Gay Marriage: The Latest Salvo

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
461

[quote]Professor X wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Prof

That really added to the text. Thank you so much for your time and valuable input. You actually agreed with my quote and vrooms agreement with it. It’s the first thing we sort of agreed on in some time and you waited till then to try to be witty.

You failed.

Right, and I am so hurt. I spent way too much time trying to figure out exactly what it was you are arguing about, and as usual, it is the most insignificant aspect of the discussion that you found fault with. The bible has been translated. Words we use now don’t even have an equivalent to words used at the time many of these books were actually written. Vroom’s original comment was simply that the Bible was not written in English. This got your nuts in a twist for some reason and now we have nearly two full pages of an argument about what? Whether we can use words from much earlier translations to truly understand what was meant? That is what this whole argument is about? But I failed? Dear Lord, I’m glad I failed at not dragging out something like that for pages on end for no reason.

I would think that only someone lost in traditional bias would avoid at least wanting to know if we got it right on a few issues. Since homosexuality was the basis of the argument, I do find it odd that these passages don’t seem to add up to a biblical hatred of that particular sexual orientation. Regardless of my personal beliefs, if someone is going to make an argument about this as the basis for their political beliefs on the issue, it should withstand cross examination. It doesn’t seem to do that very well, and THAT should be the argument…not whatever you and Vroom have been going back and forth on for way too long now. I’m glad I failed at that…really.[/quote]

You obviously felt it worth your valuable time to read 2 pages of drivel, so what’s the harm. I was doing, as vroom is so want to do, nothing wrong, merely stating that his reason for dissention was flawed logic.

As you can see we are beginning to make progress and have somewhat of a conversation wrt this fact.

You don’t even understand the discussion. It wasn’t about English translation. It was about ‘literal’ translation and how that can or can’t be used to argue HOMOSEXUALITY in the Bible. Which, by the way, lends itself to the topic quite nicely.

I have never argued whether we ‘got it right.’… In fact I posted that 100 meters gave a very clear spin on his version of the readings. I also complimented ZEB on his. So as you can see-maybe- that my position on translation has nothing to do with ‘traditional bias’ as you claim. I want to try to understand, that’s all.

I also stated to ZEB, that while his version appears to support that the Bible condones homosexuality, there exists enough reasonable doubt, as put forth by 100, that to use that as your sole argument would not suffice.

So I believe that I have covered all the bases for which you deny me. If you are offended by something else, what? I know I was offensive to you in the recent past. I have said I was sorry. But to castigate me, unfoundly, about issues I’ve clearly covered in a conversation that didn’t include you is baseless.

As far as off topic tangents, you need look no further than your Air America thread to see that others are guilty of this as well. It may seem insignificant to you, but it helped clear somethings for me.

462

[quote]vroom wrote:
Seeing as we can’t use the original text as so, the best we have are the various versions available.

Okay, however, it is my understanding, perhaps flawed, that there are written documents that formed the basis of the modern bible.

[/quote]

I’m quite sure this to be true. But almost all culture comes from ancient doctrines that have been rewritten and translated over time. How can we know anything to be ‘true’ as anything translated could certainly carry some form of bias from the party translating.

I think this would be a good spot for Nephorn to chime in on how things are accepted as so, because most people agree that it is.

Similar to axioms in math–a universally accepted truth, with no real actual proof, because its truth is
obvious. That may not be a perfect correlation, I’ll try to express better on rebuttal.

I’m not using axioms to prove religion or God, just the Bible translation at this point in time.

463

100meters:

I don’t think that we are currently that far apart in terms of what each of us has taken away from the account of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Certainly Sodom and Gomorrah were filled with many sins. And I thank you for broadening my horizons relative to this information.

However, I also hope that you have taken another look at the account given in Genesis 19: 5, 6, 7 and 8, and are walking away with perhaps a bit different perspective. I only state this because of your following epiphhany:

“raping strangers, possible.”

What we do know from the specific account of Gen 19:5, 6, 7 & 8 is that the men of Sodom certainly wanted to have sex with the male “strangers”. “Bring them to us so that we may KNOW them.” Is it gang rape? Sure, I agree with you on this point. However, it was same gender gang rape. If they wanted to simply beat them up there are host of other words more applicable as my previous post mentions.

