View Full Version : Moms' Genetics Might Help Produce Gay Sons
Bronco_Beerslug
02-22-2006, 06:53 PM
I knew this. But I knew it from observing two different families I've been around.
-----------------------------------------------------
By Randy Dotinga
HealthDay Reporter Tue Feb 21,
TUESDAY, Feb. 21 (HealthDay News) -- New research adds a twist to the debate on the origins of sexual orientation, suggesting that the genetics of mothers of multiple gay sons act differently than those of other women.
Scientists found that almost one fourth of the mothers who had more than one gay son processed X chromosomes in their bodies in the same way. Normally, women randomly process the chromosomes in one of two ways -- half go one way, half go the other.
The research "confirms that there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation, and that for some gay men, genes on the X chromosome are involved," said study co-author Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles.
The link between genetics and sexual orientation has been a hot topic for more than a decade as a few scientists have tried to find genes that might make people gay or straight. In the new study, Bocklandt and colleagues examined a phenomenon called "X-chromosome inactivation."
While females have two X chromosomes, they actually require only one and routinely inactivate the other, Bocklandt said. "That way, both men and women have basically one functional X chromosome," he added. Men have both an X and Y chromosome, but the Y chromosome plays a much smaller role, he said.
Women typically inactivate one of their two X chromosomes at random. "It's like flipping a coin," Bocklandt said. "If you look at a woman in any given (bodily) tissue, you'd expect about half of the cells to inactivate one X, and half would inactivate the other."
In the new study, researchers looked at 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers without gay sons to see if there was any difference in how they handled their X chromosomes. The findings appear in the February issue of the journal Human Genetics.
"When we looked at women who have gay kids, in those with more than one gay son, we saw a quarter of them inactivate the same X in virtually every cell we checked," Bocklandt said. "That's extremely unusual."
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/omahn
GonzoLays
02-22-2006, 07:40 PM
When I was in first grade, there was this kid who sat behind me named Purvis. What a pansy. He would cry everyday right when class started and continue to cry until the teacher came over and comforted him. During recess he would run around with the girls and play jump rope.
Fast forward 17 years later. He changed his name to Purvina and is a out of the closet flamer.
He was gay in first grade and he sure as hell is gay now.
RaiderH8r
02-23-2006, 07:19 AM
When I was in first grade, there was this kid who sat behind me named Purvis. What a pansy. He would cry everyday right when class started and continue to cry until the teacher came over and comforted him. During recess he would run around with the girls and play jump rope.
Fast forward 17 years later. He changed his name to Purvina and is a out of the closet flamer.
He was gay in first grade and he sure as hell is gay now.
A name like Purvis certainly didn't help either.
gunns
02-23-2006, 07:32 AM
If nothing else this proves to some skeptics that being gay is genetic and not a choice. It also will have some neanderthal husbands blaming their wives for their sons being gay.
If nothing else this proves to some skeptics that being gay is genetic and not a choice. <b> It also will have some neanderthal husbands blaming their wives for their sons being gay.</b>
They do anyway...
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 07:57 AM
so explain gay daughters?
footstepsfrom#27
02-23-2006, 08:24 AM
If nothing else this proves to some skeptics that being gay is genetic and not a choice. It also will have some neanderthal husbands blaming their wives for their sons being gay.
Un...no. It proves nothing of the sort. The list of research "proving" a genetic cause for sexual orientation is long and varried. Now we await the inevitable report on why the study was flawed.
The truth is research can almost NEVER be counted on by the general public as factual unless you have the same access to the raw data that the researchers did, and generally this is not available. Even if you had the data, you'd have to know a lot of other variables as well. The problem with medical research in general, and specifically stuff like this, is that the original findings are made public with a great deal of fanfare and media hype, and the future retraction or cautionary statements exposing errors, questions about validity, etc...are wispered so softly hardly anyone notices.
Jesterhole
02-23-2006, 09:10 AM
I don't think we're at the point technically to discover concrete proof of a gay gene. I have no doubt that homosexuality is genetic, but we're so far from really understanding genetics when it comes to behavoir that at this point, everything is guessing in the dark.
Besides, proof has never stopped certain types of people from believing how they will anyway. Bush thinks they 'jury is still out' on evolution, and that Adam and Eve were real people. And he's the most powerful man on Earth right now. That has nothing to do with the topic, but I just wanted to point it out.
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 09:12 AM
I don't think we're at the point technically to discover concrete proof of a gay gene. I have no doubt that homosexuality is genetic, but we're so far from really understanding genetics when it comes to behavoir that at this point, everything is guessing in the dark.
Besides, proof has never stopped certain types of people from believing how they will anyway. Bush thinks they 'jury is still out' on evolution, and that Adam and Eve were real people. And he's the most powerful man on Earth right now. That has nothing to do with the topic, but I just wanted to point it out.
then why did you bring your own bias up about religion then if what you said had nothing to do with the topic
MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people, a lot of intellectually superior people than you or I believe that Adam and Eve were real people too
TheDave
02-23-2006, 09:14 AM
well this could get interesting....
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 09:25 AM
well this could get interesting....
well c'mon, it's just a jacked up statement and smug statement to make
fine, you don't believe in God
don't act like you are mentally superior to those that do (not you, that Texas jackass)
TheDave
02-23-2006, 09:29 AM
well c'mon, it's just a jacked up statement and smug statement to make
fine, you don't believe in God
don't act like you are mentally superior to those that do (not you, that Texas jackass)
It's all good boss. This topic is just one that gets people extremely fired up. Nature Vs. Nurture... Religious Vs. Secular. It's got it all.
And the great part is that no one can prove it either way... yet
Un...no. It proves nothing of the sort. The list of research "proving" a genetic cause for sexual orientation is long and varried. Now we await the inevitable report on why the study was flawed.
The truth is research can almost NEVER be counted on by the general public as factual unless you have the same access to the raw data that the researchers did, and generally this is not available. Even if you had the data, you'd have to know a lot of other variables as well. The problem with medical research in general, and specifically stuff like this, is that the original findings are made public with a great deal of fanfare and media hype, and the future retraction or cautionary statements exposing errors, questions about validity, etc...are wispered so softly hardly anyone notices.
A simple question. Why the hell would anyone <b>choose</b> to be gay?
I have seen toddlers that display homosexual mannerisms did they get ahold of a "Being gay is cool" manual somewhere?
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 09:35 AM
A simple question. Why the hell would anyone <b>choose</b> to be gay?
I have seen toddlers that display homosexual mannerisms did they get ahold of a "Being gay is cool" manual somewhere?
why would anyone chose to rape children?
some sort of bad wiring in the brain IMO
I don't think we're at the point technically to discover concrete proof of a gay gene. I have no doubt that homosexuality is genetic, but we're so far from really understanding genetics when it comes to behavior that at this point, everything is guessing in the dark.
Besides, proof has never stopped certain types of people from believing how they will anyway. Bush thinks they 'jury is still out' on evolution, and that Adam and Eve were real people. And he's the most powerful man on Earth right now. That has nothing to do with the topic, but I just wanted to point it out.
I believe that structure, as it pertains to what we agree to recognize as reality, is flexible.
why would anyone chose to rape children?
some sort of bad wiring in the brain IMO
Most often when these people are interviewed by psychologists they reveal that they themselves were victims of abuse and were driven to commit the same crime on others. Sins of the father......
Bronco_Beerslug
02-23-2006, 09:48 AM
MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people, a lot of intellectually superior people than you or I believe that Adam and Eve were real people too
Are there any pictures of them floating around anywhere?
Just curious to see if they were white or black, or asian.
BroncoInferno
02-23-2006, 09:48 AM
why would anyone chose to rape children?
some sort of bad wiring in the brain IMO
Comparing a consensual act between adults with the rape of a child...I mean, c'mon, that is a poor comparison.
TailgateNut
02-23-2006, 09:50 AM
so explain gay daughters?
It's a Republican gene thing!;D
footstepsfrom#27
02-23-2006, 09:51 AM
I don't think we're at the point technically to discover concrete proof of a gay gene. I have no doubt that homosexuality is genetic, but we're so far from really understanding genetics when it comes to behavoir that at this point, everything is guessing in the dark.
Besides, proof has never stopped certain types of people from believing how they will anyway. Bush thinks they 'jury is still out' on evolution, and that Adam and Eve were real people. And he's the most powerful man on Earth right now. That has nothing to do with the topic, but I just wanted to point it out.
First you say you have "no doubt"...then you admit we don't have the technology to prove this...later you suggest "proof" exists, but is being ignored by "certain types"...all very confusing and inconsistent. If no "proof" exists because the research is incapable of producing it...something you just admitted...WHY do YOU have "no doubt" of this position. It sounds like you are the one influenced by your own bias.
The truth about medical research...
http://www.atforum.com/SiteRoot/pages/addiction_resources/EBAM_AATOD.ppt
...is that most of it's total crap. When people read words like "scientific" and "research", they wrongly assume that medical research...or most other kinds for that matter...are all about finding the TRUTH. Sadly...such is not the case. Research is DONE by somebody. It's FINANCED by somebody. Usually there is a FINANCIAL motive for both of these somebodies. Before you can even begin to figure out if research is any good or not, you better know who paid for it, who conducted it, why it was conducted, what other research these individuals have conducted or paid for, etc... Even good medical research by itself almost NEVER "proves" anything. At best it only "supports" a hypothesis that's already in existence or calls it into question. It takes dozens...sometimes HUNDREDS of research studies to "prove" most things in medical science. Reputable researchers know this, and don't claim to "prove" anything. Whenever you hear somebody say that their research "proves" such and such...be extremely suspicious. When the subject of that research involves something with large questions of sociological or cultural controversy...or has heavy implications for profit...be 10 times MORE suspicious.
A great example: pharmaceutical companies- "Research" done on various drugs, notably psychiatric drugs for instance...is presented to the FDA so that they can approve the drug. If the FDA approves it that should make it safe...right? Wrong. FDA approval is not based on whether the drug is safe or not, but whether the company shows that it "works"...ie; "does what they say it will." So research is provided that "proves" that it does. One small problem....the research is done by people who are on the payrolls of the drug companies themselves and are paid handsomly for the results. Do you think they get those jobs because they produce "negative" research that shows something other than what the company is looking for? Hardly.
No genetic cause for homosexuality...or for many other things...among them depression, psychosis, ADHD and other "mental illnesses"...has EVER been substantially or even significantly shown to exist.
That's a medical fact.
so explain gay daughters?
That's more of an ugly thing that a genetic thing. j/k
footstepsfrom#27
02-23-2006, 09:55 AM
Most often when these people are interviewed by psychologists they reveal that they themselves were victims of abuse and were driven to commit the same crime on others. Sins of the father......
When I worked in the mental health field I had contact over about 15 years with approximately 800-1000 kids who exhibited sexual abuse towards other children. In virtually every case I can remember, there was either outright proof or strong evidence that those kids were abused by somebody else first. Abuse...like many things...seems to be a learned behavior.
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 10:03 AM
Are there any pictures of them floating around anywhere?
Just curious to see if they were white or black, or asian.
give me a break...does it matter what color they were?
First you say you have "no doubt"...then you admit we don't have the technology to prove this...later you suggest "proof" exists, but is being ignored by "certain types"...all very confusing and inconsistent. If no "proof" exists because the research is incapable of producing it...something you just admitted...WHY do YOU have "no doubt" of this position. It sounds like you are the one influenced by your own bias.
The truth about medical research...
(http://www.atforum.com/SiteRoot/pages/addiction_resources/EBAM_AATOD.ppt)
...is that most of it's total crap. When people read words like "scientific" and "research", they wrongly assume that medical research...or most other kinds for that matter...are all about finding the TRUTH. Sadly...such is not the case. Research is DONE by somebody. It's FINANCED by somebody. Usually there is a FINANCIAL motive for both of these somebodies. Before you can even begin to figure out if research is any good or not, you better know who paid for it, who conducted it, why it was conducted, what other research these individuals have conducted or paid for, etc... Even good medical research by itself almost NEVER "proves" anything. At best it only "supports" a hypothesis that's already in existence or calls it into question. It takes dozens...sometimes HUNDREDS of research studies to "prove" most things in medical science. Reputable researchers know this, and don't claim to "prove" anything. Whenever you hear somebody say that their research "proves" such and such...be extremely suspicious. When the subject of that research involves something with large questions of sociological or cultural controversy...or has heavy implications for profit...be 10 times MORE suspicious.
A great example: pharmaceutical companies- "Research" done on various drugs, notably psychiatric drugs for instance...is presented to the FDA so that they can approve the drug. If the FDA approves it that should make it safe...right? Wrong. FDA approval is not based on whether the drug is safe or not, but whether the company shows that it "works"...ie; "does what they say it will." So research is provided that "proves" that it does. One small problem....the research is done by people who are on the payrolls of the drug companies themselves and are paid handsomly for the results. Do you think they get those jobs because they produce "negative" research that shows something other than what the company is looking for? Hardly.
No genetic cause for homosexuality...or for many other things...among them depression, psychosis, ADHD and other "mental illnesses"...has EVER been substantially or even significantly shown to exist.
That's a medical fact.
The truth about structure is that it is fluid and changing, influenced by the viewer's mind. The colective conscience also affects change in structure (reality)
Here is a great book on the subject:
http://www.rawfood.com/Product_Images/0692.jpg
Book: ''Messages From Water, Vol. 1'' by Masaru Emoto
Price: $35.95
Item #0692: (1999, 141 pages, softcover) - This book brings home the reality that sound and the spoken word can affect water molecules, and how we, as beings composed mostly of water, can be affected by sound. Describing the author's experiments with frozen water crystals taken from both natural and chemically treated or polluted water sources, the author shows that the crystalline patterns in frozen water give a message as to the water's basic structure and symmetry. Clean and pure water, from natural and unpolluted sources, shows brilliant and sparkling snowflake patterns rich in color and luminosity. By contrast, water from chemically treated sources or polluted waters shows flat and dull patterns lacking in structure or color. The water crystals also respond to human activity and to music. One can immediately see which water is more alive and life enhancing, and which is not, thereby bridging the gap between subjective and objective measures.
"In the Begining there was the Word...."
give me a break...does it matter what color they were?
I think his point is if we decended from one set of parents where did the different races come from
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 10:08 AM
I think his point is if we decended from one set of parents where did the different races come from
who knows
I'd assume that would come from micro-evolution depending on they type of area you settled in, your skin tone changed to cope with the enviornment
who knows
I'd assume that would come from micro-evolution depending on they type of area you settled in, your skin tone changed to cope with the enviornment
And diet
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 10:13 AM
And diet
well sure, all of those would have to factor in I'd assume
obviously if you are a WASP from Europe, you aren't going to need as much pigment in your skin as to someone who lives in africa on the equator
TheDave
02-23-2006, 10:13 AM
This book brings home the reality that sound and the spoken word can affect water molecules, and how we, as beings composed mostly of water, can be affected by sound. Describing the author's experiments with frozen water crystals taken from both natural and chemically treated or polluted water sources, the author shows that the crystalline patterns in frozen water give a message as to the water's basic structure and symmetry. Clean and pure water, from natural and unpolluted sources, shows brilliant and sparkling snowflake patterns rich in color and luminosity. By contrast, water from chemically treated sources or polluted waters shows flat and dull patterns lacking in structure or color. The water crystals also respond to human activity and to music. One can immediately see which water is more alive and life enhancing, and which is not, thereby bridging the gap between subjective and objective measures.
WOW...
sounds like someone mixed Chem 101, Philosophy 101, a truck load of "shrooms"...Then decided to write a book.
Bronco_Beerslug
02-23-2006, 10:25 AM
give me a break...does it matter what color they were?
To a large percentage of those people you were describing that believe in Adam & Eve, oh yeah!
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 10:30 AM
To a large percentage of those people you were describing that believe in Adam & Eve, oh yeah!
so you are saying that people who believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans are racists?
wow
WOW...
sounds like someone mixed Chem 101, Philosophy 101, a truck load of "shrooms"...Then decided to write a book.
So quick to dismiss....
The book is mainly photographs of frozen water crystals that have been subjected to different words actually it is very interesting, that is if you don't dismiss it without investigation.
TheDave
02-23-2006, 10:38 AM
So quick to dismiss....
The book is mainly photographs of frozen water crystals that have been subjected to different words actually it is very interesting, that is if you don't dismiss it without investigation.
Sorry boss, I'm just a natural born sceptic 8')
so you are saying that people who believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans are racists?
wow
No he is saying that most people want their Gods / Mythologic figures to look like them
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 10:43 AM
No he is saying that most people want their Gods / Mythologic figures to look like them
I suppose so
but we all bleed red and have the same basic genetic makeup, regardless of our skin tone
Sorry boss, I'm just a natural born sceptic 8')
Does that mean you have our reality pre judged and neatly categorized and explained.
Go to your library and check out the book. There is a reason that this is the first Japanese book to become a best seller.
Jesterhole
02-23-2006, 10:46 AM
then why did you bring your own bias up about religion then if what you said had nothing to do with the topic
MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people, a lot of intellectually superior people than you or I believe that Adam and Eve were real people too
Then those people believe a foolish thing.
TheDave
02-23-2006, 10:46 AM
Does that mean you have our reality pre judged and neatly catorgized and explained.
Yes i do... well...kind of'
Yes i do... well...kind of'
If, as you say, you feel like your avatar looks than there is room for improvement, maybe your view is flawed or too limited? :-)
Jesterhole
02-23-2006, 10:53 AM
First you say you have "no doubt"...then you admit we don't have the technology to prove this...later you suggest "proof" exists, but is being ignored by "certain types"...all very confusing and inconsistent. If no "proof" exists because the research is incapable of producing it...something you just admitted...WHY do YOU have "no doubt" of this position. It sounds like you are the one influenced by your own bias.
Yes, I have no doubt that it's genetic because every single gay person I've met has told me they were born that way. Every single one. Never has a gay person told me it was a choice. Is that proof? Can I show that to someone else to convince them?
I didn't say gentic proof exists, I was making a point that if it did, certain types wouldn't believe it anyway.
alkemical
02-23-2006, 10:53 AM
I believe that sound can effect much more than just hearing.
I mean, the vibrations when i play drums alone, or the trance i can get into -
why couldn't sound alter your perception of reality?
