Comments on: Yes, Ms. Parker, We Can Control Our Behavior

By: Throbert McGee

Throbert McGee — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 01:33:07 +0000

I have found that crudely saying “your dick just knows what it likes,” and reminding people about the phenomenon of unwanted and often embarrassingly-timed boners in junior high school, is in many cases the best way to cut through the abstractness of “sexual orientation vs. sexual behavior.”

At least, reminding people that “the penis has a mind of its own” can be an effective way to turn on a lightbulb for a lot of heterosexual men, and also for some women who happen to be mothers of boys — it provides a concrete object lesson that makes it easier for people to accept the unchosen nature of male homosexuality.

By: Sheila Lynn

Sheila Lynn — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:50:11 +0000

She’s ignorant and does not speak for me as a black woman living in California who amongst many people such as myself did not vote for Prop 8 Hate. As in every group or culture we do not all think alike. Thankfully most black people see Star Parker for the charlatan she is. That being a leech on humanity suckling off the government with a non-profit that proposes to foster self reliance and economic vitality. Anyone with half a brain would know that the best poverty program is a job and Star Parker’s non-profit has created four paid positions, herself, her daughter, a preacher and an secretary. She takes 1/4 (about $120k) of the donations to her pimp program CURE as salary for herself. Anyone who donates to CURE is a sucker. Thankfully she lost in my District and hopefully she pulled up her shag carpet and moved out of our District. After all one less ignorant person in a community is a good thing.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:43:30 +0000

Jason,

To pick up on “God wouldn’t send liars”, I’m bemused by those who think they have to lie to protect God’s truth, who have to coerce others into obeying God’s commandments, who throw the heretics out to protect the people from heresy.

Good heavens, what kind of anemic useless god do they have? If your diety is incapable of demonstrating his truth, has no power of persuasion over the heart (what Christians call the Holy Spirit) and will lose the argument to every diverging view, then it may be time to trade your god in for a better one.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:38:37 +0000

Protection against private “discrimination” has historically been offered only for characteristics that are inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and/or in the Constitution-yet none of these describe homosexual behavior.

And here is where the rhetoric of anti-gay activists falls apart. They refuse to acknowledge orientation and insist on behavior.

Ironically, orientation has not – to date – been found to be protected in the Constitution. But, as of Lawrence v. Texas, homosexual behavior has.

By: EZam

EZam — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:20:19 +0000

Even if most people believe homosexuality is completely the product of upbringing/environment, it doesn’t change the truth. After all, only 39% of Americans believe in Evolution.

By: Jason D

Jason D — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:33:35 +0000

Tim, unless I’m confusing David with another poster we have already gone over the difference between atheism and anti-theism. He ignored it. It’s not charitable to assume a mistake when past history shows they have been corrected on their assumption and ignored the correction.

But I do agree, we don’t need yet another thread getting derailed into defining what atheism is and is not.

Getting back to the thread…

Dave I came to a completely different conclusion regarding God’s “gentle people” lying through their teeth at every given opportunity. It proves to me that they can’t be speaking for God. God wouldn’t send liars. He wouldn’t need to. It just confirms to me that not only is there nothing wrong with homosexuality but that God him/herself doesn’t have an issue with it because all the supposed negative consequences are complete and utter BS.

By: Swampfox

Swampfox — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:29:35 +0000

Family Research Council,

“[H]omosexual conduct is not comparable to other characteristics usually protected by civil rights laws (“race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”). Protection against private “discrimination” has historically been offered only for characteristics that are inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and/or in the Constitution-yet none of these describe homosexual behavior. [emphasis added]”

Inborn, involuntary, immutable and innocuous………..it would appear to myself that being homosexual (same sex attraction is maybe all four. Being an anti-gay Christian would only be something that would be protected in the Constitution.

By: dave

dave — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:35:56 +0000

Why do these anti-gay people need to lie to try to make you believe what they are saying? It makes a mockery of their religion and their god. That’s why I don’t believe there is a god because god’s followers need to lie to make him real. This is why I believe religion is a form of mental illness.

By: MIhangel apYrs

MIhangel apYrs — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:24:33 +0000

her inclusion of “religion” in the list betrays its bias. A religious belief is the most chosen of possible behaviours, and subject to change, but is seen by these people as requiring exceptional protections.

She defines her items as worthy of protection because they are “inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and/or in the Constitution”, and she excludes gay behaviour from this on no grounds other than opinion. One can only conclude that she constructed her straw man specifically to meet her pre-determined conclusions -what am I saying!! of course she did: define the “other” then kill it!

By: Timothy (TRiG)

Timothy (TRiG) — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 03:07:57 +0000

And the bee David has in his bonnet about atheists is hardly news. Ignore the troll.

TRiG.