7 Reasons Same-Sex “Marriage” Isn’t Conservative, or Marriage

[lightbeamrider]

Almost all humans are born with the chromosomes and the body of either male or female.

Right

Presumably that is what you mean by “hetero”.

Compatible male female parts for the purpose of reproduction ultimately makes humans hetero. They exist for a purpose. Like the digestion system exists for a purpose.

Some additional facts are that about 3% of these persons however experience same sex attraction and not opposite sex attraction.

Well people can be attracted to a lot of things which are not in line with reality. Youth may or may not have a disposition towards same sex attraction. The question being what is the source of that attraction. Environment? Something chemical within? Both? If it is something physical or chemical then produce it. Because everything else indicates they are hetero. Behaviors can become habits and habits can become addictions.

Biology is a good deal broader than genetics, and the reference you make above to “the gay gene” suggests broad ignorance of the nature of genetic influence on complex traits, or a will to be flippant and belittle the possibility.

I do admit i do not know everything. My assumptions are based on what i do know, not on what i do not know. If people are born with a disposition towards same sex attraction then in order to be consistent a female is born to be a prostitute or another may be born to be attracted to animals. That is in spite of their physiology. If the one is true then the others are also valid. The problem being homo apologists draw the line at same sex attraction and dismiss the other possibilities. They are inconsistent. If a youth has a same sex attraction, then can it be overcome or are they stuck for life? Homo apologists claim they are stuck for life and i say BS. So does Christianity, by the way. Although not in those terms.

The cause(s) of homosexuality are not understood, but surely we agree that (at least in most cases):

• it is not imagined by those who experience it;

OK. Then a youth’s sexual attraction towards anything is not imagined. So? It does not mean they have to do anything about it nor does it mean they are stuck for life.

• it is not a conscious choice, eg. to be “different”;

Right. It could be a conscious choice via expedience or influenced by environment. A means to an end. I would imagine it is far easier to obtain sex rewards from another member of the same sex then it is from the opposite sex. With same sex there is none of the inhibitors which exist naturally within opposite sex attractions. When it is male on male they are on the same page for the same reasons. No need to worry about pregnancy.

• it’s not the result of a “seduction” by some other/older person;

Well where does a 13 year old boy get HIV when he did not have it at ten? Another 13 year old boy? Where did he get it from? If he catches it there has to be a source. It is not unreasonable to assume seduction from an older adult. Now if i had a 13 year old son who came down with HIV, I would want to know how he got it. Wouldn’t you? Would you automatically exclude older adults?

• there actually is a desire present for the same sex, and an absence of the corresponding desire for the opposite sex.

Scientific research is at an early stage. It behoves us to keep an open mind.

Open minds are fine, just a long as the brains don’t fall out in the process and are not penalized for not knowing everything. Science is not the ultimate explainer of everything. Nor is it a tenant of science. The current ideas science can be the ultimate explainer cannot be validated scientifically. Scientists interpret info not science. Their interpretations are based largely on their philosophical assumptions and can be influenced by political impositions. There are realities which can be perceived apart from science.

 

[Rohzek]

What has changed is that the current generation is far more promiscuous than the preceding ones because treatment is more readily available. What better way to continue being promiscuous while getting spousal benefits to cover the behavior? There is no such thing as homosexual commitment to one man - all such relationships are open, and understood to be so. It’s.one of the lies that they spin through the media that anything is otherwise; ‘yeah, right’ is the laughing response see if you catch someone of his guard on the subject.

First off, my generation is actually far less promiscuous than either Generation X or the Baby Boomers. Not to mention that teen pregnancy is probably at its lowest in the country’s history, thanks to my generation: slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/04/generation_scold.html

Teen pregnancy rates: cbsnews.com/news/us-teen-pregnancy-rates-at-an-all-time-low-across-all-ethnicities/

newrepublic.com/article/121411/public-religion-research-study-reveals-millennials-sexual-habits

Second, the very fact that homosexuals are getting married in monogamous relationships and have fought hard for it proves that there is such a thing as homosexual monogamous commitment. Their divorce rates are just as high as heterosexuals. If you seriously think that they’ve undergone all their hardships in the name of a conspiracy, then you are in denial.