Rohirrim
02-23-2006, 11:20 AM
The problem (IMO) is not whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, it’s how our society perceives it. Having spent some time in the East, I was amazed to see that culturally, homosexuality wasn’t even on people’s radar. There seemed to be no moral judgment about it. People were, or they weren’t. So what? If you asked about it the most you’d probably get is a puzzled response like, “Why would you even care what other people do in their own beds?” The Greeks and Romans practiced homosexuality with young men, but they had no word for a separation of sexual proclivities. It was just all sex; perfectly normal to their cultures.
It wasn’t until the Christian church got going that there was suddenly some label of “evil” associated with sexuality. Suddenly all sex became dirty and homosexuality even more so. What was the morale of the Sodom story? If you go sexually wild God will smite your ass! That’s why, at least in the West, you can’t separate the subject of sexuality from religion. Somewhere along the way the Catholic Church decided it was the judge of all human behavior and could decide what was right and what was wrong, in God’s eyes. The Protestants continued the tradition.
It seems to me that America was supposed to be the place where you could escape from all that church doctrine and judgment, if you chose to. That no longer seems to be the case. The more powerful the Religious lobby becomes, the more they will infiltrate the body politic and try to alter the laws that govern all Americans to fit their own judgment of what constitutes “good” and “bad” human behaviour. Once you label a human behaviour as “bad,” how long before you start classifying the human being who practices that behaviour as “evil,” followed by the next logical step of banning the behaviour by incarcerating the practitioner of the behavior – or worse?
The road to the Dark Ages was paved with religious judgment banning natural inquiry and openness, be it scientific, ethical or moral.
From what I know of homosexuality, historically speaking, it must be a natural expression of sexuality. It is practiced by many animal species. It seems to have been expressed in the human population going back to the doors of pre-history, and probably beyond. I think that historically speaking, religious judgments imposed on sexuality have screwed up human beings far worse than they've helped.
BroncoInferno
02-23-2006, 11:41 AM
Does that mean you have our reality pre judged and neatly categorized and explained.
Go to your library and check out the book. There is a reason that this is the first Japanese book to become a best seller.
Dr. Phil is a best seller, too. Not saying this book is hogwash, but a lot of people buying something doesn't validate it.
BroncoInferno
02-23-2006, 11:45 AM
The problem (IMO) is not whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, it’s how our society perceives it. Having spent some time in the East, I was amazed to see that culturally, homosexuality wasn’t even on people’s radar. There seemed to be no moral judgment about it. People were, or they weren’t. So what? If you asked about it the most you’d probably get is a puzzled response like, “Why would you even care what other people do in their own beds?” The Greeks and Romans practiced homosexuality with young men, but they had no word for a separation of sexual proclivities. It was just all sex; perfectly normal to their cultures.
It wasn’t until the Christian church got going that there was suddenly some label of “evil” associated with sexuality. Suddenly all sex became dirty and homosexuality even more so. What was the morale of the Sodom story? If you go sexually wild God will smite your ass! That’s why, at least in the West, you can’t separate the subject of sexuality from religion. Somewhere along the way the Catholic Church decided it was the judge of all human behavior and could decide what was right and what was wrong, in God’s eyes. The Protestants continued the tradition.
It seems to me that America was supposed to be the place where you could escape from all that church doctrine and judgment, if you chose to. That no longer seems to be the case. The more powerful the Religious lobby becomes, the more they will infiltrate the body politic and try to alter the laws that govern all Americans to fit their own judgment of what constitutes “good” and “bad” human behaviour. Once you label a human behaviour as “bad,” how long before you start classifying the human being who practices that behaviour as “evil,” followed by the next logical step of banning the behaviour by incarcerating the practitioner of the behavior – or worse?
The road to the Dark Ages was paved with religious judgment banning natural inquiry and openness, be it scientific, ethical or moral.
From what I know of homosexuality, historically speaking, it must be a natural expression of sexuality. It is practiced by many animal species. It seems to have been expressed in the human population going back to the doors of pre-history, and probably beyond. I think that historically speaking, religious judgments imposed on sexuality have screwed up human beings far worse than they've helped.
Great post. The fact that homosexuality occurs in nature amongst species incapable of conscious choice is all the proof I need.
Rohirrim
02-23-2006, 11:49 AM
Great post. The fact that homosexuality occurs in nature amongst species incapable of conscious choice is all the proof I need.
Who knows? Maybe it functions as a tool in population control?
Dr. Phil is a best seller, too. Not saying this book is hogwash, but a lot of people buying something doesn't validate it.
The fact that the book comes from an obscure Japanese author that was previously unpublished makes the comparison a poor one.
Great post. The fact that homosexuality occurs in nature amongst species incapable of conscious choice is all the proof I need.
I wonder with the exception of humans if other species have intro species sex?
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 11:55 AM
Great post. The fact that homosexuality occurs in nature amongst species incapable of conscious choice is all the proof I need.
oye vay
alkemical
02-23-2006, 11:56 AM
ok i'm actually with baja on the water thing (for the most part)
Sound is energy right, why can't the wavelength of sound, change the way a 'liquid' would act/react/look?
alkemical
02-23-2006, 11:59 AM
Why wouldn't homosexuality, hermaphordites and serial killers be nature's way of just how it does business?
I mean, through our extreme compulsions maybe we are doing the work we are designed for. ala the ant
BroncoInferno
02-23-2006, 12:06 PM
oye vay
If homosexuality occurs in nature amongst creatures that cannot make conscious decisions, then the argument that homosexuality is 'unnatural' is demonstrably wrong. Or were those animals abused as children as well? So oy vey back at you.
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 12:08 PM
If homosexuality occurs in nature amongst creatures that cannot make conscious decisions, then the argument that homosexuality is 'unnatural' is demonstrably wrong. Or were those animals abused as children as well? So oy vey back at you.
so some animals eat their young and some of the fathers will kill their offspring to get rid of the competition
so if that occurs naturally, is it ok for it to occur in humans to?
good lord
BroncoInferno
02-23-2006, 12:08 PM
The fact that the book comes from an obscure Japanese author that was previously unpublished makes the comparison a poor one.
Again, I haven't read the book and won't judge it's contents, I'm just saying that masses of people have often times believed a lot of wrong things.
BroncoInferno
02-23-2006, 12:11 PM
so some animals eat their young and some of the fathers will kill their offspring to get rid of the competition
so if that occurs naturally, is it ok for it to occur in humans to?
good lord
I'm not talking about the ethics of it in context of this conversation; I'm talking about whether or not it is genetically decided. Since homosexuality occurs amongst animals other than humans, animals not capable of conscious choice, it is pretty much a slam dunk that there is a genetic component.
Again, I haven't read the book and won't judge it's contents, I'm just saying that masses of people have often times believed a lot of wrong things.
No arguement there!!
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 12:13 PM
I'm not talking about the ethics of it in context of this conversation; I'm talking about whether or not it is genetically decided. Since homosexuality occurs amongst animals other than humans, animals not capable of conscious choice, it is pretty much a slam dunk that there is a genetic component.
so since animals will interbreed, it occurs naturally, they have a natural desire to continue their species, so if only relatives are there to breed with, they will breed with them
is that ok then?
just b/c some monkeys happen to mount each other doesn't mean jack
BroncoInferno
02-23-2006, 12:13 PM
Who knows? Maybe it functions as a tool in population control?
That maybe. It would be interesting to know if gay populations increase in more densely populated areas. I wionder if such a study has been done?
TheDave
02-23-2006, 12:16 PM
so since animals will interbreed, it occurs naturally, they have a natural desire to continue their species, so if only relatives are there to breed with, they will breed with them
It worked for Adam & Eve ;)
BroncoInferno
02-23-2006, 12:16 PM
so since animals will interbreed, it occurs naturally, they have a natural desire to continue their species, so if only relatives are there to breed with, they will breed with them
is that ok then?
just b/c some monkeys happen to mount each other doesn't mean jack
You keep making the ethical argument, this discussion is about whether or not there is genetic component to homosexuality.
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 12:17 PM
Kinda like the adam & eve story ;)
with that....that remains a possiblity, more so God could've held off the genetic problems that could arise until the earth was substanitally populated
I mean people lived will past 100 years old in the old testament, so why couldn't God do that?
<b>so since animals will interbreed, it occurs naturally, they have a natural desire to continue their species, so if only relatives are there to breed with, they will breed with them
is that ok then?</b>
just b/c some monkeys happen to mount each other doesn't mean jack
Where do you think george Bush came from?
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 12:18 PM
You keep making the ethical argument, this discussion is about whether or not there is genetic component to homosexuality.
the need to propogate the species has nothing to do with ethics
a lion will mate with their own offspring to do what is natural to them, it's in their genetic makeup to want to propogate their species
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 12:19 PM
Where do you think george Bush came from?
same place you came from I guess
BroncoInferno
02-23-2006, 12:22 PM
the need to propogate the species has nothing to do with ethics
a lion will mate with their own offspring to do what is natural to them, it's in their genetic makeup to what to propogate their species
Humans have tried the same thing, with usually poor genetic results. I'm not sure I see a relationship here.
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 12:24 PM
Humans have tried the same thing, with usually poor genetic results. I'm not sure I see a relationship here.
you just made my point for me
It worked for Adam & Eve ;)
:rofl:
BroncoInferno
02-23-2006, 12:26 PM
you just made my point for me
How does that relate to homosexuality where there is no threat of genetically flawed offspring?
same place you came from I guess
So all kidding aside are you looking for a date?
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 12:29 PM
How does that relate to homosexuality where there is no threat of genetically flawed offspring?
same basic point
if you don't believe in God
ergo you believe in evolution
how does homosexuality and/or interbreeding help propogate the species?
hmmmmmmmmmm
I mean afterall, if we are just animals, wouldn't that trait of been breeded out since those with that trait would not breed?
hmmmmmmmmmmm
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 12:30 PM
So all kidding aside are you looking for a date?
old hippies that shun the USA aren't my type ;) :kiss:
BroncoInferno
02-23-2006, 12:32 PM
same basic point
if you don't believe in God
ergo you believe in evolution
how does homosexuality and/or interbreeding help propogate the species?
hmmmmmmmmmm
I mean afterall, if we are just animals, wouldn't that trait of been breeded out since those with that trait would not breed?
hmmmmmmmmmmm
Sometimes populations get out of hand. Perhaps nature naturally selects certain percentages of animals to be attracted to their own sex in order to help keep the population under control.
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 12:34 PM
Sometimes populations get out of hand. Perhaps nature naturally selects certain percentages of animals to be attracted to their own sex in order to help keep the population under control.
you win
all I can say is what I said earlier
oye vay (throwing hands up)
old hippies that shun the USA aren't my type ;) :kiss:
I'm not old :D
Sometimes populations get out of hand. Perhaps nature naturally selects certain percentages of animals to be attracted to their own sex in order to help keep the population under control.
Ya know that might be what mosquitos are for
Rohirrim
02-23-2006, 01:27 PM
Sometimes populations get out of hand. Perhaps nature naturally selects certain percentages of animals to be attracted to their own sex in order to help keep the population under control.
There was a study some years ago that yielded a surprise. These scientists were studying arctic hare populations and matching how the animals' breeding frequency would go up in times of plenty. The surprise was that the hares started breeding more heavily before the plenty was there! Somehow they were anticipating good growing seasons in the environment. The real shock came when they checked on predator breeding habits and discovered that the foxes were doing the same thing. When the hares were breeding more heavily, so were the foxes! It was simultaneous population increases in two species not based on cause and effect. When all those little hares were being born, so were all those little foxes.
epicSocialism4tw
02-23-2006, 01:40 PM
Where's Dave??
There's some wierd science going down in this thread. I've gotta go work, or else I'd address some of this stuff, but there are some really oddball things floating around in here as 'science'.
It really scares me to think of how many people accept data blindly and rest their faith in science without knowing what on earth it is, or why it is important.
The same is true for people who havent spent any time learning about Christ or what the Bible says and spout forth garbage.
BroncoInferno
02-23-2006, 01:44 PM
Well, when you get time, please enlighten us.
smalltowngrll
02-23-2006, 01:49 PM
Where's Dave??
There's some wierd science going down in this thread. I've gotta go work, or else I'd address some of this stuff, but there are some really oddball things floating around in here as 'science'.
It really scares me to think of how many people accept data blindly and rest their faith in science without knowing what on earth it is, or why it is important.
The same is true for people who havent spent any time learning about Christ or what the Bible says and spout forth garbage.
:thumbs: Excellent point!!!
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 01:55 PM
There was a study some years ago that yielded a surprise. These scientists were studying arctic hare populations and matching how the animals' breeding frequency would go up in times of plenty. The surprise was that the hares started breeding more heavily before the plenty was there! Somehow they were anticipating good growing seasons in the environment. The real shock came when they checked on predator breeding habits and discovered that the foxes were doing the same thing. When the hares were breeding more heavily, so were the foxes! It was simultaneous population increases in two species not based on cause and effect. When all those little hares were being born, so were all those little foxes.
yeah, no such thing as intelligent design, eh ;)
Bronco_Beerslug
02-23-2006, 01:59 PM
Where's Dave??
There's some wierd science going down in this thread. I've gotta go work, or else I'd address some of this stuff, but there are some really oddball things floating around in here as 'science'.
It really scares me to think of how many people accept data blindly and rest their faith in science without knowing what on earth it is, or why it is important.
The same is true for people who havent spent any time learning about Christ or what the Bible says and spout forth garbage.
Seems to me you're seeing something that isn't there. Looks to me that people are just putting stuff out there to contemplate.
TheDave
02-23-2006, 01:59 PM
Where's Dave??
There's some wierd science going down in this thread. I've gotta go work, or else I'd address some of this stuff, but there are some really oddball things floating around in here as 'science'.
It really scares me to think of how many people accept data blindly and rest their faith in science without knowing what on earth it is, or why it is important.
The same is true for people who havent spent any time learning about Christ or what the Bible says and spout forth garbage.
I've made my cracks... This hornets nest of a topic makes the whole evolution debate seem tame. The science backing evolution is rock solid compared to the science supporting genetic links to homosexuality. My personal opinion is that it is both Nature and Nurture. But if the evolution science doesn't persuade people there is no way that the studies mentioned in this thread are going to sway anyone. Homosexuals are part of our society weather people like it or not, and to exclude them from any of my rights as a hetero is just modern day bigotry... But that's my just opinion
There was a study some years ago that yielded a surprise. These scientists were studying arctic hare populations and matching how the animals' breeding frequency would go up in times of plenty. The surprise was that the hares started breeding more heavily before the plenty was there! Somehow they were anticipating good growing seasons in the environment. The real shock came when they checked on predator breeding habits and discovered that the foxes were doing the same thing. When the hares were breeding more heavily, so were the foxes! It was simultaneous population increases in two species not based on cause and effect. When all those little hares were being born, so were all those little foxes.
That would explain Raider fans
I've made my cracks... This hornets nest of a topic makes the whole evolution debate seem tame. The science backing evolution is rock solid compared to the science supporting genetic links to homosexuality. My personal opinion is that it is both Nature and Nurture. But if the evolution science doesn't persuade people there is no way that the studies mentioned in this thread are going to sway anyone. <b> Homosexuals are part of our society weather people like it or not</b>, and to exclude them from any of my rights as a hetero is just modern day bigotry... But that's my just opinion
What do the weather people have to do with this, are people only gay on a partly cloudy day?
TheDave
02-23-2006, 02:11 PM
What do the weather people have to do with this, are people only gay on a partly cloudy day?
4321~
Bronco_Beerslug
02-23-2006, 02:18 PM
What do the weather people have to do with this, are people only gay on a partly cloudy day?
LOL
4321~
Got to admit that was good Dave.
footstepsfrom#27
02-23-2006, 02:20 PM
It wasn’t until the Christian church got going that there was suddenly some label of “evil” associated with sexuality.
There's so much wrong here I hardly know where to start...this stuff is usually less productive than politics in this forum, so I'm sure I'll regret this...
The first mention of homosexuality and it being considered evil are found in Genesis 19, about 1900 years before the Christian church, meaning that in western society Judaism and not Christianity are where the roots of homosexuality being considered sin come from. Prior even to the time of Abraham and the Sodom and Gomorah chapter, Genesis records divine commands in the 1st chapter for one man and one woman to be monogomous and this constituted the institution of marriage as we currently know it from earliest times. Islam rejects homosexuality also, though since it antidates both Judaism and Christianity you could make the argument that the Quron, which includes elements of stories from the Bible as well, could have taken it's position on homosexuality from the Bible. Buddisms started about 500 years before Christ and Buddha advocated "right conduct" as one of its 8 primary pathways to Nirvana, which included among other things, basically saying no to illicit sexual desires and other passions that might overtake the mind. One of the 5 laws of right conduct states, "I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from sexual misconduct". The Dahlai Lama has basically defined homosexuality as wrong, but wrong only for Buddhists. Also forbidden are oral and anal sex and masturbation.
Religion, prior to the beginning of Judaism, namely pagan religions like Animism, idol worship, sorcery and worship of king-gods like that practiced by societies such as ancient Egypt, made liberal use not only of sex as enjoyment, but as worship. Pagan temples in pre-Judaism and pre-Christianity used sexual priestesses and religious prostitutes as symbols of worship and fertility and acts of sexual deviance were committed and encouraged in the temples...basically a combination brothel and temple kind of arrangement. Middle eastern cultures surrounding the Old Testament kingdom of Israel engaged in errecting (no pun intended) shrines to various deities (demons) that revolved around phalic symbols and were called "high places" throughout the the historic and prophetic books of the Old Testament. Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity all basically reacted in varrying degrees to what cultures around them were doing by establishing prohibitions against certain types of sexual behavior. Of the three, Christianity came last, not first.
Suddenly all sex became dirty and homosexuality even more so. What was the morale of the Sodom story? If you go sexually wild God will smite your ass! That’s why, at least in the West, you can’t separate the subject of sexuality from religion.
