By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - ‘You’ve made your choice’: Man shares dad’s brutal letter disowning him for being gay

happydolphin said:

Jay520 said:

Don't make assumptions

I like everything in this post except bold. I'd prefer not be told what to do when my idea has yet to be converted (changed).


If you don't mind me asking, why do you believe  in your God the way you do. I can understand simply believing in some almighty being that above everything. I like to think that something like that exists, too. But what I can't grasp is how you believe in so many of His traits. Like if God is a He or She, If there are multiple Gods, If he's conscious, If he cares about us, etc. How can you have these answers?



Around the Network
Jay520 said:

Cool... 

..though I hope you won't answer all those questions LOL

1) It may be acceptable. But I don't know if I would be able to comprehend. I think that I and many others would still try to find more answers even if the there was no answers. But I'm not sure. I don't think humans are programmed to accept that there is NO answer. It doesn't make sense to us. Everything we've ever seen in life has always had an explanation that could be justified. The idea of there being NO answer would be a huge blow to the world we've grown accustomed to.

P.S. The common term is weak athiest. not "loose" haha

:) ok. I'll keep it in mind.

So, talk to me about huge blow. Don't you think that possibility is kind of trolling to humans who based their lives thinking they "would" find answers. I know it's just one of two outcomes, but still very likely, if the study on atoms and sub-whatchamacallems are any indication. There seems to be no end to the complexity. Granted there could be one, I'm just saying there could very well be no end also. If that were the case, wouldn't that leave a gaping hole for weak atheists?



I've bookmarked a blog a while ago that summed up few recent studies. Anyway since I'm currently at home I can't access the Academic Network and download the Studies but here are the links:

Långström N, Rahman Q, Carlström E, & Lichtenstein P (2010). Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of sexual behavior, 39 (1), 75-80 PMID: 18536986

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986


Alanko K, Santtila P, Harlaar N, Witting K, Varjonen M, Jern P, Johansson A, von der Pahlen B, & Sandnabba NK (2010). Common genetic effects of gender atypical behavior in childhood and sexual orientation in adulthood: a study of Finnish twins. Archives of sexual behavior, 39 (1), 81-92 PMID: 19172387

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19172387


Zietsch BP, Verweij KJ, Bailey JM, Wright MJ, & Martin NG (2009). Sexual Orientation and Psychiatric Vulnerability: A Twin Study of Neuroticism and Psychoticism. Archives of sexual behavior PMID: 19588238

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19588238



Too much emphasis on homosexuality being a choice or not.

I don't like Metal music because I don't like it. I never got into it, I tried different bands but it never clicked with me. Is it in my genes that I hate metal music? or is it because of one of my childhood traumas?  Do I have to know why I don't like it?

Don't all of us hate at least hate one of the commercially acclaimed/critically acclaimed games that everyone else on the planet like them? Do we ever have lengthy discussion on the reasons why someone we know doesn't' like a certain awesome game that we love?

Homosexuality can be that simple when religious people grow up and stop caring so much about where my dick goes.

Also, I don't think the hundred of thousands of closet homosexuals living in places where homosexuality is punished with death have chosen to pursue a "lifestyle" that is filled with discrimination. That's enough proof for me.

At the very most , VERY MOST , it's a subconscious choice, just like my hate for metal Music.



Cub said:

Too much emphasis on homosexuality being a choice or not.

I don't like Metal music because I don't like it. I never got into it, I tried different bands but it never clicked with me. Is it in my genes that I hate metal music? or is it because of one of my childhood traumas?  Do I have to know why I don't like it?

Don't all of us hate at least hate one of the commercially acclaimed and critically acclaimed games that everyone else on the planet like them? Do we ever have lengthy discussion on the reasons why someone we know doesn't' like a certain awesome game that we love?

Homosexuality can be that simple when religious people grow up and stop caring so much about where my dick goes.

