NationStates Jolt Archive

1. That is a spiritual issue, not a scientific one, so it's not relevant to the issue of genetics anyway, at least not right now.

So, celibacy is a negative trait as a scientific issue then?

EDIT: snipped out the rest to keep religious discussion at bay.

1. We're above the animal kingdom, we do not exist soley to reproduce.


Wow and I thought we were mammels?


2. Celibacy is not a trait, it's abstaining from a certain action.


What? Everybody is married?

The mother always did a great job when she died in childbirth or shortly thereafter, which also used to occur very frequently indeed...

Producing more offspring certainly increases the chance that some will survive - as does devoting time and energy to the protection and care of the offspring you've already got.

I'm not sure why you're arguing this, seeing as homosexuality does exist and has existed throughout recorded history, so it clearly can't be too horribly detrimental to a species.


The more animals dedicated to reproducing, the more offspring that would survive. Also, the number of miscarriages or maternal fatalities has never really decreased overall in the animal kingdom, so the term "used to" is false.

Producing extra offspring is generally more productive than spending extra time caring for a select few already existing offspring. The animals would be much more useful in procreating than in caring for others' offspring.

So do diseases, murder, and warfare. These are all forms of population control, as is homosexuality.

The mother generally fulfilled this purpose quite adequately, an extra creature would not contribute enough to warrant its survival in the pack. Also, producing more offspring increases the probability that some will survive, which again puts a dent in that theory.
Really, may I ask if you believe that the mother generally fulfilled this purpose adequately as a result of applying reason to known facts, or as a result of simply thinking that it is so.

Researchers estimate that of the 60 million annual deaths approx 20 million are directly related to lack of protein and/or nutrients. Maybe mothers just got slack the last couple of decades, but I doubt it...

I didn't make any fallacious assumptions.

I don't think early experiences have anything to do with it. That experiences argument has less weight then a pile of poop baking in the sun. It isn't substantiated nor does it have any decent study done for it.
Let's not dredge this ground again - I am FULLY and THOROUGHLY aware by now that YOU do not agree that experience has any effect on sexuality, OK? :p

Having said that, you did assume when this was brought up initially that people were implying it was due to trauma or negative experiences, when no one had specifically stated that...and if someone did state that, it was not me. The only comment I made in that general direction was that child abuse can affect how that child develops sexually...

Nature didnt intend heterosexual sex either...


Right, it is not necessarily a benefit, nor is it necessarily not a benefit, and nor is it necessarily more productive, or even as productive, to create one's own off-spring. Rather than being 'necessary' it is contextual.

OK, explain that one, how do you come by nature did not intend a man and woman to have sex and in so doing reproduce and therefore continue the species ?

Wouldnt it just be easier if we all just admitted it was a damn choice. And on the other side people quit bashing others for making that choice ?

Really, may I ask if you believe that the mother generally fulfilled this purpose adequately as a result of applying reason to known facts, or as a result of simply thinking that it is so.

Researchers estimate that of the 60 million annual deaths approx 20 million are directly related to lack of protein and/or nutrients. Maybe mothers just got slack the last couple of decades, but I doubt it...



If you're referring to the human species, most of those deaths occured in regions where nobody could provide proper care for infants, as the nutrients necessary to produce breast milk (a female-only trait anyway, which wouldn't explain the male homosexuals) wouldn't be available to anyone...except humanitarian aid workers who distribute them.

Having said that, you did assume when this was brought up initially that people were implying it was dues to trauma or negative experiences, when no one had specifically stated that...and if someone did state that, it was not me. The only comment I made in that general direction was that child abuse can affect how that child develops sexually...

Ok I won't go into that again. So do you think Neo's head is going to explode like what the original thread starter said?

it should probably be said at this point that none of you seem to know a damn thing about evolutionary genetics, and should perhaps stop making such terribly, terribly WRONG arguments.

Sorry to be so blunt, but it's painful to read.

The mother generally fulfilled this purpose quite adequately, an extra creature would not contribute enough to warrant its survival in the pack.


All that is necessary to warrant the survival of another individual in the pack is that it produces more than it consumes. Surely you're not caiming that this does not occur? The very fact that parents are able to provide for their young shows that individuals are able to produce more than they themselves consume.

OK, explain that one, how do you come by nature did not intend a man and woman to have sex and in so doing reproduce and therefore continue the species ?

Wouldnt it just be easier if we all just admitted it was a damn choice. And on the other side people quit bashing others for making that choice ?



I would have to agree, if not for heterosexual sex, we would have no species at all, therefore it must be intended.

What? Everybody is married?
LOL - yes, it's funny how many people think that the terms celibacy and chastity are the same thing, when in fact they are not....;)

Wouldnt it just be easier if we all just admitted it was a damn choice. And on the other side people quit bashing others for making that choice ?

I didn't choose to be gay. You are debunked.

Two guys making out = fucking hot

Therefore this equals beautiful

It is a positive trait. Also it keeps christian fundamentalists in line to prevent them from launching coup d'etats in the US. Let me explain: More openly gay people open minds and that equals more support for gay rights.

Actually no, Flaunting your sexuality to extremes just fans the flame causing more strife. Straight or Gay, we need less exhibitions rather then more.

Actually no, Flaunting your sexuality to extremes just fans the flame causing more strife. Straight or Gay, we need less exhibitions rather then more.

Hell no. I'll flaunt it because I'm happy about it. In fact I think you are one of the people who said that sexuality is a choice. Uh huh... right... I think it is great to be open about sexuality.

...as the nutrients necessary to produce breast milk (a female-only trait anyway, which wouldn't explain the male homosexuals) ...

Incorrect. Males do infrequently lactate - the primary natural cause of this is long term stimualtion of the nipples, which occurs, for example, if the mother is lost and the father tries to comfort the newborn by letting it suckle upon him. It can also be triggered by various other hormonal treatments or medical conditions, but it is perfectly possible for a given healthy male without any abnormal physiognomy or condition to begin lactation.

All that is necessary to warrant the survival of another individual in the pack is that it produces more than it consumes. Surely you're not caiming that this does not occur? The very fact that parents are able to provide for their young shows that individuals are able to produce more than they themselves consume.



But the mother can already provide the necessary things naturally. Any extra care provided would be miniscule, and a procreating animal is certainly more productive than a sterile/homosexual animal could ever be. It would be better to produce a great number of offspring than it would to care for a select few.

Incorrect. Males do infrequently lactate - the primary natural cause of this is long term stimualtion of the nipples, which occurs, for example, if the mother is lost and the father tries to comfort the newborn by letting him suckle upon him. It can also be triggered by various other hormonal treatments or medical conditions, but it is perfectly possible for a given healthy m,ale without any abnormal physiognomy or condition to begin lactation.



Male lactation is not in sufficient quantities to sustain offspring.

But the mother can already provide the necessary things naturally. Any extra care provided would be miniscule, and a procreating animal is certainly more productive than a sterile/homosexual animal could ever be. It would be better to produce a great number of offspring than it would to care for a select few.

I don't think so. I can certainly be very productive for man kind. Insult homosexuals again and I'll direct that to a moderator. I can be so incredibly productive.

The more animals dedicated to reproducing, the more offspring that would survive. Also, the number of miscarriages or maternal fatalities has never really decreased overall in the animal kingdom, so the term "used to" is false.
Producing extra offspring is generally more productive than spending extra time caring for a select few already existing offspring. The animals would be much more useful in procreating than in caring for others' offspring.

Again I would really like to know, do you believe these things for some logical reason, or just because you feel like it might be true? What for instance makes you believe you know the incidence of miscarraiges that occured among human populations 25 thousand years ago?

Hell no. I'll flaunt it because I'm happy about it. In fact I think you are one of the people who said that sexuality is a choice. Uh huh... right... I think it is great to be open about sexuality.



Then you are annoying people, which would create increased opposition to your movement, therefore being counterproductive to your trait's furtherment ;)

Ok I won't go into that again. So do you think Neo's head is going to explode like what the original thread starter said?
Hmm, actually I have to say, I don't know...

...if I was to make a guess, I would say that if the genome that causes/influences homosexuality were (hypothetically) isolated, I wouldn't doubt that some religious extremists would like to exploit the fact to try and eradicate homosexuals...

There was a sci-fi show that was also a legal drama (Century City or something like that) where this exact issue was brought up. I never saw the episode, so I don't know what happened...

The more animals dedicated to reproducing, the more offspring that would survive. Also, the number of miscarriages or maternal fatalities has never really decreased overall in the animal kingdom, so the term "used to" is false.

I was merely referring to Homo sapiens there. Besides, I thought we were "above" the animal kingdom... ;)

Producing extra offspring is generally more productive than spending extra time caring for a select few already existing offspring. The animals would be much more useful in procreating than in caring for others' offspring.


First of all, whether or not something is "more productive" is irrelevant. As long as it is at all productive, it will, at the very least, take a heck of a long time to be bred out. Second, you can't actually prove one more productive than the other - asserting "it is so" doesn't actually make it so. And third, caring for the "select few" is entirely the point. If you care for your dead sibling's children, you are indirectly but effectively passing on your genes - more effectively than by risking your own life giving birth to additional children while letting the existing ones starve.

Point being, not reproducing /= not passing on genes. You can't argue with this. It doesn't matter if one method is better than the other so long as both methods work - which they do. Case closed.

Producing extra offspring is generally more productive than spending extra time caring for a select few already existing offspring. The animals would be much more useful in procreating than in caring for others' offspring.

Again I would really like to know, do you believe these things for some logical reason, or just because you feel like it might be true? What for instance makes you believe you know the incidence of miscarraiges that occured among human populations 25 thousand years ago?[/QUOTE]



Animals do not have medical technology, thus, unless some unforseen freak even occured, the rate should remain relatively stable throughout time.

Incorrect. Males do infrequently lactate - the primary natural cause of this is long term stimualtion of the nipples, which occurs, for example, if the mother is lost and the father tries to comfort the newborn by letting it suckle upon him. It can also be triggered by various other hormonal treatments or medical conditions, but it is perfectly possible for a given healthy male without any abnormal physiognomy or condition to begin lactation.
Some prisoners of war who are seriously malnourished and starved, such as some of those on the Burmese railaway, began to lactate as a side effect...

Then you are annoying people, which would create increased opposition to your movement, therefore being counterproductive to your trait's furtherment ;)

No. I'm very open about myself. No. It will create more openness. You are counterproductive to America. You are taking us down the route of dictatorship, or at least trying (you won't be successful). Tell me why California is so open about it where gay people are more open? Your argument has been debunked. Congrats. That's like the 1,000th argment I debunked of yours...

Fubaria, I don't think that'll happen. I think we should however find the root causes of christian fundamentalism, and isolate that. It could lead to fascism if it is left unchecked.

OK, explain that one, how do you come by nature did not intend a man and woman to have sex and in so doing reproduce and therefore continue the species ?
Because I know that nature does not have an intent. Nature is a social construction, a tool to make communicating ideas and concepts about the world easier, it is not a willful entity capable of having intentions of any kind.

Wouldnt it just be easier if we all just admitted it was a damn choice. And on the other side people quit bashing others for making that choice ?
It very well might be easier, however I do try to avoid telling lies, even though it might be convinient to do so.

I didn't choose to be gay. You are debunked.

Keep on if it makes you feel better to say "nature made me this way". What is so wrong with just saying, I made my choice now leave me alone ?

Anyhow, yes, you win. Nature intended all animals to be homosexual. That explains perfectly well why humans are still around...... And having male/female sex is totally abnormal.

I was merely referring to Homo sapiens there. Besides, I thought we were "above" the animal kingdom... ;)



First of all, whether or not something is "more productive" is irrelevant. As long as it is at all productive, it will, at the very least, take a heck of a long time to be bred out. Second, you can't actually prove one more productive than the other - asserting "it is so" doesn't actually make it so. And third, caring for the "select few" is entirely the point. If you care for your dead sibling's children, you are indirectly but effectively passing on your genes - more effectively than by risking your own life giving birth to additional children while letting the existing ones starve.

Point being, not reproducing /= not passing on genes. You can't argue with this. It doesn't matter if one method is better than the other so long as both methods work - which they do. Case closed.


Numbers matter in survival of the fittest. Therefore, productivity is the major determining factor to the existence of a species. If one method works better, then the creatures who use that method will pass on their genes to more offspring than the creatures who do not. Thus, homosexuality is not a positive trait (unless you're overpopulated of course).

Because I know that nature does not have an intent. Nature is a social construction, a tool to make communicating ideas and concepts about the world easier, it is not a willful entity capable of having intentions of any kind.


It very well might be easier, however I do try to avoid telling lies, even though it might be convinient to do so.



If that is so, then we do not exist because nature did not intend for us to procreate. Yet we do exist, therefore the logical conclusion is that reproduction is nature's intent.

Keep on if it makes you feel better to say "nature made me this way". What is so wrong with just saying, I made my choice now leave me alone ?

Anyhow, yes, you win. Nature intended all animals to be homosexual. That explains perfectly well why humans are still around...... And having male/female sex is totally abnormal.

The thing is.. I can't lie about myself. I don't like lying.. it isn't nice to do. I like being "in ya face" about the truth.

Um and no as far as the second paragraph is concerned, i never said that. You need to lighten up. I have said some humorous things in these past few pages.

No. I'm very open about myself. No. It will create more openness. You are counterproductive to America. You are taking us down the route of dictatorship, or at least trying (you won't be successful). Tell me why California is so open about it where gay people are more open? Your argument has been debunked. Congrats. That's like the 1,000th argment I debunked of yours...

Fubaria, I don't think that'll happen. I think we should however find the root causes of christian fundamentalism, and isolate that. It could lead to fascism if it is left unchecked.


Why prove my point when your own statements do it for me? :rolleyes:

If you're referring to the human species, most of those deaths occured in regions where nobody could provide proper care for infants, as the nutrients necessary to produce breast milk (a female-only trait anyway, which wouldn't explain the male homosexuals) wouldn't be available to anyone...except humanitarian aid workers who distribute them.
Which is relevent how? Oh I get it, it proves that mothers cannot always adequately care for and feed their children.

I'm not sure how you imagine this point supports your assertion that mothers have always done an adequate job, much less that more people equals greater rates of survival. Good sense would suggest that where a necessary (for the continuity of life) resource were scare, the less demand placed on the resource by large numbers the more chance individuals will each get enough to survive...

Why prove my point when your own statements do it for me? :rolleyes:

You should stop lying about my statements! My statements prove my point. Why is California so open about it? Because we gay people are more open, and we demand our rights.

But the mother can already provide the necessary things naturally.


Ergo there is no need for males to support their young? Surely this is not what you mean here.

Any extra care provided would be miniscule, and a procreating animal is certainly more productive than a sterile/homosexual animal could ever be.

You are obfuscating here by using the term 'productive' in two different senses here: to mean (i) the production of young and (ii) the production of the supplies necessary to sustain living individuals.

It would be better to produce a great number of offspring than it would to care for a select few.

A false dichotomy: the existence of productive non-breeding individuals is not a factor limiting the amout of offspring that can be produced. If we are going to stick with our somewhat dubious pseudo-prehistoric model of a pack here we can see that in our most closely related species (Bonobos) not all fertile males breed, instead the alpha males tend to inseminate about half the young. Thus it appears that a large proportion of non-breeding individual males is the norm... of course lesbianism is a whole different kettle of fish.

Homosexuality isn't genetic. Sorry. I know it isn't a choice and I would never think to tell people they chose to be gay or straight, however there is no "gay gene". If there were, when one identical twin is gay, the other would have to be gay. There are many many instances where that is not the case.

Personally, I do not believe you can be born gay. Nor do I believe you can be born straight. I believe your orientation is developed early on and that homosexuality is caused by a malfunction of sorts during this development, most likely hormonal. No one can help the way they develop and therefore no one chooses their orientation, but at the same time, it is not genetic.

Thats pretty simplistic with the twins argument; they're not 100% genetically indentical.

With that being said, say its 'in the genes' is simplistic as well; there are those who have a genetic disposition to cancer, and yet, many never actually develop cancer.

If it is anything, it'll have to do with hormones, the mother and the affect of those hormones on the child during birth.

What ever the cause, I doubt it'll be as simplistic as pointing it down to one event, occurance, gene or what ever.

What I think *SHOULD* be the focus is ensuring that us gay folk are *accepted* - I don't want tolerance - tolerance is the type of thing you say to something you hate - I 'tolerate' bad weather, I 'tolerate' having a cold - it doesn't mean I want or accept them, I just put up with it.

Sorry, I don't want people just to 'put up with me', I want people to *accept* me for who I am, and the contribution I can make to society, regardless of the gender I wish to have a relationship with.

Some prisoners of war who are seriously malnourished and starved, such as some of those on the Burmese railaway, began to lactate as a side effect...

Hmmm. I hadn't heard that, I had read some reports about it being tied in to post-traumatic stress disorder though. My grandad was on the Burma railway... but that's a matter for another time and place.

Which is relevent how? Oh I get it, it proves that mothers cannot always adequately care for and feed their children.

I'm not sure how you imagine this point supports your assertion that mothers have always done an adequate job, much less that more people equals greater rates of survival. Good sense would suggest that where a necessary (for the continuity of life) resource were scare, the less demand placed on the resource by large numbers the more chance individuals will each get enough to survive...



