Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:51:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
348 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
>
> > Stop making assumptions.
> >
> > I never once stated that I am Christian.
>
> And I never once said that you were.
>
> But at the same time I note you don't deny it. You have adopted a stance
> similiar to that of many fundamentalist Christians, and have brought the
> Bible into this discussion. It seems to me that you don't want the label so
> that you are freer to make your arguments (this is a deduction, not an
> assumption).
The Bible simply IS part of the discussion. Christians and homosexuals
alike have argued it to such a degree that it is difficult have a discussion
of only homosexuality. For what it's worth, when I began debating
gay-by-birth elsewhere, a third party entered the discussion and first
brought up the Bible. When I continued the discussion here, it seemed only
appropriate to include all the issues that were discussed elsewhere.
Further, my motivation for having researched Christianity at all is largely
due to my wife who is trying very hard to be an appropriate Christian,
rather than one who thinks anything goes.
On a more personal note, there was a time when I thought I was Christian
just because I was attending church. During my research I realised that
Christianity requires a degree of personal sacrifice that I am not prepared
to offer. Quite simply I am not cut out for Christianity. Until the
Christian god decides to reveal Himself to me as other Christians claim has
happend, then I am open to suggestion.
> > I have some depth of knowledge
> > concerning the Holy Bible but that does not make me Christian. I have
> > analyzed the theory of gay-at-birth and dispute it. I have analyzed many of
> > the possible social repercussions to proving the gay-at-birth theory and
> > have come to the conclussion that it might be detrimental.
> >
> > My previous attempt to discuss this with a gay individual led to negative
> > results which mostly ended with "...we're born this way, deal with it..." I
> > brought the debate to Lugnet where I had hoped to get a more even-handed
> > debate from a more highly educated community.
>
> And you have - but I suspect the results were still not to your liking (and
> I'm not speaking of only my responses). I've noted that I'm skeptical of
> the gay gene claims, and that I think many gays cling to the theory out of
> convenience. But I suppose my view that the other side of the debate is
> equally guilty doesn't sit well. Are you falling into the trap that if I
> don't agree with you entirely I must be entirely against you? Are you upset
> that while I don't wholly credit the gay gene theory I don't wholly
> discredit it?
No. I simply felt the need to defend my motivation. It seems that one's
motivation for a controversial debate such as this should be in question and
I have not described my motivation very clearly. In fact, I am not certain
what is driving me to even continue this debate, however I have the
impression that many people seem to find it biased to debate this subject at
all, i.e.; "...he's arguing gay birth, he must be a homophobe...he brought
up the bible, he must be Christian..."
> >
> > My only motive is to better understand something that I perceive is an
> > issue. I have a lot of ideas concerning this issue and merely wish to
> > discuss them.
>
> And so we are.
>
> Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) And I never once said that you were. But at the same time I note you don't deny it. You have adopted a stance similiar to that of many fundamentalist Christians, and have brought the Bible into this discussion. It seems to me that you don't (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