It is certainly not “heterosexual” gang rape either! As it is obvious that the men did not want any part of Lots virgin daughters even though Lot pleaded for the men to take them: “I have two daughters who have never known a man.” They had no interest in “gang raping” Lots two virgin daughters which would have been a less “wicked act” according to Lot than raping the men. (as Lot was “righteous in the eyes of God”).

Are we to believe that the men of Sodom had never had any sort of homosexual sex prior to this? Does a group of heterosexual men march off to gang rape two male “strangers” simply to be unfriendly? I think that would be a stretching the boundary of good logic. Also, why is this particular passage apparently important enough to be the focal point in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why not highlight a passage about murder or theft? Why is same gender sex–militant at that, cited?

I think there are more factors to consider relative to Sodom and Gomorrah and the reasoning behind God calling their sin “Grievous,” “Wicked” and an “abomination” and highlighting this one particular account of Sodom and Gomorrah. However, we will leave that for another time.

If we can agree on the majority of the above I think that you can now begin your defense regarding certain passages in Leviticus which plainly state that homosexuality is unpleasing to God.

464

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Are we to believe that the men of Sodom had never had any sort of homosexual sex prior to this? Does a group of heterosexual men march off to gang rape two male “strangers” simply to be unfriendly? I think that would be a stretching the boundary of good logic. Also, why is this particular passage apparently important enough to be the focal point in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why not highlight a passage about murder or theft? Why is same gender sex–militant at that, cited?
[/quote]

Maybe it isn’t. Your whole argument is based on heterosexual men being involved in a homosexual act. When was the last time you felt like mounting a dude? Maybe it is as simple as “KNOWING” them…as in getting to know who the hell they are and why they are there. Even if you were to be right, it implies that it wouldn’t be wrong for homosexual men to take part in homosexual acts if they are to stick to this one interpretation. I personally have not made a final decision because I haven’t read those scriptures in a while. I do, however, think it was more than effective information at pointing out that much of what we might have a bias against is baseless assumption.

465

As far as I know, raping men was not entirely uncommon in the past. It was used as a way of shaming or emasculating a man. It was not a pleasure thing (unless you count the “pleasure” of mentally and emotionally destroying someone). In light of that, I don’t think that Sodom refers to homosexual love-making, but to a brutal and violent act.

466

[quote]I’m quite sure this to be true. But almost all culture comes from ancient doctrines that have been rewritten and translated over time. How can we know anything to be ‘true’ as anything translated could certainly carry some form of bias from the party translating.

I think this would be a good spot for Nephorn to chime in on how things are accepted as so, because most people agree that it is.

Similar to axioms in math–a universally accepted truth, with no real actual proof, because its truth is
obvious. That may not be a perfect correlation, I’ll try to express better on rebuttal.

I’m not using axioms to prove religion or God, just the Bible translation at this point in time. [/quote]

Okay, whatever. You are still thinking I’m going in a direction that I’m not.

Regardless, my contention is that if there are surviving earliest documents, then those are the ones that should be examined if we want to get as close to their meaning as we can.

The current situation is similar to getting a writeup of the constitution instead of looking at the original itself.

What you are suggesting, not me, is that there is no point in going to the originals. That we couldn’t get anyone, such as linguists, to give us their interpretation of the material, and let us decide.

Instead, you’d rather trust that whatever we happen to have around, today, must be objective, just because it is somewhat old?

I don’t follow your logic.

Is this really the point you are trying to argue with me?

What is the point of picking nits on such a minor and silly point of contention as this?

We’ve been going around in circles because you want to argue against using the source material to ascertain what the fuck it actually says?

Please tell me we can move beyond such a ludicrous statement and get on with this…

467

ToShinDo:

Assuming that you are a heterosexual how many times were you mad at someone, wanted to “dominate” them and then decided to do so by sticking you penis in their butt? I hope the point (no pun intended) is made!

On the other hand telling them off, punching their lights out, disrespcting their friends, family etc. might all be an option…I guess it depends. But screwing them up the butt is not a logical option for a heterosexual.

No, you would most likely have a homosexual “bent” (no pun intended) to want to do such a thing.

Furthermore:

100meters and I agreed to keep the Sodom and Gomorrah debate to that specific scripture. This means that we could not grasp at other scripture which clearly points out that Sodom and Gomorrah committed far more than acts of “unkindness.”

Their sin was “sexual” in nature and specifically had homosexual acts involved!

There are a multitude of references made throughout the Bible which specifically points to the act of homosexuality being pervasive in Sodom and Gomorrah and that homosexuality is indeed wrong according to the Bible (which was my original premise).