 

[kozlosap]

Almost all humans are born with the chromosomes and the body of either male or female. Presumably that is what you mean by “hetero”. Some additional facts are that about 3% of these persons however experience same sex attraction and not opposite sex attraction.

Biology is a good deal broader than genetics, and the reference you make above to “the gay gene” suggests broad ignorance of the nature of genetic influence on complex traits, or a will to be flippant and belittle the possibility.

The cause(s) of homosexuality are not understood, but surely we agree that (at least in most cases):

• it is not imagined by those who experience it;
• it is not a conscious choice, eg. to be “different”;
• it’s not the result of a “seduction” by some other/older person;
• there actually is a desire present for the same sex, and an absence of the corresponding desire for the opposite sex.

Scientific research is at an early stage. It behoves us to keep an open mind.

 

[clem456]

What an absolutely weak article. The man clearly doesn’t understand us libertarians at all. Allow me to refute some of its points.

3.) This is natural law theory at its worst. If we run on natural law theory in its purist form, then such a charge can be dismissed. Homosexuals don’t choose their sexual orientation. They are naturally inclined towards someone of the same sex. Furthermore, marriage is much more than simple sex. If you think otherwise, then please inform the early Christian martyrs who lived in chaste marriages.

It is almost beyond belief that the natural law cannot be observed and comprehended with some lucidity by all people.
Almost. But Romans 1 still applies unfortunately. Deception is a reality.
“They have exchanged the truth for a lie”

Look at your body
Look at the body of the opposite sex, and tell us please how the natural law does not apply uniquely to the union of a man and woman, and the societal and culture recognition of it.

Go ahead. Take your time.

 

[Rohzek]

It is almost beyond belief that the natural law cannot be observed and comprehended with some lucidity by all people.
Almost. But Romans 1 still applies unfortunately. Deception is a reality.
“They have exchanged the truth for a lie”

Look at your body
Look at the body of the opposite sex, and tell us please how the natural law does not apply uniquely to the union of a man and woman, and the societal and culture recognition of it.

Go ahead. Take your time.

I disagree with Roman Catholicism’s take on natural law theory for the precise reason that this brief article details: orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/morelli_sex_natural_law.htm

Beyond this, I am not willing to have a larger discussion of natural law theory within this thread. Perhaps in another thread.

 

[clem456]

You can argue all you want about how homosexuality originates. All legitimate discussion.

You can argue all you want about how to define the word marriage and who can use it. Dangerous, but ok, words will not kill us directly.

We can argue all you want about who can share bank accounts and medical decisions.

You can argue all you want about how offensive and sinful different sex acts of all kinds are. Ok we’ll have to disagree.

Homosexual persons deserve every dignity and protection of our laws, should come to our churches, participate as fully as they possibly can. I as a foul sinner deserve nothing more than a gay person or anyone else for that matter.

but,
what is absolutely offensive to reason and evil is the assertion that a gay union *is the same thing as *the union of a man and woman and should be recognized as the same thing.
The reason it is patently offensive and evil is very simple: it is a lie of the most transparent kind about human nature. Lies about who we are as human beings can only lead to tragedy. This agenda is not evil because body parts go places where we don’t think they should go, it’s evil because it promotes a lie. Every genocide begins with a lie about human nature.

It is breathtaking to see thinking human beings unable to make simple and reasonable observations about human nature. It’s frightening.

 

[clem456]

I disagree with Roman Catholicism’s take on natural law theory for the precise reason that this brief article details: orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/morelli_sex_natural_law.htm

Beyond this, I am not willing to have a larger discussion of natural law theory within this thread. Perhaps in another thread.

Wwwwwww ait a minute…
Who said anything about Roman Catholicism?

Can you observe that human beings are made male and female, or can you not.
YOU DON’T NEED A BIBLE OR CANON LAW BOOK OR MORAL THEOLOGY TEXT BOOK FOR THIS.

Stop and look and think.

Can you observe that you are? You do exist, am I right?

