• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bishop says kids ‘spontaneously’ gay and pedos

Its been fun kids. But since none of you can argue a different biological sexual reaction in homosexuals vs heterosexuals and you cannot deny heterosexual sex is the only natural way to procreate, my point has been made.

Have a good day :2wave:
 
Yet you have zero evidence to support your "born gay" theory. And thats the point.

Inconclusive evidence, but not 0 evidence. You have just as little evidence to support your "choice" theory.
 
The reaction and the fact 95% of the people living on this planet kind of makes that point :)

95% of people on this planet what? Aren't gay? What do numbers mean with genetics?

98-99% of the people on this planet do not have red hair? Does that mean red hair is not caused through biology and genetics?

Think carefully about this. ;)
 
Its been fun kids. But since none of you can argue a different biological sexual reaction in homosexuals vs heterosexuals and you cannot deny heterosexual sex is the only natural way to procreate, my point has been made.

Have a good day :2wave:

Actually, I have an argument that I bet you have not even considered. I've stated it on this forum before and it is well supported by evidence, unlike your teleological supposition. To understand it though, you have understand the flaws in the old argument's reasoning.

There are three fundamental theories that society holds regarding sexual orientation.

1. It's a choice and it is changeable.

This theory has a fundamental weakness in that it assumes anyone could choose to be gay or straight. The reality is that it is unlikely that heterosexual people are likely find the same sex attractive romantically and sexually the way that they find the opposite sex attractive. It also ignore significant evidence of biological factors involved in sexual orientation.

2. People are born gay and it is not changeable.

This theory has a fundamental flaw in that no determining biological factor has been found that results in sexual orientation. There are identical twins where one twin is straight and the other is gay. If homosexuality were genetic, then both would be the same orientation. Nonetheless, there is strong evidence that if one twin is gay, that other will be significantly more likely to turn out gay even if raised by a different family.
This theory also suggests that uterine factors such as the hormone levels a child is exposed to while in the womb could activate certain genetic factors that would otherwise remain dormant. That would explain why one identical twin could end up gay while the other did not. Simply one would have been exposed to more hormone than the other. However, studies of children who were exposed of high levels of androgens do not demonstrate a significant increase or decrease in the number who turned out gay.

3. It's an addiction and it is changeable with help.

This is the evolved social conservative view. People may have a biological predisposition to be attracted to the same sex, but they have the choice to orient their behavior away from it rather than toward it. In this view homosexuality is seen as a learned behavior that has been positively reinforced through orgasm and has thus become addictive so that only sex with a same sex partner can be satisfying. With this view, biological predispositions to homosexuality can be accepted much in the same way that biological predispositions to alcohol can be accepted. In other words, they can override their natural tendencies by choosing not to engage in a certain behavior.
The flaw to this argument is that sexual orientation seems to be set in most people before they even reach puberty and begin engaging in overt sexual behavior.

An emerging argument, "Sexual orientation is simply an orientation of sexual behavior." (can and should be changed)

This argument is that since people often choose to identify themselves by how they orient their behaviors, that homosexuality is no different. For example, if you are a vegetarian, then you identify yourself as one because you refuse to eat meat even if your instinct is to eat meat. As such, some people think that homosexual people are gay because they identify as gay and orient their sexual behavior towards people of the same sex. In essence, it is circular reasoning. Gay people are gay because they choose to have sex with people of the same sex and by having sex with people of the same sex they become gay.

A new theory of sexual orientation, "Personality selects for sexual orientation." (can be temporarily adjusted but cannot be permanently changed and should not be changed)

I'm beginning to believe that it is a person's identity, by which I mean their distinct personality, that selects for their sexual orientation. That would most likely occur in early childhood, before a person is even aware of their sexuality. This is subsequently discovered during adolescence as an individual becomes aware of their personality and undergoes the sexual awakening of puberty.

People are most likely not born gay, they develop their sexual orientation alongside, and as part of, their personality. I think a person's personality in combination with their early experiences, select for sexual orientation in early childhood. In other words, I am rejecting the notion that people are born gay just as they might be born with a certain temperament. There is no evidence that I have found to support the notion that sexual orientation has a consistent biological link. Rather, all the evidence suggests that sexual orientation is the result of a combination of biological and psychosocial factors in early childhood, exactly like how our personalities develop.

