Congress to Revive Hate Crime Bill to Censor Christians , page 22

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:30 AM

link

reply to post by orangetom1999

I agree with you there, and like most zealots they will work to ban and censor anyone they consider a threat, like "we the people".

jfj123

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:15 PM

link

Originally posted by orangetom1999
reply to post by jfj123

jfj123,

Continued from the last post.

concerning the constant use of the "Victim Dictum" ..I am not so easily put on the string that I am automatically going to operate on the assumption that anyone who uses the term "Victim" is in fact a victim.

And I never suggested that you do so. I do suggest that there are real victims and those victims are victims

Easy right?

I will decide for myself thank you.

If you must

FYI, I'm Catholic

I am not particulary interested in what you claim you are.

I felt it necessary as you were claiming I was something else then what I am.

I am interested in the fruit you produce.

Get your own fruit.

I am a fruit inspector.

I'm sure you're some kind of inspector

I can do this with those who claim to be Christians as well. It does not take long to figure it out.

Got help do you?

Actually the legislation is intended to punish hate crimes. Have you read it yet or are you too busy preaching ?

Hate crimes are a placebo..either a thing is a crime or it is not.

Yes this is true and if you had read my previous post, I have stated that I believe hat crimes are not necessary. Looks like you missed the dozen or so times I've said that.

Making a special category for thought or speech is not in accordance with Amendment 1.

So someone should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre even if it's not on fire?
Someone should be able to slander someone else?
Someone should be able to accuse innocent people of crimes, knowing they're innocent, with no repricussions?

What pre-flood system of government? What flood are you referring to? FYI, there has never been a worldwide flood.

LOL LOL LOL..Im sorry but I cant help it. You are telling me here that you are not Catholic. I told you that you need practice.

As mentioned before, I was born and raised catholic. That doesn't mean that:
I believe there was a worldwide flood-no physical evidence.
I believe that one wooden boat can hold all the worlds land animals with breeding populations large enough to allow for genetic diversity, hold enough food, be built big enough, etc...

Good for you Since I am neither a non-believer nor an athiest, why are you telling me this?

LOL LOL LOL..see above statement of mine..I can do this with Believers as well. I told you that you need practice.

That seems to be your tag line. Someone else need practice, not you. You've failed at each and every turn yet I'm the one who needs practice. Nice reality you've woven around yourself

I like the way you've grouped everyone who doesn't think like you into the non-believer category, thus elevating yourself to a higher level. This allows you to look down on us as less then human so you can judge us

I also told you that I am not interested in your insecurities or those of others. You can do much better than this if you are so sure of your positions. I suggest you learn what it is to be Salty ..not sugary.

Another transparent misdirection

oh but not you. You know better then all those preachers, priests, biblical scholars, etc...
Heck, you might even be the right hand of god ! You were brought here for a greater destiny which mortal man cannot fathom. Your incite into gods true plan is only shadowed by god alone.

This too is not worthy of you for the reasons stated above. Such techniques show the weakness and insecurity of your position. I told you that you need practice. This stuff works on and impresses others but it shows weakeness to those who can see it for what it is.

another sad diversion. I notice how you've not denied anything I've said but answered once again, stating that I need practice

I dont think you are accustomed to dealing with people who dont let you default through or back up so many paces for you. Most of them are impressed with your methods. If so than good for you. It just does not work on me. Hopefully others on here will see it for what it is.

Actually I'm accustomed to discussions with people who have a much better ability to debate subjects but they're not the ones who asked me questions. You were

jfj123

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by jfj123

Many claim that being gay is a choice and is not genetic. Here is the problem with that mentality.
If you or anyone else believe that being gay is a CHOICE, then you and every other person saying this must also be physically attracted to the same sex and the only reason you don't act on your sexual attraction is that you CHOOSE not to. This also means that you and everyone else is partially gay and thus an afront to god

Which means that Aermacch is gay but chooses not to act on his "gayness"

[edit on 11-4-2009 by jfj123]

So you admit then that you know it is NOT genetic.

Oh BTW, If I was gay, I wouldn't be in here talking like an imbecile trying to challenge someones masculinity in some ad-hoc attempt in emotional extortion where he either agrees with you silly argument or he must face the fact that he is gay also.

