O'Connell's Off Topic

"Who" would accept it? a jury? a judge? the supreme court? Show me a case where any of these have accepted a person saying they were born gay as fact. Just because someone says something in a court of law does not make it fact.

I can't prove that gays are not born gay. I am not trying to prove it. But I do not think gays are born gay and thats my personal opinion. My belief is that as of now this subject can not be proven one way or the other. Either way, I also believe it is a mute point when it comes to the issues of allowing gays to marry.

I have never used "the Bible says so" when it comes to same sex marriages.

a blurb on Dr Greenleaf

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:
"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history!
And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!

It's revealing, to say the least, about the Republican mindset that they're all about limited government.

Until it comes to a woman's womb and a gay person's bedroom.

Then, let the expansion of government roll.

For those of you without a dictionary, that's called "hypocrisy."

Two things in this post strike me as hilarious.

1) You describe yourself as "analytical". How can you be analytical when you said you don't believe in genetics because you just don't. What part of reaching that belief was analytical?

2) You refer to me as ignorant. Ignorant meaning, "lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated". Someone who doesn't believe in something "just cause" can never call anyone ignorant for any reason.

BrianSooner,

I'm familiar enough with Greenleaf to know his writings on this topic would be considered hearsay. In a court of law evidence has to be backed up with something more than faith.

So, one could discuss the fact millions worship the Bible in court but one can't use passages in it as historical evidence. This is a pretty basic concept you really should understand before getting into legal discussions.

As far as the Bible itself, what historical inaccuracies have I presented?

I think I said there are no records of Jesus from the time when he actually lived, apart from some disputed passages from Josephus that were likely written after Jesus died anyway. Do you dispute that?

I said you don't really know who wrote the Bible. Other than what the Bible says, there's no other evidence to corroborate who wrote what. I don't rely on faith so something else is necessary here.

I said the Church decided what to leave out of the Bible. Surely you realize that's true?

I said we haven't found Noah's Ark. Do you really dispute that?

I'm not trying to "put you down". I'm just pointing out the vast amount of errors that you make. You can claim that you spend time answering my incorrect assumptions, when in reality you NEVER answer anything. I've ask you for actual info on genetics at least five times and you never reply. You only spin and dodge. Listen, I would do the same if I was you because you just aren't educated on many subjects. Sorry if that sounds bad, but its true. You speak in very broad, vague terms on a number of issues. Then when you are called out you change the subject or claim that someone is twisting your words. Contrast that with BrianPA who brings things to the table and does so in far fewer words. He has obviously done his homework, you have not.

I know you don't remember your comments on genetics, but I remember them very clearly. The fact that you ignore genetic links to some things, but not others makes you an ignorant fool at best.

Your last statement referred to my words, not "people". Try again.

I have ghey friends, btw...LOVE those people...don't like their choice of lifestyle and they know it, but for some reason it really doesn't affect our friendship (although, I will admit, I wouldn't say they are my close friends - for obvious reasons).

I guess because I craved alcohol when I was 12, I'm an alcoholic. Guess what? If I'd been around alcoholics at that age and been told it was "how I was born", then guess what I'd more than likely be today?

I notice you skipped over the "animal species" topic. Like I said, find me two homosexual squirrels, rabbits, coyotes, etc that won't immediately try to mate with a female in estrus when given the opportunity and we'll talk.

I realize what I posted won't change your OPINION, but that was my point. It's REALLY just an opinion that you keep stating as fact. I give you a few examples of why what you say makes little sense, but of course, it would make no sense to you. Just as your's makes little to US. I harbor no ill will towards you at all for your opinion, but it appears whatever someone like me says will end up with the "you're a bigot", "homophobe", etc. slur directed at them.

This is a losing battle for both sides, and I hope that God touches your life some day.

Klegg I didn't skip over the animal part I just didn't feel like doing research that's already been done on this board before. Google it, trust me it's there.

I believe people who have addictions (alcohol, drugs, ect) were born that way too. How else can you explain why people who kick their addiction to drugs then become addicted to cigarettes or religion in some cases.

As to your analogy on this, if you'd been around alcoholics at a young age and told "that's how you were born" you would be an alcoholic, I think you're missing a very obvious point here. It's not easy being an alcoholic if you're not really an alcoholic. It's hard on the body, relationships, jobs, ect.

If you don't have the "addiction" so to speak those other factors will convince you not to be an alcoholic.

Also, I use the term bigot to describe you because you believe it's ok to deny basic human rights to a person for being born different. You hold to this belief despite ANY evidence these people were not born this way.

What about the ones that kick it completely and don't acquire a new addition??? See, we can play this all day...

What exactly are "basic human rights"? Show me ANY post where I said I wanted to deny them. I asked YOU where it ends. You seem to think we should just accept any behavior. While I mostly agree with ACCEPTING it, I don't have to accept it as normal. Some things just aren't and you know it.

Again, there's ZERO evidence they WERE born that way...ZERO. I find it funny you will accept the word of someone with a vested interest in being accepted as ghey, but not that of millions of people over our history and their experiences with Christ.

Let me ask you this. What would happen to civilization if EVERYONE were ghey or if everyone gave into any desire they might have????

If you are going to get political, it runs the same for liberal democrats who want the government involved in your business except when it is in your personal business(sex, abortion, etc). So, yes it is a hypocritical stance by Repubs, but it is equally as hypocritical by the pro-abortion Dems.

Find me a pro-life democrat or a pro-choice republican and you will find someone who may not be a hypocrite.

Klegg the fact that millions of people say they were born gay IS evidence. I'll give you the point it isn't evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt but to pretend like it's not evidence is simply being intellectually dishonest.

Marriage is a basic human right. To take that away from someone because they were born different IS taking away a human right.

You find it funny I won't accept the word of millions of Christians, do you accept the word of millions of Hindus? We can play this game too. I've looked at Christianity with a logical mind and found it doesn't meet the logic test for me. I can't prove or disprove the faith that you have and won't try.

I will call Christians out though when they ignore inconvenient bits of their own history. Like the fact men, not God, but men selected what to put in the Bible and what not to put in the Bible.

Why do beliefs have to be exclusive of a political party?

I don't align myself with either party. Don't care for the dirt that is politics. I lean towards most attributes of the Republican party, but the pro-life/pro-choice is where I somewhat differ - even as a Christian.

I believe in cases of incest, rape and life-threatening situations a woman has EVERY right to choose to abort their pregnancy, but cannot agree with abortion in normal cases.

That's where the "parties" lose me. Neither can ever see the other's side for any reason...