The Homosexual Double Standard, Ad-hoc, Cavalcade!

[Zymologist]

and what about people who testify that they actually did change orientations? You simply sweep that under the rug?

These people appear to be simply dismissed as liars, AFAICT. Which is interesting.

[Sparko]

TimelessTheist's argument that this is a double standard works only if there actually are different standards used to arrive at those opposite conclusions. But that isn't the case, which you'd realize if you'd actually read my post.

We have direct testimony from people who were heterosexually active and then switched to being homosexually active telling us that they indeed were gay back then and were trying to suppress their same-sex feelings. That's why people believe that "if someone behaves heterosexually then changes to homosexuality, it means they were always gay"--because of explicit testimony and admission. We also have direct testimony from people who were homosexually active and then switched to being heterosexually active telling us that they indeed still have same-sex feelings and are therefore by definition still gay. That's why people believe that "if someone behaves homosexually and then changes to heterosexuality, they...are still gay"--because of explicit testimony and admission. Notice how the phrasing in those two sentences is the same? That's because the SAME STANDARD is being applied consistently, which means that there is no double standard.

Derp.




ETA: Here's the post that you didn't bother to read.

so if you have some testimony from people that changed to being gay were always gay, then that means that nobody can change their orientation? That a few testimonies apply to everyone? And that if someone who is gay changes to being heterosexual, then testifies they still have thoughts about being gay that means that nobody can change from being gay to heterosexual?

Really?

and what about people who testify that they actually did change orientations? You simply sweep that under the rug?

[Spartacus]

...

What? That has nothing to do with what I was saying. If you think this thread is a waste of your. time, then don't read or post in it. No one's forcing you to participate.

I'm here partly because the thread amuses me, partly because it's like watching a train wreck. Two train wrecks, actually. Anyway, you have yet to explain why TT's point of view is harmful.

[fm93]

You did exactly what TT was saying, basically that if someone behaves heterosexually then changes to homosexuality, it means they were always gay, but if someone behaves homosexually and then changes to heterosexuality, they are only fooling themselves because they are still gay.

TimelessTheist's argument that this is a double standard works only if there actually are different standards used to arrive at those opposite conclusions. But that isn't the case, which you'd realize if you'd actually read my post.

We have direct testimony from people who were heterosexually active and then switched to being homosexually active telling us that they indeed were gay back then and were trying to suppress their same-sex feelings. That's why people believe that "if someone behaves heterosexually then changes to homosexuality, it means they were always gay"--because of explicit testimony and admission. We also have direct testimony from people who were homosexually active and then switched to being heterosexually active telling us that they indeed still have same-sex feelings and are therefore by definition still gay. That's why people believe that "if someone behaves homosexually and then changes to heterosexuality, they...are still gay"--because of explicit testimony and admission. Notice how the phrasing in those two sentences is the same? That's because the SAME STANDARD is being applied consistently, which means that there is no double standard.

Derp.




ETA: Here's the post that you didn't bother to read.

If a man was married before, and had sex with women before, but is now gay, then he was probably just in the closet this whole time.

And people reason this way because we have direct testimony that provides evidence to believe it. Neil Patrick Harris, for instance, has said that he had sex with women when he was younger and was gay back then, just as he is today.

If a man was married to another man before, and had sex with other men before, but now has sex with women, and is married to one, then he's probably just a brainwashed, self-hating, closet-gay.

Your over-exaggeration aside, people reason this way because we have direct testimony that provides evidence to believe it (like the ex-president of Exodus International, for instance, and plenty of other "ex-gay" people who eventually admitted that they still experience feelings of same-sex attraction and that their orientation didn't actually change). Hey, doesn't that sound familiar? Why yes, it's the same standard that was used for the previous statement. Since it's a single standard being applied consistently, there's no double standard.

[Bill the Cat]

quote: Michael Bussey and Gary Cooper, the founders of Exodus International,

Cooper is not on any incorporation papers, nor on any of the board minutes so how could he be a founder if he was never on the board?

[Sparko]

JimL, Tassman, and Square_pig are basically just liberal parrots.

[Epoetker]

My responses that don't involve insults and show how there aren't actually any double standards confirm his post claiming that there are insults and double standards?

You don't get mocked for dumb insults or "double standards", you get mocked for rigidly robotic thinking that ignores human experience, extremely restricted definitions that ignore both the dictionary and how most humans actually use them, and a heavily and obviously crabbed and constricted imagination that totally ignores the actual desires of your opponent.

I'm not saying you're actually an arguebot made by a gay programmer with "All arguments, premises and conclusions MUST support the gay community" as the prime directive, but the effect is the same.

just Sparko again not actually bothering to read my posts.

These days I can't get through even one opening paragraph of yours without having enough easy material for an entire post. Guess the fans of Judy Garland thought it would be great to armor their Debate-o-bot with lots of straw.

[Sparko]

My responses that don't involve insults and show how there aren't actually any double standards confirm his post claiming that there are insults and double standards? That's strange, I thought the law of non-contradiction didn't work that way and--oh, it's just Sparko again not actually bothering to read my posts.

Come on, Sparko. You're better than this.

You did exactly what TT was saying, basically that if someone behaves heterosexually then changes to homosexuality, it means they were always gay, but if someone behaves homosexually and then changes to heterosexuality, they are only fooling themselves because they are still gay. derp.

[Teallaura]

...
I didn't claim that there was no correlation. I said that being gay doesn't make one INHERENTLY more likely to contract HIV. There's a near-perfect correlation between playing in the NBA and being tall, but being tall doesn't make one inherently more likely to play in the NBA.

..

This statement is only true for MSM who are abstinent/celibate or truly monogamous. Since the statistics do not support those behaviors being normative in the population it's a silly statement. Actually, it's probably a false statement since it only applies to those who have same sex attractions but never act on them or act only with one partner (an extreme exception for the pop).

In the real world, the pop exhibits high risk behavior and has the high prevalence in HIV/STD to prove it so being a member of that pop does indeed place one at very greatly increased risk of HIV and STD. It's a trait of the pop - it really doesn't matter if it's inherent or not. We still end up spending a huge amount of money keeping them alive - or burying them when that fails.

[Zymologist]

being tall doesn't make one inherently more likely to play in the NBA.

My dreams have just been crushed to dust.

[fm93]

Precisely. You consented. Therefore, it's OK-- according to your own criteria.

...

What? That has nothing to do with what I was saying. If you think this thread is a waste of your. time, then don't read or post in it. No one's forcing you to participate.

MSM are at significantly higher risk and have the highest prevalence. Monogamy is the exception, not the rule, in that pop, evidenced by the high STD prevalence that cannot be the case if monogamy were the norm (it's a tiny pop with a hideously high prevalence - that absolutely does NOT correlate to a group where monogamy is the norm.)

So your contention that 'being gay' doesn't correlate to higher prevalence is nonsense.

I didn't claim that there was no correlation. I said that being gay doesn't make one INHERENTLY more likely to contract HIV. There's a near-perfect correlation between playing in the NBA and being tall, but being tall doesn't make one inherently more likely to play in the NBA.

Well done. Tassman and Square_peg's responses to the OP actually confirm TT's post on all points. Oh the irony.

My responses that don't involve insults and show how there aren't actually any double standards confirm his post claiming that there are insults and double standards? That's strange, I thought the law of non-contradiction didn't work that way and--oh, it's just Sparko again not actually bothering to read my posts.

Come on, Sparko. You're better than this.

[Sparko]

Well done. Tassman and Square_peg's responses to the OP actually confirm TT's post on all points. Oh the irony.

[Teallaura]

Hey, Teal: do you smell what I smell? Because I think I smell burning straw.

Along with the horse hockey....

[TimelessTheist]

You're quite right. Homosexual scum are vermin and should be exterminated for the safety and well-being of us normal folk. God demands no less. Bring on the Theonomy I say, whereby capital punishment is the well deserved fate for apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, ''sodomy or homosexuality,'' incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, ''unchastity before marriage.'' It'll be just like the good 'ole days. We've a lot to learn from our Muslim brothers. <sarcasm>

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html

The "unchastity before marriage" thing applies to men too, in those kinds of societies. Otherwise I could really get behind some of that

[Tassman]

I kind of expected the pro-homosexual campaigners to resort to irrational insults and mockery,

This underscores the general tenor of the theist argument.

instead of reasoned argument, in this thread, but his is a bit quick, even for you Tassman, surely?

Then again, it is Tassman, so maybe, no, not too quick at all.

all I see from you is your usual ad hominem - no reasoned argument.

I did so enjoy your post #16, though. Thanks for that.

And what about my post #2, did you enjoy that too. You have yet to comment on that or are you just limited to sneering?