Also, I don't think the hundred of thousands of closet homosexuals living in places where homosexuality is punished with death have chosen to pursue a "lifestyle" that is filled with discrimination. That's enough proof for me.

At the very most , VERY MOST , it's a subconscious choice, just like my hate for metal Music.


I've always felt the same



Around the Network
Jay520 said:
happydolphin said:

Jay520 said:

Don't make assumptions

I like everything in this post except bold. I'd prefer not be told what to do when my idea has yet to be converted (changed).


If you don't mind me asking, why do you believe  in your God the way you do. I can understand simply believing in some almighty being that above everything. I like to think that something like that exists, too. But what I can't grasp is how you believe in so many of His traits. Like if God is a He or She, If there are multiple Gods, If he's conscious, If he cares about us, etc. How can you have these answers?

To the others listening, I hope you don't mind this has turned into a dialogue about atheism and deism, since after all there is mention of God in OP.

K, Jay, I'll answer.

To me the bible is a very intense and curious collection. For me, reading it was like playing a very awesome video game. That's my experience. I was raised with faith as the base of my existence (God created the earth and everything else), and then later grew up in the Christian community. That's when I started reading the bible. I mostly read it on my own, and did not really like taking what other people taught me as authoritative (since my father is a very authoritative person especially when it comes to teaching me about doctrine). So I've had my share of critical thinking. Turns out that I found the bible to be a very fascinating compilation, and very intricate, something that holds together.

In pre-College studies (CEGEP in quebec), I was very passionate about philosophy, and that was right before and at the same time as I got really interested in the bible. To me it all just holds together. So, that's how I know he's a He with certain female qualities, because the bible says so. I believe it, what it says speaks to me and holds together. Ultimately my conception of God is based on how I see the world, and how that works with what I read in the bible, and most of the time it just fits.

For example, how do I know that he cares about us. Assuming that he knew we were going to fail (like your post mentioned), he could be evil by letting us rot. But the book of genesis and prophets talk about a redeemer to save us from our curse. The sending of Jesus is that thing that tells us he loves us, because he doesn't want us to fail. If you read the story, it was the evil one that did it, that caused us to fail. It could be a big roleplay by God, but if it is, how bad is it the roleplay? He really did everything in the story for everyone to be in his glory (victorious), so it may be a bit scheming, but in the end we win. That's the whole idea.



happydolphin said:

So, talk to me about huge blow. Don't you think that possibility is kind of trolling to humans who based their lives thinking they "would" find answers. I know it's just one of two outcomes, but still very likely, if the study on atoms and sub-whatchamacallems are any indication. There seems to be no end to the complexity. Granted there could be one, I'm just saying there could very well be no end also. If that were the case, wouldn't that leave a gaping hole for weak atheists?

It would....but I don't think humans would even be able to comprehend such a thing even if it were true. I know I wouldn't. I would probably always say "I don't know" rather than "there is no answer"... because how could you even confirm such a thing? How could you ever confirm that there is No answer? It's not possible to be confirmed. There are an infinite number of ways to try to find an answer to a question. So, even if a question was unanswerable, we humans would never know because we would spend forever trying to find an nonexistent answer.

- - -

For that reason, I think it's always better to take the "There is an answer, but I don't know" route rather than the "There is no answer" route.

Because if you take the second route, there are two possibilities. 1.) You are correct, and there is no answer, or 2.) You are incorrect and you just missed an answer that could have potentially allow for great advancement.

However, if you take the first route, there are two possibilies. 1.) You are incorrect, and there is no answer. This isn't bad, it's a bit disappointing, but humanity doesn't miss anything at least, or 2.) You are correct, and there is an answer. This is great because you're working your way up to make discovering something potentially great.



Runa216 said:
Player1x3 said:
Further point Runa, im not gonna further discuss on whether or not atheism or religion are illogical because it has nothing to do with the topic. Im sorry if i accidentally started the topic

No you're not, you bring it up in every topic that even remotely relates to religion or religious intolerance. 