In the enviroment where a mother cannot provide nutritional support, it would usually be impossible for other creatures to provide it, case in point, Africa. When the children cannot get milk from mother, do you think they run to others looking for it? In those conditions, it would generally be impossible for anyone to provide it. If it were possible, the mother would be doing it in the first place.

What I think *SHOULD* be the focus is ensuring that us gay folk are *accepted* - I don't want tolerance - tolerance is the type of thing you say to something you hate - I 'tolerate' bad weather, I 'tolerate' having a cold - it doesn't mean I want or accept them, I just put up with it.

Sorry, I don't want people just to 'put up with me', I want people to *accept* me for who I am, and the contribution I can make to society, regardless of the gender I wish to have a relationship with.

That's so correct, and that's why I believe Melonius is not bisexual. homosexuality is no malfunction. It is normal for those of us who were born this way.

Tolerance is not enough. Acceptance is what we want.

Keep on if it makes you feel better to say "nature made me this way". What is so wrong with just saying, I made my choice now leave me alone ?

Anyhow, yes, you win. Nature intended all animals to be homosexual. That explains perfectly well why humans are still around...... And having male/female sex is totally abnormal.

Considering the amount of homosexual acts found in nature; what was that about choice again?

Your argument also assumes nature if perfect and no mistakes ever happen.....

Then you are annoying people, which would create increased opposition to your movement, therefore being counterproductive to your trait's furtherment ;)

Being forced to see things you disapprove of, over time, makes you much more tolerant of them. Therefore, homophobic people need to see homosexuals in loving, open relationships as they would see heterosexual couples doing the same. This will cause them to become more accepting of homosexuality as a whole.

Male lactation is not in sufficient quantities to sustain offspring.

Irrelevant. I was disputing your claim that it was a purely female phenomenon.

Being forced to see things you disapprove of, over time, makes you much more tolerant of them. Therefore, homophobic people need to see homosexuals in loving, open relationships as they would see heterosexual couples doing the same. This will cause them to become more accepting of homosexuality as a whole.

Well finally something I agree with you on... i'm trying to help my boyfriend be more open.. and it is working.. we hold hands in public now. California is definitely accepting overall (with the exception of some areas).

Hell no. I'll flaunt it because I'm happy about it. In fact I think you are one of the people who said that sexuality is a choice. Uh huh... right... I think it is great to be open about sexuality.

Or you just like to fan the flames cause you love the strife. It is like those on both sides of the race question who wont let it go.

Im more of the kind who thinks "why cant we all just get along". If you feel better saying "nature intended me this way" so be it. More power to ya :)

Is a pointless debate. When two homosexual humans recreate without the assistance of science then maybe ya will have a basis for that. Until then it is moot. Most curious that choice is so offensive to some. Didnt think it was such a ugly word.

Thats pretty simplistic with the twins argument; they're not 100% genetically indentical.

With that being said, say its 'in the genes' is simplistic as well; there are those who have a genetic disposition to cancer, and yet, many never actually develop cancer.

If it is anything, it'll have to do with hormones, the mother and the affect of those hormones on the child during birth.

What ever the cause, I doubt it'll be as simplistic as pointing it down to one event, occurance, gene or what ever.

What I think *SHOULD* be the focus is ensuring that us gay folk are *accepted* - I don't want tolerance - tolerance is the type of thing you say to something you hate - I 'tolerate' bad weather, I 'tolerate' having a cold - it doesn't mean I want or accept them, I just put up with it.

Sorry, I don't want people just to 'put up with me', I want people to *accept* me for who I am, and the contribution I can make to society, regardless of the gender I wish to have a relationship with.


It has been argued to me about the twins not necessarily being 100% identical. Until further research, I don't want to argue this point really.

While tolerance may not be something you want, for people to accept you, there will be a period first where they only tolerate you. Take it step by step. The final goal is acceptance.

Animals do not have medical technology, thus, unless some unforseen freak even occured, the rate should remain relatively stable throughout time.
Er, no! What on earth makes you think that evolution cannot (much less has not) varied the rate of miscarraige?

Or you just like to fan the flames cause you love the strife. It is like those on both sides of the race question who wont let it go.

The strife? What strife? Does that explain California? So open, so great.. i like this state and I love West Hollywood. I'm a flamer. That's who I am.


Im more of the kind who thinks "why cant we all just get along". If you feel better saying "nature intended me this way" so be it. More power to ya :)

Not good enough. I want acceptance. Total acceptance. I'm not going to just accept "why can't we all just get along". Either they'll accept me, or I'll fight on for my rights.

Most curious that choice is so offensive to some. Didnt think it was such a ugly word.

Choice isn't an offensive or ugly word. It is a wrong word.

Considering the amount of homosexual acts found in nature; what was that about choice again?

Your argument also assumes nature if perfect and no mistakes ever happen.....

Ok you win, nature made a mistake and therefore we have homosexuality...

Victory to you. *waves flag of surrender*

Numbers matter in survival of the fittest. Therefore, productivity is the major determining factor to the existence of a species. If one method works better, then the creatures who use that method will pass on their genes to more offspring than the creatures who do not. Thus, homosexuality is not a positive trait (unless you're overpopulated of course).

*sigh* You still haven't offered any evidence that the "pop out babies till you drop" method works better than the "care for existing babies" method, and I seriously doubt you'll be able to. They both work, though in different ways. There are highly successful animal species that have tons of offspring which they abandon at birth, and there are highly successful animal species which reproduce only rarely and sparsely and care for their young for years. It doesn't matter how many offspring you produce; it only matters how many of them reach reproductive age and successfully reproduce themselves.

While tolerance may not be something you want, for people to accept you, there will be a period first where they only tolerate you. Take it step by step. The final goal is acceptance.

He is saying that tolerance is not something we should settle with. We should and must go further!

It doesn't matter how many offspring you produce; it only matters how many of them reach reproductive age and successfully reproduce themselves.

God, it all seems so pointless.

*sigh* You still haven't offered any evidence that the "pop out babies till you drop" method works better than the "care for existing babies" method, and I seriously doubt you'll be able to. They both work, though in different ways. There are highly successful animal species that have tons of offspring which they abandon at birth, and there are highly successful animal species which reproduce only rarely and sparsely and care for their young for years. It doesn't matter how many offspring you produce; it only matters how many of them reach reproductive age and successfully reproduce themselves.

Oh and you forgot one thing...

The "pop out babies till you drop" method can actually kill a species. It could actually deplete resources and lead to extinctions.

If that is so, then we do not exist because nature did not intend for us to procreate. Yet we do exist, therefore the logical conclusion is that reproduction is nature's intent.
Er no. The logical conclusion is any argument that inserts unproven and unlikely assumed premises is unsound.

Well finally something I agree with you on... i'm trying to help my boyfriend be more open.. and it is working.. we hold hands in public now. California is definitely accepting overall (with the exception of some areas).

I agree with you a lot about the final outcome of a topic, just not the means. I would completely agree with most everything you've said about homosexuality, just not about it being genetic. And even that, I haven't developed my opinion thoroughly and may in the end revert back to that opinion. It is only recently that I came accross the other options besides nature vs nurture and it being a choice.

If homosexuality is genetic why are there still homosexuals? for the most part they don't reproduce so how does the "gay" gene get passed on? look homosexuals may not be able to help it but saying its genetic is like saying I like salt water aquariums because I was born to.

Oh and you forgot one thing...

The "pop out babies till you drop" method can actually kill a species. It could actually deplete resources and lead to extinctions.

Call this one as coming from out of left field here... but it seems to me looking at the last few hundred years of recent history that the better off and the more affluent tend to produce fewer children than the worse off and less affluent. Cause or effect? Make of that what you will.

If homosexuality is genetic why are there still homosexuals? for the most part they don't reproduce so how does the "gay" gene get passed on? look homosexuals may not be able to help it but saying its genetic is like saying I like salt water aquariums because I was born to.

Recessive traits. Recessive traits don't disappear.

If homosexuality is genetic why are there still homosexuals? for the most part they don't reproduce so how does the "gay" gene get passed on? look homosexuals may not be able to help it but saying its genetic is like saying I like salt water aquariums because I was born to.
Oh FFS, please no one answer this. If this puppet account is to lazy to look for the 300 times this has been answered already in this and other threads, then it doesn't deserve to know! :p :headbang:

In the enviroment where a mother cannot provide nutritional support, it would usually be impossible for other creatures to provide it, case in point, Africa. When the children cannot get milk from mother, do you think they run to others looking for it? In those conditions, it would generally be impossible for anyone to provide it. If it were possible, the mother would be doing it in the first place.
Er no, in an environment capable of supporting 3 adults and 2 children, provided the production efforts of 3 adults is available, a mother, her homosexual brother and her husband, along with the mother and husband's 2 children have a better chance of surviving than 4 adults and 4 children. It's really not that complicated. In scenario one probably everyone will live, in sceanario two, sacrifices have to be made and if the group is overly altruistic the entire population might be lost.

He is saying that tolerance is not something we should settle with. We should and must go further!

Well in that case, of course. Just like how the civil rights movement is still being fought (rather quietly, I must admit), the gay rights movement will continue to be fought until complete acceptance and equality are reached.

Ok you win, nature made a mistake and therefore we have homosexuality...

Victory to you. *waves flag of surrender*

Oy vey. How many times do people have to say that "nature" does not do anything? "Nature" is a vague concept invented by humans. It does not have intentions, it does not make mistakes, it does not put on a fluffy dress and dance the can-can.

Actually, I can explain up all the mysteries presented in this thread.

1) Sexuality is determined while still in the womb. If the mother is exposed to ultraviolet light, assaulted by marmots, or struck by lightning whilst pregnant, the chance of having a homosexual child is greatly increased. It could just be completely random, but the learned intellectuals that I am somehow unable to cite are hesitant to suggest such a theory.

2) Identical twins do not have exactly the same genes. God literally uses a photocopier to produce these guys, and we all know how those things can make really inconsistant copies. I mean, if he forgot that there was a piece of tape stuck to the original, it'll show up as a big black spot on the copy. This would explain the deadly "evil twin" convention popular in soap operas, among other things.

3) The condemnation of homosexuals was not originally in the bible. All of those bits about the Israelites hatin' on the gays were actually a blatant misinterpretation of the old legend of how Moses proclimed that the sabbath would be a lot more fun if it was called "Silly Hat Day." Seeking to wipe this rather embarassing instance from their history, the priests of the temple sought scapegoats with which to conduct a good stoning. We all know that religion is something to be taken entirely too seriously, and that deviation will not be tolerated!

4) God is actually a pink elephant, and the world is a cube suspended on his back. He stands upright amongst the branches of a massive sycamore tree whose roots strech into oblivion. Don't bother with what's below the tree; it's inconsequential. Look it up! I'm not gonna tell you where, cause this is an internet forum, and I can say loads of FACTS without providing any basis for them.

5) Biblical scholars in Former Rhodesia have suggested that Bono from U2 is, in fact, the Antichrist. Along with Bob Geldof, he will soon stage a coup to seize control of the EU and raise an army for a great unholy crusade to devastate the holy land and summon the Adversary (Mel Gibson) to bring the fires of hell to Earth.

Eh, that's about it for now. I hope that clears things up. But if anyone wants to be enlightened further I'd be glad to help out with your internet education. To school, I scoff. BAH!!

Ok you win, nature made a mistake and therefore we have homosexuality...

Victory to you. *waves flag of surrender*

In your case the mistake is a pejorative term.

You also assume nature is all about order.

Hint: Random mutation

We don't know what homosexuality happens. People argue that animals are mainly about instincts and not choices. Yet, there are homosexual acts in nature.

Eventhough we haven't identified a reason for homosexuality; there is enough evidence that suggests it is a natural occurence.

Call this one as coming from out of left field here... but it seems to me looking at the last few hundred years of recent history that the better off and the more affluent tend to produce fewer children than the worse off and less affluent. Cause or effect? Make of that what you will.

Yeah and the affluent tend to have their fewer children in school, and not picking rice in a field.. and also the affluent people tend to have better lives and better health.

I know ... some of the meanist people to us are homosexuals ... I have never seen so much anger

(straits more fear us ... we walk among them lol)

LOL - I think the issue isn't about 'fucks anything with two legs' but the perception that you're still confused, and haven't got a 'fixed' target - for gays, they don't want to go down the path of developing a relationship, but finds that because of societal pressures, the relationship is broken up, and the guy is pushed towards dating girls - yes it does happen; there is this perception that if you're bisexual 'you'd obvious want to have pussy over cock!', oh, and just as a side issue, there is no such thing, as far as I've seen, as an exact 50/50 bisexual - they either lean towads the gay or heterosexual side of the equation.

Oh, and then there is the perception by the straight side that they're just saying they're bisexual beceause they can 'get it when ever they want'.

As for being mean, the ones I feel sorry for are transexuals; go to a gay bar, and they're treated the worst :-(

Its sad how bad humans treat each other.

Er no. The logical conclusion is any argument that inserts unproven and unlikely assumed premises is unsound.

Nope. Logic doesn't do anything of the sort: all it can be used for is to examine if the relations between the premises and the conclusion are sound or not. It is silent when it comes to whether actual propositions are likely true or not in the real world.

Frex:

Socrates is a man,
All men are twelve foot tall and have seventeen fingers made out of string,
Therefore: Socrates is twelve foot tall and has seventeen fingers made out of string.

Utterly logically sound.

He is saying that tolerance is not something we should settle with. We should and must go further!

Already admitted it was natural, mistake nature made and not your choice.

And just what exactly do you want if you dont mind me asking ? What more do you need then what I have professed ? That it is fine how you are ? I have no problem with what you do with whomever. To me that is acceptance and I think for the majority of people it is the same.

Oy vey. How many times do people have to say that "nature" does not do anything? "Nature" is a vague concept invented by humans. It does not have intentions, it does not make mistakes, it does not put on a fluffy dress and dance the can-can.

You have obviously never seen mother natures act! :p

Lovely Boys: I saw a (mTf) transsexual on the bus here and she was talking about how she was beaten up by these two guys.. and unsurprisingly one of the guys said she was going to hell for not being the gender she (he) was born with. They really have it tough. Even here in California.

Already admitted it was natural, mistake nature made and not your choice.

Mistake? What mistake? It is no mistake. It is perfectly fine.

And just what exactly do you want if you dont mind me asking ? What more do you need then what I have professed ? That it is fine how you are ? I have no problem with what you do with whomever. To me that is acceptance and I think for the majority of people it is the same.

I want total acceptance. I want gay marriage. I want full civil rights for gay people. I want gay people to able to serve openly in the military. I want people to stop telling us we are living sinfully. I want equality!

That's so correct, and that's why I believe Melonius is not bisexual. homosexuality is no malfunction. It is normal for those of us who were born this way.

Tolerance is not enough. Acceptance is what we want.

I don't mean to claim homosexuality is abnormal. I do not feel that it is natural, since I believe all animals, humans included, live to carry on the species and homosexuality cannot naturally do that. However, I do not feel that it is bad or wrong. I believe homosexuality is highly beneficial.

I don't mean to claim homosexuality is abnormal. I do not feel that it is natural, since I believe all animals, humans included, live to carry on the species and homosexuality cannot naturally do that. However, I do not feel that it is bad or wrong. I believe homosexuality is highly beneficial.

I think you're wrong. I think it is natural for me. This is why I don't believe you are bi. It is natural for me.

I think you're wrong. I think it is natural for me. This is why I don't believe you are bi. It is natural for me.

It is natural for you. It is unnatural for a species as a whole. For the individual, it is entirely natural.

I want total acceptance. I want gay marriage. I want full civil rights for gay people. I want gay people to able to serve openly in the military. I want people to stop telling us we are living sinfully. I want equality!

As do I. It's an old argument but I would rather you be in the open and dating each other versus my sister or my daughter.

I wonder how many fathful types would have a stroke at the thought of you sinful types married hetro women in the old days. :p

Nope. Logic doesn't do anything of the sort: all it can be used for is to examine if the relations between the premises and the conclusion are sound or not. It is silent when it comes to whether actual propositions are likely true or not in the real world.
I did not suggest logic indicated the truth or otherwise of the premises, but logic does indeed include the standard that any argument that includes untrue premises is unsound.

Frex:

Socrates is a man,
All men are twelve foot tall and have seventeen fingers made out of string,
Therefore: Socrates is twelve foot tall and has seventeen fingers made out of string.

Utterly logically sound.
No, logically valid, but none the less unsound. Validity refers to the truth of the premises being able to ensure the truth of the conclusion, soundness refers to the argument being valid and having only true premises.

It is natural for you. It is unnatural for a species as a whole. For the individual, it is entirely natural.

I disagree because I think the "pop babies till you drop" theory is false.

I disagree because I think the "pop babies till you drop" theory is false.

I don't agree with that theory. The human race needs to stop "popping babies". But I do believe in survival of the fittest and that does require I believe the purpose of life be to carry it on. Doesn't mean you have to go along with that purpose though.

I disagree because I think the "pop babies till you drop" theory is false.

BTW, you are doing very well at staying rational and not insulting anyone. No matter what your reason for altering your style, I think it was very beneficial.

I don't agree with that theory. The human race needs to stop "popping babies". But I do believe in survival of the fittest and that does require I believe the purpose of life be to carry it on. Doesn't mean you have to go along with that purpose though.

