If gays are committing suicide because society is rejecting their natural tendencies, that's pretty obvious evidence that being gay is not merely a random choice. Because if that's all it amounted to all they'd need to do is change their mind.

Clearly they can't change who they are, so they commit suicide.

So this result just verifies the gay tendencies are innately real.

People are born with these tendencies and feel that it is a natural part of who they are.

So this clearly shows that it can't be a FREE WILL choice to sin.

When are people going to wake-up and realize that these superstitious religions are nonsense?

Learn what false dilemma means. The author was not a premise. The banning of the dr. was.

Whew, I tell ya.

No not at all.

On the contrary, whatever the true nature of our existence is, then that's what it is for everyone.

In other words, if we're spiritual beings in physical form, then this is true of everyone.

The idea that some Zeus-like egotistical godhead is raising pets and will only harvest ones he is pleased with is nothing more than a superstition.

In fact, it's not even a good superstition. I would personally not want anything to do with any such being. So if there is a way to choose spiritual death I would gladly choose it anyway.

And that would have absolutely nothing at all to do with any desire to choose "evil" or have anything to do with any "moral values".

In fact, on the contrary, based on morality I would rather cease to exist than to become a pet of such a god for all of eternity. I personally feel that such a scenario itself represents gross immorality on the part of the creator. Especially since he's supposedly doing all this via playing hide-and-seek, guessing games, and so on and so forth.

If such a God had any sense of morality at all he would reveal himself to everyone quite clearly, make it known in precise and no uncertain terms what he's doing and what his plans are.

Then just let people decide based on KNOWLEDGE whether or not they are interesting in becoming he loyal obedient pets.

As I have said many times, I would be as polite and nice to this God as I could possibly be. I would simply thank him for the opportunity to be his loyal obedient pet, but I'm just not interested and if he would be so KIND he may simply un-create me as peacefully and painlessly as possible. No need to be mean about it.

That would save both him and me a LOT OF HASSLE.

So the scenario that your religion portrays to me is nothing more than a scenario of a dishonest God. A God who isn't willing to step up and take full responsibility for the objects of his creation.

It would basically be a game-playing God who shoots craps with human souls. And even the "winners" may not be happy with what they win.

After all, if a full third of this God's angels turned against him in his heaven, then what makes Christians think that they'll be pleased with it anymore than the angels were?

Maybe one out of every three people who go to heaven are really upset and disgusted with being there. I wonder if they have the option to bow out after they get there. Would spiritual euthanasia be available in heaven for any unhappy occupants?

Or once you get there are you stuck there for all of eternity like it or not?

After all, if this God supposedly frowns on physical suicide, he's probably not going to like the idea of spiritual euthanasia either.

I'm mean if the Bible is any indication of what this God is going to be like in heaven, then it's just not a God I would want to have anything to do with to be quite honest about it.

So even if I'm eligible for this God's heaven I would decline it.

And the real irony is that even though I feel that way, and can supposedly guarantee my spiritual death by willfully doing all sorts of nasty things in this life, I still don't feel inclined to do nasty things because that's just not who I am.

But fortunately this God supposedly gave me an easy out. All I need to do is deny that Jesus was his only begotten son, and I most certainly deny that. So fortunately I have a way out with having to do anything nasty. Ironically Jesus is my "saving Grace".

All I need to do is deny his divinity and I'm FREE.

And do more harm then good I might add.

I totally agree here, if we would simply stop trying to change them and accept them as they are, suicide would not be a problem. It's our judgment on them that pushes them to such a point.

LOL, contradict yourself much???

You said: The author of the study is insignificant to the point. I was mistaken about the author. (I've bolded the significant point here)

Then you continue with the same dishonest reasoning. (I know it's dishonest because you admitted your mistake openly): The author was banned for questionable ethics. Again, Cameron was not the author, only recommended reading material. Refer to your above bolded words for proof.

Do you still want to insist that Dr Cameron was the author of my referenced link, even after you admitted to making a mistake?