Some scripture which you can read for yourself:

Jude 1:7, 1Timothy 1:8-11, 2Timothy 3:3 1Corinthians 6:9-10, Col 3:5 Romans 1:24-27 Romans 1:31 Due 23:17

And also in Leviticus which we are about to debate!

(The Bible does not look fondly on sexual sin of any kind Whether it be men with women or men with men etc.)

Some of these scriptures even use the common words for homosexuals for that day: “malakoi or arsenokoitai.”

One last point: The ancient Hebrew text was approximately 30,000 words. To compare that to today there are over 300,000 commonly used words. Hence, they may have used one particular word to describe several different things. “malakoi” for example did in fact mean “soft linen.” However, it also meant “soft, Weak or effeminite” men who did “lieth” with other men." This was a direct reference to homosexuals.

“Arsenokoitai” was more direct and meant “two men in the act” “men (lying)with men” as in the same bed. This was indeed a direct reference to homosexuality and was strictly forbidden!

It’s fun to play word games with the various translations of the Bible. I also respect the fact of how some could be confused and or misled.

However, unless, or should I say “until” (as I am sure it is on the way if not already in print) they print a “homosexual bible” every interpretation of each passage of scripture that I have seen indicates that same gender sex, call it what you will…malakoi, arsenokoitai, men lying with men, strange flesh, homosexuality effeminite, to know whatever… is not looked at in a very good light in the Bible!

I don’t want to stray to far from my debate with 100meters. However, I wanted to respect your post as you mentioned me directly.

And please understand that I am not casting any sort of judgment on anyone. We live in America and if someone wants to have sex with someone of the same gender they have every right. However, it cannot be justified with the Bible, all word games aside!

468

[quote]ZEB wrote:
ToShinDo:

Assuming that you are a heterosexual how many times were you mad at someone, wanted to “dominate” them and then decided to do so by sticking you penis in their butt? I hope the point (no pun intended) is made!

[/quote]

Not if you consider prison.

469

[quote]ZEB wrote:
“Arsenokoitai” was more direct and meant “two men in the act” “men (lying)with men” as in the same bed. This was indeed a direct reference to homosexuality and was strictly forbidden![/quote]

Actually ZEB, I’m gonna have to bust you on this one:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

Don’t let the “religioustolerance” in the URL fool ya, pal. This particular analysis doesn’t pander to any side of this issue.

If you clicked on the link above, you’ll see that the only folks who play word games with your bible are the ones who have their preconceived notions and add stuff into the rather unclear passages in Leviticus to make them “more clear”. Maybe YOU have been misled?

470

316×638 72.8 KB

… I digress…

471

OD: Isn’t that just nice? Not relevant to the thread, but who cares?

472

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
ToShinDo:

Assuming that you are a heterosexual how many times were you mad at someone, wanted to “dominate” them and then decided to do so by sticking you penis in their butt? I hope the point (no pun intended) is made!

Not if you consider prison.[/quote]

There are several practices from the past that are not acceptable today (selling your daughter into slavery, etc.) This is one of them. If you swept through a village and wanted to assert your position, what better way than to treat their warriors as women? Like saying “How can you expect to beat us when you’re nothing more than bitch?” Anal rape is probably an effective spirit breaker. Like X said, it works in prison.

Thanks for the civil reply, though. I’ll look at the passages you mentioned.

473

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
“Arsenokoitai” was more direct and meant “two men in the act” “men (lying)with men” as in the same bed. This was indeed a direct reference to homosexuality and was strictly forbidden!

Actually ZEB, I’m gonna have to bust you on this one:

Don’t let the “religioustolerance” in the URL fool ya, pal. This particular analysis doesn’t pander to any side of this issue.

It’s fun to play word games with the various translations of the Bible. I also respect the fact of how some could be confused and or misled.

If you clicked on the link above, you’ll see that the only folks who play word games with your bible are the ones who have their preconceived notions and add stuff into the rather unclear passages in Leviticus to make them “more clear”. Maybe YOU have been misled?[/quote]

Yes lothario I’m sure you are correct. I (and the rest of the word) have been misled by the NIV, the NASV and of course the King James version.

