Study: Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals

[Quetzal]

Evidence? What evidence is this then? Having had a personal stake in this issue, for a long time I looked for evidence that people are born gay. I desperately wanted the evidence to be there - it wasn't.

People with a political point to make then come up with drivel like this "study", and those with the critical thinking skills of a gnat then pronounce the conclusion as a scientific fact.

You simply aren't paying attention. Let's skip the nonsense, shall we?

Me: Here is a study!
You: That study is bogus, biased, and is for dummies.
Me: Here is another!
You: Liberal lies!

Then I decide I would be better off spending my time getting a root canal. Meanwhile, you throw a parade with confetti in celebration. The end.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You're addressing rationalism, philosophically, though even within that there are divisions. But thanks for clarifying that understanding isn't what's important to you on the point.

I've typically and repeatedly advanced that I am a Christian rationalist and that by that I mean my faith, while not arrived at by rational inquiry, is at all points rationally defensible, as the truth should be.

Indeed.

There is a distinction between rationalism and rationality. We must use our rational faculty. Rationalism, however, is another thing. It refers either to the identity of the human intellect with the divine (this was Thomas' problem and that of Gordon Clark) or it can describe the attempt to use a single (perhaps collective) universal principle by which all other things are explained or levered, e.g., modernist autonomous rationality, "If I can't understand x comprehensively, I can't accept it."

AMR

 

[Crucible]

Looked up 'homophobe' in the dictionary, but couldn't find it anywhere.

What exactly is a 'homophobe'?

Someone who disagrees with homosexuality.

There's a study. By me. It concludes that if you call people a 'homophobe' for not agreeing with homosexuality, then you are a moron.

 

[Town Heretic]

I understand that either man or God is the "supreme authority" when it comes to "belief, opinion' and conduct".

That's not where we disagree. We disagree where you agree with the Imam.

It's not complicated, even an unemployed lawyer with a fancy law degree should be able to understand that.

I don't find it complicated at all. The rest I'll leave on the vine as a product of those apples of yours.

Yes, many moral laws that were once on the legislative books are no longer applicable in our moral relativist society. You just pointed out drunk in public.

No, I didn't. And being publicly intoxicated will likely land you in the drunk tank. I said you can become a drunkard. Or, more to the actual point, the law allows you to do all sorts of things Christians should find objectionable, like that or avarice or gluttony or failing to love your neighbor.

Like homosexuality, abortion goes against God's Laws yet is perfectly legal in society. You really should try to be more consistent.

If you actually read my response you'd know I am completely consistent. Or you could try to point out the inconsistency that isn't there. Unlike abortion, the Christian objection to homosexuality doesn't have secular justification. So it is rightly a matter of conscience that will sit beside gluttony and avarice, etc.

Refer to my above statement about you being more consistent.

Refer to my rebuttal for your mistake.

 

[oatmeal]

Interesting Scientific American article from a few years ago:

Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals

"A new analysis of implicit bias and explicit sexual orientation statements may help to explain the underpinnings of anti-gay bullying and hate crimes"

Therefore, heterophobes might actually be hidden heterosexuals?

and arachnaphobes might actually be hidden spiders?

is that the best SA can come up with to push their science falsely so called?

Believers have no reason to fear anything, if they do, they are wrong.

All people sin in many forms, there is no reason to be afraid of anything if you are living according to the word.

Isaiah 41:10

 

[Quetzal]

Looked up 'homophobe' in the dictionary, but couldn't find it anywhere.

What exactly is a 'homophobe'?

Someone who disagrees with homosexuality.

There's a study. By me. It concludes that if you call people a 'homophobe' for not agreeing with homosexuality, then you are a moron.

Well, there lies the problem. There is nothing to disagree with. It simply exists. People don't disagree with flowers, they are just flowers. People don't disagree with coffee mugs, they are simply mugs. By the same token, you can't disagree with homosexuality. You can choose to not accept it, in which case, you have to define why you don't. All excuses, of course, are symptoms of bigotry.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

You simply aren't paying attention. Let's skip the nonsense, shall we?

Me: Here is a study!
You: That study is bogus, biased, and is for dummies.
Me: Here is another!
You: Liberal lies!

Then I decide I would be better off spending my time getting a root canal. Meanwhile, you throw a parade with confetti in celebration. The end.

I think the comprehension failure is coming from yourself here. You cannot possibly quantify and universalise the assertion that 'homophobes are gay'.

Firstly, you need to define the meaning of the word homophobe which is very elastic these days. Anything from simple disagreement with gay marriage or gay adoption through to calling for the death of homosexuals is declared to be homophobia. So in this "study", how are they defining what a homophobe supposedly is?

Secondly, how is declaring a universal "truth" that homophobes are gay helpful or conducive to discussion or debate? It isn't. It's an ad hominem attack on the person rather than the argument they are making.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Ok, you're not a proud and unrepentant filthy disease ridden sodomite. I appreciate that you're telling the truth Al.

Sodomy does not actually define homosexuality aCW, far more straight people do it statistically, and the word "Sodomite" is not in the Bible. It's fundamentalist nutters like you who try to distort the Bible into saying something you want it to say when clearly it doesn't.

I've covered sodomy legislation in my thread which shows that homosexuality is the focus point behind sodomy laws. Since no sex act between two people of the same sex can be considered natural, it goes without saying that those who engage in homosex inherently commit sodomy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
My question is this: If you're not a proud and unrepentant filthy disease ridden sodomite, why attack someone who is only trying to help the sexually and ever so morally confused by claiming that they are a "repressed homosexual"? (and don't think for a second that I'm the only one attacked: Peter LaBarbera get's it more than I do, as do others who fight the LGBTQueer agenda for a living).

I've never argued in favour of anything disease ridden aCW.
I only argue for safe sex straight or gay.
So now being accused of being sexually repressed is dismissed as persecution and has perhaps become a badge of honour?

By not wanting to get these ever so morally confused people the help that they're crying out for, you're promoting the homosexual lifestyle and agenda. If you want to refute CDC reports showing the disproportionate amount of diseases and disorders that homosexuals contract, you know which thread to do it in (it comes with a very good index on page 1).

 

[Quetzal]

I think the comprehension failure is coming from yourself here. You cannot possibly quantify and universalise the assertion that 'homophobes are gay'.

Firstly, you need to define the meaning of the word homophobe which is very elastic these days. Anything from simple disagreement with gay marriage or gay adoption through to calling for the death of homosexuals is declared to be homophobia. So in this "study", how are they defining what a homophobe supposedly is?

Secondly, how is declaring a universal "truth" that homophobes are gay helpful or conducive to discussion or debate? It isn't. It's an ad hominem attack on the person rather than the argument they are making.

You are moving the goal posts. Not surprising.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I can only speculate based various things.

So what's the big deal about 'coming out'? I'm proud to be a follower of Christ and never deny it when asked. Why aren't the TOL'ers that proudly engage in homosex doing the same?

Probably because there currently aren't any.

Next...

 

[lovemeorhateme]

You are moving the goal posts. Not surprising.

You do enjoy making assertions without explanation, don't you? How have I moved the goalposts? I've explained my problem with this "study", and now it's your turn to explain why I'm wrong. If you can't or won't do this then I am free to assume you have no counter arguments to make, right?

 

[Quetzal]

You do enjoy making assertions without explanation, don't you? How have I moved the goalposts? I've explained my problem with this "study", and now it's your turn to explain why I'm wrong. If you can't or won't do this then I am free to assume you have no counter arguments to make, right?

You changed the topic entirely. You went from "I can't explain why people are born gay."

to...

"You cannot possibly quantify and universalise the assertion that 'homophobes are gay'."

Textbook definition of a bait n'switch and/or moving the goal posts. If you can't at least try to remain consistent, move along and take your bigoted nonsense with you.

 

[Delmar]

Nah. If you hate gay people for who they are, that is one thing. To say you hate them because the Bible says so is quite another. Both are insanely insensitive and stupid, but I could at least respect someone a bit more who has the courage to say its personal rather than theological.

Another lie. I don't hate homosexuals.
I have no doubt that there probably are some people who have an irrational fear of them. It probability ranks right up there with those who have a fear of sparrows. I also have no reason to deny that some of those who fear homosexuals might really have such feelings. Most effective lies are, after all, based on some truth.

 

[Quetzal]

Another lie. I don't hate homosexuals.
I have no doubt that there probably are some people who have an irrational fear of them. It probability ranks right up there with those who have a fear of sparrows. I also have no reason to deny that some of those who fear homosexuals might really have such feelings. Most effective lies are, after all, based on some truth.

You embody the tradition at does this best.

 

[Delmar]

You changed the topic entirely. You went from "I can't explain why people are born gay."

to...

"You cannot possibly quantify and universalise the assertion that 'homophobes are gay'."

Textbook definition of a bait n'switch and/or moving the goal posts. If you can't at least try to remain consistent, move along and take your bigoted nonsense with you.

Mr pot meet mr kettle.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I believe that some choose homosexuality and upbringing plays a part in shaping whether or not someone is more likely to have homosexual feelings. I guess my IQ must be 1.6 or less?

First off I'm not denying that upbringing or environment etc can impact the psyche including on a sexual level. That being said it can hardly be argued that it fits most cases and even for those where it has they've hardly "chosen" to develop an attraction to the same gender. I can't "choose" to be gay as I'm hetero so the attraction to other men just simply isn't there. If you were honest I think you'd accept that orientation isn't down to any personal choice.

 

[Quetzal]

Mr pot meet mr kettle.

Kettle throws the best parties and shindigs. Don't let Mr Pot fool you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Therefore, heterophobes might actually be hidden heterosexuals?

and arachnaphobes might actually be hidden spiders?

is that the best SA can come up with to push their science falsely so called?

Believers have no reason to fear anything, if they do, they are wrong.

All people sin in many forms, there is no reason to be afraid of anything if you are living according to the word.

Isaiah 41:10

Arachnophobes aren't generally obsessed with spiders...

lain:

 

[alwight]

(ToL seems annoyingly slow atm.:IA

I've covered sodomy legislation in my thread which shows that homosexuality is the focus point behind sodomy laws. Since no sex act between two people of the same sex can be considered natural, it goes without saying that those who engage in homosex inherently commit sodomy.

Whatever consenting adults do together in private is not something imo that other people should be concerning themselves with aCW, perhaps you should butt out?
Natural is whatever happens naturally, not what you or other fundies deem it to be.

By not wanting to get these ever so morally confused people the help that they're crying out for, you're promoting the homosexual lifestyle and agenda. If you want to refute CDC reports showing the disproportionate amount of diseases and disorders that homosexuals contract, you know which thread to do it in (it comes with a very good index on page 1).

They probably don't feel at all confused aCW and their state of mind perhaps comes a very poor second to your righteous disapproval of them as a self appointed representative and mouthpiece of God.lain:

 

[Delmar]

You embody the tradition at does this best.

I don't even hate or fear you.