False Dilemma:
A reasoner who unfairly presents too few choices and then implies that a choice must be made among this short menu of choices commits the false dilemma fallacy, as does the person who accepts this faulty reasoning.

Your false dilemma was: Let's all ask the KKK what they think about civil rights, and then base our reasoning and actions taken upon those peoples' opinions.

And of course you based this dilemma on a false premise of me using a source with questionable ethics. "Interesting to note that the author of that study which PP posted was banned from The American Psychological Association for an ethical violation"

Your premise is clearly stated above. Whether you claim your premise to be the banning or not, the subject of that premise is the author whom you fallaciously accuse as the author of the study.

If you continue to state that the banning of Dr Cameron is the premise, then by definition, it is a non sequitur as it is irrelevant because because he is not the author of the study in question.

But you said: The author of the study is insignificant to the point. I was mistaken about the author. How can the author be insignificant to the point when your point was to discredit the author of the study??? And since you were mistaken about the author, your entire premise and dilemma fails.


Well, I told YOU!!!

its more for those who need an excuse to be prude

If such a God had any sense of morality at all he would reveal himself to everyone quite clearly, make it known in precise and no uncertain terms what he's doing and what his plans are.



,,,back to my original theory

IF God would serve US, he would make it easier

and because you dont feel he does, you 'decline' his invitation,,,and thats fine





I have no more issue serving God than I did obeying my parents in their home, for just like them, I know that he wants only the best for me even though as a spiritual child it sometimes feels like that requires great 'sacrifices' and 'unfair' decisions


but I am , indeed, his creation and not the other way around and its his house rules because its his house, not mine

I Trust him and have faith in him and that is basically what I believe this usually comes back to


doing 'nasty' things is no more a guarantee than doing supposedly 'good' things , as I believe anyhow, because I have a base that we are not truly 'good' by spiritual standards, although we CAN strive to do good things ,,,by worldly standards though our 'good deeds' come with an innate feeling of entitlement to a reward,,,which is also a common difference in base foundational beliefs between belilevers and non, ,,,who are often asking fundamentally 'why is this not GOOD ENOUGH for HIM?"

I might not get to Ohio in my car if I havent cared for it carefully first, BUT even if I havent, and it breaks down along the way, I do have many OPTIONS to continue on my way,, and such is the choice with lifes path,,,,,,there is more than one SPECIFIC opportunity that can get us to our 'chosen' destination

God isn't hiding nor does he play hide and seek. It is man that has turned away from our father through disobedience. Through love for us though he has given us a second chance to come back if we wish. It was the human race that decided not to love God in return of his love to us. It was the human race that decided they knew better then God. If your child grows up to the age of adulthood, and they do not listen nor show any signs of wishing to have a relationship, do you hang around? Yes for a while you may just as God did. But after a while and it seeming that your child doesn't wish to have a relationship, would you continue to show up and try to make a relationship?

I've never seen God and neither have you.

You worship an ancient fable. Sure I realize that you're in total denial of this, but it's crystal clear from your posts. All you ever do is post quotes from those ancient fables pretending that it's the "Word of God".

Your comparison of God with human parents always fails. I would never be such an inept parent to my children in the first place, so your hypothetical situations would never apply to me.

In order for me to be a parent as inept as your God my children would have never met me in person, nor would they have any evidence that I even exist. The only way I could communicate with them (according to your religion) is through hearsay rumors via a rude and crude male-chauvinistic society that claims that I'm appeased by blood sacrifices (which clearly wouldn't apply to me anyway!)

Moreover, if my children rejected those kinds of ignorant stories about me that would only serve to make me all the more proud of them.

So your Parent/God analogy will always fail in my case because there's no way that, as a parent, I would be as ignorant or as inept as your fabled God is.

So to even try to use that analogy makes on me absolutely no sense, it simply doesn't fit because there's no way I would be as ignorant and inept as the God in the religious fables that you blindly worship out of pure fear.