Hmm…could be there is a group or two out there attempting to change meaning to suit their own agenda…

Hey…just a guess :slight_smile:

Peach Bro

474

[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
ToShinDo:

Assuming that you are a heterosexual how many times were you mad at someone, wanted to “dominate” them and then decided to do so by sticking you penis in their butt? I hope the point (no pun intended) is made!

Not if you consider prison.

There are several practices from the past that are not acceptable today (selling your daughter into slavery, etc.) This is one of them. If you swept through a village and wanted to assert your position, what better way than to treat their warriors as women? Like saying “How can you expect to beat us when you’re nothing more than bitch?” Anal rape is probably an effective spirit breaker. Like X said, it works in prison.

Thanks for the civil reply, though. I’ll look at the passages you mentioned.

[/quote]

ToShinDo:

I think there is much confusion relative to Old Testament laws and how they apply to us today, since the New Testament. I have specifically focused on this and will no doubt have an opportunity to delve into it.

I am looking forward to continuing my debate with 100meters on these issues. I am far from a Bible scholar. And I feel that there are members on this thread who could take my position and represent it far better than I based upon their wealth of knowledge.

However, I have read the Bible (different versions) and because of this debate and the three weeks that I have off from work I was (and am) able to delve into the scripture regarding homosexual acts and the Bible. I have had a chance to read the various versions and most importantly the ancient Hebrew interpretations which are the oldest known to modern man.

Using (almost the same) arguments launched by some of the pro homosexual folks you could just about justify murder, theft, adultery and a host of other obvious sins.

Again, I look at this as a fascinating discovery. I have learned a great deal so far from debating 100meters and I am grateful for the opportunity to at least try to shed some light on a topic that has been badly distorted.

I just want to remind all of those people who have PM’d me (and others) relative to my position regarding Biblical scripture: It is fine to hate the sin, but always love the sinner (no lothario this is not contradictory, as a parent I am sure you know what I mean).

That means that any sort of cruel remarks directed at someone because they happen to be different than you are out of line and not keeping with one of the two most important commandments: “Love thy neighbor as thyself”!

With that said I will await 100meters reply to my most recent post regarding Sodom and Gomorrah. I’m surprised not to find his edition this morning. Did you go out last night 100meters?

You can’t have weekends off! LOL

475

[quote]100meters wrote:

Using a brain imaging technique, Swedish researchers have shown that homosexual and heterosexual men respond differently to two odors that may be involved in sexual arousal, and that the gay men respond in the same way as women.

The new research may open the way to studying human pheromones, as well as the biological basis of sexual preference. Pheromones, chemicals emitted by one individual to evoke some behavior in another of the same species, are known to govern sexual activity in animals, but experts differ as to what role, if any, they play in making humans sexually attractive to one another.

The new research, which supports the existence of human pheromones, is reported in today’s issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Dr. Ivanka Savic and colleagues at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

The two chemicals in the study were a testosterone derivative produced in men’s sweat and an estrogen-like compound in women’s urine, both of which have long been suspected of being pheromones.

Most odors cause specific smell-related regions of the human brain to light up when visualized by a form of brain imaging that tracks blood flow in the brain and therefore, by inference, sites where neurons are active. Several years ago, Dr. Savic and colleagues showed that the two chemicals activated the brain in a quite different way from ordinary scents.

The estrogen-like compound, though it activated the usual smell-related regions in women, lighted up the hypothalamus in men. This is a region in the central base of the brain that governs sexual behavior and, through its control of the pituitary gland lying just beneath it, the hormonal state of the body.

The male sweat chemical, on the other hand, did just the opposite; it activated mostly the hypothalamus in women and the smell-related regions in men. The two chemicals seemed to be leading a double life, playing the role of odor with one sex and of pheromone with another.

The Swedish researchers have now repeated the experiment but with the addition of gay men as a third group. The gay men responded to the two chemicals in the same way as did women, Dr. Savic reports, as if the hypothalamus’s response is determined not by biological sex but by the owner’s sexual orientation.

Of course this was done in Sweden, but I think it goes to show that gays are most likely genetically different.[/quote]

That says nothing for genetic differences, just that there are biological differences. Environment, whether pre-natal or post-natal, can permanently affect phenotype in the same way that genetics can. Genetics might play a role in predisposing one to a certain kind of response to certain kinds of environmental cues, but this is all besides the point. All the study shows is that gay men respond biologically different to smells than do straight men. We already know that gay men respond behaviorally different to sexual stimuli than straight men, so it should come as no surprise that certain sexual stimuli also elicit BIOLOGICAL responses, since all our behavior has its genesis in our biology.

