angle, but homosexuality is not conducive to the long-term survival of the species.

Even the sexual act has to be changed.  Are there animals who practice oral sex?

Excuse me for the vulgar language....but when dogs start wearing dildoes and monkeys start munching carpet...that's when I will accecpt that it's 100% natural.

But again...hate the sin, not the sinner.  I agree with MidTNVolMurfVol...I have sinned myself, and often.  "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".  

Good points. IMO, claiming gays are born that way is just how an individual justifies the fact that they cannot resist that particular temptation or that they no longer want to try.  Just another means of deception one gets tangled in the web of sin.

And that of nature.  We weren't designed to operate that way!!  It's common sense!  The species will eventually cease to exist. 

Also, where does it stop?  What if a son wants to marry his mother?  If both are of legal age, why is that wrong?  And why have legal ages?  If both parties consent, why not?  After all, these are human beings and who are we to tell them they can't be with who they choose?

Yes, smart ass answer.  

I made my point, and I made it well.  Just because you can't rationally and reasonable discuss the issue without being a smart ass doesn't do much for your argument, and especially with the "hater" jab.  Those who can't make their argument resort to the "hater" line. 

As I said, I don't hate anybody - except maybe Kliempsein fans.  I don't even hate smart ass libruls. 

Uhh. I haven't participated in this thread. Maybe the quote is from another thread. As far as being a part of the gene pool goes, it doesn't have to be since it may be caused by a simple mispelling in the code which happens all the time. These are mutations and simple ones like this are not necessarily lethal but may cause irregularities in personality. This being said then there is no way for this trait to be weened out of the general population.

My bad. I meant MurfVol.  Easy to get your two names confused, if one is sloppy and in a hurry.

Open question as to whether homosexuality is a mutated gene....I don't think there is any proof of that.

I wouldn't deny genetic aspects of it...but for the most part, I believe it's a choice of the individuals.

And my main point is that if it is natural, it has no way to propagate itself in nature, as by it's very nature it will die out.  Genes do get passed through reproduction.

The big thing about the genetic role in this is there doesn't have to be a particular gene that says you are this way or that way. A gene or group of genes that control the endocrine system can make a person have certain tendencies though each individual may handle it differently. I think we all know males from our past that were extremely effemminate (sp?) at a very early age, much too young to make that conscious decision. I know that I knew a few and I'm not proud of the way I treated them in retrospect. Today I'm much different in the way I view them (much more tolerent). I really believe that the problem is genetic though I think some make choices and consider it "trendy" or something. I can't imagine anyone choosing that kind of lifestyle and the stigma that goes with it. That's just my opinion and I don't think there is an opinion that is 100% correct on this. As far as other species having tendencies go I can use my dog as an example. He is the alpha male of the neighborhood and he sniffs both genders, but only humps the females.

Some stigma.  This guy is being paraded around like a national hero.  Obama calls him, yet the White House never acknowledged Chris Kyle's heroism.  Tebow is ridiculed for his faith.  This country is an absolute disgrace sometimes.  Just shameful.

You think he wants to be gay? I bet not. I don't know that the White house never acknowledged Chris Kyle or not, source please. Ridiculed? Maybe he brings it on himself, http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_in_public. And please don't try to interpret it for me, I can read. This country a disgrace sometimes? I agree.

Okay...but. My main point is, does it occur with animals?  I don't think it does.  A dog may occasionally mount another male dog, but only to show dominance.  In nature, with animals, only heterosexual sex is observed.  And if homosexual sex did occur in animals, it would die out in one generation for obvious reasons.  Of course a "bi animal" could still pass the gene, but I think I already made my point.

Which is, you can say it goes against God, or you can say it goes against nature.  Both are true.  And it is most definitely NOT a survival trait.

anyway, reading this thread was like being transported back to 1998.

Which was pretty cool, because that was a great year to be a Vol and while this debate wasn't good for much else, IMO, it did bring back good Vol  memories.

Thanks guys.

quick google search:

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/chris-kyle-death-obama-ignores/2013/02/13/id/490179 (http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/chris-kyle-death-obama-ignores/2013/02/13/id/490179)

Thanks for the link. The prez droped the ball on that one (my opinion).

"And if homosexual sex did occur in animals, it would die out in one generation for obvious reasons." Then you are saying that genetics play no role? Let's say that it is not caused by a mutated gene but by a single recessive gene. Then a person would have to be pure bred for that trait to appear, meaning that both parents would have to be a carrier for that allele. Neither parent would show that trait but would have a one in four chance that any offspring would have that characteristic. If it is indeed passed in the gene pool by a recessive trait it would never be removed from the population. Thus we have hemophilia and other recessive traits crop up all too often. To not consider genetics in this conversation would be a gross oversight. I have taught genetics at the HS level for many years and never underestimate the power of the human genome.

You know, I said this wasn't a part of the argument I wanted to engage in, but it's in the politics forum now, so why not?  :biggrin:

Remember a few years ago when a few scientists decided that there was a portion of the brain that determines whether someone believes in a divine power, thus genetics play a role in faith? As a large part of their argument, they cited examples of people who have brain tumors who suddenly "find religion" and believe in God. Then, after surgery to remove the tumor, they slowly "lose" their faith and drift away from church and religion again. Therefore, they surmised, it's logical to think that the tumor was putting pressure on the "God part" of the brain and triggering that faith. Of course, it's perfectly logical to assume that most of us who find ourselves staring death in the face are going to "find religion," and then once we are out of harm's way we're going to forget about that religion. That's happened over and over with folks who have all sorts of ailments, not just brain tumors. The theory never really caught on with mainstream scientists, and probably rightly so.