Who says I can't go along with that purpose? I can donate my sperm to a sperm bank.

Who says I can't go along with that purpose? I can donate my sperm to a sperm bank.

I didn't mean you. I personally have no intention of aiding that purpose. If you want to help someone conceive a child or help raise one, then all the power to you. It is a horrible option for me in my eyes, however.

I don't agree with that theory. The human race needs to stop "popping babies". But I do believe in survival of the fittest and that does require I believe the purpose of life be to carry it on. Doesn't mean you have to go along with that purpose though.
Survival of the fittest doesnt suggest that homosexuality is 'unnatural'. As has already been pointed out group survival might in some contexts be increased by non-reproducing productive group members. In human populations the chances that any such non-reproducers will not share genes with one or more of those who's survival chances they are increasing, is marginal. I suggest the chance of it never having occuring within human history is as close to zero as makes no difference.

No, logically valid, but none the less unsound. Validity refers to the truth of the premises being able to ensure the truth of the conclusion, soundness refers to the argument being valid and having only true premises.

My apologies, you are right on that one. What can I say in my defense? Its 8AM here and I ain't slept yet. Mea culpa.

However...

The logical conclusion is any argument that inserts unproven and unlikely assumed premises is unsound.

...still isn't quite right. An unproven premise is to the best of our knowledge neither true nor false, and so that can't really be used to determine soundness. The insertion of an unlikely assumed premise can at best be said to make an argument likely unsound.

I didn't mean you. I personally have no intention of aiding that purpose. If you want to help someone conceive a child or help raise one, then all the power to you. It is a horrible option for me in my eyes, however.

No. I wouldn't donate my sperm to a sperm bank or help a female conceive a child or help raise one. I'm sticking to my boyfriend.

It is natural for you. It is unnatural for a species as a whole. For the individual, it is entirely natural.

The problem with using the terms of natural and unnatural give the impression that there are a set of traits that we are supposed to pass on.

Yet, the attributes a woman or man seeks for offspring are different for everybody. There are a core set of course such as intelligence and health but why would somebody want blond hair over red? Why a girl over a boy?

Things happen and people should just accept the outcome.

It's interesting that to declare a downs child as unnatural is bad form and yet a homosexual is not.

The whole concern over homosexuality is a big waste of time. Even if they are all out and marrying each other, the hetro world will still produce.

Why waste this effort condeming homosexuality. Why not use it to condem and eliminate sexual assults? Spousal abuse? The high divorse rate?

These happen far more on a greator scale then gays getting together for "unnatural" acts.

Survival of the fittest doesnt suggest that homosexuality is 'unnatural'. As has already been pointed out group survival might in some contexts be increased by non-reproducing productive group members. In human populations the chances that any such non-reproducers will not share genes with one or more of those who's survival chances they are increasing, is marginal. I suggest the chance of it never having occuring within human history is as close to zero as makes no difference.

That is true but I still believe it wouldn't be genetic. It just seems most logical to me that it is caused by a difference in early development.

In your case the mistake is a pejorative term.

You also assume nature is all about order.

Hint: Random mutation

We don't know what homosexuality happens. People argue that animals are mainly about instincts and not choices. Yet, there are homosexual acts in nature.

Eventhough we haven't identified a reason for homosexuality; there is enough evidence that suggests it is a natural occurence.

Well, you are right there. After all there are a lot of dogs out there humping legs at the drop of the hat. And humans who think "ohh theres a hole, lets stick something in it" :) heh

So anyhow, some people could argue that pedophiles were born as they are, cant help it. Nature intended them as they are. So we should just make it so that is not against the law. Totally normal to them anyhow.

Or murderers. Some people cant help it, is natural to them to want to torture someone to death. Who are we to infringe on their rights and say it is wrong.

Rapists cant resist their urges. They should all be set free and fully accepted wherever they go and when someone says they want to use an orafice of yours for their satsifaction you must comply.

Or being racist, who is to say some are not born so and therefore should be left alone about that hatred when they want to have their parades and a few hanging parties. Or drive by shooting fests.

Could go on forever likely. But just trying to make a point that shrinks also argue those things couldnt be helped by the individuals. Wasnt their fault they were born that way.

Expecting all to fully accept you is stupid. It wont happen. And in the end all you do is fan the flames of hatred and likely win some over to your enemies side.

My apologies, you are right on that one. What can I say in my defense? Its 8AM here and I ain't slept yet. Mea culpa.

However...



...still isn't quite right. An unproven premise is to the best of our knowledge neither true nor false, and so that can't really be used to determine soundness. The insertion of an unlikely assumed premise can at best be said to make an argument likely unsound.
That's true, although in my defense ;) I didnt for a moment believe there was any possibility that the premise was true. Perhaps I should have been bolder and said false premise, since in my opinion it is exactly that... :D

Well, you are right there. After all there are a lot of dogs out there humping legs at the drop of the hat. And humans who think "ohh theres a hole, lets stick something in it" :) heh

So anyhow, some people could argue that pedophiles were born as they are, cant help it. Nature intended them as they are. So we should just make it so that is not against the law. Totally normal to them anyhow.

Or murderers. Some people cant help it, is natural to them to want to torture someone to death. Who are we to infringe on their rights and say it is wrong.

Rapists cant resist their urges. They should all be set free and fully accepted wherever they go and when someone says they want to use an orafice of yours for their satsifaction you must comply.

Oh here we go with that slippery slope argument.. slippery slopes aren't meant to be climbed.

You should avoid it. It is a very bad argument style and discredits your entire position here.

Gay people are not comparable to rapist, child molesters or murderers.


Expecting all to fully accept you is stupid. It wont happen. And in the end all you do is fan the flames of hatred and likely win some over to your enemies side.

I will push people to fully accept who I am. I'm not going to follow your weak methods of hoping for it. I will fight for it.

The problem with using the terms of natural and unnatural give the impression that there are a set of traits that we are supposed to pass on.

Yet, the attributes a woman or man seeks for offspring are different for everybody. There are a core set of course such as intelligence and health but why would somebody want blond hair over red? Why a girl over a boy?

Things happen and people should just accept the outcome.

It's interesting that to declare a downs child as unnatural is bad form and yet a homosexual is not.

The whole concern over homosexuality is a big waste of time. Even if they are all out and marrying each other, the hetro world will still produce.

Why waste this effort condeming homosexuality. Why not use it to condem and eliminate sexual assults? Spousal abuse? The high divorse rate?

These happen far more on a greator scale then gays getting together for "unnatural" acts.

I am entirely accepting of homosexuality. I do not feel I have in any way condemned it and if you feel I have, I am fairly certain you misinterpreted what I meant, probably due to my inability to express it properly.

If it is bad form to consider a child with downs unnatural, then I have bad form. I consider it unnatural and I don't mind saying it. It doesn't mean that they are any less than anyone else or that it is bad, however unfortunate as that situation is.

Also, I believe we do look for the same characteristics in mates, aside from aesthetics. It may not be a conscious decision but I believe instinctively, we do.

Lovely Boys: I saw a (mTf) transsexual on the bus here and she was talking about how she was beaten up by these two guys.. and unsurprisingly one of the guys said she was going to hell for not being the gender she (he) was born with. They really have it tough. Even here in California.



Mistake? What mistake? It is no mistake. It is perfectly fine.



I want total acceptance. I want gay marriage. I want full civil rights for gay people. I want gay people to able to serve openly in the military. I want people to stop telling us we are living sinfully. I want equality!

Thought religion wasnt in the debate ? shouldnt be blabbing about sin

Thought religion wasnt in the debate ? shouldnt be blabbing about sin

Oh please. It is relevant to the civil rights issue I brought up because people use it against homosexuals..

Not necessarily, although they very well might be. I suggest that the fact that such a large percentile of a population can manifest the sexual pattern described does make a case against 'genetic set in stone at birth sexuality', it does not preclude that genetics influence individuals to be more pre-disposed to attraction to one or the other gender/sex, nor that one or another attraction pattern (same or different or both or neither) is more common than others.

I rather suspect that there are several genes involved, and that for most individuals their particular genotype allows a large degree of flexibility and environmental feedback, although some people's genotype may allow less flexibility.

Well if we assume heterosexuality to be a default genetically set in stone an explanation is still needed for exclusive homosexuality. If the role which the environment plays has such a marked result then obviously there is the genetic capacity for both.

Ah so we play the slippery slope game. Goody.

Well, you are right there. After all there are a lot of dogs out there humping legs at the drop of the hat. And humans who think "ohh theres a hole, lets stick something in it" :) heh


Problem: Homosexuality is not defined by acts of penetration.


So anyhow, some people could argue that pedophiles were born as they are, cant help it. Nature intended them as they are. So we should just make it so that is not against the law. Totally normal to them anyhow.

Slippery slope #1: I belive pedophiles are a defect of genetics. They can't help themselves. That is why they are also called preditors.

The fact it involves a child who can not legally give consent does make it a rightful crime.


Or murderers. Some people cant help it, is natural to them to want to torture someone to death. Who are we to infringe on their rights and say it is wrong.

Slippery Slope #2: There are varying degrees of murder. Some happen because something went out of control and some because the muderer is in fact a preditor and can't help himself. Why do we have serial killers for example?

Again murder involes the lack of consent by the victim. So yes it is correct to call it a crime.


Rapists cant resist their urges. They should all be set free and fully accepted wherever they go and when someone says they want to use an orafice of yours for their satsifaction you must comply.

Slippery slope #3:

Again the lack of consent makes it a crime.


Or being racist, who is to say some are not born so and therefore should be left alone about that hatred when they want to have their parades and a few hanging parties. Or drive by shooting fests.

Slippery Slope #4:
Actually a racist is made. People aren't born racists. They become one from an event(ie an inlaws father hated blacks. He grew up in a slum and during the depression he got his hands broken during a robbery) or by who they are raised. Father is a Klansmen. What are the odds the son will be one?


Could go on forever likely. But just trying to make a point that shrinks also argue those things couldnt be helped by the individuals. Wasnt their fault they were born that way.

Expecting all to fully accept you is stupid. It wont happen. And in the end all you do is fan the flames of hatred and likely win some over to your enemies side.

Did you catch the theme here. Consenting adults.

Two gays getting together doesn't hurt anybody.

--edit--
Oh in case your use of "you" at the end is directed at me. I am not gay......

Again murder involes the lack of consent by the victim. So yes it is correct to call it a crime.

This is off topic, but what about those extremely rare cases where the victim gives their consent?

Oh here we go with that slippery slope argument.. slippery slopes aren't meant to be climbed.

You should avoid it. It is a very bad argument style and discredits your entire position here.

Gay people are not comparable to rapist, child molesters or murderers.



I will push people to fully accept who I am. I'm not going to follow your weak methods of hoping for it. I will fight for it.

Hail Hitler !

Thats what pushing your views down anothers throat amounts to. (no sexual intention meant there btw)

And nice avoidance of the question I put forward.

Are you saying those folks had no choice or had a choice to be inclined to their actions ? Should we all rally round their bandwagons too ? She we all immediately cave in to their demands that their tendacies be socially acceptable ?

Btw. Ive had some gay friends before. And you are extremely abbrasive compared to how they carried themselves. And it is only through knowing them that you are not pushing me further towards the hating your type. Anyhow, just wanted to let you know.

Are you saying those folks had no choice or had a choice to be inclined to their actions ? Should we all rally round their bandwagons too ? She we all immediately cave in to their demands that their tendacies be socially acceptable ?



If you don't understand the difference between nonconsensual and consensual acts, I'm not sure that there's any point in any of us trying to discuss things rationally with you.

Hail Hitler !

Thats what pushing your views down anothers throat amounts to. (no sexual intention meant there btw)

And nice avoidance of the question I put forward.

Are you saying those folks had no choice or had a choice to be inclined to their actions ? Should we all rally round their bandwagons too ? She we all immediately cave in to their demands that their tendacies be socially acceptable ?

Btw. Ive had some gay friends before. And you are extremely abbrasive compared to how they carried themselves. And it is only through knowing them that you are not pushing me further towards the hating your type. Anyhow, just wanted to let you know.


The hail hitler remark was just unnecessary. And everyone tries to convince others of their opinion. All he means is that he will strive to convince everyone to accept him until there is no one left to convince.

Most here would probably say they find you a bit abrasive yourself. the comment about him pushing you towards hating homosexuals is just ignorant because if a single person can make you hate an entire group of people, you stereotype and are likely rather close-minded to begin with.

Hail Hitler !

STRAWMAN.

Thats what pushing your views down anothers throat amounts to. (no sexual intention meant there btw)

I'm not pushing my views down others throats. I'm demanding my civil rights. Your argument is the same one that they used against civil rights activists.

And nice avoidance of the question I put forward.

You are going up slippery slopes.

Are you saying those folks had no choice or had a choice to be inclined to their actions ? Should we all rally round their bandwagons too ? She we all immediately cave in to their demands that their tendacies be socially acceptable ?

AWFUL ARGUMENT!

Slippery slope alert!

You do not compare pedophiles, murderers and the like to homosexuals. What I do is not comparable to one abusing a child (where there is no consent) or murder.

You need to understand that your slippery slope arguments don't work here. They just don't have proof and are extremely weak.

Btw. Ive had some gay friends before. And you are extremely abbrasive compared to how they carried themselves. And it is only through knowing them that you are not pushing me further towards the hating your type. Anyhow, just wanted to let you know.

Nice ad hominem. I'm abrasive? No. I'm an activist. I've been an activist for several years to debunk people as yourself who use slippery slope argument. Also the "I've had some gay friends before" is a ridiculous thing to say. Don't bring it up. It doesn't help your position.

This is off topic, but what about those extremely rare cases where the victim gives their consent?

I was thinking about that myself - Armin Meiwes, for example only ended up being convicted of manslaughter because the man he had killed and then eaten had given his consent. He was initially put on trial for murder, but the charge was lessened.

Well if we assume heterosexuality to be a default genetically set in stone an explanation is still needed for exclusive homosexuality. If the role which the environment plays has such a marked result then obviously there is the genetic capacity for both.
Aha, I'm not altogether certain I interpreted the phrase 'equal footing' in your earlier post as it was intended. I interpreted it to mean that within the population (pre-socially) 50 percent is hetero and 50 homo. Was that a misinterpretation on my part?

STRAWMAN.

Sorry, I'm still trying to learn the jargon. What does that mean?

This is off topic, but what about those extremely rare cases where the victim gives their consent?

Well that is a topic in itself.

A quicky from my views:

Assisted suicide especially when the person as a terminal disease. Ehhhhh not a crime.

Suicidal over life and the crap that happens; person needs help.

I was thinking about that myself - Armin Meiwes, for example only ended up being convicted of manslaughter because the man he had killed and then eaten had given his consent. He was initially put on trial for murder, but the charge was lessened.

My first thought was the Rammstein song "Mein Teil". It is about a true story of two men in Germany who met online and arranged to get together. They agreed that when they met, one would tie the other up, cut off his penis, cook it and eat it before killing him. Is that the case you referenced?

Aha, I'm not altogether certain I interpreted the phrase 'equal footing' in your earlier post as it was intended. I interpreted it to mean that within the population (pre-socially) 50 percent is hetero and 50 homo. Was that a misinterpretation on my part?


Lol no I didn't mean on statistical equal footing, just biological.

Sorry, I'm still trying to learn the jargon. What does that mean?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

This is off topic, but what about those extremely rare cases where the victim gives their consent?
That would not be murder so much as assisted suicide. Whether or not assisting suicide should be legal is a matter of controversy.

Sorry, I'm still trying to learn the jargon. What does that mean?

It basically means he's attacking an argument no one's making, or a highly exaggerated version of a real argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

Thank you very much.

That would not be murder so much as assisted suicide. Whether or not assisting suicide should be legal is a matter of controversy.

Fair enough.

Is that the case you referenced?

That's the bunny.

Ah so we play the slippery slope game. Goody.



Problem: Homosexuality is not defined by acts of penetration.


Slippery slope #1: I belive pedophiles are a defect of genetics. They can't help themselves. That is why they are also called preditors.

The fact it involves a child who can not legally give consent does make it a rightful crime.


Slippery Slope #2: There are varying degrees of murder. Some happen because something went out of control and some because the muderer is in fact a preditor and can't help himself. Why do we have serial killers for example?

Again murder involes the lack of consent by the victim. So yes it is correct to call it a crime.


Slippery slope #3:

Again the lack of consent makes it a crime.


Slippery Slope #4:
Actually a racist is made. People aren't born racists. They become one from an event(ie an inlaws father hated blacks. He grew up in a slum and during the depression he got his hands broken during a robbery) or by who they are raised. Father is a Klansmen. What are the odds the son will be one?



Did you catch the theme here. Consenting adults.

Two gays getting together doesn't hurt anybody.

--edit--
Oh in case your use of "you" at the end is directed at me. I am not gay......

Good answers. But was thinking the other side. On the side of those who are in the wrong. Your looking at those "crimes" from the natural view that they are wrong.

To the doers of these hated acts though they are "normal" to them or they couldnt follow through with them.

As for Racism, I threw that in there because actually many act like it is natural, and also those like you say it is learned. Well I had a racist parent and yet I chose not to be so. Life's choices. Going with the flow or being a wild child and going your own path.. and owning up to making the choice.

