NationStates Jolt Archive

If you are not sexually active then you don't have a bloody sexual preference.

Wait, so because I'm choosing to be celibate for the time being, I've stopped being attracted to sexy guys, or alternatively have suddenly started being equally attracted to hot girls? That's news to me! Out of curiosity, does this also apply to other things in life? For example, if I'm not currently eating dinner, does that mean I now consider White Castle hamburgers and high-quality sushi to be equally appetizing? Because, y'know, I'm pretty sure I don't...

It's not biological, because if it were you would not exist.

What does this sentence even mean? I am utterly baffled.

Is that proven? Why has homosexuality increased over the last 200 years?

200 years ago, there wasn't a social dialogue dictating homosexuallity as aberrant behavior. It existed, and has existed for centuries.

So, the only reason why homosexuals are "looked down upon" by some people, is because someone decided to sit around an analyse it, and contain it as a social abnormal. If no one did that, no one would care whether or not to had sex with someone of the same gender or not.

I'm a lesbian in a man's body.
My wife isn't complaining.

Being gay or straight is a sexuality. If you are not sexually active then you don't have a bloody sexual preference.

Celibate people don't have a sexual orientation, then? They aren't attracted to males, females, both, or neither?

You have to actually have sex to have a sexuality? If that's the case, how does anyone choose a partner to first have sex with?

Chimps can have gay sex because they're not intelligent beings.

You claim to have studied psychology and then make this bogus claim?

It's not biological, because if it were you would not exist. If that trait were to come up from that theory you gave me. It would be an astronomically low percentage. But it is quite funny you compare yourself to a chimp.

This is incomprehensible.

There is nothing in biology that precludes the possibility of any sexuality.


What does intelligence have to do with sexuality???

Isn't it obvious? If you are intelligent, you'll have sex with the people Bul-Katho tells you to, not with the people you are actually sexually attracted to.

I'm a lesbian in a man's body.
My wife isn't complaining.

You are transgendered?

I've been studying psychology for a while now. And it is quite normal for young kids having crushes on both females and males. It is not something strange or uncommon. Being gay or straight is a sexuality. If you are not sexually active then you don't have a bloody sexual preference.

So a celibate is neither straight or gay?

I call BS on your "studying" psychology.


Chimps can have gay sex because they're not intelligent beings.

:D Opps. Guess you were sleeping during the lecture.


There is no proof we evolved from a certain type of chimp. It's like saying fat people evolved from apes, and white people evolved from chimps and black people evolved from spider monkeys.

Never studied biology or anthropology did you?


It's not biological, because if it were you would not exist.

:rolleyes:

How old are you?

If that trait were to come up from that theory you gave me. It would be an astronomically low percentage. But it is quite funny you compare yourself to a chimp.

Why? So far you have shown the chimp to be smarter.

Studied psychology. Righhhht.

What does intelligence have to do with sexuality???


Ahmmmm?

Jack Rabbit sex versus sex?

Ahmmmm?

Jack Rabbit sex versus sex?

Or Jack Chick maybe?

Or Jack Chick maybe?

Blackleaf! NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

She. Of course she is.


Oh, pardon me. I'm still all that thing that I said I was...And a girl too (for now)...With big boobs!

Celibacy has nothing to do with sex drive or sexual orientation. Celibacy can be circumstantial (lack of opportunity), intentional (willpower), or 'innate' (no desire.)

Biology. The most accurate scientific statement, I think, goes something like this:

The sources of homosexuality for any individual person may be unique; there seems to be no universal cause or set of causes. However, for most people, while genetic predisposition MAY play a part, gestational biology ALMOST ALWAYS plays a part -- the levels of various androgens (testosterone, estradiol, estrogen) in the mother's body while she is pregnant at various times during the pregnancy are the best candidates for "causative factors" that can be identified objectively.

Sexuality is the actual self-expression of an individual, and may or may not be fixed over time, e.g. "Has your sexuality in the past twelve months differed significantly from your sexuality in your early twenties?" Sexual orientation, in contrast, is an emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. Culturally, we think of sexual orientation as somewhat fixed after adolescence, but that may be a normative bias.

While you might argue that at age seven, it is too early to have an enduring sexual orientation, it's not too early to be erotically or affectively aware. While you may dismiss that awareness with terms such as "crush", the fact of the dismissal indicates your recognition of that awareness.

What is certain is that people can have a sexual orientation without ever having sex.

Homosexuality as a normative concept wasn't invented until the nineteenth century. Before then, most social norms related to male-male sex were concerned with status -- a slave owner shouldn't be found being penetrated by a slave just as a conquering Viking, or pirate, or burgher, etc, should not be found being penetrated by someone of lower status.

Just as today, the quarterback -- hey, the whole football team -- can get regular oral sex from a "faggot" without too much loss of social credit, but if found as the receiver of anal sex, he's "got a lot of 'splainin' to do."

As for non-procreative sex, I will give 20-1 odds in favor of recreational sex, despite the injunctions of holy books and soi-disant holy men. I prefer sex to be friendly rather than anonymous, but that's just my take....

Demographics from South Carolina:
State of South Carolina
Total population 4,012,012 Rank: 26th
Percent of people in same-sex couples 0.38% Rank: 26th
Total same-sex couples 7,609 Rank: 26th
Percent of male couples 0.42% Rank: 27th
Percent of female couples 0.47% Rank: 25th
Middle of pack.
But my town is way low. It says there are only 23 gay/lesbian couples in my town. Population is 17,000

your town as a gay registry? what happens if a lesbian couple neglects to register? do they get run out of town?

i know youre 14, but GEEZ give it some thought. there is no way those same-sex-couples numbers can be in any way accurate. besides, same sex couples isnt the same as number of gay/lesbian/bisexual people.

instead of replying to one particular person i'm just making a general post obn this subject.

the first thing i want to say is, i'm tired of people who psychology thinking they are real scienctist. its a very interesting subject but its still just an art subject that happends to be logical.

reasons for being gay.

1/ for some people its more practical. as in, some men find that cannot find women who are not equally intelligent. some people have had bad experiences with the opposite sex, or something in thier childhood influenced them; like, overly protective mother or constant rejection. (in this area psychology is usefull).

2/ most men are automaticallt attracted to most women because of smell. women produce a certain smell that we dont notice but we still react to it. the same goes for women, they pick up a certain smell only produce by men.
some gay men, by false of thier genes, are attracked to the wrong smell, hence they are forced to be gay. (biology usefull here).

final rant.

i am not gay, alos i have nothing against gay people other than i dont like being talked to when i'm going to the toliet. i'm not there to make friends. too many bad experiences on that subject.
i appologise for not explaining somethings correctly. i'm not "spell it" guy or grammer man.

Why be gay/lesbian? Just why? Where i live its very looked down upon i have no idea why you would wanna do your same sex! I mean guys especially walking around wiht a stick up your butt after sex. Come on!! You cant have kids with your partner, no family... i need answers.. and a dictionary so i can spell:p ...

It's biological. There's no other explanation. How else can you explain a guy being turned on my hairy man ass?

Or Jack Chick maybe?

All hail the prophet of Jack Chick! For Jack alone did penance for our sins, that we might rest eternally in the pencil holder of the NOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBBBBBBBBB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the first thing i want to say is, i'm tired of people who psychology thinking they are real scienctist. its a very interesting subject but its still just an art subject that happends to be logical.


Psychology is a science, not an art. It's usually taught as a social science at the high school level, but that's because of lack of funding for lab activities for it, not because it isn't a science.

Psychology is a comparatively new field of science, but a science nonetheless. Psychologists perform experiments and use the scientific method.

How is psychology not a science?

How is psychology not a science?

simple. it is mostly theory and interpertation and not maths. even though in psychology a bit of science is studied, but still not all of it. i like to think it is a combination of arts and science.
i studied both psychology computers, and physics in collage. i did psychology because compared to physics its childs play.

simple. it is mostly theory and interpertation and not maths. even though in psychology a bit of science is studied, but still not all of it. i like to think it is a combination of arts and science.
i studied both psychology computers, and physics in collage. i did psychology because compared to physics its childs play.

Actually, psychology consists to a large extend of simple statistics, which if I recall correctly happens to be a subform of mathematics.

simple. it is mostly theory and interpertation and not maths. even though in psychology a bit of science is studied, but still not all of it. i like to think it is a combination of arts and science.
i studied both psychology computers, and physics in collage. i did psychology because compared to physics its childs play.

But weren't other sciences, like physics and chemistry, mostly theoretical when they were in their infancy? Psychology is still a young field, and a lot of it is theoretical, but it is a science, as psychologists test their ideas with experiments.

It does have some mathematics involved, mostly statistics and dealing with data. I can sort of see what you mean, but I'm pretty sure it's generally considered a science, anyway.

even though in psychology a bit of science is studied, but still not all of it. i like to think it is a combination of arts and science.



i shouldnt have to repeat myself. there is maths and science involved. but its still most just decusion based. like freud stuff(which i hate).

also physics was origionally called phillosophy. then it became widely accepted.

i shouldnt have to repeat myself. there is maths and science involved. but its still most just decusion based. like freud stuff(which i hate).

also physics was origionally called phillosophy. then it became widely accepted.

So... history and archeaology would be what in your book? Art, I assume, as there's so much room for interpretation?

So... history and archeaology would be what in your book? Art, I assume, as there's so much room for interpretation?

why wouldnt it be in art?

why wouldnt it be in art?

Because it's exploring the facts of human past?

i shouldnt have to repeat myself. there is maths and science involved. but its still most just decusion based. like freud stuff(which i hate).

also physics was origionally called phillosophy. then it became widely accepted.

Freud was from the psychoanalytic branch of psychology though. I think many psychologists today reject most of his ideas.

There are a lot of different approaches to psychology. Would you consider some approaches more scientific than others, or would you consider all approaches arts with some science mixed in? (e.g. is biological psychology more scientific than other branches? etc.)

Because it's exploring the facts of human past?


i wouldnt call history a science. the past is based on who ever taught you history. like the holocaust. did it or didnt happen, depends how much of a wierdo your teacher is. cant remember who said this, something like, "he who controls the past controls the present."

Freud was from the psychoanalytic branch of psychology though. I think many psychologists today reject most of his ideas.

There are a lot of different approaches to psychology. Would you consider some approaches more scientific than others, or would you consider all approaches arts with some science mixed in? (e.g. is biological psychology more scientific than other branches? etc.)

how many times do i have to type this!!! there is science involved but not all of it.
i hate freud.

i wouldnt call history a science. the past is based on who ever taught you history. like the holocaust. did it or didnt happen, depends how much of a wierdo your teacher is. cant remember who said this, something like, "he who controls the past controls the present."

I'm guessing George Orwell in 1984.
Aside from that, exploring facts belongs to the field of science in my understanding. Just because you might have a biology teacher who decides to teach you creationsim instead of evolution doesn't make biology a religious art, either.

I'm guessing George Orwell in 1984.
Aside from that, exploring facts belongs to the field of science in my understanding. Just because you might have a biology teacher who decides to teach you creationsim instead of evolution doesn't make biology a religious art, either.

acceptable point.

anyone who doesnt belive in evolution ,shouldnt be allowed to vote.

simple. it is mostly theory and interpertation and not maths.

LOL. This means that most biology isn't science, since it's mostly theory and interpretation of data - not math. True mathematical rigor is actually a relatively new thing in the biological sciences.

i studied both psychology computers, and physics in collage. i did psychology because compared to physics its childs play.

LOL! Physics is the most theoretical and interpretative branch of science right now. The theory has gone so far beyond what can actually be empirically measured at this point that it is practically philosophy and pure mathematics, with little data to back it up.


But weren't other sciences, like physics and chemistry, mostly theoretical when they were in their infancy?

Much of chemistry still is. There's a lot of "hand-waving" once you start talking about what happens on the molecular level.


i shouldnt have to repeat myself. there is maths and science involved. but its still most just decusion based. like freud stuff(which i hate).

You do realize that tht field of psychology has moved well beyond Frued, right?

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;11720789]LOL. This means that most biology isn't science, since it's mostly theory and interpretation of data - not math.QUOTE]


alot of people dont consider biology a science. physics is the purest of sciences.

i didnt want to quote everything you said. to debate wether physics is mostly theoreticall or proven is along and horrible decusion that doesnt go anywhere. physics/maths is the best way to get the truth of soemthing or prove something. but you can use physics to prove that you cant deffinetly prove something.

i was using freud as an example. stop putting words in my mouth.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;11720789]LOL. This means that most biology isn't science, since it's mostly theory and interpretation of data - not math.QUOTE]


alot of people dont consider biology a science. physics is the purest of sciences.

i didnt want to quote everything you said. to debate wether physics is mostly theoreticall or proven is along and horrible decusion that doesnt go anywhere. physics/maths is the best way to get the truth of soemthing or prove something. but you can use physics to prove that you cant deffinetly prove something.

i was using freud as an example. stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm a scientist. I work in a science field (mainly Chemistry, but also fairly physics heavy). I've been working in the sciences on and off for about... 17 years? Not that this makes me an expert, or anything - but it does give me an idea of how the science world 'works', on matters of perception.

Biology is a science. Archeology is a science. Geology is a science. Psychology is a science. Physics is a science.

They are not all 'equal'... but they all operate on the Scientific Method, and they deal with understanding the implications of data.

'Art', on the other hand, need not apply the Scientific Method, and deals primarily with the explication of experience.

Regarding the 'proven' versus 'theory' thing... it is worth bearing in mind that science truly lacks the capacity to do much 'proving' of anything. We speak in tones of authority, but when it comes down to it, we shouldn't be afraid to admit that molecular format, gravity, evolution, etc... are all just our 'best guesses', based on the available evidence.

Why be gay/lesbian? Just why? Where i live its very looked down upon i have no idea why you would wanna do your same sex! I mean guys especially walking around wiht a stick up your butt after sex. Come on!! You cant have kids with your partner, no family... i need answers.. and a dictionary so i can spell:p ...

I think they do it because they want attention.

No
It says in the new testament somewhere that you can eat "unclean meat" anyway. And that rule applies to jews only.

For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

(Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

Are you calling Jesus a liar? Dude, his dad is so going to kick your ass for that. :eek:

alot of people dont consider biology a science.

And how do these people define "science" then? It must not have anything to do with the scientific method, so I'm curious now.

physics is the purest of sciences.

I've heard that. Of course, at present, it is also the one with the least amount of rigor - as the testing for most of it simply isn't possible yet.

physics/maths is the best way to get the truth of soemthing or prove something. but you can use physics to prove that you cant deffinetly prove something.

First of all, science never "proves" anything. It either disproves a hypothesis, or supports it by not doing so.

Second of all, math is wonderful. However, if it is not used in concert with empirical data, there is no reason whatsoever to believe it has anything at all to do with the physical world. We can write all sorts of pretty equations, but we need the empirical data to back them up before we can say that the math is related to science.

i was using freud as an example. stop putting words in my mouth.

And Freud is a bad example. Suggesting that Freud has much of aything to do with modern psychology when the vast majority of Freud's conclusions have been removed from it is silly.

Its fun.

I think it's not a choice, or something. Otherwise, I'd be totally bisexual! It looks fun...

I think it's not a choice, or something. Otherwise, I'd be totally bisexual! It looks fun...
If that were the case, I'd become Bri'ish and start converting girls.

For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

(Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

Are you calling Jesus a liar? Dude, his dad is so going to kick your ass for that. :eek:

Hm, "Matthew" - funny way to spell "Jesus".

Why be gay/lesbian? Just why? Where i live its very looked down upon i have no idea why you would wanna do your same sex! I mean guys especially walking around wiht a stick up your butt after sex. Come on!! You cant have kids with your partner, no family... i need answers.. and a dictionary so i can spell:p ...
I'm not sure which is more astounding: Your level of ignorance or your level of bigotry.
Either is breath-taking in it's stupidity and backwardness.
Tell me, how is the 19th Century? Enjoying it still? Looking forward to moving into the 20th any time soon?


Times like this I wish Fass were still around...

Times like this I wish Fass were still around...
I never thought I'd miss random pics of NN men...

View Post
Why be gay/lesbian? Just why? Where i live its very looked down upon i have no idea why you would wanna do your same sex! I mean guys especially walking around wiht a stick up your butt after sex. Come on!! You cant have kids with your partner, no family... i need answers.. and a dictionary so i can spell ...

Because then you can be fabulous.

'nuff said.

hmmm... why be gay?

As most of you are straight flip the question and ask yourself why be straigh/. Simple answer for most of you is simply... 'Because I am'

The way I explain it is that I did not choose to have a same sex attraction, I simply to chose to act on the same-sex attraction that is part of what makes me up and which I have known about from an early age.

We can have lives just as full and rewarding as straight persons when we are given the chance to do so. It is only no-nothing homophobes getting themselves worked up about anal sex that assume we chose the preference itself and religious bigots that believe we are evil, that prevent many gays and lesbians from living such lives.

This is an article that has good answers http://www.gfcbaltimore.org/GFC_Choice.htm

It may be that the answer could be found in another question: why do people have blonde hair? After all, there's plenty of hair dye out there that would correct the problem and make it so one would not stand out so much. Any number of answers would apply:

That's the way I was born
I don't see why I should change to make you feel more comfortable
I happen to like the way I am
I think it's cool
It distinguishes me from everyone else
I'm grateful that you don't like it because it means that I'm not like you

Anyway, the list could go on forever. The only time someone's sexual orientation is important is if you plan on sleeping with them. Other than that, there's plenty of other universal problems that would be more productive to address.

Why be gay/lesbian? Just why? Where i live its very looked down upon i have no idea why you would wanna do your same sex! I mean guys especially walking around wiht a stick up your butt after sex. Come on!! You cant have kids with your partner, no family... i need answers.. and a dictionary so i can spell:p ...

I dont know if I believe being a homosexual is biological or not--dont really care. I could go out and suck a dick if I wanted to, thats not biological its a choice. I choose not to, but if I did --feck you for putting your nose in my business.

If want to go and get banged out by some horse hung monster or spoon with Chuck the pizza guy its none of your damned business.

If a woman wants to see the sculpted beauty of another woman spreading out before her then by all means dive right in---no really by all means, just start slow.

...anyway

I am a born again Christian I buy into the whole Homosexuality is a sin, but so are a lot of things I do--I am human and I error and am forgiven, if someone is homosexual who am I or anyone else to judge them? No fecking one thats who. Speaking from the point of veiw that they dont believe the way I believe well then they have nothing to apologize for or to explain--they are happy and sexed--why would you want to take that from someone?

Regardless of personal beliefs its none of your business either way---

If you are speaking strictly from a "ewww thats gross" perspective---have more sex, the prospect of someone willing seeking to bring to orgasm is flattering I dont care what gender they are.

signed
I'd be gay if I didnt find men so damned ugly

Somebody track down Fass and force him to come back. And by force, I mean beg.

LOL! Physics is the most theoretical and interpretative branch of science right now. The theory has gone so far beyond what can actually be empirically measured at this point that it is practically philosophy and pure mathematics, with little data to back it up.?

Unbelievable.
You do understand that comparing mathematics to philosphy is singularly more asinine then the original post in this thread.
Suggesting that the foundation element in all science the one thing you are always taught to fall upon to ensure your concepts is the damned numbers.
Math is not subjective, it is not debatable, it is static, constant if the maths lines up it is considered as good as empirical evidence.

The supposition that math is somehow is a questionable arena for testing knowledge destroys every single scienetific concept ever made--- remove clearity of numbers and you have no consistancy in scientific reality.

Physics may be the most theoretical field in science but itis not theory when the maths makes a definative statement.

Slander any field you wish, they are all merely conjecture and supposition without mathemtics.

You get to claim unscientific reports about you as being censored.

also physics was origionally called phillosophy. then it became widely accepted.
I think you have physics confused with metaphysics.

Aside from that, exploring facts belongs to the field of science in my understanding. Just because you might have a biology teacher who decides to teach you creationsim instead of evolution doesn't make biology a religious art, either.
Science isn't just exploring the facts though, it's more learning about the natural world through trial and error, hypothesis and testing hypotheses. History is the study of human events in the past.

LOL! Physics is the most theoretical and interpretative branch of science right now. The theory has gone so far beyond what can actually be empirically measured at this point that it is practically philosophy and pure mathematics, with little data to back it up.
Uh... what the hell are you talking about? They're working on several tests for many theories in physics from testing general relativity to atomic theory to quantum mechanics. Psychology is far less objective than physics simply because well, how are you going to measure a person's thoughts exactly? You can do brain scans when they think of this or that, but you're not really sure what exactly they are getting out of it. It's still a scientific area of study, but it's up to more interpretation than physics.

Hm, "Matthew" - funny way to spell "Jesus".It's in Matthew, but it's attributed to Jesus. :p

While you could of course take the view that any gospel writers who quote Jesus need to be taken with a large pinch of salt, that's pretty heretical in relation to mainstream Christianity.

Because if you go down that road, the whole of the Bible becomes entirely a matter of interpretation by the individual. I'd personally be entirely in favour of that as an approach. But I suspect the OP wouldn't agree.

It's in Matthew, but it's attributed to Jesus. :p

While you could of course take the view that any gospel writers who quote Jesus need to be taken with a large pinch of salt, that's pretty heretical in relation to mainstream Christianity.

Because if you go down that road, the whole of the Bible becomes entirely a matter of interpretation by the individual. I'd personally be entirely in favour of that as an approach. But I suspect the OP wouldn't agree.

Not particularly. Some people take the New Testament with a grain of salt, and have more faith in the Old Testament...

And I don't just mean the Jews, some Christians, too...

Unbelievable.
You do understand that comparing mathematics to philosphy is singularly more asinine then the original post in this thread.

And apparently you do not understand that saying that physics has moved into the realms of philosohpy and pure mathematics does not make any type of comparison between philosophy and mathematics.

Suggesting that the foundation element in all science the one thing you are always taught to fall upon to ensure your concepts is the damned numbers.

Indeed. But those numbers must be based in empirical measurement to be useful in science. Outside of that, it's just math for the sake of math.

Math is not subjective, it is not debatable, it is static, constant if the maths lines up it is considered as good as empirical evidence.

No, it isn't. I could write all sorts of mathematical equations to describe something. However, if they are not based in empirical evidence, there isn't a single reason to believe the math at all describes reality. The problem with physics right now is it is either a lot of philosophical conjecture, or it is pure mathematics, without much (if any) empirical measurement to back it up. Without that empirical measurement, it is just math - it isn't science.


I think you have physics confused with metaphysics.

To be fair, the scientific method developed out of philosophy, so all science is based in philosophy to a point. However, that which does not use the scientific method is, quite simply put, not science.

Uh... what the hell are you talking about? They're working on several tests for many theories in physics from testing general relativity to atomic theory to quantum mechanics.

Yes, they are working on them. Meanwhile, the current progression of theories is not being tested - because they are still trying to figure out how to test them in the first place. A great deal of physics - right now - is based in pure mathematics, without the empirical evidence to guide it.

Biology, while it was not very mathematically rigorous until recently (and pure biology labs still often are not), was at least based in empirical evidence and testing, even if the results being reported were more qualitative, rather than quantitative.

Psychology is far less objective than physics simply because well, how are you going to measure a person's thoughts exactly?

I never claimed anything to the contrary. It is certainly possible to empirically test physics theories. The problem is that the theory has progressed so far beyond our current ability to test, that it is no longer based in empirical evidence.

Of course, all of psychology is not about "thoughts". When we talk about chemical imbalances in the brain that seem to cause symptoms such as clinical depression, we can measure those imbalances empirically. We don't need to measure "thoughts".

Uh... what the hell are you talking about? They're working on several tests for many theories in physics from testing general relativity to atomic theory to quantum mechanics. Psychology is far less objective than physics simply because well, how are you going to measure a person's thoughts exactly? You can do brain scans when they think of this or that, but you're not really sure what exactly they are getting out of it. It's still a scientific area of study, but it's up to more interpretation than physics.

Dark Matter? Neutrinoes? Black Body Phenomena? Entanglement? Quark interactions?

There are a mumber of cutting-edge fields of physics that may never be anything but best guesses. Indeed... it is usually best to consider ALL science as a 'best guess scenario'... because what is 'known' has been periodically overturned with an almost scary regularity.

Plus - built into the scientific method, is the assumption that our 'theory' is right - 'given the current data'. A theory should never be considered 'finished'. Just 'as good as we can make it, now'.

Not particularly. Some people take the New Testament with a grain of salt, and have more faith in the Old Testament...

And I don't just mean the Jews, some Christians, too...

What would be the point of that? The new covenant supercedes the old covenant. The New Testament is clearly more important for Chrisians.

Being gay or straight is a sexuality. If you are not sexually active then you don't have a bloody sexual preference.

Wow, somebody's never met a teenage virgin...I promise you, it is absolutely positively possible to have a sexual preference even if you've never gotten some. Indeed, one is never quite so sure of one's sexual preferences as when one is unable to indulge them. ;)


Chimps can have gay sex because they're not intelligent beings.

Chimps can have gay sex because it is possible for two chimps of the same gender to engage in sexual acts together. Sex, homosexual or otherwise, does not require intelligence.


There is no proof we evolved from a certain type of chimp. It's like saying fat people evolved from apes, and white people evolved from chimps and black people evolved from spider monkeys.

Indeed, there is "proof" that we didn't "evolve from" chimps at all. That's not how evolution works. Read a book.


It's not biological, because if it were you would not exist.

Oy. The number of things wrong in this single sentence is impressive. Again, read a freaking book. It's ok to be wrong, and it's ok to be ignorant, but please don't walk around being proud of yourself for either one.

Wow, somebody's never met a teenage virgin...I promise you, it is absolutely positively possible to have a sexual preference even if you've never gotten some. Indeed, one is never quite so sure of one's sexual preferences as when one is unable to indulge them. ;)


Chimps can have gay sex because it is possible for two chimps of the same gender to engage in sexual acts together. Sex, homosexual or otherwise, does not require intelligence.


Indeed, there is "proof" that we didn't "evolve from" chimps at all. That's not how evolution works. Read a book.


Oy. The number of things wrong in this single sentence is impressive. Again, read a freaking book. It's ok to be wrong, and it's ok to be ignorant, but please don't walk around being proud of yourself for either one.

Bottle to the rescue once again.

Did I ever tell you how much I love you?


...


Platonically, of course. I don't swing your way ;)

Because if you go down that road, the whole of the Bible becomes entirely a matter of interpretation by the individual.
It is already entirely a matter of interpretation by inidividuals.

Just because some of the individuals have formed gangs (churches) and are using threats of damnation to enforce their interpretation (and extort "donations") doesn't get us past the "one person, one interpretation" point.

Of course, no amount of spin and glossing can overcome the internal conflicts in the bible ... tsk, tragic flaw.

Conclusion: the bible is a mess, with ten tons of baggage attached, mostly not worth the effort; you'd be better off basing a religion on Bacon's essays, American Gods, the Books of Bokonon, or Grey's Anatomy..