Science may not yet have discovered the “homosexual gene” but that doesn’t mean that people are not born that way. Just because people believed the world was flat back in medieval times didn’t mean the world wasn’t round.

This happens everyday.

As for this ridiculous statement about guillotines, I cannot find a single legitimate news source for this fact, only forum threads which are full of fanatics and lack actual proof. I think in your belief, you have become the following sheep of such fear mongers.

Every country has their extremists, and I cannot speak for any of them. I’m fairly sure that our government, the EU and the UN do not condone beheading Christians simply because they’re Christian.

He that who without sin among you, let him first cast a stone. Then he told the woman go and “SIN NO MORE”. Because others are with sin that does not mean it’s okay to continue in your sin.

Valid points.

Religion – One’s religion is a personal choice. What I think you’re asking me, is since I believe religion is a choice and homosexuality is a choice (based on behaviour), then we should be allowed to discriminate against others based on their choice of religion.

Here is the difference of choices. One’s religion is sacred. One’s sexuality is not. It would be difficult to discriminate against religion when most countries constitution is predicated upon and guided by religion, religious beliefs, traditions and customs and are the source of moral standing.

I totally understand your last paragraph and I have no problems with that statement. However, we do need to draw the line in accepting what for many centuries before our time all people understood what was morally wrong. Not all behaviours and choices are created equal. Polygamy is a choice, but it is also morally wrong.

In closing, I do have a question. Since religion is protected in the Human Rights Act (HRA),and let’s say based on my religion I don’t agree with the homosexual or any deviant sexual behaviour. If I deny a homosexual couples their rights of renting an apartment at a house I own, based on the HRA, I can face legal consequences. If that is the case, then isn’t my religious beliefs (rights) not being violated.

I dont like tranvestites… does that mean my opinion is not worthy of mention?

I would bet the majority of people dont like the behavior of this group, they dont advocate for prison, or discrimination, but they sure as hell dont have to approve if behavior they dont alike or be called “phobs”…

I don’t mind having an honest debate. Let me address a few of your points.

Your 1st Point – “In fact there’s a growing field of scientific evidence which suggests that sexuality and sexual preferences are something that people are born with”

I would never take scientific evidence as being gospel. A lot of times, scientific evidence is one-sided, wrong, or changes over time.

Some of the very people that conducted these homosexuality gene studies themselves have said and I quote “At best, the evidence for a genetic and/or biological basis to homosexual orientation is inconclusive.” Like many scientific studies. In fact, since the early 1990s, numerous studies attempting to establish a genetic cause for homosexuality have not proven to be valid or repeatable. Valid and repeatable two important requirements for study results to become accepted as fact in the scientific community.

Here are a few of these studies and what the scientist said about their own studies.

1991 Hypothalamus (Brain) Study, Simon LeVay, who self-identifies as gay, said: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”

1991 Twins Study, Richard Pillard – also a gay man – admits: “Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins.

1993 X Chromosome Study, Dean Hamer – also a gay man – said: “…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.”

And from the 2005 Fruit Fly Study, Barry Dickson, the lead researcher, admitted that the understanding of how innate behaviours are genetically determined is “rudimentary at best.” He also admitted that the male-male courtship behaviours they observed probably involved “environmental and social stimuli” and that the female-female courtship behaviour was abnormal – missing some key steps.

The 2005 male and 2006 female pheromone studies from Sweden that gay activists claimed were more evidence of a biological basis to homosexuality? (Pheromones are chemicals that can be smelled and are known to influence animal behaviour. However, their role in humans is unknown.) Here, it is significant that Ivanka Savic, the lead researcher, said that the 2005 study had nothing to do with proving homosexuality to be biological. And regarding the 2006 study, she said “it is very important to make clear that the study has no implications for possible dynamics in sexual orientation.”

More recently, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, summed up the research on homosexuality saying that “sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations”

So clearly, using these very studies the case for a “gay gene” has not been made. Still at this very moment, the scientific evidence of being “born gay,” is in FACT (truth) inconclusive. Therefore, until this so called scientific evidence of a “gay gene” becomes 100% true then sexual orientation is, at its core, a matter of how one defines oneself – not a matter of biology or genes.

Your 2nd Point – You have a valid point that one’s sexuality is a part of their sense of personal identity. However, you have people that would argue that committing adultery or being a paedophile is a part of who they are and they can’t help it. That is their sexuality but that does not make it right.

Your 3rd Point – “Obviously the race civil rights movement is not completely the same; for example, they never had to put up with any ridiculous arguments about how the way they were born is their fault or a choice”

I am quite sure they would have rather wished that the only thing they had to put up with was “ridiculous arguments.” During the movement many of them were murdered, whipped, experienced police brutality, and in the states children were bombed to death, shot, and had dogs attack them. There is a video I watched some months ago during the civil rights movement were gunman fired upon blacks and the whites supporting blacks and murdered countless number of people that were marching. Oh and they had to put up with a lot of verbal abuse. So I don’t think “never had to put up with any ridiculous arguments” is the right thing to say in comparison.

Your last point – “They both boil down to whether or not a person can be punished for something they can’t control- which obviously would be cruel and stupid.”

Guess What? There is also scientific evidence that shows homosexuality is something that can be controlled. In fact, once scientific study of 200 men, showed that over time, most of them did in fact change from being homosexual to heterosexual and never went back (because they were able to control their desire). See how you can use scientific evidence to support any points.

Personally, I don’t care what a person is sexually. I don’t hate homosexuals. However, I do not agree with the sexual lifestyle that goes along with it. I don’t hate adulterers, but I do not like or agree with their sexual lifestyle. Our moral decadence is growing and going down the wrong road.

I never said or implied that people of colour are different than others anatomically. People of colour are not different than others anatomically (lol). This is what I said about anatomy, “We are males and females, not gays and straights. In other words, we are males and females by anatomy, but gays and straights by sexual behaviour or desire for the same sex.” ARE WE NOT? Is that statement not true!! Saying “We” implies everyone including people of colour.

Let’s say you want to trace your family history to see where your family originated from, one key element to help you find that out is your race. If most of your family is white, than you’re not going to start your search in Kenya. Why? Race is a part of your identity and racial history. You would go absolutely no where trying to find your family history based on anatomy.

What I was trying to say in my first post is that people compare homosexual “rights” as being the same “rights” that people of colour and minorities had to fight for. They use terms such as “Gay is the new Black”. All I am saying is that racial rights and gay rights cannot be compared. One is sacrosanct and the other is not. Also religion is a form of identity. When I say identity I mean everything that goes along with it; it’s a class of people, it’s a part of one’s history and culture. Homosexuality or Heterosexuality is not a person’s identity. It is not a class of people, nor is it a part of one’s history or culture.

If a person of colour wants to find out who their great, great, great, grandfather is, you can’t go to a historian and say, I’m a homosexual or heterosexual so find out who my grandfather from 200 years ago was. That is not a class of people, it is not an identity. You can say my race is Black, and then based on that the historian can say well lets trace your roots back to the West Indies or Africa. I don’t know if I explained that clearly but I hope you understand what I mean.

“The fact that you arbitrarily have judged a person’s sexuality not also their identity says far more about your ignorance than it does about anything else.”

Someone’s sexuality should be judged just as the adulterer sexuality that cheats on their spouse, just like the paedophile, and the fornicator. Their sexuality is not and will ever be classified as one’s identity, therefore, can and should be judged based on a moral and righteous standard.

Bottom Line: There is a difference between someone’s racial identity, racial culture, racial class, and someone’s sexuality. One is sacred, the other is not.

Any issues should be lodged with the ruling Government. Speaking with the now completely defuct and ineffective PLP is a waste of effort for all concerned whether you are for or against gay rights.

What the PLP or their leader thinks is of no importance whatsoever. They are no longer in power – they are finished.

Since PLP can’t equate this problem to race (since both blacks and whites could be gay) there is no frame of reference for the PLP to latch race to the argument. You can’t blame homosexuality on whites – so basically PLP has, and will have nothing to contribute to the issue.

….seems like the perfect approach for religions.

And they all lived happily ever after.

As long as people gay or straight are not having sex in public places what is the problem….

Can anyone with a brian really think that an all knowing and all powerful god when given rules down to us thouseands of years ago did nto think to mention, oh I dont know:

What viruses are and how to prevent illness?
That there where different continents with different cultures and people liviging there? Not just the middle east and Europe exised?
That the earth is actually a planet in a solar system of which there are billions of stars and trillions of plants?
That the earth was round and why the sunrises in the east? I could go on and on!

No instead he tells us that a man can make loads of fish from one fish as a miracle. Heres a better mircle – cure all the people that were dying of diseaese at the time?! No God would apparently rather tell us it is ok to stone people to death for adultery.

The bible was not and is not the word of god. It was written by people thousands of years ago in order to try and control populations and live to a certain code. Whether you beleive in an almighty god is a different story, but he’s not in the bible and the rules and ideas are not longer applicable to 2013.