I personally don't believe that any sane reasonable person would actually want to place their faith an idea that thty have willfully and knowingly turned against God and that they need to accept the blood sacrifice of his son in order to attain grace for their nasty rebellious attitude.

I mean, gee whiz, if you believe that scenario fits you then that doesn't say much about you does it?

I don't feel that I have ever rebelled against or rejected my creator. I also don't feel that I have ever done anything in my entire life that would warrant having someone nailed to a pole to pay for my actions.

Therefore your FAITH-BASED religious beliefs make absolutely no sense to me at all. I'm truly sorry to hear that you feel that you actually fit the description that the doctrine you believe in lays on you. That's truly sad.

I not only reject their portrait of God, but I know for a fact that their claims about me are absolutely false.

And since they are lying about me then what good are their fables about God? They're clearly lying about that too.

They're necessarily false beyond any shadow of a doubt.

And your analogies of trying to compare me with this God via a Parent/God analogy only serves to drive home that point.

As soon as you place me in the position of being this God and ask me how I would treat my children you totally blow the whole religion out of the water, because at that very moment you instantly make me realize that I would never be as lame as the fabled God that you so terribly fear.

Well ok, that is your decision oh wise, great, mighty, and all knowing Abra. You can not see the truth through the false pretences you've made up in your head. There is nothing I can do. That all lays with you.

I see God everyday. It's amazing what one can see when they lower the blinders put over their eyes by society.

Abra, I'm only going to address your concept of blood sacrifices as I would like you to focus on just this one issue.
I've addressed this before and I have even stated that I agree that blood sacrifices are sick and demented...




Jeremiah 7:21-24 (King James Version)

21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.

22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.


The preceding quote was supposedly from God Himself. Pretty clear if you ask me, that blood was NOT commanded by God.

So for you to believe the lie and keep prosyletizing that blood sacrifices are approved by the God of the Bible, then I'll have to paraphrase your words:

I mean, gee whiz, if you believe that was the scenario then that doesn't say much about you does it?

Oh jeez PP, why focus upon completely irrelevent things?

Now I'm guilty of two instances of the same mistake of sloppiness. I did it again and called the dr. the author. Whoa is me. Who the author was is insignificant, because it does not have any bearing upon the reliability of DR. Cameron to provide unbiased testimony about the ethical considerations concerning the gay/lesbian community. Dr. Suess could have been the author of the link and nothing would change - I would still be wrong about the author, and Dr. Cameron would still be banned from the APA for questionable ethics.



That is not a false dilemma. It is an analogy. It may be a false analogy, but it certainly does not look like it to me. The similarities between asking the KKK(who hold negative equal rights biases) and asking Dr. Cameron(who has been banned for ethical violations) are apparent. Both subjects hold known prejudice towards their targets, blacks and the gay/lesbian community respectively. To ask their opinion about ethical considerations is questionable practice.

We are discussing ethical considerations of the gay/lesbian community. You've brought forth, as a witness, one who allegedly has negative bias towards gays/lesbians. This is supported by the fact that he was banned from the APA for questionable ethics. It is akin to asking the KKK for advice about the rights of blacks. The analogy holds.



Since we now know that the author of the article in the link was not Dr. Cameron, and it is quite clear that I am talking about the Dr., it is also clear that the subject is he who was banned. My being mistaken about the author of the link does not change the fact that you are putting forth the Dr.'s testimony as evidence for our ethical consideration concerning the effects/affects of the gay/lesbian community upon society.



Grasping at straws? A non-sequitur describes a conclusion not a premise. His work and opinion are in question by his peers. His testimony is brought into question by me as a result of work done by his peers - namely his being banned for ethical violations. He is the witness that you've brought forth, as clearly seen below.



