User Profile: HarryPotter


Member Since: January 23, 2013


123 To page: Go
  • October 9, 2015 at 10:15am

    I regards to genetics and sexual orientation, all scientific studies done on the matter have shown that genetics plays an important role. Now, they do not prove that genetics is the only role at play, there are other factors that have been brought up in these studies too. Birth order, each time a son is born, he has about a 33% higher chance of being gay. A mothers estrogen levels during pregnancy, etc. I would agree that these are not genetic factors, and science does seem to show that these factors can play a role. However, sexual orientation is not a choice. No scientific study has even suggested that, any gay person knows it is untrue, and simple logic shows this as well.
    As for anti-discrimination laws, again if you say that none should exist, and that any business should be able to discriminate as much as they want, that is a legitimate position. But yes, churches discriminate if they marry straight couples and not gay couples. And that is their right to do so as a religious body. There are regulations which govern businesses that serve the public, the government has these laws in place to ensure that everyone has equal acces to good and services. I’m not saying they are right or wrong, but they exist. However, it is just bigotry to want businesses to be able to discriminate against gays, but not Christians or African Americans, etc. Churches are religious bodies, they do not pay taxes, they are free to worship as they wish. Businesses are not religious bodies.

  • October 8, 2015 at 6:01pm

    Either you didn’t read my last post, or you didn’t understand it. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion. The government cannot interfere with religion or worship as long as it doesn’t harm anyone. This is why churches are free to discriminate as much as they want. The government cannot force churches to perform any religious ceremony. Now that is separate of course from the legal marriage license distributed at courthouses. Those are legal documents, and not religious in nature. For businesses, they are not places of worship, and are under the rules and regulations of government. These include food, safety, etc regulations. Anti-discrimination laws are part of this. These aren’t churches, you aren’t forced to own a business or work in a specific job, so these regulations aren’t infringing on anyone’s first amendment. However, you could argue that businesses should be able to deny anyone service for any reason, to discriminate against whatever group they want. Not because this moral, but because their freedom of association should be above the guaranteeing of equal access. That would be a legit argument if you apply it universally.

    Also, science supports the fact that being gay is not a choice. Google “gay genetics”. A story came out just today about scientists finding a link between certain strands of chromosomes and sexual orientation.

  • October 8, 2015 at 12:44pm

    The first amendment gives people the right to worship as they wish. They can perform or refuse to perform whatever ceremony they wish. I think they are morally wrong for denying gay couples, but that is their right. Now you may want your elected officials to waste their time on bills like this that are expressly guaranteed by the US constitution, but I’d rather see them actually do their jobs and do what is best for their state and this country. But I know that is a lot to ask of elected officials nowadays.

  • October 8, 2015 at 9:49am

    I guess you decided to comment without reading the initial post today. I said I have nothing against this bill. It’s just unnecessary. If they want to pass it, there is no reason to stop them. But there are plenty of examples of same-sex marriages throughout history, particularly in the Native American tribes. They were very uncommon as a whole, but then so we’re interfaith and interracial marriages.
    On the point of anti-discrimination laws (which are very separate from marriage rights),a point could be made that none of these laws should be in place, that business owners should be able to discriminate and deny whomever they want. Racists could have “white only” signs, Christians or Jews could be denied service, people could refuse to the handicapped if they wanted. You could argue that all of these are despicable, but they should be able to do that. That would be a legitimate argument. But if you are saying the rest of those laws should stay in place, but they should be able to just refuse gay people, then you are just a bigot and have no real argument to stand on.
    And again, the SCOTUS made no new law. They did not redefine anything. They just declared state laws and amendments unconstitutional, as is their job and responsibility. That is exactly what they did with interracial marriage 50 years ago too.

  • [6] October 8, 2015 at 9:12am

    They’re right. Churches and church officials cannot be forced to perform any religious ceremony. That’s simple first amendment. It’s completely unnecessary, but if they want this, go ahead. I don’t know why democrats are standing against it.

    Responses (11) +
  • [1] October 8, 2015 at 9:07am

    My apologies. I didn’t see your question to me between whining to the moderators and whining about likes. I personally find that situation gross, but see no legal reason not to allow it. But laws would have to be tweaked before it became allowed to make sure no children were created in any incestuous relationship. That child would be inbred and deformed, which is unfair to the child. That why incest was outlawed to begin with.

  • October 8, 2015 at 8:17am

    I have read the whole Bible. Male-male sex is called an abomination once in Leviticus. Eating shellfish is called an abomination in Leviticus also, just a few verses away. The same word is used for both. What makes one worse than the other? Because it’s certainly not the words of the Bible.
    Ok then, what is your basis for saying that animals didn’t act like they do today a few thousand years ago? Is there some scientific study I’m not aware of? Does the Bible (not that the Bible is a scientific or reliable source) say that animals changed their ways suddenly? I’m not sure where you came up with this, but there is nothing to back up your claims here.
    Yes, trying to shrug off the facts is about what I expected from you. Both links have their sources cited so you can dig deeper if you like. The facts are there. More studies have been done on gay parenting as well. I challenged you to provide sources for your (bogus) claims and (surprisingly!) you ignored that. If you’re going to make claims, you need to be able to back them up, and there is no scientific evidence to back you up. As for the Bible, perhaps you should read that, no try to jump into the middle of a completely separate conversation. If you read the New Testament, Paul makes one uncertain reference about sexual sins, and not daw away, commands women not to ever speak in church. Perhaps you should read the bible.