If I was gay, I would choose NOT to be just like your argument says i can do and just like Gays can do if they weren't to wrapped up in depravity and sin

You missed the entire point of my argument. I'm stunned

No, I do not suggest that being gay is not genetic.

I stated that those who believe being gay is a choice, must apply it to themselves. If, as you probably believe, being gay is a choice and nothing more, then everyone must be both gay and straight including you. This means YOU want to sleep with other men but don't because you believe that choice is wrong.

I believe one's sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. I did not choose to be heterosexual, I just am. I have NO interest in being anything else. Now if I am that way, why can't someone who's gay, be that way for the same reason?

You can't have it both ways.
Either sexual orientation is inherent or there is a choice. If you say there is a choice, you are gay too
You just choose not to act on it

Alora

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link

reply to post by jfj123

I just wanted to pop in here and say something to you specifically that is long overdue. Bravo! I've followed this thread and always look forward to reading your responses. I must admit that you are much more levelheaded and patient than I would be.

*applause*

scorand

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link

reply to post by orangetom1999

well its not vitrol.. itts honesty,, i didnt say that gays wernt pushing an agenda.. i just said they wernt using lies to push it.. and you can call it the victum dictum all you want.. gays are victimized on a regular basis.. hence the hate crime bill.. and this so called bashing on believers and christians is bs.. i dont have a prob with most christians or believers its when we get that vitrol from some, that i've just been accused of, then they fall under their own teaching of hypocracy.. the problem at this moment is the fact that when we stand up for ourselves it pisses some of them off as we are defieing their so called authority. and as far as the statement that you made earlier about the reason we came to america was because they were persucuted for believeing in god.. not quite true.. it was because they didnt want to worship based on the bible and docterine that was being forced by the king.. the idea is they wanted to worship as they believed and not be told how to.. so many make the mistake that this means that they have the right to make everyone else follow their way. and the constitution strictly forbids this.. it states that the freedom of religion is to worship as you see fit, and not force, coerce, or demand that anyone else follow your way.. and if i disagree with certian believers they claim that i dont believe in god.. the kicker is i do believe in god i dont believe that they are god. or the voice of god.. or have any athority to dictate to me what is morally right.. they tend to confuse their selfrightousness with rightousness and try they're darndest to claim their the same thing... so remember what jesus said remove the beam from your own eye before you can help me remove the speck from mine

[edit spelling]

[edit on 12-4-2009 by scorand]

scorand

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link

reply to post by deelushian

the only ones trying to silence any voice is people like you who dont want to hear the truth. you'd rather hide behind church dogma and not learn from past church mistakes.. so go ahead and flame me for my stance on this as it just proves that some people cant practice what they preach reguarding their so called belief. and before you go around calling people a zealot.. take a good look at yourself first.. and in case you miss ths point as well.. we the people includes me too..

scorand

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link

Originally posted by Alora
reply to post by jfj123

I just wanted to pop in here and say something to you specifically that is long overdue. Bravo! I've followed this thread and always look forward to reading your responses. I must admit that you are much more levelheaded and patient than I would be.

*applause*

i completly agree with you.. great job jfj123..

keep up the great work..

jfj123

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link

Originally posted by orangetom1999
reply to post by Aermacchi

What a Believer knows is that it is downright dumb to define ones self by their sexuality or sexual orientation. People left to thier natural thinking abilities are smarter than this.

Excellent. I assume you're including yourself into the "smarter then this" category.

One does not define themselves by thier sexuality or sexual orientation..gay or straight. This is just plain stupid.

I say this because people are so much more than mere sexuality

So I must assume you have no problems with gay people?
I mean you wouldn't condemn the entire person based on what you consider to be such a small portion of them as a whole?
That's right, isn't it?

jfj123

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link

Originally posted by deelushian
reply to post by orangetom1999

I agree with you there, and like most zealots they will work to ban and censor anyone they consider a threat, like "we the people".

POT, KETTLE, BLACK...

I'm surprised your calling card isn't
STRENGTH
THROUGH
UNITY

UNITY
THROUGH
FAITH

Animal

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link

To quote one of my favorite patriots (peter griffin) "though I disagree with what you say I owuld die to protect your right to say it".