Can you tell me how you and every other human being came to exist?
As a Christian, don’t you think it’s important that we exist? Doesn’t God call us into being?
In his image? Is that something worth considering?

 

[Rohzek]

but,
what is absolutely offensive to reason and evil is the assertion that a gay union *is the same thing as *the union of a man and woman and should be recognized as the same thing.
The reason it is patently offensive and evil is very simple: it is a lie of the most transparent kind about human nature. Lies about who we are as human beings can only lead to tragedy. This agenda is not evil because body parts go places where we don’t think they should go, it’s evil because it promotes a lie. Every genocide begins with a lie about human nature.

It is breathtaking to see thinking human beings unable to make simple and reasonable observations about human nature. It’s frightening.

I never made a moral argument in the manner you seem to assert, but an argument based upon freedom of association, so don’t misunderstand me.

But it seems we have reached an impasse. You’ve made the most patently irrational argument I’ve seen in quite some time. You’ve asserted that somehow, what another person does, whatever the morality of it, with their vagina or penis can potentially lead to genocide. I am done with this discussion with you, as it is foolish to listen to someone who will not listen themselves.

 

[clem456]

I never made a moral argument in the manner you seem to assert, but an argument based upon freedom of association, so don’t misunderstand me.

But it seems we have reached an impasse. You’ve made the most patently irrational argument I’ve seen in quite some time. You’ve asserted that somehow, what another person does, whatever the morality of it, with their vagina or penis can potentially lead to genocide. I am done with this discussion with you, as it is foolish to listen to someone who will not listen themselves.

Yes it seems you are done.
You misrepresented the argument (which is not even an argument really, it’s an observation). But that’s in keeping with the nature of the beast here, so, yes, there is no honest discussion with deception.

 

[Rau]

…Compatible male female parts for the purpose of reproduction ultimately makes humans hetero. They exist for a purpose.

Good, we agree. And I assume that you, like me, around puberty, discovered that the opposite sex was cool, interesting to be with, to be around, to think about, etc. I assume you, like me, did not make any choice in that. Yet we are aware that some people experienced no such interest in the opposite sex, but actually just the same for the same sex. Why? I don’t know. Science doesn’t know, but seeks to understand it. Me too.

…Behaviors can become habits and habits can become addictions.

True enough. But why did the behaviour begin, and why did the attraction to the opposite sex not dominate?

…If people are born with a disposition towards same sex attraction then in order to be consistent a female is born to be a prostitute…

Have you known many prostitutes? I am not aware that they grew up desiring that lifestyle. Was it not an option that they considered versus their other options, and chose it?

The problem being homo apologists draw the line at same sex attraction and dismiss the other possibilities. They are inconsistent. If a youth has a same sex attraction, then can it be overcome or are they stuck for life? Homo apologists claim they are stuck for life and i say BS. So does Christianity, by the way. Although not in those terms.

I disagree. There are other “defects” in our makeup which influence other behavioural characteristics. It’s just that your prostitute example does not seem to be one of them. That is not being “inconsistent”, it is recognising that some human choices are often simply utilitarian choices based on the circumstances and options at hand (and subject to other factors such as beliefs, morality, etc.) For example, the decision of 2 men to agree to commit a same sex sex act is not “caused” by anything in their makeup. That’s a choice. They could have resisted. One could have sought out a different man. But the attractions they feel (which are to men, not women), so foreign to most of us, may well arise from something within. Opposite sex attraction also arises from something within (and no, I can’t produce the substance that causes it !). It is not as though we choose the opposite sex based on a utilitarian view about how to deploy our genitals!

To your other point about permanency, it should be noted that not all persons experiencing same sex attraction embrace it, and seek out a same sex partner. Some strive to live a celibate life. There is one on this forum who is married (to an opposite sex partner), though admits he still feels the attraction to other men (which he rejects and turns away from ). And whether the attraction remains throughout life, I don’t know. As to whether the same sex attraction can be lifted and replaced with opposite sex attraction - I don’t know. Some claim this has happened to them.