476

[quote]ZEB wrote:
larryb wrote:

If homosexuality is not a preference, does it matter whether or not the cause is genetic?

Um…it matters a whole lot!

If it is not genetic and it is not a preference then it must be some sort of mental problem. This sounds harsh, but not as harsh as it seems.

You have certain preferences for things. If you are compelled toward a thing (whatever it is) and you do not conscious want that thing, nor are you genetically determined to want that thing, then that is indeed a disease (or mental problem) of some sort.

There is a group of people who have a great desire to drink alcohol on a regular basis. They become drunk (sometimes) and it is very difficult for them to stop imbibing alcohol. We call them alcoholics. We also say that they have a disease!

The reason we call it a disease is because while they do not have an alcoholic gene they get hooked on something that they would rather not do: Drink alcohol.

According to your theory if homosexuals are not genetically determined, and they actually do not have a preference for someone of the same sex (but want them anyway) then I would put them in the class of the alcoholic.

This of course is my answer to your supposition and not necessarily my personal answer to homosexuality, as I have none and unlike the Gay lobby and the social liberals I’m not afraid to admit that I don’t know how one becomes a homosexual.

However, if this is true then it does explain why those who are highly motivated are able to leave homosexuality behind after long term therapy. Don?t they say that the only way an alcoholic can give up the bottle is if he is highly motivated to do so?

If this is the case (and I?m not claiming it is) we are doing a grave injustice to every homosexual in the country by even suggesting that gay marriage be allowed!

[/quote]

Is a tan a “skin problem” because its not genetic?

Homosexuality can only be considered a mental problem if it is considered a PROBLEM. Biases against homosexuality are necessary to categorize it as a “problem” rather than an environmentally acquired preference of a person.

And what if it is? There are psychological and cultural things we inherit from our early environment that cause us to act in certain ways. Must we define these inheritances as problems? Perhaps homosexuality has a function in our evolutionary past. I can think of numerous scenarios that makes the potential development of homosexuality among predisposed members of a group a beneficial evolutionary adaptation for group functionality.

And even still, if homosexuality has no functional purpose and is instead an anomoly of human sexual development, what of this? Homosexuality being so widespread, even among non-humans, even with documented cases among non-primates, has it proven particularly destructive to anything or anyone? I’m speaking on both an evolutionary level and humanistic one. Has homosexuality reduced the reproductive successes of the members of a group that the homosexual associates with? Has homosexuality reduced the potential for happiness of members of a group that the homosexual associates with? And finally, given a context of cultural neutrality toward homosexual practices, can we say that homosexuality is detrimental to the mental well being of the homosexual? I don’t think we can give an affirmative to any of these questions, and since this is the case, I don’t see how we can treat homosexuality as a “mental problem.”

477

Synthesize,

hear hear!

:wink:
Makkun

478

[quote]Synthesize wrote:
ZEB wrote:
larryb wrote:

If homosexuality is not a preference, does it matter whether or not the cause is genetic?

Um…it matters a whole lot!

If it is not genetic and it is not a preference then it must be some sort of mental problem. This sounds harsh, but not as harsh as it seems.

You have certain preferences for things. If you are compelled toward a thing (whatever it is) and you do not conscious want that thing, nor are you genetically determined to want that thing, then that is indeed a disease (or mental problem) of some sort.

There is a group of people who have a great desire to drink alcohol on a regular basis. They become drunk (sometimes) and it is very difficult for them to stop imbibing alcohol. We call them alcoholics. We also say that they have a disease!

The reason we call it a disease is because while they do not have an alcoholic gene they get hooked on something that they would rather not do: Drink alcohol.

According to your theory if homosexuals are not genetically determined, and they actually do not have a preference for someone of the same sex (but want them anyway) then I would put them in the class of the alcoholic.

This of course is my answer to your supposition and not necessarily my personal answer to homosexuality, as I have none and unlike the Gay lobby and the social liberals I’m not afraid to admit that I don’t know how one becomes a homosexual.

However, if this is true then it does explain why those who are highly motivated are able to leave homosexuality behind after long term therapy. Don?t they say that the only way an alcoholic can give up the bottle is if he is highly motivated to do so?

If this is the case (and I?m not claiming it is) we are doing a grave injustice to every homosexual in the country by even suggesting that gay marriage be allowed!