The moral of the Sodom story was that Abraham and all his family (Lott included) were to be seperated out from the culture around them to establish a moral and religious compact with God that would later include the rest of the world. Hence, the problem with Lott's choice to "dwell in Sodom" launched his departure from this agreement and the resulting consequences of his wife turning into a pillar of salt when she disobeyed and looked back as they left the city. All sex is not condemned in Christianity, only sex outside of marriage, of which obviously homosexuality is a subset. Cultural and religious traditions have segmented homosexuality needlessly into a "worse" category in some Christian tradition. It should be obvious that many things that are behaviorally oriented, including certain sexual practices, cannot be seperated from religious thought, since religion addresses human behavior and that is the very essense of its purpose. That's like trying to discuss the Broncos without addressing the game of football. Expecting religion to not address human behavior is absurd, since doing so means the basis for it's purpose then dissapears entirely.
Somewhere along the way the Catholic Church decided it was the judge of all human behavior and could decide what was right and what was wrong, in God’s eyes. The Protestants continued the tradition.
The Catholic church did establish proprietary practices for worship and traditions outside of the Biblical commands regarding sex, (and many other things) including the idea that priests should not be married, and they did organize extra-Biblical laws and incorporate them into their system of worship, but prohibitions against homosexuality were not one of them. The New Testament as well as the Old, both condemn the practice. The Catholic church merely picked up what was already written in the Bible and continued with the doctrinal teaching as it was previously written.
It seems to me that America was supposed to be the place where you could escape from all that church doctrine and judgment, if you chose to. That no longer seems to be the case. The more powerful the Religious lobby becomes, the more they will infiltrate the body politic and try to alter the laws that govern all Americans to fit their own judgment of what constitutes “good” and “bad” human behavior.
You're forgetting that America held very conservative cultural, religious and moral values up untill the 1960's, or about 400 years compared to the last 40 or so. The religious lobby didn't enter American culture as a force for change until the nation began moving away from historical values that had been in force for centuries...90% of our time on this continent. In this context, it isn't the religious right that has moved to dissrupt American culture, it's the forces of academia, philosophy and moral relativism that have attempted the largest coupe on American culture and values in the very recent past and present. The so called "religious right" has emerged as a counter agent to those forces. Having said this, I personally don't side with religion using politics to enact moral change, at least not on an institutional level. However, most who are labeled as part of the so-called "religious right" have never donated a single day or dollar one to organized political lobbying activities by religious organizations. The word has come to mean anyone who even "thinks" like this, which is idiotic. The poltical forum is meant to be inclusive and if it's not open to those who wish to continue conservative societal values, it's not democratic. While I doubt the value of institutional religious involvement in societal politics and legal maneuvers to accomplish their goals...I do understand the desire of people to use the most direct route at their disposal to alter what they see as extremely rapid and culturally corrosive changes taking place that are destroying nearly 400 years of societal traditions in this country. Poltical machinery is being used by both sides in this culture war, so suggesting that the "religious right" is somehow "breaking the rules" is nonsense.
Once you label a human behaviour as “bad,” how long before you start classifying the human being who practices that behaviour as “evil,” followed by the next logical step of banning the behaviour by incarcerating the practitioner of the behavior – or worse?
This is a foolish argument birthed from philosophy 101 somewhere. Many human behaviors are justifiably labeled as "bad". They're often called CRIMES. These behaviors ARE bad, and the people who committ them are ALSO "bad". That's why many of them ARE incarcerated. Robbing, killing, raping, child molestation...all are "bad" and so are those who practice them, at least in terms of any philosophically pragmatic way society can actually make use of. Without societal judgements as to good and bad morality we have no basis for law. Western law takes its philosophical roots from the 10 Commandments and Judeo-Christian values. Eastern societies bring theirs from other sources but the point is that the act of labeling something or judgng it as "bad" or "good" is not only justified, it's a practical impossibility to operate a society without these value judgements. Anarchy is the end result if we don't have value judgements generally accepted by society.
The road to the Dark Ages was paved with religious judgment banning natural inquiry and openness, be it scientific, ethical or moral.
Actually the road to the dark ages was not the result of any such singular event, though the Roman church played a large part. The destruction of Roman power as an empire, and the development of chaotic and war-like states in Europe caused a general regression in the arts and sciences as nations, and tribes engaged in warfare rather than exploration or the pursuit of knowledge. The Catholic church in seeking to preserve their version of Christianity against pagan onslaught, ironically created the opposite effect, by banning the Bible and crushing all religious thought they didn't approve of. The Bible was printed in Latin, the language of the church, but not the languages spoken by common people. It became the exclusive right of the Roman church to read it and interperate it. Without access to information, the commoners becamse subject to Rome's every edict and whim. Rebelling against that idea eventually produced translations into languages commoners could read...and the age of enlightenment with advances in culture, art, science, philosophy, etc...followed soon after.
I think that historically speaking, religious judgments imposed on sexuality have screwed up human beings far worse than they've helped.
In saying so...you are making a religious judgement. LOL As I already stated, without value judgements, society cannot operate. Value judgements on things like chld porn, rape, incest, etc...are freely accepted by most who only protest when it's their ox that gets gored.
Rohirrim
02-23-2006, 02:23 PM
yeah, no such thing as intelligent design, eh ;)
Well, that would wrap it up without any need for further study. God did it! That's the beauty of faith. You don't really have to know anything. ;D
TheDave
02-23-2006, 02:31 PM
LOL
Got to admit that was good Dave.
Yeah it was... I just get burned that i can't spell
smalltowngrll
02-23-2006, 02:32 PM
There's so much wrong here I hardly know where to start...this stuff is usually less productive than politics in this forum, so I'm sure I'll regret this...
The first mention of homosexuality and it being considered evil are found in Genesis 19, about 1900 years before the Christian church, meaning that in western society Judaism and not Christianity are where the roots of homosexuality being considered sin come from. Prior even to the time of Abraham and the Sodom and Gomorah chapter, Genesis records divine commands in the 1st chapter for one man and one woman to be monogomous and this constituted the institution of marriage as we currently know it from earliest times. Islam rejects homosexuality also, though since it antidates both Judaism and Christianity you could make the argument that the Quron, which includes elements of stories from the Bible as well, could have taken it's position on homosexuality from the Bible. Buddisms started about 500 years before Christ and Buddha advocated "right conduct" as one of its 8 primary pathways to Nirvana, which included among other things, basically saying no to illicit sexual desires and other passions that might overtake the mind. One of the 5 laws of right conduct states, "I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from sexual misconduct". The Dahlai Lama has basically defined homosexuality as wrong, but wrong only for Buddhists. Also forbidden are oral and anal sex and masturbation.
Religion, prior to the beginning of Judaism, namely pagan religions like Animism, idol worship, sorcery and worship of king-gods like that practiced by societies such as ancient Egypt, made liberal use not only of sex as enjoyment, but as worship. Pagan temples in pre-Judaism and pre-Christianity used sexual priestesses and religious prostitutes as symbols of worship and fertility and acts of sexual deviance were committed and encouraged in the temples...basically a combination brothel and temple kind of arrangement. Middle eastern cultures surrounding the Old Testament kingdom of Israel engaged in errecting (no pun intended) shrines to various deities (demons) that revolved around phalic symbols and were called "high places" throughout the the historic and prophetic books of the Old Testament. Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity all basically reacted in varrying degrees to what cultures around them were doing by establishing prohibitions against certain types of sexual behavior. Of the three, Christianity came last, not first.
The moral of the Sodom story was that Abraham and all his family (Lott included) were to be seperated out from the culture around them to establish a moral and religious compact with God that would later include the rest of the world. Hence, the problem with Lott's choice to "dwell in Sodom" launched his departure from this agreement and the resulting consequences of his wife turning into a pillar of salt when she disobeyed and looked back as they left the city. All sex is not condemned in Christianity, only sex outside of marriage, of which obviously homosexuality is a subset. Cultural and religious traditions have segmented homosexuality needlessly into a "worse" category in some Christian tradition. It should be obvious that many things that are behaviorally oriented, including certain sexual practices, cannot be seperated from religious thought, since religion addresses human behavior and that is the very essense of its purpose. That's like trying to discuss the Broncos without addressing the game of football. Expecting religion to not address human behavior is absurd, since doing so means the basis for it's purpose then dissapears entirely.
The Catholic church did establish proprietary practices for worship and traditions outside of the Biblical commands regarding sex, (and many other things) including the idea that priests should not be married, and they did organize extra-Biblical laws and incorporate them into their system of worship, but prohibitions against homosexuality were not one of them. The New Testament as well as the Old, both condemn the practice. The Catholic church merely picked up what was already written in the Bible and continued with the doctrinal teaching as it was previously written.
You're forgetting that America held very conservative cultural, religious and moral values up untill the 1960's, or about 400 years compared to the last 40 or so. The religious lobby didn't enter American culture as a force for change until the nation began moving away from historical values that had been in force for centuries...90% of our time on this continent. In this context, it isn't the religious right that has moved to dissrupt American culture, it's the forces of academia, philosophy and moral relativism that have attempted the largest coupe on American culture and values in the very recent past and present. The so called "religious right" has emerged as a counter agent to those forces. Having said this, I personally don't side with religion using politics to enact moral change, at least not on an institutional level. However, most who are labeled as part of the so-called "religious right" have never donated a single day or dollar one to organized political lobbying activities by religious organizations. The word has come to mean anyone who even "thinks" like this, which is idiotic. The poltical forum is meant to be inclusive and if it's not open to those who wish to continue conservative societal values, it's not democratic. While I doubt the value of institutional religious involvement in societal politics and legal maneuvers to accomplish their goals...I do understand the desire of people to use the most direct route at their disposal to alter what they see as extremely rapid and culturally corrosive changes taking place that are destroying nearly 400 years of societal traditions in this country. Poltical machinery is being used by both sides in this culture war, so suggesting that the "religious right" is somehow "breaking the rules" is nonsense.
This is a foolish argument birthed from philosophy 101 somewhere. Many human behaviors are justifiably labeled as "bad". They're often called CRIMES. These behaviors ARE bad, and the people who committ them are ALSO "bad". That's why many of them ARE incarcerated. Robbing, killing, raping, child molestation...all are "bad" and so are those who practice them, at least in terms of any philosophically pragmatic way society can actually make use of. Without societal judgements as to good and bad morality we have no basis for law. Western law takes its philosophical roots from the 10 Commandments and Judeo-Christian values. Eastern societies bring theirs from other sources but the point is that the act of labeling something or judgng it as "bad" or "good" is not only justified, it's a practical impossibility to operate a society without these value judgements. Anarchy is the end result if we don't have value judgements generally accepted by society.
Actually the road to the dark ages was not the result of any such singular event, though the Roman church played a large part. The destruction of Roman power as an empire, and the development of chaotic and war-like states in Europe caused a general regression in the arts and sciences as nations, and tribes engaged in warfare rather than exploration or the pursuit of knowledge. The Catholic church in seeking to preserve their version of Christianity against pagan onslaught, ironically created the opposite effect, by banning the Bible and crushing all religious thought they didn't approve of. The Bible was printed in Latin, the language of the church, but not the languages spoken by common people. It became the exclusive right of the Roman church to read it and interperate it. Without access to information, the commoners becamse subject to Rome's every edict and whim. Rebelling against that idea eventually produced translations into languages commoners could read...and the age of enlightenment with advances in culture, art, science, philosophy, etc...followed soon after.
In saying so...you are making a religious judgement. LOL As I already stated, without value judgements, society cannot operate. Value judgements on things like chld porn, rape, incest, etc...are freely accepted by most who only protest when it's their ox that gets gored.
Excellent post! Although many tend to look at the old testament as a "religious book" they forget that it is also a historical book.
Originally posted by Rohirrim
Well, that would wrap it up without any need for further study. God did it! That's the beauty of faith. You don't really have to know anything.
God only gave man a free will to choose to do whatever man wants. That's the freedom we have. Although, we have to keep in mind that, while we can do and say and feel and believe however or whatever we WANT to, there are consequences (good or bad) to those choices.
TheDave
02-23-2006, 02:39 PM
I just love when these threads devolve into sermons... Where's Robb?
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 02:44 PM
I just love when these threads devolve into sermons... Where's Robb?
shut up and pay your pennance
TheDave
02-23-2006, 02:48 PM
shut up and pay your pennance
look i get to use it again... 4321~
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 02:52 PM
look i get to use it again... 4321~
.....let me insert the......that's what your wife said joke in here
alkemical
02-23-2006, 03:07 PM
If you believe in I.D.
Then gays are part of the plan.
smalltowngrll
02-23-2006, 03:13 PM
If you believe in I.D.
Then gays are part of the plan.
Nope...I believe that God created man with a mind of his own...to choose. No plan except for the fact that God knew we'd screw it up...just like we always do. He gave us an accomodation for that screw up. Not pushing my philosphy on anyone...just the way I see it!
alkemical
02-23-2006, 03:20 PM
Nope...I believe that God created man with a mind of his own...to choose. No plan except for the fact that God knew we'd screw it up...just like we always do. He gave us an accomodation for that screw up. Not pushing my philosphy on anyone...just the way I see it!
well i'm a kabbalist/Thuergist and to me gays/hermaphrodites, etc are all part of the plan. But then maybe god put gays on earth to teach the religious types about compassion.
well i'm a kabbalist/Thuergist and to me gays/hermaphrodites, etc are all part of the plan. But then maybe god put gays on earth to teach the religious types about compassion.
or envy
well i'm a kabbalist/Thuergist and to me gays/hermaphrodites, etc are all part of the plan. But then maybe god put gays on earth to teach the religious types about compassion.
Check this out josh;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2357448098911229950
alkemical
02-23-2006, 03:28 PM
can't do so at work baja, but will check out sometime.
elseif - you want to give me a 'rundown'.
orangenblue2
02-23-2006, 03:46 PM
Excellent post! Although many tend to look at the old testament as a "religious book" they forget that it is also a historical book.
Come again???
Mile High Shack
02-23-2006, 03:48 PM
Come again???
probably meaning there are a lot of historical things in the old testament that can be proven to have happened outside of the bible
epicSocialism4tw
02-23-2006, 03:53 PM
This thread got good while I was away...thanks for the effort there Footsteps. Well done.
Old Dude
02-23-2006, 04:35 PM
so explain gay daughters?
There's nothing genetically wrong with lesbians. They just have better eyesight than other women.
Hell, if I was a woman, I'd definitely be a lesbian, because all dudes are just plain gross & ugly.
Rohirrim
02-23-2006, 06:50 PM
The first mention of homosexuality and it being considered evil are found in Genesis 19, about 1900 years before the Christian church, meaning that in western society Judaism and not Christianity are where the roots of homosexuality being considered sin come from.
Without the rise of Christianity, Judaism would be a less-than-minor sect, something like Rosecrucians or the Bahai. I was talking about major impacts on Western Civ.
Prior even to the time of Abraham and the Sodom and Gomorah chapter, Genesis records divine commands in the 1st chapter for one man and one woman to be monogomous and this constituted the institution of marriage as we currently know it from earliest times. Islam rejects homosexuality also, though since it antidates both Judaism and Christianity you could make the argument that the Quron, which includes elements of stories from the Bible as well, could have taken it's position on homosexuality from the Bible. Buddisms started about 500 years before Christ and Buddha advocated "right conduct" as one of its 8 primary pathways to Nirvana, which included among other things, basically saying no to illicit sexual desires and other passions that might overtake the mind. One of the 5 laws of right conduct states, "I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from sexual misconduct". The Dahlai Lama has basically defined homosexuality as wrong, but wrong only for Buddhists. Also forbidden are oral and anal sex and masturbation.
Religion, prior to the beginning of Judaism, namely pagan religions like Animism, idol worship, sorcery and worship of king-gods like that practiced by societies such as ancient Egypt, made liberal use not only of sex as enjoyment, but as worship. Pagan temples in pre-Judaism and pre-Christianity used sexual priestesses and religious prostitutes as symbols of worship and fertility and acts of sexual deviance were committed and encouraged in the temples...basically a combination brothel and temple kind of arrangement. Middle eastern cultures surrounding the Old Testament kingdom of Israel engaged in errecting (no pun intended) shrines to various deities (demons) that revolved around phalic symbols and were called "high places" throughout the the historic and prophetic books of the Old Testament. Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity all basically reacted in varrying degrees to what cultures around them were doing by establishing prohibitions against certain types of sexual behavior. Of the three, Christianity came last, not first.
You don't need religion to tell you some excesses can screw you up. Aristotle, Plato and Socrates all offered the advice that any kind of excess, in sex, food, wine, etc. etc. could unstring your mind and turn you into a less than conscious individual. The difference is, they came to that conclusion absent the intervention of any divine being. It was common sense and wisdom, not sin. They also didn't mix the idea of morality and amorality into the picture, especially some kind of judgmentalism attributed to some invisible, divine king.
The moral of the Sodom story was that Abraham and all his family (Lott included) were to be seperated out from the culture around them to establish a moral and religious compact with God that would later include the rest of the world. Hence, the problem with Lott's choice to "dwell in Sodom" launched his departure from this agreement and the resulting consequences of his wife turning into a pillar of salt when she disobeyed and looked back as they left the city. All sex is not condemned in Christianity, only sex outside of marriage, of which obviously homosexuality is a subset. Cultural and religious traditions have segmented homosexuality needlessly into a "worse" category in some Christian tradition. It should be obvious that many things that are behaviorally oriented, including certain sexual practices, cannot be seperated from religious thought, since religion addresses human behavior and that is the very essense of its purpose. That's like trying to discuss the Broncos without addressing the game of football. Expecting religion to not address human behavior is absurd, since doing so means the basis for it's purpose then dissapears entirely.
Here, once again, we must revisit the idea that morality comes from God, which is utter BS. The Aztecs cut the hearts out of living victims in the name of god. The Jews sacrificed their children to god and now we quote the scriptures from that time in history to guide us in our modern lives? No thanks. It's all relative to time and place.
In science, there is no such relativity. If the whole concept of God and religion were miraculously wiped from the minds of human beings tomorrow, would they suddenly go berserk? Of course not. Humans are societal animals. They construct rules that enhance the harmony of the societies they live in and punish those who don't live by those rules. Certainly, religion can address human behavior, but it has no monopoly on the concept. Given the history of religion, it should have much less cache than it does.
Here's where you run into problems. If you think your god IS god, then you think your opinion based on your interpretation of your scriptures is right with a capital R. It's why Sunnis kill Shiites and vice versa. It's why religion and Constitution don't mix. It's why you have to choose to be a reason-based society, or a religion-based society. Oil and water.