Well where does a 13 year old boy get HIV when he did not have it at ten? Another 13 year old boy? Where did he get it from? If he catches it there has to be a source. It is not unreasonable to assume seduction from an older adult. Now if i had a 13 year old son who came down with HIV, I would want to know how he got it. Wouldn’t you? Would you automatically exclude older adults?

I don’t exclude improper influence of adults in some cases. I said in my post that this is not the case in “most” instances of homosexuality.

Open minds are fine, just a long as the brains don’t fall out in the process and are not penalized for not knowing everything. Science is not the ultimate explainer of everything. Nor is it a tenant of science. The current ideas science can be the ultimate explainer cannot be validated scientifically. Scientists interpret info not science. Their interpretations are based largely on their philosophical assumptions and can be influenced by political impositions. There are realities which can be perceived apart from science.

What is the import of that paragraph?

Science may conclude that the evidence favours the presence of biological factors that influence homosexuality, or it may conclude that the evidence favours the view it is an outcome of social factors. I don’t feel a need to reject scientific evidence that runs in one direction or the other “on principle”, which I sense you want to do.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Good, we agree. And I assume that you, like me, around puberty, discovered that the opposite sex was cool, interesting to be with, to be around, to think about, etc. I assume you, like me, did not make any choice in that. Yet we are aware that some people experienced no such interest in the opposite sex, but actually just the same for the same sex. Why? I don’t know. Science doesn’t know, but seeks to understand it. Me too.

Am aware that it is a claim that homosexuals make they never were attracted to opposite sex that they were born homosexual. Personally i find it hard to believe. Esp the latter.

Have you known many prostitutes?

I have known prostitutes.

I am not aware that they grew up desiring that lifestyle.

Why not? If a young man is born to be a homosexual then why can’t a female be born to desire multiple male partners and get paid for it? You see, in the one scenarios the pimp would be their liberator and the parents would be their oppressors. In the homo scenario the older homosexual liberates the adolescent and the parents who would discourage would be the villains.

I disagree. There are other “defects” in our makeup which influence other behavioural characteristics. It’s just that your prostitute example does not seem to be one of them. That is not being “inconsistent”,

Yes, it is being inconsistent. Perhaps you are simply denying the implications of your assumptions.

it is recognising that some human choices are often simply utilitarian choices based on the circumstances and options at hand (and subject to other factors such as beliefs, morality, etc.) For example, the decision of 2 men to agree to commit a same sex sex act is not “caused” by anything in their makeup. That’s a choice. They could have resisted. One could have sought out a different man. But the attractions they feel (which are to men, not women), so foreign to most of us, may well arise from something within.

Then by the same standard the attraction a females has towards multiple partners may well arise from something within.

I don’t exclude improper influence of adults in some cases. I said in my post that this is not the case in “most” instances of homosexuality.

This is what you wrote.

it’s not the result of a “seduction” by some other/older person;

From ancient Greece and Rome homosexuality has included pre pubescent boys as passive sex toys for grown men. Up until the near present with organizations like NAMBLA. We do know 13 year old boy contract HIV… Where do they get it from? The most obvious answer is an older adult. Since HIV is more easily transferred via sodomy then it is not unreasonable to assume an older adult thru sodomy. Given all factors, it is most likely scenario. Recently all this has undergone a downplaying. That is since pederasty is abhorred in present culture.

What is the import of that paragraph?

You mean this paragraph.​

Open minds are fine, just a long as the brains don’t fall out in the process and are not penalized for not knowing everything. Science is not the ultimate explainer of everything. Nor is it a tenant of science. The current ideas science can be the ultimate explainer cannot be validated scientifically. Scientists interpret info not science. Their interpretations are based largely on their philosophical assumptions and can be influenced by political impositions. There are realities which can be perceived apart from science.​

You played the ignorance card and i responded to your post here.

Biology is a good deal broader than genetics, and the reference you make above to “the gay gene” suggests broad ignorance of the nature of genetic influence on complex traits, or a will to be flippant and belittle the possibility.

