Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 119

Thread: homosexuality and christianity

  1. #1 homosexuality and christianity 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    http://omg.yahoo.com/news/perez-hilt...crown/21528?nc

    why should she lose her crown for being honest? obviously the gay community needs to grow up a lot.

    they are wrong and can never be legitimized. sin is sin and one cannot consider themselves a christian if they are practicing homosexuality.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Pretty sure Jesus had nothing to say about being gay. Yes, yes, I know the OT does, but if you follow that book you've got reasons to kill people for a wide range of topics including simply soliciting a family member to another faith-a model of intolerance akin to what we're fighting in Afghanistan.


    The whole idea our our nation is religion shouldn't need the authority of the government to enforce it's belief system.

    From the gay's perspective her comments represented that intolerant view, making her just another pasty beauty with an ugly personality.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: homoseuality and christianity 
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    they are wrong and can never be legitimized.
    Certainly not as long as you hold to your bigotry.

    Do you also believe that darker-skinned people are savages?

    That women can be beaten by their husbands as long as the rod is no thicker than his thumb?

    I do not care what your book says - think for yourself and stop taking instructions from a bunch of guys who thought women were sub-human, non-Israelites were sub-human and homosexuals were spawns of the devil. Join the real world mate - dump the bigotry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    he can't. it's ingrained into him so deeply he will probably stone a gay man and offer his daughter to a mob just to appease to his god.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Homosexuals are born that way. It is the same as saying that blacks can't get married. Asians can't get married. People who are bipolar can't get married etc.
    Sexuality is not a choice.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Homosexuals are born that way. It is the same as saying that blacks can't get married. Asians can't get married. People who are bipolar can't get married etc.
    Sexuality is not a choice.
    hahahahaha they were born that way lol. Homosexuality is WRONG! do you honestly think this sex is natural? homosexuality exist only in homosapiens(humans) and does not exist in any other branch in the animal kindom. Convince me why being gay is right and natural. However this does not mean I am going to take a spear and hunt them down .

    Being racist is different from being homo. they toutured black people, killed black people, used them as slaves and raped them. To compare racist to being gay is ubsurd and shows how foolish and blind you are.
    If homos are born that way explain to me why there is bi-sexual, where one can choose to have sex with a male or female?
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    hahahahaha they were born that way lol. Homosexuality is WRONG! do you honestly think this sex is natural? homosexuality exist only in homosapiens(humans) and does not exist in any other branch in the animal kindom.
    If you've ever had a dog hump your leg or attempt to mount another dog (not a bitch), you'll have figured out that homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom. I'm not even going to bother getting into chapter and verse on this one becuase:

    1. You have obviously not even looked around you;
    2. I feel a "No true Scotsman" argument coming on where you define homosexuality to such an extent it can only apply to humans and then emerge triumphant in your bigotry.

    For what it's worth, amongst earthworms, given they're all the same sex (hermaphroditic) there is ONLY homosexual contact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    do you honestly think this sex is natural?
    Homosexuality in animals
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
    Its a good article. You can't get more natural than ANIMALS having homosexual sex with each other.

    homosexuality exist only in homosapiens(humans)
    Really? Wow, you certainly havn't done your research. Here, let me help you out.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...gayanimal.html
    http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
    http://www.thethinkingblog.com/2008/...uality-in.html
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/
    http://www.subversions.com/french/pa...e/animals.html

    So... where is your information to back you up?

    and does not exist in any other branch in the animal kindom.
    And I just proved you wrong.

    Convince me why being gay is right and natural.
    Its a natural course of action for a biological entity to partake in homosexuality when the species as a whole becomes larger. If someone is born being attracted to the same sex and NOT attracted to the opposite sex, do they really have a choice of who they are attracted too? If a man is attracted to fat chicks and is not attracted to skinny chicks, do they really have a choice of who they are attracted too? Same for homosexuals.

    However this does not mean I am going to take a spear and hunt them down
    I'll agree with this.

    they toutured black people,
    http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/landman.htm

    killed black people
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

    used them as slaves
    Ok, I have yet to know a homosexual used as a slave.

    raped them
    Wouldn't that be counter productive? (To rape homosexuals I mean)

    But you missed the point entirely. I am not calling you a racist. No sir, no sir. I am saying that blacks were BORN black. Asians were BORN asians. Homosexuals were *gasp* BORN homosexual. It isn't about racism or prejudice with my remark. I am simply stating that each of those groups were born that way. However, what you are doing IS considered bigotry.

    Bigotry
    stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
    To compare racist to being gay is upsurd and shows how foolish and blind you are.
    Im not comparing racism to being gay. However, you are arguing a mark that I am not even arguing about.. Straw man much?

    If homos are born that way explain to me why there is bi-sexual, where one can choose to have sex with a male or female?
    Its not black and white? Don't you know anything? It is in a scale of how attracted you are to a certain sex. 0-10. 0 is being fully attracted to women while 10 is being fully attracted to men. Rarely do you find someone who is equally attracted to both (which would be a 5). The majority of bi-sexual people usually have a preference. (leaning them toward 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7)
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Judgment is also sin Brothers
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    I am SO glad I lurked on this sub-forum for a while and although this might be stealing Mckain's thunder, here we go...

    http://www.queerbychoice.com/

    This is a website run by homosexuals who claim they made chose to become homosexual and are proud of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Appeal to Authority. Simply because a website proclaims they had a choice does not mean they do.

    No matter how hard I try, I can NOT find myself attracted to obese women or other guys. My unit would never perform in those conditions and I will not be turned on by those type of people. It's simply not possible for me to be turned on by them. Thus, it is not a choice that I am straight and not gay.
    Same applies to homosexuals.
    Homosexuals (not bisexuals) cant find themselves attracted to the opposite sex just like I can not find myself attracted to the same sex. How is that a CHOICE?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    I am a moderate on this issue where there are very few moderates, but only a no man's land between extremists.

    On the one hand I rejoice in the diversity of human thought and practice that will give me homosexual neighbors and family members to whom I can be a friend and supporter. On the other hand I will not share this belief that SOME of them have in the prenatal determination of sexual preference. On the one hand I think that they have every right to expect the same recognition and considerations as other couples in dealing with such institutions as hospitals. On the other hand I do not think they have the right to rewrite every book ever written to change the meaning of the word "marriage" to suit themselves, but the meaning of the word "family" is quite a different matter. On the one hand, (and I laugh at the liberals who balk at this) I fully support the efforts of homosexual couples to adopt children and particularly oppose the intrusion of politics and policy in decisions which MUST put the best interests of the child first in such decisions about adoption by those directly involved and who know the child and the prospective parents. On the other hand, homosexuality is an ACTIVITY and like any other activity including every religion, its freedoms must be under the SAME sort of guidelines and limitations, requiring it to establish that does no harm or infringe on the same rights of others, and acknowledging that there are places and circumstances where it is not appropriate. In other words, this falls under freedom of religion and it must be treated on an absolutely equal basis with religion. If public school teachers can talk about gay rights beliefs then they can talk about religious beliefs and vice versa. If students can have gay rights clubs then they can have Bible clubs too and vice versa.


    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed
    I am SO glad I lurked on this sub-forum for a while and although this might be stealing Mckain's thunder, here we go...

    http://www.queerbychoice.com/

    This is a website run by homosexuals who claim they made chose to become homosexual and are proud of it.
    I think what KomradRed is refering to is that I also have links to queerbychoice.com in my posts in this forum. I certainly agree with archie that a great deal of the intolerance is on the side of the liberals who will use whatever power they they get their hands on to force their beliefs on others. I think they are so inhumanly intolerant that they would in a manner as brutal as the Aztecs performing human sacrifices to their gods, sacrifice children to their ridgid inhuman ideology built for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to serve their own egos.

    The gay rights fanatics are so self centered that rather than fight for their rights on their own two feet they will cater to the homophobes and bigots in telling a boy that looks at a doll that he must be gay and deprive him of all choice to love whom they choose. They are so cowardly that rather than stand up for their own choices they will cater to the homophobes and bigots in telling a child that it is all about the uncontrollable biological urges rather than love, until we cannot tell the difference between romance and the compulsions of a child molestor. They have made such a habit of whining that their life is so miserable that no one could possibly choose it, that they have become blind to how they cater to those who see homosexuality as a disease and would look for a cure. They have become such irrational ideologs and intolerant bigots that they will cry "homophobe" in the same manner that Islamic fundamentalists cry "infidels" at anyone who dares to question the truth of their imbecilic dogmas and given half a chance they will reshape this country into a theocracy based on those irrational ideas.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    "Appeal to Authority. Simply because a website proclaims they had a choice does not mean they do.

    No matter how hard I try, I can NOT find myself attracted to obese women or other guys. My unit would never perform in those conditions and I will not be turned on by those type of people. It's simply not possible for me to be turned on by them. Thus, it is not a choice that I am straight and not gay.
    Same applies to homosexuals.
    Homosexuals (not bisexuals) cant find themselves attracted to the opposite sex just like I can not find myself attracted to the same sex. How is that a CHOICE?"

    Although you probably did not know what I was talking about in referring to Mckain, indeed he has linked to it before and it is an interesting site, did you even peruse the site Verzen? Why did you disregard my post so flippantly? They make the claim they had a choice and chose to be gay, yet you say they cant because you cannot?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Ha well as the resident homosexual of the science forum, I have to agree with Archeologist that Christianity as practiced by most people is incompatible with homosexuality.

    I agree somewhat with Mitchell's views on homosexuality, but I think he is approaching the issue with too narrow a perspective.

    I echo the sentiment of Simone de Beauvoir "One is not born a woman, one becomes a woman". One is not born a homosexual, but one becomes a homosexual. How one defines oneself as a homosexual within the constraints of biological urges is a creation of our own perceptions of sexual normativity. I agree there are pressures within this society that push people who have natural inclinations to behave in certain ways to conform to social roles that are not necessarily the natural choice for them. Now I think it's ridiculous to claim anyone would say a boy playing with dolls must be gay, psychologist used to claim that sexual role non-conformity in childhood was a predictor of homosexuality later on, but I think that idea has largely become obsolete.

    Homosexuality is not a choice, and now Verzen and I have had many arguments over the biological factors, I being a stronger believer in epigenetic factors rather than genetic predeterminism. Whether one becomes a homosexual from environmental factors or if it is decided from birth has no baring on the matter of it being a choice. It does however provide the possibility that there are ways to avoid homosexuality developing, studies conducted by the APA have shown that they can find no correlatives in parenting behavior though.

    I am a supporter of the kin selection theory for the development of homosexuality, I think it provides the best answer and is the most logical.