The Catholic church did establish proprietary practices for worship and traditions outside of the Biblical commands regarding sex, (and many other things) including the idea that priests should not be married, and they did organize extra-Biblical laws and incorporate them into their system of worship, but prohibitions against homosexuality were not one of them. The New Testament as well as the Old, both condemn the practice. The Catholic church merely picked up what was already written in the Bible and continued with the doctrinal teaching as it was previously written.
Which does not shed any light on the conflict. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. As natural as heterosexuality. Why should it be abhorrent to our morals any more than heterosexuality is? Why? Because God says so. You can eat beef, but you can't eat pork. You say tomayto, I say tomahto. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
You're forgetting that America held very conservative cultural, religious and moral values up untill the 1960's, or about 400 years compared to the last 40 or so. The religious lobby didn't enter American culture as a force for change until the nation began moving away from historical values that had been in force for centuries...90% of our time on this continent. In this context, it isn't the religious right that has moved to dissrupt American culture, it's the forces of academia, philosophy and moral relativism that have attempted the largest coupe on American culture and values in the very recent past and present. The so called "religious right" has emerged as a counter agent to those forces. Having said this, I personally don't side with religion using politics to enact moral change, at least not on an institutional level. However, most who are labeled as part of the so-called "religious right" have never donated a single day or dollar one to organized political lobbying activities by religious organizations. The word has come to mean anyone who even "thinks" like this, which is idiotic. The poltical forum is meant to be inclusive and if it's not open to those who wish to continue conservative societal values, it's not democratic. While I doubt the value of institutional religious involvement in societal politics and legal maneuvers to accomplish their goals...I do understand the desire of people to use the most direct route at their disposal to alter what they see as extremely rapid and culturally corrosive changes taking place that are destroying nearly 400 years of societal traditions in this country. Poltical machinery is being used by both sides in this culture war, so suggesting that the "religious right" is somehow "breaking the rules" is nonsense.
Not this old ridiculous argument again!? The Sixties did it!!! What unadulterated BS. Ben Franklin was going tooth and nail against the sanctimonies of Cotton Mather long before 1776. There has always been a clash between those on the side of religion vs. those on the side of reason. It could almost be called the character of this nation. One side may get the upper hand now and then, but the arguments still aren't resolved. It's kind of like Bush using national security to erode our rights, the religious lobby has always used the concept of "moral degradation of society" to try and impose its religiousity on the secular world. Once it was "demon rum," now it's homosexual marriage. Same scare tactics, same ends.
This is a foolish argument birthed from philosophy 101 somewhere. Many human behaviors are justifiably labeled as "bad". They're often called CRIMES. These behaviors ARE bad, and the people who committ them are ALSO "bad". That's why many of them ARE incarcerated. Robbing, killing, raping, child molestation...all are "bad" and so are those who practice them, at least in terms of any philosophically pragmatic way society can actually make use of. Without societal judgements as to good and bad morality we have no basis for law. Western law takes its philosophical roots from the 10 Commandments and Judeo-Christian values. Eastern societies bring theirs from other sources but the point is that the act of labeling something or judgng it as "bad" or "good" is not only justified, it's a practical impossibility to operate a society without these value judgements. Anarchy is the end result if we don't have value judgements generally accepted by society.
Natural behaviors and criminal conduct are two different things. Unless of course you view natural behaviors, like homosexuality, as a crime? Perhaps you could clarify why you believe homosexuality is similar to murder, child molestation, rape, etc.?
Actually the road to the dark ages was not the result of any such singular event, though the Roman church played a large part. The destruction of Roman power as an empire, and the development of chaotic and war-like states in Europe caused a general regression in the arts and sciences as nations, and tribes engaged in warfare rather than exploration or the pursuit of knowledge. The Catholic church in seeking to preserve their version of Christianity against pagan onslaught, ironically created the opposite effect, by banning the Bible and crushing all religious thought they didn't approve of. The Bible was printed in Latin, the language of the church, but not the languages spoken by common people. It became the exclusive right of the Roman church to read it and interperate it. Without access to information, the commoners becamse subject to Rome's every edict and whim. Rebelling against that idea eventually produced translations into languages commoners could read...and the age of enlightenment with advances in culture, art, science, philosophy, etc...followed soon after.
Check out the burning of the library of Alexandria, or perhaps the burning of scientists. They almost toasted old Galileo you know. No, it was religion trying to destroy secularism. Whenever a society turns to religion, it's flush time.
In saying so...you are making a religious judgement. LOL As I already stated, without value judgements, society cannot operate. Value judgements on things like chld porn, rape, incest, etc...are freely accepted by most who only protest when it's their ox that gets gored.
I don't know how you could term this (I think that historically speaking, religious judgments imposed on sexuality have screwed up human beings far worse than they've helped. ) a "religious judgment." Read Aristotle's "Ethics" or Plato's "Republic." They're just chock full of value judgments. The difference is, their judgments are made on a reasoned, common sense approach to the needs of human societies and individuals, not on the mystical revelations of some invisible divinity to some nutcase, a few of whose followers have decided is some kind of prophet. Do they sanction murder, child porn, rape, incest, etc.? Of course not. For a successful society to exist that incorporated murder, rape or incest into it's basic operations, those practices would probably require some kind of religious excuse. Then it would probably work. ;D
footstepsfrom#27
02-23-2006, 09:18 PM
As I noted to begin with...religion conversations on this forum are even less productive than those on politics...so here's my second, and last response.
Without the rise of Christianity, Judaism would be a less-than-minor sect, something like Rosecrucians or the Bahai. I was talking about major impacts on Western Civ.
Thats nonsense. Judaism has impacted the western world dissproportionate to it's numbers of followers. Without the Old Testament, Christianity does not exist. The basis for law itself in western society is taken from the Ten Commandments in Exodus.
You don't need religion to tell you some excesses can screw you up. Aristotle, Plato and Socrates all offered the advice that any kind of excess, in sex, food, wine, etc. etc. could unstring your mind and turn you into a less than conscious individual. The difference is, they came to that conclusion absent the intervention of any divine being. It was common sense and wisdom, not sin. They also didn't mix the idea of morality and amorality into the picture, especially some kind of judgmentalism attributed to some invisible, divine king.
My statement had to do with your proclamation that the idea of homosexuality as a moral violation...ie; "sin"...began with Christianity. It did not. Second, the fact that idol worship and worship of various pagan deities in ancient times did not distinguish homosexuality as "sin" is hardly suprising given that the nature of these religions was built on the worship of sexuality. But as I've already noted, both Buddhism and Judaism argued against the practice, and Islam picked it up later. Again...the argument has nothing to do with Aristotle, etc...but when homosexuality was considered immoral.
Here, once again, we must revisit the idea that morality comes from God, which is utter BS. The Aztecs cut the hearts out of living victims in the name of god. The Jews sacrificed their children to god and now we quote the scriptures from that time in history to guide us in our modern lives? No thanks. It's all relative to time and place.
This is a straw man argument, and completely worthless to this discussion. Nowhere in the Old Testament will you find anything but condemnation and utter revulsion expressed towards the practice of sacrificing children or human beings characteristic of pagan worship. The Jews picked up these practices from pagan societies that surrounded them on all sides, and they were severely judged by God for engaging in these practices, as they were warned they would be if they followed these nations patterns of behavior. The fact that these behaviors are accurately reported by the writers of the Old Testament only reveals that it happened, not that it was part of Judaism or sanctioned by God. Human sacrifice was NEVER part of Judaism, nor was it sanctioned, condoned or excused. It was in fact part of a package of behaviors that led eventually in the OT account of the Jews going into exhile both during the time of the Babylonian captivity as well as later leading up to the time of Christ. As for your statement that morality comes from God being "utter BS"...illustrations from pagan religious practices, which BTW were quite often directed towards demons, is hardly supporting evidence. Indeed, such "evidence" is not something you can state as empirical fact as you do, since it is purely a matter of opinion, and much like other theoretical aspects of morality and religion, evidence...quite like beauty...is usually found in the eye (mind) of the beholder (believer)...either way...you're saying so doesn't make it so.
In science, there is no such relativity.
False. Science is full of relativity...and hundreds of years worth of revised scientific information proves it. Science continuously changes it's views on a great many things. Science is fraught with the same errors, biases, preconceived ideas and prejudices as any other human thought process because humans engage in it.
If the whole concept of God and religion were miraculously wiped from the minds of human beings tomorrow, would they suddenly go berserk? Of course not. Humans are societal animals. They construct rules that enhance the harmony of the societies they live in and punish those who don't live by those rules. Certainly, religion can address human behavior, but it has no monopoly on the concept. Given the history of religion, it should have much less cache than it does.
Anthropologists record that all known human socieites on record note the existence of some form of diety or deities, devils or spiritual forces seperate from and greater than themselves. The existence of such ideas as worship and sin are virtually universal to humanity across the entire record of history. Finding order and rules within societies tells us nothing about whether these structures would likely exist or flourish without the element of religion or worship, since the phenomenon inevitably exist side by side.
Here's where you run into problems. If you think your god IS god, then you think your opinion based on your interpretation of your scriptures is right with a capital R. It's why Sunnis kill Shiites and vice versa. It's why religion and Constitution don't mix. It's why you have to choose to be a reason-based society, or a religion-based society. Oil and water.
You're suggesting that all religious systems advocate violence toward those that hold differing views, which they do not. Second, examples where violence has been directed against other religions does not answer the question of whether it is the religious dogma that supports this position or some other force...politics for example. Nor does it answer the question of whether these examples constitute action that is consistent with their unique theology or merely added on by those looking for ways to dominate other people through whatever method possible. A primary example; the decline of Roman empirical power and the breakdown of the military and economic influence of the emperors resulted in war-like nation states breaking from under Roman rule. To retain control over those that had not broken from Rome, political powers in Rome found religion a convenient tool in the form of the papacy to exert influence. The corrupt church of the middle ages partnered with them in this endeavor, but without the sanctioned support of Rome the political/military entity, such control would not have been possible.
Which does not shed any light on the conflict. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. As natural as heterosexuality. Why should it be abhorrent to our morals any more than heterosexuality is? Why? Because God says so. You can eat beef, but you can't eat pork. You say tomayto, I say tomahto. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
First, the idea that it is a "natural phenomenon"...ie; "as natural as heterosexuality" to use your words...is not born out by the rate at which homosexuality occurs in society when compared to heterosexual behavior. Second, if one follows a Darwinian viewpoint, which you seem to, the practice has no adaptive advantage, and definite disadvantages as a behavior suited for survival. Since same-sex organisms don't breed and reproduce, a society built on homosexuality will die out. From a purely evolutionary perpsective, homosexuality is not suited for advancing survivability. Heterosexuality is. Thus from an evolutionary perspective, heterosexuality is qualitatively superior because it advances survivability. Does this equate to being "as natural as heterosexuality? Not if "natural" should include "adaptability" and "survivability" as a primary factor. The bottom line is this; homosexuality cannot reproduce itself without heterosexual behavior.
Not this old ridiculous argument again!? The Sixties did it!!! What unadulterated BS. Ben Franklin was going tooth and nail against the sanctimonies of Cotton Mather long before 1776. There has always been a clash between those on the side of religion vs. those on the side of reason. It could almost be called the character of this nation.
This is another straw man argument. Nobody disputes that religious pluralism has existed in America from the beginning, such as the Deism Ben Franklin advocated, which accepted the existence of God but rejected individual religious creeds, nor that non believers were prevalent, or even the inevitable reason vs faith division in society. That's not what this discussion was about, nor has it got anything to do with the point. The point is that American culture in terms of morality, community standards, accepted norms related to sexual standards, etc...have existed since the time the Pilgrims cooked up the first Thanksgiving and have basically held sway as the dominant cultural paradigm for nearly 400 years. That began to radically change in the '60's whether you choose to recognize it or not. Your point has to do with philosophy and theology, while I am referring to forces of practical behavior and societal fabric. Even though this culture has experienced change since the beginning...it's been change that has been slow and gradual, not the kind of explosive and accelerated change we've seen in the last 40 years. That is what is new, and that is why you have seen an organized effort on the part of religious people to strike back and resist that change.
One side may get the upper hand now and then, but the arguments still aren't resolved. It's kind of like Bush using national security to erode our rights, the religious lobby has always used the concept of "moral degradation of society" to try and impose its religiousity on the secular world. Once it was "demon rum," now it's homosexual marriage. Same scare tactics, same ends.
Absent in your portrayal is the fact that during the last 30 years or so, it has not been RELIGION trying to force it's way into public life so much as it's been religion trying to survive both political and legal attempts to usurp civil rights that people of faith in this country have had for generations. Perfect example...despite Supreme Court rulings that this is illegal...some schools cotinue to attempt to prevent students from engaging in voluntary prayer, even on their own. Much of what has come to exemplify Christian Right intervention started first with the attempted dissolution of civil rights. It's hardly suprising that a cause and effect relationship exists here when you see examples of government trying to inhibit religious freedom. Bottom line...it's a culture war, not a theology war.
Natural behaviors and criminal conduct are two different things. Unless of course you view natural behaviors, like homosexuality, as a crime? Perhaps you could clarify why you believe homosexuality is similar to murder, child molestation, rape, etc.?
Nowhere did I make that comparison. You're making it. I merely noted that society has held certain sexual practices as either taboo or illegal, as well as "immoral", in order to establish "right" and "wrong" behavior. You suggested that labeling any human behavior as right or wrong was dangerous and I merely pointed out that societal laws are based on such value judgements, which they are.
Check out the burning of the library of Alexandria, or perhaps the burning of scientists. They almost toasted old Galileo you know. No, it was religion trying to destroy secularism. Whenever a society turns to religion, it's flush time.
That's nonsense. Society has been religious since the beginning, and we're still here. In your mad attempt to vilify everything related to God, religion, moral judgements, etc...you forget that religion also is by FAR the most philanthropic force in society. Religion builds schools, hospitals, orphanages, programs for poor people...the list is endless. Government can only do so much, and with the decline in real dollars available through social services due to the shrinking size and ageing of our work force, religion will be looked at along with other private philanthropy for an even larger role in helping people in the future.
Respond to this if you wish, but this discussion unchecked will continue endlessly. At the end of the day you are not gong to convince me and vica versa...so...live and let live is how I look at it.
gunns
02-23-2006, 10:18 PM
well i'm a kabbalist/Thuergist and to me gays/hermaphrodites, etc are all part of the plan. But then maybe god put gays on earth to teach the religious types about compassion.
This is what I believe. It's one of God's tests for the Holier-than-thou crowd. And damn have they been failing that test.
smalltowngrll
02-23-2006, 11:44 PM
Everyone fails...that's why there's such a thing as grace. We could all be considered hypocritrical at one point or another. God gave us free will of choice...nothing to it. Just the way it is.
Bronco_Beerslug
02-24-2006, 06:16 AM
Everyone fails...that's why there's such a thing as grace. We could all be considered hypocritrical at one point or another. God gave us free will of choice...nothing to it. Just the way it is.
I'm not religious but I agree we humans sure screw things up at times.
I posted this thread and others on homosexual genetics because I've seen it personally. It's amazing to me the amount of fear that homosexuals cause for the majority of the religious right.
Mile High Shack
02-24-2006, 06:57 AM
I'm not religious but I agree we humans sure screw things up at times.
I posted this thread and others on homosexual genetics because I've seen it personally. It's amazing to me the amount of fear that homosexuals cause for the majority of the religious right.
I don't fear them at all
Jesus loves all sinners, we all sin...not to get preachy, but there is not ONE perfect person or not one person who is a christian who will screw up sometimes, just how it goes with being human
as far as gay people go.........like I've always said, Jesus and God do not hate Gay people, they hate their actions, just like he hates my actions when I get too angry or I do something I'm not suppose to.
The people that hate Gay people so adamently are wrong....you aren't suppose to hate anyone
Mile High Shack
02-24-2006, 06:58 AM
There's nothing genetically wrong with lesbians. They just have better eyesight than other women.
Hell, if I was a woman, I'd definitely be a lesbian, because all dudes are just plain gross & ugly.
LOL
ain't that the truth
Bronco_Beerslug
02-24-2006, 07:41 AM
I don't fear them at all
Jesus loves all sinners, we all sin...not to get preachy, but there is not ONE perfect person or not one person who is a christian who will screw up sometimes, just how it goes with being human
as far as gay people go.........like I've always said, Jesus and God do not hate Gay people, they hate their actions, just like he hates my actions when I get too angry or I do something I'm not suppose to.
The people that hate Gay people so adamently are wrong....you aren't suppose to hate anyone
See, I never knew God hated sex.
Never underestimate the educational value of this forum.
Mile High Shack
02-24-2006, 07:44 AM
See, I never knew God hated sex.
Never underestimate the educational value of this forum.
???
sex???
God doesn't hate sex
according to his rules though, it's married sex between a man and a woman
Don't hate on me, I didn't create the world
Rohirrim
02-24-2006, 07:59 AM
It’s pointless to argue with the religious. The reason it’s pointless is what I call the “Humpty Dumpty Effect.” For those who haven’t read Lewis Carroll, Alice is having an argument with HD and at one point she realizes that HD is contradicting himself from one sentence to the next and making very little sense, so she calls him on it. His famous reply? “My words mean whatever I want them to mean.”
I don’t know much about other religions, but I’ve seen it over and over from those who call themselves Christians. They can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. If the New Testament doesn’t back them up, the Old one will. The book is big enough, and broad enough, that every possible permutation is available. Like those guys who were looking for coded messages of prophecy in the Bible. Guess what? They found them. Throughout history the Bible has been found to support torture, genocide, burning heretics alive, slavery, bigotry, etc. Hell, even the Nazis considered themselves to be stand-up Christians. Imagine going to church on Sunday and then, back to the death camp Monday morning?
The Bible can be made to support an anti-abortion, pro-life stance while at the same time it can be made to support a pro-death penalty stance. If Jesus says “Judge not!” it doesn’t matter, because there’s plenty of places in the OT that say “Go ahead and judge all you want.” If Jesus says “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you,” or the “Kingdom is at hand,” it doesn’t matter. The OT says it’s someplace to go after you die. Jesus could go red in the face saying, “Turn the other cheek,” and the modern Christian can still be the biggest war monger on the planet with ample, Biblical support. The Bible can say whatever you want it to say.