You seem to be denying this, or perhaps have lost focus due to being intent upon having shown my mistake about the article in the link you initially provided. You've misunderstood the argument as a result, and I'll gladly take responsibility for that. Again, the argument brings the reliability of your witness, Dr. Cameron, into question.

p1. The dr. was banned for ethical violation.
p2. The dr. has questionable ethics.
C1. The dr.'s ethical testimony concerning gays/lesbians effects/affects upon society is unreliable.
C2. We cannot, in good faith, use Dr. Cameron as a witness.

Your hatefulness is showing. But I'm not the least bit surprised at that. Your obviously obsessed with using religion as an excuse to hate others.

You're the one who compared me with God when you made your parent/child analogy and asked if I would be the same way with my children.

I wouldn't do the despicable things that your fables have your false god doing. Therefore it's your analogy that has failed miserably and clearly has your god doing despicable things that I would personally never approve of.

So your analogy fails miserably. There is nothing I can do for you.

Peter Pan,

I'm in total agreement with you that the biblical fables are in blatant contradiction with each other.

Yes, these fables do indeed have God himself commanding people to atone their sins via blood sacrifices in some places and in others they totally renounce that idea. I've pointed that out many times before and I'm well aware of these blatant contradictions and utter inconsistencies with these ancient "scriptures".

So, at best, all it shows is that the biblical cannon, as a whole, is totally unreliable, and that clearly at least some parts of it must necessarily be false.

I have no problem with that at all. In fact, once that's confessed I'm completely happy and satisfied because it no longer makes any sense to refer to "The Bible" as the "Word of God" since it clearly contains gross inconsistencies and clear falsehoods.

If we accept this as fact, then we can move forward to just picking and choosing the individual parts of from the Bible that we'd like to believe (if we choose any parts at all).

Given that freedom, I can easily build a case that shows that many of the things that are stated in various parts of the Bible totally support the Eastern Mystical views of spirituality. I would personally reject all of the negative stuff in the Bible that I personally find offensive and disagreeable.

Moreover, given this as a consensus, then no one could use any specific quotes from the Bible to support anything as 'Carved in stone" because other people would simply say that they reject those particular parts of the obviously flawed cannon.

This would also result in people realizing that other texts outside of the biblical cannon may hold every bit as much merit, or even more merit, than anything that's contained within the biblical cannon.

