A Nightmare Scenario for Homosexuals

[Woody]

So Adam and Eve's children were gay then? If not, exactly when did the gay bloodline emerge?

And do you honestly believe all of that crap anyway - that we came from Adam and Eve!?? Which other patently ridiculous parts of the Bible story do you subscribe to - that God made the Earth in 6 days? That the Earth is only 10,000 years old? That Noah built an ark? Do tell!

Wait a minute. Didn't you mention Adam first? Didn't you say the first human was gay? There was a first human somewhere wasn't there?

As for the the rest of the creation account, I'd have to say that I don't agree that the earth looks to be 10,000 years old. It looks to be millions of years old to me, perhaps billions. But then I ask the question: What is a young earth supposed to look like, assuming it was created by God for humans to inhabit? Get creative and tell me.

If the earth was only ten thousand years old, that would explain fossils found on Mt. Everest, and confirm the genesis account of a worldwide flood, would it not? I don't know how old the earth is, but scientists estimate its age based on assumptions which look pretty scientific to me. If God created the earth and the universe, I don't understand why he would apparantly want to mislead us with sign markers that say he didn't do it on the Genesis timeline. But that's His business. I also agree that evolution happened at least to some extent. I believe that adaptation of life is God-given.

 

[redarmy11]

Woody...

I was being sarcastic.

Yes, evolution presumably did give rise to the first person recognisable as human somewhere along the line. The jury's still out on his sexual orientation (though my guess is he wasn't too fussy and was probably just as happy rutting with the beasts in the field as he was with his yet-to-evolve ladyfriend).

But, please, answer my questions:

1. Adam and Eve - yes or no?
2. Earth made in 6 days - yes or no?
3. Earth is only 10,000 years old - yes or no?
4. Noah's ark - yes or no?

Just trying to establish the depths of your dementia.

 

[Woody]

Woody...


But, please, answer my questions:

1. Adam and Eve - yes or no? yes, but perhaps not the only humans (land of Nod)
2. Earth made in 6 days - yes or no? earth made in six biblical time periods called epochs that appear on the evolution distribution timelime as well, and in approximately the same sequence. Birds, I think are perhaps a little out of sync on the Genesis timeline. I'd have to go look at it again. We'll maybe not so much out of sync. They came out of the ocean according to genesis along with all other land creatures. Then evolution theory says all land life evolved out of the ocean too does it not? You heard it first in the bible! Genesis 1:20.
3. Earth is only 10,000 years old - yes or no? don't know, I wasn't there, but it appears to be much older than that.
4. Noah's ark - yes or no? Only with a supernatural weather event. But then I believe the earth was created from nothing -- how supernatural would that be?

Just trying to establish the depths of your dementia.

It is very very deep and I hope it never changes.

 

[Woody]

Oh no, a single poorly recounted anecdotal case! You've blown my worldview wide open, Woody! Quick get on the horn, turns out homosexuals just aren't trying hard enough!

Resent research has shown strong biological indicators that are linked to homosexuality, but it is not the APA's position that they know exactly what the cause is any more than they can pinpoint why someone is heterosexual.

All it takes is one example that doesn't agree to completely blow away any axiom. At least in the world of logic it is. I'm sorry I'm thinking in mathematical terms. Psychology is not really science is it? May I be more political in my thinking.

Here's a little background for you on axiom theory from the Wiki:

These are certain formulas in a language that are universally valid, that is, formulas that are satisfied by every structure under every variable assignment function . In colloquial terms, these are statements that are true in any possible universe, under any possible interpretation and with any assignment of values. Usually one takes as logical axioms at least some minimal set of tautologies that is sufficient for proving all tautologies in the language; in the case of predicate logic more logical axioms than that are required, in order to prove logical truths that are not tautologies in the strict sense.

If gayness was strongly biological, wouldn't all identical twins be either gay or hetero? They aren't.

I'm already covering this in another thread: check it out. If you want to debate it here's the place to go:

Ex-gay ministry

BTW, are you opposed if someone wants re-orientation therapy because they are unhappy with their sexual feelings, and they choose to change? The success rate for total re-orientation is about 25% depending on which source you go to and there are several -- some before NARTH or the gay-rights groups got involved. After all homosexuality and therapy have both been around for a while.

 

[redarmy11]

If gayness was strongly biological, wouldn't all identical twins be either gay or hetero? They aren't.

Twin Studies of Homosexuality

The problem you have here is:

1. Most identical twins are raised in the same environment. Therefore it's impossible to separate genetic and environmental influences.
2. Even with identical twins raised separately (one study to date), pre-natal conditions in the uterus may affect the twins' development.
3. Most of the studies are too small-scale to draw any valid conclusions about the wider population.

 

[Woody]

Twin Studies of Homosexuality

The problem you have here is:

1. Most identical twins are raised in the same environment. Therefore it's impossible to separate genetic and environmental influences.
2. Even with identical twins raised separately (one study to date), pre-natal conditions in the uterus may affect the twins' development.
3. Most of the studies are too small-scale to draw any valid conclusions about the wider population.

Not all sets of identical twins are either homosexual or heterosexual . There must be influencing factors other than genetics and biology. QED.

 

[redarmy11]

Not all sets of identical twins are either homosexual or heterosexual. There must be influencing factors other than genetics and biology. QED.

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also studied the gayness between MZ twins, DZ twins, and non-related adopted brothers. They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay and how many were straight. They found that 52% of MZ twins were both self-identified homosexuals, 22% of DZ twins were so, and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so.

In other words, the closer the genetic link, the greater the sexual uniformity. But note the words 'self-identified': an additional problem with these studies is that not everyone is prepared to admit to being gay (because, believe it or not, some people just can't accept that homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of). How many of these subjects were religious, or were brought up in homophobic households? We're not told.

The truth is, Woody: no-one is really sure what roles biology and environment play. So how can you be?

 

[SnakeLord]

Because the unborn child is a human being. Nobody argues that point

You're wrong, many people argue it. Indeed I did on my earlier post, (that you obviously ignored).

At 5 weeks this "unborn child" is a bunch of 100 cells. It's not at this time "human", (much like an acorn is not an oak tree) - indeed it shares more in common with your appendix, (as I pointed out).

Request: Give me a good reason as to why a person cannot 'abort' 100 cells.

Instead a woman's right to choose is greater than a child's right to live.

It was my choice to have my appendix removed. What are you trying to say? Of course my right to choose is greater than my appendix' right to remain inside my body. At 5-6 weeks we are talking 100 cells.

Watch this abortion of an 11 week old fetus and see what you think about it

An appeal to emotion from a religious site, why am I not surprised?

Being that my wife is currently pregnant and we went for a scan yesterday, it would undoubtedly appeal to my emotion - and that's what it aims for - but an almost ancient video showing the way abortion is carried out is not an argument for the case of whether a woman has the right to abort.

Now, the religious like yourself are generally of the standing that abortion should not be allowed at all. I am now, and have previously, asked you to give me a good reason as to why a person cannot 'abort' 100 cell blastocyst, (6 week stage). I still await your response.

You know, I would never chop down an oak tree. Trees are not only magnificent, (imo), but they're also of extreme importance on this planet, (as you should be aware). However, I don't really know anyone that cares about what happens to an acorn. While yes, if that acorn had have been left alone it would have turned into a tree, but it isn't a tree right now - much like a 100 cell blastocyst is not a human.

Supposedly it is not legal to photograph or make movies of abortions.

Strange, wasn't I just watching a movie of abortions?

If it were then the abortion argument would be over.

I've watched it, the argument isn't over. Indeed the 'movie' just appeals to emotion without debating the actual issue - a womans rights etc.

You really need to try harder.

 

[Giambattista]

The truth is, Woody: no-one is really sure what roles biology and environment play. So how can you be?

Because the Bible sayeth...

Or they think the Bible sayeth.

 

[Athelwulf]

Having chosen not to read all the previous posts in this thread for fear that I'd end up pissed off at people, I say this:

Abortions should be allowed when the baby would have a serious condition which could significantly impact the quality of his or her overall life for the worse. Abortions for a lesser reason, like that the baby would be a minority, is purely stupid and should not be allowed.

 

[Athelwulf]

Because the Bible sayeth...

Or they think the Bible sayeth.

With a stretch, you can show that the Bible saith whatever you want it to say.

 

[Genji]

Having chosen not to read all the previous posts in this thread for fear that I'd end up pissed off at people, I say this:

Abortions should be allowed when the baby would have a serious condition which could significantly impact the quality of his or her overall life for the worse. Abortions for a lesser reason, like that the baby would be a minority, is purely stupid and should not be allowed.

