Sure sounded like it to me -- pure vitriol.
If people choose to believe something unscientific just because it "fits" better with their ideology, then they aren't really operating in our reality.
This is what I mean. You're parsing your words to claim that people who are religionists are mentally impaired. I think that you offer this reductionist rationalization of faith in full knowledge of the fact that homosexuality was once listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a paraphilia, a mental disorder.
You are accusing Christians of the same thing of which homosexuals used to be accused. This is garden-variety vindictiveness on your part, irrespective of the merits of the original argument about homosexuality. Which may have been correct, by the way.
If they want to believe that homos have a choice just because their religion says homosexuality is a sin (and you can't have sin without choice), ....
This is not what they are saying, and that is not why they are saying it. It is the other way around: gays argue essentialism (which seems to be a message lost on the Queer Theory radicals in their own ranks) in order to claim an objective condition parallel to race. The entire HRC is founded on the premise that gays can imitate the successes of the civil rights movement, with the difference that they intend to claim their victories in courtrooms, not in the U.S. Congress.
......then they aren't interested in reality.
Begging the question, since arriving at that conclusion demands your premise be accepted. You're smearing religionists.
This does have negative consequences, because it leads them to mistreat homosexuals.
You're defining deviancy up -- for the Christians. Everything they do or believe, you will now claim is "mistreatment" of homosexuals, since their dealing with sexual deviancy does not rise to the standard that your good opinion of yourself demands. As if they, the majority, had to cater to you.
Of course, you have some statistical evidence to back up your walkaway smear of Christians.
If someone was preaching that a racial minority was inherently sinful, and that the evidence for it was all around us, we might consider them to be mentally ill, right?
Premise contrary to fact -- a condition you ignore in rushing to your prejudicial judgment of insanity. This is odious.
Because we know they're wrong.
Not about you, pal, and your mephitic patter.
Likewise, scientists can see that there is a biological component to homosexuality. Certain people deny this because it interferes with their religious or political beliefs.
Nonsense. Your "biological component" has eluded Robert Spitzer, one of the original gay cabal in the heart of the psychotherapeutical professions, lo these many years, and now he is attacked by your fellow polemicists because he couldn't come up with "the gay gene", and was impolitic enough to say so.
People who disagree with the essentialists have evidences of their own that you deny completely by omission, and by ascribing prejudice instead. Which is a form of lying.
They deny science because they don't like the results of it.
Funny, but right now it's your friends who are complaining about results.
They deny reality because they don't want to live in this reality.
Your venomous assertions and ascriptions notwithstanding, Christians do not "deny reality" -- that is your construction, and your hatred showing.
Is this an extremely hateful view?
Yes. Your malice flows like a sump-drain.
Considering that there is plenty of room in what I said to accomodate non-anti-science Christians who accept the world around them in addition to their Bible stories.
You gave nothing. Your sneering reference to "their Bible stories" says it all. You're an ex-Christian, a non-Christian who hates believing Christians. They have judged you and found you wanting, and now it's on. That's all that is left for you -- to find out who is stronger in the house of representative democracy, the God-fearing or their detractors like you.
This is what I mean. You're parsing your words to claim that people who are religionists are mentally impaired. I think that you offer this reductionist rationalization of faith in full knowledge of the fact that homosexuality was once listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a paraphilia, a mental disorder.
Stop harassing xm1234 with the facts. She doesn’t want to hear that homosexuality is a paraphilic disorder because it interrupts her homosexual propaganda. She doesn’t want to hear that homosexuality was removed from the DSM for political reasons and NOT scientific reasons as she so desperately wants to believe. She’d rather put forth debunked research of finger tip length corollaries for those who practice perversion as proof it’s innate to further her homosexual agenda here on FR.
I just don’t understand why the Viking Kitties keep ignoring her.
This is what I mean. You're parsing your words to claim that people who are religionists are mentally impaired.
Nope. I said no such thing. There are plenty of religious folk who don't meet the description I made in the post above.
There is a difference between faith (believing in something for which there is no evidence) and willful blindness (believing in something the evidence strongly suggests to be false).
There is no evidence for God's existence (scientific evidence, at least), but I don't think it's a sign of mental illness to believe in God, and I never said such a thing.
I think that you offer this reductionist rationalization of faith in full knowledge of the fact that homosexuality was once listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a paraphilia, a mental disorder.
In full knowledge of? Yes. Was that the reason I made the connection in question? No.
gays argue essentialism... in order to claim an objective condition parallel to race
Sure. Gays generally argue they are that way biologically, and anti-gays generally argue that gays choose to be that way. The problem I have is not with taking a stance, but with failing to admit evidence contrary to the stance. If there was some big piece of evidence that homosexuality is completely a choice and there is no biological imperative to it, and gays deliberately ignored that because they wanted to justify their gayness, then I would accuse them of the same thing.
You're defining deviancy up -- for the Christians. Everything they do or believe, you will now claim is "mistreatment" of homosexuals
I never said "everything they do or believe" could constitute mistreatment. If their anti-gay views lead them to seriously mistreat gays, then they have done something with negative consequences for society. My assumption was that if they mistreated gays, some of that mistreatment would rise to a serious level (such as casting them out of family homes, denying them jobs, beating them up, etc.). If there is no serious mistreatment, then there is no negative consequence. Are you really arguing that no serious mistreatment of homosexuals occurs because of the way they are demonized by some anti-gay groups?
he couldn't come up with "the gay gene"
That's a logical fallacy. Gays gave up a long time ago trying to find one single "the gay gene." There could be a complex interaction of multiple genes. Homosexuality can be biological even if ZERO genes are involved--there are other biological factors besides DNA (such as exposure to chemicals in the womb).
You're an ex-Christian
I am neither a homosexual, nor a woman, nor a Christian, nor have I ever been any of those things, nor have I ever claimed to be any of those things on FR.
a non-Christian
Brilliant deduction!
who hates believing Christians
But wrong again.