    Edit: Also, I'd like to point out that the article is about it being Perez Hilton's opinion (I don't think a celebrity gossip blogger represents the "gay community" anyway) that she did not win the pageant because of her answer. I don't think there's any controversy in expressing the opinion that judges are unlikely to a pick a miss America who gets booed by a crowd during the pageant. Or maybe she lost because she wasn't as pretty as the winner...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Certainly not as long as you hold to your bigotry.
    false accusation and charging someone with bigotry is intolerance and wrong when there is none present.

    Homosexuals are born that way.
    wrong. people who advocate that idea are just looking for an excuse to avoid the responsibility of making a choice.

    If you've ever had a dog hump your leg or attempt to mount another dog (not a bitch), you'll have figured out that homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom
    wrong. see immediately above.

    Its a natural course of action for a biological entity to partake in homosexuality when the species as a whole becomes larger
    disagree

    I certainly agree with archie that a great deal of the intolerance is on the side of the liberals who will use whatever power they they get their hands on to force their beliefs on others.
    agree for the most part.

    The gay rights fanatics are so self centered that rather than fight for their rights on their own two feet they will cater to the homophobes and bigots in telling a boy that looks at a doll that he must be gay and deprive him of all choice to love whom they choose. They are so cowardly that rather than stand up for their own choices they will cater to the homophobes and bigots in telling a child that it is all about the uncontrollable biological urges rather than love, until we cannot tell the difference between romance and the compulsions of a child molestor. They have made such a habit of whining that their life is so miserable that no one could possibly choose it, that they have become blind to how they cater to those who see homosexuality as a disease and would look for a cure. They have become such irrational ideologs and intolerant bigots that they will cry "homophobe" in the same manner that Islamic fundamentalists cry "infidels" at anyone who dares to question the truth of their imbecilic dogmas and given half a chance they will reshape this country into a theocracy based on those irrational ideas.
    agree for the most part.

    missed this:

    Pretty sure Jesus had nothing to say about being gay
    actually He never changed the Old Testament nor anythign abouthomosexuality. though he may not have used the exact same words, i am sure you will find His words on the subject.

    http://www.hopetriumphant.com/Jesus_...osexuality.htm

    this is the best i could find at the moment.

    Homosexuality is not a choice
    actually it is or God would not be able to put a penalty upon it and say it was an abomination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    God said shellfish was an abomination too..
    Do you eat crab, lobster, or oisters?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    though he may not have used the exact same words, i am sure you will find His words on the subject.

    http://www.hopetriumphant.com/Jesus_...osexuality.htm

    this is the best i could find at the moment.

    Homosexuality is not a choice
    actually it is or God would not be able to put a penalty upon it and say it was an abomination.
    And they aren't too convincing. Even if you take Jesus words on face value his context is very clear--he's referring to S & G's lack of hospitality, not the sexuality of the culture. Even with respect to their sexual culture, much of the OT story emphases the sexual proclivities of two daughters which is clearly more about heterosexual orgies than homosexual sex. He not only didn't comment on homosexuality but it's only an interpretation based on a pretty weak argument that he even meant to condemn it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    God said shellfish was an abomination too..
    Do you eat crab, lobster, or oisters
    way off topic.

    Even if you take Jesus words on face value his context is very clear--he's referring to S & G's lack of hospitality, not the sexuality of the culture
    most homosexual supporters pick and choose which verses they will accept and lack of hospitality was NOT the only reason. stop trying to sugar coat the issue. Paul also made it clear that homosexuality is wrong.

    Even with respect to their sexual culture, much of the OT story emphases the sexual proclivities of two daughters which is clearly more about heterosexual orgies than homosexual sex.
    ???i think you are confused and trying to confuse the issue.

    He not only didn't comment on homosexuality but it's only an interpretation based on a pretty weak argument that he even meant to condemn it.
    wishful thinking on the part of the homosexual who are trying to read into scripture what is not there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Why not attempt to come up with a reason for it to be wrong other than some book says it is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Why not attempt to come up with a reason for it to be wrong other than some book says it is.
    Wishfull thinking. He'd have to think for himself then. Can't have that, it might be risky trying to use dead portions of his brain. He might stop breathing.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Certainly not as long as you hold to your bigotry.
    false accusation and charging someone with bigotry is intolerance and wrong when there is none present.
    From wiki:

    "A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable."

    If the cap fits, and it does - I'll call it a duck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    From wiki:
    that source is not credible nor is it an authority. but it is clear that you want to think that what God has said is a sin and an abomination is okay. it isn't.

    God has the final word on all matters.

    Why not attempt to come up with a reason for it to be wrong other than some book says it is
    a reason found in the Bible is not disqualified because it is a book. it is more than that, it is the words of God to help you find salvation, who God is and why you are here.

    it woul dbe best to stop listening to those secular scientists who could careless if you live or die,let alone know you exist, and listen to God who does care and does know you exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    From wiki:
    that source is not credible nor is it an authority. but it is clear that you want to think that what God has said is a sin and an abomination is okay. it isn't.

    God has the final word on all matters.
    If god existed, with the characteristics you propound for it, I would call it bigoted too - prejudiced against those unlike it, and sticking to the prejudice in the face of evidence.

    Bigot!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    to verzen


    hold up, because a dog humping a males leg, perhaps, this could be a sign of homo but to me not!. if you had a pet (dog in my case) the dog would snif the dog (female) and always female ass then hump her.

    Finally, you evidence of showing that homo exist in other animal kindom apart from humans is absolutely bullsh*. and to say one is determined by their sexuallity from a range of 0-9 is well laughable. bi-sexual choose what sexual partner the sleep with, hence they choose to pratice this so called natual act.

    I will never accept homosexuallity as a sexuallity you are born with, IT A CHOICE.
    Let say, you were to take a test to determine your sexuality and you scored from 0-9, a score of 7. Would you agree with the test; gay or not? however, this does not mean i wil hunt them down. It's just my veiw about them and I will never change this view. Any human can force an animal or train an animal to perform a sexual act. For example, I watched a humourous video of a dog masterbating , funny yes, but was most likely trained.
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    God's Servant, your personal incredulity has no bearing upon the abundantly documented instances of homosexuality across the animal kingdom. Everything from crabs to coyotes is in on the act. Your distaste for it does not alter how commonplace it is. Your conviction that it is always a choice is not borne out by either observation or research. Bury your head in the sand, or try something novel - accept the facts, no matter how unpalatable to to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Tsk, tsk... If only people would look at the facts instead of using their biased personal incredulity...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    From wiki:
    that source is not credible nor is it an authority. but it is clear that you want to think that what God has said is a sin and an abomination is okay. it isn't.

    God has the final word on all matters.
    If god existed, with the characteristics you propound for it, I would call it bigoted too - prejudiced against those unlike it, and sticking to the prejudice in the face of evidence.

    Bigot!
    yes..yes..yess, you think God is bigot, perhaps, genocidal maniac as GIAM would say. At the end of the day , it's you veiw about christian, most likely derived from OT which assert your veiw of christians as if atheist or sceintist with you veiws ever had a moral veiw .
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    God's Servant, your personal incredulity has no bearing upon the abundantly documented instances of homosexuality across the animal kingdom. Everything from crabs to coyotes is in on the act. Your distaste for it does not alter how commonplace it is. Your conviction that it is always a choice is not borne out by either observation or research. Bury your head in the sand, or try something novel - accept the facts, no matter how unpalatable to to you.
    Why should i accept your veiw . you think you right, i think you wrong, i think am right, you think am wrong, it unlikey both of us will change our view about this topic and why would I bury my head n sand, I can easily dismiss your arguement as easily as you can dismiss my argument. why should I accept you veiw because you think you right?
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Why should i accept your veiw . you think you right, i think you wrong, i think am right, you think am wrong, it unlikey both of us will change our view about this topic and why would I bury my head n sand, I can easily dismiss your arguement as easily as you can dismiss my argument. why should I accept you veiw because you think you right?
    Perhaps you should, instead of basing your conclusions on your personal incredulity, try and reach a conclusion based upon the evidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Tsk, tsk... If only people would look at the facts instead of using their biased personal incredulity...
    what Facts? as you can make a good reason why you think being homo is ok and acceptable; same as I can make good reason about my veiw. if our ancestors were homos ( born gay) would you be here right now sitting in your chair arguing for homos?.

    Funny statement made by the pope: 'homos are threat to humanity as terrorist are'.
    Though I do not agree with this statement, I do understand his veiw, if the whole world were gay humanity would seize to exist we would be like A sexuals , .
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    what Facts? as you can make a good reason why you think being homo is ok and acceptable; same as I can make good reason about my veiw. if our ancestors were homos ( born gay) would you be here right now sitting in your chair arguing for homos?.

    Funny statement made by the pope: 'homos are threat to humanity as terrorist are'.
    Though I do not agree with this statement, I do understand his veiw, if the whole world were gay humanity would seize to exist we would be like A sexuals , .
    I can, based upon the evidence, conclude that homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon which is widespread in the animal kingdom. How do certain insects choose to be gay?

    The presumption that homosexuality is simply a choice seems to contradict evidence most certainly.

    EDIT:

    I have a question.

    If you think homosexuality is merely based upon what a person chooses, why do you think a certain person would choose it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Why should i accept your veiw . you think you right, i think you wrong, i think am right, you think am wrong, it unlikey both of us will change our view about this topic and why would I bury my head n sand, I can easily dismiss your arguement as easily as you can dismiss my argument. why should I accept you veiw because you think you right?
    Perhaps you should, instead of basing your conclusions on your personal incredulity, try and reach a conclusion based upon the evidence?
    Evidence based upon what? plz be specific, give me scientific evidence to show this sexuality is normal in the animal kingdom and that we al happen to have had an idea in the start that homo is wrong and t is right that we should change this veiw. plx no youtube crap or sexual orientated website as I am in colledge at this moment.
    I would apreciate it if you show me an experiment of a veiw made by credible scientists not one scientist.
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    what Facts? as you can make a good reason why you think being homo is ok and acceptable; same as I can make good reason about my veiw. if our ancestors were homos ( born gay) would you be here right now sitting in your chair arguing for homos?.

    Funny statement made by the pope: 'homos are threat to humanity as terrorist are'.
    Though I do not agree with this statement, I do understand his veiw, if the whole world were gay humanity would seize to exist we would be like A sexuals , .
    I can, based upon the evidence, conclude that homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon which is widespread in the animal kingdom. How do certain insects choose to be gay?

    The presumption that homosexuality is simply a choice seems to contradict evidence most certainly.

    EDIT:

    I have a question.

    If you think homosexuality is merely based upon what a person chooses, why do you think a certain person would choose it?
    same as bi-sexuals would choose to sleep with a male or a female , dismised your agument in 1 min lol funny.

    I have a theory , it goes like this any logical agument can be easily dismissed with another opposing logical agument.

    EDIT:

    also the fact , that you said why would they choose to...? also hints, our natural distaste for this act, why deny this natural distaste for this act?
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    same as bi-sexuals would choose to sleep with a male or a female dismised your agument in 1 min lol funny
    Do you really think this constitutes an answer? :x WHY do they choose it? Do they just one day decide to do it out of the blue? Do you dismiss the fact that a homosexual has no sexual attraction to the opposite sex, but only to their own? Are they lying? THINK!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Evidence based upon what? plz be specific, give me scientific evidence to show this sexuality is normal in the animal kingdom and that we al happen to have had an idea in the start that homo is wrong and t is right that we should change this veiw. plx no youtube crap or sexual orientated website as I am in colledge at this moment.
    I would apreciate it if you show me an experiment of a veiw made by credible scientists not one scientist.
    Evidence that homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon has been given in this thread by Verzen. For example this article by Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior

    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    same as bi-sexuals would choose to sleep with a male or a female
    One choose to have sex with someone one is attracted to. I am not sexually attracted to males and thus sex with them would be pointless from my perspective as I wouldn't enjoy it. I am, however, attracted to females and do enjoy having sex with them because of the fact that I'm attracted to them, sexually.

    Why, then, would I choose to have sex with males if I'm attracted to females?

    Your "choice" is definitely dependent upon what sex you are attracted to.

    I hope you see my point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    same as bi-sexuals would choose to sleep with a male or a female dismised your agument in 1 min lol funny
    Do you really think this constitutes an answer? :x WHY do they choose it? Do they just one day decide to do it out of the blue? Do you dismiss the fact that a homosexual has no sexual attraction to the opposite sex, but only to their own? Are they lying? THINK!
    EDIT:

    yes, same as bi-sexual can sit there and one day decide to sleep with a male or a female
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Evidence based upon what? plz be specific, give me scientific evidence to show this sexuality is normal in the animal kingdom and that we al happen to have had an idea in the start that homo is wrong and t is right that we should change this veiw. plx no youtube crap or sexual orientated website as I am in colledge at this moment.
    I would apreciate it if you show me an experiment of a veiw made by credible scientists not one scientist.
    Evidence that homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon has been given in this thread by Verzen. For example this article by Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior

    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    same as bi-sexuals would choose to sleep with a male or a female
    One choose to have sex with someone one is attracted to. I am not sexually attracted to males and thus sex with them would be pointless from my perspective as I wouldn't enjoy it. I am, however, attracted to females and do enjoy having sex with them because of the fact that I'm attracted to them, sexually.

    Why, then, would I choose to have sex with males if I'm attracted to females?

    Your "choice" is definitely dependent upon what sex you are attracted to.

    I hope you see my point.
    I do not accept wikipedia as a credible source .

    EDIT:
    Why do bi-sexuals decide to sleep with males or females, you do know this type of sexual act exist? RIGHT.
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    If you think homosexuality is merely based upon what a person chooses, why do you think a certain person would choose it?
    Why do people choose to believe in God? Why do some choose to believe in UFOs? Why do some choose to believe that the Earth is flat? Why do some perform satanic rituals? Why do some smoke cigarettes and others do drugs? Why do some jump out of planes and others swim in icy waters?

    The only difference in the case of homosexuality is that it is far more personal and far less of anybody elses business. Some actually think that it has something to do with love. Imagine that!
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    I do not accept wikipedia as a credible source.
    Then either check the sources Wikipedia uses or search for "homosexuality in animals/nature" on either pubMed or google. There are plenty of scientific literature which documents homosexual behaviour in nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Then why do bi-sexuals decide to sleep with males or females, you do know this type of sexual act exist? RIGHT.
    Obviously because they are attracted to both sexes.

    So you failed to see my point it seems.

    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Why do people choose to believe in God? Why do some choose to believe in UFOs? Why do some choose to believe that the Earth is flat? Why do some perform satanic rituals? Why do some smoke cigarettes and others do drugs? Why do some jump out of planes and others swim in icy waters?

    The only difference in the case of homosexuality is that it is far more personal and far less of anybody elses business. Some actually think that it has something to do with love. Imagine that!
    I'm not sure what your point is. I don't dismiss the possibility that some might actually choose to become homosexual, but I'm fairly certain that there's some biology involved in it. Perhaps partly genetics and perhaps partly hormonal imbalances. I'm not an expert though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    I do not accept wikipedia as a credible source.
    Then either check the sources Wikipedia uses or search for "homosexuality in animals/nature" on either pubMed or google. There are plenty of scientific literature which documents homosexual behaviour in nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Then why do bi-sexuals decide to sleep with males or females, you do know this type of sexual act exist? RIGHT.
    Obviously because they are attracted to both sexes.

    So you failed to see my point it seems.

    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Why do people choose to believe in God? Why do some choose to believe in UFOs? Why do some choose to believe that the Earth is flat? Why do some perform satanic rituals? Why do some smoke cigarettes and others do drugs? Why do some jump out of planes and others swim in icy waters?

    The only difference in the case of homosexuality is that it is far more personal and far less of anybody elses business. Some actually think that it has something to do with love. Imagine that!
    I'm not sure what your point is. I don't dismiss the possibility that some might actually choose to become homosexual, but I'm fairly certain that there's some biology involved in it. Perhaps partly genetics and perhaps partly hormonal imbalances. I'm not an expert though.
    thanks, I will have a look at the links the put up, perhaps it may decrease my extreme but not fundamilist veiw about homosexuality

    Also, if bi-sexuals can choose to have sex with both sex why can't a homo choose to have sex with a male.
    EDIT:
    Having christianity being my nursery of what is right and wrong, I am also a student sturdying science ( mostly chemistry and physics, I hate biology ) I tend to like researching alot , so any credible and logical statement you can quote to help me understand why I should accept your moderate view rather than my extreme veiw would help.
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    thanks, I will have a look at the links the put up, perhaps it may decrease my extreme but not fundamilist veiw about homosexuality
    I'm thrilled that you wish to do some research. Perhaps you'll see homosexuality in a different way than you do now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Also, if bi-sexuals can choose to have sex with both sex why can't a homo choose to have sex with a male.
    Because, unlike a homosexual, a bi-sexual is attracted to both sexes and not just one. :wink:

    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    EDIT:
    Having christianity being my nursery of what is right and wrong, I am also a student sturdying science ( mostly chemistry and physics, I hate biology ) I tend to like researching alot , so any credible and logical statement you can quote to help me understand why I should accept your moderate view rather than my extreme veiw would help.
    Perhaps the mistake lies in applying the concepts of right and wrong to something which just is. For example; would you say that the fact that a star eventually dies is either right or wrong? Some things just are, if you understand what I mean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    thanks, I will have a look at the links the put up, perhaps it may decrease my extreme but not fundamilist veiw about homosexuality
    I'm thrilled that you wish to do some research. Perhaps you'll see homosexuality in a different way than you do now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Also, if bi-sexuals can choose to have sex with both sex why can't a homo choose to have sex with a male.
    Because, unlike a homosexual, a bi-sexual is attracted to both sexes and not just one. :wink:
    good point . May be one day I may have a less extreme veiw of homosexuality.

    Thanks for the nice debate
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Why should i accept your veiw . you think you right, i think you wrong, i think am right, you think am wrong, it unlikey both of us will change our view about this topic and why would I bury my head n sand, I can easily dismiss your arguement as easily as you can dismiss my argument. why should I accept you veiw because you think you right?
    Your view is based on opinion. My view is based on a consideration of the evidence. There is plenty of research documenting homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom. It is clearly established as natural.

    In other posts you make staements like "as you can make a good reason why you think being homo is ok and acceptable". There is your fundamental error: you are confusing moral judgements with natural reality. My personal feelings about homosexuality are quite irrelevant. It doesn't matter what I want reality to be, the only honest approach is to recognise what reality is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Why should i accept your veiw . you think you right, i think you wrong, i think am right, you think am wrong, it unlikey both of us will change our view about this topic and why would I bury my head n sand, I can easily dismiss your arguement as easily as you can dismiss my argument. why should I accept you veiw because you think you right?
    Your view is based on opinion. My view is based on a consideration of the evidence. There is plenty of research documenting homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom. It is clearly established as natural.

    In other posts you make staements like "as you can make a good reason why you think being homo is ok and acceptable". There is your fundamental error: you are confusing moral judgements with natural reality. My personal feelings about homosexuality are quite irrelevant. It doesn't matter what I want reality to be, the only honest approach is to recognise what reality is.
    I do recongise them lol, after all they are human beings, but let me make it clear to you. I am not a fundamentalist. I just have a strong veiw, if you think by attacking me will convince me into accepting you veiw, well... it wouldn't and by doing this shows how immature you are John Galt.

    Did you really read my statement from 1-3, if you did, you would have noticed that my oppionios were based on fact as if the there is only one fact, surely your brain can notice that dogs sniffing female dogs ass then humping is a fact or perhaps you think they hump mele anis as being fact?
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    In other posts you make staements like "as you can make a good reason why you think being homo is ok and acceptable". There is your fundamental error: you are confusing moral judgements with natural reality. My personal feelings about homosexuality are quite irrelevant. It doesn't matter what I want reality to be, the only honest approach is to recognise what reality is.
    Well said.

    I personally find homosexuality, particularly between men, repugnent, but I can't deny all the evidence that points to it being a common and persistent minority of somewhere between 3-5% of all human societies, even the most repressive, and in many animals including our closest primates. That being the case, and there no longer being any need to maximize our reproductive potential or obvious danger to our society from recognizing gays, I see absolutely no reason to restrict their behavior or deny them the same rights given to heteorosexual relationships.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    I just have a strong veiw, if you think by attacking me will convince me into accepting you veiw, well... it wouldn't and by doing this shows how immature you are John Galt.
    I understand from previous posts that you are at university. May I recommend you sieze the opportunity to take a course in logic. Nowhere in my posts have I attacked you. I have attacked your erroneous interpretations of reality. That is quite a different matter. Attacking ideas is a central aspect of good science. You would find it benefical to reflect on that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    In other posts you make staements like "as you can make a good reason why you think being homo is ok and acceptable". There is your fundamental error: you are confusing moral judgements with natural reality. My personal feelings about homosexuality are quite irrelevant. It doesn't matter what I want reality to be, the only honest approach is to recognise what reality is.
    Well said.

    I personally find homosexuality, particularly between men, repugnent, but I can't deny all the evidence that points to it being a common and persistent minority of somewhere between 3-5% of all human societies, even the most repressive, and in many animals including our closest primates. That being the case, and there no longer being any need to maximize our reproductive potential or obvious danger to our society from recognizing gays, I see absolutely no reason to restrict their behavior or deny them the same rights given to heteorosexual relationships.
    yes, true but i think it's wrong.
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    I just have a strong veiw, if you think by attacking me will convince me into accepting you veiw, well... it wouldn't and by doing this shows how immature you are John Galt.
    I understand from previous posts that you are at university. May I recommend you sieze the opportunity to take a course in logic. Nowhere in my posts have I attacked you. I have attacked your erroneous interpretations of reality. That is quite a different matter. Attacking ideas is a central aspect of good science. You would find it benefical to reflect on that.
    EDIT:
    , what logic? you think am wrong and I should deter from thinking homosexuality is moraly wrong. ha... . failiur.

    colledge= high school. In uk it goes nursery, primary secondary, coledge then university and suggesting that having this veiw would not help me pass my course is stupid and shows how foolish you are.
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    [
    May I interpet this as an apology?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    [
    May I interpet this as an apology?
    NO, you may not. why should I say sorry?
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I will never accept homosexuallity as a sexuallity you are born with, IT A CHOICE.
    Let say, you were to take a test to determine your sexuality and you scored from 0-9, a score of 7. Would you agree with the test; gay or not? however, this does not mean i wil hunt them down. It's just my veiw about them and I will never change this view. Any human can force an animal or train an animal to perform a sexual act. For example, I watched a humourous video of a dog masterbating , funny yes, but was most likely trained.
    If a person on a scale of 0-10 is around a 7, then they are MOSTLY attracted to men and they prefer to have sex with men. If a person scores a score of 5 then they are bisexual and equally attracted to both sexes. If a person is an 8-10 and are female, they are straight. If they are a 6, they are bisexuals with a preference from males. If they are a 4 then they are bisexuals with a preference for females. If they have a 3 then they are bisexuals with a big preference for females. If they are a 7 then they are bisexual with a big preference for male. Make sense?
    Remember
    0 - Attracted to females. Unable to determine if a man is good looking. Usually repulsed by homosexuality.
    1 - Attracted to females. Unable to determine if a man is good looking but is not repulsed by homosexuality.
    2 - Attracted to females. Able to determine if a man is good looking.
    3 - Attracted to both male and females. Highly prefers females over males.
    4 - Attracted to both male and females. Slightly prefers females over males.
    5 - Attracted to both males and females. Have no preferences.
    6 - Attracted to both male and females. Slightly prefers males over females.
    7 - Attracted to both male and females. Highly prefers males over females.
    8 - Attracted to males. Able to determine if a women is good looking.
    9 - Attracted to males. Unable to determine if a women is good looking but is not repulsed by homosexuality.
    10 - Attracted to males. Unable to determine if a women is good looking. Repulsed by homosexuality.

    MOST men fall under (2) and MOST women fall under (8).
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    I just have a strong veiw, if you think by attacking me will convince me into accepting you veiw, well... it wouldn't and by doing this shows how immature you are John Galt.
    I understand from previous posts that you are at university. May I recommend you sieze the opportunity to take a course in logic. Nowhere in my posts have I attacked you. I have attacked your erroneous interpretations of reality. That is quite a different matter. Attacking ideas is a central aspect of good science. You would find it benefical to reflect on that.
    EDIT:
    , what logic? you think am wrong and I should deter from thinking homosexuality is moraly wrong. ha... . failiur.

    colledge= high school. In uk it goes nursery, primary secondary, coledge then university and suggesting that having this veiw would not help me pass my course is stupid and shows how foolish you are.
    You have genuine comprehension difficulties, so I shall take this as slowly as I am able.

    1. Nowhere have I said you should not believe homsexuality is morally wrong. (If you think I have said this, please quote my words. I have most definitely not said this.) I have expressed no view as to the right or wrong of homosexuality in a moral sense.

    You continue to confuse your sense of moral outrage and what you think should be, with what actually is. You are completely free to condemn homosexuality to any extent you wish. I leave that up to you. You are not free to contest fact - the observed common occurence of homosexuality in nature - with an opinion. The two do not mix.

    Let's try this in different words. Homosexuality in nature is a commonplace, demonstrated reality. You don't like homosexual behaviour in humans. These two statements are completely independent.

    You appear to be convinced that because you think it is wrong that it should not exist. Equally you seem to think anyone who points out it does exist is speaking in favour of it. This is why I recommended you take a course in logic. You would then be able to see how dumb your position is. (Hopefully you are already beginning to sense this.)

    2. Again, nowhere have I suggested that being opposed to homosexuality would make it difficult for you to pass your course. I noted that if you were in university it would be a great opportunity to take a course in logic. Your continued inability to understand simple English is what will cause you to fail your courses, if you do indeed fail any.

    3. colledge? coledge? Here's a tip. Why not join those of us with an education and call it college.

    4. Re a later post, you should apologise for completely misinterpreting what I wrote. Not a requirement. Your apology would not be important to me. (It would be important for you, but I don't expect you to understand that.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Why do people choose to believe in God? Why do some choose to believe in UFOs? Why do some choose to believe that the Earth is flat? Why do some perform satanic rituals? Why do some smoke cigarettes and others do drugs? Why do some jump out of planes and others swim in icy waters?

    The only difference in the case of homosexuality is that it is far more personal and far less of anybody elses business. Some actually think that it has something to do with love. Imagine that!
    I'm not sure what your point is. I don't dismiss the possibility that some might actually choose to become homosexual, but I'm fairly certain that there's some biology involved in it. Perhaps partly genetics and perhaps partly hormonal imbalances. I'm not an expert though.
    I do think it is credible that there may be some biology involved BUT the logic of evolution suggests that it operates in only one direction. We can see why we would have a survival instinct but a death instinct would make no sense would it? Likewise we can see why we might have an biological predisposition towards attraction to the opposite sex but not one towards the same sex. My conclusion is that it is far far more likely that any biological factors are likely to be of the nature that while some are biologically predisposed to a heterosexual relationship only, others are more free to choose.


    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    One choose to have sex with someone one is attracted to. I am not sexually attracted to males and thus sex with them would be pointless from my perspective as I wouldn't enjoy it. I am, however, attracted to females and do enjoy having sex with them because of the fact that I'm attracted to them, sexually.

    Why, then, would I choose to have sex with males if I'm attracted to females?

    Your "choice" is definitely dependent upon what sex you are attracted to.

    I hope you see my point.
    But a biological predisposition is not the same thing as attraction itself. We are not just biological beings but also psychological beings. Clearly there is something going on in the brain and minds of people in this poorly understood phenomenon of sexual attraction. And while it may be the case that for some men it orignates entirely in a desire to hump every female in sight, I don't think this is the case for every male who settles into a heterosexual relationship.

    Back to my other examples we can make exactly the same sort of argument in their case to suppose that there are biological factors in why people believe in God, UFOs or a flat earth. We can suppose that some have a biological predisposition to be attracted to satanic rituals, smoking cigarettes and doing drugs. Perhaps some people feel an attraction to skydiving or swiming in icy water? One thing that all these share with homosexuality is that we cannot see any logical evolutionary reason for such biological factors.

    I think the sociological implications of biological factors for behaviors are unacceptable anyway, so even if there were highly dubious biological factors for behaviors I would say that they were nobody's business but the person who has them, and we must still call it choice anyway. If you don't believe in human free will but only in some kind of genetic determinism then we would till be required to react to the "choices" of people in precisely the same way to encourage what we decide is acceptable and discourage what we decide is not acceptable. Those that murder people and molest children would still have to be stopped, the only question is shall we also discriminate against their children because of some supposed biology? People actually used to think that way, attributing the goodness or badness of people to "good breeding" or "bad breeding". Do you think there is any real evidence for such a thing? And even if people could dig up some evidence for it, do you really think that society should operate on such premises? Considering the way that evolution works, such an approach would be justification for using the death penalty for all socially unacceptable behavior -> they cannot change because it is in their biological makeup we should just prevent them from breeding. It is horrendous.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I do think it is credible that there may be some biology involved BUT the logic of evolution suggests that it operates in only one direction. We can see why we would have a survival instinct but a death instinct would make no sense would it? Likewise we can see why we might have an biological predisposition towards attraction to the opposite sex but not one towards the same sex. My conclusion is that it is far far more likely that any biological factors are likely to be of the nature that while some are biologically predisposed to a heterosexual relationship only, others are more free to choose.

    -----------------------

    But a biological predisposition is not the same thing as attraction itself. We are not just biological beings but also psychological beings. Clearly there is something going on in the brain and minds of people in this poorly understood phenomenon of sexual attraction. And while it may be the case that for some men it orignates entirely in a desire to hump every female in sight, I don't think this is the case for every male who settles into a heterosexual relationship.

    Back to my other examples we can make exactly the same sort of argument in their case to suppose that there are biological factors in why believe in God, UFOs or a flat earth. We can suppose that some have a biological predisposition to be attracted to satanic rituals, smoking cigarettes and doing drugs. Perhaps some people feel an attraction to skydiving or swiming in icy water? One thing that all these share with homosexuality is that we cannot see any logical evolutionary reason for such biological factors.

    I think the sociological implications of biological factors for behaviors are unacceptable anyway, so even if there were highly dubious biological factors for behaviors I would say that they were nobody's business but the person who has them, and we must still call it choice anyway. If you don't believe in human free will but only in some kind of genetic determinism then we would till be required to react to the "choices" of people in precisely the same way to encourage what we decide is acceptable and discourage what we decide is not acceptable. Those that murder people and molest children would still have to be stopped, the only question is shall we also discriminate against their children because of some supposed biology? People actually used to think that way, attributing the goodness or badness of people to "good breeding" or "bad breeding". Do you think there is any real evidence for such a thing? And even if people could dig up some evidence for it, do you really think that society should operate on such premises?
    I think there are evolutionary explanations for the existence of homosexuality. How does one explain such behaviour in insects for example? Just because one cannot see how such behaviour would be consistent with evolutionary theory doesn't mean it can't be explained in an evolutionary context.

    I found this article by New Scientist with numerous explanations for homosexuality:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...sexuality.html

    Quote Originally Posted by From above link
    A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common.
    And a biologist on YouTube (which is a theist) has also explanations for homosexuality:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZWqQ...e=channel_page

    Also, studies show that each additional older brother increased the odds of homosexuality by 33%. This is strong evidence for a genetic factor in homosexuality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I'd say it's a (I use this term VERY loosely) genetic mutation, or a mutation in the brain in the area that governs attraction. It certainly is not a survival instinct, but perhaps a "flipped" survival instinct that behaves to transpose the feminine desire into a male to cause them to be gay, or vise versa in women to make them lesbian. Bisexuality could come more from having both characteristics in the brain, or, as I personally feel, being one or the other with just an intense appreciation for the other sex(the sex you aren't 'attracted' to)
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition
    I'd say it's a (I use this term VERY loosely) genetic mutation, or a mutation in the brain in the area that governs attraction. It certainly is not a survival instinct, but perhaps a "flipped" survival instinct that behaves to transpose the feminine desire into a male to cause them to be gay, or vise versa in women to make them lesbian. Bisexuality could come more from having both characteristics in the brain, or, as I personally feel, being one or the other with just an intense appreciation for the other sex(the sex you aren't 'attracted' to)
    Unlikely, and even if this were the mechanism, the mechanism itself would have to be strongly favoured by natural selection to account for the frequency of homosexuality in the human population. Moreover, we would have discovered the cause years ago if it were a single gene mutation, and the children of homosexuals would be homosexual as well unless a reverse mutation occurred again, which is not the case.

    I believe in the theory of kin selection, which is an aspect of the gene-eyed view evolutionary theory. My view gains very strong support from the birth order phenomenon. I suspect a polygenic and epigenetic case, where many genes are involved in a complex interaction with environmental stimuli. This complex system has been selected to respond to factors like gender ratio and number of siblings. I also wouldn't rule out the possibility of maternal effect, such as a mother's genetic predisposition to produce more homosexual offspring as she ages.

    Anyway, the theory of homosexuality as selected by kin selection works like this. There isn't a gene that makes a person gay, but there are genes that make it more likely for a person to be born gay when there are a lot of reproductive siblings or disproportionate amounts of males in a society, the latter is more likely in early human society, when these traits would have evolved since they are broadly distributed in modern humans. Now essentially if you have 5 brothers, and brother number 4 is gay. While all 5 brothers carry the gay potential gene, the cards only stacked up right for one. In an early hunter gatherer society, this one gay brother would not have a female partner to take care of, so he could donate his resources to the reproductive success of his siblings. Families with the gay genes, had greater reproductive success in these groups where there were few females and many males. This would also be favored in situations when there are temporary decreases in resource availability. There is no significant selection against the gay gene when the ratio is different. So the gay phenotype is selected for through kin selection. Today a family's reproductive line may end with a single gay child. However, in early human society a single child was quite rare.

    These conditions could be simulated by microenvironmental factors, so even though humanity in it's entirety has about 50/50 gender ratio, the child is exposed to smaller groups which are more likely to have disproportionate ratios. Also, selection is not perfect so other factors that aren't necessarily supportive of this model could cause a child to develop as a homosexual.

    Edit: Most biologist view male and female homosexuality to be distinct, which is supported by different frequencies in the population. Theories of female homosexuality tend to be more psychologically oriented, with biological theories supporting "female bonding" models. Kin selection could apply to lesbians as well though, but the birth order phenomena doesn't occur in women.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I wonder how much of it has to do with the development of the embryo/foetus. The embryo/foetus has female features up to a point where the ovaries drop and the clitoris elongates into a penis. It is almost as if we are all female in essence, with males being morphological and hormonal variants. I am thinking that earlier in our evolution it was better to have more females with fewer males than the other way around (well I guess that still holds true). Ten woman with one male can produce ten children at one time, while ten males and one female can only produce one.

    Men and woman both have female and male hormones, with the relative quantities during embryo/foetal development determining if the morphological change will happen that turns female into males AFAIK. I am guessing that it takes a certain ratio to set the change in motion, but then what does a further deviation from that ratio do to the development of the embryo/foetus? Could it produce differences in the developing brains?

    The other thing to consider (and you would know better about any finer points) are what happens once the child is born and starts processing the outside world. Would certain environments influence the ratio between the sex hormones? Also, are there differences between the behaviour of homosexuals that are more "manly" in contrast to homosexuals that are more feminine physically?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    this thread has gone a ways since last night andi do not want to interupt any discussions taking place so i will just interject my position and go from there.

    #1. homosexuality is unnatural, we read that throughout the Bible and we seethat by the lack of reproduction amongst homosexual unions.

    #2. homosexuality is an abomination to God BECAUSE it is not what he intended when he created sex and the sexes. it perverts his creativ act and i svery repugnant to Him. wWe have confirmation of this not only in Genesis but also the New Testament.

    #3. homosexuality is a choice. people who say otherwise forget or ignore what the Bible says and base their decisions upon their lack of feelings for women. the Bible tellsus that some people were made to be eunuchs which means that they would NOT have any sexual desire for women because they have a higher purpose for their lives. I would have to look up the passage again to further explain this.

    #4. homsexuality is a choice- 2. people ignore or forget that evil plays a part in all of our lives and they can tempt or influence a person thinking, distorting it to make them think that they (a man) prefer men to women. or a woman prefering women only. there are a variety of ways this is accomplished.

    #5. homosexuality cannot be determined scientifically. such things are outside the scope of secualr sceince and scientific studies. too many people look to science to answer all their questions yet ut us unable to do so and are often confused by what they see in the human body and life itself.

    too many people listen to the wrong 'experts' and come away confused, mislead, deceived and so on. if you want answers you go to true christians who will honestly tell you things and leave the decisions up to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I wonder how much of it has to do with the development of the embryo/foetus. The embryo/foetus has female features up to a point where the ovaries drop and the clitoris elongates into a penis. It is almost as if we are all female in essence, with males being morphological and hormonal variants. I am thinking that earlier in our evolution it was better to have more females with fewer males than the other way around (well I guess that still holds true). Ten woman with one male can produce ten children at one time, while ten males and one female can only produce one.

    Men and woman both have female and male hormones, with the relative quantities during embryo/foetal development determining if the morphological change will happen that turns female into males AFAIK. I am guessing that it takes a certain ratio to set the change in motion, but then what does a further deviation from that ratio do to the development of the embryo/foetus? Could it produce differences in the developing brains?

    The other thing to consider (and you would know better about any finer points) are what happens once the child is born and starts processing the outside world. Would certain environments influence the ratio between the sex hormones? Also, are there differences between the behaviour of homosexuals that are more "manly" in contrast to homosexuals that are more feminine physically?
    There are evidence of hormonal factors, but this would be maternal affect. Hormones that affect brain developing in utero come from the mother mostly. Men with Klinefelter's (XXY) syndrome produce much less testosterone and have female physical characteristics, but are not more likely to be homosexual. I don't think any studies have found any evidence of homosexuals being hormonally different.

    However, some physiological and anatomical correlations have been found, I'm skeptical of drawing causative explanations though. Gay men in general have a smaller INAH-3 cluster in the hypothalamus than straight men, and this cluster has been shown in mice to be involved in determining male typical behavior. So, gay men seem to be predisposed less to male typical behavior. However, it is not a 1 to 1 correlation, having a small INAH-3 doesn't make you gay, but it could make you more effeminate. Being more effeminate could be involved in homosexual determination. The other problem is that we don't really understand the development of the human brain from childhood well enough to draw conclusions. The environment can effect how your brain develops.

    There's also the issue of epigenetics, which is the turning on and off of genes by environmental factors. In rats it has been shown that baby rats which are not licked by their mother, will subsequently not care for their offspring properly. When they looked at their genes they found that the licking induced methylation of genes involved in parental care. Something like this could be at play in the development of homosexuality, and it would be incredibly difficult to identify.

    There are just too many factors involved in human behavior to identify any cause with the knowledge we have now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    the problemwith the above explanation is simple. homosexuals want to remove the responsibility of their decisionto something beond their control so they do not have to take the heat for their sexual prefence choice.

    blaming it on a genetic design is just one of those easy escape routes that they take so they do not have to feel the weight of their choice and suffer for it.

    no one wants to feel 'abnormal' but the reality is homosexuality is abnormal and not right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    I found this article by New Scientist with numerous explanations for homosexuality:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...sexuality.html
    I read it and noticed that it actually confirmed my conclusions rather than contradicted it. It is NOT homosexuality but bisexuality which is found in these animals. The assertion that there can be no evolutionary logic for a purely homosexual preference remains perfectly unchallenged.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    I found this article by New Scientist with numerous explanations for homosexuality:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...sexuality.html
    I read it and noticed that it actually confirmed my conclusions rather than contradicted it. It is NOT homosexuality but bisexuality which is found in these animals. The assertion that there can be no evolutionary logic for a purely homosexual preference remains perfectly unchallenged.
    Did you ignore my post on kin selection? I provided a very logical argument for a purely homosexual preference.

    Maybe you would find the argument of selection for sexual plasticity more convincing. Homosexuality results as a by product of human selection for sexual plasticity. I think this is a weak theory though, it lacks evidence.

    The New Scientist article is very narrow in scope. The example used in this article is Macaque sexuality, monkeys are fairly similar to humans so this is an acceptable theory. Also, I grant that non-exclusive homosexuality was the norm usually in many human societies. However, this is an ultimate explanation of how homosexuality could survive if it were being selected against merely by simple natural selection. Moreover, certainly many men can engage in sexual behavior which is not appealing to them. Human sexuality isn't so simple that it can be summed up merely with the possibility of engaging in sexual acts. Most males will respond to physical stimulation, mere touch, or even be aroused by the notion of sex, and thus be capable of sex with women, without being aroused by women directly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Also, studies show that each additional older brother increased the odds of homosexuality by 33%. This is strong evidence for a genetic factor in homosexuality.
    I don't think so. On the contrary since this has nothing to do with genetics but to do with environment in which they grew up in and thus this is strong evidence for precisely the opposite, that homosexuality has a primarily sociological/psychological cause rather than a biological/genetic cause.


    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Did you ignore my post on kin selection? I provided a very logical argument for a purely homosexual preference.
    yeah.... grasping at imaginary straws. It is very much like all the so called scientific studies of homosexuality and creationism - strongly motivated to come to certain conclusions - and any time objective scientific examination is applied no substance is found to it. I see absolutely no evidence that ANYONE is born gay - none whatsover, any more than I see evidence that people are born nymphomaniacs or born fridgid or born cheatin dogs or born thieves, born diplomats, born murderers or born saints. Children are just children and they are free to live the lives they choose.

    There is no gay gene. You are arguing for a very complex biological mechanism for which you have not shown there to be any survival advantage whatsoever. Ever since the begining of sexual reproduction all the forces of natural selection would be in the opposite direction. Thus the best you can argue for is that there is no reason why a lack of rigid heterosexual orientation (what you call sexual platicity) would not survive and that I have already said, from the beginning, is a believable possibility.


    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    this one gay brother would not have a female partner to take care of, so he could donate his resources to the reproductive success of his siblings.
    Get real! One does not have to have an exclusively homosexual orientation in order to donate ones resources to the reproductive success of his siblings. Again this ONLY succeeds AT MOST in arguing for the survival of a lack of an irresistable heterosexual drive, but instead a heterosexual drive which is highly susceptible to social circumstances.


    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Homosexuality results as a by product of human selection for sexual plasticity. I think this is a weak theory though, it lacks evidence.
    That is baloney. The same argument can be used for biological predispostions for being a Trekkie. The point is that I see no reason to believe that a homosexual was at birth in any way biologically different or predisposed other than being a little less dominated in adolesence by instincts and thus a little more free to choose. Is there a good reason to believe that natural selection would select for less instinctual control of behavior and thus for more conscious/rational control of behavior? Of course! The advantage of choosing the best mate for the survival of the offspring is very good reason for this, OR there is even the simple survival advantage of having a partner of any sex both for the contribution to the survival of the tribe and to survive until one actually does make a contribution to the gene pool . But can I see any survival advantage in a blind instinctual sexual attraction to the same sex and aversion to the opposite sex? No.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Perhaps the confusion here comes from a difference in perspective, as we're coming from different fields. By saying the birth order pattern strongly suggest a genetic factor. I'm not saying that the environment of a household with lots of children doesn't matter, I'm just saying some system has evolved to promote homosexuality under these common social environments.

    Obviously natural selection can't explain why a mechanism to create exclusive homosexuality would exist, but kin selection does. Natural selection can't explain asexuality in a portion of the mole rat population, or asexuality in eusocial insects. Kin selection does provide an explanation to these phenomena, and it is a widely accepted theory.

    The fact that the ratio of homosexuals is relatively constant throughout human society suggest strong genetic correlations. Along with physiological correlations, and birth order, it all makes a strong case for genetic components. I never said anyone is born determined to be gay, I just suggested strong genetic factors with an environmental affect. There is a kin selective advantage to an epigenetic trait for homosexuality. The difference from sexual plasticity (the theory we're all born more or less bisexual and then socialized into certain roles) is that I believe there is a directed pattern, birth order patterns suggest that some mechanism has been selected that specifically promotes homosexuality under conditions that favor it evolutionarily, or at least strongly same sex leaning bisexuality.

    Sure one does not need to be exclusively homosexual to donate resources, however it helps to be exclusively homosexual so as not to have offspring of your own to eat up resources. Evolutionarily, there would be more selective pressure for someone to provide for their own children, because they would contain 50% of their genes. Whereas, without children, supporting a sibling gives you the greatest possibility of promoting the survival of a portion of your genes, because a sibling will carry a decent proportion of the same genes as you.

    As to a genetic predisposition towards cheating, I read a study a little while ago where they looked at the MHC compatibility of partners, and found that those who were less MHC compatible had cheated more often. Our genetics play a role in human behavior that shouldn't just be disregarded as nonexistent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Perhaps the confusion here comes from a difference in perspective, as we're coming from different fields. By saying the birth order pattern strongly suggest a genetic factor. I'm not saying that the environment of a household with lots of children doesn't matter, I'm just saying some system has evolved to promote homosexuality under these common social environments.

    Obviously natural selection can't explain why a mechanism to create exclusive homosexuality would exist, but kin selection does. Natural selection can't explain asexuality in a portion of the mole rat population, or asexuality in eusocial insects. Kin selection does provide an explanation to these phenomena, and it is a widely accepted theory.

    The fact that the ratio of homosexuals is relatively constant throughout human society suggest strong genetic correlations. Along with physiological correlations, and birth order, it all makes a strong case for genetic components. I never said anyone is born determined to be gay, I just suggested strong genetic factors with an environmental affect. There is a kin selective advantage to an epigenetic trait for homosexuality. The difference from sexual plasticity (the theory we're all born more or less bisexual and then socialized into certain roles) is that I believe there is a directed pattern, birth order patterns suggest that some mechanism has been selected that specifically promotes homosexuality under conditions that favor it evolutionarily, or at least strongly same sex leaning bisexuality.

    Sure one does not need to be exclusively homosexual to donate resources, however it helps to be exclusively homosexual so as not to have offspring of your own to eat up resources. Evolutionarily, there would be more selective pressure for someone to provide for their own children, because they would contain 50% of their genes. Whereas, without children, supporting a sibling gives you the greatest possibility of promoting the survival of a portion of your genes, because a sibling will carry a decent proportion of the same genes as you.

    As to a genetic predisposition towards cheating, I read a study a little while ago where they looked at the MHC compatibility of partners, and found that those who were less MHC compatible had cheated more often. Our genetics play a role in human behavior that shouldn't just be disregarded as nonexistent.
    Ahhh....!!! LOL Sure ok! You grant me that there is nothing in science that precludes the existence of God and I will grant you that there is nothing in science that precludes the existence of a prenatal homosexual preference. LOL I grant you the freedom to believe what you choose as long as you understand that I am free to choose otherwise.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    The difference being that one is at least testable in the near future as we gain greater understanding of human genetics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

    Obviously natural selection can't explain why a mechanism to create exclusive homosexuality would exist, but kin selection does. Natural selection can't explain asexuality in a portion of the mole rat population, or asexuality in eusocial insects. Kin selection does provide an explanation to these phenomena, and it is a widely accepted theory..
    Why is that obvious? There are at least two I can think of right off the bat. The first is already mentioned in the thread. The prenatal hormone mix of the mother which allows greater fertility also results in a higher percentage of homosexual sons--in this situation the trade off in better fertility offsets the decrease in reproduction from the occasional non-reproductive offspring--and thus natural selection results in a fraction of homosexuals.

    Next consider that we have hundred of species where entire subsets of that species have absolutely no direct reproductive capability (e.g worker bees). this example the contribution and improved reproductive survival of the worker bees close relatives by making honey, finding food and building the hives offset the large portion of the hive that have no direct capability to reproduce.
    The analogous case among humans could be that homosexual unbridled with supporting their own families has more time to contribute to supporting his closest genetic relatives that are having kids. His lack of reproduction is offset by the improved chance of survival he makes for his closest relatives--by hunter game, gathering food, defending the tribe etc. This too would be homosexuality by natural selection.

    I'm sure there are many other examples of how natural selection could result in homosexuality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    Why is that obvious? There are at least two I can think of right off the bat. The first is already mentioned in the thread. The prenatal hormone mix of the mother which allows greater fertility also results in a higher percentage of homosexual sons--in this situation the trade off in better fertility offsets the decrease in reproduction from the occasional non-reproductive offspring--and thus natural selection results in a fraction of homosexuals.
    This one is unlikely, but this is an explanation of how homosexuality could arise as a side affect of natural selection in favour of another trait. Granted I was too quick to just dismiss natural selection of homosexuality.

    There are group selection arguments as well, but group selection has not been shown to exist in nature, so I don't think they're worth getting into.

    Next consider that we have hundred of species where entire subsets of that species have absolutely no direct reproductive capability (e.g worker bees). this example the contribution and improved reproductive survival of the worker bees close relatives by making honey, finding food and building the hives offset the large portion of the hive that have no direct capability to reproduce.
    The analogous case among humans could be that homosexual unbridled with supporting their own families has more time to contribute to supporting his closest genetic relatives that are having kids. His lack of reproduction is offset by the improved chance of survival he makes for his closest relatives--by hunter game, gathering food, defending the tribe etc. This too would be homosexuality by natural selection.

    I'm sure there are many other examples of how natural selection could result in homosexuality.
    This is kin selection, what I've been arguing in favour of...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    The difference being that one is at least testable in the near future as we gain greater understanding of human genetics.
    LOL prove it! LOL

    I absolutely agree that God and other non-physical things like spirits are not testable, but you cannot prove that the prenatal sexual preference is testable, just because you have a thesis about something which is physical, does not necessarily mean that the thesis is testable. In fact this is a large part of the problem with the so called scientific studies of both homosexuality and creationism. They don't just do tests and accept the outcome, they chase after the conclusion they want like a wild goose. You state the test that can be made and then we can discuss what the different results of such a test might mean.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    The difference being that one is at least testable in the near future as we gain greater understanding of human genetics.
    LOL prove it! LOL

    I absolutely agree that God and other non-physical things like spirits are not testable, but you cannot prove that the prenatal sexual preference is testable, just because you have a thesis about something which is physical, does not necessarily mean that the thesis is testable. In fact this is a large part of the problem with the so called scientific studies of both homosexuality and creationism. They don't just still to tests and accept the outcome, they chase after the conclusion they want like a wild goose. You state the test that can be made and then we can discuss what the different results of such a test might mean.
    I'll repeat I'm not arguing in favour of prenatal sexual determinism. Just for the existence of a mechanism that promotes the development of homosexuality under certain conditions. A mechanism that would be selected for by kin selection. A mechanism that could potentially exist in a very large proportion of the human population.

    It is a fact that homosexuals are physiologically distinct from heterosexuals of the same sex when it comes to brain chemistry. Now, I don't doubt that socializing factors are involved in post-natal brain development, but I have great difficulty in not seeing a genetic factor as well. I would love it if we had the technological capability and knowledge to analyze all the genes present and being expressed in a human being over a period of time. We just don't have that ability right now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    I'll repeat I'm not arguing in favour of prenatal sexual determinism.
    Well I admit that this idea is the pet peeve that sits on my dartboard.


    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Just for the existence of a mechanism that promotes the development of homosexuality under certain conditions. A mechanism that would be selected for by kin selection. A mechanism that could potentially exist in a very large proportion of the human population.
    I understand. And let me attempt slightly more clarity on my response to this. I basically think that only difference between your idea of a mechanism selected for by kin selection and my idea of an absence of strong heterosexual orientation is your belief in this idea of prenatal sexual preference which I think you assume and which I repudiate, because kin selection or whatever, if it is not prenatally determined then it is effectively a matter of choice because socio-psychological causes are cannot be untangled from whatever choice and responsibility we have for what we do.


    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    It is a fact that homosexuals are physiologically distinct from heterosexuals of the same sex when it comes to brain chemistry.
    So what. Our chemistry very much depends on how we choose to live our lives. What we eat, what kind of activities we do, what kind of environment we spend our time in. Sex in particular is a high chemical (especially psycho-chemical) impact activity which with its endorphin based positive reinforcement it extremely habit forming and thus at least as big an influence on our chemistry as many drugs are. The question is which comes first, the body chemistry or the associated mental and physical activities? I do not think the chemistry is there until adolescence (defined more by sexual interest and physical development than fixed ages), when the largely anti-sexual orientation of young children begins to change. When I consider the highly mental component of sexual stimulation, I find it difficult to believe that the differences in where people end up is consequence of genetic makeup to any large degree.


    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Now, I don't doubt that socializing factors are involved in post-natal brain development, but I have great difficulty in not seeing a genetic factor as well.
    Whereas I don't have a great difficulty with a genetic factor as long as it is at most a reduced heterosexual preference such that some people, are more free to develop in either direction.


    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    I would love it if we had the technological capability and knowledge to analyze all the genes present and being expressed in a human being over a period of time. We just don't have that ability right now.
    No we don't. It is certainly a dream that science will always pursue and I would never stand in the way of such efforts, but I have good reason to doubt whether this is actually any more achievable than predicting the weather. In other words, I suspect that it may be an endeavor with diminishing returns. I think we may have somewhat more success in developing a kind of limited genetic design technology of our own -- like perhaps creating virus-like nanobots of some sort for medical and ecological applications.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Fair enough, anyway my interest in explaining the causes of homosexuality is purely out of curiosity of sociobiology.

    The permissibility of the act is independent of the cause, and I think we can agree that there is no justifiable reason to stand against consenting sexual behavior no matter the source of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    The permissibility of the act is independent of the cause, and I think we can agree that there is no justifiable reason to stand against consenting sexual behavior no matter the source of it.
    That is right. There are no scientific or secular reasons and if there are religious reasons then such must be subject to the limitations of religious freedom which necessarily includes a freedom from religion and the freedom from an imposition of peculiar moral commitments of some people on other people.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Fair enough, anyway my interest in explaining the causes of homosexuality is purely out of curiosity of sociobiology.

    The permissibility of the act is independent of the cause, and I think we can agree that there is no justifiable reason to stand against consenting sexual behavior no matter the source of it.
    Exactly. The primary reason it is of interest it allows comparison to other legal precedents based on genetics such as race, gender etc.

    Ultimately the cause will probably be somewhat a red herring--if, for example, we determine that there's a genetic propensity for extreme violence in some people--it wouldn't make the violence anymore acceptable to our society. It would only change what we do with them. In the case of homosexuals though, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason to restrict their relationships anymore than there is for heterosexual couples.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    #1. homosexuality is unnatural, we read that throughout the Bible and we seethat by the lack of reproduction amongst homosexual unions.
    So you base your judgement solely on some book that codones slavery and the oppression of women and also demands that children that do not honour their parents to be stoned to death? Some moral authority I'd say.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    #2. homosexuality is an abomination to God BECAUSE it is not what he intended when he created sex and the sexes. it perverts his creativ act and i svery repugnant to Him. wWe have confirmation of this not only in Genesis but also the New Testament.
    So you know what is repugnant to an allegedly all powerful eternal beeing? What happened to the good old "Gods will is unfathomable"? Ahhh, yes, THE book! So why are you not condoning slavery yourself? The Bible does not mind it the least bit, so it means it is allowed. And how do you explain the fact that THE book thinks it's cool that Lot humped both his daughters after his wife kicked the bucket? I know, I know, this is just a allegory and not to be taken literally. Strange how the Bible is full of allegories but when it comes to homosexuality then it has to be taken literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    #3. homosexuality is a choice. people who say otherwise forget or ignore what the Bible says and base their decisions upon their lack of feelings for women. the Bible tellsus that some people were made to be eunuchs which means that they would NOT have any sexual desire for women because they have a higher purpose for their lives. I would have to look up the passage again to further explain this.
    So in your twisted imagination people wake up one day and say: "Goddammit, I am tired of the same old shit over and over again, I don't want to put my pecker in the same orifice day in, day out. Hey, I know what to do! I turn gay! Why didn't I think of this before?!"
    You know, choice has something to do with having the same desire for the available options (A or B or C) and then deciding according to your whim. I personally can not decide to turn gay because I do not feel physically attracted by men. The good ole Magic Stick would refuse to be called to duty. Limp Bizkit so to speak. I can choose between a fat steak and grilled fish as I like both and depending on my appetite I can go for the Red Snapper on Monday and the Angus T-bone on Friday. This is what choice is all about.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    #4. homsexuality is a choice- 2. people ignore or forget that evil plays a part in all of our lives and they can tempt or influence a person thinking, distorting it to make them think that they (a man) prefer men to women. or a woman prefering women only. there are a variety of ways this is accomplished.
    You know that you are contradicting yourself, don't you? Now it's Evil that makes people think that they prefer homosexual over heterosexual behaviour. Make up your mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    #5. homosexuality cannot be determined scientifically. such things are outside the scope of secualr sceince and scientific studies. too many people look to science to answer all their questions yet ut us unable to do so and are often confused by what they see in the human body and life itself.
    Who the fu*k cares? If someone likes to put his schlong up the bunghole who are you to judge? This is up to your Master. It says so in the book you are always referring to. Let God sort them out. According to your superstition they will all burn in Hell anyway and you will sit to His right with all the other retards (see Sermon of the Mount). Doesn't that give you satisfaction?
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    He's got you with that last point - you are constantly condoning free will, with knowledge of the consequences. Let people decide for themselves; you are welcome to tell them they are going to hell, but telling them that they CANNOT do what they do is incorrect - unless your god is a slave driver.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    He's got you with that last point - you are constantly condoning free will, with knowledge of the consequences. Let people decide for themselves; you are welcome to tell them they are going to hell, but telling them that they CANNOT do what they do is incorrect - unless your god is a slave driver.
    who are you talking to and who has got whom?

    So you base your judgement solely on some book that codones slavery and the oppression of women and also demands that children that do not honour their parents to be stoned to death? Some moral authority I'd say
    the bible has yet to do either, read 'the politically correct guide to the bible' particularly the chapter on slavery.

    women are NOT oppressed y the Bible but have been given a role, a duty. it is the secular world which oppresses women and then has them rebel against God's rules.

    Strange how the Bible is full of allegories but when it comes to homosexuality then it has to be taken literally.
    who says it is full of allegories?

    You know, choice has something to do with having the same desire for the available options (A or B or C) and then deciding according to your whim
    yetyou have a choice, you just do not like the limited options.

    Now it's Evil that makes people think that they prefer homosexual over heterosexual behaviour. Make up your mind.
    not contradicting myself, just presenting a fuller picture of what is involved.

    If someone likes to put his schlong up the bunghole who are you to judge?
    who is judging. that is one of the most distorted, misused, mis-applied words in religious discussions. it is a fall back position for those who sin to protect themselves, it is a futile effort.
    you forgetthat christians are given duties, commands by Jesus and one of those commands is to speak against sin. it is not judging but warning.

    Doesn't that give you satisfaction
    seeing people choose and being sent to hell rarely gives me satisfaction. it makes me sad more than anything else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    the bible has yet to do either, read 'the politically correct guide to the bible' particularly the chapter on slavery.

    women are NOT oppressed y the Bible but have been given a role, a duty. it is the secular world which oppresses women and then has them rebel against God's rules.
    its not really that hard to realize the bible actually means what it says on the subjects of slavery and oppression, when you realize it was written by people like this:
    ?
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Muslims did not write the Bible nor did people who advocated hatred or wars. David fought because he led a nation which required defending, Joshua fought because he was to conquer the land, solomon did not fight.

    Stop extrapolating your hatred for certain people onto the Bible and take a honest look for a change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I think he was referring to middle easterners who wrote the bible.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    then he should not have posted a picture of muslim child holding a gun.

    but that is a far cry from the topic as well. as for homosexuality, God's creation, God's world, God's salvation, God's rules. You are free to choose to dissent from them but that will not change the outcome nor make homosexuality right or acceptable.

    people have free choice and they can choose to repent from their preference but they have to be sincere and serious about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    homoseuality
    BY the way would someone be kind enough to correct the spelling in the thread title, please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    I don't think it was really about race. I think the point is that the bible was written by people who were willing to fight and die for what they believed in, much like terrorists and extremists, and so are likely to hold extreme biases.

    Hey, archie, notice how we all read the same thing but interpreted it differently?

    D'ya reckon this is like reading the bible?

    Do you maintain 100% that you have the right version of what he meant?

    hehe.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    except christians do not fight for their beliefs. we will gladly die for them but we do not force others to accept our ways. if someone does do that then we question their faith for at no time did Jesus say fight and force conversion upon others.

    I don't think it was really about race
    wasn't talking about race, i was talking about the misdirection you did by posting that picture. fanantics are everywhere and again, it is not about interpretation, it is about knowing the truth .

    too many people hide behind interpretationand that leads to existentialism which is not of God. God and Jesus are truth and there is only 1 truth, learn to find it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    except christians do not fight for their beliefs. we will gladly die for them but we do not force others to accept our ways. if someone does do that then we question their faith for at no time did Jesus say fight and force conversion upon others.

    I don't think it was really about race
    wasn't talking about race, i was talking about the misdirection you did by posting that picture. fanantics are everywhere and again, it is not about interpretation, it is about knowing the truth .
    How do you know that the truth behind that picture wasn't about treating your son as an equal?

    Interpretation is key to finding the truth, if you believe it lies in a historical document. Especially one which has been (badly) translated.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    too many people hide behind interpretationand that leads to existentialism which is not of God. God and Jesus are truth and there is only 1 truth, learn to find it.
    That's just my problem - "learn to find it". As in, learn to see that all evidence can be interpreted in such a way as to show that they exist.

    I'm sorry, I can't lie to myself like that.

    If this was really about learning to find something that exists, you shouldn't draw the conclusion before viewing the evidence; conclusions should be based on the evidence, not the other way around.

    Knowing the answer before looking for the answer is closed-minded and illogical.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    except christians do not fight for their beliefs. we will gladly die for them but we do not force others to accept our ways. if someone does do that then we question their faith for at no time did Jesus say fight and force conversion upon others.
    WOW, this is wrong in so many ways, I don't even know where to start..........
    You are forcing your view on everybody on this board to begin with. Then Bush bombed the shit out of the Irquis and Afghanis to promote his superstition, the "he has weapons of mass destruction" bullshit was just a smokescreen. And in Northern Ireland they do not kill people for the sake of a arbitrary flavor of superstition? Nope Sir, weeeeee do not force our beliefs on other people unless the force us to. Then we do.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the bible has yet to do either, read 'the politically correct guide to the bible' particularly the chapter on slavery.
    women are NOT oppressed y the Bible but have been given a role, a duty. it is the secular world which oppresses women and then has them rebel against God's rules.
    So this:
    "The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it."
    is not part of the holy book you are referring to? Exodus, BTW.

    Or this:
    " Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life. "
    Also Exodus. Mutilation and lifelong slavery is pretty O.K. with the neolithic/bronze age chieftains and Him

    And this:
    "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
    is also an alegory? Exodus is full of those nice examples.

    Few more? Here we go:
    "No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food"
    This is - for a change - from Levithicus.

    Also found there:
    "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly"
    Slavery for life, but don't be too hard on your fellow Israelites, how kind of Him.

    And Jebus repairs slaves instead of telling the owner to screw himself and let the man go:
    "Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well

    So now you need a politically correct sorta-kinda edition of the bible.

    And even The Big One himself tells the slave to work really hard so that their masters get the maximum out of them in the Collossians: "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily"

    Repeated in Titus: "Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity"

    And about the sexist crap -where you so adorably wiggle yourself out with the "He gave the women given a role, a duty" hogwash - how about this one: "Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."
    Timothy said that. Noooooooo, it's not sexist to tell one sex to shut the fuck up and obey their masters i.e. men. Nope Sir, this IS their duty, their role.

    And how about rape? Take a look at this one:
    "If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives."
    Rape her, pay 50 shekels and have a wife. Nice treat. Nowadays this get's you basically a jail sentence. Do you live by this value? Deuteronomy if you care to look.

    More from the Ephesians:
    "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
    You have no problem with this?

    And in Numbers we stumble across this li'l gem:
    "Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man
    Hey, as spoils of war you get to keep the virgins for yourself, kinda cool. At least He has no problems with this. And THIS is your moral yardstick? Jebus friggin Crist on a lukewarm cracker!

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    who says it is full of allegories?
    Christains do when you point them to those - and many more - fu*k-ups in their Holy Book. The answer in those cases will be something like:" This is just an allegory, it's not meant to literally." or somesuch nonsense. But when it comes to men banging men and women having fun with women, then the big: "The Bible says it's an abomination!" hammer comes out.
    Straightforward question: Do you say that the collection of writings you referr to as "The Bible" (never mid the version, King James or any other with minor deviations in between) is the word of god? Simpel answer: Yes or No?
    And how dare you to obey some of His word and kick out the passages you do not like?


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    who is judging?
    Ummmmmm......you. You do it all the time saying homosexuality is "wron" an "abomination" a "sin". So this - in my book - is judgement. I also judge when I say the nonsense you believe in is disgusting and condescending. But I have the guts to stand by my judgement.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you forgetthat christians are given duties
    Nice wigglin' again but I guess there is this little passage where it says: "Therefore, stop judging prematurely, before the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is now hidden in darkness and reveal the motives of our hearts. Then each person will receive his praise from God." So it's the big man's job to do all the judging, not yours.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    too many people hide behind interpretationand that leads to existentialism which is not of God
    So no interpretin' the bible, just live by the words you find there and stop cherry-pickin'! And this means you have the right to oppress women, burn sorcerers and have slaves. Added benefits: you can kill as much people as you want, you just have to do it in the name of Da Lord and everything is peachy.
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
    So no interpretin' the bible, just live by the words you find there and stop cherry-pickin'! And this means you have the right to oppress women, burn sorcerers and have slaves. Added benefits: you can kill as much people as you want, you just have to do it in the name of Da Lord and everything is peachy.
    Now that would be a wicked (not in the 'cool' reverse meaning way) list:

    I'd like to add: sacrifice daughters to win battles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    homoseuality
    BY the way would someone be kind enough to correct the spelling in the thread title, please.
    moderator: Thanks archy. Sometimes you don't know you can do something until you try.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    too many people hide behind interpretationand that leads to existentialism which is not of God
    So no interpretin' the bible, just live by the words you find there and stop cherry-pickin'! And this means you have the right to oppress women, burn sorcerers and have slaves. Added benefits: you can kill as much people as you want, you just have to do it in the name of Da Lord and everything is peachy.
    Looks to me like some people hide behind an interpretation of the Bible that leads to others having a very hard time between distinguishing their resulting mental state from that of a lobotomy. Archy makes it perfectly obvious that, if he doesn't cherry pick what is in the Bible (and I have no doubt that he doesn't since that would require thinking for oneself), it simply means that someone else is doing it for him.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    clear and simple: if you are practicing homosexuality you are violating God's rules and are in sin. you need to repent honestly and sincerely, looking to Jesus to guide you through it all.

    it will not be easy as you will have temptation soyou will need to find true christians to help support you as you grow in Christ.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Why the heck am I not surprised that you do not adress any of the issues I raised?

    I know that you do not want to respond to direct and simple questions. The reason for this in my oppinion is plain and simple. You do not like to think about those questions as a intelectually honest anwer would rattle your cozy li'l world. You amply provided examples for this before (does the Nickname "Kalster" ring a bell? )

    Simple and straighforward questions (again):

    - Do you believe the book you call the Bible (no matter what version, they differ only in details) is the word of god? Yes or No?

    - If so, are there any passages that are more true than others? Yes or No?

    - If so, how do you distiguish between the more and the less important parts?

    - You say that only the word of god is the moral yardstick to guide you through your live. Does that mean that all the other people on this world, no matter if they are muslims, hindu, atheists or whatever do not have morals?

    But let me guess. The answer I will get from you is


    ...crickets chirping


    ...wind blowing


    And judging from your stile of - for brevity sake let's call it "discussion" from other posts and threads you will pretend that you either did not read it, have no time right now to answer them or outright dismiss them because you don't like it. But hey, I am hopeful that poeple CAN change, so surprise me!
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    too many people hide behind interpretation and that leads to existentialism which is not of God.
    Yes but it is those who pretend that interpretation has nothing to do with their understanding of the Bible that are doing the hiding. Since existentialism first came from a Christian defending the value of Christianity, archy's words suggest the conclusion that the words of Christians do not come from God (any more than the words of other men). Thus archy is saying to us that we must not listen to him or pay any attention to his words because they are not from God and I agree that this is absolutely true.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    God and Jesus are truth and there is only 1 truth, learn to find it.
    Hey now! LOL This is actually susceptible to some clear cut logical analysis. If this quoted statement is true then it is the only truth. But then a statement saying that this statement is true would have to be false. By contradiction then, the logical conclusion is that this quoted statement must in fact be false, which gives a good example why archy should indeed be telling us not to pay any attention to his words. Thus we advance in our effort to learn and find the truth in concluding not to trust what archy says, for although some things may be true, others may be obviously and provably wrong.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Yes but it is those who pretend that interpretation has nothing to do with their understanding of the Bible that are doing the hiding. Since existentialism first came from a Christian defending the value of Christianity, archy's words suggest the conclusion that the words of Christians do not come from God (any more than the words of other men). Thus archy is saying to us that we must not listen to him or pay any attention to his words because they are not from God and I agree that this is absolutely true.
    Kierkegaard wrote many interesting things about being a Christian that arch could learn from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93 interesting 
    Forum Freshman Haku_Midori_Shadowsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    23
    I find it interesting that the homosexual community will have great distain for christains because some of them do not thing homosexuality is moral.

    They will call Christians prejudiced.

    Yet if you come out and say it, they will take away things that you should have gotten.

    Tell me then, who is really prejudiced. The one who thinks, or the one who acts?
    -Haku Midori Shadowsong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94 Re: interesting 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Haku_Midori_Shadowsong
    I find it interesting that the homosexual community will have great distain for christains because some of them do not thing homosexuality is moral.

    They will call Christians prejudiced.

    Yet if you come out and say it, they will take away things that you should have gotten.

    Tell me then, who is really prejudiced. The one who thinks, or the one who acts?
    It is very hard to understand what you are saying, particularly in the first and third sentences. Perhaps you can rephrase or explain some more and particularly provide some examples of this "they will take away things" that you claim in the third sentence.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95 Simplification 
    Forum Freshman Haku_Midori_Shadowsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    23
    Some homosexuals do not like Christians, because Christians do not approve of their sexual preference.

    They will say Christians are prejudiced against them, and in some ways they are.

    Yet their side has done things that you must admit are prejudiced.

    Such as; When Miss California said that she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman; she lost her chance to win the title of Miss USA.

    So who is more prejudiced: Christians who just don't like their sexual preference, or homosexuals who take away, in this case, titles, because of an opinion. Which I might add they asked for. It seems they didn't want an opinionated person, but someone who would just say the "feel-good" answer.
    This seems quite hypocritical.

    No offense to anyone. I am very well away that not all people who are homosexual are this way.

    And thank you to mitchellmckain, my first comment was unclear.
    I hope this one is better.
    -Haku Midori Shadowsong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Some homosexuals do not like Christians, because Christians do not approve of their sexual preference.

    They will say Christians are prejudiced against them, and in some ways they are.

    Yet their side has done things that you must admit are prejudiced.

    Such as; When Miss California said that she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman; she lost her chance to win the title of Miss USA.

    So who is more prejudiced: Christians who just don't like their sexual preference, or homosexuals who take away, in this case, titles, because of an opinion. Which I might add they asked for. It seems they didn't want an opinionated person, but someone who would just say the "feel-good" answer.
    This seems quite hypocritical.
    you are quite correct. in today's world if you do not meet the selfish requests of those who choose to disobey God then you are 'punished' because you did not cave to their demands.

    homosexuals are people who want to continue to live in sin and be accepted into heaven but that would not be right, fair, or just. God has set the rules, it is up to man to choose to abide by them and it is unrealistic to expect God to change them thousands of years after He has given them. that would not be right and to make exceptions woul dnot be right either.

    the homosexual has to obey and repent or they go to hell like all the rest who remain in sin.

    though i do not lik ebeauty contests or that believers participate, miss california stood up for what she believed in, just as some homosexuals do, and she should not have been punished because she was NOT adhering to a double standard like the homosexual judges were.

    the people who were wronf were clearly those who voted against miss california solely upon her answer to the question. good for trump for sticking up for her.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Freshman Haku_Midori_Shadowsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Some homosexuals do not like Christians, because Christians do not approve of their sexual preference.

    They will say Christians are prejudiced against them, and in some ways they are.

    Yet their side has done things that you must admit are prejudiced.

    Such as; When Miss California said that she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman; she lost her chance to win the title of Miss USA.

    So who is more prejudiced: Christians who just don't like their sexual preference, or homosexuals who take away, in this case, titles, because of an opinion. Which I might add they asked for. It seems they didn't want an opinionated person, but someone who would just say the "feel-good" answer.
    This seems quite hypocritical.
    you are quite correct. in today's world if you do not meet the selfish requests of those who choose to disobey God then you are 'punished' because you did not cave to their demands.

    homosexuals are people who want to continue to live in sin and be accepted into heaven but that would not be right, fair, or just. God has set the rules, it is up to man to choose to abide by them and it is unrealistic to expect God to change them thousands of years after He has given them. that would not be right and to make exceptions woul dnot be right either.

    the homosexual has to obey and repent or they go to hell like all the rest who remain in sin.

    though i do not lik ebeauty contests or that believers participate, miss california stood up for what she believed in, just as some homosexuals do, and she should not have been punished because she was NOT adhering to a double standard like the homosexual judges were.

    the people who were wronf were clearly those who voted against miss california solely upon her answer to the question. good for trump for sticking up for her.
    The watchword of the day is tolerance. Which is a good thing. But we have taken it to the point where we can no longer disagree with something without seeming like a complete jerk and/or idiot.

    True about Miss California.

    Also, though I agree with many of your statements, I would think being slightly less aggressive might more quickly accomplish the task of steering people away from sin.
    -Haku Midori Shadowsong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i am far from being aggressive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99 Arch 
    Forum Freshman Haku_Midori_Shadowsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    23
    Hmmm...

    I just think the whole hell issue is rather sensitive.

    And many people could get quite angry over it.
    -Haku Midori Shadowsong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I just feel the need to put this out there. Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, that is a simple fact. Marriage is an institution proposed by the bible as a way of seeing the union of two people (one man one woman). as it is defined, it is a purely Heterosexual device. Now, while I don't agree with gay marriage, I DO agree with the union of two people, no matter what sex. if you love someone, you don't really have a choice as to what sex they are, you just love them. The union of those two people should be able to be solidified, but I disagree that it should be considered marriage. for the purpose of state and federal laws, it should be held as equivalent to marriage, but it should not BE marriage. My two cents
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •