Wednesday, June 15, 2011

The gay Empire Strikes Back.

<---HomoSith Judges Vaughn Walker (seated) and James Ware.

The first sentence that came to my mind when Judge James Ware upheld Judge Vaughn Walker's self-serving prop 8 ruling was...

"So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause." -Padme Amidala/Episode III

Once again, the false comparison between race, gender, and sexual sin has eclipsed the fact that Judge Walker stood to gain personally from his decision to throw out the legal votes of over seven million Californians.

"...In his 19-page decision — a response to the first attempt in the nation to disqualify a judge based on sexual orientation — Ware had a bigger message. Gay judges, he said, are just like minority and female jurists: They can be impartial, too, even in cases that might affect them. .."

Homosexuality is a state of mind/emotion, and membership in the glbt community is voluntary, it is not innate like the gender and skin color that comes with birth. Although homosexuality is not an overnight choice, being "gay" is a matter of choice; the end result of a series of choices, like heroin addiction. Although I recognize that a heroin addict has all of the same civil rights that I do, I will not support the lifestyle of a heroin addict as I do not support the glbt community. Nor do I hate the heroin addict since I know how they became an addict.

Seeing homosexuality as innate is where Judge Ware(-is-his-common-sense!) got it wrong. Info here.


  1. Homosexuality is as much a choice as skin color, height or hair color. Religion IS, however, a choice....and your heroin analogy is apt in this regard. There is no SCIENTIFIC research that indicates homosexuality is a choice, but there is a significant amount of scientific research that indicates it is NOT a choice.

    You have made a choice not to believe in scientific evidence. That choice may help you reconcile your religion, but it does not make you smart. By the way, you can believe in science and God. The bible was written by MAN and it was written before modern scientific methods were developed. It's not the same world.

  2. You’re wrong on both counts Jacob...

  3. How am I wrong on both counts? Let me get this straight, because there is no idetifiable gene that automatically means that homosexuality is choice? Can there not be any other reason? Either genetics or choice and nothing else? Does that seem reasonable?

    So the Genisis is correct stating that light was created prior to the sun & stars? By biblical standards the earth and stars are only 6K-10K years old. How is it scientifically correct then when it takes 80,000 years for the light from closest galaxy (Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy) to reach the earth? Leviticus 14:49-53 is scientifically correct when it states you can purify your house of leprosy by soaking a dead bird, cedar wood, red yarn in water and sprinkling it around? The Bible is also scientifically correct that you can tell if a woman has been adulterous by making her drinking water with dirt in it (Numbers 5: 17-31)? Shall I go on?

  4. @Jacob

    I have a response to your questions but first I must ask, do you really want to listen to what I have to say?

  5. Yes, if it is intelligent. If you're just going to continue on with the "homosexuality is a matter of choice" BS, not really. You claim I am wrong on both counts, but your reason is the false assumption that because there is no gay gene, the can be no other explanation besides concious choice. You say I'm wrong about the Bible being sicentifically inaccurate and link to a faux science page as proof, despite the fact that I have given you 4 (and I'll provide more if you wish) quotes from the Bible that are undenyably scientificaly false. IMHO, if you are going to make outlandish claims (homosexuality is a state of mind/a choice/is like heroine) you should have support for these claims, otherwise it is dishonest, and if I'm not mistaken, Commandment 9 says something about being dishonest.

  6. Well, being homosexual stems from a person's wrong reaction to life experiences. Gay isn't a singular choice, but the result of a series of choiceS. The fact that there are ex-gays must not be enough for you, so there's no use in explaining scripture to you. God has the option os stepping outside of the laws of physics by the way. He's God, he can do that.

    I'm going to ask you to stop reading this blog if you can't accept the fact that homosexuality isn't innate.

  7. The existence of ex-gays does not support your claim that homosexuality is a choice. Shidlo & Schroeder published a study in 2000 on just this topic and found that only 3% of participants in reparative therapy programs reported changing their orientation to heterosexual. 88% failed to achieve sustained changes in orientation and the remaining reported losing all sexual drive or were attempting celibacy with no change in attraction. Do you believe 3% is a statistically significant percentage? Would it be acceptable for the FDA to approve drugs based upon a 3% efficacy rate?

    I'll accept your belief that God can operate outside the laws of physics if he chooses. My assertion was that the Bible is not scientifically accurate. How about the bird/wood/yarn treatment for leprosy or the drinking dirty water as proof of adultery? Would use these methods your self? To rephrase the question, can we at least agree that the Bible is not scientifically accurate (by way of the scientific method), regardless of what God is actually capable of doing?

  8. See? You are ALREADY mischaracterizing my point-of-view. I'm not saying that homosexuality is A choice, I'm saying homosexuality comes from CHOICES.

    I can explain many things about the Bible, like the time that passed between Genesis 1:1, and 1:2, but you have already said that you are not interested in what I have to say if I believe that homosexuality is a result of choices, so I have given up on you. If you believe that homosexuality is innate, there is no use in us talking. I'm not going to waste time with you. I have already invited you to go away if you believe that homosexuality is innate. I have a lot of experience with people like you. You are only going to reject everything I say.

  9. Well, I'm sorry you feel like I am mischaracterizing your point of view. You did say "although homosexuality is not an overnight choice, being "gay" is a matter of choice". I'm not sure how my saying that you believe homosexuality is choice is mischaracterizing this statement. In my defense, I have provided research results that support my view, where as you have offered none. We can all have opinions about things, but I do think that it is important to have a justification for the opinions.

    And as far as explanations for Biblical occurrences, that I will not argue about. My main point is that the Bible is not scientifically accurate (using the scientific method to test a hypothesis that produces repeatable results that can be independently verified), which I think we both can agree on.

  10. You dismissed the info in the links that I provided you, and the fact that God has the option of stepping outside of the laws of physics. People like you simply reject what they don’t want to be true. If you believe that a person can be born gay, there is no use in further conversation with you. I’m not going to be pulled into an endless debate with you when I could put my time to wiser use.


Debate and discussion are welcome here, but attitude and ad hominem attacks will get you banned.