Hail Hitler !


Actually it's Heil Hitler an that counts as a Godwin....

Actually it's Heil Hitler an that counts as a Godwin....

Indeed, and a bizarre one. I think that's the first time I've ever heard "homosexuals deserve total equality" compared to "let's kill all the homosexuals!" :rolleyes:

Good answers. But was thinking the other side. On the side of those who are in the wrong. Your looking at those "crimes" from the natural view that they are wrong.

To the doers of these hated acts though they are "normal" to them or they couldnt follow through with them.

As for Racism, I threw that in there because actually many act like it is natural, and also those like you say it is learned. Well I had a racist parent and yet I chose not to be so. Life's choices. Going with the flow or being a wild child and going your own path.. and owning up to making the choice.

Wow, what a weak argument. You cannot compare those crimes to homosexuality because those crimes are not relevant.

Homosexuality is not a life choice. So please, stop with that poor argument. I've heard it one too many times.

Actually it's Heil Hitler an that counts as a Godwin....

...ah, yes, but Godwin doesn't actually tell us anything about who wins or loses on that basis, it just states that the probability of such an allusion increases as a thread goes on.

I was thinking about that myself - Armin Meiwes, for example only ended up being convicted of manslaughter because the man he had killed and then eaten had given his consent. He was initially put on trial for murder, but the charge was lessened.

I forgot about that one. *shudders*

Thanks for reminding me! Bastard! :p

I forgot about that one. *shudders*

Thanks for reminding me! Bastard! :p

Hey, I couched it in rather genteel terms. It was Melonious Ones that introduced the nitty gritty details.

I forgot about that one. *shudders*

Thanks for reminding me! Bastard! :p

lol....it makes a good bedtime story, no?

...ah, yes, but Godwin doesn't actually tell us anything about who wins or loses on that basis, it just states that the probability of such an allusion increases as a thread goes on.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaweellllll It's borderline.

However, I think he is reaching for anything now so it's almost over. ;)

Yeaaaaaaaaaaweellllll It's borderline.

However, I think he is reaching for anything now so it's almost over. ;)

Don't worry we still have the Tom of Finland illustrations prepped and ready as a doomsday weapon. The ante has been upped with the fulfillment of Godwin's Law, and if mutually assured destruction by homoerotic pictures of Nazis is the only way to guarantee an end to this thread, then so be it.

Good answers. But was thinking the other side. On the side of those who are in the wrong. Your looking at those "crimes" from the natural view that they are wrong.

To the doers of these hated acts though they are "normal" to them or they couldnt follow through with them.
How is that relevent? It's normal for rats to spread disease and yet human beings have been known to attempt to avert this normal occurance.

STRAWMAN.



I'm not pushing my views down others throats. I'm demanding my civil rights. Your argument is the same one that they used against civil rights activists.



You are going up slippery slopes.



AWFUL ARGUMENT!

Slippery slope alert!

You do not compare pedophiles, murderers and the like to homosexuals. What I do is not comparable to one abusing a child (where there is no consent) or murder.

You need to understand that your slippery slope arguments don't work here. They just don't have proof and are extremely weak.



Nice ad hominem. I'm abrasive? No. I'm an activist. I've been an activist for several years to debunk people as yourself who use slippery slope argument. Also the "I've had some gay friends before" is a ridiculous thing to say. Don't bring it up. It doesn't help your position.

Well, getting on to 3am here. so wrapping up.

As for the comment about My "hail Hitler" being wrong. No, it isnt, it fits anytime someone says it is my way or the highway which it what Mesatecala has been saying.

I started out saying "why cant we all get along" , nope not good enough. He wants to force us all to love homosexuality.

Well, Hitler pushed as well, for the world to accept his personal view of how things should be. Instead of just being a "why cant we all get along" type of guy.

If those here think less of me for that, well, yall can kiss my bottom. It is unfortunately how "nature" made me :) I didnt choose it. (we have no choices)

"You need to understand that your slippery slope arguments don't work here. They just don't have proof and are extremely weak."

If you say so, but if thats true, why do we have so many shrinks going into court for those freaks saying they had no choice and it was natural to them. Therefore they are insaine and cant be killed so no other person suffers ?

Yes , comparing consenting homosexuals to that is bad. But ya got your wish and you pissed me off so didnt care. The gay chaps Ive known would be far better spokespersons to achieve your goal then you. And I dont give a shit whether you believe Ive had gay friends or not, so your lil slam there fell short as well :)

"I'm abrasive? No. I'm an activist"

Well, so was someone else mentioned before in this post, and personally even with my pride in my German background I find his views to be abrasive.

"If homosexuality is genetic, then buggers would ride."

Wait.. that's "if wishes were buggers...

No.. Something with horses....

Forget it.

As for the comment about My "hail Hitler" being wrong. No, it isnt, it fits anytime someone says it is my way or the highway which it what Mesatecala has been saying.

It most certainly is wrong and is considered a strawman attack. It is false. Also I want my rights respected and I want people to accept homosexuality.


I started out saying "why cant we all get along" , nope not good enough. He wants to force us all to love homosexuality.

I can't get along with people who hate me, as yourself. I'm tired of your horrid strawman and slippery slope arguments.

Well, Hitler pushed as well, for the world to accept his personal view of how things should be. Instead of just being a "why cant we all get along" type of guy.

How the hell dare you compare me to a man who led a regime that murdered millions? Don't you dare compare me to that evil monster. I'm pushing facts and other things on why people should accept homosexual people.

If those here think less of me for that, well, yall can kiss my bottom. It is unfortunately how "nature" made me :) I didnt choose it. (we have no choices)

You are nothing more then a personal attacker. You are nothing more then a hypocrite. You are nothing more then one who takes everything the wrong way.

If you say so, but if thats true, why do we have so many shrinks going into court for those freaks saying they had no choice and it was natural to them. Therefore they are insaine and cant be killed so no other person suffers ?

Wrong again. SLIPPERY SLOPE WARNING.

Yes , comparing consenting homosexuals to that is bad. But ya got your wish and you pissed me off so didnt care. The gay chaps Ive known would be far better spokespersons to achieve your goal then you. And I dont give a shit whether you believe Ive had gay friends or not, so your lil slam there fell short as well :)

You are acting very wrongly when doing this. You should control your anger. I was told to do so and I am. That's why I don't employ slippery slope attacks, or strawmans. You don't have a right to tell me if I'm not a good spokesperson. IT is all in your mind. I'm very good at this goal. Very good. You need to really stop personally attacking me because you don't like my views.

Well, so was someone else mentioned before in this post, and personally even with my pride in my German background I find his views to be abrasive.

You really need to lay off the personal attacks.

That's all you use.. logical fallacies in order to undermine someone who proves you wrong.

It most certainly is wrong and is considered a strawman attack. It is false. Also I want my rights respected and I want people to accept homosexuality.



I can't get along with people who hate me, as yourself. I'm tired of your horrid strawman and slippery slope arguments.



How the hell dare you compare me to a man who led a regime that murdered millions? Don't you dare compare me to that evil monster. I'm pushing facts and other things on why people should accept homosexual people.



You are nothing more then a personal attacker. You are nothing more then a hypocrite. You are nothing more then one who takes everything the wrong way.



Wrong again. SLIPPERY SLOPE WARNING.



You are acting very wrongly when doing this. You should control your anger. I was told to do so and I am. That's why I don't employ slippery slope attacks, or strawmans. You don't have a right to tell me if I'm not a good spokesperson. IT is all in your mind. I'm very good at this goal. Very good. You need to really stop personally attacking me because you don't like my views.



You really need to lay off the personal attacks.

That's all you use.. logical fallacies in order to undermine someone who proves you wrong.

Bah, checked back heh. Well you can report me :) get me banned no biggie.

If they consider what I did in this thread personally attacking your butt and what you did being hunky dory then Id rather they did :)

As for the comparison, well you brought it on. Forcing ones idea on another instead of saying simply lets all get along is totally ends of the spectrum.

"You are nothing more then a personal attacker. You are nothing more then a hypocrite. You are nothing more then one who takes everything the wrong way.

Personal attacks, you were skating thin yourself and think I did well to refrain, mods can deside when you page em. ? Where was I hypocritical ? As for taking everything the wrong way. Well, the whole straight world takes it wrong according to you so that is a pointless comment isnt it love ? :)

can someone explain how homosexuality or heterosexuality would be genetic?
I can understand certain information to be hardwired into us but this? If a gay man has this gene, is it the same gene as would be found in straight women?

Bah, checked back heh. Well you can report me :) get me banned no biggie.

If they consider what I did in this thread personally attacking your butt and what you did being hunky dory then Id rather they did :)

I much rather that you do get banned because comparing me to Hitler was wrong. Just plain wrong.

You really need to stop with the attacks.

As for the comparison, well you brought it on. Forcing ones idea on another instead of saying simply lets all get along is totally ends of the spectrum.

I didn't bring it on. In fact nothing I said brought it on. I'm not forcing anything on you. i'm saying essentially I'm helping to promote acceptance. In fact it would be more appropriate for the comparsion to be brought onto you.


Personal attacks, you were skating thin yourself and think I did well to refrain, mods can deside when you page em. ? Where was I hypocritical ? As for taking everything the wrong way. Well, the whole straight world takes it wrong according to you so that is a pointless comment isnt it love ? :)

There are no personal attacks in my statement. You attacked me non-stop. You claim I brought it on. I didn't. You really should get past the personal attacks because you were proven wrong. You don't speak for the entire straight world. You just speak for homophobes.

can someone explain how homosexuality or heterosexuality would be genetic?
I can understand certain information to be hardwired into us but this? If a gay man has this gene, is it the same gene as would be found in straight women?

You really should just go back and read the first couple pages of posts and it will likely answer your question.

Basically the idea is that people carry a gene for orientation as they carry a gene for eye colour. It can be recessive and therefore pass through many generations without anyone being gay and then reappear when it meets another carrier.

I believe the gene is thought to be heterosexual and homosexual not attraction to male, and attraction to female so no, a gay man and a straight women would carry different genes there. If it is in fact hormonal, which many studies argue it is at least partially, many would say that gay men would be receiving some of the hormones generally straight females get. However, I have no idea what hormones would be distributed to whom.

can someone explain how homosexuality or heterosexuality would be genetic?
I can understand certain information to be hardwired into us but this? If a gay man has this gene, is it the same gene as would be found in straight women?
Who's to say that it is a gene that causes homosexuality or that all instances of homosexuality have the same (genetic) cause?

But practicing the act blackosexuality is not an abomination unto God ;)


Unlike the Civil Rights movement, there is legitimate reason to oppose this.

What excuse? the "eww yuck" defence? if thats the case, I don't like heterosexual intercourse, I find it 'eww yuck' - should the government stop that nasty thing from happening?

What excuse? the "eww yuck" defence? if thats the case, I don't like heterosexual intercourse, I find it 'eww yuck' - should the government stop that nasty thing from happening?

I think she's the one I asked where in the bible it explicitly states abomination 'unto God'.

I don't think I ever got an answer.

Backed up by thousands of years of history, prophecies that came true, miracles, and an astoundingly accurate record of people, places, and events?

Na, see, believe me, well, you can't argue with me, because at the end of what god said to me, if anyone disagrees, he'll be straight to hell.

Anyway, I was swooped up to the pearly gates of heaven with St Peter standing at the front, like a mean bouncer, God came out, and told me that homosexuals were Gods chosen people - instead of breeding like rabits we were put here to make society better.

Like I said, you can' argue with me, because god said if you, you'll go straight hell.

I have no evidence, but like you, I'll use this book I wrote 5 minutes ago, and demand that every Tom, Dick, Harry and Mary stray away from their perverted heterosexual lifestyle and embrace the holy homosexual one that God has blessed.

Well there is no legitimate reason to oppose gay rights, period. And that's all there is to say. Don't expect neo to back herself up.

And you will get your just desserts.

I already have, a nice Apple Strudel with thickened cream - absolutely divine - food of the gods as you could say.

Yes, we can now use genetic engineering to rid the world of homosexuality! Oh wait, genetic engineering is immoral - but how do we get rid of all the gays?! Now we're back at square one! *brain explodes*


lmao, nice, cant stop laughing at that:P


MILK!

I already have, a nice Apple Strudel with thickened cream - absolutely divine - food of the gods as you could say.

You should share.

I already have, a nice Apple Strudel with thickened cream - absolutely divine - food of the gods as you could say.

As sweet as a nice boy's lips? :)

Hey Mesa, just out of curiosity, when do you think you realized you are gay? Like the first real moment you remember being attracted to a guy or whatever the situation was?

Also, are you completely out?

Hey Mesa, just out of curiosity, when do you think you realized you are gay? Like the first real moment you remember being attracted to a guy or whatever the situation was?

Also, are you completely out?

i can't really remember.. I think around the age of 14 or 15... I didn't really accept it until I was 16.

I'm totally out.. omg.. all the rainbow stuff I wear.

i can't really remember.. I think around the age of 14 or 15... I didn't really accept it until I was 16.

I'm totally out.. omg.. all the rainbow stuff I wear.

lol...so were your family and friends all accepting of you?

lol...so were your family and friends all accepting of you?

Yes my family is accepting..

And my friends.. well in high school I lost some friends after I came out... in college, I had to make all new friends as none of my high school friends are going to my campus (www.csun.edu). Most of my friends are gay or bi.

what's the difference between a gay man and a normal man?
a gay man wants dick in his ass

as long as you show some remorse either before during or after...
jesus will always love you know matter what or who you did

I already have, a nice Apple Strudel with thickened cream - absolutely divine - food of the gods as you could say.

http://www.ahundredmonkeys.com/images/spotted_dick.gif

What would you say to a can of this? :D

I am going to sleep, I suppose. I normally wouldn't type that but I wanted to break 100 posts. :p

what's the difference between a gay man and a normal man?
a gay man wants dick in his ass

as long as you show some remorse either before during or after...
jesus will always love you know matter what or who you did

i'm normal and i'm gay. And no.. homosexuality is a lot more then just getting a dick in his ass.

And jesus is not my icon. You can go pray to the icon if you want.

what's the difference between a gay man and a normal man?
a gay man wants dick in his ass

as long as you show some remorse either before during or after...
jesus will always love you know matter what or who you did

Jesus even forgives blithering idiots. :)

I've got a question - if the "gay gene" is a recessive gene, transferred through bloodlines, does that mean if neither parent has it, there is 0% chance their child will be gay?

I seriously can't believe that people bother answering such blatant trolls as Ullaroo. Don't you realise your giving them the attention they crave?

That's so correct, and that's why I believe Melonius is not bisexual. homosexuality is no malfunction. It is normal for those of us who were born this way.

Tolerance is not enough. Acceptance is what we want.

Yeap. Its a sad day when many people don't know the definition difference between tolerance and acceptance.

They should also stop this tolerance day and bring in acceptance day.

It has been argued to me about the twins not necessarily being 100% identical. Until further research, I don't want to argue this point really.

While tolerance may not be something you want, for people to accept you, there will be a period first where they only tolerate you. Take it step by step. The final goal is acceptance.

Great, so I go from being hated to being despised - how quaint, now I'll have to wait another decade for people to accept and treat me like a human.

I think you're wrong. I think it is natural for me. This is why I don't believe you are bi. It is natural for me.

He isn't say that homosexuality isn't natural, he is saying that homosexuals can't reproduce in a natural way - I assume when he means that, settling down with a female, having sex and baring a child - our natural attraction is towards the same sex - without a thirdparty coming into the equation, it isn't possible to reproduce.

Great, so I go from being hated to being despised - how quaint, now I'll have to wait another decade for people to accept and treat me like a human.
Don't feel bad...I barely tolerate most humans :p

I think she's the one I asked where in the bible it explicitly states abomination 'unto God'.

I don't think I ever got an answer.

The fact is, the bible isn't even relevant to the coversation; if he/she/it can't make a reasoned opinion, without resorting to regurgitating children's stories, then her/his/it hypothesis must be pretty crap.

A hypothesis that is sound can stand on its own two feet and withstand scrutiny, the fact is, he/she/it has failed to provide such a hypothesis proves that there is no basis other than the typical run of the mill bigotry. Different melody, same lyrics.

You should share.

I should, but I won't :P

Oops, broke another seven deadly sin.

I've been a bad boy, any volunteers to spank me tonight ;)

As sweet as a nice boy's lips? :)

<girly squeal>

Of course not - nothing beats a cute guy with luscious lips :D

Don't feel bad...I barely tolerate most humans :p

lol, join the club.

I swear, when I am at work, helping customers, as a species, is it actually possible to de-evolve?

Its as though when couples have kids, 3/4 of the parents brain stops working, and everytime their bratty little kid screams, the parents think it is cute and amusing.

Damn, people are *SO* thick!

Thank god I am gay - atleast I won't have to put up with all that bullshit!

what's the difference between a gay man and a normal man?
a gay man wants dick in his ass

as long as you show some remorse either before during or after...
jesus will always love you know matter what or who you did

Whats wrong with a bit of buggery? I love to have a side of felatio followed by a round of snogging then finishing the round off with some sodomy.

Bah, straight people, they don't know what they're missing.

Some days I really feel sorry for straight people :D

Quite frankly, what business is it of yours what consenting adults do with their naughty bits? I don't care, do you?

I've got a question - if the "gay gene" is a recessive gene, transferred through bloodlines, does that mean if neither parent has it, there is 0% chance their child will be gay?

Nice one. i reckon so. If someone does some research based on that premise they'd settle this theory at a stroke.

Of course you'd have to identify a gay gene first, if it exists... so you would prove the existance of the gene anyway (cant prove the non-existance of course since you can never be certain you didnt overlook something in a gene)

Well there is no legitimate reason to oppose gay rights, period. And that's all there is to say. Don't expect neo to back herself up.

Gays are not an ethnicity. All this blather of not 'choosing' to be homosexual, pretending that it’s all genetics is hogwash.

Sure people have a predisposition to Alcoholism or various illnesses and birth defects and for this thread to go off and continue pretending that a birth/defect genetic disorder somehow makes the people who choose to succumb to this weakness any less accountable for their action is absurd.

Why do some people like to have sex with themselves, with objects, via visual stimulation only, S&M, bondage, spouse-swapping, orgies? Why do some people like large breasted women, why do some like flat chested boy-girls? Why do some like large women, skinny women, Asian women, African women, European women, tall, short, dark haired, blonde haired, tan, pale and everything else. Are you all trying to pretend and proposing that this is genetically determined at the time of birth? Of course not, utter ridiculousness.

People ‘learn’ to like what they like, they might not ‘choose’ wanting it, but they learn it if they don't choose first.

And for those of you that say something nonsensical like, “why would anyone ‘choose’ to be homosexual to be ridiculed and mistreated?” Hogwash, how many people in this very thread said, “I’ll never change, I’ll die first ~ I am me and they will accept me, I don’t care what they think – yadda yadda yadda.”

It IS a choice. With practice and via accustoming oneself to a particular lifestyle, you reinforce your likes and desires. If I choose to love a dark skinned person, I will learn to love and be attracted to and fantasize of the dark skinned person I love ~ even if I had no particular fantasy or inclination to be attracted to say, 'islander girls' before meeting them.

If I ‘desire’ large breasted women and then find myself in love with a flat chested woman, I will, through time, become physically more and more ‘instinctively’ attracted to and aroused by the body type of the person I’m having regular sex with.

Old people prove my statements to be right. You think some fifty year old lady was naturally attracted to old beer bellied balding men when she was young? But if she loves her husband, and they grew old together, she ‘learned’ to legitimately be attracted to and turned on by, and fantasize of… her husband.

Genetic excuses are a cop-out, a political sleight of hand, complete BS. You can too choose to be attracted to whom you want.

Gays are not an ethnicity. All this blather of not 'choosing' to be homosexual, pretending that it’s all genetics is hogwash.

Sure people have a predisposition to Alcoholism or various illnesses and birth defects and for this thread to go off and continue pretending that a birth/defect genetic disorder somehow makes the people who choose to succumb to this weakness any less accountable for their action is absurd.

Why do some people like to have sex with themselves, with objects, via visual stimulation only, S&M, bondage, spouse-swapping, orgies? Why do some people like large breasted women, why do some like flat chested boy-girls? Why do some like large women, skinny women, Asian women, African women, European women, tall, short, dark haired, blonde haired, tan, pale and everything else. Are you all trying to pretend and proposing that this is genetically determined at the time of birth? Of course not, utter ridiculousness.

People ‘learn’ to like what they like, they might not ‘choose’ wanting it, but they learn it if they don't choose first.

And for those of you that say something nonsensical like, “why would anyone ‘choose’ to be homosexual to be ridiculed and mistreated?” Hogwash, how many people in this very thread said, “I’ll never change, I’ll die first ~ I am me and they will accept me, I don’t care what they think – yadda yadda yadda.”

It IS a choice. With practice and via accustoming oneself to a particular lifestyle, you reinforce your likes and desires. If I choose to love a dark skinned person, I will learn to love and be attracted to and fantasize of the dark skinned person I love ~ even if I had no particular fantasy or inclination to be attracted to say, 'islander girls' before meeting them.

If I ‘desire’ large breasted women and then find myself in love with a flat chested woman, I will, through time, become physically more and more ‘instinctively’ attracted to and aroused by the body type of the person I’m having regular sex with.

Old people prove my statements to be right. You think some fifty year old lady was naturally attracted to old beer bellied balding men when she was young? But if she loves her husband, and they grew old together, she ‘learned’ to legitimately be attracted to and turned on by, and fantasize of… her husband.

Genetic excuses are a cop-out, a political sleight of hand, complete BS. You can too choose to be attracted to whom you want.
So to you, homosexuality is just a fetish? :rolleyes:

If homosexuality is proven to be genetic, then Georgia will outlaw the teaching of "DNA Theory"

*glare* Just so you know, in my highschool biology book, it was suggested that homosexuality was quite possibly genetic.

*glare* Just so you know, in my highschool biology book, it was suggested that homosexuality was quite possibly genetic.
Dont tell them that they might take the book away :p

Dont tell them that they might take the book away :p

lol They had us playing with lasers, unsupervised. I don't think Georgia feels threatened by its gifted students.

So to you, homosexuality is just a fetish? :rolleyes:

Why don't you substantiate your hypothesis by showing any evidence whatsoever that any sexual attraction (heterosexual, homosexual or other), is ever anything other than a fetish. I’m suggesting that ALL sexual desire, all fantasy of the individual, is always fetish, fixation, obsession, passion or addictive disposition. Yours would be no different than anybody else’s.

Genetic excuses are a cop-out, a political sleight of hand, complete BS. You can too choose to be attracted to whom you want.


Genetics are a copout? Wow I guess my daughter that had Cystic Fibrosis was a major cop out.

But if you are going to label homosexuality as some kind of addiction.

The very same could be said of Christians and their Religion.

*glare* Just so you know, in my highschool biology book, it was suggested that homosexuality was quite possibly genetic.

Georgians can read?!?!?!?! :eek:

:p

Disclaimer: This is mainly posted for Mesa t'read. Ignore it if you'd like. My stance on Homosexuality is actually all the way at the bottom...

Alrighty. Lemme start by saying that I am liberal. Very liberal. Liberally liberal.

Now, I will clear up many a misconception for you.

1. Atheism's becomming a fad. Sure, there's some bright folks out there who are atheists, but there's a hell of a lot more who are just teenagers trying to be rebellious because that's what's "cool". =D It's true, and you can't deny it without looking kind o' silly..

2. Being liberal is a fad. Sure, there's some bright folks out there (Myself included, I hope. ;D) who are liberal because of their views. More importantly, they HAVE views. There's still a hell of a lot more idiots who are liberal because it's what's "in" right now, thanks to Hollywood teaching people what to think, and not how to think.

But... Just like there are "bad" liberals who think they're open minded when they clearly ain't, there are bad Christians who believe that their ticket t'heaven is through going to church alone. (There's a few who posted on here, too... Watch yourselves there.)

=O Well. It looks like you're no better than the "Simple minded fascists" that you've been condemning, Mesa.

Now excuse me as I stop for air since that was all said mentally in one breath.
...
...

Ok then, moving on. I think Melonious Ones had it right about you, Mesa. That's right, I'm posting all this about you. Why? Because, as Melonious Ones said...

"I do not mean to put words in your mouth. You have made numerous comments that seem very pig-headed. Many liberals seem to believe that the only people that can be close-minded are conservatives when in fact many liberals are just as close-minded. You have said repeatedly that you refuse to change your position. That leads me to believe that even if someone successfully was able to refute all of your arguments and all of that, you would still stick to your opinion being absolutely right because you won't step down. That is what I meant by you claiming infallibility."

And that's exactly right, boyo. You have been nothing but an arrogant, self-righteous hypocrite this whole time, you jerk. Report this is you want, boyo, but I ain't gonna just call you a jerk without something t' back it up. ;D

"The One Christian Guy:
There are the intellectual atheists who have long opposed Christianity based on human reasoning (ultimately flawed) and then there are the inconoclastic, rebellious teenagers, young adults doing it just to be "cool."

Mesa:
Your views are less attractive then that pile of manure on the sidewalk. The ultimately flawed thinking is from you.. your illogical thought-process of accusing anybody who doesn't think like you as immature.

I'm not doing it just to be cool.. i'm doing it to oppose tyranny and fascism that you spew."

Hm. That guy had an intelligent response there, and you go and insult him. Why? Maybe because he's Christian? I think so. He wasn't trying to spew any tyranny or fascism, but you are, from the looks of it. You're under the impression that all Christians are psychotic right-wing fascist neo-nazis, when the truth is that they ain't (not all of them, anyway. ;D)

As I said before. I'm VERY liberal, and I'm all for gay rights. You're just a jerk, Mesa.

As for Homosexuality being genetic... Nah. I don't believe it. I think it's more of a subconscious choice, or as Greenland said, more like a fetish. Is it wrong? That depends on your perspective. From the left, it's just fine.

Whether or not it's a choice doesn't matter, though. It's still protected by the 14th Ammendment.

Hm. I think I'm done.

Indeed.

Why don't you substantiate your hypothesis by showing any evidence whatsoever that any sexual attraction (heterosexual, homosexual or other), is ever anything other than a fetish. I’m suggesting that ALL sexual desire, all fantasy of the individual, is always fetish, fixation, obsession, passion or addictive disposition. Yours would be no different than anybody else’s.

So by your arguement that male female attaction is a fetish; you are saying homosexual attaction is pefectly normal.

Futurehead, that's one hell of a first post. Good to see that some new people can actually make solid contributions to the debate.

Homosexuality in any shape or form is frowned upon in black and white, maybe if you repent for a long ass time and stop being gay then maybe, just maybe you might still have a chance to get into heaven. Thank You.

The bible also says it's okay to whore out your daughter, that it's proper to stone people in public, and that you go to hell if you eat shrimp. Of course, you'll argue that all of that is Old Testament so I suppose it's invalid.

However, the one that matters it that the right to judge is reserved for God and God alone. You literally (unless you're Catholic, in which case dogma follows that church law is automatically the law of God) cannot say what one will or will not be forgiven for. Of course, if you are Catholic then as long as you repent and seek forgiveness on your deathbed you're all good to go.

Welcome to your own religion. Please pay attention if you wish to espouse your beliefs.

The bible also says it's okay to whore out your daughter, that it's proper to stone people in public, and that you go to hell if you eat shrimp. Of course, you'll argue that all of that is Old Testament so I suppose it's invalid.

However, the one that matters it that the right to judge is reserved for God and God alone. You literally (unless you're Catholic, in which case dogma follows that church law is automatically the law of God) cannot say what one will or will not be forgiven for. Of course, if you are Catholic then as long as you repent and seek forgiveness on your deathbed you're all good to go.

Welcome to your own religion. Please pay attention if you wish to espouse your beliefs.

briliantly said, i think you covered that very nicely

So by your arguement that male female attaction is a fetish; you are saying homosexual attaction is pefectly normal.

And if you choose to follow your angle of what I said, it could be said to be as normal as the obsession of (or the suffering through) a crack cocaine addiction. Any fetish can become an addiction and it's normal to become addicted, but it's still an addiction (nothing to be proud of) and it's still a choice.

1. Atheism's becomming a fad. Sure, there's some bright folks out there who are atheists, but there's a hell of a lot more who are just teenagers trying to be rebellious because that's what's "cool". =D It's true, and you can't deny it without looking kind o' silly..


This is a bit off-base, but you've hit one of my pet peeves.

a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

Science is a god in the looser sense. The easy way to tell a 'trendy' atheist from one who is actually following it with forethought is to ask them how they feel about Secular Humanism. Generally, if they actually know about Secular Humanism enough to hold a basic conversation then they aren't trying to be trendy. Not always true, but I do get tired of "I hate Christianity" being used as the definition for Atheism by 'rebellious' children.

The bible also says it's okay to whore out your daughter, that it's proper to stone people in public, and that you go to hell if you eat shrimp. Of course, you'll argue that all of that is Old Testament so I suppose it's invalid.

However, the one that matters it that the right to judge is reserved for God and God alone. You literally (unless you're Catholic, in which case dogma follows that church law is automatically the law of God) cannot say what one will or will not be forgiven for. Of course, if you are Catholic then as long as you repent and seek forgiveness on your deathbed you're all good to go.

Welcome to your own religion. Please pay attention if you wish to espouse your beliefs.

Don't forget that if a woman's husband dies - she's supposed to marry his brother.

Also, if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night - her husband has the right to proclaim that in public as humiliate her. If her father can then prove her virginity, the husband is then flogged - and a fine of 100 silver pieces is to be paid to the father.
(I believe that's in Deuteronomy)

You're also not meant to trim your beard or cut the hair on the sides of your head
(Leviticus)

You're meant to kill all the male prisoners of war and marry the women.

And you're allowed to keep slaves - although you have to free a hebrew slave after 6 years - if he doesn't want to leave to pin his ear to the door. But you don't free female slaves AT ALL... And you can return them if they don't please you (as her master).

And you stone both parties involved in a rape.

Wonderful religion, really... Small wonder it gave rise to the first historically recognised terrorist group - the Zealots. I believe one of them - Simon - became one of Jesus' disciples.

So hey! Jesus hung out with terrorists!

Futurehead, that's one hell of a first post. Good to see that some new people can actually make solid contributions to the debate.


Ah! Thank you! Now if my friend Mike was here, he'd tear this place apart with his debating skills, but since I said most of what he wanted to say, he can't post without looking like he's copying me. Anyway, this is off-topic. Moving on...

briliantly said, i think you covered that very nicely
Many thanks Antser, I'm slow in replying to things today though. We're at about half staff at work so I'm actually having to do a fair bit of covering for others' absences.

Don't forget that if a woman's husband dies - she's supposed to marry his brother.

Also, if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night - her husband has the right to proclaim that in public as humiliate her. If her father can then prove her virginity, the husband is then flogged - and a fine of 100 silver pieces is to be paid to the father.
(I believe that's in Deuteronomy)

You're also not meant to trim your beard or cut the hair on the sides of your head
(Leviticus)

You're meant to kill all the male prisoners of war and marry the women.

And you're allowed to keep slaves - although you have to free a hebrew slave after 6 years - if he doesn't want to leave to pin his ear to the door. But you don't free female slaves AT ALL... And you can return them if they don't please you (as her master).

And you stone both parties involved in a rape.

Wonderful religion, really... Small wonder it gave rise to the first historically recognised terrorist group - the Zealots. I believe one of them - Simon - became one of Jesus' disciples.

So hey! Jesus hung out with terrorists!

Are those actual rules set by the bible, or were they just a reflection of the times, boyo?

If homosexuality is genetic, then I'm sure there would be a crowd of people, many of them homosexual, who would be for genetic engineering to eliminate homosexuality before birth. I say this because in many arguments both on this forum and all over, a good deal of gays say that they did not choose the life of a homosexual, and since it is undoubtedly a hard life to live, many say that they wish they had not been born homosexual. Taa-daa!

To be clearer: Does the bible say you should do those things, or was that just how things were done in the setting o' the bible? I doubt it condones domestic violence...

Are those actual rules set by the bible, or were they just a reflection of the times, boyo?

Unfortunately - those are actual rules set out by the bible.

Most of them are in Leviticus, which by my understanding:

1) Applied only to Jews
2) Applied only when settling into their new land

This section of the bible contains a lot of very strange laws - such as those listed above, but also other such nicities as a woman having to marry her rapist (if the rapist is caught in the act), and having to give two doves to a priest as a sacrifice one week after Menstruation.

This is also the section that condemns homosexuality and bestiality.

So as far as I'm aware - even from a very strict interpretation of the bible, I don't believe it's logical to say homosexuality is against God - assuming I'm correct in statements 1 and 2.

Ah. Well, I think that the Ten Commandments are the only rules in the bible that you should take seriously.

Remember that the bible was only written by humans, so the views expressed in it might not be the view held by the Management. ;D

To be clearer: Does the bible say you should do those things, or was that just how things were done in the setting o' the bible? I doubt it condones domestic violence...

Actually - it states that you may have to kill your entire family.

Here Deuteronomy Chapter 13, verses 6 through 10:

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

~*~

In short - if your family tries to lure you away from Christianity, you are to kill them. Indeed, you are to be the first person to hit/hurt them - and then the community is meant to help you.

Charming, eh?


And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

Ah. Well, I think that the Ten Commandments are the only rules in the bible that you should take seriously.

Remember that the bible was only written by humans, so the views expressed in it might not be the view held by the Management. ;D

That's my belief.

But be careful with the 10 commandments. Taken literally, the "sabbath" is defined as Friday sunset to Saturday sunset :)

And you also have to come up with a definition of 'work' to decide what you can and can't do in those times...

I find the biggest issues arise when people try to claim the bible is 100% the word of God.

Of course, they then have to REALLY stretch to explain the inconsistencies in the Synoptic Gospels. Generally the stuff I use to shut down bible debates/ "evidence"

Are those actual rules set by the bible, or were they just a reflection of the times, boyo?

It is shown in several sections of the bible that if god does not actively approve of slavery, he did not (at the time) see it as a bad thing.

For reference, look at Genesis 20:3-18

In this segment Abimelech attones for his percieved sins to god by giving Abraham "menservants, and womenservants" among other things. In this context, that would mean slaves. God forgives Abimelech and restores fertility to his family line.

There are a lot of odd things in the Old Testament but again, most belief systems consider those laws to be replaced by the New Testament completely.

So as far as I'm aware - even from a very strict interpretation of the bible, I don't believe it's logical to say homosexuality is against God - assuming I'm correct in statements 1 and 2.

I've found multiple areas in the Old Testament that condemn it. However, I can't find anything similar in the New Testament. I have found many things that could be interpreted as such but nothing that flatly says "be gay, go to hell."

Don't forget that if a woman's husband dies - she's supposed to marry his brother.
This is rather misleading, there's a lot of stipulations to this law. This only applies if the brothers are living in the same house, and if her husband did not have any sons before his death, also the brother can refuse to marry his brother's wife, however one of his sandals is taken off and he's spit on.

Also, if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night - her husband has the right to proclaim that in public as humiliate her. If her father can then prove her virginity, the husband is then flogged - and a fine of 100 silver pieces is to be paid to the father.
(I believe that's in Deuteronomy)
The husband isn't flogged, he's only to pay the fine. If the girl is not a virgin, she's stoned for being promiscuous while in her father's house. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

You're also not meant to trim your beard or cut the hair on the sides of your head
(Leviticus)
(Leviticus 19:27)

You're meant to kill all the male prisoners of war and marry the women.
I can't find anything about this anywhere, can you give any hints as to where this came from?

And you're allowed to keep slaves - although you have to free a hebrew slave after 6 years - if he doesn't want to leave to pin his ear to the door. But you don't free female slaves AT ALL... And you can return them if they don't please you (as her master).
I also cannot find this, any clue where this may be found?

And you stone both parties involved in a rape.
This is only under certain circumstances, if the victim is in a public place and doesn't scream for help and they are discovered then both parties are put to death, however if the victim is raped in a secluded area then only the agressor is put to death. Both parties are also put to death for the crime of adultery. (Deuteronomy 22:22-27)

Wonderful religion, really... Small wonder it gave rise to the first historically recognised terrorist group - the Zealots. I believe one of them - Simon - became one of Jesus' disciples.

So hey! Jesus hung out with terrorists!

(my comments in bold)

And as for these laws, these were abolished in the new testament and altogether irrelevant to the modern christian's way of living. However this entire tangent is a bit off topic, isn't it?

Ah! There's Mikey.

If homosexuality is genetic, then I'm sure there would be a crowd of people, many of them homosexual, who would be for genetic engineering to eliminate homosexuality before birth. I say this because in many arguments both on this forum and all over, a good deal of gays say that they did not choose the life of a homosexual, and since it is undoubtedly a hard life to live, many say that they wish they had not been born homosexual. Taa-daa!

I'm sure they would. However, I would think they wouldn't be so eager if society didn't have a stick up its butt about homosexuality.

(my comments in bold)

And as for these laws, these were abolished in the new testament and altogether irrelevant to the modern christian's way of living. However this entire tangent is a bit off topic, isn't it?

I hope so - that doesn't stop those same laws being used as reasons why homosexuality is 'evil under god...'

Ah. Well, I think that the Ten Commandments are the only rules in the bible that you should take seriously.

Remember that the bible was only written by humans, so the views expressed in it might not be the view held by the Management. ;D

I couldn't have put it better.

I would also say be careful as well, but for a different reason. I'm not sure if people have found said tablets that the commandments were written on, but if they haven't, we're going off human word again.

Regardless, most if not all are good rules to live by.

The bible also says it's okay to whore out your daughter, that it's proper to stone people in public, and that you go to hell if you eat shrimp. Of course, you'll argue that all of that is Old Testament so I suppose it's invalid.

However, the one that matters it that the right to judge is reserved for God and God alone. You literally (unless you're Catholic, in which case dogma follows that church law is automatically the law of God) cannot say what one will or will not be forgiven for. Of course, if you are Catholic then as long as you repent and seek forgiveness on your deathbed you're all good to go.

Welcome to your own religion. Please pay attention if you wish to espouse your beliefs.

First of all the bible was originally written in what, Hebrew. So somewhere along the line someone had to interpret Hebrew into English because in essence that is what translation is. So this person who then translated the bible interpreted it from thier personal views. Now I'm not saying that they changed the entire meaning of it but if you actually took the time to look at the bible you might see some of the contradiction in the bible. Where in the Old Testament it says, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." and in the New Testament where it says if a sinner hits you, "turn the other cheek." And also, in the bible it's not God who's talking, it's diciples and viewers of Jesus and his work, so in no way is that what God is really telling us to do. And in no way are you "good to go" in you repent and seek forgiveness. We, as I'm sure you can guess I am a devout Catholic, believe that when you go to confession you are forgiven of you sins by God, but that does not guarantee you a spot in heaven by any means. Have you ever heard of Purgatory?

I hope so - that doesn't stop those same laws being used as reasons why homosexuality is 'evil under god...'

Actually, I'm pretty sure the part of the bible condemning homosexuality is over in Romans someplace, as well as a few times in corinthians. The passages about sexual immorality. It should be noted that although none of these passages may say outright that homosexuality is sexual immorality, that anytime sexual morality is concerned it is restricted to one man, and one woman, to whom he is married, therefore anything that doesn't fit this stipulation is a sin unto God. I'll edit this post later with some scriptural references, but I don't feel like searching for them right this minute.

First of all the bible was originally written in what, Hebrew. So somewhere along the line someone had to interpret Hebrew into English because in essence that is what translation is. So this person who then translated the bible interpreted it from thier personal views. Now I'm not saying that they changed the entire meaning of it but if you actually took the time to look at the bible you might see some of the contradiction in the bible. Where in the Old Testament it says, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." and in the New Testament where it says if a sinner hits you, "turn the other cheek." And also, in the bible it's not God who's talking, it's diciples and viewers of Jesus and his work, so in no way is that what God is really telling us to do. And in no way are you "good to go" in you repent and seek forgiveness. We, as I'm sure you can guess I am a devout Catholic, believe that when you go to confession you are forgiven of you sins by God, but that does not guarantee you a spot in heaven by any means. Have you ever heard of Purgatory?

Purgatory was made up by man, boyo. o.o It's not in the bible anywhere.

First of all the bible was originally written in what, Hebrew. So somewhere along the line someone had to interpret Hebrew into English because in essence that is what translation is. So this person who then translated the bible interpreted it from thier personal views. Now I'm not saying that they changed the entire meaning of it but if you actually took the time to look at the bible you might see some of the contradiction in the bible. Where in the Old Testament it says, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." and in the New Testament where it says if a sinner hits you, "turn the other cheek." And also, in the bible it's not God who's talking, it's diciples and viewers of Jesus and his work, so in no way is that what God is really telling us to do. And in no way are you "good to go" in you repent and seek forgiveness. We, as I'm sure you can guess I am a devout Catholic, believe that when you go to confession you are forgiven of you sins by God, but that does not guarantee you a spot in heaven by any means. Have you ever heard of Purgatory?

As our technology improves, the translations that we can make between the hebrew and english improves as well. With each subsequent translation the bible gets closer and closer to its original meaning, especially when done correctly. Many things in the New Testament contradict things from the Old Testament because there was new law. The Bible is kept true to God's word through his divine will, not through human capability to create the thing. As far as catholic doctrine, I'd press you to find anywhere in the Bible where it so much as mentions confession or purgatory, you'd be surprised how much tradition has taken over for interpretation or even reading of the Bible...

Still you missed my point and are totally disregarding my statement that by going to coffession you are not guaranteed a spot in heaven. It doesn't work that way and it annoys me so much that the world today thinks that everything in life is so easy that you can just sit in a tiny dark room with a priest and ask for forgiveness and yippee you won't have to sit with Satan.

As our technology improves, the translations that we can make between the hebrew and english improves as well. With each subsequent translation the bible gets closer and closer to its original meaning, especially when done correctly.
Too bad most bibles are just rewrites of KJV without much origional translation

First of all the bible was originally written in what, Hebrew. So somewhere along the line someone had to interpret Hebrew into English because in essence that is what translation is. So this person who then translated the bible interpreted it from thier personal views. Now I'm not saying that they changed the entire meaning of it but if you actually took the time to look at the bible you might see some of the contradiction in the bible. Where in the Old Testament it says, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." and in the New Testament where it says if a sinner hits you, "turn the other cheek." And also, in the bible it's not God who's talking, it's diciples and viewers of Jesus and his work, so in no way is that what God is really telling us to do. And in no way are you "good to go" in you repent and seek forgiveness. We, as I'm sure you can guess I am a devout Catholic, believe that when you go to confession you are forgiven of you sins by God, but that does not guarantee you a spot in heaven by any means. Have you ever heard of Purgatory?

Actually yes. According to John Paul II purgatory is temporary. You are only there temporarily. Then guess where you go.

Pope John Paul II during his Wednesday General audiences stated the following: "Before we enter into God's Kingdom, every trace of sin within us must be eliminated, every imperfection in our soul must be corrected. This is exactly what takes place in purgatory." He also stated that Purgatory "does not indicate a place but a condition of life. Those who, after death, live in this state of purification are already immersed in the love of Christ which lifts them out of the residue of imperfection."

Yes, according to doctrine you're good to go. You may have a stop along the way, but in the course of eternity who cares about a few-thousand years layover.

Futurehead: She specifically said that we were discussing Catholicism. The pope said Purgatory existed, therefore it exists for that religion.

Still you missed my point and are totally disregarding my statement that by going to coffession you are not guaranteed a spot in heaven. It doesn't work that way and it annoys me so much that the world today thinks that everything in life is so easy that you can just sit in a tiny dark room with a priest and ask for forgiveness and yippee you won't have to sit with Satan.

No, you can't sit in a dark room and ask forgiveness. You have to sit with a priest and ask forgiveness, as well as actually repenting and believing in God and Jesus, etc. Then yes, you get to Heaven eventually.

Still you missed my point and are totally disregarding my statement that by going to coffession you are not guaranteed a spot in heaven. It doesn't work that way and it annoys me so much that the world today thinks that everything in life is so easy that you can just sit in a tiny dark room with a priest and ask for forgiveness and yippee you won't have to sit with Satan.

I didn't disregard it, but going to confession at all is a pointless formality, because a priest doesn't have any more authority to forgive than any murderer in prison. We're all sinners just the same, and the only one who can grant forgiveness is God. You communicate with God through Jesus Christ, and your sins are forgiven.

Too bad most bibles are just rewrites of KJV without much origional translation

That's untrue, and there are also concordances which give you the original hebrew word for any word in the bible, which allows you to check alternate definitions and see if such a definition fits the context better, or if it's been properly translated. Look for any Bible with Strong's numbers and you'll see what I'm talking about. It's misconceptions like this that cause people to have doubts about the authenticity of the Bible.

Actually yes. According to John Paul II purgatory is temporary. You are only there temporarily. Then guess where you go.

Pope John Paul II during his Wednesday General audiences stated the following: "Before we enter into God's Kingdom, every trace of sin within us must be eliminated, every imperfection in our soul must be corrected. This is exactly what takes place in purgatory." He also stated that Purgatory "does not indicate a place but a condition of life. Those who, after death, live in this state of purification are already immersed in the love of Christ which lifts them out of the residue of imperfection."

Yes, according to doctrine you're good to go. You may have a stop along the way, but in the course of eternity who cares about a few-thousand years layover.

Futurehead: She specifically said that we were discussing Catholicism. The pope said Purgatory existed, therefore it exists for that religion.

So the pope is infallible? In revelations it says that you cannot add or subtract anything from this book....and although not technically adding to the Bible, adding doctrine and misleading billions of people seems like something that he'll need to answer to God for eventually. Learn from his mistake, and take the Bible at face value. As for the matter of getting into heaven, there's only one way to do that, which is by accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, and recognizing that he died for your sins, I'm sure you've all heard this a million times by now, so I'll stop there...but be careful not to miss the point.

Too bad most bibles are just rewrites of KJV without much origional translation


Name one that didn't go back to manuscripts older than the KJ version. That's a ridiculous thing to have said.




(p.s., what's the purpose of all the 'new' accounts in this thread? Anyone know?)

[
That's untrue, and there are also concordances which give you the original hebrew word for any word in the bible, which allows you to check alternate definitions and see if such a definition fits the context better, or if it's been properly translated. Look for any Bible with Strong's numbers and you'll see what I'm talking about. It's misconceptions like this that cause people to have doubts about the authenticity of the Bible.

Authenticity in what sense? That it's been translated correctly or that it's words are the word of God?

For me, the latter part is slightly more important. As has been said, technology improves. Linguisitic knowledge improves - but the way in which the Bible should be viewed is not something that can be solved via translation or technology.

I personally feel it contains far to many inconsistencies to be the pure word of God. If it is - then God is either deliberately contradicting himself, or not paying attention - and I don't like either option there.

If it isn't, then the bible cannot be used as a definitive guide to what is right and wrong - it has to be tempered by historical setting and cultural knowledge, as well as modern knowledge and ethical social practice.

So the pope is infallible? In revelations it says that you cannot add or subtract anything from this book....and although not technically adding to the Bible, adding doctrine and misleading billions of people seems like something that he'll need to answer to God for eventually. Learn from his mistake, and take the Bible at face value. As for the matter of getting into heaven, there's only one way to do that, which is by accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, and recognizing that he died for your sins, I'm sure you've all heard this a million times by now, so I'll stop there...but be careful not to miss the point.

I'm not missing the point. The point is that Audrey is not arguing the bible. You are. She is talking about her specific religion, which happens to be Catholicism. What you are doing is the equivalent of arguing that Nuclear wars are good because cold fusion would be a great power source. You may both be talking about Christian religions, but you're in the wrong argument.

Authenticity in what sense? That it's been translated correctly or that it's words are the word of God?

For me, the latter part is slightly more important. As has been said, technology improves. Linguisitic knowledge improves - but the way in which the Bible should be viewed is not something that can be solved via translation or technology.

I personally feel it contains far to many inconsistencies to be the pure word of God. If it is - then God is either deliberately contradicting himself, or not paying attention - and I don't like either option there.

If it isn't, then the bible cannot be used as a definitive guide to what is right and wrong - it has to be tempered by historical setting and cultural knowledge, as well as modern knowledge and ethical social practice.


Can you give some examples of the inconsistensies that you mentioned? Many of them are probably things that don't seem quite right, but are easily understood upon looking more closely. To think that God is incapable of using humans to draft his word is to destroy God's power base entirely. The truth of the Bible hangs in God's ability to keep it pure, and for an all-powerful being, I don't think that mere translation is beyond his scope of ability. Not every question can be answered, that's where faith comes in.

Hebrews 11:1 - Faith is being sure of what you hope for, and certain of what you do not see.

If we knew everything, then there would be no need for faith. Just trust that God is capable of keeping his word pure, and leave it at that. If you can't, then why trust that he's capable of bringing you to heaven, or even answering your prayers? It all boils down to faith in the end.

And if you choose to follow your angle of what I said, it could be said to be as normal as the obsession of (or the suffering through) a crack cocaine addiction. Any fetish can become an addiction and it's normal to become addicted, but it's still an addiction (nothing to be proud of) and it's still a choice.

Prove it.

As our technology improves, the translations that we can make between the hebrew and english improves as well. With each subsequent translation the bible gets closer and closer to its original meaning, especially when done correctly.

Translation has nothing to do with technology. The problems lie in human infallibility and languages that do not share words with exactly the same meaning.

When a Hebrew acedemic reads the original text they often have to make a best guess as to suitable word in English. That word may have changed in its exact meaning over the hundreds of years (consider how a word like "awesome" has changed meaning over merely a generation or so). So you end up with a sentance thats completely out of context with the original. A machine would probably be even worse at this, as they wouldnt be able to adjust to compensate for these changes, which a human interpreter does all the time... which in itself introduces alterations to context according to their views.

This is where half the arguments come from between different denominations and monothesic (sic) faiths.

Name one that didn't go back to manuscripts older than the KJ version. That's a ridiculous thing to have said.




(p.s., what's the purpose of all the 'new' accounts in this thread? Anyone know?)

For the comment about New Accounts, Futurehead just told me about this place a couple of days ago....I started lurking about...stumbled across this thread...read the first twenty pages ago and got really annoyed, vented my frustrations to Futurehead, who then posted everything I'd wanted to say...and things went on from there. I don't know about any other "new" accounts, nothing left to do but shrug and go on with the discussion.

I'm not missing the point. The point is that Audrey is not arguing the bible. You are. She is talking about her specific religion, which happens to be Catholicism. What you are doing is the equivalent of arguing that Nuclear wars are good because cold fusion would be a great power source. You may both be talking about Christian religions, but you're in the wrong argument.

Perhaps I am in the wrong argument, but any christian religion should be based upon the Bible as its truth, not a man (who is fallible) given his power by man (fallible). I'm merely adding points to the discussion which are certainly valid to any Christian, not just protestant Christians.

Translation has nothing to do with technology. The problems lie in human infallibility and languages that do not share words with exactly the same meaning.

When a Hebrew acedemic reads the original text they often have to make a best guess as to suitable word in English. That word may have changed in its exact meaning over the hundreds of years (consider how a word like "awesome" has changed meaning over merely a generation or so). So you end up with a sentance thats completely out of context with the original. A machine would probably be even worse at this, as they wouldnt be able to adjust to compensate for these changes, which a human interpreter does all the time... which in itself introduces alterations to context according to their views.

This is where half the arguments come from between different denominations and monothesic (sic) faiths.


When did I ever say that technology meant translation by machine? Computers are greatly helping in ways that are not related to the actual translation from Hebrew to English, and this is where things like Strong's numbers come in, which give every meaning of the Hebrew word and allow the reader to interpret which meaning is correct for a specific translation. The translators do their best to account for differences in the language over time, and I believe that God has the power to lead the translators in the right direction. At this point I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said once, so just read my other posts if you need a more complete idea of what my beliefs are about the validity of God's word.

Perhaps I am in the wrong argument, but any christian religion should be based upon the Bible as its truth, not a man (who is fallable) given his power by man (fallable). I'm merely adding points to the discussion which are certainly valid to any Christian, not just protestant Christians.

No, that's ad hominem and cannot be applied to an actual debate. Ad hominem arguments are the basis of internet flame wars, not intelligent debate. The idea that the Bible should be the basis for any Christian based religious argument is a personal one. Christianity is defined as religion founded on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Please not that it did not say that it was founded on, or continued to follow the Bible.

Ad hominem is not a valid debate form.

Can you give some examples of the inconsistensies that you mentioned? Many of them are probably things that don't seem quite right, but are easily understood upon looking more closely. To think that God is incapable of using humans to draft his word is to destroy God's power base entirely. The truth of the Bible hangs in God's ability to keep it pure, and for an all-powerful being, I don't think that mere translation is beyond his scope of ability. Not every question can be answered, that's where faith comes in.

Hebrews 11:1 - Faith is being sure of what you hope for, and certain of what you do not see.

If we knew everything, then there would be no need for faith. Just trust that God is capable of keeping his word pure, and leave it at that. If you can't, then why trust that he's capable of bringing you to heaven, or even answering your prayers? It all boils down to faith in the end.

You want examples? Okay. Here are some of the bigger ones:

The Disciples' Surprise at Seeing the Risen Jesus

This may be one of the most significant inconsistencies in the New Testament.

According to the Gospels, Jesus explicitly and repeatedly told his disciples that he would be put to death but would be raised on the third day (Mt. 16:21-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk. 8:31-32; Lk. 9:21-22, 18:31-33; Jn. 14:18-20, 16:16-20). Matthew and Mark indicate that the disciples very much got the message, judging by their strong reactions to it (Mt. 16:22, 17:23; Mk. 8:33).

But after Jesus's death, the disciples certainly didn't act as though he had foretold his resurrection.

* On Easter Sunday, a handful of disciples went to Joseph of Arimathea's new tomb after the Sabbath. They were perplexed when they found the tomb empty (Mk. 16:5; Lk. 24:4; Jn. 20:2, 9).
* Other disciples refused to believe the first reports of resurrection sightings (Mk. 16:13; Lk. 24:11; Jn. 20:24-25).
* Mary Magdalene initially failed to recognize Jesus when she encountered him, as did the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Jn. 20:14; Lk. 24:16).
* Indeed, the disciples are described as being terrified when they saw Jesus (Lk. 24:5, 24:37; Mt. 28:10).

You would think at least some of the Twelve (or Eleven, depending on when Judas Iscariot killed himself) would have remembered Jesus's repeated predictions of his resurrection, but it appears none of them did.

Luke attempts to explain away this defect. He claims that the disciples "understood nothing about all these things ; in fact, what he said was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said" (Lk. 18:34; see also 9:45).

But this doesn't satisfactorily explain why the disciples failed to understand something so simple as "I will be killed, but on the third day I will be raised."

In the words of Dr. Henry Lee, testifying as a DNA forensics expert for the defense at OJ Simpson's murder trial, "something not right here."
In Whose Name Should We Baptize --
the Trinity, or Just Jesus?

The orthodox, wishing to find support in the New Tesetament for the doctrine of the Trinity, set great store by the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission. If we believe the late manuscripts of Matthew -- as opposed to the early manuscripts that apparently do not -- Jesus commands the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Mt. 28:19). (See this discussion of the different manuscripts of Matthew containing the Great Commission.)

But in the Marcan version of the Great Commission, the reference to baptism does not mention baptizing in the name of anyone in particular (Mk. 14:16).

Moreover, in the Book of Acts -- long after the Great Commission would have taken place -- Peter and the disciples baptize in the name of Jesus only (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5).

Some scholars believe that the trinitarian formula was subsequently added to Matthew to justify a later-evolved doctrine of the Trinity.

That, of course, raises another question: What else in Matthew -- or in other New Testament documents -- might have been the work of later doctrinal editors?
John the Baptist's Appreciation of Jesus's Identity

In the Fourth Gospel, as Jesus approaches his relative John the Baptist, John recognizes him, proclaiming him "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29). After further encomia, John declares that Jesus "is the Son of God" (Jn 1:34).

But there is no indication that John the Baptist ever became a follower of Jesus, which seems puzzling.

Even more strangely, in the Lucan version, John baptizes Jesus as seemingly just another face in the crowd, with no sign that he regards his kinsman as anything special (Lk 3:21).

And later, when John's followers report Jesus's doings to him, John sends two of his disciples to Jesus to ask, are you the one who is to come? (Lk 7:18-23)

It is difficult to reconcile these accounts. Moreover, you would think that John's parents Zechariah and Elizabeth would have told her son all about the family member of whom such great things were expected, and for whom John himself was to prepare the way (Lk. 1:17, 76).

Why this discrepancy?

Other inconsistencies in the bible include:

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
scarlet - Matthew 27:28
purple John 19:2

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

Years of famine
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

~*~

I find this hard to pin down to translation. Surely if God were keeping his word 'pure' he'd actually keep it consistent. It seems to be more likely that the bible is a collection of texts inspired by God, but not necessarily guided by God. This fits in especially when you consider the Oral tradition, and the fact that the gospels, as far as we have been able to determine, were probably not written by Jesus' apostles themselves - not unless they lived a hundred plus years past Jesus' death, anyway.

~*~
[i]It's about 3 AM here, and I'm headed to bed. If this thread is still alive when I check it later, I might keep posting, but if I'm not replying - it's because I'm sleeping, not because I've lost interest. :) Night all

No, that's ad hominem and cannot be applied to an actual debate. Ad hominem arguments are the basis of internet flame wars, not intelligent debate. The idea that the Bible should be the basis for any Christian based religious argument is a personal one. Christianity is defined as religion founded on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Please not that it did not say that it was founded on, or continued to follow the Bible.

Ad hominem is not a valid debate form.

Alright then, I'll shut up about Catholicism then...Sorry for the, whatever it was I did...I'll try to keep away from that in the future. ^_^;;

You want examples? Okay. Here are some of the bigger ones:

The Disciples' Surprise at Seeing the Risen Jesus

This may be one of the most significant inconsistencies in the New Testament.

According to the Gospels, Jesus explicitly and repeatedly told his disciples that he would be put to death but would be raised on the third day (Mt. 16:21-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk. 8:31-32; Lk. 9:21-22, 18:31-33; Jn. 14:18-20, 16:16-20). Matthew and Mark indicate that the disciples very much got the message, judging by their strong reactions to it (Mt. 16:22, 17:23; Mk. 8:33).

But after Jesus's death, the disciples certainly didn't act as though he had foretold his resurrection.

* On Easter Sunday, a handful of disciples went to Joseph of Arimathea's new tomb after the Sabbath. They were perplexed when they found the tomb empty (Mk. 16:5; Lk. 24:4; Jn. 20:2, 9).
* Other disciples refused to believe the first reports of resurrection sightings (Mk. 16:13; Lk. 24:11; Jn. 20:24-25).
* Mary Magdalene initially failed to recognize Jesus when she encountered him, as did the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Jn. 20:14; Lk. 24:16).
* Indeed, the disciples are described as being terrified when they saw Jesus (Lk. 24:5, 24:37; Mt. 28:10).

You would think at least some of the Twelve (or Eleven, depending on when Judas Iscariot killed himself) would have remembered Jesus's repeated predictions of his resurrection, but it appears none of them did.

Luke attempts to explain away this defect. He claims that the disciples "understood nothing about all these things ; in fact, what he said was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said" (Lk. 18:34; see also 9:45).

But this doesn't satisfactorily explain why the disciples failed to understand something so simple as "I will be killed, but on the third day I will be raised."

In the words of Dr. Henry Lee, testifying as a DNA forensics expert for the defense at OJ Simpson's murder trial, "something not right here."
In Whose Name Should We Baptize --
the Trinity, or Just Jesus?

The orthodox, wishing to find support in the New Tesetament for the doctrine of the Trinity, set great store by the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission. If we believe the late manuscripts of Matthew -- as opposed to the early manuscripts that apparently do not -- Jesus commands the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Mt. 28:19). (See this discussion of the different manuscripts of Matthew containing the Great Commission.)

But in the Marcan version of the Great Commission, the reference to baptism does not mention baptizing in the name of anyone in particular (Mk. 14:16).

Moreover, in the Book of Acts -- long after the Great Commission would have taken place -- Peter and the disciples baptize in the name of Jesus only (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5).

Some scholars believe that the trinitarian formula was subsequently added to Matthew to justify a later-evolved doctrine of the Trinity.

That, of course, raises another question: What else in Matthew -- or in other New Testament documents -- might have been the work of later doctrinal editors?
John the Baptist's Appreciation of Jesus's Identity

In the Fourth Gospel, as Jesus approaches his relative John the Baptist, John recognizes him, proclaiming him "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29). After further encomia, John declares that Jesus "is the Son of God" (Jn 1:34).

But there is no indication that John the Baptist ever became a follower of Jesus, which seems puzzling.

Even more strangely, in the Lucan version, John baptizes Jesus as seemingly just another face in the crowd, with no sign that he regards his kinsman as anything special (Lk 3:21).

And later, when John's followers report Jesus's doings to him, John sends two of his disciples to Jesus to ask, are you the one who is to come? (Lk 7:18-23)

It is difficult to reconcile these accounts. Moreover, you would think that John's parents Zechariah and Elizabeth would have told her son all about the family member of whom such great things were expected, and for whom John himself was to prepare the way (Lk. 1:17, 76).

Why this discrepancy?

Other inconsistencies in the bible include:

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
scarlet - Matthew 27:28
purple John 19:2

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

Years of famine
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

~*~

I find this hard to pin down to translation. Surely if God were keeping his word 'pure' he'd actually keep it consistent. It seems to be more likely that the bible is a collection of texts inspired by God, but not necessarily guided by God. This fits in especially when you consider the Oral tradition, and the fact that the gospels, as far as we have been able to determine, were probably not written by Jesus' apostles themselves - not unless they lived a hundred plus years past Jesus' death, anyway.

~*~
[i]It's about 3 AM here, and I'm headed to bed. If this thread is still alive when I check it later, I might keep posting, but if I'm not replying - it's because I'm sleeping, not because I've lost interest. :) Night all

Wow, that's a lot...I'll have to look into that some more. As for the first thing with the apostles being shocked when Jesus rose from the dead....I think just about any of you would be. If your pastor were to say "I'm going to die, and three days later I'm going to stand up and walk out of my tomb" You would think he's a total lunatic, no matter how many times he said it...and you might still follow him, but not be quite convinced. Anyone would be shocked at somebody's ressurection, so to accuse them of not remembering would be silly, as shock is a pretty normal reaction to any strange situation, no matter how much you expect it. I know I'm probably not wording any of this very well, but I think you'll understand my meaning. As for the rest, I'll have to look into it, that's the best I can do for now.

Alright then, I'll shut up about Catholicism then...Sorry for the, whatever it was I did...I'll try to keep away from that in the future. ^_^;;

Sorry for jumping you.
Ad hominem basically means that you are using personal, rather than logical arguments. In this case, I meant your statement about what 'should' be the basis for Christianity. That's not an established fact, nor part of the definition for a Christian religion, so it's not a logical argument.

I didn't mean to jump on you so heavily, and obviously I completely disagree with Audrey. People arguing about 'should' is kind of one of my hair triggers though, because it's an opinion and not something that can be really debated. Really didn't mean to sound as angry as that probably came out though.

Sorry for jumping you.
Ad hominem basically means that you are using personal, rather than logical arguments. In this case, I meant your statement about what 'should' be the basis for Christianity. That's not an established fact, nor part of the definition for a Christian religion, so it's not a logical argument.

I didn't mean to jump on you so heavily, and obviously I completely disagree with Audrey. People arguing about 'should' is kind of one of my hair triggers though, because it's an opinion and not something that can be really debated. Really didn't mean to sound as angry as that probably came out though.

No, it's fine. I can get like that sometimes too, it's not too important. I obviously have issues with Catholicism, as it's more religion than it is Christian....but that's a personal thing I guess, so you can disregard it as far as the discussion goes...it seems impossible to even debate Catholic doctrine based on Christianity without stepping over the lines of provable fact. It seems that catholicism relies more on man's ability to stay good enough to get to God, and doesn't focus on salvation and the grace of God as the necessary means to get to heaven, the true mark of christianity. However, your comment about the religion being based upon the teachings and life of Christ, or however you put it, still discounts a lot of Catholic teaching. The teachings of Christ are contained in the Bible, and a large part of catholic doctrine conflicts directly, such as prayers of intercession to the perpetual virgin mary (Jesus had brothers and sisters...Mary did not stay a virgin, Christ is the sole intecessor, Don't pray to or for the dead) as well as other things which could be gray areas since they aren't directly prohibited in the Bible, and with the Bible not having to be the sole influence on a christian religion.....in any case, this isn't really the thread for such a discussion anyway. So on topic, Is homosexuality genetic? ...Nope, why? I can't say, there's no true proof of where it comes from, or where it doesn't come from...so the argument is pretty much moot...maybe we should let this thread die and just start another one for religious discussion.

No, it's fine. I can get like that sometimes too, it's not too important. I obviously have issues with Catholicism, as it's more religion than it is Christian....but that's a personal thing I guess, so you can disregard it as far as the discussion goes...it seems impossible to even debate Catholic doctrine based on Christianity without stepping over the lines of provable fact. It seems that catholicism relies more on man's ability to stay good enough to get to God, and doesn't focus on salvation and the grace of God as the necessary means to get to heaven, the true mark of christianity. However, your comment about the religion being based upon the teachings and life of Christ, or however you put it, still discounts a lot of Catholic teaching. The teachings of Christ are contained in the Bible, and a large part of catholic doctrine conflicts directly, such as prayers of intercession to the perpetual virgin mary (Jesus had brothers and sisters...Mary did not stay a virgin, Christ is the sole intecessor, Don't pray to or for the dead) as well as other things which could be gray areas since they aren't directly prohibited in the Bible, and with the Bible not having to be the sole influence on a christian religion.....in any case, this isn't really the thread for such a discussion anyway. So on topic, Is homosexuality genetic? ...Nope, why? I can't say, there's no true proof of where it comes from, or where it doesn't come from...so the argument is pretty much moot...maybe we should let this thread die and just start another one for religious discussion.

Yeah, we probably should. I'm gonna be gone for a bit though, we can argue with eachother some more when I get back *chuckle*

Nice to meet ya by the way.

Nice to meet you too, I really should have gotten off a while ago...so I'm due for some away time....I'll have to subscribe to this and get running, I'll never finish up what I need done in time now. ;_; *laughs* I'll catch you folks later, have fun arguing....I'm sure this argument will have come full circle by the time I get back and I'll have to repeat myself some more...*has a party* er...*clears throat* That will be all...

If you can't understand what being registered as non-partisan means then you shouldn't be posting in this thread.
You? Non-partisan? If that means defending most Bush's policies at every opportunity, then I suppose you are "non-partisan". :rolleyes:

Your logic is flawed.

Gays are not an ethnicity. All this blather of not 'choosing' to be homosexual, pretending that it’s all genetics is hogwash.

I never said gays were an ethnicity. But I am saying it is not a choice, and it isn't hogwash. In fact it is very backed up by the facts and numerous studies that sexuality is in fact tied heavily to genetics.


Why do some people like to have sex with themselves, with objects, via visual stimulation only, S&M, bondage, spouse-swapping, orgies? Why do some people like large breasted women, why do some like flat chested boy-girls? Why do some like large women, skinny women, Asian women, African women, European women, tall, short, dark haired, blonde haired, tan, pale and everything else. Are you all trying to pretend and proposing that this is genetically determined at the time of birth? Of course not, utter ridiculousness.

So homosexuality is a fetish? You really need to get pass your bad logic and look at the facts. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a fetish. So please, understand this: Homosexuality is determined by mainly genetic influences. Those things are influenced more by peoples tastes. Being homosexual is not something I can change.

People ‘learn’ to like what they like, they might not ‘choose’ wanting it, but they learn it if they don't choose first.

No. I'm sorry but you're just wrong. People don't learn to be gay.

And for those of you that say something nonsensical like, “why would anyone ‘choose’ to be homosexual to be ridiculed and mistreated?” Hogwash, how many people in this very thread said, “I’ll never change, I’ll die first ~ I am me and they will accept me, I don’t care what they think – yadda yadda yadda.”

It isn't hogwash and stop being so ridiculous about it. Look at your rantings.. so far very none of it is backed up and has no evidence to it.

It IS a choice. With practice and via accustoming oneself to a particular lifestyle, you reinforce your likes and desires. If I choose to love a dark skinned person, I will learn to love and be attracted to and fantasize of the dark skinned person I love ~ even if I had no particular fantasy or inclination to be attracted to say, 'islander girls' before meeting them.

WRONG! So very wrong. Let me explain why... it isn't a lifestyle. It is an orientation. It has nothing to do with tastes of people. You don't learn to love anything. Your logic is so faulty. In fact, the facts are this. I believe you are born being attracted to one gender or the other, or both. This is not something you can choose and this is not something you can change.

Old people prove my statements to be right. You think some fifty year old lady was naturally attracted to old beer bellied balding men when she was young? But if she loves her husband, and they grew old together, she ‘learned’ to legitimately be attracted to and turned on by, and fantasize of… her husband.

No that doesn't prove your argument. Your argument is horrid.

Genetic excuses are a cop-out, a political sleight of hand, complete BS. You can too choose to be attracted to whom you want.

Oh shut up. The genetic argument is far stronger then your slippery slope junk. I mean come on. You can't choose to be attracted to anyone... your argument is so weak..

But... Just like there are "bad" liberals who think they're open minded when they clearly ain't, there are bad Christians who believe that their ticket t'heaven is through going to church alone. (There's a few who posted on here, too... Watch yourselves there.)

=O Well. It looks like you're no better than the "Simple minded fascists" that you've been condemning, Mesa.

I'm not? Oh really? I have accepted other peoples opinions. You better not compare me to those people.


And that's exactly right, boyo. You have been nothing but an arrogant, self-righteous hypocrite this whole time, you jerk. Report this is you want, boyo, but I ain't gonna just call you a jerk without something t' back it up. ;D

Wrong. I've been listening to what other people have got to say and I've been refuting them when necessary. I'm not arrogant, I'm not self-righteous. In fact I could say that about yourself.


Your views are less attractive then that pile of manure on the sidewalk. The ultimately flawed thinking is from you.. your illogical thought-process of accusing anybody who doesn't think like you as immature.

None of my thinking is ultimately flawed. You can't even back yourself up. You are the one with the illogical thought process because you cannot back yourself up.

Hm. That guy had an intelligent response there, and you go and insult him. Why? Maybe because he's Christian? I think so. He wasn't trying to spew any tyranny or fascism, but you are, from the looks of it.

You didn't bother reading any of my posts, and you didn't bother reading any of the facts.

As I said before. I'm VERY liberal, and I'm all for gay rights. You're just a jerk, Mesa.

Nope.

As for Homosexuality being genetic... Nah. I don't believe it. I think it's more of a subconscious choice, or as Greenland said, more like a fetish. Is it wrong? That depends on your perspective. From the left, it's just fine.

That's totally wrong. It isn''t a subconscious choice and it isn't a fetish. You can go bang your head against the wall and claim that all you want. You're just wrong. It isn't something you can change and it isn't any feitsh.

Debunked.

You? Non-partisan? If that means defending most Bush's policies at every opportunity, then I suppose you are "non-partisan". :rolleyes:

I must say you are actually dead wrong. I don't defend his policies at every opportunity. You really need to stop attacking me. This isn't the thread for it for you to keep saying it over and over again like a broken record.

Why don't you substantiate your hypothesis by showing any evidence whatsoever that any sexual attraction (heterosexual, homosexual or other), is ever anything other than a fetish. I’m suggesting that ALL sexual desire, all fantasy of the individual, is always fetish, fixation, obsession, passion or addictive disposition. Yours would be no different than anybody else’s.

Even if homosexuality were just a fetish, people don't choose their fetishes. I am very into bdsm, among others, and I never decided "Oh, I think I will get turned on by _____". Even with all of that aside, fetishes are much less extreme than an orientation. A man who is into big-breasted women can still be very much attracted to a woman with miniscule breasts. A homosexual man is not going to be attracted to women. Bisexual is a whole different situation though....

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
*test*

Disclaimer: This is mainly posted for Mesa t'read. Ignore it if you'd like. My stance on Homosexuality is actually all the way at the bottom...

Alrighty. Lemme start by saying that I am liberal. Very liberal. Liberally liberal.

Now, I will clear up many a misconception for you.

1. Atheism's becomming a fad. Sure, there's some bright folks out there who are atheists, but there's a hell of a lot more who are just teenagers trying to be rebellious because that's what's "cool". =D It's true, and you can't deny it without looking kind o' silly..

2. Being liberal is a fad. Sure, there's some bright folks out there (Myself included, I hope. ;D) who are liberal because of their views. More importantly, they HAVE views. There's still a hell of a lot more idiots who are liberal because it's what's "in" right now, thanks to Hollywood teaching people what to think, and not how to think.

But... Just like there are "bad" liberals who think they're open minded when they clearly ain't, there are bad Christians who believe that their ticket t'heaven is through going to church alone. (There's a few who posted on here, too... Watch yourselves there.)

=O Well. It looks like you're no better than the "Simple minded fascists" that you've been condemning, Mesa.

Now excuse me as I stop for air since that was all said mentally in one breath.
...
...

Ok then, moving on. I think Melonious Ones had it right about you, Mesa. That's right, I'm posting all this about you. Why? Because, as Melonious Ones said...

"I do not mean to put words in your mouth. You have made numerous comments that seem very pig-headed. Many liberals seem to believe that the only people that can be close-minded are conservatives when in fact many liberals are just as close-minded. You have said repeatedly that you refuse to change your position. That leads me to believe that even if someone successfully was able to refute all of your arguments and all of that, you would still stick to your opinion being absolutely right because you won't step down. That is what I meant by you claiming infallibility."

And that's exactly right, boyo. You have been nothing but an arrogant, self-righteous hypocrite this whole time, you jerk. Report this is you want, boyo, but I ain't gonna just call you a jerk without something t' back it up. ;D

"The One Christian Guy:
There are the intellectual atheists who have long opposed Christianity based on human reasoning (ultimately flawed) and then there are the inconoclastic, rebellious teenagers, young adults doing it just to be "cool."

Mesa:
Your views are less attractive then that pile of manure on the sidewalk. The ultimately flawed thinking is from you.. your illogical thought-process of accusing anybody who doesn't think like you as immature.

I'm not doing it just to be cool.. i'm doing it to oppose tyranny and fascism that you spew."

Hm. That guy had an intelligent response there, and you go and insult him. Why? Maybe because he's Christian? I think so. He wasn't trying to spew any tyranny or fascism, but you are, from the looks of it. You're under the impression that all Christians are psychotic right-wing fascist neo-nazis, when the truth is that they ain't (not all of them, anyway. ;D)

As I said before. I'm VERY liberal, and I'm all for gay rights. You're just a jerk, Mesa.

As for Homosexuality being genetic... Nah. I don't believe it. I think it's more of a subconscious choice, or as Greenland said, more like a fetish. Is it wrong? That depends on your perspective. From the left, it's just fine.

Whether or not it's a choice doesn't matter, though. It's still protected by the 14th Ammendment.

Hm. I think I'm done.

Indeed.


Hey, that wasn't necessary. Mesa has since been warned and has done very well about altering the way he is debating.

I must reiterate there is no evidence to show that homosexuality is like a fetish, that it is a choice, or that it is something you can change. Those who support these arguments for the most part don't apply logic and rely on the following:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html

And their all time favorite:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

The slippery slope argument is construed by a variety of poor premises, and then they make arbitrary conclusions. It is pretty sad.

Hey, that wasn't necessary. Mesa has since been warned and has done very well about altering the way he is debating.

I hope my reply which literally trashed his argument was appropriate. I also did post showing what logical fallacies those two (futurehead and greenlander) rely on heavily. Since they cannot formulate an argument with evidence, they must resort to logical fallacies.

And you stone both parties involved in a rape.

Hey now. That isn't true. You stone the rapist if the rape was done on a farm and both if it was done in the city. You mustn't over simplify! :p

Actually I thought it was rather well known that yor orientation could be changed by training your mind to find certain things attractive.

The most easy way to do this is by masturbating, and at the climax thinking of certain things, this way your mind allegedly associates intense sexual pleasure with what you were thinking about.

Allegedly.

I mean, I only heard about institutions useing that as theropy for people with unhealthy sexual fixations...

So, theoretically, it would be possible to change your orientation.

Im not sure if it's all genetics, I suspect it partially is however.

So the pope is infallible? In revelations it says that you cannot add or subtract anything from this book....and although not technically adding to the Bible, adding doctrine and misleading billions of people seems like something that he'll need to answer to God for eventually. Learn from his mistake, and take the Bible at face value. As for the matter of getting into heaven, there's only one way to do that, which is by accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, and recognizing that he died for your sins, I'm sure you've all heard this a million times by now, so I'll stop there...but be careful not to miss the point.

Hey, the pope is infallible by Catholic doctrine when he sits on his little throne.

Actually I thought it was rather well known that yor orientation could be changed by training your mind to find certain things attractive.

That's not really true at all. You cannot change your sexual orientation.

I mean, I only heard about institutions useing that as theropy for people with unhealthy sexual fixations...

Unhealthy sexual fixations? Those institutions were attacked by the AMA and APA. That therapy does not work.

So, theoretically, it would be possible to change your orientation.


No... it is not possible.

You want to provide any evidence for your statements?

Oh, hey. Sorry there, Mesa. ^_^ I sorta got annoyed in the middle of the topic and didn't read the rest. Sincerest apologies, boyo! =D

Oh, hey. Sorry there, Mesa. ^_^ I sorta got annoyed in the middle of the topic and didn't read the rest. Sincerest apologies, boyo! =D

I don't think I will accept your apology. What you said about me was just plain scornful.

I hope my reply which literally trashed his argument was appropriate. I also did post showing what logical fallacies those two (futurehead and greenlander) rely on heavily. Since they cannot formulate an argument with evidence, they must resort to logical fallacies.

I think it was fine. Only thing I found odd was at one point you said you'd present the facts and the next sentence began "I believe" :p

I think it was fine. Only thing I found odd was at one point you said you'd present the facts and the next sentence began "I believe" :p

The facts are throughout this thread.. should I dig up studies again?

Actually I thought it was rather well known that yor orientation could be changed by training your mind to find certain things attractive.

The most easy way to do this is by masturbating, and at the climax thinking of certain things, this way your mind allegedly associates intense sexual pleasure with what you were thinking about.

Allegedly.

I mean, I only heard about institutions useing that as theropy for people with unhealthy sexual fixations...

So, theoretically, it would be possible to change your orientation.

Im not sure if it's all genetics, I suspect it partially is however.


That was originally believed to work. Therapists would have their homosexual patients attempt to be straight through all forms of methods. Sometimes the patient would believe it had worked. It never actually did however, in less the patient was never actually gay to begin with (there are people who believe themselves to be gay and find out they are straight later).

In recent years they have realized that just because you pretend to be straight doesn't mean you are. That is how we have 50 year old businessmen with a wife and three kids living in suburban America coming out of the closet and leaving their families behind.

The facts are throughout this thread.. should I dig up studies again?

I am just teasing. I know what you meant.

I don't think I will accept your apology. What you said about me was just plain scornful.

I know, and I'm still sorry. =/

I know, and I'm still sorry. =/

Well i'm sorry but i can't accept it.

Well i'm sorry but i can't accept it.

Understood...

*Your logic is flawed.*
* In fact it is very backed up by the facts and numerous studies that sexuality is in fact tied heavily to genetics.*
* Homosexuality is determined by mainly genetic influences. *
* I believe you are born being attracted to one gender or the other, or both.*
*Oh shut up. The genetic argument is far stronger then your slippery slope junk.*


Balderdash. Just because you've mentioned the word 'genetics' several times doesn't actually produce the studies and the reports that substantiate your 'belief' now does it? In fact, the genetic reports says that they can’t find any indication of a genetic gene even existing. We have no scientific way of predicting this hypothetical ‘gay’ gene of yours. Unlike other genes and alleles in action, you cannot even guess at which children of which adults will develop or have any higher a chance of developing your hypothesized genetic gay-gene.

As to a slippery slope, what slippery slope? I've mentioned no slippery slope.

Balderdash. Just because you've mentioned the word 'genetics' several times doesn't actually produce the studies and the reports that substantiate your 'belief' now does it? In fact, the genetic reports says that they can’t find any indication of a genetic gene even existing. We have no scientific way of predicting this hypothetical ‘gay’ gene of yours. Unlike other genes and alleles in action, you cannot even guess at which children of which adults will develop or have any higher a chance of developing your hypothesized genetic gay-gene.

As to a slippery slope, what slippery slope? I've mentioned no slippery slope.

You can't even back yourself up. Your views are founded on unsubstantiated beliefs. You want studies? Here are some studies for you:

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/06/061605genetic.htm

We don't have to find a gay gene. All I am demonstrating is that it is tied to genetics. Your beliefs are not substantiated and for the most part reject the reality. Since when did I say it was one gene that was responsible for sexuality?

You are going up a slippery slope and your entire argument reeks. So yes, according to the facts demonstrated by myself, I can say that sexuality (as a whole) is caused mainly by genetics and that your argument has now been deposed of.

I've been looking too, and I've got to say that I can't find anything saying that it's genetic either. I actually keep finding studies that show that it isn't.

I've been looking too, and I've got to say that I can't find anything saying that it's genetic either. I actually keep finding studies that show that it isn't.

I just posted some studies that say it is genetic.

Why not post any of these studies that say it isn't instead of just saying that?

The anti-genetics argument is especially poor and weak today!

I just posted some studies that say it is genetic.

Why not post any of these studies that say it isn't instead of just saying that?

The anti-genetics argument is especially poor and weak today!

^_^ Yeah. We posted at the same time. Lemme go find my sources...

http://dunamai.com/articles/Christian/is_homosexuality_genetic.htm

This one goes way back to the Twins debate I saw earlier. I'm not sure if this link was brought up then...

I'm trying to find more sources now..

^_^ Yeah. We posted at the same time. Lemme go find my sources...

http://dunamai.com/articles/Christian/is_homosexuality_genetic.htm

This one goes way back to the Twins debate I saw earlier. I'm not sure if this link was brought up then...

I'm trying to find more sources now..

I went to dunamai.com to see what the site was about and this is what I got: "World-wide Publishers of the Gospel of jesus christ".

You need to get better sources then that.

Counter sources: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html

More evidence showing that homosexuality is genetic:

http://www.danaanpress.com/hsex.html

http://webpages.marshall.edu/~woods18/homosexuality.htm

http://www.psychdaily.com/article/734

The first study to examine the entire human genome for genetic influence in male sexuality has identified several regions that may influence whether a man is heterosexual or gay.
The study, to be published in the March issue of Human Genetics was led by Brian Mustanski of the University of Illinois Chicago and scientists at the National Institute of Health.
They identified sequences of DNA related to sexual orientation in three separate chromosomes

"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

The researchers analyzed the genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.

In contrast to earlier studies which have focused exclusively on the X chromosome, the current study examined all 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes as well as the X chromosome. The Y chromosome was not considered because it is believe to carry few genes.

Three identical DNA sequences were found on chromosomes 7, 8 and 10. About 60 percent of the gay brothers shared these sequences. This is 10 percent higher than would be expected by chance.

"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," said Mustanski. "The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed and to identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal sequences that are linked to sexual orientation."

---

Now will you concede? Because that last study identifies several areas of the genetic code that influences sexuality. This falls into my belief.

Yeah, I know what Dunami's about. That's why I rushed for more sources...

I really just keep getting the same things, so...

I don't know. It seems both sides of this keep accusing the other side of distorting results and such... I'll be back a bit later with some more sources. Or maybe my mind might be changed. I don't know. ^_^

I didn't plan on bringing this back up but since it kind of already was, I stand by my position that it cannot be entirely genetic due to the indentical twin situation. It was said that identical twins can still have different traits because while in utero, the genes can "hide". This is true but not when both fetuses are in the same environment. Perhaps they can receive different hormones, which furthers my argument that it is hormonal, but otherwise, all conditions are the same and their prenatal development will be the same. I do not believe it to be something that is altered after birth like environment or the way they are raised.

EDIT: I am not saying a genetic predisposition is not possible.

Yeah, I know what Dunami's about. That's why I rushed for more sources...

I really just keep getting the same things, so...

I don't know. It seems both sides of this keep accusing the other side of distorting results and such... I'll be back a bit later with some more sources. Or maybe my mind might be changed. I don't know. ^_^

I don't think so. I posted an actual study that shows which chromosomes influence sexual orientation. This is very conclusive evidence and doesn't distort results.

I'll repost the link for you:

http://www.psychdaily.com/article/734

The evidence is just on the side that homosexuality is mainly influenced by genetics.

It was said that identical twins can still have different traits because while in utero, the genes can "hide". This is true but not when both fetuses are in the same environment. Perhaps they can receive different hormones, which furthers my argument that it is hormonal, but otherwise, all conditions are the same and their prenatal development will be the same. I do not believe it to be something that is altered after birth like environment or the way they are raised.

You don't seem to grasp the concept that identical twins are not really identical and can vary (even in gender). Additionally, the chromosomes mentioned in the article I posted may be influenced later.

You don't seem to grasp the concept that identical twins are not really identical and can vary (even in gender). Additionally, the chromosomes mentioned in the article I posted may be influenced later.

Do you have evidence of that? I have never heard of these differences and my understanding is that they cannot provided they are in the same environment.