And your image is even more ignorant because anyone with a brain sees the illogical nature of the fallacious argument on it.  What you just did was a strawman fallacy.  Congratulations.  You fail at logic. 


Nah, i just bring it up when i see irreligious intolerance. That's something inseparable from you



Jay520 said:
happydolphin said:

So, talk to me about huge blow. Don't you think that possibility is kind of trolling to humans who based their lives thinking they "would" find answers. I know it's just one of two outcomes, but still very likely, if the study on atoms and sub-whatchamacallems are any indication. There seems to be no end to the complexity. Granted there could be one, I'm just saying there could very well be no end also. If that were the case, wouldn't that leave a gaping hole for weak atheists?

It would....but I don't think humans would even be able to comprehend such a thing even if it were true. I know I wouldn't. I would probably always say "I don't know" rather than "there is no answer"... because how could you even confirm such a thing? How could you ever confirm that there is No answer? It's not possible to be confirmed. There are an infinite number of ways to try to find an answer to a question. So, even if a question was unanswerable, we humans would never know because we would spend forever trying to find an nonexistent answer.

- - -

For that reason, I think it's always better to take the "There is an answer, but I don't know" route rather than the "There is no answer" route.

Because if you take the second route, there are two possibilities. 1.) You are correct, and there is no answer, or 2.) You are incorrect and you just missed an answer that could have potentially allow for great advancement.

However, if you take the first route, there are two possibilies. 1.) You are incorrect, and there is no answer. This isn't bad, it's a bit disappointing, but humanity doesn't miss anything at least, or 2.) You are correct, and there is an answer. This is great because you're working your way up to make discovering something potentially great.

In terms of progress the first route is better.

To make the dilemma even easier to comprehend. What if there is always an answer, which leads to a question? As such the first route would still be the best, but it still leads the human no a never-ending quest for answers, even more trolling that to hit a dead-end where there literally is no answer.

This is deep stuff but I think you can understand what I mean. Though pragmatically you will tell yourself "I will only concern myself with the questions I face", in the big picture, what is your direction if in the end it's a pursuit towards, ultimately, nothing (as you will never find the root)?

EDIT: To reiterate, this is a hypothetical scenario, and there just may be an answer to end the tumbling down the rabbit hole, in which case a weak atheist would be vindicated. But it's a specific hope.



Jay520 said:
Player1x3 said:
u
Mnementh said:

sales2099 said:

This is still an arguable point. Biologically, the male is genetically made to be attracted to the female. So either its a choice, sexual confusion, or its an anomaly, given that the gay population is a vast, vast numerical minority.

Dont take anomaly as a insult, I meant it as a numerical comparison.

Bolded is debatable. Homosexuality is obviously something natural, as it is observed for many mammals and is far too common to be a mutation or a fuckup in the recombination of genes. So it's probably of some evolutionary benefit amnd very likely our genes hold a usual preference for the other gender but ALSO a preference for the same gender. Which gene is expressed decdes if you are heterosexual, homosexual or even bisexual.


So small percent of animals doing something = completely natural and ok in human society ? So i guess child murder and cannibalism are also ok and natural ?  The very fact that homosexual couples can't reproduce ( the main purpose and goal of sex ) should tell you something



Firstly, he wasn't using animals to prove that homosexuality was okay in society. He was using homosexuality to prove that homosexuality natural among some beings and is not the result of people deliberately forcing themselves to be gay. Secondly, homosexuality is okay in society because it does not harm people's health - very different from murder or cannibalism.


Again, how is it natural ? Just because it happens to animals. And homosexuality is vastly inferior to heterosexuality in every possible aspect (and before someone jumps the ban hammer, im not saying homosexual people are inferior, they're not.) So how can it be considered normal (''natural'' is debatable, it dependents on your definition of natural ) when its alternative is just plain superior?