Being gay or straight may just be as much an aspect of a person's distinct personality as being introverted or extroverted.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely not but I recognize the reaction and its genetic link to heterosexual sex.

LOL You are only making my argument stronger.

You don't have an argument. You have a soapbox with zero correlation to evidence.
 
You are not listening. Fetishes can turn people on sexually but the boilogical sexual reaction remains constant despite what an individual claims to find sexually arousing.
Yes... and? So you're saying turned on is turned on. And....?


It is a choice we as a society made to recognize one man and one woman based on the nature's procreation requirments and our natural sexual attractions.
So having sex, having sex a certain way, having children, wanting children, none of that is required for marriage?

Are you really that far gone you think 95% of the world's population is heterosexual by coincidence?
Are you so far gone that you actually CARE what turns other people on?

I've proven the genetic link in one man and one woman. You want to change the law based on feeling and not factual evidence.
No clue what you're talking about. There is no "genetic link in one man and one woman" :confused:

Until marriage is reserved only for people who can have, want to have, and will have children that are biologically their own, then you have no grounds to deny my marriage to a woman.

There's no genetic information required to grant equal marriage rights to both men and women. Only the requirement for legal consent.

So, I don't know why you keep going on about choices and genetics. Makes no sense and it's irrelevant to the argument. UNLESS, marriage is changed to only allow people who have or will have children of their own together. Until that time, all of this genetics and choice bull**** is just a big smokescreen.
 
I think people who insist that homosexuality is a choice must have made a conscious choice to be heterosexual at some point in their lives. I mean, how else could they possibly imagine that a heterosexual man could simply wake up someday and choose to be attracted to hairy man ass instead? Self-projection.
 
Nobody can stop them from "marrying." The relevant issue is whether government should or shouldn't recognize such marriages.
Difference without a distinction.
 
LOL Fetishes wouldn't turn people on either. No one is claiming they are genetic :lol:
Do you have some evidence that fetishes are not genetic or did you just make that up for your argument?

Sorry sport. To produce a child naturally requires heterosexual sex. There is no way beyond it.
Sorry sport, you can't change the context of someone else's argument by adding "naturally". Producing a child does not require sex at all.
 
What? More stupid responses from the Catholic church to the priest abuse scandals? Say it isn't so!

How can anybody consider that a stupid statement?

Sex and pedophilia are everywhere.

Ever watched Teen-Nickelodeon with your kids? They have shows dedicated to boys asking other boys out, on freaking Nickelodeon!

Then you got this which is nothing new:Sex sells: Soft-core pornography still hot stuff on cable TV - latimes.com

Our kids are exposed to sex at daycare ages (2-5). Day in and day out, they are bombarded with it. Nobody can say there has not been a drastic change in the behavior of boys in their teenage years. I went back to a high school football game this year and there was gay kids all over the damn place. Boys talking like girls, dressing like girls, and even acting like girls. Where are the parents to allow this? I saw it more in the boys then in the girls. Is it something in the water? But they sure do wear some cute white belts with those cute designer, tight jeans. :rofl:

Sex is advertised everywhere, which is why its important parents are actually there to raise their kids, but since that isn't happening either, you got a bunch of confused, feminine boys running around b/c mom and dad can't keep it together and if they do, are to busy working 2 jobs and letting some stranger raise their kids for them.

You are witnessing "tolerance" played out to its logical conclusion. To tolerate everything, is to stand for anarchy. So revel in it folks.

But don't act like society is not filled with sex and pedophilia. Why anybody would disagree with that statement from the Bishop is either deluding themselves or is totally lost in the notion of "tolerance themselves".

I think alot of it has to do with this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/its-official-men-really-are-the-weaker-sex-1055688.html

Chemical Cocktail in Consumer Products Destroys Male Fertility
 
Last edited:
How can anybody consider that a stupid statement?
Because it is. And you didn't even address the statement he DID make.

Sex and pedophilia are everywhere.
Sex is everywhere - duh. Welcome to earth.

But pedophilia? Where the **** are you getting that from?

Ever watched Teen-Nickelodeon with your kids? They have shows dedicated to boys asking other boys out, on freaking Nickelodeon!
What's that got to with sex and/or pedophilia?