  • [-2] October 7, 2015 at 11:51pm

    Do you have any scientific studies to back up that claim? Or is it just bs you are regurgitating from some anti-gay site or speaker? Because that’s actually not true. But are you suggesting that if a gay person doesn’t get married they will live longer? Interesting….. You must have a very vivid imagination.

  • October 7, 2015 at 11:47pm


    Here’s a place for you to start your research. Yes it’s Wikipedia, but this gives a decent overview for you. It also has sources listed at the bottom if you want to delve deeper.

    This study was done with over 500 families and concludes that children raised by gay parents are happier and healthier than their peers. Your claims are completely baseless. Feel free to post any scientific studies proving your claims, but alas they do not exist. I encourage you to actually do some research and learn something. Or you could again ignore the facts and pretend to be right. Your choice.

    Again, I have never personally heard God speak. I’m guessing you refer to the Bible. Well, the Bible uses the same word “abomination” to describe eating shellfish just a few verses away from the one you are talking about. I think I’m going to keep eating lobster too.

  • October 7, 2015 at 9:55pm

    Yes, you’re right. Thousands of years ago, our knowledge of animals was more limited than it is today. Now we have studied them and have better understandings of their behavior and pairings.

    Who is whining? I’m just explaining reality to some very confused people.

  • October 7, 2015 at 9:52pm

    So you know which verses to follow because of what the Holy Spirit tells you? Great. The Holy Spirit tells me that being gay is not a sin. The intimate moments I spend with the person I love are not a sin. So no problem here then.

    Perhaps you should do some research. Several soecies have examples of same-sex pairings, that are lifelong, or as long as pairings are for that species. Shutting your eyes and ignoring the truth won’t change anything. And yes, I can use science to help create a child. Or I could adopt. What’s wrong with using science or modern technology? Is your home artificial? Are eyeglasses? If I have a child, it will have two loving parents. And again, studies show that gay parents raise children equally well or better than straight parents. You seem to want to deny children a loving family and two parents because you want to focus on what is between their legs.

  • October 7, 2015 at 5:56pm

    That was Gods first commandment? I think you need to take another look at Exodus. I personally an agnostic, and there are over 1000 documented species which have examples of same-sex coupling. But if you follow the Bible (the words of men) and have no issue with women speaking in church or men shaving, I could also call you a hypocrite and no better than Satan. Good thing nobody cares about those verses anymore.

  • [-2] October 7, 2015 at 5:52pm

    Your childish insults and inability to respond to my core arguments really aren’t helping your case. They tend to prove my points.
    But my parents did conceive me without the aid of scientific means. But plenty of other people were conceived through these methods and would not be alive without them. Are these people less alive than you or me? Do they have less value? You, as usual, focus too much on sex acts and not enough on the quality of the parents. I could have and raise children through several means, none of which are any better than another. my form of relationship may be abnormal, but then so are glasses and air conditioning. Your ignorance and bigotries are not an excuse to deny other equality, nor do they change facts.

  • [-9] October 7, 2015 at 4:24pm

    When did God say that? All I know of is a book written by men that has a couple very obscure and unclear rules on sex, right alongside a mountain of other rules everyone ignores.

  • [-7] October 7, 2015 at 4:16pm

    They’re also the areas most damning to women’s rights. But let’s all just ignore those passages.

  • [-4] October 7, 2015 at 4:15pm

    Plenty of people alive today have parents who used methods like these to be conceived. But technically yes, I have the ability to hook-up with some random woman, deposit my DNA, and wait for a child to be born. Is that what a parent is to you? Is that the reason for marriage? A sex act? For me being a parent is about raising a child, nurturing them, helping them grow to become good people.

    Technically, yes, I could have a quick one night stand and deposit the required material to a woman. If that’s all a parent is to you, I pity you. I will stick with my family, as well as all the elderly and infertile families who cannot conceive like you want, but still are real parents.

  • [-10] October 7, 2015 at 3:47pm

    It appears none of you saw what I actually wrote. They embody the teachings of Jesus. If you want to get into the obscure led of Paul and the OT, you’re going to have a very different society, be careful if you want to champion that.

  • [-9] October 7, 2015 at 3:44pm

    We certainly can procreate if we choose. Sperm donors or surrogate mothers or other options thru science. And the legal rights I refer to are the 1100 federal rights and benefits of marriage. If you have the right to legally marry your partner and I do not, we do not have equality.

  • [-14] October 7, 2015 at 2:49pm

    Weird. Why wouldn’t those grown men actually marry each other?

  • [-16] October 7, 2015 at 2:48pm

    I know many Christians that are liberal who embody the teachings of Jesus far better than some of the conservative “Christians” on this site.

    Responses (9) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love