In other words, "Christianity" as a 'dogmatic religion' falls. It would no longer make any sense to post number-indexed verses from the biblical cannon, because there would be no consensus that any of the verses being referred to hold any merit or truth.

~~~~

Finally, if you accept that the God of Abraham does not condone blood sacrifices to atone sins, then the whole entire "Christian" concept and belief that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God who "paid" for our sins when he died on the Cross at Calvary goes out the window and no longer holds any meaning.

The only way that concept can stand is if the God of the Bible accepts blood sacrifices as atonement for sin.

So it's my humble opinion that once blood sacrifices for the atonement of sins are removed from this religion, then the very premises that most of "Christianity" stands on falls.

It is my humble opinion that the whole religion rests entirely on the concept that the Biblical God requires a blood sacrifice to atone sins.

Take that away, and you have something other than what Christianity has stood for throughout the ages.

So if you're going to try to convince me that the biblical God does not approve of blood sacrifices for the atonement of sin, then all you're doing is convincing me that the whole religion is false. Or, at the very least, the bulk of modern Christianity is totally wrong.

I'll graciously accept either of those conclusion.

Now who's focusing on irrelevant things? Dr. Cameron, nor his banning, isn't the issue here. The issue is your blatant disregard for honesty now. Who the author was is significant as you attemted to discredit the study I posted a link to. So Dr. Cameron's so-called "banning" is just you attempting to salvage some sort of dignity. However, let's address this so-called "banning", shall we???

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/APA_Resignation-letter.html Cameron's resignation letter (dated 11-7-82)
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Cameron_apaletter.html Letter from the APA (dated 12-2-83)

"The American Psychological Association (APA) expelled Cameron on December 2, 1983 for allegedly refusing to cooperate with their investigation of a complaint filed by psychologists at the University of Nebraska, which is a violation of the Preamble of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists. FRI has responded that he had already resigned, and did so without protest from the organization, citing letters he sent to the APA resigning his membership as well as the APA president's letter accepting his resignation, which were both sent before his formal expulsion. In a letter published in the March 1983 edition of the APA Monitor, Cameron stated that his reasons for leaving included his opinion that the organization was becoming more of a "liberal PAC" than a professional society."

Well this brings into question the ethics of the APA, now doesn't it?
How can the APA "expell" Cameron when he had already left the organisation of his own free will?

And now your numerous mistakes and confession of those mistakes, along with your trivialization of them, now brings into question your ethics.

Also, you never commented on the bias of the NLLFS "For nearly a quarter century, this study has been providing information to specialists in healthcare, family services, adoption, foster care, sociology, feminist studies, education, ethics, same-sex marriage, civil union, and public policy on matters pertaining to LGBT families."
What only focussed on LGBT families? Funded by the APA? Sheesh, the more empirical evidence I find, the more I agree with Cameron's assessment of the APA (Cameron stated that his reasons for leaving included his opinion that the organization was becoming more of a "liberal PAC" than a professional society).





Either way, it's false and irrelevant as well as a lame scare tactic. Walter Schumm is the author of the study in question.






More blatant dishonesty... I "brought forth, as a witness," Walter Shumm, not Cameron. Stop focussing on the irrelevant. But this also brings into question your ethics as you've admitted to the mistake of authorship, yet still insist I referenced Cameron 5 or 6 times now.

I suppose you have the belief that anyone who doesn't agree with your views should be disregarded? The analogy fails as we're not talking about gay rights, we're talking about the effects gay parents have on the outcome of their children's sexuality.

Unlike you, I'm open to all sides of the debate. To only allow those who agree with me would be biased as well as show bigotry. If you want to be intellectual honest, then all viewpoints should be sought out.




And now you show a total lack of understanding of the English language. "The author" is the subject as anyone with the abilty to diagram sentences can clearly see.





I'm not denying that at all. It was suggested reading material as it covered the same subject. Notice in my quoted statement above the phrase "You may also want to look up..." He was mentioned in the article I posted a link to (my "witness"), so I mentioned his name also as well as eluded to his "questionable" reliabilty.



Impossible as Dr. Cameron had already resigned his membership.


True, as do you, as does everyone...


Says you... I think the NLLFS testimony is unreliable as they openly confess to only deal with LGBT issues, making them biased. Also thier study openly admits their inadequacies.


I never asked anyone to use him as a "witness", merely suggested as additional reading material. Shumm is my "witness".



I hope you were paying attention, as "THAT is how ya do it!!!"

It is real basic here.

When you look upon that which stirs your desires and maybe brings love out for you now give that same feeling to those who desire different things from you. They feel exactly the same desire and love you do for those that they love. Give them the right and respect to have the love you allow yourself. Pretty basic to allow and not judge in this context. If I got to describing that which stirs me sexually others are not going to find it stirs them the same but I have as much right to it as they have for theirs.

Of course I have to put the disclaimer in here for those great disgusting analogists who pop up.

Of age and consent is of course required. You know consenting adults who are mentally well.

Well there you go, I was ready to agree with you untill your disclaimer.

All's fair and just as long as they adhere to your rules? Isn't that your primary objection? That other people shouldn't decide what is "right"? Or is it that you view all opposition as religiously biased?

Why deprive the mentally challenged from the same rights you would give others?
Why descriminate against "underaged" people who truly love someone?

This can go way beyond sexual preferences too.

Adults of consenting age should be able to love and have sex with whoever is of age and consent and wanting them if they so choose without any judgement from others about it. Period.

Underage or against the laws of the land is illegal.

Religious fanatics aren't the slightest bit interested in love or understanding. All they are interested in is shoving dogma down the throats of others. They found a religion that can be used to support bigotry and hatred in the name of a God and they intend to use it for doing just that.

Sad but true.