Is a tan a “skin problem” because its not genetic?

Homosexuality can only be considered a mental problem if it is considered a PROBLEM. Biases against homosexuality are necessary to categorize it as a “problem” rather than an environmentally acquired preference of a person.

And what if it is? There are psychological and cultural things we inherit from our early environment that cause us to act in certain ways. Must we define these inheritances as problems? Perhaps homosexuality has a function in our evolutionary past. I can think of numerous scenarios that makes the potential development of homosexuality among predisposed members of a group a beneficial evolutionary adaptation for group functionality.

And even still, if homosexuality has no functional purpose and is instead an anomoly of human sexual development, what of this? Homosexuality being so widespread, even among non-humans, even with documented cases among non-primates, has it proven particularly destructive to anything or anyone? I’m speaking on both an evolutionary level and humanistic one. Has homosexuality reduced the reproductive successes of the members of a group that the homosexual associates with? Has homosexuality reduced the potential for happiness of members of a group that the homosexual associates with? And finally, given a context of cultural neutrality toward homosexual practices, can we say that homosexuality is detrimental to the mental well being of the homosexual? I don’t think we can give an affirmative to any of these questions, and since this is the case, I don’t see how we can treat homosexuality as a “mental problem.”[/quote]

I was answering larryb who wrote:

“If homosexuality is not a preference, does it matter whether or not the cause is genetic?”

This was his question. His supposition (not mine) that it was neither a preference or genetic.

"You have certain preferences for things. If you are compelled toward a thing (whatever it is) and you do not conscious want that thing, nor are you genetically determined to want that thing, then that is indeed a disease (or mental problem) of some sort.

This of course is my answer to your supposition and not necessarily my personal answer to homosexuality, as I have none and unlike the Gay lobby and the social liberals I’m not afraid to admit that I don’t know how one becomes a homosexual."

What would you call something that was neither genetic or something that you actually wanted to do? (This means you are doing it and not but not wanting to).

If larryb is correct (and I’m not claiming he is) then I would say that that person has a problem not much different than an alcoholics.

479

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I was answering larryb who wrote:

“If homosexuality is not a preference, does it matter whether or not the cause is genetic?”

This was his question. His supposition (not mine) that it was neither a preference or genetic.

"You have certain preferences for things. If you are compelled toward a thing (whatever it is) and you do not conscious want that thing, nor are you genetically determined to want that thing, then that is indeed a disease (or mental problem) of some sort.

This of course is my answer to your supposition and not necessarily my personal answer to homosexuality, as I have none and unlike the Gay lobby and the social liberals I’m not afraid to admit that I don’t know how one becomes a homosexual."

What would you call something that was neither genetic or something that you actually wanted to do? (This means you are doing it and not but not wanting to).

If larryb is correct (and I’m not claiming he is) then I would say that that person has a problem not much different than an alcoholics.

[/quote]

That was possibly the most twisted logic I have ever read in my life. You just equaled a preferance for certain things to always being a conscious choice of whether to like something or not. That is ludicrous. I like pizza. I didn’t make a CHOICE to like pizza, but from the moment I tasted a pizza, it was clear to me that I liked it. Therefore, if the choices are tofu and pizza, guess which one I’m choosing.

According to you, this is a disease that I have because, even though I never originally made a conscious decision to like pizza over certain other foods, and because I am not genetically disposed to liking pizza, that liking pizza for me is now equal to what alcoholics deal with.

Say what?

I never made a primary choice to like pizza. There was never a moment I sat down and said, “From this day forth, I will like pizza over several other foods”. It was a simple preferance that was in me to like one food over another. We haven’t discovered whether this desire for one thing over another is genetic or based on environmental factors…however, according to you, it is a disease. Good one.

480

[quote]rainjack wrote:
larryb wrote:
Also, as others have pointed out, you seem to be under the naive impression that “we are our genes”, which is just silly.

So then you agree that homosexuality is a choice? Because if it’s not then it must be genetic. You are very confusing. First you say hetero-phobes are ‘hard-wired’ to be gay because the smell differently - then you say that we are not our genes.

Which is it pal? [/quote]

You have just reiterated your misunderstandings. 1) There are more possibilities than just “genetic” and “choice”. To give just one example, prenatal environment, which is neither genetic nor a choice, has a huge effect on development. 2) Pheromone response is not “smell”, it is entirely automatic, subconscious, and can not be conditioned.