So often Christians/Catholics are seen as bigoted, homophobes, science deniers, ignorant of science. It assumes if we had extensive knowledge we would automatically become Darwinsts or advocates of homosexual rights to go in and tell our youth they may be born gay, even if they do not know it yet. That is since most homosexuals claim they are born gay. The implications are obvious as is the potential for abuses to vulnerable youth who may be receptive to having an older adult friend. The fact being these kids naturally look up to adults. Some will seek adults out for conversation or attention. They need protection and it is their right to be protected along with adult responsibility to protect them, and care for them, look out for their best interest. All that does not include suggesting they may be born gay. IMO. That marriage equality means SSM and OSM are equal when they are clearly not equal. It is wrong to lie to children and suggest it is.

Science may conclude that the evidence favours the presence of biological factors that influence homosexuality, or it may conclude that the evidence favours the view it is an outcome of social factors. I don’t feel a need to reject scientific evidence that runs in one direction or the other “on principle”, which I sense you want to do.

A lot of things are more philosophical and clothed in science. I would say being born gay is more philosophical then it is science since there is no science to back any of it up. Even if scientists come up and state they have found the answer then they have to put forth their case which would appeal to many and probably be rejected by folks like me. Scientists interpret data based largely on their philosophy. That is why they write books like A Universe From Nothing and The God Delusion. They use their prestige as scientists to advance their atheism. Naturally others could follow the same principal regarding alleged homosexual rights. It does not make any of it true.

 

[Rau]

I am aware that it is a claim that homosexuals make they never were attracted to opposite sex that they were born homosexual. Personally i find it hard to believe. Esp the latter.

That you find something hard to believe is not persuasive. Is it not harder to believe than “most homosexuals lie…” about their early sexual development?

…If a young man is born to be a homosexual then why can’t a female be born to desire multiple male partners and get paid for it? You see, in the one scenarios the pimp would be their liberator and the parents would be their oppressors. In the homo scenario the older homosexual liberates the adolescent and the parents who would discourage would be the villains.

The point in debate was whether biological factors might make same sex attractions more ‘present’, even dominant over opposite sex attractions. It would be interesting for you I am sure for you to liaise with the CAF poster on this forum who (as far as I can tell from his posts) is a very decent and faithful Catholic, married with a wife (and children I think), but yet experiences unwanted same sex attraction.

Then by the same standard the attraction a female has towards multiple partners may well arise from something within.

Conditions such as nymphomania or hypersexuality may well have a biological element. Do you utterly reject that? Desiring payment sounds utilitarian though, doesn’t it? There are a host of conditions that afflict the sexuality of persons “from birth” - many of which are obviously manifest. Presumably, the biological source of these are believed because they are visible and can be seen. I do not understand why some wish to entirely close their mind to the possibility that conditions such as same sex attraction, or gender dysphoria may be influenced by biological factors, be that a defect in genetics, in the development of the embryo, or something else.

This is what you wrote…

No, this is what I wrote: "The cause(s) of homosexuality are not understood, but surely we agree that (at least in most cases):…

• it’s not the result of a “seduction” by some other/older person;"

Helps to read the full sentence….

You played the ignorance card and i responded to your post here.

I played no card. I remarked that the notion of a “gay gene” is a nonsense suggestion that sexual orientation might be “switched” by an identifiable gene, whereas scientific research has not suggested such a thing for decades, if at all, (though the popular press has) and moreover that that the genetic influence on homosexuality, if it exists, is thought (on the available evidence) to be a modest influence among several. Those who refer to the “gay gene” typically do so to belittle the possibility that homosexuality is anything other than a willingness to partake in perverse behaviour. Why they are so fervent to reject the possibility of genetic, or biological influence, is beyond me. What fervently held belief would such a finding threaten?

So often Christians/Catholics are seen as bigoted, homophobes, science deniers…

Homophobia need not be correlated with religious belief, and those beliefs have nothing to do with cause of homosexuality, only with actions. The Catholic Church has had a strong pro-science orientation for centuries.

It assumes if we had extensive knowledge we would automatically become Darwinists

Catholics are welcome to subscribe to Darwin’s theories. My Catholic school had no difficulty teaching it during middle-school.

…or advocates of homosexual rights to go in and tell our youth they may be born gay, even if they do not know it…

What has the (undetermined) causes of homosexuality got to do with “homosexual rights”, which as far as I am concerned are the same rights enjoyed by all other persons. SSM is not one of those (by the way).