This is probably why Jefferson was so adamant that politics and religion be separated by the strongest possible barrier. A society based on reason would continually expand and explore, seeking a better understanding of the world and our place in it, while a society based on religion would regress into darkness, judgment and genocide.
I find it weirdly absurd that we humans occupy this tiny, fragile, miraculous planet, maybe the only place within a billion light years that sustains life, and what are we doing? Read the headlines. We’re murdering each other, men, women and children, because we believe that our invisible deities disagree.
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 08:03 AM
The terms "hater"..."homophobic"...etc...are now applied to virtually anyone who chooses to accept the traditional theological position of the Bible on homosexuality. "Tolerance" related to this issue, according to some has come to mean not ones attitude towards other people they dissagree with, but instead a demand that they give up their own beliefs and right to worship as they please in order to accept and agree with those that hold a different point of view.
Amazingly, while I don't subscribe to the idea that homosexuality is a legitimate or acceptable lifestyle choice, I have a close friend who is a lesbian. She knows I dissagree with her actions, but that hasn't kept me from accepting that she has the freedom in our society to choose those actions, nor has it made her demand that I change my views.
Tolerance is about respect for people's choices, not having to agree with those choices. If more people understood that on both sides, we'd be far better off.
BroncoInferno
02-24-2006, 08:04 AM
according to his rules though, it's married sex between a man and a woman
Yeah, but why? What harm could it posssibly cause for a very small percentage of humans to consent to same sex relations? Is God just making this **** up for his own amusement? See, this is my problem with religion; you are not basing your opinion on reason or logic, you are basing it on something that was written thousands of years ago.
BroncoInferno
02-24-2006, 08:08 AM
Amazingly, while I don't subscribe to the idea that homosexuality is a legitimate or acceptable lifestyle choice, I have a close friend who is a lesbian.
I was waiting for someone to pull the 'I've got a gay friend" card ROFL!
Mile High Shack
02-24-2006, 08:14 AM
Yeah, but why? What harm could it posssibly cause for a very small percentage of humans to consent to same sex relations? Is God just making this **** up for his own amusement? See, this is my problem with religion; you are not basing your opinion on reason or logic, you are basing it on something that was written thousands of years ago.
no, it makes more sense to me
think about it
one woman
one man
means, there would be no STDs ever
there would be no abortions
there would be no baby's mammas running around trying to collect money
there would be no children without a fatherly influence...which they need badly
if humans would've stuck to this method, there would be a lot less chaos around.....so logically it makes perfect sense
hell, my daughter when she gets older, would love to cross the street w/o looking at will, play in the street, have fun in the street, sure it might not kill her, sure she might have fun
but it only takes one car to take her out and that is why I'll have a rule of no playing in the street
Mile High Shack
02-24-2006, 08:15 AM
It’s pointless to argue with the religious. The reason it’s pointless is what I call the “Humpty Dumpty Effect.” For those who haven’t read Lewis Carroll, Alice is having an argument with HD and at one point she realizes that HD is contradicting himself from one sentence to the next and making very little sense, so she calls him on it. His famous reply? “My words mean whatever I want them to mean.”
I don’t know much about other religions, but I’ve seen it over and over from those who call themselves Christians. They can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. If the New Testament doesn’t back them up, the Old one will. The book is big enough, and broad enough, that every possible permutation is available. Like those guys who were looking for coded messages of prophecy in the Bible. Guess what? They found them. Throughout history the Bible has been found to support torture, genocide, burning heretics alive, slavery, bigotry, etc. Hell, even the Nazis considered themselves to be stand-up Christians. Imagine going to church on Sunday and then, back to the death camp Monday morning?
The Bible can be made to support an anti-abortion, pro-life stance while at the same time it can be made to support a pro-death penalty stance. If Jesus says “Judge not!” it doesn’t matter, because there’s plenty of places in the OT that say “Go ahead and judge all you want.” If Jesus says “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you,” or the “Kingdom is at hand,” it doesn’t matter. The OT says it’s someplace to go after you die. Jesus could go red in the face saying, “Turn the other cheek,” and the modern Christian can still be the biggest war monger on the planet with ample, Biblical support. The Bible can say whatever you want it to say.
This is probably why Jefferson was so adamant that politics and religion be separated by the strongest possible barrier. A society based on reason would continually expand and explore, seeking a better understanding of the world and our place in it, while a society based on religion would regress into darkness, judgment and genocide.
I find it weirdly absurd that we humans occupy this tiny, fragile, miraculous planet, maybe the only place within a billion light years that sustains life, and what are we doing? Read the headlines. We’re murdering each other, men, women and children, because we believe that our invisible deities disagree.
you just hate anyone religious in general so I take your opinion with a grain of salt
no offense
BroncoInferno
02-24-2006, 08:18 AM
no, it makes more sense to me
think about it
one woman
one man
means, there would be no STDs ever
there would be no abortions
there would be no baby's mammas running around trying to collect money
there would be no children without a fatherly influence...which they need badly
if humans would've stuck to this method, there would be a lot less chaos around.....so logically it makes perfect sense
hell, my daughter when she gets older, would love to cross the street w/o looking at will, play in the street, have fun in the street, sure it might not kill her, sure she might have fun
but it only takes one car to take her out and that is why I'll have a rule of no playing in the street
You could get the same ethical result from a one man-one man or one woman-one woman philosophy.
Mile High Shack
02-24-2006, 08:20 AM
You could the same ethical result from a one man-one man or one woman-one woman philosophy.
how so?
then there would be no population if everyone was one man and one man or one woman and one woman
Bronco_Beerslug
02-24-2006, 08:21 AM
???
sex???
God doesn't hate sex
according to his rules though, it's married sex between a man and a woman
Don't hate on me, I didn't create the world
What actions are you talking about he hates then?
Mile High Shack
02-24-2006, 08:24 AM
What actions are you talking about he hates then?
the action of sex outside of marriage between man and a woman
he'd hate the sex act if I went and had an affair, same difference
inside the marriage he made sex for a reason, b/c it's fun (at least I think it is, hard to remember) and it helps in procreation
BroncoInferno
02-24-2006, 08:27 AM
how so?
then there would be no population if everyone was one man and one man or one woman and one woman
Plenty of heterosexual couples have conditions that prevent them from producing children. I assume you don't think their sexual relations are sinful; therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that reproduction is not the important ethical factor here. So, if lack of reproductive ability is not sinful in heterosexual cases, whjy should it be so in homosexual cases?
Bronco_Beerslug
02-24-2006, 08:27 AM
the action of sex outside of marriage between man and a woman
he'd hate the sex act if I went and had an affair, same difference
inside the marriage he made sex for a reason, b/c it's fun (at least I think it is, hard to remember) and it helps in procreation
WOW, he must really hate me (and most of the rest of the world)!
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 08:32 AM
It’s pointless to argue with the religious. The reason it’s pointless is what I call the “Humpty Dumpty Effect.” For those who haven’t read Lewis Carroll, Alice is having an argument with HD and at one point she realizes that HD is contradicting himself from one sentence to the next and making very little sense, so she calls him on it. His famous reply? “My words mean whatever I want them to mean.”
I don’t know much about other religions, but I’ve seen it over and over from those who call themselves Christians. They can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. If the New Testament doesn’t back them up, the Old one will. The book is big enough, and broad enough, that every possible permutation is available. Like those guys who were looking for coded messages of prophecy in the Bible. Guess what? They found them. Throughout history the Bible has been found to support torture, genocide, burning heretics alive, slavery, bigotry, etc. Hell, even the Nazis considered themselves to be stand-up Christians. Imagine going to church on Sunday and then, back to the death camp Monday morning?
The Bible can be made to support an anti-abortion, pro-life stance while at the same time it can be made to support a pro-death penalty stance. If Jesus says “Judge not!” it doesn’t matter, because there’s plenty of places in the OT that say “Go ahead and judge all you want.” If Jesus says “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you,” or the “Kingdom is at hand,” it doesn’t matter. The OT says it’s someplace to go after you die. Jesus could go red in the face saying, “Turn the other cheek,” and the modern Christian can still be the biggest war monger on the planet with ample, Biblical support. The Bible can say whatever you want it to say.
This is probably why Jefferson was so adamant that politics and religion be separated by the strongest possible barrier. A society based on reason would continually expand and explore, seeking a better understanding of the world and our place in it, while a society based on religion would regress into darkness, judgment and genocide.
I find it weirdly absurd that we humans occupy this tiny, fragile, miraculous planet, maybe the only place within a billion light years that sustains life, and what are we doing? Read the headlines. We’re murdering each other, men, women and children, because we believe that our invisible deities disagree.
The fact that people often attempt to force their own interpretations out of the Bible to support what they wish it to say, does not make that action legitimate, nor does it make it a valid criticism since people often missunderstand all kinds of communication for various reasons that have to do with their own failures in comprehension, whether reading...or something else. The Bible, like ALL forms of written communication is subject to the laws of something called "hermeneutics", or the science of interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics). Unfortunately, few people recognize this.
Hermeneutics disputes the idea that the Bible or any other form of written communication can operate outside the parameters of accepted laws of how language is understood. Since the Bible was written to individuals within a historical context who knew what was intended by the writer as surely as we know today what someone means when they speak to us, only through filtering it through a literal, gramatical, historical and cultural context that holds the principals of linguistics in high regard can anyone actually "do" the science of hermeneutics and arrive at the answer to the primary question, which is "what does it say?"
"What does it say?" is not the same question as "What does it mean?", which is not hermeneutics but something called "exegesis". People confuse these two questions routinely and usually engage in poor attempts at the second without considering or even realizing a need for the first. The truth is that the Bible, like ALL forms of written communication has one and ONLY one intended PRIMARY meaning within any given textual citation. Such is also true for every other form of written communication. Even genres of communication such as poetry which use abstract communication techniques and allow for creative interpretation are bound by certain laws of literal, gramatical, linguistic, cultural and historic understanding. Failing to be familiar with the time period a writer worked in, the culture of the day, his particular style, preference for genre, etc...produces errors in understanding.
The bottom line is that the Bible is like every other form of written communication; subject to the SCIENCE of interpretation called hermeneutics and susceptible to damage in exegesis by those who probably never take the same license they do with the biblical text when interpreting other forms of written communication. Nobody picks up the morning paper and reads a story about a bomb blast in Tel Aviv and attempts to make it metaphorical or chase allegorical interpretations because the newspaper is not a spiritual form of communication. The fact that the biblical text has "spiritual" depth or dimensional meaning that believers claim to arrive at through study, meditation, etc...does not preclude it from being subject to the laws of hermeneutics or exegesis. Unfortunately people abuse, ignore or simply fail to recognize this, which in turn leads to discussions like the one we're having now. Hence, the idea that "you can make the Bible mean whatever you want it to" is false. The fact that people attempt to do so, does not make the document ABLE to support their reasoning, nor should it be held in lower regard on the basis of this missunderstanding. You're argument is with those who missuse this text, not with the text itself...at least in terms of how this particular question is addressed. Whether you BELIEVE the text is another question entirely...something called apologetics...but whether you do damage to the integrity of the text itself on the basis of the errors of those who ignore heremeneutics does not adress that question.
Mile High Shack
02-24-2006, 08:41 AM
WOW, he must really hate me (and most of the rest of the world)!
doesn't hate you at all
he can seperate the actions from the person
like I've quoted
narrow is the way that leads to eternal life and broad is the way that leads to destruction
Bronco_Beerslug
02-24-2006, 08:46 AM
doesn't hate you at all
he can seperate the actions from the person
like I've quoted
narrow is the way that leads to eternal life and broad is the way that leads to destruction
Ah, so he hates sex but depending on the person, you may get a pass, I get it.
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 08:51 AM
I was waiting for someone to pull the 'I've got a gay friend" card ROFL!
You missed the point. It's not a "gay friend card". That's how you're interpreting it. It's a legitimate point about being able to accept people and respect their choices within a free society without having to neccessarily agree with those choices. Are you saying I have to agree this is a legit lifestyle? IF you are saying that...you're denying me the same freedom of choice to believe what I wish while insisting I agree with you. That's NOT tolerance, it's INtolerance.
Where you draw that line is a matter of personal choice. For me...I'd never befriend someone who was a child mollester or rapist, a con artist, woman beater, etc...but I recognize that people dissagree on this issue. This lady has been my freind for nearly 15 years, and I am still her friend, though we dissagree on this issue. Isn't that the whole point?...being able to get along with those we don't happen to agree with? Or do you just want to insist I change what I believe to accomodate what she believes or what you'd like me to believe?
Mile High Shack
02-24-2006, 08:54 AM
Ah, so he hates sex but depending on the person, you may get a pass, I get it.
nope
he hates SIN, not sex
get it right
Bronco_Beerslug
02-24-2006, 08:57 AM
nope
he hates SIN, not sex
get it right
Well darn, I thought I did. You told me he hated sex outside of marriage (a sin correct) and then you told me that he didn't hate all those sinners depending on the person and now you tell me hates all sin. Now I'm really confused.
BroncoInferno
02-24-2006, 08:57 AM
You missed the point. It's not a "gay friend card". That's how you're interpreting it. It's a legitimate point about being able to accept people and respect their choices within a free society without having to neccessarily agree with those choices. Are you saying I have to agree this is a legit lifestyle? IF you are saying that...you're denying me the same freedom of choice to believe what I wish while insisting I agree with you. That's NOT tolerance, it's INtolerance.
LOL OK, buddy...I guess I'm being an intolerant SOB because I hate racists. I mean, afterall, I am being intolerant of their choice simply because they don't agree with me. ROFL!
Where you draw that line is a matter of personal choice. For me...I'd never befriend someone who was a child mollester or rapist, a con artist, woman beater, etc...but I recognize that people dissagree on this issue. This lady has been my freind for nearly 15 years, and I am still her friend, though we dissagree on this issue. Isn't that the whole point?...being able to get along with those we don't happen to agree with? Or do you just want to insist I change what I believe to accomodate what she believes or what you'd like me to believe?
You are entitled to think what you want, and I'm entitled to conclude that it is a bigotted and irrational opinion.
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 09:02 AM
LOL OK, buddy...I guess I'm being an intolerant SOB because I hate racists. I mean, afterall, I am being intolerant of their choice simply because they don't agree with me. ROFL!
You are entitled to think what you want, and I'm entitled to conclude that it is a bigotted and irrational opinion.
Explain to me why accepting someone for who they are without expecting them to change in order to suit you, or them expecting you to do likewise...is "bigotted and irrational".
Mile High Shack
02-24-2006, 09:05 AM
Well darn, I thought I did. You told me he hated sex outside of marriage (a sin correct) and then you told me that he didn't hate all those sinners depending on the person and now you tell me hates all sin. Now I'm really confused.
like I said already for the 100th time
hates sin (the act) not the person
how is that hard to understand?
BroncoInferno
02-24-2006, 09:09 AM
Explain to me why accepting someone for who they are without expecting them to change in order to suit you, or them expecting you to do likewise...is "bigotted and irrational".
I think it is bigotted and irrational to think that homosexuality is an evil practice in and of itself (you might find that we agree on issues of monogamy), and to teach that bigotted and irrational opinion to impressonable children. No matter how you package it, the opinion in general causes societal damage to the people who the opinion involves.
BroncoInferno
02-24-2006, 09:16 AM
like I said already for the 100th time
hates sin (the act) not the person
how is that hard to understand?
It isn't hard to understand; it's just very patronizing.
TheDave
02-24-2006, 09:25 AM
I'm curious to hear this from the Religious folks... IF homosexuality does turn out to be genetic does that change your opinion/religious beliefs regarding gays?
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 09:25 AM
I think it is bigotted and irrational to think that homosexuality is an evil practice in and of itself (you might find that we agree on issues of monogamy), and to teach that bigotted and irrational opinion to impressonable children. No matter how you package it, the opinion in general causes societal damage to the people who the opinion involves.
So what you're saying is that one must reject belief in historic Christianity and it's teachings in order to acomodate the politically correct idea that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle or you are an "irrational biggot"? I can just as easily suggest that YOU are the biggot since you are insisting that one CHANGE their religious convictions to accomodate YOUR perspective on homosexuality or they deserve to be called "irrational" and "bigotted". If I were "bigotted" I would obviously not choose friendship with someone I differ with on this issue. That is an ACTION that can be defined and measured as the product of prejudice.
You are defining me as an "irrational biggot", not on the basis of my actions, but on the basis of what I believe. Earlier you made the analogy comparing religious views of homosexuality to racism. The difference is that racists by DEFINITION hate people because of something they have no control over, while in my world view I neither hate in attitude nor action someone who I believe is engaged in something they DO have control over. That's a significant difference.
Again...tolerance is not about having to agree. It's about how you RESPOND (action) to someone that you DON'T agree with. It's about RESPECT, not being told what you MUST believe. The whole point to this (allegedly) free society is that freedom involves being able to make choices about what you wish to believe, how you wish to worship, etc...while still respecting those who don't choose those same things.
That is the very definition of RATIONAL.
Rohirrim
02-24-2006, 09:26 AM
you just hate anyone religious in general so I take your opinion with a grain of salt
no offense
Only when they enter the political arena and attempt to incorporate their intolerance into law.
Bronco_Beerslug
02-24-2006, 09:33 AM
like I said already for the 100th time
hates sin (the act) not the person
how is that hard to understand?
So now we're back to square one, he hates sex, right?
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 09:35 AM
Only when they enter the political arena and attempt to incorporate their intolerance into law.
In the current culture wars, both sides have attempted to incorporate their views into law. You view their opinons as "intolerance" being forced down your throat. They view your opinion as one that wishes to force something they reject upon them.
There is little difference here. It's all in how you look at it.
Mile High Shack
02-24-2006, 09:41 AM
It isn't hard to understand; it's just very patronizing.
how so?
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 09:43 AM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34671
As the above story notes...Canada recently passed a law that CRIMINALIZES as "hate speech", the Bible...since it rejects homosexuality as legitimate. Penalties include up to FIVE YEARS IN PRISON for violaters who dare refer to the biblical views on homosexuality. This is a prime example of what most who villify the so called "religious right" fail to understand. Christians see the current state of affairs in this country as moving in the same direction, towards a society where not only ACTIONS are viewed as "criminal" but also thoughs, belief systems, speech, etc...not far removed from Marxist Russia or Maoist China.
Most of the current religious political agenda that involves culture wars response is rooted not so much in the desire to "take over" as it is in the fear that people of faith will be TAKEN over.
A rational mind can understand why something like this story details might upset people. It might even understand why there is an organized POLITICAL response to it. We are rapidly losing our freedoms in America, and you don't have to stay within the religion, or "religious right" context to see that. This forum is full of examples that have nothing to do with religion.
Mile High Shack
02-24-2006, 09:44 AM
I'm curious to hear this from the Religious folks... IF homosexuality does turn out to be genetic does that change your opinion/religious beliefs regarding gays?
nope
I'm genentically programmed to want to have sex with pretty women, not just my wife, but I withold on those urges
Mile High Shack
02-24-2006, 09:46 AM
So now we're back to square one, he hates sex, right?
I feel like I'm caught in an endless loop where someone forgot to close a bracket
I'm leaving it how I stated it already
alkemical
02-24-2006, 09:48 AM
god made gay people
end of story.
Bronco_Beerslug
02-24-2006, 09:50 AM
god made gay people
end of story.
That sounds flawed, how could that be?
alkemical
02-24-2006, 09:52 AM
That sounds flawed, how could that be?
i believe that some people choose to be gay by choice, but i also acknowledge that there are people who are just 'wired' that way. I don't see what's the problem or what the big deal is.
If it happens in nature, how can it be 'un-natural'?
TheDave
02-24-2006, 09:54 AM
nope
I'm genentically programmed to want to have sex with pretty women, not just my wife, but I withold on those urges
God that must be difficult, 'cause I'm sure the women are just lining up for your ugly a$$ ;)
Sorry couldn't resist...
But that's not the choice they are presented with... your analogy should read that you can never have sex with any women...Ever. That's quite a bit different.
Garcia Bronco
02-24-2006, 09:54 AM
Being gay is all about which gender you have sex with.
end of story
TheDave
02-24-2006, 09:56 AM
Being gay is all about which gender you have sex with.
end of story
Careful, they might pull your GOP card with that kind of talk.
Mile High Shack
02-24-2006, 09:57 AM
God that must be difficult, 'cause I'm sure the women are just lining up for your ugly a$$ ;)
Sorry couldn't resist...
But that's not the choice they are presented with... your analogy should read that you can never have sex with any women...Ever. That's quite a bit different.
well.......my brother is in that pickle
he has a mental problem....he's manic/depressive and still has to live with my parents and since he's in his late 40's, I doubt he'll ever get married
and yeah, it's not like the pretty women are lining up at my door.....I was lucky enough to find someone who would give it up to me, still not sure how that happened
alkemical
02-24-2006, 10:01 AM
Being gay is all about which gender you have sex with.
end of story
or the navy way: "If you don't like it, you aren't gay".
smalltowngrll
02-24-2006, 10:09 AM
I don’t know much about other religions, but I’ve seen it over and over from those who call themselves Christians. They can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. If the New Testament doesn’t back them up, the Old one will. The book is big enough, and broad enough, that every possible permutation is available. Like those guys who were looking for coded messages of prophecy in the Bible. Guess what? They found them. Throughout history the Bible has been found to support torture, genocide, burning heretics alive, slavery, bigotry, etc. Hell, even the Nazis considered themselves to be stand-up Christians. Imagine going to church on Sunday and then, back to the death camp Monday morning?.
It is very sad to see that people base their beliefs in religion or in God solely on what they see in other people. Those who call themselves Christians (myself included) will ALWAYS screw up. We will contradict ourselves because we are human. Does it make it right? No!! It's completely wrong. All I can do as a person is live my life the way I believe is right and hope that when I die, it will not have been in vain. Unfortunately, there have been so many things done in the name of Christianity that are truly disgusting. And, just because a person does something in the name of Christianity, does not mean that God or the Bible truly supports that act.
The best thing I ever did in my life was to take for my Literature credit in College a class on Old Testament and a calss on New Testament. It was so interesting to read through these two books as if I were reading a book, rather than trying to disect it. One thing I found was that it was literally fascinating and it jived! Then I took the time to reread and do all the disecting myself rather than just listen to what others had to say. Yes, I took other books to help me sort through understanding the historical meanings, but, it was literally the most consistent book I'd ever read.
Now, if I wanted, I could easily take any book and take things out of context and make those words mean what I wanted it to mean. But, where does it leave me? Deceiving another. And, if I were the one being told something so profound as a religious truth (or untruth) and I took someones word for it, rather than researching it myself, then I would be doing a great disservice to myself.
TheDave
02-24-2006, 10:23 AM
Unfortunately, there have been so many things done in the name of Christianity that are truly disgusting. And, just because a person does something in the name of Christianity, does not mean that God or the Bible truly supports that act.
Any chance Christians belief in gays could be one of those things?
Garcia Bronco
02-24-2006, 10:23 AM
Careful, they might pull your GOP card with that kind of talk.
I'm not in the Gohpup...I just like to argue with people.
orangenblue2
02-24-2006, 10:31 AM
Any chance Christians belief in gays could be one of those things?
Of course not. What the hell are you smoking? :kiddingme
smalltowngrll
02-24-2006, 10:32 AM
Any chance Christians belief in gays could be one of those things?
Well, beliefs and actions are two things. Anyone who commits a cruel action or says cruel things to someone just because they don't believe they are living a way that another thinks they should is not an action that is supported by God or the Bible.
RaiderH8r
02-24-2006, 10:55 AM
Being gay is all about which gender you have sex with.
end of story
I've often wondered why the homosexual community has two distinctions for homosexuality based on gender. i.e. gays and lesbians.
Is there a reason for this distinction? Aren't they all just homer-sexuals?
I liked it when safe sex meant having a padded head board.
nope
he hates SIN, not sex
get it right
I should introduce you to my God, He/She doesn't hate anything nor does He/She judge He/She sees you as perfect in every way.
Religion teaches a Wrathful god solely for the purpose of crowd control, power and funding.
I've often wondered why the homosexual community has two distinctions for homosexuality based on gender. i.e. gays and lesbians.
Is there a reason for this distinction? Aren't they all just homer-sexuals?
I liked it when safe sex meant having a padded head board.
Have you ever seen a gay (happy) lesbian?
Rohirrim
02-24-2006, 11:08 AM
In the current culture wars, both sides have attempted to incorporate their views into law. You view their opinons as "intolerance" being forced down your throat. They view your opinion as one that wishes to force something they reject upon them.
There is little difference here. It's all in how you look at it.
My views on gay rights are based upon an interpretation of the Bill of Rights while yours are based upon the Bible. Which document should the laws of the U.S. adhere to?
My views on gay rights are based upon an interpretation of the Bill of Rights while yours are based upon the Bible. Which document should the laws of the U.S. adhere to?
Depends, if it's George Bush doing the reviewing or not.
Garcia Bronco
02-24-2006, 11:26 AM
I've often wondered why the homosexual community has two distinctions for homosexuality based on gender. i.e. gays and lesbians.
Is there a reason for this distinction? Aren't they all just homer-sexuals?
I liked it when safe sex meant having a padded head board.
What I don't like are gay sterotypes...it's all about the sex....there is no such thing as a gay lifestyle.
BroncoInferno
02-24-2006, 11:57 AM
So what you're saying is that one must reject belief in historic Christianity and it's teachings in order to acomodate the politically correct idea that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle or you are an "irrational biggot"? I can just as easily suggest that YOU are the biggot since you are insisting that one CHANGE their religious convictions to accomodate YOUR perspective on homosexuality or they deserve to be called "irrational" and "bigotted". If I were "bigotted" I would obviously not choose friendship with someone I differ with on this issue. That is an ACTION that can be defined and measured as the product of prejudice.
If this is your approach to things, then I can go along with it. Problem is, this is not the general approach. The idea of homosexuality as evil produces prejudices and exclusionary tactics towards people who are gay. When you teach children that a group of people does something that is evil, the aggregate result is that the group is marginalized by those who buy into the idea.
You are defining me as an "irrational biggot", not on the basis of my actions, but on the basis of what I believe. Earlier you made the analogy comparing religious views of homosexuality to racism. The difference is that racists by DEFINITION hate people because of something they have no control over, while in my world view I neither hate in attitude nor action someone who I believe is engaged in something they DO have control over. That's a significant difference.
It is irrational to consider homosexuality evil. There is no reason for it. I'm sure you are perfectly rational in most areas of life, but if you believe homosexuality is evil, then, yes, I think that is a totally irrational idea. The idea itself produces bigotry and marginalization, regardless of how well meaning your individual approach may be.
Again...tolerance is not about having to agree. It's about how you RESPOND (action) to someone that you DON'T agree with. It's about RESPECT, not being told what you MUST believe. The whole point to this (allegedly) free society is that freedom involves being able to make choices about what you wish to believe, how you wish to worship, etc...while still respecting those who don't choose those same things.
That is the very definition of RATIONAL.
I can go along with that, but, again, your particular approach simply is not the general approach. The idea itself is the problem. As long as it exists in popular culture, gays will continue to marginalized in our society.
RaiderH8r
02-24-2006, 12:01 PM
Have you ever seen a gay (happy) lesbian?
Maybe, but usually their mouth is too full to talk.
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 01:48 PM
My views on gay rights are based upon an interpretation of the Bill of Rights while yours are based upon the Bible. Which document should the laws of the U.S. adhere to?
Uh...yeah...and what "interpretation" might that be? None that actually exists in the text, that's for certain. Perhaps you chose an allegorical interpretation devoid of any hermeneutical approach?. Sorry, but the Bill of Rights says absolutely NOTHING about gay rights, homosexuality, protecting sexual preference as a special class, etc... It DOES however, have something pretty pointed and direct to say about the relationship of religion to the state, in the very FIRST SENTENCE...that you seem to have missed:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Simple. NO LAW shall be made to either offer special advantage or peculiar disadvantage to religion by the US Congress. NONE. End of story. Within the same paragraph exists the rights to freedom of speech. Both are protected rights under the Bill of Rights.
Back to homosexualilty and the US Bill of Rights...1) It's ludicrous to suppose that the framers had anything remotely in mind regarding this in 1791, 2) even if such a fantastic leap into fantasy could somehow be argued for, NOTHING in the text of the US Bill of Rights mentions either directly or indirectly homosexuality...certainly not the acceptance of this lifestyle as enjoying protected legal rights. You are seriously brainwashed if you believe otherwise.
If you can show me otherwise...I'm all ears.
RaiderH8r
02-24-2006, 01:54 PM
Uh...yeah...and what "interpretation" might that be? None that actually exists in the text, that's for certain. Perhaps you chose an allegorical interpretation devoid of any hermeneutical approach?. Sorry, but the Bill of Rights says absolutely NOTHING about gay rights, homosexuality, protecting sexual preference as a special class, etc... It DOES however, have something pretty pointed and direct to say about the relationship of religion to the state, in the very FIRST SENTENCE...that you seem to have missed:
Simple. NO LAW shall be made to either offer special advantage or peculiar disadvantage to religion by the US Congress. NONE. End of story. Within the same paragraph exists the rights to freedom of speech. Both are protected rights under the Bill of Rights.
Back to homosexualilty and the US Bill of Rights...1) It's ludicrous to suppose that the framers had anything remotely in mind regarding this in 1791, 2) even if such a fantastic leap into fantasy could somehow be argued for, NOTHING in the text of the US Bill of Rights mentions either directly or indirectly homosexuality...certainly not the acceptance of this lifestyle as enjoying protected legal rights. You are seriously brainwashed if you believe otherwise.
If you can show me otherwise...I'm all ears.
Court precedent has established homosexuals as a protected class and therefor afforded the same protections as other protected classes of citizens. Yeah, I know. Where you slip your schwantz on a Saturday night is of no one's concern and certainly should not be of consideration for protected class status.
RaiderH8r
02-24-2006, 01:55 PM
I should introduce you to my God, He/She doesn't hate anything nor does He/She judge He/She sees you as perfect in every way.
Religion teaches a Wrathful god solely for the purpose of crowd control, power and funding.
Like George Carlin, I worship Joe Pesci because he gets sh!t done. My God would kick your God's ever loving ass. Hail Joe Pesci.
Rohirrim
02-24-2006, 02:06 PM
Simple. NO LAW shall be made to either offer special advantage or peculiar disadvantage to religion by the US Congress. NONE. End of story. Within the same paragraph exists the rights to freedom of speech. Both are protected rights under the Bill of Rights.
If you can show me otherwise...I'm all ears.
You said it. ;D Why should gays be singled out for any "peculiar disadvantage?" It's not a matter of affording them extra rights that the rest of us don't enjoy, but ensuring that they are not singled out and denied those rights we all share. It falls under the heading of "Race & Gender." There's too much precedent to post here.
RaiderH8r
02-24-2006, 02:09 PM
You said it. ;D Why should gays be singled out for any "peculiar disadvantage?" It's not a matter of affording them extra rights that the rest of us don't enjoy, but ensuring that they are not singled out and denied those rights we all share. It falls under the heading of "Race & Gender." There's too much precedent to post here.
What you do with your tool should not constitute a legal status.
Bronco_Beerslug
02-24-2006, 02:19 PM
What you do with your tool should not constitute a legal status.
Nor denial of rights and benefits afforded everyone else.
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 02:20 PM
If this is your approach to things, then I can go along with it. Problem is, this is not the general approach.
I'm unsure of what you mean by "the general approach". If you mean this differs from the biblical commands, edicts, admonitions, statements of principal, etc...found in the biblical text...then you are simply wrong. Nothing in the Bible advocates more than VERBAL address to this issue...as it does with all other such related issues lumped together under the category of "sin" that people engage in. You will find no ACTION, short of that which would fall under the larger umbrella called "church discipline"...a general template for addressing such issues WITHIN THE CHURCH.
On the other hand, if you mean that this approach differs from what you've personally experienced by observing the actions and reactions of Christians or those calling themselves such...I can only suggest that much like other stereotypical behaviors associated with race, creed, gender, geographical representation...even homosexuality...such actions/attitudes MAY or MAY NOT indicate accurately how the majority of any particular group feels. If you observe black people eating fried chicken and watermellon several times in a row and notice a kid wearing baggy pants and a headband flipping gang signs and using the F word on a streetcorner, such observations may stick in your head for a while, but you've probably learned to also take note of the well dressed black business man or woman working in the upscale office building you pass by as well. You're making some kind of conscious effort to recognize that stereotypes ARE NOT NECCESSARILY always, or even usually true...despite the power of suggestion they carry. Christianity is not entirely different. There are MILLIONS of Christians who do not take the so called "hate gays" agenda....and most who do make up a fairly small segment of the overall population, usually falling within a few denominational categories, sub-cultural categories in different parts of the country, etc...In a nutshell, MY approach is shared by MANY. Whether it is the dominant one or not...I doubt anyone knows with any certainty.
The idea of homosexuality as evil produces prejudices and exclusionary tactics towards people who are gay. When you teach children that a group of people does something that is evil, the aggregate result is that the group is marginalized by those who buy into the idea.
First, accepting the historical Christian faith produces opinions of MANY kinds of behavior that are identified as "evil"...ie; "sin"...not merely homosexuality. One could also say that theft, idolotry, fornication, lasciviousness, sloth, anger, drunkeness, lust, greed, envy and covetousness are ALSO labeled "bad" behaviors. That should come as no suprise. Why does THIS particular class of behaviors concern you so much? Society must simply accept the fact that there is an irreconcilable difference here that no amount of PC pressure will force conformity to among Christians of most persuasions.
Second, if by "exclusionary" you mean "the right" to include or exclude from certain personal associations, relationships, etc...based on personal preference...conviction...faith...belief...etc...t hen you are correct. And where is this right not found in a free society on MANY other issues? You have the right to exclude individuals in any LEGAL way that does not impede THEIR rights. You cannot for example...exlude a protected class of person (race, creed, sex, religion, age, etc...) from basic rights such as employment, housing, etc. At the present time however...two things; 1) sexual orientation is not a legally protected class, and 2) certain institutions such as churches and private organizations are not held to these standards for obvious reasons. It's an infringement of the 1st amendment (see above) to FORCE churches to hire gay people, just as it would be to FORCE you to hire someone BECAUSE they believe in God.
As for training children, that right belongs to parents, not the state, despite what some would like us to believe. PARENTS have the duty to teach children the meaning of principals. I object to your idea that teaching children that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle is somehow my obligation. That's nonsense. My obligation is to teach them what I believe is right, morally, socially, spiritually, etc...and within that right is the right to educate them according to matters of faith and conscience. Having said that...I believe if done properly, teaching on matters of faith and conscience will bring children to understand respect for others, based on things other than whether they agree or dissagree on these or similiar issues.
It is irrational to consider homosexuality evil. There is no reason for it. I'm sure you are perfectly rational in most areas of life, but if you believe homosexuality is evil, then, yes, I think that is a totally irrational idea. The idea itself produces bigotry and marginalization, regardless of how well meaning your individual approach may be.
That is your opinion, but your opinion is valuable in your household, not mine. Nor is my opinion valuable in your household. Personally I believe you've adopted a position of moral relativeism that is both inconsisitent and dangerous. That's just MY opinion though. In a free society you have the right...as do I.
RaiderH8r
02-24-2006, 02:24 PM
Nor denial of rights and benefits afforded everyone else.
The Constitution is pretty clear on that point without affording special classes to those varioius parties.
Furthermore, it dumps an issue of sexual choice into a realm of classification where the others do not have a choice of what race or gender they happen to be.
TheDave
02-24-2006, 02:26 PM
Furthermore, it dumps an issue of sexual choice into a realm of classification where the others do not have a choice of what race or gender they happen to be.
That's where the debate is... is it choice or genetics
RaiderH8r
02-24-2006, 02:27 PM
That's where the debate is... is it choice or genetics
If it's choice then they don't deserve protected class status. If it's genetics it is clearly a malfunction of biological process and should be researched for treatment.
alkemical
02-24-2006, 02:28 PM
lol, treating people who are gay like it's a disease.
Welcome to gattica!
TheDave
02-24-2006, 02:29 PM
If it's genetics it is clearly a malfunction of biological process and should be researched for treatment.
Why, should we be researching it for treatment?
RaiderH8r
02-24-2006, 02:32 PM
Why, should we be researching it for treatment?
In strictly biological terms, the function of sexual intercourse is procreation of the species. Everything other than that is simply entertainment value. Clearly a genetic flaw resulting in homosexuality flies in the face of that function and could be treated. Should is a different question. Recognizing that, if it is not genetic in nature, then these folks are engaging in gratuitous behavior for sexual satisfaction and that behavior does not warrant special class distinctions.
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 02:33 PM
Court precedent has established homosexuals as a protected class and therefor afforded the same protections as other protected classes of citizens. Yeah, I know. Where you slip your schwantz on a Saturday night is of no one's concern and certainly should not be of consideration for protected class status.
What exactly do you mean by "court precedent"? Are you speaking of local, district, or federal? Which one? The accumulated body of legal precedent becomes FEDERAL LAW when it is recognized as such by the Supreme Court, and prior to that MAY influence judges and juries on that basis as what we currently call "common" law, but to the present time...no such Supreme Court ruling has established sexual preference as a protected class of citizens at the federal level. Some states, and local communities have initiated this designation on their own, but the US Federal Government has not.
Antilles
02-24-2006, 02:35 PM
NOTHING in the text of the US Bill of Rights mentions either directly or indirectly homosexuality...certainly not the acceptance of this lifestyle as enjoying protected legal rights. You are seriously brainwashed if you believe otherwise.
If you can show me otherwise...I'm all ears.
The text of the Constitution/Bill of Rights doesn't mention a lot of things that most people take for granted - the right to privacy, for example. That doesn't mean that other rights aren't protected by those documents (unless you are a strict constructionalist – few people are).
Bronco_Beerslug
02-24-2006, 02:36 PM
If it's choice then they don't deserve protected class status. If it's genetics it is clearly a malfunction of biological process and should be researched for treatment.
I think it would be more prudent to research what went wrong with the religious right fanaticals' wiring. They're the real danger to the country.
alkemical
02-24-2006, 02:37 PM
In strictly biological terms, the function of sexual intercourse is procreation of the species. Everything other than that is simply entertainment value. Clearly a genetic flaw resulting in homosexuality flies in the face of that function and could be treated. Should is a different question. Recognizing that, if it is not genetic in nature, then these folks are engaging in gratuitous behavior for sexual satisfaction and that behavior does not warrant special class distinctions.
why when two consenting adults choose to involve themselves in behaviour that does not include you, or have any bearing on you - cause you so much strife?
Antilles
02-24-2006, 02:37 PM
What exactly do you mean by "court precedent"? Are you speaking of local, district, or federal? Which one? The accumulated body of legal precedent becomes FEDERAL LAW when it is recognized as such by the Supreme Court, and prior to that MAY influence judges and juries on that basis as what we currently call "common" law, but to the present time...no such Supreme Court ruling has established sexual preference as a protected class of citizens at the federal level. Some states, and local communities have initiated this designation on their own, but the US Federal Government has not.
Correct. And they never will unless someone can "prove" homosexuality is genetic or, more likely, it simply becomes accepted as genetic.
Bronco_Beerslug
02-24-2006, 02:39 PM
why when two consenting adults choose to involve themselves in behaviour that does not include you, or have any bearing on you - cause you so much strife?
:) It brings on nightmares for the majority of right-wingers. I think they're secretly afraid that they may have some gay tendencies themselves.
What exactly do you mean by "court precedent"? .
He's talking about protection laws.
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 02:40 PM
You said it. ;D Why should gays be singled out for any "peculiar disadvantage?" It's not a matter of affording them extra rights that the rest of us don't enjoy, but ensuring that they are not singled out and denied those rights we all share. It falls under the heading of "Race & Gender." There's too much precedent to post here.
And where exactly in this paragraph of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution that is speaking about RELIGION...do you find the words "homosexual"? You are deluded if you think that has anything whatsoever to do with sexuality, homo, hetero, or otherwise. Second...it does not "fall under the heading of race and gender". No such designation is there for that either in the 1st Amendment.
The Bill of Rights does not speak to the issue of homosexuality in any way.
TheDave
02-24-2006, 02:40 PM
In strictly biological terms, the function of sexual intercourse is procreation of the species. Everything other than that is simply entertainment value. Clearly a genetic flaw resulting in homosexuality flies in the face of that function and could be treated. Should is a different question. Recognizing that, if it is not genetic in nature, then these folks are engaging in gratuitous behavior for sexual satisfaction and that behavior does not warrant special class distinctions.
probably a slippery slope you don't want to go down.
DB-Freak
02-24-2006, 02:41 PM
Everything revolves around your genetics.
I can't say I support homosexuality, but the fact that some would say that they should research a cure for it is just astounding.
Why so driven?
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 02:43 PM
The text of the Constitution/Bill of Rights doesn't mention a lot of things that most people take for granted - the right to privacy, for example. That doesn't mean that other rights aren't protected by those documents (unless you are a strict constructionalist – few people are).
Herein lies one of our largest problems...the assumption that the documents produced by the framers are "living and breathing"...etc...you can call that "strict constructionist" if you wish. I call it looking at what's put in writing.
Tell your banker, insurance agent, mortgage holder, or wife that even though certain things aren't spelled out in writing they "exist anyway" because "I take it for granted since I'm not a strict constructionist".
See how that works.
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 02:45 PM
Correct. And they never will unless someone can "prove" homosexuality is genetic or, more likely, it simply becomes accepted as genetic.
Hence, the current debate on nature vs. nurture. Back to square one we go...
Bronco_Beerslug
02-24-2006, 02:48 PM
Everything revolves around your genetics.
I can't say I support homosexuality, but the fact that some would say that they should research a cure for it is just astounding.
Why so driven?
I find the right's view of homosexuality amusing, ignorant and scary all at the same time. I like to point out to them that the white race as they know it probably won't exist when their grandchildren are grown.
TheDave
02-24-2006, 02:50 PM
Herein lies one of our largest problems...the assumption that the documents produced by the framers are "living and breathing"...etc...you can call that "strict constructionist" if you wish. I call it looking at what's put in writing.
Tell your banker, insurance agent, mortgage holder, or wife that even though certain things aren't spelled out in writing they "exist anyway" because "I take it for granted since I'm not a strict constructionist".
See how that works.
You have made alot of great points in this thread...That wasn't one of them.
Comparing our constitution that helps to govern our ever evolving society to a set of loan documents is pathetic. As society changes we will always be forced to re-interpret or at the very least re-visit some things that the founding fathers did not address. Pretending that this single document will answer all of our questions for eternity is completely unrealistic.
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 02:51 PM
Everything revolves around your genetics.
I can't say I support homosexuality, but the fact that some would say that they should research a cure for it is just astounding.
Why so driven?
If you're happening by a library, take a look at the DSM III-R (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the "Bible of Psychiatry". This version of the DSM...outdated now by the newer DSM IV as of 2000, specifies that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Popular sentiment, not science or research, etc...created this idea in the first place and eradicated it later.
Never trust a psychiatrist for any reason...;D
alkemical
02-24-2006, 02:55 PM
You have made alot of great points in this thread...That wasn't one of them.
Comparing our constitution that helps to govern our ever evolving society to a set of loan documents is pathetic. As society changes we will always be forced to re-interpret or at the very least re-visit some things that the founding fathers did not address. Pretending that this single document will answer all of our questions for eternity is completely unrealistic.
i'm a little torn on it- revist yes - but i think for the most part - i think we've done too much outside of the constitution that has caused our ills as a whole.
Rohirrim
02-24-2006, 02:57 PM
And where exactly in this paragraph of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution that is speaking about RELIGION...do you find the words "homosexual"? You are deluded if you think that has anything whatsoever to do with sexuality, homo, hetero, or otherwise. Second...it does not "fall under the heading of race and gender". No such designation is there for that either in the 1st Amendment.
The Bill of Rights does not speak to the issue of homosexuality in any way.
And where are about 5,000 things now covered by the Commerce Clause that have almost nothing to do with commerce? Where in the 4th amendment does it say Bush can conduct warrantless searches. Where is privacy mentioned? Where is the right to vote mentioned. etc. etc. etc.
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 02:58 PM
You have made alot of great points in this thread...That wasn't one of them.
Comparing our constitution that helps to govern our ever evolving society to a set of loan documents is pathetic. As society changes we will always be forced to re-interpret or at the very least re-visit some things that the founding fathers did not address. Pretending that this single document will answer all of our questions for eternity is completely unrealistic.
You missunderstand. I am not comparing the constituion to loan documents. I am suggesting that LANGUAGE must have MEANING that is encapsuled in TEXT...ie; grammer, vocabulary, syntax, punctuation, etc...nowhere else in society is something "taken for granted" because it's assumed on the basis of documents being "living and breathing". We are a society of LAWS, spelled out in WRITING. Those laws are written with singular meaning by legislatures and the job of judges is to apply, not WRITE the law. I happen to believe that changes to the US Constitution should be made EXTREMELY CAREFULLY and RARELY...a fact supported by 215 years of history that has seen only 27 changes made and one repealed later.
My point is that "rights" exist when they are established in LAW...not the whim or assumption of the individual. Whether those rights should be altered, changed, removed, added, etc...is another discussion entirely from this one.
DB-Freak
02-24-2006, 03:00 PM
If you're happening by a library, take a look at the DSM III-R (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the "Bible of Psychiatry". This version of the DSM...outdated now by the newer DSM IV as of 2000, specifies that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Popular sentiment, not science or research, etc...created this idea in the first place and eradicated it later.
Never trust a psychiatrist for any reason...;D
The brain is a tricky thing. It's so complex that even the best researchers in the world truly do not understand it.
To me the issue of homosexuality is trivial. Yes I know there is more to it than just homosexuality involved in it, but I don't feel as if this should be an issue.
Don't like fags? Don't hang out with them.
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 03:02 PM
And where are about 5,000 things now covered by the Commerce Clause that have almost nothing to do with commerce? Where in the 4th amendment does it say Bush can conduct warrantless searches. Where is privacy mentioned? Where is the right to vote mentioned. etc. etc. etc.
Posting examples of other abuses to the interpretation of the Bill of Rights or legal fiction departures from other legal documents does not support your assertion that homosexuality is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The fact that society and it's leadership has often departed from the sane approach of law that is anchored in WRITING found in the framers original documents does not give you license to do so also.
TheDave
02-24-2006, 03:03 PM
i'm a little torn on it- revist yes - but i think for the most part - i think we've done too much outside of the constitution that has caused our ills as a whole.
I completely agree that too much can be done to it... Then again to think that some 4500 words can govern all situations for all time, doesn't seem realistic either.
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 03:05 PM
Don't like fags? Don't hang out with them.
Clearly you've come late to the conversation...
DB-Freak
02-24-2006, 03:07 PM
Clearly you've come late to the conversation...
Yup
I have not read the thread at all. Just the last few posts.
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 03:09 PM
I completely agree that too much can be done to it... Then again to think that some 4500 words can govern all situations for all time, doesn't seem realistic either.
Agreed. I support VERY CAUTIOUS adjustments made with INFINITE care. It's a great foundation, sometimes imperfect and sometimes lacking...but to much fooling with it could have MAJOR implications that aren't good. The Amendment process was put there for a reason. It allows adjustment, but always based in the actual establishment of textually based law.
TheDave
02-24-2006, 03:09 PM
I happen to believe that changes to the US Constitution should be made EXTREMELY CAREFULLY and RARELY...a fact supported by 215 years of history that has seen only 27 changes made and one repealed later.
On that we completely agree... Now do you think that a federal ban on gay marriage passes the EXTREMELY CAREFULLY and RARELY caveat?
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 03:11 PM
Yup
I have not read the thread at all. Just the last few posts.
Well enjoy the read...meanwhile I must go fight Dallas traffic to get my wife...later all.
footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2006, 03:14 PM
On that we completely agree... Now do you think that a federal ban on gay marriage passes the EXTREMELY CAREFULLY and RARELY caveat?
The right is not established in law to begin with, so that's backwards. Such a consideration properly lies within the Supreme Court IMO. Individual states are traveling outside the law in instituting such relationships, and the question belongs ultimately before the high court...then perhaps codified in the Constitution as other civil rights related issues have been.
alkemical
02-24-2006, 03:38 PM
I completely agree that too much can be done to it... Then again to think that some 4500 words can govern all situations for all time, doesn't seem realistic either.
Well yes and no. It is meant to give an guidline for the fed. gov't. In between though i think it should be up to states to determine all the inbetweens.
sisterhellfyre
02-27-2006, 12:45 AM
how does homosexuality and/or interbreeding help propogate the species?
hmmmmmmmmmm
I mean afterall, if we are just animals, wouldn't that trait of been breeded out since those with that trait would not breed?
hmmmmmmmmmmm
Wish I could find the link again, but I recall reading a fascinating article, found on the Web, about possible evolutionary functions of homosexuality.
The article pointed out that the value added by homosexuality may not manifest directly for the individual, but could show up clearly in the population dynamics of competing groups. The article argued that the presence of homosexual individuals might have given some groups an advantage in competing for scarce resources because the gay cavemen provided extra manpower for finding food, taking care of the young, or whatever other functions were necessary for the group to survive while also slowing down the rate of population growth, exactly because the gay individuals did not reproduce. That lack of reproduction helped even up the balance of population vs resources, so that ALL of them didn't starve as the population grew out of control.
I'll bet there were gay cavewomen, too, from the earliest times... so Fred & Barney probably had a grand time watching Wilma & Betty get it on!
Regards,
m.
epicSocialism4tw
02-27-2006, 11:30 AM
Wish I could find the link again, but I recall reading a fascinating article, found on the Web, about possible evolutionary functions of homosexuality.
The article pointed out that the value added by homosexuality may not manifest directly for the individual, but could show up clearly in the population dynamics of competing groups. The article argued that the presence of homosexual individuals might have given some groups an advantage in competing for scarce resources because the gay cavemen provided extra manpower for finding food, taking care of the young, or whatever other functions were necessary for the group to survive while also slowing down the rate of population growth, exactly because the gay individuals did not reproduce. That lack of reproduction helped even up the balance of population vs resources, so that ALL of them didn't starve as the population grew out of control.
I'll bet there were gay cavewomen, too, from the earliest times... so Fred & Barney probably had a grand time watching Wilma & Betty get it on!
Regards,
m.
The latest data that I have heard of correlates homosexuality in males with absence of a functional father figure. I was discussing synaptic plasticity and neuronal circuit development in regards to homosexuality with a neuroscientist that I know and he told me about the latest study done in regards to origins of homosexuality in males. There was a 100% correlation (unheard of in experimentation) between homosexuality in males and the absence of a funtional father figure. Essientially, the development of homosexual tendancies (boys playing with girls' toys, wearing makeup, etc) begins with a learned behavioral coping system. I'll see if I cant dig up the data online...
Rohirrim
02-27-2006, 12:03 PM
The latest data that I have heard of correlates homosexuality in males with absence of a functional father figure. I was discussing synaptic plasticity and neuronal circuit development in regards to homosexuality with a neuroscientist that I know and he told me about the latest study done in regards to origins of homosexuality in males. There was a 100% correlation (unheard of in experimentation) between homosexuality in males and the absence of a funtional father figure. Essientially, the development of homosexual tendancies (boys playing with girls' toys, wearing makeup, etc) begins with a learned behavioral coping system. I'll see if I cant dig up the data online...
Where did you neuroscientist get his degree? Walmart? There's just as much evidence, I imagine, that could support the idea that homosexuals come from homes with a father figure like The Great Santini, or Tony Soprano, or Vince Lombardi, or Ben Cartwright. This is ridiculous. Homosexuals come from every family type on the planet. This whole load of crap is just a bunch of religious nut jobs who want to impose their prejudices on the rest of us. F off!
Mile High Shack
02-27-2006, 12:04 PM
Where did you neuroscientist get his degree? Walmart? There's just as much evidence, I imagine, that could support the idea that homosexuals come from homes with a father figure like The Great Santini, or Tony Soprano, or Vince Lombardi, or Ben Cartwright. This is ridiculous. Homosexuals come from every family type on the planet. This whole load of crap is just a bunch of religious nut jobs who want to impose their prejudices on the rest of us. F off!
nice:thumbs:
Rohirrim
02-27-2006, 12:06 PM
nice:thumbs:
Thank you. Thank you very much. !Booya!
epicSocialism4tw
02-27-2006, 12:17 PM
Where did you neuroscientist get his degree? Walmart? There's just as much evidence, I imagine, that could support the idea that homosexuals come from homes with a father figure like The Great Santini, or Tony Soprano, or Vince Lombardi, or Ben Cartwright. This is ridiculous. Homosexuals come from every family type on the planet. This whole load of crap is just a bunch of religious nut jobs who want to impose their prejudices on the rest of us. F off!
He got his doctorate at UK and got another degree at UTSA.
Ironically, the behavioral scientist that performed the study is notably liberal. Ill see if I cant find the study by tomorrow. I've got alot to do today, so I might not get it up.
I wouldnt expect you to accept the data regardless because it doesnt fit your paradigm. Some people only like science when it suits them. There's nothing I or anyone else can do about that, so do those of us who actually use science to make a living a favor and stop spewing uneducated nonsense.
Thanks...that'd be greeaaat.
Rohirrim
02-27-2006, 12:26 PM
He got his doctorate at UK and got another degree at UTSA.
Ironically, the behavioral scientist that performed the study is notably liberal. Ill see if I cant find the study by tomorrow. I've got alot to do today, so I might not get it up.
I wouldnt expect you to accept the data regardless because it doesnt fit your paradigm. Some people only like science when it suits them. There's nothing I or anyone else can do about that, so do those of us who actually use science to make a living a favor and stop spewing uneducated nonsense.
Thanks...that'd be greeaaat.
Some of the biggest nutjobs I've ever run into had all sorts of assorted letter combos following their names. Does the name Ward Churchill ring a bell? Sixty years ago, a whole bunch of Phds were phrenologists! Ha! And don't accuse me of having a paradigm. I got rid of that with a special ointment. And I also use science in my daily life. You should see my meatloaf! ;D
BroncoInferno
02-27-2006, 12:34 PM
The latest data that I have heard of correlates homosexuality in males with absence of a functional father figure. I was discussing synaptic plasticity and neuronal circuit development in regards to homosexuality with a neuroscientist that I know and he told me about the latest study done in regards to origins of homosexuality in males. There was a 100% correlation (unheard of in experimentation) between homosexuality in males and the absence of a funtional father figure. Essientially, the development of homosexual tendancies (boys playing with girls' toys, wearing makeup, etc) begins with a learned behavioral coping system. I'll see if I cant dig up the data online...
That is absurd. One of my closest friends is gay, and his father is one of the finest people I know. In fact, the majority of people I know who are gay have a 'funional father figure'. Your friend must have pulled that study directly from his a$$, or else from the Family Research Council (not much differenxce, I know ;D).
epicSocialism4tw
02-27-2006, 12:36 PM
That is absurd. One of my closest friends is gay, and his father is one of the finest people I know. In fact, the majority of people I know who are gay have a 'funional father figure'. Your friend must have pulled that study directly from his a$$, or else from the Family Research Council (not much differenxce, I know ;D).
Sure...I'll take your word for it over a n700 study by a reputed behavioral scientist. ::)
Rohirrim
02-27-2006, 12:40 PM
Sure...I'll take your word for it over a n700 study by a reputed behavioral scientist. ::)
"Reputed" being the operative word, I suppose. ;D
epicSocialism4tw
02-27-2006, 12:43 PM
"Reputed" being the operative word, I suppose. ;D
I guess that would depend on who makes the better meatloaf.
BroncoInferno
02-27-2006, 12:46 PM
Sure...I'll take your word for it over a n700 study by a reputed behavioral scientist. ::)
LOL OK, I lied, I don't know any gay people at all. God, you are ignorant. Plenty of gay people have functional fathers! I mean, if you said 75% or something like that, I wouldn't dismiss it off hand, but to claim 100%...well, that is just flat ignorant. Talk about ignoring something that doesn't fit in with your paradigm...what a hypocrite.
epicSocialism4tw
02-27-2006, 12:54 PM
LOL OK, I lied, I don't know any gay people at all. God, you are ignorant. Plenty of gay people have functional fathers! I mean, if you said 75% or something like that, I wouldn't dismiss it off hand, but to claim 100%...well, that is just flat ignorant. Talk about ignoring something that doesn't fit in with your paradigm...what a hypocrite.
I'll post the study when I can get around to it. It might be tomorrow.
There were certain conditions that the individual had to meet as a child and there had to be specific instances of problems relating to the father figure and behaviors exhibited by the father. Off hand, I know that some of them concerned abuse and gender confusion amongst other things.
Anyhow, like I said, even if the data looks good it will be dismissed. It goes against everything you want to believe.
BroncoInferno
02-27-2006, 01:03 PM
Anyhow, like I said, even if the data looks good it will be dismissed. It goes against everything you want to believe.
OK, whatever you say. I know multiple gay people with good men for fathers, but I'm the one who dismisses things they don't want to believe. ::)
epicSocialism4tw
02-27-2006, 01:07 PM
OK, whatever you say. I know multiple gay people with good men for fathers, but I'm the one who dismisses things they don't want to believe.
I'm sure that you're familiar with every skeleton in their closet too.
BroncoInferno
02-27-2006, 01:12 PM
I'm sure that you're familiar with every skeleton in their closet too.
LOL I figured that was your next step. You've never met any of these people, but they must have molested or abused their gay sons, because if they haven't, that would totally wreck your paradigm! What a hypocrite...ROFL!
RaiderH8r
02-27-2006, 01:22 PM
why when two consenting adults choose to involve themselves in behaviour that does not include you, or have any bearing on you - cause you so much strife?
It doesn't concern me until that behavior becomes a basis for becoming a protected class. And it causes me strife when they roll out for protests and fvck up my commute, but that's all protesters.
epicSocialism4tw
02-27-2006, 01:28 PM
LOL I figured that was your next step. You've never met any of these people, but they must have molested or abused their gay sons, because if they haven't, that would totally wreck your paradigm! What a hypocrite..
You figured that that was the next step because it was as obvious as the questionmark on your forehead. The next obvious causal events will be these: you'll become defensive, you'll create some scenario in your head to justify to yourself a way to give you the last word, and you'll post another insulting rant. All of this in spite of the fact that I really dont care what you think, and on top of that you have used science before as an end-all to your justifications and then you blow it off when it doesnt meet your preconceived notions of what it is supposed to provide for your liberal philosophy.
The earth is round...take that!
RaiderH8r
02-27-2006, 01:30 PM
probably a slippery slope you don't want to go down.
Why not? Since when does science give a rip about slippery slope? That argument doesn't wash in the stem cell debate why worry about a slippery slope on this issue?
alkemical
02-27-2006, 02:09 PM
It doesn't concern me until that behavior becomes a basis for becoming a protected class. And it causes me strife when they roll out for protests and fvck up my commute, but that's all protesters.
Well, when they are told they can't get married, and file a joint tax return, etc etc - what do you expect.
BroncoInferno
02-27-2006, 02:24 PM
You figured that that was the next step because it was as obvious as the questionmark on your forehead. The next obvious causal events will be these: you'll become defensive, you'll create some scenario in your head to justify to yourself a way to give you the last word, and you'll post another insulting rant. All of this in spite of the fact that I really dont care what you think, and on top of that you have used science before as an end-all to your justifications and then you blow it off when it doesnt meet your preconceived notions of what it is supposed to provide for your liberal philosophy.
The earth is round...take that!
I am not "creating" senarios..I'm telling you about people I know personally who disprove the assertion that 100% of gay males had abusive or absent fathers. You basically insinuate that I am lying, then talk about me making insults. And, no, I don't consider science an end-all, be-all...I accept results that have withstood years of study and stood up to intensive peer review. This alleged study you sight would certainly not fit the bill.
alkemical
02-27-2006, 02:29 PM
the crux of the problem is the religico's don't want to admit that there is a quotiant of nature involved, and if some people (say even a small %) are truley wired that way - then it says that the initiator of ID - created gay people.
Falconer
02-27-2006, 02:38 PM
Wow, never have I wanted football season, or an election to come back more than I do right now. The top four threads in this section seem to be pitting believers against non-believers for the most part. I have to admit that I was even tempted to join the fray, but then I thought better of it. I just hate seeing individuals who I have come to respect acting callously towards others, and that is what I see from both sides in each of these threads. Maybe some of you feel that you are doing a service for the "cause," but I don't think much is going to come from the attacks that are being launched against one another here.
What do I know though?:)
Rohirrim
02-27-2006, 02:46 PM
the crux of the problem is the religico's don't want to admit that there is a quotiant of nature involved, and if some people (say even a small %) are truley wired that way - then it says that the initiator of ID - created gay people.
SSSHHH! Don't say that!;D
clarker
02-27-2006, 03:13 PM
the crux of the problem is the religico's don't want to admit that there is a quotiant of nature involved, and if some people (say even a small %) are truley wired that way - then it says that the initiator of ID - created gay people.I think there is alot of truth in that. In fact I think that it is dead on.
How ever if you want to throw God out of the question. Say that God doesn't exist and you look it at through science and only science, you have to say that being gay is a birth defect.
Because all if you really look at it all forms of life, both plant and animal have only two goals. Self perservation and to ensure that the species is repopulated. If you throw out all morals, religious beliefs and look at it from pure science that is the only reasons for being.
So evolution says that the best way for the human race to ensure that our species goes on is for a male and female to mate. Anything in the DNA that tells that person to be sexually attracted to another person of the same sex is a flaw in their DNA.
I say this in the same way that the heart birth defect I was born with was a defect in my DNA. It doesn't make me a bad person, but the human heart was evolved to work a certain way and my DNA has flaw, so my heart doesn't function correctly. Being gay doesn't make you a bad person, IMO, but you can argue that it is a defect.
So while I agree that there are people who believe that being gay is a sin and is only a choice of lifestyle don't want to admit the science that points other wise because then that would mean that their God created something they find horrible. I also say that most gay people who they are born that way would never say that their DNA is flawed.
Please don't peg me as homophobic. I'm not. I have friends and and relatives that are gay. I have no problem with them or anyone else simply because they are gay. I think gays should be allowed to marry and have any other right I have. I just putting up some thoughts in my head and was wondering what you all think.
Perhaps I'm way off. But then again I believe in a God and I believe he made Gay people and so they can't be evil.
alkemical
02-27-2006, 03:19 PM
I think there is alot of truth in that. In fact I think that it is dead on.
How ever if you want to throw God out of the question. Say that God doesn't exist and you look it at through science and only science, you have to say that being gay is a birth defect.
Because all if you really look at it all forms of life, both plant and animal have only two goals. Self perservation and to ensure that the species is repopulated. If you throw out all morals, religious beliefs and look at it from pure science that is the only reasons for being.
So evolution says that the best way for the human race to ensure that our species goes on is for a male and female to mate. Anything in the DNA that tells that person to be sexually attracted to another person of the same sex is a flaw in their DNA.
I say this in the same way that the heart birth defect I was born with was a defect in my DNA. It doesn't make me a bad person, but the human heart was evolved to work a certain way and my DNA has flaw, so my heart doesn't function correctly. Being gay doesn't make you a bad person, IMO, but you can argue that it is a defect.
So while I agree that there are people who believe that being gay is a sin and is only a choice of lifestyle don't want to admit the science that points other wise because then that would mean that their God created something they find horrible. I also say that most gay people who they are born that way would never say that their DNA is flawed.
Please don't peg me as homophobic. I'm not. I have friends and and relatives that are gay. I have no problem with them or anyone else simply because they are gay. I think gays should be allowed to marry and have any other right I have. I just putting up some thoughts in my head and was wondering what you all think.
Perhaps I'm way off. But then again I believe in a God and I believe he made Gay people and so they can't be evil.
I pretty much agree.
Mile High Shack
02-27-2006, 03:22 PM
I pretty much agree.
me too...for the most part
alkemical
02-27-2006, 03:23 PM
by no means did i mean to say about religico's in a bad light - and clarker did a good job of presenting the other side of said discussion -
bronco_diesel
02-27-2006, 03:26 PM
the crux of the problem is the religico's don't want to admit that there is a quotiant of nature involved, and if some people (say even a small %) are truley wired that way - then it says that the initiator of ID - created gay people.
i disagree.
looking from another perspective. at creation, adam & eve were perfect. once sin entered the world, perfection no longer existed - alas genetic defects. all this is saying is we have a God who has allowed genetic defects to influence the world....you still have choice, and that is what He is concerned with. Will you deny yourself to follow Him? God is concerned with our hearts - and that is where the desire to know Him lies. either you will chose to take up your cross, deny yourself and follow Him because you love Him...or you will love yourself more and do what you want.
clarker
02-27-2006, 03:26 PM
I pretty much agree.I hope people don't think of me as a gay basher.
That is why I brought up the comparison to my heart defect. I was born that way. It was a flaw, but I also believe that is how God wanted me to born. I don't feel it makes me less of person to say that from a pure scientific point of view it is a flaw that I was born with.
alkemical
02-27-2006, 03:48 PM
i disagree.
looking from another perspective. at creation, adam & eve were perfect. once sin entered the world, perfection no longer existed - alas genetic defects. all this is saying is we have a God who has allowed genetic defects to influence the world....you still have choice, and that is what He is concerned with. Will you deny yourself to follow Him? God is concerned with our hearts - and that is where the desire to know Him lies. either you will chose to take up your cross, deny yourself and follow Him because you love Him...or you will love yourself more and do what you want.
well god initiated sin by creating it. :)
alkemical
02-27-2006, 03:49 PM
I hope people don't think of me as a gay basher.
That is why I brought up the comparison to my heart defect. I was born that way. It was a flaw, but I also believe that is how God wanted me to born. I don't feel it makes me less of person to say that from a pure scientific point of view it is a flaw that I was born with.
"defect" though is such a bad word for being gay. Well, to us that are straight it seems like a defect, but that's only because i don't 'think' like that.
bronco_diesel
02-27-2006, 03:53 PM
well god initiated sin by creating it. :)
no, he gave allowance for it. it isn't love without choice. you cannot love God without choosing too...ergo, the alternative is to choose not to love God.
so if love is defined by choice, then there must be an allowance for rejection and sin....and if there is a loving God, who cannot look upon sin - he would also make an allowance for you to reconcile with Him to have that loving relationship - hence, Jesus Christ.
clarker
02-27-2006, 03:56 PM
"defect" though is such a bad word for being gay. Well, to us that are straight it seems like a defect, but that's only because i don't 'think' like that.I understand what your saying, but your making a moral judgement. I said if you throw out human morals or religious beliefs and look at it only through science. Then you would have to say it is a defect in the DNA. Not that a gay human is a bad person, but their DNA is flawed.
You wouldn't say that my heart defect makes me a bad person, would you. But if you throw out moral judgements and look at me in terms of evolution and science, you would have to say I'm defective.
alkemical
02-27-2006, 04:02 PM
no, he gave allowance for it. it isn't love without choice. you cannot love God without choosing too...ergo, the alternative is to choose not to love God.
so if love is defined by choice, then there must be an allowance for rejection and sin....and if there is a loving God, who cannot look upon sin - he would also make an allowance for you to reconcile with Him to have that loving relationship - hence, Jesus Christ.
there's no love in fear either.
alkemical
02-27-2006, 04:03 PM
I understand what your saying, but your making a moral judgement. I said if you throw out human morals or religious beliefs and look at it only through science. Then you would have to say it is a defect in the DNA. Not that a gay human is a bad person, but their DNA is flawed.
You wouldn't say that my heart defect makes me a bad person, would you. But if you throw out moral judgements and look at me in terms of evolution and science, you would have to say I'm defective.
apologies for missing that pt. clarker -
i'd agree then too
clarker
02-27-2006, 04:05 PM
apologies for missing that pt. clarker -
i'd agree then tooNo problem. I was worried that I would not make myself clear on that point before I made that post. It was more my fault.
bronco_diesel
02-28-2006, 09:50 AM
there's no love in fear either.
consequences are an every day part of life - you simply cannot ignore that...nor should you ignore it with God.
He is a God of order - He's provided you His law.
He is a just God, He will judge sin.
He is an honest judge, he must judge everyone to the same standard - His standard (not your standard)
He is a forgiving God, thus he provides a way for your transgressions of His law to be cleared.
He is a loving God - He's given you a gift of salvation through His Son - it is up to you to receive it.
if you love the Father, you accept His gift - hence you love the Son
my faith is not based on fear...my faith is based on thankfulness and the realization i am forgiven for a debt i cannot pay. i realize we have a God of order who is honest and just. i can never be righteous on my own merit in the eyes of God - but i will gladly accept the gift of His Son's righteousness so I can reconcile with Him. why would anyone reject such a gift? i say it is because we do not want to look at what and who we really are. we all want honest judgement - until it is about us..
the truth is always narrow minded.
alkemical
02-28-2006, 11:04 AM
consequences are an every day part of life - you simply cannot ignore that...nor should you ignore it with God.
He is a God of order - He's provided you His law.
He is a just God, He will judge sin.
He is an honest judge, he must judge everyone to the same standard - His standard (not your standard)
He is a forgiving God, thus he provides a way for your transgressions of His law to be cleared.
He is a loving God - He's given you a gift of salvation through His Son - it is up to you to receive it.
if you love the Father, you accept His gift - hence you love the Son
my faith is not based on fear...my faith is based on thankfulness and the realization i am forgiven for a debt i cannot pay. i realize we have a God of order who is honest and just. i can never be righteous on my own merit in the eyes of God - but i will gladly accept the gift of His Son's righteousness so I can reconcile with Him. why would anyone reject such a gift? i say it is because we do not want to look at what and who we really are. we all want honest judgement - until it is about us..
the truth is always narrow minded.
Lack of reason and cognative thinking lead to a narrow mind.
LOL! I love how high on religion and preachy people become. One of the major things that Religious types spout is "if you don't believe in this way, then you are tied to eternal damnation."
I reject christ on the principle of that being the only way to any form of salvation. Being that i see Jesus as but another Avatara, ala krsna, buddah, etc - etc.
~ clavicula solomonis
bronco_diesel
02-28-2006, 11:27 AM
Lack of reason and cognative thinking lead to a narrow mind.
LOL! I love how high on religion and preachy people become. One of the major things that Religious types spout is "if you don't believe in this way, then you are tied to eternal damnation."
I reject christ on the principle of that being the only way to any form of salvation. Being that i see Jesus as but another Avatara, ala krsna, buddah, etc - etc.
~ clavicula solomonis
hmmm, so then, why don't you respond to point by point? if i am the one lacking cognative thinking?
how can you have Christ be an avatar, when He is the one making the claim of himself as our divine mediator?
again, the truth is narrow minded. either jesus is truth and we should abide to what he says, or he is a nut, and we should ignore him.
alkemical
02-28-2006, 11:33 AM
hmmm, so then, why don't you respond to point by point? if i am the one lacking cognative thinking?
how can you have Christ be an avatar, when He is the one making the claim of himself as our divine mediator?
again, the truth is narrow minded. either jesus is truth and we should abide to what he says, or he is a nut, and we should ignore him.
Because i know better than to 'discuss' items with people that have no interest in a real discussion. It's a waste of my time.
Why can't christ be an avatar?
bronco_diesel
02-28-2006, 02:15 PM
Because i know better than to 'discuss' items with people that have no interest in a real discussion. It's a waste of my time.
Why can't christ be an avatar?
i believe we can discuss. but i am going to hold to absolutes. so if that is a problem, it is indeed a worthless discussion.
how do you justify using him as an avatar when he claimed he is the only way? isn't a bit of a contradiction to hold to his teachings and others too?
alkemical
02-28-2006, 02:31 PM
i believe we can discuss. but i am going to hold to absolutes. so if that is a problem, it is indeed a worthless discussion.
how do you justify using him as an avatar when he claimed he is the only way? isn't a bit of a contradiction to hold to his teachings and others too?
I'm not *christian* so no, it isn't a contradiction.