I whole-heartedly agree with this sentiment, though I also agree with the fact that it is a crime to threaten ones well being.

The balance of freedom and order is a challenge especially in a society at the scales we find ours at.

I personally take issue with the title of this thread Congress to Revive Hate Crime Bill to Censor Christians. Is this bill specifically about Christians? I do not think so, though I am not surprised a Christian news source would like to present it that way (feels great to believe you are the center of attention even when it is not true).

I urge you all who think this is an assault on Christians to read the full text of the bill here: H.R. 1913

To me it does not appear to create new laws only make existing laws easier to apply. I could be wrong.

jfj123

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link

Originally posted by orangetom1999

ah, entire nations of people were not approved by god. Even new born children in those nations? How could a god disapprove of an innocent newborn?

Ahh...the olde...children..children..anything for the children. I suggest you learn what the Moabites...remember the children of the daughters of Lot??

Yeah, it's nice that innocent children get abused. SARCASM.

I suggest you learn what the Moabite religion was doing to their children under their god Kemish.

What does this have to do with the travesty of condemning innocent children?

Once again ,jfj123 , I strongly suggest you try some more practice

Yet another sad attempt to make me feel inferior by attempting to put me on the defensive. This may have worked for you in high school but alas, there we are not

before you come at me with such drama techniques as is the body politic

once again bringing up the dreaded body politic that you're implying I'm part of. A transparent attempt to set up a stage for future attempts to incriminate me in a larger conspiracy

I am not such a drama queen who can easily be put on such an emotional string to get me to back up and let you play through unquestioned or by default.

Please feel free to keep responding. Putting you in your place is quite fun for me

So he was just a coward that was OK with his wife being taken by another man? That's much better. You're right. My bad

Thank you for letting me play through unquestioned and unchallanged. It is indeed your bad. I never said any such thing as you posted in the quote above.

Actually you did say "such things". Here's your quote.

Abraham did not offer his wife Sarah to the Pharaoh..the princes of Pharaoh called/commanded her to him thinking that she was his (Abraham's ) sister.

Abraham's problem was a lack of courage..not that he offered his wife to Pharaoh.

Lack of courage=coward.
OOPS. Your bad this time

Please practice more.

No thanks. I'm good

I'll slow down so you can keep up if you like?

But both he and his wife KNEW she was not available.

Yes they did. I agree with what you state here. Abraham was not particularly a courageous man. That is obvious. WHat is also obvious is that she was willing to take as much risk here in protecting him. Brave woman.

Too bad abraham didn't have set of ballz huh? I'd never give my wife over to anyone to save my own @ss. Would you?

Yeah, that's the same custom we have now.

I don't think so. I doubt that many even know of this custom either here in the USA or in many other countries. If this were so people would not let other people get drunk under their roof and then get behind the wheel of their cars.

Some people do, some people don't . Customs NEVER are accepted/embraced by everyone from any culture. I myself have NEVER let anyone drive intoxicated from my house. Have you?

o that excuses it HOW ?????

You are looking at it with today's 20/20 hindsight and also through the prism of today's logic and reason.

Sorry, it's not acceptable in any age to offer your daughters up to an angry mob.

I also know that your fear and insecurities here ..nor drama in this instance are well founded.

I have no fears nor insecurities here and if I EVER did, you'd never be able to bring them out of me. Your sad attempts at bating me with your handy little catch phrases fall on deaf ears.

But if you like and need such drama to support your insecurities ..go ahead.

Get a grip

[edit on 12-4-2009 by jfj123]

orangetom1999

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link

reply to post by jfj123

jfj123,

And I never suggested that you do so. I do suggest that there are real victims and those victims are victims Easy right?

No it is not that easy when you have a media who shill for their respective political parties and themselves..both use or misuse the "victim dictum."

It is not that easy jfj 123. No default settings given or granted by me. It is not that easy ..I will make up my own mind as to who is or is not a victim.

I felt it necessary as you were claiming I was something else then what I am.

From what I have seen and read so far, you have the world fingerprint and religion...the god of this world.

So someone should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre even if it's not on fire?
Someone should be able to slander someone else?
Someone should be able to accuse innocent people of crimes, knowing they're innocent, with no repercussions?

I am not debating these points at all....but it makes good drama on your part and clouds the points in which I am interested and debating.

Actually I'm accustomed to discussions with people who have a much better ability to debate subjects but they're not the ones who asked me questions. You were

You'd better go back and look at the difference between your posts and mine. I believe you have asked the bulk of the questions here. I don't believe you are really interested in the answers as much as you are support for your positions. No problem here with this. It is just that others out here need to know the technique. This technique you are using is precisely the technique becoming rapidly popular by our educational institutions financed by the body politic. It is also the technique used by the body politic itself and their shills....the media. It is called Gotcha techniques. Not particularly interested in it but it does happen and people need to be aware of it. Gotcha techniques are often accompanied by Drama techniques or issues. The tend to go hand in hand so as to neutralize opposition. Truth is usually the first casualty of this technique.

I keep telling you that you need more practice. It is you who have asked the bulk of the questions here..not me.

jfj 123,

From your next post down here on page 22

What a Believer knows is that it is downright dumb to define ones self by their sexuality or sexual orientation. People left to their natural thinking abilities are smarter than this.

Excellent. I assume you're including yourself into the "smarter then this" category.

By your own admission I like to think you are a better debater than this quote above. This is however a textbook political technique.

I actually put this in here so that someone with your acumen can make the textbook predictable reply you did and therefore set up my reply which is coming here.

What a knowledgeable Believer knows is not only are they smarter than what passes for drama, excellence, and the moral high ground today...in attempting to define ones greatness or acceptability by sexuality or sexual orientation...but they also know that people are defined by their

Occupations
Their lineage..family line.
Or some great work they have done and left to posterity.

Once a thinking person understands this concept and historical trend...it does not make good nonsense when we see someone whose claim to fame is their sexuality or sexual orientation...gay or straight..both.

Understand now..for people are so much more than mere sexuality or sexual orientation.

Notice that ...simple..easy!! If you go to public school you will most likely never be taught this fingerprint or pattern. So how would the drama queens of today ever understand it outside their emotional default settings which entitle them to play through without challenge or without debate...while claiming "Victimization" and then labeliing any dissent or disagreement hate and hating. That is the double standard.
This devout religion is so ingrained in some people that I have had people send me the definition of "Hate" from of all things...the Urban Dictionary.
I was stunned. This is what passes for thinking now days??
The definitions were entitlement victimization justifications. Self justifications.
Some of these people are so programmed ..that they automatically believe that anyone who disagrees with them are "haters" and they themselves automatically go into the labeling process...to label these people who disagree or dissent with them. This is the very fingerprint they disapprove of in others. Double standard.

People who define themselves by their sexuality or sexual orientation, gay or straight, are telling me clearly how dumb and ignorant they really are.
This includes the media, the public education system and also the body politic. You have to be educated to get this naturally and giftedly stupid. People don't come to this dumbness by natural processes ..it must be educated into them.

And then to sponsor Hate speech legislation to enforce more of this dumbness is equally stupid. And furthermore ..when they begin applying this legislation in the courts they will apply it with political motives in mind. In other words they will wind up whoring out the citizens of this nation for political leverage as they are doing in the UK and on the continent.

as to this..

So I must assume you have no problems with gay people?
I mean you wouldn't condemn the entire person based on what you consider to be such a small portion of them as a whole?
That's right, isn't it?

I have no problems with gay people as long as they leave me and mine alone. I don't preach politics to them or morality until they begin with the nonsense. I am not interested in it. It is the same with Atheists and agnostics..until they begin with to much of the nonsense.

Then when I tire of it sufficiently I will tell them what I have posted here...that it is very stupid to define ones self by their sexuality or sexual orientation.

Don'T misunderstand me here ..I am not against sex or sexuality. I just happen to think that people are so much more than sexuality or sexual orientation. I think this is a very stupid template to use as a claim to fame or greatness/acceptability ..verses what I have itemized above.
This template will, however , get a lot of votes by a parasitic body politic attempting to whore it out for votes ..particularly in high electorial vote states...as long as the general public never hears or figures out what I have itemized above.

The sad truth about most peoples out here is that even their preachers or priests are to dumb to make the association or historical concept that I have made above. I did not come to this by myself. I cannot take credit for this. An old man spoke such to me. I did not believe him or accept what he told me for a number of years till I came to really think about it after watching what was going on in education, the media, and the body politic. I finally realized long after he gave up the ghost that he was correct.

As to condemning gay people...I am assuming here that you mean condemning them like condemning them to hell and damnation.

I cannot do that ..that is way outside my power and or jurisdiction. Not my business or job. I told you that I myself deserve hell and damnation and rightfully so. How can I pronounce such on anyone else. That would be a double standard indeed.
What is sad to me is that most Believers are so ignorant that they do not know this...about themselves or their preachers or men of the cloth. These people too do not have this power or jurisdiction. If they believe this they are indeed ignorant about many things including the Word.

The power of the Believer is to separate from that which they find not in accordance with the Word and the Way they need to live. Come out from amongst them and be ye separate. This is what the world and the world system hates about Believers...that they want to be left alone...to separate. Leven from unleaven, new wine from olde, light from darkness.

Hope this answers your concerns.

scorand,

I am not interested in the Victim Dictum as applies to the Gay Community for the reasons stated above to jfj123.

There is indeed an agenda and the media, public education, and the body politic will lie and deceive many about it for votes and lucre. They dont care. These groups will also use and misue the gay community for votes and lucre if opportunity is required to remain in power or office.
As far as I am concerned there are alot of very ignorant Believers...and have stated so...many times. Ironically I get at times into as many heated debates here with fellow believers as do I non believers.

I have no idea about any statement made about coming to Amereica. I believe you have me mixed up with someone else on this. No problem however ..it has happened before.

Thanks to all for thier posts,
Orangetom

orangetom1999

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link

reply to post by jfj123

jfj123,

In reply to this I am surprised that you even have to ask such a question.

I suggest you learn what the Moabite religion was doing to their children under their god Kemish.

What does this have to do with the travesty of condemning innocent children?

Condemning innocent children? Surely you jest here. Do you know what abominations the Nations surrounding Ancient Israel were doing with their people and also their children. In some nations as many as 50 children a day were sacrificed to their gods. Kemish was the God of the Moabites and children were often sacrificed ..their still beating hearts offered up to their gods.

In some of the nations children were rolled into the red heated arms of a bronze idol in sacrifice to their gods. As I recall this religion had a god by the name of Molech.

You like many only show one view of this. These nations were already offering their children up in sacrifice...and by this defiled their very land.
This is the record. Your point here is very spotty when one knows the history and religions in many nations of the world. I suspect this is also one reason this history is not taught in public schools. It is not desired for people do know this about many nations and peoples..that they were already sacrificing their children and virgins...to their gods.
A very covered up piece of history this is.

The absence of this knowledge and or omission of it is one index I note when observing boards like this attempting to get over on Believers. The people who do this are mostly correct in this assumption that most believers know none of this...because they don't. Their preachers/priests seldom teach them. They are teaching the sugary and sweet doctrine..not the salt of the earth.

The rest of your post is not worth replying to but I don't think you or many on this board know what the other nations surrounding Ancient Israel were up to with this gods. If you did you wouldn't be asking about condemning innocent children. This seems to be a pretty covered up history or ignored by many today.

Thanks,
Orangetom

theEXxman

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link

how about a bill to protect my first amendment constitutional right as an american to sit at home on sunday and be completly irreligious.

theEXxman

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link

and what's this right wing revisionist history that all the founding father's where die hard evangelical christians. wasn't some dieists, some masons, wasn't some atheists. True history isn't so black and white as mister Pat Robertson would like you to believe. Same thing with ancient history.

Aermacchi

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link

Originally posted by jfj123

You missed the entire point of my argument. I'm stunned

No, I do not suggest that being gay is not genetic.

I stated that those who believe being gay is a choice, must apply it to themselves. If, as you probably believe, being gay is a choice and nothing more, then everyone must be both gay and straight including you. This means YOU want to sleep with other men but don't because you believe that choice is wrong.

So you admit then that you know it is genetic.

Prove it!

Aermacchi

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link

Originally posted by orangetom1999
You'd better go back and look at the difference between your posts and mine. I believe you have asked the bulk of the questions here. I don't believe you are really interested in the answers as much as you are support for your positions. No problem here with this. It is just that others out here need to know the technique. This technique you are using is precisely the technique becoming rapidly popular by our educational institutions financed by the body politic. It is also the technique used by the body politic itself and their shills....the media. It is called Gotcha techniques. Not particularly interested in it but it does happen and people need to be aware of it. Gotcha techniques are often accompanied by Drama techniques or issues. The tend to go hand in hand so as to neutralize opposition. Truth is usually the first casualty of this technique.

I think anyone that does that would probably have advised both of us we are arguing with a kids who thinks ATS is some video game where the one wth the most talking points, stars and high fives from the peanut gallery of sock puppets wins. I know the type scorand and jf deltablob etc. They like using lots of these I see. "
"

kinda redundant like saying, : I'm laughing at you ,I'm laughing at I'm laughing at you ,you ,I'm laughing at you ,I'm laughing at you ,I'm laughing at you ,. Then I guess it is supposed to make us really really angry Grrrrrr lol .

Me,, I think it's a pitiful silly thing to do but what ever floats their boats or,,

lets them think they "gotcha!" Grrrrr

Good Posts Tom,.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Aermacchi]

Aermacchi

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link

Originally posted by theEXxman
how about a bill to protect my first amendment constitutional right as an american to sit at home on sunday and be completly irreligious.

They have that already, it's called the Bill of rights along with the United States Consitution. Essentially what you are asking for is analgous to this asinine bill being proposed or an extra 1st amendment that says the same thing the first one does only MORE! heheh

Maybe make it in BOLD this time eh?

jfj123

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link

Originally posted by orangetom1999
reply to post by jfj123

jfj123,

In reply to this I am surprised that you even have to ask such a question.

I suggest you learn what the Moabite religion was doing to their children under their god Kemish.

What does this have to do with the travesty of condemning innocent children?

Condemning innocent children? Surely you jest here. Do you know what abominations the Nations surrounding Ancient Israel were doing with their people and also their children. In some nations as many as 50 children a day were sacrificed to their gods. Kemish was the God of the Moabites and children were often sacrificed ..their still beating hearts offered up to their gods.

In some of the nations children were rolled into the red heated arms of a bronze idol in sacrifice to their gods. As I recall this religion had a god by the name of Molech.

You like many only show one view of this. These nations were already offering their children up in sacrifice...and by this defiled their very land.

Which made the children victims and not sinners.

You got off subject here. We were talking about a christian god who, according to you, condemns innocent newborns. Remember now?

This is the record. Your point here is very spotty when one knows the history and religions in many nations of the world. I suspect this is also one reason this history is not taught in public schools. It is not desired for people do know this about many nations and peoples..that they were already sacrificing their children and virgins...to their gods.
A very covered up piece of history this is.

Which has nothing to do with the conversation we've been having.

The rest of your post is not worth replying to but I don't think you or many on this board know what the other nations surrounding Ancient Israel were up to with this gods. If you did you wouldn't be asking about condemning innocent children. This seems to be a pretty covered up history or ignored by many today.

Again, we were not talking about PEOPLE condemning children but GOD condemning children. People of course, are not God.

jfj123

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by jfj123

You missed the entire point of my argument. I'm stunned

No, I do not suggest that being gay is not genetic.

I stated that those who believe being gay is a choice, must apply it to themselves. If, as you probably believe, being gay is a choice and nothing more, then everyone must be both gay and straight including you. This means YOU want to sleep with other men but don't because you believe that choice is wrong.

So you admit then that you know it is genetic.

Prove it!

It's like talking to a brick wall with a disability.

I've already explained this.
If, as you think, being gay is a choice, then everyone including yourself is both gay and straight and CHOOSE one or the other.
Are you attracted to your own sex, sexually? YES or NO?
If you and everyone else is, you could make an argument for choice.
If not, there is another factor at work.
Does this make sense so far?

This is an actual question for you to answer
Are you attracted to your own sex, sexually? YES or NO?
If NO, why not?

[edit on 13-4-2009 by jfj123]