…[if] most homosexuals claim they are born gay… implications are obvious as is the potential for abuses to vulnerable youth who may be receptive to having an older adult friend. The fact being these kids naturally look up to adults. Some will seek adults out for conversation or attention. They need protection and it is their right to be protected along with adult responsibility to protect them, and care for them, look out for their best interest.

Let’s hope that parents do their job and care for their children. We take care to ensure our children are not encouraged by adults to become drug pushers too, and we should care for their moral education and external influences too.

All that does not include suggesting they may be born gay. IMO.

You make it sound like children might be briefed on the subject as though it were established fact! Children need to have their questions answered honestly, and in age-appropriate terms.

That marriage equality means SSM and OSM are equal when they are clearly not equal. It is wrong to lie to children and suggest it is.

Agreed, none of which has anything to do with the cause of homosexuality.

…I would say being born gay is more philosophical then it is science since there is no science to back any of it up. **Even if scientists come up and state they have found the answer **then they have to put forth their case which would appeal to many and probably be rejected by folks like me. Scientists interpret data based largely on their philosophy. That is why they write books like A Universe From Nothing and The God Delusion. They use their prestige as scientists to advance their atheism. Naturally others could follow the same principal regarding alleged homosexual rights. It does not make any of it true

I can see you don’t like science and have some established views on scientists.

 

[DrTaffy]

what is absolutely offensive to reason and evil is the assertion that a gay union *is the same thing as *the union of a man and woman and should be recognized as the same thing.

But didn’t you just do exactly that yourself?

You are happy to call homosexual unions and heterosexual unions by the same word ‘union’, differentiating them when necessary by the use of an adjective. This is not “absolutely offensive to reason and evil”, I take it, and if someone used such perjorative language about you for doing so you would probably feel offended, or at least disgusted with the other person’s manners.

 

[Reepicheep]

**Bolding **mine

I disagree with the article for the following reasons.

1. Marriage is a contract between consenting individuals. The state is not required to be involved at all other than enforcing the terms of that contract.

**This is like saying humans are animals. It’s technically true-- we are biological organisms. But that leaves out everything that makes a man different from a dog.
Your statement carries an implied “only”–Marriage is only a contract between consenting individuals. It leaves out everything that makes marriage different from renting a car or buying a meal at a restaurant, both of which are contracts between consenting individuals. **

1. Government marriage licenses are a service provided by the government. Since homosexuals pay taxes, they are entitled to the services offered by the government.

Am I entitled to a military pension if I never served in the armed forces? Am I entitled to welfare if I’m a multimillionaire? Am I entitled to live in a government-sponsored low rent housing project if I’m rich?
If I get a driver’s license, am I entitled to a car? What if I can’t afford a car?
Am I still entitled to a driver’s license if I’m legally blind or otherwise handicapped in a way that makes me unable to drive safely?
What if I was banned from driving as the result of a criminal conviction for dangerous driving?
**Taxpayers are entitled to fair treatment when it comes to government services. That does not mean each and every taxpayer is entitled to each and every government service. **

1. What is really at stake here if homosexuals are allowed to be civilly married? Tax breaks and the right to collect your partner’s social security benefits. Those are things that should be available to everybody. Your sexual orientation should not change how much money you are required to give to the government. Social security is money that you earned. It should be your choice to determine the recipients of that money.

.**…And humans are (only) animals.
There is more at stake than tax breaks and collecting social security.
Your sexual orientation should not change how much money you have to give the government.
And in fact it doesn’t. There is no special tax for gay people. **

1. Marriage has already been redefined by society via no-fault divorce and the widespread acceptance of contraception.

**New laws regarding the issuing of dog licenses to not redefine dogs. New gun control laws do not redefine firearms. They only change how these things may be handled according to the law.
The changes you mention do not redefine marriage. They only change some of the laws that affect marriage. And some of us think those changes are bad things anyway.
You’re fully entitled to disagree with that last sentence, by the way.
**

 

[Rau]

But didn’t you just do exactly that yourself?

You are happy to call homosexual unions and heterosexual unions by the same word ‘union’, differentiating them when necessary by the use of an adjective. This is not “absolutely offensive to reason and evil”, I take it, and if someone used such perjorative language about you for doing so you would probably feel offended, or at least disgusted with the other person’s manners.

That seems to be a silly word-game. Words have meanings, some are general in application and others more particular. It is perfectly accurate and proper to refer to each of the Sun and the Moon as stellar ‘objects’ a term broadly and accurately applicable. It is entirely wrong to refer to the Moon as a Star or to the Sun as a Planet, planetoid or Moon.

 

[lightbeamrider]

I can see you don’t like science and have some established views on scientists.

Actually i do. Have been observing a debate in another forum between a Creationist and an assortment of atheists who are in science. Here is some examples.

. Give me a testable model in your own words of how a creature could go from reptile to bird including the massive changes in skeletal structure, respiratory system, circulatory system, digestive system, etc. And also include in your model where the information for this increase in technology comes from including the natural GPS system of a bird as well as it’s aerodynamic design. Show me how that’s possible without saying once upon a time and using millions of years as your hand waving pixie dust.

And this.

Atheist.

Seriously?
No one comes back from death, I’m sorry to say.

---

Creationist

So just so I have you on the record for the irony, you’re stating that the transition from an inorganic state to an organic state is impossible right?

The context has to do with resurrection and Abiogenesis. Needless to say the one Creationist took on all comers and left them running for cover. Happy Easter.

 

[Rau]

Well, that is certainly an in-depth study of science and scientists…

 

[clem456]

But didn’t you just do exactly that yourself?

You are happy to call homosexual unions and heterosexual unions by the same word ‘union’, differentiating them when necessary by the use of an adjective. This is not “absolutely offensive to reason and evil”, I take it, and if someone used such perjorative language about you for doing so you would probably feel offended, or at least disgusted with the other person’s manners.

Originally Posted by clem456 View Post
what is absolutely offensive to reason and evil is the assertion that a gay union is the same thing as the union of a man and woman and should be recognized as the same thing.

No this is a toothless semantic argument you make.
The word union is modified by
“gay” union.
and union of a “man and woman”
So, no, they are not the same thing and I clearly didn’t intend to mean they are the same things and
I can’t believe I wasted 2 minutes replying to this

 

[lightbeamrider]

Biology is a good deal broader than genetics, and the reference you make above to “the gay gene” suggests broad ignorance of the nature of genetic influence on complex traits, or a will to be flippant and belittle the possibility.

What is your problem with gay gene? Why does gay gene suggest ignorance? My statement was there is no gay gene. To date that is factually correct. If there is a gay gene then produce it. Wishful thinking not convincing.
independent.co.uk/news/science/largest-ever-study-into-the-gay-gene-erodes-the-notion-that-sexual-orientation-is-a-choice-9875855.html

new scientific study of 409 pairs of gay brothers could put to rest decades of debate over the existence of the so-called ‘gay gene’.

google.com/search?q=gay+gene+and+science&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[Rau]

What is your problem with gay gene? Why does gay gene suggest ignorance? My statement was there is no gay gene. To date that is factually correct. If there is a gay gene then produce it. Wishful thinking not convincing.
independent.co.uk/news/science/largest-ever-study-into-the-gay-gene-erodes-the-notion-that-sexual-orientation-is-a-choice-9875855.html

As I said previously, there has not been for decades a serious, science-based suggestion that sexual orientation was a consequence of a “gay gene” that switched it one way or the other. That was a popular media headline.

I don’t “wish” for any particular explanation for the cause of homosexuality, I simply keep an open mind. Nor do I fear any, such as a biological influence, as some seem to. Why do you so vehemently deny the possibility of a biological influence on sexual attraction? Do you likewise reject that possibility for gender dysphoria?

By the way, the link above reports research suggestive of a genetic influence. The journalist harks back to the notion of “gay gene” but scientists explain it is not as simple as that. Perhaps in quoting that article, you are becoming more open to the possibility of biological (even genetic?) influence?