I went back to a high school football game this year and there was gay kids all over the damn place. Boys talking like girls, dressing like girls, and even acting like girls. Where are the parents to allow this? I saw it more in the boys then in the girls. Is it something in the water? But they sure do wear some cute white belts with those cute designer, tight jeans. :rofl:

Sex is advertised everywhere, which is why its important parents are actually there to raise their kids, but since that isn't happening either, you got a bunch of confused, feminine boys running around b/c mom and dad can't keep it together and if they do, are to busy working 2 jobs and letting some stranger raise their kids for them.
Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with it being more acceptable for people to just be who they are instead of being forced to pretend they're someone else - as they have had to for centuries. :roll:

You are witnessing "tolerance" played out to its logical conclusion. To tolerate everything, is to stand for anarchy. So revel in it folks.
Revel in people being free to be themselves? Absolutely I will! Thank you :mrgreen:

But don't act like society is not filled with sex and pedophilia. Why anybody would disagree with that statement from the Bishop is either deluding themselves or is totally lost in the notion of "tolerance themselves".
Please do tell us how it's filled with pedophilia.

And do tell what it has to do with the ignorant bishop's statement that people are "spontaneously homosexual". WTF does that even *mean*? Is it anything like spontaneous combustion? :lol:
 
Its always humorous for the far left nutballs to claim people don't understand science when they can't even point to science to explain homosexual behavior. In fact the opposite is true.

There are many half baked theories from the failed twins study to the fruit fly fiasco to relying on unsupervised questionnaires but it never changes the basic knowledge of science.

Biological sexual reactions are purely preparation for heterosexual sex. No matter how much the pro gay marriage group screams and cries the biological sexual reaction does not change for hetero or homosexual people. Men still produce and ejaculate sperm and women still divert blood to the uterus in anticipation for conception. These are measured and rock solid constants yet despite the evidence the religion of "homosexuality must be genetic" never ceases to draw new members to its flock based purely on faith alone.

Only someone who doesn't know science would say that. Where's your degree from and in what scientific field?

You're using the typically idiotic tactic of the right these days.

You actually said, "Nutballs claim you don't know science" and then, in your next sentence, you completely disregard all scientific study.

I'm sorry, can you explain scientific theory to me, since you seem to be an expert lecturer in the history and philosophy of science?

If you can do that, I'll give you credence. Otherwise, you've done absolutely nothing to lend yourself a single shred of credibility.
 
why i'm no longer a catholic.
 
How can anybody consider that a stupid statement?

Sex and pedophilia are everywhere.

Ever watched Teen-Nickelodeon with your kids? They have shows dedicated to boys asking other boys out, on freaking Nickelodeon!

Then you got this which is nothing new:Sex sells: Soft-core pornography still hot stuff on cable TV - latimes.com

Our kids are exposed to sex at daycare ages (2-5). Day in and day out, they are bombarded with it. Nobody can say there has not been a drastic change in the behavior of boys in their teenage years. I went back to a high school football game this year and there was gay kids all over the damn place. Boys talking like girls, dressing like girls, and even acting like girls. Where are the parents to allow this? I saw it more in the boys then in the girls. Is it something in the water? But they sure do wear some cute white belts with those cute designer, tight jeans. :rofl:

Sex is advertised everywhere, which is why its important parents are actually there to raise their kids, but since that isn't happening either, you got a bunch of confused, feminine boys running around b/c mom and dad can't keep it together and if they do, are to busy working 2 jobs and letting some stranger raise their kids for them.

You are witnessing "tolerance" played out to its logical conclusion. To tolerate everything, is to stand for anarchy. So revel in it folks.

But don't act like society is not filled with sex and pedophilia. Why anybody would disagree with that statement from the Bishop is either deluding themselves or is totally lost in the notion of "tolerance themselves".

I think alot of it has to do with this:

It's official: Men really are the weaker sex - Science, News - The Independent

Chemical Cocktail in Consumer Products Destroys Male Fertility

But, everything you're saying is actually in opposition to what was posted in the OP; where they defend pedophiles by saying it "just happens".

You're at least applying (bad) logic that it's a slow societal build-up.

He's saying someone just suddenly decides to be gay instantaneously; or - even more offensive - that someone just suddenly decides to diddle children.

Now, aside from the fact that comparing someone who engages in perfectly legal behavior between consenting adults and someone who molests children is patently offensive to any intelligent human being - what you should be bothered by is this: the article in the OP is saying that any day you, you could turn "gay" or "child molester".

And you're defending that statement? Seriously?
 
Back
Top Bottom