BuzzerBeater Forums

It's not in the 10 commandments, it may be in the tea parties 2 commandments!!! Also homosexuality has been found to be genetic, as in, they have found it in DNA. Being a rapist or murderer is a choice

I have been trying to resist responding to all of this crap....I can give you article after article that says that there is no gay Gene....it's a lot more complicated than you are making it out to be....If you don't believe in the Bible, God, conservatisim or whatever else, that is fine...I don't care. You can believe what you want to believe...but don't attempt to use loose logic, (especially when your ammo is my Bible) and twist things to fit what you want to believe.

Science is still very much trying to figure this particular issue out....so for you to state these things as facts, is extremely misleading. My point was not to compare whether being gay is a choice or whether a person is born gay....compared to the choices that murders, rapists make....My point was that if you are going to ignorantly claim that since God created Gay people, he must be in support of them...Well God created the Head Hunter Tribes, murderers, rapists, child molesters, and even Los Angeles Laker Fans....that doesn't mean he is "in support" of them.

People have free choice....now, don't twist my words, I am not stating that I believe that Gay people choose to be gay...but my point is we do have free will...so there are many that do bad who could say "well, God created me, so it must be okay" using the logic you used.

Last edited by Jason at 4/30/2013 6:02:05 PM

Homosexuality is also rampant in the animal kingdom, even among creatures to which we ascribe very little in the way of "choice" in their actions. Certainly the animals aren't picking sex partners with a knowledge of the Bible's teachings. It's instinct in some form. I think we can agree on that.

So it's very common in nature, which would make it "natural" by definition.

We don't have to know the exact gene to observe and understand this.

Homosexuality is also rampant in the animal kingdom, even among creatures to which we ascribe very little in the way of "choice" in their actions. Certainly the animals aren't picking sex partners with a knowledge of the Bible's teachings. It's instinct in some form. I think we can agree on that.

So it's very common in nature, which would make it "natural" by definition.

We don't have to know the exact gene to observe and understand this.

and that's fine, all I was saying is he shouldn't be claiming a gene when there's still so much to be learned when it comes to that. Scientist don't agree on that issue they're still learning and studying.

That said, the Bible wasn't intended for animals, its intended for humans.

Some excellent points have been made in this thread.

Now close it before we have a forum with no rules.

I think that's the irony of this issue....A gay person can say how they feel, give all the reasons they believe they are the way they are, and it's acceptable....a straight person can defend gay people, same thing...but if a person is not sympathetic or in agreement with anything dealing with this issue, and they are shallow, right-winged, Bible thumper, narrow minded, or whatever else...

I am not saying that a gay person shouldn't come out, or shouldn't be able to be honest with who they are, but just like in this post, where I point out a different point of view, and am called shallow...there are others that have to work in close proximity with that person, who might be very uncomfortable it (their feelings are real too, and it doesn't make them a bad person)...whether its a trust issue on the basketball court, in the battlefield...or a new-found awkwardness taking a shower around that person...others are affected. But if any of those people are genuinely uncomfortable about it, their feelings don't matter, because we are "evolving" as a nation, and their teammate made a "courageous" decision.

This.

Yeah, your whole "this" doesn't answer any of the points I brought up in response. Feel free to actually add something.

IF god is responsible for life on Earth, then sure he is responsible for creating gay people. So why would he be against his own creations?

I'll respond to this as best as I can.

God created man, but he does not interfere with our free will to pick and choose whatever it is that we are picking and choosing. If you decide you don't believe in God, he isn't going to make you believe in him. I'll also say that according to Christian theology, God destroyed the earth with a flood when he saw that mankind was becoming increasingly evil. It's not that he was against them; he was just sorry that he made mankind. Then there was a man named Noah... and I'm sure you know the story of the ark and the animals.

I believe that God can be against his own creations, but only if they push him over the edge. The Bible states that "God is plentiful in mercy and slow to anger..." I'm not trying to turn this into a Bible lesson, but this is what I was taught as a child.

Like Jason said, God created people that have done terrible things (I.E, Hitler as an example), but that doesn't mean he is in of Hitler killing 6 million Jews. Just my measly 2 cents.

Last edited by Big Dogs at 4/30/2013 9:04:11 PM

I see where your are coming from. I just cannot accept belief in fictional beings as a basis for ethics.

And really, if he were so merciful, maybe he coulda stopped Hitler after the first million or so, cause it was pretty clear we weren't getting the message.

This thread sure drifts off topic quickly.
I dont think the original poster asked us to debate homosexuality, rather he asked if it was courageous and/or relevant.

Courageous? Yes. Not for the same reason most of you state. I think being steadfast in your beliefs (whatever they are) independent of social acceptability or popularity or how others will respond is courageous.

Relevant? Not in the slightest. He plays basketball professionaly; his job is to entertain. I couldn't care less about his sexual orientation and dont see how it could be relevant to his ability to entertain (limited as it may be).


P.S: This whole homosexuality debate is a waste of time. You exchange points but both sides refuse to see the other sides views and valid because you disagree upon the base premise (The Bible).
With that said, can future posts actually respond to the original question?

I just cannot accept belief in fictional beings as a basis for ethics.

Interesting Tangosz. That could be quite offensive to those that do believe. You obviously dont believe but is it necessary to start insulting those that do?


Not that youre the only one that has done so but you just happened to post that as I replied myself.

Like I said, free will. But like CrazyHunter said, let's try to keep this from turning personal and get back to the original question.