My point is that science is used in an effort to explain a lot of things. In this case, it is pretty clear why gays and gay-rights supporters grabbed hold of the genetics theory with both hands. If "being gay" isn't a choice, then it's hard for anyone to label homosexuality as immoral, right? But, at the end of the day, is there really much evidence to support it? I'm a layman, not a scientist, but to my knowledge there is very little in terms of actual proof. We know now that the entirety of the so-called "Xq28" gene study may have been based on a foundation of unethical science, and that single study comprises the bulk of the evidence for the "gay gene." A case study of identical twins and their sexuality should be more than enough to debunk the notion of a "gay gene" that makes homosexuality an inherited trait rather than a choice.

As I've said many times already in this thread, it really isn't any of my business whether someone is gay and therefore I really couldn't care less whether they are or aren't. But I do have friends who ask from time to time how the God I believe in and try to serve can condemn something that is out of the person's hands. My response is his: The Bible that is the foundation of my faith spells out clearly that mankind is inherently sinful, born with a sinful nature. Each of us have our vices. As I believe has already been pointed out in this thread, some people can have a drink of alcohol and be okay, while others will be falling over drunk if they get within 50 ft. of the stuff. There are some men (and women) who are truly addicted to sex. They become trapped in that lifestyle, with no obvious way out, and the Bible clearly says that fornication and adultery (like drunkenness) is a sinful lifestyle...it is just as sinful, in fact, as homosexuality, according to both the Old Testament writings and the teachings of the Apostle Paul who is one of the main authors of Christianity. I know I have my own vices -- tendencies towards sin...things that are just as legal and right according to man's law as homosexuality, but things that are just as sinful according to God's law as homosexuality. It's only by God's grace that I can and will win out over that sinful nature. Call me a kook if you will, but that is my belief. And please don't think I'm trying to compare the two, because clearly they're not the same and comparing them isn't my intent, but look at pedophiles. Statistics have shown that something like 80 percent of convicted pedophiles who are released from jail will be repeat offenders. That's a remarkably high rate. These are people who have seen the consequences for their actions, know that their next conviction will carry a much harsher sentence; in all likelihood they'll never be a free man again if they're busted a second time. Yet they risk it all to do it again. Again, I am NOT saying that pedophilia and homosexuality are the same. In our society, one is perfectly acceptable and perfectly legal and the other isn't, and that's as it should be. My point is simply this: there could be an argument made that pedophiles cannot change themselves. That doesn't mean we should release all of them from prison and feel sorry for them, but it lends itself to the notion of all mankind having an innate sinful nature that will consume them if they don't strive to overcome.

I have a couple of friends who are bisexual . . . and they're openly bisexual, so it isn't as though they're just using their wife/girlfriend to hide their homosexuality. And of course most people who have studied the subject much at all are aware of Stephen Bennett, the man who was once gay but is now straight. Obviously there are many others like Bennett; he's just the best-known example because he's chosen to make a ministry out of his past. If being gay was truly not a choice, how did Bennett switch lifestyles? How did the others like him?

Frankly, I think the whole "gay gene" argument is little more than a prop for the LBGT community to use to promote its agenda. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to be gay, be gay. Those people should not be discriminated against, they should not be treated as outcasts from society, and anyone who does treat them that way especially in the name of God are not just disobeying society's will, they're disobeying God's will. If a ban on same-sex marriages is truly discrimination — and I don't think it is — then here's an easy solution: stop giving married couples tax breaks. I, for one, don't think married couples should be responsible for less taxes than single taxpayers (and, of course, in many instances they aren't, but those who will push the gay rights agenda will cherry pick the data . . . and, obviously in many instances they DO pay less taxes). Bottom line: Be gay. Be happy. Live your life as you want to live it as long as you aren't hurting someone who cannot reasonably choose for themselves. You'll hear no objections from me. Unless ours is a theocratic society, and it clearly isn't, there's no need to justify the lifestyle to anyone . . . so don't try to force-feed me junk science in an effort to do so.

Creek, I took a few days to respond to this hoping not to take it the wrong way and to relax a little. A few things, you say you're a layman but then start talking about "Xq28" so I assume you googled it like I did since I've never heard of it and I'm just barely past the layman stage. I'm not a rocket scientist so I don't call rocket science junk science. If I did then I would be insulting people a lot smarter than me. I may have an opinion about things but don't pass judgement on them unless I terribly sure of it so most of the time I qualify my statements with words like "possibly" or "maybe". As I get older I've learned that nothing is impossible and I'm much dumber than I used to be since I knew everything when I was young. Later guys.

I've read about the Xq28 gene for years. I may be a layman but I'm also a voracious reader. I don't have a problem with labeling it junk science because most of it was fabricated, as we now know. The problem is that while the study was debunked, the science community at large still falls back on it. Name any other issue that happens with. It happens because politics has destroyed the purity of science on this issue more than any other. That makes it junk science.

When did you choose?

http://www.upworthy.com/watch-these-straight-people-answer-a-question-gay-people-have-been-asked-for-years-6 (http://www.upworthy.com/watch-these-straight-people-answer-a-question-gay-people-have-been-asked-for-years-6)

I understand about recessive genes and I don't deny that genetics plays a role.  Certainly some people are born hermaphrodites.  I can't think of a better example of genetics having an effect on sexual preference or confusion.  Yet, who would argue that hermaphrodites are normal or that it's good to be that way?

But back to my main point....genetics no doubt plays a role, as it does in everything, but the effect has been greatly exagerated IMO.  People ultimately choose their sexual orieintation IMO. 

Quite a few actually....IMO.  Science is unfortunatley not as unbiased as it should be. 

My answer..."I have always chosen not to be gay".   :nod: