NationStates Jolt Archive

Nature? Nurture? Bad? Supreme? Immoral? Moral? Nice people but Albert Verlinde is enough to have them all suffer intens Chinese tortures?

I personally think it's nurture and I can't really follow why people think it's 'immoral' for to men or to women to get married. I just can't impersonate myself in those ideas.

I also can't follow why you should be proud to be gay, or proud to be straight for that matter. I'm bisexual myself but don't see any reason to be proud at it.

I totally don't see how someone could be so cruel to not let two people marry if they want to just because they're the same sex?

Nature? Nurture? Bad? Supreme? Immoral? Moral? Nice people but Albert Verlinde is enough to have them all suffer intens Chinese tortures?

I personally think it's nurture and I can't really follow why people think it's 'immoral' for to men or to women to get married. I just can't impersonate myself in those ideas.

I also can't follow why you should be proud to be gay, or proud to be straight for that matter. I'm bisexual myself but don't see any reason to be proud at it.

I totally don't see how someone could be so cruel to not let two people marry if they want to just because they're the same sex?

I think it's a complex mix between nature and nurture myself. I think the whole "gay gene" thing is a little...fanciful as nothing is entirely genetic. But i don't believe the "my mother made me a homosexual" school either.

(cue joke "my mother made me a homosexual!" "if i give her the wool, can she make me one too?")

And people should be allowed to marry who the fuck they want. As long as it's consensual, adult and same species.

Consensual is the only thing that's required for me. Not allowing to organisms of a different age of species to marry is as barbaric to me as not allowing different races or same sexes to marry.

Consensual is the only thing that's required for me. Not allowing to organisms of a different age of species to marry is as barbaric to me as not allowing different races or same sexes to marry.

Nah, we have to protect the rubber plants from the warped urges of homeseksuals...they are at a tender age.

And people should be allowed to marry who the fuck they want. As long as it's consensual, adult and same species.
Why the alienophobia?

If it's able to consent in a meaningful manner, I don't see why it shouldn't enjoy the same rights & privileges as you.

Why the alienophobia?

If it's able to consent in a meaningful manner, I don't see why it shouldn't enjoy the same rights & privileges as you.

Do you WANT YOUR DAUGHTER MARRYING A GREEN FREAK FROM MARS?

think of what it will do to the property values. Think of the embarrassment at the wedding when it eats the usher.

SICK AND WRONG.

Why the alienophobia?
Oh, jeeze, not this bit again. :p

I especially hate the "homosexuality is a choice" argument, as though it would even matter if it were a choice.

I especially hate the "homosexuality is a choice" argument, as though it would even matter if it were a choice.

Why would anyone choose to be homosexual, given the level of bigotry, both public and governmental, that exists in the world?

Do you WANT YOUR DAUGHTER MARRYING A GREEN FREAK FROM MARS?

think of what it will do to the property values. Think of the embarrassment at the wedding when it eats the usher.

SICK AND WRONG.I'd like to marry a scientient somewhat humanoid alien...

Marrying humans is soooo five minutes ago.

Yeah, we really should do somthing to promote the rights of homosexuals. They've been getting it up the butt for years.









Sorry. :(
I apologize for that. :(

Why would anyone choose to be homosexual, given the level of bigotry, both public and governmental, that exists in the world?

Because being gay is just simply better. The people who claim it's a choice know that. That's why it threatens them so.

While I know homosexuality isn't genetic (identical twins I went to highschool with, the one I am better friends with came out other one isn't gay), it's still not a choice. It's as much of a choice as the type of girls I am attracted to. Which trust me in certain situations I would have loved to turn that around.

Do you WANT YOUR DAUGHTER MARRYING A GREEN FREAK FROM MARS?

think of what it will do to the property values. Think of the embarrassment at the wedding when it eats the usher.

SICK AND WRONG.Oddly, I'm quite positive that I'd intensely hate anyone marrying my (purely fictional) daughter. If anything, I suspect her marrying a green alien would help my curiousity supress my deep rooted hatred of the daughter-thief.

I have no idea what it would do to the property value, but I doubt very much my hypothetical daughter would want to live anywhere near me, especially after she'd married.

And the usher? Not my problem, but I suspect I'd be in the mood for that sort of thing, under the circumstances ;)

There are also identical twins know of which one is transexual and the other isn't. Not even genderdysforic.

I especially hate the "homosexuality is a choice" argument, as though it would even matter if it were a choice.

It is a choice. Not the attractions, but the actions.

It is a choice. Not the attractions, but the actions.

Yeah, so is breathing. Hence one should not breathe.

It is a choice. Not the attractions, but the actions.
And the same is true of heterosexuality. What's your point?

Homosexual, not HOMO fucking SEKSUAL. Are you all illiterate or dyslexic?:mad:

Yeah, so is breathing. Hence one should not breathe.
Or more to the point: Netwsberg, you're stealing my air, you dirty little thief!

I don't really have one. I was merely trying to explain the core of the "homosexuality is a choice" arguement. (At least the one that I get from my Catholic friend.)

Yeah, so is breathing. Hence one should not breathe.

Thing is, the Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not breathe.". It does say "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.". I don't think you're really Christian if you only believe in the parts you like. That makes you a sect, or probably of another religion entirely.

But I'd abstain from comment on homosexuality outside Christianity.

I don't think it's genetic but I don't think it's choice either

I think early childhood psychology (as in the stuff between when you're in the womb up to when you're around 4ish) has a huge effect on you - and you wouldn't even know it cause how many people remember anything before the age of 3?

If there was a biological reason I would say it would be a biological predisposition which is then influenced to a greater or lesser degree by a person's early childhood psychology

Does that make sense?

Thing is, the Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not breathe.". It does say "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.". I don't think you're really Christian if you only believe in the parts you like. That makes you a sect, or probably of another religion entirely.

But I'd abstain from comment on homosexuality outside Christianity.
What makes you assume people are Christians? :confused:


Personally, I don't know what makes me non-heterosexual. I don't really care, either.

Thing is, the Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not breathe.". It does say "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.". I don't think you're really Christian if you only believe in the parts you like. That makes you a sect, or probably of another religion entirely.

But I'd abstain from comment on homosexuality outside Christianity.
Well, in that case you can't be a Christian if you wear cotton-poly blends. You also can't be a Christian unless you are prepared to stone your child to death if he utters a curse word. You also aren't a Christian if you believe it's wrong to have drunken sex with your daughters.

I don't think it's genetic but I don't think it's choice either

I think early childhood psychology (as in the stuff between when you're in the womb up to when you're around 4ish) has a huge effect on you - and you wouldn't even know it cause how many people remember anything before the age of 3?

If there was a biological reason I would say it would be a biological predisposition which is then influenced to a greater or lesser degree by a person's early childhood psychology

Does that make sense?A lot.

I don't think it's genetic but I don't think it's choice either

I think early childhood psychology (as in the stuff between when you're in the womb up to when you're around 4ish) has a huge effect on you - and you wouldn't even know it cause how many people remember anything before the age of 3?

If there was a biological reason I would say it would be a biological predisposition which is then influenced to a greater or lesser degree by a person's early childhood psychology

Does that make sense?
Not only does it make sense, it's actually the view that is best supported by current data.

From what we know so far, homosexuality does have SOME genetic component, but it is ABSOLUTELY NOT 100% genetic. In other words, there is some genetic part, probably some in utero part, and some post-birth environmental component to human sexuality.

On interesting tangent is that research on our closest genetic relatives strongly suggests that humans are "innately" bisexual, but that our social situation and early environmental influences lead most people to express an "either-or" sexual orientation.

Well, in that case you can't be a Christian if you wear cotton-poly blends. You also can't be a Christian unless you are prepared to stone your child to death if he utters a curse word. You also aren't a Christian if you believe it's wrong to have drunken sex with your daughters.

There's murdering and feeling regret for your sin, and then there's murdering and believing there's no reason why murder should be a sin. The first case makes you a Christian who's sinned, the second a non-Christian.

What makes you assume people are Christians? :confused:

Eh, what makes you assume I assume people are Christians? :confused:

There's murdering and feeling regret for your sin, and then there's murdering and believing there's no reason why murder should be a sin. The first case makes you a Christian who's sinned, the second a non-Christian.
Erm, ok.

My understanding was that it's ok to sin, so long as you feel bad afterwards, but you aren't supposed to then go right back out an sin again. In other words, you couldn't wear cotton-poly blends every day and still be a Real Christian(tm), no matter how sorry you were at the end of each day.

Thing is, the Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not breathe.". It does say "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.". I don't think you're really Christian if you only believe in the parts you like. That makes you a sect, or probably of another religion entirely.

And I really could not care less about your little book, be it the Bible or Mao's little red one.

Eh, what makes you assume I assume people are Christians? :confused:
When talking to Fass:
"I don't think you're really Christian if you only believe in the parts you like"

When talking to Fass:
"I don't think you're really Christian if you only believe in the parts you like"

Oh, I see. Well, my post was almost exclusively in reference to Christians justifying homosexuality by saying it's a choice or a hereditary trait or whatever.

By the way, I'm an atheist, for the record.

And I really could not care less about your little book, be it the Bible or Mao's little red one.

See, that's the whole point. If you don't believe being gay is a sin, that means it's impossible for you to be Christian: That's all I was saying.

Sorry for the mess of posts.

See, that's the whole point. If you don't believe being gay is a sin, that means it's impossible for you to be Christian.

You are not the judge of that. I know tonnes of Christians who don't view homosexuality as a sin, and they really could not care less that you think you can say who can and cannot be Christian.

By the way, I'm an atheist, for the record.

Which means it makes even less sense why you brought Christianity into the debate at first - this is a nature/nurture discussion not anything else?

Tell you what you don't bringing your beliefs on witchcraft and sin and all that other mumbo jumbo here and I'll refrain from pointing out to the mods that you're trying to derail a thread from its original topic

mm'kay?

Everytime a discussion of this nature is started, it invariably leads to somebody bringing fundamentalist Christianity into it.

I'll outline briefly my defence against a Christian condemnation of Homosexuality

1) The oft quoted "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" is from Leviticus, which is from the Old Testament not the New Testament. Indeed, Leviticus itself is commonly regarded by many Christian theologians and clerics as a poor source of guidance for Christians as most of it was contradicted by the New Testament - Leviticus demands believers keep Kosher, which Jesus said was unneccessary, hence why Jews keep kosher and Christians don't. Indeed, the only Christians who quote it regularly are fundamentalists who really really really hate gay people and they tend to ignore everything in the book except the above quoted line.

2) The New Testament has very little to say on the subject of homosexuality, and certainly nothing thats really that concrete

3) Very few Christians have read the Old Testament in the original Hebrew or the New Testament in the original Greek. What people are quoting are translations which have often been coloured by the prejudice of the translators.

The Bible is not as hard and fast as people think and in any case I don't think its authors would be pleased to see it,and the ideals of Christian love set out in it as the basis, twisted and used as the basis for terrible hatred.

See, that's the whole point. If you don't believe being gay is a sin, that means it's impossible for you to be Christian: That's all I was saying.

Sorry for the mess of posts.

This is the second time I've had to post this (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/drlaura.htm) today:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

I assume that as a Christian you support all of these laws?

Yeah, we really should do somthing to promote the rights of homosexuals. They've been getting it up the butt for years.









Sorry. :(
I apologize for that. :(

So, where were you reared?

:) :) :)

You are not the judge of that. I know tonnes of Christians who don't view homosexuality as a sin, and they really could not care less that you think you can say who can and cannot be Christian.

I'm pointing out a simple logical conclusion of mine. Surely I'm not required to be a judge to say that two plus two makes four?

Which means it makes even less sense why you brought Christianity into the debate at first - this is a nature/nurture discussion not anything else?

Tell you what you don't bringing your beliefs on witchcraft and sin and all that other mumbo jumbo here and I'll refrain from pointing out to the mods that you're trying to derail a thread from its original topic

mm'kay?

The Christians offer a clear opinion on homosexuality which is related to it being nurture or nature. I thought an analysis of the situation could help.

EDIT: By the way:

Nature? Nurture? Bad? Supreme? Immoral? Moral? Nice people but Albert Verlinde is enough to have them all suffer intens Chinese tortures?

If you choose, as well over a billion people do today, to use the Bible's definition of morals...

I assume that as a Christian you support all of these laws?

You assume too much. I'm an atheist, and this has nothing to do with supporting them or not. But if I had then it would make my position as a Christian debatable.

By the way, the Bible also implies at one point that pi equals three.

You assume too much. I'm an atheist, and this has nothing to do with supporting them or not. But if I had then it would make my position as a Christian debatable.

By the way, the Bible also implies at one point that pi equals three.

I apologise. I wish pi did equal three, it'd be much easier to remember.

I apologise. I wish pi did equal three, it'd be much easier to remember.

Well, it would mean it would be possible to remember :)

I once read something that sexual preferance works like this:

There are two types of systems, one that prefents you from being attracted to males and one that prefents you from being attracted to females. These systems begain to evolve when genders first apeared in species as some primitive species with genders are all bisexual.

If you have none of these systems you're bisexual.

If you have the one that prevents you from falling in love with males and you are male you are heterosexual.
If you have the one that prevents you from falling in love with males and you are female you are homosexual.

If you have the one that prevents you from falling in love with females and you are female you are heterosexual.
If you have the one that prevents you from falling in love with males and you are female you are homosexual.

These system's apearantly are not equally distrubuted amongst men and women by the laws of evolution since there are a lot more heterosexual people than non heterosexual. Also these systems most regulate something more since homosexual males have a lot of the time traits there are often found in females and vice versa.

I can not say I'm absolutely sure, I read this a long time ago and don't know the credibilty of the sources.

I'm pointing out a simple logical conclusion of mine.

Which is complete bollocks, as Christians regard many of the things in the Bible not not to be sins and still manage to be Christians. Again - they could not care less that you would like to think yourself as being in any position to state who can and cannot be a Christian.

Surely I'm not required to be a judge to say that two plus two makes four?

But you need to be apparently lacking in logic to think that was not a false and flawed analogy.

I once read something that sexual preferance works like this:

There are two types of systems, one that prefents you from being attracted to males and one that prefents you from being attracted to females. These systems begain to evolve when genders first apeared in species as some primitive species with genders are all bisexual.

If you have none of these systems you're bisexual.

If you have the one that prevents you from falling in love with males and you are male you are heterosexual.
If you have the one that prevents you from falling in love with males and you are female you are homosexual.

If you have the one that prevents you from falling in love with females and you are female you are heterosexual.
If you have the one that prevents you from falling in love with males and you are female you are homosexual.



What if you have both? Does ithat make you asexual?

Because being gay is just simply better. The people who claim it's a choice know that. That's why it threatens them so.
How can homosexuality possibly be 'better' or worse than heterosexuality? I'm sure most heterosxuals enjoy being straight as much as you enjoy being gay.

Eh, what makes you assume I assume people are Christians? :confused:
Because you were the first poster to bring up that religion.

But you need to be apparently lacking in logic to think that was not a false and flawed analogy.

You mean I have to appear like I lack logic? That's not so hard...

But seriously, I was just saying that it makes sense that you're only considered Christian if you believe the Bible of its entirety, not just parts. Note, however, I said believe not obey. Some people know it's a bad idea and still drink. Some people think their doctors are idiots and alcohol's good for their liver and drink.

Also, we should leave who cares how much about what who thinks out of this. I'd like to think that for reality our opinions are quite irrelevant.

How can homosexuality possibly be 'better' or worse than heterosexuality? I'm sure most heterosxuals enjoy being straight as much as you enjoy being gay.

As I said, they'd have nothing to be worried about if homosexuality wasn't better. It however seems to be.

If more people were gay, there would be less global overpopulation, and the world would consequently be a better place. Having more gays implies a better world, suggesting that being gay is better. :)

That "systems" malarky seems to be a rather artifical and convoluted way of approaching sexuality.

The best reason I've come across for homosexuality is that its a response to overpopulation in society.

Where are the statistics for that? (the huddled masses scream)

Well, there is an ok article about the merits and uses of various biological arguments for homosexuality in "Saints or Sinners: Sociobiological Theories of Male Homosexuality" in January 2000's International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies. This in turn refers to some studies in: Ruse, M. (1981). Are there gay genes? Sociobiology and homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 6,
5–34.

So nya!