Having the government TELL a woman she doesn't have a good enough reason, in their view, to abort is the epitome of stupid and should not be allowed. We don't have rights till we're born.

 

[redarmy11]

Having the government TELL a woman she doesn't have a good enough reason, in their view, to abort is the epitome of stupid and should not be allowed. We don't have rights till we're born.

And that's the essence of the dilemma.

A. Ultimately, it's the woman's right to decide.
B. What if she's a homophobic bigot?

The solution, as Oniw17 has already pointed out, is not to give parents irrelevant information like the sexual orientation of the foetus in the first place.

 

[Athelwulf]

We don't have rights till we're born.

A little presumptuous.

I'm all for humans rights: the right to love, fuck, and marry whichever sex you want; the right to burn things, including weed and flags; the right to a decent-quality life; etc. I would never argue that a mere bundle of cells has rights, and to do so would be stupid. But I should hope that a fetus which is mostly done gestating and can live healthy outside the uterus arguably has rights, just as people who are already living outside the uterus do.

 

[Genji]

A little presumptuous.

I'm all for humans rights: the right to love, fuck, and marry whichever sex you want; the right to burn things, including weed and flags; the right to a decent-quality life; etc. I would never argue that a mere bundle of cells has rights, and to do so would be stupid. But I should hope that a fetus which is mostly done gestating and can live healthy outside the uterus arguably has rights, just as people who are already living outside the uterus do.

Every effort should be made to save a fetus capable of living outside the womb, if the woman agrees. I don't see how my statement that we don't have rights until we are born is 'presumptuous.' You say yourself a mere bundle of cells can't have human rights. Giving fetuses a legal right to life but denying certain groups of humans the right to marry, or vote in some countries, is preposterous and inhumane.

 

[Woody]

In other words, the closer the genetic link, the greater the sexual uniformity. But note the words 'self-identified': an additional problem with these studies is that not everyone is prepared to admit to being gay (because, believe it or not, some people just can't accept that homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of). How many of these subjects were religious, or were brought up in homophobic households? We're not told.

The truth is, Woody: no-one is really sure what roles biology and environment play. So how can you be?

We can be sure that biology doesn't play a 100% role in all homosexuality as gay-rights groups claim, now can't we?

 

[Woody]

Hmm seems like homophobes are the ones that are against children.

Just so we get things straight here -- a homophobe is a homosexual with a rare phobic condition. So are you saying homosexuals that are afraid of their own sexuality are against children? I don't think so. People like myself are having children. I'm certainly not against them, so what the heck are you talking about anyway? I guess it's your AIDS dementia.

Now about those decisions about gays, and their lifestyle, you know science by majority, you know where Hawaii decided to discard the minority opinion because it is chaff in the wind in the opinion so it doesn't really matter anymore because of the Mystech Principle How about this news story:

NY and GA reject gay marriage

OK Mystech, since you are a man of fairness and mean everything you say, we can only conclude that the minority opinion doesn't matter in New York and Georgia. -- gay marriage is irrelevant by court decision in NY, and by vote in Georgia. Therefore gay marriage doesn't matter any because of the Mystech Principle, and it only matters in Massachussetts. I guess the gay marriage thing didn't take in Hawaii. So as you say gay marriage is chaff in the wind, and there is no point discussing it anymore in the courts or in the legislature. QED.

 

[Genji]

The biggest threat to marriage is divorce. But ohhhhh no! You guys want to KEEP that right so you aim for a powerless minority and declare we aren't GOOD enough to marry. We Threaten your marriages! LOL! We just want to marry and be as miserable as everyone else.

 

[Woody]

The biggest threat to marriage is divorce. But ohhhhh no! You guys want to KEEP that right so you aim for a powerless minority and declare we aren't GOOD enough to marry. We Threaten your marriages! LOL! We just want to marry and be as miserable as everyone else.

What is the point of a gay marriage in your opinion? Why isn't a civil union good enough? Why even marry at all? A lot of people don't get married and they can have all the sex they want with anybody they want. So what's the point of a gay marriage?

 

[Genji]

I think evangelical xians should be banned from marrying and breeding. Let us begin a REAL war on xianity.