Posted on 03/11/2015 8:23:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
Last week, Dr. Ben Carson stepped onto a political mine -- really, jumped onto it with both feet -- when he answered a question from CNN's Chris Cuomo about the nature of homosexuality. "You think being gay is a choice?" Cuomo asked Carson, after Carson rightly stated that being black and being gay are two very different phenomena. "Absolutely," replied Carson. He then went on to explain, "A lot of people who go into prison straight go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay."
Carson's unstated line of reasoning is perfectly logical. When Cuomo asked Carson whether he thinks "being gay is a choice," Carson interpreted that question to mean: "Is homosexual behavior a choice." To that, the answer is obviously yes, since all non-reflexive behavior is essentially a choice. Cuomo, however, took his question to mean: "Is homosexual inclination a choice." To that, the answer is obviously no -- it is either a byproduct of biology or environment. Feelings, in other words, are not choices; it is possible that some feelings can be shaped by behavior, but as a general rule, feelings are not chosen. Behaviors, however, are chosen. Thus, being black -- a non-behavioral characteristic -- is not like being gay or being straight, in the sense that one cannot choose not to be black, while one chooses one's own sexual behavior.
The divide between Carson's understanding of "being gay" and Cuomo's understanding of the same term demonstrates the rhetorical slight-of-hand that has marked the gay rights movement. By conflating behavior with feeling, and calling it all "orientation," homosexual advocates have conflated biology with choice, and called it all biology.
And even they know that such conflation is a lie.
Take, for example, supposed gay spokesperson Dan Savage. He understands that homosexual behavior is a choice. He compared being gay to being religious: "Faith -- religious belief -- is not an immutable characteristic." He also compared being gay to "military service and marital status." This is logically correct. But Savage refused to acknowledge the implications of this line of thought, because doing so would force him to recognize that society often discriminates between those behaviors it finds productive and those it finds unproductive in terms of the law (military service, for example, is a protected class because we all benefit from the military service of others; being a member of Code Pink is not protected, because we do not all benefit from someone's membership in Code Pink). Instead, Savage fell back on his trademark vulgarity, telling Dr. Carson to "suck my d---." "If being gay is a choice, prove it," wrote Savage. "Choose it. Choose to be gay yourself."
That is an insipid argument; were the shoe on the other foot, Savage would have to demonstrate that being gay is involuntary by engaging in sexual behavior with every male he meets. Given his prior solicitation of Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Herman Cain, that may well be his desire, but it's a rotten argument overall.
But arguments no longer matter. Logic no longer matters. Feelings matter. We intuitively understand that behavior defines us rather than feeling; no one would label a vegetarian a person who deplores meat-eating but chows down on steak every night. But when it comes to sexual behavior, we look to get ourselves off the hook: All sexual behavior is involuntary, so how can we be expected to make decisions about it? Hence the left's absurd lie during the Clinton era that everyone lies about sex; hence the asinine notion that chastity until marriage is an impossibility; hence the morally blind belief that societal pressure for sexual morality is discriminatory in the same sense that racism is discriminatory.
The result: No honest discussion can be had about the extent of human choice, the limits of human choice, and our own preferences among the choices human beings make. We are mere animals, forced by our firing neurons to act on each and every impulse. We have no choice. And those who say we do ought to perform oral sex on us.
I think what happens, and I’ve heard this happened in the case of John Travolta, when you go on the gay casting couch in Hollywood, actors can become gay as a coping mechanism, as a way of trying to pretend what they did wasn’t all that bad.
Yeah, yes indeed, know of and heard that hesersy before and the false teaching before that Akankim were “ just tall people “.... It’s a lie promoted by those who have a agenda.
There are those who have creapt into the church teaching this very lie.
Because they have a agenda and keep the history of the Nephellium hidden.
Heard of this theory on Coast to Coast Am, also heard of the theory of the Anikakin seeding the earth with humans and left the earth, who were the gods ( little gods ).
IOW, it's an imbalance that can be corrected just like lowering blood pressure or insulin. Whether you play sports, design fashion and where you put your ding-a-ling is still choice.
Leave it to a Cuomo to ask such a “gotcha” question...
Ask one of those and you should expect a “gotcha” answer...
As vulgar as Savage demonstrated... There would have been no need for him to have asked the likes of the Barney Fa...I mean Frank...
So when you get right “down” to it...
“What difference does it really make?”
According to the smartest woman in the world, this is a perfectly legitimate statement...
(I’m going to hell for this one, I can almost feel it... hehehe)
You do realize the Nephilim were referenced exactly twice in the Bible, both times pretty much in passant?
Not covered very comprehensively for what you apparently consider one of the most central Bible doctrines.
My personal evil and heretical agenda consists of trying to read the Bible for what it actually says as opposed to what I would like it to say. (Except of course for when I’m clocked in helping to cover up the Nephilim conspiracy.)
We obviously don’t really have much to discuss further, but I wish you all the best.
(Please note I haven’t accused you of heresy or lying. You might in future consider trying to treat those who disagree with you with similar courtesy.)
Why would an exceptionally good looking guy like Rock Hudson think some hairy, scuzzy male pig is sexually attractive when he could go through as many pretty Hollyweird starlets as he wanted? Especially as given the taboo for homosexuals in his era, why would he choose men over women when he knew revelations of his homo behavior would destroy his career?
Normal good looking guys, especially movie stars, who could get as many beautiful babes as they desire, don't all of a sudden get the hots for men. It has to be innate. Obviously, almost everything is a choice, but people act on their choices for reasons. Homosexuals are that way because they find persons of their own gender sexually attractive. Full stop.
You’ll have to explain that. I don’t know what happened to Travolta, but if I were an actor and some queer tried to induce me into getting it on with him for me to get the job, the next thing that would happen to him would not be something he desired.
What does that have to do with their homosexuality? That's the kind of attention homosexual actors definitely didn't desire back in those days.
Movie studios worked ot to make sure stories about their homosexual stars didn't get out. They had their homo male stars date Hollyweird starlets to throw off the scandal-mongers. Insiders knew the truth, but the general public had no idea.
Ah, but that still was what made them “different” within the fold so that was indeed attention getting.
Libtards keep telling us they are pro choise, so whats the big dill?
If it is addressed as what it classically was: Same Sex Attraction Disorder, it makes sense. It is a DISORDER, a mental illness. Like many mental illnesses, acting out on it can be controlled by the afflicted. Kleptomaniacs do not have to steal, they just have a compulsion to.
“If you expect future news stories containing empirical evidence, I predict a disappointed tuffydoodle.”
I hope and pray that you are right and I’m wrong.
I’ve known a few homosexuals over the years and each and every one was damaged in some way. Usually sexual abuse and some just mental and emotional abuse. If you dig deep enough into the psyche of the homosexual, you’ll find abuse in, I’m betting, 95% of cases.
Coming from people that try really hard to recruit, they already know the answer.
Wish you the best also, no I’ll feelings on my part.
I do wish that you go over and read my post again, didn’t accuse you of herasy directly.
I am sorry that we have to agree to disagree.
There is more into what Jesus Christ talked about the seeds, the tares among the wheat.
Seeds could mean false doctrine, or those whom the enemy has planted among the wheat, or meant literally, actual seeds, genetics, DNA among the wheat.
Was it ? Jesus Christ speaking literally ? Or figuratively when he called the evil religious leaders of his day a “ BROOD OF VIPERS “ A “ EVIL GENERATION “ generation or generations speaks either of seeds, DNA, or Genesis, Genetics.
The Tares look like the Wheat, but will be separated from the wheat at the day of the lord.
George Washington, Abraham Lincoln both has written about actual physical evidence of remains of bones, skulls, skeletons of giants in the USA.
Many of these have been found around the world.
The physical evidence is undeniable.
Some have claimed it’s all a hoax, but what about remains of these being discovered by LA Mazilli ?
How about full skeleton remains of whales in one of the most dry deserts in the world in Peru where many if these Nephellium remains are found ?
Remains of whole whales like in Peru where whales don’t swim in dry deserts in Eygpt, where more of these remains of these Nephellium are found.
If is was all a hoax the huge logistical nightmare to pull if off is quite remarkable, let along through out the whole world.
Another point is the Nephellium would disprove and discredit the lie and theory of evolution.
Both are not compatible.
Either the Nephellium are real, or Evolution is true, can’t have both.
This, the Nephellium does rattle some people’s theology.
Many male homosexuals have definite effeminate characteristics which leads me to believe it's determined at birth. If it were just a case that they were attracted to males and everything else was the same, you wouldn't see all that effeminate behavior.
Ditto for all the females with strong butch characteristics. It has to be something at birth. They haven't found a homosexual gene, so it I have to conclude it's hormonal. A lack of testosterone for males and a lack of estrogen for females.
Again Rock Hudson, Tab Hunter and a number of other good looking movie stars could have cut a swath a mile wide through Hollywood starlets. Instead they chose males. Has to be innate.
No, I’m sure you’re right. I’m just saying we won’t hear about it.
To say that is to say we are all simply animals, who can not understand our urges or their consequences, or to say that we are not capable of making ourselves into more advanced human beings.
Most gay men, and almost all lesbians, are acculturated to homosexuality (seduced by adult homosexuals while still quite young and "unformed"), or in the case of lesbians, driven thither by serious emotional issues about men. (Nice way of saying, they're head cases in the DSM meaning.)
When gays ask, "Why would anyone choose to become gay?" they have a point. Few would choose so consciously. But as one of the ex-ministers at our church used to say, "we have freedom of choice, not of consequence", and "gayness" may well be a consequence of many choices, some conscious and even more subconscious, than a conscious, deliberate choice in and of itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.